Gays, lesbians and transgendered: What the hell did the Democrats ever do for you??

Great Debates
61

Polycarp, thanks for that breakdown on DoMA. It makes perfect sense now. [previously had no idea what the law was] Just restating what I got from the law to verify my understanding… If same-sex marriages were legal in Hawaii, and a couple went there to marry and came back home, their marriage would not be recognized in their home state of California. Wow! And Clinton signed that law?

Again, I just don’t get the support of the Democratic Party. They basically count on the homosexual vote and then do something like that to them. Kind of like any minority that tends to support the Democrats. The Party counts on their votes and does as little as possible to keep them. Not that the Republican Party is a better solution, but why support either Party?

Once again, I really hate it when people cut my words to make their points, eliminating the point of my statement for a sound byte. The rest of that sentence described how my sex life is none of my boss’s business. SEX LIFE, not interpersonal relationships.

Considering that I could be cheating on my wife, or we might be fighting and not sleeping together, a weddding ring and some pictures tell you nothing about my sex life. There is a big difference between personal relationships and sex life. The point I was making is noone needs to know a single thing about my sex life or anyone else’s.

Assuming that a wedding ring tells you who someone is having sex with is just, well, stupid. It might label them heterosexual, or they might just be married as a beard, you really don’t know. For that purpose, you could have a wedding ring on your finger. I know couples and singles that wear wedding rings even though they aren’t married just to keep schmucks from asking them out.

“Well you have a wedding ring so I should be able to tell you how I sucked a nice, beefy cock last night.” You do see the difference I hope. Incredulous if you do not. Point being there is a big difference between discussing sex and discussing interpersonal relations. One can end you in a sexual harrassment suit, the other is acceptable, even if your interpersonal relationship is with another member of the same sex. That is the point I was making, hope this clarified that for you.

No law to back that up yet and as I later indicated, I don’t see a reason not to add sexual orientation between consenting adults (sorry, I don’t see the point for a law to protect teenagers that want to have sex, I think they should all wait until they are 18, though I am not nearly naive enough to believe they do. However, the federal government supporting teen aged sex is a bad idea)

62

**

Yes. I was all excited while reading the thread because I found a cite explaining it all and then Polycarp beat me to it. I do get to add, however, that the DoMA applies solely to same sex marriages, and nothing else. And it passed the House by 342-to- 67, and the Senate by Senate 85-to-14. Grrreat. :frowning:
More info:
http://www.aclu.org/news/n021497a.html

**

I apologize for cutting your words. It seemed to me, and I see know that I was incorrect, that you were equating sex life with interpersonal relationships. It’s a common attack on gays that “I don’t need to know what goes on in your bedroom,” as if saying I had a boyfriend gave someone any idea of what goes on in our bedroom. As you noted, I should be free to speak about personal relationships at work and I should refrain from any sexual escapades of any orientation that I might wish to describe (or imagine :wink: ). Fair enough.

I keep having problems with the board…I’m coming back, I think I have a comment on housing…

63

http://www.hud.gov/hdiscrim.html

  1. I think you’d be surprised. Landlords clearly needed to be “encouraged” to not discriminate against blacks, women, etc. - do you really think sexual orientation is never discriminated against enough to warrant protection?
  2. Why is this a state issue if race, etc., is federal? Not sure I understand the distinction.
    3)Like I said - if me and my boyfriend went to rent, say, a one-bedroom apartment together, I wouldn’t be surprised if the landlord thought we were gay. I’d be surprised if s/he didn’t know, actually. Not because I’d tell anyone, it would just seem pretty obvious, I’d bet. Let’s say they ask for employment history (and they do) and I work for, say, OUT magazine or GMHC. You think it might come up then?

Interesting note:
The Texas Republican Party platform, defines “family” as “persons related by blood, heterosexual marriage or adoption,” and also states that homosexual behavior “tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases.” Charming. :rolleyes:

It’s not that the Democrats are pro-gay as much as the Republicans are definitely anti-gay. They may try to pass themselves off as people who like less government, but when you stick in poo-poo like that quoted above, it’s a little hard to swaller. How is that “compassionate”?

64

**JustAnotherGuy wrote:

The Party counts on their votes and does as little as possible to keep them. Not that the Republican Party is a better solution, but why support either Party?**

FTR, I don’t support the Democrats, tho I usually vote that way. I’m an independent voter. I voted for Nader in this election. IMHO, except for a few issues, the difference between Dubya and Gore-bot is like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.

There is a big difference between personal relationships and sex life. The point I was making is noone needs to know a single thing about my sex life or anyone else’s.

I agree with you completely here. But, unfortunately, many people do make the (unnecessary) step of considering who you have sex with after mundane things, like a photo of myself and my partner, were spotted on my desk. I’ve been socially ostracized, had nasty notes left on my desk and at one job fired after such “clues” were shown. Yet, if you do the same thing, nothing happens.

Agreed, there’s not much that can be done about the social ostracism, but firing and nasty notes (notes that called me sick and what I was doing “sinful”) shouldn’t be tolerated in the work place. THAT’S what we’re trying to eradicate here.

65

I agree with you guys. To me, the idea of not renting to someone (and I am in the property management business) based on race or sexual orientation is plain stupidity. Not ignorance, outright stupidity. I mean, money has no race or sexual preference, so if the income is good, and I have a vacancy, I would never turn anyone down. But I understand, I am not everywhere.

Question, if you received notes or were terminated because of being gay, would that be punishable under sexual harassment laws? I’m not saying that replaces the other, but not being overly familar with the harassment laws, I was wondering if they would apply.

66

I’m going to guess they wouldn’t. Sexual harassment deals with discrimination based on gender. I’m getting it from here:

It seems pretty strict, but maybe a real lawyer would know whether it would apply or not.

67

**JustAnotherGuy wrote:

Question, if you received notes or were terminated because of being gay, would that be punishable under sexual harassment laws? I’m not saying that replaces the other, but not being overly familar with the harassment laws, I was wondering if they would apply.**

I really couldn’t say. I don’t know that it’s been tried in specifically the way you suggest. I heard of one case were a male worker/supervisor threatened/coerced another male worker in Louisiana and was charged under the sexual harassment laws. Eventually the court threw out the case because they said sexual harassment between two males was impossible. Sorry, I don’t have an exact quote or cite. I’m remembering this from several years back. :frowning:

Getting back to the OP, tho.

I think I answered the question pretty well in my first post in this thread, but I want to elaborate:

For better or for worse, in the US, we have a two party system; the Democrats and Republicans.

Any other 3rd party has failed to make a dent in the national elections. The Reform party has imploded. The Greens failed to make the 5% mark in the popular vote and will probably not be much of a force in '04. The Libertarians have been trying to make a show of strength since '80, with little success.

If I want to have any voice in politics, I have to choose between the Republicans or Democrats.

The Republican Party, on the whole, would rather I simply not exist. They’ve shown nothing but loathing or out-and-out hatred toward me. The few in the party who don’t feel that way don’t seem to be able to muster enough of a voice to counter that. I would have LOVED to see John McCain as the R. candidate. I don’t agree with him on several economic issues, but he does stand for equal rights and inclusion. Given the wishy-washy-ness of Gore, he’d been great.

So, I have to turn to the Democrats. They will at least make some effort to court my vote and say they’ll fight for me. Yeah, their track record on the issue is tepid at best. But at least I have some voice rather than no voice at all.

68

That seems weird, since the part that I quoted:
“…is directed at the employee on the basis of his/her gender (or has a disparate impact on the basis of gender)” would still seem to apply regardless of the genders of the two people, so long as the harassment was “disparate.” If someone, regardless of gender, harassed another person based on his being male (as would happen if a gay man, for example, harassed another male) it would still seem to apply. But I don’t see how sexual orientation would fit in, since it’s harassment based on…orientation. Whole 'nother word.

Still, that’s just my speculation. However, I’m taking a sexual harassment seminar next week for work. Maybe I’ll have something to report back. I was thinking I could get a “gay” dismissal or something but THAT would be unfair, now that I think about it.

69

My understanding is that sexual harassment laws are about just that - sexual harassment - while discrimination is a different situation; i.e., “sleep with me and get a promotion” or a sexually-charged (hostile) work environment is slightly different from not promoting someone or not hiring someone based solely on their sexual orientation.

IIRC, that is.

Esprix

70

Freyr, I believe that the same-sex harassment case (perhaps not the one you mention) resulted in a finding that harassment did occur – the particular reference I remember is to a man on an offshore oil rig who was subject to harassment on a (false) assumption he was gay.

Perhaps Sua Sponte, Jodi, or somebody else with skills at Westlaw and such or a knowledge of employment law could give us a reading on this.