who cares?

Mom says Denver boy killed himself after being bullied at school

His crime was horrendous, but so was the reason jurors sentenced him to death. He’s gay.

(...) Point being that this guy is no hero or martyr. He is undeserving of pity. That said, the circumstances of his case — more specifically, his sentencing — ought to concern anyone who believes in equal justice under the law. It seems that, in deciding what sentence to impose — death or life without parole — jurors worried that, as a gay man, Rhines might enjoy prison. They thought condemning him to that all-male environment would be like the old folk tale about Br’er Rabbit tricking Br’er Fox into throwing him into the briar patch where he wanted to be all along.

So they gave him death.

Evidence of the effect of Rhines’ sexuality on the panel’s reasoning abounds. Jurors sent the judge a note asking if he would be housed in general population, if he might “brag” to “young men” about his crime, if he might ever marry or have conjugal visits, if he would have a cellmate. As if that weren’t enough, several jurors later issued sworn declarations affirming how homophobia warped their deliberations.

One juror was quoted as saying that putting a gay man in prison would be “sending him where he wants to go.” Another quoted a fellow juror as saying Rhines “shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison.” A third reported that, “There was a lot of disgust” in the jury room. “This is a farming community.”

That sort of thinking, should it need saying, is idiotic. Unfortunately, it made sense to the only people whose opinions mattered.
As it happens, the Supreme Court ruled last year that jury deliberations can be impeached if it can be proven they were tainted by racial bias. Rhines’ lawyers reasoned that if racism is enough to question a jury’s decision, homophobia should be, too.

But last week, the court declined to hear Rhines’ appeal. It’s a disappointing decision. If equal justice means anything, it means a judge or jury may not heap an added penalty based on some facet of cultural identity. Whether grounded in race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or gender identity, bias has no place in our legal system. The high court had a chance to make that clear, but punted instead. (...)

 Very nice, R!
Manbird wrote: 

Weird story but true: I had just finished uploading a couple LGBTQIA shirts I designed
and went to lay down, checked my iPad and there was a PM on FB from my best
gay friend whom I had lost touch with over the last 20 or more years. Such strange coincideñcio!
Anyway, here are the results of my designs. I have to credit Mag for the saying on the 2nd shirt.
The designs are mine but nothing is really original - I'm sure heart has been done x 1000. 

 meower wrote: 




Thanks! I welcome your input as probably the one with the most knowledge on the subject.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
I was thinking that before. some people don't like when we start a new thread, but I do think in this case it's warranted.... Gonna start a thread

 sirdroseph wrote:  but, if you're thinking for one second that the experience of gender is something as "all the same" as the fact that we all bleed red, therein lies the issue. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes and think outside of your own experience.

 ptooey wrote: 





Dependent upon the context of the question; we are all the same and we are all different. It is the sameness that we share that helps us understand our differences as individuals.




Edit: I apologize for putting this in this thread when in reality this specific discussion has very little to do with sexuality only in the context of using sexuality as a baseline difference than gender. I just could not find a specific gender topic.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
I might have found the root of the comprehension issue.

 Lazy8 wrote: 




It is?? I guess I just don't get where you are coming from. I don't want anything from our government regarding this issue, I agree that government should have nothing to do with this. I am just struggling to understand the gender aspect because I instantly and intrinsically understand all other aspects of sexuality because I have sexuality myself and we humans are all the same, but I do not have a gender, I am a gender and cannot comprehend the difference and guess I never will in regards to all of those that apparently do have the ability to feel gender.

 sirdroseph wrote:
That's where all this becomes a matter for public debate; unless someone is going to write a law it's all just talk.

Which is fine, talk all you like. But at the current moment we aren't just talking, this is about policy and people with guns enforcing it.

 Lazy8 wrote: 





I actually do not recall asking for government intervention on anything. And the history of your partners genitals is indeed not a matter for government intervention, but it is a matter for you as her husband, pretty sure I made that clear. I was kind of asking for nothing but an intellectual explanation on how one can feel gender as an identity when I cannot.

 sirdroseph wrote:
Insurance coverage of gender reassignment surgery is separable from government intervention in people's lives. Heart disease is terribly expensive to treat, but that doesn't justify government prohibiting eating bacon or smoking.

The history of my partners genitals is also not a matter for government intervention.

 sirdroseph wrote: 
So-called "cosmetic" surgeries of any sort are not often covered by general health insurance or taxpayer coffers, though there is an increase in coverage with some insurance companies, given the criteria that Meower pointed out.

 meower wrote: 




Actually I didn't know that. Thank you that does seem reasonable.

 Lazy8 wrote: 




It is in 2 incidents if the surgery was cost prohibitive and this elected plastic surgery were driving my taxes and health premiums up and of course the moral obligation of informing future sexual partners of your birth gender. If your wife were born a man, maybe it matters to you and maybe it does not, but you should have full knowledge to make that choice.

 Lazy8 wrote:

 
So true, But since others are concerned about it, you cant get the surgery covered (and most surgeons won't do it) without proof of years living with gender dysphoria and documented MH access.

 

 sirdroseph wrote:
I guess, but it really shouldn't drive the debate. The state of your reproductive organs is no one else's business.

 Lazy8 wrote: 





That's good to know.