If you have any questions, feel free to ask on my ask site: http://fyseq.tumblr.com/ask, though check out http://fuckyeahsexeducation.tumblr.com/FAQ!
We now have offers for help getting to and from a clinic, lodging, child care, and emotional support from 28 states and four Canadian provinces, with a total of 63 submissions. Thank you so much to everyone who has submitted and spread the word about this blog.
There are still 22 states, 6 provinces, and 3 Canadian territories that need help. If you or someone you know lives in these areas and can help, please submit your offer using the Ask or Submit boxes!
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Washington, D.C.
- West Virginia
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Prince Edward Island - abortion is not available on PEI, so transportation to other provinces is needed
Signal boost, please!
Since the 1970s, New Hampshire police have operated under a progressive policy for handling domestic violence cases that has saved countless lives. Under current law the presumption is that an arrest will be made when police observe evidence of abuse. They have a large degree of discretion and don’t need to witness the assault firsthand or obtain a legal warrant before they can separate the alleged attacker from his victim.
All that will change if Republicans get their way. The state’s GOP legislators are pushing two bills that will reverse a half century of progress, the Concord Monitor reports:
Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That’s the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat.
House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed the crime. That’s an exceedingly dangerous change. Consider the following scenario, one outlined for lawmakers by retired Henniker police chief Tim Russell:
An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding. It’s obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the assault occurred. It’s a small department, and no one else on the force is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim for having called for help. […]
It’s impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s, has saved or how many injuries it’s prevented. If they adopt House Bill 1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be extraordinarily high.
The other bill Republicans have proposed, HB 1608, limits judges’ ability to order the arrest of someone who has violated a domestic violence restraining order by contacting or abusing the person named in the order. It would also prevent judges from ordering defendants to surrender their weapons or block them from buying guns.
Police say the bill stops them from intervening to protect victims. For instance, they would be stripped of their power to arrest someone who is threatening to use violence against a victim or child. It’s unclear why New Hampshire Republicans have set their sights on repealing protections for abuse victims when promised to focus on economic priorities.
And people wonder why I’ve stopped regarding Republicans with any sort of human dignity. They kinda forfeit that right by doing shit like this.
If this passes I’m going to have so much rage.
Lawmakers in the state of New Hampshire have begun hearings on a bill that would allow business owners in the wedding industry to refuse service to engaged gay couples, the AP reports.
Providers of wedding-related goods and services would be allowed to deny gay couples their products if the concept of a same-sex marriage contradicted their religious or moral beliefs, without facing the risk of a lawsuit as a result. Opponents have said the religious/moral argument opens the door to business owners refusing service to interracial or interfaith couples as well.
Bill sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin, R-Manchester, called it a “business protection bill” and said a person’s personal religious beliefs should receive protection in his or her capacity as a service provider.
Noting that New Hampshire protects against discrimination based on both religion and sexual orientation, Bergevin asked, “How do you strike a balance between them?”
This comes around the same time as a bill that proposes to replace marriage equality in New Hampshire with civil unions. What is this state’s preoccupation with taking away rights and replacing them with blatant inequality?
As New Hampshire legislators consider a measure that would repeal the state’s same-sex marriage law, the Obama administration made a statement hinting that the president is starting to align more with the cause of marriage equality.
“While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, the record is clear that the president has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same-sex couples,” said White House spokesperson Shin Inouye. “The president believes strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away.”
No, it doesn’t necessarily mean much, but it’s certainly not worthless. The statement does not mention individual states making their own decisions, as previous statements have, but it also doesn’t specifically mention New Hampshire or expressly support marriage equality. It’s a baby step, that’s for sure.
But honestly? I’ll take Obama’s slow and steady acceptance over the bigoted drivel Republican candidates have spewed this election season. But that’s just me.
By Norma Love, Associated Press
Repealing New Hampshire’s gay marriage law, legalizing casinos and changing the constitution to bar an income tax are among the hottest topics facing the Legislature heading into 2012, but lawmakers might not vote on these issues until after the Jan. 10 presidential primary.
Click the link above to read the full article.
Chez Vachon diner, is an Independent, and also gay, but Romney didn’t realize that. Veteran Bob Garon — gay, married, and having breakfast with his husband — asked Romney his views on gay marriage, and Romney gladly replied.In the northern state of New Hampshire today, Mitt Romney sat down with a 63-year old man sporting a cap that read, “Vietnam Veteran” and things went south from there for the former Massachusetts Governor. The Vietnam Veteran, having breakfast at the
Watch The Video Here: Gay Vietnam Veteran Confronts Romney On Gay Marriage