Archive for November 2nd, 2010

November 2, 2010

Peter Minshall

I did these ‘interviews’ with Mas designer Peter Minshall two years ago and while it might  not necessarily seem in keeping with this blog’s new thrust – in many ways it is. He has always been outspoken and never hesitated to just be himself. He is also the man behind the openings of the Barcelona and Atlanta Olympics.

November 2, 2010

George ‘Sulu’ Takei sets phaser to ‘stun’- aims it at Clint McCance

You remember  Mr. McCance – the Arkansas School Board member who resigned after making extremely ugly remarks about LGBT kids and who said “all fags should get AIDS and die”. George Takei isn’t happy about it and wants Mr.McCance to know that his half-baked apology isn’t enough.

Via Eric ‘Equality’ Ethington over at Pride in Utah – read his take here.

November 2, 2010

Suze Orman says It Gets Better

While It is heartwarming to see her so proud to be who she is, the biggest shock to me is that she is 60. Damn she looks great !

VIA Towleroad and others.

November 2, 2010

As  marriage equality continues before the courts in California regarding Proposition 8 in Perry vs Schwarzenegger both sides have been been presenting their cases. As part of the process, supporters of each side are allowed to provide amicus briefs (or amicus curiae) which is informed testimony presented with a view to helping the court decide the case.

Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic has weighed in on the matter. As one of the oldest black universities in the US, the Howard School of Law is quick to make a connection between this struggle and the struggle that black Americans had to endure not too long ago.

VIA Box Turtle Bulletin

Marriage is a symbol of civil freedom, a marker of social equality, a badge of full citizenship, and a social resource of irreplaceable value. Yet this fundamental expression of human dignity has also been misused as a political sieve for separating individuals into a preferred class, to which society grants a broad complement of legal rights and privileges, and a lesser class, to which it accords less than a full measure of equality. Such was the case when slaves prior to Reconstruction and interracial couples in the days of segregation were denied full marriage equality. Today, while there is no longer any serious claim that marriage rights should be denied on the basis of race, opponents of marriage equality have attacked same-sex couples, using precisely the same flawed arguments that oncewere used to justify racial slavery and apartheid. We are now long past the time when anyone would seriously claim that race-based marriage equality threatens the moral fabric of our civilization, is contrary to nature, or is harmful to children.Therefore, the onus should be on opponents of marriage equality to demonstrate how arguments that time and experience have so thoroughly rejected in the context of race should now be dug up, dusted off, and given any consideration, much less credibility, in the context of marriage for same-sex couples.

Read the rest on Scribd here – and it makes for a pretty compelling read..

November 2, 2010

Professor Julian Kenny cuts to the chase

Remarkably, another Trinidad and Tobago newspaper article on sexual orientation. This time it is from the highly respected UWI professor. I find the reactions in the comments section on the article very interesting. One compares it to pedophilia or cannibalism. I am serious. Maybe they should read this. But they are probably too stupid to read that. In any case the Professor wrote:

Homosexual behaviour in the wild amongst higher vertebrate animals has been recorded in the literature for over 1,000 different species. Amongst birds a full range of homosexual behaviours has been recorded amongst as diverse groups of birds as gulls, ducks, swans, penguins and albatrosses. Note that these groups all display social grouping behaviour.

The behaviours range from simple courtship through pair bonding and even parenting, as has recently been reported in a pair of female albatrosses that actually incubated and raised offspring in the absence of a male, the eggs having been abandoned by the previous heterosexual pair.

Homosexual behaviour in mammals is also well documented in as diverse groups as lions, elephants, dolphins, sheep, giraffes, monkeys and apes, such as the bonomo and the chimp. Indeed the bonomo, a sort of pygmy chimpanzee and a separate species, demonstrates heterosexual, bisexual and homosexual behaviours even within a single social group, with individuals alternating their behaviours as circumstances change.

Read more here.

November 2, 2010

I wish I made this crap up – Christians sue over persecution.

Honestly, just when I think I have seen everything comes this strange story. It seems that Eunice and Owen Johns, the smiling couple pictured above, want to be foster parents. They were miffed when social workers determined that their disapproval of  homosexuality was not in the best interest of kids. This would seem a no-brainer to me. Why would a social agency put young kids in a home where, if they happened to be LGBT, they would be made to feel they were going straight to hell?  It happens in regular families, of course, but given a choice a government agency would be foolish to deliberately allow such a situation and might even be subject to legal action by the kid eventually for putting them in that environment knowingly.

More importantly, the UK has Sexual Orientation Regulations and the Equality Act which codify the need to ensure kids are not faced with  such things as the state exposing them  to being made to feel they are intrinsically flawed. Undaunted by such attempts by the state to protect kids from their bigotry the couple have decided to sue to guarantee they have the right to maintain their perceived right to potentially persecute any kids placed in their ‘care’. I truly hope the court makes the obviously correct decision.

The part that puzzles me most  is the insistence that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs. You can certainly have your religious beliefs ( bigoted though they may be) but when they conflict with legislated equality then you most certainly cannot have kids exposed to you. Their lawyer says:

‘The promotion of values is something that the court should be protecting,’ he said. ‘People have a wide range of views, but the only views that are being singled out for conflict are the views of homosexual people. The Christian viewpoint, if the courts don’t protect it, will be vanquished in this country.’

And I suppose the courts should also be protecting the believers in a flat earth or maybe the skinheads? No, I don’t think so. If a gay or lesbian couple said they didn’t approve of heterosexuality I would say the same thing. Kids need to be allowed to blossom into whatever they are. And just when I was recovering from the statement of their lawyer I deal with their rationalization using the argument :

‘Valuing diversity does not mean that you cannot have a disagreement or do not respect a person while not valuing certain lifestyles. The court must be mindful that these public policy objectives are not used to trump fundamental rights.’

Not valuing certain lifestyles? Really? I can’t get my head around that concept. So I can value diversity while thinking someone is fundamentally flawed? Really? How does that work? The certain ‘lifestyles’ thing totally floors me.  So the KKK can respect black people and have a disagreement with them but not value them?  Just say you are an ignorant bigot and feel you have a right to be protected for it.

Maybe they have a bit of nostalgia for ancient Rome.

Read more of the insanity article here.

I especially like their last picture that says we are haters but we like to show that we love each other.