Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin may be the first Republican VP candidate to go so far as to say that she would 'tolerate gays'.
If we are going to be a true democracy then it is the appreciation and acceptance of the gay community that must happen. It is true equality and not tolerance, Gov. Palin that you must advocate for if you believe in your slogan "Country First" because in this country we are all equal.Johann Hari writes:
The whole point of giving blood is to save life, not endanger it. If gay donations really did endanger people, that would trump any commitment to anti-discrimination. Giving people Aids obviously would not be a price worth paying for equality.
But in reality, that dilemma doesn't occur. Earlier this year, a 21-year-old gay electronics technician called Michael Cain launched a court case against the Australian Red Cross after they refused to take his blood. He wants gay men who exclusively practice safe sex - like him - to be allowed to donate like everyone else. The scientists testifying at the trial included the doctor who first created the blood ban - who came to apologise. They explained that blood banks now have to choose between two competing risks. On one side is the high risk of people dying because they are given old, stale blood due to a lack of donors. On the other side is the infinitesimally small risk of people dying because they have been given blood by condom-wearing gay men.
The US epidemiologist and bio-ethicist Dr Scott Halpern crunched the figures for the court. Some 1 in 100 people who are infused with blood older than 14 days will die - and 13 per cent of infused blood offered by the Red Cross is older than that. This, he explained, poses a risk "thousands of times greater" than "the very worst predictions of HIV infection" if you let latex-loving gay men donate. Why? Because if the ban is lifted and gay men who practice safe sex are allowed to donate, a single HIV-positive blood donation will slip through clinical screening once every 5,769 years. That's one time between now and the year 7777 - or equivalent to it happening once since 3761 BC, when cities had not yet been invented.
For years, Beth Kerrigan tried to talk herself out of being gay. The daughter of devout Irish Catholics, Kerrigan kept her sexuality a secret from her family. She pretended the boys she windsurfed, skied and biked with were boyfriends. If female friends confided in her about their male infatuations, Kerrigan listened, never dishing about her own crush on a female teacher. When Kerrigan's mother found out that Kerrigan was gay, she said she would disown her if Kerrigan didn't "stop" being a lesbian. Her sister told her not to visit because it would upset the family. So Kerrigan tried to "cure" herself through book research and therapy. But over time, acceptance found its way into Kerrigan's life. She found a soul mate. Her family eventually came around, accepting Kerrigan's longtime partner, Jody Mock, and their 6-year-old twin boys. And now, with its historic ruling Friday legalizing same-sex marriage, the state Supreme Court says they can marry.
SAN DIEGO - A judge ruled yesterday that San Diego city officials did not violate the free-speech rights of four firefighters when they were ordered to attend last year's gay pride parade in Hillcrest. The firefighters claimed that their participation while in uniform qualified as "compelled speech" under the state constitution because it could be construed as an endorsement of certain political messages. San Diego Superior Court Judge Michael Anello noted in a written ruling that citizens must accept some limits on their constitutional rights when they enter government service. The courts have held that governmental employees do not have the right to speak freely -- or refrain from speaking -- if doing so would disrupt the administration of public service, Anello said. According to the ruling, the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department acted in accordance with state and local anti-discrimination laws by participating in the parade. City officials considered the department's presence in the event part of its "community-building activities."
What liberals could learn from the Connecticut Supreme Court's demolition of the anti-gay marriage position.
Over the weekend, I read the Connecticut Supreme Court's gay marriage decision. It's actually a rather moving document: a cogent defense of gay rights that efficiently demolishes the chief arguments against marriage equality, while offering what struck me as a reasonable defense of judicial intervention in the matter. If you have a free hour, I highly recommend reading it.
Visit www.2015Place.com
Contact
for more info.
Subscribe to daily Email
0 comments:
Post a Comment