The notion of marriage equality is merely another false social construct of the radical fringe. Actual married people, i.e., husband/wife male female living real married lives have never acknowledged or recognized same sex relationships as legitimate marriage. Nor should they. It's simply a matter of semantics. The name matters because words matter. Something cannot be what it is not. But everyone already knows this..
10
Really? So you know that all married couples don't recognize same sex marriages as legitimate? Funny, 65 % of Americans do, and many of them are married.....
20
Five people in black robes have used the constitution to make homosexual marriage legal.
The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
12
Would these be the same founding fathers that owned slaves? Not exactly great moral compasses in my book - regardless of how visionary they were in other ways.
17
The main challenge - how to get a good divorce lawyer.
1
From the start, everyone knew that the greatest problem facing gays was harassment. What was needed was anti-discrimination, ant-hate, and anti-bullying laws. Along came the marriage people and stole the rightful agenda in the name of wedding bells, which few gays cared about. It was a socioeconomic thing. Big spousal benefits went to wealthy married gays. So the upper crust opted for the money and abandoned the millions who had been the target of prejudice. Mainstream gays wanted to be assured of fair treatment when they came out. The idea of marriage was 100 miles down the road. Now energy and good will for the gay community is spent. A movement to deal with their real problems is not timely. The upscale crowd got what they wanted at the expense of addressing the harassment agenda that every gay and most straights knew was what really counted.
9
@michjas-
The two are not exclusive. While I agree that harassment and discrimination are the major problem LGBT people, the right to marry helps lay the groundwork for that. One of the reasons the haters wanted to keep gay marriage from being legal is they knew damn well that if marriage was legalized, people would see the world didn't end, and worse, that most people would see LGBT people for what they were, people. With all the religious types comparing being gay to being a pedophile, talking about gays and lesbians as sexual animals out to rape children, and all the other rhetoric of the GOP and right wing these days, it showed something very different. With same sex marriage legal, arguments against equal protections for gays ring hollow, because being aware of the fight for same sex marriage, people now understand just how mean and hateful the opposition is. More importantly, the marriage fight in the eyes of those who support it was a civil rights issue, and if marriage is a civil right, how could fear from being fired or denied housing or basic rights like that be denied?
The two are not exclusive. While I agree that harassment and discrimination are the major problem LGBT people, the right to marry helps lay the groundwork for that. One of the reasons the haters wanted to keep gay marriage from being legal is they knew damn well that if marriage was legalized, people would see the world didn't end, and worse, that most people would see LGBT people for what they were, people. With all the religious types comparing being gay to being a pedophile, talking about gays and lesbians as sexual animals out to rape children, and all the other rhetoric of the GOP and right wing these days, it showed something very different. With same sex marriage legal, arguments against equal protections for gays ring hollow, because being aware of the fight for same sex marriage, people now understand just how mean and hateful the opposition is. More importantly, the marriage fight in the eyes of those who support it was a civil rights issue, and if marriage is a civil right, how could fear from being fired or denied housing or basic rights like that be denied?
12
Good luck trying to make gay equality more generally as big a movement as the gay marriage movement. The only reason the latter got any traction at all was because it was framed by its supporters (including mostly this newspaper!) as an "us against religion" battle. That was a one-off. The other battles for gay rights will mostly take place in the shadows as there is no one enemy to "pick on" and the public feels like they've done their bit for gay rights - on to the next "outrage" whatever it's going to be.
5
Neither the U.S. Constitution or federal law now or have ever prohibited per se discrimination. The U.S. Constitution and current federal law doesn't prohibit per se discrimination, because discrimination, depending on the circumstances and reasons for it, can be and often is a necessary and/or advisable thing. The U.S. Const. and applicable federal law only prohibit unwarranted discrimination. Notwithstanding its patent error as a matter of constitutional law and its absurdity as a matter of human reproductive biology and the long established purpose of marriage in fostering that mode of reproduction, Kennedy, J.'s decision in Obergefell does not prohibit discrimination where it is warranted, except for marriage.
Now, in most situations being a homosexual or suffering from some other abnormality of sexual behavior with respect to the principles of sexual reproduction is irrelevant and should not be a basis for legal discrimination. That someone is homosexual is irrelevant to his brilliance as a conductor, composer, music director, and pianist. But it does matter that someone with a penis between his legs wants to use the girls' bathroom, because he self-identifies as a woman. There, the law stands on firm ground, because first, there is no discrimination and second, because self-identification, especially where, as here, arising from abnormality, does not trump anatomy and the social/sexual organization that naturally follows from it.
Now, in most situations being a homosexual or suffering from some other abnormality of sexual behavior with respect to the principles of sexual reproduction is irrelevant and should not be a basis for legal discrimination. That someone is homosexual is irrelevant to his brilliance as a conductor, composer, music director, and pianist. But it does matter that someone with a penis between his legs wants to use the girls' bathroom, because he self-identifies as a woman. There, the law stands on firm ground, because first, there is no discrimination and second, because self-identification, especially where, as here, arising from abnormality, does not trump anatomy and the social/sexual organization that naturally follows from it.
6
Yes, let’s all decry the narrow-minded religious fanatics who disagree with the views expressed in this essay for the way they demonize those with whom they disagree.
3
The main purpose and function of women in life is constantly to tell men, “Don’t get excited,” but also when it’s okay to work yourself up about life’s injustices, great and small—when suffered by her. In a gay marriage, how does either man know when it’s time to act, from writing a letter of complaint to burning someone’s house down? You need both a man’s way of seeing things and a woman’s way of seeing things.
5
As the head of the Anglican church of Canada remaarked a few years ago, if you are a bigot, you should go to church, because that's the last place where it's legal to discriminate!
5
Is there a need for laws protecting sexual preference in credit? A lot of companies target gay people because they are DINKS (double income, no kids).
Banks are happy to have creditworthy customers.
Banks are happy to have creditworthy customers.
"Separation of church and state" is achieved exactly as the first amendment specifies: by prohibiting faith based legislation and government interference in religious services.
4
As if that's what the 1st amendment and 233 years of jurisprudence say.
1
Abuse of religion to deny the plain meaning of language is one of its worst sins. That is why it makes people dishonest, stupid, or both.
3
"Today, a broad majority of Americans support protecting gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination. Nearly two-thirds of likely Republican voters...recently told pollsters that they support such protection."
So what's wrong with McConnell, Boehner and company that no Republican will co-sponsor the bill if nearly two-thirds of likely Republican voters support protections?
My answer is the problem lies with your typical Republican primary voter in gerrymandered districts brought to you by your state Republican legislature. So much for "compassionate conservatism" and the desire to govern! Oh wait, isn't the Republican controlled Congress supposed to vote, once again, to undo the ACA? Now that's governing!!
So what's wrong with McConnell, Boehner and company that no Republican will co-sponsor the bill if nearly two-thirds of likely Republican voters support protections?
My answer is the problem lies with your typical Republican primary voter in gerrymandered districts brought to you by your state Republican legislature. So much for "compassionate conservatism" and the desire to govern! Oh wait, isn't the Republican controlled Congress supposed to vote, once again, to undo the ACA? Now that's governing!!
5
Taking the position that "hysteria" is the motive for parents objecting to their children being exposed to other children who are anatomically opposite gender in a school bathroom is itself indicative of irrational thinking. Disagree if you will, of course, but to deny that there are any rational objections to such exposure is unhelpful to the debate.
10
Agreed. Rather than answer their criticisms, the NYT labels its critics "hysteric."
8
Let's say I am a devout member of the Church of Love for and the Conservation of God's Good Earth. One of our major tenants is that it is immoral and a grave sin for a couple to have more than three children because of over-population of the planet. This is my sincere religious conviction. Does this mean our Church's institutions can legally refuse to hire or can fire someone - even if not of our faith - who has a fourth child? If I am the sole owner of a corporation similar to Hobby Lobby, can my religious beliefs justify refusing to cover under the corporate health plan the medical expenses of a fourth pregnancy and any medical coverage for any child after the third?
In other words when does religious freedom stop and the basic constitutional rights and inherent human dignity prevail - especially when it involves the most intimate of human relationships and identity?
In other words when does religious freedom stop and the basic constitutional rights and inherent human dignity prevail - especially when it involves the most intimate of human relationships and identity?
8
Religious freedom IS a basic constitutional right. Read the 1st Amendment and 233 years of American jurisprudence. Where are the rights that you think supersede that right found other than in the blather of the left?
5
You can worship however you like. Try peyote, you will learn something.
4
Maxine confuses "freedom" with the ability to impose one's religion on others. That is known as oppression.
12
In the UK a man in his seventies is on trial for making "monkey gestures" towards soccer players of a particular ethnic background at a game. Never mind that the only person who apparently saw this was the police officer reviewing crowd footage. A crime is a crime after all.
What, in the future USA, might be the legal position of someone who, say, refused to shake the hand of someone who turned out to be LGBT?
What, in the future USA, might be the legal position of someone who, say, refused to shake the hand of someone who turned out to be LGBT?
3
This is very good and necessary piece. Yes, marriage equality is great, and seems like the only fair thing to do. But for many of us, it's going to be less important than workplace discrimination.
When I came out at 18 in LA the gay movement, in the late 70's, was mostly concerned with employment issues. Getting and keeping a job has always been the biggest hassle for gay men--the endless questions about your marital status by everyone at work is just the beginning. I'm just slightly uneasy with the euphoria some well meaning church goers ascribe to the marriage ruling. Many of us do not choose marriage, so it feels a little like an ornamental gesture. We need jobs, and we need our personal lives left alone unless we decide to divulge it. Real simple, really.
When I came out at 18 in LA the gay movement, in the late 70's, was mostly concerned with employment issues. Getting and keeping a job has always been the biggest hassle for gay men--the endless questions about your marital status by everyone at work is just the beginning. I'm just slightly uneasy with the euphoria some well meaning church goers ascribe to the marriage ruling. Many of us do not choose marriage, so it feels a little like an ornamental gesture. We need jobs, and we need our personal lives left alone unless we decide to divulge it. Real simple, really.
4
The only true effect SCOTUS' ruling has had on America is that it sets a precedent - that individuals, regardless of their sexuality, should be treated equally. It's up to states individually to decide where this should apply in larger contexts and institutions. The broader implication from this ruling is just that PEOPLE should be treated equally under the law. Sure, marriage was an important step, but workplace discrimination is an even more important step. We can't keep firing people for a characteristic of them that is completely irrelevant and uncorrelated to their workplace performance. It's absurd. And I know this is a repetition of many previous comments and statements made by LGBT activists and even the NYT, but we need to move on to address the trans* community, especially trans* individuals of color including LGBT individuals of color. We can't keep pretending that the LGBT movement is promoting the equality, wants and needs of the individuals the acronym encompasses. LGB rights are not T rights - and lets not forget about those who do not even identify themselves on the LGBT spectrum, including gender non-conforming individuals. But kudos for the NYT for acknowledging, again, that there is much more to be done beyond SCOTUS' ruling. And let me just add there is much that needs to be done for equality beyond the LGBT community.
6
Hiding behind an exemption to law is acknowledging a lack of faith. Let them be, but give a proper and accurate name to what the say they "believe" and who they become by doing so.
That's right folks. It's not you. It's your behavior. The tax exemption should be the first to go.
That's right folks. It's not you. It's your behavior. The tax exemption should be the first to go.
3
Many Americans still worry that being out to colleagues and bosses could jeopardize their job security or career advancement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure that if a gay or lesbian person is competent and qualified to do the job he or she is hired to do, their sexual orientation should be of concern to employers or to the co-workers. But if an incompetent LGB person wants cover and protection because of their sexual leanings, and cry foul if they are fired for incompetency, then we are making it easy for trial lawyers to exploit the situation.
All things being equal, if an employer has two potential candidates for a job - one gay and the other straight - an employer will be within their right to hire a straight person if they so desire. Because companies get workers to show camaraderie and good team spirit, any unease groups may feel about sexual orientation of an individual may militate against accomplishing the projects completed as a team.
Yesterday, the Times ran a blog item about Lt. Col. Germano in which she argues that the military has lax standards for measuring competency of female marines, and that is not how it should be. So, it is competency that matters, and an incompetent person cannot seek refuge under the cover of their sexual orientation or gender.
End of story.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not sure that if a gay or lesbian person is competent and qualified to do the job he or she is hired to do, their sexual orientation should be of concern to employers or to the co-workers. But if an incompetent LGB person wants cover and protection because of their sexual leanings, and cry foul if they are fired for incompetency, then we are making it easy for trial lawyers to exploit the situation.
All things being equal, if an employer has two potential candidates for a job - one gay and the other straight - an employer will be within their right to hire a straight person if they so desire. Because companies get workers to show camaraderie and good team spirit, any unease groups may feel about sexual orientation of an individual may militate against accomplishing the projects completed as a team.
Yesterday, the Times ran a blog item about Lt. Col. Germano in which she argues that the military has lax standards for measuring competency of female marines, and that is not how it should be. So, it is competency that matters, and an incompetent person cannot seek refuge under the cover of their sexual orientation or gender.
End of story.
1
I have an idea. Could the energy, smarts & supporters of the tremendously successful push for marriage equality be transferred to gun control? We need a similar success in that field.
3
Why does the gay rainbow not include all seven colors from ROYGBIV?
4
Gays may have a right to marriage now that the Supremes have ruled thusly but the others have constitutionally protected right to free exercise of their religious beliefs. Since the Constitution is our supreme law, it trumps all other laws enacted by Congress or 'legislated' from the bench. If a business or a person has deeply held religious beliefs that homosexual unions are immoral and deserve to be shunned, then they have the Constitutionally guaranteed right to exercise their belief by refusing to recognize such unions or to participate in their celebration.
As for transgender fight to use the bathroom of a type the person believes he or she in their newfound gender identity is entitled to use, a woman 'aspiring' or claiming to be a male still has her periods, menstrual cramps, and requires bins for disposing of sanitary pads, etc. Natural Men do not menstruate and the contrast could not be harsher.
We cannot upend centuries of traditional beliefs just to be politically correct in this liberal la=la=land.
As for transgender fight to use the bathroom of a type the person believes he or she in their newfound gender identity is entitled to use, a woman 'aspiring' or claiming to be a male still has her periods, menstrual cramps, and requires bins for disposing of sanitary pads, etc. Natural Men do not menstruate and the contrast could not be harsher.
We cannot upend centuries of traditional beliefs just to be politically correct in this liberal la=la=land.
8
Look about "Walgreens lunch counter", Sonny. We've been there, done that and said "no, businesses are public accommodations and must be accessible equally by all". If these businesses want to discriminate then they ought not be able to have access to public roads and infrastructure, police and fire protection, etc., as these are all provided by taxes that I, a gay citizen, pay into. But again, as a society we have all come to a conclusion on these matters. You all on the right will have your little tantrum and it will all be sorted out in due course and then we will move on.
And, once and for all, turning on an oven and mixing some ingredients together or making some flower arrangements does NOT amount to "participating" in anything in any substantial way. If you take that tact then any person seeking "purity" from interaction with gay people on any level would have to move to Mars - and even then they'd still be in the same solar system. Enough already.
And, once and for all, turning on an oven and mixing some ingredients together or making some flower arrangements does NOT amount to "participating" in anything in any substantial way. If you take that tact then any person seeking "purity" from interaction with gay people on any level would have to move to Mars - and even then they'd still be in the same solar system. Enough already.
7
@M, businesses cannot deny ACCESS to their premises but can refuse to participate in gay marriages or hire gay persons because of their religious beliefs. I am a spiritual, not a religious guy, but will have to be respectful of a person's religious beliefs. That's why when a Hasidic Jew sits next to me on a plane and reads their book by bobbing their head up and down throughout the flight, I do not complain even though I might find it a bit odd to demonstrate religiosity in a public place.
The public roadways are all built from taxes and businesses like Hobby Lobby pay taxes.
But I agree that if a religious institution wants to play by their religious beliefs and not by the law recognizing gays as equals, they then must lose fed subsidies and tax benefits they enjoy.
The public roadways are all built from taxes and businesses like Hobby Lobby pay taxes.
But I agree that if a religious institution wants to play by their religious beliefs and not by the law recognizing gays as equals, they then must lose fed subsidies and tax benefits they enjoy.
2
You're wrong, Sonny. In some places you can decide not to hire someone based on their being gay, but not in Manhattan, for instance (where you apparently reside), or in the many other states and localities where sexual orientation is part of a non-discrimination policy.
And please, baking a cake is not "participating". Participating would be officiating, or attending as a guest. Mixing flour, sugar and eggs really does not count. Otherwise I suppose the person that made the cloth the couple wears could also make a claim that it cannot be worn, or the brick layer that built city hall could make a claim that a same-sex marriage cannot take place there. The person that built the piano that gets played in Carnegie Hall does not claim that they "participated" in every performance there. So it's just ludicrous to claim these bakers and florists are "participating".
And no matter where tax dollars come from it is all commingled and must accommodate the interests of everyone in the society that pays them, so Hobby Lobby does not get some special consideration as to their beliefs.
And please, baking a cake is not "participating". Participating would be officiating, or attending as a guest. Mixing flour, sugar and eggs really does not count. Otherwise I suppose the person that made the cloth the couple wears could also make a claim that it cannot be worn, or the brick layer that built city hall could make a claim that a same-sex marriage cannot take place there. The person that built the piano that gets played in Carnegie Hall does not claim that they "participated" in every performance there. So it's just ludicrous to claim these bakers and florists are "participating".
And no matter where tax dollars come from it is all commingled and must accommodate the interests of everyone in the society that pays them, so Hobby Lobby does not get some special consideration as to their beliefs.
6
Instead of this proposed law, which by its nature has thought control as its basis. Just pass a law requiring all the LGBT bashers be sent Kenya. Or perhaps use a Maoist technique of requiring forced reeducation of the LGBT bashers. In either case get with the program or get out of the country.
Why are Republicans systematically on the side of discrimination ? It does not seem to be any type of discrimination that they would not gladly endorse. Are they just morally flawed human beings ?
9
We still have a long way to go. The Supreme Court's decision is to the gay rights movement as Brown vs. Board of Education is to the civil rights movement - a crucial step, but only one of the first of many to be taken. African-Americans still have not risen to the challenge of changing all minds in this country. The gay rights movement must face the even greater challenge of changing the minds of the religious. This will take quite some time.
10
This is all about homosexuals retaining victim status. Without it they will be out of the limelight and just another special interest group without a cause with which to constantly bludgeon the rest of us. You see they love to make others feel guilty for their intolerance. It allows them to receive special treatment and protective legislation from our all too willing politicians. It's time to get over victimization and assimilate. You got what you wanted, so stop looking for the next gravy train on the victim horizon.
9
A crime is a crime whether it is committed by a member of the clergy or a layperson. The problem is that many so-called liberals now actually practice a form of cultural totalitarianism. They are incapable of justly distinguishing actual wrongdoing from ideological variety. To them the two are one and the same. To these people, unless you say exactly the words they do, in exactly the same order and with the same practiced intonation, you are a heretic and a criminal.
Many of them do not even bother to understand the meaning of their creeds; they simply recite them with gusto and let loose a triumphalist smile.
That's why religious freedom remains a crucial, and constitutionally protected, right.
Many of them do not even bother to understand the meaning of their creeds; they simply recite them with gusto and let loose a triumphalist smile.
That's why religious freedom remains a crucial, and constitutionally protected, right.
5
Objectively, there IS every reason, morally anyway if not politically, to be on the right side of this issue. But I'm not so sure that America is ready yet to be fully on the right side of this issue.
It's one thing to see the fundamental unfairness in denying marriage to two people who want to marry, when their marriage doesn't affect the lives of anyone else, even those who may not approve of gay anything; but it's quite another for Americans generally to accept as equal and acceptable among them co-workers and others in the community on whom they depend every day, and afford them specific protections and privileges (that could be unfairly exploited) that are not afforded, say, to the bald or the pleasantly plump.
I'd like to see an actual constitutional amendment that would eliminate explicit protections for ALL classes, and replace them with a prohibition on discriminating against ANYONE for ANY reason short of demonstrable physical inability to perform a job. Many still would regard that as an imposition on beliefs, but I'm convinced it would be far more salable than this piecemeal approach to carving us into ever-finer demographic segments for explicit protection that requires each American to accept that some specific splinter of humanity is equally acceptable to all others.
Let's not be surprised that the next evolution, assuming we continue this statutory path of protection, won't be FAR more difficult than protecting gay marriage.
It's one thing to see the fundamental unfairness in denying marriage to two people who want to marry, when their marriage doesn't affect the lives of anyone else, even those who may not approve of gay anything; but it's quite another for Americans generally to accept as equal and acceptable among them co-workers and others in the community on whom they depend every day, and afford them specific protections and privileges (that could be unfairly exploited) that are not afforded, say, to the bald or the pleasantly plump.
I'd like to see an actual constitutional amendment that would eliminate explicit protections for ALL classes, and replace them with a prohibition on discriminating against ANYONE for ANY reason short of demonstrable physical inability to perform a job. Many still would regard that as an imposition on beliefs, but I'm convinced it would be far more salable than this piecemeal approach to carving us into ever-finer demographic segments for explicit protection that requires each American to accept that some specific splinter of humanity is equally acceptable to all others.
Let's not be surprised that the next evolution, assuming we continue this statutory path of protection, won't be FAR more difficult than protecting gay marriage.
1
All of the left wing blather, pressure tactics and theorizing about homosexuality and gay marriage ignore a simple glaring and undeniable fact - homosexuality is by and large a behavior. There is no evidence that anyone is born gay, as they are male or female or some race. No physical mechanism, such as genes, has been identified. There is even less evidence (that's no evidence at all) for anyone being born transgendered. That is why reputable doctors and institutions will have nothing to do with the radical and chemical "treatments" for what is a behavior. My assertions will cause outrage, especially at this late date, but they cannot be refuted with medical or scientific data. The nation has been misled by dogmatic leftists and the wealth of the homosexual community and its ability to purchase establishment politicians wholesale. If I am right two things are apparent. First, gay marriage, like abortion, will never be accepted despite the machinations of cheap politicians and our corporate media. Second, the chief victims of this neurotic charade are the homosexuals and transgendered that have been misled, preyed upon and abandoned by the establishment. It just easier and more profitable that way.
6
I am a gay man. I am a very respected physician in my field. I guess the question that I have for you is: How is gay marriage or non-discrimination for gay people going to affect you? Likely not at all. The Right has used religion and fear to sway conservatives into believing that being gay is choice. Likewise the conservative Right has centered that being gay is strongly associated with hyper-sexuality. With my 29+ years of education I can strongly assert that being gay is in no way a choice. I was born this way and I have learned to accept myself.
The LGBT community is just asking for the same rights that the "straight" community have. We want to be able to live without fear of being fired from our job, kicked out of our home or expelled from school. Is that too much to ask? Again, by having a right to not fear my job loss is that going to really have any affect on you, Maxine?
The LGBT community is just asking for the same rights that the "straight" community have. We want to be able to live without fear of being fired from our job, kicked out of our home or expelled from school. Is that too much to ask? Again, by having a right to not fear my job loss is that going to really have any affect on you, Maxine?
3
The truth matters doesn't it doctor? Or do you practice medicine without reference to facts or science? I challenge you to produce real science that supports the idea that anyone is born gay or transgendered. If you can't why are we giving a behavior protected, constitutional status? That is the real issue that I have raised and which you fail to address. Appeals to emotion or changing the question or argument because you cannot address the question raised is beneath a man of science in my opinion.
4
Maxine, I guess what I'm trying to ask is how allowing someone the same rights you enjoy affecting you at all? Did your life change the day the SCOTUS allowed gay marriages? It likely had no effect and will never have an effect on you or your lifestyle. Who cares what gene encodes homosexuality that is not the issue at all.
I fail to see why religious organizations get a special pass AND a tax exemption.
20
They subsidize themselves to turn the meaning of language on its head. It is said to be good for the nation's afterlife.
The founders of our country wisely separated church from state. Read the Constitution. It is this separation that both sides of the debate--those favoring civil rights and those favoring religious freedom--are now using to support their cause. And it appears as if those who oppose religious freedom are winning.
4
There were so many competing religions in the US at the time of its founding that they could only agree to ratify the Constitution if none of them could use the government it charters to propagate their religion.
I am gay but I must disagree with this statement:
"the marriage equality victory should not be regarded as ... a clear sign that [LGBT] Americans are on the cusp of enjoying full equality under the law"
I find it so tiresome when historically disadvantaged groups continually clamor for increasingly tiny gains relative to the historically advantaged ones. I am fine with improving workplace discrimination laws, but they must affect a very small number of people, and seem to be on the way towards being passed in any case.
So I would say we are indeed on the cusp of enjoying full equality under the law, and now it's time to live our lives in peace and seek happiness, not rancor.
"the marriage equality victory should not be regarded as ... a clear sign that [LGBT] Americans are on the cusp of enjoying full equality under the law"
I find it so tiresome when historically disadvantaged groups continually clamor for increasingly tiny gains relative to the historically advantaged ones. I am fine with improving workplace discrimination laws, but they must affect a very small number of people, and seem to be on the way towards being passed in any case.
So I would say we are indeed on the cusp of enjoying full equality under the law, and now it's time to live our lives in peace and seek happiness, not rancor.
16
Wow, internalized oppression much? "I'm just happy to have a few crumbs!" "It's OK some of my brethren are still oppressed! They didn't really need that job, or that apartment!"
3
You seem to have responded to what you imagine my psychology to be, rather than anything of substance.
Data would help your case, rather than ad hominem attacks. For me, I no longer believe LGBT discrimination rises above the sort of trials almost everyone must experience throughout life. It is telling that your response relies on the blurry ideology of social theory instead of observables.
Data would help your case, rather than ad hominem attacks. For me, I no longer believe LGBT discrimination rises above the sort of trials almost everyone must experience throughout life. It is telling that your response relies on the blurry ideology of social theory instead of observables.
1
Actually no, CR. Just helping to point out the absurdity of your minimization of the fact that many states continue to have no protections against gay people being fired or denied housing for the fact of being gay and how sad it is that you would characterize this as "clamor(ing) for increasingly tiny gains relative to the historically advantaged ones." For some people this is actually a very big deal. I'm not sure what "data" I can provide that cannot be found by doing a little googling, but here's a start:
https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information...
See all those states in gray where you could move to where your protections in employment and housing would be nil? So, in the relative peace and happiness in New Jersey it's easy to cast aside huge swaths of the country, including your neighbor, Pennsylvania as "affect(ing) a very small number of people". If that is the case, then it is you who must provide the data.
https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information...
See all those states in gray where you could move to where your protections in employment and housing would be nil? So, in the relative peace and happiness in New Jersey it's easy to cast aside huge swaths of the country, including your neighbor, Pennsylvania as "affect(ing) a very small number of people". If that is the case, then it is you who must provide the data.
1
As other civil rights movements have taught us, especially communities already with full legal protections, marginalized groups will continue to experience decades of insidious discrimination (profiling, police abuse, glass ceilings, etc). Political movements need to move beyond "civil rights" rhetoric because, actually, that's only the beginning. Marginalized groups experience all kinds of bias that the law doesn't catch.
2
The next great battle? This one has to be fought by the community itself.
Let's all get together and lower the out of control HIV and syphilis rates that are impacting the community.
Civil rights will have a hollow ring IMO when the infection rates continue to grow and worsen. When over 30 percent of all the MSM in our cites are infected with HIV.
And please if you are going to argue with this point at least bother to look up the US infection data first. Urban myth and misinformation does not count.
We have a growing massive epidemic of infections within the community. Someone has to care about this before it's truly to late.
"It's 11pm do you know where your condom is?"
Let's all get together and lower the out of control HIV and syphilis rates that are impacting the community.
Civil rights will have a hollow ring IMO when the infection rates continue to grow and worsen. When over 30 percent of all the MSM in our cites are infected with HIV.
And please if you are going to argue with this point at least bother to look up the US infection data first. Urban myth and misinformation does not count.
We have a growing massive epidemic of infections within the community. Someone has to care about this before it's truly to late.
"It's 11pm do you know where your condom is?"
3
I got married last week to my "domestic partner"(SO glad to be done with that clunker) of twenty-five years. In a courthouse. In Dallas, Texas if that can be believed. It felt liberating and gratifying and made me proud of my country in a way that I hadn't felt since January, 2009.
Sadly, while the state of Texas was forced by the courts to acknowledge this as my basic right, I can still be fired or denied a mortgage or shut out of a real estate contract because I am what I am. I will still be made into a wedge issue starting next month(I'm looking at you Mike Huckabee) to drive the fearful and ignorant to the polls.
What I'm trying to say is that the Times' editorial Board is correct. Don't let anyone tell you that this is over. There are individuals and forces that stand to make too much money to let it be.
Sadly, while the state of Texas was forced by the courts to acknowledge this as my basic right, I can still be fired or denied a mortgage or shut out of a real estate contract because I am what I am. I will still be made into a wedge issue starting next month(I'm looking at you Mike Huckabee) to drive the fearful and ignorant to the polls.
What I'm trying to say is that the Times' editorial Board is correct. Don't let anyone tell you that this is over. There are individuals and forces that stand to make too much money to let it be.
17
EQUALITY I agree that the LGBT community needs further protection under the law in the ways described in Frank Bruni's article. However, I believe that his description of the situation of transgender children's access to bathrooms as "hysteria" misses the point. Having worked in schools for many years, I agree that children need extra protections and supervision because they depend upon adults to protect their interests. Anybody who thinks that the kids' bathrooms are guaranteed to be safe places is not aware of the facts. I know of a case where a 6 year old girl was sexually molested by a 9 year old boy who walked into an unsupervised bathroom. Kids routinely get into mischief in the bathrooms, which are not public. Their use is limited to those students enrolled in the schools and visiting students. Adults routinely monitor the bathrooms, especially between classes when kids manipulate teachers so they can get out of class to hang out with friends rather than using the toilet. I've smelled pot coming out of the doors of bathrooms in high schools. I also know of a case where a transgender male student was glad to use the high school boy's room. He set up a business servicing his classmates. Not the sort of entrepreneurship that students are encouraged to pursue! Sending transgender youth into bathrooms unsupervised is pretty much a guarantee of violence directed toward them. Putting laws on the books won't provide safety. What to do? I'm all ears!
3
Wow, hysteria indeed. Easy answer: supervise the bathrooms. One of your examples was a boy and girl, so right there you point out the obvious: potential sexual abuse in school bathrooms is not linked to gender or sexuality. But of course it's easy to make a big deal out of it all (become hysterical) when it comes to transgender students. Why would that be, D.H.?
1
So many anecdotes in search of a conclusion...
People who suffer from gender dysphoria should not be discriminated against for pretending to be members of the opposite sex. However, the rest of us should not be forced to pretend we are deceived by the pretense. Men do not become women and women do not become men. If men could actually become men and women could actually become men, transgenderism would not be an issue, would it?
8
At least the Hippocratic Oath should preclude public health plans from paying for sex change operations. There is no assurance that they do more good than harm to the person. Is that enough for you?
1
"Sex change" operations do not change people's sex. They give patients artificial phalluses or artificial vaginas. However, some claim the operation reduces the emotional distress of gender dysphoria patients because it make the variance between perception and reality less apparent. Since few patients undergo the surgery, the database is small. As the database grows, the American Medical Association will be able to better determine if the surgery is beneficial or not.
We have already seen a Belgian person who had a sex change operation opt for medically-assisted suicide as a result of it.
Religionists should not receive exemptions to discriminate. Renting out a house does not involve theological questions of sacrament and sin (unless you're charging too much rent!). Do these upstanding Christians rent apartments to adulterers? The Bible has a lot more to say about adultery as a sin than it does about homosexuality. If you're the landlord of an apartment in which adultery occurs, or lying, or blasphemy, or the making of graven images, is the state of your soul compromised by the behaviors of your tenants?
If you're to have no other god before Jehovah, are you, fine Christian that you are, allowed to refuse to rent to a Buddhist or Hindu? What about an atheist? I think we would all shout "no," but these are more logical questions of putting doctrine into practice than using religion as an excuse not to deal with your repressed sexual horror.
Because let's be honest: this is not about religion. It's about a certain kind of person who has retreated into religion as a way of defending against aspects of life they're afraid of looking at. They don't want to SEE a transgender person, because they'd have to see an individual human being instead of thinking in gender categories.
As for bathrooms, an argument against the Equal Rights Amendment was that it would require unisex facilities. There's something profoundly comic about civil rights depending on how society provides for privacy of the excretory functions in a public setting—but the ERA didn't pass, did it?
If you're to have no other god before Jehovah, are you, fine Christian that you are, allowed to refuse to rent to a Buddhist or Hindu? What about an atheist? I think we would all shout "no," but these are more logical questions of putting doctrine into practice than using religion as an excuse not to deal with your repressed sexual horror.
Because let's be honest: this is not about religion. It's about a certain kind of person who has retreated into religion as a way of defending against aspects of life they're afraid of looking at. They don't want to SEE a transgender person, because they'd have to see an individual human being instead of thinking in gender categories.
As for bathrooms, an argument against the Equal Rights Amendment was that it would require unisex facilities. There's something profoundly comic about civil rights depending on how society provides for privacy of the excretory functions in a public setting—but the ERA didn't pass, did it?
25
I appreciate your comments. Just know that for at least one Christian, this is about religion.
1
Blah, blah and bitter blah.
You're as biased against Christians, most of whom do not conform to your stereotype of fundamentalists bigots, as you believe they are against you.
You're as biased against Christians, most of whom do not conform to your stereotype of fundamentalists bigots, as you believe they are against you.
1
OK, Colin, so it has to work both ways: Next time you are in a medical emergency and end up in the ER, be sure to ask if your doctor is gay, and, if they are, deny treatment from them even as the blood runs out of your dying body.
Try to figure out is all the goods and services you use or receive were in any way along the supply chain to you involved the labor or gay people and shun that too. If you need religious purity, after all, go for it. Figure out how not to breathe air that also passed through the lungs of gay people. Once you start thinking through this you'll realize everything in your world is tainted by us gay people. Even this newspaper that you interact with.
Try to figure out is all the goods and services you use or receive were in any way along the supply chain to you involved the labor or gay people and shun that too. If you need religious purity, after all, go for it. Figure out how not to breathe air that also passed through the lungs of gay people. Once you start thinking through this you'll realize everything in your world is tainted by us gay people. Even this newspaper that you interact with.
3
All kinds of challenges and misconceptions remain despite the SCOTUS decision. There are still people out there who believe that Jews are running the world via the banking industry. There are others who are convinced that gays and lesbians recruit since we can't, in their opinion, reproduce. Better still are those who think there is a "gay and lesbian" lifestyle without realizing that we have the same concerns they have. We want to be able to support ourselves and our families, receive the medical care we need, have good jobs so we don't have to ask for government assistance, be accepted by our friends, neighbors, colleagues, and families for who we are, not what they think we are. Yet many of us know that if our coworkers knew about our sexual preferences our evaluations would be mediocre, we'd lose our jobs, our health insurance, and possibly our residences.
To put it simply: marriage equality is nice but it would be even better if we were given the same considerations "normal" people are given when it comes to civil behavior.
To put it simply: marriage equality is nice but it would be even better if we were given the same considerations "normal" people are given when it comes to civil behavior.
6
I think evryone realizes the basic premise that gay marriage is not the end all equality for gays in America or everyone else but the billionaires. But it is important to be repetitive.
3
Gay does not equate to transgender and the issues of equal treatment under the law aren't the same.
But of course the struggle must continue. Just as the Black Civil Rights struggle continues, even as Blacks now have officially protected, and even favored in most cases, status under the law. But as much official favor is bestowed on Blacks, there amazingly still exists people who carry racial animus against them. Much as there are Blacks who carry racial animus against everyone who isn't Black.
The law can't change the way people think and feel. It can only change what they do. If gays and the transgendered believe it is their charge to change the hearts and minds of people through the law, they will be sadly disappointed. The law follows the hearts and minds, rather than the other way around, as the gay marriage movement clearly showed.
But it is a strategic political mistake for gays to allow transgender people to piggyback on their cause. The two are not the same. Transgender people will never be considered more or less normal such that they might be accepted by a majority of the population.
But of course the struggle must continue. Just as the Black Civil Rights struggle continues, even as Blacks now have officially protected, and even favored in most cases, status under the law. But as much official favor is bestowed on Blacks, there amazingly still exists people who carry racial animus against them. Much as there are Blacks who carry racial animus against everyone who isn't Black.
The law can't change the way people think and feel. It can only change what they do. If gays and the transgendered believe it is their charge to change the hearts and minds of people through the law, they will be sadly disappointed. The law follows the hearts and minds, rather than the other way around, as the gay marriage movement clearly showed.
But it is a strategic political mistake for gays to allow transgender people to piggyback on their cause. The two are not the same. Transgender people will never be considered more or less normal such that they might be accepted by a majority of the population.
3
"It’s tempting to regard last month’s Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage as the coda of the gay rights movement." If you're straight, that is. After all, what else do "those people" want?
Not only equality but common courtesy and respect, when pertaining to gay people, are still referred to as "special rights." Simple acknowledgment of their existence is called "forcing" their "lifestyle" on a victimized, disinterested world. Hate speech pertaining to gays (about how gays are bad and immoral and unnatural and sick and prone to prey on children), particularly in opinion forums like this one, tends to get defended as "free speech." Even non-hate hate speech: "I have nothing against gay people, but [what the speaker or writer has against gay people]."
The marriage equality battle was fought and won, but the war is far from over.
Not only equality but common courtesy and respect, when pertaining to gay people, are still referred to as "special rights." Simple acknowledgment of their existence is called "forcing" their "lifestyle" on a victimized, disinterested world. Hate speech pertaining to gays (about how gays are bad and immoral and unnatural and sick and prone to prey on children), particularly in opinion forums like this one, tends to get defended as "free speech." Even non-hate hate speech: "I have nothing against gay people, but [what the speaker or writer has against gay people]."
The marriage equality battle was fought and won, but the war is far from over.
7
Now that we have accepted gay marriages will the next push be for multiple marriages (i.e. polygamy)?
3
Yes, of course! Why not! Such an original idea, I'm shocked nobody else has thought about it. And then maybe we should be able to marry our dogs or our goldfish!
1
Re polygamy:
What a tiresome, predictable stretch.
What a tiresome, predictable stretch.
I don't understand this constant need to lump in trans issues with gay rights. Sexual orientation is biological, you cannot help it. Gender is an oppressive structure created by the patriarchy. Gender is not innate or biological, it is learned and enforced. If you are "transgender," you do not fit into the gender roles that the patriarchy implemented. However, that does not change your biological sex. For example, if you are a man (male), you have no business being in the women's (female) bathroom.
3
Gender roles have a biological basis for many aspects but certainly not all. It is well documented for instance in animals that exposure to testosterone during key stages of fetal development "masculinizes" the brain in that it causes male-typical behavior to be displayed later in life. In humans the biological aspect has been demonstrated or at least suggested by the cruel experiment by Dr. Money turning John to Joan by having his parents raise him as a girl. Transgender inclinations if anything have a stronger case as to being biological than sexual orientation.
2
But sex is not an oppressive hierarchy, gender is. For example, just because women have uteruses and bare children, that doesn't mean they should be destined to sit at home and care for them and the household duties. Sex does not on its own oppress anyone, it is when gender is assigned because of one's sex. People claim gender roles are "natural," but gender is taught and enforced, as in the John/Joan case, and it is used as a tool to oppress.
As justly noted, a tsunami of sweeping change isn't going to happen. Even when, if ever, discrimination will persist. Fifty years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, race and sex discrimination still exists in the workplace. Working for the EEOC ('00-'08) as an Assistant Investigator in the legal unit and Intake, hundreds of charges were alleged, many were found to have merit and either settled or went before the courts.
Changes in housing and lending practices will take time. This is going to require more than one rainbow.
Changes in housing and lending practices will take time. This is going to require more than one rainbow.
2
"'I think American people have come to understand in a very deep and inspiring way who gay and transgender Americans are and why exclusion and discrimination is wrong,' said Evan Wolfson.... Today, a broad majority of Americans support protecting gay and transgender workers from employment discrimination."
After all the ink the Times has spilled on transgender issues, I don't think that it has helped readers understand in a deep way what the medical or psychological issues are behind being transgender, and hence why discrimination might or might not be wrong. It is reported that people who have received sex reassignment surgery have a mortality risk from suicide of 19.1 times that of the general population. That would, on the face of it, suggest underlying mental issues and self-destructiveness. Would an airline hiring pilots be acting responsibly if it did not take this into account?
After all the ink the Times has spilled on transgender issues, I don't think that it has helped readers understand in a deep way what the medical or psychological issues are behind being transgender, and hence why discrimination might or might not be wrong. It is reported that people who have received sex reassignment surgery have a mortality risk from suicide of 19.1 times that of the general population. That would, on the face of it, suggest underlying mental issues and self-destructiveness. Would an airline hiring pilots be acting responsibly if it did not take this into account?
3
"Would an airline hiring pilots be acting responsibly if it did not take this into account? "
But "acting responsibly" is not on the agenda of the NY Times editorial board. They are activists on this issues, and being activist means, seeing only one step ahead and refusing to see two steps ahead.
But "acting responsibly" is not on the agenda of the NY Times editorial board. They are activists on this issues, and being activist means, seeing only one step ahead and refusing to see two steps ahead.
3
This argument reminds me of when I was in the military. One of the oft cited justifications for keeping gays out of the military was that gays were likely to give away valuable intelligence to their captors under the threat of the captor revealing their sexuality. What was so ridiculous about that argument was, of course, that if gays were allowed to serve openly in the military, their captors could never hold that over their heads to gain intelligence.
Do you think it is possible that when transgendered people are welcomed in our society, that when they are not villified for needing to pee in the restroom of their choice, that when they stop feeling hated by the world..... that perhaps they might stop taking their own lives?
Do you think it is possible that when transgendered people are welcomed in our society, that when they are not villified for needing to pee in the restroom of their choice, that when they stop feeling hated by the world..... that perhaps they might stop taking their own lives?
Yes, Terry, it is possible that this factor of 19.1 (if that is a correct figure) is due entirely to not being welcomed and being vilified for needing to pee in the restroom of their choice, but it also seems possible that it is due to much more deep-seated psychological issues that are connected with a dissatisfaction with and alienation from (of) one's own body, and that such issues do not go away with surgery. This is an empirical or scientific question and I do not see that the Times has devoted much attention to it.
3
I'm still trying to understand how T got tacked onto the L, G and B. Sexual orientation and gender disphoria seem like distinctly separate issues. As a gay woman I can say "The Struggle for Equality" is over at my house.
7
Lisa,
It might seem that the struggle is over on the island of Austin, but for those like us in the less evolved areas of Texas... or Mississippi or Idaho..., it's still a battle.
It might seem that the struggle is over on the island of Austin, but for those like us in the less evolved areas of Texas... or Mississippi or Idaho..., it's still a battle.
3
How comfortable and convenient that the struggle for equality is over at your house. That fellow citizens can be fired from a job or denied housing simply based on who they are, although amply qualified otherwise, shouldn't be a concern. After all, YOUR rights are taken care of. I am speechless.
2
Wow, Lisa, have you looked at the laws (or lack thereof) in Texas? Do yourself a favor and do so right away. Your struggle is not over.
2
I support same sex marriage and in a general way, what are called gay rights. That is, they should not have any civil disabilities for the following reasons. Suppose two people work in a private sector company and do good jobs. One day the employer learns that employee #1 is lgbt and fires him. He then thinks, I don't like #2 (or her politics, height, hair color, body art and so on) and fires her. Why should #1 have rights because of a sexual proclivity and not #2 because she is tall? Both are unfair? Is one person's characteristics Or a better question, why should either of them in the private sector? Due to the history of discrimination based on race/ethnicity in our country, I feel that this is more than sufficient reason for us to have laws prohibiting it in our commercial and public lives, but I have trouble with the protections for other groups, even if they apply to me (Jewish heritage, male, middle age, atheist, average height, etc.) None of those should protect me from discrimination or prohibit anyone from favoring me either (that doesn't mean it isn't the law), so long as it is not state action or against a company's own policies. Equal rights under the law includes those who discriminate for many reasons. There are people who will not give an LGBT person a job because of it or will not participate in a same sex marriage. I think it will be less and less and we all have to put up with it. We can vote by where we do business or with whom we associate.
I am against any LEGAL restrictions on cohabitational unions of humans of whatever gender, natural or altered. But I consider MARRIAGE a wholly wrong name for such unions. Even without any reference to the historical religious roots of the concept of marriage, and fully accepting the fact that marriage can be dissolved, there are many aspects of marriage that are alien to other pseudo-family units. In particular, the presumed right of same-gender units to adopt children is wholly unnatural.
6
If you ever have gay kids, make sure to let them know how you feel, mkay?
3
So now you're the dictionary police?
2
Well that's good to know, Tuvw Xyz, even as it is entirely just your opinion and otherwise entirely irrelevant. But I'll tuck it away for future reference, in the trash can.
6
Recently there have been more than a few incidents of a teacher or other employee being fired by a church or church related school for seeking to obtain a license for civil marriage. The worst case was a gym teacher being fired by a Roman Catholic school when her "partner" was mentioned in the teacher's mother's obituary as a survivor (the mother lived for years with the teacher and her" partner") .
If that is "religious liberty", I don't know what is worse shape - liberty or religion.
If that is "religious liberty", I don't know what is worse shape - liberty or religion.
30
Fr. Bill I do not know whether you are a Catholic priest or not, but if you are you should know that the Church has certain tenets that must be upheld (I agree with their tenets as a Catholic). This teacher knew what he was getting into when he joined a Catholic school and should not have disobeyed the teachings of the Church. I agree with the Church's decision. The employee can go and teach at a public school where he will be very welcomed.
3
Does the church screen for divorced individuals when it hires? Or those using birth control?
2
It is not up to us non-Catholics to decide what criteria the Church uses to hire and fire employees. For some employees the criteria is just being Catholic. For other employees sexual practice is the criteria. For other it's adhering to marriage vows. It's called freedom of religion. By definition, religion does not conform to "rational" criteria.
1
By all means, the extension of credit or the ability to retain one's job should not be affected by sexual orientation. Similarly, lenders or employers should not be cowed into extending credit to an uncreditworthy prospective borrower or keep or hire an unproductive or unqualified worker because of their sexual orientation (and the cudgel of a lawsuit). Unfortunately, too many proponents of "equality" under the law are seeking leverage in litigation, something that hurts all involved.
6
The whole US system of litigation in courts operates more as a shakedown process than a dispute resolution process. It really needs ombudsman even to steer litigants to courts that have jurisdiction over the issues of cases. There is no penalty for suing people in courts that don't even have jurisdiction, and certain recidivist abusers of process do it frequently.
1
If you fear this "cudgel," then you must be afraid of all civil rights laws, because a member of any group covered by them has the potential to use the law as "leverage in litigation," correct?
Why not repeal them all in order to protect employers and landlords, poor besieged things that they are?
Why not repeal them all in order to protect employers and landlords, poor besieged things that they are?
2
CC, the problem is the tendency of American juries to award large amounts of money as compensation. Suppose A sues B who is rich, for ten million dollars. The suit is weak and has only a 10% chance of succeeding. But given the amount of money involved, even a 10% chance is worth a million, so B will settle for $500,000 in order to avoid a suit which has little merit.
1
As a white, heterosexual, 51 year old male I have every right, job opportunity, expectation of safety when interacting with police, etc. geared up to go my way and I have lived without the fears that so many live with every day. Why? It's not because I'm a good person or have earned it somehow but rather by accident of birth. The same accident of birth that makes someone else transgender, gay, female, black, etc. should not stand in anyone's way. We don't need less advocacy. We need more and better to help bring all Americans' lives closer to the ideals in our founding documents.
87
The question is, partly, who legitimately decides which accidents of birth "should not" stand in a person's way, and how this judgment of what should not happen is enforced.
The argument has to go further than "accident of birth." Being untalented is an accident of birth, but nobody thinks that it should not stand in a person's way. Being prone to criminal behavior may be an accident of birth, but nobody thinks that such a proclivity should not stand in a person's way in the pursuit of happiness.
So it comes down to cases. Does a person deserve protection from the state if (say) an employer wants to discriminate against them because they are transgender? Gay? Obese? Ugly? The question turns on the specific nature of these categories. There is no valid blanket principle that accidents of birth should not stand in a person's way, and I doubt that you could find such a principle expressed in the founding documents.
The argument has to go further than "accident of birth." Being untalented is an accident of birth, but nobody thinks that it should not stand in a person's way. Being prone to criminal behavior may be an accident of birth, but nobody thinks that such a proclivity should not stand in a person's way in the pursuit of happiness.
So it comes down to cases. Does a person deserve protection from the state if (say) an employer wants to discriminate against them because they are transgender? Gay? Obese? Ugly? The question turns on the specific nature of these categories. There is no valid blanket principle that accidents of birth should not stand in a person's way, and I doubt that you could find such a principle expressed in the founding documents.
1
No one is born "transgender" because gender is not innate. Gender is a construction that is forced onto us. Sex is biological, not gender.
A recent study by Brooklyn College showed that New York police were much more likely to stop and question a black male of 23 years of age than a white male of the same age. But the same study showed that the cops were much more likely to stop a white male of 23 than a black female of 23.
So maybe your gender does not give you an advantage - rather it is a disadvantage.
Long ago, when you could get phone numbers from information, if I asked the operator for the address, she would invariably say, "I am sorry sir, but we are not allowed to give that information." On the other hand, my wife was invariably able to get the address as well as the phone number.
Life is complex and does not always obey the stereotypes of liberals.
So maybe your gender does not give you an advantage - rather it is a disadvantage.
Long ago, when you could get phone numbers from information, if I asked the operator for the address, she would invariably say, "I am sorry sir, but we are not allowed to give that information." On the other hand, my wife was invariably able to get the address as well as the phone number.
Life is complex and does not always obey the stereotypes of liberals.
1
The problem with making service by a private business a "right" is that you are inevitably taking away someone else's right. That's why these protections are not really "rights," as commonly understood, but entitlements. And creating entitlements always results in a situation where one right is pitted against another.
You cannot create a "right" to health care or housing without taking away another person's right not to pay for it.
You cannot create a "right" to have a private baker make your wedding cake without taking away the baker's right to decide what and for whom he bakes.
Most modern liberals don't care, because they're currently in power, and seek to use that power to crush and silence opposition. But a government that can force people to act in certain ways, not to prevent danger but to prevent hurt feelings can force all sorts of things (for example, to prevent private stores from prohibiting guns inside).
People might be wise to keep that in mind.
You cannot create a "right" to health care or housing without taking away another person's right not to pay for it.
You cannot create a "right" to have a private baker make your wedding cake without taking away the baker's right to decide what and for whom he bakes.
Most modern liberals don't care, because they're currently in power, and seek to use that power to crush and silence opposition. But a government that can force people to act in certain ways, not to prevent danger but to prevent hurt feelings can force all sorts of things (for example, to prevent private stores from prohibiting guns inside).
People might be wise to keep that in mind.
10
People who make this argument seem to forget or choose to ignore the fact that these are not private businesses. These are enterprises that exist to do business with the public. These businesses are licensed and must meet various regulations. Fire and building codes must be met in order to protect both the owner and the public. Because these are public businesses, they cannot refuse to do business with some of the public because of innate characteristics of individuals, like where they come from, the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their age, their gender, or their disabilities. Gender identity and sexual preference are also innate characteristics that should be included in anti-discrimination laws, regulations, ordinances.
In short, an enterprise that obtains a license to do business with the public may be privately owned, but it is a public business and must follow regulations designed to protect that public as well as the business owner.
These are also exactly the same arguments used against doing business with people of certain skin colors or national origins. They didn't work earlier, and they won't work now.
And WE are the government. it is not some separate entity that swoops down from above and about which we have no control. WE make the laws.
In short, an enterprise that obtains a license to do business with the public may be privately owned, but it is a public business and must follow regulations designed to protect that public as well as the business owner.
These are also exactly the same arguments used against doing business with people of certain skin colors or national origins. They didn't work earlier, and they won't work now.
And WE are the government. it is not some separate entity that swoops down from above and about which we have no control. WE make the laws.
9
Thank you Jon W. It's good to know that I have the right to deny you service or aid because I abhor people who, in my view, are bigots.
9
There's the conservative viewpoint for you: we're victimized because we're not being allowed to victimize others.
Is anyone else confused by the phrase "to prevent private stores from prohibiting guns inside"? Does Jon W mean "exhibiting guns"? Or is the government abusing its allegedly liberal-biased power by actually forcing private stores to ALLOW guns inside? I'm guessing the former, since gun control (which is about a lot more than "to prevent hurt feelings") is a popular conservative concern.
Is anyone else confused by the phrase "to prevent private stores from prohibiting guns inside"? Does Jon W mean "exhibiting guns"? Or is the government abusing its allegedly liberal-biased power by actually forcing private stores to ALLOW guns inside? I'm guessing the former, since gun control (which is about a lot more than "to prevent hurt feelings") is a popular conservative concern.
8
What a pity that religionists don't even understand that "exercise of religion" means "worship", not "discrimination".
20
So you can have beliefs, but not act on them? So why don't we ask gays to be attracted to other men, but not to act on their desires?
5
Your assertion that God shares your beliefs is delusional and should be treated as such by public policy.
6
Because that would be an infringement on their rights, another example of discrimination not worship.
2
I am a white male who who is over 50 who doesn't care one whit about a person's sexual orientation, but I have to ask, where is my civil rights protection?
From personal experience people like me routinely experience discrimination in forms subtle and not so subtle, whether it be in the workplace or in popular culture. Yet, in light of all of this no one speaks up for me, if anything it is become fashionable, especially in publications like this, to rail against the "foibles" of your typical white, middle aged male.
The point here is that civil right protection remains a challenge for everyone, because political orientation aside, no one has the right to claim to have a moral high ground on this issue, not when we have too many people in this country who treat others not as individuals, but a lazy stereotypes.
From personal experience people like me routinely experience discrimination in forms subtle and not so subtle, whether it be in the workplace or in popular culture. Yet, in light of all of this no one speaks up for me, if anything it is become fashionable, especially in publications like this, to rail against the "foibles" of your typical white, middle aged male.
The point here is that civil right protection remains a challenge for everyone, because political orientation aside, no one has the right to claim to have a moral high ground on this issue, not when we have too many people in this country who treat others not as individuals, but a lazy stereotypes.
9
Believe me, while I sympathize with you regarding what sometimes seems like a war on white males, what you experience is *nothing* like what gay people, women, and black people do. Nothing.
I'm not one to adopt risible terms like white privilege but black friends routinely get followed around in stores, or arrested repeatedly for "driving while black.* Just to mention one of many examples.
I think you'd have a better case for age discrimination -- just about everyone I know who is out of work after 50 discovers that they are almost unemployable, even though their qualifications are the same as they were when they were 49. And that has received some coverage in the Times, but not nearly as much as the other issues.
I'm not one to adopt risible terms like white privilege but black friends routinely get followed around in stores, or arrested repeatedly for "driving while black.* Just to mention one of many examples.
I think you'd have a better case for age discrimination -- just about everyone I know who is out of work after 50 discovers that they are almost unemployable, even though their qualifications are the same as they were when they were 49. And that has received some coverage in the Times, but not nearly as much as the other issues.
1
Trust me, you will not be fired if someone finds out you are a white male. Could you potentially be passed over for a job offer or college acceptance because you are a white male? Absolutely, and that is why affirmative action (at least with respect to education) has always been problematic. But frankly they're two separate issues -- opportunities and protections.
1
You have every civil right there is, mikenh. Or maybe you are confused about what comprises a "civil right". Help us all out and list the rights that you perceive you don't have so that we can address them for you.
4
SCOTUS Decision on gay marriage over rules any remaining " laws by state" that allow discrimination. Read what USA Anti Gay Evangelicals have concluded regarding the bible fully supporting gay marriage and homosexuality
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
Gay and lesbian rights, protection for transgenders. All good. And coming soon, repeal of laws that prohibit polygamy. Great! We all agree that governments should not interfere with whom we choose to marry. We here in Louisiana are ready and willing to repeal laws that define the age of consent, and we eagerly await the support that all forward-thinking commentators will give to our cause.
4
Slippery slope arguments are the refuge of the weak-minded.
3
What about Divorce?? The "religious" only worry about being nasty to others, not about the high rate of divorce among their people.
3
It is very sad that when somebody said that homosexuality is related with bestiality or polygamy. Not my words. Listen to Rick Santorum, Ben Carson (Presidential Candidates) and even Almighty Justice Scalia.
All of their words reflected how low their opinion regarding gay people.
All of their words reflected how low their opinion regarding gay people.
3
The transgender discussion is not exclusively about gay rights. It is about gender norms and the difficulties people have if they transgress those norms.
A friend of mine switched from male to female in the '80's, and she faced an uphill battle all the way, not from heterosexual people, but from homosexuals - particularly lesbians. As far as they were concerned, she had crossed two lines: she switched sex from male to female, and then to compound her crime she announced she was a lesbian! I witnessed many examples, some physical, of how she faced discrimination in the gay community because of her gender non-conformity.
Partly because she was drummed out of a lesbian discussion group at the LGBT Center in NYC, she went on to create a political action group which would advocate for gender-neutral policies. She thought she would be dealing with issues related to homosexual people. Not so. Most of her group's clients were heterosexual people who faced the wrath of their communities because they didn't fit in: the straight teenage boy who wasn't manly enough for his parents, the straight girl whose boyfriend beat her up because she wore pants, etc. You'd think we were living in Pakistan.
Despite the self-serving nature of "Caitlyn" Jenner's public antics, they do push a socially uncomfortable issue into the fore, and I applaud all the efforts of transgender individuals to fight for social acceptance in what is still a highly conservative (read religious) society.
A friend of mine switched from male to female in the '80's, and she faced an uphill battle all the way, not from heterosexual people, but from homosexuals - particularly lesbians. As far as they were concerned, she had crossed two lines: she switched sex from male to female, and then to compound her crime she announced she was a lesbian! I witnessed many examples, some physical, of how she faced discrimination in the gay community because of her gender non-conformity.
Partly because she was drummed out of a lesbian discussion group at the LGBT Center in NYC, she went on to create a political action group which would advocate for gender-neutral policies. She thought she would be dealing with issues related to homosexual people. Not so. Most of her group's clients were heterosexual people who faced the wrath of their communities because they didn't fit in: the straight teenage boy who wasn't manly enough for his parents, the straight girl whose boyfriend beat her up because she wore pants, etc. You'd think we were living in Pakistan.
Despite the self-serving nature of "Caitlyn" Jenner's public antics, they do push a socially uncomfortable issue into the fore, and I applaud all the efforts of transgender individuals to fight for social acceptance in what is still a highly conservative (read religious) society.
11
There has never been a documented case in which a person "switched" from male to female or female to male. If men could actually become men and women could actually become men, transgenderism would not be an issue, would it?
We all know from previous landmark Supreme Court decisions like Brown v. Topeka Board of Education and Roe v. Wade that bigotry does not end when the high court rules. So it will be, as it already is, with Obergefell v. Hodges where states are rushing to push back with their own versions of so-called "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" modeled on the one passed by a liberal Democrat Congress in 1993 that was later declared unconstitutional. We've seen this anti-gay bigotry play out in Indiana where their RFRA law clearly was aimed at allowing "denial of service" to same-sex couples. Many other states have such laws backed by Bible-thumping Republican conservatives who've been so successful in legislating similar "denial of service" laws to women seeking abortions and other reproductive services and are, at this very moment, brazen enough to try to defund Planned Parenthood in Congress. Laws, especially by the Supreme Court, are a great way to end some forms of bigotry as in legalizing same-sex marriage, but, as we're seeing, they're also a way of maintaining it. The only solution is to confront the bigots and vote them out of office.
7
Since the US still hasn't dealt with the persistent unconstitutional intrusion of religion into legislation, this decision will probably become, like Roe v. Wade, a perpetual source of fundraising, lobbying, and paralysis.
5
You are displaying your ignorance of our Constitution. What our Constitution guarantees is freedom from government establishment of religion (church of the USA) and the individuals right of free exercise of religion. A Mormon elder or a Catholic Bishop are just as much a citizen as you are and entitled to express their views in public. There is no such thing as an unconstitutional intrusion of religion in legislation.
5
It is all in how one interprets "exercise of religion" which I read as "worship" and "establishment of religion", which I read as "faith based belief".
You are deliberately blind to these words because you claim an utterly imaginary authority. There is no speech convincing enough to respect your pitiful effort to speak for the universe.
"God" is a skyhook dishonest people use to jump the law.
You are deliberately blind to these words because you claim an utterly imaginary authority. There is no speech convincing enough to respect your pitiful effort to speak for the universe.
"God" is a skyhook dishonest people use to jump the law.
2
Um, yes, all of those laws passed by the center of the country prohibiting same-sex marriage were clearly unconstitutional intrusions of religion in legislation. And they were rightly struck down by the supreme court.
3
If I wanted to create a backlash against LGBTQ rights I would keep shoving the issue down the throats of the American public. Support for those rights is not as strong as the polls suggest; a large percentage of the positive responses come from people who don't support LGBTQ rights but don't want to be seen as bigoted. Why don't you just sit back and let things develop without trumpeting the cause. We really don't need to create another Roe vs Wade situation again, do we?
7
Has someone insisted you be gay or transgender recently, or passed a law requiring it? If not, what specifically is being shoved down your throat?
5
And today's flavor of benighted bigotry is clairvoyance. Wow, you read the minds of all those poll respondents and determined that they lied to someone over the phone? What percentage is large?
3
The Supreme Court same-sex marriage doesn't apply only to gays. The ruling also permits heterosexuals to marry heterosexuals of same sex. Since gays make up only a tiny percent of the population, most same-sex marriages may turn to be heterosexual unions. Married people can pass on Social Security survivor benefits to their spouses. Why should heterosexuals die without passing on survivor benefits worth hundreds of thousands to someone they care about, even if that person happens to be of the same sex? The same-sex marriage ruling simply makes gender irrelevant to marriage. It treats everyone the same, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. A similar ruling applied to public restrooms would make all public restrooms unisex bathrooms. A Supreme Court ruling that a men who become women can use women's bathrooms or that women who become men can use men's bathrooms would have no effect, since human are not among the species that can change sex after birth.
4
No reasonable person assumes that marriage equality is on a firm footing here in America. The religious right, as well as so-called religious and/or pandering politicians, will continue to oppose, to undermine, and to undo it.
In some ways, a silly editorial written for the unthinking.
In some ways, a silly editorial written for the unthinking.
3
When might the NYT move its gaze from LGBTQ to PWD? Among any sector of U.S. society, persons with disabilities (PWD) have suffered the most. Our unemployment and poverty rates are the highest but this isn't worthy of public attention. Where is the justice?
11
When PWD can be fired or kicked out of their homes....That's when.
9
Valid point. I won't for a moment condemn this editorial, which is necessary, but in its overall coverage, the Times does seem to devote much more attention to some good causes than to others.
Are the forces of organized religious bigotry out to get you?
2
One need look no further than the dog-in-the-manger reaction of the Mormon Church in the Boy Scout decision to see the difficulties that lie ahead.
And I fully expect that the Roman Catholics will add further roadblocks despite many of the more "inspiring" words of the Pope.
I have always thought that allowing "religious exemptions" was a bad idea.
Once the religions start paying their fair share of taxes, then we might discuss allowing their roles in American politics!
And I fully expect that the Roman Catholics will add further roadblocks despite many of the more "inspiring" words of the Pope.
I have always thought that allowing "religious exemptions" was a bad idea.
Once the religions start paying their fair share of taxes, then we might discuss allowing their roles in American politics!
37
Don't you love paying more tax to subsidize these con artists to bawl about having to pay for health plans that provide contraceptives and abortifion to women?
7
While I support contraception and strongly oppose elective late abortions, your argument puzzles me. My current health plan does not pay for dental care. Nor does Medicare pay for dental care.
It seems to me that dental care is more clearly a health need than contraception or abortion. So the fact that ACA includes the latter is really part of the agenda of the liberals currently in power.
They are making a mistake because every unpopular cause you take up costs votes. And when you spend votes on one thing, you do not get others like less inequality of income. Current liberals are like a shopper who goes to the supermarket and buys so much candy that little money is left of essential food items.
It seems to me that dental care is more clearly a health need than contraception or abortion. So the fact that ACA includes the latter is really part of the agenda of the liberals currently in power.
They are making a mistake because every unpopular cause you take up costs votes. And when you spend votes on one thing, you do not get others like less inequality of income. Current liberals are like a shopper who goes to the supermarket and buys so much candy that little money is left of essential food items.
"Religious Liberty" has come to mean the right to deny service to people that one disapproves of - all cloaked in religious doctrine. Religious conservatives are fiercely fighting for the right to discriminate. They have the audacity to claim that they MUST discriminate.
Trail Life is currently, and openly, circulating a memorandum regarding the Boy Scouts' acceptance of openly gay leaders. At its core is the notion that Churches sponsoring Scout troops may now have additional liability exposure should they choose to discriminate against LGBT people. The solution should be not to discriminate but what is posed is to stop sponsoring Scouting. Trail Life, the Christian gay-free scouting alternative welcomes those churches.
These same religious conservatives remain an intractable part of the electoral machinery of the Republican Party. That relationship currently dooms federal efforts for LGBT equality.
The net effect as an insult to the balance of the First Amendment. Free exercise has been expanded to free imposition while the Establishment Clause is all but ignored.
Trail Life is currently, and openly, circulating a memorandum regarding the Boy Scouts' acceptance of openly gay leaders. At its core is the notion that Churches sponsoring Scout troops may now have additional liability exposure should they choose to discriminate against LGBT people. The solution should be not to discriminate but what is posed is to stop sponsoring Scouting. Trail Life, the Christian gay-free scouting alternative welcomes those churches.
These same religious conservatives remain an intractable part of the electoral machinery of the Republican Party. That relationship currently dooms federal efforts for LGBT equality.
The net effect as an insult to the balance of the First Amendment. Free exercise has been expanded to free imposition while the Establishment Clause is all but ignored.
24
I cannot think of a more stupid public policy than giving respect to anyone who claims that God wants them to do anything.
11
The amusing thing about Boy Scout alternatives is that it confirms that people will in the end associate the way they want to. Force the Boy Scouts to accept openly homosexual leaders, and some parents go elsewhere. It's a free country after all.
The real victory for gay civil rights was the end of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. As with racial integration, we can't ask people to serve in the military and deny them equal rights.
6
Well sure, and also the tossing out of DOMA. But there's not doubt the nation-wide right to marriage was a very huge and very real victory for gay civl rights. I'm not sure what your point is trying to deny that.
1
Might the Times consider taking on the issue of equal rights for women as well? After all, women make up 50% of the population, and according to Justice Scalia, women are not covered by the Constitution’s equal protections. Regarding the 14th Amendment Justice Scalia stated:
“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.”
In other words, Scalia argues that any laws that discriminate based on gender are not unconstitutional. It is merely custom that our lawmakers have graciously extended “rights” to women. The only Constitutional right that women have is the right to vote. And that is an extremely precarious position to be in.
“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.”
In other words, Scalia argues that any laws that discriminate based on gender are not unconstitutional. It is merely custom that our lawmakers have graciously extended “rights” to women. The only Constitutional right that women have is the right to vote. And that is an extremely precarious position to be in.
13
I have the impression that the Times devotes more coverage to the rights of women than to any other civil rights issue.
Also, the equal protection clause applies to women as well as men.
Also, the equal protection clause applies to women as well as men.
1
"Also, the equal protection clause applies to women as well as men."
I agree with you, Josh. But neither you nor I are on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is, and he disagrees with us. He has said so *very* explicitly. He argues that the equal protection clause - at the time when it was written - was not meant to include women. That's how he interprets it. It's out there on google. Check it out.
I agree with you, Josh. But neither you nor I are on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is, and he disagrees with us. He has said so *very* explicitly. He argues that the equal protection clause - at the time when it was written - was not meant to include women. That's how he interprets it. It's out there on google. Check it out.
The poll that you quote in the last paragraph of this opinion under the link "broad majority of Americans support", is a poll sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign. Any reader that clicks on this link will see that the subtitle for this organization is "Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equal Rights". This, therefore is a biased poll. The poll has been taken by an organization that has a strong interest in proving your thesis that "a broad majority of Americans support protecting gay and transgender workers."
The poll is invalid because it was not taken by an unbiased body and is therefore an example of homosexual propaganda.
Until you cite polls that are taken by reputable polling organizations, it is unethical for the New York Times to state in editorials that "The majority of Americans support protecting gay and transgender worker from employment discrimination."
The poll is invalid because it was not taken by an unbiased body and is therefore an example of homosexual propaganda.
Until you cite polls that are taken by reputable polling organizations, it is unethical for the New York Times to state in editorials that "The majority of Americans support protecting gay and transgender worker from employment discrimination."
13
All polls show that We the People are evolving and accepting of the gays (GLBT). And especially looking back just a few years compared with today.
If you're not gay, you know someone who is.
If you're not gay, you know someone who is.
9
If you had actually read the link, you would have sees that the poll was sponsored by HRC, but was actually done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, which is a 3rd party independent research firm.
As someone who works in a similar market research firm, I can tell you that Greenberg Quinian Rosner would have made sure that, while asking questions that HRC wanted, they were asked in an unbiased, not leading way without giving away the intent of their client (HRC). HRC probably hired Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for this exact reason: to make sure that people knew they were making every effort to be unbiased in their research.
As someone who works in a similar market research firm, I can tell you that Greenberg Quinian Rosner would have made sure that, while asking questions that HRC wanted, they were asked in an unbiased, not leading way without giving away the intent of their client (HRC). HRC probably hired Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for this exact reason: to make sure that people knew they were making every effort to be unbiased in their research.
6
Oh, come on. The fact that a poll was taken by a gay rights organization means nothing. If you can demonstrate that the methodology was slanted or the organization is disreputable, come back and say so -- otherwise, just don't, you're just fishing for a dishonest excuse to maintain your anti-gay bias.
5
There is one real stumbling block - religion. So long as "deeply held beliefs" get to trump civil rights and even observable reality, progress is going to require secular law to level the playing field. Witness the "Christian persecution" meme that is all the rage on the Right. Imagine! No longer being able to discriminate - horrible! Gays are getting married and in some undefinable way it is going to destroy all the straight marriages and even lead to a decline in population because apparently it will sap the sex drive of straight couples. What if a trans person got to see the naughty bits of someone? This vile event apparently applies only to trans women in women's restrooms - I've not heard much concern the other way.
So long as the religious want to use THEIR particular reading of their favorite book as the basis for civil law, there is going to be a need to keep the cause of fully equality for everyone moving forward. It's gonna be a long slog. It happened with slavery. It happened with women voting. It is happening with women's rights. It happened with antisemitism. It happened and is still happening with race. It will happen for the LGBT people in our country as well but it won't be easy.
So long as the religious want to use THEIR particular reading of their favorite book as the basis for civil law, there is going to be a need to keep the cause of fully equality for everyone moving forward. It's gonna be a long slog. It happened with slavery. It happened with women voting. It is happening with women's rights. It happened with antisemitism. It happened and is still happening with race. It will happen for the LGBT people in our country as well but it won't be easy.
115
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" specifically denies Congress the power to enact any faith based legislation.
This country can't even read its Constitution.
This country can't even read its Constitution.
8
What bugs me most about religion is that the religious pick and choose among their supposed precepts. Jesus said nothing about birth control and abortion. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, unless to make a factual observation ("eunuch" may have meant "homosexual" rather than having its modern sense). The book of the Old Testament that condemns homosxuality, Leviticus, also says that adulterers should be stoned to death, and yet I see Christians express revulsion when they hear of this happening in the Muslim world.
The list of hypocrisies committed by the religious is astoundingly long. An orthodox Jewish farmer will "sell" his land to an Arab for the year he isn't allowed to till the soil. Does anyone think that God is really fooled by this? A Christian who has been told that the rich man's chances of getting into heaven are miniscule will nevertheless do his best to acquire wealth. And of course Christians have ignored the Jewish law since the earliest days of the church, despite Jesus' admonition to that selfsame rich man to follow the law if he wants to get into heaven.
The list is endless, the hypocrisy boundless. I'd rather deal with an honest bigot than one who attributes his bigotry to God while assiduously ignoring every aspect of the scriptures that interferes with what he wants to do.
The list of hypocrisies committed by the religious is astoundingly long. An orthodox Jewish farmer will "sell" his land to an Arab for the year he isn't allowed to till the soil. Does anyone think that God is really fooled by this? A Christian who has been told that the rich man's chances of getting into heaven are miniscule will nevertheless do his best to acquire wealth. And of course Christians have ignored the Jewish law since the earliest days of the church, despite Jesus' admonition to that selfsame rich man to follow the law if he wants to get into heaven.
The list is endless, the hypocrisy boundless. I'd rather deal with an honest bigot than one who attributes his bigotry to God while assiduously ignoring every aspect of the scriptures that interferes with what he wants to do.
5
The religious exemption would only be temporary. I am sure that the exemption was included to make the law seem more palatable to some. First you get your foot in the door and then you get your body in and sell the product you are really selling. Or first you get something and then you get everything you want.
If you're looking for laws on equality, you could start with the legal system which treats men much more harshly for the same crimes than women. Likewise in divorce matters and custody rights, women benefit from the same traditional biases some decry in the workplace.
That discrimination is far more pervasive than the tiny population of transgendered men and women.
But I understand if the NY Times doesn't care about it. Those issues are not required reading for Social Justice Warriors.
That discrimination is far more pervasive than the tiny population of transgendered men and women.
But I understand if the NY Times doesn't care about it. Those issues are not required reading for Social Justice Warriors.
9
Actually, Matt, it's not really true that the legal system treats men more harshly than it does women.
Take murder, for example. Because it's easy for a man to hurl his wife against a wall and kill her for, say, burning his French fries, he can claim he didn't mean to kill her. A woman, who doesn't have the same strength as a man, must plan her murder. She needs a knife, a gun, or even another man to do the job; therefore, killings by women are almost always premeditated. The charges stick, and the punishment is greater.
Take murder, for example. Because it's easy for a man to hurl his wife against a wall and kill her for, say, burning his French fries, he can claim he didn't mean to kill her. A woman, who doesn't have the same strength as a man, must plan her murder. She needs a knife, a gun, or even another man to do the job; therefore, killings by women are almost always premeditated. The charges stick, and the punishment is greater.
7
@Matt: given men earn almost 1/3 more for doing the same job as women, hold more and higher positions in management,government and every other facet of life, it begs the question why they need to commit to crimes at all.
8
Agree that the Times fails to cover these issues adequately (although see the excellent article on the innocent teenage boy who faces life as a sex offender while the 15-year-old girl who admits she lied to him about her age faced no consequences). However, this editorial was a good one about a real problem that faces millions, and I don't think this is the right time to complain; one runs the risk of having one's complaint seen as a subtly-hidden attempt to disparage LGBT rights, a worthy and necessary cause.
2
Just because it is legal for homosexuals to get married certainly does not mean that acceptance has been won.
I hope no one was thinking that.
I hope no one was thinking that.
15
"Just because it is legal for homosexuals to get married certainly does not mean that acceptance has been won." Same was true with desegregation and interracial marriage court rulings. Bigots still wanted to deny equal rights and there was a lot of gnashing of teeth and obstruction. Some things never change.
12
I agree AJBF. I am happy to live in NY. Even in NY there are always somebody who hate because they look or act different. If you live in those so called " Bible Belts", I thought that I live in different country. It is sad but that is a fact.
1
I'm not, Jimmy. I couldn't care less about your "acceptance". I just want my right to marriage as a citizen and taxpayer, and now I have it. No thanks to you, and I understand that.
2
New York State is shamefully lacking in its protection for transgender people. When the SONDA (Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act) was passed in 2002, protection for transgender people was specifically removed before the Legislature approved it. Between 2007 and 2015 the Assembly has approved GENDA (Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act) EIGHT times to protect transgender people but the Senate has refused to even vote on them. The Attorney General has pointed out that SONDA protects transgender people but only if they are being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The Attorney General tries very hard to stretch other existing human rights laws to provide protection to transgender people but it would be a difficult court case given that the Legislature specifically excluded protection for transgender people from the SONDA.
There is no justifiable reason to continue to allow discrimination against transgender people. The NYT is right: Congress should pass the Equality Act as soon as possible. But the New York State Senate should also pass the GENDA that the Assembly has a repeated approved and end the shamefully discrimination against transgender people.
There is no justifiable reason to continue to allow discrimination against transgender people. The NYT is right: Congress should pass the Equality Act as soon as possible. But the New York State Senate should also pass the GENDA that the Assembly has a repeated approved and end the shamefully discrimination against transgender people.
12
It's a shame that we as a nation have to impose protections for minorities at all. When I hear a very loud, uneducated, and morally corrupt white heterosexual person decry protections for let's say black people, or gay people, I think to myself, this is exactly the sort of person our founding fathers hadn't anticipated. Protecting all of us by force if we must, strengthens the union of the greatest country the world has known. If you see it differently, you are part of the problem. I won't even get into human decency, and humility that would make judging others simply because they are different, an impossible notion. I'll add, the late great Christopher Hitchens was correct, "God is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything" Organized religion...Here is where our greatest enemy seeks to destroy us. Yet, even the most liberal voices refuse to say this for fear of harming another's "beliefs", the new code word for hatred.
30
Don't be fooled by some of those "founding fathers" who had odious ideas about the slaves they owned. I was shocked to read excerpts from Thomas Jefferson's writings when I was in college. And of course the founders championed the idea of slavery because it was an economic and political boon to the nation.
2
@ debra I agree with you, but the debate about slavery was present from the start of the country. Frame Jefferson's writings within the period of which they were composed, doesn't make them less shocking, but gives insight to how ideas form over time. Academics are now more interested in political correctness than history. Some of our Founding Fathers had ideas that are abhorrent, but most others were on the right side of history. Yet, shame within the debate was always present. That shaming led to the Civil War a hundred years later, and still to this day a cloud of resentful inferiority hangs over many in the South. Slavery had been practiced well over 200 years earlier by the Dutch, British, and well the Portuguese were nearly its inventors. It does not exempt Americans from responsibility, it was wrong. But we didn't start it and we were the first to condemn it with zeal. We must condemn discrimination of anyone quickly and without the manipulative constraint of "understanding" another's beliefs.
I for one can say that my views have changed from those of someone who was raised to politely humor the absurd superstition of the religious to someone who is now very frank about his opinion of them. And that is because conservatives have been using that superstition to justify all manner of morally repugnant actions, including discrimination against gay people and women, opposition to birth control and abortion, and even right-wing economic programs that are the very antithesis of everything Jesus stood for. All while protecting the right of pedophile Catholic priests to molest children.
Within that context, and given the tendency of religious people to pick and choose within and even ignore their own scriptures in order to support whatever cause they personally want to support, speaking honestly of religion as the risibly absurd superstition that it is seems a very minor thing.
Within that context, and given the tendency of religious people to pick and choose within and even ignore their own scriptures in order to support whatever cause they personally want to support, speaking honestly of religion as the risibly absurd superstition that it is seems a very minor thing.
3
Perhaps it's best for the NYT time staff to take a short break on the cheerleading for transgender rights.
The American Christian Shariah law community is still trying to wrap its bibles around civil rights for homosexuals.
While sometimes it's appropriate to smash down doors, sometimes it's wiser to take your victories quietly with a little more quiet grace and aplomb.
Remember, many of the opponents of rights for homosexuals are travelling from the Dark Ages --- they need a little time to get from there to 2015.
The American Christian Shariah law community is still trying to wrap its bibles around civil rights for homosexuals.
While sometimes it's appropriate to smash down doors, sometimes it's wiser to take your victories quietly with a little more quiet grace and aplomb.
Remember, many of the opponents of rights for homosexuals are travelling from the Dark Ages --- they need a little time to get from there to 2015.
47
@ socrates With respect, words that could only come from a person who has lived entrenched with heterosexual entitlement, and a privilege that has gone on so long one doesn't see that they are the ones with "special rights". Give people hiding behind a fictional book as an excuse to discriminate, more time to "get there" ? As if mistreating a fellow citizen is okay a little bit longer so we don't upset the absolute morally and intellectually bankrupted religious fanatics. Your opinions are generally interesting and smart, but you are dead wrong on this one.
45
Grace in victory and as well in defeat is a good quality to have.
2
I welcome the NY Times "cheer-leading" for the rights of GLBT citizens including its recent emphasis on transgender rights.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Like abortion GLBT rights will always be in the cross hairs of religious fundamentalists' big guns.
Taking a break is akin to abandoning liberty.
Eternal vigilance never leaves the fight for the rights of all.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Like abortion GLBT rights will always be in the cross hairs of religious fundamentalists' big guns.
Taking a break is akin to abandoning liberty.
Eternal vigilance never leaves the fight for the rights of all.
47
Civil Rights Protections need to be put into place on the Federal level. This must be the next vital fight for gay rights. It must be implemented in every state in this nation; if not gay marriage rights have only "symbolic" meaning.
30
Well, yes, but in no way is the right for same-sex couples to marry "symbolic" - it's very concrete and tangible.
1
The ones who have to worry are those who still believe in traditional marriage. If they voice their opinions in certain employment industries, they run the risk of being terminated. Where is there freedom?
13
I should have typed THEIR freedom. Please NYT post this correction. Thank you.
Yes, we must protect the right to bigotry at all costs! (sarcasm) The whining of those who have oppressed and persecuted LGBT folk who now cannot do so without being ostracized is ridiculous. The hunters have become the hunted and now they know how it feels and don't like it one bit.
23
GLBTQ people are fired and evicted simply for being GLBTQ and or for being legally married.
Do you know of anyone who has been fired because they have a "traditional" marriage (however that's defined)? If not, then it's hardly an analogous situation.
Do you know of anyone who has been fired because they have a "traditional" marriage (however that's defined)? If not, then it's hardly an analogous situation.
8
The problem with all of these equality laws is that they all come with religious exemptions, which sends a confusingly mixed message: We as a society have come to believe that discrimination is wrong, and have adjusted our laws to reflect that evolution in thinking. But organized religion can continue to practice discrimination with impunity; in other words, don't worry: you'll be permitted to continue practices that in any other context would leave you open to criminal prosecution--oh, and we'll continue to force taxpayers to support you in your tax-free status to boot.
Why does any church require tax-exempt status? Does it look as if any of the Abrahamic religions is in danger of petering out? Tragically for the mental health of society, not likely. If they want to discriminate and preach the righteousness of bigotry to their gullible adherents, let them do it on their own dime.
The Mormon and Catholic churches, most notoriously, are continually attempting to blatantly interfere with public politics and policy, and they have plenty of money to do it with ($8,000,000 from the Mormons to push California's shameful Proposition 8, for instance). The gravy train never stops when you're on the public teat (mixed metaphor, sorry).
Bottom line: if your religion tells you to reject a group a people based on their identity, then maybe the thing you should be rejecting is your religion.
Why does any church require tax-exempt status? Does it look as if any of the Abrahamic religions is in danger of petering out? Tragically for the mental health of society, not likely. If they want to discriminate and preach the righteousness of bigotry to their gullible adherents, let them do it on their own dime.
The Mormon and Catholic churches, most notoriously, are continually attempting to blatantly interfere with public politics and policy, and they have plenty of money to do it with ($8,000,000 from the Mormons to push California's shameful Proposition 8, for instance). The gravy train never stops when you're on the public teat (mixed metaphor, sorry).
Bottom line: if your religion tells you to reject a group a people based on their identity, then maybe the thing you should be rejecting is your religion.
93
I find it interesting that you feel the need to discriminate against Mormons and Catholics in order to end discrimination. Just like you, Mormons and Catholics are in the public square expressing their opinions about public policy. That's America at its best.
6
"Why does any church require tax-exempt status?"
And not only tax-exempt status for churches, Gregory, but tax-exempt status for church-related spas, ranches, sprawling country clubs, and lake-side colonies, all branded as religious retreats.
That we have thousands of exclusive tax-exempt acres in New York State alone boggles the mind.
Far from being unworldly and humble, religious organizations know exactly how to screw dollars out of the rest of us.
And not only tax-exempt status for churches, Gregory, but tax-exempt status for church-related spas, ranches, sprawling country clubs, and lake-side colonies, all branded as religious retreats.
That we have thousands of exclusive tax-exempt acres in New York State alone boggles the mind.
Far from being unworldly and humble, religious organizations know exactly how to screw dollars out of the rest of us.
8
They claim these opinions are God's, not their own. Isn't that blasphemy?
5
As welcome as the Supreme Court June 26 decision was for so many, it also seems to have become the incentive for others sharpen their knives. Every week brings some story about the imaginary " attack on religious freedom" from evangelicals and, unfortunately, the Catholic church. My hope is that at the end of the Synod on The Family in Rome this September, the Church will adopt a saner stance. I am not holding my breath, however.
10
When has the church adopted a saner stance on anything?
2
Isn't it strange that the gay rights movement made marriage rights a priority while leaving all the fundamental rights discussed here for another day? There's just no excuse for that.
4
One has to pick their battles.
3
Agreed. How many black lives have been lost in altercations with the police? After the end of a news cycle, most of us cannot remember who Tamir Rice or Trayvon Marton were. People of color and persons with disabilities have seen their civil rights eroded during this controversy. Facts are facts.
1
No, there's always another fight. There was a lot of work to be done after Brown v. Board, too. And segregation in the schools still persists 60 years later. The resistance to gay marriage is present today. There is always struggle and work to be done in the fight for "justice for ALL."
6
Keep the cause alive with gender identity, is that it? Explains all the articles.
9
AACNY, you're welcome to express that opinion when a) it is just a matter of gender identity and b) when you yourself are experiencing and accepting this kind of discrimination. Had we indulged in this kind of reasoning, employment discrimination against women, blacks, and Jews would still be the norm rather than the unfortunate and illegal exception.
7