Jason Collins - NBA Center, 12 years in the league, comes out

[knapplc]

Also, I apologize for derailing the crap out of this thread. I will try to not let it happen again.

You've done nothing of the sort. Don't sweat it.

[sd'sker]

Also, I apologize for derailing the crap out of this thread. I will try to not let it happen again.

i think you have been here long enough to know there is no need to apologize for derailing a thread. especially in the politics/religion thread.

[Someone]

I disagree with any comments saying that others should try to "convince" anybody else to go public with a part of their life that still is subjected to discrimination.

 

Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks say hi.

I am pretty sure that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King didn't need an article in Sports Illustrated or any other media outlet to announce to the world that they were black.

 

They were discriminated against because of their race--which was self evident--not because of a their sexual orientation which is not self evident.

[JJ Husker]

i do not really know what you are saying. it is possible that we are in agreement.

 

Of course, if you don't really know what he is saying, you could also be in complete disagreement just sayin.

[sd'sker]

so, jason collins came out. does this mean that more athletes will be encouraged to come out?

[JJ Husker]

so, jason collins came out. does this mean that more athletes will be encouraged to come out?

 

I guess I don't understand what forces are keeping anyone "in" at this point. I suppose some have some close family members that may make them hesitate but, the general public being aware that they're gay? I don't see any downside anymore. Get that weight off your chest and start being who you are. That's what I think anyway.

[knapplc]

I guess I don't understand what forces are keeping anyone "in" at this point.

 

I want to think this is joking around, but on the off chance you're being serious, I'll point out the following:

 

"Gay" sex only became legal throughout the United States in 2003 with Lawrence vs. Texas in which the Supreme Court invalidated sodomy laws in Texas and the rest of the country. Prior to Lawrence vs. Texas you could have been prosecuted simply for having sex as a gay person in more than 20% of this country. That was in 2003.

 

The LGBT Rights page on Wikipedia is a good resource for finding the raft of all-too-recent legislation across the country protecting the rights of the LGBT population. Notice that most of these laws and legal actions date from the 1980s through today. The reason that's significant is that, while legislation may change, changing the minds of those predisposed to harassment/discrimination follows in the wake of such legislation, and the process is typically ponderous.

 

Also, if you're not a fan of Wikipedia as a source, feel free to check the footnote links to the actual articles from which those excerpts arise. Those sources are far more legit than Wikipedia.

 

So the natural response to that could be, "We have these laws in place, so we're done with the problem, right?" Not so much.

 

We've had laws protecting us from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, marital status pregnancy and retaliation (in its many and varying forms) for going on 50 years (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), yet we have constant cases running through our legal system where people are, 50 years after the overt illegality of such acts, still suffering persecution because they are "different," in whatever manner of different the persecutor sees fit to persecute. We have, as yet, no sweeping legislation protecting the legal rights and freedoms of gays, and as such, persecution of LGBTs across the country is still prevalent.

 

Violence against gays is actually on the rise in America, becoming the second-most common hate crime in the country as of 2011 (the most recent year for which data is available. While a fair portion of the country has no fear of homosexuals, there are enough folks still out there who do that make being gay in America a dangerous proposition. TABLE

 

Of note, the category of hate crime that gay violence overtook in 2011 was religious persecution, which is now #3 on the FBI's list. But crucially, that "religion bias" bucket includes all types of religious persecution, with the vast majority of crimes being perpetrated against Jews (in America! In this century! ).

 

So yeah... not really sure what the motivation for that statement was, but in this day and age, in America, there are plenty of forces keeping people "in" at this point. Far, far too many, actually.

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I don't understand what forces are keeping anyone "in" at this point.

 

I want to think this is joking around, but on the off chance you're being serious, I'll point out the following:

 

"Gay" sex only became legal throughout the United States in 2003 with Lawrence vs. Texas in which the Supreme Court invalidated sodomy laws in Texas and the rest of the country. Prior to Lawrence vs. Texas you could have been prosecuted simply for having sex as a gay person in more than 20% of this country. That was in 2003.

 

The LGBT Rights page on Wikipedia is a good resource for finding the raft of all-too-recent legislation across the country protecting the rights of the LGBT population. Notice that most of these laws and legal actions date from the 1980s through today. The reason that's significant is that, while legislation may change, changing the minds of those predisposed to harassment/discrimination follows in the wake of such legislation, and the process is typically ponderous.

 

Also, if you're not a fan of Wikipedia as a source, feel free to check the footnote links to the actual articles from which those excerpts arise. Those sources are far more legit than Wikipedia.

 

So the natural response to that could be, "We have these laws in place, so we're done with the problem, right?" Not so much.

 

We've had laws protecting us from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, marital status pregnancy and retaliation (in its many and varying forms) for going on 50 years (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), yet we have constant cases running through our legal system where people are, 50 years after the overt illegality of such acts, still suffering persecution because they are "different," in whatever manner of different the persecutor sees fit to persecute. We have, as yet, no sweeping legislation protecting the legal rights and freedoms of gays, and as such, persecution of LGBTs across the country is still prevalent.

 

Violence against gays is actually on the rise in America, becoming the second-most common hate crime in the country as of 2011 (the most recent year for which data is available. While a fair portion of the country has no fear of homosexuals, there are enough folks still out there who do that make being gay in America a dangerous proposition. TABLE

 

Of note, the category of hate crime that gay violence overtook in 2011 was religious persecution, which is now #3 on the FBI's list. But crucially, that "religion bias" bucket includes all types of religious persecution, with the vast majority of crimes being perpetrated against Jews (in America! In this century! ).

 

So yeah... not really sure what the motivation for that statement was, but in this day and age, in America, there are plenty of forces keeping people "in" at this point. Far, far too many, actually.

 

So, to summarize, it's absolute stupidity from other people that makes people think they need to stay "in".

[knapplc]

So, to summarize, it's absolute stupidity from other people that makes people think they need to stay "in".

 

In a nutshell, yes. But "absolute stupidity" could describe just about anything on that FBI list of hate/bias crimes - we don't reserve our absolute stupidity for the gays. "The Jews" are not out to get us, and we don't need to persecute them for... whatever. I have no idea why people persecute the Jews. Same goes for "the Blacks," "the foreigners" or any other bucket of people on that FBI list.

 

As humans we naturally develop an "us" and "them" attitude. Often it becomes "us vs. them," and that dates back to our hunter-gatherer days and the days just after we left our arboreal existence and started making our way on the ground among the predators. We competed bitterly for everything we got from other animals and other groups. Resources were slim and competition tough, so "them" as a bad guy, meaning anyone not "us" (however you want to define "us") is ingrained and a tough habit to break. But we do it anyway, naturally, and when it gets to the point of hate crimes, I agree that it's absolute stupidity to do so.

[BigRedBuster]

So, to summarize, it's absolute stupidity from other people that makes people think they need to stay "in".

 

In a nutshell, yes. But "absolute stupidity" could describe just about anything on that FBI list of hate/bias crimes - we don't reserve our absolute stupidity for the gays. "The Jews" are not out to get us, and we don't need to persecute them for... whatever. I have no idea why people persecute the Jews. Same goes for "the Blacks," "the foreigners" or any other bucket of people on that FBI list.

 

As humans we naturally develop an "us" and "them" attitude. Often it becomes "us vs. them," and that dates back to our hunter-gatherer days and the days just after we left our arboreal existence and started making our way on the ground among the predators. We competed bitterly for everything we got from other animals and other groups. Resources were slim and competition tough, so "them" as a bad guy, meaning anyone not "us" (however you want to define "us") is ingrained and a tough habit to break. But we do it anyway, naturally, and when it gets to the point of hate crimes, I agree that it's absolute stupidity to do so.

 

I completely agree. I absolutely never have understood bigotry or persecution of a group of any kind. It truly is ignorance.

 

You even see it on this board. People are plugged into categories. Examples.....Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist...etc. Then, what happens is if you post in a thread, some people automatically ASSUME your opinion on a subject based on what category they are perceived to be in.

[Someone]

so, jason collins came out. does this mean that more athletes will be encouraged to come out?

I don't see any downside anymore. Get that weight off your chest and start being who you are. That's what I think anyway.

 

It's legal in most states, its not illegal to fire an employee for being gay. In WA state right now, there is a bill in the senate that would allow businesses to refuse service " motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, philosophical belief, or matter of conscience" but " does not apply to the denial of services to individuals recognized as a protected class under federal law."

 

In more than 1/2 of the states, you can legally deny housing to someone just for being gay.

 

The Kansas Gov signed into law last week, a bill that makes discrimination against LGBT legal and makes it illegal for Cities to enforce LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances.

 

In fact, even students at state universities and state employees can choose to opt out of anti-discrimination policies if an individual’s religious beliefs pervent them from NOT discriminated from someone who is gay.

[Enhance]

A lot of the hate and bigotry towards gays is filtering out of the United States, but it's certainly still present. I think a lot of the hate percolates from the older generation - we're not born with hate or malice towards other people, it's a learned product from the environment we're raised in. From my perspective, the younger generation of people (collectively) are far more accepting of alternative lifestyles.

[Junior]

The Kansas Gov signed into law last week, a bill that makes discrimination against LGBT legal and makes it illegal for Cities to enforce LGBT anti-discrimination ordinances.

 

In fact, even students at state universities and state employees can choose to opt out of anti-discrimination policies if an individual’s religious beliefs pervent them from NOT discriminated from someone who is gay.

 

http://www2.ljworld....orters-say-pre/

 

But State Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, defended his bill, saying it was meant to make sure government could not infringe on an individual’s religious beliefs.

“Free exercise of religion is at the core of who we are as a people,” Kinzer said.

Davis asked Kinzer if under Kinzer’s bill an apartment owner could cite his religious beliefs to fight a complaint if he refused to rent to a same-sex couple.

“That is generally correct,” Kinzer said.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/05/amendment-1-north-carolina-gay-people

 

North Carolinians vote today on Amendment 1, a measure that would amend the state constitution—for the first time ever—to ban gay marriage. It's worth noting that gay marriage is already illegal in North Carolina. But if the amendment passes, which the latest poll suggests it will (with a 55-39 margin), North Carolina will join the 29 other states, includingCalifornia, Ohio, and Texas, that have amended their constitutions to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples.

 

It must be so easy to be gay now that Jason Collins has come out!!

[GSG]

I saw someone on Facebook last night share a picture from some page about how straight people are being attacked, it's not OK to be straight in our society, and how you should be proud to be straight.

 

I LOLed so hard!

[Junior]

• On May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled in In re Marriage Cases overturned Proposition 22, declared the stature banning same sex marriage was unconstitutional and gay and lesbian couples could not be denied the right to marry because of the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution. Same sex marriage became legal in California on June 16, 2008 . On November 5, 2008 Proposition 8, a constitutional ban on gay marriage, overturned the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage but this was itself overturned by Judge Vaughn Walker in Perry v. Brown and ruled unconstitutional because of the state's Equal Protection Clause on August 4, 2010. This was upheld on February 7, 2012 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and is currently waiting a decision on whether it will be heard or not by the United States Supreme Court.
  

---

 

 

 

There was a backlash after Massachusetts legalized same sex marriage during the 2004 election cycle where fourteen states amended their constitution to ban recognition of same-sex marriages and often civil unions as well. Mississippi voters amended their constitution, 86% to 14% – the largest margin in any state^[26][27] – to ban same-sex marriage and to prohibit the state from recognizing same-sex marriages that are legal elsewhere. Laws in Virginia, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina and Ohio, the most far-reaching, forbid recognition of any benefits similar to those of marriage between people of the same sex.

 

Currently 30 states have passed state constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas,Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

 

 

Nebraska Initiative 416 was a 2000 ballot initiative that amended the Nebraska Constitution to make it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriage or civil unions. The referendum was approved on November 7, 2000, by 70% of the voters.^[1]

The text of the amendment states:

Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska.

^[2]

Several gay and lesbian advocacy organizations challenged this measure in Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning. In 2005, Judge Joseph F. Bataillon of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled that the measure violated the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and free speech, as well as its prohibition on bills of attainder. In 2006, theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit overturned Judge Bataillon and ruled that "laws limiting the state-recognized institution of marriage to heterosexual couples ... do not violate the Constitution of the United States."

 

http://en.wikipedia....sure_416_(2000)

 

Man, I just can't get over how easy it must be to be gay in the US these days. It's like, in almost 1/3 of the states people will accept them as normal-ish...