This post is a half-thank you, half-criticism for publishing my photograph Oxford University Press (@OUPAcademic).
The concern doesn’t reach the threshold for revoking the license to use the photo (see this post for an example of a post that does reach that threshold).
I’d like to comment that there’s a visible lack of understanding regarding marriage equality apparent in the writing in the article. This is carried over into the comments, which are also of a biased nature (what you permit, you promote).
In the article, the authors describe the possibility of a “dispatch center” whereby people who seek to be afforded their legal rights wait while a person is found who will discharge their civil duties under the law.
That reminds me a little of this photograph, which I also took, next to the Rosa Parks Bus, now enshrined in Detroit Michigan. In this scene, people also experienced delay in pursuing their health and life goals.
I understand that a dialogue is under way regarding marriage equality in Australia, something that’s been the law in Washington, DC, for 8 years now. It’s important for the authors and readers to know that the reasons for marriage equality and the health and societal benefits it bestows (and have been documented in multiple research studies) exist where marriage is truly…. equal.
I invite the authors to visit Washington, DC, the world’s most inclusive city, to see what the future looks like. You’ll be impressed 🙂 .
And, love always wins.
Freedom of religion and same-sex equality are not inherently incompatible. But sometimes they do seem to be on a collision course. This happens, for instance, when religiously devout marriage officers refuse to marry same-sex couples. In the wake of legal recognition of same-sex marriage around the world, states have grappled with civil servants who cannot reconcile their legal duties with their religious beliefs.Source: Can marriage officers refuse to marry same-sex couples? | OUPblog