My Kudos to NAR on their stand on Equal Rights

Thanks for spreading the love about this new and long overdue move by the NAR.  Still not ready to send them a check for next year...but they did move up a little higher on the possibility list.

Isn't it getting kind of late, Kent?

While I agree with your positiion on the issues, I disagree with NAR taking social stands.  As a member, that's not what I pay my dues for.  They should get totally out of those discussions and focus on providing members with benefits, training, and a voice on professional issues.  An organization that can get hijacked to take one side on an issue can just as easily be hijacked again later to take the opposite side on the issue.  Better to stay the heck out of issues in the first place.

Sexual orientation should have been a protected class for years.  NAR taking a stand could put us one step closer to an amended Fair Housing Act.

Night!  1135pm

A couple of thoughts for John. I agree that social issues is a hot button topic and for me if NAR took a stand on abortion or prayer in schools I would have a problem with that. However, I do not believe this is primarily a social issue, it is a human rights issue. It would be wrong for NAR to say the oppositie, it is okay to discriminate. It is also a politcally right one in that a sizable portion of our clients are gay, lesbian, and transgender. It that respect this makes good business sense.  My other comments are mine and subject to anyone's disagreement. I do support gay marriage or spousal rights but in my state I know that I am in the minority. That is where NAR has drawn the line in that they are nor advocating for this social and legal change, they are just stating what a majority of Americans believe in when it comes to denying people their rights.

Kent, as I said before, I agree with you on the issues.  But NAR has an OBLIGATION to sit back and do nothing on issues that are outside of its purpose.  NAR has no right to use member dues to promote any particular social, political, religious agenda.  If members want to get involved in those issues, they are free speak their mind or to join organizations that take one position or another.  But no members have the right to push their views on other members and to use the other member's dues to do it.  Would you be happy if I succeeded in lobbying NAR management to take the other side?  The possibility exists, but it shouldn't.  NAR is a professional organization and should stick to what it's chartered to do.  Wish you all the best, John

Kent, I wish we could sit down and have a friendly discussion over a cup of coffee - you seem like a great guy and you were winning me over until you made an undisputably incorrect statement.  Here's my point:  NAR enjoys a monopoly as a representative organization for agents.  In many areas it's fundamentally impossible to do business without being a member.  Given that, NAR has a responsibility to serve the needs of all its members, not just the majority.  The United States works the same way.  The Constitution was created for 2 reasons: to limit the role of the federal government and to protect the fundamental rights of every citizen.  Corporations and non-profits work the same way - there are bylaws and corporate regulations that limit the ability of management to make certain decisions without a vote of the shareholders.  If the minority of shareholders don't like what the majority votes for, they can sell their shares.  Given NAR's monopoly, agents don't have the same choice.  But if you think majority rule is the way to go, let's take a look at events that occurred when the majority of German people voted Adolf Hitler into office.  Sure, millions of Jews, gays and gypsies were slaughtered, buy hey, that must have been ok because the majority ruled.  Those Jews, gays and gypsies were in the minority and therefore had no rights, eh?  OK, I'm being extreme to the point of ridiculous, but this should be a simple issue.  Should all Americans enjoy the same rights regardless of their differences?  Of course.  But should a professional organization go outside its charter to make political points?  In NAR's case, this is neither right nor necessary.  Thanks for your post and comments, I respect and appreciate them.

I would not say NAR went out of their purview to make a political point. What they did is expand the Code of Ethics to include discrimination against sexual orientation. I have a lot of issues with NAR including the use of RPAC funds, but this actually made me proud of them. I do believe it is important for NAR to stand for something and to me the Code of Ethics is a biggie and separates us as well as guiding us to ethcial behavior and public respect if we will just honor it. 

Kent, and John, and Joe:  Including gays, lesbians and transgendered folks in the anti-discrimination groups... as far as NAR is concerned, is NOT a Religious issue, it is NOT a social, but it IS a civil rights issue.

The word EQUAL means just that.  Equal treatment under the law.  Just as women, blacks, ageism, ethnicity and all the other "protected" groups deserve equal protections and equal treatment, now NAR has recognized that gays, lesbians and transgendered folks also deserve to be treated equally.

And just because treating them equally and honorably does obviously not fit into your religious or social beliefs, ummm... too bad.  Including them is simply the right thing to do.  Period.

And, Kent, if I may make one point... I do not think that the majority should rule... IF that majority is taking the WRONG stance.  And, I do not mean wrong by my definition, but simply wrong... as in one's civil rights.  The majority has voted in California against same-sex marriage, and even though they are the majority of the votes cast, they should NOT rule.  The ruling should be thrown out.  Totally.  Equal rights for those of the same sex who want to marry... is a right.  It is being treated equally.  And, it is not a "granting" of those rights.  The right was there all along... it was just not recognized yet.

John, you said it correctly in your comment.  The Constitution was created to protect the rights of EVERY citizen.  That is what NAR has now agreed with.  It's so easy to see that... if you're not wearing blinders.

John... you have a "right" to believe what you wish, you just do not have the right to impose your beliefs on others.

John - don't know what to say except that I think your comments are queer.

Lori:  I honestly do not know HOW you can stand it... with your Progressive attitude... doing business in the middle such a mis-guided state as Oklahoma.

Ok... this calls for my ONLY Oklahoma joke.  Why do Oklahoma license plates have "Oklahoma is OK" on them ?  Because nobody in Oklahoma is smart enough to spell "mediocre."

Kent, I truly appreciate your kind words towards me.  I am a bit older than you are... prolly more than a bit... I am 66.  I have always had as part of me the ability to put myself in the shoes of others... although at times that makes me look funny, cuz the shoes do not match the outfit I am wearing.  But anyway... in doing so, I tried to look at things through a different perspective, and to learn from it.

I have my own beliefs, and I do NOT try and force them upon others... as many on the extreme right seem to do.  But religious beliefs are simply that.  Religious.  Civil rights are another thing. 

Equality is what this country is supposed to be about.  It really does not matter if someone "believes" in equality between blacks and whites, between men and women, or between gays and lesbians, and straight folks.  Their belief is their belief. 

But luckily, we have that little thing called the Constitution... that blatantly says that Equality rules.  With Liberty, and Justice... for ALL. 

How much more clear does it have to be put, in order for folks like John... who seems to want to deny the rights of others... to see that ?  He is free to believe what he wishes.  He is just NOT free... to codify that belief, try and make it the law of the land, and thus force it upon others.

And yes, Kent... I think you are a pretty cool guy as well... kinda sorta.  LOL.

I disagree, it isn't saying you should discriminate if they don't include them as a class. It is saying that sexual orientation is not a class with the current protected groups. I for one am against adding sexual orientation as a protected class. I think it is a mockery of the human rights movement. Why have protected classes, why not open it up to everyone. This is the question you have to ask yourself. Why is one class proetected and what makes a class. Most of the other things are things people cannot chose while sexual preferences are frankly things I don't want to know about people. I think it is totally political and agree with John that I don't want my organization getting into issues like abortion and gay rights. I think that gay rights parades under human rights when it is a choice and so to me it should not be included with the other protected classes. I think it is a gross misuse of the human rights banner and yet people go along with it. I think people have the right to choose what they do, but it is a moral perversion to me. That being said there are lots of moral perversions out there and people are free to do what they want if they aren't breaking any laws. But putting them in the same categories of race and disability to me is a slap in the face of real protected classes.