Fifty years ago today, one of the most important persons in the history of the US gave one of the best speeches ever made on American soil
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. inspired and motivated. He opened eyes and ears and changed hearts for the better, advancing civil rights in the US.
King spoke of people of different colors being able live peaceably side by side, arm in arm, not separated by skin color. There is still progress to be made in that aspect of civil rights, and of course there is still much progress to be made when it comes to sexual orientation, gender identity, and relationship orientation.
We need to speed the arrival of the kind of evolved society where people can walk arm in arm "black" and "white," but also male and male, female and female. We need to have the kind of nation where a happy triad or consanguinamorous couple isn't afraid to stroll in the park, arm in arm, exchanging kisses along the way.
History is on our side. Consenting adults will be free to exercise their rights to love, sex, residence, and marriage. We will have full marriage equality.
Advocating for the right of consenting adults to share and enjoy love, sex, residence, and marriage without limits on the gender, number, or relation of participants. Full marriage equality is a basic human right.
- Home
- New to This Blog?
- Essential Reading
- Welcome Message
- An Introduction to This Blog
- About This Blog
- Why I Started This Blog
- A Happy Triad (Interview)
- Case Studies
- For Family & Friends
- Why Support Full Marriage Equality?
- How You Can Help
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Glossary
- For Journalists
- Discredited, Invalid Arguments
- US Supreme Court Should Rule For Equality
- Marriage Equality Ammendment
- Rights Aren't Reserved For the Majority
- Others May Consent to Something You Wouldn't
- FAQ: Why is Consensual Incest Illegal?
- FAQ: How Common is Consensual Incest?
- A Natural Attraction
- Need Help?
- We're About Love & Sex Not Abuse
- Essential Reading
- Maps, etc.
- Get Connected
- Facebook Cause Group
- Consanguinamory on Facebook
- Causes.com
- My Facebook
- My Twitter
- Email me at ProtonMail.com
- The Final Manifesto on Blogspot
- The Final Manifesto on Tumblr
- Consanguinamory Blog
- Friends of Lily
- Kindred Spirits Forum [FREE No-Porn Forum]
- Brothers & Sisters Forum
- Genetic Reunion Group [Yahoo!]
- Genetic Attraction Forums
- Reddit: r/incest
- Reddit: r/incest_relationships [Private]
- Topics
- For More Info
- The Final Manifesto on Tumblr
- Consanguinamory Blog
- Friends of Lily
- Consanguinamory Wiki
- The Polyamory Wiki
- CousinCouples.com
- Nat'l Society of Genetic Counselors
- The Center for Sex-Positive Culture
- Nat'l Coalition for Sexual Freedom
- Consenting Adult Action Network
- World Polyamory Association
- Canadian Poly Advocacy Assoc.
- Polyamory in Australia
- Polytical.org [UK]
- PolyFamilies.com
- Polyamory.com
- PolyamoryOnline.org
- ChristianPolygamy.com
- Charlie Glickman [PhD SexEd]
Translate
Showing posts with label ENDA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ENDA. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
ENDA Should Be More Inclusive
I haven't forgotten about ENDA. So I'm bumping up and updating this...
Unless you lead a very sheltered life, you have to have heard about the struggles many LGBT people face because of prejudice about their orientation or identity. You can see some of the same struggles expressed when it comes to people who are experiencing GSA or FSA or Poly people also face hostility and persecution simply for being who they are, including being shunned by relatives and fired from their jobs.
Just look at what Polly wrote…
Reading her blog, I could see she’s an intelligent, responsible, caring person. And yet she because she loves more than one person, she has been rejected by family. We’re not talking about cheating behind a spouse’s back. Everyone involved in the relationships are aware and consenting. Drop the hate.
While the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act can do little to directly improve family acceptance, at least it will protect people in the workplace. There has been some dispute over whether ENDA should include protections for the transgendered or just sexual orientation protection. I think it should take an approach that is more inclusive in general, protecting people from workplace discrimination on the basis of not only their gender identity, but their wider sexual identity. An employer should not be able to fire someone because their consensual sex life, living arrangements, or marital status – period.
Unless you lead a very sheltered life, you have to have heard about the struggles many LGBT people face because of prejudice about their orientation or identity. You can see some of the same struggles expressed when it comes to people who are experiencing GSA or FSA or Poly people also face hostility and persecution simply for being who they are, including being shunned by relatives and fired from their jobs.
Just look at what Polly wrote…
I've lost several family members who have burst into angry flames upon coming out to them as poly…I worry that I will burst into happy tears upon actually finding someone who is kind to me, but that they will run away the instant they see the great gaping hole of hurt that has been left in my heart after the horrific coming out process I've had. Run away! Run away! Crazy, lonely Poly Mom wants to talk to you!!
Reading her blog, I could see she’s an intelligent, responsible, caring person. And yet she because she loves more than one person, she has been rejected by family. We’re not talking about cheating behind a spouse’s back. Everyone involved in the relationships are aware and consenting. Drop the hate.
While the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act can do little to directly improve family acceptance, at least it will protect people in the workplace. There has been some dispute over whether ENDA should include protections for the transgendered or just sexual orientation protection. I think it should take an approach that is more inclusive in general, protecting people from workplace discrimination on the basis of not only their gender identity, but their wider sexual identity. An employer should not be able to fire someone because their consensual sex life, living arrangements, or marital status – period.
— — —
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Encouraging President Obama and the Supreme Court
According to this Associated Press article by Julie Pace…The Obama administration is quietly considering urging the Supreme Court to overturn California's ban on gay marriage, a step that would mark a political victory for advocates of same-sex unions and a deepening commitment by President Barack Obama to rights for gay couples.More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. In the two neighboring countries, Canada has had the limited same-gender freedom to marry and Mexico is moving towards it nationwide. The US, as a country, is playing catch-up. How embarrassing.
I urge President Obama and the Court to boldly, strongly put the US in a leadership role and support protections based on sexual orientation and relationship rights and full marriage equality for all, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is not equality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.
Supporting relationship rights, including full marriage equality for all, will eliminate the impractical, unjust, and confusing inequalities in the law pertaining not only to some same-gender relationships, but in all adult relationships, including those that are polyamorous or consanguineous. Some of those inequalities include:
1. Utah’s criminalization of polyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry.
2. Some states allowing first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allowing them to marry with restrictions, some states banning this freedom to marry, and even a couple of states criminalizing sex between first cousins.
3. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.
Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.
Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.
There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.
Please, Mr. President, urge the Court and the American people to support equal rights for all. Please, to those who serve on the Court: end the discrimination.
An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.
Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Protect the rights of all adults in all states.
— — —
Friday, July 1, 2011
Equality, Life, Liberty, Happiness
It’s a big holiday weekend in the US, with Monday being a holiday: Independence Day. Connected to the day is the Declaration of Independence, which touts equality and notes that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
When the Declaration of Independence was written, equality was reserved for white, landowning, heterosexual, Christian males. Great strides have been made to extend equality to everyone else.
But we’re still on our journey. Equality, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are, in many places in the US, and at the national government level, still denied to LGBT people. Even more so, these rights are denied to the polyamorous and the consanguinamorous.
But we are making progress, as demonstrated in New York.
Let’s keep moving forward so that an adult pursue love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults, and not be denied liberty, employment, housing, or anything else.
When the Declaration of Independence was written, equality was reserved for white, landowning, heterosexual, Christian males. Great strides have been made to extend equality to everyone else.
But we’re still on our journey. Equality, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are, in many places in the US, and at the national government level, still denied to LGBT people. Even more so, these rights are denied to the polyamorous and the consanguinamorous.
But we are making progress, as demonstrated in New York.
Let’s keep moving forward so that an adult pursue love, sex, and marriage with any consenting adults, and not be denied liberty, employment, housing, or anything else.
— — —
Monday, December 27, 2010
A Basic Freedom
William Saletan had more to say over at Slate.com. This was prompted by the beautiful death of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
I fail to see why a government employer such as the military should be able to tell an employee how to conduct their love lives. Rape, assault, molestation of minors should all remain illegal. But it should not the the employer’s concern if a soldier loves more than one other consenting adult, or if those adults are male, female, or have a close relation to the soldier. There shouldn’t be laws against such relationships inside or outside of the military.
It is hard to explain because those who try to explain it contradict themselves or invoke bigotry, but try not to admit it.
After quoting me, he goes on to write…
There isn’t a good reason, so it should cover them.
First of all, why should an employer care whether or not something is compatible with “tradional sexual values?” Secondly, there is a long, ongoing tradition of polyamory, polygamy, and consensual consanguineous relationships.
At least some people who are polyamorous (some of whom are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, by the way) didn’t choose to be polyamorous either. Polyamory is as natural to them as being straight or being gay. Some people in consanguineous relationships (again, they may be lesbian, gay, or straight) swear on their life (literally, given what they have to go through) that nothing else compares. While these two categories are not currently recognized mainstream as categories of sexual orientation, they are as much of what makes these people and their relationships who and what they are as gender.
Why is monogamy important? It is assumed by the writer that it is, without an explanation being given. Right now, a soldier can have a series of ten short sexual relationships. Why is that any better than the solider having three wives and only having sex with those three wives?
I give the culture more credit than that. More people are open to equality than a lot of people think. Let our soldiers, and the rest of the people, make their own decisions about who they will love, and don’t make them second-class citizens because of it.
Of course “straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual” is a different set of categories from “celibate, monogamous, polyamorous, etc.” and “exogamous, endogamous, and consanguineous.” but the military shouldn’t be concerned about any of those categories. Someone can be gay, celibate, and have endogamous attractions. Or, someone can be straight, polyamorous, and exogamous. What matters is how they do their job. Freely choosing the person or person(s) they love should be their basic freedom.
The distinction between marriage and partnership isn't the only institution being challenged. Technically, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial prohibit sodomy, bigamy, adultery, "wrongful" cohabitation, and incest.
I fail to see why a government employer such as the military should be able to tell an employee how to conduct their love lives. Rape, assault, molestation of minors should all remain illegal. But it should not the the employer’s concern if a soldier loves more than one other consenting adult, or if those adults are male, female, or have a close relation to the soldier. There shouldn’t be laws against such relationships inside or outside of the military.
Sodomy and adultery laws do seem outdated and silly. But if those laws are repealed on the grounds that consensual sex is private, it's hard to explain why the reform shouldn't extend to other laws.
It is hard to explain because those who try to explain it contradict themselves or invoke bigotry, but try not to admit it.
After quoting me, he goes on to write…
Laugh or snort if you want to, but it's a serious question. If DADT repealers are correct that sex is a matter of personal liberty and it doesn't matter "who you love," why shouldn't that defense cover polyamory and sibling couples?
There isn’t a good reason, so it should cover them.
You can argue that homosexuality is quite different. But to make that case, you have to go beyond privacy and consent. You have to draw moral distinctions.
Homosexuality isn't just a matter of who you love. It's a matter of who you are. And it's compatible with traditional sexual values.
First of all, why should an employer care whether or not something is compatible with “tradional sexual values?” Secondly, there is a long, ongoing tradition of polyamory, polygamy, and consensual consanguineous relationships.
You don't choose to be gay. You just are gay.
At least some people who are polyamorous (some of whom are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, by the way) didn’t choose to be polyamorous either. Polyamory is as natural to them as being straight or being gay. Some people in consanguineous relationships (again, they may be lesbian, gay, or straight) swear on their life (literally, given what they have to go through) that nothing else compares. While these two categories are not currently recognized mainstream as categories of sexual orientation, they are as much of what makes these people and their relationships who and what they are as gender.
A gay person can be just as faithful and monogamous as a straight person.
Why is monogamy important? It is assumed by the writer that it is, without an explanation being given. Right now, a soldier can have a series of ten short sexual relationships. Why is that any better than the solider having three wives and only having sex with those three wives?
If the fall of DADT is ultimately interpreted this way - as a rethinking of homosexuality, not of sexual morals generally - it won't satisfy libertines or libertarians. But culturally, it might prove easier to digest.
I give the culture more credit than that. More people are open to equality than a lot of people think. Let our soldiers, and the rest of the people, make their own decisions about who they will love, and don’t make them second-class citizens because of it.
Of course “straight, gay, lesbian, and bisexual” is a different set of categories from “celibate, monogamous, polyamorous, etc.” and “exogamous, endogamous, and consanguineous.” but the military shouldn’t be concerned about any of those categories. Someone can be gay, celibate, and have endogamous attractions. Or, someone can be straight, polyamorous, and exogamous. What matters is how they do their job. Freely choosing the person or person(s) they love should be their basic freedom.
— — —
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)