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.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
News Tidbits
(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.
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.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
New Jersey Marriage Case Goes to State's Highest Court
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.
(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.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
If Ever There Was a Time...
...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."
(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."
Monday, February 13, 2006
C-E-L-E-B-R-A-T-E
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)