We here so much about how god will judge us as a gay people and our lifestyle but if you look at the gay community you will find alot of people who are carers not only in their own homes but also in society.
we in the LGBT give a great deal of our lives to looking after others, our life styles are a small part of who we are. The church is concentrating on one part of our lives and not looking at the whole picture. Maybe one day they will , and then they will save their judgment for themselves.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Letter to Irish Times
This item was published on the angryPotato blog:
Here's the letter that appeared in the [March 10, 2007 issue of the Irish] Times.
MCDOWELL AND CIVIL UNION BILL
Madam, - Justice Minister, Michael McDowell claims (Opinion & Analysis, March 2nd) that the Dáil amended the second reading resolution of Labour's civil union Bill "to allow more time for a comprehensive civil partnership Bill to be brought before the House and to await the outcome of the Zappone appeal pending in the Supreme Court".
In fact the Government motion adjourned the second reading for six months - which is well after the statutory limit for a general election. The Government took this line knowing that all Bills must lapse when the Dáil is dissolved and a general election is called.
I would have more respect for the Minister if he had had the courage to vote down our Bill in a direct way rather than engage in this sort of smart-alec manoeuvre, designed to present a sympathetic face while killing off a measure his Government fiercely opposes.
In his article the Minister consistently muddies the waters by referring to an entirely separate issue: whether or not there should be a "civil partnership" system in our laws for persons who are not married but who are cohabiting domestically in a long-term relationship of inter-dependency.
The issue is entirely separate because cohabitation in the context of a heterosexual relationship is voluntary. A heterosexual couple could get married but decide not to. This raises issues as to the sort of recognition the law should provide for a relationship falling short of marriage that is entered into by people who have the option but reject it.
These issues deserve consideration but they were not the subject matter of my Bill, which was specifically concerned with a group of people who are constitutionally disabled from marrying.
To insist, as Michael McDowell does, on a common framework for all cohabitants is to ignore the particular unfairness imposed on people who want to do more than cohabit but who are prevented from marrying each other.
It seems the Minister still cannot see and appreciate that point. His approach is still to bundle together same-sex couples - who are not married because they cannot marry - with those couples for whom cohabitation is a matter of lifestyle choice. His approach is ignorant, patronising and blinkered.
The Minister has also claimed that our Bill attempted to pre-empt the Supreme Court decision in the appeal in the Zappone/Gilligan case. But that case is not about whether it would be unconstitutional to change the law so as to give recognition or status to foreign same-sex marriages. That case is about whether the Constitution and the law, as they at present stand, require the State to recognise a same-sex marriage celebrated a few years ago in Canada.
Our Bill, of course, was concerned with what the law will be after it is passed, rather than what it is now, and it had no impact on the issues in the Zappone/Gilligan case.
Finally, the Minister points out that the Constitution requires the State to protect marriage with special care and to protect it against attack. He says it is not open to the State to create a status for a relationship which has all the rights and duties of marriage but which is not a marriage in the sense recognised by the Constitution.
Presumably the Minister is not arguing that those of a homosexual orientation should reconcile themselves to the married state? Or that offering civil union for same-sex couples would lure heterosexuals away from marriage? If he is not saying that, on what conceivable basis is he arguing that making specific provision for same-sex couples has any effect whatsoever on an institution that is at present confined to couples of opposite sexes?
Labour's Bill contained within it one single over-riding principle - the principle of equality. This principle is unquenchable and undeniable. It is founded on the bond of our common humanity. It is based on our recognition in each other of an essential shared human experience. Our shared humanity is far greater than any difference in how we look, how we pray, what our capabilities are, or how we choose a partner in life.
As Dr Martin Luther King said on that famous day when he proclaimed his dream of equality, he had come to remind us of "the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquillising drug of gradualism".
Minister Michael McDowell took the tranquillising drug. For all the grandeur of his title, he decided to defeat a basic matter of justice, equality and law reform. I repeat that his postponement of our Bill was not a vote for delay: it was a vote to defeat the Bill. It is for the victims of that defeat to decide who was responsible and what they should do next. - Yours, etc,
BRENDAN HOWLIN TD, Labour Party Spokesperson on Justice, Dáil Éireann.
Here's the letter that appeared in the [March 10, 2007 issue of the Irish] Times.
MCDOWELL AND CIVIL UNION BILL
Madam, - Justice Minister, Michael McDowell claims (Opinion & Analysis, March 2nd) that the Dáil amended the second reading resolution of Labour's civil union Bill "to allow more time for a comprehensive civil partnership Bill to be brought before the House and to await the outcome of the Zappone appeal pending in the Supreme Court".
In fact the Government motion adjourned the second reading for six months - which is well after the statutory limit for a general election. The Government took this line knowing that all Bills must lapse when the Dáil is dissolved and a general election is called.
I would have more respect for the Minister if he had had the courage to vote down our Bill in a direct way rather than engage in this sort of smart-alec manoeuvre, designed to present a sympathetic face while killing off a measure his Government fiercely opposes.
In his article the Minister consistently muddies the waters by referring to an entirely separate issue: whether or not there should be a "civil partnership" system in our laws for persons who are not married but who are cohabiting domestically in a long-term relationship of inter-dependency.
The issue is entirely separate because cohabitation in the context of a heterosexual relationship is voluntary. A heterosexual couple could get married but decide not to. This raises issues as to the sort of recognition the law should provide for a relationship falling short of marriage that is entered into by people who have the option but reject it.
These issues deserve consideration but they were not the subject matter of my Bill, which was specifically concerned with a group of people who are constitutionally disabled from marrying.
To insist, as Michael McDowell does, on a common framework for all cohabitants is to ignore the particular unfairness imposed on people who want to do more than cohabit but who are prevented from marrying each other.
It seems the Minister still cannot see and appreciate that point. His approach is still to bundle together same-sex couples - who are not married because they cannot marry - with those couples for whom cohabitation is a matter of lifestyle choice. His approach is ignorant, patronising and blinkered.
The Minister has also claimed that our Bill attempted to pre-empt the Supreme Court decision in the appeal in the Zappone/Gilligan case. But that case is not about whether it would be unconstitutional to change the law so as to give recognition or status to foreign same-sex marriages. That case is about whether the Constitution and the law, as they at present stand, require the State to recognise a same-sex marriage celebrated a few years ago in Canada.
Our Bill, of course, was concerned with what the law will be after it is passed, rather than what it is now, and it had no impact on the issues in the Zappone/Gilligan case.
Finally, the Minister points out that the Constitution requires the State to protect marriage with special care and to protect it against attack. He says it is not open to the State to create a status for a relationship which has all the rights and duties of marriage but which is not a marriage in the sense recognised by the Constitution.
Presumably the Minister is not arguing that those of a homosexual orientation should reconcile themselves to the married state? Or that offering civil union for same-sex couples would lure heterosexuals away from marriage? If he is not saying that, on what conceivable basis is he arguing that making specific provision for same-sex couples has any effect whatsoever on an institution that is at present confined to couples of opposite sexes?
Labour's Bill contained within it one single over-riding principle - the principle of equality. This principle is unquenchable and undeniable. It is founded on the bond of our common humanity. It is based on our recognition in each other of an essential shared human experience. Our shared humanity is far greater than any difference in how we look, how we pray, what our capabilities are, or how we choose a partner in life.
As Dr Martin Luther King said on that famous day when he proclaimed his dream of equality, he had come to remind us of "the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquillising drug of gradualism".
Minister Michael McDowell took the tranquillising drug. For all the grandeur of his title, he decided to defeat a basic matter of justice, equality and law reform. I repeat that his postponement of our Bill was not a vote for delay: it was a vote to defeat the Bill. It is for the victims of that defeat to decide who was responsible and what they should do next. - Yours, etc,
BRENDAN HOWLIN TD, Labour Party Spokesperson on Justice, Dáil Éireann.
Gay issues and Irish General Election
As we know elections are on their way. The Gay Community must ask themselves what is on offer from each political party relating to gay rights.
Above this item is a letter which appeared in The Irish Times from Brendan Howlin, T D Labour Party spokesman expressing some concern as to why the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell postponed the introduction of Civil Union legislation which the Labour Party had proposed.
We feel that the gay community must let their voices be heard and the only way to do that is to get out there and vote. We must also realize that this coalition government will not go against the Church and is using the constitution to withhold our civil union rights. This is a blatant attack on human rights in this country and if we wish to change that then we as a community must show a united front and challenge the concept of family and the way to do that is making sure that our vote will work for us.
We cannot leave this fight to the Labour Party only. It is up to us to vigorously take up the challenge which this government has forced us to do. We all have the responsibility to see that this is done. We have the right to fight for a change in our constitution which does not recognize same-sex relationships because government and church see it as a threat to family values. We must also realize that the constitution was written at a time when there was no cohabitation by straight or gay couples and that family was seen in the traditional form of husband and wife and 2.5 children.
If we are living in a democratic state then human rights must be at the very central heart of our constitution which at the moment is not the case. Our vote no matter which party you support is one of the ways forward so we hope each and everyone of us will stand up on the day of the election and vote.
Above this item is a letter which appeared in The Irish Times from Brendan Howlin, T D Labour Party spokesman expressing some concern as to why the Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell postponed the introduction of Civil Union legislation which the Labour Party had proposed.
We feel that the gay community must let their voices be heard and the only way to do that is to get out there and vote. We must also realize that this coalition government will not go against the Church and is using the constitution to withhold our civil union rights. This is a blatant attack on human rights in this country and if we wish to change that then we as a community must show a united front and challenge the concept of family and the way to do that is making sure that our vote will work for us.
We cannot leave this fight to the Labour Party only. It is up to us to vigorously take up the challenge which this government has forced us to do. We all have the responsibility to see that this is done. We have the right to fight for a change in our constitution which does not recognize same-sex relationships because government and church see it as a threat to family values. We must also realize that the constitution was written at a time when there was no cohabitation by straight or gay couples and that family was seen in the traditional form of husband and wife and 2.5 children.
If we are living in a democratic state then human rights must be at the very central heart of our constitution which at the moment is not the case. Our vote no matter which party you support is one of the ways forward so we hope each and everyone of us will stand up on the day of the election and vote.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Lest We Forget.
Was anyone watching the documentary last night about Hitler and his evil plan for all of Europe? It showed his ruthless and brutal ambition to control the European masses. Along with the millions of Jews, Communists, Poles and Slavs we should not forget the countless numbers of mental and physically disabled and not forgetting thousands of gay people. Sometimes I wonder if church leaders and politicians who claim to be nearer to God's ear have forgotten what has gone before and what is still going on. the church who turned a blind eye to what was being done to countless of children and the politicians who would rather sit at high mass than take action to protect the innocent.those with mental and physical disabilities along with their carers and supporters have fought for their place in the sun and we in the gay community must continue to do the same.
Human Rights and Sexual Identity
Human Rights and Sexual Identity [LGBT] - Around the world, the human rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people are violated daily. Not only are people beaten, imprisoned and killed by their own governments for engaging in homosexual acts, but those suspected of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) are routinely the victims of harassment, discrimination and violence. [Amnesty International ]
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Controversial Remarks
|| News ||
February 22, 2007
Gay rights groups condemn Polish president
The ludicrous nature of President's Kacsynski's thesis can be gauged from the fact that while homosexuality has been increasingly tolerated in the modern world, the global population has mushroomed to some 6 billion people. If anything, Mr Kaczynski ought to be concerned about the problem of overpopulation. Additionally it would be interesting to see how successful he and those who argue such a position would be if they tried to convert heterosexual people to a homosexual lifestyle. Our guess is that while we might welcome such a campaign, we wouldn't expect it to meet with great success, to say the least!
February 22, 2007
Gay rights groups condemn Polish president
Gay rights groups and politicians in Ireland have condemned Polish president Lech Kaczynski for antigay remarks he made on a recent state visit, reports the BBC-UK.
Kaczynski said the human race "would disappear if homosexuality was freely promoted." One of Ireland's openly gay politicians, Sen. David Norris, called the president a "disgrace to the European community" and said Kacsynski's comments were "ignorant, unsophisticated, and a disgrace."
Kaczynski has come under fire in the past by gay rights groups for antigay remarks. He has said he opposes homosexuality being "freely promoted" or "treated as one of several choices." As mayor of Warsaw he banned gay pride marches for two years. Kaczynski denies he is homophobic and says he has gay friends.
Joan Burton, the Irish Labour Party's finance spokeswoman, said his remarks were "a pity given people's efforts to remove crass and gross discrimination." (The Advocate)
The ludicrous nature of President's Kacsynski's thesis can be gauged from the fact that while homosexuality has been increasingly tolerated in the modern world, the global population has mushroomed to some 6 billion people. If anything, Mr Kaczynski ought to be concerned about the problem of overpopulation. Additionally it would be interesting to see how successful he and those who argue such a position would be if they tried to convert heterosexual people to a homosexual lifestyle. Our guess is that while we might welcome such a campaign, we wouldn't expect it to meet with great success, to say the least!
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Head to Head
The Irish Times has recently posted online an article about whether gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children. There are all types of families out there: single parents, widowed men and women. I remember when single mothers suffered from witch hunts when the same arguments were used against them. And that argument was that they to were not able to give the same security to their children as the traditional family could . They said that there was no proof that single mothers were good parents but to day that is politically incorrect. Please vote on the website.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
