New York's State Assembly approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in a 89-52 vote. The bill will now move onto the state senate.
Several legislatures who voted against a similar measure in 2007 have changed their vote.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Outside the Box
I just thought this first letter to the editor was really refreshing. The second one just further pissed me off. I'm so sick of hearing these so-called "representatives" of the black community telling the world that black people are against same-sex marriage. I must not be a black person then, because I'm completely for it. I wish someone would have sent me a letter letting me know I was being kicked out of the group... I would have stopped payment on my dues. I'm not exactly sure where people like Marion Barry came up with this census but I definitely wasn't asked to participate. And from the looks of this first letter, neither were a few other black people who aren't bothered by gay marriage. Just like with any other issue, and any other group, there are varying opinions. If you want to know what any one individual feels about it you're going to have to ask on a person-by-person basis.
The Unrecognized Same-Sex Marriage
And just when you thought same-sex marriage was a black & white issue, a whole new level of complexity emerges. I never even considered the fact that there are same-sex couples legally married in this country already. Some have been for years, they just go unnoticed because when they originally got married they were a man marrying a woman. This article points out that when a member of a heterosexual marriage goes through a sex change in many places they're still legally married, technically...at least until they choose to get divorced. Did you hear that? Somewhere in the world the Anita Bryant is having a conniption as she reads this.
This completely changes the game. I think this could prove a strong defense for same-sex marriage advocates.
This completely changes the game. I think this could prove a strong defense for same-sex marriage advocates.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Empty Arguments
Okay, so I admit that when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage I have a very bias opinion. I'm 100% supportive of it for various reasons that I think make perfect sense. Actually that's being too diplomatic. If I were to say what I really think I'd say that I have various reasons that I KNOW make perfect sense, but that's not the point I want to make. My point is that just as much as I think my arguments are strong and undeniable and make absolute sense, those against same-sex marriage believe the same about their arguments. I try to listen to both sides of any dispute. Usually no matter how strongly I feel about something I'm able to understand the opposing side on some level. I don't agree with you, but I get where you're coming from. It's like that with the issue of abortion. I'm pro-choice, but I understand why pro-lifers believe what they do. I mean there's usually some logic to an argument right?
But then articles like the one in the Augusta Chronicle show up and just remind me how this whole "anti gay marriage" thing is completely alien to me.
The first argument opponents want to pull out of their hat is the "the bible says..." defense. "The bible says that two men shall not lay together", "The bible says that "...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." I get that they believe the bible is the word of God, but shouldn't logic kick in at some point and make them realize that the bible is more accurately a loose interpretation of what God said translated by man. Besides the bible is full of so-called rules that even the most devout don't follow. I would never claim to be an expert on the bible, just moderately familiar with it... and most of the time confused by it. I get how it is the foundation of a faith, but there are just so many other decrees that they could focus on. Instead of putting so much energy into the whole "homosexuality is wrong and you're going to hell" thing why not focus on "Love thy neighbor as they self" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
Then there's the arguments that are just flat out lies, like the one that says legalizing same-sex marriage would strip people of their religious liberty. I've tried to figure this one out and it's just not true. There is nothing in these marriage bills that would make it mandatory for churches to perform these marriage. They wouldn't even have to recognize them under their faith... unless they want to. I doubt a law that would be approved in the first place because it goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. People are very sensitive to being seen as "that country" when it comes to the laws they pass. Besides, these movements around the country are very focused on separation of church and state. I actually think the counter-movement to redefine "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman is more oppressive (religiously and otherwise). They are actually trying to make it a law that nation, state, individual adopt that belief.
I think my favorite arguments are the ones that are just ridiculously twisted facts. I love that the article claims there will be even more children being raised without a mother and a father, but fails to recognized that these children will be living with two loving committed parents rather than products of a broken home. And the idea that tax payers will have to fun same-sex marriages is just mind boggling. I can't even figure out how that would work.
Granted this publication writes for a specific audience that doesn't necessarily include an individual such as myself since I have already decided my stance on the issue. But then again I do believe in God so does that make me a member of their target audience? Perhaps I am a Christian who's gone rogue. One of the things I remember from all my years of religious private education is that God supposedly gave us free will when it came to what we believe and what we do. He/She may prefer we believe in certain things and behave in certain ways, but it's our choice, right? You may not like what I choose but it's still my choice.
If nothing else what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom/home, that's not illegal, is no one's business but their own.
Rant complete.
But then articles like the one in the Augusta Chronicle show up and just remind me how this whole "anti gay marriage" thing is completely alien to me.
The first argument opponents want to pull out of their hat is the "the bible says..." defense. "The bible says that two men shall not lay together", "The bible says that "...For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." I get that they believe the bible is the word of God, but shouldn't logic kick in at some point and make them realize that the bible is more accurately a loose interpretation of what God said translated by man. Besides the bible is full of so-called rules that even the most devout don't follow. I would never claim to be an expert on the bible, just moderately familiar with it... and most of the time confused by it. I get how it is the foundation of a faith, but there are just so many other decrees that they could focus on. Instead of putting so much energy into the whole "homosexuality is wrong and you're going to hell" thing why not focus on "Love thy neighbor as they self" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"?
Then there's the arguments that are just flat out lies, like the one that says legalizing same-sex marriage would strip people of their religious liberty. I've tried to figure this one out and it's just not true. There is nothing in these marriage bills that would make it mandatory for churches to perform these marriage. They wouldn't even have to recognize them under their faith... unless they want to. I doubt a law that would be approved in the first place because it goes against everything America is supposed to stand for. People are very sensitive to being seen as "that country" when it comes to the laws they pass. Besides, these movements around the country are very focused on separation of church and state. I actually think the counter-movement to redefine "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman is more oppressive (religiously and otherwise). They are actually trying to make it a law that nation, state, individual adopt that belief.
I think my favorite arguments are the ones that are just ridiculously twisted facts. I love that the article claims there will be even more children being raised without a mother and a father, but fails to recognized that these children will be living with two loving committed parents rather than products of a broken home. And the idea that tax payers will have to fun same-sex marriages is just mind boggling. I can't even figure out how that would work.
Granted this publication writes for a specific audience that doesn't necessarily include an individual such as myself since I have already decided my stance on the issue. But then again I do believe in God so does that make me a member of their target audience? Perhaps I am a Christian who's gone rogue. One of the things I remember from all my years of religious private education is that God supposedly gave us free will when it came to what we believe and what we do. He/She may prefer we believe in certain things and behave in certain ways, but it's our choice, right? You may not like what I choose but it's still my choice.
If nothing else what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom/home, that's not illegal, is no one's business but their own.
Rant complete.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
I Love Urband Dictionary
The term "opposite marriage" has been added to the Urban Dictionary database. I for one am overjoyed to finally have a clear definition.
Will this moment ever end?
Will this moment ever end?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Baldacci Breaks the Cycle
Maine Govenor John Baldacci signed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage within the state. While Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont beat Maine to the punch, Baldacci is the first governor to sign the legislation outright. The governors for the other 4 states all vetoed the legislation forcing it to be debated and passed by without governor approval.
This move by the governor may come as a shock to some of his constituents, as he strongly opposed same-sex marriage in the past, but supported the idea of civil unions. MSNBC.com quoted Baldacci as saying this,
This move by the governor may come as a shock to some of his constituents, as he strongly opposed same-sex marriage in the past, but supported the idea of civil unions. MSNBC.com quoted Baldacci as saying this,
"In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions," Baldacci said in a statement. "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage."
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
D.C. Approves of Same-Sex Marriage Laws
In a shocking twelve to one vote Washington D.C. has agreed to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Because the District of Columbia isn't really a state any laws it creates still have to be approved by congress. Going directly against the Defense of Marriage Act, should be prepared for a court battle.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Ex-Chicagoans Love Pushes Them Over the Borderline
On April 27, four former Chicago residents became the first couples to marry in Dubuque, Iowa. Both couples, Kentaindra Scarver and Veronica Spann, and Rosalyn Henry and Laketta Davenport, who moved to the family-friendly town a few years ago, were married by County Magistrate John Nemmers.
Monday, April 27, was the first day that Iowa's Supreme Court ruling to legalize same-sex marriages became officials. The four women were amongst hundreds of other gay couples that came to take advantage of the new ruling. While many were Iowa natives, many of the couples came in recognition of same-sex marriage in the Midwest despite it being illegal in their home states.
While they are now residents of Iowa, the women are still tied to Chicago. The couples returned to their hometowns to celebrate their new union. Scarver, who is co-treasure for Windy City Black Pride told the Chicago Sun-Times about same-sex marriage spreading through the Midwest, "We've proved there is hope."
Monday, April 27, was the first day that Iowa's Supreme Court ruling to legalize same-sex marriages became officials. The four women were amongst hundreds of other gay couples that came to take advantage of the new ruling. While many were Iowa natives, many of the couples came in recognition of same-sex marriage in the Midwest despite it being illegal in their home states.
While they are now residents of Iowa, the women are still tied to Chicago. The couples returned to their hometowns to celebrate their new union. Scarver, who is co-treasure for Windy City Black Pride told the Chicago Sun-Times about same-sex marriage spreading through the Midwest, "We've proved there is hope."
Friday, May 1, 2009
Carrie Prejean: Anita Bryant XP
It's official. Miss California Carrie Prejean is the new Anita Bryant. The beauty pageant contestant has become a maverick at extending her 15 minutes of fame for her answer to a question about legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.
Reminiscent of former beauty queen Anita Bryant's campaign against gay rights, Prejean has taken to being the "temporary" spokeswoman for the National Organization for Marriage. While she tries to be a little more subtle than Bryant when speaking her mind, preceding most of her comments with a "I mean no offense", Prejean is just as adamant about the destruction (she believes) the legalization of same-sex marriage will do to American society.
Reminiscent of former beauty queen Anita Bryant's campaign against gay rights, Prejean has taken to being the "temporary" spokeswoman for the National Organization for Marriage. While she tries to be a little more subtle than Bryant when speaking her mind, preceding most of her comments with a "I mean no offense", Prejean is just as adamant about the destruction (she believes) the legalization of same-sex marriage will do to American society.
Husbands Lock Up Your Wives
This has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, I just thought it was a really interesting article and wanted to share the wealth. Apparently there's been an increase in women leaving their husbands/male partners to be with women. They almost make it sound like a "trend". And it hints that there might be a fluidity to female sexuality as they grow older that isn't present in men.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Now for New Hampshire
The New Hampshire senate has passed a same-sex marriage bill in a 13-11 vote. This comes after the senate changed the original bill to remove gender-specific language. It is likely that the bill will come up for vote again in the near future do to other minor changes, before it goes to Gov. John Lynch.
New Hampshire joins Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage.
New Hampshire joins Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut in legalizing same-sex marriage.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
G.O.P Down With G-A-Y?
Well it seems that in an attempt to redeem itself after the devastating defeat of the 2008 Presidential elections, the GOP is changing its tune... at least on one issue. Gay marriage (let the collective gasp resound). It has been debated for the last few months that the GOP has fallen out of touch with the American public, and that disconnection played a direct role in the party's loss of the presidency. A party full of "good ol' boys" with "good ol' vaules" has found that the majority vote of today's America thinks it's just, well, old. In the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections one of the main talking points that the party focused on was the issue of gay marriage. I particularly remember the fear-tactics that were used to convince people that if voting against homosexuality was the only way to keep their families safe. But things are drastically different now.
The difference between voters views on homosexuality and same-sex marriages then and now can be seen in a poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News. The study found that 31% of respondents over 40 year of age were against same-sex marriage, while 57% of respondents under the age of 40 support it. Of the younger individuals polled, only 19% were against any form of recognition for same-sex couples.
But apparently Republicans believe numbers lie, because there are still members of the party who refuse to recognize just how out of touch they are with America's youths. Many Republicans simply believe it's a matter of the public's attention is focused elsewhere, on things more important than same-sex marriage. It's not that the public is really in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, or that they don't view it as morally wrong, it's just not a priority for them at this moment. Former Republican mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani says "Right now, people are not concerned about issues like gay marriage because they are concerned about the economy."
The truth is that the younger generations are growing up in a more tolerant world, and the number of people not closely connected to someone who is homosexual is growing smaller and smaller. The GOP is going to be hard press as time goes on to find someone who is not friends with/related to/work with someone who is gay. To those individuals the GOP's "good ol' values" are just going to seem insulting and discriminatory. Former strategist to Senator John McCain, Steve Schmidt explains the breakdown in the party this way: "Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become, over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters,"
Republicans need to wake up to the fact that if they want to continue to be a political force to be reckoned with they are going to have to catch up to the rest of the world. They may pride themselves on holding onto the values of yesteryear but the majority of their constituents are looking towards the next year.
The difference between voters views on homosexuality and same-sex marriages then and now can be seen in a poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS News. The study found that 31% of respondents over 40 year of age were against same-sex marriage, while 57% of respondents under the age of 40 support it. Of the younger individuals polled, only 19% were against any form of recognition for same-sex couples.
But apparently Republicans believe numbers lie, because there are still members of the party who refuse to recognize just how out of touch they are with America's youths. Many Republicans simply believe it's a matter of the public's attention is focused elsewhere, on things more important than same-sex marriage. It's not that the public is really in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, or that they don't view it as morally wrong, it's just not a priority for them at this moment. Former Republican mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani says "Right now, people are not concerned about issues like gay marriage because they are concerned about the economy."
The truth is that the younger generations are growing up in a more tolerant world, and the number of people not closely connected to someone who is homosexual is growing smaller and smaller. The GOP is going to be hard press as time goes on to find someone who is not friends with/related to/work with someone who is gay. To those individuals the GOP's "good ol' values" are just going to seem insulting and discriminatory. Former strategist to Senator John McCain, Steve Schmidt explains the breakdown in the party this way: "Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become, over time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of voters,"
Republicans need to wake up to the fact that if they want to continue to be a political force to be reckoned with they are going to have to catch up to the rest of the world. They may pride themselves on holding onto the values of yesteryear but the majority of their constituents are looking towards the next year.
Perez... More Harm Than Good?
I cannot be the only one who's tired of this story. Yet again another story about Miss California's tiara debacle and the backlash/fame that has come with it. I can't help but wonder if Perez Hilton actually did any good by asking such a question on that kind of platform, and then by making it such a big deal.
As someone who's in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage I was saddened by Miss California, Carrie Prejean's answer to the question of whether every state should legalize same-sex marriage. But I wasn't shocked. There's a whole movement of people who feel the exact same way that she does. And for a minute it seemed as though the voices of those shouting so loudly against marriage equality were losing a little of their volume. And then this happened. All this incident seemed to do was add more fuel to their fire. Now they can claim public persecution for their beliefs. One the bully they're not the victim. And they have a perfect symbol for their cause in the Miss USA contestant. Not only is the movement against same-sex marriage getting more coverage than movement for it, Prejean is getting so much media attention that she has the best platform to spread the message of inequality to a much wider audience. Nice going Perez! Way to help the cause!
As someone who's in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage I was saddened by Miss California, Carrie Prejean's answer to the question of whether every state should legalize same-sex marriage. But I wasn't shocked. There's a whole movement of people who feel the exact same way that she does. And for a minute it seemed as though the voices of those shouting so loudly against marriage equality were losing a little of their volume. And then this happened. All this incident seemed to do was add more fuel to their fire. Now they can claim public persecution for their beliefs. One the bully they're not the victim. And they have a perfect symbol for their cause in the Miss USA contestant. Not only is the movement against same-sex marriage getting more coverage than movement for it, Prejean is getting so much media attention that she has the best platform to spread the message of inequality to a much wider audience. Nice going Perez! Way to help the cause!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Heavy Lies the Head that Doesn't Win the Crown
Ok, so I was trying to avoid mentioning this next bit of news. I'm not a fan of Perez Hilton (in fact I find really annoying that I even know who he is), and I'm even less of a fan of beauty pageants. So when this next bit of news popped up I was hoping that it would fall by the wayside fairly quickly. Imagine my chagrin when it was still being mentioned in some aspect or another on practically every news station yesterday. When beauty pageants and politics collide, the wreckage is hard to avoid.
During the Miss USA pageant, which aired April 19th, judge and self-proclaimed "Queen of all Media" Perez Hilton asked Miss California Carrie Prejean, a politically fueled question during the question and answer portion of the competition. Referring to Iowa's and Vermont's recent decisions, Hilton asked Prejean whether other states should follow suit and legalize same-sex marriage. There's been some debate as to whether the question should have even been asked of any contestant. Does politics belong in beauty pageants? But the most buzz has come from Prejean's answer:
Her response caused a mixed reaction from the audience with some of those in attendance booing (the first for a Miss USA contestant) and some applauding, and a thinly veiled look of discuss from Hilton. That was just at the pageant, the reaction from the rest of the public has been just as diverse but on a much grander scale. Everyone from radio personalities to political pundits to soccer moms have been talking about it. Did her answer cost her the crown? Was it a fair question? Does politics belong in beauty pageants? Etc, etc.
I'm no expert on beauty pageants, but the question didn't seem all that out of place to me. In the past haven't contestants been asked about gun control/foreign relations/poverty? Those are just as political. I think the only difference is that this particular question has to do with an issue that is at the top of most media coverage. It's a big deal right now so everyone is paying much more attention to it. Events in Iowa and Vermont have been bogarting a large portion of media coverage so the public is more sensitive to anything having to do with the controvery of same-sex marriage and gay rights.
No one will really ever know if Prejean's answer lost her the crown. I have to admit I'd be disappointed if it did. In no way do I agree with her opinion (and I'm still confused as to what "opposite marriage" is) but that's my point. It was her opinion. Whether you agree with her or not she has every right to believe what she wants to believe. How ironic is it that in a competition to pick a woman who best represents America, a country which brags about the freedoms of speech/opinion/religion/etc its citizens has, a contestant could be penalized for holding an opinion that the judges/audience/public think she shouldn't have? I'm curious as to exactly how political these contestants are supposed to be. I think it would be a fair guess to say that these women are no more or less informed about politics than the average individual on the street. But is this competition supposed to be about their politics? I always thought the answer and question portion of the competition was supposed to be more about poise. How they handles such awkward and uncomfortable situations. If that's the case then I can see how Prejean may have lost. She wasn't exactly composed when forming her answer.
But my biggest problem with all this is how much attention it's getting. WHO CARES? It's a beauty pageant. This woman isn't some politician who's helping to form public policy. If people really want to complain about opinions like this why not go after bigger fish who's opinions can actually have a direct influence on the issue. Unless I'm mistaken and this young lady is the governor of a state that is in the process of deciding whether to legalize gay marriage, in which case the attention is well deserved.
*For the record, Miss North Carolina Kristin Dalton won the crown.
During the Miss USA pageant, which aired April 19th, judge and self-proclaimed "Queen of all Media" Perez Hilton asked Miss California Carrie Prejean, a politically fueled question during the question and answer portion of the competition. Referring to Iowa's and Vermont's recent decisions, Hilton asked Prejean whether other states should follow suit and legalize same-sex marriage. There's been some debate as to whether the question should have even been asked of any contestant. Does politics belong in beauty pageants? But the most buzz has come from Prejean's answer:
"Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you could choose “same-sex marriage” or opposite marriage. And, you know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think that it should be, between a man and a woman."
Her response caused a mixed reaction from the audience with some of those in attendance booing (the first for a Miss USA contestant) and some applauding, and a thinly veiled look of discuss from Hilton. That was just at the pageant, the reaction from the rest of the public has been just as diverse but on a much grander scale. Everyone from radio personalities to political pundits to soccer moms have been talking about it. Did her answer cost her the crown? Was it a fair question? Does politics belong in beauty pageants? Etc, etc.
I'm no expert on beauty pageants, but the question didn't seem all that out of place to me. In the past haven't contestants been asked about gun control/foreign relations/poverty? Those are just as political. I think the only difference is that this particular question has to do with an issue that is at the top of most media coverage. It's a big deal right now so everyone is paying much more attention to it. Events in Iowa and Vermont have been bogarting a large portion of media coverage so the public is more sensitive to anything having to do with the controvery of same-sex marriage and gay rights.
No one will really ever know if Prejean's answer lost her the crown. I have to admit I'd be disappointed if it did. In no way do I agree with her opinion (and I'm still confused as to what "opposite marriage" is) but that's my point. It was her opinion. Whether you agree with her or not she has every right to believe what she wants to believe. How ironic is it that in a competition to pick a woman who best represents America, a country which brags about the freedoms of speech/opinion/religion/etc its citizens has, a contestant could be penalized for holding an opinion that the judges/audience/public think she shouldn't have? I'm curious as to exactly how political these contestants are supposed to be. I think it would be a fair guess to say that these women are no more or less informed about politics than the average individual on the street. But is this competition supposed to be about their politics? I always thought the answer and question portion of the competition was supposed to be more about poise. How they handles such awkward and uncomfortable situations. If that's the case then I can see how Prejean may have lost. She wasn't exactly composed when forming her answer.
But my biggest problem with all this is how much attention it's getting. WHO CARES? It's a beauty pageant. This woman isn't some politician who's helping to form public policy. If people really want to complain about opinions like this why not go after bigger fish who's opinions can actually have a direct influence on the issue. Unless I'm mistaken and this young lady is the governor of a state that is in the process of deciding whether to legalize gay marriage, in which case the attention is well deserved.
*For the record, Miss North Carolina Kristin Dalton won the crown.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Has Amazon Kindled a Small Fire?
Amazon.com may have stoked a small fire in the gay rights movement. Sunday, April 12th, writer and blogger Mark R. Probst called attention to the sudden disappearance of the rankings of dozens of gay and lesbian themed books from the popular sites many listings.
The website offers customers several lists of suggested literature including Amazon.com best sellers, New York Times best sellers, best of the year, seasonal, and more. These lists often help produce more sales by giving authors (both popular and unknown) exposure to individuals who normally would not know of their work.
When Probst wrote to the site questioning the phenomenon he received a response from a Member Services Representative stating "In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude 'adult' material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists." Seeing as though this is not a new, although little known, policy there was not much argument left. Until CNET reported on that Amazon was also classifying the children's book Heather Has Two Mommies and Ellen DeGeneres' autobiography, My Point... And I Do Have One, as adult. All while books such as former porn-star Ron Jeremy's memoir, Jackie Collins, Zane, and a photography collection of Playboy centerfolds were still being ranked on the website's lists.
When this discrepancy was brought to Amazon's attention they were quick to admit that a "mistake" was made, and that a "glitch" in the company's ranking system had caused the error. Amazon spokesperson Pattie Smith told the L.A. Times that there was no bias and that the matter is being dealt with.
Despite the company apology the masses have not been calmed. Responses to Probst's blog are still flooding in. While some are convinced that Amazon simply made a mistake, more believe that the company simply got caught displaying their bias against homosexuals. I'm not sure who's right. Perhaps it was just a small mistake that happened at a very wrong time. I personally took it upon myself to check out some of the books that were reported taken off the rankings lists, as well as a few that I personally know are of an "adult" nature. The books are still for sale on the sight, though I couldn't find them on any of the lists. I also found nothing on the books' individual pages that offered any kind of warning or categorizing of its "adult" material. Maybe the categorization is just part of the company's way of doing things. But I would think that, being so concerned with not offending customers, they would make sure that searches resulting in such books let the customer know that it was considered "adult". I don't think Amazon was lying to cover their mishap, but I do think they need to tweak their system to make it more thorough.
The website offers customers several lists of suggested literature including Amazon.com best sellers, New York Times best sellers, best of the year, seasonal, and more. These lists often help produce more sales by giving authors (both popular and unknown) exposure to individuals who normally would not know of their work.
When Probst wrote to the site questioning the phenomenon he received a response from a Member Services Representative stating "In consideration of our entire customer base, we exclude 'adult' material from appearing in some searches and best seller lists." Seeing as though this is not a new, although little known, policy there was not much argument left. Until CNET reported on that Amazon was also classifying the children's book Heather Has Two Mommies and Ellen DeGeneres' autobiography, My Point... And I Do Have One, as adult. All while books such as former porn-star Ron Jeremy's memoir, Jackie Collins, Zane, and a photography collection of Playboy centerfolds were still being ranked on the website's lists.
When this discrepancy was brought to Amazon's attention they were quick to admit that a "mistake" was made, and that a "glitch" in the company's ranking system had caused the error. Amazon spokesperson Pattie Smith told the L.A. Times that there was no bias and that the matter is being dealt with.
Despite the company apology the masses have not been calmed. Responses to Probst's blog are still flooding in. While some are convinced that Amazon simply made a mistake, more believe that the company simply got caught displaying their bias against homosexuals. I'm not sure who's right. Perhaps it was just a small mistake that happened at a very wrong time. I personally took it upon myself to check out some of the books that were reported taken off the rankings lists, as well as a few that I personally know are of an "adult" nature. The books are still for sale on the sight, though I couldn't find them on any of the lists. I also found nothing on the books' individual pages that offered any kind of warning or categorizing of its "adult" material. Maybe the categorization is just part of the company's way of doing things. But I would think that, being so concerned with not offending customers, they would make sure that searches resulting in such books let the customer know that it was considered "adult". I don't think Amazon was lying to cover their mishap, but I do think they need to tweak their system to make it more thorough.
Monday, April 13, 2009
First Goats, Now Mass Murder
When the push for gay rights really started to heat up in the last few years, I was sure the most far-fetched argument I would hear was the theory that if same-sex marriages were allowed, it wouldn't be long before people started demanding they be allowed to marry their goats. How homosexuality and bestiality are connected, I still don't understand. But just when I thought the arsenal of those protesting same-sex marriage couldn't get more ridiculous, they pull come up with something else.
Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media, has released new "proof" that the gay rights movement is directly linked to the mass murder. An article by On Top Magazine quotes the the press release, titled Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders as saying Peters believes that the "secular value system" or our post-Christian society is what is powering the push for gay marriage. To Peters support for homosexuality is just more proof of the decaying moral standards of our society.
One thing about this theory that stands out in my opinion is its similarities to a January 2008 press release by Peters titled Mass Murders by Individuals and the Role of Guns, Religion, and Popular Culture. In this press release issued only three months ago Peter does not mention homosexuality once as a instigator of mass murders. In that article his three reasons for an increase in mass murder are lack of respect for guns ("It is sometimes said that guns don't kill people, people do. And there is truth in that statement."), American youths' desertion and religion values ("Today, of course, ridicule of religion and use of ministers as comic characters or villains is commonplace... part of the good that religion brought is a commandment, 'You shall not commit murder.'"), and pop culture ("...the film industry now wallows in, glamorizes and celebrates murder, revenge and sadism...") Connecting the Dots... seems largely like a cut-and-paste job of Murder by Individuals... accept instead of blaming guns, religion, and pop culture, Peters blames decaying moral standards which manifest in the gay rights movement. Other than that the rhetoric is the same ol' same old.
I can't help but wonder what's going to come next. Is there any limit to what the religious right-wing will say to get the American people on their side. It just makes me think that they keep stretching so much because the real reason for their disapproval wouldn't attract as much attention as the sensationalized version. When you get down to it, many of them believe sex and/or marriage is between a man a woman, and anything else is an abomination and against God's will. I personally don't agree with it, but they have every right to believe that. But it's not as flashy as bestiality and mass murders. Oh well! I guess they'll do anything for to continue the fear mongering they apparently need to win any support.
Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media, has released new "proof" that the gay rights movement is directly linked to the mass murder. An article by On Top Magazine quotes the the press release, titled Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders as saying Peters believes that the "secular value system" or our post-Christian society is what is powering the push for gay marriage. To Peters support for homosexuality is just more proof of the decaying moral standards of our society.
One thing about this theory that stands out in my opinion is its similarities to a January 2008 press release by Peters titled Mass Murders by Individuals and the Role of Guns, Religion, and Popular Culture. In this press release issued only three months ago Peter does not mention homosexuality once as a instigator of mass murders. In that article his three reasons for an increase in mass murder are lack of respect for guns ("It is sometimes said that guns don't kill people, people do. And there is truth in that statement."), American youths' desertion and religion values ("Today, of course, ridicule of religion and use of ministers as comic characters or villains is commonplace... part of the good that religion brought is a commandment, 'You shall not commit murder.'"), and pop culture ("...the film industry now wallows in, glamorizes and celebrates murder, revenge and sadism...") Connecting the Dots... seems largely like a cut-and-paste job of Murder by Individuals... accept instead of blaming guns, religion, and pop culture, Peters blames decaying moral standards which manifest in the gay rights movement. Other than that the rhetoric is the same ol' same old.
I can't help but wonder what's going to come next. Is there any limit to what the religious right-wing will say to get the American people on their side. It just makes me think that they keep stretching so much because the real reason for their disapproval wouldn't attract as much attention as the sensationalized version. When you get down to it, many of them believe sex and/or marriage is between a man a woman, and anything else is an abomination and against God's will. I personally don't agree with it, but they have every right to believe that. But it's not as flashy as bestiality and mass murders. Oh well! I guess they'll do anything for to continue the fear mongering they apparently need to win any support.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Not So Fast!
I don't doubt that I wasn't the only one surprised by
I think this optimism/fear (depending on which side of the issue you're on) is premature. In an article by Andrew Cohen on the CBS News website, there are several reason why the U.S. Supreme Court isn't ready to choose a side. The Supreme Court does not like to make a habit of solving issues until there's an absolute need for it, and at this point there doesn't seem to be any pressure for them to act. The nation is still equal split on the issue, with no clear indicator that the public is heavily in favor of either option. Until the public overwhelmingly chooses a side, the U.S. Supreme Court can stay safely out of the fray.
Monday, April 6, 2009
When I Think "Progressive", I Think... Iowa???
If I had bet on which state would be the first to legalize gay marriage, I feel confident that Iowa wouldn't have made it into my top 5. In fact I doubt it would have made it into my top 10. America's Midwest doesn't exactly conjure thoughts of liberal politics, gay-friendliness, progressiveness, etc. Sure there are certain cities like Chicago that are shining examples of many if not all of those things, but Iowa isn't one of them. Imagine my surprise when Thursday, April 2nd, the Iowa Supreme Court held that banning same-sex marriages violated the state constitution. Even more shocking was that the vote was unanimous. The state is now in the company of Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states to legalize gay marriage.
Not many people know that this isn't Iowa's first foray into the fight for equal rights for everyone. I myself had no idea that on one occasion in the 1800s the state refused to support slavery, and on another occasion refused to uphold a law banning women from becoming lawyers. In an article in the Townhall writer Ken Klukowski that these particular cases in the states history actually undermines the Supreme Court's decision. The Iowa Supreme Court insists that it came to the decision "dispassionately", but the comparison to previous judicial moves by the state shows the personal beliefs by the justices having some influence in the decision.
It also doesn't help Iowa's Supreme Court when it argues that it is following the example set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it did the opposite. The example referred to was the 1996 case of Romer vs. Evans in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "heightened scrutiny" (a stringent standard of judicial review that arises when 1) a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed or 2) when government action involves use of a "suspect classification") does not apply to gays. Iowa ruled the opposite and decided that heightened security was necessary for cases involving homosexuals.
A lot of people anticipate Iowa's move to be the first of many in the Midwest, but that is yet to be seen. While I think that it has opened the door for other states in the Midwest to make a move toward entering the debate of legalizing same-sex marriages, I think it's far from becoming a common practice. As discussed in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's newspaper, The Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's recently amended constitution does not legal recognize same-sex marriages, and a state law actually makes it a crime for individuals to travel to other states for such marriages.
It also doesn't help Iowa's Supreme Court when it argues that it is following the example set by the U.S. Supreme Court, when in fact it did the opposite. The example referred to was the 1996 case of Romer vs. Evans in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that "heightened scrutiny" (a stringent standard of judicial review that arises when 1) a "fundamental" constitutional right is infringed or 2) when government action involves use of a "suspect classification") does not apply to gays. Iowa ruled the opposite and decided that heightened security was necessary for cases involving homosexuals.
A lot of people anticipate Iowa's move to be the first of many in the Midwest, but that is yet to be seen. While I think that it has opened the door for other states in the Midwest to make a move toward entering the debate of legalizing same-sex marriages, I think it's far from becoming a common practice. As discussed in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's newspaper, The Daily Cardinal, Wisconsin's recently amended constitution does not legal recognize same-sex marriages, and a state law actually makes it a crime for individuals to travel to other states for such marriages.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
A Look Back at the Journey
According to an article in the Des Moines Register, an Iowa court decision will be made tomorrow morning that will tip the scales in the gay rights movement in the United States.
In the case of Varnum vs. Brien, six same-sex couples in Iowa were denied marriage licenses in 2005 by the office of Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien. The couples filed a lawsuit against Brien, and while Polk County District Judge Robert Hansen sided with the them, he suspended his decision until the case could be heard by the higher court.
If the Iowa Supreme court finds in favor of the six couples, Iowa will become the first state in the Midwest to allow same-sex marriage, and the fourth in the nation.
Here's a video to chronicle all the new strides in the gay rights movement.
In the case of Varnum vs. Brien, six same-sex couples in Iowa were denied marriage licenses in 2005 by the office of Polk County Recorder Timothy Brien. The couples filed a lawsuit against Brien, and while Polk County District Judge Robert Hansen sided with the them, he suspended his decision until the case could be heard by the higher court.
If the Iowa Supreme court finds in favor of the six couples, Iowa will become the first state in the Midwest to allow same-sex marriage, and the fourth in the nation.
Here's a video to chronicle all the new strides in the gay rights movement.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Govenor Plans to Road Block Bill
After weeks of refusing to comment on Vermont's Freedom to Marry Act, Republican Governor Jim Douglas has announced that if the bill passes the House of Representative vote on Thursday, March 26th, he will exercise his right to veto it.
Governor Douglas supports civil unions for same-sex couples, saying a New York Times article that the same state rights and benefits given to them in unions is enough. Douglas argues that the issue of same-sex marriage takes the focus off the bigger issues that are plaguing our country:
The bill passed through the Vermont senate in a 26-4 vote on Monday, March 23.
Governor Douglas supports civil unions for same-sex couples, saying a New York Times article that the same state rights and benefits given to them in unions is enough. Douglas argues that the issue of same-sex marriage takes the focus off the bigger issues that are plaguing our country:
"During these extraordinary times, the speculation about my decision has added to the anxiety of the moment and further diverts attention from our most pressing issues, and I cannot allow that to happen."What's fascinating to me is that in the same interview the governor speculates that the the legislative body would not have passed the bill in the first place if they did not think they would be able to override his veto. This makes me think that Douglas's veto is more a means for him to show that he does not support the measure, and to show his supporters that he is sticking to his guns. Even if his veto is overridden and put into law, he will have publicly opposed it.
The bill passed through the Vermont senate in a 26-4 vote on Monday, March 23.
Vermont Chooses A Side
In an overwhelming vote by the Senate on Monday, March 23, Vermont approved a measure to legalize same-sex marriage. Senators voted 26-4 in approval of the bill, and the House of Representatives is schedules to vote on the bill, The Freedom to Marry Act, by Thursday, March 26th. If it passes, Vermont will join Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states that legally recognize same-sex unions.
The issue was contended the same as it has throughout the country, with the opposition arguing the damage such a bill could have on the traditional institution of marriage. Bishop Salvatore R. Matano told The Catholic Spirit that it was a "duty to uphold and to defend the traditional definition of marriage as it has been upheld and revered over the ages", and had nothing to do with hate or understanding.
This doesn't stray far from the basic foundation of the argument by opponents of same-sex marriage. It's all about protecting the "tradition", which usually translate into "religious tradition". Every argument I've heard against same-sex marriage focused on demonizing the act of homosexuality, attacking the "unholiness", and shaming the public for supporting such "unnatural" behavior. Personally, I was getting tired of it and thought it was hurting their cause than helping. It started to sound a lot like hate speech and intolerance, reminiscent of the fight for civil rights... very ugly. But it seems just when their arguments have started to sound like a broken record, some opponents are changing their argument. Their new tactic seems to be to express that their protest is in the interest of protecting the rights of those who have chosen to practice the "traditional" form of marriage, as if by allowing same-sex marriage the state is disrespecting the beliefs of heterosexual married couples. Bishop Matano said this in his interview with The Catholic Spirit:
Opposition of same-sex marriage isn't necessarily as black & white. Rarely is it a blanket disapproval of homosexuality, so much as it is disapproval of recognizing it in the traditional union of "marriage". In an article by College News Vermont's Republican govenor, Jim Douglas does protests same-sex marriage, but supports the state's current civil union law. Like many others, Douglas distinguishes "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.
Coincidentally the bill does not incroach on the clergy's right to refuse to solemnize a marriage if it to do so would compromise the clergyperson's religious beliefs and practices. The bill works very hard to separate the the rights of a relgion to practice its beliefs from the rights of an individual.
The issue was contended the same as it has throughout the country, with the opposition arguing the damage such a bill could have on the traditional institution of marriage. Bishop Salvatore R. Matano told The Catholic Spirit that it was a "duty to uphold and to defend the traditional definition of marriage as it has been upheld and revered over the ages", and had nothing to do with hate or understanding.
This doesn't stray far from the basic foundation of the argument by opponents of same-sex marriage. It's all about protecting the "tradition", which usually translate into "religious tradition". Every argument I've heard against same-sex marriage focused on demonizing the act of homosexuality, attacking the "unholiness", and shaming the public for supporting such "unnatural" behavior. Personally, I was getting tired of it and thought it was hurting their cause than helping. It started to sound a lot like hate speech and intolerance, reminiscent of the fight for civil rights... very ugly. But it seems just when their arguments have started to sound like a broken record, some opponents are changing their argument. Their new tactic seems to be to express that their protest is in the interest of protecting the rights of those who have chosen to practice the "traditional" form of marriage, as if by allowing same-sex marriage the state is disrespecting the beliefs of heterosexual married couples. Bishop Matano said this in his interview with The Catholic Spirit:
"The union of husband and wife is a distinct vocation and using the law to alter or to redefine marriage is an injustice to those who have embraced this state in life and negates its long history of benefit to society and the justified acknowledgment that it has received from the very beginning of history."That's a pretty broad assumption that every heterosexual couple that marries holds the same belief as the Church.
Opposition of same-sex marriage isn't necessarily as black & white. Rarely is it a blanket disapproval of homosexuality, so much as it is disapproval of recognizing it in the traditional union of "marriage". In an article by College News Vermont's Republican govenor, Jim Douglas does protests same-sex marriage, but supports the state's current civil union law. Like many others, Douglas distinguishes "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman.
Coincidentally the bill does not incroach on the clergy's right to refuse to solemnize a marriage if it to do so would compromise the clergyperson's religious beliefs and practices. The bill works very hard to separate the the rights of a relgion to practice its beliefs from the rights of an individual.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Proposition 8 Review
The California Supreme Court began to hear arguments this morning on the initiative passed by voters in November 2008, Proposition 8. Heavily attended by about 700 supporters and proponents of the measure, the hearing is scheduled to last for three hours, and the justices will have 90 days to make a decision.
Because Proposition 8 requires fundamental change to the state constitution it requires either two-thirds approval of each house in the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
Because Proposition 8 requires fundamental change to the state constitution it requires either two-thirds approval of each house in the Legislature or a constitutional convention.
A Growing Debate
The issue of gay-marriage ran a close race in the 2008 presidential election, placing second only to the overwhelming issue of America's failing economy and all the issues connected with it. The legalization of same-sex marriage was pushed into the spotlight on November 5th when the tallying of votes in California revealed that Proposition 8 was approved. The measure proposes an amendment to California's state constitution that would make marriage between same-sex couples illegal by defining "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman. According to the Los Angeles Times voters approved Proposition 8 52% to 43%.
It seems that a majority of the public who are anti gay marriage are more receptive of civil unions. In my opinion while civil unions are a step in the right direction, they're kind of the diet Pepsi of compromises... just one calorie not Pepsi enough. On one had I recognized that many of the rights we have today did not come about full force. It was a process, step-by-step. But on the other hand, I can't help but think that we as a society to should be able to move faster when it comes to the rights of a people.
As of today there are 5 states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (California's Supreme Court is in the process of reviewing an appeal of Proposition 8), and 4 states have legalized same-sex civil unions.
It seems that a majority of the public who are anti gay marriage are more receptive of civil unions. In my opinion while civil unions are a step in the right direction, they're kind of the diet Pepsi of compromises... just one calorie not Pepsi enough. On one had I recognized that many of the rights we have today did not come about full force. It was a process, step-by-step. But on the other hand, I can't help but think that we as a society to should be able to move faster when it comes to the rights of a people.
As of today there are 5 states that legally recognize same-sex marriage (California's Supreme Court is in the process of reviewing an appeal of Proposition 8), and 4 states have legalized same-sex civil unions.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
