Comments on: North Dakota bill would add sexual orientation to human rights laws

By: nors

nors — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:50:57 +0000

Aren’t we all created equal…this is 2009…Yes! We are A L L created equal.

By: Scott Schmidt

Scott Schmidt — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:52:15 +0000

Hi. Just to correct David Strand’s previous statement that Minn. was the tenth state to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. (and the first to do so w/ regards to gender idenity) He, is in fact correct, that Minn. was the first state to pass a statewide law banning discrimination, based on gender idenity but he is wrong when he states that Minn. was the tenth state to pass a law based on sexual orientation; Minn. was in fact the eighth. (N.H. was the tenth)

Today, there are twenty states that ban discrimination, based on sexual orientation and/or gender idenity and they are; Calif., Colo., Conn., Hawaii, Ill., Iowa, Maine, Md., Mass., Minn., Nev., N.H., N.J., N.M., N.Y., Ore., R.I., Vt., Wash. and Wisc.

By: Elaine Suhre

Elaine Suhre — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:16:19 +0000

The first argument I hear against protecting unborn babies is that of “What happens if the woman is raped?” “Will she have to have this horrible child?” Remember the child isn’t what is horrible, the act of rape is what is horrible. Why punish an innocent child with death? To me that would be additional trauma for the mother, not only was she raped and will have to live with that horror, she would be guilty of killing her own child. After all the baby has half of her genetic makeup.

Also Ron, the idea in North Dakota is to protect the unborn. And I really can’t see even your 16 year old, or older arguing property rights etc. either, unless they are now lawyers. So not to worry. The first challange is to protect the unborn. All the other questions will be resolved in due time onece we turn this country around and it becomes a moral nation once more.

By: Ron Thiessen

Ron Thiessen — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 08:14:23 +0000

North Dakota is a great place to hunt ducks and geese. They have some pretty good fishing too. I like that they won’t be discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. I am not sure how they plan on granting full human rights to fetuses. That seems problematic. My kids didn’t really have full human rights until they were 16 or so. It would have made it somewhat difficult to discipline them if they had. I can’t imagine fetuses arguing over property rights and free assembly and that kind of stuff. Perhaps they just want them to have the right to life. Would they kill the mother to save the fetus though? Would they force a women to bear an incestuously conceived fetus or one that was conceived as a result of rape. Would they kill the mother to save the fetus in a complicated pregnancy? That seems extreme.
North Dakota is a great State. I am sure they will figure this all out.

By: Newness; ND Bill Protects BOTH Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity « innerJoeJoe

Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:08:37 +0000

[...] North Dakota bill would add sexual orientation to human rights laws Blogger and journalist Andy Birkey of Eleventh Ave South (and Mn Indy) put together an awesome [...]

By: Mombian: Sustenance for Lesbian Moms » Blog Archive » Weekly Political Roundup

Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:24:28 +0000

[...] North Dakota Senate passed a bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in employment, [...]

By: Brix Smith

Brix Smith — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:23:32 +0000

What is in the water in ND? While this is a great bill that will protect ND’s GLBT citizens, is it happening only to counteract the protections that are also being given to fertilized eggs?

Meaning that a lesbian is safe from job discrimination, but not from the horror of carrying her rapist’s baby?

I am very confused.

By: jonerik

jonerik — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:45:04 +0000

I heard on the news that North Dakota has also passed a law defining life at conception which will make it illegal for abortions in the state.

By: Steffen

Steffen — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:01:33 +0000

Chris, your addition is well taken and David’s clarification is correct. Minnesota was the first to include both sexual orientation and gender identity. Thanks for clearing this up, both of you.

By: David Strand

David Strand — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Andy is correct that Minnesota was the first state to ban discrimination on the basis of BOTH sexual orientation and gender identity. Wisconsin was in fact the first to do so on the basis of sexual orientation as Chris noted. Minnesota was the tenth state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the first to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Today 13 states and the District of Columbia ban discrimination on both the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity including Colorado, Iowa, Illinois, Hawaii, California, Washington, Oregon, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New Mexico, Vermont, Maine and of course– Minnesota.

20 states total ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation with 7 banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but NOT gender identity. Th0se 7 are Wisconsin, Neveda, Maryland, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Therefore, North Dakota would become the 21st state to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and the 14th to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Great news truly!

Over 50% of americans currently reside in states which protect them from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and approximately 40% of americans live in states which protect them from discrimination on the basis of gender identity but there are still 30 states with no protection for either! North Dakota would be a welcome addition.

Sadly, South Dakota just defeated a proposal to add sexual orientation to the state hate crimes statutes. Neither North Dakota nor South Dakota currently cover crimes based on animus towards a victims sexual orienation or gender identity under their hate crime laws. They are 2 of only 14 states which spell out characteristics that don’t include sexual orientation in their hate crime laws.