Discussion: Human Rights

[Lynxie]

Lynxi, I totaly agree with you - it has nothing to do with any additional ceremony (whether that is in a church/temple etc.), it has to do with the state recognizing the union and the rights that come with that union.

Bingo. While religions are essentially private organizations that have the right to be selective about the types of people they let in, the state should not be so discriminating. It's the job of the government to uphold the equal rights of US citizens.

 

[Lynxie]

I was going to send Cate a PM, but thought it might be better to say it in public...

I just wanted to let you know that I didn't intend my posts to be an attack on you in any way. I think you and I are actually on the same page when it comes to the fundamental problems regarding the mixing of church and state... We're just using our words a little differently.

Your story about your cousin truly brought tears to my eyes. I've lost two friends to AIDS, and who knows if they'd still be with us today if they could have had their marriages/unions/whatever you want to call them recognized by the state so they could have gotten the appropriate health care.

I sometimes have to wonder if the people who are seriously arguing against giving gays the right to marry realize exactly how inhumane and unjust they are being. Nobody would think twice about letting two straight people get married if it involved a life or death situation. I just can't comprehend why such basic human rights should be withheld from anyone, especially in a society that places such a strong value on equality.

 

[Bobmi357]

While this is all very interesting, as Cathleen so aptly pointed out, this is the will of the people. And its why I have come to believe our form of democracy is fundamentally flawed.

I recall a conversation I had online prior to the national election. The person told me they were voting for bush because they "liked" how he looked. When asked about the issues, the person hadn't a clue as to what any of the issues were. I'm sorry if I come off sounding elitist, but that person doesn't deserve the priveldge of voting. If you can't spend a few hours to look at the various issues confronting the country and make a reasoned decision then you've reduced the election down to little more than a vote for the prom queen.

Most.... MOST people, tend to pick political parties based on what party their parents followed. Few have any idea what the fundamental differences are between the two prinicple parties in this country.

The single greatest danger facing this country today is not terrorists, its not the economy, its not the threat the EU poses to us, or outsourcing of jobs to other countries. Those are all symptoms of the danger, but not the danger itself. Our problem comes from within. It comes from a small, but viciously outspoken group of self rightious "christians" that are currently in control of the republican party. It comes from people that claim to love this country and what it stands for, but do not really believe it. It comes from people that want to impose their particular brand of morality on others, by force of law if necessary. It comes from churches across the nation, of every denomination, preaching politics in the pulpit. It comes from a christian faith that has turned vile, ugly and unforgiving. Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, it doesn't matter what church you go to, it doesn't matter what guise or brand name you get your "jesus" from. They are all guilty to one degree or another of influencing and altering the political landscape of this country.

Is there a solution to this? Nope. There isn't. We live in a country where the will of the people have sway and we will continue down this path until the people wake up. Probably by then it will be too late. I feel sorry for the gays in this country. I suspect that the marriage issue is merely the tip of the iceberg and this will continue with laws outlawing same gender sex, I suspect that their rights will be limited further, curtailed and brutally prosecuted. I suspect as time goes on, they will be dehumanized, made to appear evil and subversive. Sounds very 1984ish doesn't it?

But this is the will of the people right? This is truly what the people want right? People truly believe that a gay marriage will cause the planet to stop turning, the sky to fall and God to invoke his judgement on us all for allowing one group of people that want the same happiness we heteros have.

The will of the people. Sounds so noble. But what happens when the will of people want something that is morally wrong? That, my friends, is something I think we're going to find out.

 

[Bobmi357]

While this may be true under Catholic doctrine, it doesn't really work in the real world. Around the globe, people of various religions, ages, genders, and backgrounds get married all the time. The only group (and it happens to be a minority group, in the grand scheme of things) that has a problem with this is the Catholic church. Who are they to suggest that marriage is something that only their god can sanctify?

Lyn,
Its not just a problem with the Catholic faith. Most christian faiths have this problem. Catholics aren't half as rabid on the subject as some of those found in the bible belt.

The Catholic church has always had a problem with american catholics. Unlike so many other countries, we've rejected the Catholic stands on birth control, abortion etc. The pope in rome takes issues with a lot of things that american catholics indulge themselves in. Quite a few of the researchers that helped develop in-vitro fertilization were catholics, despite the church's stand against the process, they continued the research and brought it from the realm of science fiction to science fact, helping 1000's of childless couples every year.

I would not be surprised if eventually a schism develops between the Roman Catholic faith and the American Catholic faith. Unlike so many other faiths however, I see the Roman Catholic church trying to remake itself within the framework of the new millenia. They, unlike so many other faiths, have accepted evolution, the big bang theory and a host of other scientific truths. Unlike so many other faiths they now apply rigerous testing to all claims of miracles.

I grew up catholic, went to a catholic grade school and high school, where I learned there was the creation parable, and evolution. And one was a parable, a tale meant to teach us a basic moral fact and the other was a theory with tons of supporting evidence to back it up. I learned that Jesus was merely the son of God, in effect, he had the supporting actor role, but God always had the lead role. A fact forgotten by so many christians today. My high school years taught classes like comparatitive theology and tolerance for other belief systems.

Please understand I'm not trying to make the catholics seem like they are the good guys with the right idea. There is much to admire and much to dislike about their actions here and abroad. But I think when compared to say the Southern Christian Conference, the Catholic church is not nearly as fanatical about things.

 

[Lynxie]

Lyn,
Its not just a problem with the Catholic faith. Most christian faiths have this problem. Catholics aren't half as rabid on the subject as some of those found in the bible belt . . .

Please understand I'm not trying to make the catholics seem like they are the good guys with the right idea. There is much to admire and much to dislike about their actions here and abroad. But I think when compared to say the Southern Christian Conference, the Catholic church is not nearly as fanatical about things.

Bob, I completely agree. I just have a nasty habit of singling out the Catholic church when I argue against the ill-doings of Christianity. I really don't have a beef with any religion in particular, so long as it's kept religion. Most Christian denominations have not been able to do this - they get sucked up into the political realm and lead their parishes astray by teaching them to discriminate and to hate their bretheren.

People allow themselves to believe that terrorists are our biggest threat. But what are terrorists? They're religious fundamentalists out to impose their beliefs on those who don't agree. I find it incredibly scary that the same definition can be applied to the present-day United States.

As much as I hate to say it, Bob speaks the truth when he says that we're overdue for a change in government. Clearly the people want to be followers and are not fit to be in charge.

 

[Bobmi357]

As much as I hate to say it, Bob speaks the truth when he says that we're overdue for a change in government. Clearly the people want to be followers and are not fit to be in charge.

I think I'd make a nice despot. I'd make sex the national pastime! I'd also mandate that chocolate ice cream is to be served with every meal! Then I'd invade canada. They are the true enemy! Harboring those frenchies!

 

[Lynxie]

I think I'd make a nice despot. I'd make sex the national pastime! I'd also mandate that chocolate ice cream is to be served with every meal! Then I'd invade canada. They are the true enemy! Harboring those frenchies!

You've got my support, especially on the chocolate ice cream agenda!

 

[Bobmi357]

Just thought many of you might find this interesting. Taken from the following url;

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20050202/ap_on_re_us/tolerance_turmoil

----------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK - Cartoon characters adored by kids seized the spotlight in the latest flare-up of America's culture wars, but the debate itself poses serious questions for adults involving the depiction of gays and lesbians in materials for teaching children about diversity and tolerance.

The liberal camp argues that even young children should learn that intolerance based on sexual identity is wrong, and that gays are as legitimate a part of the national mosaic as anyone else.

"It's about creating awareness and understanding of people who are different," said Joan Garry of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (news - web sites). "Why shouldn't that be a good thing for America's young people?"

The conservative camp has responded vehemently: By all means, teach children to respect other individuals, but do not cross the line and teach them that homosexuality is acceptable.

"Tolerance itself can be a very dangerous word," said the Rev. Terry Fox, a Southern Baptist pastor in Wichita, Kan. "Tolerance gives the public schools an avenue to literally brainwash our kids that every lifestyle is OK."

Separate controversies in recent weeks have raised these issues:

_Education Secretary Margaret Spellings' criticism of an episode of the Public Broadcasting Service children's series "Postcards from Buster," in which the animated bunny visits the children of two lesbian couples in Vermont. "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in the episode," Spellings wrote to PBS.

_An attack by some conservative leaders on a pro-diversity initiative of the We Are Family Foundation that features a video starring scores of cartoon characters, including SpongeBob SquarePants. The true agenda, said Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, "is to desensitize very young children to homosexual and bisexual behavior."

_Some conservatives said last month's "No Name-Calling Week" in many middle schools was too focused on harassment of gays. In Massachusetts, the one state allowing gay marriage, conservatives say students are being indoctrinated to admire such marriages.

Dobson, bristling at mocking commentary about his reference to SpongeBob, has posted a lengthy explanation of his concerns on the Web site of his Colorado-based Christian ministry. The problem, he says, was not the video itself, but the We Are Family Foundation's use of a "tolerance pledge" mentioning sexual identity and its ties to other groups supporting gay rights.

Tolerance and diversity "are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy," Dobson wrote. "Kids should not be taught that homosexuality is just another 'lifestyle' or that it is morally equivalent to heterosexuality."

Dobson and other conservatives were pleased when Spellings, soon after the SpongeBob flap, condemned the "Postcards from Buster" episode.

"For years, PBS has been slipping pro-homosexual messages into its programming," said Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute. "Along comes Secretary Spellings, who takes action as a servant of the people instead of a timid, go-along bureaucrat. Good for her."

After Spellings' statement, PBS said it would not distribute the episode to its 349 stations. Boston-based WGBH, the show's producer, is providing it directly to more than 20 fellow stations.

"We consider it the responsibility of public television to give children and parents the resources they need to understand the world they inhabit — without excluding any segment of our society," WGBH said. "The major goal of 'Postcards from Buster' is to help kids understand the richness and complexity of American culture."

Nancy Carlsson-Page, an education professor at Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass., has emphasized diversity awareness in a career spent training early-education teachers. She said Spellings was wrong to suggest that a certain category of family — those headed by gays or lesbians — be excluded from images shown to children.

"All children, whatever family composition they have, should see the full, diverse range of families," Carlsson-Page said. "Otherwise, when they encounter a different kind of family, they'll think that family is lesser, that it doesn't count."



Linda Hodge, president of the National PTA, said she strongly supports classroom initiatives promoting tolerance and combating bullying. However, she suggested some programs could backfire if they focus so explicitly on harassment of gays that those students feel singled out and labeled.

Hodge's bottom line: "Every child should feel safe and welcome in school."

For GLAAD's Joan Garry, a lesbian raising three children, the controversies hit home on a personal level.

"There are millions of kids living in households with two moms or two dads, and millions of other kids who know those kids," she said. "I wonder what James Dobson would say to my own children. What would be the respectful, Christian thing to say to them?"

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

 

[Eilan]

Bump

I know this thread's been dead for a few days, but I thought I'd mention a few things.

I live in Ohio (in the part that's on the fringe of the Bible Belt, incidentally) and we're just now starting to see some aftereffects of the passage of Issue 1. Not only does Issue 1 define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it also prevents the state from recognizing ANY relationship that resembles marriage. This includes cohabiting male-female couples.

One thing that's happening here (in the Cleveland area, I believe) is that some people are getting charged with domestic violence and their attorneys are trying to get the charges dropped because they aren't married to the partner they're accused of abusing. It has something to do with the wording in Ohio's domestic-violence statutes and the broad application of Issue 1. It's bullshit.

Another problem is that Issue 1 prevents people from allowing non-family members to have power of attorney. Interestingly, this applies to both my parents AND my in-laws, who divorced several years ago but then reconciled and never remarried. My father-in-law has had some medical problems recently; legally, my mother-in-law has no right/input regarding any of his medical care/decisions because she's not a blood relative. However, she goes to the doctor with him, and everyone assumes they're married.

Many of our state universities provide domestic-partner benefits to employees. So far, to my knowledge, none of them has discontinued these benefits, though I believe they've been under some pressure to do so.

I know that other states passed similar constitutional amendments, but I'm not sure if they're as broad as Ohio's. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. . .

 

[SweetErika]

I know this thread's been dead for a few days, but I thought I'd mention a few things.

I live in Ohio (in the part that's on the fringe of the Bible Belt, incidentally) and we're just now starting to see some aftereffects of the passage of Issue 1. Not only does Issue 1 define marriage as being between a man and a woman, it also prevents the state from recognizing ANY relationship that resembles marriage. This includes cohabiting male-female couples.

One thing that's happening here (in the Cleveland area, I believe) is that some people are getting charged with domestic violence and their attorneys are trying to get the charges dropped because they aren't married to the partner they're accused of abusing. It has something to do with the wording in Ohio's domestic-violence statutes and the broad application of Issue 1. It's bullshit.

Another problem is that Issue 1 prevents people from allowing non-family members to have power of attorney. Interestingly, this applies to both my parents AND my in-laws, who divorced several years ago but then reconciled and never remarried. My father-in-law has had some medical problems recently; legally, my mother-in-law has no right/input regarding any of his medical care/decisions because she's not a blood relative. However, she goes to the doctor with him, and everyone assumes they're married.

Many of our state universities provide domestic-partner benefits to employees. So far, to my knowledge, none of them has discontinued these benefits, though I believe they've been under some pressure to do so.

I know that other states passed similar constitutional amendments, but I'm not sure if they're as broad as Ohio's. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out. . .

That's really interesting, especially the domestic violence implications of Issue 1. What happens if another family member or friend in the house is abusive (e.g. an adult son abusing his mother)?

I was under the impression a person could appoint anyone they wished to have power of attorney...attorney, relative, doctor, friend, etc. I'd be interested to know what happens if someone has no family and whether or not a standard power of attorney declaration trumps the provisions in Issue 1.

 

[Cathleen]

That's really interesting, especially the domestic violence implications of Issue 1. What happens if another family member or friend in the house is abusive (e.g. an adult son abusing his mother)?

I was under the impression a person could appoint anyone they wished to have power of attorney...attorney, relative, doctor, friend, etc. I'd be interested to know what happens if someone has no family and whether or not a standard power of attorney declaration trumps the provisions in Issue 1.

I was thinking about those questions/issues too. I happen to have my sister as my POA and she is listed on my Living Will and Advanced Directives - the Living Will did not specify that the person listed had to be family.

That is just odd for at least the simple reason that Erika mentions, not all people have family available or able to serve in that capacity.

I like that state universities recognize domestic partner benefits but wonder how that were ever able to do that since they are a state agency. It is nice to know some places recognize that relationship, maybe there is hope.

 

[Eilan]

That's really interesting, especially the domestic violence implications of Issue 1. What happens if another family member or friend in the house is abusive (e.g. an adult son abusing his mother)?

I was under the impression a person could appoint anyone they wished to have power of attorney...attorney, relative, doctor, friend, etc. I'd be interested to know what happens if someone has no family and whether or not a standard power of attorney declaration trumps the provisions in Issue 1.

I asked my husband, who's in law enforcement, about the domestic violence implications. He says that an adult son could be charged with domestic violence for abusing his mother, but if the son doesn't live with his mother, he could be charged with assault instead. The wording of Ohio's law apparently covers family members (i.e. blood relatives) but not domestic partners of either sex. I should think that they could be charged with assault at any rate. From what I've read in the paper, though, lawmakers will likely try to change the law's wording. It's being called an "unintended consequence."

I was also under the same impressions about power of attorney, and I wondered about this myself when I read about it. I've not heard of any backlash yet, but I would imagine that it'll be challenged in court if/when it becomes an issue.

 

[fntguy]

Definition of Human Rights: The rights of Humans as stated by the "U.S.A".

 

[Denae]

Haunted by a story in yesterday's newspaper.

Short version: French pedophilia trial. 66 defendants accused of allowing children from the ages of 6 months to 14 years old be raped or sexually abused (children abused by parents or people close to their parents) in exchange for money, food, cigarettes, liquor, etc. One of the grandparents allegedly filmed rapes and other abuse.

 

[Eilan]

Haunted by a story in yesterday's newspaper.

Short version: French pedophilia trial. 66 defendants accused of allowing children from the ages of 6 months to 14 years old be raped or sexually abused (children abused by parents or people close to their parents) in exchange for money, food, cigarettes, liquor, etc. One of the grandparents allegedly filmed rapes and other abuse.

This is something that I can't even begin to understand. Especially when the people who are supposed to be PROTECTING those children are the ones perpetuating the abuse. I read a story recently about a 6-month old from Texas who'd not only been sexually assaulted, but who had a skull fracture, broken legs, ribs, etc. . . Her parents were in custody.

It just makes me FURIOUS! I would kill (or be killed) to prevent that from happening to my kids.

 

[Bobmi357]

Is this a double Standard?

I originally posted a comment in the What Pisses Me Off thread about this, but the more I think on it, the more I have to wonder if this really is a double standard.

Organizations like the National Organization for Women and other groups have fought long and hard for better treatment here in the US of A. But I've noticed of late that these groups are strangely silent about the treatment given to women elsewhere.

I read an article yesterday about women in Iraq being threatened with death if they didn't wear the Hajib, the traditional head to toe garment with a veil for the face. Some women interviewed in one of the last remaining beauty salons Iraq were talking about leaving the country, others were voicing concern about the new governments intent to implement the Sharia, or islamic law which will severely curtail the rights of women.

In africa women are routinely brutalized by having their clitorises removed. Elsewhere womens rights are routinely trampled on. And with few exceptions, most notably the UN Commission on Human Rights, the domestic groups here in the US remain totally silent on any issue which doesn't impact the women here in the US.

Why isn't groups like NOW screaming at the Bush Administration over these issues? Has the drive to achieve equality in the US taken all the fight out of NOW?

Its ironic to note that the women under the secular Hussein government were not subject to the strict regime of the sharia. True there were other equally gross violations by that government and it deserved to be overthrown (but not by us).

 

[Denae]

I originally posted a comment in the What Pisses Me Off thread about this, but the more I think on it, the more I have to wonder if this really is a double standard.

Organizations like the National Organization for Women and other groups have fought long and hard for better treatment here in the US of A. But I've noticed of late that these groups are strangely silent about the treatment given to women elsewhere.

I read an article yesterday about women in Iraq being threatened with death if they didn't wear the Hajib, the traditional head to toe garment with a veil for the face. Some women interviewed in one of the last remaining beauty salons Iraq were talking about leaving the country, others were voicing concern about the new governments intent to implement the Sharia, or islamic law which will severely curtail the rights of women.

In africa women are routinely brutalized by having their clitorises removed. Elsewhere womens rights are routinely trampled on. And with few exceptions, most notably the UN Commission on Human Rights, the domestic groups here in the US remain totally silent on any issue which doesn't impact the women here in the US.

Why isn't groups like NOW screaming at the Bush Administration over these issues? Has the drive to achieve equality in the US taken all the fight out of NOW?

Its ironic to note that the women under the secular Hussein government were not subject to the strict regime of the sharia. True there were other equally gross violations by that government and it deserved to be overthrown (but not by us).

Good point Bobmi.

I have read a couple of articles, the most recent in Oprah's magazine a few months ago regarding the rights of women in foreign countries. There was a card attached that the subscriber (or purchaser) of the magazine could write on and send it back to O and then they were to be forwarded on to the next level (sorry I can't remember the details right now) to show support and outrage on behalf of our fellow women.

I agree with you, why isn't NOW showing outrage and stirring the pot so to speak? These women suffer indignities that are far worse that women in the U.S. can imagine and something needs to be done about it.

 

[Cathleen]

Personally I don't fault one organization - to me the question is why isn't ANYONE shouting about the many horrible abuses of human rights.

It is a human issue not only a woman's issue. I know there are groups that do shout and scream and work towards bringing the issue to the media. Without the media's involvement how can the world be made aware?

It certainly isn't just a female issue - even if it is females being abused. It is a human issue and all people need to respond.

 

[Cathleen]

Haunted by a story in yesterday's newspaper.

Short version: French pedophilia trial. 66 defendants accused of allowing children from the ages of 6 months to 14 years old be raped or sexually abused (children abused by parents or people close to their parents) in exchange for money, food, cigarettes, liquor, etc. One of the grandparents allegedly filmed rapes and other abuse.

I will never understand these behaviors. It is impossible in my mind - for personal reasons - to fathom.

 

[Denae]

Personally I don't fault one organization - to me the question is why isn't ANYONE shouting about the many horrible abuses of human rights.

It is a human issue not only a woman's issue. I know there are groups that do shout and scream and work towards bringing the issue to the media. Without the media's involvement how can the world be made aware?

It certainly isn't just a female issue - even if it is females being abused. It is a human issue and all people need to respond.

I couldn't agree more.

I have always thought that unless and until men become more involved in establishing/upholding punishment on perpetrators of sexual harassment in the workplace, rapes against women, stalking, and domestic violence we will never make the headway needed to make these crimes unacceptable.

I know I am speaking broadly and generally, but I believe that the majority of men do not understand or are unsympathic to these crimes against (mostly) women.

 

[Eilan]

I think that organizations like NOW tend not to get too heavily involved in some of the issues being mentioned here because it's not politically expedient for them to do so. They generally have some other agenda. I'm always suspicious of "agendas," no matter who they belong to.

What really gets me is hearing about the UN workers in Africa that raped women and young girls--the very people whose rights they're supposed to be protecting. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

It's so discouraging.

 

[lick_me_there]

on the issue of gay marriges....

i think anyone who wants to married should be. everyone is saying that marrage has to be this religious thing and do go against the teachings of whatever religious book it involves (i.e. gay marrige) isnt a real marrige and then they go and say that civil unions are ok. what is up with this??
so then is it ok for all of these "normal marriages" that end up in divorce ok? divorce is going against these books in most cases but then arent frowned upon (at least not anymore).
its completely hypocritical. you cannot say that one thing is ok, and not the other. a lot of people dont believe in gay marriage because they say that they are less stable and more likely to end in divorce... ummm.... have we looked at divorce stitistics??

what about people that dont get married in a church? does it mean we're not really married? my parents were roman catholics, got divorced, then my father remarried by a justice, not a priest... so then is he not married? of course not.

just let people get married already. if you dont want to be a part of a gay marriage, then dont be. but dont let other people not have the same rights. that just makes you a hypocrit. and do you really want to be one?

 

[Cathleen]

lick_me_there, I believe you have agreed with the rest here. All people should be able to commit themselves to another. The agrument needs the word 'marriage' taken out of the equation, in my opinion.

The separation of church and state needs to be upheld. But the rights of all those who commit to each other should get the same rights and responsibilities - no matter the makeup of their union. I do believe the union should consist of two adults.

 

[Cathleen]

I think that organizations like NOW tend not to get too heavily involved in some of the issues being mentioned here because it's not politically expedient for them to do so. They generally have some other agenda. I'm always suspicious of "agendas," no matter who they belong to.

What really gets me is hearing about the UN workers in Africa that raped women and young girls--the very people whose rights they're supposed to be protecting. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

It's so discouraging.

I sadly agree with you Eilan - agendas become politically based and ineffective.

 

[Eilan]

Bump for an update from Ohio. . .

I just read a story in today's Columbus Dispatch regarding some issues I'd posted about earlier. Here's a summary:

A judge in Cleveland ruled that Ohio's gay-marriage ban means that the state's domestic-violence laws don't protect unmarried couples. The ruling stems from a case where a man was accused of beating his live-in girlfriend. The judge said that if the domestic-violence charge were allowed to stand, it "would recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals," which conflicts with Issue 1, passed in November.

The judge reduced the man's charge from felony domestic violence to misdemeanor assault. The prosecutors immediately appealed.

It'll be interesting to see what happens.