The Supreme Court has ruled time and again—at least when it comes to heteros—that marriage is a fundamental human right. The question we’re wrestling with now is whether gay people are humans and therefore entitled to fundamental human rights. Courts have ruled that states can prevent murderers and rapists and child molesters from living in certain neighborhoods, from voting, from driving. But the state cannot prevent them from marrying
This comes after Santorum told a gay man that he is not entitled to the right of marriage, since it would not benefit society.
Marriages are a benefit to society, two people caring for each other is a benefit. People who are married keep each other healthier than they otherwise would be. They are able to work together as a team to raise (or not raise) children. And marriages offer over 1,100 civic rights, duties and privileges, all of which should be available to everyone.
I have a strange news feed on Facebook. I have a few that sneak through that are rabidly anti-gay and Catholic. So the current kerfuffle about the changes to health care have been causing them some anxiety.
I have seen people argue that it is religious persecution that Catholic employers (aside from Churches, so hospitals, colleges, etc) comply with healthcare guidelines and cover contraception and reproductive health.
Let’s take a step back and realize something:
Some 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the United States have used contraceptive methods banned by the church, research published on Wednesday showed. A new report from the Guttmacher Institute, the nonprofit sexual health research organization, shows that only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning. The latest data shows practices of Catholic women are in line with women of other religious affiliations and adult American women in general.
So right there, we can just stop the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments.
And no one is saying they need to be forcing any of these services on employees, the government is just saying that if you are taking tax-payer money, you need to offer a minimum level of care, which includes reproductive health. You know, since it’s a part of health. Mother Jones sums it up beautifully:
I’m tired of religious groups operating secular enterprises (hospitals, schools), hiring people of multiple faiths, serving the general public, taking taxpayer dollars — and then claiming that deeply held religious beliefs should exempt them from public policy. Contra Dionne, it’s precisely religious pluralism that makes this impractical. There are simply too many religions with too many religious beliefs to make this a reasonable approach. If we’d been talking about, say, an Islamic hospital insisting that its employees bind themselves to sharia law, I imagine the “religious community” in the United States would be a wee bit more understanding if the Obama administration refused to condone the practice.
I can understand compromising over a very limited number of hot button issues. Abortion is the obvious one. But in general, if Catholic hospitals don’t want to follow reasonable, 21st century secular rules, they need to make themselves into truly religious enterprises. In particular, they need to stop taking secular taxpayer money. As long as they do, though, they should follow the same rules as anyone else.
I care about these issues because I’m a human being. Because I can care about other people’s health without judging them, and because it always seems like certain groups are always opposed to the march of equality and progress. And maybe it will continue to pay off and we’ll all keep standing up for each other in the face of adversity.
Update: The connection between any minorities rights is clear-cut. So fighting for women’s rights, is a no-brainer. Hopefully it is for you as well.
Generally, it seems, each younger generation tends to have more accepting views of civil rights. And I’ve said it before (and we all know I’ll keep saying it, sorry) that my generations defining civil rights issue is marriage equality.
However, we have to remember that parenting really is important. A high school paper recently published an editorial advocating for the death of homosexuals because it is called for in the Bible, The Stranger covers it here.
You don’t vote on civil rights. One of the purposes of government is to make sure that minorities are treated fairly and properly, and not held hostage by the whims of the majority.
You don’t vote on civil rights. Thinking so is asinine and moronic.
You don’t vote on civil rights.
New Jersey, which is posed to pass marriage equality through its legislature is faced with Gov. Chris Christie. He has promised to veto the bill, because he wants the people to vote on it. He’s been called out on this idiotic statement by lots of people, including the NAACP and the ACLU. Let’s take a look at a map to remind us of why we should not be voting on civil rights:
Happy Monday everyone! Let’s see what we have today:
First up, this ad aired only in Canada during the Super Bowl, but I really like it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qZYqdsYAg
Interesting ad from Copyranter:
What a strange caveat.
Lego is releasing LotR sets, and I’m super excited for them, as well as the inevitable video games. Check it out here.
Amazing post from Literally Unbelievable:
I still need to see Thor and Captain America, but here is the preview for Joss Whedon’s The Avengers, and I’m already making plans to go see it:
Another ad from Copyranger, kind of awesome, would be cool to see this run in City Paper:
I love the toast to Jared in this:
And this ad has been making its rounds, I think it’s fairly well done (or at least a good idea, the art needs some work), although a objectifying to women, I hope there’s a male counterpart in the campaign:
And finally, every presentation you’ll sit through, ever:
But I got scared when he was just holding it with his chin at the end!
I’ve never been a fan of the Susan G. Komen foundation, mostly due to their sue-happy nature (any other charity that has the audacity to use the phrase “for a cure” or apparently the color pink faces a lawsuit). However, they recently dropped all funding for Planned Parenthood, a partnership which provided cancer screenings for women, all because one Republican in congress thinks their money goes to abortion. So let’s recap, again, what all Planned Parenthood provides (women, men and families):
First up, the Muppets respond to FOX news at a press copnference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8YhED4IgQA
Thank you, Miss Piggy.
Sadly, this is the first parade for vets coming back from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was held over the weekend in St. Louis. Check out some pictures here.
This is awful. We are supposed to be better than this. Kids should not be going hungry. I need to do some research and see if there is some charity that helps to fill the gap created by horrible, bigoted, asshole lawmakers.
I think some of the writing from this study is a bit misleading, but I guess it’s not too surprising. But how do I talk about it without being horribly mean and prejudiced? I have trouble skirting that line, but then again, maybe I shouldn’t:
The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.
And finally, an awesome new image from one of Lev Grossman’s fans, the Physical kids encountering a clock-tree for the first time:
This also comes from Copyranter (I’ve been clearing out my RSS feeds) and he found it from Australia:
Ragan reports on an awesome interview given by the CEO of Morgan Stanley:
Morgan Stanley’s employees need an attitude adjustment.
At least that’s what CEO James Gorman thinks of his staff who are aren’t happy with recent 20 to 30 percent pay-cuts among senior executives. He also limited cash bonuses. In this Bloomberg Television interview, he outlined three reasons his employees shouldn’t be upset with a smaller salary.
1. They’re “naïve” and should read the newspaper.
2. Compensation shouldn’t define their overall level of happiness. If it does, “you have a problem which is much bigger than the job.”
3. Life’s too short. “If you’re really unhappy, just leave. I mean, Life’s too short.”
This man is amazing! But is it sad that just using some common sense is now considered amazing? Check out the article at Ragan to see the interview and read more.
The most amazing peephole ever:
I have mixed feelings about this, but I think we should keep the leap second. There’s something quaint about the atomic clocks lining up with the solar calendar.
This video is about the ad world, but much of it applies to clients trying to describe what they want:
Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who heads the House Judiciary Committee, expects his panel to resume consideration of the House bill in February. Even President Barack Obama has not exactly killed it.
Rep. Smith will most likely adjust the House bill so it can get an consensus. The same will be done in the Senate. And since President Obama has received campaign donations from Hollywood and the internet industries, according to the Washington Post, he will try to find a way to satisfy both sides of the coin.
First, This is our Internet. We built it. We built it for us, not for you. We get to turn off the lights, not you.
Second, we are better custodians of culture than are culture’s merchants because we understand that culture is what we have in common. We feel pain every time something is held back from this Commons.
Third, just as we can make someone famous rather than having to passively accept the celebrities you foist upon us, we can make an idea politically potent. Going dark was the self-assertion with which political engagement begins.
Fourth, there’s a growing “we” on the Internet. It is not as inclusive as we think, it’s far more diverse than we imagine, and it’s far less egalitarian than we should demand. But so was the “we” in “We the People.” The individual acts of darkness are the start of the We we need to nurture.
Even my own little protest had a little impact, which I was thankful for. I love the fourth point above, about the ‘We’ of the Internet. Maybe it’s a step closer to online equality and an information utopia.
