Posts tagged GLBTQ rights
Posts tagged GLBTQ rights
Check out this video directed by my friend Will Welch, and edited/produced by me! It’s called “Out in Wyoming: LGBT Advocacy in the Cowboy State” and gives a summary of what’s coming up in this legislative session, advice from Wyoming state legislators on advocacy, plus instructions on lobbying and communicating with your state legislators — even if you don’t live in Wyoming. (Yes, it’s a little long, but we worked really hard, it’s entertaining, and YouTube has a pause button.)
However, if you know people who live in Wyoming, live in Wyoming yourself, or live near Wyoming, definitely share this video. We have a domestic partnership bill, a marriage equality bill, and a non-discrimination bill going to their respective committees on Monday beginning at noon. We’ll also be demonstrating in front of the state house starting at 9 AM in favor of equality on Monday, January 28. If you live close enough to Cheyenne to get to the state house, DO IT!
This action alert from Wyoming Equality’s Jeran Artery gives point-by-point instructions on what you can do to help. We have an excellent chance of passing non-discrimination and domestic partnership bills in Wyoming this year! If you live in Laramie, we’re phone banking tomorrow in the UW Union RRC from 4pm-7pm. It’s mobilizing constituents around the pro-LGBT bills in the legislature. All the bills have bipartisan support. Here’s the bills, with Republican sponsors in bold:
HOUSE BILL NO. HB 168 Domestic partnerships-rights and responsibilities
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Connolly, Byrd, Gingery, Greene, Petroff, Throne, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. and Senator(s) Burns, Craft, Rothfuss and Von Flatern (5 Democrats; 7 Republicans)
HOUSE BILL NO. HB 169 Marriage-definition
Sponsored by: Representative(s) Connolly, Byrd, Gingery, Petroff, Throne, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. and Senator(s) Craft and Rothfuss (5 Democrats; 4 Republicans)
SENATE FILE NO. SF 131 Discrimination
Sponsored by: Senator(s) Rothfuss,Burns, Case, Craft, Esquibel, F., Hastert and Von Flatern and Representative(s) Blake, Brown, Connolly, Gingery, Greene, Petroff, Wallis and Zwonitzer, Dn. (6 Democrats; 9 Republicans)
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE — pass it on! And thank you!
This is the best thing I’ve seen all day. From Deadspin:
Baltimore Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo has spoken out in favor of a Maryland ballot initiative that would legalize gay marriage. Yahoo has published a letter that Maryland state delegate Emmett C. Burns Jr. wrote last week to Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, urging him to “inhibit such expressions from your employee.” This is Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe’s response to Burns.
An excerpt of his response:
This is more a personal quibble of mine, but why do you hate freedom? Why do you hate the fact that other people want a chance to live their lives and be happy, even though they may believe in something different than you, or act different than you? How does gay marriage, in any way shape or form, affect your life? If gay marriage becomes legal, are you worried that all of a sudden you’ll start thinking about penis? “Oh shit. Gay marriage just passed. Gotta get me some of that hot dong action!” Will all of your friends suddenly turn gay and refuse to come to your Sunday Ticket grill-outs? (Unlikely, since gay people enjoy watching football too.)
For Chris Kluwe:
Sarah Palin, continuing her desperate last gasps of trying be relevant on Fox News.
Typically, I wouldn’t give her more attention. But I’ve heard this argument so many damn times over the few days, so let’s roll.
First, what Dan Cathy said IS anti-gay and he’s donated to anti-gay organizations — groups which have helped the efforts in Uganda to criminalize homosexuality and execute gay people, are listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and who have called for harmful “reparative therapy” to be standard treatment for gay people.
Plenty of folks have pointed out that this is not the way to spread a message of love thy neighbor. I would agree. As Suzette Standring wrote, “Jesus healed, socialized, walked, and ate with the marginalized and the flawed. Peter had anger management issues. Matthew was a hated tax collector. The Samaritan woman at the well was considered off limits to talk to for racial reasons. When an adulteress was about to be stoned, it was Jesus who challenged the sinless to cast the first stone. Her attackers left and when it was clear no one stayed to condemn her, Jesus said with great gentleness, ‘Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin’ (John 8:1-11)… If Jesus had harsh words for anyone, it was against those who saw themselves as the authorities of spiritual leadership. He criticized them publicly for hypocrisy, setting bad examples, and for perverting the word of God in order to maintain their own power.”
Second, I know this is difficult, but read this, plus this, this, this, and this. That’s why you’re 100% wrong about boycotts. Boycotts are free speech. Think about money as speech. Withholding money is also speech. It goes both ways. Please see
Less Than One Million Moms and their boycotts against JC Penney, Ellen DeGeneres, and the NBC show The New Normal.
Third, as Meghan McCain said, being anti-marriage equality IS being anti-gay. Is being anti-interracial marriage racist? You betcha.
Fourth, if a business owner gets political, even for religious reasons, expect a backlash. You don’t get to reel back and say, “Hey, no hard feelings, homos. Buy my chicken.” If your chicken gets political, we get political with your chicken. You dig?
In summary, go back to Alaska, snowbilly.
Which hate groups does chik-fil-a give to?
Meg at Cognitive Dissonance:
Why does this matter?
As SPLC Senior Fellow Mark Potok writes:
These kinds of comments say more about the people who made them than the LGBT community. But, as we document in this issue, they often reflect or stem from false allegations that originate in the hard core of the anti-gay religious right.
No one is trying to force Christians or others who believe that homosexuality is wrong to abandon their beliefs. But believing that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin is an entirely different proposition than lying about gays molesting children or suggesting they should die. Surely, we can all agree that when any minority is demonized and attacked, it damages all our hopes for a civilized society.
The groups Chick-Fil-A support do just that.
New Hampshire’s only Chick-fil-A restaurant is going against the wishes of chicken chain founder Dan Cathy by pledging to co-sponsor an LGBT Pride Festival in the state.
In a statement on the New Hampshire Pride Festival website, Nashua Chick-fil-A franchise manager Anthony Picolia said he was backing the the event, citing “positive relationships with family, friends, customers and employees in the LGBT community.”
"It would make me sad if someone felt that they were not openly welcomed into my life or restaurant based on their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender," Picolia explained. "Chick-fil-A at Pheasant Lane Mall has gay employees and serves gay customers with honor, dignity and respect. We also don’t discriminate in giving back to the Nashua community, donating to a wide variety of causes."
Being a decent human being. You’re doing it right.
[Click to zoom]
Remember conservatives! Every time you eat at Chick-Fil-A for Jesus, Chick-Fil-A brings you just a little closer to him. Each of those 1,680 deep-fried calories are tiny steps towards heaven!
U.S. District Court Judge Vanessa L. Bryant today held in a federal case in Connecticut that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act — the federal definition of marriage — is unconstitutional… Federal judges in Massachusetts, California and New York also have found DOMA’s provision defining “marriage” and “spouse” as only being unions of one man and one woman in all federal laws unconstitutional.
Bryant — appointed to the bench by President George W, Bush on April 2, 2007 — found that laws that classify people based on sexual orientation should be subject to heightened scrutiny by courts — as the Department of Justice and plaintiffs argued in the case — but found the provision of the 1996 law unconstitutional “even under the most deferential level of judicial scrutiny.”
In her decision in the case, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, Bryant found:
In sum, having considered the purported rational bases proffered by both BLAG and Congress and concluded that such objectives bear no rational relationship to Section 3 of DOMA as a legislative scheme, the Court finds that no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision. The provision therefore violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
This is a big deal, y’all. With several pressing cases in different Federal Court Districts, the chances of the Supreme Court reviewing DOMA goes up — the only hitch is that there hasn’t been much conflicts in the circuits, except regarding levels of scrutiny. Here’s why that’s important.