Marriage Equality -- The Journey

The end

2006-10-02T09:05:00.000-05:00

I've decided that it's time to end this part of my blog. Our Journey is mostly over, except for the appeal, so any new updates will be on the main blog.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

News Updates

2006-09-19T07:55:00.000-05:00

I guess it's been a while since I posted here. I've had a lot going on in my personal life, so I hope y'all will forgive me.

Without further adieu...

Hevesi Plans “Vigorous Defense” of Retirement System Recognition of Canadian Same-Sex Marriages After Conservative Group Files Lawsuit

State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi said today that he would undertake a strong defense of the State Retirement System’s recognition of Canadian same-sex marriages after the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) filed suit against the Comptroller’s office to halt the practice.

The Comptroller’s office administers the New York State and Local Retirement System (NYSLRS), which includes 334,000 retirees and 648,000 current employees. In response to an October 2004 inquiry from a state employee who was contemplating marriage in Canada to his same-sex partner, it was determined that such marriages would be recognized by the Retirement System under the principle of comity, a legal doctrine which has been followed by New York State for many years.

Surviving spouses of NYSLRS retirees can potentially receive certain benefits that are not provided for non-spousal partners: An accidental death benefit awarded in certain situations and a cost-of-living adjustment to monthly pension payments.

“We plan a vigorous defense because the law is clear: In New York State, we recognize marriages that have been conducted in Canada in accordance with Canadian laws – and that now includes same-sex marriages,” Hevesi said. “I have for many years believed that lesbians and gay men should have the right to marry in New York. But our October 2004 decision was a strictly legal determination based upon statutes and case law, not on my personal opinion.”

ADF brought the suit in State Supreme Court in Albany County. The named plaintiffs in the case are four residents of Westchester County. According to its website, ADF provides case funding, strategy and coordination, attorney training, and litigation to oppose efforts to legalize same-sex marriage, to keep abortion legal and other issues.

The NYSLRS includes state employees and retirees as well as employees and retirees from local governments throughout New York State, not including New York City. The State Comptroller is the sole trustee of the NYSLRS and the $140 billion Common Retirement Fund.

Click here for the October 2004 letter from the Retirement System to the state employee who was contemplating marriage in Canada to his same-sex partner, in which the determination that such marriages would be recognized by the NYSLRS is outlined.

This is the retirement system that I am a part of and, in 2004 when Mr. Hevesi announced that Canadian marriages would be recognized for this retirement system, we were all jubilant.

The ACLU (NYC types) is contemplating dropping our case for fear of "making bad law" if we lose. I reminded them that all the rulings the Lovings received in their case prior to the Supreme Court decision in Loving v Virginia was "bad law" as well. But if we just retreat for fear of creating "bad law," then how do we get the bad laws changed?

If you ask me, this case against Hevesi and the NYS Retirement System could generate "bad law," which will have serious implications for all GLBT members of the system.

And then these nutcases divert the blame and attention to us, saying that "Christianity is under attack." No, it's the other way around -- Christianity is attacking us. Or rather, some folks that forgot what REAL Christianity is are attacking us.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

New "Trend" for Homosexuals

2006-08-03T18:15:00.000-05:00

(New York City) An organizer for the conservative Renew America is under fire for linking homosexuality with infant pedophilia.

"The newest thing in Chicago, it's becoming a trend, and you're gonna find this hard to believe...sex with infants," Guy Adams told an Internet radio show hosted by fellow conservative Stacy L. Harp.

Adams (pictured) offered no evidence to back up his claims of infant pedophilia.

He appeared on Harp's program on Wednesday to discuss the recent Gay Games in Chicago and embarked on a nearly 30 minute conversation with Harp to attack gays.

"It's not enough that they have...you know when you engage in perversion, and homosexuality is perversion, we don't hate the gays mind you, we don't hate them, we hate what they're doing...pretty soon that perversion is like addiction, it's not enough, so you need to graduate to something else. You need to move on. So now they're having sex with animals, a small group that's getting bigger, sex with infants, sex in the street in Chicago out in the open, it's just getting more and more perverted."

Adams dismissed the contributions of GLBT people to society by saying, "what contributions, AIDS, pornography?"

He also referred to gay people as "a very angry and violent group when confronted with the truth."

Renew America is run by Alan Keyes, the conservative talk show host who attempted to run for the Senate from Illinois.

An advocacy group that counters right wing misinformation campaigns called for Keyes to fire Adams.

Truth Wins Out executive director Wayne Besen called Adams remarks on the program "a new low in gay bashing."

"The slurs by Adams are a shameful attempt to dehumanize an entire community and he has taken anti-gay propaganda to a disgraceful nadir," said Besen.

"These remarks are intended to incite hatred and Alan Keyes should make it clear that Renew America does not support such rhetoric by immediately distancing the group from Adams."

Keyes has not responded to the demand for Adams' firing.

Last year Keyes' daughter came out (story). He has refused to discuss publicly his estrangement from Maya Marcel-Keyes but he has not shied away from attacking gays.

In March 2005 he told a St. Augustine, Florida audience that allowing a judge to rule that same-sex couples can marry is a form of tyranny.

But, his most incendiary remarks came at the Republican National Convention when 365Gay.com commentator Michelangelo Signorile interviewed him for his Sirius radio show. (story)

Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Signorile then asked Keyes, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Illinois, whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

It's this type of bullshit that causes the dull-witted homophobic bigots to take baseball bats to the heads of innocent gays that are walking down the street, minding their own business.

If this isn't inciteful language, then it damned well should be, and should be punishable under the hate crimes laws.

Fuckin' putz.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Decision is in

2006-08-01T15:53:00.000-05:00

Well, the "Have Bullshit Judge Will Travel" Phenomenon came to a theater near me. Our ruling is in. No big surprise that the ultra-conservative judge would rule against us, but I love the fact that they have to support their decisions in writing. Check it out:

MartinezDecision.doc

We have 35 days to file an appeal.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Have judge will travel

2006-07-26T10:59:00.000-05:00

Apparently the same idiots that made the New York ruling taveled to Washington to deliver that ruling as well...

Brings to mind an image of a bumper sticker I saw that said "Arguing with them is like running a race in the Special Olympics. They might win, but in the end, they're still retarded."

(Olympia, Washington) The state of Washington's ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

In a 5 - 4 split decision the justices ruled that only opposite-sex couples are biologically capable of having children and the legislature acted reasonably and in the best interests of children.

The court did, however, say that the legislature could repeal DOMA and pass legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

"We see no reason, however, why the legislature or the people acting through the initiative process would be foreclosed from extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples in Washington," the ruling said.

"It is important to note that the court's role is limited to determining the constitutionality of DOMA and that our decision is not based on an independent determination of what we believe the law should be."

In a dissent, Justice Bobbe J Bridge said that " if the DOMA is really about the 'sanctity' of marriage, as its title implies, then it is clearly an unconstitutional foray into state-sanctioned religious belief. If the DOMA purports to further some State purpose of preserving the family unit, as the plurality would interpret it, then I cannot imagine better candidates to fulfill that purpose than the same-sex couples who are the plaintiffs in these consolidated actions."

Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004. Two lower courts ruled that the state law barring gay marriage was unconstitutional and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005. (story).

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the same-sex couples had argued that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional - pointing to a 34 word clause in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

LGBT civil rights groups were quick to denounce the ruling.

"The American family is strengthened when the legal responsibilities of marriage which protect children, stabilize homes and secure relationships are provided equally to all couples," said Jo Wyrick, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director. "Washington State has an economic and social interest in promoting the stability of the family, and it is stunning that the Washington State Supreme Court would base its ruling on personal opinion rather than on law."

Had the court struck down the existing law it could have been more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex." (story)

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February. (story) Garden State Equality said today's ruling in Washington will have no effect on the New Jersey case.

"On LGBT rights as well as on other social issues, New Jersey law has long been different from the laws of other states" said the organization's chair Steven Goldstein. "Additionally, New Jersey courts have been among the most fair-minded in the country, from allowing same-sex couples to adopt jointly to holding that the Boy Scouts may not discriminate against a gay scoutmaster.
A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. (story) The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Decision in Washington Marriage Case Due Today

2006-07-26T09:23:00.000-05:00

(Olympia, Washington) A nervous countdown has begun as same-sex couples, gay foes, and state legislators await this morning's Washington state Supreme Court expected ruling on marriage.

At issue is a state law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Gay and lesbian couples denied marriage licenses filed suit in 2004 and the the high court heard arguments in the case in March 2005.

The case hinges on how the nine justices interpret 34 words in the state constitution.

The key passage is Article 1, Section 12, which says, “No law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The court could throw out the state's law limiting marriage to opposite sex couples, uphold the existing law or say that the issue should be determined by the legislature.

If the court strikes down the existing law the result could end up being more important that the Massachusetts high court ruling that allowed that state to become the first in the national to allow same-sex marriage.

In Massachusetts a state law going back to the days when interracial marriage was illegal has been used to prevent same-sex couples from outside the state from going there to marry.

The state of Washington has no such law. If the court hands down a ruling favorable to gay couples the state could see thousands of same-sex couples from across the country heading to Washington to wed.

The announcement that the court would issue its ruling this morning was made Tuesday in a short statement by the justices.

Earlier this month the highest court in New York State ruled that the state "Constitution does not compel the recognition of marriages between members of the same sex."

A decision is also awaited in the state of New Jersey. Arguments in that case were heard in February.

A midlevel appeals court in California heard arguments July 10 in a series of cases challenging that state's ban on gay marriage. The issue is expected to reach the California Supreme Court next year.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Editorial on that HORRIBLE NY Ruling

2006-07-24T08:48:00.000-05:00

Horrible Judicial Reasoning on Same-Sex Marriage in New York
by Matthew Rothschild

Equality took one on the chin Thursday.

The decision by New York State’s highest court not to grant marriage equality to same-sex couples was pathetic, so backward and irrational was the reasoning.

The main argument was that heterosexual marriage is better for the kids.

Here are the exact words: “Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.”

Since when do state supreme court justices rely on intuition?

And the logic of the court’s decision is to accord lesser rights to divorced parents or those who have lost a spouse, since, as a consequence, their kid “will not have, before his or her eyes, every day” that living model of idealized masculinity and femininity. And what, pray tell, are these models?

There are crude gender stereotypes lurking between the lines of this decision.

What’s more, doctors who deal with kids all the time have rebutted the court’s central claim. “The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes that a considerable body of professional literature provides evidence that children with parents who are homosexual can have the same advantages and the expectations for health, adjustment, and development as can children whose parents are heterosexual,” the group stated in February 2002.

In fact, it is in the interests of the child, the pediatricians said, that same-sex couples be accorded legal equality. “Children deserve to know that their relationships with both of their parents are stable and legally recognized,” the American Academy of Pediatrics said. It supports “the right of every child and family to the financial, psychologic, and legal security that results from having legally recognized parents who are committed to each other and the welfare of their children.”

New York’s highest court has fundamentally misread what a child really needs. Not a set of Ken and Barbie doll mom and dad, but loving, caring parents who are a constant, trustworthy presence.

This is not a chromosomal issue.

To reduce it to that is to mistake genitals for parental skills.

Matthew Rothschild has been with The Progressive since 1983. His McCarthyism Watch web column has chronicled more than 150 incidents of repression since 9/11.© 2006 The Progressive

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Arguments for Summary Judgment

2006-07-15T09:07:00.000-05:00

Well, our case was argued to a judge on Thursday, July 13th, in a motion for summary judgment. The facts are not in dispute, just the law.

So the county attorney tells the judge that, while we were married in Canada, we don't have a "real" Canadian marriage because we don't actually live in Canada.

With that in mind, I'm thinking I shouldn't have had to pay all that money for a divorce in this country because my ex and I were married in Okinawa, Japan and, after all, since we weren't actually LIVING there, it wasn't a real Japanese marriage anyway. His argument continued to be that a) we don't have a "real" marriage and b) since the Court of Appeals ruling last week, the case had no business even being heard. This guy is really a putz!

Here's the news article (which I've chopped up to eliminate my own name, Lisa's name, and my employer's name).

(July 14, 2006) — A judge reserved decision Thursday on a lawsuit brought by a [my employer] employee over the extension of health care benefits to her lesbian partner.

After listening to arguments from lawyers on both sides, state Supreme Court Justice [judge's name] said he'll issue a written decision in a lawsuit filed 18 months ago against the college by [me].

The lawsuit, which argues that [employer] discriminated against [me] based on her gender because it refused benefits to the female partner she was married to, while routinely giving health benefits to heterosexual married couples, is the first of its kind filed in [my] County.

[Lisa and I] were married in Canada in 2004, three years after their relationship was formalized in a civil union in Vermont.

In 2004, [I] sought to have [Lisa] included in her health care coverage. [Employer], however, said they couldn't grant the request because the [employer's] contract with the Civil Service Employees Association, which covers [me], didn't address benefits for domestic partners.

[I] sued in January 2005. But a new contract between the [employer] and the union, which took effect Jan. 1, 2006, extended benefits to employees' same-sex partners.

Lawyer [my lawyer], who represents [me] in a lawsuit brought on her behalf by the New York Civil Liberties Union, asked [the judge] for a judgment that New York recognizes the validity of marriages solemnized in other countries.

Although the state Court of Appeals ruled July 6 that the state constitution provides no rights for same-sex couples to marry, [my lawyer] said that ruling doesn't block [the judge] from finding that the college should have recognized the Canadian marriage.

[Putz lawyer], a deputy county attorney, said [employer] acted on a good-faith basis because coverage to same-sex partners wasn't in the union contract. The issue now is moot, he said, because the new contract allows coverage.

What has been hammered and hammered and hammered into this putz's head (seemingly to no avail) is that the previous contract contained NO LANGUAGE that would enable ANY spouse (same or opposite gender) to be placed on the benefits package, yet the employer routinely offered those benefits to opposite gendered married couples as a matter of policy. The discrimination entered when they refused to allow it for me, stating that the contract didn't allow it, even though they conceded that the contract didn't specifically allow it for opposite gendered spouses, either.

Later they tried to hide behind DOMA, which is for federal benefits only.

I think that this judge will rule against us, as he's ultra conservative, although his body language changed from folded arms sitting back in his chair, to leaning forward in his chair and engaging my lawyer in conversation and points of law. It's sort of what we expect and sort of what we've been hoping for, so that the case can make it to the state level (same level that issued such a terrible ruling last week).

And, given the mindset by the 4 judges that voted against marriage equality because of the need to procreate, we can argue that I've been there, done that, and have done my part in procreation for this nation and that, like the 58 year old woman that works for me who recently remarried, I should have the same rights to marry after having raised my children as she does, since we're both post-menopausal and can't bear children any more either. (By the way, Lisa is medically unable to bear children, so does that mean she couldn't marry a man, too?)

We expect a ruling within the next couple of weeks, I guess.

When it comes in, I'll post it here.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Crushing, Disappointing Defeat in NY

2006-07-06T10:01:00.000-05:00

The New York Court of Appeals has ruled that the state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages as a constitutional issue, and such law should be left to the legislature. However, in part of the ruling, the issue of comity is discussed (that is, recognition of marriages outside the jurisdiction).

The other side in our case has already filed for a dismissal of the case.

Click on the title of this post for the news article.

More later.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

ACLU/GVCLU Town Meeting Tonight

2006-06-21T07:24:00.000-05:00

Tonight is the annual town meeting for the Genesee Valley Civil Liberties Union. They have asked Lisa and I to join two other folks they represent and have a "sit down" with their members, and the public at large that may attend.

There could be "hostiles" there, we're told. I told Lisa that I didn't see the point in engaging any hostiles other than to politely answer their questions and not debate the issue itself. That's what the legal team is for.

The idea is to discuss our case on a broad term, and how it's affected us and how we see it affecting others on the road behind us.

I'm really hoping that my lawyer will be there. I'd like very much for Lisa to meet him. I've even enlisted his services on a paying basis to help out with some of the bullshit my father left behind. He's a good guy. Hey, what straight guy do you know that is married, and a HUGE fan of The L Word?

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Did I wake up in Communist Russia?

2006-05-26T12:51:00.001-05:00

This is America, right? Where we have freedom of speech (no matter how woefully ignorant that speech may be sometimes) and the ability to think freely?

(Salt Lake City, Utah) A conservative political action group that regularly fights LGBT issues has asked Utah's Attorney General to investigate a suburban school for allowing a student to publish two pro-gay articles in a student newspaper.

On Nov. 17, when a Gay-Straight Alliance formed at Lone Peak High School in Highland, about 25 miles from Salt Lake City, the student run newspaper, The Crusader, ran two news stories on the GSA - one pro, one con.

The story supporting the organization was written by student Sarah Brimhall. The article opposing it was penned by Elsie Graham, the daughter of Stephen Graham, president of the Standard of Liberty Foundation.

Then on May 15, Brimhall wrote an article on human papilloma virus for the paper. Human papilloma virus can be spread by sexual contact.

In her opinion piece she wrote that teaching abstinence is not enough to prevent the spread of HPV.

"The promotion of abstinence is placed above the prevention of a disease that claims thousands of lives each year,'' she wrote.

Graham and his group say the two stories by Brimhall violate a Utah law that prohibits schools from allowing any activity that results in students revealing information concerning their sexual behavior, orientation or attitudes and a law that requires schools stress abstinence and not advocate homosexuality or sexual activity outside of marriage.

"Sex activists are targeting kids,'' Graham told the Associated Press. "They know that high school newspapers can be highly effective carriers of anti-parent, pro-sex propaganda. School administrators are either complicit or clueless.''

Principal Chip Koop defends the student articles.

"We've had the Alpine School District advise us on where lines are and what we need to be careful about, so we try to do our best to do that, and at the same time allow students some freedom to investigate topics that are important to them,'' he told the AP.

Graham also has asked the the state Office of Education to investigate.

Carol Lear, director of school law and legislation at the state Office of Education, said she does not plan to investigate the articles. There has been no response from the Attorney General's office.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

2006-05-23T08:00:00.000-05:00

I read a quote from the HRC newsletter that struck me:

“As you all know, I don't believe in discriminating against anybody, but when it comes to traditional marriage, I draw the line.” – Sen. Orrin Hatch

Am I incorrect in interpreting, based on this exact quote, that Mr. Hatch DOES believe in discriminating when it comes to homosexuals being allowed to marry? He supports discrimination?

Who in their right mind would want a lawmaker representing them that supports discrimination against ANYONE for ANY reason?

The HRC has an excellent advertisement against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Check it out here.

June 5th is when the Amendment comes up for vote in the Senate. If you oppose this amendment, call your senator, write your senator, bombard your senator with your wish that they vote "No" on this discriminatory amendment.

Let's get America back from the radical right and the religious nut-jobs like Falwell, Swaggart, Santorum, Hatch, Robertson, and Dobson.

Remind your senator that the war in Iraq continues to drain our resources. Remind your senator that while we are getting gouged for gas, the oil companies are making billions of dollars in profits. Remind your senator that there is a health care crisis in this country. Remind your senator that there are critical services that are being lost in budget cuts because of the enormous expenditures of government at higher levels. Tell them THAT is more important than worrying about who's doing who and how.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

You can't hide what's wrong

2006-05-08T07:58:00.000-05:00

I'd have to believe that there comes a point when even the best magician can no longer use smoke and mirrors to hide the real problems. Corruption in government, health care, war, gas price gouging, etc.

(Washington) New polls show that using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue may not work for Republicans in this fall's mid term election.

A Peter D. Hart poll shows that a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage is at the bottom of voter concerns. Surveys taken for the major networks show that immigration reform and rising gas prices are key concerns.

Only conservative religious groups seem focused on the proposed amendment - and they are threatening to desert the GOP for not passing the measure.

The Hart survey, taken for the Human Rights Campaign last month, before immigration reform and gas prices hit the headlines, and released Friday shows that only 18 percent of perspective voters felt the marriage issue should be a priority for Congress.

The poll showed that the top concerns were affordable health care (55 percent), dealing with Iraq (55 percent), passing new ethics/lobbying laws (25 percent) and passing an amendment banning flag burning (20 percent).

"The Federal Marriage Amendment consistently ranks dead last on a list of voters priorities but that won't stop Congress from using this discriminatory amendment as a political ploy going into the elections," Jay Brown, Human Rights Campaign spokesperson told 365Gay.com.

"It's critical that fair-minded voters speak out," said Brown. "Our polling shows that when voters move on these issues, it's toward fairness, not away from it. It's critical to make that point clear to Congress."

Opposition to the proposed amendment was strongest among Democrats. Sixty-one percent of respondents who identified as Democrats oppose the amendment, while 49 percent of independents and 20 percent of Republicans oppose it.

Despite calls for the amendment by Catholic Church leaders a majority of Catholic voters say states should make their own marriage laws - 53 - 37 percent.

The Hart poll also found growing support for some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples with 25 percent supporting marriage, 40 percent for civil unions and 33 percent believing there should be no legal recognition.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

This picture says it all!

2006-05-05T06:36:00.000-05:00

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

999

2006-04-27T08:30:00.000-05:00

YAY!

Dubya is now into triple digits for number of days left in his administration. As of today, it's 999 days.

Can't wait for double digits.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Gay Agenda Misplaced, Feared Lost

2006-04-06T13:57:00.000-05:00

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the nation’s largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender political organization is facing harsh criticism from other gay rights groups over the apparent loss of the 2006 Gay Agenda.

HRC spokesperson, Steven Fisher, broke the news yesterday at a press conference in New York. “We had this year’s final gay agenda drafted. We sent one of our interns to make copies, and he inadvertently left it on a crosstown bus on his way to Kinkos.”

The highly sensitive document, a political playbook of sorts for homosexual activists, was to be distributed to a select group of high-ranking gay rights leaders next month at the annual Lavender Law conference and Tea Dance.

When asked why HRC kept no backup copies, Fisher went on the defensive. “You can’t have multiple copies of the Agenda just floating around. As in prior years, we maintained only one copy of the 2006 Agenda to make certain it didn’t fall into the wrong hands. Obviously, conservative Christian groups would love to get an advance peek of what we’re up to. Secrecy is vital! Our continued, successful assault on traditional family values depends on the element of surprise.”

Fisher closed yesterday’s press conference with assurances that steps were being taken to rectify the situation. “HRC takes full responsibility for the Agenda’s loss. The intern has, of course, been shot. Also, we’ve made repeated calls to New York Transit Authority’s Lost and Found department.”

But Fisher added that since the binder containing the Agenda has not been turned in as yet, “we are appealing to the homosexual bus-riding community to be on the lookout for it. It’s in a vinyl Hello Kitty Trapper Keeper. If anyone sees it, please contact HRC immediately.”

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Scalia = Asshole

2006-03-30T10:26:00.000-05:00

How can someone with obvious prejudices be allowed to continue to sit on the highest court in the land, and still be considered "unbiased" and intrepreting the constitution?

(Washington) A tape of a speech given earlier this month by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has drawn the ire of LGBT civil rights activists who worry the landmark high court ruling on sodomy could be revisited.

Scalia rarely speaks to the media and seldom allows the press into speeches he gives but a recording of a March 8 address at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland was obtained by CNN.

In one portion of the speech to law students at the university Scalia brings up the issue of homosexuality.

"Question comes up: is there a constitutional right to homosexual conduct? Not a hard question for me. It's absolutely clear that nobody ever thought when the Bill of Rights was adopted that it gave a right to homosexual conduct. Homosexual conduct was criminal for 200 years in every state. Easy question."

He also told the students that foreigners waging war against the United States have no rights under the Constitution.

Earlier this month, the governor of South Dakota signed a law that makes it illegal for a woman to have an abortion. It is widely expected that the will be appealed, opening the way for the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v Wade.

A similar scenario could also send sodomy back to the high court.

In 2003, in a 6 - 3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned laws against sodomy, saying that states cannot make laws regarding the private sexual conduct of Americans.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.

"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."

With the high court more conservative than it was three years ago, LGBT leaders are worried the court may reverse itself.

"Justice Scalia stubbornly refuses to see that all Americans have a right to liberty and privacy under the law," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

"Justice Scalia was dangerously out of step with Americans in 2003 when the Supreme Court decided this question and he remains so today.

"This is just the latest example of why it's so critical that fair-minded Americans think of the Court when they head to the ballot box. With the Supreme Court tipping further to the right, these sentiments could one day become reality," said Solmonese.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

NY Marriage Law Gets Another Step Closer to Ruling

2006-03-29T08:04:00.000-05:00

(New York City) A third case by same-sex couples seeking the right to marry is a step closer to New York's highest court. An appeal was filed in a midlevel court on Tuesday on behalf of the so-called Nyack 10.

Among the 10 couples is Nyack Mayor John Shields and his partner.

In 2004 the couples sought marriage licenses at the Orangetown Town Hall. When they were turned down they sued. A lower court judge dismissed the case saying marriage should be decided by the legislature.

The lawyer for the couples, Norman Siegel, filed papers Tuesday in the Second Appellate Division in Brooklyn. The appeal says that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is violates the state constitution.

Whatever the outcome in the case it is likely to be appealed by one side or the other to the high court - the Court of Appeal - where two other cases involving same-sex couples are already waiting.

The first case will be argued on May 31. That one involves five gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City. The couples are represented by Lambda Legal.

Last December an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that found the ban on gay marriage was illegal. (story)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed Ling-Cohan's decision and Lambda in turn appealed the appellate decision.

In Lambda's written brief to the high court it states, in part, that, "This appeal is about far more than abstract legal principles. At heart, it concerns real New York families who share the same love and day-to-day journey together through life that binds married couples."

In the second case, the ACLU 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.

Written arguments were submitted earlier this month and the high court has not yet set a date to hear arguments.

The Court of Appeals could render a decision in the Lambda case first, making moot the other two, or it could wait until it has heard arguments in all three.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Tidbits

2006-03-22T08:19:00.000-05:00

-

PRE-ORDER BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN NOW -- RELEASE DATE 4/4/06

List Price:
$29.98
B&N Price:
$20.98(Save 30%)
item will be available on April 4.

WHAT POWER WE HAVE!

First, we brought on 9/11, then we brought on Katrina, now:

(Jerusalem) A prominent Kabbalah leader says that gays have brought a plague of bird flu on Israel.

With all this power, why are we letting legislators ask for rights for us? Why don't we just TAKE 'em?

CONNECTICUT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAWSUIT BEGINS

(New Haven, Connecticut) Eight same-sex couples suing the state of Connecticut for the right to marry said Tuesday as the case opened they are "cautiously optimistic".

NEW HAMPSHIRE LAWMAKERS STOP ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT DEAD IN ITS TRACKS

(Concord, New Hampshire) The New Hampshire House delivered a crushing blow on Tuesday to supporters of an amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage.

LEFT COAST OCCUPANTS MORE INCLINED TO SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE THESE DAYS

(San Francisco, California) The gap between those in Californian who oppose same-sex marriage and those who are accepting is narrowing a new poll shows.

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

Case Update

2006-03-17T12:08:00.000-05:00

An interesting article today:

(New York City) New York State's highest court - the Court of Appeal - will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage on May 31.

The case involves five gay and lesbian couples from Manhattan who were denied marriage licenses in New York City.

Last December an appeals court overturned a lower court ruling that found the ban on gay marriage was illegal. (story)

In a 4-1 ruling the appellate judges said that New York City judge Doris Ling-Cohan erred in overturning the gay marriage ban.

"It couldn't be more fitting that the case seeking to end the discrimination against same-sex couples who want to marry is being heard the day before an entire month celebrating LGBT people and their families," said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal which represents the couples.

In her ruling Ling-Cohan said the state's ban on gay marriage was not only unconstitutional but also that the New York City clerk may not deny a marriage license solely because a couple is of the same sex. (story)

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg appealed Ling-Cohan's decision and Lambda in turn appealed the appellate decision.

In Lambda's written brief to the high court it states, in part, that, "This appeal is about far more than abstract legal principles. At heart, it concerns real New York families who share the same love and day-to-day journey together through life that binds married couples."

The lawsuit seeks marriage for same-sex couples in New York and argues that denying these couples marriage violates the state constitution's guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers.

This is the first of several lawsuits in New York challenging the ban on same-sex marriage and the first to reach the high court.

Lambda, and other LGBT rights groups have filed similar cases seeking marriage for same-sex couples in California, Washington, New Jersey and Iowa.

The New Jersey case went to that state's Supreme Court on February 15. Arguments were made at the high court in Washington state last year. Decisions in both cases could come at any time.

I forwarded the article to my lawyer and asked for an update on where we were. He apparently forwarded it to the ACLU lawyer, who sent me this response:

Pat,
Jeff has forwarded your inquiry to me because I am acting as the coordinator for all of the legal groups interested in your case. As you may be aware, there are two approaches to attaining the right of same-sex couples to marry: the frontal, all-or-nothing approach, exemplified by the case going to the Court of Appeals and the backdoor, incremental approach which focuses on the various benefits and obligations of marriage. Your case fits into the latter approach. Some of the legal arguments are common to both; some not. Right now Jeff has prepared a brief which I have circulated to the other groups. We want to make sure that we have identified all possible arguments and then we must decide whether to include them in this first brief or hold them for a possible appeal. Once we have finalized the contents of the brief, Jeff can file papers seeking an accelerated judgment. These papers will include the brief. Given the significance of your case, locally, statewide, and nationally, we want to make sure the brief is right.
Scott

Lisa and I had a long talk last night and, after I told her that I wanted to just go ahead and bust the buck to get my last name changed, she said she'd rather spend the money to get all the protections in place that we need. Her name on the deed to the house, my name on her IRA, wills, powers of attorney, health care proxies, stuff like that. Of course she's right. The money would be better spent that way -- or rather, we would get better value from the money that way.

The state comptroller has already announced that same-sex partners will be recognized for retirement benefit purposes for those couples who were legally married in Canada or other jurisdictions where the marriage is legal and binding.

While Lisa's employer has indicated that she views us as legally married, no differently than any heterosexual couple, it's hard to say with any degree of certainty what she would actually do with Lisa's profit sharing plan if something happened to Lisa.

All indicators are that this will be a precedent setting case for New York, and could go as far as SCOTUS. Of course, by the time it reaches SCOTUS, I'll long since have been drawing social security...

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

This is what happens when you try to be petty...

2006-03-10T13:24:00.000-05:00

Get the
Dubya Dashboard!

(Dover, Delaware) The Delaware Supreme Court has ruled that the birthmother of triplets must share custody with her ex-partner but the decision does not set a precedent for other same-sex couples.

The case involved the appeal of a 2004 lower court ruling that said because the ex-partner had helped raise the children she was a "de facto parent" and therefore entitled to joint custody.

The two women were given pseudonyms by the court to protect the identity of the children who are still minors.

"Erica Smith" and "Sheila Smith" ended a nine year relationship in 2003. "Erica Smith" then went to court seeking to prevent "Sheila Smith" from having access to the children.

In 2004 a Delaware Family Court judge ruled "Sheila Smith" a "de facto parent" and awarded her joint custody.

Following the ruling "Erica Smith" launched an appeal of the ruling and at the same time filed for retroactive child support from "Sheila Smith" based on the ruling she was fighting.

While the appeal continued "Sheila Smith" was ordered to pay $721 a month for care of the triplets.

At the Supreme Court legal papers showed that she is continuing to the support.

It was on the issue of the decision by "Erica Smith" seek child support that the justices ruled.

Writing for the three judge panel that heard the case, Justice Randy J. Holland said that "Erica Smith" had undermined her case by accepting support for the children.

Holland said that by doing so she legally accepted that "Sheila Smith" was in fact a "de facto parent".

The ruling did not address the issue of co-parenting itself.

Lawyers for both women and the ACLU of Delaware said that question is likely to come up in the future.

Study: Gay Health Imperiled By Denial Of Marriage

2006-03-01T09:20:00.000-05:00

(San Francisco, California) A new national study shows widespread psychological and social harm inflicted on same-sex couples because they are denied the right to marry.

The study, called “I Do, But I Can’t" was released at a San Francisco news conference Tuesday by the National Sexuality Resource Center and is the first first peer-reviewed study to analyze the impact of marriage denial on the mental health and well being of gay men and lesbians.

The co-authors are Gilbert Herdt, PhD, anthropologist, and director of the National Sexuality Resource Center at San Francisco State University, and Robert Kertzner, MD, practicing psychiatrist, and Adjunct Associate Research Scientist in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University.

They found that on average, married individuals have better mental health, more emotional support, less psychological distress, and lower rates of psychiatric disorder than the unmarried.

Married individuals report more emotional support and are more likely to have a close confidant than the unmarried. Effects of emotional support seem to provide protection against the negative health consequences of stress the authors say.

"Marriage denial creates what experts call minority stress, the psychological effects of constant discrimination that bars individuals from the legitimate means of achieving goals that are valued by the society in which they live,” said Herdt.

"Lesbians and gay men work just as hard as heterosexuals do in creating and maintaining committed relationships, but they do not get the same tangible benefits."

The study also found that heterosexual networks are subtle but critical mechanisms that support marriage.

A case study of a town in rural Oregon revealed how heterosexuals routinely relied on churches, schools, and neighborhood visibility to secure or enhance jobs, access social support such as childcare, and form local political alliances. A same-sex couple residing in the same town was shut out of this structure of opportunities.

Minority group members were seen as disadvantaged in attaining monetary success because of exclusion from common social structures. For lesbians and gay men, marriage denial leads to a similar minority group disjunction between goals and opportunities the report says.

Herdt and Kertzner also found that the lack of legally recognized marriage contributes to common problems for gay and lesbian couples. Ccouples may not value their relationships as legitimate expressions of commitment and intimate sexual citizenship; lack of recognition of their relationships deprives them of social and family support that could help counteract stress and social isolation; invisibility can perpetuate stigma and shame and undermine a sense of life meaning, morale, and well being.

The report said that discrimination and fear of discovery can undermine relationships if the partners do not have internal ways of countering the social stigma of homosexuality.

At Tuesday's press a lesbian couple, Leah Crask and Teresa Weeks, said they feel they constantly have to prove to the world that they are a committed couple.

They said that they registered as domestic partners in San Francisco and were able to marry there on March 1, 2004 while that city briefly allowed gay and lesbian couples to wed.

The women said that they decided to start a family, only to have their marriage invalidated.

They currently are in the process of a second-parent adoption so Teresa can be a legal parent to their nine-month-old son, Caden.

“The stress we experience because we’re not married affects us and our child but also our extended family, including Caden’s grandparents, who worry about his future.”

A gay man, Stuart Gaffney, told reporters about himself and his long-time partner, Jonathan Lewis.

"When we were able to marry in San Francisco, the burden of shame was lifted away. We had a taste of all we had missed. Thirty days later our marriage was invalidated and we felt the shame placed back upon us,” Gaffney said.

"The stigma and harm caused by denying committed lesbian and gay couples the choice to marry fuels a vicious cycle,” added Herdt.

"Fictitious stereotypes attribute promiscuity to gay men and lesbians, fueling the false belief that they are immoral and reinforcing in the minds of critics the ineligibility of lesbians and gay men for marriage and parenthood. The new proliferation of this old prejudice through the denial of marriage by sexual orientation, like all injustice, is harmful to us all.”

The findings of the report come as no surprise to people engaged in mental health in the gay community.

Earlier this month 365Gay.com reported that a counseling center that provides psychotherapy services to Austin's LGBT community found that the constitutional amendment passed by Texas voters last November is taking a toll on the mental of health of gays and lesbians in the state. (story)

A British study released this month also found that legalized same-sex unions boosts both the mental and physical health of gays and lesbians.

Cool/Not Cool

2006-02-22T09:39:00.000-05:00

Cool that these people have formed this group to help protect the families of fallen soldiers from these lunatics -- not cool because they have to. These people hate homosexuals so much, they manage to work their hatred of us into everything around them.

(Fort Campbell, Kentucky) Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.

They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.

Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.

The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with patriotic chants and a sea of red, white and blue flags.

"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."

At least 14 states, including Oklahoma, are considering laws aimed at the funeral protesters, who at a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell wrapped themselves in upside-down American flags. They danced and sang impromptu songs peppered with vulgarities that condemned homosexuals and soldiers.

The Patriot Guard was also there, waving up a ruckus of support for the families across the street. Community members came in the freezing rain to chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" alongside them.

"This is just the right thing to do. This is something America didn't do in the '70s," said Kurt Mayer, the group's national spokesman. "Whether we agree with why we're over there, these soldiers are dying to protect our freedoms."

Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kan.-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country "that embraces homosexuals."

"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."

The church, Westboro Baptist Church, is not affiliated with a larger denomination and is made up mostly of Fred Phelps' extended family members.

During the 1990s, church members were known mostly for picketing the funerals of AIDS victims, and they have long been tracked as a hate group by the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project.

The project's deputy director, Heidi Beirich, said other groups have tried to counter Phelps' message, but none has been as organized as the Patriot Guard.

"I'm not sure anybody has gone to this length to stand in solidarity," she said. "It's nice that these veterans and their supporters are trying to do something. I can't imagine anything worse, your loved one is killed in Iraq and you've got to deal with Fred Phelps."

Kentucky, home to sprawling Fort Campbell along the Tennessee line, was among the first states to attempt to deal with Phelps legislatively. Its House and Senate have each passed bills that would limit people from protesting within 300 feet of a funeral or memorial service. The Senate version would also keep protesters from being within earshot of grieving friends and family members.

Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group only comes to funerals if invited by family. He said he has no problem with protests against the war but sees no place for objectors at a family's final goodbye to a soldier.

"No one deserves this," he said.

News Tidbits

2006-02-21T09:59:00.000-05:00

(Rochester, New York) A Rochester, New York pastor has been charged with violating her covenant as a Presbyterian minister for performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
The Reverend Doctor Jane Adams Spahr is accused of marrying two lesbian couples in violation of Presbyterian Church rules.

==============

(Ashville, North Carolina) The Rev. Joe Hoffman stood before his congregation at Ashville's First Congregational United Church of Christ on Sunday and announced he would not sign marriage certificates until same-ex couples receive marriage equality in North Carolina.

==============

Excellent editorial in the Sunday New York Times.

==============

I recently saw a comment on another blog indicating a lack of understanding why gays would want the courts to decide the DISSOLUTION of their partnering because of all the fightin' and fussin' involved in a divorce.

What a narrow view this person has. He apparently feels that all same-sex relationships will turn out as badly as 50% of heterosexual relationships, yet he doesn't understand the concept of protecting our families through marriage, the same way his own is protected. He doesn't seem to want to understand that there are same-sex couples out there that have been together for decades -- longer than "traditional" heterosexual relationships -- yet, if/when one of them dies, the survivor stands to lose all that they've built together.

He totally misses the point. It's not that we want the courts involved in our relationships in any way, shape or form. We just want the legal right to make the same BAD choices that he has.

New Jersey Marriage Case Goes to State's Highest Court

2006-02-16T09:10:00.000-05:00

Following is a news article I found this morning regarding the arguments before the New Jersey Supreme Court on why same-sex marriage should or should not be legalized in that state. Emphasis and comments are my own.

(Trenton, New Jersey) The New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning in a lawsuit challenging the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

The justices peppered attorneys on both sides of the argument about the legal implications of opening up gay marriage, and whether the court or the legislature was the best venue to decide the issue.

Lambda Legal Attorney David Buckel told the court that barring gay and lesbian couples from marrying violates the state constitution and "creates second class citizens".

Assistant Attorney General Patrick DeAlmeida told the justices that the legislature should be allowed to decide who can marry. DeAlmeida said New Jersey already grants same-sex couples most of the rights of marriage through its domestic partner law.

He also told the court that the state's ban on gay marriage is based on the "historical tradition" that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"But there are other historical facts," interjected Justice Deborah Poritz.

"For a long time women were property in the marriage relationship. For a long time women could not make the claim of rape against the husband. There have been lots of ways in which the traditional ways of marriage, and the relationship in marriage, have changed. So why should we just simply defer to 'it's historical.'?" Indeed, this has been one of the biggest arguments all along. Sort of a "don't kick a sleeping dog" mentality. How can we justify "It's always been that way" as a reason to discriminate?

Arguments lasted just over an hour.

"The families we serve have finally had their day in the state's highest court, and if we win these families will be stronger for it," Buckel told reporters outside the court.

"New Jersey is a unique state and more than ready to fulfill the New Jersey Constitution's promise of equality and liberty for the over 16,000 same-sex couples who live here."

The lawsuit began in 2002 when seven same-sex couples represented by Lambda filed a lawsuit seeking the right to marry.

In June, a New Jersey appeals court ruled that the state constitution does not require the recognition of same-sex marriage. The court, in a split decision, said that it is up to the legislature to change marriage laws if same-sex couples are to wed in the Garden State.

Lambda immediately appealed to the state Supreme Court.

About 40 gay rights activists from groups such as Garden State Equality and the National Organization for Women waved black and orange signs reading "Marriage Equality'' and chanted slogans including, "Two, four, six, eight, we're the state that doesn't hate.''

"We've been waiting 34 years to get married," said Chris Lodewyks and Craig Hutchison, plaintiffs in the case. "All these years we've been through so many of life's joys and sorrows together - it really is long past time that we should be able to marry."

Lodewyks and Hutchison and the other couples involved in the case were all in court Wednesday to hear the arguments.

Not far from where gay activists were rallying protestors from conservative groups held their own demonstration. They gathered to pray and sing hymns and "God Bless America.''

John Tomicki, chairman of the New Jersey Coalition to Rescue and Protect Marriage, said marriage is sacred and should be restricted to heterosexual couples.

"That's where our culture and history has been for thousands of years,'' Tomicki said.

Generally it takes several weeks or even months for the court to deliver its opinions after the arguments are heard.

If Ever There Was a Time...

2006-02-14T09:37:00.000-05:00

...to barrage your lawmakers with communications regarding anti-gay laws, now is the time.

(Washington) Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has announced that he will bring the so-called “Marriage Protection Amendment” to a full vote in the Senate on June 5.

The timing will make it a key issue as Congress gears up for November's mid term elections.

“Today, the institution of marriage is under attack," Frist told the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington on Friday. Details of the conference became public on Monday for the first time.

"When America's values are under attack, we need to act," Frist said. "And on June 5 — and everybody note that on your calendar — when I bring the Marriage Protection Amendment to the Senate floor, we will act.”

Other speakers at the event were noted anti-gay leaders Phyllis Schlafly; Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa); Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan); and Alan Chambers, head of the “ex-gay” group Exodus International.

The proposed amendment is almost identical to one which failed to get enough votes in 2004. (story) It was reintroduced in January. (story) A House version was reintroduced in March.

“Not one marriage is protected by this amendment and all marriages are devalued when used as a political ploy,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

“Writing one group of people out of the protections of the Constitution is politics at its worst.”

Not only would the amendment ban marriage for same-sex couples, it also could threaten domestic partnerships and civil unions.

“Americans want fairness for gay couples and this amendment could wipe out any option for providing critical responsibilities and protections to families,” said Solmonese. “Our nation’s founding document should be amended to expand rights and liberties, not take them away.”

To become part of the U.S. Constitution, an amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.

Federal law already bans recognition of same-sex unions. The federal Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Frist said that the law is not enough, adding that the amendment would block "the whims of a few activist judges" from overriding "the common sense of the American people."

C-E-L-E-B-R-A-T-E

2006-02-13T08:51:00.000-05:00

How did it happen so quickly, that half the states now have legislation against our civil rights? At first, it was only one or two, then eleven, now HALF?

Celebrate marriage this week!

(New York City) In cities, towns and villages across the country this week same-sex couples will be making the point that equal rights means marriage rights.

Specific laws or constitutional amendments specifically outlaw same-sex marriage in about half the states. Others are considering similar measures.

Only in Massachusetts is gay marriage legal. Court challenges to marriage restrictions are underway. A decision could come any day from the Supreme Court in the state of Washington.

This week the issue will be argued at the Supreme Court of New Jersey. Similar cases are proceeding to the high courts in New York and California.

But throughout the country gays and lesbians realize that marriage equality depends on winning the hearts and minds of Americans.

In Chicago, same-sex couples got a head start on Freedom to Marry Week with a Saturday march through the downtown area. The march started off at Daley Plaza, winding up on the steps Holy Name Cathedral where a mock wedding was performed.

In California, hundreds of advocates of marriage equality will go to county clerks’ offices throughout California on Valentine’s Day to seek marriage licenses.

Valentine's Day marks the second anniversary of the same-sex marriages that took place in San Francisco. Those marriages were late invalidated by the courts and the issue of gay marriage is expected to be heard by the state Supreme Court sometime next year.

“Marriage discrimination affects hundreds of thousands of people in California,” said Molly McKay, Equality California Field Director.

“Our actions on Tuesday will help all Californians understand that same-sex couples simply seek the same relationship rights and responsibilities of other families. On Valentine’s Day, couples of all kinds celebrating their love and commitment to one another, but same-sex couples are denied access to basic protections that married couples enjoy. We want to put a human face on that reality.”

California is home to the largest number of same-sex couples in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

In New York, same-sex couples and their supporters will demonstrate Tuesday at City Hall.

Last week legal arguments were filed with New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeal, with Lambda Legal arguing that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is unconstitutional. The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case later this year.

But demonstrations and events are not limited just to big cities with large gay communities.

In the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania a small group of protesters marched to the Lehigh County Courthouse to apply for marriage licenses.

"We're not here to demand any kind of special rights, we're here to demand equal rights," said Elizabeth Goudy, who with her partner were turned down.

While the fight for marriage equality goes on state by state Congress is once again taking up a proposed amendment to the Constitution to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Attempts by Republicans in Congress to pass the proposed amendment that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman failed last year.

The measure was reintroduced in January. A House version was reintroduced in March.

Coretta Scott King Dies

2006-01-31T10:41:00.000-05:00

(Atlanta, Georgia) Coretta Scott King, the widow of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., died this morning. She was 78.

Until she was disabled by a stroke last August King frequently spoke out, often to the anger of some Black pastors, in favor of LGBT civil rights.

King called her critics "misinformed" and said that Martin Luther King's message to the world was one of equality and inclusion.

In 2003, she invited the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to take part in observances of the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington and Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have A Dream" speech.

It was the first time that an LGBT rights group had been invited to a major event of the African American community and drew the ire of some of the other speakers.

King said her husband supported the quest for equality by gays and reminded her critics that the 1963 March on Washington was organized by Bayard Rustin, an openly gay man.

NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman, who spoke at the 2003 anniversary, called Coretta King a model for equality.

“Our community has lost a dear and courageous friend, someone who was there for us when virtually no one else was," Foreman said on Tuesday.

"Mrs. King never hesitated to use her moral authority to proclaim that homophobia is hate, and hate has no place in the Beloved Community that she and Dr. King envisioned for our nation and our world."

In March 2004, she told a university audience that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue and denounced a proposed amendment to the Constitution ban it.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union," she said in a speech at The Richard Stockton College in Pomona, New Jersey.

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

In her speech King also criticized a group of black pastors in her home state of Georgia for backing a bill to amend that state's constitution to block gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

“All of us who aspire to live without prejudice or limits owe a very large debt to Mrs. King,” C. Dixon Osburn, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said following the announcement of her death.

“She was what Virginia Woolf once called that rare combination of ‘granite and rainbow,’ at once an immovable legacy on which we all stood and a luminous reminder of the arc waiting just behind the rain. A tireless advocate for equality, she leaves us both her own work and the work we must all yet do.”

Gay Democrats also remembered King's contributions.

"Standing behind a great movement was a grand woman who shouldered the hopes of our American dream," said Eric Stern, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director.

"Returning to Memphis five days after the assassination of her husband to demand justice for working families, Coretta Scott King continued her advocacy for the expansion of liberty embodied by their partnership. Mrs. King argued that our nation would not fulfill its promise unless all Americans, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens, were afforded equal treatment under the law."

Coretta Scott met Martin Luther King Jr. while she was studying at Boston's New England Conservatory of Music.

They were married in June of 1953 and a year later moved to Montgomery, Alabama, to take on the leadership of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church.

When Dr. King was assassinated she was a young widow with four young children to raise.

The killing instantly thrust her to the forefront of the civil rights movement. She took up her husband's mantle of social justice crusader speaking in forums across this country and around the world.

Her death was announced by former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young. He said that she will be buried beside her husband at the Martin Luther King Center for NonViolent Social Change.

News bits on Marriage Equality

2006-01-30T10:44:00.000-05:00

BALTIMORE - A Maryland circuit court ruled on 1/20/2006 that it is a violation of the state constitution to deny same-sex couples the numerous protections provided to married couples. The American Civil Liberties Union and Equality Maryland hail the decision as an historic step toward the ability of same-sex couples to legally marry in the state. Read more here.

BUT, at the same time:

(AP) ANNAPOLIS, Md. The agenda this week in the state legislature includes work on two leading issues -- gay marriage and electronic voting.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled tomorrow to hold a hearing on a proposed ban of same-sex marriage. The panel has killed similar bills in the past and Republican Delegate Don Dwyer of Anne Arundel County expects the same result for his bill this year. Read more here.

AND, in Jerry Falwell country:

Virginia voters will decide this fall if an anti-gay marriage amendment should be tacked onto their commonwealth's constitution, now that lawmakers have overwhelmingly approved it. So much for "Virginia is for Lovers."

ELSEWHERE:

Rhode Island's Senate and House are both facing bills that seek to legalize same-sex marriage.
Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, introduced the Senate version Tuesday. Rep. Art Handy, D-Cranston, reportedly introduced a similar bill in the lower house Wednesday.

GUTSY:

(Hendersonville, North Carolina) A Hendersonville, North Carolina same-sex couple is refusing to pay Federal and North Carolina Income Tax to protest the refusal of both levels of government to recognize them as a couple. Imagine the penalties...

Nothing new to report on our lawsuit these days. I think Laboriously S-L-O-W is an understatement in describing this process. Hell, I'm eligible for social security in just 12 more years.

Canadians Elect Conservatives, but it's not all bad news

2006-01-24T09:18:00.000-05:00

(Ottawa) Canadians ended more than a dozen years of Liberal rule on Monday, electing a minority Conservative government.

For most voters it was an issue of 'new blood' rather than a ringing endorsement of conservatism.

Paul Martin's Liberals had been beset with a series of scandals and was seen as tired. "Voters decided the Liberals needed a time out," said one television commentator.

At the same time voters weren't in favor of giving Stephen Harper's Conservatives a majority. The Tories won 124 seats and the Liberals 103. The results were much closer than polls were showing only a few days ago.

The small left of center New Democratic Party was the big winner of the night - doubling their seats to 29 and putting the party in a position to be the power broker in the new Parliament.

NDP leader Jack Layton said he would make an issue by issue decision on whether or not to support the government.

If the party supports the Tories legislation will pass. If the party sides with the Liberals they could defeat the government.

"The people of Canada asked Mr. Harper to form a new government and the people of Canada have asked New Democrats to balance that government," Layton told supporters in Toronto.

For Layton the election was a double victory. His wife, Toronto city councilor Olivia Chow, also was elected to Parliament.

The Conservative dependence on the NDP will likely mean no revisiting same-sex marriage legislation.

Harper said on the first day of the campaign he would attempt to repeal the marriage equality law. With the New Democrats, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, and the Liberals all opposed to changing the law there is little chance same-sex marriage in Canada will end anytime soon.

While the Conservatives saw some of the party's most anti-supporters elected it also saw a wider number of moderate Tories win support. For Harper the big job will be in balancing the two factions.

In a lengthy speech to supporters Harper outlined his agenda for the new Parliament. Absent was any mention of same-sex marriage.

Longtime gay New Democrat candidate Svend Robinson lost his bid for a return to politics in British Columbia.

Robinson, 53, resigned from politics in 2004 after admitting that he had shoplifted a diamond ring that he said was sparked by the stress of a hectic work schedule and a mild bipolar disorder for which he was taking medication and seeing a therapist.

In Nova Scotia, Scott Brison the gay man who quit the Conservatives in the last Parliament and joined the Liberals was re-elected. Openly gay Bloc MP Real Menard also was re-elected

The election also marked the end of Paul Martin's political career.

Martin told supporters following the election that he was stepping down as party leader.

"My dedication to the Liberal family will never wane,'' Martin said in his Quebec riding of LaSalle-Emard.

"But I will not take our party into another election.''

One of the highlights of his political career was pushing through marriage same-sex marriage equality last year.

All eyes are on Canada today

2006-01-23T10:09:00.000-05:00

(Ottawa) Canadians are voting for a new Parliament today in an election that could result in the repeal of same-sex marriage legislation.

Public opinion polls show the opposition Conservatives likely to win but whether Canadians will hand them an absolute majority remains to be seen.

The Conservatives oppose same-sex marriage but for most Canadians the big issues have been a series of scandals that have rocked the governing Liberals and Conservative Party promises to clean up government and cut taxes.

After 12 years in power the Liberals have grown sluggish and many Canadians just say its time for change - any change. That sentiment is helping the smaller opposition New Democrats. Polls show the NDP could have its best showing in more than a decade.

Vote rich Ontario has seen a resurgence in the NDP, especially in the cities which have traditionally been Liberal. Suburban and rural areas appear solidly Tory.

In Quebec, where the biggest Liberal scandal - over advertising kickbacks during the last independence vote - took place, the Bloc Quebecois are likely to pick up seats. But speeches by Conservative leader Stephen Harper have played well in the province and Tories also are looking to win more seats all at the expense of Liberals.

The issue of same-sex marriage came up on the first day of the campaign - an attempt by Harper to get it out of the way early. The Tory leader said that if his Conservatives form the next government he will reopen the marriage debate and put it to a free vote in Parliament.

During the leader's debates the issue came up again as the three other party leaders demanded to know how Harper would repeal the law without using a constitutional opt-out called the notwithstanding clause. Harper said he would not bypass the Constitution but has never said how he intended to get around the gay equality provisions.

In the waning days of the campaign Harper said repealing same-sex marriage was not one of his major priorities although it was still on his "to do" list if he wins.

If Canadians today elect a minority Conservative government same-sex marriage is safe. The New Democrats, Bloc, and the bulk of Liberals oppose any change in the current law.

But should Harper win a majority the issue could come into play. Yet even that is uncertain. With the Conservatives making a concerted effort to portray the party as centrist it selected a number of candidates like former broadcaster Peter Kent who support gay marriage.

Nevertheless, the Tories still have more than their share of extremists, supported by the Christian right, who have made same-sex marriage their main focus while campaigning. Attempts by the media to interview those candidates have been thwarted by national party handlers afraid extremist views could aid the Liberals.

Conservative Christian groups in the US have sent tens of thousands of dollars to their Canadian counterparts. Much of the money has been filtered to the Tory party.

With polls showing the likelihood of a Conservative government American conservatives have been warning their members to keep a low public profile for fear of tipping the election to the Liberals.

"Canadian voters have been led to believe that American conservatives are scary and if the Conservative Party can be linked with us, they can perhaps diminish a Conservative victory," Paul Weyrich, president of the Washington-based Free Congress Foundation, wrote Thursday in an e-mail to other conservative leaders, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe and Mail newspaper.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the oldest LGBT civil rights organization in the US however made a final appeal to Canadian voters and issued a warning for American gays.

"If the Conservatives succeed in Monday's election, not only will it cause years of turmoil in Canada, it will embolden continued right-wing attacks on the values of dignity, fairness and equality here in the United States," said NGLTF executive director Matt Foreman.

2006-01-23T08:14:00.000-05:00

Officials Reverse Position, Lesbian Cop To Get Dying Wish
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: January 21, 2006 - 10:00 am ET

(Trenton, New Jersey) Ocean County freeholders will grant Laurel Hester her dying wish, to have her death benefit given to her same-sex partner.

Despite state law allowing local governments to grant health and other benefits to the same-sex partners of their employees Ocean County has steadfastly refused to do so.

For months Sgt. Hester, who has inoperable brain cancer, has pleaded with freeholders to pass an ordinance recognizing same-sex partners for the purpose of benefits.

Earlier this week, with only a few months to live, she made a final plea from her hospital room. (story)

Appearing weak, and breathing with the help of a machine, she said on a video tape that she feared partner Stacie Andree would lose the home they shared after Hester dies.

With little doctors can do for, except make her as comfortable as possible, Hester has been a released from hospital and is now at home.

Until she became too ill to work Hester was a lieutenant with the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office. She had worked there for 23 years - more than half her life - and is a member of the New Jersey Police and Firemen's Retirement System.

Although the state's five other pension systems allow its members to pass pension benefits to domestic partners the NJPFRS does not. Under the state's domestic partner law local governments can transfer pension benefits.

The death benefit amounts to about $13,000.

Following Hester's emotional appeal freeholders refused to reopen the issue. But following news coverage including television reports which showed Hester's deteriorating condition, freeholders were besieged with critical phone calls and emails.

Late Friday state Sen. Andrew Ciesla (R-Ocean) said he intends to bring in legislation that would amend the police and fire pension fund to permit domestic partners to receive benefits.

That was followed by a conference call between state GOP leaders from the county and freeholders.

The conference call ended with freeholders agreeing to a special meeting next Wednesday where a new vote will be taken and Hester will be allowed to transfer her benefits.

"This is one of the happiest days of my life," Hester said on Saturday morning. "I feel like David conquering Goliath."

Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality - the group that fought for Hestor and prepared the video so she could make her final appeal to freeholders - expressed relief on Saturday.

"Truth be told, we did lose hope for a reversal in the last couple of weeks. We had applied all the pressure in the world, embarrassing the freeholders as few public servants had ever been before in the state of New Jersey or in this country, and they would not budge. Finally they did. Hallelujah! There is a God."

Whether Wednesday's vote will apply only to Hester or will be extended to all same-sex partners of county workers is not yet known.

Freeholder James F. Lacey said Saturday that he still feels the benefits issue is one for the legislature. "I don't want to pay to clean up for the state," he said.

But he agreed that Hester's situation cannot wait for state lawmakers to act..

Following Hester's desperate plea this week in Ocean County two other New Jersey municipalities have changed their laws.

Camden County and Passaic passed ordinances offering health and pension benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. (story) Five other communities in the state also provide domestic partner benefits.

Tidbits

2006-01-13T15:13:00.000-05:00

I haven't been around here much -- lots going on in my life, and it took me almost an entire week to write it out at my personal blog. Having done so was cathartic and helped me to sort through things pretty well. Hopefully I'll be around a little bit more now.

Well, a year ago today the news article hit the public -- the news article about our lawsuit against my employer. The process has gone laboriously slow, having taken 21 months already, with no real end in sight just yet. However, since it was filed, our employer did agree to domestic partner benefits under the terms of our new union contract. Separate and not equal, but it is a small step. It's costing me $9.60 per month "extra" to carry Lisa on my health insurance. It's costing my employer $112 per month extra. For two separate plans, it was costing us $153.35 per month more for Lisa's, and Lisa's employer the same.

I got a really nasty, caustic email from an "anonymous" writer, telling me that I was going to go to Hell, burn for eternity, yadda yadda yadda, for "embracing your deviant lifestyle and taking others with you."

Whatever.

No big surprise here. Virginia's House of Delegates passed an anti-gay-marriage bill, which will now be sent to the senate for approval before presented to voters.

Virginia law already defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Proponents say the constitutional amendment will make it clear that Virginia doesn't have to recognize gay marriages and same-sex civil commitments from other states.

Season three of The L Word started off pretty good Sunday. It was great to see some fun back in the show. Lisa and I nearly peed our pants at the end of the show when the cast was going through their inventory of euphamisms for the female genitalia. Bikini Biscuit, panty hamster, bearded oyster, camel's toe, Velcro triangle, vertical smile, and bald man in the boat were just some of them that got us going. At one point, Dana (who is now back with Lara) is saying that she's always had "polite" terms for hers, per her upbringing, but then Alice (who "happens" to be walking by) steps up and says "What about peeper? It's a wet peeper. It's a hot peeper." Dana grabs her purse and she and Lara quickly exit stage left, with Alice standing behind saying "peeper peeper peeper." If you've ever heard The Vagina Monologues, you've heard of some of them there, too.

It's such a shame that so many television stations have declined to air The Book of Daniel. While I didn't watch it myself (by choice), I was still annoyed to see that some of these stations bowed to pressure from extremist groups. One such group has also presented Washington state lawmakers with a "study" which purports to show that the passage of any gay rights bills could have negative effects on lawmakers at the polls. Legal extortion, I'd call it. Same with the AFA and other groups who call for boycotts against companies that support gay rights or anything gay related. How foolish would we look if we got a group together and called for a national boycott against any company that hires smokers?

Anyhoo...

Happy 2006!

2006-01-05T09:01:00.000-05:00

As of January 1, Lisa and I now have "domestic partner" benefits, which allow me to put Lisa on my health and dental insurance, as well as getting a tuition waiver for her if she decides to take classes here where I work. It also bestows beneficiary status to her with regards to my unearned income, should I die while still employed. She already has beneficiary status with regards to my retirement account -- a status granted a couple of years ago by state comptroller Havesi. We're doing the Snoopy dance based on the substantial savings that this will afford us in not having to maintain two separate health insurance policies. We're one step closer, but still have a long way to go.

In other news, I got quite a chuckle this morning out of this article which describes the arrest of an anti-gay pastor for soliciting the services of a male prostitute, who happened to be an undercover police officer.

There seems to be a prevalent theme these days of the most vocal opponents of GLBT equality either having their own sexual exploits discovered, or the discovery that their offspring or other family members are homosexual.

It makes me sit back and anxiously await the "outing" of the likes of Phelps, Falwell, even Bush.

Our Best to You

2005-12-22T08:19:00.000-05:00

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.

Snippets

2005-12-21T08:01:00.000-05:00

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:

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.

Musings

2005-12-14T08:27:00.000-05:00

I found this letter to the Editor while perusing today's edition of 365gay.com news:

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

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?

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:

State Appeals Court Reverses Ruling That Allowed Gay Marriage

2005-12-09T11:04:00.000-05:00

(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.

Support Companies that Support Us

2005-11-30T17:01:00.000-05:00

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!

We laugh, we love, we cry...

2005-11-30T14:46:00.000-05:00

anytime

View more video clips at Yashi

Lawsuit update

2005-11-30T08:15:00.000-05:00

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.

One Step Closer

2005-11-17T15:21:00.000-05:00

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...

NYS Case Law

2005-11-17T11:42:00.000-05:00

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.

2005-11-17T09:47:00.000-05:00

THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
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).

Open Mouth, Insert Foot

2005-11-14T08:23:00.000-05:00

Did you see the latest O'Reilly rant?

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?

Federal Marriage Protection Act Moves Forward

2005-11-10T08:24:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

In the name of God

2005-11-09T10:10:00.000-05:00

It would seem that some Fred Phelps wannabes have surfaced in Bloomfield, Indiana.

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?

All or nothing?

2005-11-02T08:54:00.000-05:00

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.

New Paltz Mayor Loses Appeal

2005-10-29T09:14:00.000-05:00

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.

(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.

How Many Bush Cronies Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?

2005-10-27T12:41:00.000-05:00

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.

Noteworthy News

2005-10-27T10:05:00.000-05:00

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.

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.

Vile, despicable, contemptible, depraved, vicious...

2005-10-26T10:36:00.000-05:00

I can think of a whole bunch of other words to describe this piece of human garbage (emphasis my own):

(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.

How low do you think they can go?

2005-10-12T07:28:00.000-05:00

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)

National Coming Out Day Quiz

2005-10-12T07:22:00.000-05:00

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.

"More Complex Than Anticipated"

2005-10-06T09:17:00.000-05:00

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?

Sometimes Words Escape Me

2005-10-05T07:36:00.000-05:00

If you heard a loud THUD this morning, that was my jaw hitting the floor when I read this news article:

(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.

Bush nomination

2005-10-03T08:02:00.000-05:00

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]

Where Florida's Children Learn to Hate

2005-10-03T07:46:00.000-05:00

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.

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."

LOL

2005-09-29T11:51:00.000-05:00

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!

Chimpy image

2005-09-28T07:04:00.000-05:00

Letter from Hillary Clinton regarding John Roberts' Nomination

2005-09-23T10:47:00.000-05:00

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

Asshole

2005-09-23T08:12:00.000-05:00

A video worth watching. Be sure your speakers aren't too loud if you're at work. Some
asshole might take offense.

An earlier version, just as good, if not better, can be seen

here.

Yep, them heteros do a bang-up better job than us homasexshuls

2005-09-19T08:30:00.000-05:00

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:

"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.' "

HEAR! HEAR!

2005-09-16T12:21:00.000-05:00

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.

Send Gays to Combat, Then Fire Their Asses!

2005-09-14T07:00:00.000-05:00

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...

(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.

Pictures of Chimpy

2005-09-13T12:55:00.000-05:00

Sometimes pictures just speak for themselves -- A Scottish news broadcast regarding Katrina, or is it REALLY regarding Katrina ?

Excuse me, your stupidity is showing!

2005-09-13T12:41:00.000-05:00

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...

"Put on an act so we can get anti-gay laws passed"

2005-09-13T08:19:00.000-05:00

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

2005-09-12T12:04:00.000-05:00

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

2005-09-12T07:20:00.000-05:00

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...

Doin' the pee-pee dance!

2005-09-07T07:08:00.000-05:00

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.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Challenge

2005-09-06T10:14:00.000-05:00

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.

(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?

LOL!

2005-09-01T07:05:00.000-05:00

Isn't it nice to know that we have this kind of power? The hetero world best watch out, with these extraordinary powers we have, we just might bring back the plague of locusts. Or fishnet stockings. Or William Hung.

Gays 'Responsible' For New Orleans Devastation Group Claims
by Fidel Ortega 365Gay.com Miami Bureau

Posted: August 31, 2005 3:00 pm ET

(New Orleans, Louisiana) An evangelical Christian group that regularly demonstrates at LGBT events is blaming gays for hurricane Katrina.

Repent America says that God "destroyed" New Orleans because of Southern Decadence, the gay festival that was to have taken place in the city over the Labor Day weekend.

"Southern Decadence" has a history of filling the French Quarters section of the city with drunken homosexuals engaging in sex acts in the public streets and bars" Repent America director Michael Marcavage said in a statement Wednesday.

"Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city." Marcavage said. "From ‘Girls Gone Wild’ to ‘Southern Decadence’, New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same."

"Let us pray for those ravaged by this disaster. However, we must not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long," Marcavage said.

"May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God," Marcavage concluded.

As 365Gay.com reported on Tuesday, organizers for Southern Decadence have cancelled the event and are promising full ticket refunds. (story)

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin said Wednesday that hundreds are known dead and the death toll will reach into the thousands. Some estimates, CNN reported, indicate the final death toll in New Orleans alone may top 100,000.

Water levels eased off slightly on Wednesday, but most of the city remains submerged and it is believed it could be months before the city is inhabitable.

Repent America most recently demonstrated at the Philadelphia Phillies tribute to gay fans earlier this month. (story)

Last year 10 members of Repent America marched to an area near the front of a stage at Philadelphia's Outfest and began to yell Biblical passages.

Police attempted to get the protestors to move to to an area on the edge of the Outfest site. Instead they went deeper into the gay crowd. Using a bullhorn they condemned homosexuality. They then got into an argument with a group of Pink Angels, who screamed back.

It was at that point police intervened.

Four members of Repent America, including Marcavage, were charged with ethnic intimidation, criminal conspiracy and inciting to riot. The charges carry sentences up to 47 years behind bars. But, in court, a judge dismissed the charges saying the protestors were in a public park and police had violated the group's First Amendment right to free speech. (story)

Marcavage has been arrested, detained or cited by police around the country since founding Repent America in 2002, including at a demonstration against same-sex marriages in San Francisco.

Update: 9/7/2005

Isn't this interesting? All of us queers brought the wrath of God down on New Orleans, causing this terrible tragedy for our sins -- at least, according to the relgigious Nazis.

However, the French Quarter is still mostly intact and dry.

I wonder what sort of spin the Nazis will put on that little factoid....

Which Western Feminist Are You?

2005-08-24T09:42:00.000-05:00

My results:

You are Emma Goldman! You are the mama of
Anarchist/Communist feminism and you inspired
millions to embrace the labor movement. Without
ever directly saying so, you directed efforts
toward saving wymyn and children from
exploitation. Oh yeah, you were also a total
sexpot!

Which Western feminist icon are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Update

2005-08-22T13:02:00.000-05:00

Well, we received a packet on Saturday from the Executive Board of the Union. It seems that the union has reached a tentative agreement with my employer. They have included domestic partners in any area where a spouse would receive something. At this point, the temptation to "take the money and run" is there, just so we can sink back into anonymity. However, as I expressed to the lawyer, just as quickly as domestic partner benefits can be written into our contract, they can be written back out. Best to seek recognition of the marriage, in the long run. I've forwarded information to the attorney and he's forwarded it on to the Legal Committee at the ACLU. We'll wait and see what they say.

New York's Case moves forward

2005-08-18T14:46:00.000-05:00

(New York, August 8, 2005)— Today, Lambda Legal filed papers in the Appellate Division, First Department (the state’s middle court) to defend a lower court ruling that said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry in New York. The City filed an appeal seeking to overturn the ruling earlier this spring.

“The City argues that the government has an interest in supporting heterosexuals who have children. But the City doesn’t explain why it’s okay for the government to turn its back on thousands of New York children raised by same-sex couples, who must go without the protections that come with civil marriage,” said Susan Sommer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal and lead attorney on the case. According to the 2000 Census, there are 46,490 same-sex households in New York, with over 34% of the lesbian couples and 21% of the gay couples raising children in the home.

In the brief filed today, Lambda Legal argued that the trial court was right when it ruled that barring same-sex couples from marriage was unconstitutional and denies them a host of protections that couples who are married enjoy. Lambda Legal argued that the City is wrong in basing its appeal on an outdated case that relied on the Book of Genesis to deny civil marriage rights to same-sex couples.

In her February 4, 2005 trial court ruling, Justice Ling-Cohan wrote that barring “access to civil marriage denies plaintiffs something irreplaceable.” The ruling further stated that, “Similar to opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples are entitled to the same fundamental right to follow their hearts and publicly commit to a lifetime partnership with the person of their choosing.” The lower court’s decision held that gay and lesbian couples are entitled to the liberty to marry the person they love just like all other New Yorkers are free to do.

Over 100 organizations and individuals have filed papers as friends-of-the-court to support Lambda Legal’s arguments, including the New York County Lawyers’ Association, the Metropolitan Black Bar Association, Empire State Pride Agenda, National Organization for Women—New York State, the American Psychological Association and Congregation Beth Simchat Torah, among others.

Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit in March 2004 seeking marriage licenses for same-sex couples in New York, arguing that denying them marriage violates the state Constitution’s guarantees of equality, liberty and privacy for all New Yorkers. The trial court issued its ruling in Lambda Legal’s favor in February this year, which New York City decided to appeal. On March 31, New York’s highest court ruled that the case should be heard in the mid-level appeals court, where Lambda currently makes its arguments for marriage equality in the state.

Arguing the case with Susan Sommer for Lambda Legal are Jeffrey S. Trachtman and Norman Simon of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel as co-counsel.

Two excellent commentaries

2005-08-18T12:13:00.000-05:00

Rather than waste the bandwidth on two sites, I decided I'd just post the link to my message board here, where you can read two very excellent commentaries.

They can be read here.

Okay, 'splain this to me

2005-08-18T08:28:00.000-05:00

(Fort Lauderdale, Florida) In the aftermath of attacks on gays by members of the Broward County School Board's Diversity Committee the board is considering dissolving the committee.

The controversy began when the 19 member committee was considering the use in schools of the video We Are Family that features SpongeBob SquarePants and other cartoon characters.

One member of the committee, Steve Kane, said that gays "are trying to mess with our kids' minds and introduce all kinds of activities in the name of tolerance.'' Kane, a local conservative radio talk show host has resigned. (story)

But, he was not the only member to condemn gays.

Rev. Katy Peterson, of the Palm Beach Gardens Metropolitan Community Church said other anti-gay committee members "take the School Board's thoughtfully crafted and progressive diversity policy and use it for toilet paper."

Peterson and other LGBT community leaders are calling for the committee to be shut down.

"I think we're all in agreement about that," Board Chairwoman Stephanie Kraft told the Sun Sentinel newspaper.

But, it may not be as easy as just passing a motion to disband the committee.

School Board lawyers warn that the Diversity Committee was created several years ago as part of a settlement of a discrimination lawsuit. Terminating it could be in violation of that agreement.

Instead, the Board may decided to leave the committee intact but suspend future meetings. But, that too, say the attorneys, could result in the board being taken back to court.

Kraft said that a final decision will be made in September.

1. This is a DIVERSITY committee. Who selected this committee in the first place, Anita Bryant?
2. If the entire committee is attacking gays, then it's not a diversity committee, it's a hate forum.
3. If they don't want to serve on the committee because they have to review this sort of thing, can someone explain the concept of resignation to them?

Is it just me, or does this whole thing just seem terribly stupid?

Truth or the Religous Right?

2005-08-17T11:49:00.000-05:00

I posted this article on my blog a couple of weeks ago. It's been revealed, recently, that the Reverend Willie violated the ninth commandment by bearing false witness to his followers, in order to promote hate and bigotry against the gay and lesbian community. But then again, does this really surprise anyone?

Give the article a read, especially the comments from the student body where this jerk's son goes to school. Then note the tapdance his daughter does around the issue, toward the end of the article.

Like we'd WANT this guy on our side!

2005-08-16T07:50:00.000-05:00

(Chicago, Illinois) The head of an Illinois group fighting same-sex marriage and partner benefits says he wonders if militant anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps is actually a gay plant.

Phelps who runs the God Hates Fags website and whose followers regularly demonstrate at gay friendly churches first came to national attention when he protested at the funeral Matthew Shepard.

Since then conservative Christian groups have been mostly silent but now, the Phelps clan is picketing at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. (story)

The group had threatened to demonstrate last weekend at the funeral of Gunnery Sgt. Terry W. Ball in East Peoria but did not show up. Nevertheless, on Monday, Illinois Family Institute Executive Director Peter LaBarbera issued a statement denouncing Phelps.

"Fred Phelps' curious message is hardly Christian, and only fuels societal bigotry toward those who espouse genuine Biblical views on social issues like homosexuality and abortion," LaBarbera's statement said.

"Of all the potential targets for their protests, they have chosen funeral services where the bereaved are mourning the loss of loved ones. It is hard to conceive of a more inflammatory presentation of a false Gospel than his."

LaBarbera went on to say: "Politically and culturally speaking, Phelps and his protesters serve as a crude caricature of pro-family traditionalists who oppose the normalization of homosexuality. Fred makes an easy target for the media and secularists who are tempted (partly by their own prejudices) to paint any opposition to 'gay rights' as hateful. For this reason, I have sometimes wondered if Phelps and his lawyerly clan are 'gay plants.'"

But, despite denouncing Phelps, the Illinois Family Institute is actively involved in a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage, has fought legislation to provide civil rights protections for gays and lesbians and earlier this month demanded that the Illinois Bureau of Tourism refuse to give public funds to the 2006 Gay Games in Chicago. (story) The Chicago organizer of the event, Chicago Games Inc., has submitted an application for promotion money.

Don't know about any of you other gays, lesbians, bi's or trannies out there, but I sure as hell don't think this guy supports our cause in the least -- if anything, he gives the religious right a black eye on a daily basis. But then again, perhaps LaBarbera knows that and is trying to do a bit of damage control...

"It Just Ain't Natural!"

2005-08-15T07:11:00.000-05:00

OK, for all of you naysayers who say that homosexuality is a choice, read this article and then explain to me how animals, who were not given the gift of free will by the creator, "chose" homosexuality and "hedonism" over heterosexuality. Oh, I know, I know, you'll scoff and just call this "junk science" when you can't come up with actual facts to dispute these findings, right?

(New York City) Gay rams in Corvallis, Oregon, lesbian swans in Boston, and gay penguins at several zoos around the world - they may shock conservative Christian groups fighting gay rights but for scientists they offer an insight into the origins and development of human sexuality.

Researchers at Oregon State University have found that about eight percent of rams are gay. The scientists, at the university along with those at the Oregon Health & Science University and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Sheep Experiment Station, say that the finding may prove sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, may be biologically driven.

In rams who prefer to mount other rams, the anterior preoptic area of the hypothalamus was about half the size of this part of the brain in heterosexual rams, the researchers say in a new report.

"This was exciting to us because this area of the brain has been found in many species to regulate sexual behavior," Fred Stormshak, a distinguished professor of animal science at Oregon State and an investigator on the project, told The Gazette-Times of Corvallis on the weekend.

The investigation also targeted aromatase activity in the hypothalamus. Aromatase is an enzyme that converts androgens such as testosterone into estrogens such as estradiol. In male mammals, estrogen causes masculinization of the brain during gestation.

The researchers hypothesize that low levels of aromatase in the brain of the developing fetus "somehow keep it from becoming fully masculinized."

The news comes as Boston Parks officials disclosed that Romeo and Juliet, the famed pair of white swans in the Pubic Garden, are really two females.

The manicured Garden that adjoins the Boston Common, in the city's downtown, is a tourist favorite and the swans over the years have become so popular the city added swan boats to lure more tourists to the area.

Last year, the most recent pair of real swans were purchased as chicks from a breeder.

As they grew the swans settled down together in domestic bliss. The parks people found eggs in their nest. But, they never hatched.

After doing some scientific tests they discovered the eggs had not been fertilized and more tests revealed Romeo was really a girl.

The revelation has stirred a debate in the only state where gay marriage is legal over whether Romeo should be renamed to properly reflect her true sex.

The Boston Globe put the question to people in the Public Garden yesterday.

''If these two swans are happy together, they shouldn't have to have a guy," said Emma Stokien, a 15-year-old from New York. ''It's good to have the swans as a symbol of the acceptance in Massachusetts."

Zoos in three countries have gay penguins. There are three gay couples at the Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany. There are about 20 same-sex pairs at 16 major aquariums and zoos in Japan. But, two gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York broke up last year.

Roy and Silo, had been together for several years. They even put a rock simulating an egg in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens. After they broke up, Roy for a while spent time with a female penguin but that that did not last long, and now the Roy and Silo live separately.

Animal sexuality is a relatively new field. The first book on the subject, Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape, unleashed a torrent of condemnation for the Christian right.

In 1999, Bruce Bagemihl published Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. It provided an overview of scholarly studies of same-sex behavior in animals. Bagemihl said homosexual behavior had been documented in some 450 species.

The book was cited by the American Psychiatric Association and other groups in a "friend of the court" brief submitted to the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, the case in which the court overturned sodomy laws.

What goes around comes around

2005-08-13T10:47:00.000-05:00

Why is it that the most outspoken protestors against the GLBT community have nasty, rotting, decomposing bodies in their own closets? What's that expression about removing the plank from your own eye?

(New York City) As rector of St. Patrick's Cathedral Monsignor Eugene Clark blamed gays for "destroying the church", now he's been named as "the other man" in a nasty divorce involving a woman who worked for the diocese.

In divorce papers filed in Eastchester, New York, Philip DeFilippo alleges Clark had a long term affair with his wife, Laura, the Monsignor's personal secretary. The filing claims that the affair led to the breakup of the DeFilippo's marriage.

Clark resigned Thursday. The 79-year-old Clark has denied the affair with his 46-year-old private secretary.

A spokesperson for Edward Cardinal Egan said the cardinal accepted the resignation but would have no comment on the case.

Clark's duties as a monsignor in the New York Archdiocese included regular appearances on the Catholic cable television network EWTN, on a show called "Relationships."

He also worked as an editor of "When Conscience and Politics Meet: A Catholic View."

In 1999 Clark told a Catholic radio audience that gays are "the enemy of Christian marriage and Christian falling in love and all the tenderness that goes with that."

In 2002 Clark Clark blamed gays for the sex abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. In a homily delivered from the pulpit at the cathedral Clark called homosexuality a "disorder," and said gay men should not be allowed to become priests.

It resulted in protests by gays and abuse victims who said the church was trying to make gays scapegoats for the scandal.

Clark later recanted his comments, but within months he launched a new salvo, accusing gays of destroying Catholic family life.

In a radio broadcast he said Hollywood was controlled by gays and their supporters advancing a "homosexual agenda".

"A whole generation of Americans has been solicited...by American popular culture which is Hollywood and the media, Hollywood taking the most advanced step in this."

Why women are "becoming" lesbians

2005-07-22T11:23:00.000-05:00

Y'just hafta give this guy a listenin' to.

Apparently this guy's "sermon" was secretly taped by a parishoner, who is now being labeled as a "Negro spy" by the Reverend Willie. And remember, this was a sermon, in church, with children present.

...and we live in a time now, brothers have been so, uh, put down, can't get a job, lot of the sisters makin' mo' money than brothers and it's creating problems in families. That's one of the reasons our families breakin' up and that's one of the reason many of our women are becoming LESBIAN.

You got to be careful when you say you don't need no man. "I can make it by myself." Well if you don't need a man, what's left? LESBIANISM 'bout to take over our community. I'm talking 'bout YOUNG girls.

My son in high school last year tried to go to the prom he said "Dad I ain't got nobody to take to the prom because all the girls in my class are gay. Ain't but two of 'em straight, and both of them ugly." I ain't got nobody to take to the prom. Can I park here for a minute? I ain't homophobic because everybody in here got somethin' wrong with 'em. Whoever you point at, you can point at your own self, you got somethin' wrong with yo' life.

But when you get down to this day, women fallin' down on women, strappin yourself up with something, it ain't real! That thing ain't got no feelin' in it! It ain't natural. Anytime somebody gotta slap some grease on your behind to stick somethin' in you, there's something wrong with that! Your butt ain't made for that! You got blood vessels and membranes in your behind. And if you put something unnatural in there, it breaks 'em all up. No wonder your behind is bleeding. It's destroying us!

Can't make no connection with a screw and another screw. Bible says God made them male and female. The Hebrew word negad which means complimentary nature, there is something unique to man and unique to woman and it takes those two things to complement each other. You can't make a connection with two screws, it takes a screw and a NUT!

By my observation, it appears that the Reverend Willie's wife got the screw AND the nut!

And let's talk about his son for just a minute. First off, how does he know that every girl in his school is gay except for the two? And the two that aren't, are too ugly for this alleged "Christian" to be seen with? It sounds to me like the Reverend Willie's son has some real feelings of inadequacy and, rather than face the fact that HE might be defective socially, it's easier for him to tell himself and his father that there's something wrong with every girl at his school. He never stopped to wonder why 90% (minus the 10% who might be gay) of the girls in his son's school would rather be persecuted and demeaned by people like him than to go to the prom with his son?! Mmm hmm. Riiiiigggggght.

And, to insinuate that all it takes to make a straight woman convert to lesbianism is to make more money than men, then why aren't ALL women dykes? I wonder if he truly realizes how much of a slam that is against straight men, as well as lesbians and straight women who have studied their asses off and worked their way up to a point where they make EQUAL money to their male counterparts? And, following this logic, does that mean that men who earn more money are "light in the loafers" as well?

And, another question. Why would LESBIANS need to grease up their BEHINDS for something to get shoved in them? Seems to me that the Reverend Willie might need a lesson in basic biology/anatomy.

No wonder his son thinks all girls at his school are gay except the two ugly ones...

I'm BA-ACK!

2005-07-20T12:52:00.000-05:00

Yep, spent two weeks on vacation, at home, with no firm schedule, plans, or anything else that would tie us to any one place at any one time. We slept in, and after we got up, decided what we'd do for the day.

It's was hot, hazy, and humid the whole time, so we didn't get much done outside, but still had a wonderful, lazy time with each other.

I SO love having Lisa all to myself!

Now, if I could just get back into some sort of rhythm at work...

Check out my personal blog (other than gay marriage content) for a complete rundown in the next few days.

OK, maybe it'll happen next week.

Only two more days in my forties *whine*

NY State takes another step forward

2005-06-30T07:50:00.000-05:00

NY State Gives Gays a Say in Burying Partners

(Albany, New York) In the closing hours of the 2005 session, the New York State Legislature passed a bill that provides domestic partners, both same-sex and opposite-sex, the ability to make decisions about the funerals of partners.

It allows New Yorkers to designate a person to carry out their wishes for the disposition of their body after they die. Additionally, the legislation extends domestic partners the same priority status in decision making as surviving spouses, creating historic significance for New York's LGBT community.

“For too long in New York, same-sex partners who live together and care for each other have been legal strangers when it comes to this critical moment,” said Alan Van Capelle, Executive Director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, New York’s statewide LGBT civil rights organization.

The 'death care proxy' is a simple, free, proxy form authorizing the appointment of an agent, space for special directions, to be signed in front of two witnesses, similar to a health care proxy. In instances where no one has been designated via a written proxy, a priority list of persons, including domestic partners, are established in statute to determine who has the right to control the disposition of an individual's remains.

"Over the years, scores of GMHC's clients have had severe difficulty with these issues," said Ana Oliveira, Executive Director of Gay Men's Health Crisis.

"They wanted to make arrangements but until this legislation no legal mechanism existed to ensure their wishes were followed. Because this bill gives domestic partners the same recognition as surviving spouses, we believe the many painful circumstances we have seen over the years can now be avoided."

The legislation received bipartisan support. The Democratic-led Assembly passed it by a vote of 94-25 and the Republican-led Senate passed an identical version by a unanimous vote of 58-0.

In defining a domestic partner, the bill provides for three different methods. For same-sex couples who are able to register their partnership with a government entity, the bill recognizes registration as sufficient proof for control of remains authority. Being formally recognized as a beneficiary or covered under a partner’s employment benefits or health insurance also provides this authority. If none of these methods is available or has been utilized by a same-sex couple, providing documents similar to what the private sector and New York State require for an employee to obtain domestic partner health insurance is also acceptable proof of a partnership.

When passing the bill, both the Assembly and the Senate agreed to further modify the third prong of this definition to have it conform more closely to the one used in the hospital visitation bill passed in 2004 where the focus was on demonstrating mutual dependence and the totality of circumstances that show mutual dependence. Both chambers are expected to adopt this change later in the year before the bill is sent to the Governor.

Passage puts legislators in line with New Yorkers on the issue. In a statewide poll conducted in March by Global Strategy Group for Pride Agenda, 83% of New Yorkers said providing this right to same-sex partners was important. Support crossed party lines with 89% of Democrats, 81% of Independents and 76% of Republicans believing control of remains authority is an important right that should be provided.

"Same Sex America"

2005-06-28T09:27:00.000-05:00

Last night, Showtime premiered a documentary called Same Sex America, which chronicled the journey toward same-sex marriage in Massachusetts after the landmark ruling in November, 2003 by the state supreme court.

This documentary featured people on both sides of the issue -- REAL gays and lesbians with families who contemplated marriage, and finally took that giant leap. It also features those who oppose same-sex marriages, even those whose children are gays or lesbians.

One such young lady, attending a rally for same-sex marriage tells the camera/reporter that her parents are there, too...on the "other side." She loves her parents but the issue is so divisive as to tear families apart. A clip shows Dick Cheney being interviewed prior to the recent presidential election, seeming to support Dubya's call for an amendment banning same-sex marriage, yet at the same time proclaiming his love and support for his lesbian daughter. Politics or family? Tough choice to make.

Protestors with signs reading "Let the People Vote" gave me pause. If we allow THEM to vote on whether *I* can get married to my partner, shall we allow all citizens to vote on who else can and can't get married? Shall we negate the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia and put that concept to a vote via a constitutional amendment? Shall we vote on whether the mildly retarded or brain-injured should be allowed to marry and procreate? Shall we vote on prohibiting senior citizens from remarrying because it's clearly just a sham to defraud good taxpayers like ourselves out of more Social Security benefits?

One young man relates his father's opposition to his marriage, expressed to him just before his wedding. The young man says that his father indicates that he has an issue with same-sex marriage but can't express what the issue is or where it comes from. I believe that this truly represents the feelings of many who oppose same-sex marriage -- people, as a whole, don't adapt to change well. And, when you can't wrap your brain around the whole homosexuality concept, it's hard to accept that kind of change. I understand that but, where I draw the line at compassion or empathy is where they've drawn the line. They don't understand, yet they don't SEEK FURTHER UNDERSTANDING. They just go with their lack of understanding, embrace it, and accept THAT as reality.

And then there's the man holding a sign (which I couldn't determine it's message) who insists that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "you have to be sick to want to let a man marry a man." He clearly doesn't know why he opposes it, and it was evident that the *ICK* factor is what puts him on the side of the opponents of same-sex marriage.

One couple, in the original 7 couples that filed the lawsuit against the MA Dept. of Health, has been together for more than 30 years. They own a business together and one of them had some severe health problems. This was what drove them to seek recognition of their relationship, right now, and in preparation for their eventual demise. This story was reminiscent of the first segment of If These Walls Could Talk 2, where one partner died and the other was left with nothing but her grief.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If it bothers you to call it marriage, then call it purple crunchy peanut butter if you want, as long as I can pass OUR home on to my spouse after my death, without her having to incur a large tax burden. Let her make the decision to remove me from life support, or sign for a risky surgery that can potentially save my life. Let her live WITHOUT fear of ending up in the street because the loss of my income upon my death made her unable to support herself any more. I don't seek your approval or endorsement of my relationship with my partner. All I ask is that you stop attacking us, let us live in peace, with the same rights and responsibilities that you have. No more, no less.

Canadian Parliament Votes Today

2005-06-28T09:16:00.000-05:00

At around 8:00 PM Eastern time, the Canadian Parliament will vote on legalizing same-sex marriage throughout the entire nation.

Canada's minority Liberal government said it had to produce legislation permitting gay marriage after courts in eight of the country's 10 provinces ruled that a ban on same-sex marriages was unconstitutional because it violated Canada's charter on rights and freedoms.

Of course, the Conservative Party and some church groups are opposing the legislation, claiming that it's an "attack on christianity and organized religion." I find it ironic that they fail to see preventing same-sex marriage as an attack on individuals and families, and contrary to the teachings of Christ. Can you say H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

Two pieces of news out of Canada

2005-06-27T10:42:00.000-05:00

It seems that Canada is taking a leadership role in GLBT rights that most countries will take decades to catch up with (if they catch up at all).

____________________________________________

Canada Expected To Pass National Gay Marriage Bill Next Week
by Canadian Press

Ottawa) Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's Commons corps dusted off a rarely used procedural tactic just before midnight to bamboozle furious Conservatives and pass contentious Liberal-NDP budget amendments late Thursday night.

The immediate result was the stifling of any threat of a summer election and an acceleration of the vote on same-sex marriage. That vote could occur as early as Monday.

The Conservatives could only sputter and fume after their unofficial partners in the Bloc Quebecois deserted them to join the Liberals and the NDP to cut off debate on the budget.

They compared their Liberal, NDP and Bloc opponents to crooks, Satan and Hollywood homicidal maniac Hannibal Lecter.

By contrast NDP Leader Jack Layton stood triumphant in the Commons while his jubilant troops tossed shredded paper and applauded one of the biggest coups in their party's history: approval of their $4.6 billion budget deal with the government.

``There's been so much name-calling and finger-pointing here that the key for us was just to get something done,'' he said of his deal.

``We've been months here without much to show for it and finally we have a positive budget.''

The NDP budget deal, struck this spring when the Liberals desperately needed allies in Parliament, erased corporate tax cuts and replaced them with $4.6 billion for housing, the environment, education and foreign aid.

The realization of what had occurred only dawned on the Tories as they gazed around the shuttle buses that normally ferry MPs off Parliament Hill and realized there wasn't a Liberal in sight.

Every available Liberal MP was cloistered in the Commons lobby waiting to spring into a vote to cut off debate. The Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats made extraordinary use of a rule allowing for cutting off debate on the budget if they agreed the Conservatives were being obstructionist.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper poured scorn on the alliance.

``When push comes to shove the Liberals will make any deal with anybody,'' Harper said after he was forced to rush back for a midnight vote. ``And it doesn't matter whether it's with the socialists or with the separatists or any bunch of crooks they can find.''

Though the Bloc stood with the Tories in the midnight budget ballotting, the Liberals still mustered five more votes than the Tory-Bloc alignment. Several Conservative MPs were absent.

The Liberals were taking a monumental gamble. A loss on the vote would force the prime minister to dissolve Parliament and call a summer election.

But Liberal strategists were confident they had caught the Conservatives unawares and decided to risk their government for a decisive victory.

``I hope they can count,'' Liberal MP Shawn Murphy said of Liberal strategists as MPs milled around before the vote.

Polls have suggested for almost two months now that an election would see the Liberals returned with a minority mandate. Privately, several Conservative MPs were hoping for an ``honorable loss'' on the budget vote to avoid an election that could have cost them seats, particularly in their Ontario beachhead.

The Tories, who had boldly predicted they could topple the Liberal government on the budget vote, were suddenly complaining they had members missing.

A few Conservatives were missing from their seats in an earlier vote Thursday evening. More could been seen racing back up Parliament Hill when news broke of the impending budget showdown.

They reacted with unfiltered rage.

Conservative deputy leader Peter MacKay described his foes as a menage a trois between separatists, socialists and power-hungry Liberals.

Liberals claims of making the minority Parliament work was ``all just one big, fat stinking lie'' and then went further, comparing the Liberals to one of Hollywood's most heinous homicidal cannibals.

``We have to start thinking that Hannibal Lecter is running the government and they'll do anything they have to do to win.''

Tory MP John Reynolds was ranting about the Liberals jumping ``in bed with the devil'' - the Bloc Quebecois.

Liberals could barely contain their glee in response.

``Its not surprising that Hannibal Lecter should spring to mind for MacKay given the growing number of Conservatives who believe the party should soon eat its own leader,'' said Scott Reid, the prime minister's spokesman.

__________________________________

Gay Marriage Legal In 9th Canadian Region
by Derwin Parsons 365Gay.com Atlantic Canada Bureau Chief

(Fredericton, New Brunswick) Canada's Maritime province of New Brunswick has become the latest region where the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been struck down.

In a written ruling Thursday Judge Judy Clendenning ruled in favor of four same-sex couples seeking the right to marry.

The couples sued the provincial government arguing that its refusal to grant them marriage licenses is a violation of the Canadian Constitution.

"There's no discrimination more oppressive than discrimination by a government on its citizens," lawyer Alison Menard, told Clendenning in oral arguments last week.

In her ruling Clendenning said the definition of civil marriage would have to be changed from a lawful union between a man and a woman, to a lawful union "between two persons."

"What it means is that anybody that meets the definition of capacity to marry is able to go and get a marriage license," Menard told the CBC.

"So in this particular circumstance, couples of same gender will be able to obtain marriage licenses and celebrate marriages."

A bid by conservative religious groups to be heard in the case was rejected. Clendenning ruled that they weren't bringing anything "new or unique" to the table other than trying to make same-sex marriage a "morality" issue.

The ruling leaves only two provinces - Prince Edward Island and Alberta - and two territories - Nunavut and The Northwest Territories - where same-sex couples cannot marry.

Oregon Contemplates Civil Unions

2005-06-27T10:38:00.000-05:00

(Salem, Oregon) The Oregon Senate is expected to vote this week on a bill to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and to ban discrimination against gays in jobs, housing and public accommodations.

The legislation was approved last week by the Senate Rules Committee, the last major hurdle before going to the full Senate for a vote.

The bill could create a civil unions registry and grant same-sex couples many of the rights available to married couples including inheritance benefits, pensions, property rights when a partner dies, and the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

The bill also adds sexual orientation to a law that forbids discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on race, color, religion and several other factors.

It has the support of Gov. Ted Kulongoski. The measure is expected to pass the Democratically controlled Senate but is expected to receive tough opposition in the House which is controlled by Republicans.

Opponents of the legislation contend contradicts the will of Oregon voters, who passed a state constitutional amendment in November that prohibits gay marriage.

"We think the bill could affect every marriage statute," said Tootie Smith of the Oregon Family Coalition, which opposes the bill.

She said consequences could include forcing employers to provide health coverage and other costly benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

But Rebekah Kassell of Basic Rights Oregon, the state's major gay rights lobby, said nothing in the measure requires employers to provide such benefits.

Massachusetts allows gay marriage, while Vermont grants civil union rights and Connecticut will begin offering civil unions in October.

Domestic partners in California have all rights and responsibilities of marriage conferred by the state except the ability to file joint income taxes.

Canadian Politics "Sell Out" Gay Marriage

2005-06-16T07:11:00.000-05:00

More extortion from the conservatives. "We'll pass your budget if you lay off the gay marriage support."

We've finally discovered exactly what gay marriage is worth in Canada. $4.6 billion.

Politicians....

(Ottawa) The Conservatives have offered to let the federal government quickly pass a $4.6-billion budget bill in exchange for a delay in same-sex marriage legislation.

The Tories are willing to pull back their opposition to an NDP-inspired budget amendment, House Leader Jay Hill said Wednesday.

But there's a catch: they don't want to see a vote on the same-sex marriage bill until the fall.

Canada's Gay Marriage Bill May Be Sacrificed To Keep Gov't Alive

Jimmy Swaggart gets his

2005-06-16T07:05:00.000-05:00

Last fall, Jimmy Swaggart made comments on his show that were so hate-filled and violent that it is almost frightening. And I'm not sure what's worse -- his comments, or the fact that his congregation loudly applauded them.

Anyway, because the broadcast came out of Canada, a complaint was filed by someone living in Ottawa. Canada has laws regarding uttering of hate-speech on television. A ruling this week condemned Swaggart's remarks:

"The negativity was so visceral that Swaggart asserted that, despite his own religiosity, he would feel justified in killing the man and in lying to his God that the victim had simply died," the Council said.

"The problem of Swaggart’s language is, in a sense, exacerbated by the fact that he, as a religious figure, can be presumed to set an example for his community. It would, therefore, be easy for someone to infer that this might be the proper way for a Christian of this sect (or possibly of any sect) to respond to homosexuality. Repeating such terminology also contributes to the desensitization of the public with respect to gays and lesbians and even provides the audience with regrettable and negative terms with which to deal with this identifiable part of the community."

The television station (Omni 1) apologized publicly back when it happened, but Swaggart never has. He "regrets" the comment, but doesn't apologize for it. What does that say about this faux Christian?

Sssssssssssssssssssstttttt HOT!

2005-06-15T07:05:00.000-05:00

We've been in the middle of a nasty heat spell. Hot, hazy, humid -- that's what we've heard every night on the weather forecast since last Wednesday.

Do you believe in coincidence? Last Wednesday, the first day of the HHH forecast, a guy from the engineering section of the Facilities department showed up at my door with a memo informing me that on the next day, Thursday, the air handlers in our building would be taken off-line for a much-needed upgrade. Sorry for such short notice, we were offered. The memo went on to tell us that, the good news is, they didn't expect it to be down for more than a week. That's reassuring, since the long-range forecast was HOT, HAZY, HUMID through the middle of this week.

The LPGA is in town this week. Every year, the week the LPGA is in town, we have totally farqued up weather. Violent storms, high winds, bizarre temperatures...and this week was to prove to be no different. I think I'm going to write the mayor and ask him to UNinvite the LPGA from our fair city for future years. :snort:

So, let's take a look at this equation:

1 LPGA Tournament
1 Menopausal woman
8 90+ degree HOT, HAZY, HUMID days
0 Air conditioning

Yep, sounds like a formula for disaster, doesn't it?

And, of course, a weather forecast like that is never wrong. And so, I came to work on Thursday with shorts and a sleeveless shirt (my "overalls" shorts). The temperature ONLY got up to 86.3 on that first day. Thankfully, I'm off on Fridays during the summer, so I figured that was 3 days total I didn't have to be there while they were putzing around with the air handlers.

Friday afternoon brought a violent storm, as so often happens during these HOT, HAZY, HUMID days. Pea-sized hail, horrific lightning, deafening thunder and torrential rain. It lasted for about 20 minutes or so, but two houses down had a lightning strike on their tree in the front yard and there were a couple of times I could have sworn that lightning struck the ground (or elsewhere) on the abandoned farm behind our house. Now, I love thunderstorms, but that one even unnerved me!

Saturday and Sunday brought more heat and humidity and we got through the weekend without having a stroke. Did I mention that our air conditioning in the house doesn't work? It's an old freon unit and, of course, you can't use freon anymore. We have A/C in our window in our room, however, so we can sleep. Sunday we had a long, saturating downpour.

Monday morning, I dressed in shorts and a tank top, figuring the office had been HOT, HAZY, and HUMID for 4 days now and it wasn't going to be "as nice" as it was on Thursday. Sure enough, you could just about touch the air when I walked into the office. As I went to set my coffee mug on my desk, I noticed the water. The carpet was squishy behind my desk and I could tell that it was also UNDERNEATH the plastic chair mat. The water covered approximately a 4' x 8' area behind my desk. I called Building Services and then Facilities. I explained to the secretary in Facilities (who offered to call Building Services and have the water extracted from the carpet) that extracting the water was only PART of the problem and that the entry point of the water should be what Facilities should focus on. DUH!

Nobody from Facilities came on Monday -- no big surprise there. The Building Services guy came with his big water extractor and, when he pulled up that mat, the living entity that was the STENCH under the mat rose up out of the carpet and made it's presence known. They used some sort of anti-bacterial, anti-odor spray on the carpet, but that musty smell stuck around all day long. It got up to 89 degrees in my office Monday. Because of the water, I moved out into the front office, where it was a frosty 87 -- MUCH cooler in comparison, yes? :eyeroll: Monday night, another thunderstorm, although not as violent as Friday's. Heavy wind, heavy rain, but no hail and only distant lightning.

Tuesday (yesterday) I came in to work (in shorts and a tank top again). Yep, more water. I called Building Services again, and sent an email to the Director of Facilities (I'm a MAJOR pain in his tookas) explaining the situation and pointing out that water is only a SYMPTOM of a larger problem and reminding him of the hidden destruction water can cause. Not surprisingly, someone showed up a short while later. Of course, being that I'm just a stupid woman, they at first suggested that it was merely the air conditioning leaking. When I pointed out to them that there WAS NO AIR CONDITIONING since last Thursday, they decided to take a look.

They CLAIM that the pipes in the A/C are sweating from the humidity and the condensation has collected in an extremely shallow pan under the vent and it's dripping from there. Yeah. Uh-huh. And that explains why it's only in that one spot, right? Right.

Of course, we had no rain last night, and guess what? NO WATER EITHER! But what do I know, I'm just a dumb broad who THINKS the rain and the water leak might be related. Not like I'm an engineer or anything.

It's supposed to be a bit cooler today, "only" 80-82 degrees. When I walked out of the house this morning, it did feel a bit cooler, but the humidity doesn't seem one iota less oppressive. We'll see.

I haven't done squat at home since this heat wave hit. It's totally unlike me to be so severely affected by the heat but, then again, I've never been through menopause before, either so I suppose that accounts for something. Last night, Joe invited a girl over to watch a DVD with him and I was mortified when he told me. I said "Joe, the house is a wreck!" He went downstairs (into his domain) and picked up. When I went down there this morning to feed the cats, it looked pretty good, for Joe. That's the nice thing about our house -- his domain is the family room downstairs and he has his own bathroom just off the family room. No need to "entertain" anywhere else in the house.

Speaking of Joe, I keep reminding myself when I piss and moan about the heat that this poor kid has worked, on blacktop surfaces, every single day, all day long in this heat and humidity. For however bad I might THINK I have it, I know it's been especially bad for him.

I started a big project yesterday -- a secret one. I've designed a king-sized bed sized blanket to knit that I want to have done for Lisa by Christmas. It's quite an ambitious project and, while I languish around this hot, humid office this summer with very little work, I hope to be able to get a big chunk of it done. It's ambitious because of the design itself. It'll be ten nine-inch wide strips. The two ends will be a solid color -- I've selected a sort of dark colonial blue for the edges. The inside strips will be quilt-style with the dark blue edges top and bottom, but a lighter country blue and a multi-colored blue/white/tan mix. The light blue squares will have pictures or text in them. A house. The word "love." Two hearts. A watering can (gardening is our passion). The two woman "symbol" of lesbianism. Stuff like that. I hope to be able to take pictures and post it's progress as I go. As I said, it's ambitious. As it is, I'm knitting a black and white checked afghan for my oldest daughter for Christmas during the evenings. My days and nights will be full of knitting -- just hope my hands can hold up to this sort of task.

My lawyer informed me on Monday that he had JUST gotten the transcripts from the April deposition so he was going to move forward with the motion for summary judgment.

Lots going on out there in this country, some of it actually frightening. Like the Christian Coalition thinking that homosexuals should be required to wear "warning labels." And the banning of books that even remotely reference homosexuality from certain school districts. Anyone else think of a swastika when they hear this sort of thing?

I watched "The Patriot" yesterday (with Mel Gibson) and found myself achingly sad for the sacrifices those early Americans made for the very freedoms that are now being gradually stripped away from us. The vision those colonists had for this country have somehow all been lost in this "Me, gimmie, mine" society we've evolved into. Or should I say DEvolved into?

Can Democracy stand this test? Or will it become a distant memory?

Are you a butch or femme?

2005-06-09T13:34:00.000-05:00

My results:

HARD ANDROGYNE
Your score placed you in the category of Hard Androgyne. This is the "tom boy" type of ranking. You may also wish to review Androgyne and Gentle Butch, the two categories surrounding you. In a ranking across the femme/butch gamut, if 1 is femme and 100 is butch, you fall between 53 and 60 on the scale. For a review of where you fall in the overall population in numbers, refer to this chart. Your group encompasses folks of all types, genders, and orientations; it includes a large number of males and averages around 41 years of age.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the time you really don't think of yourself as butch or femme, but if pressured, you tend to react aggressively - either to solve a problem or to defend yourself. You aren't extremely masculine, yet are more drawn to your masculine side than your feminine side.

Security is paramount to you, and the locks on your house and tendency to monogamy reflect that. You like money in the savings and a retirement plan in place. You are nervous and insecure without that. You are a good provider, often appearing in upper management positions, and are an excellent supervisor.

Logic and mathematics fascinate you, and you have a very good memory. You are best remembering what you have seen in a video sense - sound and picture. About half of what you read sticks with you and what you hear goes in one ear and out the other. Pictures you remember very well.

You like action adventure movies and books, though you don't read a lot. You are heavily into technology, computers, and fun lil gadgets to play with.

As a parent you are strict but not overbearing, and tend to be a bit over protective. You are a staunch defender of your legal rights.

For partners you prefer a softer femme, along the lines of the Classic or Lipstick Femme. For friends you encompass everyone, though you find Extreme Butches a bit plastic and pure Androgynes indecisive.

You know, the only thing that's NOT right about this "assessment" is the very last part. I tend to lean more toward those like myself than toward the more "feminine" types.

Take the test yourself and let me know how you scored!

Butch or Femme Test

Better Living Through Chemistry - Part II

2005-06-09T06:51:00.000-05:00

I've been on the Prozac now for just a day shy of 5 weeks. As hokey as this may sound, I feel like I'm living in a totally different world. I take delight in the smallest of things -- a Dutch Iris opened up in our garden overnight and this morning when I saw it, I clapped my hands in childlike glee. As I'm walking outside, I catch myself stopping and turning my face toward the sun, just reveling in it. Food tastes better! (That MAY NOT be a good thing -- LOL!) I find myself laughing and just enjoying each day more than I ever had.

But my relationship with Lisa -- WOW! Has it changed? No, I don't think so. Is it better? No, I don't think that, either. It's more relaxed, I think. Maybe a bit less stressful for her because she doesn't come home wondering whether I'll be weepy or raging that night. And with that relaxation comes such special feelings of being together, such joy, feelings I never really recognized before. I love Lisa, always have. But I can actually FEEL the love emanating out of me toward her and I can actually FEEL the love coming back at me.

I once professed to another woman that I loved her deeply, profoundly, and would do so forever, that she was the love of my life and that, even if I found another to love, it could never be as deeply as I loved her. I often wonder where she is, what she's doing, and think fondly of her but in my heart I know that the role she filled in my life was NOT to be the love of my life, but to open my heart to love and be loved by this spectacular woman that I have found on this journey in life.

Lisa and I started off talking a lot -- I found her a fascinating person to talk to, with her knowledge of so many things, her quick wit, her childlike love of cookies and ice cream, those piercing blue eyes, and that wonderful way she has of spinning a yarn. But now, five years later, we talk just as much and just as frequently. We talk to each other on our cell phones during our commute home each night, we talk about politics, abortion, world events, local events, people, friends, our days, and I STILL find her fascinating to talk to.

And, now that I'm on the Prozac, I enjoy it even that much more. I notice more things now. Like the way I find her studying me in the evenings when we're watching television. I'll say "what?" and she'll say "Nothing, just enjoying the scenery." Sometimes I'll find her looking at me and I can TELL that she's thinking how much she loves me, and I simply say "I love you too!" She grins.

Yeah, menopause isn't so bad with a Prozac chaser...

It didn't pass! :-(

2005-06-02T14:31:00.000-05:00

Sacramento, California) Supporters of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in California are hoping 'third time lucky' after the measure suffered its second defeat in as many days on Thursday.

The bill will be put to a third vote Friday in the legislature. This morning, if was rejected by a vote of 37-35, the same margin by which it lost on Thursday night.

The duplication of the vote shows that despite pleas from LGBT civil rights groups and legislators who support the measure.

The bill's author, Assemblymember Mark Leno ( D-San Francisco), said he hopes to use the remaining time before Friday's vote to try to sway the eight lawmakers who did not vote to support the legislation. Under Assembly rules any bill up for approval must get a minimum of 41 votes. Abstentions or absentees are counted as no's.

All of the Assembly's Republican members voted against the bill. During debate on the legislation several GOP lawmakers described the bill as an illegal usurpation of the will a majority of California voters expressed five years when they approved Proposition 22, an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative.

"If you want to destroy the law, mock it, call it names. If you don't have the courage to go back to the people in the proper way, tell a big lie," said Assemblyman Jay La Suer (R-La Mesa). "This has nothing to do with discrimination. It has everything to do with the destruction of the moral fiber of this nation."
Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles), one of six openly gay and lesbian members of the Legislature delivered an impassioned plea to have the bill passed.

"You cannot give me, if we are all created equal, an argument that says I cannot marry my partner," said Goldberg who has been in a relationship with the same woman for 26 years.

"You cannot tell me there is any definition other to say I am not really a human being like all the rest of you heterosexual human beings. ... Unless you are willing to look me in the face and say I'm not a human being just like you are, you have no right to deny me marriage in the state of California or anywhere else."

The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act would require local clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples but allow people opposed to gay marriage to refuse to conduct weddings.

The measure has the support of Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and other key Democrats. Last month the California Democratic Party passed a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. (story)

So far Gov. Schwarzenegger has sent mixed messages about whether he would sign the legislation if it were passed.

In a January meeting with the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle Schwarzenegger suggested that this may not be the best time to push gay marriage, saying that a legislative push to fully recognize marriage rights for gays might backfire.

"Eventually in a few years from now, you can readdress it again and see what the people of California think,'' he told the paper. "You cannot force-feed those kind of things.''

Last year in a Tonight Show appearance Schwarzenegger said gay marriage would be "fine with me" if it were enshrined in state law or ruled legal by the courts. (story)

The issue of same-sex marriage also is slowly heading toward the California Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal. (story)

Tuesday, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed an appeal in the case.

Meanwhile, a conservative group called the "Voters' Right to Protect Marriage Initiative" has begun collecting signatures to have a proposed amendment to the California Constitution banning same-sex marriage placed on the 2006 ballot. (story) If approved by voters it would not only bar gays and lesbians from marrying but also void the state's landmark domestic partner law.

Last week, LGBT groups and their supporters announced a broad coalition to combat the attempt to amend the Constitution. (story) On Monday, the nation's two largest LGBT civil rights groups announced a million dollar fundraising drive to help defeat the proposed amendment.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign announced they would donate up to $100,000 each as a challenge to encourage others to contribute.

The groups said they hoped to raise the $1 million by Labor Day.

California legislature to vote on gay marriage today

2005-06-02T07:13:00.000-05:00

Keeping our fingers, toes, eyes and anything else crossed that this bill passes. It will be the first legislation of its kind -- passed voluntariliy by the lawmakers as opposed to by court order.

They can have my gun....

2005-05-25T07:22:00.000-05:00

I don't get this -- why on earth would anyone need to carry a concealed firearm to a gay pride celebration if not with the express intent to cause harm to someone? Going to a gay pride celebration "packing" sort of gives the impression that these folks are looking for trouble, doesn't it?

Utah Gays To Carry Concealed Arms To Pride
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

(Salt Lake City, Utah) A gay gun club says its members will bring firearms to Salt Lake Pride celebrations next month despite a regulation from Pride organizers that says no guns are allowed at the events.

Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah founder David Nelson says that the rule which would ban "weapons of any kind" is too broad, unenforceable.

Nelson said that his members own and use legally concealed firearms and will not be deterred by the regulation. He said that the rule is a departure from the 2003 and 2004 pride events when organizers agreed that people with legally concealed firearms could not be denied admission to the events.

Nelson said that his requests to the organizers to revise the new rule remain unanswered.

Some 30,000 people are expected to attend this year's Pride in Sault Lake City from June 8 through 12. It is one of the largest outdoor events organized in the city.

"Previous organizers understood that people with Utah Concealed Firearm Permits have met every federal and state legal requirement to choose carrying legally concealed firearms, and welcomed us," Nelson said.

"There were no complaints at the 2003 and 2004 events. The previous organizers didn't confuse the difference of legal and illegal firearms."

"New organizers announced their plan to search all attendees and their personal property, but I suspect their 30,000 searches would quickly become impractical and a public-relations disaster," Nelson said. "

Seven of the eight announced Pride events are planned for the Salt Lake City Public Library, Library and Washington squares, and the surrounding city streets and sidewalks - all government properties, according to Nelson.

"State laws are very clear about who, what, when, where, why and how legally concealed firearms may be prohibited," Nelson said. "In almost every instance, the organizers fail the legal requirements that would let them ban our firearms."

American Psychiatric Association Supports Marriage Equality

2005-05-23T07:39:00.000-05:00

From the Associated Press:

(Atlanta, Georgia) Representatives of the nation's top psychiatric group approved a statement urging legal recognition of same-sex unions, on Sunday.

The statement, if approved by the association's directors in July, would make the American Psychiatric Association the first major medical group to take such a stance.

The statement, approved on a voice vote, supports same-sex marriage and benefits "in the interest of maintaining and promoting mental health."

The psychiatrists approved the statement Sunday, the first day of the APA's weeklong annual meeting in Atlanta.

The vote goes beyond the association's 2000 statement supporting same-sex civil unions and continues a history of recognizing "that gay men and lesbians are full human beings who should be afforded the same human and civil rights," said Margery Sved, a Raleigh, N.C., psychiatrist and member of the assembly's committee on gay and lesbian issues.

The position paper cites the "positive influence of a stable, adult partnership on the health of all family members." It says the lack of access to health insurance, pension payments, death benefits and other rights for same-sex couples hurts the stability of their relationships and their mental health.

The document clarifies that the association is addressing same-sex civil marriage, not religious marriages. It takes no position on any religion's views on marriage.

A clear majority of the assembly's roughly 250 members present Sunday approved the measure.

Joseph Berger, a psychiatrist from Toronto, Canada, voted against it for what he called political reasons. He cited gay marriage votes in several states last year where voters overwhelmingly sided against the institution.

"It's very unusual for an organization like ours to take on an issue so contrary to where public sentiment is," he said. "It's a little bit like poking your finger in the eye of the public when so much of the public seems to be against it."

Forty states bar same-sex marriages, including some that prohibit same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Last year, Georgians voted 3-to-1 for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Some psychiatrists pushed a boycott of this week's conference because of the vote, but most APA members opted to attend, officials said.

Other mental health groups have adopted similar positions on gay marriage in the past year. In July, the American Psychological Association adopted a position statement that said research showed that discrimination based on sexual orientation "detrimentally affects the psychological, physical, social and economic well-being of lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals."

Happy Anniversary Massachusetts!

2005-05-17T11:39:00.000-05:00

A year ago today, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriages. Dogs and cats don't sleep together, a hailstorm of frogs, a plague of locusts and the collapse of civilization, while predicted, never came to fruition. Perhaps that's because same-sex marriage is no different than opposite-sex marriages? Perhaps the religious and moral arguments are without substantial basis (especially where the creation of law is concerned)?

There is still a faction in Massachusetts that is trying to get the anti-gay-marriage amendment through the house and onto the ballot for vote, but it doesn't look like they'll be all that successful. After all, Massachusetts experienced a windfall in tourism in the past 12 months.

Civil rights have NEVER been put to vote in this country, nor have they ever been achieved through popular vote. Civil rights have ALWAYS been decided in the courts -- and marriage equality, ultimately, will be no different.

Happy anniversary to all those couples who married a year ago today. May you find true happiness and strength in each other, and may you find real equality.

OpEd on Gay Marriage

2005-05-17T11:26:00.000-05:00

Discrimination Is Immoral! Enough Said
by Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

I'm hearing both gay and straight people say that the long string of losses we've faced at the polls around marriage equality are really our own fault; our community pushed too hard and too fast, they argue. The prominent theme being generated is that we have failed to "educate" the public about who we really are and get beyond the stereotypes of leather people, butch dykes, circuit boys and drag queens – and that it is now our obligation to reintroduce ourselves to the American people. I also repeatedly hear that it's up to us to reframe the terms of the debate away from "moral values" to simpler concepts, such as fairness, which polls indicate resonate most with the public.

I disagree. This is nothing more than the blame-the-victim mentality afflicting our nation generally and the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) movement specifically.
Rather than reframing the debate away from moral values, we must embrace them. Or more precisely, the utter immorality of the escalating attacks against LGBT people. And, equally, the utter immorality in the failure of so many people of good will to stand with us. It is time for us to seize the moral high ground and state unambiguously that anti-gay discrimination in any form is immoral.

Webster's defines discrimination as "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice." By any measure, LGBT people are targets of discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. FBI statistics show that more people are being murdered because of their sexual orientation than for any other bias reason. Our young people are still routinely bullied in schools. The examples of injustices in the area of partner and family recognition are too many to list.

No thinking or feeling person can deny these realities, which, as always, fall hardest on LGBT people of color and those who are poor.

But, alarmingly, rather than seeing a groundswell of support for measures to combat these injustices, the opposite is occurring. In Congress and in statehouses nationwide, it's rhetorical and legislative open season on LGBT people. For example, over the last nine months, anti-marriage state constitutional amendments were put on the ballot in 14 states, 10 of which also prohibit the recognition of any form of relationship between people of the same gender. It's likely another 12 states will have similar measures on the ballot within 3 years.

Nothing like this has happened since the Constitution was ratified in 1791 – essentially a national referendum inviting the public to vote to deprive a small minority of Americans of rights the majority takes for granted and sees as fundamental.

And who's been there to fight these amendments? Basically us, the very minority under attack. Mainstream media and churches are largely silent to our opponents' lies. Most progressive organizations and political campaigns, meanwhile, steer clear. There have been sterling exceptions, but they have been few and far between.

Many people who see themselves as supporters of equal rights for all tolerate this because they believe prejudice on the basis of sexual orientation is profoundly different than that based on race or religion – that it comes from an understandable disapproval of our behavior – not on some "immutable characteristic." Homosexual behavior, they feel, is "unnatural" (doesn't the Bible say so?). Pundits say there is an "ick" factor – that the thought of gay sex revolts non-gay people, and that this seemingly innate reaction is proof there is something wrong with homosexuality.

This rationale is hardly unique to gay people. Scholars point to comparable "ick" sentiments about Irish immigrants in the 1880s, and describe how in preceding generations sexual ideology was used to strengthen control over slaves and to justify the taking of Native American lands, and that for centuries Jews were associated with disease and urban degeneration.
Fact is, there is no justification for anti-gay prejudice; the "justifications" for it are as unfounded as those used to support the second-class treatment of other minorities in past generations.
So, what needs to be done?

First, everyone must realize that when straight people say gay people should not have the freedom to marry, they are saying we are not as good or deserving as they are. It's that simple, no matter how one attempts to sugarcoat it.

This is unacceptable – and it is immoral.
Second, while we should talk to straight people honestly about our lives, we must flatly reject the notion that we are somehow to blame for all of this because we have not effectively communicated our "stories" to others. Fundamentally, it is not our job to prove to others that we can be good neighbors, good parents, and that gee whiz, we're actually people too.
Third, equality will remain elusive if we keep relying on intellectualized arguments or by dryly cataloguing, for example, each of the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities we are forced to forgo due to marriage inequality.

The other side goes for the gut; it's now our turn.

In this vein, we must put others on the spot to stand up and fight for us. As the cascade of lies pours forth from the Anti-Gay Industry, morality demands that non-gay people speak out with the same vehemence as they would if it was another minority under attack. Ministers and rabbis must be challenged with the question, "Where is your voice?" Elected officials who meet with and attend events of the Anti-Gay Industry, must be met with the challenge, "How can you do that!? How is that public service?"

The orchestrated campaign to deny us jobs, family recognition, children, and housing is immoral. Silently bearing witness to this discrimination is immoral.
America is in the midst of another ugly chapter in its struggle with the forces of bigotry. People of good will can either rise up to speak for lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender Americans, or look back upon themselves 20 years from now with deserved shame.

Matt Foreman is Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force