Tag: gay rights

Aug 02 2011

Tokyo Youth Healthy Development Ordinance Designed With An Eye Toward Political Censorship

Cross-posted to CandyBullets.

– In any manga, anime, or pictures (most likely including games).

– That feature sexual acts or sexual like acts that would be illegal in real life OR any sexual acts or sexual like acts or implication of a sexual relationship between close relatives OR those who can not marry if they were real AND

– Where the depiction / representation of the relationship is presented in an unjustifiably glorified or overly emphasized manner.

=> Is considered harmful to a minor’s mental health regarding sexuality, and therefore the Tokyo Metropolitan Government shall have the power to unilaterally restrict the material. where the sexual or sexual like act is considered to be excessively disrupting of social order.

That is the criteria for censorship for the scary new Tokyo Youth Healthy Development Ordinance. This is a list of what marriages are currently illegal in Japan today;

1) Marrying to one’s self or anyone of the same sex.

2) Marrying an immediate blood relative. (Children and parent, grandchild and grandmother, etc.)

3) Marriage between a relative by affinity within the third degree. (Siblings, uncle and nephew, etc.)

4) Marriage between two relatives formed by marriage in a parental relationship. (A husband and his wife’s mother or his mother-in-law.) This holds true even after divorce or if the spouse has died.

5) Marriage between an adopted child or adopted child’s spouse with his or her adopting parents, their immediate siblings, their blood relatives, etc. (An adopted son’s divorced wife and the father of one of the adopting parents, etc.) This holds true even after divorce or if the adoption is nullified.

As you can see problems begin to arise quickly. To start with the most glaring problem, the bill gives power to the Tokyo Metropolitan Government to censor material that “glorifies” same-sex relationships, this should be an immediate warning bell. The bills stated purpose (“… promoting the healthy development of people under the age of 18 by restricting their access to material that is carefully considered harmful by the Government.) was a warning bell (i.e. terrifying) from the start. The bill slipped in under the radar however do in large part to its author and champion, the Tokyo Metropolitan Governor, an ex-tv personality famous for his snake oil charm, Shintaro Ishihara assured worries with claims he intended to merely go after so-called rorikon (lolicon) and shotacon titles, given that the bill didn’t even aim to censor them entirely per se but merely keep them from minors the bill appeared benign. It wasn’t. The first problems that began to appear were with the claims of “Restriction of Access”, this was a convenient story cooked up by Ishihara’s teem that did a lot to stave off criticism, the idea was that titles “censored” by the government would reappear under an “Adults Only” label, but this was immediately proven to be a sort of impossible catch-22; in the very first batch of manga the government announced it was censoring, Masahiro Itosugi, the mangaka of Aki-Sora (one of the titles being censored), announced the manga was going out of print because it didn’t qualify for the adult label… and it wasn’t allowed to be published without the adult label. Check mate. Furthermore, in Japan, if a manga series is relegated to the adult section, it will destroy the sales. This means publishers will no longer try to confront controversial or hot button issues, because even if they are one of the lucky ones and they aren’t removed from the market entirely they’ll end up deep in the red by being regulated to to the adult section under the absurdly vague parameters of this law.

Oct 06 2010

DeMint’s GOP would install Morality Police in Public Education …

Ed Schultz covers the latest DeMint Plan

Ed then interviews “openly gay” Rep. Jared Polis (CO);

and then “openly blunt” Rep. Alan Grayson (FL), to get their takes on this new DeMint Lunacy.

Aug 11 2010

Mexico Supreme Court Recognizes Same Sex Marriage

Or, more exactly, they have ordered the states to recognize same sex marriages performed in Mexico City.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

Mexico City’s same-sex marriage law, enacted in March, extends to wedded gay couples the right to adopt children, to jointly apply for bank loans, to inherit wealth and to be covered by their spouses’ insurance policies. Some of those may end up applying only in the capital.

It’s simply a more tolerant place, than todays US.  

Mar 20 2010

DADT and Desegregation of the Armed Forces

cross-posted from Sum of Change

I was originally writing something up on the conservative response to Lt. Dan Choi’s arrest when I wrote this sentence: “If conservatives want us to stop equating their homophobia to the racism that the civil rights movement experienced, they should stop using the same talking points.” I decided to write the following instead of a typical conservatives-freak-out-at-liberal-activism post.

Let us play a game. I am going to give you a quote about the bigotry of the armed forces. I will redact all names, dates, and any words along the lines of “homosexual”, “gay”, “sexual orientation”, “black”, “negro”, “race.” You try to guess what kind of bigot these perfectly rational arguments came from, homophobic or racist! Sounds fun, right?  

Dec 18 2009

The Poster Boy for Cheerleading the President

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

********************************

Jacob Heilbrunn has a new essay up at the Huffington Post titled “Please, Cut Obama Some Slack.”  It is Exhibit A in hero mythology of the President, as well as a prime example of chastising anyone — even progressives — who would dare criticize any of Obama’s policies.

A year ago, Barack Obama was a hero for Democrats. Now he’s becoming a villain. Have the Democrats lost their minds?

The tenebrous story is recounted by Dana Milbank in the Washington Post, who notes that some liberals are even starting to join forces with the tea party to decry Obama over the confirmation of Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. The decriers are also upset about Obama’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, the administration’s readiness to make concessions on health care, its failure to shutter Guantanamo, along with a host of other grievances.

Apparently, because some liberals have chosen not to regard President Obama as a “hero” and have begun to seriously question some of the policies of the Obama Administration, that qualifies Heilbrunn to assert that those same liberals have “lost their minds.”  Heilbrunn doesn’t identify in his article who those allegedly insane Democrats are — though for the record, Dana Milbank does, naming liberal voices such as Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, MoveOn.org, John Conyers, and Alan Grayson as the progressives who are supposedly “joining forces with the tea party,” to use Heilbrunn’s language.

Dec 04 2009

NY State Sen Diane Savino On Gay Marriage

I am so proud that I had the opportunity to help elect this woman. Even though the NY State Senate voted down same sex marriage equality, Sen Savino’s words are so eloquent. It is so sad that her fellow legislators did not hear her words and comprehend their meaning. Sen. Savino says it all for me and so many others.

Nov 10 2009

Do you live in Maine? Then you could influence history

If you live in Maine and know 100 people (or live within driving distance of 100 people), then you can change the results of the gay rights referendum from last Tuesday.  An email from Black Box Voting:

I’ve been getting a lot of calls and emails from folks both for and against gay

rights, the first group wondering how to get this recount thing off the ground,

the second group kinda mad at Black Box Voting for leading the charge.

So here are some updates:

1. The $2500 is available. People who’ve been getting our emails have stepped up

to the plate with this, and all it takes is a phone call now

2. The holdup is the petition. Black Box Voting is not going to organize this.

It takes 100 Maine voters on a petition to  do this thing. 100 names:

http://www.mainelegislature.or…

If someone gets 100 names on a petition, call me and I’ll help push the buttons

for #1.

Wire transfers or overnight means tomorrow’s deadline is challenging for handing

over the money.

Now as to “why do it?” and “where are the numbers anyway?” and what would happen

if the recount goes forward?

Why? Because Maine does happen to have the best voter’s rights in the country

right now, but it’s not great — they use concealed computerized vote counting,

violating citizens right to see their own election counting. Maybe I should call

it “the least worst” voting rights in the country. We have a confluence of key

opportunities that is very rare for the issue of concealed computer counts.

1) The recount is affordable

2) There are probably interested citizens willing to seek it

3) The firm with control over programming Maine’s elections is one that concerns

many citizens, not just Maine, but also in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New

Hampshire and Vermont. LOTS of people want more light shed on these guys.

4) If machine counts don’t match the recount in any location, or if the chain of

custody is broken in any way for any of the recount ballots the implications

will affect all of New England because one firm controls all the voting machines

(LHS Associates)

5) This will give us a good opportunity to examine chain of custody in Maine

There’s more to the email, but the basic story is this – for $25,000 and 100 Maine citizen signatures (although you should probably collect a few hundred if possible), anyone in the state can order a recount of November 3rd’s vote.  It’s worth a shot since it’s so easy, and it could mean a victory for election, integrity, too.

Any takers?

Jun 01 2009

The gay rights law you don’t know about

On Wednesday morning, June 3, at 10 a.m. the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). (If you are in town, the hearing is in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.) C-Span does not have Wednesday’s television schedule up yet, but the Committee website offers a webcast of the hearing.

UAFA would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow a citizen to sponsor a same sex partner for citizenship.

This might be one of those bills that ultimately goes nowhere or it may fundamentally change the course of both the gay marriage and immigration debates. Follow me below the fold for more on this bill.

May 31 2009

Considered Forthwith: Senate Judiciary Committee

Note: this turns Orange and will appear at Congress Matters Sunday at 8 p.m.

Welcome to the tenth installment of “Considered Forthwith.”

This weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies. If you want to read previous dairies in the series, search using the “forthwith” tag or use the link on my blogroll. I welcome criticisms and corrections in the comments.

This week I will look at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The committee’s jurisdiction is very similar to the House Judiciary Committee (the Forthwith diary is posted here). There is one big difference, though. The Senate committee gets to hold hearings on judicial confirmations, so this seems timely.

Additionally, the committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on an important gay rights/immigration bill (see Uniting American Families Act below).

Nov 17 2008

So why am I not divorced yet?

I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around the “gay marriage threatens ‘traditional’ marriage” meme. Marriage between same-sex partners was legal in California for a few months, until the passage of Prop H8; it’s now legal in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage is legal in Canada, Norway (as of January 1 2009), South Africa, Belgium, The Netherlands… I’m not getting this. Didn’t ‘separate but equal’ fall by the wayside a long time ago?

OK, I confess…I AM divorced. From Husband #1. But that divorce was in 1981, long before same-sex marriage was legalized anywhere in the United States. So golly, what happened?

I’ll tell you what: physical abuse threatens marriage. Emotional and psychological abuse threatens marriage. That’s what happened to me. Abuse that was never acknowledged by my ex; never dealt with, admitted, apologized for, or STOPPED.

We tried, mind you…or I should say, I tried. I took my marriage vows seriously. When I said, “For better, for worse…’til death do us part…” I meant it. I admit, it hadn’t even occurred to me at the time that my death might be a lot more imminent than I thought. It never occurred to me that my husband (who had sworn to love, honor, yadda yadda yadda) might try to do me in within a week or so of having taken that vow. When he told me he planned to be a triple-A husband, little did I suspect that meant Abusive Alcoholic Asshole. So when the drinking and the violence started, I insisted on counseling. I tried to keep it together. I tried to be the understanding wife.

I’m far from a perfect human, God knows. I know I have my flaws. But I don’t think ANY person deserves to have the kitchen table overturned on top of him/her, for having forgotten to put the milk on the table at supper. I don’t think ANY person deserves to be dragged down the hall of the marriage therapist’s office by the hair, being kicked in the back at the same time. I don’t think ANY person deserves to be called vicious names; to be accused of non-existent infidelity; to have dishes flung at one’s head; to be verbally and emotionally and physically battered.  

So yeah, abuse threatens marriage.

Here’s what else can threaten a marriage:

Chronic or serious illness. The death of a child. Addiction. Financial worries. Unemployment. Infidelity. Just to name a few…

I’ve had some experience with a couple of these, too. I’ve been married to my second husband for almost 24 years now, and we’ve faced money problems, life-threatening illness, and the death of our firstborn. That last was probably the toughest thing any parent can face; we lost our beloved daughter to a drunk driver, just a few months before she would have wed the father of her two young children. At least she wouldn’t have been denied that right, had she lived…we wouldn’t have had to fight for her to be able to do that.

We’ve been lucky. We’ve managed to survive those potential threats, and have worked at growing stronger as a couple as a result of those challenges.

But same-sex marriage? Holy shit, that’s not even on the RADAR as a potential cause for a split. How the hell could it be? How can the thought of a same-sex couple wanting to commit to one another in a lifetime of monogamous fidelity possibly threaten our marriage, or that of anyone else?

Rather, does it not uphold marriage as the ideal? Does it not say, that’s the brass ring…that’s the ultimate commitment goal…that’s what many loving couples want to publicly declare?

Granted, not every opposite-sex couple choose to marry, nor should they be forced to. I’m sure there are same-sex couples who feel the same way, whether out of fear of commitment, not wanting to ‘mess up a good thing,’ the costs involved, the legal hoops to jump through, or whatever. But for those who DO want a public, legal, recognized marriage, why the hell should they be denied that? If they are adults, why can’t they enter into that contract with one another? And why can’t it be a marriage, just like any other?

I’m sorry to hear that there are some folks out there whose marriages are on such shaky ground that the thought of another couple wanting that same level of commitment would destroy their legal relationship. Must have built that house on sand, eh?

I’m happy to say that my feet, and my husband’s, are on pretty solid rock. Our marriage has not always been smooth sailing, and if we live long enough, we may yet hit stormy seas. But I am confident that, should we ever face a serious threat to our closing-on-a-quarter-century marriage, it WON’T be because Adam and Steve, or Ada and Eve, decided they want the same level of legal and social recognition for their relationship that we all too often take for granted.

For those who want to ‘preserve marriage’:

Support equal pay for equal work.

Support stronger families, of ALL kinds. (Real ‘family values’ means valuing all families. Honest.)

Work to end poverty.

Work for full employment.

Work to end disease.

Work to end abuse.

Work to overcome addiction.

But please DON’T tell me that love isn’t love. Don’t tell me that the gay couple down the street, who may have been together even longer than you and your spouse, are not entitled to marry. Don’t tell me that the lesbian couple whose kids attend your kids’ school, aren’t a ‘real’ family.

It IS a civil rights issue. And America should be at the forefront of the movement to grant those rights to all its citizens, not playing catch-up.

Oct 31 2008

Friday Philosophy: Gay, with Children

Coming down to the last few days before the election, we have seen the hatred and ignorance from the right with respect to marriage equality and equal rights in general…and California’s Proposition 8, Florida’s Proposition 2 and Arizona’s Proposition 102 in particular.  And we have heard from the supporters or equal rights, even though there may seem to have been few of them amongst our political leaders.

One group hasn’t been heard from so much:  the children.

I’m not talking about GLBT kids, though some of them may be.  The right wing…and even some people supposedly on the left…like to talk about the purpose of marriage being the protection of the family…and by their definition that generally means having children.

Are we hearing the voices of those children?  Do we even acknowledge that they are there.  Maybe we should listen to their voices, or at least see their words.

Oct 11 2008

Friday Philosophy: if not now, when?

Last Tuesday Bloomfield College held its yearly convocation, a salute to the beginning of a new school year…which happens around Midterm Week each year for some indiscernible reason.  Or speaker was Dr. William Librera, Presidential Research Professor of Education at Rutgers University, and the title of his presentation was Inside the Horizon.

As these things go, it was a pretty good lecture, both fairly entertaining and containing some nuggets.  There was the obligatory PowerPoint, of course, which we were told was available online, but I can’t find it.  If I could have, I would know the last part of the woman with the hyphenated last name which began with Roth-.  That would have proved helpful, since one of the major things I can recollect from the event is her thought about people being divided into two kinds:  people who segment knowledge, and people who integrate it.

Do I know what the collective intelligence is thinking right now?

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who believe there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don’t.

–Robert Benchley

If the discussion is elevated to the level of the Algonquin Round Table, then I’m all for it.

Load more