A wholesome message was part of an advertising campaign for Honey maid. The video features families and includes a gay couple and an interracial couple. It also includes heterosexual families, white families, black families etc. Just normal diversity that occurs everyday.
The video resulted in many negative comments and nasty feedback from narrow minded individuals that seem to think everyone should behave according to their own beliefs and opinions. You know what? We don't. And, more to the point, the human population doesn't conform to that type of individualistic bigotry. The diversity you see in this video is pretty much the diversity you find in a normal western society, full of variety but with the same common theme. People loving one another. In the end, love is probably one of the most fundamental parts about being human. Providing all parties consent it really doesn't matter how that love is shared.
There was a response to the negativity, shown in the video below. One day, tolerance will win out over intolerance. It is already starting.
This is an announcement that a bill will be brought forward to the Scottish Parliament, not that the law has changed as yet.
At present, civil partnerships have the same legal rights as religious marriages. I see no reason not to extend the option of religious marriage to same sex couples, and thus I am very much for the proposed legislation. The sooner it occurs the better.
However, there is a sour note rings with regard to this latest proposal. There was a public consultation, with 77,508 responses (according to the link above), 64% of which were against same sex marriage. So what is the right thing for elected officials to do? Make a moral judgement based on principals of equality that goes against the opinion of the populace, or to follow what the electorate want and make a choice that maintains discrimination? Who are the politicians to make that subjective judgement? What if the situation were something different, such as conscription of the populace to fight in wars. Should the opinion of voters be ignored?
We all reply on others to make the best choices for us. Whether it is our parents during formative years or officials in various guises making judgements that affect our well-being on a daily basis. Food standard agencies, health officials, police and law enforcers, even bus or taxi drivers and a myriad of others. We select our politicians to make certain decisions for us as part of a democratic process. We put them in power, but then we must trust that those with the power wield it correctly and leave them to make the necessary decisions. They are human and likely mistakes will be, and often are, made along the way, but it is still their role to make these type of judgements.
As already indicated, I think the right decision is being made. That said, I also think they are walking a fine line. If this was the decision they were going to make anyway, why pursue a consultation in the first place? By doing a consultation they were specifically asking for voter's opinions in order to facilitate making a choice about a controversial topic. I can't help but feel that the consultation was a bad idea that ended up with a negative result and now going against the majority of opinion will not help the cause of homosexual equality.
Perhaps a better, but possibly less headline-grabbing, method (following the consultation) would have been to go down the route of education and winning voters opinions to the cause. Perhaps the Scottish politicians wouldn't then get ahead of those in England and Wales with regard to legislation, but listening to the opinion they have requested would be the better course of action to take.
This article was brought to my attention today and highlights a particularly poignant case.
A legally married gay couple who legally tied the knot 7 years ago in Massachusetts have been denied their application for one of the partners to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse to an American citizen. The partner in question, Anthony John Makk, is Australian and has lived in the US legally the entire time he has been here under different visa schemes. The couple have been living together for 19 years and to top off the situation Anthony is the caregiver for his spouse, Bradford Wells, who is sick with AIDS.
There is no reason to deny this petition for citizenship and Anthony seems like the ideal citizen. The rejection was cited as being based on the Defense of Marriage Act as the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman.
The changes that need to happen are at the federal level, not the state level, and cases such as this seem to be based on arbitrary definitions that focus on the letter of the law and miss the point. Two people in love in a long term committed relationship that has been confirmed by an act of marriage. The gender of the individuals DOES NOT MATTER, they are humans being denies basic human rights to chose the person they wish to spend the rest of their life with.
Unless an appeal can overturn this decision it looks like the couple will have to live in separate countries or face losing the medical support that Bradford currently received. A difficult situation and one that should be highlighted as an example of how wrong this type of discrimination and close-minded bigotry really is.
Skeptical kinkster musing on whatever takes my fancy!