Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘same sex’

And we all know what she did with that information, absolutely fucking nothing!
See :WTF – Fire This Anti Gay Teacher!

        WTF- Anti-Gay Teacher Shocked At Teen Suicide!

Read Full Post »

Sistah should really change her Facebook privacy settings.

The very same teacher that was spouting anti-gay bullshit on Facebook was also sorry and outraged over a 14year old teenager committing suicide in New York.

I mean..WTF?! Does she not know that its because of the shit she says that teenagers commit suicide!

Pathetic.

UPDATE! I have found more posts by Viki. Oh the irony.

Read Full Post »

Maggie? Maggie Gallagher? Are you there dear? I’ve just found your new spokeswhore.

First a little info on Viki, courtesy of her Facebook page:

UNION TOWNSHIP — School officials in Union Township are investigating allegations that a teacher at Union High School posted comments on her Facebook site criticizing a school display recognizing Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender History Month and calling homosexuality “perverted.”

Herro! I'm a bigot!

On Saturday, a local attorney who said he had initially been contacted by a parent, wrote to the district calling for the teacher’s dismissal.

The lawyer, John Paragano, a former township councilman, provided the district with what he said was a copy of the Facebook thread that included the offending remarks.

A copy was also provided to The Star-Ledger, in which the teacher, Viki Knox, allegedly referred to homosexuality as, “a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation,” and a “sin” that “breeds like cancer.”

“Hateful public comments from a teacher cannot be tolerated,” wrote Paragano, also a former Union Township Municipal Court judge. “She has a right to say it. But she does not have a right to keep her job after saying it.”

Union Chief School Administrator Patrick Martin said the district is investigating the incident.

Knox, 49, of Union Township, is also the faculty adviser to the high school’s student prayer group, The Seekers Fellowship, the local chapter of a nationwide organization.

Knox did not respond to requests for comment. But two other people who wrote comments on the thread said Paragano’s copy was authentic.

Township resident Judy Amorosa challenged Knox directly on Facebook, writing “What kind of a Christian are you? God made each and every one of us — gay, straight, black, white, Christian, Jew, blond, brunette — and we should all love each other.”

The case raises broader questions about rights of teachers to speak freely in the age of social media.

It has also prompted gay rights advocates to question the ability of teachers who express such views to enforce New Jersey’s new anti-bullying law, adopted last spring in the wake of the suicide of Tyler Clementi, a Rutgers student who killed himself after learning he had been watched, via webcam, having sex with another man.

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey released a statement defending Knox’s First Amendment right to make the comments.

“Although we do not agree with the sentiments expressed on Ms. Knox’s personal Facebook page, her comments are protected by the First Amendment,” stated Ed Barocas, the group’s legal director. “The ACLU believes that the response to offensive speech is not the restriction of speech, but more speech.”

Barocas added, “The school has the right to investigate whether she is performing her job in accordance with school policies and the state’s Law Against Discrimination.”

But Garden State Equality, a gay rights group, joined the lawyer Paragano in calling for the teacher’s dismissal.

“Teachers are supposed to be role models for our children, not hatemongers,” said Steven Goldstein, who chairs the group. “I don’t see how this teacher could possibly be effective in implementing the state’s new anti-bullying law, designed precisely to teach children that bullying, including cyber-bullying, is unacceptable.”

By Steve Strunsky and Jeanette Rundquist/The Star-Ledger

Read Full Post »

Maggie Gallagher and the National Organization Of Marriage must be PISSED!

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge challenged the backers of California’s voter-enacted ban on same-sex marriage Wednesday to explain how allowing gay couples to wed threatens conventional unions, a demand that prompted their lawyer to acknowledge he did not know.

The unusual exchange between U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker and Charles Cooper, a lawyer for the group that sponsored Proposition 8, came during a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the measure as discriminatory under the U.S. Constitution.

Cooper had asked Walker to throw out the suit or make it more difficult for those civil rights claims to prevail.

The judge not only refused but signaled that when the case goes to trial in January, he expects Cooper and his legal team to present evidence showing that male-female marriages would be undermined if same-sex marriages were legal.

The question is relevant to the assertion by gay marriage opponents that Proposition 8 is constitutionally valid because it furthers the state’s goal of fostering “naturally procreative relationships,” Walker explained.

“What is the harm to the procreation purpose you outlined of allowing same-sex couples to get married?” Walker asked.

“My answer is, I don’t know. I don’t know,” Cooper answered.

Moments later, after assuring the judge his response did not mean Proposition 8 was doomed to be struck down, Cooper tried to clarify his position. The relevant question was not whether there is proof that same-sex unions jeopardize marriages between men and women, but whether “the state is entitled, when dealing with radical proposals to make changes to bedrock institutions such as this … to take a wait and see attitude,” he said.

“There are things we can’t know, that’s my point,” Cooper said. “The people of California are entitled to step back and let the experiment unfold in Massachusetts and other places, to see whether our concerns about the health of marital unions have either been confirmed or perhaps they have been completely assuaged.”

Walker pressed on, asking again for specific “adverse consequences” that could follow expanding marriage to include same-sex couples. Cooper cited a study from the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, showing that straight couples were increasingly opting to become domestic partners instead of getting married.

“Has that been harmful to children in the Netherlands? What is the adverse effect?” Walker asked.

Cooper said he did not have the facts at hand.

“But it is not self-evident that there is no chance of any harm, and the people of California are entitled not to take the risk,” he said.

“Since when do Constitutional rights rest on the proof of no harm?” Walker parried, adding the First Amendment right to free speech protects activities that many find offensive, “but we tolerate those in a free society.”

Walker made clear that he wants to examine other issues that are part of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage but rarely surface in courtrooms. Among the questions he plans to entertain at the trial are whether sexual orientation is a fixed or immutable characteristic, whether gays are a politically powerful group, and if same-sex marriage bans such as Proposition 8 were motivated by anti-gay bias.

The lawsuit over which Walker is presiding was brought by two unmarried same-sex couples. They have since been joined by lawyers for the city of San Francisco.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, who was named as a defendant, has taken the rare step of agreeing with the plaintiffs instead of arguing to uphold the voter-approved law.

In allowing the case to move forward, Walker said significant questions remain about whether the California measure, which was approved by 52 percent of voters in November, unlawfully violates the rights of gays and lesbians to equality and due process guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. The measure overturned a state Supreme Court ruling earlier in the year that legalized same-sex marriages.

An estimated 18,000 gay couples wed before the law took effect. In May, the Supreme Court declined to invalidate Proposition 8 but upheld the existing same-sex marriages.

Chad Griffin, a Los Angeles political consultant who spearheaded the lawsuit, said after Wednesday’s hearing that he was thrilled by Walker’s ruling, “which brings us one step closer to the beginning of a federal trial where we will be able to prove the unconstitutionality of Prop. 8.”

Cooper said he, too, would be ready to address the issues Walker outlined, though he declined to comment on the grilling by the judge.

“We all heard it, and we haven’t had the benefit of reviewing it,” he said.

Andy Pugno, general counsel to the coalition of religious and social conservative groups behind Proposition 8, said that after losing the election, supporters of same-sex marriage were trying to persuade the judge to substitute their views for those expressed by voters.

“What really is happening is the voters who passed Proposition 8 are essentially on trial in this case, and they continue to be accused of being irrational and bigoted for restoring the traditional definition of marriage,” he said.

Read Full Post »

This is something that the gay community completely forgets and to be honest it is PISSING ME OFF!

Rightly so, people are so concerned about gay marriage, but they forget the 40,000+ bi-national couples that gay marriage does jack shit for.

When a gay couple get married in one of those states that allow it, they do NOT get the 1500+ federal rights that heterosexuals get, one of those rights is immigration.

So who is fighting to get those rights?

Immigration Equality is a national organization that works to end discrimination in U.S. immigration law, to reduce the negative impact of that law on the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and HIV-positive people, and to help obtain asylum for those persecuted in their home country based on their sexual orientation, transgender identity or HIV-status. Through education, outreach, advocacy, and the maintenance of a nationwide network of resources, we provide information and support to advocates, attorneys, politicians and those who are threatened by persecution or the discriminatory impact of the law.

I urge you all to go to their website, check out the action center, some of the things you can do to help will take you 2 minutes and will cost you NOTHING!

Read Full Post »

Recently wed Ellen Degeneres is joining the ranks of Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg in speaking out against the proposition in California known as the “Marriage Protection Act,” which would effectively overturn the recent decision to allow same-sex civil unions in the state. Ellen took to her blog on the Warner Brothers web site, begging fans to vote down the act.

You know how usually I talk about cell phones or kitty cats or cheese pizza… well, this is sorta like that… without the cell phones, the cats, or the pizza.

There’s a California Proposition on the ballot that’s a little confusing. It’s Proposition 8. It’s called, “The California Marriage Protection Act” — but don’t let the name fool you. It’s not protecting anyone’s marriage. Not yours. Not mine.

The wording of Prop 8 is tricky. It’s like if someone asked you, “You don’t want dessert, right?” But you do want dessert so you say, “Yes,” which really means you don’t want dessert. And if you say, “No,” which means you do want dessert — it sounds like you don’t. Either way, you don’t get what you want. See — confusing. Just like Prop. 8.

So, in case I haven’t made myself clear, I’m FOR gay marriage. And in order to protect that right — please VOTE NO on Proposition 8. And now that you’re informed, spread the word. I’m begging you. I can’t return the wedding gifts — I love my new toaster.

[From Ellen Degeneres’ Warner Bros. Blog]

I’m curious as to why this proposition is coming up now, after the California Legislature and Supreme Court have already approved same-sex civil unions and the rights that go along with it in a very lengthy battle. This has already been left to the voters of the state once, in the 2000 election, in which 61% voted against this right. The Supreme Court overturned that vote, deeming it unconstitutional, earlier this year. But conservative voters in the state vowed to get it back on the ballot in November.

It looks like this is shaping up to be one of those vicious circles in which voters and the Supreme Court are going to keep canceling each other out. I’m sure it’s costing the state’s taxpayers a lot of money to keep holding these votes, then these lengthy court battles. Aren’t there a lot more pressing issues these folks could be spending that money on, such as education and the environment? The smog in that state and medical waste washing up on its beaches are a lot more harmful than some gay men and women getting married. I’m sure that if these conservative voters spent half as much time and energy focused on California’s dirty air and water, the state would be sparkling clean by now. And if the Proposition to “protect marriage” does get approved, what does that mean for the thousands of same-sex couples who have legally joined together this year, such as Ellen and Portia De Rossi, or George Takei and his partner of 21 years? It doesn’t seem fair to negate their status now.

Read Full Post »

And we at WTFBlog are pretty fucking happy they did!

BEVERLY HILLS — There was much dancing: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi are married, according to reports.

In the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage, DeGeneres, 50, and de Rossi, 35, wed Saturday night in an intimate ceremony at their Beverly Hills home, People and Us Magazine reported.

A publicist for DeGeneres didn’t immediately respond to messages from The Associated Press on Saturday.

After the California Supreme Court’s ruling in May, the talk-show host announced that she and de Rossi would wed after four years together.

The ceremony was attended by 19 guests, including DeGeneres’s mom Betty and de Rossi’s mother Margaret Rogers, who flew in from Australia for the occasion, People.com reported Saturday night.

DeGeneres said after winning her fourth consecutive Daytime Emmy for talk show host in June that a date had not been set, and that she would show “a tiny bit” of the nuptials on her show.

While opponents in California have gathered signatures to put a measure on the November ballot for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, Hollywood was throwing it support behind the newlyweds.

“One of my favorite people of all time is Ms. Ellen DeGeneres,” Katherine Heigel told AP Television at a Hollywood charity event on Saturday night. “So I wish all the best, all the happiness, all the joy that comes with that certificate … just the joy of being able to stand up and say that. In front of everyone you love and care about in front of each other and to walk away legal is huge.”

Tila Tequila, whose dating reality show fame is built somewhat upon her affinity for both men and women, passed along her good wishes – with only one small complaint.

“I love Ellen (DeGeneres) I watch her show all the time,” Tequila told AP Television. “I just want to say congratulations and I am really sorry you didn’t invite me to your wedding.”

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »