Breaking: Vermont Legalises Gay Marriage

[Darksider]

under current regulations (passed at the last minute by the former administration), any nurse can refuse to assist in the operation.

I Thought that all of Bush's "Midnight specials" had been repealed by Obama about five minutes into his term.

[Justforfun000]

You know...the more I think about the issue, it's very much a situation that will always right itself IF allowed to do so in a fairly democratic and progressively advanced country. As long as they mandate secularism as a basic "one fits all society" first and foremost, and then conditionally allow PRIVATE religious expression, and when appropriate sometimes public expression, then eventually gays will live out their lives, door-to-door with neighbours..their children will go to school together, they will be so used to the concept and visibility of gay people that it will require a rabid fundamentalist mindset to keep the same level of bigotry alive.

The reason why fundies have been so successful over the years when demonizing homosexuals is because they totally ramp up the "ick" actor and (in a very Christian manner of course)...continually condemn homosexuals as perverts and unnatural just because their book says so!

But it's not the rabid fundies we have to worry about. They really ARE in the minority. Although many of the evangelical statistics can show an alarmingly large population in some places, I'd wager that when push comes to shove most of these people are still just talk and would not stand for a gay person being A)physically attacked, B) verbally abused, C)completely shunned and ostracized from the entire community, or many other disgusting reactions. Of course they will stand by their belief that it's wrong and pray for the person so they may change their 'lifestyle', but most people have normal sympathy to them and this makes them capable of understanding and respecting the fact that people still have to be able to live their lives in freedom and choice or you are in a dictatorship.

So when the majority of the States have out gay couples in marriage or near-marriage, and we don't see any lightning bolts from heaven, floods from Hurricane Anita Bryant...,earthquakes and landslides...meteor showers and locusts....

Anyway, you get the point. The simple day to day reality of living side by side in a community with visible gay members who live basically 'normal' lives that interact and contribute to society as a whole eventually demonstrates in an undenable fact that at the very least THIS world we live in doesn't show any evidence of God interfering, let alone directly punishing people in a very specific and discriminatory fashion. Actually, history has NEVER demonstrated this. The amount of innocent & indifferent people caught up in the middle of religious wars has been astronomical, and wouldn't I love to see TRUE statistics (if they were able to magically do this), that show the amount of people that were "true believers", "sinners", "heathens", etc.. and show once and for all that ultimately it's fucking random based on whatever humans are in power at the time and their individual selfish desires at the time.

So time will have many beneficial developments. Older people who tend be more bigoted and less adaptive will die off, the visibility of gay people and their relationships will become more and more common so the effective strategy of silencing and marginalizing homosexuals will disappear more and more, and science might even sweeten the pot by discovering once and for all that homosexuality is innate and accurately classified as perfectly NATURAL for those people. The official position of most major medical and psychological organizations already support this even now anyway.

So ultimately I think the future is looking much brighter for gays in the modern world. It will always be a source of contention when religion is a factor in people's morality compass, but as long as secularism remains the supreme template for all human society as a basic starting point, we can eventually hope for an enlightening progression.

[RedImperator]

under current regulations (passed at the last minute by the former administration), any nurse can refuse to assist in the operation.

I Thought that all of Bush's "Midnight specials" had been repealed by Obama about five minutes into his term.

Not all of them. Once a regulation actually goes into effect, it can take months to undo it (there's a process; the President can't just change the rules on a whim). The regulation in question was rescinded only last month; we're still in the legally mandated 30 day comment period before the next step (I don't know if it comes off the books this month or not).

After some research, I've found that doctors have always had the right to refuse to provide abortions (the earliest laws on the books date to just after Roe v. Wade). However, the 11th hour Bush Administration regulations expanded the definition of "abortion" to whatever the medical practitioner decided, which, in the case of a lot of fundies, includes hormonal contraception. For the last four months, it has actually been legal for doctors and nurses to refuse to 1) provide contraception prescriptions, and 2) referrals to get it from somebody else.

Not to mention the ongoing issue with pharmacists who refuse to provide contraception. I don't even know what the legal status of that is. The point is, there are plenty of fundies in positions to block women from exercising their right to have abortions and even use birth control.

[Justforfun000]

"Um...no they're not. Not abortions, anyway: virtually any gynecologist can perform one, and under current regulations (passed at the last minute by the former administration), any nurse can refuse to assist in the operation."

Actually...this is one procedure that I don't have a problem with medical professional being able to opt out on. It's a very drastic procedure that in the minds of some people is murder to a developing human. It's a lot to expect to be a mandated procedure unless it is a judgment call made in favour of saving the mother's life. Then it should not be a choice to refuse.

But it's totally different when you have bigotry like a doctor refusing a lesbian and her partner in vitro fertilization for example. This is a procedure that they don't mind doing at all if the woman is straight. I'll bet many have never even seen the hetero husband when dealing with a typical childless straight couple. Yet as long as they have the image of a happy husband at home waiting for the implanted baby to pop out, it's perfectly fine. They find out their patient happens to partnered with a woman and all of a sudden they make a fallacious leap of judgment that declares the procedure is now immoral and they shouldn't have to do it. It's a bunch of bigoted bullshit that hides behind their religion. Would they also refuse a woman who divorced and had a new boyfriend? To a TRUE believer, that woman is an adultress and hardly the Bible approved 'appropriate' relationship.

Also, where would it stop? Say someone refused to save a man's life because he was brought in by the police after being shot during a burglary theft. All of a sudden the procedure is immoral because it's enabling the person to possibly thieve again?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yeah, it is pretty impressive. It'll be at least five and a half years, actually, 5 years, 7 months before a vote can be held on the subject in Iowa. Again, of course, assuming that they don't rewrite their entire constitution for the sole purpose of banning gay marriage, but I have difficulty to believe that will happen--especially since it will be on the ballot as "hold a constitutional convention", not "hold a constitutional convention to ban gay marriage," and theoretically anything could be adopted if it was approved... These measures receive very, very little support every ten years, naturally, and that support will probably not reach 50%. A lot of people will have second thoughts, after all, of holding a constitutional convention where the Iowa democrats could just as easily insert a constitutional right to free housing as the Iowa republicans could ban gay marriage.

Don't hold your breath just yet. These fucktards are dedicated to their cause. If they can convince the populace (who most of probably don't even know what a constitutional convention is) that voting to hold one is what they need to do to "protect marriage", I can see a greater movement to pass it. All they need to do is attach the same-sex marriage issue to the vote for the convention.

LINK

New threat to gay marriage in Iowa
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
04.10.2009 1:19pm EDT
(Des Moines, Iowa) Iowa Republicans were foiled in two bids Thursday to force the state House to take up a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

The moves came as more than 200 protesters demonstrated at the Capitol demanding action to overturn the Iowa State Supreme Court ruling gay and lesbian couples can marry. Many of them later moved into the public gallery in the House
As Republicans tried to force a vote, supporters of the anti gay marriage amendment in the crowd shouted, “Let us vote.” The GOP move was ruled out of order. But later in the day, Republicans attempted to attach the amendment to a money bill. That two was thwarted.

But despite the setback for gay foes, conservatives say there is still a way they can kill the state Supreme Court ruling - through a Constitutional Convention.

Once every decade, Iowa voters can decide whether to hold a convention. The question is scheduled to go on the ballot in November 2010 and needs only a simple majority.

Conservatives believe that if a Constitutional Convention is approved, they can convince delegates to vote for an amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.

If voters approve holding a convention, and if enough delegates can be convinced to amend the constitution, the question could be put to voters in a special election, possibly in 2011.

Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. The court also discounted civil unions as an alternative to marriage.

The Supreme Court decision means that gay and lesbian couples may immediately obtain marriage licenses and be allowed to marry under Iowa law in 21 days.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It just has a lot better chance of failing than any other measure so far attempted in the Heartland, that's all. And if American Citizens don't know what a constitutional convention is, they need to burn in Hell.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If the marriage proponents play it cool, they shouldn't even mention gay marriage--just run advertisements reminding people that at a constitutional convention the entire constitution can be changed.

[Alferd Packer]

If the marriage proponents play it cool, they shouldn't even mention gay marriage--just run advertisements reminding people that at a constitutional convention the entire constitution can be changed.

Couldn't that backfire, though, with every fringe group coming out of the woodwork attempting to ensure that their pet cause gets an amendment?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If the marriage proponents play it cool, they shouldn't even mention gay marriage--just run advertisements reminding people that at a constitutional convention the entire constitution can be changed.

Couldn't that backfire, though, with every fringe group coming out of the woodwork attempting to ensure that their pet cause gets an amendment?

Those fringe groups will, 1. lend bad publicity to the idea of the amendment passing, and, 2. constitution maybe 3% of the voting public. Basically all of which would vote against gay marriage, anyway.

[sketerpot]

But it's not the rabid fundies we have to worry about. They really ARE in the minority. Although many of the evangelical statistics can show an alarmingly large population in some places, I'd wager that when push comes to shove most of these people are still just talk and would not stand for a gay person being A)physically attacked, B) verbally abused, C)completely shunned and ostracized from the entire community, or many other disgusting reactions. Of course they will stand by their belief that it's wrong and pray for the person so they may change their 'lifestyle', but most people have normal sympathy to them and this makes them capable of understanding and respecting the fact that people still have to be able to live their lives in freedom and choice or you are in a dictatorship.

I disagree. I think that the majority will follow whatever they think are the cultural norms. If they hear a lot of bigotry from the frothing-at-the-mouth fundies, they will be bigoted. If the atmosphere is more tolerant and openly gay people are being part of the community, then they will be more accepting. That's one reason why the battleground issues like gay marriage are so important: they set the tone for the Mindless Middle.

[Justforfun000]

I disagree. I think that the majority will follow whatever they think are the cultural norms. If they hear a lot of bigotry from the frothing-at-the-mouth fundies, they will be bigoted. If the atmosphere is more tolerant and openly gay people are being part of the community, then they will be more accepting. That's one reason why the battleground issues like gay marriage are so important: they set the tone for the Mindless Middle.

Well....you could be right...I HOPE not, but I'd like to give most people the benefit of the doubt and think they'd edge towards the side of decency at heart..
It's not that I don't think they'd be bigoted or not still profess anti-gay attitudes, but I was listing some of the more extreme situations that I would hope might make them balk a little at pushing their agenda so far when they actually experienced real people being hurt instead of abstract ideas just being parroted by their faith.

In any event, I absolutely agree with the idea that Harvey Milk started bringing to the collective gay community. This is from his "Hope Speech" delivered in 1978:

Like every other group, we must be judged by our leaders and by those who are themselves gay, those who are visible. For invisible, we remain in limbo–a myth, a person with no parents, no brothers, no sisters, no friends who are straight, no important positions in employment.

This was the turning point in many respects. Once the so called "gay agenda" got up and running, just like the "black agenda" got their human rights on the table, the nation had to deal with the issues publically and the fundies would like nothing more then for gays to be quiet and submissive so they can quietly use THEIR religious agenda to marginalize and deprive gays of the rights and respects they deserve for simply expressing who they are.

Thankfully I would say that I think the overall progress made in so many countries is too great to ever regress back to the suppression of the past. It's the ability to silence and control the thoughts, beliefs and history of the human race that enables many regimes to start a new dark ages in their history, but the incredible power of the internet and the sheer pervasity of communication that all countries are becoming enmeshed in as a global community, whether they like it or not, is laying the foundations for an openness that would take nothing short of a world holocaust to reverse in many respects.

Only in places where religion holds serious political power is there an almost insurmountable roadblock to homosexuals which is why practically all of the Muslim countries are still the worst examples of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. I suppose realistically the only way we will ever see countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia start fairly addressing gays will be when they have their own Stonewall. I think they'd need to seriously revolt and fight. The only problem is unlike places like Europe and Noth America, these countries do not have secular protections inherent in their laws to help balance the fight when things get to court. If theocracies continue to exist, then ultimately such societies can never truly evolve much.

Hopefully the leading world powers and organizations like the United Nations and Amnesty International will have enough sway with their collective might to enable basic concessions like the removal of the criminalization of homosexuality as a start. If they really wanted to, the world global community could say "Hey, if you don't play fair, you don't play with us" and tuly fuck their economy by complete and total isolation. Of course this extreme move is highly unlikely, but some degree of this being exercised might be enough eventually...

[Justforfun000]

Omigod! I've never seen this before. Assuming their sources are accurate here...(It is Wikipedia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Judaism

Note the specific parts about ancient homosexual marriage references. I thought according to all of the big mouth fundies out there that there was NO society that ever had or supported gay marriage in history? Pretty fucking funny they don't even know their own root religious history!

(separated and bolded the most important parts)

Lesbian sexual activity

Although there is no direct textual prohibition of homosexual acts between women (lesbianism) in the entirety of the Torah, such behaviour is widely viewed as forbidden by most rabbis based on a Drash interpretation of the Biblical verse "Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I will be bringing you. Do not follow any of their customs." (Leviticus 18:3).

A midrash, Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9, states that this refers to sexual customs, and that one of those customs was the marriage of women to each other, as well as a man to a woman and to her daughter. Maimonides, in his Mishneh Torah, summarizes the matter as follows:[3]

For women to be mesollelot with one another is forbidden, as this is the practice of Egypt, which we were warned against: "Like the practice of the land of Egypt . . . you shall not do" (Leviticus 18:3). The Sages said [in the midrash of Sifra Aharei Mot 8:8–9],

"What did they do? A man married a man, and a woman married a woman, and a woman married two men."

Even though this practice is forbidden, one is not lashed [as for a Torah prohibition] on account of it, since there is no specific prohibition against it, and there is no real intercourse. Therefore, [one who does this] is not forbidden to the priesthood because of harlotry, and a woman is not prohibited to her husband by this, since it is not harlotry. But it is appropriate to administer to them lashings of rebellion [i.e., those given for violation of rabbinic prohibitions], since they did something forbidden. And a man should be strict with his wife in this matter, and should prevent women known to do this from coming to her or from her going to them.

Classical rabbinic Jewish sources do not specifically mention that homosexual attraction is inherently sinful (though it is regarded as unnatural). However, someone who has had homosexual intercourse is seen to have allowed their "unnatural attractions" to get the better of them, and it is thus believed that they would be held accountable by God for their actions. If he does teshuva (repentance), i.e. he ceases his forbidden actions, regrets what he has done, apologizes to God, and makes a binding resolution never to repeat those actions, he is seen to be forgiven by God (in a similar manner to the other capital crimes, excepting murder).[citation needed]

Homosexual Marriage in Midrash

The Midrash is one of the few ancient religious texts that makes reference to Homosexual marriage. The following teaching can be found twice in the Midrash:

"Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"[4]