Monday, April 1, 2013

HRC Discriminates at SCOTUS Hearing to End Discrimination

Regarding the article on Back2Stonewall, by Tim Franco, on how HRC discriminates at SCOTUS Hearing to End Discrimination:

I question the motive of Get Equal or the man with the flag. They are out for publicity. They had nothing to do with the marriage issue and it is NOT a trans issue.  I’m not even sure a flag about adoption would be relevant—this is a specific issue and to bring in other issues is wrong.


David Thorstad said...

A few months ago, a trans person wrote an Op-Ed for the New York Times and, as I recall, indicated that transpeople can in fact marry. If that is true, then why does the gay wedding-cake crowd always call for the alleged right of "lgbt" people to marry? Isn't this a case where the two issues do not in fact overlap?
I hope the Supremes have more sense than some same-sexers who want them to do another ERA or Brown v. Board of Education and make a decision applying a so-called right to marriage nationwide. This is an issue that should be dealt with state by state, not in the courts. I oppose all marriage, including gay marriage, but it will probably come to pass ultimately because of changing public opinion, but it should be done state by state rather than hunting for a nonexistent right in the Constitution.

Pam Raintree said...

Yes, trans people are GENERALLY allowed to marry, but not necessarily the people they want to marry. In Louisiana, which allows sexual reassignment for legal purposes, still bans all same-sex marriages and - guess what? Trans people are as likely to be gay or lesbian as the rest of the population. THEY can't marry. In Texas, and a few other places, sex is now defined by one's genetic sex, for marriage purposes, creating a bizarre situation where gay and lesbian trans people are the only ones allowed to marry. AND the simple fact is that nobody much cared who transpeople married until the issue of same-sex marriage hit the national media.