#gay marriage wasn’t federal law yet

[alphacrone]

love seeing high school kids organize real protests for actual world issues bc when i was in high school the only time my peers and i managed to actually pull a protest together was when we organized a sit-in to protest the new rule that we weren’t allowed to sit in the hallways during lunch

[doctorofinhumaneletters]

First Steps

by the Doctor of Inhumane Letters

Chapter 1

Thursday. Red day.

The red box in the breakroom fridge already lay ransacked, and Friday’s clear box was still at home. This week Ashlee was trying baked chicken thighs. Half a dozen chicken thighs were about ten bucks. One she ate Sunday night, to make sure her recipe worked, then packed up five copies for the week. Today, though, might be a two-lunch day. The call with mom had interrupted breakfast.

“ Hey honey, I just wanted to say hi.”

“Hi, mom. I’m just getting ready for work.”

“What’s on the menu today? Did you get those chicken recipes I sent you?”

“Yeah, they’re great. I’m trying one every day.” Technically true. Trying one. Every day. But it made mom happy to hear, even if it did elicit two minutes of food reviews. Ashlee watched the seconds march past on her watch.

“What are you doing at work today?”

“Oh, we have two bids due today for the Interior Department. We’re just finishing them up.” That was what Stetson Logistics’ Deputy Chief Counsel was up to today -- renewing a 90-day contract for stationery at a Bureau of Land Reclamation division. Mom always liked to hear the full name of the Cabinet office, the same way Deputy Chief Counsel sounded like a good job for a University of VIrginia law grad. More so, at least, than one of two lawyers churning out boilerplate for paper and toner to feed the Federal machine.

8:05:30, 8:05:31, 8:05:32 … flashing remonstrations growing ever more urgent. She couldn’t concentrate on leaving with mom on the phone. 10 minute walk to the train station. The timetables scrolled through Ashlee’s mind. The burbling stream of mom’s chatter was incrementally sweeping away breakfast options. There’s still time to buy a sandwich and coffee. Flash, flash, chatter, still time if there was no line and she ran. She was counting down to grab and go coffee when it came.

“So, any news on the marriage front? Have you met anyone special yet?"

Ashlee tensed up. She knew this question was coming. "Uh, no, Mom, not yet," she said, trying to sound casual. At least this signaled the imminent end of the conversation.

"Well, you know, dear, you're not getting any younger.”

“Thanks mom. Neither are you!” Like the preamble on one of Stetson’s contracts, this little back and forth almost always passed between them. The call had wound down and Ashlee had left with time for coffee, and a roll if the line was short.

It was never short. Coffee had clawed at her empty stomach. She'd wolfed down lunch in the breakroom before ten, and her crossed eyes struggled for a foothold on the bid she was reviewing. If she hurried, she could get out for her actual break. She was leaning back rubbing her eyes when Sarah crossed over from Admin.

“Hey, Ash!”

“Just 15 more minutes, Sarah. I’m making myself finish this before lunch.”

Sarah dismissed this with a wave of her hand. “Every secretary at BLR has the flu. If we sent it today, It would just sit in the inbox and we’d never see it again. This is just a social call”

“Well let me finish so it can sit in yours.” This sneaked out with more acid than she intended. Ever since college, Sarah had been able to carve out chat time.

“Screw you, Ash!” laughed Sarah. “What’s eating you?”

“Mom again,” Ashlee sighed. “She hosed my morning.”

“Did the ‘M’ word come up again?” asked Sarah, coming right to the point.

“Of course.”

Sarah smiled evilly. “Just tell her you’re gay. That would put a stop to it.”

Ashlee grimaced. The vision of that conversation played on fast-forward behind her eyes. “If I tried it, she would dig in. When she found out I wasn’t joking, she’d rip me a new one, then she’d never talk to me again.”

The smile grew eviller. “Sounds like it would solve all your problems, then.” Ashlee opened her mouth to snap back, but Sarah filled the space: “Let's get out of here. Nothing’s going on.”

"Are you serious? It's almost … Jesus, it's 12:45 already! God, I'm starving!"

"I'm getting my purse. Come on, girl!"

Ashlee finished the bid. It actually only took ten minutes, and five of those were accompanied by Sarah staring out the window and swinging her purse in a meaningful manner. It was a clear, bright day in Washington, and if work was coming to a standstill at Stetson, Sarah's impatience was understandable. All things considered, Ashlee could just about justify a late lunch.

The elevator carried them down the three floors to where it disgorged the pair onto H Street. Sarah strode purposefully up the sidewalk, half a step ahead of Ashlee. She and Sarah knew that Ashlee had a hard time saying no to Sarah, and they had agreed years ago that Sarah would limit how many times she dragged Ashlee somewhere. Consequently, when it happened, Sarah was serious about it.

Sarah followed her phone into a hole-in-the-wall Greek place, with Ashlee still trailing a close third. A tall, slim, dark girl waved them to a table. Ashlee’s finger trickled down the menu till it found moussaka. She pointedly laid the menu down, folded her hands over it, crossed her legs, sat up straight and fixed Sarah with a stare.

Rather, she tried to. Sarah’s right hand was languidly holding her menu, while her left hung by the pinky nail from her teeth. Her eyes were scanning the middle distance over Ashlee’s left shoulder. Oh, no, thought Ashlee, she’s planning something.

Ashlee guessed right. Apropos of nothing in particular, Sarah, asked, “You wanna get laid?”

Briefly taken aback, Ashlee rallied. “With you? No way!”

No reaction. Still chewing her pinky, Sarah inclined her head forward slowly, eyes still tracking something behind Ashlee.

“Her.”

Risking a glance, Ashlee saw the waitress. She was bussing tables, but she took a moment to smile back and gesture “one minute”. “Sarah!” hissed Ashley. “Are you crazy? Is that why we’re here?”

“Yeah.” Her hands dropped and she leaned in. “That girl is a catch. Sweet as soda pop, tall, skinny, pretty, and one thousand percent gay, I'm sure. I almost wanna fuck her myself.” She thumbed her phone, and a moment later Ashlee’s buzzed. “When she comes over here, you are going to say that.”

Ashlee read the text. “No goddamn way!” But she knew it was hopeless. She had followed Sarah’s smirk to dozens of clubs, camping trips, and a host of other places she hardly ever regretted. Sarah’s ideas usually turned out mostly fine, even though this one might be a little rich for her blood. Sarah leaned back, and the smirk was there again, declaring her triumph.

Only seconds remained to prepare. If she was going to do this, she had to go in full throttle. The girl came up. The nametag read “Felicity”. Ashlee mustered up all the charm she could and smiled at her.

"Hi, um Felicity, I'm Ashlee. Can I ask you a question?" she said, trying to sound as casual as possible. She avoided the glare she knew was coming from Sarah.

Felicity looked at Ashlee with a curious expression. "Sure, what's up?"

"I was just wondering if you could recommend something on the menu. I'm in the mood for something light and refreshing, something I can really get my tongue around .”

Time froze. Sarah was quivering with anticipation. Felicity’s tan face was brightening in a blush. Ashlee had never prayed so hard for death.

[qqueenofhades]

Also: we know that the whole “states’ rights” argument is and always has been deeply rooted in racism, right?

During the original framing and drafting of the Constitution, the individual states were given so much power to, once again, finesse the question of slavery and whether the entire newly-formed United States of America should have the same policy about it. That gave a lot of wiggle room for individual state governments and legislatures to set their own laws, and the “federalist” approach promised that a central government would be relatively hands-off as far as such things went; the states were grouped together, but still operated largely as their own political and legal entities. During the Civil War, as it was always going to, the “states’ rights!!!” argument once more took center stage. Supposedly it wasn’t about slavery, it was about “states’ rights!” Of course, the fact that this was whether states had the right to continue slavery is one that is still conveniently overlooked by your average Confederate apologist today. And the fact that those even still exist, let alone have substantial political power, is a reflection on how deep and poisoned that white grievance is.

Anyway, my point is: by arguing that states should have the right to take away things the fascists don’t like (abortion), but shouldn’t have the right to take away things they DO like (guns), the current SCOTUS is demonstrating not just their wild hypocrisy, but the fact that the “states’ rights” argument has always been about preserving the institutional right to fascism. Some so-called strict textualist like Neil Gorsuch will look at the fact that the Constitution grants primary electoral-law power to state legislatures and go, “yeah, we should throw out every single precedent that has challenged or changed that!” Even though, as the pants-shittingly terrifying case Moore v. Harper that SCOTUS took yesterday demonstrates, the entire point of that lawsuit is to grant (Republican) state legislatures the right to straight-up override the popular vote and appointment of electors.... but only if a Democrat wins. Alito’s opinion in the North Carolina gerrymandering case makes it clear that he wants SCOTUS to have the option of striking down any state law they don’t like... which again, are those that stop Republicans from outright cheating, or don’t automatically and systematically advantage them. It’s not about a Return to What the Constitution Says (which is an utterly idiotic metric anyway, as if we should just use an eighteenth-century text uncritically and act as if nothing has changed in 250 years). It’s not intended to be applied evenly or for the benefit of both parties, especially with the theocratic fascist nightmare that now constitutes SCOTUS. The argument for “states’ rights” is translated as “we will support the states that implement right-wing fascism, and punish those that don’t.”

The argument for removing the influence of a so-called “tyrannical” federalism, and to “return power to the states,” essentially rests on a belief that the government doesn’t have any inherent right to legislate away fascism. According to the “states’ rights!” argument (which is never meant to encompass the rights of blue states) the central government doesn’t have the legal right to protect women, LGBTQ people, Black people, the environment, anyone who isn’t a mega-corporation, schoolchildren in class, Americans anywhere in public, etc etc., simply and primarily because the punishment and control of these groups are a key ideological tool of fascism. This is often presented in the favored American language of “freedom” -- it’s a free country, so why can’t states do whatever they want? And yet if the Republicans win Congressional majorities in November 2022, they WILL push for a national abortion ban, the overturn of gay marriage, and everything else, on the whole country, red and blue states alike. What, you might ask, happened to “states’ rights?” Well, yet again, it doesn’t count. The only “right” that states have is that of freely adopting theocratic fascism. If they don’t, it will be forced on them.

Likewise, SCOTUS is making this “states’ rights” argument in the full knowledge and intent to enable the transition from (ailing) democracy to full-blown authoritarianism. That’s why the conservatives’ next big legal goal is to get SCOTUS to declare the Establishment Clause -- separation of church and state -- illegal on a state-by-state basis, so each state can “have the choice” of just how much theocracy they can legally force down everyone’s throats. STATES’ RIGHTS!! scream its wingnut proponents. IT’S A FREE COUNTRY! And yet, again. Funnily enough, that only translates to freedom for them. Everyone else in that state, willingly or otherwise, will be subordinated to it.

Anyway. The “states’ rights” argument is and always has been about preserving the legal right to oppression and now, as the Republicans have been going full fascist as fast as possible, their nu-fascist Christian white supremacist power in as much of the USA as possible, whether or not that state actually wants it. The language of “freedom” is particularly pernicious here, since it means exactly the opposite. “Freedom to choose” is their big thing. Except, you might say. Isn’t that what you just took away from everyone else....?

Shh. We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia.

[angrybell]

Give me a rundown on Kamala Harris.

Her weakness is her body of work after she left the Alameda County DA office (the accounts reported says she was good there) and her absolute failure to do anything but get herself promoted.

Harris’ meteoric rise, though, had nothing to do with what she did as a prosecutor in Alameda. Her political career was launched and supported by her boyfriend: SF Mayor Willie Brown. She was appointed to a couple of commissions that netted her a combined salary of about $400,000/year for basically sinecures.

Having done really nothing, she ran for DA as the Democratic candidate in San Francisco. Her boyfriend was the then godfather of SF politics so it wasn’t much of a race. The incumbent was best with scandals.

She failed to turn around the SF DA office as the DA. In fact, there was a scandal which either she knew about and did nothing or was deliberately blind to since her underlings all seemed to know. The crime lab had an analyst who was in charge of testing seized drugs. Problem was, they were a coke addict and they were stealing from the evidence locker and then just making up the reports because they were too busy getting high. Now, she claims she never knew but the reports said that every single gone of her senior staff, the people she handpicked knew.

Harris’ prosecutors had some of the lowest conviction rates in the state. They made the LA DA office look competent (and these were the guys who couldn’t convict OJ). The only reason she claims success there was that her predecessor was even worse. Don’t mistake what she did for reform: she just didn’t screw up as badly as the predecessor. She continued to run off all the serious prosecutors so that she could install her own brand of political prosecutors.

As AG, she was even worse. Her one crowning achievement? Her photo op with the plaintiffs in the case against Prop 8. In reality, her decision to not oppose the attack on Prop 8 ensured that legalization of gay marriage would have to wait until Obergefell worked its way up to SCOTUS. She likes to portray it as a brace decision, but really it was just pandering to the LGBT community.

Why do I say that?

Because when she had the chance to not oppose other cases on appeal, cases involving people who were wrongfully convicted because the prosecutor lied to the court to se yet the conviction. She opposed those cases and covered up the evidence of the prosecutor’s malfeasance.

Let me repeat this: she had her appeals department help cover up for prosecutors who lied to put innocent people in jail.

Then she tried to get legislation which would allow her to audit membership rolls of non-profits. Why? She wanted to harass right-wing groups and target their donors. Fortunately, and I’m sure by accident, the California legislature wouldn’t budge on the proposed law.

There’s other things she did but I will have to work up a proper post for this.

As Senator Harris has done nothing. Well, not nothing I guess. She did get a bill passed to make it a federal crime to lynch someone. The last lynching occurred in 1981. Instead she’s spent most of her time preparing a staff for a run for the nomination and getting sound bites in the oresss to make her seem tough and effective and a leader.

The only thing Harris is good at is getting the next job up on the ladder of power. She has no interest in anything but her own PR. She’s the worst person I can think of for a position ofnpower short of HRC.

[murdoch-histories]

Even though we did not have any real historical guests this week, we did have Watts come out as gay in “The Philately Fatality” and we can not forget Emily coming out as bi back in “Toronto’s Girl Problem” in season 8. Here is a brief(ish) timeline of same-sex rights in Canada. All of this history glazes over so much struggles that the LGBT+ community went through while fighting for their rights. I found this nice article from CBC which goes through a lot of events and details that I had to skip over to give you a succinct version of same sex rights in Canada.

The Criminal Code of Canada was written in July 1,1883 and criminalized homosexuality (This is the criminal code that would be used by Murdoch and Station House 4 during Murdoch Mysteries). Pierre Trudeau worked to change the Criminal Code which would decriminalize homosexuality because “there’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,” and in 1969, homosexuality was decriminalized nation-wide.

In 1977, Quebec was the first province/territory “to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation”. Nine years after in 1986, Ontario added sexual orientation to its human rights code and Manitoba and Yukon followed the next year. In 1998, due to Delwin Vriend getting fired because of his sexual orientation, the Supreme Court ruled that Alberta must also change their Human Rights Code to cover sexual orientation.

The Immigration Act has gone through many versions since 1906 (which was featured in episode “Murdoch without Borders”) and in 1978, the Immigration Act was amended and now allowed homosexual to immigrate to Canada. In 1994, Supreme Court of Canada ruled that people can apply for refugee status if they are seeking refuge from prosecution in their countries due to their sexual orientation.

The first Lesbian and Gay Pride Day in Toronto was held in 1981, following the arrest of 300 men being charged with “indecent acts”. The City of Toronto did not support Pride until 1991 even though the first Pride was attended by 1 500 people.

In 1982, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedom was passed. In 1985 Section 15 was added including the “right to 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,” but this protection did not include sexual orientation until 1995. The rights of trans people were not protected by this section until 2017, where after Bill C-16 was passed to protect gender identity and gender expression.

In 1988, British Columbia’s MP Svend Robinson came out as Canada’s first openly gay member of parliament and in 2001, MP Libby Davies became the first openly lesbian MP. In 1998, Winnipeg’s Glenn Murray was the first openly gay mayor of a major city in North America. In 2014, Kathleen Wynne was elected in Ontario and became the first openly gay or lesbian premier elected to office.

Sven Robinson worked hard during his time in power to introduce bills for gay rights including changing the definition of “spouse” to include same-sex couples and “opposite sex” in the definition of “spouse” but unfortunate, none of his bills passed.

It wasn’t until 2002 that Ontario ruled that prohibiting same-sex marriages was a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedom and British Columbia ruled the same in 2003. All provinces and territories followed during the next couple of years and by 2005, Nunavut, Northwest-Territories, Alberta and Prince Edward Island were the only ones that hadn’t ruled to allow same-sex marriage.

In 2003, Michael Leshner and Michael Stark became the first same-sex couple to marry in Canada in Ontario even though Canada had not yet made same-sex marriage country wide. According to the 2016 Census, there are now 24 370 married same-sex couples.

On July 20, 2005, when Bill C-38 became federal law, Canada became the fourth country in the world to allow same-sex marriage.

[gayyybuckyyy]

sit down, kids

bc im about to tell u a story

ok so abt 2 years ago i was trying to get into comics & i decided if i was gonna do this, i was gonna do it right, so i researched lgbtq+ characters in comics & after bouncing around some wikis for a while, i somehow ended up on the page of a character called Arnie Roth. he’s not a superhero, but he’s credited with being one of the first openly gay comic book characters so i decided to keep digging

& i am so fcking glad i did

this is Arnie Roth:

“But it hadn’t always been like this... No, back when they were both growing up on New York’s Lower East Side, during the depths of the depression, the blond-haired adonis was nothing more than a stick-legged young dreamer with his head in the clouds and his hands forever drawing. Arnie Roth was the same age as Steve Rogers -- but he was bigger, faster, stronger...” (Captain America #270)

sound familiar???/???//

ok but buckle the fuck up bc we just started this wild ride

the parallels between MCU Bucky & Arnie are staggering

they even “”””borrowed”””” ideas for steve’s story arc in tws

“... While Steve grew even more withdrawn after his mother’s death.”

R U SEEING THIS SHIT???

MCU Bucky is literally Arnie Roth. Instead of “they drifted apart,” the MCU tacked on the winter soldier plotline & called it a day. but is there rly any Bucky in this character? James Buchanan Barnes, the boy who was raised and orphaned on a military base, who became their mascot “Bucky” and later (when he was 16 btw) Captain America’s sidekick?? is that the man Steve is trying to recover? no. it’s Arnie Roth, his gay jewish best friend.

so wtf is the point of all this u ask? well, it’s simple:

MCU Bucky is gay.

marvel stole a story from a gay character to skirt a potential controversy, slapped on another character’s name (again, avoiding “controversy”) & they knew exactly what they were doing. now, i don’t know that they don’t have any plans to make Bucky a gay character. i also don’t know if the sun is gonna rise tomorrow but i’m pretty damn sure it will. 

to give an example: half of the mcs in thor: ragnarok are canonically lgbtq+ (Loki, Valkyrie), but there was absolutely 0 indication of that onscreen.

plus there was that whole thing with andrew garfield (tbh im a little murky on the details there but from what i gather it was... not good)

i could go on probably but that’s another post for another day.

the fact is this is so much more than just a character mash-up. this is about our stories, our history being completely erased.

still not getting it??? ok here’s some icing on the goddamn shitcake:

Arnie Roth was written into Cap’s backstory in 1982, around the start of the HIV/AIDS crisis, and became a recurring character. in a 1984 comic, when the LGBTQ+ community was still fighting the Reagan administration for federal aid in a growing public health crisis, Arnie was brainwashed by Baron Zemo & forced to say this:

From left to right: “No wonder the Nazies wanted my kind -- the weak, the misfits -- locked away in the concentration camps with the other pariahs! I’m a menace to society... a disease! and you, star-spangled idiot -- you call me friend! Wh-what does that say about you? Most people simply hate men like me... yet you always treated me w-with respect. C-compassion. Why? Is it because... you’re one of us?” (Captain America #296)

Cap’s response?

“You are not a freak!”

1st panel: “You’re as good and decent a man as I’ve ever known!”

2nd panel: “... They can’t corrupt your love for Michael with their lies any more than they can corrupt my love for Bernie! Do you hear me, Arnie? They’re the pariahs! They’re the disease! They--” (Captain America #296)

but of course this wasn’t just Cap talking to Arnie; he was speaking to the hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ+ youth who were struggling. & maybe it was just a panel in a comic book, but there is something incredible about a great hero, possibly your hero, saying he sees you, he accepts you, & you deserve love. That kind of story, the kind that works into the life of a character and embodies the history of a people, that can’t be forgotten. That can’t be erased.

& now marvel has, unwittingly perhaps, given this story more power than it’s ever had. imagine Bucky, who lost his memory when homosexuality was still against the law, seeing all the countries in which gay marriage is legal. imagine Bucky, who never saw the stonewall rebellion, going to Pride. imagine bucky, who fought in a war in which people like him were locked up in concentration camps, seeing the strength and diversity of the LGBTQ+ community. imagine a character who lived in a time in which he could not be himself discovering 70 years of progress & finding the strength to come into his own identity. 

All of this is within reach.

[grimecrow]

Look At The Image That Threatens My Life In Ford Nation!

     (Please note I am not going to post the image here, cause that would be reposting the image, so here is the link to the original: https://reddiesetandgo.tumblr.com/post/168322329740/dancing-at-the-quarry-my-beautiful-commission )    This was my cellphone wallpaper it’s a piece of art on Tumblr I found that makes me smile; I think the boombox in the back sells the feels. Anyhow this morning I was looking at this and realized that I can’t have this as my wallpaper anymore; it’s too dangerous now.     A notion that may not make sense to you but I ask that you read this whole thing out before making your final decision. Give me the chance to show you my reasons.    

   First a little history, the last time I was gonna have the absolute shit kicked out of me for the crime of being gay, alive and living in Ontario was in 2007 at Seneca college. A bunch of nursing students found out by overhearing me talk with friends in the cafeteria area that I was gay and let me know that they were gonna be heroes by beating the hell out of me to the point where it would be impossible for me to be a gay cop.      Being a person who knows when to bow their head and when to stand up and fight I accepted that this was going to happen. I wasn’t gonna beg for them to not hurt me; that usually leads to some form of sexual assault or abuse. I told my friends that after classes ended that day that’d be the last they see of me as either I would be in the hospital and not coming back to the program or I’d win the fight and be expelled because I fought back.      Because I had fallen in with a good group of people, when the time came I walked out to meet the waiting nursing students. The unexpected thing was a group of guys walked out of the school to stand beside me. Remotely fair odds seemed unfair to the nursing students so they bailed and the situation was dealt with, in part by the administration.    

   That was when gay marriage had just won, and we had a provincial Liberal government in power. At the height of the media shaming and encouraging others to shame bigots because Canada was looking good; a bastion of tolerance and other bullshit we lied to ourselves about cause it was really important to look good to the world community.   

   At that time I was still taking the precautions I now have to enact once more, the one time I slipped up in a couple of sentences in public and I was fucked. I was in a scenario where it was going to be five on one with weapons. How dare I speak in public!   

   Over the holidays I had someone here who confirmed that there was still a lot of violence and threat of violence against the LGBTQ+ community in the ‘enlightened’ age of 2017. I won’t name the person because you don’t randomly confirm people as gay or gay allied online anymore; if they choose to confirm things in the comments section that is their decision but others were there, they heard it too.       Do you think the gay community suddenly stopped trusting cops because of the Bruce McArthur thing alone? Oh wait there is miles of documentation showing the police reaction to the violence or threats against the LGBTQ+ community; the same reaction it has always been, silence with subtle pushes of encouragement.  

    This was all when we had a Liberal provincial government and an LGBTQ+ premiere so for us, the climate was as good as it was gonna get. Now we have Doug Ford. Thankfully we have a case study recently about what happens when a far right politician with backing from a White Nationalist organization willing to sell out as much as possible to the violent religious right comes into power.       Now this is where you say I’m crossing the line, it’s not like there are people giving Nazi salutes or wearing ‘Make Ontario Great Again’ hats...

  Opps! Well that’s OK it’s not like white nationalists are being more open and throwing huge parties and events to celebrate their beliefs! Which of course they are allowed to do but in Toronto the tolerent such a thing could not happen without people paying attention right?

https://pressprogress.ca/the-toronto-suns-joe-warmington-is-headlining-a-far-right-rebel-media-event-on-doug-ford/

  Oh well...   Oh I know, I know! I know what those who disbelieve will say; “It’s not like we have a growing hate crime problem in Ontario!”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-ontario-hate-crimes-1.4673324

  Opps once more! But don’t worry that was from the age of the dinosaurs, a whole two and a half weeks ago. Thankfully it hasn’t been proven the world over that when these extreme right personalities win those who commit hate crimes become embolden and escalate things. Oh, what’s that you say? That’s been an understood fact for like twenty years...shit.  Ontario is strong! Ontario is accepting! Ontario cares about people! I mean Doug Ford plans to roll back the laws creating protection zones around abortion clinics. The people won’t stand for it! Society has changed so much since those laws were passed! When was that again? When did we realize and finally act to create special laws to remind people not to attack others? October 2017? Fuck.  

https://ipolitics.ca/2017/10/26/ontarios-bubble-zone-abortion-protest-law-was-long-overdue/

  Well remember under Wynne Ontario was as free and tolerant as our society got, the government was the ally of minorities of race, culture, religion, gender and sexual orientation. Look how far we came in those years...next to nowhere.   I’ve been assaulted, I’ve gone to visit others who havebeen assaulted , watched the casts come on and off, the scars be freshly made, the blood on the sidewalks and streets from bashings. I knew the rules to avoid Cherry Beach, to lower my risk. I also made sure to study the fuck out of the climates that caused danger to increase or decrease.  That’s why I managed to survive as well as I did while so many around me were beaten, broken, and died. Do you still think I am over reacting to the situation? Maybe I am I mean it’s not like there were any candidates who openly celebrated being a white nationalist in any way shape or form! Right? Oh no...here comes another link...

http://pressprogress.ca/ontario-pc-candidate-promoted-alt-right-website-linked-to-hate-figures-at-young-conservative-event/

  Well I mean, I have to be wrong right? It’s not like she won or anythin--fuck it here’s the link.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/8658689-donna-skelly-wins-in-new-riding-lone-pc-in-an-ndp-city/

  So there are a lot of red flags; plus the fact that there are those I have spoken to privately about this issue that have already said they have been harassed and/or faced the threat of attack. I’m not naming them because of my rules to try to ensure their protection, if they wish to comment and discuss it in the comments below that will be their decision.     I have decided to enact the ancient customs of 2007 and prior to ensure my safety ONLY because I can’t get out of this province. No seriously if I had the chance I would abandon 90% of all my possessions and move to a place I hate, that has a culture I hate, and is ridiculously more expensive for no good reasons. That’s right I would be moving to British Columbia and starting over again from near scratch JUST to escape what is happening here.    Cause it’s going to get worse when Sheer wins federally; which he will the Rebel and the PCs both keep going on about how they learned so much form this provincial election so you can bet the Rebel will throw women under the bus by feeding them to the violent Religious Right in order to win control of the federal government.   British Columbia is one of the only provinces that I think can withstand a Rebel take over for the next ten years or so, and they will shield those that white nationalism tries to grind up.    Does it seem like running away? I like the idea of calling it tactical retreat. Ontario is lost, go somewhere that hasn’t fallen yet and do your part to try to keep it from falling.      Also yeah after decades of violence, fear, and all of that part of me also wants to be able to have a picture of two guys dancing before one goes off to college on my personal phone without prominent and reasonably verified fear that it will lead to injury or potentially death if I happen to lose the hate crime lottery despite me not waving it in anyone’s fucking face.      Welcome to Ford Nation, hope you aren’t anything aside from white, straight, male and either Christian, Atheist or Agnostic cause if you are...you know what’s coming. (I wrote this originally elsewhere when Doug Ford was elected, since then there has been an increase in hate crime in Ontario. To the surprise of no one. Welcome to Ontario.)

[treehugginglibrarian]

Bob & Sally Are Not Friends

There have been a lot of calls on social media lately, in the form of blogs, memes, videos, and status updates, demanding that Trump supporters and not-Trump supporters put aside our pitch forks and learn to get along. Given the current political climate, and the fact that the more liberal sections of society are the ones doing the loudest protesting, it’s safe to say that most of these memes et al are probably not aimed at those supporting the President. Since many make references to “snowflakes” or encourage one side to “grow up,” two insults pretty routinely flung at minority factions who are busy stomping the streets attempting to ensure we don’t start losing rights we’ve worked literally decades to attain, it’s safe to assume that most of these memes are aimed at making the anti-Trump team get over their anger.

Here’s the thing, your memes aren���t working. You can shove stick figure Bob and Sally up your ass. If you voted for our current President, I may well tolerate you, but I’ll never accept you- a stance many Trump supporters should be quite comfortable with, since they’ve been applying it to minority populations their entire lives. I don’t forgive you. I probably never will. And for those of us who are suffering, or stand to suffer, under the current administration’s practices, your memes are doing nothing more than illustrating the same privilege that let you vote for him in the first place.

It’s super easy to look at a hostile political climate and scream “can’t everyone just get alone” when you stand to lose absolutely nothing. If you are a white, straight, cisgender, Christian human, this administration is going to take almost nothing from you. If you are male, on top of that, they are going to literally take nothing from you (except your healthcare, some of your finances, and possibly your job. Sucker). If you are not these things, there is a good chance that at some point during the duration of this administration, you are going to lose a right that has already been given to you, or you are going to find yourself staring down an extra decade without a right that you felt you were pretty close to securing.

Since I’m queer, I will use my queerness as an example to illustrate the overwhelming frustration that minority populations feel when Trump voters, or generally privileged populations, whine loudly that we need to just all get along.

All things considered, I’m a pretty privileged queer person. I live in a city that has anti-discrimination ordinances on the books. I work in a city with the same. Our capital is the second largest gay mecca in the country. My employer has incredibly stringent anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender presentation, and everyone at my place of employment is either very accepting or completely silent regarding their homophobia. My neighbors don’t harass my wife and I for being queer. I am, in general, pretty safe. I know how lucky I am, because I know how unfriendly spaces can be to queer people. Some of those spaces exist in my state which, despite locally granted protections, does not have a single state-wide protection granted to LGBTQ persons.

In my state, the state Constitution stipulated that marriage was for only a man and a woman up until three years ago, when the Supreme Court rule that this wasn’t okay. Because of that ruling, queers in my state are entitled to get married and are entitled to all the rights that come with that marriage, but they are entitled to absolutely nothing else. We can be fired for being queer. We can be denied housing, denied promotions, or asked to leave a business or public space, because we are queer. We can be told which bathrooms we are allowed to use, we can be denied the right to adopt just because we’re gay and, at times, we can even be denied medical treatment or other basic services. Since there are also absolutely no protections for sexual orientation built into federal law, excepting the right to marry, we have no recourse if we do not live in a space that has incorporated these rights and protections into their local laws or ordinances.

Thankfully, my state is one where cities and towns have been allowed to create their own local protections for queer people, since not all states are quite so… “kind.” North Carolina, for instance, all but went to war with itself when individual cities attempted to rebel against the hatred often espoused at the state level. The end result was a statewide “bathroom bill” that isn’t really abided by in a lot of more liberal spaces, but does a great job of making homophobes and transphobes feel like their views are valid and worthwhile. Indiana has had similar issues with Mike Pence’s religious freedom bill.

Telling a queer or trans person to suck it up and get along with a Trump supporter is, effectively, telling them to suck it up and get along with someone who is comfortable stripping them of their rights or allowing them to continue living in an environment where they have fewer rights than those who are straight or cisgender. Admittedly, not all Trump supporters voted for him because they hate gay people or because they want to see gay people oppressed or treated like shit. A vote for him, however, is an admittance that they don’t really care if gay people are oppressed or treated like shit, though. Trump told us exactly how he felt about the LGBTQ community when he selected Pence, possibly the most anti-LGBTQ politician in the country right now, as his Vice President. He told us how he felt about us when he acknowledged that, though he would be unlikely to work to overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing us to marry, he would have no trouble signing a national religious freedom bill, ensuring that those with a moral opposition to who I am as a human, never have to actually treat me like a human.

Bills like that are more than just “cake” and “flowers,” as anyone who is actually queer can tell you. A bill of that nature would guarantee that full rights under the law, for LBGTQ individuals, would never exist. All anyone who didn’t like us would ever have to do to legally discriminate against us, is claim that serving us is a violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Don’t want to serve gay people at your coffee shop? Claim we violate your religious beliefs. Don’t want us to go clothes shopping there? Claim our shopping method violates your religious beliefs. Don’t want to have to treat us in the emergency room? Claim that doing so violates your religious beliefs and, just like that, you’ve contributed to the death of yet another queer or trans person in America. Fuck the cake. Fuck the flowers. I want to know that if my house is on fire, the local fire department isn’t going to let it burn down because, “Ew, lesbians are  yucky,” and actually get away with that response.

If you voted for Trump, you might not personally light my house on fire, or kick me out of a coffee shop, or refuse to treat me if I’m sick, but you’re admitting that you don’t really care that much if these things happen to me. Because it was stated, clearly and repeatedly, that things like this were a possibility if he won, which meant you voted for him knowing that his election to office would probably hurt me and others like me. You don’t get to passively allow injury to another party out of some espoused indifference to their well-being, only to then get angry when the party in question decides that maybe you’re not actually their friend after all.

Now take this is and multiply it by every minority group in this country that is being negatively effected by this administration’s quest to do precisely what they said they would do while they were campaigning. Racism is rampant, with crosses being burned in yards and white supremacist rallies taking place all over the nation. There are literal Nazis in the streets, as evidenced by the fact that they are carrying Nazi flags and sporting Nazi regalia. Our nation is locking small immigrant children into detention centers and, even after swearing that they will get them back together with their parents, routinely failing to make that happen. Women may well lose the right to abortion and certain types of birth control with the inevitable appointment of another far-right, anti-Roe v. Wade, justice to the Supreme Court.

If you voted for Trump, you helped make this happen.

I’m not going to be mean to you about it. I’m not going to taunt you about the fact that you might not have healthcare anymore and, if you work in manufacturing or agriculture, there’s a real chance he’s going to kill your job instead of make you more money. I’m not going to point at you in public spaces and taunt “look everyone! A Trump supporter! Look upon the face of stupidity and evil!” But I’m also not going to make myself be friends with you and I’m not going to forgive you. It won’t matter how many times you call me childish. It won’t matter how many stupid fucking memes you make about Bob and Sally and their stick figure friendship.

At the end of the day, my well-being was not a factor in your overall decision making when you went to the polls. To that end, your well-being, specifically your desire to feel liked and appreciated, is of absolutely no concern to me. If you wanted me to like you, perhaps you should have cast a vote that implied that you like me. I deserve better from my friends. So do the black people in this country. So do the immigrants in this country. So do the young children this country is keeping in cages. I can’t make you realize that you need to care about other people, but until you figure out how I think you need to stop bitching that the very people you don’t care about, don’t really care about you, either.

So, no. Bob and Sally aren’t friends. And Bob’s just gonna have to get over it. It’s a concept he should be familiar with, since he probably spent the first six months after the election telling Sally precisely that. It sort of sucks when people you thought were your friends make it apparent that they don’t really like you, doesn’t it?

Now imagine that “sort of sucks” coming with a side of “no more civil rights.”

Fuck you, Bob.  

[naomi-rae]

This work is about a safe house in Lagos, Nigeria for gay men who need to seek refuge because of how hostile and homophobic the political and social environment is there. So, House of Allure is to do with the current affairs of how Nigeria treat gay people. The safe house is called the House of Allure. The artist who took these photos stayed for two months in the house in 2019. His name is Sabelo Mlangeni. He comes from South Africa, born in rural Mpumalanga, Mlangeni then moved to the city Johannesburg in 2001, both places in north South Africa. He was born in 1980.  Mlangeni has always used photography as his art form and throughout his career he has documented everyday life for marginalised African communities for example South African men living in men only hostels in Johannesburg which were built during the apartheid and have a history of poverty, violence and sexual abuse (his ‘Men Only’ collection). His collection Country Girls is Mlangeni’s largest, shot over six years from 2003 to 2009 of the gay communities in the South African countryside. Yet his work never elevates the subjects to a high saint like level nor does he attempt to make the contemporary people in the photos directly represent their previous generation’s struggle for equality. For example, Mlangeni’s series ‘Men Only’ consists of photos of the residents going about their day to day lives: showering, chatting, meeting together for meals, joking about with their friends. Mlangeni lived in the Men Only hostel whilst making the series, as he did with 2019s “House of Allure” series, which I think has allowed him to capture intimate moments of friendship and subjects truly at ease despite the camera. I think this makes his work truly captivating: the honest snippet of communities uncelebrated by the world.

Mlangeni was motivated by his passion for equality for people, especially oppressed African people and homosexual people. This passion can be found in lots of his bodies of work, e.g. Country girls. The collection of photos is about how the men in The House of Allure live, there are photos of residents doing each other’s hair, sitting on the sofa, texting in their living room. In one of the photos “Uche, all dressed up” (2019) there is a basket of recycling and little objects of clutter in the corners of the shot. The fact that they did not move the clutter out of the shot to me shows how honest these photos are as a representative of these men’s lives and living space. That is what I understand the piece to be.

In Nigeria homosexuality is against federal law. You could be imprisoned for acting “against the order of nature” for fourteen years, or attempting to commit an “unnatural offense” has a seven-year sentence or any public display of homosexuality is punishable by a ten-year sentence. Gay marriage is illegal, with prison sentences for all found involved. Gay advocacy is illegal meaning gay clubs, societies, meetings and organisations are illegal punishable by a ten-year sentence for any involvement. In certain areas homosexuality can be punished by the death sentence. This is the context that the gay men in the safe house live in. Although throughout history there has always been gay people there has also always been homophobia. One of the residents, James Brown, asked Mlangeni during his stay “‘If my country kicked me out because I collaborated with you, would your country give me a safe place to hide?’” and Mlangeni admitted, despite recent surges for gay rights, “It’s a question that wasn't easy to answer”.

Mlangeni’s project has been a part of the Face to Face Exhibit organised by the Fund for Global Human Rights, in The King’s Cross Tunnel, London from the 7th of October to the 1st November 2020.

My first reactions at seeing “A roof top photoshoot with the dancers; Tonnex, (Ruby, Nonso and Oshodi)” (2019) was to think “Is it safe to have a photoshoot on the roof? Can anyone on the street below see them?” The man in the photo is wearing stiletto heels, high waisted trousers, a floral shirt unbuttoned along with his hands on his hips and bleached blonde afro hair. He looks stunning. Yet the people in the background worry me as in Nigeria homosexuality is illegal. The people in the safe house are taking a risk when they dress how they please on the roof that they live under.

I love the piece “Sharing family experiences. Ruby, Daniel, Thom Smith, Tonnex and James Brown (Mr Morrison, Jayder, Lil B, Nandi, Ola, Mohammed)” because of how everyone is touching each other. Even though their expressions are uncomfortable, they are clearly talking about hard hitting stuff, it is obvious by their body language and positions that these men are friends, they know and trust each other well. The angle of the camera is as if the viewer in sitting on a sofa opposite. I think this is as close as an outsider, like the viewer and the photographer, can get to sharing a moment with these men other 4000 miles away.

The photo “A shared sewing machine for inhouse designers” is black and white. Mlangeni has made the sewing machine, chair seat and the light from the window shine so there are gleams of white light on them while the rest of the room is in darkness. I think he did that to show the hope there is in creativity. The men that use the sewing machine are working towards a brighter tomorrow by sitting on that chair and creating something new.  

[urtriponline]

Understanding LGBTQ+ Rights: A Comprehensive Guide

The journey towards achieving equal rights for all has been substantial and daunting, especially in the context of the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. In recent history, numerous significant milestones have paved the way for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, from widespread riots expressing collective anguish and discontent, to major legal decisions that have fortified the cause greatly. While society has come a long way since the early days of the struggle, there are still various areas that demand considerable focus and efforts—marital and workplace rights and anti-discrimination laws, to name a few. The intersectionality of LGBTQ+ rights with other social justice causes further complicates the situation, underscoring the need for an inclusive, fair, and pragmatic approach to rights and recognition for all. History of LGBTQ+ Rights in the U.S. Stonewall Riots: Sparking a Movement In the early morning of June 28th, 1969, law enforcement officers arrived at the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City. The ensuing altercation, known as the Stonewall Riots, led to six days of protests and violent clashes with law enforcement outside the bar, in neighborhood streets and in nearby parks. The demonstrations are recognized as one of the catalysts for organizing LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. The Introduction of Anti-Discrimination Laws Before and after Stonewall, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination was rampant in the U.S., permeating sectors such as employment, housing, and public accommodation. In 1974, Kathy Kozachenko made history as the first openly gay candidate to be elected to political office in America -- this marked a significant milestone in the fight for gay rights. Over time, multiple states and localities enacted anti-discrimination laws that included protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. However, it was not until 2020 that the Supreme Court ruled, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, that LGBTQ+ individuals were protected from employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—the first such federal law. Repealing of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act into law, ending a policy that since 1994, had barred openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual people from military service. The signing of this law marked a significant step forward in LGBTQ+ rights, ending decades of systematic exclusion from the military based on sexual orientation. Marriage Equality: A Nationwide Right The momentum for marriage equality began building at the state level. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in 2004, but it wasn't until 11 years later that nationwide legalization came about. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, effectively requiring all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the federal government to perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Overview of LGBTQ+ Rights in the U.S. LGBTQ+ rights in the U.S., despite having made noteworthy progress, still face numerous challenges. One of the pressing issues involves the rights of transgender individuals, particularly children and teenagers, in areas such as healthcare and education. In addition, the Equality Act, a legislation conceived to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, is presently in a legislative limbo in the Senate as of 2022. The campaign to terminate longstanding prohibitions on blood donations from gay and bisexual men has seen advances, but a full triumph is yet to be achieved. Consequently, the path towards acquiring full equality and non-discrimination for LGBTQ+ individuals endures in the United States. LGBTQ+ Marriage Equality Progression Towards Marriage Equality Emerging in the late 20th century, significant societal transformations were initiated by the push for marriage equality in the United States. Initially, the crusaders for this cause were primarily members of the LGBTQ+ community, daring to demand equal rights in a largely unaccepting society. This wave of activism eventually led to the legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, established first by Vermont in 2000. However, it wasn't until 2004 that Massachusetts set a landmark precedent by becoming the first U.S. state to legally sanction same-sex marriage. Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws The legal and social rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, including marriage equality, have been met with staunch opposition. Many states implemented laws banning same-sex marriages and refused to acknowledge such marriages performed in other states. However, the opposition was met with anti-discrimination laws in 21 states and the District of Columbia, which protect against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These laws are crucial to ensuring equal opportunities and protection for all, irrespective of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Obergefell v. Hodges: A Turning Point The path to nationwide marriage equality was rocky and involved numerous court battles. The landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges was argued before the Supreme Court in 2015. It involved 14 same-sex couples and two men whose partners were deceased. The plaintiffs argued that their state's ban on same-sex marriage, and refusal to recognize marriages conducted in other states, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, effectively legalizing it nationwide. Employment Rights Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination was prevalent and lawful in the U.S. The Act prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, it did not specifically address sexual orientation or gender identity, leaving LGBTQ+ individuals vulnerable. It wasn't until the 2020 Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County that the court decided that these protections extended to discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender status. An Overview of LGBTQ+ Rights in the Current Climate The struggle for equal rights and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals is ongoing, with differing legislation in place across various states. Hard-fought debates over individual rights, such as the ability for transgender people to use restrooms corresponding to their gender identity, and the right of businesses to decline services to LGBTQ+ individuals based on religious beliefs, still persist. It's crucial to understand that these rights and protections can vary greatly based on location, as each state and even some local laws provide a wide range of legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. Anti-Discrimination Laws for LGBTQ+ Individuals Understanding Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws for LGBTQ+ Individuals On a federal level, the most referenced legislation concerning anti-discrimination for LGBTQ+ individuals is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically, Title VII. This section of the law prohibits workplace discrimination on the grounds of sex. For many years, there was considerable debate over whether "sex," as defined under Title VII, extended to include sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2020, the Bostock v. Clayton County case answered these questions definitively, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Title VII protections must also be applied to those who identify as gay, lesbian, or transgender. Moreover, the Affordable Care Act (2010) outlaws discrimination by healthcare providers or insurers based on either gender identity or sexual orientation. The Fair Housing Act, updated in 1988, also contributes to anti-discrimination efforts, banning unfair practices in housing sales, rentals, or financing because of sex – now extended to include sexual orientation and gender identity. State-Level LGBTQ+ Anti-Discrimination Laws At the state level, anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBTQ+ individuals vary significantly. Some states, including California, New York, and Illinois, have comprehensive laws that expressly prohibit discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Other states, however, lack such comprehensive protections. In some cases, these states have laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but not gender identity. In other cases, they have no explicit protections at all for LGBTQ+ individuals. Notable Cases and Ongoing Legal Challenges Several notable cases besides Bostock v. Clayton County have helped shape and define the legal landscape for LGBTQ+ rights in the United States. For instance, the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling by the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, which had previously been a state-by-state issue. This ruling also addressed some aspects of discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals, such as in the issuance of marriage licenses or access to marital benefits. Ongoing challenges to anti-discrimination laws can arise from a variety of sources, including states seeking to implement so-called "religious freedom" laws allowing businesses to refuse service based on their religious beliefs. Similarly, ongoing debates about bathroom access for transgender individuals, such as the controversial North Carolina "bathroom bill," continue to present challenges. At the same time, advocates for LGBTQ+ rights continue to push for more comprehensive protections, including a national Equality Act, that would codify protections for sexual orientation and gender identity across all sectors of public life, not just employment, housing, and healthcare. Employment Rights for LGBTQ+ Individuals The landscape of employment has significantly shifted for LGBTQ+ individuals, thanks to the Bostock ruling. Now, federal law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in all aspects of employment - from hiring and promotions to pay and job training. However, there's an alarming discrepancy between federal and state laws, and some states do not guarantee these protections, leaving potentially exploitable gaps. A few employers in these states might still discriminate against LGBTQ+ employees beyond what Title VII safeguards. So, while we’ve seen measurable strides in the legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals, considerable work lies ahead. Key battles include balancing religious freedom with non-discrimination, extending protections to every facet of public life, and bridging federal-state law gaps, all to ensure LGBTQ+ equality. Employment Rights of LGBTQ+ Individuals Workplace Challenges Faced by LGBTQ+ Individuals Even with evolving rights, LGBTQ+ individuals face an uphill battle in the workplace. This list of hurdles can include discrimination, harassment, exclusion, and poor representation, among other forms of bias. Despite strides in progress, research reveals that LGBTQ+ individuals are more likely to face unemployment, underemployment, and job insecurity than their heterosexual counterparts. Further, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression may lead to more egregious employment consequences, such as missed promotion opportunities or outright termination. Protection Laws for LGBTQ+ Workers Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law, provides nationwide protection against employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. For many years, there was debate on whether or not Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination also applied to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. It wasn't until 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, when the Supreme Court officially ruled that Title VII protections do indeed apply to LGBTQ+ employees nationwide. In addition to federal law, individual states may have their own laws that provide further protections for LGBTQ+ employees. For instance, some states have laws prohibiting employment discrimination that explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics. Key Legal Cases that Define Employment Rights Aside from Bostock v. Clayton County, there are numerous other watershed legal cases that have defined employment rights for LGBTQ+ individuals. In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998), the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII protections also extend to cases of same-sex harassment. In Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College (2017), the Seventh Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination, extending Title VII protections to encompass the former as well. Ensuring Equal Employment Rights for the LGBTQ+ Community While some legal protections have been advanced, discrimination and bias continue to occur in various sectors, making the fight for comprehensive equal employment rights crucial. This battle is carried on by advocacy groups, legal experts, and lawmakers who tirelessly advocate for more inclusive laws. The Equality Act, a monumental piece of legislation that offers express, consistent protections concerning sexual orientation and gender identity in critical facets of life including employment, is presently under review in the Senate. Interestingly, companies and organizations can affect real change too. By adopting comprehensive nondiscrimination policies, initiating diversity and inclusion training, and cultivating a culture of acceptance and inclusivity, they can make a monumental difference. In order to realize true equity, it’s vital to ensure everyone, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals, have equal access to job opportunities and experience fair treatment at work. LGBTQ+ Rights and Intersectionality Intersectionality and its Impact on LGBTQ+ Rights: A Brief Overview Intersectionality pertains to how sociological categories such as race, gender, and socio-economic status intersect, and how they affect individuals or groups. These complex intersections can lead to overlapping systems of discrimination or privilege. When considering LGBTQ+ individuals, these intersections can amplify discriminatory experiences or provide distinct insights into systemic structures. The Relationship Between LGBTQ+ Rights and Race Historically and currently, LGBTQ+ individuals of color often face multiple forms of discrimination - not only due to their identity as a part of the LGBTQ+ community, but also due to systemic racism. For example, black transgender women are a particularly marginalized and vulnerable population. They experience high rates of violence and homicide rates, alongside discrimination in healthcare, housing, and employment. Gender and LGBTQ+ Rights The notion of gender plays a significant role in the experiences of LGBTQ+ individuals. Transgender and non-binary individuals, for instance, often encounter unique challenges related to their gender identity, including lack of legal recognition, discrimination in healthcare, and the necessity of navigating societal norms related to gendered spaces like restrooms and prisons. Economic Factors and LGBTQ+ Rights Economic factors significantly impact the experiences and rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. Economic inequality is rampant within the LGBTQ+ community, particularly for those with intersecting identities. One study found that LGBTQ+ individuals in the U.S are more likely than the general population to live in poverty. This economic insecurity is often compounded by discrimination in housing and employment. Marriage Equality Rights Marriage equality has become a central component of LGBTQ+ rights. In 2015, a landmark ruling by the U.S Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage across all 50 states. Despite this, the experience of marriage and its associated rights can differ greatly for LGBTQ+ individuals, especially those with other marginalized identities. Anti-Discrimination Laws While significant progress has been made in LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws, gaps still exist. As of 2021, many states lack comprehensive protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, and public accommodations. Transgender individuals, in particular, can face gaps in legal protections. Employment Rights LGBTQ+ rights in the workplace have seen significant advances with rulings that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. However, disparities still exist. Transgender and non-binary individuals often face higher rates of job discrimination and unemployment. In workplaces, LGBTQ+ individuals of color and LGBTQ+ individuals with disabilities report higher rates of discrimination and harassment. Undeniably, progress has been made in the continual pursuit of justice and equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community. From groundbreaking legal rulings to shifts in societal perceptions, the landscape of LGBTQ+ rights has seen significant change. However, it remains crucial to remember that the journey is far from over. The intersection of LGBTQ+ rights with other identities including race, gender, and social status does not only complicate the narrative but amplifies the urgency to address these multi-faceted issues. As we continue to shape an equitable world, the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals must be resolutely acknowledged and the fight for their equal protection and treatment must persist, breeding a society wherein acceptance and celebration of diversity is the norm and not the exception. Read the full article

[theflynnstitute]

An Open Letter: Marriage Equality and MSHS

Dear Kerry and all Staff at Manjimup SHS,

I hope this letter finds you well. For those who may not recognise my name, I am an alumnus of MSHS, past Dux of School ‘09, Head Boy 2009, student representative on the School Board 2008-2009, and all round advocate for the quality public schooling that MSHS provides its students. I certainly would not be where I am today without the investment that MSHS and its superb teaching and support staff placed in me during my time there. And where is that? I’m currently completing my Doctor of Medicine and Masters of Public Health at the Melbourne Medical School and University of Melbourne’s School of Population and Global Health, with a view to practicing medicine in rural and remote Australia. However, I am not writing to you to tell of the 8-year adventure that has been my life following graduation from your fine institution. Rather, I am writing to express my concern over the current debate that is occurring on the issue of same-sex marriage, and the effect that this debate may be having on current MSHS students. I appreciate that this is a contentious issue for many people, and I respect that there will be a range of opinions within the MSHS community on this topic. While I will be sharing some personal anecdotes to illustrate how I have reached my own stance on this issue, my primary objective is the well-being and support of all students at Manji High. I moved to Manjimup just before the end of my 5th year in primary school. I distinctly remember my first recess break at Manji Primary, sitting with a group of new classmates as a nervous city-slicker kid, who had moved to the country to start a new chapter. Not even 2 hours into my first day at school, and I was called a ‘poofter’ by a boisterous young classmate, much to the enjoyment of the rest of the boys in the group. I didn’t even know what a poofter was, and so laughed along with the joke that was my presumed sexuality. I soon learnt that poofter was not something I wanted to be called… and so began a decade long journey of suppression and denial, the ramifications of which I still deal with today. I do not wish to portray Manjimup or MSHS as a particularly homophobic place, or community. Overall, I think that my experience growing up in Manji was a good one, and certainly has contributed in a positive way, to shaping me into the man I am today. However, like many towns across rural and regional Australia, homophobia in Manjimup was present, and was something that I had to deal with growing up in that place. More pertinent to the objectives of this letter however, are my experiences as a young, closeted, queer student at MSHS. Academically, the level of support I received at MSHS was outstanding and served as a superb foundation for both my undergraduate and postgraduate studies. However, lying behind the narrative of good academic achievement I experienced at MSHS lies a more insidious story of homophobic abuse that I experienced at the hands of my peers. “Faggot”, “poofter”, “pansy”, “homo”, “gay-boy”, “pillow-biter” were all terms that were occasionally used to refer to me in the school-yard. I was told to perform lewd homosexual acts by some of my male classmates, and on several occasions I was intimidated physically, even with teachers present in the room. Needless to say, there were numerous occasions where I did not feel safe at MSHS. While I have little doubt that these experiences contributed to the anxiety that I deal with today, I consider myself lucky to say that I survived high school relatively psychologically unscathed. The friendships that I formed at MSHS served as my haven, and it was these individuals who accepted me for the person who I was without question or suspicion, and supported me and shared in my high school journey. Of course, there were social support resources available at the school during my time there, and perhaps people will criticize me for not accessing these resources. The reality is, I did not feel safe, nor justified in accessing support from the school counsellor or chaplain. I existed in an environment that told me that what I was, was abnormal, and the treatment I was experiencing was simply a natural consequence of the ‘affliction’ I was suffering from, and something that I had to endure in silence. In some ways, I feel my devotion to my academic studies was a compensatory mechanism for the supposed homosexual flaw in my underlying character. Over the course of my university studies, I have become increasingly concerned with social justice, and in particular how it relates to health. My decision to undertake a masters of public health is emblematic of this. Public health is a discipline of health science that is concerned with the prevention of disease, disability and suffering through interventions that occur at a population level. Many who work in the public health arena speak of taking an “upstream” approach, where one assesses the broader social, political, and economic determinants that have contributed to whatever health issue Is being examined. Mental Health and suicide is an important health issue for all of Australian society, but is also one that disproportionately affects the LGBTIQA+ community. LGBTI Australians aged 16 years and over are 5-11 times more likely to attempt suicide; 16-18 times more likely to experience suicidal ideation; 2-6 times more likely to self-harm; and twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental health condition, when compared to the general Australian population[1]. And what is fueling these disastrous outcomes? Homophobia. Be it personal, interpersonal, institutional, or cultural, homophobia creates environments where queer individuals (and even people who are simply perceived to be queer) are attacked physically and verbally, are made to question and defend their own validity, and are expected to see themselves as second class, and less deserving of the rights and privileges that are attached to being heterosexual. While personal and interpersonal homophobia is damaging and should be called out and dealt with, particularly in our schools, these acts are often the product of underlying institutional and cultural homophobia. And as a student of public health, I know that fighting this more insidious form of prejudice is where the real money is, if we have any hope of progressing Australia towards the more inclusive, “fair go” society that it professes itself to be. Policy and law, must play an important role in shaping cultural and institutional perceptions of what is acceptable and unacceptable in our secular society. In doing so, they in-turn function to mold individual perceptions, particularly for our young people. This is why the marriage equality debate is so important to me, and why I will be voting YES for marriage equality. As a young person growing up in a rural community, the concept of even being in a same-sex relationship was not something I was privy to. It wasn’t until I reached undergraduate studies at UWA that I began to explore concepts outside heteronormativity, and even then, it was a number of years until I decided to come out to my friends and family. Having marriage equality will allow young, closeted and openly-queer teenagers to see that there are options for them to have their love and relationships celebrated in the same way that their straight friends and family members do. It will help to fuel a culture of acceptance, that embraces diversity and values the collective strength of a diverse nation. While I do think that marriage equality is an inevitable legislative end, it in no way justifies the means by which our current Federal Government is using to achieve it. Using a $122 million, non-binding, non-representative postal survey to inform government policy is unprecedented, and is an example of the institutional homophobia I mentioned earlier. Homophobia that expects myself and other queer individuals to sit by while the rest of the country ”respectfully debates” the validity of our relationships, and whether we should be granted the same rights under Australian law. Because make no mistake, the campaign for same-sex marriage is not just about the label of “Marriage”. Our illustrious former PM Mr. Abbott would have us believe that same-sex couples already have the same rights under civil union legislation, however it only takes a quick google search to find the flaws in that argument. Same-sex couples experience a deficiency in rights in all manner of ways from carer-rights, Medicare and the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, to tax concessions, employee rights and superannuation [2]. The fight for same-sex marriage is a fight for these rights. The debate that has been occurring on this issue has been undeniably toxic. The ‘Honorable’ Mr. Turnbull continues to harp on about the ability of the Australian public to have a respectful debate, yet seems blind to reality of what is actually occurring. While I acknowledge that majority of Australians are capable of having a perfectly civil discussion around this issue, thanks to social media and the current speed of the media cycle, much of the content we are seeing relating to this debate is extreme, vitriolic, and often uninformed. And while I do not purport to say that the NO campaign hold exclusive claim over the extreme views seen in this debate, I do believe that it is these extreme views that sell newspapers and website clicks, and ultimately hinder our ability to have civil discussion. It is these extreme, and widely publicised views that have real ramifications for the queer community. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the past 12 months has been the most concentrated period of homophobia that I have experienced in my (relatively short) life. Not direct homophobia, although I have been accused of spreading hate speech simply for expressing my support of same-sex marriage, but more indirect homophobia. Having to see nasty and vitriolic comments on social media, listening to hateful and ill-informed rhetoric on national news bulletins, watching TV ads that tell me I am advocating for pedophilia and radical gender theory in classrooms. This all has power. Words have power, and we (the queers) of all people know the power of words. I have seen many colleagues withdraw from social media over the course of this campaign to protect themselves from the hateful vitriol. I myself have decided to remain engaged, but have also felt the need to seek professional support during this period. And if I am finding it tough to deal with the day to day commentary that is happening in this debate, imagine what our queer youth are going through. I believe that school should be a safe haven. Not necessarily apolitical, as I believe that our youth are our dreamers and visionaries, capable of imagining a future that is better than the present, and politics is an important part of this. However, growing up these days is difficult enough without the added pressure of dealing with this ongoing debate. And it’s not just queer youth we should be concerned about. Many straight-identifying young people also support same-sex marriage, have friends that identify as queer and are having an equally distressing time having to deal with the ongoing commentary that is occurring in homes, playgrounds and other spaces around the country. I really do urge the MSHS community to draw together during this time to support all its students. While I cannot attest to the current socio-political atmosphere of MSHS or the broader Manjimup community, I do strongly urge all individuals to call out homophobia, or any other type of prejudice or discrimination as completely unacceptable. Acknowledge the divisiveness of this debate and the effects it may be having on individuals, especially our queer youth. Give people the space to express their feelings openly, and if there must be debate within the school environment, ensure that it is respectful and factually informed. Student support systems must be proactive in addressing this issue and ensuring that MSHS strives towards being an environment that is respectful and inclusive of all individuals, regardless of sexuality, race, gender, social status, physical or intellectual ability. I would love to hear what initiatives MSHS has put in place to support LGBTIQA+ students, and to hear how the school community is going in general. I am also more than happy to be contacted by any staff or students who are seeking support around this issue, or would simply like to discuss the topic or share their insight. I hope this letter has been relevant and informative to the MSHS experience, and I hope that it contributes in a constructive way to the progression of a discussion around how MSHS can best support all its students and strive towards a culture of respect, diversity and inclusion.

Sincerely yours,

Sebastian Kirby MSHS Fan-boy

[1]

The Statistics at a Glance: The Mental Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex People in Australia Accessible at [http://lgbtihealth.org.au/statistics/]

[2] Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report, Australian Human Rights Commission  available at [https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/same-sex-same-entitlements-executive-summary]

[nightmare-afton-cosplay]

Same-Sex Couples 73% More Likely to Be Denied Mortgages, Study Finds

iStock/kate_sept2004

Modern communities are more diverse than ever, but a new study brings another reminder that housing discrimination is not yet dead.

Same-sex couples were 73.12% more likely to be denied a mortgage than straight couples with similar profiles, according to a recent Iowa State University study. The report looked at more than 30 million U.S. mortgages taken out from 1990 to 2015.

Adding insult to injury, same-sex couples were also charged 0.02% to 0.2% more in interest rates, upfront fees, or both on their loans. While this may not seem like much, it can add up to hundreds or even thousands of dollars over a 30-year mortgage.

“What we found is consistent with [discriminatory] behavior,” says Hua Sun, one of the authors of the report and a finance professor at Iowa State University. The researchers analyzed data from Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Boston Federal Reserve, and Fannie Mae Loan Performance to come up with their findings. They focused on two groups of mortgage applicants: same-gender pairs and male-female pairs.

Despite the national legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected under the federal Fair Housing Act. The law bans discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. However, some states and cities have made it illegal for housing providers and lenders to discriminate based on someone’s sexuality.

So it’s not surprising that nearly half of LGBT renters, 46%, are worried about discrimination in their future efforts to buy a home, according to a report from Freddie Mac and the National Association of Gay & Lesbian Real Estate Professionals (NAGLREP).

“It’s very sad to see that even in this day and age there’s still discrimination in the mortgage process after all the strides we’ve made,” says Tim Hur, last year’s diversity chair of the National Association of Realtors®. He’s also a real estate broker at Atlanta-area Point Honors and Associates, Realtors. “Everyone should have the same opportunity to own a home. It doesn’t matter if you’re gay, lesbian, Asian, black, or Hispanic.”

Same-sex couples did have slightly lower credit scores than their straight peers, the study found: an average credit score of 750, compared with 754 for straight couples.

But they made slightly more money, with an average household income of $104,000 versus $97,000 for male-female couples. These credit scores and incomes were averages from 1990 to 2015.

And same-sex couples weren’t any more likely to default on their loans, according to the study.

The findings are “extremely concerning,” says Jeff Berger, NAGLREP’s founder and CEO. He’s also a Realtor with Coldwell Banker in Jupiter, FL. “We had a feeling there was some discrimination in the mortgage place, but had hoped that it wasn’t this widespread.”

The post Same-Sex Couples 73% More Likely to Be Denied Mortgages, Study Finds appeared first on Real Estate News & Insights | realtor.com®.

from https://www.realtor.com/news/trends/same-sex-couples-73-more-likely-to-be-denied-mortgages-study-finds/

[nothingman]

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Adam and Eve, created by Albrecht Dürer, 1471-1528. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

On May 4, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that allows churches and religious leaders to explicitly endorse or oppose a political candidate without penalty to their nonprofit, tax-exempt status. Responses from white conservative evangelicals showed that this wasn’t what they were looking for. What they wanted, it seems, was legal protection for religious institutions and business owners to deny services to same-sex couples and transgender persons.

I am a sociologist studying contemporary evangelicalism and sexuality, and my research shows that the political beliefs of white evangelicals have deftly shifted from the bully pulpits of the Moral Majority in the 1980s to cultural messages that appear hip and modern. In particular, Christian sex advice caught my attention because it showcases how evangelicals can hold beliefs that are simultaneously pro- and anti-sex.

Sex advice websites

In my book “Christians under Covers: Evangelicals and Sexual Pleasure on the Internet,” I conducted a virtual ethnography of online Christian websites – blogs and message boards that discuss sex from a Christian perspective and online stores that sell sex toys and intimacy products.

In total, I studied 36 websites and conducted 44 interviews with users of two of the most active sites as well as six interviews with creators of different sites over two years – between 2010 and 2012. I collected survey responses from nearly 800 users of seven different sites. Collectively, these sites have attracted thousands of users who believe that God wants married, heterosexual couples to have great sex.

Though in my work, I use pseudonyms to describe the names of websites and their users, these sites are easy to find for anyone who is searching for “Christian sex advice.”

Christian sexual websites present evangelism as sexy for couples. Gill Poole, CC BY-NC

The problem that these websites try to solve is that many Christian couples don’t know how to achieve the great sex that God made possible, having grown up hearing a constant refrain of negative messages about sexuality. The content of these sites is a curious mix of secular and religious language that resembles both the liberal sex advice column “Savage Love” and the religious fiction novel series “Left Behind” – aimed at reminding believers that all of their actions are a part of a larger spiritual battle between good and evil.

On these websites, messages abound about self-improvement and being a good, giving and game sexual partner, as well the power of Jesus, the influence of Satan and the importance of being born-again.

Women make up the majority of bloggers and sex toy store owners I studied. They describe using vibrators and achieving orgasms; men talk about open communication with their wives about their deepest sexual desires.

It is a relatively recent historical phenomenon for Christians to claim sexual pleasure as part of their religious framework. As historian of religion Mark Jordan notes, sexual sins have included virtually every erotic action other than sex intended for conceiving children.

Christian sexuality websites, however, present evangelicalism as a sexy and modern representation of a religious tradition that is stereotypically the opposite.

Conservative beliefs

In the years I spent studying these sites, I never saw a single post endorsing or opposing a political candidate. Nonetheless, political beliefs were reflected in the implicit and explicit rules that were required of website users regarding their beliefs related to gender, sexuality and marriage.

On one website, for example, a message board where users post hundreds of comments every day, the moderators allow for “minor theological disagreements” among members, but require that “Members must be married (one man, one woman), and followers of Jesus Christ and His Word. Jesus, and Jesus alone, is the only way to salvation, and the Bible is the ultimate authority.” Off limits is “any defense of the practice of homosexuality, so-called ‘gay marriage,’ or the like.”

The beliefs on these websites are far from representative of American Christianity. Most Christians today believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society. A majority of LGBT Americans have some religious affiliation and there are LGBT-affirming groups in many Christian denominations (Matthew Vine’s The Reformation Project is one evangelical example).

Yet on these websites supporting gay sex (or gay marriage), sex outside of heterosexual marriage or any relationship that is nonmonogamous is fundamentally heresy.

In other words, the websites present a sexual logic that combines both limits and freedoms: Christian sexuality, all of these websites adamantly claim, is one full of choice and autonomy so long as Christians follow God’s demands for who is allowed to have sex.

As one blogger told me in an interview, “I think a couple has tremendous freedom” so long as sex is consensual and between husband and wife. In my book, I refer to this as the “logic of Godly sex:” a logic that makes sexual pleasure possible for straight, married Christians but forecloses it for everyone else.

Advancing conservative politics

In other words, I would argue, the sexual freedom that these websites claim to offer is illusory. This illusion is also central to the arguments that proponents present in favor of religious freedom legislation.

These state-enacted bills provide a practical route by which individuals can use the courts to make free exercise violation claims against the state.

The Christian sexuality websites do not accept homosexuality. Nathan Rupert, CC BY-NC-ND

For instance, Mississippi HB 1523 (passed in April 2016 but later blocked by a federal judge) protects persons who have “the sincerely held religious belief” that marriage “should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman” to decide whether or not to provide services, including housing and employment, to LGBT people.

It defines “a man” and “a woman,” according to law: “an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at the time of birth.” Laws like HB 1523 offer a strategy for religious conservatives to use their religious freedom to advance an anti-gay, anti-transgender, and anti-abortion political agenda.

In my opinion, emphasizing freedom and choice alongside conservative ideas about gender, sexuality and marriage is how conservative Christians can adapt to a changing world while maintaining their religious distinction.

After researching Christian sexuality websites, I am convinced that they do as much or more to advance conservative politics as does a preacher telling his congregation to vote for a particular candidate.

Kelsy Burke, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

via The Society Pages

[scramblina]

Exploration of the Hero

​According to The Cambridge Dictionary, a Hero is "a person admired for bravery, great achievement or good qualities." The word Brave is defined as "showing no fear of dangerous or difficult things."

Similar definitions can be found with Merriam Webster as well as Dictionary.com, but this wasn't the case 100 years ago.

According to Webster's Dictionary printed in 1913 a Hero is specifically male.

He´ro

n.1.(Myth.) An illustrious man, supposed to be exalted, after death, to a place among the gods; a demigod, as Hercules.

2.A man of distinguished valor or enterprise in danger, or fortitude in suffering; a prominent or central personage in any remarkable action or event; hence, a great or illustrious person.

Each man is a hero and oracle to somebody.

- Emerson.

3.The principal personage in a poem, story, and the like, or the person who has the principal share in the transactions related; as Achilles in the Iliad, Ulysses in the Odyssey, and Æneas in the Æneid.

The shining quality of an epic hero.

- Dryden.

Hero worship

extravagant admiration for great men, likened to the ancient worship of heroes.

Hero worship exists, has existed, and will forever exist, universally among mankind.

- Carlyle.

The clip I've chosen to personify a Hero is from November 22 of last year in which President Barrack Obama is awarding Ellen DeGeneres the nation’s highest civilian honor, The Medal of Freedom. This is "awarded to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors."

The year 2017 is quite a different landscape in regards to LGBT rights versus the cultural landscape of 1986 when Ellen first made her comedic debut on Johnny Carson's The Tonight Show. To give you an ideation, in June of 1986 The Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Georgia state sodomy law in Bowers v. Hardwick which was only overthrown in 2003. This law criminalizes sex in private between consenting adults with a target directed towards homosexual males. In 1986 the AIDS epidemic was at its height, Dr. Koop issued a Surgeon General’s Report on AIDS addressing the notion that HIV cannot be spread casually and calls for a nationwide education campaign; increased use of condoms; and voluntary HIV testing. I wouldn't exactly call this the friendliest period of time for LGBT identified people.

Almost a decade later DeGeneres's sitcom debuts in 1994. Her public coming out wasn't until 1996. To give you an idea of this time period, 1996 is the same year the SCOTUS passed the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same sex marriage granted under the laws of other states thus barring couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. This was recently struck down in 2013.

On the sitcom, Ellen comes out in an airport waiting room. As she struggles to tell the woman she's attracted to, she accidentally leans over an open microphone and announces herself to the entire waiting room and the studio audience breaks into laughter. Yet, Ellen's coming out wasn't easy; Sponsors pulled advertisements from the show, the religious right had their hay day with picketing, and within a year her show was cancelled. She became the punch line of many of jokes, a lot mean spirited. She worried she'd never work again and struggled to find confidence within herself.

Flash forward to 2017. Her talk variety show Ellen has won 29 Emmy awards, 20 People's choice awards (more than any other person). She continuously raises money/ awareness for different humanitarian causes (49 counted from one source) through her show with advertisers as well as with her own money. She is a spokeswoman for Cover Girl makeup and J.C. Penny (whom in 1996 pulled advertisements from her sitcom, and now stand beside her today!). Her brand of comedy is never directed to insult or hurt anyone's feelings. Ellen is the personification of noble qualities; determination, courage, compassion, perseverance, focus, conviction, responsibility and wisdom. By continuously pushing forward in the face of prejudice she has become a beacon of inspiration to millions.  

References

Ellen DeGeneres Medal of Freedom Award 11-22-16 (Nov 22, 2016) [Video] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOErQMqCXvM&t=12s

How Ellen DeGeneres Helped Change the Conversation about Gays (March 25, 2013). [Article] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/2013/03/25/175265720/how-ellen-degeneres-helped-change-the-conversation-about-gays Brave. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2017, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/brave Hero. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hero Hero (1913). Retrieved February 11, 2017, from http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/hero The Presidential Medal of Freedom (n.d.). [Press Release] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/campaign/medal-of-freedom 1986 in LGBT Rights (n.d.). [Article] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_in_LGBT_rights Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/aids-timeline/index.html Table of Years in LGBT Rights (n.d.). [Article] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_years_in_LGBT_rights Ellen DeGeneres Says She 'Was at Rock Bottom and Out of Money' After Coming Out of the Closet (November 2, 2016) [Article] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from http://people.com/celebrity/ellen-degeneres-rock-bottom-broke-after-coming-out-gay/ List of awards and nominations received by Ellen DeGeneres (n.d.). [Article] Retrieved February 11, 2017, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Ellen_DeGeneres

[stephenmccull]

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver

Gavin Newsom knew it was a political gamble when, as the newly elected mayor of San Francisco, he promised to eradicate chronic homelessness.

“I recognize that I’m setting myself up. I’m not naive to that,” he told his hometown newspaper in 2003 as he embarked on a campaign to sell his controversial plan. It hinged on slashing welfare payments for homeless people and redirecting those funds to acquire single-room occupancy hotels, converting them into long-term housing with health and social services.

“I don’t want to over-promise, but I also don’t want to under-deliver,” he said.

Over-promise he did, and the venture ultimately failed. But that pledge by Newsom — who at the time was a young, politically connected wine shop owner relatively new to public office — previewed a brand of political leadership on full display today as the first-term governor confronts an unprecedented public health emergency that has decimated the state’s economy and killed more than 4,280 Californians.

The COVID-19 pandemic has catapulted the 52-year-old Democrat into greater national prominence, winning him praise and voter support for taking decisive action to control the spread of infection in the absence of strong federal leadership.

But it has also exposed his penchant for making ambitious, showy announcements — often broadcast to a national audience — that aren’t necessarily ready for prime time. His plans regularly lack detail and, in some cases, follow-through.

“This governor wants to get a lot done even if all the details aren’t quite there yet. It’s uniquely his approach,” said Democratic strategist Dana Williamson, longtime adviser to former Gov. Jerry Brown. “He isn’t afraid to go big. The upside is establishing yourself as a real leader and, in the case of COVID, saving lives. But the downside is it doesn’t always work out quite perfectly.”

Newsom has a long history of pushing big ideas before they become popular, including legalizing gay marriage and recreational marijuana use, halting death penalty executions and expanding free health care for undocumented immigrants. Since his entry into public life, he has cultivated the image of a political risk-taker willing to buck the Democratic Party establishment. And although he has demurred, there is widespread speculation that Newsom has presidential ambitions.

Email Sign-Up

Subscribe to KHN’s free Morning Briefing.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

Since the start of the pandemic, Newsom has been praised by public health experts and Democratic strategists for making politically courageous decisions such as enacting the nation’s first statewide stay-at-home order, preventing widespread sickness and death. He has dramatically expanded hospital capacity while seeking to attack major problems as they erupt, from dire shortages of protective gear for hospital workers to inadequate testing in rural towns and poor, inner-city neighborhoods.

But as the crisis wears on, the list of Newsom’s unfulfilled promises is growing:

On April 7, he told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow that he had inked a deal securing “upwards” of 200 million protective masks per month, enough to “supply the needs of the state of California — potentially the needs of other Western states.” But nearly two months later, just 61 million surgical masks have arrived in California, while no higher-caliber N95 masks have been delivered, according to Brian Ferguson, spokesperson for the state Office of Emergency Services — despite Newsom’s promise that the deal included at least 150 million N95s. The $1 billion effort has been riddled with flaws, and the state so far has taken back nearly $250 million from the Chinese contractor, BYD Ltd. Co.

Later that month, Newsom announced a deal with Motel 6 that would provide thousands of rooms for homeless people in need of shelter. At least 5,025 Motel 6 rooms at 47 sites would open their doors to homeless people, “effective immediately,” should counties opt in, he said. But to date, just 628 Motel 6 rooms are open to homeless people at six sites.

Newsom also said in April that California must dramatically expand COVID-19 testing before it reopens to at least 60,000 — ideally 80,000 — tests per day. But the state still has not consistently reached 60,000 tests per day, even as it has allowed most counties to ease their stay-at-home restrictions.

In other cases, the governor has artfully avoided making specific promises. For instance, he has called the safety of nursing home patients and staff members a “top priority” without detailing plans, allowing him to dodge criticism even as more than half the deaths in California have occurred in long-term care facilities, according to state data.

Yet so far Newsom is showing strong support from Californians. Nearly 70% of likely voters say he’s doing a good job of handling the pandemic, according to a new poll released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California. His overall approval rating has climbed by double digits since February, rising from 52% to 64%.

But his support could erode if the public begins to notice that his promises — and lofty rhetoric — do not match reality, said Mark Baldassare, president and CEO of the institute.

“People can be forgiving and give the governor the benefit of the doubt, but that can turn from positive to negative very quickly,” Baldassare said. “The risk is public opinion can shift very quickly if people get a sense that it’s not going well or according to expectations.”

Although Newsom himself has acknowledged criticism that the state is falling short on some fronts, his chief spokesperson Nathan Click defended the governor’s approach.

“When it’s your life or livelihood on the line, wouldn’t you want leaders who are moving aggressively to help people on every possible front?” Click said in a statement. “He’s not afraid to swing for the fences — especially in a time of massive need.”

Daniel Zingale, Newsom’s former chief adviser, who retired earlier this year, argued that the governor’s handling of the pandemic has saved countless lives while bolstering the social safety net for those at greatest risk of contracting the coronavirus.

“When you have a crisis like this that is unprecedented, there is no real playbook,” Zingale said. “I think Gavin Newsom was made for this moment. This is a situation where you want a governor who is high-energy, deeply earnest and prone to action rather than inaction.”

***

Newsom’s political career dates back to the late 1990s, when he was appointed to San Francisco’s parking and traffic commission by its then-mayor, Willie Brown. Soon thereafter, Brown tapped Newsom to fill an open seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Running as the incumbent in 1998, Newsom was elected that year to his first full term on the board.

During his early years in public life, he honed his approach to politics — aggressively seeking national media attention for first-in-the-country social and economic policies. In 2004, the year he took office as mayor, Newsom granted same-sex couples marriage licenses before it was legal, and in 2006 he signed into law the nation’s first universal health care program, which covered all city residents regardless of their immigration status or ability to pay.

Newsom, in his 2013 book “Citizenville,” described his leadership approach as “Ready, fire, aim.”

“I’m as proud of some of my failures in business and politics as I am of my successes,” he wrote. “Failure isn’t something to be embarrassed about; it’s just proof that you’re pushing your limits, trying new things, daring to innovate.”

Newsom believes strongly in setting “audacious goals,” even if he risks over-promising or alienating supporters, said Peter Ragone, who was press secretary for part of Newsom’s mayoral tenure.

“Gavin has always believed that if you show people you’re thinking big and trying hard, they will take that over timidity, even if you might fail,” said Ragone, who remains a close, informal adviser to Newsom and also advises New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. “He wasn’t able to completely eradicate homelessness, but the voters were OK with that because they saw he was trying. Success doesn’t have to be an absolute policy triumph.”

***

Now Newsom is facing the biggest challenge of his political career, with several high-profile crises slamming California at once: A global public health emergency. Widespread civil unrest sparked by the killing of an African American man in Minnesota, George Floyd, at the hands of a white police officer, Derek Chauvin. Rising unemployment that could reach 30%. And another potentially devastating wildfire season.

The coronavirus pandemic, in particular, could have long-lasting consequences for Newsom’s future, said Dr. Leonard Marcus, co-director of the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative, a joint program of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.

“The politics of crisis leadership are high-consequence,” Marcus said. “For every political leader, a crisis like this is going to make or break their career.”

George Chin, 80, lived in a nursing home in Woodland, California, until April 22, when he died of COVID-19, according to his family. Chin died six days after he first complained of shortness of breath and spiked a high fever. (Courtesy of Simon Chin)

Davis resident Simon Chin has grown disillusioned with Newsom since the start of the crisis.

Chin’s father, 80-year-old George Chin, lived in Stollwood Convalescent Hospital in nearby Woodland. Chin regularly tuned into Newsom’s public briefings on the crisis to hear the governor say he was committed to preventing infections in nursing homes and protecting staff members and residents.

But infections in senior care homes continued to rise. And although Newsom has called for universal testing of residents and staffers, the state hasn’t provided the resources to make that happen, said Jason Belden, emergency preparedness director for the California Association of Health Facilities, which represents California’s roughly 1,200 state-regulated nursing homes.

State Health and Human Services Secretary Mark Ghaly said it’s the responsibility of nursing homes, not the state, to test.

“It’s not what we’re doing, and it’s, in our view, not feasible,” Ghaly said in an interview, noting that across the state, there are about 119,000 nursing home beds and about 90,000 staff members.

Newsom’s rhetoric at times has given the public a false sense of hope, said Dr. Michael Wasserman, president of the California Association of Long Term Care Medicine.

“When it comes to vulnerable older adults in California, all this governor has been doing is saying he’s going to act, he’s going to help them, but he hasn’t actually taken action,” Wasserman said. “People are dying because of it.”

Newsom��s reassuring statements during his public briefings made Chin feel like the state was doing more to prevent widespread infections, he said.

But Chin’s father died of COVID-19 on April 22. State records show 15 residents — roughly half of the nursing home’s capacity — died of the disease.

“We had no idea that there were such big problems in skilled nursing facilities based on what the governor was saying,” Chin said. “By the time we found out, it was too late.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Newsom Likes To ‘Go Big’ But Doesn’t Always Deliver published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/