Group items tagged

Freedom of expression is a civil right — this means that the state is enjoined from violating it. Note: the state. Private citizens can do what they please with their private properties. Thus ‘private’. Newspapers traditionally have been mouthpieces of their owners and editors, arguing for and promoting certain viewpoints. Restaurants are not obliged to pin any and every damning review of their food and service on their front doors. Mosques do not have to include Islamophobic letters to the editor when putting together their monthly newsletters. A political party is not obliged to carry criticism of its program on its website.

Even when it comes to the role of the state, it is generally accepted that the freedom of expression that the state should protect is not an absolute one. Arguably, states can regulate hate speech — which includes speech that deliberately demean an entire class of persons, urging social and political restrictions on them. Thus, even by that measure, there is a good case for not permitting the airing for homophobic views.

the lefties who crafted this video seem to be seriously out of touch with the folks they are arguing against. Worlds apart.

To the point that I initially failed to realize that the piece is intended as satire, and I still think it utterly fails as a parody. Why? Because I and many others agree with it literally. Look, the essence of successful political satire is to take a position, alter it slightly, and ridicule the new, altered position. The goal is for everyone to thus realize just how absurd the original stance was, too.

The income inequality gap continues to widen, the rich are getting richer, and their access to the levers of power in the political arena continues to broaden. And gay marriage, while largely considered a progressive goal, is a cultural issue — it doesn’t force the wealthy to mobilize their assets against their interests.

Labor rights, environmental protections, health and food regulations — these are the arenas that leave me more concerned in the long-term.

NYC is hoping to capitalize on all of those couples by promoting wedding deals and venues on its NYC I Do website. The rest of the state looks to make a cool $391 million during the same time period, a point some state senators drove home in the hours leading up to the crucial vote.

So far, appeals to basic human rights and dignity have failed to win over many state and federal legislatures in the gay marriage debate. Maybe it’s time gay marriage proponents start appealing to their wallets instead.

Income Taxes Married couples will be able to file their state tax returns jointly, though they will still need to file separate federal tax returns (either as single or head of household). Some couples who jointly earn less than $65,000 may end up paying less in state income taxes than if they filed individual tax returns because they will get what known as a marriage bonus. But some couples with higher income may be end up in a higher tax bracket by filing jointly. In other words, they would owe less if they remained single and filed separate returns, said Tina Salandra, a New York accountant with expertise in planning for same-sex couples.

Filing joint state returns is also likely to complicate matters for federal tax purposes, and it’s likely to cost the couple more in tax preparation fees (or time, if they fill out their own returns).

Here’s why:  Even though the couple must file separate federal tax returns (as single or head of household), they must still prepare a dummy federal tax return using a married filing status, so that they can use that data for filing their joint state return.

"Our unofficial Facebook policy is not to automatically delete comments that disagree with us, but when the comments come into untruths or uncharitable, then we have to delete them," Poust said. "And when it really becomes abusive we have to ban them."

According to the group, one Facebook post stated: "Eventually your kind of 'religion' will be extinguished from the memory of mankind forever, because this sort of interference in the lives of people you only wish to harm. You have NO MORAL AUTHORITY any longer because of your evil pedophilia."

Another said the Catholic church only approves of marriages "that produce altar boys to be molested."

The group deleted both.

Michael wrote of “people scrambling for a home amidst the labels,” and in another he hoped for the day when “men who love women wave flags for identification.”

It all sounded very much like the Michael I knew at XY, a young man who was fascinated by queer theory — namely, the idea that sexual and gender identities are culturally constructed rather than biologically fixed — and who dreamed of a world without labels like “straight” and “gay,” which he deemed restrictive and designed to “segment and persecute,” as he argued in a 1998 issue of XY. Though he conceded back then that it was important “to stay unified under a ‘Gay’ political umbrella” until equality for gays and lesbians had been achieved, Michael preferred to label himself queer.

As Ben and I reminisced, I couldn’t help wondering if Michael’s new philosophy might, in a strange way, be a logical extension of what he believed back then — that “gay” is a limiting category and that sexual identities can change. Ben nodded. “A radical queer activist and a fundamentalist Christian aren’t always as different as they might seem,” he said, adding that they’re ideologues who can railroad over nuance and claim a monopoly on the truth.

He is not demanding that Pink Dot should be different, at least not in so many words. As he has written, “I don’t deny or dismiss how meaningful [Pink Dot] might be to some people. It’s just that it has a different meaning for me,” and that was why he chose not to attend this year. Nor was he stopping others from attending either.

Nuanced differently is another criticism of his — that Pink Dot “comes across as anxious to colonise and co-opt all the streams that exist out there.”

A social movement ultimately hinges on one key issue. The supporters it attracts subscribe to the core idea, but beyond that, may not agree on anything else. Nor is participation usually made conditional upon subscription to additional beliefs. There is no test for eligibility outside of the movement’s key aim, and people self-select when they join.

It should hardly be surprising therefore that on other issues, participants bring with them their (differing) biases. Or that they tend to come from certain social strata. To expect a gay-affirmative movement to meet purity standards by other yardsticks — racial views, religious representativeness, age profile, etc — is plain unrealistic.

Judge Ware’s decision was swift. Within 24 hours, he issued his ruling against opponents of same-sex marriage. The editorial in the Sacramento Bee lauded the verdict:

“The sole fact that a federal judge shares the same circumstances or personal characteristics with other members of the general public, and that the judge could be affected by the outcome of a proceeding in the same way that other members of the general public would be affected, is not a basis for either recusal or disqualification,” Ware wrote.

Federal judges can be disqualified from a case if they have a financial interest in the outcome, a close friendship with litigants, or a strong personal bias. Ware forcefully reinforced that a judge’s race, gender, religious affiliation and, yes, sexual orientation isn’t enough by itself.

The Prop. 8 proponents insisted that they weren’t saying that Walker, who was randomly selected to hear the case, should have been disqualified just because he was gay. The issue, they said, was that he was in “the exact same shoes” as the gay and lesbian couples who brought the lawsuit to overturn Prop. 8 and could personally benefit from his own decision.

But by their logic, female judges could be challenged from presiding over sexual harassment, abortion or equal pay cases. As Ware asked, would black judges like himself be barred from civil rights cases? Would reverse discrimination cases be off limits to white male judges? Would heterosexual ones be forbidden from taking on gay rights cases? Where would you draw the line?

– Sacramento Bee, 15 June 2011, Editorial. Link.

Should a gay male teacher be barred from teaching sexuality education?

If you say he should not teach because professionalism and impartiality is critical to the job, then the next question will obviously be: Why is a gay male teacher not considered professional or incapable of impartiality?

If you say that partiality is the essence of the job, i.e. the purpose of sexuality education is to “promote” heterosexuality and reinforce prejudice against other sexualities, that sexuality education is a form of catechism rather than education (i.e. inculcating knowledge, questioning, self-awareness and responsibility) then the question is: Why is sexuality “education” supposed to be catechism?