177 petitions

Started 1 day ago

Petition to Facebook

Ask Facebook to change "Religious Views" to "Worldviews" in the About section

As an Atheist Humanist, I, as most people, have a lot to say when it comes to my worldview. However, my entire paradigm is void of religion. Religion doesn't factor into a single part of my worldview, yet I and the nonreligious are bombarded daily by religious posts and comments, religious legislation, religious stigmas, religious education limitations, religious relationship limitations, etc . . .  I am sure there are many of you reading this right now that are already coming up with 5 more things that I didn't mention in that miniscule list. My, and Equality's plea is simple, please allow us to describe who we are, whether we have a religion or not, by asking us what our "Worldview" is, not what our "Religious views" are. Because honestly, when I share my views on religion it typically pisses people off. Isn't that kind of negative experience exactly the type of thing that Facebook is trying to move away from these days (per their advertising campaigns and CEO appearances)? As I continue to wrestle with the relationship that I have with Facebook and if I should I continue using their platform as a result of their intentional exploitation of it's users' information, I just can't ignore some of the things that still need to change before Facebook's platform can be welcoming to all people, not just those who identify with a religion. Thank you to Facebook and the worldwide community for being a part of this Change!

Corey Melton
16 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to United States Supreme Court, U.S. House of Representatives, President of the United States

Legalize Plural marriage.

Simply put, we should have the legal freedom to marry as others do, Equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the Constitution. Please read carefully.  Intent is to grant freedom to marry and to protect the underage. ------------------------------------ Same Sex Marriage is now legal, and I believe that those wishing a plural marriage should have equal protection under the law. More protection for those without a voice. i.e. if a marriage license is required then everyone involved would have to be OF AGE and all parties would have to give informed consent. Medical Insurance, Medical Decisions and Custody issues I believe could be addressed in a similar fashion as existing probate and custody laws already in place, employer provided healthcare could be fractional i.e. Employer pays for one total spouse or 50% and 50% of two spouses. More $ for local and state governments thru selling marriage licenses, wedding decorations etc. It would help families not have to feel the need to hide from society and they would be more apt to report any problems or difficulties in their homes. More freedom of choice. In the "Land of the FREE and the home of the brave" freedom should be IMPORTANTAffords more people equal protection under the law as required by the constitution. Would go a long ways towards eliminating marital and religious bigotry. It would save taxpayers millions and millions of $'s in future legal costs to have the discussion of Legalizing Plural marriage now vs.later. It would eliminate the arbitrary nature of the laws against those that want to live in a Polygamous family. It would help to eliminate abuse by those that are wanting to live a polygamous lifestyle for the WRONG reasons.It would enhance our national freedoms not take them away. I think it would be wise to protect the underage and those without a voice from harm in bad situationsI am just asking that I not get penalized for a few that might take advantage of polygamous marriages and do it for the wrong reasons, Give those of us that want to live it in the right way and for the right reasons a chance to live our beliefs. Legal/Constitutional reasons to Legalize Plural marriage ! There is NOT a single "LEGAL" non arbitary reason to prohibit it.  There are however legal and social reasons to make it legal. Many federal judges have recently ruled with regards to marriage that individuals should be allowed equal protection under the law. Furthermore, It is my understanding that we are supposed to be protected against discrimination with regards to the sales of products, goods and services in relation to Religion/Belief system, Race and Gender.  I feel that I am being discriminated against when I am NOT allowed to purchase a LEGAL marriage license under my system of beliefs.From the dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia in U.S. v. Windsor - supreme courts DOMA Decision.This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. .  .  .[In its holding, the Court] accuses the Congress that enacted this law and the President who signed it of something much worse than, for example, having acted in excess of enumerated federal powers—or even having drawn distinctions that prove to be irrational. Those legal errors may be made in good faith, errors though they are. But the majority says that the supporters of this Act acted with malice—with the “purpose” “to disparage and to injure” same-sex couples. It says that the motivation for DOMA was to “demean,” to “impose inequality,” to “impose a stigma,” to deny people “equal dignity,” to brand gay people as “unworthy,” and to “humiliat[e]” their childrenAccording to Victoria Dunlap former Sandoval County Clerk New Mexico;there are no legal grounds that say this should  be prohibited, I can't withhold it. (regarding same  gender marriage)  So what "Legal" grounds are  their to limit how many marriage contracts a person enters into ?It seems to me that with the opinion of Justice Scalia and that of Victoria Dunlap the exact same things could be said of the provisions against Polygamy.California is considering the following..RE: SB 1476 (Leno) – Provide that a child may have a parent and child relationship with more than 2 parents.Status: Passed the California  Legislature.  Enrolled and presented to the Governor for his approval.IF MORE THAN two parents are acceptable for 1 child why is more than one spouse not acceptable ... It is discrimination to NOT ALLOW FOR IT....--------------------------------a U.S. federal judge struck down part of Utah’s law banning polygamy on Friday, December 13, 2013. For more information regarding this case, please see this article: don't want to make this something ugly or complicated or cause the taxpayers undo costs and think it is wrong to waste taxpayer funds on litigation of social issues.  I figure when the courts are going to be busily going about discussions on same sex marriage they may as well address my concerns as well. I feel the current and even proposed changes to the laws are and will be  applied unfairly and in an arbitrary fashion, I believe they are discriminatory.  I believe the current wave of litigation and discussion on marriage and marriage equality also are arbitrary and discriminatory as they don't address all "marriage" and family types. If people are allowed to have many, many divorces why are they not allowed to have multiple spouses ? If all parties consent and of age, it seems it should be allowed to me.In one instance a man had been married and divorced 29 times "legally" he was allowed to enter into MORE THAN ONE "Legal Marriage contract"...  Companies and individuals are all the time allowed to enter into more than one legal contract. It seems that a individual should also be allowed to enter into more than one marriage contract so long as all parties consent and are of age.It seems to be very discriminatory to define marriage as between "a man and a women or a man and a man or a women and a women" ..If you are going to redefine marriage to be about LOVE and EQUALITY... then marriage should include any UNION that one or MORE Consenting adults of age wants to be involved in.PLEASE DO WHAT YOU CAN TO ADDRESS MY CONCERNS AND BRING ABOUT A NEEDED CHANGE TO THE MARRIAGE LAWS. Resource information                    

Carmalita Sanchez
170 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Keith London, Michelle Lazarow, Anabelle Lima-Taub, Mike Butler, Richard Dally, Rabbi Leibel Kudan

Make Hallandale Beach Inclusive & Welcoming for Jewish Residents by Approving the Eruv

Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Commissioners, We are grateful, as residents and homeowners of Hallandale Beach, for all you do for our beautiful city, especially given the intricacies in assuring the needs of all its citizens. This gathering of signatures is to bring to your attention a pressing concern affecting many of the residents and homeowners of Hallandale Beach’s growing Jewish community, to shed light on and request your assistance in its resolution. For the Jewish community the practices of observing the Sabbath are self-managed, without any municipal assistance, with one subtle exception.  For families with small children, those who are physically challenged, residents hoping to host Sabbath observant relatives, future business and home owners and tourists, an Eruv serves a unique and crucial need. The Eruv is basically a sight unseen, symbolic perimeter of a community. While the presence of our Eruv will be 99 percent invisible to those who don’t use it, it is crucial for us. Only with the existence of an Eruv can a person who needs to carry or push anything leave the house (for any reason). Its absence impacts everyone who observes the Sabbath; those with physical limitations are the demographic most critically in need.  Until the Eruv is installed, physically challenged individuals who are dependent on walkers, wheelchairs, canes and other aids, who are Sabbath observant, must remain home bound, unable to go outside for fresh air, visit the park or attend synagogue services. For families with small children who need to be carried or pushed in a stroller, the same limitation applies. As Hallandale Beach enjoys a growing number of young families, this simple accommodation bespeaks value and inclusivity.   Many of us, the undersigned, may not personally observe the Sabbath, yet we applaud our city’s steps to accommodate all its residents. Some of us have relatives or friends who do observe the Sabbath; having an Eruv is the only way we will be able to host them over the weekend. Increased land valuations because of enclosed Eruvs are well documented. South Florida beachfront communities like Miami Beach, Surfside and Bal Harbor have all experienced tremendous positive growth in their communities by accommodating the needs of their growing orthodox constituents. We therefore request your assistance and approval of the Hallandale Beach Eruv as submitted by the Shabbat Committee of the Beaches. We again express our gratitude to the Commissioners for understanding this important request and giving its approval for the implementation of the Hallandale Beach Eruv.  

Shabbos Committee of the Beaches
613 supporters