equality blooms with spring - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-01-2009, 04:14 PM   #691
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:17 AM
For some, but paranoia about homosexuality as an innate threat to the social order isn't contained to some "religious mindset." Support for DADT is one of the last refuges of good old bluntly unadorned "Gross, I don't want some ____ in the shower room with me" thinking. Male bonding, masculine honor and all that...well, you know; you went to middle school once.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 06:39 PM   #692
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 04:17 AM
I found this portion of the article that Mrs S posted a page ago heartening:

Quote:
In a surprising twist, she found that the straight men with the most evolved sense of masculinity — the ones who forged the tightest friendships with their gay friends — were from military families or had some military training.

These men were used to being “thrown into different environments where it doesn’t matter whether you’re white or black or Hispanic,” Professor Price said. “You’re going to live in this house and you’re all going to be treated the same and you have to get along.”
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 09:48 AM   #693
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:17 AM
most of my friends are straight men. well, probably even split between straight men and straight women. if it's been an issue with the straight men in my life, i haven't noticed. if anything, it pleases their wives/girlfriends that their husband/boyfriend doesn't have whatever hangups or insecurities.

what's becoming a bigger issue is that marriage and careers and owning a home and starting families is a much bigger roadblock to the friendships we used to have than any issues regarding sexuality.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 02:00 PM   #694
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:17 AM
and amidst all this social progress -- gay sex is now legal in India! time to schedule a visit! -- it's important to remember that there's still an enormous amount of work to do:



Quote:
Gay bar patrons not targeted by officers, chief says
BY MIKE LEE and ALEX BRANCH


FORT WORTH — Police officers did not target gays during a bar inspection early Sunday in which one man was injured and seven people were arrested, Police Chief Jeff Halstead said Monday.

Police internal-affairs investigators will look into officers’ actions at the Rainbow Lounge, a gay nightclub on South Jennings Avenue, Halstead said.

He asked people who are angry with police "to take a deep breath."

The incident occurred on the 40th anniversary of a police raid on a club in New York City that helped trigger the gay rights movement, timing that Halstead called inadvertent.

"There was never, ever anyone employed with the Fort Worth Police Department who would want to specifically target a location because of the date," Halstead said. "That simply did not occur."

City officials have received hundreds of e-mails and dozens of phone calls about the incident, a spokesman said. Two Unitarian Universalist churches and the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas issued statements calling for full investigations, as did the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based advocacy group.

"Brutality at the hands of law enforcement is never acceptable, and these allegations demonstrate the need for a thorough and impartial investigation," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

The injured man, Chad Gibson, 26, remained hospitalized Monday.

He and six other people were arrested during what Halstead said was a routine bar inspection.

Gibson may require surgery for his head injury if his condition doesn’t improve, said his sister, Kristy Morgan.

"He remembers going to the bar. He remembers having a drink. He doesn’t remember anything else," she said.

Kyle Trentham of Fort Worth said local activists are working with national groups to find ways to help those arrested and assist with medical expenses for Gibson.

City Councilwoman Kathleen Hicks, whose district includes the bar, said she was "very concerned."

"I don’t want to rush to judgment," she said, but added that she does not want the city to have a "reputation as a place that’s not inclusive."

New management

The Rainbow, at 651 S. Jennings Ave., has been a gay bar for years under different owners. But it had been open under its current management for only about a week.

According to police, six Fort Worth officers, two officers from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission and a supervisor went to the Rainbow about 1 a.m. after checking two other bars in the area — Rosedale Saloon and Cowboy Palace — where a total of nine people were arrested.

More than 20 people were taken out of the Rainbow and questioned, and seven were arrested on suspicion of public intoxication, police said.

Some customers made "sexually explicit motions," according to a police statement, and one grabbed an officer’s crotch. A police spokesman later identified that person as Gibson.

"My brother would not do that," Morgan said. Gibson, a high-tech worker who is about 5-feet-8 and weighs about 150 pounds, was at the club with friends, including a designated driver, she said.

"He’s not a big drinker, a big partyer," she said.

The police statement said one patron was so drunk he was vomiting. Morgan said her brother threw up because of his head injury.

She also questioned police efforts to summon medical help. The time on Gibson’s ticket for public intoxication is 2:10 a.m. An ambulance wasn’t called until 2:25 a.m.

Club Manager Randy Norman said Gibson didn’t seem drunk and was walking from the men’s room, holding a bottle of water, when an officer pushed him against a wall and then pushed him to the ground. Some patrons said they heard Gibson ask the officer a question, but that he didn’t fight back. At least three officers were involved in handcuffing him.

"The first question I heard was, 'How much have you had to drink?’ " said Shane Wells, a dancer at the club. Gibson "said, 'I don’t have to answer that question’ and they grabbed him and ran him against that little wall.’ "

Asked about Gibson’s injury, Halstead said he could speak only about what is documented in the police report.

"In the police report, it was stated that he was handcuffed and he exhibited signs of over-intoxication, possible alcohol poisoning, and he fell face first," Halstead said.

"If there’s an eyewitness to the contrary, then that is exactly the person we want to come forward to the Police Department."

Witnesses should contact the internal affairs division at 817-392-4270, he said.

Late Monday, a news release from Fort Worth police identified the officers involved as K. Gober, J. Ricks, M. Marquez, J. Jenson, J. Back, J. Moss and Sgt. Morris.

'Liquor checks’ normal

Norman, who said he has been in the bar business for six years, said "liquor checks" are normal. But this time, he said, officers didn’t ask to see the club’s liquor license or its alcohol supply, and immediately began arresting people, he said.

"I believe the officers were riled up from wherever they were before," Norman said.

Staff writers Deanna Boyd and Eva-Marie Ayala contributed to this report.


Quote:
Fort Worth council members call for probe in raid of gay bar

01:49 AM CDT on Tuesday, June 30, 2009

By CHRIS HAWES / WFAA-TV

RAINBOW LOUNGE RAID
June 30th, 2009
Chris Hawes reports

FORT WORTH - Fort Worth has received national attention after a controversial inspection at a gay bar.

The nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights organization has called for an investigation, and they're not alone. Council member Kathleen Hicks said she wants the community to know that there is a recourse for complaints such as the ones that arose after officers were accused of violence without just cause.

Seven were arrested and one hospitalized after violence broke out during a raid at the Rainbow Lounge in Fort Worth.

Hicks called witness reports and Chad Gibson's brain injury disturbing; Gibson's mother, Kelly Carter, called it heartbreaking.

"He's got bruises here on his head," Carter said. "He's got [them] all down his shoulder. He's got a ring around his wrist where they had tied him."

Carter came to the Rainbow Lounge to see for herself where her son suffered the brain injury.

"They spun [Gibson] around this way, and laid him out on the ground and that's when he hit his head on the step and got the head injury," said one witness of what occurred during the early Sunday-morning raid.

Monday, police chief Jeff Halstead said the officers' actions are being investigated. However, he also said that officers that entered the bar during the scheduled inspection were touched inappropriately.

"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."

Witnesses denied the chief's account.

News 8 talked with council member Joel Burns shortly after he visited Gibson in the hospital Monday afternoon.

"It's my hope that the fact that this is a gay bar and the violence that happened there are not in any way tied - obviously as someone who loves Fort Worth [and] as someone who is gay - I don't want those two things to be connected," he said.

Neither the TABC nor Fort Worth police revealed why the bar was selected for what police called a bar check. But, Halstead said the checks always result from either citizen or law enforcement concerns. The bar's owner questioned that and pointed out the Rainbow Lounge has been open for less than two weeks.



YouTube - Mom Speaks Out - Victim of Violent Police Raid in Hospital With Brain Injury
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 06:41 PM   #695
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:17 AM
Wow is that a stupid story headline they've got up on the screen.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-02-2009, 08:25 PM   #696
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
and amidst all this social progress -- gay sex is now legal in India! --
Wasn't that exciting! In practice, no one had actually been prosecuted under that law in decades (the just-announced ruling was 'public interest litigation,' unrelated to any convictions), and I've never personally heard of visitors being given trouble under it, but, it certainly has been used by private individuals and organizations to blackmail LGBT Indians, as well as by police to justify what would otherwise be illegal harassment. So I think this will likely have a pretty significant impact on the safety of 'out-ness'--for individuals, for communities, and for organizations--in the longterm, even though the results will doubtless look quite different from here (e.g., even heterosexual PDA between husband and wife is still taboo in much of India). Cultural conservatism aside, that law criminalizing gay sex--technically, 'carnal intercourse against the order of nature'--was, ironically, of British origin; India's penal code is still the old 1860 British code.

(BTW, since there seems to be some confusion in the American press about this: the fact that this ruling came from the Delhi High Court does not mean it applies only to Delhi; India's High Courts have original jurisdiction on Constitutional matters and there's only one Constitution, so only the Supreme Court could overrule...and since it was the Supreme Court who forced the Delhi High Court to hear this case in the first place after they'd initially dismissed it several years back, that seems highly unlikely.)
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 07-05-2009, 04:40 PM   #697
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Time to review policy on gays in U.S. military: Powell
Sun Jul 5, 2009 11:52am EDT


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American attitudes have changed and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gays serving in the U.S. military should be reviewed, former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Colin Powell said on Sunday.

President Barack Obama favors overturning the policy, which bars gay troops from serving openly in the military. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked military lawyers to look at ways to make the law more flexible, hailed by gay rights groups as a "seismic political shift".

"The policy and the law that came about in 1993, I think, was correct for the time," Powell said on CNN's State of the Union.

"Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country, and therefore I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed." he added.

Current Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, the United States' highest ranking officer, said the military will continue to carry out the policy until it is changed.

"It is very clear what President Obama's intent here is, he intends to see this law changed and my advice ... is that I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.

"At a time when we're fighting two conflicts there is a great deal of pressure on our forces and their families," he added.
I know Powell is only calling for a review.

I believe that is very positive.

Any review in 2009 would come to an over-turning of the policy. Worse case, it would be in phases. But that would at least get us to the right place.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 02:09 AM   #698
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:17 AM
more of the same

Quote:
Mullen advises 'measured' approach to gay policy
Sun Jul 5, 2:45 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The nation's top military officer said Sunday he has advised President Barack Obama to move "in a measured way" in changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military.

Obama as a candidate pledged to end the ban. As president, he has not said when or how he will take steps to do so, drawing criticism from gay rights activists and others. The president has pointed out that Congress in 1993 made into law a policy begun by President Bill Clinton.

"It's very clear what President Obama's intent here is. He intends to see this law change," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CNN's "State of the Union."

"I've had conversations with him about that. What I've discussed in terms of the future is I think we need to move in a measured way," Mullen said.

Mullen said he has discussed with his staff what steps might be taken to implement a change in the policy.

"I haven't done any kind of extensive review. And what I feel most obligated about is to make sure I tell the president, you know, my — give the president my best advice, should this law change, on the impact on our people and their families at these very challenging times," he said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week that he has lawyers studying ways the law might be selectively enforced as part of an effort to find "a more humane way" to apply the law until it is changed.
So let's go with a multi-year phase out.

If they behave themselves on the back of the bus, they will get to their destination.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 04:08 PM   #699
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:17 AM
The reality, of course, is that there is no "humane way" to enforce this law, short of full repeal.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 04:21 PM   #700
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:17 AM
humane, by tolerating some ignorance , supported by religious believes, of the majority and phasing it out over a short period of time


so that sooner or later all Negroes get to play in major league baseball,
not just Jackie Robinson.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 04:31 PM   #701
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
humane, by tolerating some ignorance , supported by religious believes, of the majority and phasing it out over a short period of time
This is ultimately why I agree with the criticism that liberalism engages in moral relativism. That is, if they were convinced that such a law was wrong/"immoral," then there would be no hesitation to repeal it. Instead, it all comes down to politics as usual.

It is this that separates Harry Truman from Barack Obama.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 04:37 PM   #702
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:17 AM
I think we still had a draft in 48.

Quote:
The order also established a committee to investigate and make recommendations to the civilian leadership of the military to realize the policy.
Among the order's effects was the elimination of Montford Point as a segregated Marine boot camp (the camp became a satellite facility of Camp Lejeune). The last of the all-black units in the United States military was abolished in September 1954.

Fifteen years after Truman's order, on July 26, 1963 Robert S. McNamara issued Directive 5120.36 obligating military commanders to utilize the economic might of the military against facilities used by soldiers or their families that discriminated based upon sex or race.
looks like it was an order, followed by a phasing out.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-06-2009, 05:04 PM   #703
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post

It is this that separates Harry Truman from Barack Obama.

also, Bill Clinton started his first year keeping his word, he got bloodied up pretty bad, and we ended up with gays allowed to serve with the DTDA,
before this they were ASKED at induction, they had to lie to get in. So merely being gay made them a person that lied? under oath.

Clinton did this with 60 % against allowing gays to serve


Obama has something like 65% supporting allowing gays to serve.

I remember watching Clinton take a beating on this, discussing this led me change my opinion on gays issues, along with having a couple of good friends that were gay.

Of course this issue and wanting to do something about Health Care caused the GOP take over in 94.

Obama has the majority of the American people behind him on this and Health Care and it looks like he may cave on Health Care too. No single payer, and the Government Plan may be slipping away, too.

I think the Clinton haters / Obama lovers are not consistent.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 11:00 AM   #704
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 04:17 AM
more small but sure steps in D.C.


Quote:
In gay-marriage battle, D.C. shapes up as next big prize

As of Tuesday, Washington gives same-sex spouses the same rights as heterosexual couples. A full legalization of gay marriage could follow, some say.

By Michael B. Farrell | Staff writer/ July 7, 2009 edition

Washington began recognizing gay marriages performed in other states Tuesday – a move that is being called a potential first step toward allowing same-sex couples to wed in the nation’s capital.

The district’s measure stops short of other laws in states such as Iowa and Vermont, which allow for same-sex wedding ceremonies. But it adds to their momentum.

Moreover, Washington would be a unique prize in the battle over gay marriage. Not only does it bring the issue to where the nation’s lawmakers live – making it part of the city’s culture – but it also marks gay marriage’s first foray into a predominately black community.

Washington’s city council passed the law to give married same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples by a 12-to-1 margin in May – a vote that supporters hail as significant.

“Nationally, anti-gay rights activists have had a great deal of success in encouraging black voters to oppose gay rights, partially because [gay rights] are seen – incorrectly – as a ‘white issue,’” writes Adam Serwer on the website of American Prospect, a liberal magazine.

“But in Washington, D.C., the diverse composition of the marriage-equality movement means that marriage-equality activists don’t have to ‘reach out’ to the black community, because they’re already part of it,” he adds.

But black leaders have said that the 12-to-1 vote is not reflective of the community at large. In a city where 56 percent of residents are African-American, there is little chance a gay-marriage law would be approved if put to voters, says Derek McCoy, a pastor at Hope Christian Church in suburban Washington.

He says the law is yet another example of a legislative branch “pulling a fast one on the constituents.”

A group of black ministers filed a lawsuit in an effort to stall the bill until a referendum could put the question to Washington voters. A judge dismissed the suit.

Black ministers have led much of the opposition to the law, rallying the city’s black churches as well as the broader African-American community. Surveys have shown that a majority of blacks oppose gay marriage. Some 70 percent of blacks in California voted in favor of Proposition 8, the ballot measure that bans same-sex marriages.

Mr. McCoy says he is “continuing to push a battle on the issue.” But he agrees with proponents of same-sex marriage on at least one thing: “I do believe [recognizing gay marriage in Washington] puts it on a national scale, and at least brings that level of attention to it.”

For gay-marriage advocates, that presents them with an ideal stage to show the country – and especially lawmakers from around the nation – that legalizing gay marriage is no threat to traditional marriage values. The ultimate goal: revise or overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which bans federal recognition of gay marriages.

For those opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage, the capital is an equally vital piece to stop the spread of gay marriage and prevent it from becoming a federal issue.

“Washington, D.C., is symbolically a really important place for a marriage-equality win,” says Molly McKay of Marriage Equality USA, a leading same-sex marriage advocacy group. “I think that it is really important that that happens around the social environment where are elected officials are located.”

what's most interesting to me is how the opposition is trying to, ahem, "play the race card" and turn this into a gay vs. black issue (as if there aren't any black gay people, or that all blacks are anti-gay).

that's really how it's going to be played, and it could become horribly, horribly divisive.

but somehow, i think this might just blow over, no matter how hard pastors from Montgomery County and P.G. County (subsidized by the Tony Perkins crowd) try and convince the residents of DC that they should be against this.

most are predicting same-sex marriage by the end of the year.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-08-2009, 01:14 PM   #705
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 04:17 AM
By DENISE LAVOIE, AP Legal Affairs Writer

BOSTON – Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage, sued the U.S. government Wednesday over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law."

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the section of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman.

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the lawsuit states.

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriages and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize them. It defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

President Barack Obama has pledged to work to repeal the law, although gay rights activists criticized the administration last month after Justice Department lawyers defended it in a court brief. White House aides said they were doing their jobs to support a law that is on the books.

Besides Massachusetts, five other states — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Iowa — have legalized gay marriage.

This is the second lawsuit filed in Massachusetts challenging the law.

In March, the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders claimed the law discriminates against gay couples and is unconstitutional because it denies them access to federal benefits that other married couples receive, such as health insurance and pensions.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com