Goodwill, Gay Rights & Blog it!
While one could assume from the title that goodwill should be used when it comes to gay rights while blogging about it…The title is related to some of the many articles in this week’s Toledo Free Press. This week’s cover story is about Goodwill Industries celebrating 75 years of creating jobs. My grandmother’s second husband worked at Goodwill Industries before I was born and after I was born, he was in a wheelchair after having lost his legs from the knee down and parts of his hands. It was one of the few places he could find work after he became disabled, and I’ll always remember how he expressed his feeling of pride in himself was restored by being able to earn a living, he felt that he was the same man he was before but many area employers did not feel that way during that time period…He’s just one of the many people that Goodwill has helped through the years.
Michael Miller touches on the issue of Gay rights and Ohio’s gay rights laws, or lack thereof and I share his feeling of sadness of how Ohio has treated members of our own community when it comes to not giving them equal protection under the laws of our State. Karl Rundgren shares some thoughts after being on the roof of the Toledo Art Museum that is also a recommended read.
Steven Flagg has a guest opinion piece in response to Peggie Cypher who was responding to an earlier guest opinion piece also written by Steven Flagg. It’s an interesting look at the question of urban schools and who shares the greatest level of responsibility for the schools that are failing.
Then there is of course this week’s Blog it! Toledo where I focused on some local blogs that made me smile, gave me information, and one made me shed a few tears…Political blogging can be so negative at times, that I really appreciate the insight and the reminder into the real world shared through people willing to put their stories on their personal blogs. It helps to keep me centered into remembering what really matters…
There is of course much more both online and in print awaiting you in this week’s edition of the Toledo Free Press.
If two consent gay adults have the right to equal protection, how come people are arrested for polygamy? Should that equal protection extend to having as many partners as you want?
April 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pmBecause the law currently states you are only allowed to have one legal spouse, which under the places pushing for a “defense of marriage” act refers to one man and one woman; not to mention most of the recent polygamy cases that have been filed involved girls under the age of 18. However, those who support the right to have more than one “legal wife” are more than welcome to petition the government to have the laws changed.
Then of course from a discrimination standpoint, women were not allowed to have multiple husbands.
From a welfare standpoint, many of those currently involved in polygamy would stand to loose much more than they gained if they were allowed to marry all of the “wives” that they had collected yet did not financially provide for. Just one example, Hildale, along the Utah-Arizona border, where close to 50% of the residents are on public assistance, according to state and federal records. The fraud occurs when plural wives claim they don’t know the whereabouts of their children’s father. When information came out about Tom Green who was sentenced to five years in prison for polygamy investigators believed his “wives” and 30 some children received over $150,000 in government money.
April 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pm“defense of marriage act” is as phony as a $3 bill. Odd that my wife and I have been married 40 years and not once has a gay couple ‘threatened’ our relationship. Such stupidity!
People who tout this are nothing but bigots pretending to be oh-so righteous.
April 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pmEqually odd, or amusing, is that the same folks who want less government in one’s life, clammer for more government action for saving marraige, as they see it.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:34 amI just figure that most Conservatives’ marriages are so fragile that two men (or women) getting married somewhere in the state will cause their marriages to crumble and fall a part.
I guess us liberal or should I say more progressive folks have marriages that can with stand what goes on behind someone else’s closed door.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:19 amCelebrity marriages are more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than gay couples getting married.
April 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pmAnd there’s Mudrake and Sensor G with even more childish arguments that have no substance. Funny, you guys always spout about freedom of speech…but your always first in line to make sure there’s no freedom of religion. I guess you pick and choose what part of the Constitution you like.
Also, all the major religions holy books denounce homosexuality. Islams still stones people to death for it. However, why are these religions considered bigots for believing what their holy books teach? How strong can a religion be if it changes its doctrines to parallel with the current fads of man?
The big lie is that Christians hate people who are gay….I’m sure some do…and if so…they are sinning. Just as some non-religious people hate gays. Believing that someone’s lifestyle is wrong does not mean you hate that person or wish ill-will against them.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pmHaving been involved in probably thousands of discussions on the Bible and homosexuality over the years I’ve been online, people rarely change their positions from their point of origin on the discussion.
A good source for those new to the discussion as to some of the main points of disagreement. Personally, having read and debated Leviticus many times, I admit first, I have violated many of those tenants listed there, including I eat shrimp.
Seriously though, I do believe there are two separate issues, a) is homosexuality a major sin, which I don’t believe there is direct evidence of that when you compare it to what it is listed with in the Bible. I realize not everyone agrees with that. Secondly, marriage. Which from an early Biblical standpoint many men in the bible had multiple wives. Yet the religious aspect of the marriage ceremony of being one man and one woman from a Christian concept is a valid one. The easiest solution remains, eliminate marriage as what determines benefit and other civil property rights issues creating civil unions as the standard and allow marriage ceremonies to be performed for those who believe in the religious aspect of marriage.
Religions that believe that marriage can also be same sex, would therefore be able to do so, Religions that felt it was one man, one woman would therefore be able to do so and same sex couples as well as male/female couples would all have the same legal protection without offending anyone’s religious beliefs.
For me, the basic question has been should the State or the Federal government be involved in the religious ceremony of marriage, to which my answer has been, “no”. The State and the Federal government can however be involved in the civil law aspect of a civil union.
April 7th, 2008 at 3:46 pmLeave your religion out of government Kooz. You can have your beliefs – no problem there – but don’t force your view on me or anyone else through government. I think you confuse religious freedom vs. seperation between church and state.
April 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm