#they celebrate gay marriage becoming legal in the states by divorcing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

frobin · 3 years

Text

Analysis: Do Franky and Robin count as married?

Okay let’s get this started! And how? With looking up the definition of marriage!

marriage (noun) mar·riage | \ ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij \

Definition of marriage

1a: the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

1b: the mutual relation of married persons: WEDLOCK

1c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

3: an intimate or close union // the marriage of painting and poetry— J. T. Shawcross

So, marriage is a consensual and contractual union/relationship between spouses.

Webster also adds, that marriage is a very controversial word.

And while they point out some very interesting facts, we will concentrate on only this part (because we don’t care for American law right now):

The definition of the word marriage—or, more accurately, the understanding of what the institution of marriage properly consists of—continues to be highly controversial. (...) Ultimately, the controversy involves cultural traditions, religious beliefs, legal rulings, and ideas about fairness and basic human rights.

So, when we call something a marriage we always have to consider the culture, traditions, religious beliefs, legal rulings, ideas about fairness and basic human rights. Which can become difficult, since we are talking about a fictional world. In the end we will have to consider our own cultural background and in my case it is very euro-centric but I’ll try my best to not make it too much about that.

In the next step we should answer the question... (after the read more)

Why should anyone marry?

Nowadays there are three main reasons for marriage:

religious reason

legal reason

love

But let’s be honest, the deeper we dig, the more we can put together religious and legal reason, because in the end, many religions were the original background to legal texts. What more are the 10 commandments than a rulebook for living as a group?

That does not change that it’s still important for many to have a religious wedding. Being married by a priest in a church, in a temple, with the customs of they grew up with. For some it means to be with their partner even after death.

The legal reason is becoming more important in many “modern” countries. Being married can mean that there are tax benefits, security in ownership, security with child paternity and adoption and many more. Often only legal family members are allowed to visit a patient in hospitals and are allowed to make decisions for the spouse.

(Sometimes it’s already enough to just be engaged.)

The last reason does not need any explaining I guess: Love. If you love and know your spouse and want to stay together forever and make it clear to everyone, marry them! Celebrate with your friends and family and tell everyone “we stick together through good and bad until death do us part”.

Now then let’s ask

Why should Franky and Robin marry?

Religious reasons:

We don’t know much about religion in One Piece. We see symbolism of Christianity, Satanism and Buddhism. Alabasta is inspired by old Egypt and the three weapons are named after planets or Roman god, while Big Mom named her homies after Greek gods.

Anyway, neither Franky nor Robin seem to be very religious. Robin met a “god” they both have seen how a following named Usopp a god. The celestial dragons are referred to as almost god-like. They’ve been to Thriller Bark and met Brook who is undead. Do they believe in a higher power? We don’t know but either way they don’t seem bothered by it.

So it does not seem like there is a need to marry because of religious reasons.

So what about legal reasons?

Both Franky and Robin are wanted criminals, not only in one country but in the whole world. As of now there is no reason for them to make their marriage legal because there is no law they abide to.

Officially they only exist as pirates within the Marine documentation. I don’t think either of them have their birth certificate. Robins place of birth is destroyed. Franky was probably born at sea. I think the only place where they would really sign themselves as citizens is Water Seven and - depending on what is going to happen - even that is highly unlikely.

They also don’t really seem to have anything in their possession of value. They basically live in an almost commune-like environment on Sunny where people probably do have their own things but also seem to share everything. So there is also no need to clear that up in the case of a divorce or of the death of one spouses. And again both being pirates, if they have children there won’t be any issue with child support or paternity. Because let’s be real, as long as they are part of the crew, Robin and Franky might be the parents by blood but kids will be raised by everyone.

There is no need to register with a government and no need for a contract. So no legal reason to be married.

So, love it is?

Yes. Yes it is. That is their pure reason to get “married”. But then again, what does marriage mean? Nowadays it’s always accredited by law or religion. Both seems unlikely and unnecessary for Franky and Robin.

So even if they love each other, can we claim that they are married? For whom should they clarify their relationship?

They are living within a small group of people so as long as they are openly in love it does not really matter if they are married or not.

BUT! Let’s take a look at the definition once more and more closely to point 2.

2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

If Franky and Robin decided to have a wedding ceremony of any kind just for the party, then there is no reason to do so in front of an entity or a government. And it will still be of the same value as any other marriage.

Now you may ask “Who is going to perform the marriage? And why?”

Good question! What about the captain? Well, there is no real evidence that pirate captains were allowed to or had the power to perform a wedding. We do know that Matelotage was a practice within pirate crews, comparable to a gay marriage and a contract. But I couldn’t find any fast information of how it was ‘legalized’. Female pirates were a rarity but maybe hetero Matelotage was a thing too? As for modern times, it really depends under which flag the ship is sailing, if the captain is allowed to perform marriage.

But again, we’re talking about a (fictional) pirate crew so they sail under their own flag and who is to say that Luffy is not able to do it as a captain? Heck, if Luffy does not want to do it, Brook used to be a captain, Jinbe too.

So, if Franky and Robin decide to celebrate a wedding of any kind and promise in front of witnesses whatever they feel like that means to be married, then yes. These two will be married.

So, are Franky and Robin married?

Sadly, no. Because we didn’t see the wedding ceremony.

By the pure definition of it, as our modern understanding goes, Franky and Robin are not married.

But...

Can I still call them married?

Heck yeah! Because we all know what we mean by it: that they are in a consensual and committed relationship.

And so it does not matter if you think it’s an asexual or sexual relationship. It does not matter if they are also polyamorous or monogamous. It does not matter which gender or sexuality you headcanon.

You can also headcanon that they indeed had the party that made it all “official”. You can imagine it in any way you want because that is what is so beautiful about your own mind. No one can take that from you.

In conclusion...

Canon? No. Fanon? You know it ;)

After all Robin already has her wedding dress:

Happy June, that is both pride month and apparently the best month to marry! ... Isn’t that an interesting coincidence?

PS. Feel free to use the exact same logic for any Strawhat Ship! Or any Pirate Ship for that matter.

#Frobin #One Piece #OP Meta #OP Analysis #Are Franky and Robin married?#Wedding in June #Headcanon #Analysis #pride month #canon #This took me way too long #huge shout out to Bones who did some beta reading #Also look at that dress #kon #Sorry for any remaining mistakes #they are my fault alone

30 notes · View notes

raymundsuacillo-blog · 5 years

Text

TABOO: The Medieval Mind Within the Modern Filipino

In an era where humanity trails behind the coattails of technology, it is inevitable and evidently expected that people alongside their values progress in pace with the environmental shifts occurring around them. Not much can be said about the Philippines. We are in a nation with conservative presets backed with roaring liberal judgments. As much as history tried to weather the eastern storm with a more westernized narrative, it only gave birth to a nation and people whose sights are poised towards the future yet whose minds are grappled in the past.

Traditions, beliefs, and values are intertwined with history and the culture that serves as society’s foreground. But these historical and cultural facets should not overwhelm the business of politics and the social advancements we have made so far. It is wrong to disregard and sideline these factors in political movements. But to let our medieval values hold our social norms and politics by the neck is a sin in its own sense.

This is taboo. These are the conversations we tried strenuously to avoid and the discourse we vied to kick under the dinner table. In a conservative-esque nation like the Philippines, there are lines one must not come across and there are moral boundaries planted within every social framework. These restrictions have been in place for centuries and we haven’t grown since. We can never genuinely comprehend and understand these issues we deem taboo if we aren’t open to discussing it freely. Only if we learn to pin the obscure will we only find a clearer path to modernity?

Religion in the Philippines is no taboo. But its side effects have been evident long enough for it to mend the social fabric and tinker with our politics. Over 90% of Filipinos are Christian, 80% of which are Catholic. Banking on such foothold, the Church has held power in its pulpits and has even used its sweltering influence to dictate the change in society and in our government. The Church bore the power to take down a dictator. And it still has the power to do so. There is a reason why you can’t look down upon the altar.

But where does the Church fit in this medieval discourse? Frankly, it sits pompously at the center. Like tradition, the Church has embedded its values down to the very helm line of our society. Its propositions, morals, and policies are infused with our cultural norms and have even become our norms. It is through this fusion of Church and stately influence which has quarantined the Filipino mindset from tackling issues that the world has learned to take inconveniently. We have been living with one-sided truths. It is not in the Church’s doctrines neither is it in the Bible where we establish our policies. For the Church heeds its own narrative. And that narrative is not shared by everyone.

The Last Man Standing

What God has put together, let no man separate. This beating mantra has been the battle cry of people who stand at the frontlines against Divorce. We have been told tirelessly told to honor the sanctity of marriage in Filipino households. But when taps run dry, emotions run deep, and domestic violence remains a common Filipino feature, there is really nothing to honor here.

According to recent data by the Philippine Statistics Authority, over 30% of women experience spousal violence from their current partners. In a society where love and matrimony are held to such a high standard, we can never truly tell that love is a safe haven for all. This domestic abuse has led to physical, emotional, and mental bruises that no man can even dare to bear. Abused partners have merely one option to turn to, annulment. But the tedious and blaringly expensive process takes months even years to come into motion. It leaves the abused with no other choice but to exit the process and force themselves to stay with their violent partners or leave such abusive households and face retaliation from a hypocritical society where religious presets become a way of life and personal values become the morals of a 100 Million.

In the years 2017-2018, the Senate has made progress in legalizing divorce. This conversation sparked headlines internationally as the massively conservative state is finally taking steps in swallowing the divorce pill. This is considering that the Philippines is the lone sovereign state to still have divorce illegal after its anti-divorce partner Malta made the act legal in 2011. While commendations trickled down from the thrones of the Vatican, on a global and more realistic sense, we are left grappled in an idea the world has long kept in the past. The world cannot imagine a life where divorce is illegal. But as they say, there is always something unique and painstakingly exotic about the Philippines.

The Talk

In an age of advanced technology, social media has usurped the need for newspapers and tablets have seemingly overtaken the necessity for books. Social media has tightened the loose ends of communication and has engaged millions of people into easier and more convenient discussions and conversations through online platforms. It is easy to think that topics such as Sex Education are more openly brought into light with such technology. But how can the youth initiate such crucial forums on such if Sex Education remains a vague construct and talks about sex and health are literally still kept under the sheets?

According to the Commission on Population (Popcom), Filipino parents still refuse to discuss the barebones and complexities of sex to their children. Sex discussions and Sex Education go beyond the flirtations and the foreplay the general public tags them to be. SexEd opens about sexual health, sexuality, and the repercussions that early and premarital sex may have. Encapsulated within this is the necessary measures in preventing the rampant spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases such as HIV and AIDS among others. While sex education is being dabbled upon by educational institutions, what echoes within the classroom aren’t generally comprehensive enough for the youth to grasp. These discussions must come from their parents in order to break the stigma around the topic.

It is through this stigma why troubled youth fear opening up about their sexual past. It is in this stigma why HIV/AIDS are set to peak at 15,000 cases in 2019 in a 140% jump because we try desperately to keep the conversations quiet. 500 Filipino teenagers become mothers each day. If Premarital sex, HIV/AIDS, and Teenage Pregnancy aren’t enough to spark discussions, then it is basically useless to even try to fix the problem.

In a country where the age of sexual consent is age 12, parents must exhibit the necessary precautions to keep their children from engaging in premarital and unsafe sex. Schools cannot stress this further for textbooks could only do so much. Despite the common notion, leaving our children ignorant about sex does not safeguard them from doing the act. The retaliation of youthful curiosity is lethal. It’s best we hand them the information rather than letting them seek the information themselves.

#Pride

The colors, festivities and the celebrations are blinding. But if you deep dive into the segregated sectors of society, there is nothing worthy of celebration for the LGBT+. Pride marches are symbols of unity, strength, and the progressive march society is willing to take for the LGBT Community. But that’s all there is. We see gay fashion icons trailing the asphalt in Instagram-worthy outfits together with LGBT couples that find their way at the pulpit of Twitter stardom. Pride marches have only become a mere symbol of the flamboyance of coming out and is somehow sidelining the fight for basic civil rights.

The Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression (SOGIE) Bill has breezed through the House of Representatives yet has been gripped with strict judgment and brash political backlash at the Senate. The overtly over-religious solons have lionized themselves as preachers to turn LGBT rights into an over-sensationalized lobby for Same-Sex Marriage. While it is respectable to heed religious belief into the Senate floor, it is despicable to use subjective religious doctrines as an excuse to deny people of their right to self-expression.

While we tirelessly demand genuine separation of church and state, what the system dictates, the operator does not follow. Numerous religious groups staged a rally against the legalization of the SOGIE Bill for some stated that it would eventually lead to Same-Sex Marriage. It just goes to show how we only value the LGBT on-screen as best friends or comedic figures but not for the humans they are. We are only tolerant of their actions but never respectful of it.

There are currently no laws protecting LGBT from hate crimes or workplace discrimination. While the Philippines is open to homosexuality, its mindset remains clasped in the past. We will constantly deviate from this conversation long enough for the people to forget. Long enough for the Filipinos to forget once more.

This is a nation that has cultivated numerous ideologies and ideas yet has faltered in comprehending them all. There is no grey area. For as long as we keep these topics and issues in the shadows of the conversation, we can never truly taste the fruits of the progress we have long yearned for. Because these should be embedded into the foundations of our social structures and yet they aren’t. Progress isn’t really about technology. Or how many asphalts we’ve paved and concrete we’ve poured. Progress and change still rest on our moral presets. Our values dictate where we trace our future and where we build a better nation. Unless we are willing to open ourselves to new values then we shall remain in the crevices of our past, in the castles of our Medieval mind.

2 notes · View notes

sfplhormelcenter · 6 years

Photo

Today’s Man Crush Monday is Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) who was a British born American gay rights activist, communist, vocal opponent to selective service as well as a labor rights, and Native American civil rights advocate. Hay founded the Mattachine Society (the first gay rights group in the United States) as well as cofounding the Radical Faeries (an unbound but highly organized global network of countercultural LGBT people seeking to reimagine queer communities through spirituality and anti-assimilation)

———————————————————————————————————

Harry Hay was born in England to an affluent real estate investor father who subjected him to verbal and physical abuse instead of acceptance and support for his early on-set same-gender-loving desires. Although born in England Hay’s family moved to Los Angeles, CA in 1919 where he was raised and lived the majority of his life till relocating to Chile, New Mexico, and then San Francisco towards the end of his life in the late 90s.

During the 1930s Hay briefly studied at Stanford University eventually dropped out, and became a professional actor and ghostwriter in Los Angeles, where he joined the Communist Party and began a long career in activism for leftist labor and anti-racist movements. In 1938 as a result of immense societal and familial pressure, Hay tried and failed at a heterosexual marriage to a comrade in communism named, Anita Platky. After adopting two children and a decade of playing it, straight Hay realized he was not heterosexual, and his marriage ended in 1950 and he founded the Mattachine Society shortly before his divorce was legally finalized in 1951.

Hay's beliefs around the second class social status of same-gender-loving people led him to become very outspoken against the LGBT assimilation into cisgender and heteronormative society, a political stance that is now commonplace amongst disenfranchised LGBT folks but at the time was considered too divisive and radical for respectable LGBT populations and fairweather civil rights supporters. Hay often advocated against the majority of mainstream LGBT rights campaigners with goals of “being just like heterosexual people” instead he began encouraging LGBT communities to celebrate the luxurious fabric of their queerness rather than force themselves to fit in. Over time Hay's ongoing interest in Native American religions led him and his longtime partner to co-found the Radical Faeries in 1979 along with Don Kilhefner and Mitchell L. Walker an organization which still operates to this day.

Hay was an inspiration to activists, hedonists, thinkers, and counterculture queers we suggest a trip to James C. Hormel Center or the 6th Floor archives of the Main Library to learn more about his amazing life

Photos appear courtesy of the Harry Hay Papers (GLC 44) James C. Hormel LGBTQIA Center, The San Francisco Public Library

32 notes · View notes

prelawland · 4 years

Text

The Law Of Discrimination Against Same- Sex Couples By Private Adoption Agencies

By Nicole Marzzacco, University of Pittsburgh Class of 2021

June 14, 2020

After same sex became legal in 2015, many gay couples rejoiced and celebrated, realizing they finally had equal marriage rights. However, in eleven states private adoption agencies legally can discriminate against same sex couples becoming parents if it violates the agencies religious beliefs. Later this year in August, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Fulton v., the City of Philadelphia, deciding whether all states could legally discriminate against same-sex couples under the protection of the First Amendment. Since the First Amendment protects religious freedom, by having some adoption agencies found on the principles of religious beliefs, having same-sex couples violates their beliefs.

Inside the United States, more than 400,000 children are waiting to be adopted. If private adoption agencies begin discriminating against same-sex couples this could delay the process of children finding their families. To counter this, some same-sex couples have on partner adopt the child as a primary parent, then the other joins as the secondary parent. This method potentially could raise problems in the future if the couple divorces though. Since one parent is legally responsible for the child, the second parent technically has no rights to the child. If this law passes, it could be viewed as following the First Amendment, or backtracking the rights that same sex couple have.

For full article please visit

Protected By The First Amendment Same-Sex Couples May Be Discriminated Against Private Adoption Agencies

Pennsylvania PreLaw Land

0 notes

pennsylvaniaprelawland-blog · 4 years

Text

Protected By The First Amendment- Same- Sex Couples May Be Discriminated Against Private Adoption Agencies

By Nicole Marzzacco, University of Pittsburgh Class of 2021

June 14, 2020

On June 26, 2015, the Supreme ruled that same sex marriage is legal in all fifty states under the fourteenth amendment. In a 5-4 majority rule, people celebrated in streets, embraced their partners, and looked forward for equal rights. Despite same sex marriage legal in the United States, same sex couples still face discrimination and hardships through adoption agencies that discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation. Regarding adoption, many states have their own laws on same sex adoption. Denying same sex couples, the right to adopt or foster children creates less homes or potential parents for children searching for families.

Recently in January 2020, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a controversial bill allowing adoption agencies to reject and discriminate potential parents based on their sexuality if it violates their religious beliefs (1). This makes Tennessee the eleventh state in the United States allowing discrimination towards same sex couples. Many Catholic or private adoption agencies use this when screening parents, banning same sex couples.

In August, the Supreme Court will listen to a case where any adoption agency in any state legally could reject homosexual couples from adopting. Under the case Fulton v., the City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court will reexamine if by having same sex adoptions legal, if this violates the First Amendments freedom of religion clause, if Employment v. Smith should be looked into regarding discrimination based on sexuality, and if free exercise regarding discrimination is a valuable claim (2). Though discrimination is illegal under the First Amendment, the First Amendment still protects freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Like Tennessee some private adoption agencies have Catholic beliefs, where marriage is something for only a man and woman. With this ideology, same sex couples violate Catholic beliefs of what marriage is. Therefore, allowing same sex couples adopting and becoming parents of a child does not align with their religious beliefs.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, then like Tennessee, private adoption agencies in all fifty states legally could discriminate under the protection of the First Amendment.

Inside the United States, more than 400,000 children ranging from infants to 18-year olds are inside the foster care system waiting for families (3). By adding more restrictions on who can adopt, these children could remain in the system longer because of the discrimination of parental candidates. According to the US Census data, 19% of LGBQ+ families adopted (4). This was before same sex marriage became legal. Approximately 2 million members of the LGBQ+ communities are interested in adopting-which would provide a family to children waiting to find potential families.

One way to counter these adoption laws same-sex couples often have one member of the relationship adopt and be the primary parent legally. In states that do not believe in same marriages, this is one-way homosexual couples would adopt (5). The second partner then would have second parental rights, a significant decrease of responsibility than the primary parent has, but usually the parents share rights equally with each other. However, this could potentially lead to problems if divorce arises. If a divorce happens, the “second parent” technically has no legal rights, and therefore cannot seek legal aide to have rights to the child like visitation or any custody. Usually if divorce happens, the couple must work out an agreement regarding the child together, with no legal aide.

Despite headway and progress being made in adoption rights for same sex couples, there is still ways to go. Like heterosexual couples, same sex couples should have the same rights and screening processes in all fifty states. Both parents legally should have parental rights rather than just one and the other one seeking second parent rights. If the Supreme Court rules that adoption agencies could legally discriminate against same sex couples, this adds another hurdle for homosexual couples seeking to become parents. However, does allowing same sex couples the ability to adopt violate the First Amendment for private adoption agencies.

________________________________________________________________

1.Ebert, Joel. “Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee Signs Bill Allowing Adoption Agencies to Deny Gay Couples.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 25 Jan. 2020, www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/01/24/tennessee-gay-adoption-gov-bill-lee-signs-anti-lgbt-measure/4570788002/.

2. Golde, Kalvis. “Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” SCOTUSblog, www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/fulton-v-city-of-philadelphia-pennsylvania/.

3.“About the Children.” AdoptUSKids, www.adoptuskids.org/meet-the-children/children-in-foster-care/about-the-children.

4. Fogle, Asher. “Surprising Facts You May Not Know About Adoption.” Good Housekeeping, Good Housekeeping, 21 Mar. 2018, www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a35860/adoption-statistics/.

5. Adoptions, Lifelong. “Home.” LifeLong Adoptions, www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics.

Photo Credit: UpstateNYer

0 notes

unwoundvisions · 4 years

Text

Cayla Stark Info Fill (1982)

My crush’s name is: Tony Stark

I was born in: 1949

I am really: Happy

My eye color is: Hazel

My shoe size is: 7.5 UK size (I think)

My height is: 5′7

I am allergic to: Certain ingredients in antibiotics.

My 1st car was: I didn’t get a car until Anya was born. It’s nothing like Tony’s fast cars. It’s just a Range Rover. Not flashy at all but it will fit all four of us which is all I care about.

My 1st job was: Doing makeup for people.

Last book you read: The Lion, The Witch and the Woredrobe

My bed is: Comfortable.

My pet: We have a Coker Spaniel named Lady (yes, after Lady and the Tramp). We also have a white cat named Marie (Yes, after the Aristocats).

My best friend: Tony Stark (but also John Decon and Rachel Boyton).

My favorite shampoo is: Anything that smells fruity.

Piggy banks are: Very cute (my kids actually have them).

In my pockets: I’ve got reminders scrambled up in them, candy for kids, probably a couple of hair ties and maybe money.

On my calendar: Birthdays, vacations, and lots of business related things.

Marriage is: The best.

My mom: Supportive.

How many cousins do you have? A lot I think.

Do you have any siblings? No (in this universe).

Are your parents divorced? Yes

Are you taller than your mom? No

Do you play an instrument? No but Brian has tried to teach me guitar. It never goes well.

What did you do yesterday? After some work stuff, Tony and I picked up the kids, ran errands, ran into Rachel and Rog, eventually came home to eat dinner, watch tv and get them bed.

[ I Believe In ]

Love at first sight: Not really.

Luck: Yes

Fate: No.

Yourself: Kinda.

Aliens: Yes.

Heaven: Yes.

Hell: Yes.

God: Yes.

Horoscopes: Kinda (but they suck for the most part).

Soul mates: Kinda.

Ghosts: Yes.

Gay Marriage: Hell yes.

War: Fuck no.

Orbs: Like the orbs ghost show in pictures sometimes? Kinda?

Magic: Kinda.

[ This or That ]

Hugs or Kisses: I really don’t have a preference.

Drunk or High: Drunk

Red heads or Black haired: Red heads (I’m biased).

Blondes or Brunettes: Brunettes.

Hot or cold: Cold.

Summer or winter: Winter.

Autumn or Spring: Autumn.

Chocolate or vanilla: Vanilla.

Night or Day: Night.

Oranges or Apples: Appels.

Curly or Straight hair: Both.

McDonalds or Burger King: Burger King.

White Chocolate or Milk Chocolate: Both.

Flip flops or high heals: Flip flops (just because their more comfortable and I’m lazy).

Ugly and rich OR sweet and poor: Sweet and poor.

Coke or Pepsi: Coke.

Buried or cremated: Cremated.

Singing or Dancing: Singing.

Small town or Big city: Big city.

Manicure or Pedicure: Both but my least favorite is pedicure.

Your Birthday or Christmas: Christmas.

Chocolate or Flowers: Chocolate.

Disney or Six Flags: Disney.

[ Here’s What I Think About ]

War: Is good for absolutely nothing. Pointless and it’s the worst.

Gay Marriage: Should be legal everywhere.

The presidential election: Rarely turns out the way it should.

Abortion: The woman’s body, her choice.

Parents: Can be the worst sometimes but they usually mean well. Unless their awful.

Back stabbers: Conniving assholes.

Work: Has become more about supporting your life than doing what you love.

My Neighbors: Probably hate how loud me and the kids can get in the back yard.

Gas Prices: Always too high.

Designer Clothes: Are a luxury but I don’t need need too many.

College: A lot of work but fun sometimes.

Sports: Confuse me.

My family: is my world.

The future: Looks very bright.

[ Last time I ]

Hugged someone: I hugged quite a few people yesterday, my kids, Tony and Rachel.

Last time you ate: This morning, Tony made breakfast.

Saw someone I haven’t seen in awhile: Elton came over a couple of days ago and it was the best.

Cried in front of someone: I took the kids to see E.T and properly cried when he had to go home. They were confused.

Went to a movie theater: Actually went a few days ago with Tony, Roger and Rach.

Took a vacation: We’re trying to plan a proper one but we did take a short trip to New York with the kids.

Swam in a pool: A good while ago.

Changed a diaper: Thankfully, Anya has been out of diapers for a couple of years.

Got my nails done: Way too long ago but there’s always more important things to do.

Went to a wedding: We went to one a year ago for one of Tony’s clients I wasn’t too familiar with but it was nice.

Broke a bone: Thankfully, never.

Got a piercing: I got my ears pierced when I was a teenager but I never wore earrings enough so the now are filled in now.

Broke the law: I haven’t really. I’m boring.

[ MISC ]

Who makes you laugh the most: Tony Stark

Something I will really miss when I leave home is: My kids.

The last movie I saw: E.T

The thing that I’m looking forward to the most: A weekend with my family and no work...hopefully.

The thing I’m not looking forward to: Having to cross paths with Paul or fucking Quentin.

People call me: Cayla.

The most difficult thing to do is: At the moment, answering tough questions kids ask.

I have gotten a speeding ticket: No, and somehow my husband never fucking has despite his driving. One day he will and I’ll finally be right.

My zodiac sign is: Pisces.

The first person i talked to today was: Anya Stark, she woke me up to tell me that Tony made breakfast.

First time you had a crush: Was when I was super young and didn’t realize what it was. It was actually a girl who lived near by.

The one person who i can’t hide things from: Tony Stark

Last time someone said something you were thinking: A couple of days ago when Tony told me to stop worrying about the kids. They were at home with a babysitter we trust but I still worry.

Right now I am talking to: Peter, he’s doing his homework while I fill this out.

What are you going to do when you grow up: I’m grown up so my goal is to stay young with my kids until they grow up and get annoyed.

I have/will get a job: As a manager for Queen but I’m also producing movies now when I have the time (which is rare).

Tomorrow: is Monday

Today: is Sunday

Next Summer: Queen’s Hot Space tour

Next Weekend: Family time.

I have these pets: Lady and Marie.

The worst sound in the world: I’m going to say it’s a tie between listening to Quentin speak or newborns crying.

The person that makes me cry the most is: I’m gonna say myself because I’ll get myself worked up over nothing.

People that make you happy: Tony, Peter, Anya, Rachel, Deacy, Roger, Freddie, Brian, Elton...and so many others.

Last time I cried: Not long ago due to the E.T fiasco.

My friends are: Amazing.

My Car: Perfect for what we need it for.

I lose all respect for people who: Those who don’t treat people with common decency and respect.

The movie I cried at was: Again, damn E.T. Stupid little thing. Making me cry in front of my actual children who did not like him because of his ugliness.

Your hair color is: Auburn

Your dream vacation: At the moment, I want to take the kids to Disney World. They’ve seen much cooler places but maybe they’d like it too.

The worst pain I was ever in was: Emotional pain? When I was a teenager. Physical? Childbirth was just as bad as I imagined. Worth it though. Just won’t be doing it again if I can help it.

How do you like your steak cooked: I don’t eat red meat very often. If I do, it’s medium well.

My room is: Has lots of kids toys in it. I really don’t know how they keep getting in here.

My favorite celebrity is: I’ll go with Elton.

Where would you like to be: I’m happy at home at the moment.

Do you want children: I did and I got them. A bit sooner than I expected but they’re here now and can hold conversation which is fun.

Ever been in love: Yes.

Who’s your best friend: Tony Stark

More guy friends or girl friends: Guy friends.

One thing that makes you feel great is: Tony.

One person that you wish you could see right now: Freddie, he’s always so busy.

Do you have a 5 year plan: Not at all.

Have you made a list of things to do before you die: Nope.

Have you pre-named your children: Anya was sort of prenamed because I had thought of the name before but she was almost named Amelia for a while.

Last person I got mad at: Tony, for working through the night and not letting me come help out.

I would like to move to: We’re happy here.

I wish I was a professional: Singer and director.

[ My Favorites ]

Candy: Sour gummies

Vehicle: Range Rover

State visited: New York

Singer: Freddie Mercury

Band: Queen

Animal: Tiger

Theme park: Disneyworld, though I haven’t been but it looks really nice.

Holiday: Christmas

Sport to watch: None but Peter likes football so I’m trying to learn a bit about that.

Sport to play: I’ve played some football with Peter but he’s way better than me.

Book: The Hobbit.

Day of the week: Friday

Beach: I don’t have a preference.

Concert attended: Queen in Montreal, 1981

Thing to cook: Pasta

Food: Greek or Italian.

Restaurant: Italian.

Perfumed: Anything thats not too strong.

Flower: Roses.

Color: Red.

#╰ curvy cayla ╮#♫ play the game (queen fic)#✧ modest musings ✧#(( i got to fill in some super fluffy stuff which was fun ))#(( and fun fact: peter would be 9 and anya would be 6 at this time ))#(( and e.t is the only movie i was familar with from that year lol ))

0 notes

cofecomms · 7 years

Text

Bishops, sexuality and the law

This article first appeared in the Church Times edition 10 February 2017

“The trouble with the Church of England,” the late Bishop David Jenkins used to say (and a lot of David’s sentences began like that), “is Archdeacons who want to be loved. It is my job to be loved because I am supposed to be a focus for unity. So I need Archdeacons who are prepared to be unpopular on my behalf.”

No one (yet?) is suggesting that the Church of England’s problems with human sexuality are caused by love-starved Archdeacons. But the bishops are certainly finding out what it is like to be unpopular. And they are finding that being a focus of unity does not allow you to be loved by all the people all the time.

The Bishop of Liverpool has exposed the tensions of being both an individual leader and part of a collective leadership. Paul Bayes’s blog https://viamedia.news/2017/01/29/elders-of-the-tribe/ is a short Masterclass in the theology of episcopacy and its personal costs. But however much the bishops bear the brickbats with resignation, much comment on their recent Synod paper (GS 2055) underestimates the extent to which the bishops, and indeed the Church of England, are bound by law in ways which severely limit their scope for manoeuvre.

Start with the law on marriage. The Annex to the Bishops paper is not mere detail. It sets out the legal framework which would govern any attempt to change things as they are.

For there to be any move to same sex marriage Canon Law would have to change. That law cannot be changed without substantial majorities in each of the Houses of Synod. The bishops have been accused of lacking pastoral concern (and worse) but how pastoral would it be to initiate a long process with all the continued pain it would cause with no serious likelihood (in the present state of the church) of success?

From one point of view, of course, this looks not only like cowardice but hypocrisy, since the church’s teaching on marriage has proved flexible enough to accommodate – even to celebrate – remarriage after divorce. This kind of “pastoral accommodation” has been identified by some as exactly what the church needs. But the analogy does not work. As well as its doctrine of marriage, the church has a doctrine of repentance and forgiveness – perhaps a higher doctrine since it is absolutely explicit in Our Lord’s teaching. Whilst we teach that marriage is a permanent union, we also teach that it is in the nature of being human to fail – and that, following due penitence, a new start can be made. The intention of the partners, that theirs should be a permanent union, confirms the church’s understanding of marriage: the ability to repent of failure and try again confirms our doctrine of forgiveness.

In contrast it would be outrageous to suggest that partners in a same sex marriage are seeking forgiveness, or recognise that they have failed to embody a Christian vision of what a marriage should be. The debate around remarriage turned on penitence and forgiveness, and this made theological sense. It would be offensive to apply that reasoning to a same sex union. In his well-known essay on human sexuality, “Knowing Myself in Christ” (1997), Rowan Williams cautioned against arguing from metaphor without very careful scrutiny of how far the metaphor actually applies to the new context. The bishops concluded the metaphorical move from the way the church handled remarriage after divorce to the question of same sex marriage does not work theologically or pastorally.

And then there is the question of liturgies. GS 2055 goes into some detail about the distinction between Authorised and Commended liturgies and tries to show that neither offers a straightforward way to welcome same sex couples. The principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi - what we pray in public embodies what we believe as a church - is fundamental to Anglicanism. So to introduce an Authorised liturgy before changing the law on marriage introduces an unworkable contradiction. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi applied equally to Commended liturgies but, additionally, clergy using a liturgy that was not Authorised would be open to legal challenge from anyone who believed that their usage contravened the beliefs of the church.

Working closely, as I do, with bishops collectively, often puts me in touch with my inner Presbyterian. And, of course, the bishops hold as great a plurality of views as the church at large. But for bishops who seek greater inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians, the legal limits on their room for sensible manoeuvre (let alone the political limits of leading a divided church) must have felt like “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. I can’t speak for any of them, but the formulation of “maximum freedom within the law” recognises some hard truths while keeping open the possibility of continued negotiation, debate and argument. If the Shared Conversations have done what was intended (and it was always stressed that they were not part of a decision-making process) there remains room for that conversation and negotiation to continue in good grace. We shall see what “maximum freedom within the law” can mean and whether it offers a point around which the church can coalesce, as it has become for the bishops over the last year of process.

Success has many parents, failure is an orphan. And offering leadership in a divided church is a job for those who have to tread carefully if their parenthood is not to be called into question.

The Revd Dr Malcolm Brown is Director of Mission and Public Affairs for the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England.

2 notes · View notes

rachelclewis · 8 years

Text

Spinning

(Note: Re posted from last year)

I made a post to social media that inspired some response that I didn’t expect. This is what I wrote:

Another "overheard" moment... I was in line at TJMaxx and there was a pair of 40-somethings behind me. I don't know their relationship but (going off stereotypes) picture a tidy spinster and her sassy gay friend.

She: (poking around in an impulse buy bin) This store has so much kitsch. You know, there isn't a single item in my home that isn't meaningful to me.

He: (snort laughs) Well Honey, your life is FULL of meaning.

I thought it was perfectly benign thing to share, but a few of my older female friends replied to say that if I didn’t know this woman I shouldn’t call her a spinster. I got the sense that the word was offensive to them, and I was surprised.

I like to refer to myself as a spinster. I am not. I’m actually a divorcée, which is a word that I hate. It is a grey word that is dour and weighty with implication and story. It is constricting and old-fashioned, like a corseted Victorian dress. Yes, I got a divorce ten years ago. But do I have to wear a scarlet D on my chest for the rest of my life?

For me, the word “spinster” is lithe and awash in color. It is fun and reckless, like a wooden top, darting in unpredictable directions before flying off the table. Or a child twirling so her skirt fills the blurred space around her until she is overcome by joy and falls in the grass.

Baby-boomer women don’t seem to feel the same way. Perhaps to them, the connotation is darker. It is a spider in the corner of a room, dark and entombed in silk, watching the action of the home from a distance and ruminating on small insects and speculations on what might have been.

The word “spinster” actually means exactly what it says. “A female spinner of thread.” It dates to the mid fourteenth century and comes from a time that spinning thread and yarn for textiles was one of few money-making options for a woman. This would allow a woman to contribute to the house hold, but also was a way for a woman to live independently of a man’s income. In time, the term “spinster” became synonymous with a single women, and then with single women who were passed the age where they were likely to marry. By the 1600s it was used in legal documents as a shorthand for an unmarried woman.

I haven’t found this specifically stated, but I must assume that the term was always pejorative, as if the idea that a woman might approach life with goals that she prioritizes above marriage and family is a dangerous threat to society. (In my experience, it is still controversial, but I live in Utah so that might be region specific.) It is clear that by the nineteenth century there was the added stigma attached to the unmarried women in the middle class, which was that they were too fussy or choosy to accept a man when they opportunity arose. Or that they had been passed by due to their inherent lack of desirability. Or, in the case of Charles Dicken’s Miss Havisham, destroyed utterly by disappointment and her own frail heart.

Of course, the other evidence for negativity attached to the word is revealed in the search for the male equivalent. An unmarried man is considered a “bachelor,” a word that doesn’t ever seem to break or expire. A man is either an eligible bachelor or a confirmed bachelor. A state which I have never sensed is shameful, regardless of the circumstances, but especially if the man in question has chosen career over matrimony.

There appears to be a movement now to redefine or reject the term spinster. In England and Wales, the word was formally thrown over in favor of the word “single” in legal documents in 2005. In Spinster: Making a Life of One’s Own, Kate Bolick tells her own story of following her career away from the more traditional choice of husband and family and encourages women to celebrate their singleness and reclaim the word “spinster” as a legitimate choice for the third-wave feminists of today.

I love the idea, but I personally don’t feel invited to join the party. Not simply because – as I mentioned earlier – there was a time that I chose to get married. But also because I would have welcomed the chance to have a long-term relationship competing for my attention. I am proud of what I have accomplished with my career, but I don’t feel like I am living a full life. I tried many times after the divorce to find a relationship and make it work, but it didn’t happen for me. Not yet anyway. I don’t feel like a failure as a feminist because I feel that way. But I don’t feel like I can “celebrate my chosen singleness” in earnest. It isn’t as though I made that choice. And if I am being completely honest, perhaps there is a part of me that fears becoming the spider in the corner, spinning silk and watching my nieces and nephews grow into adults, trying not to think of the things that I missed out on.

I think about these things often but I try not to write about them. It feels indulgent and whiny. I know that no one gets everything that they want. We are all compromising all the time. Furthermore, I realize that I myself am giving these words the power that they have over me.

The word “divorcée” is a pronouncement about my past. Something I would like to shed and leave behind. And the word “spinster” is an assumption about the future, which may or may not prove to be accurate. At present, I am “single,” and going forward that will be my word. I’m living in the moment, doing my best to succeed in all areas of my life. I’m letting go of the past and I’m open to whatever the future holds.

#blog #spinster #single life #feminist

2 notes · View notes

keyouone · 4 years

Text

Gay Marriage Legalized: How We Won The Struggle

For centuries, marriage was considered a ceremony taking place between a man and a woman. Once married, the couples gained a wide variety of benefits. What about legal gay marriages? Although couples were together, the actual idea of tying the knot was not accepted by the law. Over time, countries adapted based on pressure from the LGBTQ community, and the USA, although slow to adapt, has finally won the struggle and passed the legislation required.

Same-Sex Marriage Around the Globe

Gay and lesbian marriage struggles have been happening around the globe. While some countries simply did not recognize a union, others outright forbid it via Supreme Court decisions. However, as the LGBT community has grown and gained a louder voice to be heard and fight for their rights, many countries have started to evolve and reconsider all pros and cons.

Dated back to 2015 there have been quite a few countries around the world where homosexual couples weds were legal:

Netherlands

Ireland (referendum)

France

Norway

The Netherlands made history when it became the first country to make gay marriage legal. For the country the date, April 1, 2001, has become a symbol of a new millenium. A variety of other European nations have since legalized the unions. Outside of Europe, even more countries have decided to change their laws in order to allow gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot. It’s legal in New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, South Africa, and even parts of Mexico.

Most of Asia has been slow to come around to the idea of allowing same-sex wedlocks. However, Taiwan made history in 2019 (following Constitutional Court ruling in 2017) by becoming the first Asian nation to allow gays and lesbians to wed legally.

Legalizing Gay Marriages in the US

Legalizing gay marriages in the United States of America was almost as divisive across the country as slavery was in the 1860s. While trying to make same-sex marriages legal didn’t result in a Civil War, it did result in quite a few states passing constitutional amendments to either allow or ban gay and lesbian couples to walk down the aisle. Just as Massachusetts made history to allow such a civil union, other states were quick in response to pass amendments to define a marriage as one to only happen between a man and a woman.

The States to Do it First

There were quite a few states decided toallow same-sex marriage, which is what led to many LGBTQ couples choosing to live in those states. By these means they could follow their heart and be true to a single companion.

Quite a few states made history by passing bills allowing gay and lesbian weds before the rest of the USA decided to partake:

Massachusetts

District of Columbia

Maine

Maryland

Washington

Iowa

May 17, 2004 has become a starting point for legalization in the USA. Massachusetts was the first state to make same-sex weds legal. It wasn’t until 2012 that Maine, Maryland and Washington did the same, though they are important to the cause because it was legalized by the public vote.

Even after a total of 35 states established a legal gay marriage date, there were still other spots at the US map where it was banned. The list of such states included Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida, Nebraska, Michigan, and others.

Key Milestones

There are so many milestones prior the Supreme Court decision that have shown how gay couples have been fighting for the right to marry for decades in the USA. However, there were some impressive milestones finally led to the Supreme Court making it legal for gay and lesbian couples to say, “I do.”

1987: A mass same-sex wedding took place on the National Mall in Washington DC where close to 2000 homosexual couples were married.

1997: Hawaii offers domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples.

2004: San Francisco challenges the California law and issues same-sex couples marriage licenses.

2005: A state judge in New York calls it illegal to ban same-sex weds.

2011: President Obama declares the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) unconstitutional.

2014: The Presbyterian Church votes to allow ceremonies for homosexual couples

2015: Gay marriages become legal across the USA in Obergefell v. Hodges case.

The Final Supreme Court Ruling

What date gay marriage become legal in the USA? This is a date many will remember as it changed everything. June 26, 2015 is when the USA Supreme Court struck down state bans, preventing homosexual couples walking down the aisle. The gay marriage decision happened under President Barack Obama’s administration under the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. It has become one of the most important dates in US history. The 5-4 ruling changed the way the Fourteenth Amendment is read, requiring states to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

The ruling allowed same-sex marriages to be legalized in all 50 states. It also required states to honor any of the out-of-state wedding licenses that had been issued, such as if a a gay or lesbian couple decided to move from Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage was legal) to South Dakota (where it had previously been illegal).

The Supreme Court decision was celebrated in the streets. The date of a decision has been forever marked in LGBTQ calendar. People across the country were either celebrating or outraged. To this day, the US legalized gay marriage date is celebrated because of the monumental impact it had throughout the LGBT community.

Personalities Contributed to the Court Decision

Although it was for the Supreme Court to actually vote for an update the law and allow for the legalization of same-sex marriages in 2015, there have been a number of personalities pushing the agenda forward for several years before the approval.

Ellen DeGeneres: A Hollywood A-lister and activist for the LGBT community for decades.

RuPaul: The drag queen has highlighted issues within the LGBT community on and off the air.

Madonna: The singer has offered outspoken support of the gay rights movement.

Gavin Newsom: as mayor of San Francisco, directed his office to allow same-sex wedding licenses in 2004.

Dan Savage: A columnist of Savage Love who has been talking about issues within the LGBTQ community for years.

There are thousands of celebrities who have been outspoken about gay marriages and equality. Each has done their part to educate the community, show politicians how it was okay to allow this kind of movement to happen, bring the equality date closer and to ensure the reaction to be one of acceptance instead of hatred when the decision finally came out to legalize gay marriages.

The Social Reaction to a Gay Marriage Decision

The social reaction around the USA for the Supreme Court decision was often split between Republican v. Democrat, with the Democrats being generally more accepting. Libertarian party applauded the ruling as it has been vocally pro-LGBTQ since foundation in 1971. However, with the legality being on the scene for quite a few years now and pride parades becoming more prevalent, the acceptance has increased dramatically.

Source: PEW Research Center

The Christian community, for the most part, was one of acceptance. They believe in the irrevocable right of LGBTQ community to practice faith as well. They believe in equality and justice and felt the same-sex marriage laws were bound to happen. While some Christian companies would inevitably make the press for refusing to help with a wedding, such as the baker refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, acceptance was relatively broad.

As soon as the Supreme Court decision was released, a number of companies expressed an outpouring of love with hashtags on Twitter to include #Equality #AcceptanceMatters and #LoveisLove. Many companies, including Kelloggs and JELL-O also updated their logos with the rainbow and altered corporate policies to signify their support of gay pride and the legalization of marriages at the federal level.

Why Legalizing Same-Sex Marriages are Important to the LGBTQ Community

Gays in the USA were fighting for equality. They wanted to be able to have the same rights found within traditional marriages, ranging from Social Security benefits to the right to inherit a spouse’s property upon their death. However, there were a number of added benefits led to the movement within the LGTBQ community.

A boost in self-esteem to feel accepted by society

A reduction in discrimination

The ability to establish a more effective balance

Allows more people to be themselves

The Supreme Court decision was also important for the international communities nationwide especially for those on campuses. International undergrad and grad students from the countries where homosexual relationships have already been legalized or vice versa legally prosecuted expected to enjoy the freedom of dating a partner of their choice.

Statistics Behind Gay Marriages

Gay weddings have been happening for well over a decade. It simply meant that some couples had to move to where their wedding would be accepted by the state.

Since the Supreme Court ruled the ban of same-sex marriages to be illegal, a number of interesting statistics have flourished:

Approximately 10% of LGBT Americans are married to a same-sex partner

Same-sex marriages have nearly doubled since the ruling in 2015

Love is listed as the top reason LGBT couples choose to get married

The number of Americans who favor same-sex marriage has nearly doubled since 2017

There are some interesting divorce statistics behind LGBTQ weddings, too. Gay and straight divorces alike, can end in divorce. A CBS poll showed it didn’t matter on the sexual orientation of the couple. The statistics came in at 36.3 percent. However, a Statistics Netherland study showed lesbian wedlocks were twice as more likely to end in divorce than gay couples.

Although the USA has come a long way to come to make it easy for gay couples to get married and enjoy exactly the same benefits as heterosexual couples, the legal decision is in place. Homosexual couples around the USA can now get a wedding license and have the same rights without having to move to another state or worry about a state not accepting the license. It hasn’t been an easy process, but the date of legal gay marriage will be remembered by the LGBTQ community forever.

#gay marriage #lgbtq #supremecourt

0 notes

thatonepanboi · 5 years

Text

Alive and unwell

We are people.

An obvious statement I know, but a powerful one.

People are not commodity, they aren’t inanimate, they have a will to live.

They feel things; we feel things. And that’s what makes us beautiful and powerful. But power and beauty can be misconstrued and abused.

Often times we feel the need to ask someone what they like. This helps us get to know them and how to have conversation, and gauges the connections we have with that person right off the bat.

We take this a step further when we see people in power. Celebrities, politicians, community leaders, teachers and anyone else we feel that we respect or fear.

And they use this fear.

More often than not, we have just rolled our eyes and just become angry with Donald Trump. Let’s all be honest here, he’s an idiot who shouldn’t be president. But somehow he became our president; he used fear.

For some strange reason people are afraid of the LGBTQ+ community. I don’t know why though. We’re usually pretty nice, we have made strides in culture, we have a vast amount of love for people, and we throw some of the best parties ever.

Yet it violates the sanctity of marriage, even though fifty percent of marriages end in divorce.

It violates what’s natural, it wasn’t Adam and Steve, it was Adam and Eve.

It violates what we know, because clearly there are only two genders, MAN AND WOMAN.

If you couldn’t tell, I’m being sarcastic. The LGBTQ+ community doesn’t violate marriage at all. If all marriage is loving a person for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and to love and cherish someone, then all people are capable of that. If you love someone wholeheartedly and want to be with them through everything listed above, it doesn’t matter what gender or sexuality you are.

Maybe there was and Adam and Steve, maybe Eve felt like Steve, maybe it was Anna and Eve, we don’t know. We don’t know because we weren’t there. We were just given eye witness accounts of what apparently was there. We don’t know if it was literal or figurative. More importantly, we don’t know if its fully true.

And obviously there are more than two genders. I’m not going to debate that because there is massive amount of psychological and scientific evidence that supports and solidifies that there are.

YET

There were still people who voted for Trump and Pence; there were still people who were for taking away the rights of others; there were those who were for the violence against the Queer community.

We are alive, but we are unwell.

Transgender people are being turned away for basic medical needs.

If a Trans person needed to go to the emergency room for whatever reason, they could be turned away. If they needed medicine from a pharmacy, the pharmacy would be allowed to refuse to help to them. If a Trans person needed to go and receive immediate medical attention, doctors and nurses are allowed to violate the Hippocratic oath and can use medical malpractice to not help someone.

And its all legal.

Gay men and Lesbians are having their children turned away from medical procedures as well. Should their child need a shot for the flu or vaccinations to stay healthy and attend school, a hospital or a doctors office can turn them away and refuse to give them the necessary medical attention that those children need.

Again, its all legal

Young pansexual women, men, and people are being sent to conversion therapy against their will.

Should a minor be outed, have that knowledge be shared with their parents, and are somehow in the eyes of their parents be found “unnatural”, the parents are within their rights to be able to send their child to conversion therapy. Conversion therapy is still legal in about eighty percent of the world, and is still legal in at least 30 states of the United States. And while some states have proposed bans and have attempted to be made it illegal, the institutions are still allowed to operate.

It is an outrage to deny people basic rights. Everyone deserves a home, everyone deserves medical attention, and everyone deserves the freedom to choose who they are. Its in the United States Declaration of Independence. Life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, these are considered “unalienable” rights.

This means that everyone deserves them, regardless of who or what they are.

And because of this statement, change is happening

Countries around the world are making change. Many countries have removed homosexuality and transgenderism from mental health lists, meaning that people who are gay and/or transgender are allowed to be themselves and won’t be sent to a mental hospital or be forced to go to conversion therapy.

In the United States, same sex marriage has been legalized. In fact, many western countries have legalized same sex marriage. This is a huge jump for civil and Queer rights. Should you and your partner want to be married and you are the same sex, you are allowed to be married.

But this isn’t enough.

Violence still exists, hate speech still exists, and bigotry is allowed to thrive.

At times, it feels like we as the LGBTQ+ community have made one big step forward, and then it feels like the world and our governments make us take four huge steps back.

While it feels like we are being limited and persecuted, we have hope and we have each other.

We have the community that has built itself up from the ashes of despair and hatred. We have risen and we have fought tooth and nail for our rights, and we will keep fighting until everyone has full and equal rights in our community.

We are a powerful community, and we are a beautiful community.

There will be days where it feels like all is lost and we have nothing.

But as long as we remember that love and acceptance transcends above the bigotry, then hate, violence, and bigotry from those who oppose us will never win.

I love you,

- That Pan Man Boi(who will fight for you no matter what)

0 notes

asylum-ireland-blog · 6 years

Text

Ireland of the young - abortion vote shows the country's changed forever

New Post has been published on http://asylumireland.ml/ireland-of-the-young-abortion-vote-shows-the-countrys-changed-forever/

Ireland of the young - abortion vote shows the country's changed forever

Ireland where 66.4% voted to for change in the referendum is living in changing times and the motherland needs to trust her young.

The landslide victory for the yes side in the abortion referendum last week is visible proof that Ireland has changed forever. That might seem like an exaggerated claim, but the significance of last Friday’s vote cannot be overstated. The extent of the victory — the nationwide vote was 66.4 percent for change with 33.6 percent against — was so stunning it took everyone by surprise, not just on the no side but on the yes side as well.

Based on the opinion polls in recent weeks a yes victory had been expected, but a two to one result was beyond the wildest hopes of even the most ardent campaigners for change. It signals the emergence of a new Ireland, a generational shift in attitude and thinking that means we are now living in a country that is unrecognizable from the one we had here just 20 or 30 years ago.

“What we have seen today is a culmination of a quiet revolution that’s been taking place in Ireland,” Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said on Saturday when the result of the referendum was announced.

Fantastic crowds at Dublin Castle. Remarkable day. A quiet revolution has taken place, a great act of democracy. pic.twitter.com/MLtzkSkdLw

— Leo Varadkar (@campaignforleo) May 26, 2018

It may have been silent and hidden but the speed of this quiet revolution, as Varadkar called it, has been breathtaking. It’s only 35 years since the country voted by a similarly large margin in the opposite direction, introducing the constitutional ban on abortion, the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which has now been reversed. In a fundamental way this revolution is as significant as the 1916 revolution which set us on the road to political freedom.

Back then we swapped British rule for Rome rule as the Catholic Church, with the help of our subservient politicians, created a repressive Catholic state.

Last Friday’s vote shows that the last vestiges of that suffocating, guilt-inducing control have been removed, and finally we have emerged as the true republic we were meant to be.

A weight has literally been lifted from the shoulders of the Irish people – change has arrived.

We have already had two important changes in the last three decades, following the legalization of contraception here back in 1979. In 1995 a referendum introduced divorce and three years ago, in 2015, a referendum gave approval for same sex marriage by an unexpectedly large margin.

Even that phenomenal victory, with 66.4 percent in favor, which was hailed with national euphoria as a watershed in the emergence of a compassionate and more liberal Ireland, has been surpassed by the 66 percent result this time. And last Friday’s vote is even more impressive because abortion is a much more difficult issue than same sex marriage for traditional Catholics.

No life — or potential life — is ended in same sex marriage, after all. Yet this referendum, as we said, won even greater support for change. It really was extraordinary and a wave of relief and elation swept the country over the weekend. Many of the women who had gathered at Dublin Castle on Saturday to hear the national result being read out were reduced to tears and there was much emotional hugging and celebration.

And no wonder, because this marks the end of a shameful period in Irish life which treated women with hypocritical disrespect and outright cruelty.

Women working in a Magdalene Laundry in Ireland – the last one only closed in 1996.

What all this means for Ireland is that we are now a changed country, changed to a degree that would have been impossible to foresee just a few decades ago. Apart from the introduction of contraception, divorce, same sex marriage and now abortion, one illustration of the extent of that change is that we currently have a gay, mixed-race taoiseach, and it no longer attracts any comment.

It was a one-week wonder when Varadkar won the leadership last year, but now he’s treated like any other politician and he will be judged on how he performs on that basis. Which is exactly as it should be.

Analysis of last week’s extraordinary vote shows the fundamental nature of this shift in Irish society and politics. It shows the emergence of a new maturity and a sense of fairness no longer trammeled by the fears and constraints of the past.

And it’s not just down to generational change, the arrival of a new era in Ireland when young people refuse to be bound by the views of their elders.

Young voters were vocal in demanding change and were the major factor in the yes victory. But also key was the acceptance by so many older voters in rural areas — the traditional, cautious, silent majority — that it was time to move on.

Questions in the exit polls last Friday revealed that even among that demographic, despite their misgivings about abortion, there was an overwhelming acceptance (over 80 percent) of a woman’s right to choose. The desire to see an end to that awful era in which we have forced women abroad for terminations and instead to offer them a compassionate service at home was what swung their vote even though so many of them dislike abortion.

Official result: Republic of Ireland votes resoundingly to overturn abortion ban with voters backing reform of constitution https://t.co/urPAqRybLz pic.twitter.com/cFFqrxUyik

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 26, 2018

Varadkar was also careful last weekend in his comments to insist that the views of the one-third of people who voted No must be respected, even if one disagrees with them.

This was in contrast to the triumphalism of a minority of the yes campaigners who could not conceal their contempt for the losing no side, although their emotional elation could be excused given the extraordinary outcome. Our politicians would do well to grasp the significance of what has happened. Some of them, like the taoiseach and some younger politicians on all sides, have been aware of the developing pressure for change.

They see a young vibrant country impatient with the pieties of the past and the limitations that are no longer seen as relevant. They sense we have become a modern society like any other and that the majority here no longer wants any of the warped nonsense of the past. Other politicians have been slower to get it. Around half of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party, including several of its leading figures, supported the no side.

For some of them that would have been a conscience matter. But for others it was more likely the old ploy of doing what they thought would appeal to older voters with the aim of keeping their seats in the Dail in the next election.

To his credit, the Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin came out early as a yes supporter despite the party pressure, and his influence was a key factor in the victory. Some of those around him need to learn that the day of cynical politics is over and has no place in this new Ireland.

We are living in a new era here now and abortion is unlikely to be the last issue that will be swept forward on a tidal wave of young energy. This has been a wake-up call for the establishment. So where do we go from here on abortion? The removal of the constitutional ban is only the first step.

Republic of Ireland votes Yes to reformation of abortion legislation #RepealedTheEighth https://t.co/Ksd454bcQ0 pic.twitter.com/akdjqiSzQQ

— The Irish News (@irish_news) May 26, 2018

Now begins the hard work of finalizing the proposed legislation that will introduce abortion here. The aim is to get that done in the coming weeks and get it through the various stages in the Dail and Seanad before the end of the year, at which point abortion would become legal here.

We already know what the government proposal is — abortion up to 12 weeks without the woman having to give any reason; abortion after that only in cases where there is a risk to the life or a serious risk to the health of the woman, for either physical or mental health reasons.

The following limitations will also apply to abortions after 12 weeks: two doctors (one an obstetrician) will have to certify that there is a serious risk to the life or health of the mother and that termination is necessary to avert the risk. They will also have to certify that the fetus has not reached viability.

If it has reached the point of sustainable viability outside the womb, then it must be saved. All this, the government says, will ensure there are no late term abortions of viable babies.

All this sounds fine although, as always, the devil will be in the detail. Getting the exact wording of the legislation right will not be easy and there will be difficult debates on the matter in the Dail and Seanad. But one result of the landslide vote in favor will be increased pressure on all politicians to get this done and to avoid playing politics. There has even been a suggestion that an attempt will be made to rush it through before the budget in October to avoid any chance of the legislation being lost were the government to be defeated on the budget vote (which would mean an election).

That seems very ambitious, although it would be possible with enough good will on all sides. We in Ireland are living in changing times. The old certainties are fading around us.

As one middle-aged woman, a no voter, sadly told a reporter, “I have lost my country.” Her devastation will be shared by a third of those who voted, people who are not anti-women but have a deep belief in the sacredness of life. The woman’s anguished feeling that she has lost her country is no doubt genuine. But there is no reason to think that the new Ireland that is emerging will be any less caring or compassionate than it has been at its best in the past; in some ways it may even be more truly Christian.

She needs to trust in the young. It’s their time now.

Ireland makes history after an overwhelming majority votes in a national referendum to overturn a 35-year-old abortion ban https://t.co/pKkXDlyjeT pic.twitter.com/IgZSWLZ5gJ

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 26, 2018

By: John Spain@IrishCentral

, https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/ireland-young-abortion-vote-changed-forever

#exclusive article #point of view

0 notes

party-hard-or-die · 6 years

Text

Ireland, Enthusiastic About Gay Rights, Frets Over Abortion

CARRIGTWOHILL, Ireland — When it comes to the Roman Catholic Church, Judy Donnelly has been something of a rebel over the years. Like much of Ireland, she supported contraception, voted in a referendum to legalize divorce and, three years ago, backed same-sex marriage.

That last vote was joyously celebrated around the country and the world, placing Ireland, which elected its first gay prime minister last year, at the vanguard of what many called a social revolution.

But when it comes to the historic decision on legalizing abortion, which will be put to the nation on Friday, Ms. Donnelly says she will vote no, as will enough of her countrymen and women, including lawmakers across the political divide, to throw the referendum result into doubt. Polls for the May 25 vote have narrowed so tightly in recent weeks that “yes” and “no” campaigners are not able to confidently predict a victory.

Ms. Donnelly, 46, who works in a pub in Carrigtwohill, found no contradiction in giving gay men and lesbians their marital rights, a triumphant affirmation of their social inclusion — Ireland decriminalized homosexuality only in 1993 — while denying what many say is a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body.

“It’s just not the same,” she said, pausing as she struggled to articulate what exactly was the difference between the two. “It’s about values and morals. It’s just not the same,” she repeated, before lapsing into silence.

The curious dynamic underscores the complex reality that even if Ireland is becoming more culturally liberal in many respects, opposition to abortion is more deeply ingrained. The reasons are complicated and nuanced: a history of female oppression; the church’s continuing grip over sexual education; a malaise over discussions about sex and sexual health; and very private experiences around miscarriages, fetal deformities, adoption difficulties and spousal disagreements over whether to keep a baby.

A big part of the problem, many Irish say, is that there is a legacy of sex being a taboo subject and that the negative consequences of sexual activity, including infections or unplanned pregnancies, are seen through a moral lens rather than as health issues. Even though 40 percent of children in the country are born to unmarried mothers and fathers (about the same as in the United States), many say there is still some stigma around unmarried mothers.

Ironically, it took a gay prime minister, Leo Varadkar, to call for this referendum that will essentially ask voters to repeal a 1983 amendment to the Constitution that gives a fetus the same right to life as the mother and allow unrestricted terminations of pregnancies for up to 12 weeks.

“I know I come across as a hypocrite,” said Darren Haddock, 48, a cabdriver who initially planned to vote in favor of abortion because he saw it as a woman’s right. But now, he said, “We’re talking about hurting a life.”

The referendum on gay marriage was different, he said. “The time was right for Ireland to come out of the Dark Ages, to break the shackles from the church, and it was a victory for people to stand up to it,” he said.

Ms. Donnelly, who recently divorced, voted in favor of same-sex marriage because her sister-in-law was part of the first gay couple to get married in England. Another cousin is gay, and recently got married, too.

When it came to abortion, she reflected on some of her other relatives who had miscarriages, having wanted children badly. “And then you have people who cross over to England to get an abortion,” she said, although she said there were some exceptions, as in the cases of rape or incest. “But just because you made a boo-boo doesn’t mean you get an abortion.”

Still, she voted in three previous referendums allowing women to have abortions if their lives were in danger, to travel abroad for the procedure and to have access to information about it. The legalization of abortion, she said, would “make it easier for people to say, ‘Oh, I’ll just go and rid of it.’”

Ms. Donnelly spoke as an older woman slowly pushed a baby carriage up the street, carrying two baby dolls under plastic wrapping to protect against a cold drizzle. Mr. Haddock recalled seeing the woman nearly four decades ago, when he was a child. She had had several miscarriages, he explained, and hadn’t stopped pushing the carriage ever since.

For Una Mullally, who edited the book “Repeal the 8th,” a reference to the Eighth Amendment that essentially bans abortion in Ireland, the answer to the dichotomy over gay and women’s rights is control.

“Misogyny is much more embedded in Irish life than homophobia,” she said. “Ireland has a terrible history of oppressing women, and the legacy of the Catholic Church is control,” she added, referring to the thousands of unmarried women who became pregnant and were placed into servitude or mental asylums since the 18th century until as recent as the mid-1990s.

Even when the country in 1985 legalized condoms to be sold without prescriptions, she said, it was to deal with the AIDS epidemic, rather than to give women their reproductive rights. “Women’s autonomy has always been viewed with suspicion or through a lens that is very bizarre,” she said.

In Cork, Ireland’s second-biggest city, placards for opposing campaigns were attached to almost every street lamp, but the mood was subdued. Most people interviewed for this article didn’t want their names published; many of them hadn’t even spoken about the subject with their friends, let alone their families.

“Oh God, no,” exclaimed a 24-year-old barista named Maedhbh who worked in a coffee shop and wore a nose ring and a bright yellow sweatshirt with the words “Bitter Lemon” printed on it.

“My grandparents don’t want to engage in it,” she said, just as her grandfather Paddy walked in. When asked about the referendum, he stopped in his tracks and pretended to be hard of hearing. “You could be shot for giving an answer,” a customer standing nearby said smirking, before rushing out the door. “There’s a saying in Irish: ‘Whatever you say, say nothing.’ ”

While the church’s influence has fallen drastically in most spheres of Irish life, its hold on sexual education remains strong — the institution still controls most schools in the country.

Even young, internet-savvy Irish in their early 20s spoke about receiving more of a lesson in biology, and a cursory one at that, than instructions about sexual health and safety.

“When we were 16 we had two lads, monks, come in to talk about abstinence, and that one in 10 people get pregnant and that you can still get STDs from wearing condoms,” said Ben Collins, a 22-year-old college student, who plans to vote to legalize abortion. “It was basically fear. The Catholic influence is so big here, but you don’t even realize it.”

Deirdre Allinen, 32, recalled sitting in a classroom and having nuns wheel in a television before being a shown a grisly video about abortion. “Then we’d say the rosary and stand around praying,” she said. “The way it’s taught to us, it’s still in me. The curriculum is still hidden in our brains. It took me a long time to shake it off.”

As a result, Ireland has never had a conversation about sex being a positive thing, said Will St Leger, an artist and an H.I.V. activist who is on a crusade to reform sex education in schools.

“A lot of these issues around sexual health and reproductive rights all stem from a lack of information and shame,” he said. “That’s the biggest element — what we do with our bodies and with other people carries shame.”

“We see ourselves as global, checking in at airports, L.G.B.T., Eurovision,” he said, and Ireland as a mecca for tech giants like Google, Facebook and Apple. “But this crushing theocratic doctrine put on Irish society has permeated right to the core,” he added, “even to the person who doesn’t go to church: that sex is seen as a sin. It’s in our D.N.A.”

The dearth of a proper national conversation is part of the reason Ireland is seeing a surge in sexually transmitted diseases, Mr. St Leger said, with 15- to 24-year-olds, for example, making up half of Ireland’s number of reported annual chlamydia infections.

The nation is also in the throes of an H.I.V. crisis, he added, pointing to opinion polls that show one-quarter of respondents are not properly informed about the virus. At least a quarter of respondents still believe they can catch it by kissing or sitting on a toilet seat. And for all the excitement around the vote on same-sex marriage, Mr. St Leger pointed out, the government has since 2009 cut the budget in half for Gay Men’s Health Service, which provides H.I.V. testing, screenings and treatments for sexually-transmitted infections, and outreach.

The same-sex marriage vote was “all about love and relationships,” he said. “But we don’t talk about sexual health.”

Still, sexual education has improved from Ms. Donnelly’s time, when nuns taught her class: “If a lad sat on your lap, you’d put a newspaper on your lap. That was the contraception of the day.”

In recent years, Ireland has seen some of the biggest turnarounds in public opinion in the Western world. In 1992, for example, while homosexuality was still considered a crime in the country, participants in a gay pride parade in Cork wore masks so as not to embarrass relatives. In 2018, Ireland has a gay prime minister, same-sex marriage is allowed and some of the world’s most progressive bills concerning lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are being put forward in Parliament.

Similarly, attitudes toward abortion shifted drastically after Savita Halappanavar died in 2012 of complications from a septic miscarriage. She had asked for a termination, but the hospital refused her request, initially judging that her life was not in danger. The baby was stillborn, and Ms. Halappanavar died a few days later.

For many voters, the referendum over abortion is, ultimately, a deeply private choice.

In 2015, after the same-sex marriage vote, “it was like Glastonbury; it was party central,” recalled Mr. Haddock. But next week, he said, “no matter who wins or loses, there’s not going to be a party.”

The post Ireland, Enthusiastic About Gay Rights, Frets Over Abortion appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2KFJrVL via Breaking News

#News Headlines #News Update #Sports Update #Business Update #World The News

0 notes

newestbalance · 6 years

Text

Ireland, Enthusiastic About Gay Rights, Frets Over Abortion

“Oh God, no,” exclaimed a 24-year-old barista named Maedhbh who worked in a coffee shop and wore a nose ring and a bright yellow sweatshirt with the words “Bitter Lemon” printed on it.

While the church’s influence has fallen drastically in most spheres of Irish life, its hold on sexual education remains strong — the institution still controls most schools in the country.

Even young, internet-savvy Irish in their early 20s spoke about receiving more of a lesson in biology, and a cursory one at that, than instructions about sexual health and safety.

As a result, Ireland has never had a conversation about sex being a positive thing, said Will St Leger, an artist and an H.I.V. activist who is on a crusade to reform sex education in schools.

The same-sex marriage vote was “all about love and relationships,” he said. “But we don’t talk about sexual health.”

For many voters, the referendum over abortion is, ultimately, a deeply private choice.

The post Ireland, Enthusiastic About Gay Rights, Frets Over Abortion appeared first on World The News.

from World The News https://ift.tt/2KFJrVL via Everyday News

#News #Online News #World News #Today news #health News #Social News #Forex News #World The News

0 notes

daisyckinguk · 6 years

Text

Gay marriage bill: The word we’ll hear at weddings

But there’s another shift coming to union which means a brand new word may be popping up a lot more frequently in the wedding vows, although the right variety.

Under the current Marriage Act civil celebrants — that officiate at 75 percent of all Australian weddings — should make sure that the marrying couple utter the sentence: “I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, (insert name), take action, (insert their name), to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband)”.

‘I take thee to be my lawfully married spouse’ Picture: ThinkstockSource:Supplied

In the current guidelines for union celebrants, by the Attorney-General’s division, the expression “spouse” could be substituted for “husband” and “wife” in the vows. However, a change in the Act’s wording can make this alternative choice explicit meaning “spouse” could become a far more popular choice.

In the draft legislation it says : “For the purposes of any Act, a individual is the spouse of another person (if of the identical sex or a different sex) if the individual is lawfully married to the other person.”

In which “husband” and “wife” today seem, it is suggested the legal terminology could alter to “husband”, “wife” or “spouse”.

It’s not just gay couples. Heterosexuals would be able to connect in also — if they do not wish to be known as “husband and wife” they’ll no longer must be. A couple will be able to say: “I require thee to be my lawful wedded spouse.”

The explanatory memorandum to the bill says: “This amendment will enable marrying couples to phrase their marriage vows in a fashion which best reflects their connection.”

Sydney celebrant Stephen Lee said he already has 10 gay couples in the novels waiting to be wed once the legislation change goes through.

“Now I will be requesting couples the way they wish to be known. Do I say, ‘I declare you husband and husband; wife and wife; lawfully married or spouses? ”’

But he doesn’t think spouse is going to be a popular term. “it is a small strange word. I believe people will stick with the conventional because if they’re not traditional they might not wish to get married anyway.”

Heterosexual couples will also be able to choose ‘spouses’ over ‘husband and wife’. Picture: iStockSource:Supplied

Mr Lee said he would just officiated at one wedding where “spouse” had been used, between a transgender person as well as their female spouse.

“The transgender spouse presented as female so as much as people may see it had been just two brides marrying but it was a man and a woman (for the goals of the legislation).”

Indeed, a principal reason the expression “spouse” has been pushed to be lawfully inside the Act is especially since it is gender neutral.

“These changes ensure that people that are legally recognised aside from male or female may use the gender neutral term ‘spouse’ to be correctly described in their wedding vows,” the memorandum states.

“The Australian Government recognises that individuals may identify, and be recognised within the neighborhood, as a gender aside from the sex they were assigned at birth or during childbirth, or even as a gender which isn’t completely male or female,” the notes.

The departure of the invoice will also have another change when it comes to gender, which may actually impact some couples that have divorced.

At present, happily married couples where one spouse then barks gender become trapped within a legal loophole that swiftly becomes a minefield.

It’s all down to birth certificates which are handled by the states, while union is governed by national law.

Liberal Senator Dean Smith has proposed the bill that would legalise same-sex unionSource:Supplied

Under current legislation in the countries and territories, with the exception of South Australia and the ACT, in case a married man and woman turned into, for instance, a woman and woman, the nation can refuse to alter the birth certificate for the spouse who has changed gender. The reason being as to do so will, effectively, lead to a legally recognised same-sex union.

“Some individuals who entered into union within their previous sex or gender are faced with a decision between divorcing their spouse to be able to obtain records representing their gender identity, or maybe not using those records,” the bill’s explanatory memorandum notes.

Back in June the United Nations Human Rights Committee said Australia’s transgender “forced divorce” laws were in violation of international human rights legislation.

The union bill is likely to make amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to protect against the lands and states from needing to alter the gender on a individual’s birth certificate that was formerly in a heterosexual union.

However, the state parliaments will have 12 months to make the changes themselves before they are trumped by national law.

WE’RE on the last lap of Australia’s extended travel towards same-sex union. As most of us understand, once gay Australians are permitted to wed, the definition of who may marry will no longer be “a man and a woman” but instead “two people”.

Source

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/spouse-the-new-word-youre-going-to-hear-at-lot-more-of-at-weddings/news-story/4a08e931e8e7ed4d6a21485218f1d83a

from network 10 http://www.princessbrideweddingbouquets.com/gay-marriage-bill-the-word-well-hear-at-weddings/

0 notes

vitalmindandbody · 7 years

Text

Jeff Bezos: the ‘obsessive’ Amazon founder and world’s next richest being

Uber know exactly why problems with the Honda Vezel but deterred them on the road .

Uber allegedgly knew about a recall for gondolas leased out to drivers in Singapore but didn’t tackling the problem until one of the cars caught ardour, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed internal Uber emails that showed that Uber knew that Honda had recalled the Vezel SUV in April 2016 for a defective electrical constituent. Despite the remembrance, the company disappeared onward and bought 1,000 of the SUVs and rented them out.

Then, a driver’s gondola a Vezel burst into flames in January, melting part of interior of the car and cracking the windshield, according to the WSJ . The move flee uninjured.

Three days later, Uber executives in San Francisco were looped into the situation in Singapore. A propose went into action that involved deactivating the erroneous part. The gondolas would stay on the road while replacement parts came in.

This all went down while then-Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was still at the helm and dealing with a growing list of troubles at the company.

Emails show that the Uber’s insurance provider in Singapore said it wouldn’t cover the damage from the January fire because of the known recollection. SF executives were replenished in two days later.

There was talk of taking the cars off the road, but Singapore’s general manager said that would expenditure 1.4 million Singapore dollars a week. Requesting moves to give up their keys with no suggested fixing will cast panic alarm bell to the mass sell, an email apparently read.

BTAG 1 TT

“Asking operators to give up their keys with no suggested cook will communicate panic alarm bells to the mass market.”

So instead Uber had moves get the affected automobiles repaired by disabling the erroneou part and to be ready to supersede the fractions once those came in.

At the end of February, the WSJ reported about an email invitation to the Singapore staff to celebrate dealing with the “Vezel snafu.” It joked about taking the SUVs as transportation.

Uber said the company has since improved its recall processes and now has a recall etiquette, which didn’t dwell before. Since the beginning of the year Uber articulates it has “proactively” responded to six recalls.

An Uber spokesperson mentioned, “As soon as we learned of a Honda Vezel from the Lion City Rental fleet entangle ardor, we took swift action to fix their own problems, in close coordination with Singapores Land Transport Authority as well as technical experts.

“But we acknowledge we could have done moreand we have done so.”

We too contacted out to Lion City Rentals, the Uber-owned vehicle rental service in Singapore.

DTAG 2 TT

WATCH: A ‘hangover cure’ from a former Tesla employee could save your morning after

DTAG 3 TT

IMG 2 TT

Read more: http :// mashable.com/ 2017/08/ 03/ uber-singapore-recall-honda-vezel-wsj /~ ATAGEND

Bezos, whose capital have increased in $20 bn in five months, could take Bill Gatess crown within days if Amazon shares impede soaring

Just a few dollars more on the Amazon share price and the world will have a new richest soldier. Jeff Bezos, the companys founder, is on the brink of engulf Bill Gates to become the wealthiest being on the planet.

Bezos, 53, has been having a very good time. His net worth has risen by virtually $20 bn( 16 bn) in the past five months to $85.2 bn, putting him just behind Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft, who is valued at $89.3 bn, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Bezos fortune has soared thanks to a sharp rise in Amazons share price, which has gone up by one-third in so far in 2017, valuing the company at $475 bn and Bezoss stake of approximately 17% at more than $80 bn. If Amazon shares continue to rise at the same tempo, Bezos will become the richest person in the world within days.

The man who changed the method we browse is not a johnny-come-lately internet billionaire. Amazon was founded in 1994, when people still referred to the web as the information superhighway. But it is now the fourth more valuable busines in the world behind Microsoft, Googles parent company, Alphabet, and Apple. Amazon is value more than 30 hours the stock market value of Tesco, Britains biggest retailer.

The business began with Bezos selling books from his garage in Seattle. Since then, Amazon has expanded into other retail categories, such as meat, garment and electricals, and developed a formidable cloud estimating service, its own video pictures and an electronic personal assistant for peoples homes.

In each annual financial report, Bezos reprints the note he sent to shareholders in 1997, when Amazon swam on the stock market.

The letter lays out Bezoss approach to business and extending Amazon. He pledges to focus on the long term and being world markets chairman, rather than short-term profitability reflections or short-term Wall street reactions. He knows those actions well, having worked on Wall street for a hedge fund before founding Amazon.

Bezos has persistently told shareholders, commentators and staff that it is still day one for the company, despite the fact that it notes for 43% of all online sales in the US, and its term of office at Amazons headquarters is located in a building announced day one.

His 2017 word beginning with the purpose of explaining what day two would be for Amazon. Day two is stasis, he wrote. Followed by irrelevance. Followed by excruciating, painful slump. Followed by extinction. And that is why it is always day one.

To be sure, these sorts of worsen would happen in extreme slow motion. An built corporation might collect day 2 for decades, but the end result would still come. Im very interested in the issues to How do you fend off day two? What are the techniques and tactics? How do you keep the vitality of day one, even inside a large organisation?

The excellent route to protect the company, he mentioned, is obsessive client focus.

This focus has defined Amazon and Bezos, positively and negatively. While the company produced $136 bn of auctions last year, it has attracted criticism for seemingly sweeping aside tiny retailers and battering high streets around the world as it has expanded, and for the amount of tariff it compensates .

Bezos was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in 1964. Brad Stones definitive volume on Amazon and Bezos, The Everything Store, revealed that Bezoss biological father, Ted Jorgensen, had no idea he was a multibillionaire.

When Stone inspected Jorgensen, a unicyclist, unannounced, as part of his research for the book, he did not know who Bezos was or what he was talking about.

Bezos was born Jeffrey Preston Jorgensen to Jorgensen and Jackie Gise, who married as teens. Gise registered for divorce from Jorgensen when Bezos was 17 months old-time. In 1968, she wedded Miguel Bezos, who legally adopted Bezos as his son. Gise requested Jorgensen to stay out of their lives.

In an interview in 2014, after Stones book was published, Jorgensen said he was hopeles to see his biological son, but Bezos had not been in contact.

Bezos has expended the rich improved from Amazon to buy the Washington Post and invest in space travel through Blue Origin, a company he founded in 2000. The Amazon chief executive also invests in industries through Bezos Expeditions, an investment fund that has bought shares in other successful internet startups, such as Airbnb, Business Insider and Uber.

Although Bezos has not signed the Giving Pledge, which was founded by Gates and Warren Buffett and commits signatories to contributing the majority of their abundance to kindnes, he and their own families have made a series of significant contributions to philanthropic reasons. For example, Bezos and his wife, MacKenzie, pledged $2.5 m to supporters of gay marriage in Washington state as part of a referendum safarus in 2012.

And he has been dragged into national politics since Donald Trump became chairman because of a war of words between them during the electoral campaign.

Trump has accused Amazon of get away with slaughter, tax-wise, and told Bezos was employing the Washington Post for political affect. Trump pledged that there would be difficulties for Amazon if he were elected president, but has yet to specifically target the retailer.

Bezos attended a meeting between engineering directors and Trump shortly after the US election last-place November, saying he was excited that Trumps could be new innovations organisation.

But he is unlikely to feel the same now, and has pledged to legally opposed Trumps attempts to ban travel to the US from several countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

Worlds richest people

1. Bill Gates $89.3 bn Microsoft

2. Jeff Bezos $ 85.2 bn Amazon

3. Amancio Ortega $ 84.5 bn Inditex

4. Warren Buffett $74.7 bn Berkshire Hathaway

5. Mark Zuckerberg $64.8 bn Facebook

6. Carlos Slim $60.2 bn Grupo Carso

7. Bernard Arnault $ 52.4 bn LVMH

8. Larry Page $48.8 bn Google

9. Larry Ellison $ 48.2 bn Oracle

10. Sergey Brin $ 47.7 bn Google

Source: Bloomberg