| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 140.1 | | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | being happy shouldn't be illegal | Sat May 19 1990 06:35 | 9 |
|
kate,
someone may have more specific information about your questions, but
the answer to question #1 is yes it was passed a couple of years ago.
reecently [within the last couple of months?] being gay or lesbian was
removed as an automatic disqualification of foster parenting.
~robin
|
| 140.2 | long overdue | HURON::REDNER | | Mon May 21 1990 18:24 | 10 |
| 140.3 | | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wullie | Mon May 21 1990 20:29 | 11 |
| It wasn't really *passed* a couple years ago, was it Robin? I thought
it was an executive order by Dukakis, which is why he was able to make
it go away again a few weeks ago. No?
Regardless, from whatever I know about the Pierce amendment it deserves
speedy defeat precisely because it's another chip out of civil rights.
I have the rather awful feeling that we're heading back to the '50s
with all its xenophobic hypocrisy and "organisation man" mentality.
God help us all if we allow that to happen.
=maggie
|
| 140.4 | 's-plain please | DCL::NANCYB | southern exposure | Mon May 21 1990 20:42 | 10 |
|
re: 140.3 (=maggie)
> I have the rather awful feeling that we're heading back to the '50s
> with all its xenophobic hypocrisy and "organisation man" mentality.
=maggie, what is "xenophobic hypocrisy" and "organisation man"
mentality, and how did that relate to the '50s ?
nancy b.
|
| 140.5 | | RAVEN1::AAGESEN | being happy shouldn't be illegal | Tue May 22 1990 08:51 | 5 |
| re: =maggie,
yup, i'm sure you're right about the detail!
~r
|
| 140.6 | | SAFETY::TOOHEY | | Tue May 22 1990 17:57 | 5 |
|
Why is .2 set hidden?
|
| 140.7 | <*** Moderator Response ***> | RANGER::TARBET | Haud awa fae me, Wullie | Tue May 22 1990 18:35 | 1 |
| Violation of 1.7.4.
|
| 140.8 | | SAFETY::TOOHEY | | Thu May 24 1990 16:18 | 5 |
|
Gee, I didn't realize that Gays are a 'minority ethnic group.'
|
| 140.9 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | treasures....most of them dreams | Thu May 24 1990 16:24 | 3 |
| Well they are a minority and they are discriminated against.
Bonnie
|
| 140.10 | Uhm...well... | HARDY::EVANS | One-wheel drivin' | Thu May 24 1990 16:35 | 8 |
| ....and some are ethnic.
I think the term "ethnic minority" has become one of those phrases
that we hear so often it becomes an entity unto itself. Like
"concensus of opinion". A concensus *is* a bunch of opinions.
--DE
|
| 140.11 | | SAFETY::TOOHEY | | Thu May 24 1990 16:37 | 15 |
|
RE: .9
According to my dictionary, 'ethnic' refers to religion, language,
ancestry, culture, or national origin. I didn't see where being gay
related to ethnicity, but, after thinking about it, I suppose an
argument could be made that there is a unique 'gay culture.'
I would never suggest that gays aren't discriminated against. In fact,
everybody is sometimes discriminated against. Whites, blacks, males,
females, gays, straights, etc. Everybody.
|
| 140.12 | | LYRIC::BOBBITT | we washed our hearts with laughter | Thu May 24 1990 17:02 | 5 |
| I think what is intended is the spirit of ethnicity, not the letter
here. Minorities are what was intended, I believe.
-Jody
|
| 140.13 | | SAFETY::TOOHEY | | Thu May 24 1990 17:30 | 9 |
|
I realize this is becoming a rathole, but I have a question about
1.7.4. It says 'Don't make insulting comments about minority ethnic
groups, even in jest or irony.' Why 'minority ethnic groups' instead
of just 'ethnic groups'? The way it is phrased implys that it is O.K.
to make insulting comments about majority groups.
|
| 140.14 | ***comod response*** | WMOIS::B_REINKE | treasures....most of them dreams | Thu May 24 1990 20:36 | 7 |
| Please take this to the processing topic, I will move a copy of
this note there.
Thankyou
Bonnie J
=wn= comod
|
| 140.15 | No more hiding.... | BETHE::LICEA_KANE | | Fri May 25 1990 10:21 | 14 |
| It's good to see Steven Pierce come to the floor with a bill like this.
It's not like his position is not known, he has a voting record.
But his office has been attempting to describe his past votes as
something he had to do. Since he was minority leader, he had to vote
with the majority of Republicans in the House. They've also
tried to point out that he's never spoken on the floor on any matter
relating to Gay Rights.
Until now. Needless to say, I'm not surprised at all by his position.
The spin doctors had been trying to hide the real Steve Pierce, but
no more. He's openly stating his position, finally.
-mr. bill
|