huh.

Dec. 31st, 2008 11:02 am
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Latter-Day Protest? Proposition 8 and Sports

If you know [Bob]Beamon's name it's almost certainly because he won the long jump gold medal in legendary fashion at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics.

...

But you may not know that Beamon almost never made it to Mexico City. Along with eight other teammates, Beamon had his track and field scholarship revoked from the University of Texas at El Paso, the previous year. They had refused to compete against Brigham Young University. Beamon and his teammates were protesting the racist practices of the Mormon Church, and their coach at UTEP, Wayne Vanderburge, made them pay the ultimate price.

They weren't alone. As tennis great Arthur Ashe wrote in his book, Hard Road to Glory, "In October 1969, fourteen black [football] players at the University of Wyoming publicly criticized the Mormon Church and appealed to their coach, Lloyd Eaton, to support their right not to play against Brigham Young University. . . . The Mormon religion at the time taught that blacks could not attain to the priesthood, and that they were tainted by the curse of Ham, a biblical figure. Eaton, however, summarily dropped all fourteen players from the squad."

The players, though, didn't take their expulsion lying down. They called themselves the Black 14 and sued for damages with the support of the NAACP. In an October 25th game against San Jose State, the entire San Jose team wore black armbands to support the 14.

One aftershock of this episode was in November 1969, when Stanford University President Kenneth Pitzer suspended athletic relations with BYU, announcing that Stanford would honor what he called an athlete's "Right of Conscience." The "Right of Conscience" allowed athletes to boycott an event which he or she deemed "personally repugnant." As the Associated Press wrote, "Waves of black protest roll toward BYU, assaulting Mormon belief and leaving BYU officials and students, perplexed, hurt, and maybe a little angry." [Course they were angry. How dare anyone tell them that they and their religion were bigoted little twerps. And of course, the mainstream media is SO sympathetic of the oppressors' feelings you see, and the oppressed, what THEY have feelings? Who cares?]

On June 6th, 1978, as teams were refusing road trips to Utah with greater frequency, and the IRS started to make noises about revoking the church's holy tax-free status, a new revelation came ...

Whether a cynical ploy to avoid the taxman or a coincidence touched by God, the results were the same: Black people were now human in the eyes of the Church.
An idea for the gay comm. and its allies to pursue?
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
New Dirt on Pastor Warren via Rachel Maddow



U.S. refuses to sign UN resolution decriminalizing homosexuality

This stance by the United States is stunning on several levels, and shows the disconnect between our self-described identity as a beacon of democracy and freedom and the reality when the rubber hits the road. Under Bush's watch, our nation is the only major Western nation to refuse to sign a resolution that would decriminalize homosexuality worldwide.
In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration - which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution. Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.
"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position - which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights...
The first thing that came to my mind when reading about this travesty was that this country's inability to sign on to this is saying the United States under this administration is fine with the criminalization of homosexuality within its own borders, and that the only thing standing in the way was the little bit of legal business called Lawrence v. Texas. That the "activist" U.S. Supreme Court made a grave mistake. That it would like to return to the days of the law peeping into the bedrooms of a private home and arresting two consenting adults. What was the explanation given by our government?MORE
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Prop. 8 sponsors seek to nullify 18K gay marriages

The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

"Proposition 8's brevity is matched by its clarity. There are no conditional clauses, exceptions, exemptions or exclusions," reads the brief co-written by Pepperdine University law school dean Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton.MORE




Well, like Rick Warren said, those marriages are hurting millions, got that, millions of heterosexuals who are married, after all. Oh what company you keep, Obama.

Home Invasion
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
Rod 2.0
One story that we haven't followed this week is the implosion of the New York State senate over the possibility of a same sex marriage bill. The latest: The rabidly anti-gay and controversial Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. says claims he's being "threatened" by gay rights advocates and may jump ship to the Republicans. The Bronx Pentecostal minister, a fierce opponent of gay rights and same-sex marriage, threatened incoming Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith against bringing a marriage bill up for a vote next year. Diaz claims, "The gays are calling my office. They're jamming my phones. They're going to see what we can do." (Diaz made the accusations in an incoherent rant to Liz Benjamin of the Daily News, but "set the record straight" in a another incoherent press release naming Post gossip maven Liz Smith.) The anti-gay clergyman and minister says he will either join the Republicans—whom he often endorses—stay neutral to create an impasse, or join the Democratic conference.MORe
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
From Rod 2.0 Commission Says New Jersey Should Allow Same-Sex Marriages

The New Jersey Civil Union Commission releases its much-anticipated and long-awaited report. The commission finds the Garden State's civil union law "fails" to adequately protect gay and lesbian couples and the state should waste no time passing a marriage equality bill. The Star-Ledger:

The final report of the New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission says it gathered "overwhelming evidence" that the civil union law not only fails to provide the same protections as marriage, it also has created economic, medical and emotional hardships for gay couples.


MORE


From: Pams House Blend

1. For the overwhelming majority of civil union couples who testified, the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act, commonly known by its acronym ERISA, is the reason employers have given for not recognizing their civil unions.
2. In Massachusetts, a marriage equality law has prompted many employers to provide equal benefits to same-sex wives or husbands.
3. The testimony presented by many civil union couples indicated that their employers continue to discriminate against them, despite their familiarity with the law.
4. Civil union status is not clear to the general public, which creates a second-class status.
5. The Civil Union Act has a deleterious effect on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex youth and children being raised by same-sex couples.
6. Many witnesses testified about the unequal treatment and uncertainties they face during a health care crisis, particularly in hospital settings.
7. Institutional interaction with civil union couples has been less than optimal.
8. Testimony indicates that the Civil Union Act has a particularly disparate impact on people of color.
9. The requirement that same-sex couples declare civil union status, a separate category reserved for same-sex couples, exposes members of the United States military to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
10. The classification of civil union may place marital status in question when one of the partners is transgender.MORE
unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
http://radicalruss.net/showDiary.do?diaryId=54


Marriage Rights For all People.

by: RadicalRuss
Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 13:54:12 PM PDT

So the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is unconstitutional. There's talk that this issue may be the wedge issue of the upcoming elections. Hmm. Let's take a look at what the common people are saying about it:

"Marriage" is OUR term, and belongs to the union of man and woman. I have no problem with what two people - man /

Profile

unusualmusic_lj_archive: (Default)
unusualmusic_lj_archive

February 2020

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 23rd, 2025 08:17 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios