Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label homosexuality. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

SCOTUS Oral Arguments On Gay Marriage

Day one audio of U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments on the issue of gay marriage.  On of the main arguments of petitioners who are against gay marriage is that it is not "in the best interest of children".

Some of their arguments are hilarious with roaring laughter from the gallery.

I still want to know if anyone is going to address the scientific definition of sex.  Is it phenotypical or genotypical?

HOLLINGSWORTH v. PERRY

The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 26 March 2013. 

Facts of the Case 
In 2000, the citizens of California passed Proposition 22, which affirmed a legal understanding that marriage was a union between one man and one woman. In 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the California Constitution required the term “marriage” to include the union of same-sex couples and invalidated Proposition 22. Later in 2008, California citizens passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized by California.”

The respondents, a gay couple and a lesbian couple, sued the state officials responsible for the enforcement of California’s marriage laws and claimed that Proposition 8 violated their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection of the law. When the state officials originally named in the suit informed the district court that they could not defend Proposition 8, the petitioners, official proponents of the measure, intervened to defend it. The district court held that Proposition 8 violated the Constitution, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.


Question:
Do the petitioners have standing under Article III of the Constitution to argue this case?
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the state of California from defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman?

  Hollingsworth v. Perry - Oral Argument

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Sunday, November 25, 2012

Michigan Lawmaker Introduces Bill To Interfere With Interstate Commerce

Lately there has been extreme hate speech on what is considered as "fit to parent".  When I see this type of hatred being pushed by legislators, I have to stand up and do what I do best:  Make them look stupid.

Ok.  What we have here is a handful of Michigan Legislators who want to fantasize about what happens in the bedroom of two adults.  First it was the marriage folks who claim that a single parent should not have the right to raise children.  Then there are the parental rights people who believe that poverty and disability is the "governmental interest of the highest order" to deny a parent the  right to raise a child.

Lest not forget the folks who believe parenting should theologically based and even based on the level of melanin of one's skin.

So now there is a movement in Michigan to add to the fitness category of parenting one's disability, religion, color of skin or sexuality.

There are three approaches to examine the constitutionality of banning gay couples the right to become foster and adoptive parents.  Instead of beating the same old drum of the civil rights argument, I am going to begin with the dormant commerce clause argument.

The dormant commerce clause:  Foster care is a federally funded program.  People have a right to engage in business with government.  Michigan Representative Kenneth Kurtz has introduced legislation that would exclude individuals from doing business with the state based upon what people may or may not do in the bedroom.

States do not have the power to regulate commerce of a federally regulated program.  The case of Granholm v. Heald awakened the dormant commerce clause to let Michigan know that it cannot interfere with interstate commerce.

Is foster care interstate?  Of course it is.  Let's look at Michigan's powerpoint on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children.

Michigan Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children 2012

Since I believe I have made my point that HB 5763 and HB 5764 is unconstitutional as it violates the commerce clause, let us proceed to my second point of contention that the supporters of these Bills believe morality trumps the Constitution.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 5A 1 . THE DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT CONSIDER A CHILD PLACING
2 AGENCY'S OBJECTION TO PLACEMENTS THAT VIOLATE THE CHILD PLACING
3 AGENCY'S WRITTEN RELIGIOUS OR MORAL CONVICTIONS OR POLICIES IN ANY
4 SITUATION IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT INTERACTS WITH THAT CHILD PLACING
5 AGENCY. THIS PROHIBITION INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, PLACEMENT
6 CONSIDERATIONS, FUNDING CONSIDERATIONS, CONTRACTING CONSIDERATIONS,
7 OR ANY OTHER AREAS IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENT MUST MAKE A
8 DETERMINATION INVOLVING A CHILD PLACING AGENCY.


Gay foster youth:  If a child placing agency decides, as a conscience choice, not to place a gay youth, then is it true a child placing agency can decide not to place a gay youth back with the family under similar reasoning of personal morality?  Would this mean CPS can remove a child based upon the sexual orientation of the biological parent or relative?  What an evil message our elected officials are sending to our youth.

Disabilities:  Instead of going into details, I encourage everyone to read this groundbreaking report from the National Council on Disabilities.  Rocking the Cradle:  Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children.  Parents with mental or physical challenges are having their children removed and being denied placement based upon what the Child Placing Agencies are calling a moral and conscience decision.

Rocking the Cradle: Ensuring the Rights of Parents with Disabilities and Their Children

I object to this Bill based upon my moral convictions to not interfere in commerce.









Michigan UU Social Justice Network
  
   
Stop Extremist Legislators
From Denying Homes for Kids!
gay family - women  
Take Quick Action -- On-Line
Attend Hearing in Lansing, 10:30 a.m. Nov 27th

The Unitarian Universalist denomination's new Study/Action Issue on "Reproductive Justice" recognizes that gay couples should have the right to adopt a child.  However ...

It is quite troubling that a hearing has been scheduled by the Michigan House Committee on Families, Children and Senior Citizens at 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, November 27th on two bills that would legalize discrimination against gay couples who want to raise children. HB 5763 would allow adoption agencies the abililty to deny an adoption placement based on that agency's "moral or religious beliefs". HB 5764 would protect government funding for agencies choosing to discriminate.  The bills even acknowledge that a religious or moral conviction that could allow an agency to deny adoptions rights to certain families does NOT imply "that the proposed adoption is not in the best interest of the adoptee". 

With 14,000 children in Michigan who need a place to call home, our government should be focusing on finding stable environments to raise children, not on turning away capable and willing families eager to love and support a child in need. The bill's primary sponsor, Kenneth Kurtz, (R-Coldwater), is wasting our money on a bill which does nothing to help children residing in foster care in Michigan. 


Click HERE to go to an Equality Michigan action alert that will allow you to quickly express your opposition to these bills.  Forward this email to others.

MUUSJN and other UU's plan to attend this hearing and, if possible, testify how we feel about this outrageous legislation.  If you can join us,  please call me at 248-224-5572 (cell) or email me at randyblock@yahoo.com.  When you see your friends in church this Sunday,  invite them to go to Lansing on Tuesday morning!

Hearing Time: 10:30 a.m. November 27th
Place:  Room 327 Anderson House Office Building, 124 North Capitol,
across the street from the Capitol, Lansing, Michigan.

Together, we can do great things,
  
Randy Block, Director
Michigan UU Social Justice Network


Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Virginia Passes Its First Medicaid Fraud Law

Under the guise of a morality, the State of Virginia has just passed its first Medicaid fraud law.

Reparative therapy for children is not approved as legitimate therapy pursuant to U.S. Department of Human Services guidelines.

In short, you can not bill the taxpayer to "pray-the-gay-away".



The Virginia Senate voted 22-18 on Thursday to approve a bill that would allow private adoption and foster care agencies to deny placement of children based on religious or moral beliefs, including disapproval of homosexuality.
The action by the Senate, which fell mostly along partisan lines, came one week after the state’sHouse of Delegates approved an identical bill. With Republican Gov. Robert McDonnell saying he planned to sign the legislation if it came to him, the bill is certain to become law.
“This bill authorizes every one of the 80 private adoption agencies licensed in Virginia to refuse to offer their services to any GLBT person based on a written moral policy, which they can make up tomorrow,” said State Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria and Fairfax), who is gay.
“The bill says they can do that no matter how qualified the prospective mom and dad is to become a parent,” said Ebbin in an impassioned floor speech urging his colleagues to vote against the bill.
All 20 Republicans in the chamber voted for the bill, with two conservative-leaning Democrats, Sen. Charles Colgan of Prince William County and Sen. Phillip Puckett of Russell County joining Republicans to vote for the measure.
The bill, SB 349, became known as the “conscience clause” bill because supporters say it would protect the religious rights of faith based adoption and foster placement agencies, many of whom are funded by the state.
Ebbin and other opponents of the bill said that although it doesn’t say so directly, they believe it is aimed mostly at allowing adoption agencies to turn away LGBT people as adoptive or foster parents.
The bill doesn’t change the state’s existing adoption and foster placement law and policies that allow an agency to place a child with a gay parent if the agency wishes to do so. Existing law prohibits placement of children with an unmarried couple, gay or straight, but it does not bar single parent adoptions or foster placements for gays.
“One of the most important reasons not to pass this bill is I’m sure that next year or soon thereafter we’ll be addressing a bill that seeks to directly do what this bill does do indirectly – and that is to achieve the ultimate goal to ban foster care and adoption by GLBT people completely,” Ebbins told his Senate colleagues.
In an effort to lessen the bill’s impact, Democratic opponents introduced 18 floor amendments on Wednesday. The Senate voted down each of the amendments.
One of the amendments, introduced by Ebbin, called for prohibiting a foster parent from arranging for a gay or lesbian child to undergo “reparative” therapy to change his or her sexual orientation from gay to straight.
The bill could “endanger children – GLBT children – who make up a disproportionate share of youth in our child welfare system,” Ebbin said. “Once this bill becomes law, foster care agencies contracting with the state to place our children will be free to place children in homes that are not in their best interest and potentially damaging to them,” he said.
Ebbin said studies have shown that so-called reparative or conversion therapy often causes those undergoing it great emotional distress and sometimes leads to suicide.
Sen. Jeffrey McWaters (R-Virginia Beach), the lead sponsor of the bill, said the bill was aimed only at protecting the religious and moral beliefs of adoption and foster care agencies that provide an important service for the state.
“This is completely consistent with state and federal law,” he said during the Senate debate. “It does not change who can or cannot adopt a child.”

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Marcus Bachmann becomes sideshow


Marcus Bachmann becomes sideshow

Marcus, left, and Michele Bachmann attend a campaign event. | AP Photo
Marcus Bachmann, left, didn’t deny his clinic counseled gays to change their sexual orientation. | AP PhotoClose
Marcus Bachmann’s attempt to put to rest questions about his Christian counseling practice has only served to draw more attention to his views on homosexuality.
And for Michele Bachmann, who’s trying to focus her presidential run on opposing government spending and other economic issues instead of the culture war, the firestorm over her husband is full of political peril — even as Christian groups say the episode is reaffirming their connection to the Minnesota congresswoman.

After weeks of increased attention in the blogs and mainstream press, Marcus Bachmann made his first public comments on the subject in an interview with the Minneapolis Star Tribune published Friday. He didn’t deny that his clinic has counseled gays to change their sexual orientation. But he said such therapy is only conducted at patients’ request and is not the focus of the practice.
Bachmann also sought to explain a widely circulated audio clip in which he seems to refer to gays as barbarians by suggesting that the tape was altered.
He said it was a “myth that I have ever called a homosexual a barbarian.”
“I was talking in reference to children. Nothing, nothing to do with homosexuality,” he told the newspaper. “That’s not my mindset. That’s not my belief system. That’s not the way I would talk.”
The “barbarian” comment was made in a May 2010 interview on the Christian radio show “Point of View.” It comes in the midst of an extended discussion of homosexuality and adolescent sexual questioning.
The questioner, host Penna Dexter, brings up the “culture wars” and asks Bachmann how Christian parents should respond to a teenager who claims to be gay.
“I think you clearly say, ‘What is the understanding of God’s word on homosexuality?’” Bachmann answers. “I think that this is no mystery, that a child or preadolescent — particularly adolescents — will question and wonder about sexuality. That’s nothing new under the sun, since the beginning of time. I don’t think we should take that, because we wonder or we think or we question, does that take us down the road of homosexuality.”
“Could you add the word ‘experiment’ to that?” Dexter asks.
“Certainly there’s that curiosity. But again, we have to understand, barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. And just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what’s called the sinful nature, and we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings to move into the action steps.
“And let’s face it: What’s our culture, what is our public school system doing today? They are giving full, wide-open doors to children, not only giving encouragement to think it but to actually encourage action steps. That’s why when we understand what truly is the percentage of homosexuals in this country, it’s small. But by these open doors, I can see and we are experiencing that it is starting to increase.”
Partial audio of the interview was posted at the time it aired by an anti-Michele Bachmann blog, DumpBachmann.com, that also provided a link, no longer functioning, to the full interview.

Host Dexter told POLITICO in an email that it was clear to her that Bachmann “used the word ‘barbarians’ to refer to children.”
She added, “I got it completely. It was an endearing term, in a way, that made sense to me and to our audience. We believe that children are born with a nature that inclines them to challenge and break rules, and that it is thus the parents’ responsibility to guide their children along good and productive paths.”
Dump Bachmann blogger Ken Avidor said the clip on the site was edited for length — the edits are clearly marked with sound effects and do not affect the exchange in question — but not altered in any way.
“If Mr. Bachmann is claiming I falsified the audio, he really needs to provide proof,” Avidor told POLITICO.
Michele Bachmann’s campaign declined to make Marcus Bachmann available or to clarify his remarks Friday.
The charge that the Bachmann & Associates clinic practices “reparative therapy” to turn gays straight has been alleged for years. It received new life in the past week with the release of an undercover video in which a gay activist pretends to be seeking to change his orientation. A counselor tries to help him become straight, largely at the patient’s urging.
Marcus Bachmann defended the action, citing the man’s claimed desire to change his sexuality. This is consistent with Bachmann’s other statements over the years, such as a 2006 Minneapolis City Pages article in which he was quoted saying, “If someone is interested in talking to us about their homosexuality, we are open to talking about that. But if someone comes in a homosexual and they want to stay homosexual, I don’t have a problem with that.”
Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said despite the official disapproval of major medical organizations of reparative therapy, “there is actually a lot of evidence” that it can work if the patient wants to change.
“The political goal here, from critics of Michele Bachmann and her husband, is to make them look like kooks who believe things no serious person believes and engage in practices no respectable therapist practices,” Sprigg said. “Those attacks are misguided and incorrect, and among Christians it will only help her campaign to see that she and her husband are very serious and sincere about their faith.”
Nonetheless, when confronted with the topic in recent days, Michele Bachmann has quickly sought to change the subject.
In Iowa on Monday, she answered a local television reporter’s question about the clinic by saying, “We’re very proud of our business, and we’re proud of all job creators in the United States. That’s what people really care about.”