Subscribe to Breaking NewsVanasco: Quick take on Biden and gay issues
, editor in chief, 365gay.com 08.23.2008 8:40am EDT
News & Politics
I’m at the airport, heading to the DNC. But I thought you might find this useful, from About.com:
Lesbian and Gay Rights – Everything But Marriage:
Biden voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but has been quoted as saying “I don’t know why we should be frightened of [same-sex marriage].” Although he sees same-sex marriage as a likely inevitability, he has not taken the step of actually supporting it. Instead, he supports a civil unions policy that would grant the same legal rights. He also supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), federal hate crime legislation that includes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories, and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
i hope he joins obama in supporting a repeal of DOMA
http://www.queersunited.blogspot.com
Regarding the “catch phrase” marriage…we seem to forget that all matrimonial cleavings, regardless of who performs the ceremony or where it is held, are in fact, in the eyes of the law, nothing more or less than Civil Unions. It is simply a matter of common usage that we as a society use the term “marriage” to denote that couples are legally bound as a single unit. Furthermore, marriage in the modern sense was created for the single purpose, only, to control wealth. If the gay community were wise, it would channel its energies toward getting legislation passed to insure that we have the legal right to inter into a Civil Union. Who officiates under any sitution is really inmaterial, be it priest, preacher or justic of the peace. Anyone who performs a “marriage” ceremeony has to be licensed by the state, which by definition makes anyone of them a civil servant and thereby an agent of the government. Lets stop antagonizing the Republicans and Right Wing Christian nut heads and rally our efforts toward demanding Civil Unions as our legitimate legal right to bond as a family unit. Once Civil Unions are achieved, we can then work toward getting full and equal governmental benefits and protections that heterosexual couples expect. My partner and I would be more than happy to be “Unioned” by the Court Clerk at the local Court House. A unionizing ceremony by any name would be just as sweet.
Dear Jenn,
I’m sorry. It won’t occur again. Forgiven? Write me at home, ok? Doug
If people insist on claiming that marriage is a religious institution then I’m all for making the distinction law. Marriages will have no meaning outside the religious institution they’re conducted in unless the couple also join in a civil union. Equality achieved, separation of church and state protected.
Employment at will and continued employment based upon acceptable performance are two different things, Trace. Employment at will permits employers to terminate you because of the color of your skin, your political beliefs, your religion or anything else about you that they don’t like. They could simply terminate you just because they were having a bad day and wanted to make someone else feel as bad as they do and you just happened to handy. Laws prevent discriminatory reasons for termination based upon defined protected classes but the employment at will doctrine allows an employer to terminate you for any of these or other reasons, or no reason, to do so by simply saying, “Your services are no longer required.” They could even say, “I don’t like you.” As long as they don’t say they’re firing you because you’re (fill in the protected class here) or give a reason that could be proven false then they have carte blanch to terminate and discriminate freely. We simply cannot have a society based upon equality and the promise of rewards for hard work without these protections.