Equality Florida Blog
Please switch over to the Equality Florida Blog.
That's where you will get Breaking New and features that matter to you.
http://eqfl.blogspot.com/
Make the switch and tell your friends.
Thanks
Fair-Minded Floridians Are Saying NO to the so-called Marriage Amendment.
|
My Dearest,
I'm Alicia and will promote our website to You. (http://www.thebeachtwirlers.be )
Would you please vote for our site and take a look at it?You won't regret it.
Every Page has it's own music style , You may leave a friendly message into our gusetbook too about our site.
And tell Your friends about this unic website.
Thank You
http://www.thebeachtwirlers.be
Fine twirling greetings from Belgium
Alicia
![]() | New GOP chairman: "No, no, no" to civil unions Despite some well-publicized calls for a more inclusive GOP, newly installed Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele rejected the possibility of any kind of legally recognized civil union for gays and lesbians. Appearing on Mike Gallagher's radio show, Steele responded to a question on civil unions by saying, "No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?" ThinkProgress.org (2/23) |
|
|
Dustin Lance Black wins for MILK
Gay and Transgender Issues in the Workplace
It Takes One to Know One
By Brian McNaught
In my youth, if someone called you a "homo" or a "moron," the reply was usually, "It takes one to know one," meaning "You'd have to be a homo to recognize another homo." It was an inane comment but it usually shut them up more effectively than "So is your mother."
Today, that same phrase – "It takes one to know one" - has a completely different and much richer meaning for me.
Alan Goldstein was the Jewish boy who lived behind me growing up in Flint, Michigan. He was my best friend for many years. It was through the time I spent with Alan and his family that I initially learned about Jewish celebrations such as Hanukkah, and also about the sting of anti-Semitism which I saw in Alan's face when another Christian eight-year-old in the neighborhood called him a "kike." …
(To finish reading this offering, please go to http://www.glbtatwork.blog.com.)
A new study by Freedom to Marry released today shows that voting for the freedom to marry and against anti-gay/anti-marriage measures does not cost politicians reelection: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/new_study_shows_pro-marriage_legislators_win.php
http://www.island-reporter.com/breaking_news/articles.asp?articleID=5551
From the Los Angeles Times Opinion No Defending the Defense of Marriage Act The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays. By Bob Barr January 5, 2009 Excerpt 1 |
In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact. I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed. The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise. DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus. |
In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions. Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves. In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions. Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president. |