NationStates

gay people

Krontzaika wrote:gay people

are cool.

really, i think your post counts as spam.

Krontzaika wrote:gay people

<3<3<3

Krontzaika wrote:gay people

Yes, I am notably happy today.

Krontzaika wrote:gay people

...are the epitome of fabulousness.

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:

Krontzaika wrote:gay people

Yes, I am notably happy today.

We should all be happy!

Grenartia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

Indeed. And just a point of order, for those "states rights" people, states don't have rights, they have responsibilities. People have rights.

States have rights. Their rights just don't include being allowed to violate the constitutional rights of the people. States' rights isn't a good argument against gay marriage, but it is, for instance, a good argument for allowing states to collect sales tax.

Lalaki wrote:

-The Unified Earth Governments- wrote:Yes, I am notably happy today.

We should all be happy!

More often than not, we should all be a bit happier more often in this world.

Grenartia wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

Indeed. And just a point of order, for those "states rights" people, states don't have rights, they have responsibilities. People have rights.

That's simply untrue, the dichotomy in law used to be that states/governments had powers, and people had rights, however in recent years, governments have also gained rights.

Farnhamia wrote:They haven't, not yet and to be honest, I don't think they would if a case came their way. It would be another 5-4 split and a sanctimonious majority from Scalia about marriage and thinly-veiled "states' rights." Lower Federal courts have done so, though.

The job of the Supreme Court is not to make the US a better place, merely a more law abiding place, to take issue with the justices of the court when a decision creates an outcome you do not desire is a bit silly. It would be divided because the issue isn't clear cut, not because the justices have 'thinly veiled' biases or motivations.

Rob Ford may be a crack addicted joke that's great fodder for Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel, but also he's a pretty despicable human being.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was the only member of city council to vote against a report looking into a potential homeless shelter for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth in Toronto.

The shelter report recommendation passed on Thursday by a vote of 37-1. Several councillors, including the mayor's brother Doug, were absent for the vote.

The vote means that council has requested a report on the feasibility of allocating 25 per cent of shelter beds to LGBT youth in an existing shelter for the coming winter.

Alex Abramovich, a research co-ordinator with the Centre for Research on Inner City Health at St. Michael's Hospital, has spent eight years studying the issue and proposed a shelter exclusively for LGBT youth.

Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam questioned the mayor's motivations.

She said that since there is no financial impact of the vote, there would be no reason Ford, an avowed tax fighter, to vote against it.

"It tells me he doesn't care," she said. "He's demonstrated he doesn't care."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/r ... -1.2703174

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Grenartia wrote:

Indeed. And just a point of order, for those "states rights" people, states don't have rights, they have responsibilities. People have rights.

States have rights. Their rights just don't include being allowed to violate the constitutional rights of the people. States' rights isn't a good argument against gay marriage, but it is, for instance, a good argument for allowing states to collect sales tax.

Fair enough.

Oneracon wrote:Rob Ford may be a crack addicted joke that's great fodder for Jon Stewart and Jimmy Kimmel, but also he's a pretty despicable human being.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford was the only member of city council to vote against a report looking into a potential homeless shelter for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer youth in Toronto.

The shelter report recommendation passed on Thursday by a vote of 37-1. Several councillors, including the mayor's brother Doug, were absent for the vote.

The vote means that council has requested a report on the feasibility of allocating 25 per cent of shelter beds to LGBT youth in an existing shelter for the coming winter.

Alex Abramovich, a research co-ordinator with the Centre for Research on Inner City Health at St. Michael's Hospital, has spent eight years studying the issue and proposed a shelter exclusively for LGBT youth.

Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam questioned the mayor's motivations.

She said that since there is no financial impact of the vote, there would be no reason Ford, an avowed tax fighter, to vote against it.

"It tells me he doesn't care," she said. "He's demonstrated he doesn't care."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/r ... -1.2703174

Crack smoking politician doesn't make good decisions. What else is new?

In other news:

Grenartia wrote:

Chedastan wrote:The two latters seem like they could reasonably work. Don't know how the former would work. I mean have there been petitions that had have follow up petitions for that petition to be given a response?

I don't know.

The petition DID get a response the other day:



I must say I do feel rather disappointed.

Grenartia wrote:In other news:

Grenartia wrote:
I don't know.

The petition DID get a response the other day:

Official White House Response to Legally Recognize Non-Binary Genders
Response to We the People Petition on Non-Binary Genders

By Roy Austin

Thank you for your petition requesting that the executive branch legally recognize genders outside of the male-female binary and provide an option for these genders on all legal documents and records.

We know how important this issue is, and we understand the profound impact, both symbolic and otherwise, of having official documents that accurately reflect an individual's identity. These documents play an essential, functional role, but also demonstrate the measure of dignity and respect afforded to our nation's citizens. We cannot overstate the care and seriousness that should be brought to bear on the issue.

We recognize the importance of gender identification in particular and the Obama Administration is working to modernize federal policies in this area. For example, in 2010, the U.S. Department of State made it easier for individuals to update the gender marker in their passports. And last year, the Social Security Administration followed suit by simplifying the process for individuals to change the gender marker on their social security cards to reflect their identity accurately.

As you can imagine, there is considerable variance across agencies and levels of government. And so while the Obama Administration wants to make sure that official documents reflect the identities of the Americans who hold them, we believe proposals to change when and how gender is listed on official documents should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the affected federal and state agencies. However, that consideration must be informed by best practices and a commitment to honoring individuality and ensuring fairness.

Thank you again for your petition. We appreciate your input and the opportunity to convey our shared commitment.

Learn more: See what President Obama has done to advance equality for the LGBT community.

Roy Austin is the Deputy Assistant to the President for the Office of Urban Affairs, Justice, and Opportunity in the Domestic Policy Council

Tell us what you think about this response and We the People.

I must say I do feel rather disappointed.

It's a non-response. It doesn't even actually address non-binary genders.

Liriena wrote:

Grenartia wrote:In other news:



The petition DID get a response the other day:

I must say I do feel rather disappointed.

It's a non-response. It doesn't even actually address non-binary genders.

I actually didn't see that coming.

Revanchism wrote:

Liriena wrote:It's a non-response. It doesn't even actually address non-binary genders.

I actually didn't see that coming.

Now the attitude we can have is to wish the João W. Nery law passes in Brazil in spite of the fundies so that other countries can take it as a precedence and Western Europeans feel humiliated at lagging after three South American countries and campaign to have a similar thing.

http://holisticsexualhealth.tumblr.com/ ... t-a-recent

Read that the other day, was quite an interesting and thought provoking read, I thought.

I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

Why bother posting at all then?

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

Then why bother posting? It seems like you're posting this to subtly say "I really hate LGBT people."

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

To me the only people that would post something like that would be the people that dislike gay people so much that anything they said would end up in a flaming warning...

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

That's lovely dear.

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

you can't say what you want to say about LGBT people because stating explicitly sexual desires aren't usually allowed? ah, that's smart.

Other Thafoo wrote:

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

you can't say what you want to say about LGBT people because stating explicitly sexual desires aren't usually allowed? ah, that's smart.

Oh-hoh-hoh. You're a very wise little ducky.

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

Indeed.
In case you haven´t noticed, there´s only two ways of expressing yourself here :
- you´re either pro-gay,
or
- a fanatic homophobic nazi angel of death who burns homosexuals in the town square while surrounded by cheering dark hordes of anti-gay chaos.

Other Thafoo wrote:

Shago wrote:I can't say what I really think without getting into hot water with the Mods. So I'll use my better judgment and just zip it.

you can't say what you want to say about LGBT people because stating explicitly sexual desires aren't usually allowed? ah, that's smart.

Nice one, Thafoo.