Skip to content


GLBT News

The place for kittens to discuss GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) issues as well as topics that don't fit in the other forums. (Some topics are off-topic in every forum on the board. Please read the FAQs.)

Lesbian WNBA protest on "O'Reilly Factor"

Postby Pipsqueak » Wed Aug 07, 2002 1:16 pm

Did anyone watch "The O'Reilly Factor" last night? (Stupid question to ask on this board, I know.) :lol



Bill was talking to two women who were either involved in or supportive of the Lesbians For Liberty (LFL) protest at the New York Liberty WNBA game on Friday (there's an article about it here). They were having a "kiss-in" as a means of protest. The interview was actually going pretty well until Bill says "What if I took my 7-year-old daughter to this game, and she sees two women kissing, and now I have to explain to my daughter about lesbians??" (like it's some horrible evil secret) and one of the women responds "What's the problem with that? Just tell her they're in love. We're just like you, it's just a different form of a family." Bill responds, "That's YOUR family! It's not in my family! Keep it out of my family!" and goes on about how he wants his daughter to have a "childhood" and she shouldn't have to see this type of stuff (cause God forbid we actually teach children about LOVE).



Of course I was at my parents' house, and my mom was cheering him on. I had to sit there and bite my tongue. It was very sad. :(



Sorry, this probably belonged in a rant thread or something. Just wanted to know if anyone else saw this.



edited because I'm now a Flaming O!! Woooooo and hoooooo!

~~~~~~~~


"We're just ... stupid." -- Buffy, on Season 6

Check out my Buffy videos at http://www.pipsqueaky.com

Edited by: Pipsqueak at: 8/7/02 12:18:10 pm
Pipsqueak
 


Re: Lesbian WNBA protest on "O'Reilly Factor"

Postby skittles » Wed Aug 07, 2002 1:27 pm

Pipsqueak, I'm sorry that you couldn't say anything when you wanted to. My response to Bill would be along the lines of, "what do you say when you see a man & a woman kissing? Do you explain ALL of the aspects of that relationship? What if your daughter saw the parent of a friend, kissing someone passionately who wasn't their spouse? What do you say then? Do you explain that it's ok for them to do that? Do you go into detail about what adultery is?" of course he doesn't. so why does he need to explain lesbians to his daughter? just two women who love each other & kiss each other. You explain it to their understanding, not yours.



as if heterosexuals are better than anyone else. HA!!



Sorry about the rant. comes from living in a small conservative midwest town where they worship "his" kind.



Rant over.. for now. Thank you for your time.

skittles

.. for when I see you even for a moment, then power to speak another word fails me, instead my tongue freezes into silence... -- Sappho

skittles
 


Ottawa to study gay marriage ban

Postby Kalita » Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:14 pm

Well, it looks like the feds aren't leaving it COMPLETELY up to the supreme court.



They're doing discussion and study-group stuff to gauge public reaction - that is, find out how 'hot-button' it would be to actually support gay marriage themselves and change the law on their own. If they think the risk is too great, they'll keep sitting on their hands and let the court rule anyway. :rolleyes



Well, that's politics... Article

"Numfar... Do the dance of shame."

Kalita
 


Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby kukalaka » Fri Aug 09, 2002 6:41 am

The catholic church in Germany has announced that they're going to dismiss people who register their partnership (gay marriage). This includes all the employees of catholic kindergartens, old people's homes, hospitals...



Although I'm not religious myself I've been taught to respect religion (and I do), but they're really starting to p!ss me off here :mad



Edited because I'm too stupid to change the subject

--

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Edited by: kukalaka  at: 8/9/02 6:19:45 am
kukalaka
 


Re: Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby justastraightdog » Fri Aug 09, 2002 10:44 am

Oh, gosh, that's bad news. I thought the Bundesverfassungsgericht had put an end to this. Especially because this is only the first sign of what will happen - with Stoiber in the lead after 9/22. :puke



No, I'm not gay, but I'm concerned because I'm a proud and offensive atheist. And I can't understand (nor tolerate) that the Catholic Church - given its history - still can violate even the basic principles of the Grundgesetz whenever they want.



Sorry for the ranting, but - hey, they've burned witches, didn't they? And they never officially banned the Hexenhammer, so if they start to think that it could be useful for the storyline... oops, wrong thread. ;)



just a straight dog (after reading Der Spiegel - sorry, no English translation available)

justastraightdog
 


Re: Ottawa to study gay marriage ban

Postby Lindy » Fri Aug 09, 2002 11:10 am

Doesn't the Grundgesetz say that you can't be discriminated against for stuff like that? They actually say: "No you can't work here, because you are gay." It doesn't matter what the "firm policy" of the catholic church says. It violates law. I think this will be an easy decision once someone takes this to court.

~~~~~~~
It's nothing. It's all.. nothing

Lindy
 


Re: Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby kukalaka » Fri Aug 09, 2002 3:28 pm

Apparently there's something strange called "Tendenzschutz" that allows the church to not only dismiss gays, but everyone who does something "bad": divorce, marrying a protestant(!) and lots of other stupid stuff.



I really hope someone will take this to court.



Lindy:

It's

"Niemand darf wegen seines Geschlechtes, seiner Abstammung, seiner Rasse, seiner Sprache, seiner Heimat

und Herkunft, seines Glaubens, seiner religiösen oder politischen Anschauungen benachteiligt oder bevorzugt

werden. Niemand darf wegen seiner Behinderung benachteiligt werden."

Nothing about sexual orientation here :spin Time to add that.



Edited because there was a mistake :wink

--

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

Edited by: kukalaka  at: 8/9/02 2:30:58 pm
kukalaka
 


Re: Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby Lindy » Fri Aug 09, 2002 3:44 pm

I'm starting to get slightly annoyed by the Grundgesetz. First there is Artikel 6 with the special status of 'ordinary' marriage and now this. But I do wonder, does the GG or any other law or the Bundesverfassungsgericht say somewhere what marriage actually is? Isnt' this just a term like 'gute Sitten' which just requires a valid definition? Geez, and I really thought our constitution is one of the most liberal ones around.



Anyways. In this case here there is always Art.2 I.



If you are gay you really need good legal insurance :rolleyes





~~~~~~~
It's nothing. It's all.. nothing

Lindy
 


Re: Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby kukalaka » Fri Aug 09, 2002 6:56 pm

I don't think it's specifically stated anywhere important (there's probably some "Verwaltungsrichtline" or something like that) what exactly "marriage" is supposed to be (I've also been thinking about it), but it is kinda obvious what the people who made the Grundgesetz had in mind : I can actually imagine society changing in a way necessary to accept a different interpretation, but that is going to take quite a while (50 years? Anyone else wanna make a guess?)



It's really not much of a surprise they didn't include sexual orientation back in 1949 (probably didn't even think of it), but it's about time to add it. (If I wasn't too damn fond of my relaxing, computer-playing, kitten-board-consuming, reading, ... time, I'd be tempted to go into politics.)



Quote:
Geez, and I really thought our constitution is one of the most liberal ones around.


It probably is, despite all of this, which is really sad.



(Totally OT: I'm pretty sure the Weimar Constitution was more liberal in a lot of (completely different) aspects. Obviously there is such a thing as being to liberal :spin )



--

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

kukalaka
 


Re: Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby justastraightdog » Fri Aug 09, 2002 7:35 pm

Uh, no, it's actualy one of the Artikel from the Weimarer Verfassung which has been used unchanged for the Grundgesetz, that causes this trouble:



Artikel 137 (Weimarer Verfassung)

[...]Jede Religionsgesellschaft ordnet und verwaltet ihre Angelegenheiten selbständig innerhalb der Schranken des für alle geltenden Gesetzes. [...]



The problem is, that "verwaltet ihre Angelegenheiten selbständig" has been proven to be more important then "innerhalb der Schranken des für alle geltenden Gesetzes". At least when it comes to Arbeitsrecht. If a priest commits murder, it's something else. Though, there is a tendency to keep and handle even grueful crimes inside the church, as we can see in the ongoing child abuse debate. But that's not a genuine German problem, it had a much bigger impact in the USofA.



just a straight dog (who had to google in the middle of the night, thanks ;)



justastraightdog
 


Re: Catholic church and gay marriage

Postby kukalaka » Sat Aug 10, 2002 2:54 am

As I said: completely different aspects, hence the OT :)



You're right though, I found that part, too, I just thought there had to be something else to warrant this kind of stuff. Apparently not.



I also found some kind of initiative from the Greens to change that in a way that only allows them to be so narrow-minded in the so-called "Verkündigungsdienst", not in all the social stuff related to the church. The initiative dated back to 1990, seems it's not an easy matter :



I really hope someone is going to take this to court. The church gets paid by the state for these services so they should respect the state's rules. It's that simple.

--

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

kukalaka
 


Re: some GOOD news...

Postby xita » Sun Aug 11, 2002 12:03 pm

from yahoo:



China's First Lesbian Film Quietly Tests Limits

Sat Aug 10, 4:39 PM ET

By Jonathan Ansfield



BEIJING (Reuters) - Li Yu, director of China's first lesbian feature film, never told her male actors their on-screen blind dates weren't interested.







By the time the amateur beaux found out the leading ladies were gay, Li's cameras were already rolling.



"It was an experiment, an exploration, to see how people in society really view lesbians," said the rookie director of "Fish and Elephant," a prize winner at the Berlin Film Festival.



Shot on 16 mm film in a shabby pocket of Beijing, the movie stars real-life lesbians nagged by the daily pressures of their Confucian, marriage-minded society: a matchmaking mother, a deadbeat husband and a bevy of desperate, single men.



A murderous ex-girlfriend on the run from police only complicates matters.



The 2001 movie was part of a flurry of recent breakthroughs for China's largely closeted gays, officially deemed mentally ill until last year.



But while homosexuals are freer to swing at a growing number of gay bars in big cities and have even "come out" on newsstands and web portals ( news - web sites), public awareness is lacking. And the threat of government suppression always lurks.



Li, like many independent movie makers in China, did not bother asking for the approval of Beijing's film czars.



Her film has been screened at more than 70 film festivals overseas, but only once at home, where homosexuality remains near the top of the list of taboo topics.



China's first gay and lesbian film festival, where "Fish and Elephant" made its domestic debut, was shut down days later.



Government censors have exacerbated Li's struggle to demystify a quiet subculture of "women comrades," Chinese slang for lesbians, who in contrast to gay men are almost unheard from.



"No way," blurts one eligible bachelor, in disbelief, when the lesbian protagonist Xiaoqun tells him she likes women.



Dumbfounded and without a script, he fumbles for words. "So, what's your blood type?"



The actor was furious, according to Li. "He said, 'How could I possibly act in a lesbian film?"'



RARE VOICE



Li Yinhe, a prominent sociologist at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, says some three percent of women and four percent of men in China are probably homosexual. Western estimates suggest 10 percent of a given population may be gay.



But China's female gay community is more concentrated, monogamous and anonymous than the men, preferring discreet Internet chat rooms and private salons over the bar scene, she and others say.



"Lesbians very seldom enter people's field of vision," Li said.



Cui Zi'en, a gay filmmaker and professor at the Beijing Film Academy, agreed. "It's easy to the get impression that there aren't any," he said.



By contrast, gay men have public gathering spots in every district of Beijing, Cui said.



Director Li, a former state television announcer turned documentary maker, got the idea for her film after meeting a celebrated female couple in Shanghai who traded vows -- China does not recognize gay marriages -- with their parents on hand.



Although it is common for Chinese girls to hold hands in public, the straight actresses Li tried out could not pull off the part. "They would not even let their skin come in contact."



She said her main characters, a zoo-keeper and a clothes maker, represented the urban everywoman rather than the artsy vanguard stereotypically associated with gay lifestyles.



But the only suitable role players Li could find were an outspoken avant-garde painter and her one-time girlfriend.



Shitou, a painter of surrealistic scenes of women frolicking in water and marching topless, plays the seamstress Xiaoling, a libertine estranged from her husband.



The first-time actress said she had turned down similar roles in the past, but decided "Fish and Elephant" was the right vehicle for giving China's lesbians a voice.



"Because we don't have a voice and you cannot see us on TV, there are some who are in truth gay but don't know it themselves," she said. "Their lives are very confused."



TESTING THE LIMITS



Xiaoling and zookeeper Xiaoqun, played by Shitou's ex-partner Panyi, begin trading flirtatious glances while feeding apples to Xiaoqun's elephant. Erotic sparks fly when they light each other's cigarettes, tip to tip.



The movie, which includes scenes of masturbation and same-sex love-making, was shot for a privately raised $60,000.



"Five years ago, you could not imagine shooting this kind of movie in China," said Cui, referring to the support Li received within the industry.



Gay rights activists began testing the limits of their freedom after the Chinese Psychiatric Association's landmark April 2001 decision to drop homosexuality as a mental disorder.



In 1996, when underground filmmaking guru Zhang Yuan shot "East Palace, West Palace," regarded as China's first gay picture, police could still arrest homosexuals for "hooliganism."



A handful of gay films released since then have kept pace with the slow and subtle advance of gay rights in China.



Most gay filmmakers, like their subjects, have been content to duck rather than challenge government censors. And bureaucrats, unable to track their swelling numbers, have tolerated scenes that can only be aired overseas.



"The film bureau doesn't even know what it should keep track of," said Cui.



- - - - - - - - - - - -

Childie -"Not all girls are raving bloody lesbians, you know!"

George - "That's a misfortune of which I am perfectly well aware."

The Killing of Sister George

xita
 


Lesbian movie

Postby tommo » Sun Aug 11, 2002 2:53 pm

Wow, that's amazing. In some ways, it makes me thankful that I live here. And yet, in others, it's distressing that we have such a long way to go yet.


----------
The mature solution is to spend
your whole life telling stupid,
pointless jokes so no one will notice
you're just a scared, insecure little
boy! ~ Xander...or Joss...?

tommo
 


Some good news. I hope?

Postby Jimmi Magnus » Tue Aug 13, 2002 11:09 am

In the article Willowhand quoted, a few pages back, from "the Toronto star" it stated that The Netherlands is currently the only place where same-sex mariages are legal.

That is (thankfully!) not true.

As of law 232 of april 2. 1997 all mentions of a persons sex have been removed from the danish "Law of Mariages".



Any member of the "Danske folkekirke" (People's church, Lutheran Evangelist christian compromising 95% of the danes) can get a church wedding, even if they spouse to be isn't a member. If the priest have religious grounds not to want to perform a same-sex mariage (and a few morons have) they are required to help find another priest who will.



No matter what religion you have, you can allways get a state sanctioned mariage in Denmark, if you abide to the laws of these (like not being brother/sister, allready mariaged, etc).



You still can't get artificially impregnated, nor get permission to adopt a child, if you are not in a hetero-sexual mariage-like relationship. Still a long way to go :-(

Jimmi Magnus
 


Re: Some good news. I hope?

Postby relativegirl » Tue Aug 13, 2002 12:33 pm

Can two women or two men who are not citizens of Denmark get married in Denmark? Or does one of the couple have to be a Danish citizen?

~ If I should rock you,
the whole world would rock within my arms ~

relativegirl
 


Re: Some good news. I hope?

Postby raccoon » Tue Aug 13, 2002 12:58 pm

I can't really answer for Denmark, but here in Norway one of the couple *has* to be a Norwegian citizen, and I should think the same thing goes for the other Scandinavian countries.



A hot issue in Scandinavia right now is gay parenting. Although gays are currently not allowed to adopt their partners' children, it looks as though the general consensus (in Norway and in Sweden, anyway) is that they should be. Here's to hoping.

*I am, you know, yours."

raccoon
 


It appears so

Postby Jimmi Magnus » Tue Aug 13, 2002 1:06 pm

From reading the law-script it stated in the Law of Mariages:

Paragraph 18: Access to getting a state sanctioned mariage is open to all

Paragraph 20,4: The Minister of Justice can make rules regarding payment for an interpretor, if neither of the parties going to be maried live in Denmark.



In neither of these Paragraphs is nationality an issue.

The only time it's an issue is in Paragraph 16,2 where it states that the Minister of Church decides wether or not memberbers of non-danish Evangelist-Lutheran churches can get a church mariage.



So dear Relativegirl, I think that I can answer your real question with:

Yes, you and your lucky gf should be able to get married in Denmark.



At the most it would cost $100 for the interpretor (not sure about those rules, since they are tricky to find. But it sounds like a likely maximum over here).



Sincerely

Jimmi Magnus

Jimmi Magnus
 


No more Sidney Mardi Gras?

Postby xita » Wed Aug 14, 2002 12:20 am

news.independent.co.uk/wo...ory=323283



Anger as Sydney's Gay Mardi Gras goes bust

By Kathy Marks in Sydney

11 August 2002

Some are blaming it on infiltration by "straights"; others are pointing the finger at politically correct lesbians. Recriminations are flying after the group that organises Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras was placed in voluntary administration last week.



The move means that next year's carnival may not go ahead, leaving a gaping hole in the city's social calendar. The street parade and dance party had grown into the world's largest celebration of gay culture, attracting 750,000 people.



This year's Mardi Gras, however, saw a sharp decline in numbers, leaving it A$400,000 (£140,000) in the red. After months of financial uncertainty, a mystery benefactor offered to bail it out – but last week he changed his mind.



The demise of Mardi Gras not only robs Sydney's gays and lesbians of their annual hedonistic extravaganza. The event was hugely lucrative for local businesses, pouring A$100m a year into the New South Wales economy, and was also a big fund-raiser for the main Aids charities.



In the gay community, the knives are out. Several people have resigned from the Mardi Gras board, one of them accusing directors of living in "fantasy land". The board has been bitterly criticised for failing to appreciate the impact of 11 September on tourism. Many observers believe the event had grown too big and too commercialised.



The financial crisis mirrors an identity crisis for Mardi Gras, which was born as a defiant statement of gay rights in 1978. Police broke up the first march of 1,000 demonstrators, held to commemorate the Stonewall riots in New York.



Police officers now march alongside sequin-laden drag queens, which sums up Mardi Gras's dilemma. With the battles against homophobia largely won – thanks partly to Mardi Gras – the event has lost its political edge. Even the outrageous floats, traditionally led by Dykes on Bikes, a group of bare-breasted women on motorbikes, no longer shock.



David Mills, a journalist with the Sydney Star Observer, the city's main gay newspaper, cites several reasons for Mardi Gras's decline, including an ageing gay population that is less inclined to party. He said a more tolerant climate meant that gay people no longer needed an annual catharsis to validate their sexuality.



"There is a bit of nostalgia for the old days," Mr Mills said. "In the early years, being seen at Mardi Gras was an incredibly courageous thing to do. People who have been marching for 20 years are wondering why it doesn't feel exciting any more."



Others suggest the death knell was sounded when the carnival became so fashionable that straight people began attending in droves. So vehemently has this view been expressed in recent days that one participant in a gay internet chatroom pleaded for an end to discrimination against heterosexuals.



Most bitchily, some gay men are attributing Mardi Gras's woes to the decision to admit women in 1989. They say that a loss-making arts festival, which was added in recent years, is aimed at politically correct lesbians.



The organisers are blaming conservatives within the state's Labor government for its refusal to provide financial help. The acting state treasurer, John Della Bosca, said last week that the funds would be better spent on hospitals, roads and drought relief. The gay community seized on this as proof that discrimination is alive and kicking after all.



- - - - - - - - - - - -

Childie -"Not all girls are raving bloody lesbians, you know!"

George - "That's a misfortune of which I am perfectly well aware."

The Killing of Sister George

xita
 


Re: No more Sidney Mardi Gras?

Postby Bagheera » Wed Aug 14, 2002 12:46 am

The bitter recriminations about this will fly for months to come, but it's probably too early to say definitely that Mardi Gras is no more. It all comes down to money. The two sides of the money question are:



1) Income - the major sources of income for SGLMG are: sponsorship, and ticket sales for the massive party held at the end of the parade. Sponsorship is currently iffy across the board in Australia - companies everywhere are tightening their belts, and to accuse them of homophobia if (and I stress if) there is a drop in sponsorship for Mardi Gras is a tough call. There is a popular perception that the gay community in Aust. has a high disposable income, just the sort of market that companies want to know about. Ticket sales to the party are a bigger factor IMO. Attendances have been falling in recent years.



2) Expenditure - this was not mentioned in the article at all, but Australia and particularly the state of New South Wales is currently undergoing an enormous upheaval in the insurance industry. One major insurance company went bust last year and there are enormous rises in the cost of public liability insurance (of the order of hundreds or thousands of percent - I'm not kidding). I would submit that this is a very important factor in the SGLMG's current financial woes. Lots of parades and festivals all over the state are getting cancelled because the organisers simply can't afford to insure them. With talk of major reforms to the insurance industry, there's always some hope.

A black shadow dropped down into the circle. It was Bagheera
the Black Panther, inky black all over, but with the panther markings showing up in certain lights like the pattern of watered
silk.

Rudyard Kipling

Edited by: Bagheera at: 8/13/02 11:55:56 pm
Bagheera
 


Re: No more Sydney Mardi Gras?

Postby semiramis » Wed Aug 14, 2002 4:07 am

I must be using that invisible html again, cause I posted about this on the previous page............anyhoo

Bagheera is quite correct in stating that attendances at the dance parties have been falling for years. Those of us in our *gulp* late 30's who have been going to the parties for at least the last decade are really starting to feel just a little too old and too tired. Plus we are sick of having to share our space with packs of str8 backpackers who go to the party because "it's the thing to do". No matter what type of conditions are put on SGLMG membership or tickets sales, there seems no way of stopping them pouring in........and the younger queer generation just doesn't seem that interested in attending. And who can blame them when the party comittee make such tragic(IMHO) choices for special acts as Bardot (a Popstars ttype band), or faded Oz Rock stars such as Jimmy Barnes who have NEVER had a queer following. And the ticket prices are just too high now for those of us who are sinking our "pink" dollar into the exorbitant morgtages that are common in Sydney.

I agree with Bagheera regarding homophobia being a tough call. The collapse of this organisation lies much closer to home. I've volunteered at Mardi Gras a number of times, and frankly, I'm gob smacked that the parade ever gets started.......

And then there is the matter of insurance premiums. Due to lawyers exhorting clients to sue rather than accept responsibility for their own actions, premiums have gone through the roof.

As far as I am aware, the party itself is actually a huge money spinner, the funds are being lost through Mardi Gra's promotion of a cultural festival that no-one ever attends. So a huge profit is made, and then promptly lost again.

Frankly I am hoping that this results in a serious rethink about the goals and management of Mardi Gras.

The longer I live, the less I resemble the rest of humanity
Violet Trefusis

semiramis
 


Re: Some good news. I hope?

Postby concrete » Wed Aug 14, 2002 6:25 am

First; let me make one thing very clear: I personally would jump for joy if our –dutch- law regarding s/s marriage would be implemented all over the world. No restrictions, no ifs, no buts, etc.etc. Justice and equality for all. Gays do not pay second rate taxes so should not be considered second rate citizens.That said, it is however, sadly, still true that The Netherlands are still the only country in the world where this has been accomplished –no restrictions: the full deal. Denmark was the first country in the world to recognize domestic partnerships. Some countries followed suit and that was a major step in the right direction. The difference between gay marriage and marriage is that the latter includes the right to adopt (Dutch) children, take each other’s last name, get a divorce and what have you. This puts the liaison on a par with its heterosexual equivalent.

Especially the “adoption of children” is the hot issue that stands in the way of/is the disctinction between registered partnerships and full-on marriage (note the absense of the word ‘gay’)

I found a few snippets from different sources which may be interesting:

+++++++++

SFGate.com:

‘"Finally, in the Netherlands, it's not 'gay marriage,' it's marriage," said Evan Wolfson, outgoing director of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund's marriage project in New York. "Here, in the United States, we're fighting . . . for marriage, no more no less. No more creating something separate and unequal." Denmark became the first country to allow same sex couples to register as domestic partners.

While the state of Vermont and several European countries have given marriage-like rights to gay couples, the Netherlands is the first nation in the world to eliminate the definition of marriage as being an institution between a man and a woman. The new law not only gives same-sex couples the right to marry, but also legal options of divorce and adoption.’

Detroit News:

Years after Denmark became the first country to create "registered partnerships" to give gay couples most of the rights and responsibilities of traditional civil marriage, the Netherlands has taken the next natural step: Dutch gay couples may marry just like their heterosexual counterparts.

"Finally, someone has gone first and said, No more separate and unequal! No more discrimination!'" exclaims Evan Wolfson, who heads this country's gay marriage project at the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "When Denmark took its step, people thought it was so far out front and just so unattainable elsewhere. And here we already are with the Netherlands going all the way."

Washington Post:

‘The Netherlands' new marriage law, eliminates the definition of "marriage" as a union between a man and a woman, effectively legalizing civil marriage between same-sex Dutch couples. As officially married couples, gay men and lesbians will be able to claim pension benefits if a partner dies. They can take their partner's last name. They can adopt children, if the children are Dutch. And they have the right to have their marriages recognized overseas.

Other countries have adopted rules for "registered partnerships" for gay couples living together; the Netherlands, too, has such a law. But the new Dutch law goes further than anywhere else in the world in fully opening marriage -- and all the benefits that flow from marriage -- to same-sex couples, with no restrictions and no discrimination, legally at least.’

++++++++++++

Reports are confusing, to say the least: Gaywire.com states: ‘As the first country in the world to recognize gay marriage, Denmark has long been known for its tolerance and cosmopolitan worldview.’

And there we have the key-word (irony, irony): “Gay” ....... See the articles above about the disctinction and the restrictions it holds.

I have been thinking long and hard about posting this because it may come across as nationalistic etc., and putting down other countries’ positions/views. This could not be further from the truth, nationalism is just plain scary as it reeks of arrogance and a “we-are-better-than-you” attitude. Newsflash: we’re not ! There’s a lot of things plain wrong in this country (a ridiculously tolerant drugs-policy springs to mind, just my opinion of course) but it’s just that there are still so many misconceptions about this particular issue that I felt compelled to sort of set the record straight –pun not intended.....





It's not so much that I'm always right, it's just that I'm never wrong
Time cannot erase.....the memory of your face

concrete
 


Bummer...

Postby Jimmi Magnus » Wed Aug 14, 2002 10:55 am

Hi concrete. Thanks for the relevant reply, and for correcting my mistake. I was just sure I had some good news to share with you guys :-(



I was just 100% sure that we allowed all mariages here in Denmark. But before I wrote anything yesterday, I did check out the danish Law of Mariages, and _no-where_ is a persons sex mentioned. Thus I was certain in my cause.

At work today, I asked my colleagues about it, and they said we only allow registered same-sex couples. Not mariages.



Right after reading your post I cheked the law again ( www.retsinfo.dk/_GETDOCI_...14729-REGL ) and I still can't find anything that says that same-sex mariages aren't allowed. I'm asking a few law dudes I know, and some I don't. I fear you are right, but I hope you're not.



And no, I didn't for once, take your post as nationalism. Constructive criticism should never be frowned upon.

Jimmi Magnus
 


Re: No more Sydney Mardi Gras?

Postby xita » Wed Aug 14, 2002 11:44 am

semiramis sorry :( I thought I looked through the last couple of pages. I am now officially blind. The only thing I could suggest is to maybe post the article within your post, it's good thing to do cause sometimes links die. Sorry :(

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Childie -"Not all girls are raving bloody lesbians, you know!"

George - "That's a misfortune of which I am perfectly well aware."

The Killing of Sister George

xita
 


Re: Bummer...

Postby concrete » Wed Aug 14, 2002 12:17 pm

Hi Jimmi,

I take it you're Danish (couldn't find it in your profile) so I was a bit worried but thank you for taking this info in the spirit it was meant. As for being wrong, I tend to hate being wrong, but I can -in all honesty- say that in this instance I wouldn't mind a bit :p

But I'm sure this striving for equality is just a matter of time and I'm quite convinced it'll be in this lifetime :) !

It's not so much that I'm always right, it's just that I'm never wrong
Time cannot erase.....the memory of your face

concrete
 


Is bad news allowed here too? If not, mods please delete...

Postby DarkWiccan » Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:11 pm

Nevada --



With elections drawing near, Question 2 is once again on the ballot awaiting a yay or nay from voters to determine its final passage.



The question, which first appeared on Nevada ballots during the 2000 election, would make any kind of same sex relationship void in the eyes of the law. In other words, not only would the State of Nevada not recognize civil unions performed in other states, but same sex partners would also be denied child-custody rights and reciprocal benefits such as hospital-visitation and medical decision making in the case of a partner's incapacitation.



In other words, same-sex couples would have absolutely no civil rights whatsoever should this pass.



The leader behind Question 2 is not surprisingly the Church of Latter-Day Saints, who have devoted a $2 Million campaign to the passage of this atrocious proposal. Equal Rights Nevada is floundering in it's response with a barely $60K counter-campaign budget.



The LDS church is a very powerful and influential community in the state of Nevada, and as a result of their previous efforts in the 2000 election, Question 2 passed with an overwhelming majority vote. Should it pass this second time around, the act will go into effect.



LDS campaigners are even going so far as to have candidates for office sign pledges saying that should Question 2 pass, they will uphold the act while in office.



In a recent interview with Las Vegas Channel One's Jon Ralston on his political news show, Face to Face, the leader of the LDS council for the passage of Question 2 stated, "It is not acceptable to the church for 'those people' to be able to bastardize the sanctity of the union that is marriage between a man and a woman."



The GLBT Community of Nevada desperately needs the help in preventing this garish example of bigotry from passing into state law.



Any show of support, whether it is letters of protest to the state senate or monetary donations to Equal Rights Nevada, anything to stop this madness.



Thanks

DW

DarkWiccan
 


Big business less biased against gays

Postby Rally » Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:59 pm

Big business less biased against gays

National survey shows Bay Area leads the way



Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau Wednesday, August 14, 2002



Washington -- Big U.S. corporations are doing a better job of making themselves good places for gays and lesbians to work, a national report found Tuesday.



"The trend is incredible," said Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign in Washington.



The gay and lesbian group's first corporate equality index rated 319 public and private companies on a scale of 0 to 100 percent on seven factors that included having a written nondiscrimination policy based on sexual orientation and offering health insurance to workers' partners.



Thirteen companies, including Apple Computer and Intel in the Bay Area, got perfect 100 scores. Three companies got a zero, including aeronautics giant Lockheed Martin, which has operations in Sunnyvale and Palo Alto. The other two that scored zero were Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain, and Emerson Electric.



Overall, the Bay Area is ahead of the rest of the country in workplace nondiscrimination. Birch said that was a product of the area's active gay and lesbian populations and of San Francisco's adoption of a sweeping law in 1997 that required all companies doing business with the city to offer gay and straight employees the same benefits.



"The San Francisco ordinance created a phenomenon in the Bay Area . . ." she added. "It gave rise to a burst of companies that adopted policies friendly to gay and lesbian employees."



Across the country, the report found, most companies occupy a middle ground -- they are increasingly aware of the gay-lesbian market and their employees' sensitivities but haven't adopted all the policies that the Human Rights Campaign uses in its measurement.



"We believe this means most companies know discrimination is bad for business," said Kim Mills of the campaign's WorkNet employee advocacy project.



Ninety-two percent of the companies in the report include sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination policies.



Among Bay Area companies that got an 86 percent score on the seven-part test were ChevronTexaco, ETrade, Hewlett-Packard, Kaiser Permanente, Levi Strauss, PG&E, Silicon Graphics, Sun Microsystems, Charles Schwab and Wells Fargo.



Birch said most companies deserve credit for trying to improve. "It's corporate America that has been the unlikely hero in the drive for equal rights for gay and lesbian America," she said.



The campaign said it wasn't interested in punitive measures against what it views as laggard corporations. Instead, it wants to try to convince those firms that positive policies toward gays and lesbians are good for business.



"The quality of fair treatment in the workplace is no longer the right thing," Birch said. "It's a bottom-line issue." . The complete report can be found on the Web at http://www.hrc.org/worknet/cei.


E-mail Edward Epstein at eepstein@sfchronicle.com.

------------




Well officially, of course, I have to say that I have no idea what you're talking about.

Rally
 


Re: Bummer...

Postby Dumbsaint » Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:24 pm

I read about this on PlanetOut today, and can I just say... it's so damn good to read something positive on the gay rights front for once.

"It's not real. I mean, there are no vampires, there are no witches. Well, there are Wiccans, but they're not making out with Alyson, so..." -Amber Benson

Dumbsaint
 


Re: Big business less biased against gays

Postby kukalaka » Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:47 pm

Lots of computer companies with good scores there :grin Finally something good about studying computer science ;)

--

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. - Mark Twain

kukalaka
 


Sydney Mardi Gras

Postby semiramis » Wed Aug 14, 2002 5:09 pm

Xita, you are quite right, I should also enter the text of the story as well as the link.

There has been some cautious good news on this front. Our government sponsored "alternative" radio network reported this morning the the South Sydney City Council has entered into negotiations with Mardi Gras to help pull them through. There is talk of the council buying the rights to the logo and the party.

I'm still recovering from the idea of Council running the annual Sleaze Ball...........still, if the police can march in the Parade each year, I guess anything is possible.

edited to add this link and the story

abc.net.au/news/australia...2002-7.htm

Posted: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 7:06 AEST



Local council to bid for mardi gras logo, name

The Council of South Sydney is seeking to buy the intellectual property rights of the financially troubled gay and lesbian mardi gras.

It is a move designed to keep the event going.

The mardi gras has been in administration for a fortnight after losing $500,000 last year.

A motion passed by the South Sydney Council last night will see the council bid for the rights to the mardi gras name and logo.

Spokesman Liam Gash says the aim is to keep the rights in public hands in the hope of finding a new organisation to run the event.

But Mr Gash says that could end up in the council's hands.

"It's a possibility, but it's not something that we're seeking at this stage," he said.

The council will also appoint its general manager as a negotiator with the gay community to come up with a strategy to save the mardi gras.







Edited by: semiramis at: 8/14/02 5:38:53 pm
semiramis
 


Re: Bummer...

Postby tommo » Thu Aug 15, 2002 6:37 am

You know, the one word that jumped out at me was "hedonistic". Not sure I liked that a whole lot.



And as for the Sydney Mardi Gras itself, well the Manchester GayFest or Mardi Gras or whatever they're calling it this year is always under some doubt. Every year, they say there's not enough money, but surely enough, every year it goes ahead. But it was crap last year. Heh.



It's a pity really, because the pink pound really does carry a lot of weight in the Manchester area; the Gay Village is a booming source of income.


----------
The mature solution is to spend
your whole life telling stupid,
pointless jokes so no one will notice
you're just a scared, insecure little
boy! ~ Xander...or Joss...?

tommo
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to The Kitten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design