From our family to yours, our absolute best for the Christmas season and coming New Year.
With this, I'll be signing off until after Christmas.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Our Best to You
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Snippets
I've been busy with my father (who had a stroke last week), final exams week, Christmas preparations, and sheer exhaustion.
Lots going on in the world of marriage equality.
Of course right at the top of the list is Elton John's Civil Union with his long-time partner. Due to the throngs of fans and media, extra police presence was required and, of course, Elton John was billed for that (about $20,000). I found this little snippet interesting:
Frankly, I wouldn't care if they called it purple crunchy peanut butter, as long as the rights are equal.
Scotland began the same civil union law this week as well. Good for the UK!
No word yet on the state Supreme Court ruling out of Washington state regarding the constitutionality of the state's ban on granting marriage to GLBT members.
We'll be watching this closely.
In San Jose, California a judge has ordered the city to stop providing benefits to those GLBT members who were married in jurisdictions where those marriages were legal and valid.
The ruling cites Proposition 22, which was passed by voters a few years ago, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Then there's the on-again, off-again of Ford Motor Company. First they announced their plans to pull advertisement from all things gay, then they backtrack. Some pundits believe that it's less because of the meetings between Ford and the GLBT organizations and more because of the fear that the image of Ford being driven (pardon the pun, but it WAS intended) by extremist religious groups.
A U.S. Army Private was assaulted at Fort Huachuca, Arizona by a fellow servicemember after it was learned that the Private was gay. The private was made to sleep on a cot in his drill sergeant's office following the attack. The fact that there is a drill sergeant in the picture tells me that this is the old unit that I once belonged to at Fort Devens, which was moved to Ft. Huachuca. And, if this is the case, there are security clearances involved for both the private that was assaulted, and the one who did the assaulting. This is the US Army's Intelligence School and, believe me, there is still a "good old boy" network alive and well in that community in the Army.
The Army has not taken any action against the soldier who committed the assault. Big surprise there.
The city of Indianapolis has passed an anti-discrimination policy in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. Hey, every small step is a step in the right direction, right?
And, direct from the sanctity of marriage files, I bring to you.....my family.
My father, at the age of 68, began an "affair" over the internet with a woman from Brazil. She was married, wealthy, and pretty "loose," so to speak. My father traveled to Brazil a couple of times to see her, and she traveled to the US to see him. My aunt says the two of them visited her in Connecticut, when the Brazilian woman was pregnant. (We really DON'T want to know.)
Eventually my father realized this woman wasn't going to leave her wealthy husband and, when she asked my father to "take care" of her sister, he took her up on it. He married the younger sister quickly and brought her (and her little girl) to the US. His wife is 37 years his junior. She spoke not one word of English when she arrived here, nor did her 9 year old daughter. He spoke not one word of Portugese. He keeps her completely under his thumb, holding her green card over her head if she doesn't behave in exactly the way he thinks she should.
Apples don't fall far from the tree, though.
My brother, who is a year older than I, married in 1974. He was 19, she was 27 and had four kids, ranging in age from 18 months to 7 years. His wife passed away two years ago and, almost immediately, my brother began hanging out next door with a woman (Michelle) who had a couple of kids and was living with the father of the kids. They'd purchased the house together (the woman and her live-in boyfriend/father of the kids). For the past 2 years, it's been pretty well established that my brother and this woman have some kind of relationship. We learned last week that my brother and the woman married in August. Of course, THEY are still living in the same house with the live-in boyfriend/father of the kids and their marriage is a secret to him for what would seem to be obvious reasons.
Yeah...I can see how us queers can fuck up the sanctity of marriage.
Lots going on in the world of marriage equality.
Of course right at the top of the list is Elton John's Civil Union with his long-time partner. Due to the throngs of fans and media, extra police presence was required and, of course, Elton John was billed for that (about $20,000). I found this little snippet interesting:
Both marriage and partnerships have the same rights and responsibilities but gays and lesbians cannot call themselves married. The difference is critical for gay leaders who point out the inequity in the law, but for non-gays, especially the media, both are the same. The media has seldom used the phrase' civil partnership', opting instead to call the unions 'marriage'.
Frankly, I wouldn't care if they called it purple crunchy peanut butter, as long as the rights are equal.
Scotland began the same civil union law this week as well. Good for the UK!
No word yet on the state Supreme Court ruling out of Washington state regarding the constitutionality of the state's ban on granting marriage to GLBT members.
Legal experts say the court could rule in any of three ways: It could declare DOMA unconstitutional and grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals, uphold DOMA, or ask the Legislature to resolve the issue.
We'll be watching this closely.
In San Jose, California a judge has ordered the city to stop providing benefits to those GLBT members who were married in jurisdictions where those marriages were legal and valid.
In a Monday ruling Superior Court Judge Mary Jo Levinger said that the city regulation "is contrary to California law and is therefore pre-empted. Furthermore, only marriages between a man and a woman may be recognized by the City of San Jose."
The ruling cites Proposition 22, which was passed by voters a few years ago, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Then there's the on-again, off-again of Ford Motor Company. First they announced their plans to pull advertisement from all things gay, then they backtrack. Some pundits believe that it's less because of the meetings between Ford and the GLBT organizations and more because of the fear that the image of Ford being driven (pardon the pun, but it WAS intended) by extremist religious groups.
"Ford's response wasn't just to an outcry from GLBT people, but to the clear message from our families and friends that we will not tolerate Ford or any other corporations' surrender to the demands of extremist groups like the AFA."
A U.S. Army Private was assaulted at Fort Huachuca, Arizona by a fellow servicemember after it was learned that the Private was gay. The private was made to sleep on a cot in his drill sergeant's office following the attack. The fact that there is a drill sergeant in the picture tells me that this is the old unit that I once belonged to at Fort Devens, which was moved to Ft. Huachuca. And, if this is the case, there are security clearances involved for both the private that was assaulted, and the one who did the assaulting. This is the US Army's Intelligence School and, believe me, there is still a "good old boy" network alive and well in that community in the Army.
The Army has not taken any action against the soldier who committed the assault. Big surprise there.
The city of Indianapolis has passed an anti-discrimination policy in the areas of housing, employment, and public accommodations. Hey, every small step is a step in the right direction, right?
And, direct from the sanctity of marriage files, I bring to you.....my family.
My father, at the age of 68, began an "affair" over the internet with a woman from Brazil. She was married, wealthy, and pretty "loose," so to speak. My father traveled to Brazil a couple of times to see her, and she traveled to the US to see him. My aunt says the two of them visited her in Connecticut, when the Brazilian woman was pregnant. (We really DON'T want to know.)
Eventually my father realized this woman wasn't going to leave her wealthy husband and, when she asked my father to "take care" of her sister, he took her up on it. He married the younger sister quickly and brought her (and her little girl) to the US. His wife is 37 years his junior. She spoke not one word of English when she arrived here, nor did her 9 year old daughter. He spoke not one word of Portugese. He keeps her completely under his thumb, holding her green card over her head if she doesn't behave in exactly the way he thinks she should.
Apples don't fall far from the tree, though.
My brother, who is a year older than I, married in 1974. He was 19, she was 27 and had four kids, ranging in age from 18 months to 7 years. His wife passed away two years ago and, almost immediately, my brother began hanging out next door with a woman (Michelle) who had a couple of kids and was living with the father of the kids. They'd purchased the house together (the woman and her live-in boyfriend/father of the kids). For the past 2 years, it's been pretty well established that my brother and this woman have some kind of relationship. We learned last week that my brother and the woman married in August. Of course, THEY are still living in the same house with the live-in boyfriend/father of the kids and their marriage is a secret to him for what would seem to be obvious reasons.
Yeah...I can see how us queers can fuck up the sanctity of marriage.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Musings
I found this letter to the Editor while perusing today's edition of 365gay.com news:
I got a phone call Friday from Blue Cross/Blue Shield regarding my health insurance plan. The customer care representative said there was some "confusion" and asked me who I wanted covered. I told her me, of course, Lisa G. and Joseph M. She asked for Joe's date of birth and I gave it to her. *slight pause* Conversation continued as follows:
I figure I messed with her head and ruined her day enough. But when you think about it, if they put Lisa into the computer as my spouse, the computer wouldn't accept it because it was a same-sex marriage? If that's the case, then it was deliberately programmed in to not accept same sex couples. Of course, you could make a valid argument that it was necessary to do that so that flags and bells and sirens would go off if John Jones tried to add his kid brother who refuses to get a job and would rather mooch off big brother onto his policy. Or a roommate with no legal standing, etc. I understand all that. But there's a storm a-brewin' and they're going to have to re-think that programming.
In the meantime, we got our new insurance cards in the mail yesterday showing coverage for Pat, Joe and Lisa (in that order). Lisa was a bit confused as to why her name wasn't on the policy. I told her it's because *I* am the sponsor of the policy. She's never been a "dependent" or spouse before and I think she thought it should have been in both our names. All that aside, though, we were both stoked about this small victory. Our plan becomes effective January 1.
Found this fantastic sculpture on sale at eBay but, alas, it's way out of my price range. It's still for sale for the next 4 days if you're interested:
Right on, Padre! I wonder how it is that all of these neo-cons and homophobes who continually quote scripture as a valid reason to discriminate and spread messages of hate against gays don't see this? On a message board I frequent, they use the term "Buffet Christian," and I find it to be right on, also. Pick and choose, pass over the things that aren't appealing. What hypocrisy. And, isn't that, in and of itself, a sin of choice?
To the Editor,
Re: Anti-Gay Group Dumps Bank
Focus on the Family's decision to sever their relationship with Wells-Fargo Bank raises an interesting question: the Book of Leviticus also forbids lending or borrowing of money at interest.
Presumably Focus on the Family had no qualms about depositing their monies in interest-bearing checking and savings accounts, as well as other interest-bearing instruments.
Is there an edition of the Holy Bible that I'm not aware of that differentiates between the sin of usury and the sin of sodomy?
How is it then, absent such an edition, that Focus on the Family roundly condemns the latter, and practices the former?
The Rev'd. Father Raymond H. Clark
Superior (retired)
The Community of the Resurrection
San Diego California
I got a phone call Friday from Blue Cross/Blue Shield regarding my health insurance plan. The customer care representative said there was some "confusion" and asked me who I wanted covered. I told her me, of course, Lisa G. and Joseph M. She asked for Joe's date of birth and I gave it to her. *slight pause* Conversation continued as follows:
Rep: Oh, I see the problem. You inadvertently checked "spouse"
for Lisa.
Me: That's because she is my spouse.
We were legally married in Canada.
*pregnant pause*
Rep: Oh, well we don't recognize that in New York State.
Me: That's not what the state's Attorney General Elliott Spitzer
says.
*longer pregnant pause*
Rep: Oh, well the computer won't take it that way.
Me: Which means that the computer was deliberately programmed to
discriminate then, right?
*pause* *long sigh*
Rep: We'll have to put her into the system as your domestic
partner.
Me: Whatever.
I figure I messed with her head and ruined her day enough. But when you think about it, if they put Lisa into the computer as my spouse, the computer wouldn't accept it because it was a same-sex marriage? If that's the case, then it was deliberately programmed in to not accept same sex couples. Of course, you could make a valid argument that it was necessary to do that so that flags and bells and sirens would go off if John Jones tried to add his kid brother who refuses to get a job and would rather mooch off big brother onto his policy. Or a roommate with no legal standing, etc. I understand all that. But there's a storm a-brewin' and they're going to have to re-think that programming.
In the meantime, we got our new insurance cards in the mail yesterday showing coverage for Pat, Joe and Lisa (in that order). Lisa was a bit confused as to why her name wasn't on the policy. I told her it's because *I* am the sponsor of the policy. She's never been a "dependent" or spouse before and I think she thought it should have been in both our names. All that aside, though, we were both stoked about this small victory. Our plan becomes effective January 1.
Found this fantastic sculpture on sale at eBay but, alas, it's way out of my price range. It's still for sale for the next 4 days if you're interested:
Friday, December 09, 2005
State Appeals Court Reverses Ruling That Allowed Gay Marriage
(New York, NY) AP - 12/09/05 - A gay rights group is vowing to appeal a state appeals court ruling that keeps the ban on same-sex marriage in New York City.
The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled four-to-one today that Judge Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not allow same-sex marriage.
The appeals court said her ruling exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and upsurped the state legislature.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a moderate Democrat who supports gay marriage, said he'll urge the Legislature to change the state's Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage.
The appellate judges said today that state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."
The earlier ruling had favored five same-sex couples who sued New York City because the city clerk had denied their marriage license applications. The decision was the first of its kind in New York City and was a step toward allowing gay weddings. Today's reversal keeps the status quo on same-sex marriage.
Justice David Saxe was the panel's dissenter. He said he saw no important public interest in barring same-sex marriage and said laws that bar it perpetuate discrimination.
Susan Sommer, senior lawyer at Lambda Legal, the gay rights organization that backed the same-sex marriage drive, vowed to appeal.
The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division ruled four-to-one today that Judge Doris Ling-Cohan erred in February when she held that the state's domestic relations law is unconstitutional since it does not allow same-sex marriage.
The appeals court said her ruling exceeded the court's constitutional mandate and upsurped the state legislature.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a moderate Democrat who supports gay marriage, said he'll urge the Legislature to change the state's Domestic Relations Law to permit gay marriage.
The appellate judges said today that state laws regarding marriage "do not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the New York State Constitution."
The earlier ruling had favored five same-sex couples who sued New York City because the city clerk had denied their marriage license applications. The decision was the first of its kind in New York City and was a step toward allowing gay weddings. Today's reversal keeps the status quo on same-sex marriage.
Justice David Saxe was the panel's dissenter. He said he saw no important public interest in barring same-sex marriage and said laws that bar it perpetuate discrimination.
Susan Sommer, senior lawyer at Lambda Legal, the gay rights organization that backed the same-sex marriage drive, vowed to appeal.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Support Companies that Support Us
The newest HRC Buyer's Guide is out now. Go here, download the file, print it out, and support those companies that support us best. Stay away from those companies that scored low. Help US all when you shop!
Lawsuit update
Well, it's been over a year and a half since I first contacted the ACLU -- this process moves laboriously slow. It's seeming turtle-paced progress is primarily due to the fact that this case is reviewed, not only by my own lawyer, but by lawyers within the ACLU all the way up to the national office. And these folks don't like to lose so they meet and meet and meet on strategy, wording, legal issues, etc.
It took most of 2004 before they even filed the lawsuit -- I'd contacted them in March and it was January 2005 when the lawsuit was filed (it was amended in February). Overall, my life has been pretty uneventful, with regard to the lawsuit. I worried about a lot of stress and negative reaction from within my place of employment but, once the initial buzz ended, that was pretty much that. I've met some great people within the workplace as a direct result of the news article and for that, I'm grateful. There are some folks whom I've known all along who, once the news became public, expressed to me that they had opposed same-sex marriage but, after realizing that it affected someone they knew and respected in such a negative way, they bothered to ask questions and research the issue and are now supportive of it. Some remain unchanged in their views regarding the "morality" of allowing queers to marry, but they stick strongly to their beliefs and, for the most part, are respectful regarding them. I respect that as well, for the most part. While I believe it to be woefully ignorant to base the right of marriage solely on genitals, I respect their opinions -- they can oppose it without demonizing the GLBT community.
Lisa's family included me in their name-draw for Christmas this year. Her mother pulled her aside on Thanksgiving and told her that, while she'd expressed a desire to have me included, she'd have to ask the rest of the siblings and older grandkids if it was okay with them. This begs the question "Did you have to canvass the family when your son married your daughter-in-law?" On a much smaller scale, this is exactly the same thing as asking the nation to vote on whether our relationships should be recognized as valid and, with that recognition, protected in the same way that heterosexuals' relationships are. How come we don't get to vote on whether it's proper for THEM to marry? But, with Lisa's family, it's still a small step forward. It's progress. And, as long as there's progress being made, isn't that okay? Do we have to take an "all or nothing" approach in our demand for recognition? I don't think so.
I got an email yesterday from the lawyer's office, with two attachments. They are the documents to be submitted to the court that request a summary judgment on the case. They point out that, during the process of depositions, it was determined that the facts themselves are not in dispute. It's the law (or the perception of the law by my employer).
In short, the lawsuit stems from the fact that I was denied spousal benefits at my place of employment. I am represented by a union and, in the union's contract with the employer, there is no language which specifically grants medical benefits to any spouse. The contract simply states that the employee may enroll. It was this "hole" that I was poking at, regarding the discrimination. I was told by the HR Director that NY State does not recognize civil unions. She also said (after our July marriage in Canada) that the contract did not allow her to grant the benefits, even though the contract was silent on opposite sex spouses as well.
Additionally, there is no definition of "spouse," either in the union contract, or anywhere within my place of employment -- meaning that it doesn't limit the definition to opposite gendered married couples.
These are the two key points that are being made, charging discrimination.
What slays me is that this union contract has been around for more than 4 decades and it took some dumbass like me to find this hole -- how could that be? I actually tripped over it myself when I was writing a rebuttal to the HR Director's refusal to extend benefits last March. I went to the contract to quote, verbatim, what the contract said about spouses. We'd just gone through the New Paltz marriage mill and I was trying to make a Pat sort of point. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there was no language regarding spouses with regard to health insurance!
When I pointed it out to the union President, she insisted that the language was there and, when I told her to look, she dropped her jaw on the floor when she read that section of the contract and realized that, in fact, spouses were not included. The HR Director did the same thing -- insisted over and over that the language was there and, when the union President and I sat in her office and challenged her to find the language, she took out the contract book, read the section THREE times, then looked up and said "Well, it's IMPLIED."
Of course, our new contract now contains language including spouses. This was most likely the union's doing since, the way it was written before, the employer could back right out of spousal health benefits at any given moment.
If you're interested, copies of the motion and affirmation can be downloaded (they can't be viewed online, they have to be downloaded -- they're Word files). Click here for the affirmation, and click here for the motion.
I figure that, with the pace this thing has shown thus far, these documents will be filed sometime after the first of the year. MAYBE, just maybe, we'll have a resolution or a ruling before Christmas of 2006.
It took most of 2004 before they even filed the lawsuit -- I'd contacted them in March and it was January 2005 when the lawsuit was filed (it was amended in February). Overall, my life has been pretty uneventful, with regard to the lawsuit. I worried about a lot of stress and negative reaction from within my place of employment but, once the initial buzz ended, that was pretty much that. I've met some great people within the workplace as a direct result of the news article and for that, I'm grateful. There are some folks whom I've known all along who, once the news became public, expressed to me that they had opposed same-sex marriage but, after realizing that it affected someone they knew and respected in such a negative way, they bothered to ask questions and research the issue and are now supportive of it. Some remain unchanged in their views regarding the "morality" of allowing queers to marry, but they stick strongly to their beliefs and, for the most part, are respectful regarding them. I respect that as well, for the most part. While I believe it to be woefully ignorant to base the right of marriage solely on genitals, I respect their opinions -- they can oppose it without demonizing the GLBT community.
Lisa's family included me in their name-draw for Christmas this year. Her mother pulled her aside on Thanksgiving and told her that, while she'd expressed a desire to have me included, she'd have to ask the rest of the siblings and older grandkids if it was okay with them. This begs the question "Did you have to canvass the family when your son married your daughter-in-law?" On a much smaller scale, this is exactly the same thing as asking the nation to vote on whether our relationships should be recognized as valid and, with that recognition, protected in the same way that heterosexuals' relationships are. How come we don't get to vote on whether it's proper for THEM to marry? But, with Lisa's family, it's still a small step forward. It's progress. And, as long as there's progress being made, isn't that okay? Do we have to take an "all or nothing" approach in our demand for recognition? I don't think so.
I got an email yesterday from the lawyer's office, with two attachments. They are the documents to be submitted to the court that request a summary judgment on the case. They point out that, during the process of depositions, it was determined that the facts themselves are not in dispute. It's the law (or the perception of the law by my employer).
In short, the lawsuit stems from the fact that I was denied spousal benefits at my place of employment. I am represented by a union and, in the union's contract with the employer, there is no language which specifically grants medical benefits to any spouse. The contract simply states that the employee may enroll. It was this "hole" that I was poking at, regarding the discrimination. I was told by the HR Director that NY State does not recognize civil unions. She also said (after our July marriage in Canada) that the contract did not allow her to grant the benefits, even though the contract was silent on opposite sex spouses as well.
Additionally, there is no definition of "spouse," either in the union contract, or anywhere within my place of employment -- meaning that it doesn't limit the definition to opposite gendered married couples.
These are the two key points that are being made, charging discrimination.
What slays me is that this union contract has been around for more than 4 decades and it took some dumbass like me to find this hole -- how could that be? I actually tripped over it myself when I was writing a rebuttal to the HR Director's refusal to extend benefits last March. I went to the contract to quote, verbatim, what the contract said about spouses. We'd just gone through the New Paltz marriage mill and I was trying to make a Pat sort of point. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that there was no language regarding spouses with regard to health insurance!
When I pointed it out to the union President, she insisted that the language was there and, when I told her to look, she dropped her jaw on the floor when she read that section of the contract and realized that, in fact, spouses were not included. The HR Director did the same thing -- insisted over and over that the language was there and, when the union President and I sat in her office and challenged her to find the language, she took out the contract book, read the section THREE times, then looked up and said "Well, it's IMPLIED."
Of course, our new contract now contains language including spouses. This was most likely the union's doing since, the way it was written before, the employer could back right out of spousal health benefits at any given moment.
If you're interested, copies of the motion and affirmation can be downloaded (they can't be viewed online, they have to be downloaded -- they're Word files). Click here for the affirmation, and click here for the motion.
I figure that, with the pace this thing has shown thus far, these documents will be filed sometime after the first of the year. MAYBE, just maybe, we'll have a resolution or a ruling before Christmas of 2006.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
One Step Closer
I just got back from Human Resources, where they accepted my application to put Lisa on my health and dental insurance, as a result of the excellent collective bargaining agreement our union brought us.
Yes, it's only "domestic partner" benefits, but it's recognition of our relationship in some form and, as I've said before, we must learn to walk before we can run.
We were required to provide one form of proof of cohabitation for more than one year -- I submitted our Vermont Civil Union certificate from 2001.
We were required to provide two forms of proof of financial interdependence so we submitted a joint credit card statement (with both our names) and our registration for our antique truck, which also has both our names.
Sitting in the wings I had a car insurance bill with both our names on it, as well as mutual health care proxies drawn up earlier this year (after the Terri Schiavo incident), our Affidavit of Marriage from New Paltz in 2004, our marriage license from Canada in 2004, a copy of our home equity line of credit (joint) from 2002, and proof that we are both beneficiaries for each others' life insurance policies. There was no way they were going to tell me I didn't have the right documentation.
So now the question remains as to how they're going to report this for tax purposes. I have what's called a "sponsor" plan, with me and my son only on it. Adding Lisa will make it a family plan so, as was confirmed by the HR representative, the taxable amount should only be on the difference between the sponsor and family plan cost, or $4.80 per pay period from me and $55.24 from my employer. This would mean that I will pay "income" tax on $1561.04 annually.
If our marriage was recognized like any heterosexual's marriage, we would not pay that tax. This is just one of many reasons why we (the LGBT community) want civil marriage. We are not treated equally and domestic partner benefits only further the "separate but equal" mentality.
But for now, I'll take what I can get. But I'm not going to do it quietly...
Yes, it's only "domestic partner" benefits, but it's recognition of our relationship in some form and, as I've said before, we must learn to walk before we can run.
We were required to provide one form of proof of cohabitation for more than one year -- I submitted our Vermont Civil Union certificate from 2001.
We were required to provide two forms of proof of financial interdependence so we submitted a joint credit card statement (with both our names) and our registration for our antique truck, which also has both our names.
Sitting in the wings I had a car insurance bill with both our names on it, as well as mutual health care proxies drawn up earlier this year (after the Terri Schiavo incident), our Affidavit of Marriage from New Paltz in 2004, our marriage license from Canada in 2004, a copy of our home equity line of credit (joint) from 2002, and proof that we are both beneficiaries for each others' life insurance policies. There was no way they were going to tell me I didn't have the right documentation.
So now the question remains as to how they're going to report this for tax purposes. I have what's called a "sponsor" plan, with me and my son only on it. Adding Lisa will make it a family plan so, as was confirmed by the HR representative, the taxable amount should only be on the difference between the sponsor and family plan cost, or $4.80 per pay period from me and $55.24 from my employer. This would mean that I will pay "income" tax on $1561.04 annually.
If our marriage was recognized like any heterosexual's marriage, we would not pay that tax. This is just one of many reasons why we (the LGBT community) want civil marriage. We are not treated equally and domestic partner benefits only further the "separate but equal" mentality.
But for now, I'll take what I can get. But I'm not going to do it quietly...
NYS Case Law
ACLU asks end to NYS law banning marriage equality
ALBANY - The American Civil Liberties Union on Oct. 17 asked a New York appeals court to strike down a state law that bars same-sex couples from marriage and the hundreds of family protections afforded to married couples.
Meanwhile, the state’s case against marriage equality was not going too well, according to the New York Law Journal.
“It was a great relief to be in court and hear our lawyers explain to the court the very real consequences we deal with when we’re treated as legal strangers to our partners,” said plaintiff Tonja Alvis of Schenectady, who is raising two children with her partner of six years, Kathy Burke. “We’re looking forward to the day when we can finally dance with our sons at our wedding and are no longer denied the legal protections that other couples enjoy.” Alvis has no health insurance because she can’t afford the plan offered by her employer, and Burke’s employer doesn’t offer domestic partner health benefits.
The case, brought by the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP was argued before the Third Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division on behalf of 12 same-sex couples. Several of the plaintiffs, who hope to be married in the state of New York and had been on the waiting list to get married by Mayor Jason West in New Paltz, were present in court.
“Our plaintiffs include a police officer, a nurse, a social studies teacher, an artist, a physical therapist, and a state legislator — people from all walks of life who make the same commitments to their partners that straight couples do,” said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton and Garrison, LLP, who argued the case as an ACLU cooperating attorney. “Denying these loving, devoted couples marriage protections hurts families and ultimately the state….
“This is not a case about abstract principles,” Kaplan said. “This is a case about real people… who are deprived of benefits by the state of New York.”
“Marriage is a commitment shared by two people who love each other and agree to look out for each other during the good times and the bad,” said James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s national Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “Two adults who make this personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian.”
Among the couples who were present for the arguments were:
Cindy Bink and Ann Pachner of West Hurley, who have been together for 17 years. Bink had to leave her job as a counselor at a community college in New Jersey, where she had worked for 17 years because the college did not offer domestic partner benefits. Forced to search for a job that would allow her to cover Pachner on her health insurance policy, she finally found a job working for the City of New York that provides health care for both of them.
Regina Cicchetti and Susan Zimmer, who live in Port Jervis and recently celebrated their 35th anniversary. Cicchetti has survived two life-threatening illnesses — breast cancer and a pituitary tumor — and says that she could never have made it through these crises without Zimmer’s support. The couple wants the security of knowing no questions will be asked about their relationship should one of them be hospitalized in the future.
“The New York constitution requires that the state treat all its citizens equally,” said Art Eisenberg, Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Despite the fact that lesbian and gay people make the same kinds of commitments to their partners and children that straight people make, the state denies them numerous protections that keep families afloat during difficult times. That’s not equal treatment.”
It is unknown when the court will issue its ruling. However, the Court of Appeals, New York State’s highest court, will almost certainly have the ultimate say over the issue.
Biographical information on all of the clients and the legal documents, and other background materials about Samuels and Gallagher, et. al. v. New York Department of Health, are available at www.aclu.org/caseprofiles.
The New York Law Journal’s coverage suggested that the state conceded that New York has no compelling interest in preventing same-sex marriages, and relied on a rational basis claim. “In 90 minutes of arguments before the Appellate Division, Third Department, the state abandoned one of its two major defenses and struggled to sell the other.”
The Law Journal said that Deputy Solicitor General Peter H. Schiff claimed that while there is no compelling state interest in banning homosexual marriage, the state’s prohibition survives a rational basis test on the strength of its historic commitment to providing a stable environment for children. The state argued it was up to the Legislature to determine whether same-sex marriages should be legalized.
Schiff did not claim that gay or lesbian parents would necessarily preside over an unstable environment, arguing instead that New York’s preference for opposite-sex marriages is based on the rationally pragmatic interest in encouraging childbirth within the confines of marriage.
“Well, what does that have to do with it?” asked Judge Anthony J. Carpinello, a question asked in various forms by several judges, the Law Journal said.
According to the Law Journal, Schiff attempted to explain that with the possibility of accidental procreation, the state has an interest in promoting marriage so children will be born in “physically and emotionally stable settings”. But that argument appeared to trouble the court, especially since there is no possibility of accidental procreation in a homosexual relationship.
“That is a little bit of a stretch, wouldn’t you say?” responded Presiding Justice Anthony V. Cardona.
THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
In a “Dear Abby” column a couple of days ago, I read this letter:
Now, here’s what bugs me (okay, a lot bugs me but this specific thing really bugs me). The anti-gay and anti-gay marriage crowd claim that their passionate objections against us and our families stem from Biblical and moral values. They want to legislate morality, so to speak.
Yet, here’s this 22 year old girl who took her husband and her family for a ride, and then tossed the marriage aside for a new man, only two weeks after the marriage. This 22 year old girl is old enough to vote on whether or not it’s “moral” for me to marry my partner, but where are these conservatives in their push to protect the sanctity of marriage against the likes of this girl?
HATE CRIMES
When was the last time you read in the paper about a woman beating the shit out of some guy that made a sexual advance toward her? When was the last time you saw a story about a guy beating the shit out of some woman for flirting with him?
It’s beyond my comprehension how a human being can use “He made a pass at me” as a defense for beating a person unconscious or to death because of a perceived homosexual advance.
Unwanted sexual advances are unwanted sexual advances, plain and simple. But what makes men think that unwanted sexual advances from other men warrant, explain, or excuse violence against the other man? Can we buy a defense of Susie saying “Your honor, I beat that man senseless with a hammer because he came on to me and I was afraid he was going to rape me.”
Yet, here we go again:
To add insult to injury, of course Alabama doesn’t have a hate crimes law.
HUMOR
I’m sorry, I can’t help but laugh at stuff like this.
POP QUIZ
Are you a lesbian?
My Results:
You scored
In a “Dear Abby” column a couple of days ago, I read this letter:
DEAR ABBY: My 22-year-old niece, "Brittany," married her boyfriend of many years last month in a lavish production of a wedding financed entirely by her father (my brother). On the invitations, it was mentioned that their home was fully furnished, so in lieu of gifts, they'd appreciate money for their honeymoon to the Dominican Republic.
Most family members generously complied and chipped in $300 to $500 each. My widowed grandmother, who lived on a fixed income, even sent them $50.
Four days after their return from the honeymoon, Brittany threw her husband of two weeks out of the house and moved in with her new boyfriend, whom she'd first met when he "entertained" at her bachelorette party three weeks prior. To say we are all surprised is putting it mildly.
No one has heard from Brittany since, and no explanation was offered. My mother recently got her on the phone, and Brittany quickly ended the conversation by claiming that all the money had been "spent" and that her now ex-husband had any funds that remained. (We know this can't be true because the distraught groom recently approached my brother and asked him to pay for the annulment.)
Doesn't etiquette dictate that Brittany return all gifts -- including cash -- as the marriage ended just days after the checks cleared the bank? Is this why there's a 12-month window in which to send wedding gifts? -- ANGRY IN SAN FRANCISCO
Now, here’s what bugs me (okay, a lot bugs me but this specific thing really bugs me). The anti-gay and anti-gay marriage crowd claim that their passionate objections against us and our families stem from Biblical and moral values. They want to legislate morality, so to speak.
Yet, here’s this 22 year old girl who took her husband and her family for a ride, and then tossed the marriage aside for a new man, only two weeks after the marriage. This 22 year old girl is old enough to vote on whether or not it’s “moral” for me to marry my partner, but where are these conservatives in their push to protect the sanctity of marriage against the likes of this girl?
HATE CRIMES
When was the last time you read in the paper about a woman beating the shit out of some guy that made a sexual advance toward her? When was the last time you saw a story about a guy beating the shit out of some woman for flirting with him?
It’s beyond my comprehension how a human being can use “He made a pass at me” as a defense for beating a person unconscious or to death because of a perceived homosexual advance.
Unwanted sexual advances are unwanted sexual advances, plain and simple. But what makes men think that unwanted sexual advances from other men warrant, explain, or excuse violence against the other man? Can we buy a defense of Susie saying “Your honor, I beat that man senseless with a hammer because he came on to me and I was afraid he was going to rape me.”
Yet, here we go again:
(Jackson, Alabama) A 52 year old Alabama man is clinging to life in a Jackson hospital after what police call a homophobic attack. A 26 year old man is charged with attempted murder in the beating Billy Sanford. Police said that when he was arrested Marcus Dewayne Kelley confessed saying that he attacked Sanford with a hammer because the slight older man had made sexual advances toward him.
To add insult to injury, of course Alabama doesn’t have a hate crimes law.
HUMOR
I’m sorry, I can’t help but laugh at stuff like this.
POP QUIZ
Are you a lesbian?
My Results:
You scored
165
The lesbianity is strong in this one. You love the ladies. Either that or you just like cats and bad music. I bet you've got a good collection of baseball caps. Or are they scalps from your sexual conquests? Oh, no. They're baseball caps (sorry 'bout that).
Monday, November 14, 2005
Open Mouth, Insert Foot
Did you see the latest O'Reilly rant?
And then, later, in an interview, he defends his remarks:
When is THIS asshole going to be held accountable?
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly is under fire for suggesting that al-Qaida should "blow up" Coit Tower, one of the San Francisco's most famous landmarks, because voters backed a resolution discouraging military recruiters on public high school and college campuses.
The proposition passed by a healthy majority last Tuesday. It does not ban recruiters, but it does urge schools to reject them.
The proposition is not binding but its let the Pentagon know how the city feels about 'don't ask, don't tell' the military's ban on gays serving openly.
On his Fox television show O'Reilly called for President George W. Bush to withdraw any military protection for the city.
"...If al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly said.
And then, later, in an interview, he defends his remarks:
I mean, look, everybody knows what’s going on there. What I said isn’t controversial. What I said needed to be said. I’m sitting here and I’m looking at a city that has absolutely no clue about what the world is. None. You know, if you had been hit on 9/11 instead of New York, believe me, you would not have voted against military recruting. Yet the left-wing, selfish, Land of Oz philosophy that the media and the city politicians have embraced out there is an absolute intellectual disgrace.
I don’t think they like the country. I don’t think these people like the country. They feel that we’re the problem, we’re the evildoers, that al Qaeda is created because of us. That’s the hallmark of the radical left. It’s always America’s fault. We’re the bad country, and the enlightened citizens of San Francisco, we’re not going to be a part of it. We’re gonna separate out. We’re gonna ban military recruiting. Number one, that’s a fascist act. I mean, you’re making a decision that your citizens can’t hear of an opportunity they may want to hear about. That’s number one. So, look, I’ve had enough. I think you guys have had enough. If these guys want to come on the Radio Factor or the television Factor and debate me — I’ve been after [San Francisco Mayor] Gavin Newsome to come on the program for years. I mean, this is a big guy with a mouth who runs around, but he’s a coward. He won’t come on and debate me about this issue. Is Gavin proud of that vote? That’s my first question. Mayor, are you proud of that vote, and if so, why?
When is THIS asshole going to be held accountable?
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Federal Marriage Protection Act Moves Forward
The proposed amendment to the US constitution which would ban same-sex marriages moved out of the sub-committee and was sent to the entire committee for vote.
Spector claims that, when this issue comes before the full Senate for a vote, he will oppose it.
I think I may understand what he's doing here. I think he wants it to come before the full Senate, for defeat, so that it can be put to rest once and for all. I'd like to think this is what his motives are.
But then again, sometimes people call me Pollyanna.
The deciding vote Wednesday was cast by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA). Specter, the chair of the full Judiciary Committee, repeating remarks he made on the weekend said that while he opposes the amendment he believes it should receive a vote on the Senate floor.
Spector claims that, when this issue comes before the full Senate for a vote, he will oppose it.
I think I may understand what he's doing here. I think he wants it to come before the full Senate, for defeat, so that it can be put to rest once and for all. I'd like to think this is what his motives are.
But then again, sometimes people call me Pollyanna.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
In the name of God
It would seem that some Fred Phelps wannabes have surfaced in Bloomfield, Indiana.
When I see or hear things like this, I'm often reminded of the part of the movie Oh God! where God says that the good "reverend" claims to be speaking the word of God, but he ran out of God's words years before.
I wonder how any real Christian can claim to speak on behalf of God, anyway. Isn't that blasphemy?
And here's the kicker:
Unpatriotic?
Was there ever a better time for one of these?
Carrying signs that said "Fags Die, God Laughs" the group of about 25 denounced the university for its LGBT diversity program. The group has held a number of anti-gay protests at UI over the past few years but, the campus newspaper, The Indiana Daily Student, said this was the largest.What true Christian believes that God would laugh at the death of any of his children? What true Christian would even suggest such a thing?
When I see or hear things like this, I'm often reminded of the part of the movie Oh God! where God says that the good "reverend" claims to be speaking the word of God, but he ran out of God's words years before.
I wonder how any real Christian can claim to speak on behalf of God, anyway. Isn't that blasphemy?
And here's the kicker:
The protest came less than a month after two teenagers stole and burned a similar Rainbow flag that had been hanging outside the store.
A witness saw the teens take the flag and took a picture of their license plate with a cell phone camera. Police later tracked the plate and arrested the pair. They have been charged with theft.
The teens told police they thought the flag was unpatriotic
Unpatriotic?
Was there ever a better time for one of these?
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
All or nothing?
I was reading an article this morning about how only about 200 same-sex couples have taken advantage of Connecticut's new Civil Union law. Members of the gay and lesbian community say that, even though this law provides many of the protections of marriage, it's not marriage, and that's why so few have taken advantage of the new law.
We sit back and scream for equality and protection for our families and yet, when we're provided with this type of opportunity to protect our families, we turn it down because it's not enough?
Oh, sure, I want my marriage recognized, but I want my family protected first and foremost. If that means that a civil union is the only way I can protect my family, why would I spit on that and refuse to have any part of it? What kind of message are we, as a community, sending by stridently demanding all or nothing?
Some would argue that settling for less than full marriage rights (as in civil unions) will only further delay full equality for our community, where marriage is concerned, but those that present this argument fail to see that progress sometimes has to be made in small steps. We must learn to walk before we can ever hope to run.
After the introduction of Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street series), Jason (Friday the 13th series) and Michael Moore (Halloween series), "slice and dice" movies became very commonplace. We became so desensitized to the violence and gore, that we didn't even bat an eyelash when blood and gore became commonplace on shows such as NYPD Blue, ER, or Law & Order.
NYPD Blue broke ground with Andy calling perps "douchebags," "assholes," "pricks," and similar slang terms. We became desensitized to the use of moderately offensive language on television.
Loving v. Virginia was the groundbreaking decision that allowed whites to marry blacks. In 1967, following this ruling, the same arguments arose then that we hear now. "It's not natural," "What next?" There was great strife and gnashing of teeth from the racists who truly believed that God did not intend for the races to mix. Today, hardly anyone notices when an interracial couple walks down the street together. Oh, sure, you still have your hard-line racists that take issue with it, but they are no longer the overwhelming majority like they were back in the 1960s.
Civil Unions are a first step. They allow us the protections we seek for our families and, at the same time, give the rest of America the opportunity to live next door to us, and realize that there won't be a hailstorm of frogs, storms of fire, or the five horsement of the apocalypse arriving at their door. They'll become familiarized with us, desensitized to their own fears and prejudices, and not even so much as whimper when we're finally given the right to marry -- the right we deserve.
I say, take what we can get and, once we have that, we can work toward getting more.
We sit back and scream for equality and protection for our families and yet, when we're provided with this type of opportunity to protect our families, we turn it down because it's not enough?
Oh, sure, I want my marriage recognized, but I want my family protected first and foremost. If that means that a civil union is the only way I can protect my family, why would I spit on that and refuse to have any part of it? What kind of message are we, as a community, sending by stridently demanding all or nothing?
Some would argue that settling for less than full marriage rights (as in civil unions) will only further delay full equality for our community, where marriage is concerned, but those that present this argument fail to see that progress sometimes has to be made in small steps. We must learn to walk before we can ever hope to run.
After the introduction of Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street series), Jason (Friday the 13th series) and Michael Moore (Halloween series), "slice and dice" movies became very commonplace. We became so desensitized to the violence and gore, that we didn't even bat an eyelash when blood and gore became commonplace on shows such as NYPD Blue, ER, or Law & Order.
NYPD Blue broke ground with Andy calling perps "douchebags," "assholes," "pricks," and similar slang terms. We became desensitized to the use of moderately offensive language on television.
Loving v. Virginia was the groundbreaking decision that allowed whites to marry blacks. In 1967, following this ruling, the same arguments arose then that we hear now. "It's not natural," "What next?" There was great strife and gnashing of teeth from the racists who truly believed that God did not intend for the races to mix. Today, hardly anyone notices when an interracial couple walks down the street together. Oh, sure, you still have your hard-line racists that take issue with it, but they are no longer the overwhelming majority like they were back in the 1960s.
Civil Unions are a first step. They allow us the protections we seek for our families and, at the same time, give the rest of America the opportunity to live next door to us, and realize that there won't be a hailstorm of frogs, storms of fire, or the five horsement of the apocalypse arriving at their door. They'll become familiarized with us, desensitized to their own fears and prejudices, and not even so much as whimper when we're finally given the right to marry -- the right we deserve.
I say, take what we can get and, once we have that, we can work toward getting more.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
New Paltz Mayor Loses Appeal
While it's disappointing, I have to agree with the logic of the appeals court's ruling. The part I agree with is highlighted in red.
Objectively, I have to agree with this ruling. At the same time, I'm grateful that Mayor West did what he did, as it set yet another action in motion in our own state.
Of note is the fact that a conservative Christian group filed suit to have more than 200 marriages performed in New Paltz (by Mayor West and the clergy members who were later charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license) invalidated. In September of last year, State Supreme Court Justice Michael Kavanagh ruled that the couples married would have to be named as parties to the case, and given their say in court on the matter. The group vowed to assemble the names of every couple married in New Paltz (like us) and return. In the past year since this ruling, we've never received any correspondence or other notification regarding the continuation of this action to have our marriage nullified.
But it's not the suit to nullify the marriages that's of note, it's that the suit was brought in the first place along with the judge's refusal to nullify them. Does that mean that our New Paltz marriage documents bear some legitimacy? Why else would these so-called Christians bring suit to have them invalidated and why else would a judge actually refuse to do so? If they had no legal basis to start with (as many anti-gay groups claim), then why didn't the judge just dismiss the suit saying that these marriages had no legal merit of their own to start with?
The charges against the clergy were eventually dropped as well. While the ruling was more of a soap-box lecture by the dismissing judge, it should really have been about the separation of church and state. If the clergy believe in same-sex marriage and perform these marriages, then how can they be prosecuted for these beliefs? THAT is what the central issue of that particular case should have been. However, it's entirely possible that the judge received counsel from one of her colleagues and decided to take it on as a soap-box issue rather than a constitutional one, lest more clergy take a positive ruling regarding the separation of church and state as a license to perform same-sex marriages throughout the state. Best to keep it confined to just one small town in upstate New York.
I would really like for this matter to be resolved, once and for all, here in New York. It seems like that old proverb about the monkey jumping out of the well, where he jumps up 3 feet and slides back two. Yes, eventually, we'll get out of the well, but the whole sliding back 2 feet thing can wear on the nerves and the emotions quite nicely.
(New Paltz, New York) A New York State appeals court has ruled that New Paltz mayor Jason West "exceeded his authority" and "undermined the principle of separation of powers" when he performed marriages for same-sex couples in the Hudson Valley hamlet last year.
West performed the weddings for 24 gay and lesbian couples in front of the village hall on Feb. 27, 2004 (story) even though state law does not allow same-sex couples to get marriage licenses.
West was charged with 24 counts of violating the state's domestic relations law. The charges were dismissed by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages. (story)
But the county prosecutor appealed. West was barred from performing more weddings as the legal battled continued.
The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court in its ruling issued on Thursday said that the issue in the case is not whether the state's marriage laws are constitutional, but rather did West violate state law by performing the marriage ceremonies.
In his legal arguments West maintained that he acted legally, arguing that under the equality provisions of the state constitution he was obligated to allow same-sex couples to wed.
The court disagreed. "This case is about orderly government," the court's written ruling said. The judgment said that a public official has no right to disregard a law he feels is unconstitutional otherwise, it would mean "permitting a part-time local official to effectively amend the laws of this state with input from neither the Legislature nor the courts."
Writing for the five-judge panel, Justice John Lahtinen issued a stern rebuke.
"West robed himself with judicial powers and declared the marriage laws of this state unconstitutional. Having concluded that the Legislature violated the constitution, he then wrapped himself with that body's power and drafted his own set of documents for licensing marriages. In so doing, he clearly exceeded his role as a village mayor."
The court noted that the constitutionality of New York State's ban on same-sex marriage is already being argued in other courts.
Appeals in two cases involving same-sex marriage rights are under way in the state.
In one case, the American Civil Liberties Union is representing 12 same-sex couples, among them New York State Assemblyman Danny O'Donnell and his partner John Banta. (story) O'Donnell is the brother of Rosie O'Donnell.
The appeal involves an upstate ruling that upheld New York State's ban on same-sex marriage.
In the other case New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is appealing a February ruling by Judge Doris Ling-Cohan that said the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and that the New York city clerk may not deny a marriage license solely because a couple is of the same sex. (story)
It is expected that two cases eventually will be combined and heard by the New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals.
Objectively, I have to agree with this ruling. At the same time, I'm grateful that Mayor West did what he did, as it set yet another action in motion in our own state.
Of note is the fact that a conservative Christian group filed suit to have more than 200 marriages performed in New Paltz (by Mayor West and the clergy members who were later charged with solemnizing a marriage without a license) invalidated. In September of last year, State Supreme Court Justice Michael Kavanagh ruled that the couples married would have to be named as parties to the case, and given their say in court on the matter. The group vowed to assemble the names of every couple married in New Paltz (like us) and return. In the past year since this ruling, we've never received any correspondence or other notification regarding the continuation of this action to have our marriage nullified.
But it's not the suit to nullify the marriages that's of note, it's that the suit was brought in the first place along with the judge's refusal to nullify them. Does that mean that our New Paltz marriage documents bear some legitimacy? Why else would these so-called Christians bring suit to have them invalidated and why else would a judge actually refuse to do so? If they had no legal basis to start with (as many anti-gay groups claim), then why didn't the judge just dismiss the suit saying that these marriages had no legal merit of their own to start with?
The charges against the clergy were eventually dropped as well. While the ruling was more of a soap-box lecture by the dismissing judge, it should really have been about the separation of church and state. If the clergy believe in same-sex marriage and perform these marriages, then how can they be prosecuted for these beliefs? THAT is what the central issue of that particular case should have been. However, it's entirely possible that the judge received counsel from one of her colleagues and decided to take it on as a soap-box issue rather than a constitutional one, lest more clergy take a positive ruling regarding the separation of church and state as a license to perform same-sex marriages throughout the state. Best to keep it confined to just one small town in upstate New York.
I would really like for this matter to be resolved, once and for all, here in New York. It seems like that old proverb about the monkey jumping out of the well, where he jumps up 3 feet and slides back two. Yes, eventually, we'll get out of the well, but the whole sliding back 2 feet thing can wear on the nerves and the emotions quite nicely.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
How Many Bush Cronies Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?
How many members of the Bush Administration are needed to replace a lightbulb?
The Answer is TEN:
1. one to deny that a lightbulb needs to be changed,
2. one to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the lightbulb needs to be changed,
3. one to blame Clinton for burning out the lightbulb,
4. one to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the lightbulb or for darkness,
5. one to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new lightbulb,
6. one to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Lightbulb Change Accomplished",
7. one administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark",
8. one to viciously smear #7,
9. one surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along,
10. and finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.
The Answer is TEN:
1. one to deny that a lightbulb needs to be changed,
2. one to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the lightbulb needs to be changed,
3. one to blame Clinton for burning out the lightbulb,
4. one to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the lightbulb or for darkness,
5. one to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new lightbulb,
6. one to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Lightbulb Change Accomplished",
7. one administration insider to resign and write a book documenting in detail how Bush was literally "in the dark",
8. one to viciously smear #7,
9. one surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a strong light-bulb-changing policy all along,
10. and finally one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a lightbulb and screwing the country.
Noteworthy News
Of course, by now, everyone knows that Rosa Parks died. A very brave lady, she really opened a lot of doors for oppressed people. I was surprised to learn, however, that she lived her life as a person of little means. She worked all her life but, in the end, rented a small apartment that she nearly got evicted from due to non-payment of rent. Eventually, the landlord offered to let her stay there, rent-free, as long as she wanted to. Another decent human being.
~~~~~
Harriet Miers has a half-a-brain, after all. She's withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court.
A Michigan woman was fired from her part-time job for not showing up at work the day after she sent her husband off to war. She had told her employer that she would try to be back on the 17th of October but that, if she was too drained from the emotional experience, she would be back on the 18th for sure. She said goodbye to her husband on the 16th, came home and was exhausted from the emotions and the travel, and didn't go to work on the 17th. That day, her employer called her and told her to come in the next day and get her stuff, as she was being fired.
Guess the employer never had the privilege of sending a loved one off to war, eh?
~~~~~
In San Bernardino, CA, the local sheriff has an overcrowding problem in his county jails. His solution? Sheriff Gary Penrod has stopped booking thieves, drug dealers, burglars and other non-violent suspects into San Bernardino County jails. Penrod's temporary solution means drug dealers arrested with as much as 24 pounds of illegal narcotics could be set free if they promise to appear in court.
Because we all know that drug dealers are good on their words, right?
~~~~~
Sheryl Swoopes made room in her closet for clothes this week. "I'm just at a point in my life where I'm very happy, and I'm very content, and I want to be able to live my life and be who I am and not pretend anymore,'' she said by phone from her home in Houston. "And I feel like for seven, eight years, that's what I've been doing, pretending to be somebody that I'm not and to want something that I don't want.''
I hear ya, Sheryl. It took 40+ years for me.
~~~~~
They're going to keep us in suspense for another day. But, it looks more and more like Rove and Libby might actually have indictments against them. Perhaps the house of cards is ready to topple, finally. Hopefully, that grand jury result will contain an indictment against Scott McClellan just for being a dipshit. I can't decide who I hate listening to worse -- McClellan or Chimpy.
~~~~~
The NFL has decided to not black out the New Orleans Saints "home" game in San Antonio, Texas, even though it's not a sold out event. They're calling it "good will." How magnanimous of them. Deciding not to black out a game for a team whose base of fans is STILL baling water out of their basements, houses, and places of employment. Assuming, of course, those structures are standing enough to hold said water.
~~~~~
Harriet Miers has a half-a-brain, after all. She's withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court.
~~~~~The Human Rights Campaign said the withdrawal was an indication President Bush is afraid of losing his conservative base.
“Her withdrawal today demonstrates that the President is beholden to extremist groups rather than to the American people, said HRC President Joe Solmonese. --excerpt from article at 365gay.com
A Michigan woman was fired from her part-time job for not showing up at work the day after she sent her husband off to war. She had told her employer that she would try to be back on the 17th of October but that, if she was too drained from the emotional experience, she would be back on the 18th for sure. She said goodbye to her husband on the 16th, came home and was exhausted from the emotions and the travel, and didn't go to work on the 17th. That day, her employer called her and told her to come in the next day and get her stuff, as she was being fired.
Guess the employer never had the privilege of sending a loved one off to war, eh?
~~~~~
In San Bernardino, CA, the local sheriff has an overcrowding problem in his county jails. His solution? Sheriff Gary Penrod has stopped booking thieves, drug dealers, burglars and other non-violent suspects into San Bernardino County jails. Penrod's temporary solution means drug dealers arrested with as much as 24 pounds of illegal narcotics could be set free if they promise to appear in court.
Because we all know that drug dealers are good on their words, right?
~~~~~
Sheryl Swoopes made room in her closet for clothes this week. "I'm just at a point in my life where I'm very happy, and I'm very content, and I want to be able to live my life and be who I am and not pretend anymore,'' she said by phone from her home in Houston. "And I feel like for seven, eight years, that's what I've been doing, pretending to be somebody that I'm not and to want something that I don't want.''
I hear ya, Sheryl. It took 40+ years for me.
~~~~~
They're going to keep us in suspense for another day. But, it looks more and more like Rove and Libby might actually have indictments against them. Perhaps the house of cards is ready to topple, finally. Hopefully, that grand jury result will contain an indictment against Scott McClellan just for being a dipshit. I can't decide who I hate listening to worse -- McClellan or Chimpy.
~~~~~
The NFL has decided to not black out the New Orleans Saints "home" game in San Antonio, Texas, even though it's not a sold out event. They're calling it "good will." How magnanimous of them. Deciding not to black out a game for a team whose base of fans is STILL baling water out of their basements, houses, and places of employment. Assuming, of course, those structures are standing enough to hold said water.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Vile, despicable, contemptible, depraved, vicious...
I can think of a whole bunch of other words to describe this piece of human garbage (emphasis my own):
What say we form our own church, and make its mission to denigrate this asshole and his clan.
(London) Anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps says that gays are responsible for the hurricanes which have hit the South this year and for 9-11 and the terrorist attack in London.
He made the statements in a British television program broadcast Tuesday night. "The Sky Report" secretly filmed Phelps for a documentary on hate.
Fifty-two people died in this year's terrorist attacks on the London transit system.
"Oh I am so thankful that happened. My only regret is that they didn't kill about million of them. England deserves that kind of punishment, as does this country (America)," Phelps said in the broadcast.
"The Sky Report" included pictures, filmed undercover inside what the network said was "the church's fortified compound".
The program showed Phelps during a weekly service in which he denounced the Roman Catholic Church as the "biggest pedophile organization in the history of the world".
Phelps' organization, which calls itself the Westboro Baptist Church, has 150 members most of which are relatives of the outspoken pastor. The 'church' is not part of any organized denomination.
Phelps and his followers, who engage in anti-gay picketing around the country gained nationwide attention when it protested at the funeral of Matthew Shepard. Recently the group has targeted military funerals claiming that gays are responsible for the war in Iraq.
On Monday an Indiana state senator said he would propose legislation to prevent members of the Phelps' clan from demonstrating at military funerals. (story)
Members of the 'church' say they will take their anti-gay protests to Sweden later this year. In August, Phelps claimed that Sweden's King Carl Gustaf is gay.
Angry over a Swedish court ruling that a fundamentalist minister broke that country's hate speech law during a fiery speech against homosexuality, Phelps lashed out at the royal family. (story)
Calling Sweden "a land of sodomy, bestiality, and incest", he went on to say: "The King looks like an anal-copulator, & his grinning kids look slutty & gay."
What say we form our own church, and make its mission to denigrate this asshole and his clan.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
How low do you think they can go?
Nothing like getting the voters riled up over lies, just to get what you want, eh? (Practicing my Canadian accent here...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Texas Gays Accused Of Voter Fraud
(Houston, Texas) Fliers are being distributed throughout Texas accusing gays fighting a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage of voter fraud.
The fliers claim that gay groups have been bussing out-of-state voters into Texas to register here and steal the election. The leaflets have been stuffed in mailboxes and left in public buildings, but no one is claiming responsibility for them.
Voters go to the polls Nov. Nov. 8. The proposed amendment would define marriage as a union solely of a man and a woman and bar civil unions in Texas.
The LGBT rights group opposing the amendment calls the fliers "scurrilous".
"If you go down and ask the County Clerk in Bell County or McLennan County or any of the central Texas counties, have they seen busloads of people showing up to register to vote? No. It's not real credible," said Glen Maxey, Director of No Nonsense in November.
Even Republican lawmakers who sponsored the gay marriage amendment have distanced themselves from the fliers' claims.
"There certainly is plenty of folks that will be emotional and excited about this issue in the state of Texas, but I don't think it's credible that folks will come from outside the borders," Rep. Charles Anderson said.
There has, however, been a small increase in the number of registered voters - attributed to evacuees from Louisiana who fled hurricane Katrina and are putting down roots in Texas. The number of gays among that group is not known, but the Montrose Counseling Center in Houston had voter registration forms on its front counter and urged LGBT evacuees who would be in the state on election day to register.
The Secretary of State's office says it is closely watching for any unusual spikes in voter registration, but has not seen anything significant.
Last week some of Houston's leading political leaders urged the defeat of the amendment. (story)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Texas Gays Accused Of Voter Fraud
(Houston, Texas) Fliers are being distributed throughout Texas accusing gays fighting a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage of voter fraud.
The fliers claim that gay groups have been bussing out-of-state voters into Texas to register here and steal the election. The leaflets have been stuffed in mailboxes and left in public buildings, but no one is claiming responsibility for them.
Voters go to the polls Nov. Nov. 8. The proposed amendment would define marriage as a union solely of a man and a woman and bar civil unions in Texas.
The LGBT rights group opposing the amendment calls the fliers "scurrilous".
"If you go down and ask the County Clerk in Bell County or McLennan County or any of the central Texas counties, have they seen busloads of people showing up to register to vote? No. It's not real credible," said Glen Maxey, Director of No Nonsense in November.
Even Republican lawmakers who sponsored the gay marriage amendment have distanced themselves from the fliers' claims.
"There certainly is plenty of folks that will be emotional and excited about this issue in the state of Texas, but I don't think it's credible that folks will come from outside the borders," Rep. Charles Anderson said.
There has, however, been a small increase in the number of registered voters - attributed to evacuees from Louisiana who fled hurricane Katrina and are putting down roots in Texas. The number of gays among that group is not known, but the Montrose Counseling Center in Houston had voter registration forms on its front counter and urged LGBT evacuees who would be in the state on election day to register.
The Secretary of State's office says it is closely watching for any unusual spikes in voter registration, but has not seen anything significant.
Last week some of Houston's leading political leaders urged the defeat of the amendment. (story)
National Coming Out Day Quiz
How out are you? Take this quiz and see.
My results:
ACCORDING TO OUR QUIZ YOU ARE:
You're somewhere over the rainbow - but not all the way to the pot of gold!You're out there ... but maybe not as far as you think. Coming out and Being out are both life-long processes. And the experiences can be more fulfilling for you, and can make a huge impact on the GLBT movement, if you make an effort to learn about the issues, talk about the issues, and give people a fuller appreciation of who you are and why you value GLBT equality.
TALK ABOUT IT.
My results:
ACCORDING TO OUR QUIZ YOU ARE:
You're somewhere over the rainbow - but not all the way to the pot of gold!You're out there ... but maybe not as far as you think. Coming out and Being out are both life-long processes. And the experiences can be more fulfilling for you, and can make a huge impact on the GLBT movement, if you make an effort to learn about the issues, talk about the issues, and give people a fuller appreciation of who you are and why you value GLBT equality.
TALK ABOUT IT.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
"More Complex Than Anticipated"
D'ya think? (Highlights are my own)
(Indianapolis, Indiana) A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.
State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement late Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.
"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission," she said.
Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana. (story)
But Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana called it government intrusion.
"It feels pretty chilling," Cockrum said.
Miller acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."
Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that was to vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.
The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.
It then required "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.
A doctor could not begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.
The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~So, let me see if I've got this straight. If I'm a married, heterosexual atheist, I would not be issued this certificate?
It's not just freedom OF religion, it's also freedom FROM religion, isn't it?
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Sometimes Words Escape Me
If you heard a loud THUD this morning, that was my jaw hitting the floor when I read this news article:
I think that chilling is an excellent word to describe this. Nazis like Senator Miller are dangerous people, not because they introduce stuff like this, but because they really
believe it's right. That's the danger.
(Indianapolis, Indiana) Legislation has been introduced in the Indiana legislature that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.
The bill has the support of Senator Patricia Miller, the chair of the Health Finance Commission where the legislation is currently being considered.
Miller says that assisted pregnancy is totally unregulated. The bill would bar any doctor from assisting in a pregnancy through intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection without making a number of "determinations" about the "suitability of the candidate.
Women seeking treatment would have to provide a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.
Among the determining factors is a requirement that the women be married to a person of the opposite sex. The assessment would contain a description of the family lifestyle and automatically exclude lesbians. Women would also have to provide proof that they have participated in faith-based or church activities.
A judge could not establish parentage of a child born through assisted reproduction without the assessment certificate and a separate certificate from the physician involved.
Courts would be prohibited from granting a petition to establish parentage if the parents have been convicted of crimes such as murder, reckless homicide neglect of a dependent felony battery, or have a drug conviction.
Planned Parenthood of Indiana president Betty Cockrum calls it chilling and government intrusion on a person's private life.
The Health Finance Commission will vote October 20th on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.
I think that chilling is an excellent word to describe this. Nazis like Senator Miller are dangerous people, not because they introduce stuff like this, but because they really
believe it's right. That's the danger.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Bush nomination
I seriously wonder what criteria Chimpy uses to appoint people to certain positions.
I mean, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job," the director of FEMA had experience horse farming and, while horse shit COULD be considered a "natural disaster," it hardly qualifies on has having experience in directing the multiple interstate agencies that are always involved during times of disaster -- like Katrina and Rita. One only needs a shovel for horse shit (and Chimpy shit) but the man's lack of experience or ANY qualifications sure as hell came to light, brightly, during our most recent disaster.
Now Chimpy has nominated a woman to the Supreme Court that has NEVER been a judge. Oh sure, Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association and also served on the Dallas City Council. But so what? How does that qualify her to preside over the very future of civil rights in this country?
What's that you say? She was Bush's private attorney in Texas? Oh, well THAT qualifies her.
[major eyeroll]
I mean, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job," the director of FEMA had experience horse farming and, while horse shit COULD be considered a "natural disaster," it hardly qualifies on has having experience in directing the multiple interstate agencies that are always involved during times of disaster -- like Katrina and Rita. One only needs a shovel for horse shit (and Chimpy shit) but the man's lack of experience or ANY qualifications sure as hell came to light, brightly, during our most recent disaster.
Now Chimpy has nominated a woman to the Supreme Court that has NEVER been a judge. Oh sure, Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association and also served on the Dallas City Council. But so what? How does that qualify her to preside over the very future of civil rights in this country?
What's that you say? She was Bush's private attorney in Texas? Oh, well THAT qualifies her.
[major eyeroll]
Where Florida's Children Learn to Hate
And we wonder where children learn to hate and mock...
I'm amazed that they let this flamer stay in the classroom AFTER the incident. Anita Bryant is probably quite proud of this guy.
I'm amazed that they let this flamer stay in the classroom AFTER the incident. Anita Bryant is probably quite proud of this guy.
Teacher accused of mocking boys as gay for talking
By BRAD SCHMIDT, The Times-Union
The Clay County school system allowed a teacher to remain in the classroom nearly a week after he was accused of disciplining two sixth-graders by instructing the boys to hold hands as he told classmates they were gay.
Larry Eger, who resigned Thursday, told the Swimming Pen Creek Elementary students to sit knee-to-knee in the front of the class after they were caught Sept. 23 mouthing words to each other, said Jackie Fuller, a mother of one of the boys.
She said Eger told the boys to hold hands but they refused, and then Eger announced to the rest of the class that they were gay.
"They said the other kids were laughing," Fuller said.
Eger, 63, did not return calls Friday left by The Florida Times-Union.
Superintendent David Owens said officials learned of the incident Sept. 23 and received Eger's two-week notice Monday. Owens said the school district has the power to remove teachers from a classroom but wouldn't say why Eger was allowed to continue.
"I'm not going to make any comments on that," Owens said.
He said the district is doing an internal investigation on the incident but refused to disclose Eger's resignation letter or any details about the incident.
Fuller said her son and his friend went to the school principal immediately after the incident and explained what happened.
"Nobody called us. Nobody told us anything," Fuller said. "We had to find out from our children when we got home. It still blows my mind."
Fuller said she went to the school Monday morning to complain and was told the district would handle the situation. Fuller said she and the other boy's family asked that the students be placed in other classrooms because Eger was still teaching.
By Thursday, Fuller said she hadn't heard back from the district.
"I was mad that he was still there," she said. "I just thought the school was running me around. You just don't treat children like that."
Eger joined the district Aug. 2 and signed a one-year contract for $44,925. He resigned from his position during his 97-day probationary period, district spokeswoman Darlene Mahla said.
Eger has a bachelor's degree in elementary education and has been teaching at schools in Florida, Georgia and Texas since 1970, according to his personnel record.
The incident was the latest controversy in the Clay school system.
In August, a senior at Fleming Island High School wore a racist T-shirt to school under his regular clothing. A black student who saw the undershirt hit the student. Both were disciplined, although the district would not disclose details.
Then on Sept. 15, the School Board approved an out-of-court agreement to revise the district's policy regarding "sexual orientation." Fleming Island High School graduate Kelli Davis had threatened to sue the school system when her senior portrait was removed from the yearbook because she wore a tuxedo instead of the girl's traditional drape.
Karen Doering, who represented Davis in her dispute with the district, said she was outraged when she heard about the latest incident and the response by school officials.
"I think it's absolutely outrageous and is a clear indication as to why it was so important that this particular school district add sexual discrimination to it's policy and training," she said. "Short of using an anti-gay epithet, that is one of the most flagrant anti-gay biases by a teacher that I have ever heard."
Owens said the school district does not foster bigoted views.
"When you're dealing with people, it's just not a perfect world," he said. "It's something that's occurred, and we're dealing with it."
Thursday, September 29, 2005
LOL
Sometimes you come across things that just sort of hit your funny bone. Here are a few I found at a web site. Click on the image to enlarge it. My personal favorite? It'd have to be the "Abstinence" one, or the "Jesus would slap the shit out of you." But then again, I've got a sick mind and a very irreverent sense of humor. Enjoy!
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
Letter from Hillary Clinton regarding John Roberts' Nomination
I send a lot of email to Hillary Clinton regarding state and national issues -- as she is my US Senator. This is an email I got from her today regarding how she's going to vote in the matter of the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Because you have shared with me your concerns regarding the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, I am sending to you in its entirety my statement announcing my decision to vote against his confirmation. I hope that you will read the statement with the same care and thoughtfulness that I gave to this decision. My statement follows.
* * * * * * *
The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.
The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.
In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.
When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.
It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.
Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.
Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.
* * * * * *
Thank you for writing. For updates on this and other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate, please check my website at http://clinton.senate.gov.
Sincerely yours,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Monday, September 19, 2005
Yep, them heteros do a bang-up better job than us homasexshuls
Chimpy, in all his worldliness, contends that children fare better in a home raised by opposite gendered parents. Yet, he has twin daughters with underaged drinking arrests, one with a shoplifting arrest and his brother, Jeb, has a crack-head daughter with several arrests and contempt of court citations (for leaving rehab and/or doing drugs while in rehab). She was also arrested for trying to pass a forged Xanax prescription. The latest news shows Jeb's son arrested for public drunkenness and resisting arrest. Governor Bush's comments:
What a putz. Yeah, I'm sure he's sad because the frickin' kids are making the father and their uncle look like the clowns they are.
Yeah, Chimpy, keep pressing for that "protect marriage" amendment to the constitution. I can't think of a better quote to toss out there than Bill Maher's closing dialogue from last week:
"My son's doing fine. It's a private matter. We will support him. We're sad for him. But I'm not going to discuss it on the public square with 30 cameras," the governor told reporters.
What a putz. Yeah, I'm sure he's sad because the frickin' kids are making the father and their uncle look like the clowns they are.
Yeah, Chimpy, keep pressing for that "protect marriage" amendment to the constitution. I can't think of a better quote to toss out there than Bill Maher's closing dialogue from last week:
"Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you any more. There's no more money to spend--you used up all of that. You can't start another war because you used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people. Listen to your Mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit cards maxed out. No one's speaking to you. Mission accomplished.
"Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service and the oil company and the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or space man? Now I know what you're saying: there's so many other things that you as President could involve yourself in. Please don't. I know, I know. There's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela. Eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote.
"But, Sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised that you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man. Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire city to rising water and snakes.
"On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two trade centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans. Maybe you're just not lucky. I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side.
"So, yes, God does speak to you. What he is saying is: 'Take a hint.' "
Friday, September 16, 2005
HEAR! HEAR!
There Is No Compassion In Conservatism
by Libby Post
In a stunning act of contrition, George W. Bush actually took responsibility for a job done poorly. For the first time in his presidency, he admitted the fallibility of the loose confederation of political cronies he calls his administration.
Poor George. There’s no “Mission Accomplished” photo op for him here. No battleship background with thousands of adoring naval boys cheering him on as he gives the nation a “thumbs up” on our fumbling war on terror.
Now the only backdrop for George is a devastated toxic hot-zone of a city where the mostly African-American poor were left to fight their own war on terror while George, Dick, Donald and Condoleeza all fiddled as New Orleans drowned. With his approval rating at below 40 percent, the nation is giving the Commander a “thumbs down.”
As he scurries to reclaim the dry ground and fend off the Herbert Hoover-type legacy that will be his presidency, Bush looks to neo-conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute for ideas on how to rebuild the Big Easy. These are the same folks who helped to shape his domestic policies-like dismantling Social Security and destroying the environment. But hey, why not leave the responsibility to rebuild in the hands of “private entrepreneurial activity and vision” as the Heritage Foundation’s website says. After all, if there’s a buck to be made, George’s friends will be there with their hands out for no-bid contracts just as they’re with us now to bank our hard-earned paychecks as we pay over $3.00 for a gallon of gas.
The federal response, or lack thereof, to Hurricane Katrina exposes the dark reality of compassionate conservatism-it’s an oxymoron. George’s mom, Barbara, defined the contradiction in terms clearly and concisely when she toured Houston’s Astrodome and said “What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this-this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.”
Perhaps Babs needs to spend a day in the shoes of one of the domestic refugees to see how well it’s really working. In fact, perhaps Momma Bush should try on Arpollo Vicks shoes. Vicks is a 20-year old, pre-op male to female transgender person who was arrested for using the women’s shower at an emergency shelter at Texas A&M University’s Reed Arena.
A substitute teacher at a New Orleans middle school, Vicks told officials she felt safer using the women’s showers, I assume to avoid the possibility of harassment and violence if she used the men’s shower. Their response was to charge Vicks with criminal trespass and throw her into an isolation cell in the Brazos County jail for six days. Katrina left her with no money and no way to get any so she couldn’t pay her $6,000 bail. When she was finally allowed to use the phone, she made a collect call to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization.
Rest assured, the University heard a Texas-sized mouthful from HRC, the National Center for Transgendered Equality and others. Vicks was released Friday afternoon without an apology for making her a two time victim of Hurricane Katrina.
I invite Momma Bush to try on the shoes of any gay or lesbian domestic refugee who is kept out of or mistreated by a shelter or other facility because of her or his sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. Or walk in the shoes of those who lost a partner and will be denied Social Security survivor benefits because our relationships are not recognized. Or in the small shoes of the child of a deceased l/g/b/t adoptive or birth parent who is taken away from the surviving non-adoptive or non-biological parent because there is no legal relationship between them. The list of possible shoes to fill is quite lengthy.
But instead of really feeling anyone’s pain, Momma Bush, Baby Bush and all the yes men and women who surround him, will continue to feign empathy while trying to blind us all with the brilliance of their new thousand points of light. What they don’t realize is that their brand of light exposes an emperor with no clothes and the nation is ready to change the bulb.
by Libby Post
In a stunning act of contrition, George W. Bush actually took responsibility for a job done poorly. For the first time in his presidency, he admitted the fallibility of the loose confederation of political cronies he calls his administration.
Poor George. There’s no “Mission Accomplished” photo op for him here. No battleship background with thousands of adoring naval boys cheering him on as he gives the nation a “thumbs up” on our fumbling war on terror.
Now the only backdrop for George is a devastated toxic hot-zone of a city where the mostly African-American poor were left to fight their own war on terror while George, Dick, Donald and Condoleeza all fiddled as New Orleans drowned. With his approval rating at below 40 percent, the nation is giving the Commander a “thumbs down.”
As he scurries to reclaim the dry ground and fend off the Herbert Hoover-type legacy that will be his presidency, Bush looks to neo-conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute for ideas on how to rebuild the Big Easy. These are the same folks who helped to shape his domestic policies-like dismantling Social Security and destroying the environment. But hey, why not leave the responsibility to rebuild in the hands of “private entrepreneurial activity and vision” as the Heritage Foundation’s website says. After all, if there’s a buck to be made, George’s friends will be there with their hands out for no-bid contracts just as they’re with us now to bank our hard-earned paychecks as we pay over $3.00 for a gallon of gas.
The federal response, or lack thereof, to Hurricane Katrina exposes the dark reality of compassionate conservatism-it’s an oxymoron. George’s mom, Barbara, defined the contradiction in terms clearly and concisely when she toured Houston’s Astrodome and said “What I’m hearing which is sort of scary is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this-this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them.”
Perhaps Babs needs to spend a day in the shoes of one of the domestic refugees to see how well it’s really working. In fact, perhaps Momma Bush should try on Arpollo Vicks shoes. Vicks is a 20-year old, pre-op male to female transgender person who was arrested for using the women’s shower at an emergency shelter at Texas A&M University’s Reed Arena.
A substitute teacher at a New Orleans middle school, Vicks told officials she felt safer using the women’s showers, I assume to avoid the possibility of harassment and violence if she used the men’s shower. Their response was to charge Vicks with criminal trespass and throw her into an isolation cell in the Brazos County jail for six days. Katrina left her with no money and no way to get any so she couldn’t pay her $6,000 bail. When she was finally allowed to use the phone, she made a collect call to the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights organization.
Rest assured, the University heard a Texas-sized mouthful from HRC, the National Center for Transgendered Equality and others. Vicks was released Friday afternoon without an apology for making her a two time victim of Hurricane Katrina.
I invite Momma Bush to try on the shoes of any gay or lesbian domestic refugee who is kept out of or mistreated by a shelter or other facility because of her or his sexual orientation, gender identity or HIV status. Or walk in the shoes of those who lost a partner and will be denied Social Security survivor benefits because our relationships are not recognized. Or in the small shoes of the child of a deceased l/g/b/t adoptive or birth parent who is taken away from the surviving non-adoptive or non-biological parent because there is no legal relationship between them. The list of possible shoes to fill is quite lengthy.
But instead of really feeling anyone’s pain, Momma Bush, Baby Bush and all the yes men and women who surround him, will continue to feign empathy while trying to blind us all with the brilliance of their new thousand points of light. What they don’t realize is that their brand of light exposes an emperor with no clothes and the nation is ready to change the bulb.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Send Gays to Combat, Then Fire Their Asses!
This shouldn't really come as any huge surprise. Having served 16 years on active duty and 8 years in the reserves, I found this noteworthy. We'll keep gays on active duty if their unit is going to be mobilized/deployed but, after the unit returns, we'll discharge them and, in some cases, they're released WITHOUT an honorable discharge.
I'm sorry, but if we're good enough to stay on active duty and fight and die for this country, then we're damn well good enough to stay on active duty and serve during peacetime, too.
This "regulation" actually came about during the Clinton era...
National Guard spread too thin? That's because they're no longer guarding the nation! They're getting their asses shot off overseas.
I'm sorry, but if we're good enough to stay on active duty and fight and die for this country, then we're damn well good enough to stay on active duty and serve during peacetime, too.
This "regulation" actually came about during the Clinton era...
(Santa Barbara, California) Scholars studying military personnel policy have discovered a document halting the discharge of gay soldiers in units that are about to be mobilized.
The document was made public Tuesday by Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military (CSSMM), a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It was found during research for a story for the ABC news program Nightline.
The regulation was contained in a 1999 "Reserve Component Unit Commander's Handbook" and is still in effect, according to the Center.
It states that if a discharge for homosexual conduct is requested "prior to the unit's receipt of alert notification, discharge isn't authorized. Member will enter AD [active duty] with the unit."
The document is significant because of longstanding Pentagon denials that the military requires gays to serve during wartime, only to fire them once peacetime returns. According to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, gays and lesbians must be discharged whether or not the country is at war.
Gay soldiers and legal groups have reported for years that known gays are sent into combat, and then discharged when the conflicts end. Discharge statistics corroborate a pattern of rising expulsions during peacetime and plummeting rates during military conflicts, and Pentagon statistics confirm that, as has been the case in every war since World War II, gay discharges have declined during the current conflict in the Middle East.
But the Pentagon has consistently denied that, when mobilization requires bolstering troop strength, it sends gays to fight despite the existence of a gay ban, and some observers have insisted there is no evidence of such a practice. During the first Gulf War, Pentagon spokesman, Bill Caldwell, said the military would "absolutely not" send gays to war and discharge them when the conflict ends.
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, a Pentagon spokesman said that the military was not modifying its regulations on gay troops. And a May, 2005 study by the Congressional Research Service says that although gay discharges do decline during wartime, the decrease is the result of .random fluctuations in the data," not an intentional Pentagon policy of retaining gays during wars".
Meanwhile, the Pentagon acknowledged Tuesday that it would again fail to meet its monthly recruiting goal and for the first time since 1999 would not meet its goal for the year.
In July, the the Williams Project at the UCLA School of Law issued a report showing that if the ban on gays serving openly were lifted the military would gain 41,000 troops.
Especially in the wake of Katrina, as some have concluded that a National Guard stretched thin by deployments abroad was limited in its ability to respond to a catastrophe here at home, the added strength of more than 40,000 recruits has the potential of making a significant difference," Steve Ralls, spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network told 365Gay.com.
"And, as we've seen Coast Guardsmen rescuing the trapped in New Orleans, it begs the question: Did those being rescued really care about the sexual orientation of those men and women who came to save them?
"Now - especially now - the Army needs every recruit it can find. Not only for war operations abroad, but for rescue missions here at home, too. If ever there was a wake-up call about the need for qualified people on the ground, it came last week in New Orleans."
National Guard spread too thin? That's because they're no longer guarding the nation! They're getting their asses shot off overseas.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Pictures of Chimpy
Sometimes pictures just speak for themselves -- A Scottish news broadcast regarding Katrina, or is it REALLY regarding Katrina ?
Excuse me, your stupidity is showing!
Somebody has to tell me if we're supposed to be taking these guys seriously, or if they've got a great comedy team working for them.
Pat Robertson opens mouth, inserts foot...
Pat Robertson opens mouth, inserts foot...
"Put on an act so we can get anti-gay laws passed"
Focus on the Family is telling anti-gay pastors, ministers, etc. to basically put on an act so that they can get gay rights turned back. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just another form of lying?
(Portland, Maine) Pastors opposed to the state's gay rights law are being advised to tone down their condemnation of homosexuality and focus as much on love and support as on sin and scripture.
Haley and Melissa Fryrear from Focus on the Family have urged a meeting of about 200 leaders from Maine's evangelical community to stop quoting Leviticus, which refers to gay sex as an ''abomination," and to avoid sayings like, ''Love the sinner, hate the sin."
They encouraged "balance" in churches, communities, and public policy debates.
That balance could be key for Maine's Christian conservatives trying to win support for a November ballot question. They hope to overturn a state law that would outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.
A righteous or hateful tone could steer undecided voters away, while one of kindness and compassion could help win supporters, said Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine.
''You have to avoid coming off in any way as hateful," Brewer said. ''If they can't do that, they won't succeed."
Gay rights advocates question how much love and support conservative Christians can muster while they condemn same-sex relationships as morally wrong.
Jesse Connolly of Maine Won't Discriminate, the campaign to add sexual orientation to the Maine Human Rights Act, questioned how much love and support exist in an effort by conservative Christians trying to stop a law that would ensure that people can keep their jobs, apartments, or lines of credit.
''If there was compassion in what they talk about, they would be on our side," Connolly said.
Christian conservatives in Maine have swayed voters on the antidiscrimination measure before. Mainers in 1998 sided with conservative religious groups and repealed a law that would have outlawed discrimination against gays. Two years later, lawmakers did not pass the measure, but asked voters to decide. Mainers rejected it in a close vote.
The most recent dispute over the antidiscrimination law started last spring. The Legislature enacted the law, but conservative Christians led a drive that gathered enough signatures to force a vote in November.
Colin Lemont of Calvary Bible Baptist Church in Whitefield said he hopes Focus on the Family's message will help to keep the campaign from becoming nasty and divisive. ''That really needs to become a key component through this whole debate and process," Lemont said
Monday, September 12, 2005
Weld says same-sex marriage "offends New Yorkers"
Former Massachusetts governor William Weld said Thursday that he doesn't want to be addressed as "Governor Weld" anymore—unless he wins New York's gubernatorial election next year. "I plan to run as 'Mister,' if I can make that stick, to emphasize that I've got to earn this," he said after his first meeting with state Republican Party officials vetting the candidates.
Weld said his closed-door session with state GOP chairman Stephen Minarik and several county chairs at a Rockland County hotel was "low-key." But Minarik and Erie County chairman Robert Davis were enthusiastic.
Half a dozen other potential candidates were interviewed, as were all the GOP candidates for U.S. Senate. Weld said the party chairs asked him about his positions on several issues and that his support for abortion rights is "not everybody's dish of tea." But he told them he also favors a ban on what anti-abortion activists call "partial-birth abortion," sees no need to reinstate the ban on assault weapons, and, although he supports "100% equality of rights," he would not favor same-sex marriage because the idea offends many New Yorkers.
The Republican nominee is expected to face Democratic state attorney general Eliot Spitzer, and in the last reported poll Spitzer led Weld 56% to 19%. (AP)
Hmmmm....
I wonder, then, if he supports legislation to make body odor illegal, punishable by heavy fine and possible imprisonment. That's offensive, isn't it?
How about bad breath? Listerine or Leavenworth...
I'm sure he'll support legislation that would make it a punishable offense to drop the "F" bomb in public, as it is truly offensive to Christians and people with small children.
What a putz....
Arnold Vetoed the Bill
Not surprising that the Governator vetoed the bill. I suppose, if I really TRY to stand back and look at it objectively, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. This bill DOES, in fact, go against what the voters put into effect with Proposition 22, but then again, any real American would realize that civil rights have NEVER been won through popular vote. That's the part that I don't get, the part where people think it's okay for the majority of the voters to vote to deprive a minority of ANYTHING, whether it's basic civil rights, or anything else. What the majority has, all should have. That IS the concept behind equality, isn't it? The voting process was never meant for the majority to oppress the minority. It's a sad day when America at large forgets that concept.
In other news, our union ratified our new contract, and domestic partner benefits have been included for health and dental insurance. One has to wonder if the employer was anxious to strike that deal, with our lawsuit looming over their heads. What amazes me is that some people just don't seem to GET IT, when they ask "What's the difference? You've got your domestic partner benefits."
Well, here's the difference. Let's say health insurance costs $500 a month for a family plan. Mr. and Mrs. Smith get that $500 a month paid and the amount of their tax liability on that benefit is zero. When I put Lisa on my health insurance, the amount of MY tax liaibility is going to be on that $500. Yes, that $500 becomes a compensation amount, but the hetero couple's does not.
Our contract is good for 5 years, but what happens at the end of that five years? What if the employer says "Heck, that cost us WAYYYY too much, so we're not going to agree to that again?" Do you think they'd do that for hetero spouses and family members?
This is why it's important to continue through with our lawsuit. Not to mention the fact that there's still the past denial of benefits. In the meantime, we're going to enjoy the benefits that were granted in the new contract. Lisa can go off her employer's plan and her paycheck will go back up. We'll get a 3% pay raise, retroactive to September 1st, and I'm going to "downgrade" our health insurance plan to one with the exact same coverage, but with a higher co-pay for doctor's visits. In the long run, it should save us abot $400-500 in the coming year. That should pay the taxes on the benefit.
Overall, New York State is making some positive strides, but I worry that those strides will be diluted or even canceled out if Chimpy gets his way with the Supreme Court. Talk about setting civil rights back 50 years or so...
In other news, our union ratified our new contract, and domestic partner benefits have been included for health and dental insurance. One has to wonder if the employer was anxious to strike that deal, with our lawsuit looming over their heads. What amazes me is that some people just don't seem to GET IT, when they ask "What's the difference? You've got your domestic partner benefits."
Well, here's the difference. Let's say health insurance costs $500 a month for a family plan. Mr. and Mrs. Smith get that $500 a month paid and the amount of their tax liability on that benefit is zero. When I put Lisa on my health insurance, the amount of MY tax liaibility is going to be on that $500. Yes, that $500 becomes a compensation amount, but the hetero couple's does not.
Our contract is good for 5 years, but what happens at the end of that five years? What if the employer says "Heck, that cost us WAYYYY too much, so we're not going to agree to that again?" Do you think they'd do that for hetero spouses and family members?
This is why it's important to continue through with our lawsuit. Not to mention the fact that there's still the past denial of benefits. In the meantime, we're going to enjoy the benefits that were granted in the new contract. Lisa can go off her employer's plan and her paycheck will go back up. We'll get a 3% pay raise, retroactive to September 1st, and I'm going to "downgrade" our health insurance plan to one with the exact same coverage, but with a higher co-pay for doctor's visits. In the long run, it should save us abot $400-500 in the coming year. That should pay the taxes on the benefit.
Overall, New York State is making some positive strides, but I worry that those strides will be diluted or even canceled out if Chimpy gets his way with the Supreme Court. Talk about setting civil rights back 50 years or so...
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Doin' the pee-pee dance!
The California Senate and Assembly have both now passed a gay marriage bill, making California the first state in the union to voluntarily pass an equal marriage bill.
Now it's up to Ahnold to decide which side of his face he's going to speak from...
Of course, the religious Nazis have vowed to fight it and present it to the voters next year.
Stay tuned.
Now it's up to Ahnold to decide which side of his face he's going to speak from...
Of course, the religious Nazis have vowed to fight it and present it to the voters next year.
Stay tuned.
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Don't Ask Don't Tell Challenge
Having spent 24 years in the military, I can vouch for how stupid this policy is. And for him to be dismissed with only 5 days to go before retirement shows not good policy enforcement, but downright vindictiveness on the part of his superiors who let this excellent career soldier be sodomized by military regulations...if you get my drift.
Back in 1985, I knew two women (Pam and Lori) who were each married and, ultimately divorced their husbands. They moved in together to share expenses and one vindictive husband's accusation was all it took for these women's lives and careers to become a living hell. Lori's husband claimed that the two were having a homosexual affair with each other and, just based on his say-so, their security clearances were yanked and they were placed in casual status.
After many months, Lori's hearing was first. Lori's husband had "proof" of the relationship -- that proof being that Lori came home with sand in her hair and clothing. (Note: we were living in Hawaii at the time...). There was other stupidity involved but, ultimately, Lori was exonerated and returned to full duty with her security clearance intact.
Subsequent to Lori's hearing, Pam's hearing didn't go so well. Although Lori was exonerated, Pam wasn't. It was determined that Pam was having a homosexual relationship with Lori, even though Lori was exonerated of having the homosexual relationship with Pam. Vindictiveness at work again. Once accused, always guilty. With only three weeks left on her enlistment, Pam was given the boot. But, not only was she given the boot, but she was told she'd have to forfeit a portion of her enlistment bonus for not fulfilling the terms of her enlistment contract -- that being to serve a certain amount of time.
Pam had a masters degree in Education. So, not only was her military career destroyed, her civilian career was, too. Pam hired a lawyer and ultimately had the board's findings overturned and the monetary claims the military had against her waived as well, but at considerable cost to herself and not before all the damage had been done.
Everything that Pam was had been destroyed. For a few years her life spiraled downward before an old friend of hers encouraged her to apply for a job at the local school system. Today, Pam teaches physical education to special needs kids, but the part of Pam that was destroyed was never regained.
This sort of bullshit policy has to go. ALL laws and policies and rules and regulations that discriminate, overtly or covertly, against homosexuals have got to go. We are a nation that is trying really hard to cut off our noses in order to spite our faces. Or is it so we don't have to smell the stink of discrimination?
(Washington) Army Lieutenant Colonel Steve Loomis, who was discharged under 'don't ask, don't tell' in 1997 - just five days before he was to retire - will finally get his day in court.
The U.S. Federal Court of Claims will hear arguments on Sept. 7 in the case on Wednesday.
When Loomis was discharged he lost his Army pension, estimated by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network at about a million dollars.
Loomis, an engineer war plans officer, was outed in the course of an arson investigation after someone set fire to his off-base home near Fort Hood, Texas.
The investigation into the fire was carried out by civilian fire department officials. A videotape discovered during the course of the investigation was the basis for his discharge.
Loomis' lawsuit alleges the investigation of his home and the seizure of the videotape was a violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The suit also charges the Army violated Loomis' right to a fair and impartial discharge hearing and that his discharge is rendered unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas. In Lawrence, the high court found a fundamental right to privacy for lesbian and gay Americans, and struck down state sodomy laws prohibiting consensual, adult relationships.
David Sheldon, a private practice Washington, D.C.-based attorney representing Loomis, and a noted expert on military law, said that "LTC Loomis loss of retirement constitutes a gross miscarriage of justice."
Loomis received a Purple Heart, two Bronze Stars and an Air Medal for his service in Vietnam. He was awarded his fourth Meritorious Service Medal and was recognized for promotion to full Colonel on the evening his home was destroyed by arson.
"What makes the loss of a decorated war veteran like Steve Loomis even more senseless and tragic is the fact that he is but one of many who have lost careers because of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" said A.J. Rogue, president of American Veterans for Equal Rights, a national LGBT veterans group.
"In turn, our nation is suffering no less of a loss in vital manpower, simply because of sexual orientation. Lieutenant Colonel Loomis' case alone is proof that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' doesn't work. Our national security is suffering, not to mention the huge amount of money spent on recruiting and retraining individuals lost to the ban."
The Loomis lawsuit is one of three currently pending in federal court.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently heard oral arguments in Cook v. Rumsfeld, a constitutional challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell' filed on behalf of twelve former service members by Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. (story)
The Federal District Court for the Central District of California is also expected to rule soon on a motion in a challenge brought by Log Cabin Republicans. (story)
"The military's continued enforcement of what we believe is an unconstitutional law has significant costs for our national interests," said C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of SLDN in a press statement.
"Qualified and talented men and women continue to be turned away from military service, at a time when our nation needs them most, for no reason other than simple discrimination. Our freedom is more secure when our military places qualification above sexual orientation."
Since 1993, more than 10,000 service members have been discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' according to Department of Defense figures. Since September 11, gay discharges have fallen more than 40 percent, continuing an historic trend of fewer discharges during times of conflict.
Back in 1985, I knew two women (Pam and Lori) who were each married and, ultimately divorced their husbands. They moved in together to share expenses and one vindictive husband's accusation was all it took for these women's lives and careers to become a living hell. Lori's husband claimed that the two were having a homosexual affair with each other and, just based on his say-so, their security clearances were yanked and they were placed in casual status.
After many months, Lori's hearing was first. Lori's husband had "proof" of the relationship -- that proof being that Lori came home with sand in her hair and clothing. (Note: we were living in Hawaii at the time...). There was other stupidity involved but, ultimately, Lori was exonerated and returned to full duty with her security clearance intact.
Subsequent to Lori's hearing, Pam's hearing didn't go so well. Although Lori was exonerated, Pam wasn't. It was determined that Pam was having a homosexual relationship with Lori, even though Lori was exonerated of having the homosexual relationship with Pam. Vindictiveness at work again. Once accused, always guilty. With only three weeks left on her enlistment, Pam was given the boot. But, not only was she given the boot, but she was told she'd have to forfeit a portion of her enlistment bonus for not fulfilling the terms of her enlistment contract -- that being to serve a certain amount of time.
Pam had a masters degree in Education. So, not only was her military career destroyed, her civilian career was, too. Pam hired a lawyer and ultimately had the board's findings overturned and the monetary claims the military had against her waived as well, but at considerable cost to herself and not before all the damage had been done.
Everything that Pam was had been destroyed. For a few years her life spiraled downward before an old friend of hers encouraged her to apply for a job at the local school system. Today, Pam teaches physical education to special needs kids, but the part of Pam that was destroyed was never regained.
This sort of bullshit policy has to go. ALL laws and policies and rules and regulations that discriminate, overtly or covertly, against homosexuals have got to go. We are a nation that is trying really hard to cut off our noses in order to spite our faces. Or is it so we don't have to smell the stink of discrimination?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)