No Fries With That: BOYCOTT BURGER KING

I closed the campaign, “No Fries With That: BOYCOTT BURGER KING”.

Stop by the campaign discussion to get more information: http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/no-fries-with-that-boycott-burger-king/discussion

A great article by Rev. Mel White. It can be read at www.soulforce.org.

Another good article, What the Bible Says and Means About Homosexuality is available at:
www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

The United States of America is a constitutional democracy.

What does that mean? Basically, the government is designed to uphold the will of majority, but, at the same time, protect minorities. These constitutional protections of the powerless are an extremely important point in maintaining a balanced and fair nation.

What will follow is the exact wording of the amendments, then the explanation of the amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment: Citizenship Rights: Ratified July 9, 1868

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This amendment was created following the Civil War, with the anticipation that the recently freed slaves would meet intense racial discrimination, particularly in Southern states. Note: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Fifteenth Amendment: Race No Bar To Vote: Ratified February 3, 1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment ensures recently freed slaves (as this was immediately following the Civil War) the right to vote and be treated equally in the process.
Nineteenth Amendment: Women’s Suffrage: Ratified August 18, 1920

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
This amendment gave women the right to vote, thus eliminating inequality due to gender.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Twenty-Fourth Amendment: Poll Tax Barred: Ratified January 23, 1964

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment was designed to treat African Americans as equals by eliminating the poll tax, which could be a financial barrier to minorities.

Now, America, where are the protections of the last minority, the GLBT community?

The Difference between Gay Marriage and Civil Unions

by Kathy Belge

You hear the politicians saying it all the time. “I support Civil Unions, but not gay marriage.” What exactly does this mean? Some even say they support equal rights for gays and lesbians, but not gay marriage. Is this possible? And why do gays and lesbians want marriage so badly when they can have civil unions?

First of all, What is Marriage? When people marry, they tend to do so for reasons of love and commitment. But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.

What is a Civil Union? Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.

Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilites as marriage, but only on a state level.

What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership laws comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washington offer very few benefits to the couple.

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples (*). These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, “He’s my husband,” you will immediately be taken to your spouse’s side.

Defense of Marriage Law

Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?

Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not...Read More

A collection of articles written on gay marriage since it became legalized in Scandinavia. (In Denmark since 1989). What are the statistics? What are the Pros and Cons? Did Gay Marriage hurt Straight Marriage?

Did gay marriage destroy heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia?By M.V. Lee Badgett

This week, Massachusetts began handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Amid the cheers, there are the doomsayers who predict that same-sex weddings will mean the end of civilization as we know it. Conservative religious leader James Dobson warns that Massachusetts is issuing “death certificates for the institution of marriage.” And conservative pundit Stanley Kurtz claims to have found the “proof” that the institution will see its demise: Gay marriage helped to kill heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. Indeed, Kurtz has become a key figure in the marriage debate: He and his statistics have been taken up by conservatives to support their argument that gay unions threaten heterosexual marriage. He has shown up in Congressional hearings, lawsuit filings, newspapers, debates, and anti-gay marriage videos across the country.

But Kurtz’s smoking gun is really just smoke and mirrors. Reports of the death of marriage in Scandinavia are greatly exaggerated; giving gay couples the right to wed did not lead to massive matrimonial flight by heterosexuals.

Currently there are nine European countries that give marital rights to gay couples. In Scandinavia, Denmark (1989), Norway (1993), Sweden (1994), and Iceland (1996) pioneered a separate-and-not-quite-equal status for same-sex couples called “registered partnership.” (When they register, same-sex couples receive most of the financial and legal rights of marriage, other than the right to marry in a state church and the right to adopt children.) Since 2001, the Netherlands and Belgium have opened marriage to same-sex couples.

Despite what Kurtz might say, the apocalypse has not yet arrived. In fact, the numbers show that heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia, where same-sex couples have had rights the longest. In Denmark, for example, the marriage rate had been declining for a half-century but turned around in the early 1980s. After the 1989 passage of the registered-partner law, the marriage rate continued to climb; Danish heterosexual marriage rates are now the highest they’ve been since the early 1970’s. And the most recent marriage rates in Sweden, Norway, and Iceland are all higher than the rates for the years before the partner laws were passed. Furthermore, in the 1990s, divorce rates in Scandinavia remained basically unchanged.

Of course, the good news about marriage rates is bad news for Kurtz’s sky-is-falling argument. So, Kurtz instead focuses on the increasing tendency in Europe for couples to have children out of wedlock. Gay marriage, he argues, is a wedge that is prying marriage and parenthood apart.

The main evidence Kurtz points to is the increase in cohabitation rates among unmarried heterosexual couples and the increase in births to unmarried mothers. Roughly half of all children in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are now born to unmarried parents. In Denmark, the number of cohabiting couples with children rose by 25 percent in the 1990s. From these statistics Kurtz concludes that ” … married parenthood has become a minority phenomenon,” and—surprise—he blames gay marriage.

But Kurtz’s interpretation of the statistics is incorrect. Parenthood within marriage is still the norm—most cohabitating couples marry after they start having children. In Sweden, for instance, 70 percent of cohabiters wed after their first child is born. Indeed, in Scandinavia the majority of families with children are headed by married parents. In Denmark and Norway, roughly four out of five couples with children were married in 2003. In the Netherlands, a bit south of Scandinavia, 90 percent of heterosexual couples with kids are married.

Kurtz is also mistaken in maintaining that gay unions are to blame for changes in heterosexual marriage patterns. In truth, the shift occurred in the opposite direction: Changes in heterosexual marriage made the recognition of gay couples more likely. In my own recent study conducted in the Netherlands, I found that the nine countries with partnership laws had higher rates of unmarried cohabitation than other European and North American countries before passage of the partner-registration laws. In other words, high cohabitation rates came first, gay partnership laws followed.

A subtler version of Kurtz’s argument states that the advent of registered partnership caused an increase in cohabitation rates and children born outside of marriage (nonmarital births). If that were true, then we would expect to see two patterns: Cohabitation rates and the nonmarital birth rate would rise more quickly within a country after it passed partner registration laws; and the rise in the nonmarital birth rate would be greater in countries that had such laws than in countries that do not recognize same-sex partnerships.

Kurtz’s argument fails both tests. From 1970 to 1980, the Danish nonmarital birth rate tripled, from 11 percent to 33 percent. Over the next 10 years, it rose again to 46 percent and then stopped rising in 1990s after the passage of the 1989 partnership law. Norway’s big surge occurred in the 1980’s, with an increase from 16 percent to 39 percent. In the decade after Norway recognized same-sex couples (in 1993), the nonmarital birth rate first rose slightly, then, after a couple of years, leveled off at 50 percent.

Cohabitation rates tell a similar story. In Denmark, from 1980 to 1989, the number of unmarried, cohabiting couples with children rose by 70 percent, but the same figure rose by only 28 percent from 1989 to 2000—the decade after Denmark introduced its partner-registration laws—and then stopped rising. From 2000 to 2004, the number has increased by a barely perceptible 0.3 percent. The fact that rates of cohabitation and nonmarital births either slowed down or completely stopped rising after the passage of partnership laws shows that the laws had no effect on heterosexual behavior.

Furthermore, the change in nonmarital births was exactly the same in countries with partnership laws as it was in countries without. The eight countries that recognized registered partners at some point in the...Read More

From The Sauce (Northwest University’s newspaper in April 2005) by Justin Shatwell, editor:

Gay rights next step in Social Evolution

As graduation looms and my tenure with the Sauce draws rapidly to an end, I feel I must leave you with some final words on the issue of homosexuality in our nation, for I feel that the question of homosexual rights will be the issue that defines our generation.

This debate is not going away. It simply touches too many Americans to be swept under the rug and forgotten. Over the coming decades, this matter will be resolved, and we will all have to answer to our grandchildren about the role we played in this struggle.

As a historian, I am well-versed with the progression of American society. Though changes are always accompanied with popular unrest and civil friction, our nation has marched steadily towards the philosophy of total equality that our founding fathers left us.

In our search for this ultimate social truth, we have surpassed our founders’ simple understanding of it. To stay true to their message in modern times we ignored their wishes and freed the slaves, gave suffrage to women, and provided citizenship to American Indians. Thomas Jefferson would not have approved of our actions, but we really don’t give a damn. Time and experience breed a greater understanding of morality. The prejudices of our founders were wrong, and we are a better nation for shaking them off.

Now it is the homosexual population’s turn to claim their rightful place as equals in the American Dream. Would our founding fathers smile upon this? No, but I have no doubt that homosexuals will succeed and that the cause of liberty will prosper as a result.

There is no real legal argument against homosexual marriage. Instead, the issue has been fought almost solely from a religious perspective, appealing for the preservation of the “sanctity” of marriage. However, this makes little sense as the “marriage” in contention has nothing to do with religion or the church.

Homosexuals are seeking legal marriage and the rights and privileges associated with it. They are not asking for approval from the churches, and such approval is not even the government’s to give.

Homosexuals just want the right choose an individual with whom to share property rights and jointly file taxes. Most importantly, they want to be able to choose who will have the right to make medical decisions for them in the case of emergencies.

Currently, homosexual lovers, no matter how long they have lived together, do not even have the right to be in the room while their partner is dying if the family does not want them there.

Homosexual marriage hurts no one. Rather it is the banning of such marriages that inflict pain upon certain citizens of this nation.

Legalizing homosexual marriages will not intrude upon anyone’s religious beliefs. Bestowing legal rights is not equivalent to the U.S. government forcing churches to stop preaching that homosexuality is a sin.

Christians and Muslims can still celebrate how they choose and only acknowledge those marriages they agree with. However, this does not give anyone the right to force those religious beliefs into the political sphere and pass baseless legislations that oppress portions of our population.

This is the line where religious values become bigotry. God-ordained bigotry perhaps, but bigotry all the same.

As Americans we are all entitled to our beliefs. We can publish them, we can teach them to our children, we can shout them from the rooftops so long as they do not hurt anyone.

However, when these beliefs are implemented in ways that materially harm other people, they become hate speech.

I know that I am in the minority, but this is one instance when the majority is wrong. It is time we as a generation really analyzed this issue and accepted that we are allowing our passions and prejudices to undermine those philosophies that make this country great.

I refuse to remain silent as the travesty unfolds, and I have no doubt that my actions will make my grandchildren proud.

In 1928 there was an estimated 1.2 million “out” homosexual men living in Germany. As Adolph Hitler rose in power, gay organizations were banned and scholarly books regarding homosexuality were burned. Between 1933 and the start of WWII, these homosexual men were recorded in “pink lists”. Eventually 100,000 of these men were sent to concentration camps, where an estimated 55,000 were executed.

The pink triangle (now a symbol of Gay Pride) was placed on the prisoners to mark that they were homosexuals.

After the war the homosexuals were left out of the Holocaust picture, until the 1980s. And in 2002 the German government apologized officially to the gay community.

In 2008 a Holocaust Memorial for Gays was unveiled in Berlin. To see photos of the memorial: http://www.ilga-europe.org/

Link to the film documenting the stories of gay Holocaust survivors: http://www.petertatchell.net/history/survivors.htm

Video documenting gays in concentration camps (courtesy of YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUWzlsA7qDk&feature=related

An GLBT person was murdered at the rate of 1 every 8 days in the beginning of 2008. And, these are the crimes that we know about. 70% of Hate Crimes are never reported. Some of the victims have been as young as 15 (Lawrence King), and the murders span from coast to coast.

Enough is enough. Wake up. Get involved.

www.fightoutloud.org

www.truehatecrimes.org

Support the Hate Crimes Bill: www.hatecrimesbill.org.

The movie ‘Twilight’ is based on the best-selling series written by Stephanie Meyer. Ms. Meyer is a practicing Mormon. Therefore she must tithe — typically 10% of her earnings — thus funding the Mormon church.

However, Ms. Meyer has not commented publicly on gay marriage.

---

My partner and I are both writers: she is a fan of the Stephanie Meyer series. My point was not about the author herself, but focusing on the question of how we spend our money. When we know someone has to tithe 10% of their (in this case astronomical) income to organizations such as the LDS Church, which will then turn around and use that money for campaigns to strip the GLBT community of their rights, is a book really just a book?

We are both avid readers and respect all the work that goes into creating a best selling project. My point was about finance and to what extent members of the GLBT community should change how we live and how we consume in the fight for Equality.

Do boycotts work? Look at the very recent example with Subway, which changed their non-discrimination to include sexual orientation and sexual identity, and insisted that a donation to ‘Yes on 8′, given through a business account, be returned. Has the other side done similar? Yes, Christian-based American Family Association boycotted McDonald’s when an executive also sat on the board of the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce.

Perhaps businesses will become the new battlefield in the fight for Equality. Though the GLBT community has protested, been backed by the court system and has the medical field pushing forward with studies of what makes a person gay (article forthcoming), and Biblical scholars have voiced their rebuttals against gay-bashing, we still suffer at the hands of the majority. Boycotts seem to be the best solution for now.

Suggestions for more effective measures welcome. Until then, BOYCOTT TWILIGHT.

California’s gay marriage ban could open the door to legal discrimination against unpopular groups if the state Supreme Court allows the voter-approved measure to stand, blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities said.”

Imagine that! Allowing majority vote to decide who gets to keep their rights turns out to be a bad idea!

African Americans have been receiving a lot of blame for the passage of Proposition 8, the ballot item in California that outlawed gay marriage. Though some say it’s an unfair criticism, many Progressives couldn’t help tasting a little irony when they saw a particularly-high number of black voters turn out to elect our first black president yet, at the exact same time, deny the rights of another minority group.

Sure, I’ll concede that there’s no real danger of an anti-African-American ballot measure showing next election cycle, and given that America just voted for a black president in huge numbers, it’s doubtful it would pass even if there were one.

But what other minority groups could, potentially see voter-ratified discrimination? African Americans just saw a landmark election, and are feeling renewed confidence, but how would Asian people fare? Muslims? Other minority religions? Atheists?

Once it’s decided that the majority can take away the rights of any minority group, nobody is safe. Everyone is a minority in some way. Religion. Disability. Health. You name it. EVERYBODY is a minority is some way some day.

Our Bill of Rights guarantees everyone’s rights regardless of who likes or dislikes it. Putting it up for majority vote on a whim every time someone wants outlaw that which irritates them is not only wrong, it’s unconstitutional. And for good reason.

Courtesy of the Examiner