We're legally a family.
Even if the federal government doesn't think so.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Friday, November 6, 2009
Sesame Street
I loved this show as a kid. And I hope my kids love it. It is one of the few kids shows tolerable for adults thanks to clever writing with parodies and a lack of super annoying songs on repeat.

Happy Birthday! I hope you can stick around for another 40 years, even if you are no longer focusing on urban kids and are a little bit PC. Your recent gem (GNN v Pox News... which was good enough to make NPR, and hence make me look for it online) is amazing.
Also, love:

Happy Birthday! I hope you can stick around for another 40 years, even if you are no longer focusing on urban kids and are a little bit PC. Your recent gem (GNN v Pox News... which was good enough to make NPR, and hence make me look for it online) is amazing.
Also, love:
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
disappointed.
WTF Maine? And also you Washington?
I still do not see why matters of equality should be put to the vote.
If we did that historically, we would have a much different society right now.
Can anyone explain to me how this is ok for sexual orientation and not ok for race and gender?
I still do not see why matters of equality should be put to the vote.
If we did that historically, we would have a much different society right now.
Can anyone explain to me how this is ok for sexual orientation and not ok for race and gender?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
haven't sat on my soapbox in a while
Good video. It is depressing to remember how much inequity there is, even here, even now.
And thumbs up to Suze Orman!
And thumbs up to Suze Orman!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Love & marriage
Glad has started a project to show what Gay Marriage really means to America (thanks Journal & Two Chicks!)
People who love each other.
email photos@glad.org your picture with your first names, legal marriage date and location!
People who love each other.

email photos@glad.org your picture with your first names, legal marriage date and location!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
flamingly liberal
According to the folks at American Progress (whomever they are) I score a 280/400 on the scale of progressive-ness (test at link), beating out, well, everyone. Everyone on average anyway. I'm only very progressive and I'm told the scale goes up to extremely progressive.
I think this is a faulty test though, since the questions are very simply worded and 40 questions doesn't really cover enough (especially when 3 or 4 deal with the Gays, which is clearly a large root of my "progressiveness"). Still amusing, though I'm also perturbed that the website's graphics indicating a New Progressive America seem to indicate progressiveness as voting democratic, which I think is completely ridiculous.
I'm curious how other "real" (non-averaged!) people score!

I think this is a faulty test though, since the questions are very simply worded and 40 questions doesn't really cover enough (especially when 3 or 4 deal with the Gays, which is clearly a large root of my "progressiveness"). Still amusing, though I'm also perturbed that the website's graphics indicating a New Progressive America seem to indicate progressiveness as voting democratic, which I think is completely ridiculous.I'm curious how other "real" (non-averaged!) people score!

Wednesday, February 25, 2009
not equal
Its not a big secret I'm a proponent of rights for homosexuals. (Note my choice of word. When was the last time you heard that used in a positive sentence?)
Anyway, I'm pretty annoyed by the new NYT editorial. Does this strike anyone else as separate-but-equal? (and we all know how that turned out). Feministe has a nice write up on this here.
All I want is to pay the same taxes as everyone else and get the same benefits. I pay the same taxes. In fact, I pay more taxes. And I'd pay EVEN more if we were on the same insurance plan - when Princess Charming was covered under my plan, we payed $1177/yr in imputed Federal income tax (tax on the PC's portion of the plan my employer paid for as if it was my income) and some more to the state. This, after I submitted 3 documents proving our partnership to my employer (and let's not forget it is somewhat more difficult to get a mortgage than a marriage license, which is all I'd have needed if this wasn't an anti-gay-marriage state).
But I digress. I think the best and most democratic solution is civil unions for all (decent editorial) linked. All marriages should be considered civil unions under state and federal law. The separation of church and state (the theoretical one anyway) supports this civil union stance nicely. This would allow for all couples, gay and straight, to get the same benefits under the law. Those who wish for religious recognition of their union can get married in a church/temple/whathave you as well. (I'm sure it can be worked out for both to happen at once).
If we remember the big civil rights movement, we'll recall that Brown v the Board of Ed did not magically change the majority opinion. It was nearly 2 decades after that, in fact, that interracial marriage became legal - as mandated by the Supreme Court - nationwide. Clearly, it was some while before the "majority" vote agreed on full equal rights across the nation for non-white persons, and I would be hard pressed to believe anyone would disagree with this perspective today.
Also, I really don't understand why gay marriage is such a hot button issue in light of all the other issues in the world/country today. I don't grasp why the battle of the religious right isn't against divorce and the rising single mother/teen pregnancy rate, which have a much bigger impact on the supposed "traditional" family values (which, incidentally, devalue women and girls and enforce a very patriarchal structure) than 2-10% of the population being interested in marrying someone of the same gender.
and off my soapbox for today.
Anyway, I'm pretty annoyed by the new NYT editorial. Does this strike anyone else as separate-but-equal? (and we all know how that turned out). Feministe has a nice write up on this here.
All I want is to pay the same taxes as everyone else and get the same benefits. I pay the same taxes. In fact, I pay more taxes. And I'd pay EVEN more if we were on the same insurance plan - when Princess Charming was covered under my plan, we payed $1177/yr in imputed Federal income tax (tax on the PC's portion of the plan my employer paid for as if it was my income) and some more to the state. This, after I submitted 3 documents proving our partnership to my employer (and let's not forget it is somewhat more difficult to get a mortgage than a marriage license, which is all I'd have needed if this wasn't an anti-gay-marriage state).
But I digress. I think the best and most democratic solution is civil unions for all (decent editorial) linked. All marriages should be considered civil unions under state and federal law. The separation of church and state (the theoretical one anyway) supports this civil union stance nicely. This would allow for all couples, gay and straight, to get the same benefits under the law. Those who wish for religious recognition of their union can get married in a church/temple/whathave you as well. (I'm sure it can be worked out for both to happen at once).
If we remember the big civil rights movement, we'll recall that Brown v the Board of Ed did not magically change the majority opinion. It was nearly 2 decades after that, in fact, that interracial marriage became legal - as mandated by the Supreme Court - nationwide. Clearly, it was some while before the "majority" vote agreed on full equal rights across the nation for non-white persons, and I would be hard pressed to believe anyone would disagree with this perspective today.
Also, I really don't understand why gay marriage is such a hot button issue in light of all the other issues in the world/country today. I don't grasp why the battle of the religious right isn't against divorce and the rising single mother/teen pregnancy rate, which have a much bigger impact on the supposed "traditional" family values (which, incidentally, devalue women and girls and enforce a very patriarchal structure) than 2-10% of the population being interested in marrying someone of the same gender.
and off my soapbox for today.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Saturday, April 7, 2007
feelin' green
Last weekend I went to a conference for school/work/interviewing. The keynote speaker was Al Gore (who is surprisingly funny). He also had a 95% or so liberal audience of student affairs professionals, so the cracks about the election and current politics were well received. This 2 hours was by far the highlight of the conference (especially considering I spent 2/3 of it in the dungeon of placement interviewing, which may or may not pan out...). For the first time in my life, I'm motivated to recycle...and glad I have a gas efficient car for reasons other than my own wallet!!
Due to the T-4 weeks countdown to the end of the semester, and accompanying T-(2 case studies, 2 short-ish papers, and 2 long papers (one of which I haven't even done a lit review for)) countdown, I am going to refrain from detailing all the best parts, but I did find his website:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
I am also planning on going to Alaska sometime in the next couple of years now, because I want to see the glaciers before they're tiny or gone...
Due to the T-4 weeks countdown to the end of the semester, and accompanying T-(2 case studies, 2 short-ish papers, and 2 long papers (one of which I haven't even done a lit review for)) countdown, I am going to refrain from detailing all the best parts, but I did find his website:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/
I am also planning on going to Alaska sometime in the next couple of years now, because I want to see the glaciers before they're tiny or gone...
Friday, January 12, 2007
friday amusement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
