Why did the chicken cross the road? Because it was kicked off campus….

Today’s Link

Another short one for you tonight folks.  Today Chick-fil-a had their contract cancelled at Northeastern University.  As a company who donate significant amounts of money to anti-gay and anti-equality organisations and who have an active and stated policy of not allowing gay people to use their retreat centers and foundation facilities, this has been a long time coming.

Most universities have non-discrimination policies, but they don’t seem to hold their suppliers to them.  Northeastern has now done so.  Lets hope that many more universities will start to do the same.  As a student I’d like to see Chick-Fil-A kicked out of all campuses until their stop their discrimination.

Big love,

DMx

Martina Navratilova and Dancing with the Stars/Strictly Come Dancing.

Today’s Link

Note:  For some reason this entry didn’t get published the other day when it should have been.  Here it is, and hopefully it will get slotted in where it should have been automatically.

Today the cast for the upcoming season of DWTS (USA name for Strictly Come Dancing for the Brits on here…), one of my favourite shows, was announced.  I was pleased to see that Martina Navratilova is going to be appearing as you will see in the attached link.  I was, however, really disappointed to see that she was going to be dancing with a man on the show.

I posted this comment on Facebook earlier and received comments from both sides of the argument.  Here’s my thoughts.  If Martina Navratilova goes out to dance, she does it with her partner/wife.  To put it more bluntly, she dances with someone of the same-sex.  That is what she does/would do, apart from when obviously doing a social dance with a male friend.  So by dancing with a man on DWTS she is automatically doing something different from what she would normally be doing.  Is this a good thing or right?

What we end up with is an out lesbian dancing with a man because they either don’t want their sexuality to be a distraction from the competition, which I think is really troubling, or because they were not given the choice in the first place.  If the distraction argument were the case, then why not stay in the closet as a tennis player?  Would that not have been considered a distraction too?  I certainly didn’t hear any arguments then.  On top of that is the fact that we see an out lesbian competing as a part of a symbolic heterosexual couple.  What does that say to young LGBT folk?  That they can’t do ballroom dancing as an out lesbian on TV with someone of the same-sex, that’s what it says.

Well, there are my thoughts.  I know that they are different from a lot of my friends.  So let’s start some debate on that.  What do you think and why?

Big love,

DMx

One step forward, two steps backward.

Today’s Link

Sometimes it just seems that things don’t really get better.  Some places also seem to be stuck in a time warp too.  Enter today’s link where a legislator in Oklahoma wants to introduce laws that make it illegal to introduce policies that prevent discrimination.  Yes, you read that correctly.  We had one here in Cincinnati for many years.  It made it illegal to pass any law that prohibited discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity.

As always, the person in Oklahoma doing this says that it is needed so that people don’t get more protection than is listed at state level.  How convenient for the bigots.  All it means is that they have to pass one law and then they can hide behind it for ever after.  Well, until it gets repealed like it did in Cincy eventually.  How about they just prohibit discrimination in the constitution?  Then everyone would be protected.  But of course that isn’t what they want is it.  It all comes back to those get out clauses to allow people to discriminate.  They say that it is unfair to protect certain people above others.  Well, it may not occur to these fools but people need protecting because they ARE being discriminated against!  Good grief….

All this over who people love.  Really…..

Big LOVE,

DMx

In defense of DOMA.

Today’s Link

The link for today is an interesting one in many ways.  Last week a federal judge found the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.  This is the law that bars the federal government from recognising same-sex relationships as legal (not marriage, relationships!).  It means that we cannot get health care rights, social security survivor rights, housing rights, child custody rights, etc. etc.  The current administration declared over a year ago that the law was unconstitutional and that they would not defend it.  Now the courts are finding that way too.

Enter the House Republicans.  They have stated that although the law is deemed unconstitutional and the administration will not defend it, they will.  So they have launched an appeal as you will see in the link.  It’s interesting because many think that the administration do have a responsibility to defend the law because it is precisely that; the law.  I think I agree with that too.

Surely now that a court has found it to be unconstitutional this would be a great time for the administration to step in AND defend it.  That way it can progress through the court system in a controlled way instead of being hijacked for the social conservative vote which is now sure to happen.  It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Big love,

DMx

Does the church “own” marriage?

Today’s Link

Here is an interesting perspective.  The link today is to an article about who owns the institution of marriage in England.  This is especially relevent in the light of all of these discrimination “get-out” clauses that folks want to have to allow them to continue to discriminate legally.  While not a fan of the Daily telegraph in England it is an interesting article for them to be running.

This is a far cry from the situation in the USA where although marriage is a civil act in law, the rhetoric is almost entirely owned by religious groups and churches, even though it should have nothing to do with them.

So what say you, good people?  Who owns marriage?

Big love,

 

DMx

Mary-Land becomes Marry-Land

Today’s Link

Morning blogpickers!  I know it’s against the grain to do my posts in the morning but it promises to be a hectic weekend this weekend so I thought I would get an early jump on things!

Yesterday, Maryland became the 8th state to vote for marriage equality!  Sure, there are the usual exemptions allowing people to legally discriminate if they feel like it but this is still a big step forward.  It won’t, of course, take effect for a while as now there will likely be a vote by all those people who want discriminate to put it on the november ballot.  So the merry-go-round (or should that be Mary-go-round?) begins it’s journey again.

As someone one from overseas it is interesting to see the demographic of the states that vote for marriage equality and those that vote against it.  It seems to be, from my untrained eye, pretty much mirroring the split of North/South, slavery/freedom, black civil rights/no Black civil rights.  But that is just a hunch.

Any of my US friends care to jump in a educate us all on that point?

Big love,

DMx

Republicans standing up for gays?

Today’s Link

Greetings blogpickers!  Here is something a little unusual.  The attached link refers to the republican senator in Wyoming (of all places) criticising Rick Santorum for his position on gay people.  An interesting position but unfortunately one that puts him totally at odds with the rest of his party it seems.  But it does raise the question as to whether the republican party can ever change their seemingly official position on gay people and equality.

What do you think?

Big love,

DMx