gay rights

So says Lech Walesa, Poland’s first democratic era President. As a result a protest from Poland’s gay and transexual MPs has manifested in the parliament:

Poland’s first openly gay and transsexual parliamentarians have taken seats on the front bench of the national assembly to protest against hostile remarks by former president Lech Walesa.

Walesa, the leading hero in Poland’s successful anti-communist struggle in the 1980s, said last Friday that gay people belonged on the back benches of parliament, or “even behind the wall”.

Lovely and from a person who stood for freedoms.

On Wednesday, Robert Biedron, a gay rights activist, and Anna Grodzka, who had a male-to-female sex-change operation, took seats in the front row of the assembly. Both are members of the progressive Palikot’s Movement party, and party leader Janusz Palikot arranged for the two to sit in, relinquishing his own seat to Biedron.

“Lech Walesa is an important symbol for us all and for the whole world,” Biedron told the Associated Press before attending the session. “I respect him and I’d rather he used other words – words of acceptance and of respect for other people.”

Walesa, a Roman Catholic and a father of eight, is known for his strong views and distinctive way of expressing himself.

Always the Catholics isn’t it?

The French National Assembly, the lower house of France’s Parliament has voted in favour of making same-sex marriage legal.

The vote held on Saturday morning was 249 in favour with 97 deputies voting against. The majority of the support for the bill came from the left, with many centrist and conservative deputies from the UMP voting against making marriage equal.   Read more »

Maybe Mormons aren’t so fundy after all:

Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stresses that Latter-day Saints, who devote their lives to following Jesus Christ’s teachings, should be an example to the world of expressing love and hope for those with same-gender attraction.

“As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate,” Elder Cook said. “Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”

Watch this speech by a preacher on gay rights…hang in there till the end..it’s worth it:

ᔥ The Telegraph

Boris Johnson has manned up over dodgy “gay cure” bus adverts and banned them:

Boris Johnson faces being drawn into a bitter dispute over homosexuality after banning advertisements on London buses promoting the idea that gay people can be “cured”.

Transport chiefs stepped in on the Mayor’s orders to block the posters, faced with a the prospect of the argument being played on the streets of the capital next week with rival advertisments.

Two Christian groups announced on Thursday that they had booked advertising space promoting the idea that people can become “post-gay” through therapy.

Anglican Mainstream, a traditionalist Christian coalition, and Core Issues Trust – a counselling group which practices controversial “reorientation” therapy – wanted to place full-length banners reading: “Not Gay! Ex-Gay, Post-Gay and Proud. Get Over It!”

They are a direct response to advertisements taken out by the gay rights group Stonewall earlier this month as part of the campaign for same-sex marriage reading: “Some people are Gay. Get over it!”

via Andrew Sullivan

David Farrar draws attention to Labour’s quietly released Rainbow policy and the lies and obfuscations of Charles Chauvel and Grant Robertson.

The policy is pretty reasonable apart from the excessive use of weasel words. For example:

Labour should just say in clear plain language that:

• Gays can adopt
• Gays can marry

What is hard about that? It makes it very clear. Anyone would think that Labour are afraid of talking about gay marriage and gay adoption. I have blogged on this many times and it is a policy that I support. But what concerns me is that Labour don’t seem to be able to say that they support it in such a way that is unambiguous or clear.

As far as I am concerned we have much bigger problems in this country to worry about than whether or not a small percentage of homosexual New Zealanders want to have a mother-in-law or adopt children. They are already in relationships and already looking after those children so what is the big deal. There is a better than even chance that they will make far better parents than some of the heaving pathetic underclass that are currently breeding and marrying.

If I was the government I would simply gazette the changes and get on with focussing on the things that really matter.

In line with my position on Gay Marriage where anyone silly enough to want a mother-in-law is welcome to have one there is a poll in the UK suggesting precisely that the misery needs to be spread to the gay community in all fairness.

The stereotype suggests it’s husbands who simply cannot bear their mothers-in-law.

But British wives feel exactly the same, according to the latest research.

One in four despised their mother-in-law and believed she was “controlling, interfering and bitchy”, according to an online poll.

Women polled accused their mothers-in-law of routinely “knowing best” when it came to parenting, judging their parenting skills and undermining them in front of their partner and children.

Almost a third said they were made to feel they were not good enough for their partner.

Many had moved house to escape the mother-in-law’s clutches and for some the stress was so extreme it had led to marital breakdown.

The findings come from a poll of some 2000 mothers by UK website Netmums.com.

I can’t understand the fascination for gay marriage when you look at the facts.

• 1 in 4 despise their mother-in-law
• One third made to feel inadequate by their mother-in-law
• Almost a quarter (24 per cent) described their relationship with their mother-in-law as bad or terrible.
• 16 per cent believed their mother-in-law was bitchy
• 22 per cent thought her rude
• 25 per cent controlling
• 35 per cent judgmental
• 32 per cent interfering
• 24 per cent found her worse than moving
• 21 per cent worse than potty training
• 14 per cent worse than morning sickness
• 13 per cent worse than breastfeeding.
• One in ten moved house to be further away from their mother-in-law
• 5 per cent cited her as the chief reason for their marriage breaking down.

Here is a map of where gays can openly serve in the military:

Miss Whaleoil came home from school yesterday with some news. Hugs and holding hands has been banned.

Apparently a hug is a form of “sexual assault” if one person doesn’t want it. The “hugging issue” has become an issue because too many girls have been over-using the hug as a form of greeting. As for the holding of hands well one can only wonder at the political correctness mentality of the morons who came up with that rule.

Ironically the new, approved method showing friendship and affection is the “high five“. I had recently read about the origins of the “high five” on Andrew Sullivan’s blog. Andrew Sullivan is one of my favourite blogs to read and he is probably the most read gay thinker in the world.

In the Castro, Burke’s creation of the high five was part of this Herculean mystique. He would regularly sit on the hood of a car — whichever one happened to be parked in front of a gay bar called the Pendulum Club — flash his magnetic smile and high-five everyone who walked by. In 1982, Burke came out publicly in anInside Sports magazine profile called “The Double Life of a Gay Dodger.” The writer, a gay activist named Michael J. Smith, appropriated the high five as a defiant symbol of gay pride. Rising from the wreckage of Burke’s aborted baseball career, Smith wrote, was “a legacy of two men’s hands touching, high above their heads.” …

Wikipedia also notes the origins:

Burke, who was one of the first openly “out” homosexual professional athletes, used the high five with other homosexual residents of the Castro district of San Francisco, where for many it became a symbol of gay pride and identification.

So the school, worried about girl on girl hugging, has now said it is ok to use the “high five” which has it’s foundations as a symbol for gay pride and identification.

Bit of an own goal there.