Tuesday, August 17, 2010
It Breaks Your Heart, by Courage Campaign
This makes me cry, and rage at the same time. The courts have decided over and over again, that discrimination is counter to everything our country is supposed to stand for. It's time for all Americans to stand up against discrimination of LGBT.
This young man, is the voice of the future, and it's an awesome thing to hear him speak. Enjoy the firebrand speech of Will Phillips.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Prop 8 and the Black Community by Gilbert H. Caldwell
Published on The Root (http://www.theroot.com)
Prop 8 and the Black Community
By: Gilbert H. Caldwell
Posted: August 11, 2010 at 12:20 AM
Many blacks are using arguments against same-sex marriage that were used against us, says one retired African-American minister.
Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post wrote a powerful column about the recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker that overturned California's Proposition 8 law banning gay marriage: "He [Walker] frames gay marriage as a question involving the most basic, cherished rights that the Constitution guarantees to all Americans. In doing so, he raises the stakes sky-high: Are gays and lesbians full citizens of this country, or are they something else?"
The issue of the full citizenship of gays and lesbians ought to resonate with those of us who are black. The long journey of black people to full equality has revolved around the question of the legitimacy of our citizenship. Once upon a time in this country, I would have been described as being "three fifths of all other persons." Many of us observe that question still being raised as people question the birth certificate and citizenship of President Barack Obama. The conversations we're starting to hear about rescinding the 14th Amendment have a familiar ring to any student of history. I have often said, "The music of legal segregation may have ended, but the melody lingers on."
I have been distressed to read about young black men committing hate crimes against people whom they assume are gay. In the past, negative attitudes in many white Christian churches toward blacks precipitated the violence of the Ku Klux Klan. We must not allow negative attitudes about gays within the black church or elsewhere within our community to justify violence against them.
I say this as someone who has been an ordained United Methodist minister for 54 years and who has pastored black and white churches in five states. I was also one of the founders of the United Methodist Black Caucus, Black Methodists for Church Renewal and United Methodists of Color for a Fully Inclusive Church. I am also an honorary member of the board of preachers of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel at Morehouse College.
I have heard a number of arguments against gay marriage within the black church and larger African-American community, arguments that are all too reminiscent of another time and place -- and struggle -- in this country.
--Biblical principle outweighs man-made law regarding gay rights: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a civil rights movement that focused on achieving Constitution-granted equality and equal access for black people. I believe that he was inspired by God to lead the nation to affirm human equality, because that was the intent of our founding documents. Regardless of our beliefs or interpretations of the respective holy books of our faith communities, as Americans we are expected to abide by the Constitution and not seek to impose those beliefs on others.
As a Christian, I do not believe in divorce, gambling, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking or capital punishment, but as a citizen I must recognize that not everyone shares my perspective. Some Christians believed -- and some still do -- that "Noah's Curse" (Genesis 9:25) justified less-than-full citizenship for people of African descent. Thankfully, though, in the U.S. our rights are determined by constitutional equality and not by biblical interpretation.
Nor are our rights determined by the personal morality of a majority. We would do well to remember that, had the voting public been allowed to vote on interracial marriage as state after state has been allowed to vote on same-sex marriage, interracial marriage would still be prohibited in some areas of the country. Discrimination is not permissible, even if a majority of voters approve it; or, as Judge Walker said, "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote."
--Black Christians must oppose same-sex marriage because it contradicts our traditional views of marriage and our moral values: Many of the religious arguments against same-sex marriage are similar to those made against racial integration. The culture of segregation was also supported and sustained by the "tradition" argument ("segregation is our way of life"). Those who condemned "race mixing" for moral reasons claimed that the Bible disapproves of mixed marriage. We in the black church and community are challenged to avoid using the same kinds of arguments against Constitution-granted marriage equality for same-sex couples that were used against us to oppose Constitution-granted racial equality.
As a Christian, I may not agree with what you believe and practice, but as a citizen of the U.S., I will defend your right to believe and practice as you do. This is the rationale for my support of same-sex marriage. In no way will it affect or tarnish my own marriage of 52 years; but if the right to marry is denied to others, not only do we tarnish the equality provisions of the Constitution, but we are saying that those who once denied blacks our constitutional rights because of their traditional moral values were justified.
--As black people, we have our own unfinished quest for racial equality and justice to focus on: I understand that many black people have been cautious in their support of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) human rights movement because they feel it has plagiarized the civil rights movement. Of course, the long struggle of people of African descent for justice, and the civil rights movement that emerged from that struggle, are distinctively different from the struggles of others. Slavery and legal racial segregation of African Americans will always have a uniquely negative distinction that no one should deny. But we know the truth of Dr. King's words: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Recognition of the qualitative and quantitative differences between respective struggles for justice cannot offset the familiar ring of bias, bigotry, negative stereotyping and hatred of people and groups because they are "different."
The attention given to the LGBT community's struggle for same-sex marriage and human rights provides an opportunity for all of us to focus not only on heterosexism but also on sexism, racism and classism. We who have been the victims of any of these -isms have a chance to bring to life as never before the provisions in our state and national constitutions that guarantee due process and equal protection.
In his column, Eugene Robinson said of Judge Walker's "detailed and comprehensive ruling" against Proposition 8 that "Walker stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run." My prayer is that the black church and the African-American community in general will step up to the plate and hit home runs for justice -- not only for us but for all Americans.
The Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell is a retired United Methodist minister in Asbury Park, N.J.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
The issue of the full citizenship of gays and lesbians ought to resonate with those of us who are black. The long journey of black people to full equality has revolved around the question of the legitimacy of our citizenship. Once upon a time in this country, I would have been described as being "three fifths of all other persons." Many of us observe that question still being raised as people question the birth certificate and citizenship of President Barack Obama. The conversations we're starting to hear about rescinding the 14th Amendment have a familiar ring to any student of history. I have often said, "The music of legal segregation may have ended, but the melody lingers on."
I have been distressed to read about young black men committing hate crimes against people whom they assume are gay. In the past, negative attitudes in many white Christian churches toward blacks precipitated the violence of the Ku Klux Klan. We must not allow negative attitudes about gays within the black church or elsewhere within our community to justify violence against them.
I say this as someone who has been an ordained United Methodist minister for 54 years and who has pastored black and white churches in five states. I was also one of the founders of the United Methodist Black Caucus, Black Methodists for Church Renewal and United Methodists of Color for a Fully Inclusive Church. I am also an honorary member of the board of preachers of the Martin Luther King Jr. International Chapel at Morehouse College.
I have heard a number of arguments against gay marriage within the black church and larger African-American community, arguments that are all too reminiscent of another time and place -- and struggle -- in this country.
--Biblical principle outweighs man-made law regarding gay rights: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led a civil rights movement that focused on achieving Constitution-granted equality and equal access for black people. I believe that he was inspired by God to lead the nation to affirm human equality, because that was the intent of our founding documents. Regardless of our beliefs or interpretations of the respective holy books of our faith communities, as Americans we are expected to abide by the Constitution and not seek to impose those beliefs on others.
As a Christian, I do not believe in divorce, gambling, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking or capital punishment, but as a citizen I must recognize that not everyone shares my perspective. Some Christians believed -- and some still do -- that "Noah's Curse" (Genesis 9:25) justified less-than-full citizenship for people of African descent. Thankfully, though, in the U.S. our rights are determined by constitutional equality and not by biblical interpretation.
Nor are our rights determined by the personal morality of a majority. We would do well to remember that, had the voting public been allowed to vote on interracial marriage as state after state has been allowed to vote on same-sex marriage, interracial marriage would still be prohibited in some areas of the country. Discrimination is not permissible, even if a majority of voters approve it; or, as Judge Walker said, "fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote."
--Black Christians must oppose same-sex marriage because it contradicts our traditional views of marriage and our moral values: Many of the religious arguments against same-sex marriage are similar to those made against racial integration. The culture of segregation was also supported and sustained by the "tradition" argument ("segregation is our way of life"). Those who condemned "race mixing" for moral reasons claimed that the Bible disapproves of mixed marriage. We in the black church and community are challenged to avoid using the same kinds of arguments against Constitution-granted marriage equality for same-sex couples that were used against us to oppose Constitution-granted racial equality.
As a Christian, I may not agree with what you believe and practice, but as a citizen of the U.S., I will defend your right to believe and practice as you do. This is the rationale for my support of same-sex marriage. In no way will it affect or tarnish my own marriage of 52 years; but if the right to marry is denied to others, not only do we tarnish the equality provisions of the Constitution, but we are saying that those who once denied blacks our constitutional rights because of their traditional moral values were justified.
--As black people, we have our own unfinished quest for racial equality and justice to focus on: I understand that many black people have been cautious in their support of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) human rights movement because they feel it has plagiarized the civil rights movement. Of course, the long struggle of people of African descent for justice, and the civil rights movement that emerged from that struggle, are distinctively different from the struggles of others. Slavery and legal racial segregation of African Americans will always have a uniquely negative distinction that no one should deny. But we know the truth of Dr. King's words: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Recognition of the qualitative and quantitative differences between respective struggles for justice cannot offset the familiar ring of bias, bigotry, negative stereotyping and hatred of people and groups because they are "different."
The attention given to the LGBT community's struggle for same-sex marriage and human rights provides an opportunity for all of us to focus not only on heterosexism but also on sexism, racism and classism. We who have been the victims of any of these -isms have a chance to bring to life as never before the provisions in our state and national constitutions that guarantee due process and equal protection.
In his column, Eugene Robinson said of Judge Walker's "detailed and comprehensive ruling" against Proposition 8 that "Walker stepped up to the plate and swung for the fences. He hit a home run." My prayer is that the black church and the African-American community in general will step up to the plate and hit home runs for justice -- not only for us but for all Americans.
The Rev. Gilbert H. Caldwell is a retired United Methodist minister in Asbury Park, N.J.
Like The Root on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Links:
[1] http://www.theroot.com/user/35074
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080504766.html
[3] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306
[4] http://www.theroot.com/views/gops-dangerous-plan-revise-14th-amendment
[5] http://www.morehouse.edu/about/chapel/index.html
[6] http://bible.cc/genesis/9-25.htm
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1
[8] http://www.facebook.com/theroot
[9] http://www.twitter.com/theroot247
[10] http://www.theroot.com/views/challenging-judge-walker
[1] http://www.theroot.com/user/35074
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080504766.html
[3] http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=306
[4] http://www.theroot.com/views/gops-dangerous-plan-revise-14th-amendment
[5] http://www.morehouse.edu/about/chapel/index.html
[6] http://bible.cc/genesis/9-25.htm
[7] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?_r=1
[8] http://www.facebook.com/theroot
[9] http://www.twitter.com/theroot247
[10] http://www.theroot.com/views/challenging-judge-walker
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional by Adam Bink
I just finished reading the meat of the decision. Chief Judge Vaughn Walker has ruled Prop 8 is unconstitutional on both Equal Protection and Due Process grounds. Huge win. The decision is likely to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Developing…
UPDATE (1:43 PST): Here’s the conclusion from the decision.
CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The full decision can be found here. Notable segments are on pages
UPDATE (10:46): Other notable segment:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each
challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both
unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to
marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of
sexual orientation.
Reposted from prop8trialtracker
UPDATE (1:43 PST): Here’s the conclusion from the decision.
CONCLUSION
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis,the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
REMEDIES
Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result, see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.
Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants anddefendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The full decision can be found here. Notable segments are on pages
UPDATE (10:46): Other notable segment:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each
challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both
unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to
marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of
sexual orientation.
Reposted from prop8trialtracker
Monday, August 2, 2010
Sense of smell is linked to sexual orientation, study reveals By Steve Connor
The human nose can not only sniff out suitable sexual partners, but it works especially well for gay men, according to the first study of how body odours are linked to sexual orientation.
The human nose can not only sniff out suitable sexual partners, but it works especially well for gay men, according to the first study of how body odours are linked to sexual orientation.
Gay men showed a strong preference for the body odour of other gay men in the scientific test of how the natural scent of someone's body can contribute to the choice of a partner.
Although previous studies have shown that body odour plays a role in making heterosexual men or women attractive to members of the opposite sex, this is the first study that has investigated its role in sexual orientation. Charles Wysocki of the Monell Chemical Senses Centre in Philadelphia, a non-profit research institute, said the findings underline the importance of natural odours in determining a sexual partner whatever the sexual orientation of the person involved.
"Our findings support the contention that gender preference has a biological component that is reflected in both the production of different body odours and in the perception of and response to body odours," Dr Wysocki said.
The study involved 24 heterosexual and homosexual men and women who for around nine days were subjected to a "wash-out" period when they used scent-free soap and shampoo and did not eat food with garlic, cumin or curry.
After this, they wore sterile cotton pads under their armpits for a day. These were collected and stored to use as a bottled source of their body odour. A panel of 82 heterosexual and homosexual men and women, not including the donors of the armpit pads, were asked to sniff each bottled body odour and evaluate its pleasantness according to a set of criteria. In a study in the journal Psychological Science, the scientists found: "Heterosexual males and females preferred odours from heterosexual males relative to gay males; gay males preferred odours from other gay males.
"Heterosexual males and females and lesbians over the age of 25 preferred odours from lesbians, relative to the odours from gay males; gay males preferred the odours of other gay males relative to lesbians," they say.
Dr Wysocki said the strongest finding was that gay men prefer the smell of other gay men and that lesbians responded differently to body odour compared to heterosexual women. "The overall conclusions are that the body odour you most prefer or least prefer does not depend on where it comes from but it also depends on who you are, in other words, your sexual orientation," Dr Wysocki said.
Gay men preferred the odours from gay men and heterosexual women, but odours from gayman were the least preferred by heterosexual men and women and by lesbians, he said. Other studies showed that body odour is linked with a set of genes involved in controlling the immune system - called the major histocompatability complex - and heterosexual men and women preferred the odour of those with a different set of these genes to their own. One theory is that this could be an evolutionary mechanism to avoid inbreeding. The latest study suggests the genes involved in body odour may also play a role in sexual orientation.
"The bigger picture is that body odour is determined in part by gender orientation which is not something we can have predicted. And it's possible that the genes involved in body odour are also involved in later life in gender orientation," he said.
Tuesday, 10 May 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)