Microsoft Abandons Gay Rights Bill 2304
andrewagill writes "Microsoft has withdrawn support from a bill that would "protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination" of the other usual suspects. Odd, given their previous accolades from the GLBT community, and their prior public support for the bill."
Full Article here (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/feature.htm
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Informative)
The bill was basically stalled as many other unrelated things got tacked onto it. The spirit of the bill was so diluted it was useless.
MS will support a new bill, which adheres to the original with none of the extra fluff.
Re:Oh man (Score:3, Informative)
http://www-306.ibm.com/employment/us/diverse/award s.shtml [ibm.com]
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Informative)
We are talking about the Stranger here (Score:2, Informative)
Not to say they haven't been right in the past, but their slant is a far left leaning urban newspaper. I imagine their evidence is pretty much Microsoft withdrawing support and a pastor claiming credit.
No (Score:1, Informative)
Quote from Pastor Ken Hutcherson (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but here's a quote from the good Pastor, during the Senate Hearing on HB1515, on March 22nd:
(He then went on to say that homosexuals want to molest young boys.)
Sorry, but with that sort of intolerance, this man has no right to call himself a servant of God.
All his parishoners should be ashamed.
Re:Bad. (Score:2, Informative)
wtf?
it's not the country, it's an irritatingly loud, trolling, flamebating mob of right-wing religous fundamentalist extremist zealots...
religion.....an irony (Score:2, Informative)
A few hundreds back, both religions were preaching "crusade" - i.e. war - i.e. the LACK of peace
A few decades back, both religions were preaching against women's rights - i.e. despising femminism and female pastors - i.e. the LACK of love
Today, both religions are preaching against gay rights - i.e. discrimination on marriage, spousal benefits, and the whole 9 yards - i.e. the LACK of equality
The religious right claims the bulk of major channels to be part of the "liberal media," when in fact, the more religion they learn from church, the more hatred propaganda they spread.
As a gay person myself, I withdrew my religious faith 2 years back.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
More specifically, those were state CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS not just state laws. The whole reason for that is because they're afraid that activist judges would overturn laws already in the books. Currently 39 states have "Defense of Marriage Acts" as laws, as well as the federal DOMA.
http://www.domawatch.org has good information.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
I do hope your are joking, because I assume the person you are replying to was. Maybe I am just needing more sleep.
In the eyes of those states legislation, two girls is just as offensive (and unlawful) as two guys.
Re:How are gays discriminated against at work? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad. (Score:2, Informative)
The Bible also says that it is alright to sell women into slavery and other [york.ac.uk] ludicrous [skepticsan...dbible.com] things [skepticsan...dbible.com]. I understand that you believe strongly in the documents of your faith, but I really doubt that Jesus would approve of discrimination towards anyone for any reason, or any form of hate, even if they are a "sinner"
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
This lead me to believe that it's not a choice for most. I've tried to explain this to christians I know but I get the same "fingers in the ears" response they all give when something calls one of their beliefs into question.
Re:Oh man (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.businessreform.com/article.php?article
The Advocate also publishes a list of the top ten companies to work for every year. Here's the list for 2000 (The 2004 list doesn't seem to be archived on their site):
http://web.archive.org/web/20040215174655/http://
The HRC (The Human Rights Campaign) also maintains such a list, the annual State of the Workplace:
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publicat
and the Corporate Equality Index:
http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/Publicat
If you don't like the subject matter, don't read further into it, but some people around here might actually be interested.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Informative)
What rights? Lets just look at marriage rights, shall we? Here's just a handful.
* Access to social security after a spouse's death
* Access to health ensurance through the spouse's workplace
* The right to custody of children after divorce
* Visitation rights for non-biological children
* Joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
* Bereveament leave after death of a spouse
* Burial determination after the death of a spouse
* Domestic violence intervention
* Sick leave to care for a spouse or non-biological child
* Legal validation of a long term relationship
* Ability to live in neighborhoods deemed "families only"
* Access to life insurance in spouse's workplace
* Access to survivor benefits in case of emergency
* Access to spouse's crime victims' recovery benefits
* Ability to file wrongful death claims
* Right to shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
* Ability to file joint home and auto insurance policies
* Joint rental leases with automatic renewal if spouse dies or leaves
* Access to adopting children
* Automatic inheritance of shared assets after spouse's death
* Automatic inheritance of retirement savings tax-free after spouse's death
* Automatic exemption of property tax increases on shared assets gained after spouse's death
* Ability to file joint tax returns
* Access to tax breaks for married couples
* Assumption of spouse's pension after death
* Ability to file joint bankruptcy
* Ability to collect unemployment benefit after leaving a job to relocate because of spouse's job move
* Ability to transfer property from one spouse to aother without transfer tax consequences
* Access to fostering children
* Automatic next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions and hospital visitation status
* Immigration and residency priority for spouses from other countries
* Ability to invoke spousal privilege in a court of law
* Access to reduced rate memberships at health clubs, social clubs, organizations.
* Prison visitation rights
Many, many more.
We're tired of being second class citizens. Sick of it, really. I can just picture you, back in the 1960s, claiming that blacks "just want political clout and to march". It's the same sort of tripe that they got then, and we're taking it now.
Marriage is not "a different animal". First off, just from a technical perspective, civil unions are generally pretty worthless. the most important benefits are at the federal level. Many private benefits are simply based on the word "marriage" as well (private organizations have the right to exclude same sex couples if they want, and few would argue them that, despite what Fox News and the like tell you; the issue is that many organizations simply want a legal status, and use whatever the government decides is "married"). Civil unions are "consolation prize"; separate-but-equal (but not really equal) really sucks.
But most importantly of all: It is not *your* institution. Because *your* church, or whatnot, says that it's wrong, means nothing to me. My partner and I were married in a Unitarian church; they recognize and honor same sex marriages. Who are *you* to say that my religion's viewpoint is of lesser value than your own?
The American Anthropological Society completely disagrees with the notion that marriage has always been as it is now, and that same sex marriages are either ahistorical or harmful. Hundreds of societies throughout history have had them. Up until recently, interracial marriages were illegal in the US. Before that, marriages between African Americans were banned, period. For the
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:4, Informative)
Some sources from the article:
I'd quote more, but, y'know, RTFA.
Re:Discrimination (Score:1, Informative)
seperate that state and church (Score:3, Informative)
This means that any wedding must be before the civil cervant and people can choose wether or not also wed in their church. The churches can choose wether or not to allow a marriage, based on their own criteria but the state must wed gays and straights alike.
This cuts the civil responsibilities from the ministers and pastors (who should not even want them) and it cuts the religious discussion from the state's duties and the rights that state grants to married people.
As a religious person you can call a gay married couple anything you like. For example: "a-gay-couple-that-thinks-they-are-married-but-th
I see this as a very good thing.
Siggy.
*Democracy* at work (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, that's what you get by having majorities imposing laws on minorities. Never worked and never will.
In Canada there is the Charter of Rights And Freedoms [justice.gc.ca]. Especially look at #15.
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
In Canada, the Supreme Court rules that the current marriage act discriminates against gay/lesbians on this basis (ie. don't have the same rights under the law). http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/09 /scoc-gaymarriage041209.html [www.cbc.ca]
Gay marriage is already law in many provinces now, but it is be voted federally soon.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Informative)
It was intended to bind women (yes, more than one) to a man so that any children born to that woman were guaranteed to be of the man's seed. They were simply baby makers. Property of the men to continue their lineage. If the woman was failing to produce offspring the man was allowed to give her back.
In Greece and Rome the married men were free to satisfy their sexual urges however they saw fit. Concubines, prostitutes and, if they so desired, male lovers.
As Catholicism gained influence in Europe it became necessary for a wedding to be performed by a priest for it to be a legally recognized marriage. It wasn't until the 1500's that marriage was written into canon law as a sacrament.
So your vision of marriage is essentially a 500 year old institution. While for the previous 3500 men were free to marry many women and cavort on the side with ladies of the night. Which is it? The real traditional marriage or the one that you've been told to think is traditional when it's anything but?
From http://www.christiangays.com/marriage/rite.shtml
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:4, Informative)
No they arnt. If you think that "lot[s] of girls are just as turned on by
Re:This passes for journalism? (Score:3, Informative)
but there's a much more accurate term for a reporter like gannon; that term is 'shill.'
there's nothing baffling about a homosexual outing another homosexual. gannon's softball questions serve to aid and abet a fiercely anti-homosexual administration. in other words, he's a hypocrite. it is the hypocrisy, not the homosexuality, which is bothersome. among other unanswered questions, such as how and why did an ex-prostitute hack for a small time rag get into white house briefings while career reporers from established papers were denied access.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
Homosexuality[MESH] (brain OR genetic) [nih.gov]
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:3, Informative)
The law.
Should I have special protection from being fired for being unattractive?
You already do.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:5, Informative)
These aren't just "little differences" or mutations that "look like" male or female. The gonads can often be intermediary between testes and ovaries. There can be an organ intermediary between a penis and clitoris. The uretrha can be at its base or even on its side. Etc. Where do you draw the line?
If you're going to say chromosomes, think again. In fact, there are many women out there with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). They're XY, but for all effective purposes, they seem like normal women (although are usually infertile; rarer conditions have led to fertile XY women). A minor genetic defect leads their androgen receptors to not bind to early developmental androgens, causing the body not to masculinize. Should these women only be allowed to marry other women? There are many other cases - other types of XY women, XX men, and things like XXY, XYY, etc. One case of a perfectly normal seeming XY woman was traced down to a mere *two* base pair mutation.
Humanity tends to gravitate toward two extremes, but that doesn't change the fact that gender is a continuum. Draconian binary laws aren't appropriate for such situations.
Besides, even if there was some sort of absolute "difference", some unbridgable chasm: who are you to say that marriage must be between two "different" entities? Many cultures throughout history have completely disagreed with you.
Amendment IX: A presumption of liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Knowing almost nothing about that case, and being for state's rights, and knowing that the word "sodomy" does not appear in the US Constitution
Look at Amendment IX [wikipedia.org]: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Many would argue that "others retained by the people" include the right to perform consensual gay sex acts on private property.
What is happening? (Score:1, Informative)
While Slashdot thinks it is important to post news about Microsoft backing away from a gay bill with a source of from a random blog, there has been GCC 4 released [osnews.com], Apple has been paying tech editors [appleinsider.com] to praise iPod, they managed to put 200 Gbits on a holographic disk [flexbeta.net] and ton more of real [osnews.com] news [arstechnica.com] that matters [flexbeta.net].
The bill just died in the WA senate (Score:2, Informative)
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_sto
The advantage of having a huge company and a near monopoly is the ability to do whatever you choose. Want to put out a low quality product? Sure go for it! Want to support a social cause? Sure go for it! Want to drop said cause like a hot potato? Sure go for it. The consequences are all the same.
None.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:2, Informative)
Cut the Bush v. Gore crap. (Score:1, Informative)
Not one US Supreme Court justice came down on the side of Gore. The 5-4 malarky you hear is just a lot of hot air - Gore was on really thin ice legally.
SCOTUS played nice with SCOFLA. The US Supreme court could have gone all the way to Article II of the US Consitution that says that electors are selected "as the legislature directs".
Not the Governor of the state. And certianly not a judge or a court. The legislature, and only the legislature.
And SCOTUS held that power as plenary - or not subject to any review by anyone - back in 1890 or so. That means that if the FL legislature had voted that FLs electors had to vote for Donald Duck, the only thing FL or anyone else could do would be to vote the legislators out of office - the Electoral College voters they selected would still be FLs reps to the Electoral College.
But if SCOTUS had done that, they would have had to use the Constitution directly to smack SCOFLA over the head.
Apparently, that's not the way SCOTUS likes to do things. They used the weakest law necessary to get to the place where a reading of the Consitution demanded they had to go. Just because SCOTUS didn't break out the baseball bat and bash SCOFLA with it doesn't mean it wasn't ready to be used, or that there weren't much stronger arguments to be made for the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore.
Yer both wrong (Score:1, Informative)
It's true there are huge hoops to run through and "ideal" children rank high on the adoption meat market (white, no mental or physical health problems, young, and relatively free of "strings" such as living parents who may sue for them in the future) There are even web sites splashing these kids' smiling faces all over, you can shop for them almost like a new car.
But if we count a kid as a kid, there are countless hordes of "less-than-perfects" that mommy-and-daddy-to-be wouldn't even think of tarnishing their utopian fantasies with, and they need homes and parents.
My foster brother finally succeeded in adopting one (also an alternative-type adopter -- he was single when he started the process -- single and male rank about as low for a parent as "15 year old mentally retarded with antisocial personality disorder" does for a kid).
My point is my foster brother finally had to hire an attorney and prepare to sue the state to be able to adopt any child, no matter how "undesireable". They caught a hint and finally stopped various delaying tactics (their latest was to use the state's law which allowed them to ask clarification on any issue in the application. This allows them a 30 day delay and it's limitless. They sent him the same question, over, and over, and over, and over. He gave the same answer, over, and over, and over... It was some question having nothing to do with anything, not a hot-point or anything.
The social workers are like little gods and have arbitrary power over the lives of the kids (and to some extent, their would be or real parents).
When he finally got the kid, the kid had been basically locked in a bedroom with a bunch of other kids, and owned only two changes of clothing. They had insane rules and had actually forbidden the child to TALK TO ANYONE EVER except the social workers -- they were utterly controlling even the child's speaking life.
Every disobidience led them to believe that he was poorer behaved and led to stricter (insane) rules.
Anyway, the kids fine now has a normal 14 year old life. My foster brother later got married and inherited her two kids, so there's three now.
The adoption system in this country works, in effect, to keep kids from parents and parents from kids. If you have ANY problem in your life at ALL, ANYTHING, ANYTHING (you must be ideal, either an ideal kid or an idea parent. As parents, you MUST be -- married, similiar in age, the same color (yes, this is true -- some places will only put a kid with a parents who are the same COLOR as they are -- so if you are two different colors, no kids for you), and have what they consider a valid reason for adopting kids. Such as (the only acceptable reason) -- you are infertile, you've tried EVERYTHING, but it didn't work. On rare occasions they might accept a single FEMALE, but never a male.
If you don't happen to slide right into their stereotypical world, don't worry, you can always sue them. For $10,000 or so.
As a kid, you must be: Very young (if you're 10 or over, forget it), white (or at least the same color as both potential parents), no strings attached (better if both your parents are dead and all four of your grandparents as well), no physical, mental, or emotional problems, period. If you did happen to (amazingly) make it through foster care, the death of all your relatives, or whatever, without any emotional or mental disorders, and feel out from the rest of the kids, don't worry, the nice psychologist will assign you one of your very own. Arbitrarily.
And on and on it goes.
The plight of these kids and their would-be-parents goes on and on. But unlike the mass of lonely single people who can't find each other, from a lack of the heart to try, the problem here is external, not internal. It's called the foster care and adoption system. And it's fucked up more lives than alchoholic parents or divorces, or whathave you ever could have.
The Other Side (Score:3, Informative)
There have been studies that seem to indicate this, however the methods and sample populations used make their conclusions dubious at best (a high number of known criminals, for example)
Here you come to the real crux of the matter. It is entirely related to the job of a pastor. Think about it. Most Christian churches in this country teach that homosexuality is a sin akin to drunkenness, marital infidelity, and stealing. Just as you would not want to hire a pastor who was a drunk because he would be a bad example to the congregation, so you would not want to hire someone whose lifestyle exhibits what the church teaches as a moral wrong. This law would make it impossible for churches to reject candidates whose lifestyles are those of a homosexual despite the fact that it is opposition to their religious teachings (protected by the constitution) and really common sense. Do you want to hire someone who actively stands for something your organization is expressly against? To put it another way, would you want to hire a development manager that encouraged their developers to write slow, unmanagable code?
The Bible expressly teaches that elders (pastors are considered elders in most churches) of a church should lead lives that are "beyond reproach". This means that whether the candidate's lifestyle is characterized by being a habitual liar, glutton, drunk, adulterer, or homosexual, they are disqualified from service in the church.
On another note, it should be added that homosexuals can qualify as elders if they do not practice homosexuality. I have listed many other sins to make the point that we all are flawed and tempted to what the Bible teaches as wrong, but just because you are tempted to behave in such a way does not mean that you must behave as such. The proclamations in the Bible are not any stronger against homosexuality than any other sin. There is no room for "homo-phobia" in Christianity. The expectations for those tempted toward homosexuality are no different than those who are tempted to cheat or steal. Both are expected to live lives of repentance and obedience to scripture if they are to seek a pastorate or elder.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:1, Informative)
As always, we'll decide - as humans - what kinds of behaviors society can handle, then the religionists will claim that's how we should have interpreted the holy writings all along.
Re:What does he have on you, Bill? (Score:0, Informative)
Re:This is fine with me (Score:2, Informative)
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Co 6:9-10)
"For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature." (Ro 1:26)
Re:Gay bashing has been legitizimized in Bush's US (Score:3, Informative)
Re:*Democracy* at work (Score:2, Informative)
Try five. Homosexuality is among the only things in the Bible with complete and total consistency -- all five times homosexuality is mentioned it is condemned.
Re:*Democracy* at work (Score:1, Informative)
You don't understand Evolution. (Score:2, Informative)