What do you think of gay rights in your country?

[America Needs R'hllor]

I support full marraige rights.

In 50 or so years, it'll probably be a reality.

And just think, we'll be the old farts grumbling about it

Lmao.
God, I'm glad I wasn't here (plus was 6 years old) in that time.

As for the 2005 question, sadly, not nearly far enough. In Israel, we have no marriage right, no adoptive rights and the government rides on our backs to appear more tolerant in the world and exploits the Tel Aviv pride parade for tourism, all the while allowing religious leaders paid from public money to say terribly homophobic things.

[Goldwater]

I support full marraige rights.

In 50 or so years, it'll probably be a reality.

Damn, that was fast 50 years.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

As far as discrimination outside of marriage goes, while the Equality Act of 2017 goes too far, we do need a new law to expand rights in the 29 states where you can be fired if your employer thinks you are gay, while also clarifying that democratic executive rewriting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is illegal.

[seb_pard]

Not far enough. Full marriage equality is needed, civil union is just a moderate hero response!

[MarkD]

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

As far as discrimination outside of marriage goes, while the Equality Act of 2017 goes too far, we do need a new law to expand rights in the 29 states where you can be fired if your employer thinks you are gay, while also clarifying that democratic executive rewriting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is illegal.

Boy, you and I think so much alike on almost everything you mentioned it's almost scary. I just don't know what "Equality Act of 2017" you're referring to as having gone too far.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

As far as discrimination outside of marriage goes, while the Equality Act of 2017 goes too far, we do need a new law to expand rights in the 29 states where you can be fired if your employer thinks you are gay, while also clarifying that democratic executive rewriting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is illegal.

Boy, you and I think so much alike on almost everything you mentioned it's almost scary. I just don't know what "Equality Act of 2017" you're referring to as having gone too far.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2282

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

As far as discrimination outside of marriage goes, while the Equality Act of 2017 goes too far, we do need a new law to expand rights in the 29 states where you can be fired if your employer thinks you are gay, while also clarifying that democratic executive rewriting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is illegal.

Boy, you and I think so much alike on almost everything you mentioned it's almost scary. I just don't know what "Equality Act of 2017" you're referring to as having gone too far.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2282

Tbh defining sexual orientation as "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality" strikes me as flawed.

"Your honor, the equality act does prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it defines sexual orientation 'homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality'. The woman I fired identifies as Pansexual, so she isn't protected by the law."

[Horus]

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

As far as discrimination outside of marriage goes, while the Equality Act of 2017 goes too far, we do need a new law to expand rights in the 29 states where you can be fired if your employer thinks you are gay, while also clarifying that democratic executive rewriting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is illegal.

Boy, you and I think so much alike on almost everything you mentioned it's almost scary. I just don't know what "Equality Act of 2017" you're referring to as having gone too far.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2282

Tbh defining sexual orientation as "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality" strikes me as flawed.

"Your honor, the equality act does prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it defines sexual orientation 'homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality'. The woman I fired identifies as Pansexual, so she isn't protected by the law."

Pansexuals are just edgy bisexuals.

[Goldwater]

MarkD is 100% correct that the marriage decision should have been made by legislators and voters, not by unelected judges. However, at this point it is simply not worth it to try to undermine and overturn the decision. We fought the good fight in court, but should accept the loss and move on to more important issues.

As far as discrimination outside of marriage goes, while the Equality Act of 2017 goes too far, we do need a new law to expand rights in the 29 states where you can be fired if your employer thinks you are gay, while also clarifying that democratic executive rewriting of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 is illegal.

Boy, you and I think so much alike on almost everything you mentioned it's almost scary. I just don't know what "Equality Act of 2017" you're referring to as having gone too far.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/2282

Tbh defining sexual orientation as "homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality" strikes me as flawed.

"Your honor, the equality act does prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it defines sexual orientation 'homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality'. The woman I fired identifies as Pansexual, so she isn't protected by the law."

Pansexuals are just edgy bisexuals.

Even if we assume that pansexuality falls under the category of bisexuality, which TBH kind of makes sense to me, what about asexuality?