Thursday, June 3, 2010
Filed by: Rev Irene Monroe
June 3, 2010 8:30 AM
Last week, with a vote of 230 to 191, the House of Representatives voted to repeal former President Bill Clinton's 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy that bars lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer service members from serving openly in the military. On the same day the House passed to repeal DADT, so too did the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"This legislation will help make our armed forces even stronger and more inclusive by allowing gay and lesbian soldiers to serve honestly and with integrity," President Obama told the Associated Press.
But at the end of the day of all this historic voting, last week, the plight of our LGBTQ service members remained unchanged.
Investigations and discharges for being an openly LGBTQ service member will continue on as usual. Why? Because the Pentagon has not completed its study, reviewing how to maintain the military's "unit cohesion" while integrating LGBTQ service members.
December 1 is the day the country will know the results of the Pentagon study. We will also know if the welcoming mat will truly begin to unfold for our LGBTQ service members.
So, with the military having the real power to either overturn or to uphold DADT, what was last week's voting in the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee really about?
Pressure? Posturing? Or both?
Filed by: Father Tony
June 3, 2010 10:30 AM
According to recent studies, most soldiers are OK with the idea of gay comrades in arms, but the generals would have us believe that straight military personnel are trembling with fear at the thought of the elimination of DADT. I am not the only one who has occasionally asked a homophobe "What on earth are you afraid of?" I usually frame this heartfelt question with the explanation that homophobia is irrational. Gay marriage won't destroy straight "traditional" marriage. It won't destroy the "family". Letting gay men and women become ordained priests will not dilute the leadership of churches, nor would it pollute the pristine waters of heaven to affirm the presence of gay post-mortem angelic souls (for them that find comfort in fairy tale endings.) Openly gay military personnel won't cause weak links to form in the chain of command and within the ranks of those who have each other's backs.
Last week, I finally got an answer to my wondering about the basis of fear in the hearts of military brass. The rarely uttered truth is that some generals think that ditching DADT will mean that gay male soldiers will boldly creep into the beds of snoring straight soldiers and fellate them in their sleep.
There you have it. I knew that if we pushed hard enough, we'd eventually get the homophobes to blurt out the ridiculous fear that is at the root of their anxiety about the functioning of the military post-DADT.
Obviously, the real homophobic fear is not that a sleeping soldier will orgasm in the mouth of a gay soldier but that the straight soldier will enjoy gay sex, awake or otherwise. In the minds of homophobes, anti-gay rules constitute a dam that keeps their own guilty desires in check just as much as it keeps gay people in check. Homophobes tremble with fear at what is in their hearts. Let's help them out of their fear by suggesting some new rules for the barracks.
Filed by: Alex Blaze
June 3, 2010 1:00 PM
The same-sex partners of gay and lesbian federal workers can start applying next month for long-term health-care insurance, the Office of Personnel Management said Tuesday.
That's great, because long-term health insurance can be incredibly expensive. The more people who have quality long-term health insurance, the better.
Of course, there'll be some who say this isn't enough, and it isn't. Regular health care benefits aren't extended here, although the bill to extend those to same-sex partners has already made it through committee and is expected to make it to the floor of the Senate this month (we'll see, of course).
What's been surprising is the number of queer commentators saying how this only affects a small number of people, as if that's ever been a reason for the LGBT community not to advocate for something. Marriage only affects those LGB people in long-term relationships who choose to participate in the institution, which isn't most of us. DADT only affects those of us in the military or who plan on enlisting if it gets repealed, which really doesn't account for the swaths of people who'll never enlist discussing DADT.
Nothing's stopped us before from celebrating progress that benefits only a sector of the community, and federal workers are great people to celebrate.
"Ex-gay" group PFOX is stamping their widdle footies because the PTA says they don't allow hate groups to come to their national convention. PFOX says they called and emailed for eight months, requesting a booth at the convention, only to finally be told they don't meet the PTA's standards. Via Christian Newswire:
"Why is it gay groups meet the PTA Diversity and Inclusion Policy but our families do not? 'Diversity' and 'inclusion' should mean exactly that -- diversity and inclusion of everyone," said [PFOX head Regina] Griggs. "Instead, gay groups like PFLAG that deny public access to ex-gays and disrupt church events welcoming former homosexuals are approved by the PTA while ex-gay groups are not," said Griggs. "Now the PTA is pressuring its state PTA chapters nationwide to adopt its biased national diversity policy, which includes 'sexual orientation,' even though that term is selectively used to discriminate against people of faith and ex-gay families." "The PTA has become a left-wing advocacy group instead of serving the needs of all children," said Griggs.PFOX is asking for concerned Christians to join in an email campaign to the national and local chapters of the PTA demanding that they rescind their sexual orientation non-discrimination policy until it includes the orientation of "ex-gay." Or "totally kidding themselves," as it is more properly known.
While the Church is ardently opposed to all unjust discrimination on the grounds of sexual inclination, whether homosexual or heterosexual, it does teach that all sexual acts outside of a marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong. The Catholic Church’s teaching cannot, therefore, be equated with “unjust discrimination,” because it is based on fundamental truths about the human person and personal conduct. Homosexual conduct is categorically closed to the transmission of life, and does not reflect or respect the personal complementarity of man and woman. In contrast to sexual conduct within marriage between one man and one woman—which does serve both the good of each married person and the good of society— heterosexual and homosexual conduct outside of marriage has no claim to special protection by the state.
Just as every other group in our society, the Catholic Church enjoys the same rights to hold to its beliefs, organize itself around them, and argue for them in the public square. This is guaranteed by our Constitution. This includes the right to teach what it holds to be the truth concerning homosexual conduct—and to act as an employer consistent with that truth—without the threat of government sanction. The USCCB continues to oppose “unjust discrimination” against people with a homosexual inclination, but we cannot support a bill – such as ENDA in its current form – that would legally affirm and specially protect any sexual conduct outside of marriage.
Andrew Sullivan reacts:
Notice that there is no attempt here to argue that straight people who violate church doctrine - anyone who masturbates or uses contraception, is divorced or re-married - should not be protected from discrimination. It is always just the gays who are the target, because their identity inherently proves their iniquity, while most straight people can hide theirs. Notice also that the focus here is entirely on the victims of discrimination, not the perpetrators.
Labels: bigotry, Catholic Church, employment, ENDA, LGBT rights, religion
reposted from JMG
A decisão, que iguala parceiros homossexuais e heterossexuais, foi anunciada em comunicado interno a embaixadas e consulados em mais de 200 países.
De acordo com o Itamaraty, a medida deve evitar que funcionários gays registrem seus parceiros como serviçais, o que acontecia para assim garantir o direito de permanência fora do país.
Agora, com a concessão do passaporte diplomático, na prática, significa que os parceiros terão mais facilidade em obter permissão de residência. Tal decisão complementa outra resolução, de 2006, que já permitia aos funcionários do quadro de serviços do Itamaraty incluir parceiros do mesmo sexo como dependentes em planos de assistência médica.
veja ACAPA aqui