The UN “experts” all seem to be wildly woke, far left even. The poverty guy claims that UK poverty now is like that of the 30s – the 1830s to hear him sometimes. So it is with the LGBTetc guy:
A United Nations expert warned that some US state governments are steadily undermining and eliminating lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and gender diverse people’s civil rights, and he urged the Joe Biden White House to strengthen protective measures for them.
Victor Madrigal-Borloz, the diplomatic organization’s independent expert on protection against gender- and sexual orientation-based violence and discrimination, said he is “deeply alarmed” that prior progress, such as the US supreme court’s legalization of gay marriage in 2015, is under threat at both the state and federal levels in America.
“Equality is not within reach, and often not even within sight” for members of [LGBTQ+] communities in the US, Madrigal-Borloz said after a 10-day trip in his role with the UN that had various stops across the country.
Compared to most places in the world, compared to most of the world even 20 years back, the US has equality of that kind.
This is the other thing that bugs:
Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas favorably suggested the right to same-sex marriage could be overturned after the elimination of nationwide abortion rights.
No, he didn’t, he really didn’t. What he said was, translated a bit, ” Here’s the justification we used to put abortion into the Constitution. We now agree that doesn’t work, it becomes a democratic matter for the States instead. That means that these other things – same sex marriage, interacial marriage – which we found in the Constitution in the same way now need to be looked at again. For if we’ve said that this particular method does not work then we’ve got decisions with faulty legal logic, don’t we?”
He’s not favourably suggested that the right should be overturned. He’s just pointed to the inevitable implication of the Dobbs decision. He’s also -even- being a bit brave there. One of those cases to be looked at again is Loving v Virginia. As a black man married to a white woman he would be directly affected by any decision there. But still he goes where the logic takes…..
What does it say about him that he finds torture and neoliberalism in the Constitution? So are his opinions pretty arbitrary and capricious?
Victor Madrigal-Borloz is a name worthy of Wodehouse.
Can anyone actually define neoliberalism?
The expert’s remarks come after the Republican-dominated government of Florida this summer enacted a “don’t say gay” law forbidding schoolchildren in kindergarten through third grade from receiving classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Imagine not wanting strangers to instruct your 5 year old on sexual orientation or gender identity.
I agree, but the problem is where does that leave us? If it gay marriage gets rolled back to the states and (similar to abortion) only half the states implement some form of replacement (from full-on Gay Marriage in California to just a barebones “Civil Partnership” in Ohio), when a gay couple move from California to Ohio does the nature of their relationship change in the eyes of the law.
Personally, as a happily unmarried, but monogamous faggot, I’ve always thought the Gay Marriage thing was a step too far, since Civil Partnerships covered everything that the LGBT+ crowd were demanding for decades and more.
Gay Marriage was just a way of farting in the face of the Christian community, which I find offensive in and of itself.
“Can anyone actually define neoliberalism?”
It comes from Liberalism – an old-fashioned Western doctrine, and therefore evil- and “neo” which means Nazi.
Per Paul Mason’s classic: “By neoliberalism I mean the global capitalist system shaped around a core of neoliberal practices and institutions , themselves guided by a widespread and spontaneously reproduced ideology, and ruled by an elite which acts in a neoliberal way, whatever conflicting and moderating ideas it holds in its head”.
JG: +1
Personally, I would want to see all of them as civil partnerships, as fundamentally it’s a legal thing to provide for assets and kids these days. Then whoever wants to can associate it with a Christian, Pride, Wicca, Klingon or whatever ceremony.
However I expect the more fundamental religionists of whatever stripe would strenuously object.
“Neoliberal” is the insult Leftists use when even they can’t keep a straight face while calling people “fascist”.
Totally agree. What happens in a house of worship has got bugger all to do with the state and vice versa. Want to walk down the isle and call it a day, your choice.
Want shared tax shelters and all that jazz, get your civil partnership registered at the registry office. No ceremony, none of the current Malarky, just sign this form with your beloved (of whatever sex) in front of a bloke behind a counter and get it witnessed by two others you bring with you. Want a civil partnership with your brother / sister? No problem.
Hey ho! Greater separation of church and state.
Iran, Saudia Arabia, UAE, China, Russia, Ukraine, Zimbabwe…yeah, I can see that the West is the problem here.
And Tim, you saw Twitter’s inability to interpret your British witticisms. Imagine the average journalist’s or Biden voter’s ability to understand the subtleties of a legal argument.
“Want a civil partnership with your brother / sister? No problem.”
I vaguely recall that the first CP to be registered was between two elderly sisters. I remember thinking at the time that it had probably been deliberately arranged that way to help sell the thing to a sceptical public.
Yet the only reason they did it was to prevent the tax man stealing 40% when one of them died, so quite pathetic as well, that they had to “get gay married” (kinda) to keep the taxman from their door.
@Tomj, that must be one of the most amusingly nonsensical definitions ever.
JG: The whole point is to be able to tell the taxman to fuck off for some of the assets he has his eyes on. CP between siblings would make a lot of religionists incandescent – wot! Ur licencing incest??!!! But of course there are already laws about that.
Jeremy’s Lettuce Gay Bacon and Tomato quip needs to be resurrected. The plethora of letters and mathematical symbols is intended to suggest that cis being only two of the 89½ genders, they are very much in the minority.
Biden voter’s ability to understand the subtleties of a legal argument.
Of course they can’t. Most of them were already dead !