blades.politico

Jason Collins comes out. Big deal!

Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:13:00 -0400

Seriously?

I don’t understand the “big deal” comments in reaction to Jason Collins’ coming out as gay.

It actually is a big deal.

While there have been many women in pro sports who have already made the leap out of the closet, the double standard still holds firm for male pro athletes. Thanks to Jason, that double standard may soon start to weaken.

Collins set a big milestone by coming out as a gay, black, male professional athlete, currently active in the NBA. Anyone with a sense of social awareness and empathy can see how significant and ‘risky’ this is, both to Jason and his career as an NBAer.

Before some people toss forward their “big deal” comments, maybe they should try to place themselves in Collins’ shoes, and think about the struggles he had to go through in making the decision to come out publicly, and acknowledge the uncharted territory through which Collins is travelling.

How about placing themselves in the shoes of current athletes, young or old, pro or amateur who know they are gay and struggle with coming out, and can now can seek inspiration from Jason Collins’ bravery?

Hopefully Collins is the first of many people who will start to chip away at the status quo, and show people that you can be an NFLer, an NHLer or an NBAer and still lead an open and authentic life.

So yes…it is a big deal.

CBC, Sportsnet, TSN and RDS team up for Sochi2014

Thu, 07 Feb 2013 20:58:25 -0500

Great news!

CBC/Radio-Canada landed broadcasting and sub-licensing rights for Sochi 2014 and Rio 2016.

It was announced today that RDS, Sportsnet and TSN are partnering with CBC/Radio-Canada to bring Sochi to Canadian viewers.

I am very relieved.

When the rights were first granted to CBC/Radio-Canada, I was worried that we’d only get one or two channel coverage, and would have to tune to NBC for the remainder of the coverage.

Now it looks like Bell and Rogers are in a make-shift consortium again—this time with the CBC/Radio-Canada, which means we’ll get multi-channel coverage in HD.

On a related topic, it will be interesting to see how CBC rolls out its marketing plans for coverage, especially across the broadcasting brands it has partnered with.

With one year away from the opening ceremonies, CBC Television has been ramping up its publicity; there are a lot of Olympic related spots/stories on national newscasts, and tons of ads flaunting CBC as “Canada’s Olympic network”

According to cbc.ca, more broadcasting and platform coverage details are to come, so stay tuned.

CBC/Radio-Canada gets rights to 2014/2016 Olympics

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 14:29:00 -0400

Firstly, congratulations to CBC/Radio-Canada. It must be exciting news for their team to know that they are headed to Sochi and Rio to cover the greatest multi-sporting event ever.

Personally as an Olympic fan in Canada, I take this news with mixed feelings.

Ultimately I would have preferred that Canada’s Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium in its present state for Vancouver/London take on the next two games.

Realizing Rogers will back out of the agreement after London 2012, the next best alternative would have been for a Bell/CBC joint bid. It’s too bad that option didn’t work out either.

It is likely that CBC will need to partner up with another media entity due to schedule/time constraints. We’ll have to see how that plays out.

I am a big fan of the Consortium’s multi-platform coverage spread out over internet, mobile, radio (which I don’t listen to) and TV; it really has been unprecedented and quite impressive.

When the Olympics were on CBC, I had to tune to NBC 50% of the time to get a different perspective, or to see if they were covering different sports. This meant that I couldn’t always get a Canadian perspective on the events I was watching.

With the Consortium’s coverage, particularly for the summer games, I can stream from the office, or when at home, tune into Sportsnet, V, TSN/2, RDS/2, CTV or even OMNI and a different set of events will be covered, all with a Canadian (and multilingual) perspective — *and* all without ever having to watch NBC.

I wonder how CBC is going to be able to pull of coverage like the Consortium’s?

CBC doesn’t have a dedicated sports channel. Bold has been known to show some sports, but it isn’t a “sports” channel.

CBC’s other properties will have to digress from their regular content (usually arts, culture, documentary, news) to show sports, at the expense of their regular viewers who likely don’t care about the Olympics.

CBC’s current streaming experience is decent, but needs a lot of work to be on par with Bell’s. CBC will need to have a good network backbone to cover the comprehensive event streaming that is required for the Olympics in order to match the level of coverage by the Consortium’s.

The budget cutbacks and constraints suffered by Canada’s public broadcaster are worrisome, and seem to conflict with the apparent need for CBC to ramp up its broadcasting talent in preparation for comprehensive coverage of an event like the Olympics.

In the end, as an Olympic fan, I need to have coverage as good as or better than what the Consortium is doing now.

Is CBC up to the task? I hope so. We shall see.

Why Pride is still important to Canadians

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:07:00 -0400

It is that time of year again.

The Pride summer is upon us, and it forces me to reflect and assess how far we have come in the west, particularly in North America as it pertains to LGBT rights.

There is still a bit more to do in terms of LGBT rights in Canada.

It’s not “perfect”, but wow, we have come a long, long way and it is pretty damn close to being “perfect”.

I can get married here if I choose to, and I know that I can’t lose my job simply for being gay.

If I choose to raise children, I feel comfortable knowing that I can send them to a school environment where there is a heightened awareness on providing an inclusive environment for all students, whether they are LGBT or otherwise.

The Pride movement has contributed to a lot to these advancements.

Pride forces me to reflect on Canada being a largely immigrant nation, and the status of LGBT people across the globe.

If anyone complains about Pride losing its steam or becoming less political, they need only look outside our borders to see that there is a lot of fighting left to be done.

“Human rights for LGBT people are still not respected in many modern Western countries,” says Goran Miletic, Grand Marshall of this year’s Pride Toronto festivities.

That’s just the west.

What about LGBT rights in African nations and in the Middle East? What about the stories of LGBT immigrants who have fled persecution in their homeland for a new life in Canada?

All of this is a great reason to get your activist boxing mitts re-fitted and polished, and your signs painted, as the global fight for LGBT rights is still quite daunting.

Toronto Pride attracts close to a million people each year and is one of the largest celebrations in the world. Toronto will also be the host of World Pride in 2014.

We have a responsibility as a progressive nation in the domain of human rights to raise awareness of LGBT issues across the globe, and effect change where possible.

Injustices against LGBT people are still occurring, and there is no reason for the political aspect of Pride to abate.

Gay Politics | AMERICAblog Gay: On Mormons and the hypocrisy of "religious freedom"

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 19:30:05 -0400

Gay Politics | AMERICAblog Gay: On Mormons and the hypocrisy of "religious freedom"

It's Britain's turn to carry the torch

Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:00:01 -0400

The flag waiving and nationalism at the Queen’s diamond jubilee events are but a fraction of atmosphere needed to launch the 2012 London Olympic Games into the history books, as London has the heavy weight of the Olympic Rings upon it this summer.

As a fan of the games, it still seems like yesterday when our winter athletes were battling in arenas of snow and ice for a chance at Olympic glory.

The atmosphere of Vancouver 2010 was filled with triumph and tragedy - from unfortunate deaths and malfunctions to bittersweet victories, world records, massive street parties and an atmosphere that quite frankly, even the most nationalistic flag-waivers didn’t expect to experience.

Londoners and Britons in general have a chance to fully and unabashedly embrace the games, adding something unique to them, which could really make London 2012 the best games ever.

Although London has hosted the games before, Londoners will still need to draw from the civic and nationalistic precedents set by cities like Sydney and Vancouver.

Londoners will need to open their hearts and arms, extending their hospitality and graciousness to the international community that will descend upon them in July, and at the same time show the world that they are a force to be reckoned with not only in international sport, but also international party hosting.

I have no doubt that London 2012, like many other Olympic games, will be full of drama, triumph, sadness, and most of all, feats of superior athleticism.

I am also confident that Londoners will be able to make this enormous event a success not only by being gracious and proud hosts, but striving to stand atop that podium as many times as possible.

Ontario Liberals Bill-13 and gay straight alliances

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 17:49:00 -0400

No matter what side you are on in this debate, I think one can come to a common conclusion that there is a need to address bullying and make our schools safer and more inclusive.

So what is the big deal about Bill-13, an amendment to Ontario’s Education Act?

There is a specific language in the act regarding Gay Straight Alliances:

For greater certainty, neither the board nor the principal shall refuse to allow a pupil to use the name gay-straight alliance or a similar name for an organization described in clause

The Catholic religious leaders, school board officials, and parents have expressed strong concern over this clause, because they believe it infringes on the religious freedom of the school administration to be able to sensor the names of student groups - particularly sensor the word “gay”.

This bill does not mandate that every school in every public board have a gay straight alliance club.

These are student-run, extracurricular clubs, which means that students, upon assessing their school environment and their peers’ interest, make the decision to create these clubs.

Why should Catholic school principals have the power to censor and discriminate against clubs that have the word “gay” in their name?

Why are anti Bill-13 protesters trying to pretend that by censoring the word “gay” they can negate the fact that gay Catholic students exist?

Catholic schools are “separate” schools, but they are not private schools. They are religious schools funded by tax-payer dollars, and are overseen by the Ontario government.

With that being said, the argument of “infringement of religious beliefs” should not be used to exempt Catholic schools from upholding the same standards of human rights, student well-being, and an inclusive environment expected across all government-funded school boards.

I was raised Catholic, and attended Catholic schools during my formative years. Of course that was during a time when being LGBT and Catholic, at least in my experience was never ever discussed. Mind you, that was also during a time when the Internet was new, and cell phones weren’t common.

I remember how school life was the center of my world - 6 hours a day, 5 days a week. As adults, we can be oblivious to, or forget how tough the day-to-day life of today’s student is.

Kids today have to deal with cyber bullying, school shootings and other stuff I simply don’t remember ever having to deal with when I was in school.

Society continues to become more accepting of LGBT people now, as more and more LGBT youth are coming out.

The last thing students need is a confirmation from administration that the word “gay” is bad, and that identifying as a gay student (Catholic or otherwise) is not OK.

Students must be empowered to create groups that will positively impact the quality of student life, and be able to name these groups however they want - as long as it promotes a positive school environment.

Censoring the word “gay” and pretending that gay students don’t exist would mean many steps backwards in the fight against discrimination, bullying, and homophobia in our schools.

Michael Coren can't seem to handle it

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:28:00 -0400

If you aren’t already aware, Michael Coren is host of a show called The Arena on Canada’s Fox News - err Sun News Network.

May 31st’s episode was called “The view from left field” where he invited a series of left-leaning panelists, including the president of an atheist organization, a gay rights activist, and a former journalist with the CBC.

This is a debate show.

He, a right-wing religious dude who loves to use his show to continually hammer home how great his particular religion is, didn’t handle his guests well at all, and save for the CBC journalist who rather sucked up to Coren, was rude, defensive, and aggressive toward his guests.

The debates were moderated by Coren himself, so there is no neutral moderator - perfect environment for Coren to attack (often personally) his guests, and then claim that he is the one being bullied.

I’m not sure how Coren can be “bullied” since The Arena is his show and as the host, he is the one in the position of power - but I digress…

He is also aware of the time limit of his segments, and can rudely and abruptly end the debates when people disagree with him - sort of like a child who stomps out the sandbox, taking his toy trucks with him.

One guest was a polite man named John Corvino who was advocating for LGBT equal marriage. After Corvino calmly and succinctly stuck it to Coren by not only launching excellent arguments, but also questioning Coren’s “knowledge” of the history of marriage, Coren changed the topic to…wait a minute…it’s coming…

Polygamy!

It was bait that Corvino didn’t take, thankfully.

Anyway, after watching Coren childishly attack and abruptly end a few debates in a row (especially the one with the American Atheists President, David Silverman), and after listening to his ending monologue where he trashed his guests (save of course for the CBC journalist) after they had left, thus not allowing them to defend themselves, I tweeted to Coren.

I wasn’t rude - I said that his interview with Corvino was awkward. I also questioned why he debates things like same-sex marriage when he has a show on a Canadian network, and equal marriage has been the law now for some years.

So he blocked me on twitter. A bit childish no?

I hope he doesn’t think that he can host a TV show on a national network that I pay a subscription for, spew his opinions, and not expect to be called out on them by his viewers once in a while.

Individual rights, couple's rights and marriage?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:26:29 -0400

Individual rights, couple’s rights and marriage?

I’ve heard this argument by those against marriage equality:

“Same sex marriage is not a civil rights issue because rights are granted to individuals, not couples.”

Firstly, marriage isn’t a “right”. Secondly, this still ends up being an individual rights issue.

Remember, as a citizen, one has the right to be treated equally under the law.

This means as a citizen one cannot be discriminated against based on gender, race, sexual orientation, religion e.t.c…

Now here is a scenario. Bear with me as I walk you through my logic:

Person X and person Y fill out a form to obtain a marriage license but are denied access to such license:

If person X is denied a license, he/she is discriminated against because his/her gender is not different than person Y’s.

If person Y is denied a license, he/she is discriminated against because his/her gender is not different than person X’s.

This clearly is a case of gender discrimination and effectively discrimination based on sexual orientation.

What does a marriage certificate entitle a couple to? There are some 1200+ benefits that are afforded to married couples - i.e., people who have been granted that special piece of paper.

If a government is going to deny person X and Y a marriage license, thereby denying them access to these 1200+ benefits simply because the applicants’ genders are not different, isn’t that discrimination, something person X and Y have a right to be free from?

In the end, the issue of marriage equality does end up being an individual rights issue and by extension, a couple’s rights issue.

black gay marriage?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:24:59 -0400

Well I am tired of people getting offended when a comparison is drawn between the black civil rights movement in the 60s and the current gay rights movement, specifically in terms of marriage equality.

We have one side, the black religious leaders and perhaps black non-LGBT people, being indignant about the comparison of movements, and at the other end LGBT activists -who let’s face it, are frequently not an ethnic minority (and thus perhaps unfamiliar with the black gay experience), drawing the comparison between the civil rights movement and the LGBT movement in attempt to reason with religious leaders of color.

Where is the voice of the black gay American? It seems no one cares what the average gay black American thinks about the same-sex marriage debate.

Black people suffered some horrible things: slavery was a huge injustice, and an argument could be made that LGBT people really have never undergone the cruelty of such an institution.

Then there was also the lynching and murders, blatant institutionalised discrimination that included things like voter suppression.

LGBT people are bullied, assaulted, murdered, faced with hatred and discrimination in the workplace and in society at large.

Let’s face it, gays, minorities and women have ALL suffered a lot of bullshit from society.

So what are we going to learn from all of this?

Certainly we can come to a common ground and acknowledge the overall spirit of the civil rights movements and how much alike they are: these groups were/are:

relegated to second-class citizenship

seen by society at large as not worth protecting

persecuted

denied basic civil rights

murdered simply because of who they are

While I am Canadian, the struggles of both gay people and black people in North America are a part of who I am. I can’t separate them, nor can I stand by while certain people dismiss these two identities as “incomparable”. They are a part of my identity and every other gay black North American.

Failing to acknowledge and learn from the overarching commonalities between these civil rights movements is ultimately harmful and divisive in societies that strive for equality and justice for all.

We also have to remember that LGBT people of color have just as much at stake in the wider LGBT civil rights movement.

Although there are many gay black activists out there writing columns and holding protests – they still need help from the black community as a whole – especially the straight black community.

In order to get this support, more LGBT people of color need to ditch the “down-low” and self-denial that is so prevalent in our culture, come out and find self-acceptance. How are we going to get support from the straight community if they don’t know we exist?

With a stronger gay black voice, and the straight black community supporting it, I believe we can dispel this divisive concept of a conflict between blacks and the LGBT civil rights movement.

My Thesis Statement:

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:23:29 -0400

zablades:

tahnoseyeliner:

Although, for many, the definition of marriage has come to be understood as a union between one man and one woman, civil marriages between couples of the same sex should be legally recognized due to the prevalence of present day non traditional marriages, the denial of marriage rights and benefits that exists under both state and federal law, unconstitutional discrimination, and a violation of constitutional rights.

Gah I feel like its really repetitive, any one have any suggestions?

Isn’t the denial of rights and benefits, and the denial of constitutional rights (based on sexual orientation) considered discrimination? Perhaps these arguments can be lumped together? You could narrow down your essay even more and just talk about civil rights and the constitution and how opposing SSM violates them.

Basically right now this topic sentence says that same-sex marriage should be allowed because non-traditional marriages are already commonplace, and because of the denial of (xyz)rights, and unconstitutional discrimination.

Is this really what you want to say?

I think perhaps what you really want to say is that society’s concept of “traditional marriage” is changing, and because of this, SSM should be legalized.

You’ll need to do some research and explain HOW exactly it is changing.

Again, I think you can do an entire essay just on how society is evolving/changing, and use a few strong points from that argument to justify why legalizing SSM is a logical step.

I personally think you’d have a strong essay by dealing with one of the topics, but not both:

1. How society is evolving/changing and thus, SSM legalization is inevitable

or

2. How opposing SSM violates civil rights and violates the constitution.

Why isn't Ron Paul supporting marriage equality?

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:14:04 -0400

Why isn’t Ron Paul supporting marriage equality?

Paul announced that he is ceasing active campaigning in the GOP nomination race.

With that being said, why isn’t Ron Paul, a libertarian, supporting marriage equality?

He was the unlikely nominee for a very long time, and even though he is essentially winding things down, an announcement of support from him could ignite and unite forces for civil rights across party lines…maybe even get him some votes.

Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

Great job North Carolina!

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:11:00 -0400

Great job, North Carolina!

North Carolinians voted overwhelmingly to ban same-sex couples from marriage, civil unions and even domestic partnerships by modfying the state constitution.

Essentially they voted to re-affirm second-class citizenship of LGBT people by writing discrimination in their constitution.

Great job!

On an encouraging, related note, Obama’s interview with ABC news indicating his unequivocal support for marriage equality, softened the North Carolinian sting just a tiny bit - just a “tiny”.

Unless changes in law follow suit, I am not sure if Obama’s affirmation will change anything other than the fact that putting his neck out and speaking candidly may have made the political landscape a bit more challenging for him.

It took guts and character to finally make that statement - and good for him.

As for North Carolinians who voted to support the amendment — I hope you can take some time to truly examine how your existing ‘traditional’ marriages have now been strengthened, at the expense of 2-3% of your population - LGBT couples whose relationships and families have now been kicked to the curb and confirmed inferior.

Nice job - it must feel really good!

Marriage Equality in the USA now

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:09:45 -0400

Marriage Equality in the USA

Let’s get it done.

Here are my basic arguments and rebuttals to some common arguments against same-sex marriage.

Who are LGBT (gay) people?

LGBT are human beings - people. They exist across all ethnic groups and religious persuasions. They are our family members: mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers, uncles, aunts, cousins….

People who object to equal marriage often find it difficult to put an actual “face” to who “LGBT” people actually are, especially if they don’t have any LGBT friends or family. When these people actually get to know an LGBT person they often discover how “normal” gay and lesbian people are.

They vote and pay taxes.

They are doctors, teachers, lawyers, construction workers, nurses, actors, financial planners, volunteers. Some may own homes, have kids, like to hunt and fish, and like to cook dinner for their loved ones. Some LGBT people may choose to run for office. Some are elite athletes and Olympic gold medalists.

These are just examples of how “average American” (and sometimes above average) LGBT people are.

Yet they, as consenting adults, can’t get married to the person they choose?

Why should LGBT have access to civil marriage?

LGBT people like the rest of the population, fall in love and want to have their relationships recognized by the law.

They also deserve the same legal and financial protections that opposite sex couples are afforded.

Property rights, child custody rights, federal/state benefits, military benefits, tax-benefits, insurance benefits, hospital/medical rights are among some 1200+ legal rights and benefits that marriage affords opposite-sex couples but are denied to same-sex couples.

This discrimination relegates LGBT people and their relationships to an intolerable second-class status. This contradicts American ideals and the constitution, which ensures equal rights for all American citizens.

Same-sex marriage goes against certain religious beliefs

If same-sex marriage goes against one’s beliefs then that person should not have a same-sex marriage. No person or religious group has the right to impose their religious beliefs on others, nor does the government (nor the equal marriage movement) have the desire to force religious groups to sanctify unions which go against their religious teachings.

Remember, churches do not administer marriage licenses – the government does. The equal marriage movement concentrates on allowing same-sex couples to obtain these licenses. Once a license is obtained, it’s up to the couple to decide what type of ceremony they want.

Many LGBT folks see tremendous value in having a religious ceremony, and there are many churches that perform and embrace religious unions of same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage will destroy the family and society.

It will actually strengthen society and the family.

If family life is integral to a healthy society, then all families need to be recognized and protected –including LGBT ones.

Legalizing same-sex marriage doesn’t mean that gay and lesbian couples will have perfect families with perfect relationships. Just like any other relationship, things sometimes do not work out, but removing discriminatory obstacles at least gives LGBT families a chance to make things work.

Less discrimination means attracting educated and skilled LGBT families who are willing to plant roots and invest in their neighborhoods and communities.

Ask the average person who lives in a country where same-sex marriage has been legalized. If they are in an opposite-sex marriage, ask them how their relationship has changed since same-sex marriage has been legalized. Ask them how life for them on a day to day basis has changed since same-sex marriage has been legalized.

They will answer that it hasn’t. They probably don’t even think about it. It would be “whatever”, “what are you talking about?”

Now, for people who are friends and family of LGBT folks, those people may have some new in-laws, maybe an aunt or uncle now, maybe a new mom or dad…maybe another place at the dinner table at Thanksgiving?

One thing that has changed in those countries is the status of LGBT folks and their relationships; they are now fully protected, as their status as citizens is fully equal.

Allowing same-sex people to marry actually strengthens the institution of marriage - it strengthens family, community and relationships.

Marriage should only be for opposite-sex couples because it is a procreative institution

What about elderly or infertile couples? They can still get married.

Nowhere in the law does it state that having children or the intent to have children is a requirement for marriage.

Some opposite-sex couples want to have kids or adopt, some don’t. The same thing goes for same-sex couples.

Same-sex marriage will lead down a slippery slope to polygamy, bestiality and marrying family members

Ridiculous.

The marriage equality movement is not arguing for such things, nor does it need to debate those things.

Marriage equality activists are not looking to overturn any consanguinity laws. Polygamy, bestiality and the like are out of scope of the equal marriage movement.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Why should it be re-defined?

Marriage has been re-defined and continues to be re-defined; it isn’t stagnant. It evolves with society. Back in the early days it was “traditional” for women to have no rights and be at the mercy of men who used marriage to trade women around like property. It was also “traditional” when blacks could not marry whites. Society evolved and decided that those things were not correct, that they were inconsistent with equality. The same thing will happen with LGBT marriage equality.

More than 70 years ago, being out as an LGBT person was practically unheard of. More and more people are coming out of the closet, and society has become increasingly accepting of LGBT people.

Why should things change? The equal marriage movement is a civil rights movement. These movements tend to arise as a result of marginalized people refusing to accept the status-quo. It’s not natural for human beings to be discriminated against and tolerate it. The desire to be treated with dignity and respect is part of human nature.

The support for equal marriage is increasing especially among non-LGBT folks. American society is ready for this - it’s going to happen. When history looks back on this pivotal moment , will it find that we have chosen equality for all?

I'm not local, but showing my support.

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:07:43 -0400