Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
And Then Came New York
Next in line is New York state, which all ready recognizes same sex marriages proformed out of state, such as Mass. or Connecticut. Read more here.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Gay Marriage in New hampshire
CONCORD, N.H.—The Senate will hold a hearing Wednesday on whether to make New Hampshire the fourth state to allow gay couples to marry.
The House narrowly passed the measure last month. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it.
Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.
Currently, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry.
Artice Found Here
The House narrowly passed the measure last month. Democratic Gov. John Lynch opposes gay marriage but has not said specifically that he would veto it.
Two years ago, the Legislature approved, and Lynch signed, civil unions for gays, which provide all the rights of marriage, except in name.
Currently, Connecticut, Vermont and Massachusetts allow gay couples to marry.
Artice Found Here
Friday, April 10, 2009
Pittsburgh Police Memorial Service
Yesterday evening, as Sarah and I were going to do some laundry, we got stuck in traffic that was stopped for the Memorial progression for the three police officers that were killed last weekend. There were police cars from all across the state, it was amazing to see how many people turned out for these fallen officers.
I have to be honest, as I sat there in the car, and watched all of these cops driving by behind the hearses, I got teary eyed. Part of it was because I let my mind go to far and started to worry about Sarah in the future. The other part of me was just so sad because those officers had kids and families. What a shame. It could have been prevented if that 911 dispatacher had just spoken up and said what seems so obviously should have been communicated.
"An estimated 5,000 [officers] or more came to Pittsburgh for Thursday's memorial to slain city Officers Eric G. Kelly, Stephen J. Mayhle and Paul J. Sciullo II."
I have to be honest, as I sat there in the car, and watched all of these cops driving by behind the hearses, I got teary eyed. Part of it was because I let my mind go to far and started to worry about Sarah in the future. The other part of me was just so sad because those officers had kids and families. What a shame. It could have been prevented if that 911 dispatacher had just spoken up and said what seems so obviously should have been communicated.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Pittsburgh Police Killings
I have to say, as I am from Pittsburgh and also live there, and the fact that my girlfriend is going to school to become a police office and intends to join the Pittsburgh Police force, this article was incredibly hard to read. It was days before I could even bring myself to read anything about it at all. The fact that the 911 dispatcher had knowledge of the fact that there were definintly weapons at the scene, and decided that this knowledge was not pertinent, both infuriates me and deeply saddens me. The weapons that he had were not meager ones, if there is such a thing. One of them included an AK-47 assult rifle.
"The dispatcher, who has been on the job less than a year, is on paid administrative leave and is receiving counseling."
In my opinion, not much experience is needed to know that information, which the dispatcher was provided with, was absolutley something that needed to be communicated. Read the entire story here.
Vermont Ends Gay Couples' Exclusion From Marriage
"Dear Freedom to Marry Friends:
The Vermont legislature today overrode a veto by the governor and decisively passed a bill to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. Vermont now joins Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in upholding the freedom to marry.
"With a decisive vote of its legislature, Vermont today moved past civil union to full equality in marriage," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry. "Following the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous freedom to marry decision last week, Vermont shows that the arc of justice is now bending toward equality for all."
Vermont is the fourth state to uphold the freedom to marry, the first to do so through the legislature. Following a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 directing the state to provide marital protections and benefits to gay couples, Vermont was the first state to create civil unions in 2000. Today's action by the legislature reinforces the reality that civil unions are a form of second class citizenship, and marriage indeed is the only way to achieve true equality.
"Over the last nine years in Vermont and then in other states, we've seen the inadequacy of civil union, which both gives and withholds important protections," Wolfson said. "The legislature's action to push past civil union to equality in marriage itself today underscores that civil union is no substitute for the freedom to marry, and there is enough marriage to share."
Freedom to Marry salutes the leadership of Vermont Freedom to Marry, who worked intensely in the legislature over the last few years, and brought together a gay and non-gay coalition to build support for marriage equality in Vermont.
Momentum for the freedom to marry continues across the nation. New Hampshire's House of Representatives passed a marriage bill in March, which now awaits a vote in the Senate. Marriage bills are pending in the New Jersey and New York legislatures, and the governors of both states have pledged to sign the bills once they reach their desks. Maine's legislature will hold hearings this month on a marriage bill, and the California Supreme Court is weighing a challenge to the discriminatory Proposition 8, brought by a broad array of civil rights and other groups.
With your help, the momentum for the freedom to marry is continuing across the nation.
--Freedom to Marry Staff"
The Vermont legislature today overrode a veto by the governor and decisively passed a bill to end the exclusion of gay couples from marriage. Vermont now joins Iowa, Massachusetts, and Connecticut in upholding the freedom to marry.
"With a decisive vote of its legislature, Vermont today moved past civil union to full equality in marriage," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality and Gay People's Right to Marry. "Following the Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous freedom to marry decision last week, Vermont shows that the arc of justice is now bending toward equality for all."
Vermont is the fourth state to uphold the freedom to marry, the first to do so through the legislature. Following a decision by the Vermont Supreme Court in 1999 directing the state to provide marital protections and benefits to gay couples, Vermont was the first state to create civil unions in 2000. Today's action by the legislature reinforces the reality that civil unions are a form of second class citizenship, and marriage indeed is the only way to achieve true equality.
"Over the last nine years in Vermont and then in other states, we've seen the inadequacy of civil union, which both gives and withholds important protections," Wolfson said. "The legislature's action to push past civil union to equality in marriage itself today underscores that civil union is no substitute for the freedom to marry, and there is enough marriage to share."
Freedom to Marry salutes the leadership of Vermont Freedom to Marry, who worked intensely in the legislature over the last few years, and brought together a gay and non-gay coalition to build support for marriage equality in Vermont.
Momentum for the freedom to marry continues across the nation. New Hampshire's House of Representatives passed a marriage bill in March, which now awaits a vote in the Senate. Marriage bills are pending in the New Jersey and New York legislatures, and the governors of both states have pledged to sign the bills once they reach their desks. Maine's legislature will hold hearings this month on a marriage bill, and the California Supreme Court is weighing a challenge to the discriminatory Proposition 8, brought by a broad array of civil rights and other groups.
With your help, the momentum for the freedom to marry is continuing across the nation.
--Freedom to Marry Staff"
Monday, April 6, 2009
Gay Marriage in Vermont
The next few days will determine what happens with gay marriage in Vermont. The bill has passed both the senate and the house, and it is being sent to the governor's desk where it is expected to be vetoed, as he formally claimed that he would do. All we can hope for now is a vote to override the veto.
Read more about it here.
Read more about it here.
Same sex marriage inevitable?
"Demographic trends suggest that same sex marriage is unstoppable in the USA."
Consider this analysis from statistician and blogger Nate Silver:
"The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex marriage is protected under that state’s constitution. [yay!!] As in California, there will of course be an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. […]
Most likely, […] Iowans won’t vote on the issue until 2012. […]
The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote.
By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail."
"The Iowa Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex marriage is protected under that state’s constitution. [yay!!] As in California, there will of course be an effort to amend the state constitution to prohibit gay marriage. […]
Most likely, […] Iowans won’t vote on the issue until 2012. […]
The state has roughly average levels of religiosity, including a fair number of white evangelicals, and the model predicts that if Iowans voted on a marriage ban today, it would pass with 56.0 percent of the vote.
By 2012, however, the model projects a toss-up: 50.4 percent of Iowans voting to approve the ban, and 49.6 percent opposed. In 2013 and all subsequent years, the model thinks the marriage ban would fail."
I pulled my info from this link. You can follow it if you wish to read the rubbish towards the end. I didn't care to post it.
Rush Limbaugh
Wow, my father listens to this man's talk radio show on a regular basis. Of coarse he is a republican, but what a bunch of putred hatred that he spews. You can read more about by following this link, but don't say that I didn't warn you.
Labels:
discrimination,
gay marriage,
homophobia,
news
Friday, March 27, 2009
Gay Marriage in New England
I Just read this article, and its very frustrating and discouraging. I suppose we should be use to this feeling by now. We think we are gaining some ground, then we get the hope ripped out of us. Will we ever have equality? This is how people must have felt during the Civil Rights movement. I have heard some people say its not the same, but to me, it is very much the same. Its the same attitude of, "I am better than you, I get more rights because I am "normal." It's the same hatred and fear of what one does not understand.
Just last week I was unable to join my girlfriends Gym membership, because I am not her legal spouse. I was told that I would have to sign up for a separate membership. Now, I know that I could join and have my own membership, but that's not my point. I didn't want my own membership, I wanted to be on with my girlfriend, and I was not allowed to be because of my sexual orientation. My girlfriend and I would have been married long ago, if it were legally possible. Now, we canceled her membership at that particular gym, went down the road, and signed up at another gym that same day, and yes, we are on the same account, thank you. The gym that we withdrew our business from was Bally's. I refuse to continue to patronize a business that discriminates against me.
Just last week I was unable to join my girlfriends Gym membership, because I am not her legal spouse. I was told that I would have to sign up for a separate membership. Now, I know that I could join and have my own membership, but that's not my point. I didn't want my own membership, I wanted to be on with my girlfriend, and I was not allowed to be because of my sexual orientation. My girlfriend and I would have been married long ago, if it were legally possible. Now, we canceled her membership at that particular gym, went down the road, and signed up at another gym that same day, and yes, we are on the same account, thank you. The gym that we withdrew our business from was Bally's. I refuse to continue to patronize a business that discriminates against me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)