Yeah, we're straight...but we have rainbow flag bumper stickers on our cars anyway! This is a group for heterosexals who are dedicated to supporting the GLBTI community. (But our GLBTI friends are always welcome to join too, of course!)
Code of Conduct Visibility: open Membership: open Group Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Is that a rainbow flag on our porch? A pink triangle on our shirt? A pro-gay marriage letter to the Senator on our desk? Why, yes! And a lot of us aren't even homosexual.
That's right - this is a group for straight gay rights activists, their GLBTIQ friends, and "gender indiscriminate" individuals. We believe that love transcends all boundaries, including race, creed, ethnicity, and gender. We'll fiercely defend the GLBTI community in their campaign for rights and social acceptance, even if it means putting ourselves at risk. As people, we just can't sit by and let discrimination against GLBTIQ people reign in any country.
The proposed "Marriage Protection Amendment" is discriminatory and goes against all that the United States Constitution stands for. Through efforts such as donating, signing petitions, volunteering, and even wearing gay pride clothing/accesories, we hope to aid the GLBTIQ community with the struggles they face. We aren't just gay rights advocates - we're vocal ones, most of whom just happen to be straight!
Heterosexuals for Gay Rights, though aimed towards the straight community, is a group where all supporters of the gay rights movement can gather, get acquainted, and have a blast! Together we are strong.
HELLO GAY RIGHTS SUPPORT GROUPS ON CARE2..I TRIED TO FIND A PETITION TO SIGN AGAINST THE TEXAS GOP PROPOSAL TO BAN HOMOSEXUALITY AND MAKE IT CRIMINAL BUT I CAN'T FIND ONE ON HERE! WE NEED TO STOP THOSE HORRIBLE,EVIL BIGOTS! PLEASE SOMEBODY WHO HAS A GROUP WITH INFLUENCE...START A PETITION...PLEASE!!!
There is a new petition on The Petition Site titled "Separation of Church and State Regarding Marriage". The focus is changing the legal terminology of all branches of all jurisdictions of the United States to eliminate the word "marriage" as a legal term and replace it with "civil union" in all instances, definitions and cases. Since "marriage" is being defined by religious groups, using the term as a legal status effectively allows those groups to control an aspect of the government and deny the (quoting the U S Supreme Court) "basic civil right" to marry to some segments of the population. The full argument is on the site. Please read it and sign if you agree with the reasoning. The more support it has, the better the chance the change can be made.
Luke 6:42 How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
The majority of people are heterosexual. Unfortunately many people in the U.S. think that "majority rule" means the majority has the RIGHT to OPPRESS the minority. If that were the case, and our law makers and courts did not step in, we may still have slavery today and women would still not be allowed to own land or vote.
Like so many that are in the majority, it is easy for them to make new laws and rules that have no affect on them.That is what Heterosexuals are doing when they write legislation or vote on laws governing gay marriage. It doesn't change anything for them. They do not have to change their behavior. They do not have to look at their own moral make up. They just dictate what other people should or shouldn't do.
Consider just the two following facts:
According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund, women are more likely to be killed by their husband or intimate male partner than by a stranger.
According to The Bureau of Justice statistics, children under 5 years of age are more likely to be killed by their own (heterosexual) parents and caregivers than by a stranger.
This is just the tip of an awful and violent iceberg. Heterosexuals, though, point their finger away from themselves and blame the disintegration of their cherished institution on people who do not have and never had any affect on their behavior.
Please consider reading and signing the linked petition so it can be sent to government officials and community leaders and help inspire informed discussion of this hypocrasy.
A lesbian woman will challenge an appeals court ruling that permitted two doctors to claim a religious defense in their refusal to artificially inseminate her.
A California appeals court last week sided with the doctors, Christine Brody and Douglas Fenton, saying they can claim religious liberty in refusing to treat a patient who was gay because it was against their Christian beliefs.
Guadalupe Benitez filed a sexual-orientation discrimination suit against the doctors at a San Diego women's clinic after they refused to artificially inseminate her in 2000.
Benitez claims that on her first visit, Brody informed her that while her religious principles precluded her from performing the procedure on a gay woman, another doctor in the clinic would.
Benitez says, however, that after 11 months of costly, painful tests and surgeries, when the time came for the insemination procedure, she was turned down and told that she "would not be treated fairly" or "get timely care" at the clinic because of Dr. Brody's and other staff members' religious beliefs.
The doctors' lawyer, Carlo Coppo, said his clients were committed to fair treatment of Benitez — from fertilization to pregnancy and birth — but that aiding the actual act of conception compromised their religious views.
"[Brody] believes that participating in the [fertilization procedure], she is acting as the male," Coppo said. "It is an elective, invasive procedure, and to be there for the moment of conception, she religiously can't participate."
Benitez's attorney, Jennifer Pizer, said the appeals court ruling was troubling because it opened the door to all kinds of discrimination.
"It certainly is a social problem and a legal problem if someone enters a commercial business and can be told they will not receive the same services that another person can," Pizer said.
Both attorneys agree the case is the first of its kind and tests whether a doctor can choose who to treat based on religious beliefs.
Coppo says denying doctors their religious rights is also a form of discrimination, and that the law allows doctors to choose who they treat consistent with their religious convictions as long as they offer alternative means for care.
Pizer says a doctor's religious freedoms should not come at the expense of a patient's care.
When the case goes to trial, a jury will also be asked to decide if Benitez was denied the fertilization procedure because of her sexual orientation or her marital status.
In 2000, California's Unruh Civil Rights Law protected sexual orientation from discrimination by businesses, but not marital status.
Coppo said Benitez's marital status was the issue — as lesbians, she and her domestic partner are not legally married. Pizer, however, said sexual orientation was always the factor and the defendants' language in court documents will prove that.