News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
Support the TDP!
Retire the Debt!
State Rep-Elect Mark Strama
State Rep-Elect Hubert Vo
December 09, 2004
An AP Distortion in the Marriage Debate
I was pleased to read just now that the high court in Canada has approved marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Now, it just needs the support of the Canadian Parliament, where things look good at this point. The 38-member Liberal cabinet supports the legislation as does the 54 members of Bloc Quebecois and the 19 MPs of the New Democrats. So, in order for passage it just needs to collect 44 of the 95 votes of Liberal Party backbenchers, as the Conservative Party opposes the legislation. Sounds like it's got a good shot, huh? Well, good for Canada, I'll have to go buy a t-shirt.
No, this is my problem. This AP article makes a gross distortion in its final line:
The federal Conservatives and several Liberal MPs are expected to fight to preserve marriage for heterosexuals.
Huh? Marriage for heterosexuals isn't being debated here. No one is opposed to marriage for heterosexuals. I'm sure that the entire Canadian Parliament supports it. I support marrige for heterosexuals. I can thank my life to the heterosexual marriage of my parents, so I certainly approve of the idea. But this concluding sentence suggests that those of us who support GLBT marriage equality are in some way opposed to marriage for heterosexuals. It also suggests that the federal conservatives and several Liberal MP's could care less about marriages between gays and lesbians, and that in some way marriage between a man and a woman is in danger of being outlawed. Neither of these are the case. Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it annoys me when the SCLM blatantly distorts an issue like this.
Nope. Gay conservative Boi From Troy puts together a four-point GLBT agenda for Bush's second term:
Federal Recognition of Domestic Partnerships and Civil Unions
Reform Social Security (i.e. Privatization)
Eliminate the Estate and Gift Tax Permanently
Tax Simplification: Eliminating child deductions, etc.
My first reaction was you gotta be kidding. Of these, I only consider the first to be a GLBT issue. As I wrote in Boi From Troy's comments, there are inequities in Social Security and the tax code against the GLBT community, but the way of addressing those issues is not to simply do away with any tax that discriminates against gays and lesbians in relationships unrecognized by the federal government -- but to get the federal government to recognize those relationships. As for child deductions -- as I wrote in Boi From Troy's comments, he seems to be forgetting the millions of kids growing up in GLBT families.
Marriage equality is the ultimate goal, but I do agree with Boi From Troy that marriage is currently a defensive battle and that Civil Unions and domestic partnerships at all levels of government are a step in the right direction (although it's key that marriage remain an option for the future -- states ought to reject constitutional amendments that put in place Civil Unions and ban same-sex marriage -- as Massachusetts has proposed).
I think that Boi From Troy commenter Downtown Lad put together a much more realistic second term Bush GLBT agenda:
Bush uses the word "gay" or "lesbian" in a speech.
Bush agrees to not appoint someone to the Supreme Court who would overturn Lawrence V. Texas
Bush publicly states that he doesn't think gays should be jailed for sodomy.
Yeah. If the gay community can hope to expect anything in the sense of progress over the next four years from the federal governement, these are three issues where we might have a chance... but I won't lose any sleep over it.
Because obviously, if on one day a year boys and girls reverse social roles where girls get to invite boys on dates, open doors and pay for sodas, the obvious next step is homosexuality and drug abuse, right?
Read the article.
Update: I got the story via email. Pandagon has more on it as well.
The Washington Blade all but outed Ken Mehlman in May.
Now, Mehlman has been tapped by Bush to lead the RNC.
Mehlman has refused to answer questions about his sexual orientation. Considering that Mehlman was Bush's campaign manager, and a lead campaign spokesman who was frequently called upon to defend Bush's GLBT policies, including the Federal Marriage Amendment, I would think that Mehlman's sexual orientation is certainly relevent.
America Blog and BlogActive have more.
Update: Atrios hits the nail on the head. I could care less who Ken Mehlman is or isn't screwing. This is about whether a gay man will lead the supposed "values" party.
It's always nice to see that Peru has actually found it unconstitutional to ban gays from the military on the basis of having 'relations'. So does this mean that America slips back a couple notches in the "First Wordness" category?
Also, I am also hyper-sensitive to the "ban all fast food" people's dripping condescension (what can I say, I am a piggy-boy). Perhaps this is a microcosm of the larger issue of "moral values."
How many Bush voters think that it's only a matter of time before we live in a world where we're all forced to eat tofu and grape-nuts for every meal?
Stick, who got married as early voting was beginning, sent out a last-minute mailer with his wedding photos. Stick touted his opposition to same-sex marriage while citing Strama's endorsement by the Austin Lesbian/Gay Political Caucus.
Gay-baiting tactics may work in rural areas, but I think urban and suburban areas are rejecting it. I'm a board member of the ALGPC (as well as LGRL - Lesbian / Gay Rights Lobby of Texas). Our PAC donated a couple of thousand dollars to each of Strama, White, Hubener and Vo -- so while things could have been better, we've clearly made gains in electing more pro-GLBT state representatives.
If Republican Danny Chandler is elected Dallas County Sheriff, will he be comitted to being serving the GLBT community in Dallas? His latest attacks bring that into question. The Dallas Morning News reports:
With just days left in the Dallas County sheriff's race, Republican candidate Danny Chandler on Thursday attacked Democratic opponent Lupe Valdez's endorsement by a national organization promoting gay and lesbian candidates. Mr. Chandler and the Texas Eagle Forum, a Republican woman's group, said their complaint was not about Ms. Valdez's sexual orientation, but that endorsement from the group calls for Ms. Valdez to promote a political agenda espousing goals such as federal gay and lesbian civil-rights legislation.
Ms. Valdez received an endorsement from The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, which identifies, trains and supports openly lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender candidates and officials.
Mr. Chandler also has issued a new promotional mailer noting Ms. Valdez's endorsement.
[...]
Ms. Valdez, who is openly gay, said Thursday that her sexual orientation has no relevance to how she would carry out the duties of sheriff.
Her campaign coordinator, Barry Hanley, said, "her only agenda is to run the jail professionally and respond to the needs of Dallas County residents. She has no other agenda. This is not a legislative position."
In a statement Thursday, Mr. Chandler said: "Ms. Valdez's personal lifestyle is her own business and should not enter into the race. The difference here is that she is promoting the endorsement of the Victory Fund," which supports gay and lesbian issues.
The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is a unique organization. It basically has no agenda other seeing the election of openly gay and lesbian candidates:
The Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund is recognized as the leading national political organization that identifies, trains and supports open lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender candidates and officials. We are the only national organization committed to increasing the number of openly gay and lesbian public officials at federal, state and local levels of government.
Lupe Valdez hasn't signed on to any "agenda" other than that of serving the people of Dallas County as sheriff. Her sexual orientation is well-known, especially among the GLBT community, but she has not made it an issue in her campaign.
The real issue here though, is that Danny Chandler is trying to distract people from reports that he has violated federal election law:
On Monday, News 8 first reported on allegations that Chandler is violating federal election law. But even as the Chandler campaign dismisses the allegations as dirty politics, more evidence against their candidate continues to trickle out.
Chandler is now being investigated by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for allegedly violating the federal Hatch Act. The complaint was filed by attorneys representing outgoing Sheriff Jim Bowles, whom Chandler defeated last March.
The Hatch Act prohibits government employees who handle federal grants from running for elected office. As Director of Homeland Security for Dallas County, Chandler comes in frequent contact with the administration of federal grants.
Last June, a federal grant coordinator notified Chandler he was "registered as the Jurisdiction Point of Contact for Dallas County." What followed were, instructions for Chandler "to utilize your 2003 UASI-2 sub grant."
Jim Badgett, who used to work for Chandler, said Chandler once asked him to help make recommendations on how to spend a federal grant.
"He just told me to survey the department that made a request to him, and to come up with a cost and submit that back to him," Badgett said.
That, according to Dallas Democratic Party Chairman Susan Hays, is why Chandler is under investigation.
"That is precisely what the Hatch Act is intended to prevent," Hays said. "It's intended to prevent people from running for partisan office while using the power to dispense federal pork."
Maybe it's just me, but federal election law violations seem more relevant to the race for sheriff than Lupe Valdez's endorsement by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. Dallas County might not be the most progressive place in the world, but Dallas County does have three openly gay elected officials: Dallas City Councilmen John Loza and Ed Oakley, along with Constable Mike Dupree. Their sexual orientation has come up occasionally in their campaigns, but in general it does not seem to have been a major issue for most voters.
Update: Also via Josh Marshall is news that the Jim Bunning campaign is implying that Democratic senate candidate Dan Mongiardo is gay. (He's not).
Bush Flip-Flops on Civil Unions within a 24-hour Period
This morning, on Good Morning America, Bush said he wouldn't mind if a state decided to offer Civil Unions to gay and lesbian couples.
Yesterday, he praised a congresswoman (Marilyn Musgrave) at a rally in Colorado:
I know you're proud of the Congresswoman from this district, Marilyn Musgrave. We're proud you're here, Marilyn. [...] We will protect marriage and family, which are the foundations of our society.
Musgrave is the sponsor of the Hate Amendment, which Bush supports, that would not only prevent a state from allowing marriage equality for gays and lesbians, but would also prevent Civil Unions:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the Constitution of any State, nor State or Federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
More at Brutal Hugs via Talk Left.
No comment yet from Boi From Troy, but here's a picture of some self-hating gay in Los Angeles.
Gee, I wonder what it must be like to be an "Ex-Heterosexual"
The Houston Press had a phenomenal piece on the Ex-Gay ministry Exodus International this week.
I bring this up because I see that the Exodus people are especially offended by the fact that Kerry casually mentioned the well-known and very-public fact that Mary Cheney was a lesbian.
I have some sympathy for the argument that some of the Exodus' converts weren't born gay, but instead had some sort of psychological trauma covering up their straight-ness.
Frankly, though, I think if that is really your target audience, you ought to call it "sexual abuse therapy" or "pyschological therapy", not "homosexual therapy." Because after all, what you're trying to cure is the disease (stemming from abuse or other trauma), not the symptom (pseudo-homosexuality).
Right? After all, we wouldn't want people thinking this is all just a thinly-veiled psychobabble/Biblebabble cover for rampant homophobia, and a vehicle to encourage self-hatred among gays and lesbians?
A tolerant, Christian society should not have to tolerate people who fantasize about when imposing capital punishment for homosexuality would be a subject for "an in-house debate."
My previous post about Lynne Cheney was getting a bit long, and I wanted to respond to this comment that Chris made:
In the case of Lynne Cheney, BOR writers headline that she's ashamed of her daughter. Show me where she said that. On the contrary, she has made it obvious for years, even in the aforementioned article, that she does NOT want her daughters' personal lives brought up in the campaign.
I'm not picking on Chris here, I just wanted to clear up some of the misconceptions coming from the other side today. For those not familiar with the context, Lynne Cheney said this regarding John Kerry's comment last night that Mary Cheney along with any other gay or lesbian could tell you that being gay or lesbian is who they were born as:
Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. "The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I'm speaking as a mom," she said. "What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
So, why does Lynne Cheney lash out like that? Easy. Salon wrote in 2000 about Lynne Cheney's response to a question about her daughter's sexual orientation. Lynne Cheney has a history of shame and denial about her daughter's sexual orientation:
On Sunday, the issue of Cheney's sexuality took an odd twist, when her mother Lynne denied ABC's Cokie Roberts' assertion that Mary Cheney has "declared that she is openly gay." An irritated Lynne Cheney shot back: "Mary has never declared such a thing. I would like to say that I'm appalled at the media interest in one of my daughters. I have two wonderful daughters. I love them very much. They are bright; they are hard-working; they are decent. And I simply am not going to talk about their personal lives. And I'm surprised, Cokie, that even you would want to bring it up on this program."
Either Lynne Cheney was absent in her daughter's life for most of the 1990s decade, or she is ashamed and in denial about Mary Cheney's sexual orientation. The fact of the matter is that it's inevitable that the personal lives of candidates and their children come up in a campaign, especially one for the White House. The personal life of the Cheney's other daughter has been displayed by the Cheney's in this campaign, whether it be when Liz Cheney appeared with her family (when Mary Cheney's family did not) after Vice President Cheney's speech at the GOP convention, or when Elizabeth Cheney says things like this in interviews:
E. CHENEY: No, I think this is an issue my dad's been very clear about. And, frankly, it's an issue that not a lot of Americans are spending a lot of time being focused on this election cycle. My family is out working very hard.
You know, I'm a security mom. I've got four little kids. And what I care about in this election cycle is electing a guy who is going to be a commander in chief, who will do whatever it takes to keep those kids safe.
So, it's fair to bring up Elizabeth Cheney's family, but it's not fair to bring up Mary Cheney's? Instead, Lynne Cheney resorted to denial in 2000. Saying "Mary has never declared such a thing" about Mary Cheney's sexual orientation is about as desperate a comment as saying "The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man" of John Kerry for bringing it up. Mary Cheney is not ashamed of her sexual orientation. Neither is John Kerry, but Lynne Cheney is ashamed. When Lynne Cheney sharply declared in 2000 that her daughter had never declared that she was a lesbian, that was a flat out falsehood. Salon continues:
Mary Cheney, 31, is not just any lesbian. Until May, she was the lesbian/gay corporate relations manager for the once-notoriously anti-gay Coors Brewing Co. In that role she became a key player in the pivotal "movement vs. market" debate raging inside the gay activist community, representing the point of view that corporate America is a better friend than government in advancing the cause of gay rights.
[...]
Judging from her efforts on behalf of Coors, Cheney will go the extra mile for a cause she believes in. To get gay advocates to drop their support for a Coors boycott, for instance, she traveled the country with the winner of the International Mr. Leather 1999 competition -- a hugely popular event on the gay-bar circuit -- meeting with gay leaders to advance the Coors cause.
Mary Cheney was active in the gay community before 2000 both privately and publically. In both he personal life, and her professional life, Mary Cheney was openly lesbian. However, her mother denied it. Why?
Too bad. I was very impressed with the way that Dick Cheney thanked John Edwards for the kind words about his daughter, but his wife obviously doesn't feel the same way. Apparently, Kerry is a "bad man" for mentioning that Mary Cheney is who she is, and John Kerry supports her, while Mary Cheney's mother obviously feels uncomfortable:
Lynne V. Cheney, wife of Vice President Cheney, accused John F. Kerry on Wednesday night of "a cheap and tawdry political trick" and said he "is not a good man" after he brought up their daughter's homosexuality at the final presidential debate.
Mary Cheney, one of the vice president's two daughters and an official of the Bush-Cheney campaign, has been open about her lesbian status. The candidates were asked if they believe homosexuality is a choice, and President Bush did not mention Mary Cheney. Then Kerry said, "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."
Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. "The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I'm speaking as a mom," she said. "What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
Glad that was cleared up.
Via Political Wire.
Update: Elizabeth Edwards shares my thoughts:
ELIZABETH EDWARDS ACCUSES LYNNE CHENEY OF "SHAME" OF HER DAUGHTER: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."
MyDD reminds us that Mary Cheney was the only member of the Cheney family absent from the stage after Daddy's big speech at the GOP convention.
Andrew Sullivan also notes that the right wing is in a tizzy over all of it:
All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.
Right on. Boi From Troy still echoes the tired old this-is-a-cynical-Machiavellian-ploy line that the right wing is jumping on. But then he goes on:
It seems consistent with the Democratic ticket's refusal to publicly support substantive gay rights during the debates.
Huh? John Kerry has a 100% ranking from the HRC and has a very public GLBT civil rights platform on his website. But I guess that's not public or substantive enough for Boi From Troy. Personally, I found Kerry to be both last night:
But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.
You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.
Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.
Having mentioned HRC, they have some statements out today:
On the debate last night:
“President Bush has been promoting discrimination and using a constitutional amendment as his weapon. You can’t respect and discriminate at the same time. President Bush put politics ahead of the science that being gay is not a choice. Senator Kerry made clear that gay Americans should have the basic rights, responsibilities and protections that all American families have. Senator Kerry made clear that it is wrong that in most states it is legal to fire the star employee simply because of who they are.”
On Lynne Cheney's remarks:
“President Bush missed one more chance to denounce discrimination last night so it is bewildering that Lynne Cheney instead attacked Senator Kerry.
“Senator Kerry made clear that gay Americans should have the same basic rights, responsibilities and protections as every other American.
“Vice President Cheney first discussed his own daughter in the context of this issue two months ago and it is not surprising that Senator Kerry mentioned her experience as emblematic of millions of gay Americans.
“Senator Kerry was speaking to millions of American families who have hard-working, tax-paying gay friends and family members.”
Haha. The Oklahoma Democratic Party released this today:
Oklahoma City – A group of legislators from across Southeast Oklahoma today spoke out to denounce Republican U.S. Senate candidate Tom Coburn’s statement about the school children of Southeast Oklahoma. Yesterday’s news reports show that during a town hall meeting in Hugo, OK on August 31st, 2004 Tom Coburn commented that Southeast Oklahoma schools are “rampant” with “lesbianism.”
“Tom Coburn apparently doesn’t know anything about families in southeastern Oklahoma or the values we hold dear,” said State Senator Jay Paul Gumm, Durant. “If he knew us or shared our values, he would never have said our female high school students are afflicted with ‘rampant lesbianism.’ Our children deserve better than to have repulsive allegations made against them by a politician.”
Gumm said the only reason Coburn would make such a sickening charge is to avoid talking about real issues like creating jobs, improving public schools and highways, and boosting agriculture. “Given his dismal record on those issues, we shouldn’t be surprised he would try to misdirect Oklahomans with yet another shameful and unsubstantiated claim,” Gumm said.
“To repeat an outrageous claim without some sort of proof or fact is reckless and irresponsible, and regrettably could have consequences,” said State Senator Jeff Rabon of Hugo.
“It’s one thing to believe this kind of crazy nonsense and even say it publicly, but another thing entirely to use school children as props to make your point,” State Senator Richard Lerblance of Hartshorne said. “Making such a baseless attack on our children represents a new low in the discourse of Tom Coburn.”
Tom Coburn’s suggestion that lesbianism is rampant in our schools is perverse. It really is a desperate and sad assault on our children,” State Representative John Carey of Durant said. “We need someone to represent us who believes in all of Oklahoma, and will build us up, not tear us down with such disgusting attacks. Tom Coburn is showing us that he’s just another degrade Southeast and rural Oklahoma Republican.”
At a recent town hall meeting in Hugo, OK, Tom Coburn said:
“You know, Josh Brecheen is our rep down here in the southeast area. He lives in Colgate and travels out of Atoka. He was telling me lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us?” [Tom Coburn, Hugo, 8/31/04]
Recently, a number of newspapers have editorialized on the numerous offensive remarks that Tom Coburn has made over the past two months. He has been consistently rebuked by newspapers statewide, some of which have called him unfit to serve the people of Oklahoma, and asked him to quit the Senate race. Excerpts from two such newspaper Editorials are below.
Coburn has managed to alienate many, even in his own party, with his far, right wing views which are turning off voters in droves. From farmers, to Native Americans to people in Oklahoma City he has referred to as "crapheads," Coburn is losing support by the day and should not be considered by any Oklahoman who cares about their community and their children. [Sulphur Times-Democrat, 9/30/04]
Coburn, in marked contrast, has painted himself as being on the side of "good" while those who disagree with his politics are "evil." He referred to the state's leadership in Oklahoma City as "crapheads." He dismissed many tribal members as non-Indians. Coburn, who speaks so dismissively, so disdainfully, of so many of his fellow citizens, is not the candidate who will represent all Oklahomans. [Tulsa World, 9/26/04]
“Tom Coburn has publicly made offensive comments about Native Americans, the people of Oklahoma City, and our hard-working farmers, just to name a few,” State Representative Paul Roan of Tishomingo said. “But now to make such ridiculous and offensive comments about our children and the schools they attend in Southeast Oklahoma goes way too far.”
Strangely enough, I find this out from Dean "Defending Liberalism Means Re-Electing the Most Illiberal President In History" Esmay.
The Federal Marriage (a.k.a. Hate) Amendment died again today, this time in the House of Representatives. It fell 49 votes short of the 2/3rds majority needed.
Via Wonkette, the latest from the kinkiest Senator in Washington:
Santorum will seek Whip slot.
Because, he seems to know more about various sex acts than just about anyone else in Washington (heck, in just about anywhere for all I know):
“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality.” –Rick Santorum, AP interview
That's right, guys. Save marriage today, because next generation, it'll be man on box turtle.
Basically, Tom DeLay and the GOP House leadership are saying screw jobs and screw Iraq. You know, because what's the most important issue for the GOP House leadership to debate thirty days before the election, even though it's a lost cause?
Yup, it's here again. Hate Amendment time:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, acknowledged Tuesday that the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage would fail to win House passage Thursday.
But he insisted that he would go forward with a vote on the amendment anyway.
"The American people need to know where their representatives stand" on the issue, DeLay told a news conference.
DeLay acknowledged that past House votes on gay marriage issues show it is unlikely that the proposed amendment could receive the necessary two-thirds support.
Ok, Tom, so why are we debating the issue? Norman Ornstein gives us the answer - Armageddon:
Norman Ornstein, a congressional analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the issue is being pushed by Republicans to energize their conservative base.
"The upside potential in convincing the Christian conservative community that Armageddon will come if John Kerry and Democrats are elected is greater than losing Log Cabin Republicans and some socially moderate Republicans," Ornstein said.
Ok, it all makes sense now. Jobs and Iraq are pretty minor compared to Armageddon. Why didn't the just come out and tell us earlier? I was confused for the longest time.
I really think it's hilarious how some of the most notable right-wing anti-gay reactionary activists wind up with gay kids (or brothers or sisters, etc.): Dick Cheney, Newt Gingrich, etc. (ok, I'm having a brain fart here - usually I could rattle off a dozen of these)...
Well, anyway, the latest addition to the list is Alan Keyes (remember he was calling Mary Cheney a hedonist a few weeks ago?). Well, it seems as if his daughter is a lesbian. For more info, start reading here and here with analysis over on kos and Archpundit (here, here, here and here).
Well, of course, she's a lesbian. Duh.
Update: Another picture at Wonkette.
Update: Shocker here. Check out the Alan Keyes website. See the top story?
...whereas conservatives want to impose their values on Arkansas AND the other 49 states.
The mailer that hit West Virginia hit Arkansas this week, and who knows where else?
If only all this stuff about liberals being for raping, pillaging, casual sex, horrible drugs (besides, you know, tobacco), irreligion, and loud music were true! I've always wanted to be a Viking. Or an extra in a Mad Max movie.
"Hey kids, let's go get drunk, grow long beards, wear funny hats... and sack Arkansas!"
They say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said "I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry."
"And I'm going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I'm going to kill him and tell God he died," Swaggart said to laughter and applause from the congregation.
Today, Swaggart said he has jokingly used the expression "killing someone and telling God he died" thousands of times, about all sorts of people. He said the expression is figurative and not meant to harm.
"It's a humorous statement that doesn't mean anything. You can't lie to God -- it's ridiculous," Swaggart told The Associated Press. "If it's an insult, I certainly didn't think it was, but if they are offended, then I certainly offer an apology."
That's a hell of a non-apology apology. I posted on this last week, here.
Who would want to look at Jimmy Swaggert "like that" anyway?
Jimmy Swaggert one-upped our friends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson the other day as the lead hate mongering wingnut of the religious right in America. Falwell and Roberson just blame gays and lesbians (and feminists, abortion providers, the ACLU and PFAW, etc.) for 9/11. Swaggert, pictured above, took things a step further. Instead of merely blaming gays and lesbians for terrorism, he advocates the final solution for anyone who would look at him "like that" (although Jimmy, I really don't think ya got too much to worry about).
Anyway, I found the story on Angry Finger via alandwilliams.com.
Here's exactly what Swaggert said:
I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.
Of course, this is coming from the same guy that regisned his ministry in 1988 over "moral failures". Jimmy Swaggert should read his bible.
John 8:7 - "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."
Louisiana is holding elections today. Or rather, has been attempting to as a number of polling locations had no voting machines and Ivan disrupted some polling locations.
The biggie on the ballot was a state constitutional amendment to ban Gay Marriage which is expected to pass with around a 70% 'yes' vote. Click here to watch the returns as they come in later tonight (since results are being somewhat delayed today).
For those of us here in Texas, if we let our state legislature puke a similar measure out of the session next Spring, we will face basically the same thing on the 2005 State Constitutional Amendment ballot. We won't be able to stop it at the voting booth if it gets that far, so in the spring, please be aware and help try to kill it in the legislature.
If the election were held today to replace John Kerry, we'd have one. According to this poll, Barney Frank has a striking 20 point lead in a large field for the Democratic nomination.
The Boston Herald has the first poll on the potential race that I've seen (Note: The Boston Herald is Boston's right-wing newspaper):
The short story is this: U.S. Rep. Barney Frank [related, bio] of Newton holds an early and significant lead. Middlesex County District Attorney Martha Coakley has the potential to emerge as a strong candidate. And if the field remains crowded, U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch of Boston, the sole pro-life candidate, could end up the winner, capturing a plurality - but not a majority - of the votes.
[...]
Frank holds a startlingly significant edge, with favorability ratings that are considerably higher than anyone else in the field: 70 percent positive with only 16 percent negative. The other candidates range from 54 percent to 44 percent favorable, with the exception of Lynch, who is only at 26 percent. Moreover, when looking at the horse race, Frank gets 33 percent of the vote; everyone else is 11 percent or less.
Should the MA Senate race open up, I'll probably give Frank a small donation for the race. The U.S. Senate is grossly overrepresented by white, heterosexual males. Women are very underrepresented, and Blacks, Hispanics and (openly) gay or lesbians are not represented at all in the U.S. Senate. It's time to change that with Barack Obama and Ken Salazar in November, and with Barney Frank next year.
The Log Cabin Republicans came to their senses last night as their executive committee voted 22-2 to not endorse George W. Bush for President.
The New York Times:
The board of Log Cabin Republicans, the largest group for gay men and lesbians in the party, voted overwhelming last night against endorsing President Bush for re-election because of his support for a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The decision ends six months of soul-searching as the group, which endorsed Mr. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996, wrestled with its divided loyalties.
[...]
In a meeting last night in Washington, the group's board voted 22 to 2 to withhold its endorsement, a spokesman said, declining to name the holdouts.
In a statement afterward, Patrick Guerriero, executive director of Log Cabin Republicans, cited exit polls showing that more than one million gay men and lesbians voted for Mr. Bush in 2000. That included 45,000 in the pivotal state of Florida, which Mr. Bush carried by roughly 500 votes.
"Some will accuse us of being disloyal," Mr. Guerriero said. "It was actually the White House who was disloyal" to those gay voters, he continued.
Absolutely. The Bush administration filp-flopped on gay marriage. In 2000, it was a state issue. In 2004, it's a federal issue. They flip-flopped on the compassionate and uniter crap. They used gays and lesbian as a wedge to divide Americans on social issues in order to distract people from the critical issues where the Bush administration has failed such as the economy and Iraq. Anyway, Log Cabin is now relevent for another election cycle. If they had chosen to endorse President Bush, they would have lost the little credibility in the GLBT community that the have in the first place.
They won't air this ad by the Log Cabin Republicans that calls for unity within the Republican Party, asking the party to focus on what unites it - the war on terror, and put aside divisive figures like Pat Buchanan and Rick Santorum. Log Cabin also airs a picture of a "God Hates Fags" sign by Fred Phelps's gang. C'mon CNN. It's offensive, but you're also airing ads by the Swift Vets that talk about chopped off heads. That ought to be much more controversial. Anyway, it'll be interesting to watch if the Log Cabin Republicans do ultimately sell-out, and make themselves irrelevent to the gay community by endorsing George W. Bush, or will they actually hold Bush accountable for using gays and lesbians as victims in fanning the flames of the culture war.
I dismissed an email last week that attempted to out a Republican congressman on this webpage. That would be Republican congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA). At first the webpage looked unprofessional, and the whole thing looked a little bit far fetched. Well, my causiousness was unfounded. Schrock, a congressman with a 92% rating from the Christian Coalition, has decided to end his campaign for reelection. This is certainly a signal that the he is unable to defend the rumors that are now emerging in his campaign:
When the story of Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA-2) first came to me, I was quite skeptical. After all, Congressman Schrock's district includes parts of Hampton and Norfolk and all of Virginia Beach, home to no less than NINE military facilities and Pat Robertson’s Regent University! Nevertheless, the activities of Congressman Schrock have been documented and verified as thoroughly as any I have seen come before me and what I have learned is, well, ScHrOCKING!
Congressman Ed Schrock has made a habit of rendezvousing with gay men via the MegaMates/ MegaPhone Line, an interactive telephone service on which men place ads and respond to those ads to meet each other. What makes this story more amazing? Congressman Schrock not only voted for the homophobic Marriage Protection Act, but he also signed on as a CO-SPONSOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment!
Ed Schrock has a voting record that the most right wing conservative would be proud of. The Christian Coalition gave him a 92% rating in their 2003 voting guide.
Schrock's voting record at the Christian Coalition: 92%
His score over at the Human Rights Campaign? ZERO!
Why has Schrock resigned? Well this ought to explain it:
The blogger who triggered yesterday’s resignation of Rep. Ed Schrock (R-Va.) by spreading rumors that he is gay promised “there’s more to come.”
The gossip first surfaced two weeks ago on a Washington, D.C.-based Web log, or blog, Blogactive.com. The site links to an audio recording that it claims is Schrock calling into the MegaMates/Megaphone Line, a telephone service that men can use to meet other men.
After the GOP push to ban gay marriages, Blogactive.com began “outing” political aides and has since targeted lawmakers who voted for legislation on the issue. Schrock was one of 233 lawmakers who this year supported the Marriage Protection Act, which would block federal courts from considering constitutional issues arising from gay-marriage cases.
Mike Rogers, the blogger who is promising more embarrassing revelations, said an anonymous source gave him the audiotape. “[We target] people who say they are Republicans and then use sexual orientation to stay in power.”
Schrock, a 63-year-old second-term lawmaker and retired U.S. Navy captain, did not respond to the allegations specifically, and his office could not be reached for comment last night. Schrock, a cancer survivor, is married and has one son.
In a press release, Schrock said: “After much thought and prayer, I have come to the realization that these allegations will not allow my campaign to focus on the real issues facing our nation and region. Therefore … I am stepping aside and will no longer be the Republican nominee for Congress in Virginia’s Second Congressional District.
“Words cannot express the gratitude I have for all of the people who have entrusted me to be their representative and have shown unwavering support. Together, we have accomplished so much for the people of Hampton Roads and the Eastern Shore.”
Uh, yeah. Closet case. That makes three gay Republican congressmen: Jim Kolbe, Mark Foley (closeted but obvious), and this guy.
Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter Mary is a lesbian, spoke supportively about gay relationships on Tuesday, saying "freedom means freedom for everyone."
At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney was asked about his stand on gay marriage - an issue for which his boss, President Bush, has pushed for a constitutional amendment to ban such unions.
"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said. "With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.
"The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage," he said.
[...]
Last month, Lynne Cheney said states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships, a comment that came just days before the Senate failed to back the ban.
Cheney said the amendment did not have the votes to pass, but he also said the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which President Clinton signed into law in 1996, may be enough.
"Most states have addressed this and there is on the books the federal statute, the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, and to date, it has not been successfully challenged in the courts and may be sufficient to resolve the issue," the vice president said.
[...]
During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney took the position that states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.
Addressing Bush's position on the amendment, Cheney said, "at this point, save my own preference, as I have stated, but the president makes policy for the administration. He's made it clear that he does, in fact, support a constitutional amendment on this issue."
Why won't Dick Cheney just say point blank, "I disagree with the President on this issue, but he makes the decisions for this administration, so his position is our policy"? Ok, well Bush doesn't really make the decisions, but that's beside the point. He didn't say that, so all the modifying rhetoric is meaningless. Dick Cheney has constantly refused to back up his support that he expressed for states rights on the marriage equality in which he expressed in the 2000 Vice Presidential debate. "Freedom" doesn't mean "freedom for everyone" when he remains silent when his boss wants to write into the constitution of the United State an amendment saying that his daughter's family is of lesser value than the families that President Bush's daughter's might choose to have. Dick Cheney can't have it both ways.
First, I'd like to state my agreement with Andrew's comments regarding Rick Perry below. Rick Perry is not gay (to my knowledge). And I stand by the posts that I made earlier in the Spring, because we were blogging on legitimate reports from people working in the legislature, people deeply connected in Austin politics and Republican and Democratic sources. They were all saying the same thing, and we felt an obligation, as an Austin-based Texas political blog to report on what we were hearing. I think that we handled the situation in a professional manner, but as far as I'm concerned, it's over. There was no evidence to suggest that the Perry rumors are true, yet there was plenty to suggest that the rumors were perpetuated by opponents of the governor within the Republican party. Perry blamed this blog and the Texas Democratic Party Chair, because we were easy targets - making this look like a Democratic attempt to smear the governor, when in fact the rumors came directly from the governors Republican political opponents. But regardless, I consider the issue to be over.
As for McGreevey - there's several aspects of the resignation speech to explore. Last night I focused on the gay aspect of the resignation. That post was my gut reaction after glossing over the aspects of the resignation. Obviously, the situation is more complicated. I think there are two issues here. First, the gay issue, and second, the issue over the misuse of public money, and power of appointments.
The most shameful aspect of this for me is that McGreevey's announcement yesterday could very easily be put into headlines like this:
"NJ governor is gay, resigns"
"Jersey Governor resigns, Is Gay"
Etc. Etc.
Which is exactly what you'll find under a search through Google News:
"NJ Governor out of closet, quits"
"New Jersey Governor Resigns over Gay Affair"
"US Governor steps down over gay affair"
"New Jersey Governor Quits over Same-Sex Affair"
"NJ governor had gay affair, says he'll quit"
"NJ governor resigns, citing affair with man"
"NJ Governor Quits Over Gay Affair"
This is a shame. Why? Because it sends a message to America, and to the world that being openly gay is inconsistent with public service. That's a terribly harmful message that has been sent to millions of Americans today. And that's what drove the thrust of my post last night.
Now, as for the real reason over the resignation, after researching the background here, it's hard to feel too much love for the guy. (I didn't look too much into the story last night - I was in Austin, at a friend's place writing the post, as I had just moved my stuff into my apartment - but did not yet have cable or Internet access. I'm back in Dallas now - working for another week before moving back to Austin for the semester).
Back to the real reason for this whole thing... Golan Cipel. I don't have much respect for this guy either, as he tried to extort and blackmail McGreevey in order to keep his mouth shut. But, the truth is that McGreevey paid him $110,000 / year for a job in which he was underqualified. That's hardly excusable, and it's hard to feel too much sympathy for McGreevey. The whole situation is shameful, and I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it all, but I think the best thing that I can do now is just wait for the facts to come out, and see what happens.
Alright, enough is enough. I know that we kind of got our name in the world of blogging by reporting (not creating, not even promoting, but simply reporting) on the the rumors that were swirling around the governor's sexuality earlier this year. At the time it seemed like a lot of really well-placed sources were saying the same things- Perry was sleeping with Geoff Connor, he was going to resign, Anita was going to leave him. As a result, we did what we do and we reported on them.
Now I'm not so sure. I don't know if Perry is gay or not- I suppose only Perry and anyone he has slept with would know that for sure (and I haven't slept with him, to my knowledge). But it appears that what happened was a very well coordinated whisper campaign orchestrated by someone aligned with Carole Strayhorn's office. The only thing more despicable, in my estimation, than a gay person hiding their sexuality and scoring political points off of discriminating against their own people would be to score political points off of people's bigotry by cowardly suggesting that your political opponents are gay. I don't know which is true but to be on the safe side, don't vote for either of them.
The rumor gained traction I believe because the governor is a fairly private man and that means that there isn't much conviction that he is certainly straight, he is attractive and very attentive of his physical appearance (which is often stereotyped as "gay") and for a long time was known to be something of a wild child- his carnal appetites were well-known. Throw all of this together and it creates fertile ground for a rumor. Get some well-connected capitol staffers talking and the small world that is the Austin political scene is running rampant with a rumor. Karl Rove did a similar thing to Ann Richards in 1994, suggesting she was a lesbian.
So now that I've said that, the jokes are still funny but they are inaccurate. I doubt that Perry is gay and I suspect the worst of his political opponents. So please, don't expect me to be the one to beat this dead horse any further.
I don't really care what Andrew or anyone else says about Jim McGreevey's resignation announcement today. It's a shame, because if the affair was with a woman, McGreevey wouldn't be resigning. There's no doubt about it. He wouldn't be resigning (Ok, unless his name was Bob Livingston). That's all there is to it. I don't care if he was a bad governor (he did some good things and he did some stupid things, but that's not the point).
Some people here might be inclined to call me a hypocrite, because had this happened to a Republican governor, they'd say I'd probably be laughing my ass off right now. They're probably right. My belief about closeted gay politicians is that it's a personal decision to come out, and I respect that decision so long as they are consistent in supporting GLBT issues. Jim McGreevey did that, and passed domestic partnership legislation for GLBT couples in New Jersey. I have no respect for closeted gay politicians who consistently oppose gay legislation. They deserve to be outed, embarrassed and humiliated.
But today is a historic, yet sad day for the gay community in America (in addition to the voiding of the same-sex marriages in San Francisco). For the first time, America has an openly gay statewide elected official, but it's a shame that he failed to be honest with himself, and especially his family (until today) about his sexual orientation. There's a first for everything, and Gov. McGreevey through his courage in coming out to 300 Million people today has opened the doors for many others. Who knows? We might be looking at Sen. Barney Frank (D-MA) in a year...
I know I should probably wait for one of our two openly gay authors to write about this one but I'll just crib the AP report.
In a stunning declaration, Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation Thursday and acknowledged that he had an extramarital affair with another man. "My truth is that I am a gay American," he said.
"Shamefully, I engaged in adult consensual affairs with another man, which violates my bonds of matrimony," the married father of two said. "It was wrong, it was foolish, it was inexecusable."
The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15.
McGreevey said he would step down because his secret — both his sexuality and his affair — leaves the governor's office vulnerable.
He's a dirtbag for misappropriating funds and cheating on his wife, but until November 15 America has its first openly gay governor.
They thought that this would be an issue that would embarrass Democrats in a tough election year. Instead, many of the conservative Democrats such as both senators from Louisiana, both senators from Arkansas and Tom Daschle held the line as they could take cover by telling their constituents that they voted with John McCain. On the other hand, FMA is embarrassing Republicans like George Nethercutt - the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Washington State. Despite a zero lifetime rating from the Human Rights Campaign, Nethercutt knows he needs to become a born again moderate to have any chance in Democratic-leaning Washington. The Seattle Times reports:
WASHINGTON — In the midst of a heated Senate debate on gay marriage, there is surprising tranquility in the senatorial campaign in Washington state.
U.S. Rep. George Nethercutt of Spokane, who is expected to be the Republican challenger of U.S. Sen. Patty Murray in November, released a short statement yesterday saying he does not support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is scheduled for a Senate floor vote today.
That brings him in line with Murray, a Democrat, who has said she would vote against the bill. The state's other senator, Democrat Maria Cantwell, also opposes the measure.
So George Nethercutt is reinveting himself as a moderate after spending a career voting for progressive legislation only five percent of the time.
Occationally, you have to give Andrew Sullivan a little credit. He found this gem about our Junior Senator in Texas:
"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation.
That's right. In 2004, it's men marrying men and women marrying women. In ten years, it'll be men marrying goldfish and women marrying box turtles. Really, can anyone take these nuts seriously?
Update: As noted in comments, Cornyn did not use the "box turtle" line in his speech, although it was in the prepared remarks.
I was tuning in earlier to listen to the Republican Hatefest today on the Senate floor as several senators resorted to the same old tired hysterical rhetoric in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Here's some example of the hate spewed on the floor today:
From Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY):
I don’t know why these judges believe they are so wise and how they cannot see how dangerous their actions are.
But they now threaten our way of life and it is up to us to act to ensure that the American people have the opportunity to decide what is right for this society.
[...]
It is the law of nature, and no matter how much some might not like it, or want to change it, or push for technology to replace it, this law is irrefutable.
It is upon this law that so much of our society and our cultural institutions are based - families, communities, work, and schools.
And when families suffer - when they are undermined - we all suffer.
We know that weak families lead to more poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, substance abuse, illness, educational failure, and even criminal behavior.
And failing to protect marriage will send the message to the next generation that we do not care about them and that we have thrown away a cultural institution that has served human beings throughout recorded history.
Ok. Thanks, Jim. It's nice to know that gay people threaten the American way of life, and that Trent Lott and Rick Santorum taught you that homosexuality is equatable to "poverty, welfare dependence, child abuse, substance abuse, illness, educational failure, and even criminal behavior".
Next up. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT):
The bedrock of American success is the family, and it is traditional marriage that undergirds the American family. The disintegration of the family in this country correlates with many serious social problems, including crime and poverty. We are seeing soaring divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates that have resulted in far too many fatherless families. Weakening the legal status of marriage at this point will only exacerbate these problems. We simply must act to strengthen the family.
[...]
The Constitution has functioned to secure and extend the rights of citizens in this nation, and it serves as a model of democratic self government to the world. Aside from the Bill of Rights, it has rarely been amended. But when it is, we have done so to expand the rights of democratic self-government, and to re-secure the Constitution’s original meaning. That is precisely what we are intending here.
Hatch picked up on the talking point. An amendment to the constitution is critical in order to end these so called "serious social problems, including crime and poverty", and while he's at it, he blames the gays for "divorce rates and out-of-wedlock birth rates ". That's really odd, Orrin. Which one of Rush Limbaugh's three marriages is the Federal Marriage Amendment protecting? I mean am I missing something, but how did gays and lesbians suddenly become responsible for divorces and out-of-wedlock births? Maybe there's some new science I don't know about, but otherwise its totally irrelevent to the debate. But the the backers of this amendment don't care about minor details like that, because this amendment is not about having a serious debate about marriage in America. This debate is about election year demagoguery so that the Republican Party can secure their social conservative base.
I also had the privledge of watching Trent Lott, Rick Santorum and Jeff Sessions run with the hate baton on C-SPAN earlier, but I haven't found the transcripts of their remarks at this time, so I suppose I'll have to check back later.
It's good to see that Mary Cheney's mother supports her daughter:
Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife and mother of a lesbian, said Sunday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships.
That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now under debate in the Senate that effectively would ban gay marriage.
"I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact," Cheney told CNN's "Late Edition."
Congrats to Lynne Cheney. Now, only one of Mary Cheney's parents supports using the U.S. Constitution to discriminate against her.
Having grown up in the Presbyterrian Church (U.S.A.), it's heartening to see several steps towards progress at the PCUSA General Assembly (convention) this week in Richmond.
On Monday a pro-gay peace activist was elected moderator of the convention (although in reality, this guy appears to have been the most moderate of the three candidates):
A peace activist who supports the inclusion of gays in the ministry was elected Saturday to lead the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. for the next two years.
The selection of the activist, Rick Ufford-Chase, comes as the church prepares for a fresh round of debate at its annual convention this week on whether to repeal a ban on gay pastors.
Mr. Ufford-Chase, 40, will serve as moderator of the denomination, which has 2.4 million members. He is the first layperson to hold the unpaid position since 1999.
Also, by a 35-30 vote, a committee at the convention recommended that "sessions and presbyteries" not be bound by "authoritative interpretation" of the Presbyterian Constitution that prohibits non-celibate gays and lesbians from being ordained in the church. Gay issues have divided the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) for nearly a decade now, but the progressives in the church have steadily made progress over the past few years. Here's the news of the challenge on gay ordination:
The Committee on Church Orders and Ministry voted narrowly Tuesday to recommend that the 216th General Assembly declare that “sessions and presbyteries are not bound” by the 1978 authoritative interpretation of the Presbyterian Church (USA) constitution, which says that “unrepentant homosexual practice does not accord with the requirements for ordination.”
In the same vote, the committee decided not to recommend a constitutional amendment to delete G-6.0106b, the provision that requires “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” The committee recommended that measures to that effect “be answered” by its recommendation on the authoritative interpretation.
If adopted by the Assembly, the measure would issue a new authoritative interpretation reading: “In carrying out their responsibilities under the constitution to determine fitness for office, sessions and presbyteries are not bound by statements of the General Assembly and its commissions regarding ordained service by homosexual persons that predate the adoption of G-6.0106b.” The vote on the measure was 35 to 30.
Good news so far. The next step is for the convention to vote on the issue, then if I remember correctly, each individual presbytery (the regional governing bodies of the church) will have to vote on it within the next year.
A curiously candid Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's Republican governor, admitted that he had no particular objection to same-sex marriage while meandering from table to table during a lunchtime visit to Romano's Macaroni Grill in Folsom, Calif. on Thursday.
The forthright admission came on the same day that the California state Assembly voted 42-27 to oppose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage -- a measure backed by President Bush. The resolution heads to the Senate, and, if passed, it does not require the governor's signature. In the past, the governor's remarks on the issue have been difficult to interpret.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Schwarzenegger's exchange at the restaurant was with 31-year-old Peter Renfro, a Sacramento Democrat, who has a male domestic partner. When asked by Renfro if he had moral objection to gay marriage, the governor said, "My opinion is that I don't care one way or the other," the newspaper reported.
State legislators who support same-sex marriage were encouraged by Schwarzenegger's comment. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Assemblyman Mark Leno have plans to introduce a bill in December that would permit same-sex couples to marry. The governor has not said whether he would sign such legislation.
Just another reason why Arnold is my favorite Republican. It won't happen, but it would be nice to see Arnold share his opinion with his fellow Republicans and the American viewing public when he speaks at the GOP convetion in August.
2004 Texas Democratic Party Platform Vs. 2004 Texas GOP Platform:
Texas Democrats believe:
Full protection and equal opportunity under the law remain bedrock values of Texas Democrats. We believe every Texan and every family has the right to participate fully and equally in American society and enjoy its benefits and freedoms. The Constitution is intended to protect freedoms, not to be used as a tool to restrict freedoms or dictate social policy by forcing states to discriminate against groups of their own citizens based on race, religion, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. Free debate and discussion and the enforcement of civil rights have kept this country strong for more than 200 years. It is wrong to write discrimination into the Constitution of the United States or the Texas Constitution.
Texas Republicans believe:
The Party supports the traditional definition of marriage as a God–ordained, legal and moral commitment only between a natural man and a natural woman, which is the foundational unit of a healthy society, and the Party opposes the assault on marriage by judicial activists. We call on the President, Congress, and the Texas Legislature to take immediate action to defend the sanctity of traditional marriage. We urge Congress to exercise authority under the United States Constitution, and pass legislation withholding jurisdiction from the Federal Courts in cases involving family law, especially any changes in the traditional definition of marriage. We further call on Congress to pass and the state legislatures to ratify a marriage amendment declaring that marriage in the United States shall consist and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married. Texas families will be stronger because of the passage by Governor Perry and the 78th Texas Legislature of the “Defense of Marriage Act”, which denies recognition by Texas of homosexual “unions” legitimized by other states or nations.
[...]
The Party supports legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple.
[...]
The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
[...]
The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.
Is there anyone out there that can say that they're marriage is stronger because of the the Texas "Defense of Marriage Act"? Is there anyone out there that was so insecure with their heterosexuality that needed the validation by the Texas legislature in order to strengthen their heterosexual marriage? I'd like to know.
Guess who spoke in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee today in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment? None other than the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, Bob Barr. The AP reports:
Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the Constitution shouldn't be used as a vehicle for banning homosexual marriage. His remarks suggested that some of the strongest opposition to the proposed amendment may come from conservatives who abhor gay unions.
"We meddle with the Constitution to our own peril," Barr said. "If we begin to treat the Constitution as our personal sandbox, in which to build and destroy castles as we please, we risk diluting the grandeur of having a constitution in the first place."
[...]
Barr, author of the Defense of Marriage Act denying federal recognition to gay unions, said in prepared testimony that conservatives should resist the temptation to use the Constitution to strangle states' rights. He said the Defense of Marriage Act was sufficient to deny recognition to homosexual marriage, and noted that it has yet to be successfully challenged.
Bob Barr may just have to turn in his credentials as a member of the bigot wing of the Republican Party if he keeps this up. Or perhaps, Bob Barr just got tired of the Elizabeth Birch's of the world asking him which one of his three marriages the Defense of Marriage Act was actually defending. Regardless, the Federal Marriage Amendment debate is making some strange alliances.
If for no other reason, this is why "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" needs to go. It's a simple issue. Our "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays in the military hampers our ability to fight the war on terrorism. The policy has undermined out military readiness as we fight the war on terrorism. The AP reports:
Even with concerns growing about military troop strength, 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, a new study shows.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 — just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged — including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California, Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
[...]
Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who had advanced training on weapons of mass destruction and served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.
"I didn't do it to get out of a war — I already served in a war," Muller, 25, said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."
It's outrageous. I'm confident that we'll see this policy changed should John Kerry be elected president. Bill Clinton didn't have the military stature to carry it though. John Kerry does.
This just out, though by no means are we out of the woods yet...
Legislation to strengthen 1960s-era federal hate crime law and broaden it to cover gay people and the disabled overwhelmingly passed the U.S. Senate on Tuesday.
The legislation was passed by a 65-33 vote as an amendment to a defense bill. Backers hope the large bipartisan margin will ensure the measure remains part of the bill after negotiations with the House of Representatives.
The House, which has been less sympathetic to the hate crimes legislation, did not include hate crimes in its version of the defense bill.
Eighteen Republicans joined all the Senate Democrats present to pass the measure expanding current law, which deals with crimes motivated by race, religion or national origin.
Though my favorite quote is at the end of the piece.
Opposing the legislation, Republicans Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said they thought hate crimes were better dealt with on a local rather than federal level.
Would this be the same Man on Dog Senator Santorum that is so gung-ho for that FEDERAL Constitutional Amendment?
The Senate Republican leadership is aiming for a mid-July vote on a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, forcing Democrats to take a stand on the controversial topic just before the party heads to Boston for its presidential nominating convention.
Mark Preston at ROLL CALL reports: Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.) said the GOP leaders are not yet prepared to make an official announcement on a specific date, but confirmed that they are scouting for a July vote.
"We are sort of running the traps on this right now, and sort of seeing what kind of response we are getting", Santorum said following Tuesday's Republican policy lunch. "We are talking about it. I think there are a couple of meetings to be had yet before any official announcement is made."
I'm glad to see that Mr. Man on Dog Santorum is heading this one up. Of course it's going to fail because the Republicans won't even have 50 votes for it, far short of the 67 needed. There is a breakdown over at dKos that was done when it first came up.
This is more evidence that the Republicans are grasping at straws to try to pull out wins in the White House AND Senate AND House this fall. The real battle lies on the State level with these amendments, not in DC.
Why does the gay media still publish Larry Kramer? Yeah, he's a longtime AIDS activist who was instrumental in raising awareness for AIDS in the 1980s through ACTUP and other means, but he's angry, bitter and gets hysterical in his analysis of Reagan. It's not worth reading. Kramer compares Reagan to Hitler in paragraphs one through three. The next two paragraphs focus on Reagan's hating of gay people and his son. Then Kramer blames the entire AIDS epidemic on Reagan and blames Reagan for all AIDS deaths. Good God. Kramer acts like were still in the early 1980s when extreme means were necessary to raise public awareness about AIDS. Now, Kramer's rhetoric only serves to marginalize legitimate criticisms of Reagan's AIDS policy, or lack thereof (see below).
It's not everyday that BOR finds a good reason to link to Andrew Sullivan...
REAGAN AND AIDS: Sorry to continue about this, but I just got sent the following transcript of a press conference by Larry Speakes, presidential spokesman, on October 15, 1982. It speaks for itself:
Q: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement from the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that AIDS is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?
MR. SPEAKES: What's AIDS?
Q: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)
Q: No, I don't.
MR. SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.
Q: Well, I just wondered, does the President ...
MR. SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)
Q: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.
Q: Does the President, does anyone in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?
MR. SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any ...
Q: Nobody knows?
MR. SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.
Q: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping ...
MR. SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no - (laughter) - no patients suffering from AIDS or whatever it is.
Q: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?
MR. SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.
Q: Didn't say that?
MR. SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)
Q: Because I love you Larry, that's why (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKES: Oh I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)
Q: Oh, I retract that.
MR. SPEAKES: I hope so.
Q: It's too late.
Nothing I could write could be more damning than this, could it?
It's now official. George W. Bush is not a theater queen.
The word came on May 22, after the president had taken his mountain biking fall on his ranch in Crawford. "You know this president," said Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, taking pains to explain that his boss had been on a 17-mile marathon, not some limp-kneed girly jaunt. "He likes to go all-out. Suffice it to say he wasn't whistling show tunes."
The interesting bit in this article is found near the end. Apparently, the GOP National Convention goers will not be attending any musicals with any gay characters in them. (If you were randomly picking on Broadway, I can't imagine not hitting at least one.)
The Republicans then had no choice but to book the landlocked delegates into Broadway musicals. The eight shows selected (with tickets to be underwritten by The Times, as it happens) have one thing in common: none of them has an openly gay character. The host committee has said that the list was dictated by factors unrelated to the musicals' content. If you buy that, you'll believe that David Gest will be the next secretary of defense.
Even with Ms. O'Donnell's Boy George musical, "Taboo," out of commission, it remains as hard to shun gay culture on Broadway as Mormons in Salt Lake City. To do so means skipping two recent Tony winners, "The Producers" and "Hairspray," and most of this year's Tony nominees. (The only harder feat would be to avoid Jews; the Republicans have booked "Fiddler on the Roof," to which they are sending the Florida delegation, yet). The Republicans were so desperate to escape Roger DeBris, the cross-dressing buffoon concocted by Mel Brooks, that they have gone and picked two shows ("Beauty and the Beast" and "Phantom of the Opera") set in France!
Another musical they're skipping, "Avenue Q," has a gay character named Rod, a Republican investment banker who tries to pass as straight by singing of a fictive girlfriend who lives in Canada. Apparently even entertainment this light — the show stars "Sesame Street"-style puppets — hits too close to home.
...
The good news for those on the right appalled by such apostates is that a spokesman for Scores, the straight Manhattan lap-dance club, has taken to bragging to The New York Post of the advance bookings lined up by convention delegates. But it's inevitable that some tabloid will uncover some swing-state delegates at a gay sex club as well. Not that there's anything wrong with that. The only people in New York likely to be dissing the many gay Republicans who turn up here are their own party leaders.
Email her at: Marilyn@Musgrave2004.com - and ask her why she is so obsessed with gay people (she's the sponsor of FMA aka The Hate Amendment in the U.S. House).
Kos has her latest email fundraising pitch here.
Better yet, donate to her Democratic opponent, Stan Matsunaka.
And no, I'm not engaging in hyperbole. For those of you unaware, Fred Phelps is the guy that pickets funerals (notably Matthew Shepard) of gays and lesbians, people who support gay rights, abortion rights, etc. etc. Via the People's Republic of Seabrook Fred has a new game on his website, GodHatesFags.com called: Fags vs. Kids:
The object of this game is to place exactly 5 sodomites (represented by a pink swastika) and exactly 3 kids (represented by a baby bottle) on the grid to the right, such that none of the sodomites can get their repulsive hands on any of the kids. A sodomite can move any number of spaces in any direction in a straight line (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally).
To place a sodomite on the grid, click once on an empty square.
To place a kid on the grid, click once on a sodomite.
To make a square empty again, click once on a kid.
Here's the final solution:
Anyway, if you've never heard of the guy, check out his website. He makes Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson look like moderates. Some people say it's best to ignore the guy. Giving him attention only boosts his ego and fuels his passion and hatred. It makes sense to some extent. Still, my philosophy in fighting these types of people is a calm, pragmatic approach. While, I've never met the Phelps clan, I have had the opportunity to participate in counter-protests against the radical right-wing organization, Justince For All. While they did not protest this year on the UT campus, they did the two previous years. Justice for All is an anti-abortion organization that displays 15-foot high pictures of aborted fetuses at various stages in development. My freshman year, they reserved the West Mall Rally Space for a week to display their protest. The pro-choice groups on campus were mobilized, but their counterprotests - dumping several thousand wire coat hangers in front of the JFA display, then sitting in a circle and then undoing them (as if they were preparing to perform a coat hanger abortion) - really only served to heighten the tension. I thought of an idea that several PFLAG chapters had done in protesting Fred Phelps. PFLAG had urged people to pledge a donation to some gay youth group or some AIDS organization for every minute that Phelps and his gang protested some event. It worked. PFLAG had raised between several hundred and a couple thousand dollars each time they had used this tactic. So, I dedided that the University Democrats could ask people to pledge even just a dime or a quarter to a pro-choice organization for every hour that JFA protested. It worked. Within a day, we had pledges of over $15 for every hour that JFA protested and they eventually protested about 25 hours (and didn't come back the last day they had the rally space because of our efforts). The pro-choice organizations decided to give the pledged money to the Lilith Fund, an organization that helps fund abortions for low-income women. So, what did Justice for All acheive in their protest? They helped a low-income woman have access to an abortion. Using tactics like this against people like Fred Phelps and their ilk is the only way to get them to stop. They're a great fundraising tool.
The Cardinal of Chicago has ordered his diocese not to serve communion to parishioners wearing rainbow-colored sashes. Who's next? Red-heads? The AP reports:
Roman Catholic gay-rights supporters wearing rainbow-colored sashes to Mass were denied communion Sunday, while dozens in Minnesota had to walk around protesters to receive the holy sacrament.
About 10 people wearing the sashes stood in line to receive communion at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, but priests refused to give them the Eucharist. One priest shook each one's hand; another made the sign of the cross on their foreheads.
"The priest told me you cannot receive communion if you're wearing a sash, as per the cardinal's direction," said James Luxton, a Chicago member of the Rainbow Sash Movement, an organization of Catholic gay-rights supporters with chapters around the country.
A memo from Chicago Cardinal Francis George that became public last week instructed priests not to give communion to people wearing the sashes, which the group's members wear every year for Pentecost. The memo says the sashes symbolize opposition to the church's doctrine on homosexuality and exploit the communion ritual.
It's one thing to have a church doctrine, but it's another thing to enforce it in such an arbitrary manner. This is just a bit silly.
A month after the very successful Weddings for Marriage Equality Event
coordinated by the GLBTA Affairs Agency, I have been told that a PBS (KLRU)
report, called Austin Now will be using footage and such from the event in the
special report.
Channel: KLRU PBS (not KLRN which is San Antonio)
Time: Sunday at 5 pm (May 23)
Link: http://www.klru.org/austinnow/archives/gay_marriage/gay_marriage.asp
"May 21: Gay Marriage"
"In the first of a series of reports on the issues that will decide the 2004
elections, Austin Now explores the question of gay marriage. The issue will be
the focus of a major documentary report and an in-studio debate."
Be sure to watch!!!
Some pictures from the event can be found here...
http://gallery.musselmanforamerica.com/thumbnails.php?album=14
Karl-T.
GLBTAAA Co-Director
P.S.
The WME Event and Debate have also been featured in the following places
online...
Texas NewsWatch- UT Cable
http://journalism.utexas.edu/tx_newswatch/ (4/22 broadcast near start)
In addition, FOX 7 News covered both events that day, Jake Holbrook, UT Student, had made a documentary of the event which had a screening last week, which we will attempt to arrange a showing of in the fall, possibly during PRIDE week, and the Cactus Yearbook should have the days events chronicled as well.
The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle. Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism, discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.
Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that
Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited. "After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."
The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators. One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings.
"I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know." Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.
The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics. A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.
Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.
If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their outrageous political beliefs. For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.
The question facing future generations is -- should they be allowed to marry?
New FDA rules will ban homosexual and bisexual men from making anonymous donations to sperm banks (Yahoo!):
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US government said it would ban homosexuals from making anonymous donations to sperm banks, in the name of preventing transmittable diseases, in a move swiftly condemned by gay rights groups.
New Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) rules that take effect May 25 require agencies that collect tissues or cells including sperm to ask the donor if he has had sex with men or used injectable drugs in the past five years. If the answer is affirmative in either case no donation is allowed.
The FDA says the rules are just an extension of procedures already in effect for donating blood or organs.
"This new rule was developed with input from many concerned consumers, associations and tissue establishments. In all cases, we carefully considered the comments we received in the proposed rule and made changes in the final rule when the science supported the change," said Acting FDA commissioner Lester Crawford.
But homosexual rights groups slammed the move.
"The FDA guidelines are unscientific. There is a 72 hour test which would provide information as to whether a person was HIV positive, we know that even the International Red Cross accepts blood from men who have sex with men," said Roberta Sklar, spokesperson for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
"This is another instance of the Bush administration ignoring scientific information and putting forth their own agenda to satisfy the extreme right wing conservative voters. It does not take in current scientific findings and recommendations."
I'm not sure the new rules are discriminatory on their face; the consensus in the medical community remains that the majority of men with HIV/AIDS were infected during or after having sex with another man. The CDC estimates that 62% of newly-diagnosed men were exposed in this manner. And while the evidence is not entirely solid, there seems to be cause to believe that this might actually be getting worse. So certainly, it's not unreasonable to believe that this should or would raise red flags.
On the other hand, the same CDC documents suggest that the number of HIV-positive gay men is something like 195,000 in 2002.. Assuming that about 4.6 percent of men are gay or bisexual (the figure obtained by pooling the data from the 1998-2002 General Social Surveys), that would mean that there are approximately 6.2 million gay and bisexual men in America; and hence only about 3.5 percent of gay men are HIV positive. While this remains several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence rate among heterosexual men (approximately 100,000 estimated cases among roughly 130000000 straight men would imply an incidence rate of less than one tenth of one percent) , it must me pointed out that 96 percent of gay men are getting shut out without cause. And note that this figure (96 percent) is almost certainly an underestimate, since my estimate of 4.6 percent being gay is, well, most probably a low-ball estimate (since people DO lie in surveys).
My problem with this ruling is not that the FDA seems to be giving the right answers; it's that they seem to be asking the wrong questions.
Common sense (and science) dictate that the most relevant indicator of HIV infection is not whether the person you're having sex with is a man or a woman. A more relevant question is: how many people have you slept with?
The most relevant question of all would be: do you actually have HIV/AIDS? Of course, that question is already asked -- but not necessarily validated with testing. Which is too bad, because testing is becoming cheaper and more reliable all the time. Blanket-banning whole groups of people is becoming less tenable.
It seems to me that these new guidelines may make a miniscule reduction in the number of donations that slip through the cracks. But there are probably far more effective ways of insuring the safety of sperm (and blood, and organs) which do not smack of insensitivity.
Honestly, If were a blood or tissue recipient, and I had to choose between knowing the FDA was banning gays, or knowing that everything was being tested, I'd feel a lot safer if I knew everything was being tested accurately.
For those of you looking for more coverage on the gay marriages in Massachusetts, check out the special section of the Boston Globe. There's tons of great stuff.
One thing caught my eye yesterday. It was an op-ed piece on the issue by Howard Dean. He's got a great point. In four years I'll bet Massachusetts will wonder what all the fuss is about, because that's what Vermont is saying right now:
IN THE SPRING of 2000, Vermont became the first state in the union not only to recognize same-sex partnerships, but to make sure that every single right outlined in the Vermont Constitution and Vermont laws applied equally to heterosexual and homosexual Vermonters. Every right but one. Gay and lesbian Vermonters do not have the right to call their unions marriage. The fallout was the least civil public debate in the state in over a century, since the "wets" and "dries" battled in the middle of the 1800s. Death threats were made, epithets were used, not only on the streets and in the general stores but on the floors of both the Senate and the House, as the bill was being debated. Otherwise respectable church leaders railed against homosexuals and not so respectable ones organized political action committees vowing to oust any legislator who voted for the bill. Five Republican members of the House lost their seats in primaries. In the general election, Democrats lost control of the House for the first time in 14 years, as the Republicans piled up nearly a 20-vote majority. My own race, for a sixth term, was the most difficult in my career.
Four years later, we wonder what the fuss was all about. Civil unions were never an issue in Vermont in the 2002 election and will not be this fall. The intensity of anger and hate has disappeared, replaced by an understanding that equal rights for groups previously denied them has no negative effect on those of us who have always enjoyed those rights. My marriage has not become weaker.
I just wanted to share with you, since I forgot over the weekend, the reports from our Weddings for Marriage Equality Event and Debate last Thursday.
The Daily Texan reported on it here. (2 pages) As well as the Debate here. I'm quoted in each article. In addition we (and I) made it on the local FOX affiliate at 5 and 9 that day.
Also, the cable channel has their show on archive now (4/22) and the story is near the beginning.
After Spain recently announced that gay marriage is in the country's future plans, a community in France has now announced that it is going to put on more European state on the map.
Mayor Noel Mamere of Begles, just outside Bordeaux, identified the happy couple as two local men. Under French law, non religious weddings must be conducted by the mayor of a couple's local municipality for their union to be legal.
"There's nothing extraordinary about marrying two people of the same sex in the European Union, because Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands have done it already and the new Spanish prime minister...has put it in his political program," said Mamere, a member of the Green Party.
Although French law does not specifically give same-sex couples the right to marry there is nothing, Mamere said, to ban such unions.
Meanwhile back at home, over in Massachusetts, Republican Governor Romney is hell-bent on finding some way to stop his state from moving forward with gay marriages. The only thing left appears to be an obscure 1913 state law...
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is directing town clerks across the state that they will be charged if they marrying any same-sex couples from outside the commonwealth. The Republican governor who has been thwarted in previous attempts to prevent gay and lesbian couples from marrying when same-sex becomes legal in May says that he is basing his order on a "strict interpretation" of a 1913 law which says that the state cannot marry an out-of-state couple if that marriage would be "void" in the couple's home state.
"Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Romney tells the New York Times. "We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation."
I am almost positive that Romney is getting pushed to do whatever possible to stop gay marriage by Republican groups nationwide, because once gay marriages start coming out of his state to other states, it will be the first time ever that legal groups will be able to take a look at the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution and start challenging the DOMA laws. This of course would be followed by a unified chorus of Republicans singing the "activist judges" tune, some being the same ones who sang that tune back in the Brown v. Board of Education days or the interracial marriage days.
But speaking of interracial marriage, since this fight has been compared to that one, even though some will say it has nothing to do with each other...
That 1913 law in Massachusetts? Guess why it is there?
The law the Romney is enforcing was created in 1913 to bar interracial marriage and has collected dust since 1967 when the US Supreme Court struck down state laws preventing marriage by two people of different races.
If you ever get the feeling that the Republican Party isn't the true home for those few truly hateful people among us, just take a glance at the following story out of Michigan.
Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House. The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
I also wanted to share with you that our Marriage Events from yesterday hit the Front Page of the Daily Texan campus paper. A month ago I made a statement that one of my goals was to be on the front page of the Texan with couples in front of the arch with a story. Mission: Accomplished. And for those of you on campus, I am the person holding the cup hidden behind the guy on the right in the smaller picture on the front page.
Read the Weddings for Marraige Equality Story (take note that there are 2 pages to the story) and I am quoted.
Karl-T., co-director of GLBTAAA, said the demonstration showed that there is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. "We're not asking to interfere with the church." Karl-T. said. "We want the legal rights of marriage."
Read the Marriage Debate story where I was quoted again.
Karl-T., co-director of GLBTAAA, said too many people view gay marriage as a threat to the sanctity of marriage. "There are greater threats to marriage, like a high divorce rate and Britney Spears getting married in Las Vegas," Karl-T. said. "The greatest threat is a nation that is OK with separate and not equal."
And making up the 3rd part of the front page series was this gem from the Texas legislature (Republican of course) as it is starting its special session on EDUCATION.
State Rep. Corbin Van Arsdale, R-Cypress, has filed HCR1, a resolution that supports amending the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and woman. "Once marriage is opened up for any particular group, then all other particular groups will get in, and there will no longer be an institution of marriage," Van Arsdale said Thursday.
Yes, because that is soooo much more important than attempting to deal with our education problems in Texas. Then again, with 3 special sessions on re-redistricting, I guess the Republicans are just good procrastinators. After all, Republican in Chief GWB is just procrastinating with his Tax Cut policy. We'll just get around to paying for everything...later.
UPDATE: Opposition Mounting, and could have Democratic Governor Veto
First off, FOX 7 here in Austin just ran their segment on the WME which went well. I was interviewed, what fun!
In addition, they will be covering the debate tonight so check FOX 7 (KTBC) at 9 for their second report.
In addition, on campus, channel 15 in the dorms, 51 campus area, Texas Newswatch will be airing thier weekly show which we will be on. To see it online (maybe not live) but at least the archive when it goes up, go here.
Just a brief update from the Weddings for Marriage Equality event. It went better than I ever would have imagined. I will link to some pictures once they start coming in.
We ended up counting 200 in attendance, 50 couples get committed (so 100 people) and about 125 people max at any one time. All 70 buttons were handed out and we may very well make a second run of them to get to people that were interested. We had exactly 24 chiars for the crows to sit in and we thought in the beginning it might now be enough. I am glad we were wrong.
The following list is my best compilation for media at the event. KLRU got footage for a larger story they are compiling about the national movement. FOX 7 may air theirs tonight so check at 5 and 9 if those are their broadcast times, I'm not positive.
KLRU, KTBC (fox 7), Daily Texan, Cactus yearbook, KVR-TV (ut cable), Texas Triangle, Texas News Watch, independent film maker, independent student photographers, students writing for class projects.
Not a single protestor was there, not a single one that brought anything visible.
So if you can make it tonight, 7-9 p.m. the BIG DEBATE in Bass Lecture Hall, the basement of Sid Richardson Hall over in the LBJ complex on campus.
Following this week's discussion about gay issues with the University Democrats, YCT debate, I wanted to let you know about the two big events happening today, Thursday, here on the UT campus. I have been working for over a month coordinating these events as the GLBT Ally Affairs Agency Co-Director of Student Government. It seems that I may be headed for re-appointment and approval, or at least I hope, as I have been serving for only about a month now.
Here is the official press release for both events. I hope you can make them!
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS-AUSTIN GLBT ALLY AFFAIRS AGENCY ANNOUNCES ‘DEMONSTRATE AND DEBATE’ DAY FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY ISSUES (UT-Austin) The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Ally Affairs Agency (GLBTAAA) of the Student Government of the University of Texas at Austin is sponsoring a day of discussion on the issue of same-sex marriage equality this Thursday, April 22, 2004. GLBTAAA will hold two events, a debate and a demonstration, on the UT campus in order to further the discussion and education of the public in light of national current events on the issue. The Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas (LGRL) and the recently formed Austin Coalition for Marriage Equality (ACME) are lending their support to the events.
From 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on the Main Mall just south of the UT Tower, GLBTAAA will hold a Weddings for Marriage Equality demonstration. GLBT allies and supporters of all sexual orientations and relationship statuses will join in non-legally binding ceremonies where they will be ‘committed’ to the cause of equality. Each will receive buttons saying “Just Married…someday” and licenses ‘affirming their conviction that no couple should be denied the right to marry and, by participating in these Weddings for Marriage Equality, demonstrate their commitment to equality.’
Rev. Jim Rigby, minister of St Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, TX, will speak on behalf of equal rights under the law from a religious viewpoint, in addition to performing ‘commitment’ ceremonies for couples throughout the event. Karl-T., Co-Director of the GLBTAAA, will also speak in support of marriage equality in relation to the 1000+ federal rights and protections denied to same-sex partners but granted to married heterosexual couples.
“This not about gaining ‘special rights.’ This is about realizing equal rights, civil rights, and human rights,” Musselman said. “Marriage equality is not a public threat of any kind. It is, in fact, the current lack of equality under the law that is the true threat. Acceptance of inequality is a threat to the traditional American value of governmental protection of all citizens’ rights, even when such rights may not be in favor with all of its citizens.”
Later that evening, the GLBTAAA, Rainbow Summit, University Democrats, and College Republicans are sponsoring a debate entitled, “Marriage Equality: Will It Benefit Our Families, Our Communities and Our Nation?" It will be held on campus from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. in the Bass Lecture Hall, in the Sid Richardson Hall basement, adjacent to the LBJ Presidential Library (Red River between Manor Rd. and Dean Keeton). Arguing for marriage equality will be Ron Schlittler, National Director of Field and Policy for PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). Arguing against will be Joshua Baker, Policy Director for the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
“As the Marriage Equality debate swirls in the epicenter of various political, religious and cultural arenas, each side has mounted passionate arguments and initiatives. Thursday night’s debaters will cut through the rhetorical clutter and provide cogent and enlightening food for thought in a lively debate that is sure to be memorable,” said Marti Bier, PFLAG Associate Field & Policy Coordinator.
I was a little shocked that YCT's most significant argument, which they laid out in our gay marriage debate last night, was that the gay behavior is unhealthy, and that the government should not promote unhealthy behavior. I was expecting the typical conservative argument against gay marriage. I thought that they would use arguments based on the Judeo-Christian tradition, the fact that gay and lesbian couples are biologically unable to produce children, the slippery slope argument that gay marriage would lead to bestiality marriage, pedophilia marriage and group marriage. While several of these arguments were mentioned, the main thrust of the YCT argument was based on the flawed research of Paul Cameron and his Omega study which I was previously unfamiliar with. Well, a little bit of research later, I am. And his research is flawed beyond belief.
YCT cited the research of Paul Cameron during the early 1980s that concluded that the life expectancy of a homosexual in America is around 40 years old (among AIDS victims and those who did not have HIV). The study was conducted by studying obituaries in prominent gay papers in major American urban centers in the early 1980s when the AIDS epidemic had just begun.
Here are some of the results that the Cameron study came up with:
Distortions and sloppy methods continue to shape Cameron's studies. As anyone who has taken a statistics class knows, a survey is valid only if the sample it uses is representative of the whole population. Sex surveys pose a particular problem, since many people who normally would be included in a representative sample are loath to discuss their private lives. That, however, hasn't deterred Cameron from his work.
Consider, for instance, his 1983 ISIS study, a survey of the sexual and social behavior of 4,340 adults in five American cities. Although thousands of heterosexuals allegedly responded to his survey, Cameron could get only forty-one gay men and twenty-four lesbians to respond. The extremely small sample size should have invalidated any conclusions about the sexual behavior of the gay population. In any case, the skewed results of the survey show that Cameron did not get an adequate random sample of heterosexuals either. He claims to have found that 52 percent of male heterosexuals have shoplifted; that 34 percent have committed a crime without being caught; and that 12 percent have either committed or attempted to commit murder. Most people would toss out such a survey, but Cameron published the results in several pamphlets and in "Effect of Homosexuality upon Public Health and Social Order," an article in Psychological Reports.
In one pamphlet, Murder Violence and Homosexuality, Cameron asserts that you are fifteen times more apt to be killed by a homosexual than by a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree; that homosexuals have committed the most sexual conspiracy murders; and that half of all sex murderers are homosexuals. Cameron based these conclusions on a sample of thirty-four serial killers he selected from the years 1966 to 1983. He stacked the deck not only by including phony figures (he counts in his sample the claims of Henry Lee Lucas, who subsequently recanted his boast that he murdered hundreds of people) but by examining only those serial killers with an apparent sexual motive. This allowed him to include John Wayne Gacy and his victims but to exclude the great majority of serial killers who are heterosexual, according to sociologist Jack Levin, the author of Mass Murder: America's Growing Menace.
In Cameron's writings on child molestation-the pamphlet Child Molestation and Homosexuality and two published articles, "Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil" and "Child Molestation and Homosexuality -he concludes that gays have perpetrated between one-third and one-half of all child molestations; that homosexual teachers have committed between onequarter and four-fifths of all molestations of pupils; and that gays are ten to twenty times more apt to molest children than are heterosexuals. These figures are said to be based on the content of other child molestation studies, yet Cameron has distorted those studies to get the results he wants. For example, he defines all adult male molestation of male children as molestations committed by homosexuals, a definition rejected by the very experts Cameron cites. Groth, among other experts, has explicitly said that most molesters of boys are in fact men who are heterosexual in their adult relationships. These men are attracted to boys, he says, largely because of the feminine characteristics of prepubescents, such as a lack of body hair.
Cameron also has provided anti-gay organizations with research indicating absurdly high rates of extreme sex practices and venereal diseases among gays and lesbians. In his pamphlets on these subjects, Cameron has claimed, for instance, that 29 percent of gay men practice "urine sex" and that 37 percent of gay men have sadomasochistic sex. Gay men, he says, are fourteen times more apt to have syphilis than heterosexual men and are three times more apt to have had lice. Lesbians are said to be nineteen times more apt to have syphilis than straight women and are four times more apt to have had scabies. Cameron's findings, however, are based on two sources: his discredited 1983 ISIS survey and other studies that ignore random sampling techniques. Several studies Cameron cites to support his conclusions rely on the responses of gay men who were recruited entirely from V.D. clinics.
A Cameron study that has received perhaps the most attention is "The Lifespan of Homosexuals." It concludes that less than 2 percent of gay men survive to old age; that lesbians have a median age of death of 45; that gays are 116 times more apt to be murdered than straight men and twenty-four times more apt to commit suicide, etc. The source of this material? A comparison of obituaries front gay newspapers with a sample from regular newspapers -a method that would be laughed at by any reputable scholar. Obituaries in gay papers do not accurately portray deaths in the gay population as a whole. They are not meant to provide a public record of deaths of all gays but to allow members of the urban gay community to express mourning for their peers, particularly those whose lives have been cut short by illness or accident. Gays who die outside these communities or who die of natural causes are much less likely to be written tip in a gay paper.
Paul Cameron clearly had an agenda with his research, and as this 1994 New Republic article clearly states, Cameron used distortions and sloppy research methods to attain his intended results. In fact, Cameron's research has been rejected by experts with the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the Centers for Disease Control. Slate reports:
Cameron's method had the virtue of simplicity, at least. He and two co-authors read through back numbers of various urban gay community papers, mostly of the giveaway sort that are laden with bar ads and personals. They counted up obituaries and news stories about deaths, noted the ages of the deceased, computed the average, and published the resulting numbers as estimates of gay life expectancy.
What do vital-statistics buffs think of this technique? Nick Eberstadt at the American Enterprise Institute sums up the reactions of several of his fellow demographers: "The method as you describe it is just ridiculous." But you don't have to be a trained statistician to spot the fallacy at its heart, which is, to quote Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistician John Karon, that "you're only getting the ages of those who die." Gay men of the same generation destined to live to old age, even if more numerous, won't turn up in the sample.
Other critics rattle off further objections. The deaths reported in these papers, mostly AIDS deaths, will tend to represent the community defined by such papers or directly known to their editors. It will include relatively more subjects who live in town and are overtly gay and relatively few who blend into the suburbs and seldom set foot in bars. It will overrepresent those whose passing strikes others as newsworthy and underrepresent those who end their days in retired obscurity in some sunny clime.
I'm not even to go into the reaction that Paul Cameron's research has gotten from the left. His research is outrageous and it gives anti-gay bigots fuel to discriminate against gays and lesbians. But the bigger question is who is Paul Cameron? He's a an anti-gay zealot who has called for the quarantine and execution of homosexuals. Again, The New Republic:
So who is Paul Cameron? Not the dispassionate, respected analyst that these boosters would have you believe. Cameron is chairman of the Family Research Institute (FRI), an arch-right Washington think tank that counts neanderthal GOP Representative Robert Dornan of California among its national advisory board members. Cameron himself is also a demonizer of gays: several times he has proposed the tattooing and quarantining of AIDS patients and the extermination of male homosexuals. Most important, he is the architect of unreliable "surveys" that purport to show strains of violence and depravity in gay life.
Until 1980 Cameron was an instructor of psychology at the University of Nebraska. When his teaching contract was not renewed, he devoted himself fulltime to a think tank he founded called the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS), where he touted himself as an expert on sexuality, particularly on the societal consequences of homosexuality. During the 1980s he published hysterical pamphlets alleging that gays were disproportionately responsible for serial killings, child molestation and other heinous crimes.
Shortly after Cameron made these claims, several psychologists whose work he had referenced- including Dr. A. Nicholas Groth, director of the Sex Offender Program at the Connecticut Department of Corrections charged Cameron with distorting their findings in order to promote his anti-gay agenda. When the American Psychological Association (APA) investigated Cameron, it found that he not only misrepresented the work of others but also used unsound methods in his own studies. For this ethical breach, the APA expelled Cameron in December 1983. (Although Cameron claims he resigned, APA bylaws prohibit members from resigning while under investigation.)
In 1987 Cameron moved to Washington and created FRI, a "non-profit educational and scientific corporation." Ever since, he has been a virtual one-man propaganda press, periodically revising his brochures and distributing them to policyrnakers. "Published scientific material has a profound impact on society," he has said.
I should note that there are a few corrections at the bottom of the page, but nothing that fundamentally alters my points.
Anyway, if the Young Conservatives of Texas want to stand with Paul Cameron, they're welcome to. He's a one-way ticket to losing all creditability in the context of an honest debate. He's an unrepentant bigot and hatemonger who spent government money in some cases to further his own political agenda. I wish I had this information yesterday so I could have confronted YCT on Cameron's past personally, but my post here ought to suffice.
Tonight the University Democrats debated the Young Conservatives of Texas on the issue of gay marriage equality. The University Democrats spoke in favor of gay marriage and the Young Conservatives of Texas spoke against. I was one of the three debate participants for the University Democrats. Since the other two members of the team had debated in high school, they gave me the easy job - the opening statement. We won the coin toss, so I basically read my statement. I'll post more on my thoughts on the debate later, but here's my prepared remarks for the opening statement:
On February 11th President George W. Bush launched an attack on an entire class of American citizens with his call for the Federal Marriage Amendment. This amendment would write into our constitution a clause that would state that only a marriage between a man and a woman is legally valid in America. The other side frequently speaks of “defending the institution of marriage” in its rationale for supporting this amendment to our constitution. The fact of the matter is that the Federal Marriage Amendment would do nothing to “defend the institution of marriage”. In their press release publicizing this debate, the Young Conservatives of Texas Aaron Gibson stated that “If the United States fails to define the institution of marriage as between a man and a woman it opens the door to future court challenges to the definition of marriage. If the country doesn’t act, marriage could be unrecognizable in 50 years or less”. Their argument is the same argument that was made against interracial marriage a generation ago, and against coverture, where a woman was literally considered property of her husband in past centuries. Our founders may not have imagined marriage as we know it today, but in their infinite wisdom, they created a timeless document, our constitution to allow for our nation to adapt to changing times. The institution of marriage has constantly evolved in America to become more inclusive, and give greater equality to both individuals in a marriage. Our constitutional democratic system is based on laws that reflect our beliefs and marriage laws are no exception.
Marriage has changed dramatically in just the past century. In addition to coverture and interracial marriage, marriage has withstood changes such as the widespread usage of birth control and the still increasing numbers of women in the workplace. Marriage has withstood the test of time and it will continue to. In fact, of all threats to the institution of marriage, gays and lesbians are about as far down the list as it gets. Does anyone know of any married couples who got divorced because of gays and lesbians receiving greater civil rights? I didn’t think so. Many of the gay and lesbian couples married in San Francisco last month waited in line to get married longer than Britney Spears marriage lasted. Britney Spears is a much greater threat to the institution of marriage than any of the married homosexual couples in San Francisco. If the conservatives in this country were really serious about promoting the institution of marriage, then they would do something constructive to make married life better for working families such as helping families attain health care coverage or helping Americans find good paying jobs to lessen the burden for ordinary families in America. Instead, conservatives are more interested in singling out and marginalizing an entire class of law abiding American citizens.
In fact supporting gay marriage equality is fundamentally a conservative and pro-family position. Gay marriage won’t abolish the family as we know it. In fact, it will strengthen it. Gays and lesbians are often attacked by conservatives as sexually promiscuous, but when gays and lesbians ask to be included in an institution that promotes monogamy, the conservatives say they can’t have it.
Gay marriage is good for children. Millions of children in America are growing up in gay and lesbian homes. Many are biological children of one partner, and many are adopted. However, in many places only one parent is allowed custody rights. Today, in many places should the parent with custody rights die, then the child could be sent to an orphanage instead of being able to live with the parent they spent their life growing up with.
Full civil marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is the only solution to the injustice of the current discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in marriage. Marriage is both a religious and legal institution. Gay and lesbian couples are not asking the government to require any religion to support gay marriage equality. Rather, gay and lesbian couples demand the same legal rights and benefits of marriage that are often taken for granted by everyone else.
Here’s just a few of the benefits of marriage as defined by the Human Rights
Campaign:
“Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.”
Some argue that Civil Unions are a fair compromise. We disagree. While Civil
Unions may be a step in the right direction towards marriage equality for gays and lesbians, it is a policy the codifies the principle of “separate and
unequal”. Civil Unions are marriage lite and do not give gay and lesbian couples the same equal legal rights awarded to heterosexuals. A Civil Union performed in one state has no legal recognition in another, whereas marriage is
recognized across state lines. Civil Unions recognized by a state could give gay and lesbian couples the same local and state-level benefits and protections of marriage, but they give gays and lesbians none of the over 1000 federal benefits and protections of marriage. Civil Unions are not marriage and we should not settle for anything less!
The institution is more at risk from restricting gay and lesbian couples from marrying than from allowing them to do so. The definition of marriage must be allowed to adapt to society’s needs less it become obsolete. Anyone dedicated to the preservation of limited liberties and freedoms through limited government cannot abide by an attempt to restrict an individual’s right to marry by the federal government. Gay marriage is good for families, gay marriage provides stability for children, and providing gay marriage is essential to ensuring the provision of equal rights to every American citizen. To protect the institution of marriage the conservatives should instead come forward with programs such as federal childcare, universal health insurance, and help reduce the economic strain placed on many families today in order to truly help the married American family today. Gay marriage is the only solution to this injustice and important civil rights issue of our generation.
While LCRs ponder non-endorsement, Spain endorses Equal Marriage
The U.S., led by George W. Bush, is not going anywhere fast on gay rights issues. In the meantime, the rest of the world, like usual these days, is getting on the progressive bandwagon as Spain announces that it will move forward to normalize and equalize gay marriage rights even with the Catholic Church making a fuss.
Spain will legalize same-sex marriages and grant equal rights to gay couples, incoming prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Thursday. The move is likely to stir controversy in one of Europe's most Catholic countries in light of the Vatican's condemnation of same-sex unions; homosexuality was banned during the reign of Spanish dictator Francisco Franco. Spain's Catholic bishops have already spoken out strongly against the adoption of children by gay and lesbian couples.
"The moment has finally arrived to end once and for all the intolerable discrimination which many Spaniards suffer because of their sexual preferences," Zapatero told parliament during a debate that will end with a vote to confirm him in office. "Homosexuals and transsexuals deserve the same public consideration as heterosexuals. As a result we will modify the Civil Code to recognize their equal right to marriage with the resulting effects over inheritance, labor rights, and social security protection."
Nine other European Union countries already have some provision for recognizing those in committed same-sex relationships. Last month the United Kingdom said it would give legal recognition to gay partnerships.
The Log Cabin Republicans will decide today whether to endorse President Bush for re-election at their convention in Los Angeles. The LA Times reports:
The country's best known group of gay Republicans opened its three-day national convention here, and as expected, virtually all issues took a back seat to one: same-sex marriage.
The gathering of the Log Cabin Republicans — as clean-cut and mostly white as an old-fashioned chamber of commerce — drew triple the number of attendees that the meeting attracted in the past.
Organizers attributed the jump, to some 300 participants, to President Bush's Feb. 24 endorsement of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. For many gay Republicans — who thought Bush's promise of "compassionate conservatism" would ensure them room in the GOP tent — the proposal was a slap in the face. They are now facing a difficult decision: Should they withhold their endorsement from Bush to make a point?
The group will wrestle with the endorsement question in an open session today.
"What we have here today is a sign that there is a culture war going on between us and the radical right," said Patrick Guerriero, Log Cabin executive director. "And this convention sends a message back to Washington, D.C., and to Republican leaders: We're here to stay, we're gonna win this battle and we're on the right side of history. We're a very conservative group on just about every issue, except we're not going to be treated as second-class citizens."
[...]
Although the group may delay a decision until closer to the Republican National Convention in late summer, plenty of questions need airing, said Guerriero. "What does the president stand for? To be against gay marriage is one thing. Well, what actually does he support?"
Although Log Cabin's national membership is about 10,000, club officials believe their endorsement matters.
"We know our voice on this is going to matter," said the group's political director, Christopher Barron. Citing exit polling of voters, he said, "One million gays and lesbians voted for Bush in 2000 — 60,000 alone in the state of Florida."
Bush won in Florida with a 537-vote margin over Vice President Al Gore.
Those numbers are derived from exit polls in the 2000 elections. Five percent of all 2000 voters self identified as gay or lesbian and the breakdown of their vote was something like 71% for Al Gore, 20% for George W. Bush and 4% for Ralph Nader. Thus, with an electorate of about 100 Million, 20% (Bush vote) of 5% (self identified gay vote) of that is one million. With the Federal Marriage Amendment backed by the Bush White House, it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that President Bush will lose several hundred thousand gay votes (and Kerry could also benefit further by a larger gay turnout as well and possibly even from hundreds of thousands (to millions) of heterosexual friends and family members of gays and lesbians). Of course on the flip side, this may all lead to a larger turnout among conservatives who support the president on this. Anyway, back to the article. Log Cabin makes a good point. In a very close election, gays and lesbians count as swing voters in a few key states - notably Florida.
So will Log Cabin endorse Bush? I doubt that they will today. They may sell out later and endorse him, but based on their rhetoric, they may not. While I've never been a big fan of Log Cabin, they've been genuinely outraged by a President they thought they could trust not to succum to the far right wing. They've put their money where their mouth is by running one million dollars in ads attacking President Bush on the Federal Marriage Amendment.
I'll be looking for news of their non-endorsement.
Well, probably not anytime soon, but it's good to see several local officials come out in support of gay marriage. The Austin American Stateman reports:
Travis County Judge Sam Biscoe said that he was not opposed to same-sex marriages and that the Commissioners Court probably would be willing to pass a resolution in favor of them.
"My guess is, they have a fair chance of getting a symbolic gesture," he said. "If they want more, we'll have to find out what our legal authority is."
But Travis County Clerk Dana DeBeauvoir, whose office issues marriage licenses, said state law prohibits the county from issuing licenses for same-sex marriages.
Commissioners Court resolutions are relatively meaningless, however anytime an elected official publically goes on the record as supporting gay marriage they ought to be commended. If the Commissioners Court has the courage to support a resolution endorsing gay marriage, and the four (of five) Democrats on the court get easily re-elected (as I expect they will), then it will only encourage more elected officials (who may be on the fence now) to come around to publicly supporting gay marriage.
Press Release for the Austin Coalition for Marriage Equality
When courting, a suitor often is asked to declare her or his intentions toward her or his lover in order to determine whether the suitor is serious or just dallying. The Austin Coalition for Marriage Equality (ACME) has serious intentions to win marriage equality in Austin. The group will hold a news conference on Tuesday, April 6, at 5:15 at the Travis County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe Street in Austin.
Sponsored and organized by ACME, this event will bring together other organizations working toward marriage equality in Austin, including the Lesbian and Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, supportive local clergy, and a number of other campus and community groups.
The event also will announce ACME's plans and goals for the upcoming weeks. ACME came into being on March 8 and has set as its goals as the following: first, to call on the city council and county commissioners to express full support for marriage equality; and second, to educate the public at large about gay marriage as a civil rights issue.
ACME's fact sheet on marriage equality, and draft resolution for the city council and commissioners' court are attached and will be available in a press packet at the event itself.
Speakers at the press conference will include ACME members Liz Brenner and Matt Korn, Colin Cunliff for the Lesbian and Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, members of gay and lesbian families, and Karl-Thomas Musselman, speaking for the alliance of UT campus g/l/b/t organizations. In addition, Methodist minister Sid Hall will explain the perspective of clergy in support of gay marriage.
There will be a question and answer session after the presentations.
"Together with other organizations we are putting Austin on the map regarding this matter of fundamental civil rights," said Liz Brenner, a member of ACME. "We are in the process of approaching the city council and county commissioners with resolutions of support for the marriage of same-sex partners in regonition of our full humanity."
The growing ferment over gay marriage has led to comparisons with the civil rights movement that ended Jim Crow laws in the South during the 1960s. Both Democratic Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton and activist Coretta Scott King have expressed their support for gay marriage as a civil rights issue.
"Our slogan is 'Separate is Never Equal'" said ACME member Marti Bier. "And we will keep working until we win equality."
"It's great that we are coming together, because it is only together that we can win this struggle," commented Matt Korn, a member of ACME and also of the International Socialist Organization. "We are going to the public, the city, and the county commissioners to ask for what we want: equality now."
The press conference is a public event; reporters and interested citizens are encouraged to attend and participate.
Mary Cheney may not have the courage to speak out against her father's hate campaign for the Federal Marriage Amendment, but David Knight sure does:
When David Knight married his boyfriend of 10 years, his parents were not among the mothers and fathers proudly snapping photos and sipping champagne at San Francisco's City Hall.
His mother is long gone, dead of cancer when he was 17. And his father, well ...
These are precarious times for the gay son of state Sen. William J. "Pete" Knight, the arch-conservative architect of California's Defense of Marriage Act.
[...]
The elder Knight, 75, a Republican being termed out of office this year, is California's most outspoken opponent of marriage for gay couples. Since spearheading the 2000 ballot initiative that reinforced California's "one man, one woman" marriage laws, he has used the courts to keep state agencies from granting spousal rights to same-sex couples. His nonprofit group is at the center of the legal challenges to San Francisco's same-sex wedding spree.
The younger, a 42-year-old custom furniture maker in Baltimore, flew to the city with his longtime partner and got married just two days before the California Supreme Court shut down the weddings. The court is considering whether city officials had the authority to contravene state law by sanctioning almost 4,000 gay and lesbian marriages.
Good for David Knight. If only more gays and lesbians from conservative / Republican backgrounds would speak out...
It'll take awhile for Baylor to come around. After all, only in 1996 was the ban on dancing on campus lifted. Still, it's good to see progress:
Some of Baylor University's own called for their school to change its ways Saturday, challenging the Baptist campus to end what they say is discrimination against homosexuals.
About 150 protesters comprised of current and former Baylor students held signs, waved rainbow flags and sported school colors at Heritage Square in downtown Waco, not far from the 14,000-student campus.
"Welcome to the 21st century, Baylor," said Tim Salladay, a Dallas businessman and 1978 Baylor graduate. "The time has come."
Attendees were galvanized by the story of Matt Bass, a Baylor seminary student whose scholarship was revoked last year after he revealed to friends he is a homosexual. The issue also arose last month when the administration condemned an editorial in the student newspaper that supported gay marriage.
During the rally, many poked fun at Baylor for being reluctant to change old habits. More than one compared the issue to civil rights and interracial marriage. Salladay cited Baylor President Robert B. Sloan Jr.'s lifting of a ban on campus dancing in 1996.
Dancing was once considered an anathema to conservative Baptists.
"We say to Dr. Sloan, no more dancing around the issue of equality," Salladay said.
[...]
For their part, Baylor's administrators didn't comment on the rally, releasing only a statement from the school's university student policies and procedures.
"Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm," according to the statement. "Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."
During Saturday's rally, Bass, 25, rejected the notion that Christians are all of one mind on the issue. He accused Baylor of becoming a religiously dogmatic university that rejects academic freedom and discourse. Instead, the school scares students into submission, he said.
"You equip us with the tools to think for ourselves responsibly, then you punish us for using those tools," he said.
"I only hope you'll change your ways before you kill both the university and the university student," Bass added.
Good job. It can't be easy to speak out at a place like Baylor, but the folks who do have a lot of courage. It doesn't take much courage to be openly gay, or speak at a Pride Rally, or organize a Marriage Equality Rally, or wear an HRC sticker at an event, or write that you're gay on your blog when you live here in Austin (or even back in Dallas for that matter). Sure, there are people that will have a problem with it, but I never worried about getting kicked out of school or being a victim of violence because of it. For these activists at Baylor, however, that's not the case. I have a tremendous amount of respect and appreciation for their efforts, and if there is anything that I can do to help them, I'd be delighted to do so.
Joe Trippi's Change for America has the lowdown and there is no need to duplicate an already well put together point.
PS. I'll post on the Gillespie County Democratic Convention tomorrow, with pictures! But just to let y'all know, I have been elected a full voting delegate to the State Convention.
Gay Rights Rally in Waco Tomorrow Protesting Baylor Policy
This ought to be interesting. The Waco Tribune-Herald reports:
Organizers of a gay rights rally in downtown Waco Saturday say they expect 1,000 demonstrators to voice their criticism of Baylor University for its treatment of gay students.
A group calling itself United4Change will protest the university's policies at 11 a.m. Saturday at Heritage Square. It is led by Matt Bass, a former Truett Seminary student who had to drop out of school after his scholarship was withdrawn when he admitted to officials he supported homosexual marriage.
Bass, 24, who stayed in Waco after withdrawing from school to help bring attention to issues facing gay students, said he hopes for a large turnout for the rally to "help administrators understand the effects of discrimination."
Baylor officials, when asked for comment, responded only with a written statement affirming t he student code of conduct, which informs students of the university's stance on human sexuality issues and communicates expectations for how students conduct themselves on or off campus.
"Baylor University welcomes all students into a safe and supportive environment in which to discuss and learn about a variety of issues, including those of human sexuality," the policy states. "The university affirms the biblical understanding of sexuality as a gift from God. Christian churches across the ages and around the world have affirmed purity in singleness and fidelity in marriage between a man and a woman as the biblical norm.
"Temptations to deviate from this norm include both heterosexual sex outside of marriage and homosexual behavior. It is thus expected that Baylor students will not participate in advocacy groups which promote understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching."
United4Change, a group of Baylor students, alumni and friends in the greater community, believes that "discrimination against students and faculty based on real or perceived sexual orientation and identity is unjust and inherently violent towards all," Bass said.
As an institution of higher learning, Baylor has an obligation to end ignorance, yet it continues to infringe on academic freedom, constitutional free speech, and basic human and civil rights, he added. The group seeks equality on campus and a nondiscrimination clause in university policies. Many Baylor alumni from throughout the country have sent either e-mails of support or indicated they are coming to the rally, he said.
Recently, the Baylor student paper endorsed gay marriage which received much critisism from the Baylor administration. It's almost amusing to watch if it wasn't so serious. It's outrageous that a closeted gay student lost his scholarship at Baylor after being asked about his sexual orientation by the administration because he had confided in a pastor (who proceded to violate his trust with the student, and go tell the administration).
I want to let everyone know about two important rallies in Texas in the next two days concerning Marriage Rights and Equality at Universities in Texas.
The First is the "Dont Outlaw Love" Rally set for today at 4:30 in front of the State Capitol Building in support of equal marriage rights and recognition here in Austin. The event is actually being organized by High School students and is one of the projects being coordinated by the Austin Coalition for Marriage Equaltiy (whose new website will be up soon and I will link to when it is). The group will listen to speakers, rally, and the march on over to good old Governor Perry's Mansion in case he wants to join in on the lovefest.
The second big event is taking place in Waco tomorrow in reponse to Baylor University's treatment of gay students.
Organizers of a gay rights rally in downtown Waco Saturday say they expect 1,000 demonstrators to voice their criticism of Baylor University for its treatment of gay students. A group calling itself United4Change will protest the university's policies at 11 a.m. Saturday at Heritage Square. It is led by Matt Bass, a former Truett Seminary student who had to drop out of school after his scholarship was withdrawn when he admitted to officials he supported homosexual marriage.
Bass, 24, who stayed in Waco after withdrawing from school to help bring attention to issues facing gay students, said he hopes for a large turnout for the rally to "help administrators understand the effects of discrimination."
Speaking in highly personal terms, a gay member of Congress on Tuesday challenged supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, asking "who are we hurting" when homosexuals want to express the same emotional commitment as other Americans.
"All we are saying is, 'Please, can't we in our lives do this?"' said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. "When I go home from today's work and I choose because of my nature to associate with another man, how is that a problem for you? How does that hurt you?"
He drew no immediate reply from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans supporting the proposed amendment.
Frank's appeal was unusual in Congress, where lawmakers clash vigorously on matters of politics and policy, but seldom refer to their personal lives -- much less sexual orientation -- in an attempt to influence legislation.
I'm glad that Rep. Frank is starting to speak out more on this issue. There is a reason why I beleive it is necessary to have openly gay politicians; becuase when we do face issues like this, the media really has someone to go to that can speak personally on behalf of these issues. That's the entire point of a representational government. Just think, if there were ever laws that came up specifially about Transgendered issues, at the momment, there are not a lot of people to talk on behalf of that issue that are that high up in politics. Therefore, debate is focused on a lot of people talking about an issue without the resource of someone who really is a member or informed about those groups.
Rep. Frank also had a great remark that was tacked on at the end of the article.
"If people decide to allow it, you who do the constitutional amendment will cancel the rights of the people of Massachusetts and I do not think that is an appropriate response to make here," he said. "And certainly not to the threat that millions of people are threatening to commit love."
NH Senate Votes to Not Recognize Same-Sex Marriage
And now this from New Hampshire...
Gay marriages would not be recognized in New Hampshire under a bill approved 16-7 by the Senate on Thursday. The legislation comes on the heels of a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision giving gay couples a right to marry.
"Neither the courts nor another legislature should dictate the definition of marriage in this state," said Sen. Andre Martel, R-Manchester.
Many of those who oppose gay marriage argued that New Hampshire must take a stand to protect traditional marriages. But opponents of the bill said gay marriage is an issue of equal treatment under the law.
"This is codifying discrimination and prejudice," said Sen. Clifton Below, D-Lebanon.
"Why should we scapegoat a segment of our society and deny them basic rights," asked Sen. Sylvia Larsen, D-Concord.
The bill, which is supported by Republican Gov. Craig Benson, now goes to the House. The bill's prime sponsor, Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, said at a public hearing last month that the bill is needed to close a loophole in New Hampshire law that could force the state to honor gay marriages performed outside its borders. The language in the bill is almost identical to the Defense of Marriage Act passed by Congress.
The MA Constitutional Convention has met and passed 129-69 the preliminary approval for Banning Gay Marriage but leaving open Civil Unions.
From Boston.com...
Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval Thursday to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions as the state again took center stage in the national debate over the rights of same-sex couples to wed.
The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents.
The earliest a ban could end up on a statewide ballot is November 2006, more than two years after same-sex couples can start getting married in Massachusetts.
It was adopted 129-69 with the help of several known advocates of gay marriage, triggering speculation that they could withdraw their support on the critical final vote needed before this year's constitutional convention ends.
Due to the elaborate constitutional-amendment process, the ban must be approved by the Legislature at least three more times this year -- perhaps as soon as Thursday night -- and then again during the 2005-06 legislative session.
The California Supreme Court ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco and said Thursday it would hear a case in May or June on the legality of such marriages.
The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages, with more than 3,700 couples having wed at City Hall so far.
...
The seven justices ruled unanimously that Newsom must "refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized" by California's marriage codes.
California's top court did not immediately address whether Newsom had the legal power to authorize the marriages, which contravenes a state law and voter referendum that say marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The justices also did not address whether the California Constitution would permit a gay marriage, as Newsom claims.
Instead, the justices moved to block any more marriages, at least for now, until they decide whether Newsom had the power to authorize such unions. Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.
This was going to happen at some point and the real meat of the story will be how the Supreme Court votes in the next couple of months. But a big thanks to San Francisco for helping to get the issue moving nationwide.
The second round of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention begins today with a compromise in the works for an amendment that will ban gay marriage, but mandate Civil Unions. The Boston Globe reports:
A compromise constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but also establish same-sex civil unions appears to be gaining support as Massachusetts lawmakers reconvene today four weeks after their earlier constitutional convention adjourned in chaos and deadlock. Senate President Robert E. Travaglini, a lead sponsor of the compromise amendment, expressed confidence yesterday that the proposal will win the necessary 101 votes when the lawmakers resume their emotionally charged debate in the House chamber. The convention recessed Feb. 12 after three amendment proposals fell short of a majority by a few votes.
"I'm growing increasingly confident," Travaglini said in Washington, D.C., where he and House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, a cosponsor of the amendment, were leading a delegation of Beacon Hill lawmakers to meet with the state congressional delegation and raise campaign cash.
"People who were noes are now maybes," he said. "People who were maybes are now yeses, and there is movement that is beneficial to reaching a consensus." A similarly worded amendment sponsored by Travaglini in February failed by seven votes.
"We are working it, and we feel as if we are making progress," Finneran said. "But it's far too early to say anything definitive."
However, lawmakers who met with Travaglini before he left Boston said the Senate leader confided to them that he has the votes to win the amendment's passage.
It will be interesting to see if this proposal really has much of a chance as gay marriage proponents want marriage, and religious conservatives want nothing. Last time, legislative leaders thought that they had a compromise, but they failed. This time.... who knows?
As it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be...
Unknown Country informs us that the Catholic Church used to recognize gay marriages.
(Then again, they also used to burn witches).
The sooner that we all acknowledge that so many of our "traditional Judeo-Christian" mores stem from an era when Christianity was already at least 1700 years old, though, the better. E.g. the Great Awakening and later the Victorian Era.
Indeed, many of the ideas which make up so-called fundamentalism actually weren't fully formed until about 1920. How modern!
(Then again, they used to have public lynchings...).
I just got finished reading a New York Times article in my e-mail that had some very interesting quotes in it that put into words exactly what I have been thinking these past few weeks.
Opponents of gay marriage have tried to place all of the blame for recent events on "activist judges." Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, has called for a Congressional investigation of "judicial invalidation of traditional marriage laws." The judiciary, however, is only one part of a much larger story. Gay rights and gay marriages are being driven by an array of social forces and institutions. In California, the driving force has been an elected mayor, with the support of his constituents. In that case, it is gay marriage opponents who are asking judges to step in.
To the extent that the courts do have a leading role, it is perfectly natural. Gay marriage opponents like to portray judges as alien beings, but state court judges are an integral part of state government. They were elected, or appointed by someone who was. The founders created three equal branches, and a Constitution setting out broad principles, at both the national and state levels. Courts are supposed to give life to phrases like "equal protection" and "due process." Much of the nation's progress, from integration to religious freedom, has been won just this way.
And then...
Final Destination The controversy over same-sex weddings has obscured the remarkable transformation in opinion over civil unions. Less than 20 years ago, the United States Supreme Court enthusiastically upheld a Georgia law making gay sex a crime. Last year, the court reversed itself, and a national consensus seems to be forming that gay couples have a right to, at the least, enter into civil unions that carry the same rights as marriage. Even President Bush, who has endorsed a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage, has suggested he had no problem with states' recognizing civil unions.
Civil unions, with rights similar to marriage, are a major step, but ultimately only an interim one. As both sides in the debate agree, marriage is something more than a mere bundle of legal rights. Whatever else the state is handing out when it issues a marriage license, whatever approval or endorsement it is providing, will ultimately have to be made available to all Americans equally.
To the Virginia judge who ruled that Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, could not marry, the reason was self-evident. "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents," he wrote. "And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." Calling marriage one of the "basic civil rights of man," the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that Virginia had to let interracial couples marry. Thirty-seven years from now, the reasons for opposing gay marriage will no doubt feel just as archaic, and the right to enter into it will be just as widely accepted.
Baylor University's president says he is "justifiably outraged" over a student newspaper editorial defending gay marriage.
Robert B. Sloan Jr.'s strongly worded statement ran today in the Baylor Lariat, the newspaper of the world's largest Baptist university.
"We have already heard from a number of students, alumni and parents who are, as am I, justifiably outraged over this editorial," Sloan wrote.
"Espousing in a Baylor publication a view that is so out of touch with traditional Christian teachings is not only unwelcome, it comes dangerously close to violating university policy, as published in the student handbook, prohibiting the advocacy of any understandings of sexuality that are contrary to biblical teaching," Sloan wrote.
The paper also published a statement today from the student publications board, a group of faculty and administrators overseeing the newspaper, calling the Friday editorial a violation of student publications policy, said board member Larry Brumley.
The policy states that no editorial stance of student publications should "attack the basic tenets of Christian theology or of Christian morality."
So basically, Baylor is telling it's students not to think. Lovely. The Daily Texan was understandably outraged:
Sloan's statement reeks of hypocrisy when he writes:
"... while we [Baylor] respect the right of students to hold and express divergent viewpoints, we do not support the use of publications such as the Lariat, which is published by the University, to advocate positions that undermine foundational Christian principles upon which this institution was founded and currently operates."
Basically, Sloan supports students expressing their views so long as those views are not in the student newspaper. Sloan can't have it both ways. If Baylor truly supports student expression, they would not state what viewpoints are not allowed in the Lariat.
Baylor's religious identity plays a large role in its classrooms on its campus. But the role of religion should not supersede (or interfere with) the process of critical thinking, especially at an institution of higher learning.
The Baylor editorial board made a decision after reviewing the facts and taking all sides of the debate into account. Their opinion speaks for themselves, not the University.
Sloan, Baylor alumni and current students can disagree with the editorial board's stance.
The Salem Statesman Journal reports. Multnomah county will begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples today:
Multnomah County, the most populous and liberal county in Oregon, will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, according to a statement issued Tuesday by officials.
It was unclear whether gay marriages would be granted immediately. A news conference with County Attorney Agnes Sowle and county commissioners was scheduled for 9 a.m. today.
A statement issued by the county said simply: “Based on a legal opinion released today by the County Attorney, a majority of the Board of County Commissioners supports a policy change to allow the county to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Multnomah County Judge Linda Bergman told KGW-TV on Tuesday that she will schedule and perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples if they have a license when they make an appointment.
Oregon state law defines marriage as a “civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age.” The law does not specify that the union be between a man and a woman.
Gay Marriage Spreading, Legal Challenges Sure to Follow
There seems to be a lot more going on today than just one Mayor being called in.
I would not be surprised if by sometime this summer, the New York Supreme Court will be ruling on how gay marriage can go forward in the state because of a less than specific state Constitution. I also think it is why NY AG Eliot Spitzer is not going forward with all the legal challenges.
Linked
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer says he decided not to fight gay marriages being performed in a small village north of Manhattan because it is a case the state can't win.
"We wouldn't have won," says Spitzer. The state, he says would have been unable to prove that there was any "irreparable harm" against any party - the standard needed to persuade a court to grant an injunction.
"I have no problem with gay marriage," Spitzer, a Democrat, says. "I think the law has moved to a point where people are comfortable that [marriage] can be extended to people of the same sex."
Nevertheless he said many state legislators and even some in his own office disagree. As a result he has ordered a complete review of the state Constitution to determine whether civil marriages between same-sex couples are already legal.
Ultimately, he says, "the courts are going to have the final say."
Spitzer's position has put him at odds with Republican Gov. Pataki. Pataki has said that state law clearly allows marriages only between a man and a woman.
Pataki had directed Spitzer last week to go to court to stop the same-sex weddings that were being performed by New Paltz's maverick mayor, Jason West. Spitzer refused.
But I would imagine that because of this, it puts him a few nothces down on the VP shortlists of Kerry and Edwards (no change for Sharpton's or Kucinich's).
And there's more...
Ithaca Mayor Carolyn Peterson announced Monday that the city in upstate New York would begin accepting applications for marriage licenses from same sex couples, but would then pass the applications on to the state for approval.
The move opens the door for gay and lesbian couples to then sue the state if the licenses are not approved. Peterson said the city would join in any court battle on behalf of same-sex couples.
"Same-sex couples deserve the equal protection of the law, the same as any other couple. They deserve to be able to bring their families out of the status of second-class citizenship and into the full array of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples," she said.
"I am in strong support of all of Ithaca's families and will actively support all legal means to make marriage available to same sex couples...I believe that by supporting families, all families, we stabilize and strengthen our community," Peterson told a news conference.
The mayor also said that the city will immediately begin to recognize all same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions.
and still more...
The mayor of Nyack, New York, a quiet suburb of New York City, announced Friday afternoon that he will recognize any same-sex marriage wherever it was performed.
While the measure is largely symbolic it shows the growing acceptance of same-sex couples in the wake of the court decision in Massachusetts that gay marriage was legal and the nearly 4,000 gay weddings already performed in San Francisco.
Nyack Mayor John Shields made his announcement shortly after the mayor of nearby New Paltz married nearly a dozen couples on the steps of the village hall.
I don't understand how extending marriage to same-gender couples undermines traditional marriage or weakens community. On the contrary, I believe personal commitments strengthen community. A powerful way to affirm traditional marriage is to have strong marriages between committed people.
And West Hollywood is deciding what to do and whether to get in on the action.
The West Hollywood City Council took steps Monday aimed at recognizing same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco and elsewhere and called upon the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors to consider performing same-sex marriages in the county.
Council members voted unanimously to direct the city attorney to review West Hollywood's ordinances, policies and procedures and recommend any changes needed to ensure that same-sex married couples will get the same protections and privileges as their heterosexual married counterparts. The city attorney will come back with the recommendations at a later date for a council vote.
Four days after presiding over a slew of same sex marriages in his quaint Hudson Valley village, the mayor of New Paltz today was charged with 19 violations of New York's domestic relations law, injecting the debate over gay marriages in the state with increasing drama and urgency.
Jason West, 26-year-old Green Party mayor, was ordered to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges that he broke state law by solomizing about two dozen weddings without a marriage license, according to New Paltz police and West's lawyer.
Chief Raymond Zappone said he and a lieutenant from the town police served a 19-count summons to West Tuesday afternoon and that the mayor faces up a $500 fine and a year in jail for his actions which have attracted international attention and brought the fight over gay marriages squarely into New York.
The actions come as West is planning to hold more ceremonies this weekend and with other officials around the state considering similar actions. It also coincides with increasing pressure on State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who last week refused a call by the governor to prevent and nullify the marriages, to step in and issue some clarifying words on the complex legal issues at play.
We'll see how this plays out. The San Francisco police are smart enought to know not to try and haul Gavin Newsome into court. It's a little bit different in upstate New York, though.
Dean often said in his speeches that he was tired of President Bush dividing us by nationality, race, creed, gender, income, and sexual orientation. Was it because he was an angry man? No, it's because he was right. Because Bush is a diveder, not a uniter.
From PlanetOut...
Saying he can't stomach President Bush's support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), a gay Republican leader in Ohio announced on Thursday he is becoming a Democrat.
In a letter to the chair of the Republican Party of Cuyahoga County, John Farina, a former official in the county's party organization and former president of the Cleveland chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, ended his 20-year association with the GOP. He also withdrew his candidacy for the Board of Elections' central committee in the March 2 primary.
Farina, 35, said in the letter that the president's announcement on Tuesday forced his decision.
"Quite frankly I'm sick over it," Farina wrote. "It is an insult to me as a lifelong Republican and it does nothing to strengthen marriage. It is an obviously political move that will do nothing but divide the nation even further. So much for Mr. Bush being a uniter."
Besides this, the fact that Bush can't even keep together his Senate Republicans against this thing is telling as to the fact that it is simply a sop to the right-wing (as if we didn't know that already).
This is not Compassionate Conservatism folks, it's Federally Mandated Hate based on Fear. So read the full text of the Hate Amendment below and think how those 51 words are in no one's best interest.
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Baylor is about the last place I would have expected this:
Back in California, San Francisco city lawyers filed a lawsuit against the state, arguing local government officials are allowed to advance their own interpretations of state constitutions.
The city also is asking Superior Court Judge James Warren to declare unconstitutional sections of the California Family Code defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, the AP reported. San Francisco officials believe barring gay marriages violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the state constitution.
The editorial board supports San Francisco's lawsuit against the state. Taking into account equal protection under the law, gay couples should be granted the same equal rights to legal marriage as heterosexual couples. Without such recognition, gay couples, even those who have co-habitated long enough to qualify as common law spouses under many state laws, often aren't granted the same protection when it comes to shared finances, health insurance and other employee benefits, and property or power of attorney rights.
Like many heterosexual couples, many gay couples share deep bonds of love, some so strong they've persevered years of discrimination for their choice to co-habitate with and date one another. Just as it isn't fair to discriminate against someone for their skin color, heritage or religious beliefs, it isn't fair to discriminate against someone for their sexual orientation. Shouldn't gay couples be allowed to enjoy the benefits and happiness of marriage, too?
Editorial board vote: 5-2
Nice. I'm sure the Baylor administration is rolling their heads.
A gay marriage ban was rejected by the Georgia State House.
The Georgia House narrowly rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage Thursday, a surprise vote that derailed the same-sex marriage question that seemed almost certain to go to voters this fall.
Proponents of the ban fell just three votes short of clearing the final legislative hurdle. The Democrat controlled House voted 117-50 in favor of the marriage ban, short of the 120 votes needed to pass a constitutional amendment.
The ban already passed the Republican Senate, and since the governor's signature isn't required to change the constitution in Georgia, the question seemed likely to head to voters for final approval this fall.
[...]
The defeat came largely because black Democrats resisted. For much of the debate, black members compared the struggle for black voting rights to the current national debate over gay rights.
The gay community certainly owes the African-American representatives in Georgia a debt of gratitue. In fact, we owe African-American elected officials a lot. Black leaders know the struggle that gays and lesbians face, and they stand with us. It's a tremendous honor to me to know that the leaders of the battle for Civil Rights a generation ago are joining us for our fight this generation. Gays and lesbians are forever indebted to the brave African-American elected officials who stand with us in our struggle. Thank you Georgia.
It's late but I'm sure that it will be in the news cycle over the weekend as I just saw the following online at Isebrand.com...
New Paltz, NY, mayor to start issuing marriage licenses today (Friday) by IseFire - Fri 02/27/04; 12:05 am EST
The village of New Paltz, NY, will start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on Friday!
Marriage Equality New York is seeing this as the time for the New York City LGBT community to demand that Mayor Bloomberg instruct the City Clerk to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as soon as possible.
Apparently, there will be at NY City Hall a press conference on Sunday (Feb 29) at 1:30 pm with community leaders and elected officials to demand that marriage licenses be issued in The Big Apple.
It's not going to go away folks. I'm wondering who is going to be next? Large cities? Small liberal hamlets? Anywhere in Texas?
One of the wonderful things about blogs is that you get to see bloggers opinions evolve as a situation changes.
A couple weeks ago, I blogged a rather tortured rationalization for why I was "on the fence" about gay marriage, one that in retrospect was a little embarassing, because while it made sense at the time, later reflection revealed it made little sense at all.
In thinking about that faux pas, I was reminded of some people's accounts of the London blitz during World War II:
For the first few days a lot of people were very frightened. I can remember my Mother-in-Law bursting into tears and putting her gas mask on that first day; she wore it for about an hour but nothing happened and she took it off again when we gave her a cup of tea and she realised she couldn't drink it with the gas mask on!
In1940 the air raids started up proper. Like lots of others down our street we had an Anderson Shelter in our garden, but it was dreadfully damp so in the end we used to sleep under our big oak table. If the air raid sirens went off in the evening we would just ignore them and carry on eating our tea or playing cards until we heard bombs getting a bit close and then we would dive under the table for cover.
For folks, such as myself, who don't have a strong personal commitment to change feel the earth move under their feet, the first reaction is near-panic (usually expressed by talking gibberish), and an inability to figure out what to do.
The responsibility that one has is to buckle down and get over it.
Ultimately, though, one has got to pick a side, because the alternative is about as practical as trying to drink tea while wearing a gas mask.
As Atrios noted, the defensive position sought out by some Democrats over the Hate Amendment is not going to work. It'd probably be better for them to take a real position on it and simply get on with their lives (despite the likelihood of being buzz-bombed by the culture warriors).
The only responsible position now is to support legalizing gay marriage in full, all or nothing. I've decided to crawl out of the bunker, and I invite our presidential candidates and congressional candidates to do the same.
Byron's post earlier today got me thinking about the issue of gay rights in this country. And as a gay American, I of course do have many thoughts on what has been happening in our country of late.
I never thought that we would have gotten to where we are today as fast as we have.
Canada going forth with gay marriage (which hasn't led to the destuction of our neighbors to the north), the falling of the sodomy laws, a presidential candidate who signed into law the highest form of recognition for same-sex couples and ran on it and almost became the nominee, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling and then reaffirming that the denial of same-sex marriage was unconstituional, a San Francisco Mayor who went forth to issue the first same sex marriages leading to another state challenge of constitutionality, a New Mexico clerk who tried the same before being told no, a Chicago Mayor who may be open to following the lead of San Francisco...
Something is happening folks, I mean, something more than just events. It feels like the beginnings of a movement, a crisis.
Maybe it is time.
Maybe it is time to stop playing the waiting game of hoping that American public opinion will shift as time wears on.
Maybe it is time to stop the wait and see approach.
Maybe it is time to realize that now is the oppertunity was have been waiting for to open up this issue to the national dialogue.
It's not going to just go away and be an election year issue only for 2004. And I think that Bush and Co. realize that too and that's why he came down on the side of pushing the Marriage Amendment. Because one way or another gay marriages are going to happen in states in this country. And those legal couples in Massachusetts are going to move to other states in the nation and are going to challenge the state DOMA laws and they will start to fall. And as they start to fall, they will challenge the national DOMA and if that falls, what else is left to deny gay marriages from being realized as the new norm?
Maybe it is time, because I believe it's going to happen and it's going to happen within the next 5 years.
But right now?
I will fight the Federal Marriage Amendment because it's morally wrong to support discrimination in our founding document. If we want to call ourselves first world leaders, we can't let this happen.
I will not vote for any candidate that supports the FMA or similar action to amend any state constitution. While I can stomach for now candidates that are not 'pro-gay marriage,' I will not vote for them if they go for the FMA. That includes you John Kerry if you decide to flip-flop your coifed up little self one more time. I live in Texas so I can vote Green and not give a damn in the general presidential election.
I believe that this family is not a threat to our national stability. I believe that this sight makes me think about the underlying frustration in the gay community. I believe these people are scary homophobes. I belive that this man doesn't deserve four more years of policy making. I believe that this governor had a bad face day. And I think that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is showing courage not often found in politicians by saying that he will risk his political career for this fight.
I also believe that this couple is still not a threat to your marriage.
Have any of you married couples felt the bonds of your love unraveling this past week? Any parents suddenly filing for divorce because of those shock waves being sent out from the East and West Coasts?
According to this National Annenberg Election Survey poll:
Group / % For / % Against
Total 41% 48%
Men 44% 46%
Women 39% 50%
Northeast 36% 50%
Midwest 41% 47%
South 48% 43%
West 36% 56%
18-29 years old 30% 58%
30-44 years old 42% 49%
45-64 years old 44% 45%
65+ years old 49% 40%
Attend church more than once a week 62% 33%
Once a week 52% 39%
Once or twice a Month 39% 47%
A few times a year 29% 59%
Never 29% 59%
Republican 57% 35%
Democrat 34% 57%
Independent 37% 52%
Has gay friend, family, or colleague 34% 56%
No gay friend, family, colleague 50% 42%
Conservative 56% 36%
Moderate 37% 52%
Liberal 26% 66%
Married or living as married 46% 43%
Others 34% 57%
High school or less 43% 45%
Some college 41% 50%
College degree or more 39% 52%
Now, the poll also shows that most Americans do oppose gay marriage, but it looks as if many Americans who might otherwise feel uneasy about gay marriage, see this proposed amendment as hateful pander to the far right.
A New Mexico county has begun issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples the AP reports:
A lesbian couple was issued a marriage license and exchanged vows outside the courthouse Friday as other same-sex couples lined up for their chance to tie the knot.
At least a half-dozen gay and lesbian couples waited outside the Sandoval County courthouse after county clerk Victoria Dunlap began issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples.
[...]
Dunlap said she made the decision after county attorney David Mathews said New Mexico law is unclear.
"This has nothing to do with politics or morals," she said. "If there are no legal grounds that say this should be prohibited, I can't withhold it. This office won't say no until shown it's not permissible."
A judge delayed until at least Friday a ruling on whether to block San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses.
The ruling occurred during the first of two such hearings Tuesday. Another judge was scheduled to hear a similar case in the afternoon.
In the early hearing, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay said he was not prepared to rule on a lawsuit filed by conservatives to block the marriages -- more than 2,300 of which have taken place since last Thursday.
Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom, said the city would continue issuing licenses until it knew the outcome of the second court hearing.
There's also talk of Santa Cruz, CA following San Francisco's lead. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:
Merrie Schaller, chair of the GLBT Alliance, a gay rights group, said the group had been considering a similar act of civil disobedience, but had planned to hold off until May. By then, the Massachusetts Legislature is required to come up with a workable gay marriage law in the wake of legal challenges. A court decision last year paved the way for the state to offer the nation’s first legally sanctioned gay marriages.
"I’m thrilled and bemused with the actions of San Francisco’s mayor, and by Saturday we will have decided whether to ask local officials to do the same," Schaller said. "This is a great Valentine’s Day present, and an even better present for Lincoln’s birthday. It’s a really good emancipation proclamation."
Marriage licenses are handled by the county recorder. County Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt said she’d be happy to help with such a campaign.
"I’m hesitant to say, ‘Yes, absolutely,’ since I don’t know what the plans are yet, but I can’t think of any reason why I wouldn’t support such a move," she said. "All people ought to have the same rights, and I’m for anything that makes it easier for people to love each other and have long and committed relationships."
In related news, the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas organized demonstrations across the state on Valentine's Day protesting marriage discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in Texas. The San Antonio Express-News reports:
Same-sex couples who applied for marriage licenses at the Travis County clerk's office Friday knew they'd be denied but wanted to make a point.
"If we were allowed, we'd be in here today just like anybody else who is preparing to marry," said Michael McClain, 38, a U.S. Postal Service employee looking forward to a Valentine's Day commitment ceremony with his partner Brad Parks, 36, an advertising copywriter.
Margy Meacham, 44, was turned away with her partner of 16 years, Nancy Hickman, 59.
"We should be able to have the same rights as everyone else and ... express our committed relationship the way that we want," Meacham said.
It fell to Betty Anderson, as division manager of recording in the clerk's office, to tell the couples what they already knew — that they couldn't get licenses.
When one applicant voiced the hope that some day the law will allow them to marry, Anderson responded quietly: "Someday, maybe. Today, no."
The demonstration — organized by the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby on the eve of Valentine's Day along with a similar event in Houston — occurred as gay marriage is at issue on the national stage.
[...]
Besides showcasing the couples' commitment, Friday's event was an opportunity to draw attention to the "basic rights" denied outside of marriage, such as making health decisions if a partner is incapacitated, said Colin Cunliff, field coordinator of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby.
There's more about the events last weekend on LGRL's website.
I'm adding the following banner to the sidebar, because it's a huge issue that we can't ignore. I'm a political pragmatist, and I wish that the whole gay marriage issue wouldn't have exploded in an election year, but it has. And it's an issue that I back 100%. It's the first major Civil Rights battle of the 21st Century and we can't back away from it. So I'd urge anyone else interested in this issue to get involved with the Human Rights Campaign project: Million for Marriage.
Same-Sex Couples Wait to Marry Longer that Spears Marriage Lasted
559 gay and lesbian couples have married in San Francisco in the past two days:
Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.
All day long, the marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate gold dome echoed with applause as one couple after another got hitched, promising to be ''spouses for life.'' As of Friday night, 559 couples had gotten married.
Gay couples received more good news when a judge denied a request by conservatives to immediately block the marriage spree, allowing the weddings to continue on Valentine's Day and through the long holiday weekend. The judge ordered attorneys to come back Tuesday and make their case.
Immediate injuctions to stop San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses failed. Conservative organizations failed to stop San Francisco from issuing marriage licenses, and marriages will continue over the weekend. The San Francisco Chronicle has the story:
Hundreds of gay and lesbian couples lined up for hours to tie the knot at San Francisco City Hall on Friday, as anti-gay marriage forces seeking to put an immediate halt to the weddings were told by a judge that they would have to wait until next week.
Lawyers for two groups filed separate lawsuits accusing Mayor Gavin Newsom and other city officials of violating state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. They said they would return to court Tuesday to seek a temporary restraining order to stop the weddings.
In the meantime, officials said they would keep City Hall open Valentine's Day and the rest of the three-day weekend for anyone who wants to get married.
[...]
"We've been waiting longer than Britney Spears' marriage lasted,'' said Andy Tabbat, who was standing in line beside his partner, Barry Wolpa.
Britney Spears has done more to damage the institution of marriage than any of the 559 gay and lesbian couples who have been married in San Francisco in the past two days have. Period end.
This is going to be one of the more painful posts I've ever had to get around to writing, but this has been turning around in my head for a while. I've probably had about 20 different opinions on this over the last year, but recent events have tended to force and crystallize the issue.
When the justices of the Massachussetts Supreme Court opined last month that the law of the land required not merely civil unions but outright gay marriage, I was stunned. I had expected the issue to hang around for 20 years or so while America got its moral house in order. After all, it was only last year that the Supreme Court struck down a discriminatory sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas; we've just now reached the point where there's a consensus in this country that gays and lesbians shouldn't be punished simply for being gays or lesbians. Which is all very exciting - now could be the time for pushing through an employment non-discrimination act and overturning bans on gay adoption.
Instead, we now have Massachusetts gridlocked in legal gobbledydook and San Francisco granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In a couple of months, the legal focus has shifted from ridding the world of out-and-out oppression and insuring equity to demanding complete equality. The gauntlet has been been thrown down; the Rubicon crossed. And this all leaves me in something of a moral dilemma.
(A note - I am shocked, absolutely shocked (in a Claude Rains kind of way, perhaps) that the City of San Francisco appears to be acting in defiance of the laws of the State of California).
I don't happen to believe that marriage, as a legal instrument, is a right for anybody, regardless of gender. I happen to strongly believe that civil union laws are a step in the right direction - because the current inability for same-sex couples to participate in marriage is a major inconvenience from a legal standpoint (to say the least). And I would accept gay marriage if it were offered as the only alternative to a life-time of higher taxes, legal insecurity, and social confusion for gay couples.
(Let's all agree - if we disagree on principle - that the status quo for gay couples outside of Vermont, Massachusetts, and San Francisco is not very pragmatic).
Along with the shift in legal focus comes a shift in rhetorical focus. You used to fall in with the liberals if you believed that gay relationships weren't inherently "bad" and were, in fact, generally a "good" thing. The debate over gay marriage, however, asks of us whether or not we happen to believe that gay marriages are equivalent to heterosexual ones.
That's a fine distinction - and one which is going to lead to a lot of dissembling on both sides. On one hand, you have those who are dead-set against gay marriage for religious reasons. While I consider myself to be somewhat conservative myself on matters of religion, I also happen to recognize the poverty of the religious argument against homosexual relationships (and that the Bible is very often the last refuge of a true scoundrel).
On the other hand, it has not pleased me that other bloggers have likened my skeptical view towards gay marriage to support of anti-miscegenation laws and racial segregation. The last time I checked, there were substantial differences between men and women, what they're capable of doing, and surely that's got to have some bearing on things. It seems to me that there is a good chance that - from a legal standpoint - there is a case for different institutions for gay and straight couples simply because each faces a separate set of needs and challenges.
It may be that I am simply being stubbornly traditional in my gender politics - perhaps even bigoted. And if so there will, I have no doubt, be called to account for those sins. But it might also be possible than in our zeal to ensure freedom and equality for everyone, we are attempting to erase some un-eraseable lines. This is something that is going to take a lot of thought and meditation, not name-calling and absolutism (Meteor Blades clearly disagrees).
That is why I get uncomfortable with shirts declaring that "marriage is a human right; not a heterosexual privilege." Because I flat-out disagree with the first part (SCOTUS opinions in Loving, Zablocki, etc. notwithstanding), and prefer to remain open-minded about the second.
Of course, there is always the hyper-libertarian solution, which is simply to ban all state-sponsored marriage. I'll never support a "Federal Marriage Amendment" that discriminates against GLBT folks (and its time for the SCOTUS to step up and nullify the federal Defense of Marriage Act, too, under a strict construction of the Full Faith and Credit clause) -- but I might support one that scrapped the whole darn institution and left it to the Church to marry people.
MA Anti-Gay Amendment Scuttled for now, 50 Couples Wed in SF
It's been quite a day. I had a chance to watch some of the Massachusetts legislature debate on C-SPAN tonight and it was quite powerful. Openly gay State Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) had a passionate speech on the topic, along with many others. In the end, opponents of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Massachusetts prevailed in blocking another vote (two amendments failed on Wednesday). With the failure to reach any agreement, the Constitutional Convention is now adjourned until March 11.
Out of the other coast, more than 50 gay and lesbian couples were married in San Francisco today. State Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) also filed a bill today entitled the California Marriage License Nondiscrimination Act, which would define marriage in California as between two persons as opposed to between a man and a women. I'm expecting lawsuits to be filed tomorrow to attempt to nullify the marriages in San Francisco, but we'll see what happens.
As the Massachusetts conventions drags on through day two after two compromise amendments failed yesterday, the city of San Francisco has decided to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples in a challenge to California law:
History was made at 11:06 a.m. today at San Francisco City Hall when Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon took their wedding vows, becoming the first same-sex couple to be officially married in the United States.
Mabel Teng, the city's assessor-recorder, officiated over the ceremony, inserting the phrase "spouse for life'' in place of "husband'' and "wife.''
"This is a very significant day for Del and Phyllis and for all of us witnessing this historic ceremony,'' Teng said before the couple recited their vows.
About 20 people witnessed the ceremony; many of them were moved to tears as the couple, who have been together for five decades, were wed.
The wedding came just two days after Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that he wanted San Francisco to take the lead in bestowing the same marriage rights to gays and lesbians as are awarded to straight couples, saying he is duty-bound to fight discrimination.
The landmark wedding, the first of many expected to be held at City Hall today, is sure to set off a legal challenge. City officials, in fact, rushed to issue the first marriage licenses to same-sex couples as quickly as possible for fear that opponents would seek a court injunction to stop them. Officials alerted only a handful of people that they were ready to act, wanting to keep it secret until the papers were signed and the "I do's'' were spoken.
The decision was made late Wednesday night, and the clerk's office spent this morning amending the marriage license documents to reflect the change.
In place of "bride'' and "groom'' on the application were the words "1st applicant'' and "2nd applicant.''
After Martin, 83, and the 79-year-old Lyon were declared spouses for life, three other couples were lined up, awaiting their turn to take marriage vows.
Lyon, who will celebrate her 51st anniversary with Martin on Saturday, Valentine's Day, got a call Wednesday from Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, asking her if she'd be willing to take the plunge.
It's funny how Gavin Newsome was attacked by liberals and Greens as a conservative in San Francisco's recent mayoral election where Newsome narrowly defeated Green Matt Gonzalez. It's amazing how quickly the gay marriage is exploding into the public debate. You bet it'll be an election issue and Democrats will have an interesting balancing act to do.
Update: The picture seen on Daily Kos is in my next post, here.
I wish C-SPAN could have been there. This would have been fun to watch. Today the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention convened to propose and debate constitutional amendments. Topping the list of items on the agenda was a constitutional amendment to bad gay marriage. Today their were votes on two proposed compromise amendments (a bipartisan Senate compromise which would ban gay marriage but mandate Civil Unions with all the same benefits of marriage for gay couples, and the amendment proposed by conservative Democratic MA House Speaker Thomas Finneran which would ban gay marriage but would allow the legislature to enact legislation for Civil Unions). The first compromise amendment failed by a 104-94 margin with opposition from opponents of Civil Unions on the right and opposition from supporters of gay marriage on the left. The second amendmet failed by a 100-98 vote with united support from conservatives, but opposition from supporters of gay marriage and Civil Unions on the left. There will be a vote on an amendment banning gay marriage "or its legal equivalent". My guess is that this will fail by a larger margin as moderates supporting the compromise will probably oppose such a far-reaching amendment. On the other hand, another vote on the first compromise (banning gay marriage but mandating Civil Unions) might be successful if conservatives who opposed it the first time vote for it since they would surely rather see Civil Unions than gay marriage. In order for the Massachusetts constitution to be amended, an amendment must be passed by two consecutive legislatures (simple majority vote) and then approved by the voters (so a vote would be no earlier than 2006). For more information on the process, go here.
For the best coverage of the convention, check out the Boston Globe.
For the text of the proposed amendments, go here.
For a roll call on the Finneran amendment (which failed 100-98), go here.
From quotes from the debate today, go here.
And finally, for an overview of the day, go here.
Fascinating debate. I'll be watching to see what happens.
Even though it is well known by now that I'm no fan of John Kerry, I was beginning to warm to him, ever so slightly.
I spoke too soon.
Today, I heard on NPR online a clip of John Kerry being interviewed on major policy questions (wow, a first of late) instead of stupid electibility arguments.
From the following interview with Melissa Block(around the 2 minute mark) titled "Leading Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry outlines his stance on gay marriage and answers allegations of special-interest connections."
(My apologies if this isn't exactly word for word, I did my best to transcribe.)
MB: I'd like to turn to the subject of gay marriage, uh, the highest court in your home state of Massachusetts, has said that same-sex couples do have the right to marry. I know that you have said you oppose gay marriage but would you support a Constitutional Amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union?
JK: Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. I'm for civil union, I'm for partnership rights. I think what ought to condition this debate is not the term marriage but.... etc.
My problem isn't that he isn't for outright gay marriage (some day we will get there with our major candidates. Bless you Kucinich, Sharpton, and Moseley-Braun) but that his stance on a Federal Marriage Amendment Depends Entirely On the Language???
John Kerry, in the words of Nancy Reagan, why didn't you "Just Say No?"
As this cycle's polished 'insider guy', I have a hard time believing that it was a slip of the tongue. This is a no brainer Kerry- no matter what the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment is, we don't need it written into the Constitution.
You bravely stood up against DOMA. What gives now? This is not an issue that is going to just go away. If anything, if you are the nominee, you will have to face this even more so than anyone else since it is your home state and the National Convention is in Boston.
I'm not a one issue voter, but if anything gets close to it, GLBT issues hit closest to home for me.
Why are people straight? How do they know that they're straight? How could they possibly know? Well, here's 27 questions (PDF file) for all of you heterosexuals out there....
The Massachusetts Supreme Court has issued an opinion to the MA State Senate stating that civil unions will not pass constitutional muster, and that the only option for the legislature is gay marriage. CNN reports:
The Massachusetts high court ruled Wednesday that only full, equal marriage rights for gay couples -- rather than civil unions -- would be constitutional, erasing any doubts that the nation's first same-sex marriages could take place in the state beginning in mid-May.
The court issued the opinion in response to a request from the state Senate about whether Vermont-style civil unions, which convey the state benefits of marriage -- but not the title -- would meet constitutional muster.
"The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal," the four justices who ruled in favor of gay marriage wrote in the advisory opinion. A bill that would allow for civil unions, but falls short of marriage, makes for "unconstitutional, inferior, and discriminatory status for same-sex couples."
The much-anticipated opinion sets the stage for next Wednesday's constitutional convention, where the Legislature will consider an amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Without the opinion, Senate President Robert Travaglini had said the vote would be delayed.
Well, I'm happy, but worried. On one hand, gay marriage rights in Massachusetts will get people used to the idea of gay marriage and the rest of the country will eventually realize that, in fact, gay marriage does not effect the love and bond that a man and a women share in a traditional marriage. The real threat to traditional marriage is not the fact that gay and lesbian couples want the same equal rights and protections under the law, but rather the fact that there are millions of American families and children without health insurance, that there are millions of families and children in poverty and that the half of all traditional marriages end in divorce. Those are much bigger problems than gays and lesbians demanding equal rights.
On the other hand, I'm worried. I'm worried that this will add more fuel to the fire. I'm worried that this increases the likelihood of Republicans running a fear based campaign where they'll attack Democrats on social issues because if this election is about accountability in Iraq, or the economy and jobs, Democrats are well positioned to win. If this election is about fear among many Whites about affirmative action, fear among moderates and conservatives about gays and lesbians abducting their children, fear about the constant threat of terrorist attacks (when it was the Bush administration that didn't adequately prepare us for such attacks pre-9/11), then Republicans can win this election. With John Kerry as our likely nominee, you bet that they'll attack him as a Massachusetts liberal whose state is legalizing gay marriage. They'll introduce a U.S. Constitutional amendment, which is unlikely to receive a two-thirds majority vote in the U.S. Senate, but they'll force every Democrat to go on the record with they're vote and they'll attack every Democrat relentlessly who votes against an amendment. It'll be a tough election, but I'm ready to come out swinging for whoever our nominee is. The stakes are too high to stay home and sit around.
Nothing like another wedge issue. I was happy that the vast majority of Democrats remained seated during this, as most Republicans rose to applaud Bush as he called for a constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage:
On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
Good for the Democats. The right-wing will never get 67 votes in the senate. A majority, maybe, but no way they get 67. Gay marriage will happen in America. It's only a matter of time. Who would have thought ten or twenty years ago that gay people like myself could live openly and be loved and accepted by my family and friends, gay and straight, at work and in school. I am, and I'm proud of that. And I'm grateful for the gay and lesbian activists that came before me that have given me the opportunities and acceptance that I have today, and while I realize that gay marriage in America is a incremental process, it will happen in my lifetime.
Strike fear in the hearts of evil-doers and vote for either legalized gay marriage or "civil unions" in this online poll by the American Family Association ("We're not anti-gay, we're just against the radical homosexual agenda!").
As of the moment, the options two (legalized marriage) and three (civil unions) hold a 53 percent combined-majority.
Though I wrote this entry two years ago on my personal site, I think it is still appropriate for today, December 1.
I cannot say that I write this entry today in honor of World AIDS Day for I feel sad that such a day should be honored. It is sad that such a day should have to exist. It is sad that I know that this day will continue to exist. For years to come.
That said, I write.
I have not ever had to deal with AIDS. I do not know of anyone close that has died of AIDS. I do not know of anyone close that has AIDS.
But I am blind to the world. I know that even though I have not been affected by AIDS, I have been.
And that makes me sad.
I have not known the pain- the pain of those that suffer from the disease, the pain of those families who know a friend is dying, the pain of those who have gone to the funeral of a friend. Or lover.
I have not known the hate that has been directed toward HIV+ people. I have not known the discrimination they have undergone because of the simple change from a - to a + after HIV.
I do not know the boy who is wasting away on the streets of a big city, because they have no life left, because their family has outcast them because of their orientation. I do not know that boy who ended up dying of AIDS because his parents could not accept him for who he was in the first place. I do not know the girl who is alone and quite and dying from AIDS because she sells herself to make money, not to buy AIDS drugs to save her life, but to buy food so that she has a life to save.
But what I do know is that too many people are ignoring these people, ignoring these stories, ignoring the facts.
I do know that my generation is ignorant. How can we be so naive as to deem ourselves invincible? How can we be so unforgiving? How can we forget?
We can forget because we never knew.
But that is no excuse. Because excuses are what end up spreading this plague.
Let this be not just a day that is forgotten once it passes. Let this not just be a month in which we just casually think about it. Let this be a reminder, an everlasting reminder, of what has and is happening so that we may be able to stop it from continuing to happen tomorrow.
ONE ARGUMENT against gay marriage is that most Americans oppose it. It has never been condoned by common law. Many Americans view homosexuality as immoral and contrary to God's law. They believe, and sometimes cite allegedly scientific evidence to show, that children raised by gay or lesbian parents fare worse than those raised by a mother and a father.
One difficulty with such argumentation is that much the same was true, earlier in U.S. history, of interracial marriage. It was illegal in most states. Many or most Americans believed it to be wrong, unnatural and perhaps contrary to God's law. Volumes of scientific data were marshaled to prove that children resulting from such marriages were deficient.
It is only the beginning, via a headline on DrudgeReport this past day...
Gay Marriage Protestors follow Dean to Iowa JJ Dinner, hosted by Hillary. These people were getting geared up even before the Ruling was announced.
While we need to and certainly will have a debate on civil unions, civil marriage, civil rights...by no means will it all be "civil."
Of course, I also find it interesting that the Cable Networks have already lost interest in the gay marriage story and have found Michael Jackson to replace it. I don't know whether to laugh, or cry.
Breaking news today that will be sure to consume the national media for a good while. They knew it was coming, but the question is, are they ready for it?
Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
I wait to see where Bush goes with either supporting or distancing himself from the conservative movement that is pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which is sure to go hysterical pretty quick here.
Well, the Dallas Morning News has responded in an interesting way to Steve Blow's column bashing Queer Eye for the Straight Guy:
And this is one straight guy who wouldn't let those Queer Eye guys anywhere near him. I could use their help. I just couldn't stand all their yapping.
So what does the Dallas Morning News do after the aforementioned column by the normally pro-gay Steve Blow? They decide to do their own version of Queer Eye... and it's a good thing. This guy needed some help:
There I was, sitting at my desk, when the fashionistas of The Dallas Morning News made me an offer:
"We want you to be the straight guy in our version of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."
Whoa! Not the sort of assignment one usually gets. My first reaction was apprehension bordering on "NOOOOOOO!" So I decided to ask friends and co-workers what they would do, were the same invitation hurled their way.
The style-scrambled straight guy: Dallas Morning News reporter Michael Granberry in his cluttered cubicle the morning of his "make better."
"Are you nuts?" roared The Doog, my buddy in Anchorage.
"Geez, Louise," muttered T.K. in Houston. "You're not tryin' to be one of them metrosexuals, are ya?"
But colleague Teresa Gubbins put it all in perspective. "God forbid that you of all people should learn something about style!" she said, her metallic blue hair shaking in indignation.
Well, Teresa was right. What would I, a 51-year-old Plano father of four boys – who loves watching Cowboys football from a well-worn couch, and whose clothing of choice is $19 Costco pants – have to lose?
After all, isn't that the reason Queer Eye for the Straight Guy is a runaway hit, splitting time between the Bravo cable network, where it's the most-watched show in the channel's history, and an even wider audience on NBC? Gay guys really do have a lot to teach straight guys about style.
Aside from that, the fashionistas' offer was flattering. I was picked in part, they said, for having recently lost 80 pounds, following the wisdom of my physician, Sarah Payberah, who for my money is the best doctor in America.
Ready for his close-up: The new and improved Michael Granberry in his new and improved cubicle.
A voice inside me kept urging: Maybe it's time for a whole new look . (Besides, Queer Eye for the Fat Guy probably wouldn't work.)
So there I was, about to spend an entire day with five members of Dallas' gay community, who groove on putting the "S" in style, whether it's hair or threads or candle-lit romantic dinners or how really cool one's workspace can be.
For a day at least, I had to forget the couch, the Cowboys, even Costco. I was asked to embrace a whole new glossary, taking on such concepts as "product" and "exfoliate" and "self-tanning."
Our initial meeting offered a glimpse of the day to come.
"When this is all over, guys," I said, "I think it's only fair to turn the tables and spend a day Bubbafying you."
"Yeah, right," said David Nelson, chosen to jazz up my cubicle at work. "We've already done that. They call it high school!!!"
The day began with John Clutts driving me to Orange, a trendy salon in Deep Ellum. I rode shotgun in his BMW.
"Where the heck is the CD player?" I asked.
"In here," he said, flipping open a door that gave way to the full-bodied voice of Christine Andreas. I haven't heard acoustics like that since my wife dragged me to the Meyerson. But sorry, John, not exactly my kind of music.
"Got anything by the Eagles?" I asked.
"Sure," he said derisively. "ON VINYL!!!"
Walking into Orange felt like being in a gay version of UT heaven. Orange was everywhere, even on the bottles of "product" they begged me to take home. John introduced me to L.B. Rosser, a stylist for the Kim Dawson Agency, who introduced me to Todd Allen, the owner of Orange and The One Who Would Cut My Hair.
Todd looked at me curiously and asked, "Where do you get your hair cut?"
"Mesquite!" I replied, prompting Todd and L.B. to stare at each other and then nod sympathetically, as if I had blurted out, "Well, actually, I've only been homeless for five years."
Soon, he was cutting and shaping my "too round" coif, vowing "not to make you look like Marlene Dietrich. But, then, you won't look like Ward Cleaver anymore, either."
When Todd got done, I had to admit I really dug the new look, even though a co-worker said I looked "like the David Bowie of Plano."
"Oh, what the hell," I said. "Have you checked out Bill Parcells and that Billy Idol blondness he's been wearing? If it's all right for him, it's all right for me."
Next, we were on to the West Village, where we paid a visit to Regimens owner Tom Granese. Regimens is one of those too-hip shops where men can get even more "product," this time for the face. Here, we entered into a whole new adventure, in the land of Exfoliate.
"So what kind of shaving cream do you use?" Tom asked.
"Gillette Foamy!" I said, to which Tom responded with a wince. And that was subtle compared to L.B.'s reaction.
"I am shocked and appalled!" said the stylist, giving me the kind of look judges reserve for three-time offenders.
Face it, Tom said, there is a better way, and handed me a bottle of "men-u," as if allowing me to cradle the Holy Grail. "It's an ultraconcentrated shave cream," he said, almost reverently. "Just a couple of pumps, and then lather it on."
What I discovered is that a wee bit of men-u goes a long way, meaning that if my 10-year-old and 7-year-old ever find it, my whole dang house could float away.
But Tom wasn't done. He trotted out Maxwell's Apothecary To Tone, Jack Black Double-Duty Face Moisturizer, Baxter of California Under-Eye Complex, and L.B.'s favorite, a wicked little bottle of "California North Titanium Self-Tanner... for the whole face and body."
"Hey, guys, I've got one question," I said. "Where do you find the time for all this?"
"We make the time," L.B. said. "Because we care."
Do I care enough to keep using this stuff? Hard to say. They gave me so many bottles, it's hard to keep 'em all straight. To devote that much time to my face, I'd have to give up watching SportsCenter in the morning.
OK, guys, one other question: "How can I incorporate what I'm learning here with one of my Cowboys-watching parties, you know, when the buddies come over?"
L.B. was the first to speak up.
"How about a hot-wing-and self-tanning party!"
Natalie Caudill / DMN
Goodbye to the bowl: Michael gets a haircut from Orange salon owner Todd Allen while grooming expert L.B. Rosser touts the merits of "product."
If it's true that clothes make the man, I needed major reconstruction, something on the order of an urban renewal project. In the past seven months, my waistline has shrunk 12 inches, my coat size 10, my neck almost 4. I've been stalking the racks at Costco, hoping for the cheapest "in-between" look I could find before reaching my final weight-loss goal of an even 100 pounds.
But Josh Goldfarb had other ideas. An undergraduate at Southern Methodist University and young enough to be my son, he took me to Banana Republic in the West Village, where, after an hour of trying on what seemed like half the store, I emerged with a sleek gray sweater, navy-blue pin-stripe pants, a brown suede jacket a young Marlon Brando might have worn and black boots that looked like hand-me-downs from the early Beatles.
Kudos to Josh. Several months ago, my walrusy clothes made me look like Andy Rooney on a good day, Omar the Tentmaker on a bad one.
For a while at least, I even got to feel like Brando.
Natalie Caudill / DMN
Chef Todd Erickson shows Michael how to put the finishing touches on a fall salad at Gourmet a go-go!
We moved on to a really cool store on McKinney Avenue called Design Within Reach, where "studio proprietor" Matt Wilkerson showed me a Mirra chair by Herman Miller. (Back at the office, David Nelson was redesigning my cubicle with a band of Milleresque items that managed to impress even my prone-to-heckle co-workers.)
Design Within Reach is full of chairs and clocks and lamps that could change even Dilbert's image. Before getting to see what the amazing Mr. Nelson had done with its product, we lunched at Paris Vendome, which we followed with a trip to Gourmet a go-go!, where we met executive chef Todd Erickson. Todd, who is one mean cook, had "designed" the romantic meal I would bring home to Nancy, my wife. Hardly your ordinary takeout, it was fat years removed from the Whataburger "Double Double with cheese" I used to cart home on a nightly basis.
Todd had whomped up an awesome salad of mixed greens, feta, toasted hazelnuts and plum vinaigrette; steak and parsnips and asparagus; and a killer dessert of mission figs, raspberries and vanilla custard.
As they used to say about Nolan Ryan's fastball, "This guy can bring it."
Josh Goldfarb helps Michael into a Banana Republic suede jacket, while John Clutts offers encouragement.
Back at the office, my cubicle had become a swooned-over, eye-popping coolicle. It had a clean, unfettered look that made one want to sit and create something immediately. So different from my workspace at home, which often looks like downtown Mosul.
Mr. Nelson had replaced my clunky PC with a really cool Apple Power Mac G5 and converted my ragtag collection of refrigerator magnets into an op-art parade. He even brought in a real blue fish that swam in a bowl on the corner of the desk.
All in all, what a day. And then, of course, time to go home. With the kids in bed, my wife and I rolled out the meal from Todd, lit the candles and put on the music. John had suggested a compromise between her choice of tunes (Mandy Patinkin) and mine (Jackson "Running on Empty" Browne). And what do you know? There really is a middle ground.
So we listened instead to Norah Jones, whose "Come Away With Me" put me to sleep. I was, after all, even more fatigued than that little blue fish.
As I said to John at the end of the day, "I'm glad I'm not gay... 'cause, hey, dude, this is damn hard work."
And then his BMW roared into the sunset, as the voice of Christine Andreas filled the night air with the promise of improvement.
This is good news. I've followed Jacques career a little bit, as she ran for Congress when Joe Moakley died. She lost the race, but she's been a great advocate in Massachusetts:
Democratic Massachusetts state senator Cheryl Jacques will be leaving her seat to lead the nation's largest lesbian and gay political organization. Jacques, who has been in the statehouse since 1992, will become president and executive director of the Human Rights Campaign after the current leader steps down at the end of the year. The organization selected Jacques after a 10-month search.
"It was a difficult decision, but we firmly believe that Cheryl has the right mix of experience and vision to write this next chapter in our civil rights history," HRC Board co-chairman Tim Boggs said in a statement.
A former prosecutor, Jacques, 41, has been one of the most high-profile members of the 40-member Senate, filing numerous bills each year on hot-button issues. Jacques ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2001 in the race to replace the late U.S. Rep. Joseph Moakley, D-Mass. Jacques, who is the mother of twin boys with her partner, will replace current executive director Elizabeth Birch.
I'm looking forward to hearing more at the HRC Black Tie Dinner in Dallas next weekend. Jacques has huge shoes to fill, as current ED Elizabeth Birch has brought the HRC from a relatively uninfluencial fringe group to one of the largest and most respected progressive lobbying and educational organizations in Washington politics.
The Episcopal Church consecrated V. Gene Robinson as bishop in a heartfelt ceremony Sunday, making him the first openly gay man to rise to that rank in any of the world's major Christian bodies.
Who will be next? Presbyterrians? Methodists? It's only a matter of time...
The anniversary of Matthew Sheppard's death falls one day before my birthday so I have always remembered far too many facts about that horrible event five years ago. I also tend to be interested in any news reports that have something to do with it as a result.
I read the following today via the Advocate.
Fred Phelps, antigay pastor at Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., announced plans Wednesday to place monuments denouncing slain gay University of Wyoming student Matthew Shepard in cities and towns across the nation. The monument, which proclaims that Shepard is in hell, will be placed in cities that have Ten Commandments monuments on display in publicly owned facilities, Phelps said.
"We are going to pockmark this nation from sea to shining sea with this message on the monument: 'Matthew Shepard entered hell October the 12th, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's warning, Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination--Leviticus 18:22,'" Phelps said in a telephone interview. "That is the message this nation needs, whether it knows it or not or whether it wants it or not. And that's the message we are determined the nation is going to receive."
Don't tell me that hate doesn't exisit in America today.
Don't tell me that some of the Republicans pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment don't have values rooted in the same acre of land as Phelps. Not all of them do, but some I am sure of- they just don't open their mouths in the same way.
This was from a couple of weeks ago, but I recently read of Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow's column on his "gay fatigue". Now, I'll start off by saying that I've always liked Steve Blow. In fact, he's one of my favorite Morning News columnists. I've tended to find his columns interesting and insightful. I've emailed him twice, once complimenting him for a well-written column on underage drinking, and once criticizing him for his characterization of anti-war protesters. Both times I received a thoughtful response.
Anyway, Steve Blow wrote that he has gay fatigue:
I think I have "gay fatigue."
Don't worry, it's not catching. But I suspect that many of you have contracted it, too.
Let's talk.
Remember a few years ago when there was lots of talk about "compassion fatigue"? The news confronted us with so many problems, so the theory went, that our ability to feel compassion simply wore out.
If nothing else, it made a nice excuse for indifference.
But to some degree, it also made sense. And that's why I think I'm now suffering from gay fatigue. I'm just feeling kind of overwhelmed.
My moment of self-diagnosis came recently when I was looking through a list of upcoming movies on the Sundance Channel. That's a cable TV channel that shows independent films.
The movie descriptions read something like this:
"... the story of a brooding young lesbian coming to terms with her sexuality in the 1950s."
"... the story of a misunderstood gay teen confronting homosexuality, gangs and poor decorating in Brooklyn."
"... the story of a transgendered Jewish poet's struggle to reconcile love, faith and verse."
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. But I sure didn't want to watch.
I know I have a fairly acute case of gay fatigue because I have lost the will to watch Will & Grace.
Jack, who once seemed so funny, now just seems annoying. One less penis joke per episode would probably help.
And this is one straight guy who wouldn't let those Queer Eye guys anywhere near him. I could use their help. I just couldn't stand all their yapping.
Well, Steve, I really have three words for you. Deal with it. I don't mean that in a vindictive way at all, but rather as a reality of life. The fact of the matter is that the gay community (and our allies) are winning the culture war. We've seen media and culture undergo a massive transformation in the past 10-20 years from basically ignoring homosexuality at best and demeaning homosexuals as predators (or characterizing all homosexuals in mostly negative stereotypes) at worst.
Now conservatives out there will say that Steve's right, here - that the media and Hollywood are obsessed with gay themes. Maybe so, but I have another suggestion. Perhaps the media has realized something else. Gay themes sell. People are interested. Why else has Will & Grace become so popular? Or Queer Eye?
Well a couple reasons. One, gay themes are new. A lot of people find them entertaining, and probably most importantly, they sell. As for being new, until the mid-90s gay subjects were largely taboo in television and movies. It wasn't until movies like "Philadelphia" (1993), "The Birdcage" (1996) and "In & Out" (1997) and Ellen DeGeneres' 1997 coming out that gay themes really emerged as "acceptable" and "normal" for television and movies. That reality in the late 1990's of the acceptability to middle America of gay themed movies and television in mainstream media has probably done more for the gay rights movement than anything else in my lifetime. Heck, I remember being in 8th grade when Ellen came out. It was shocking. Her show may have been cancelled, but she led the way for Will & Grace (1998) to Queer as Folk (2001) and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (2003). Sure, shows like Queer as Folk that show rather explicit gay sex scenes will generate a backlash, but does it really say anything more about gay people than Sex and the City says about straight people? Hardly. Queer Eye is probably one of the best gay themed television shows because (despite perpetuation of some gay stereotypes, although not in a negative way as it shows the gay men as happy, successful and confident) it shows gay men helping straight men improve themselves so that they can become a better father / husband / boyfriend, etc. It really reflects the reality of the 21st century where gays and lesbians have become integrated into mainstream, heterosexual society (a trend that I and most gay people see as a good thing).
Movies have undergone a similar transition in the past decade as well. Philadelphia didn't ruin Tom Hanks' career. Instead, it got him an Oscar. Just as television has been willing to go more daring, so have movies, now willing to tackle transgenered themes "Boys Don't Cry" (1999) and other complex themes, "The Hours" (2003).
For the first three decades of the modern-day gay rights movement (late 60s through late 90s) the average American had little exposure to gays and lesbians. Many Americans saw all gays and lesbians as represented by the most flamboyant and radical elements of gay pride parades on the news. While the gay community scored many political victories, it was only until the late 1990s when the gay community scored a critical cultural / social victory: the normalization of gays and lesbians into popular culture and mass media.
Susan Wloszczyna of USA Today examined the phenomenon this summer:
If you recently caught a movie at the multiplex, clicked on the TV remote or saw a Broadway show, you might have noticed the world looks a lot more gay lately.
And we aren't just talking about happy and carefree.
Suddenly, with little fanfare or fuss, mainstream entertainment has fallen head over heels for gays and lesbians, and the occasional transgender or bisexual counterpart, with an embrace that goes beyond the passing flirtations of the past.
A subject long explored and exploited by niche venues such as independent films, pay cable and off-Broadway, the gay infatuation started to grow more serious about a decade ago. Before the box-office novelty wore off, major Hollywood studios milked homosexuality for obvious laughs and mawkish tears in "The Birdcage," "Philadelphia" and "In & Out." The AIDS-themed stage drama "Angels in America" won a Pulitzer and Ellen DeGeneres came out of her sitcom closet.
That was then.
This, however, is now: Barbara Walters experimentally locks lips with Julianne Moore, emulating her Oscar-nominated role as a sexually confused '50s homemaker in "The Hours." "American Idol" host Ryan Seacrest and judge Simon Cowell josh each other with blatant gay banter. Willow the witch (Alyson Hannigan) and her female companion didn't settle for the usual peck on the lips on the third-to-last episode of UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
That's just prime-time TV in the past couple of months.
[...]
Gay entertainment is no longer a ponderous check-off list of historical landmarks that elicit protests and piety. It also can be pure, simple fun - like Bravo's new dating show, "Boy Meets Boy," starting in July. The trick: Some of the contestants are straight ringers.
"There's been an enormous change if you compare what's out there with what was out there 15 years ago," observes gay playwright and screenwriter Paul Rudnick ("In & Out," "Jeffrey"). "Back then, we had no visible gay characters or the ones we did have were used only in angsty docudrama situations to illustrate their sad, lonely lives. Now we are in the era of 'Will & Grace,' and that's been a great leap. To be successful, a movie or show has to appeal to general consumers and everyone wants to watch 'Will & Grace.' I mean, Madonna didn't turn up on 'Everybody Loves Raymond.' "
The attitude shift is a natural progression, says Scott Seomin, entertainment watchdog and spokesman for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation.
"As more and more people come out in this country, the more straight people know a co-worker, a friend or a family member who is gay," Seomin says. "They are going to learn that the gay community is just as human as the straight world. They want to learn more about their lives."
Plus, today's youth - a prime target for advertisers, who also are catering more to well-off and well-educated gay consumers - tend to be more open-minded if not blase about such matters.
" 'X-Men' is based on the exploration of the differences between people," says Lisa Dombrowski, assistant professor of film studies at Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. "Do we celebrate those who are different or fear and attack them? It resonates with any teen since they all feel different."
She adds, "This is a generation that has grown up with more images of gays, lesbians, transgender and bisexuals. The issue isn't one of shock. It's one of why aren't we seeing the entire truth."
[...]
- On TV. The popularity of "Will & Grace," about a straight woman and a gay man who are best friends, is long established. Next season, though, ABC goes a step beyond with its new culture-clash sitcom, tentatively titled "It's All Relative." The setup: A woman raised by two liberal gay men is engaged to the son of Irish Catholic conservatives who run a bar.
Executive producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan say it was network executives who felt the time was right for a sitcom with gay parents.
"This is the first time we've seen gay parenting on network TV with a committed couple," says Zadan of the series written by two "Frasier" alums. "If you look at other shows, the men are barely dating. These two guys have spent a long time raising a child." The final shot in the pilot says it all: A split screen with both sets of parents snuggling in their shared beds.
[...]
There are still milestones to be met, but they're noted with toned-down hoopla. A possibility for midseason on ABC is "Mr. and Mr. Nash," about gay interior decorators who solve murders. Think "Hart to Hart" with a killer design sense. Says Cumming, who is one Mr. Nash, "It would be the first time on TV where gay people would be in a show and it wouldn't be about them being gay."
After the success of its male-oriented "Queer as Folk," Showtime will unveil the first lesbian-focused series, "The L-Word," next year.
So there's your answer, Steve. Gay themes sell because more and more people know gay people and are intrigued by them (even if "Boy Meets Boy" (2003) was a flop - anyone else have Reality TV fatigue?). Gay themes play well with younger audiences because, well, younger audiences are much more liberal on gay issues and younger people tend to go to the movies a lot. Finally, gay money has a lot to do with it. Gays and lesbians have been targetted by advertizers in recent years. And campaigns like the Stop Dr. Laura campaign and the campaign to get Michael Savage off of TV prove the seriousness in which advertizers and networks take the buying power of the gay community.
That normalization of gay themes in the media in the past decade has had many effects, and inevitably will lead to something of a backlash even by some people that consider themselves "supporters" of the gay and lesbian community. But the positive effects greatly outweigh the negative effects. Polls show that the majority of people 18-25 support gay marriage by a small majority and almost every other gay rights issue overwhelmingly. Why? Because today young people are growing up in a country with Gay Straight Alliances, with Will & Grace, with gay themed movies, with openly gay and lesbian neighbors and friends and most importantly with an open debate in America about homosexuality. It may make some older folks a little nervous, but so did every other battle for equality before us. The Civil Rights movement, the Women's Equality movement and about every other one made a lot of people nervous. But people got over it. If Steve Blow or anyone else doesn't want to watch Queer Eye, or it makes you nervous.... change the channel. It's not rocket science.
To be fair to Steve, he does support gay rights politically. He's wrote: "So thank goodness for all the progress that has been made in righting wrongs." He followed up several days later writing "Boy am I dumb" as his headline. No shit. By writing that he was tired of all the "gay stuff", he opened himself up to attacks from both the left and the right, perpetuating discussion of an issue that he's tired of. From the gay community, opinion has ranged from agreement to calling Blow a bigot. I'd say that I'm in the middle there. Steve Blow is not a bigot. He's generally pro-gay, but expressed some of his concerns about homosexuality in a somewhat insensitive manner. I'll still read him and respect him, but I'd caution him to think twice before he suggests that there be a "National Please Shut Up Day" again.
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling this summer declaring sodomy laws to be unconstitutional, we realized how little pieces of law, even if rarely enforced, can be a big deal. They can be used as support for continuing discrimination in other legal battles and of course the death of the sodomy laws chapped a few conservative's collective arses...
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday."
Fast forward to a couple days ago and read the following clip from this article about students being denied the ability to start a Gay-Straight Alliance in Lubbock.
"I would have denied other clubs whose basis was sex," Jack Clemmons, who was the school superintendent in Lubbock at the time, said in an affidavit filed in connection with the case. "I would have denied a Bestiality Club. I would have denied a Gigolo Club. I would have denied a Prostitute Club. Likewise, I would deny any club that has as its basis an illegal act, such as the Marijuana Club, Kids for Cocaine, the Drinking Club, etc."
...
"Lawyers for the school district argue that the Equal Access Act permits schools to override students' free speech rights and forbids clubs if they jeopardize students' well-being. In support of that argument, they cite a little-known section of the Texas Penal Code that prohibits gay activity between youths younger than 17. Allowing a Gay-Straight Alliance amounts to giving students license to break the law, said Ann Manning, an attorney for the school district."
Though I can't find the exact penal code that this refers to, I believe it is there in the midst of the age of consent statues. It is once again, one of those small sections of code that is rarely enforced but used to enlist a legal argument in aid of homophobia.
In addition, the basis for denying the club is so far off base. Since when have GSAs become clubs for sex? That charge is used simply to provide an excuse to demonize homosexuals and feed the public the same old lines about "gays only want sex" and are a part of a greater sexual perversion. Gigolos? Bestiality? Prostitutes?
This classifies as Santorumesque in my view. And the sad thing is he probably believes it all.
WHERE WERE THE REPUBLICANS? At the Senate hearings yesterday on whether the Defense of Marriage Act is in trouble and a Federal Marriage Amendment is necessary, no fewer than two - count them - two Republican senators bothered to show up. Five Democrats did. One Republican stayed for only a few minutes. I think we may have seen exactly what's going on here. No serious legal scholar thinks that one state can impose marriage rights on another, under current law. Despite disingenuous attempts to claim otherwise, the Full Faith and Credit Clause has never applied to marriages and still doesn't. DOMA makes sure that federal marriage rights are exclusively heterosexual. This entire FMA charade is entirely designed as theater for the fundamentalist base of the GOP. It seems even the Senate leadership can't take it seriously. I'm grateful, of course. But if I were one of the fundamentalists trying to amend the U.S. Constitution, I'd be more than a little perturbed.
Sullivan also praised former Republican Senator Alan Simpson's piece today in the Washington Post.
Is it too late for the Republican congress to trade Cornyn conservatism for Simpson sympathy?
Mark Foley is out of the race for U.S. Senate from Florida. Via Political Wire. And who called it back in May?
Mark Foley has a choice to make. He can come out, continue his Senate campaign, and we'll witness a holy war in the Florida Republican primary next year, or he can come out, see the writing on the wall, and just run for re-election to the House, where his south Florida constituents don't care too much about what he does in private. Or, Foley can continue to say that his private life is his own business, and continue to get hounded by the media on a daily basis. Or, Foley can flat out deny that he's gay - something that would look quite foolish after Thursday's news conference. Needless to say, I wouldn't want to be in his position right now. Thank god I never will be. Democrats don't hate gay people.
Mark Foley is a closet-case gay Republican. I don't claim to know for certain, but the evidence is there. Foley has managed to save face by claiming that he needs to care for his father with cancer:
U.S. Rep. Mark Foley is ending his dream of becoming Florida's next U.S. senator.
His father has cancer and Foley, choking back tears, said Thursday night, “He's always been there for me and I have to be there for him.”
In an emotional interview with The Palm Beach Post, Foley, his voice quavering, talked about the the intensity of a statewide race, the demands on his time and the enormous need he feels to help his father, Ed, and mother, Frances, both in their 80s and in poor health.
Certainly, I respect anyone who gives up their time, money, ambition, etc. to care for their parents. If my parents were sick or dying, I'd gladly make sacrifices to help care for them. But that's not the point. It's a cover. I mean, you don't go out, raise millions of dollars in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be a senator, then just give up. And even his parents asked him to stay in the race. Personally, I think that the guy has realized that gay people can't win a Republican primary. It just won't happen. Especially in a statewide race. I could be wrong, but I smell a cover-up. Anyone else have any thoughts?
I have the #8 Lesbian car! Yeah, I drive a Ford Ranger. So what are the gayest cars, you ask? The ultimate lesbian car is the Subaru Outback and the ultimate gay car is the VW Jetta. Nice. Gotta love Car Talk. Found via TX Woof, a new site which I found on my referrals page. Thanks for the link!
The Lubbock Independent School District is using two main arguments to defend itself against a lawsuit filed by a gay student organization. One, the district's long-standing abstinence policy. And two, the crime of child sex.
The LISD filed a response to the lawsuit in federal court. The gay student organization says it's fighting for equal rights.
This all dates back to last fall when the organization asked Lubbock High if it could post flyers and make announcements over the PA about its meetings. Their request was denied by the principal, then the assistant superintendent and finally the school board.
Then, earlier this month, a New York based law firm representing the gay student group took the issue to federal court.
The lawsuit claims the LISD violated the Equal Rights Act, which bars discrimination against any group based on their viewpoints. This week, the LISD responded by stating, '...LISD has adopted a longstanding abstinence policy applying to all matters concerning sexual activity. ...Furthermore, of extreme significance, it is a criminal offense (Texas Penal Code 21.11) for children of the same sex under the age of 17 to have sexual contact, no matter the age difference.'
[...]
This lawsuit boarders on groundbreaking territory. It's the first of its kind in Texas. Similar suits were filed in California and Utah. In both of those cases, the gay organizations won.
The far right never ceases to amaze me in their zeal to deny people equal rights.
Oh, and there's a reason why I don't edit my comments. I feel that the far-right wing nuts (not the mostly sane but slightly misguided righties that post here frequently) say much more about themselves than I ever could with my thoughts. Here is Exhibit A from today's comments:
kill all the fuckin faggots
Posted by Dimplecrap at August 1, 2003 03:20 PM
Ok, Dimplecrap, I'll certainly give that all the consideration that it deserves.
The other day, I blogged on the new gay high school in New York. Contrary to what you might think, I felt uneasy about it, particularly for two reasons. First, I think that a publicly funded gay high school can help create a slippery slope arguement in favor of private school vouchers (which I strongly oppose). Secondly, I think that a gay high school is the wrong priority. Just like vouchers, a gay high school is helpful to a small minority of students, but doesn't do a damn thing for the majority of students, other than divert tax dollars away from them. Gay rights advocates ought ot work instead to help protect all gay and lesbian high school students by enacting anti-harassment laws, and strongly enforcing them in all high schools. Public money should be spent on ensuring the education and safety of all children and students in all high schools, rather than establishing a slippery slope arguement for private school vouchers. As I've read more in the past couple of days, I've developed more concerns over a public gay high school.
Via Courtney, John Cole makes a good point:
This is the worst idea I have heard in a long time. You know, it is very difficult to push for things like gay marriage, and to argue that the gay rights movement doesn't want special rights, just the same protection of their rights that heterosexuals enjoy, and then you see crap like this being peddled. How about all heterosexual schools? Or all caucasian schools? Or schools just for people with lisps?
All this does is vindicate loser assholes like Pat Robertson and their ilk- they have claimed for years that the homosexual lobby wants special rights- and every time they have, leftists and people such as myself have beaten them down and called them homophobic and bigoted.
Please don't tell me they were right.
I do worry about the image of the gay community on this issue. I've argued time and time again that gays and lesbians fight for equal rights not special rights. Issues like these are examples of the occasional excesses of liberalism. Are some gay students helped by gay schools? Sure. But are the vast majority of gay students helped by them? No. I think that it some situations, gay schools are the best option - but the students who need them most usually come from districts where harrassment and abuse go unstopped, and where the school district would spend money on bibles, ten commandment plaques, and teaching "creation science" before they would lift a finger to protect their gay and lesbian students. Just as ordinary private schools ought to be funded by the private sector, so should private gay schools (which I highly support).
Finally, how do gays and lesbians win the culture war? Not by self-segregating ourselves into our own schools, our own communities and our own lives. We win the culture war by integrating in society. The fact that I came out my senior year in high school to several dozen of my classmates did much more to advance gay rights, than sending me to a gay high school would have done. People who know a gay person, have a gay friend, have a gay co-worker or a gay mailman, for that matter are more likely to be supportive of gay rights. The response from Europe has been similar to my comments:
An American decision to publicly fund a high school for homosexual students in New York is a misguided exercise in political correctness which risks isolating the gay community, Europeans said Wednesday.
Activists, students and officials across the continent agreed gay schools would never catch on in Europe.
Even the British -- culturally closer to the Americans than any other Europeans -- were skeptical.
"Special schools may serve as shelter for vulnerable and bullied students but in the long term they won't solve the problem of living in a homophobic society," said Carlie Harter-Penman, spokeswoman for the National Union of Students' lesbian, gay and bisexual campaign.
"We want gay students to be able to attend school without thinking of their sexuality as an issue."
Gay British student Richard Hyde, from the London College of Printing, said the U.S. initiative at least promoted awareness of gay rights but could have other negative consequences.
"It might create a biased attitude among gay students because the environment in which they would be educated isn't diverse enough," he said.
New York authorities said Monday that the Harvey Milk School in the city's Greenwich Village would reopen as the first publicly-run high school in the United States for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.
Named after a gay San Francisco politician assassinated in 1978, it has already been open for 20 years but the city is to spend $3.2 million to expand the school to take 100 students.
Few could imagine such a scenario in Europe.
"This is inconceivable in France. It runs contrary to the principles of the Republic ... There can be no discrimination of any sort," said a French Education Ministry spokeswoman. "I can't imagine anything like that in Germany," said Detlef Muecke, a spokesman for gay teachers from the country's GEW teachers union. "Our aim is to work for acceptance and diversity in the school system, so that young people don't suffer discrimination if they come out as gay or lesbian."
In traditionally liberal Amsterdam, sentiment was similar.
"The Harvey Milk school is a solution to a worldwide problem that gay and lesbian kids feel isolated," said Henk Beerten, chairman of the Federation of Dutch Associations for the Integration of Homosexuality. "But a special school won't appeal in the Netherlands because of the way it singles out people and creates a ghetto-like situation."
In Sweden, which according to a study published Tuesday is the second most tolerant nation toward homosexuality after the Netherlands, gay leaders warned that the move might lead to the marginalisation of gay students.
"I don't think we need a school with special students," said Magnus Ask, organizer of the Stockholm Pride gay festival.
"We don't have separate schools for black people. Why should we have them for gays?" agreed Enrico Oliari, chairman of GayLib, a liberal and center-left Italian group.
"This is very much linked to the social context of the United States and I strongly doubt whether we will see similar schools in Europe over the next few years," added Gert Hekma, head of Gay and Lesbian Studies at the University of Amsterdam.
There's been some fuss in the past couple of days about the gay public high school opening in New York. To be honest, I'm a little uneasy about it. Not that I have a problem with the concept of a gay high school. I think that for some students, a high school for gays and lesbians is the best option. I strongly support the Walt Whitman Community School in Dallas. For some gay and lesbian students, harassment is so severe, and the ridicule from classmates is so harsh, that the best option is to go to an alternative school. I think that we all know that middle school / junior high students that are openly gay or are perceived by their peers to be gay face a lot of harassment. My friend Chris blogged on this earlier:
Being a gay student in public high school was the hardest thing that I’ve ever done. While most of you were worried about what to wear, I was worried how severe the physical harassment would be that day. Harassment was a daily challenge. I heard some form of the word “fag” hurled at me at least 10 times every day. While some of you got in trouble for holding hands with your significant other in the hallway, I yearned to have a significant other. Even if I was attracted to someone, how would I know their sexuality? No one was out in my high school. I have never had a boyfriend. I didn’t know innocent, light-hearted, puppy love. I didn’t go to my senior prom. I couldn’t give blood in the blood drive. I was frowned upon for using the words “gay” and “lesbian” as though they were profane. I feared for my life on several occasions including graduation. If I would have had the opportunity to attend the Harvey Milk High School, I would have done so. If I wanted to date someone, I'd only have to worry about someone being attracted to me, not my gender. The HMHS senior prom would not have forbidden same sex dates. “Gay” and “lesbian” would be part of daily speech. No one would be harassed for their sexuality.
I really know where Chris is coming from. I felt many of the same feelings at times in high school, although to a lesser extent. I have mixed feelings about my high school years, but in general, I don't regret attending the school in which I went to.
My concern is with the fact that the school is public and taxpayer supported. I think that it sets up a dangerous precident. I strongly oppose private school vouchers, and if taxpayers can pay for a gay public high school, the arguement for private school vouchers becomes much easier (if those gays can use public money to promote their values, why can't money be spend to promote Christian values...). I think that the money would be more wisely spent on counseling programs for gays and lesbians in all New York public high schools. We should support sex education in all high schools that includes homosexuality. We should support efforts to include gay and lesbian contributions to literature and history into all high schools, not just one. Most importantly, we should help protect all gay and lesbian high school students by enacting anti-harassment laws and strongly enforcing them in all high schools. Public money should be spent on ensuring the education and safety of all children and students in all high schools, rather than establishing a slippery slope arguement for advocates of "school choice".
Well, it looks like Democrats are anti-gay and hypocrites for not criticizing Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) for calling Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO) a fruitcake during the now infamous Ways and Means Committee meeting. Nice try. If you'll recall, that was the meeting where Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA) called the capitol police to evict the Democratic members of the committee from the library. Typically, Fox News has the story. And not only that, they shamelessly embellish it:
Republican sources also claim that during the chaotic scene in the committee, Stark fired another gay slur in the direction of Chairman Thomas. The word is too vulgar to print in full, but the last half of it is "sucker."
Big whoop. I guess Stark called Thomas a cocksucker. OK. So, why isn't the gay community out lynching Stark? Well, it’s obvious. Stark has a perfect lifetime rating from the Human Rights Campaign. It was a poor choice of words, sure, but it was a heated exchange where several people lost their tempers. So what is appropriate and what isn't? I think that the way to look at these things is to look to see if there was malicious intent or an alarming amount of insensitivity. When someone like Dick Armey calls Barney Frank "Barney Fag", that’s pretty malicious in my opinion, and it's extremely insensitive. It's hard to see Stark as maliciously targeting gays, because he's been one of the gay communities strongest allies in his political career. Sure, his comments show some insensitivity, but not what I would call an alarming amount. Call it double standards all you want, but his apology, in my opinion is sufficient.
“Much has been made today about my conduct in the Ways and Means Committee markup of HR 1776. Let’s be clear. I am not the issue here. Never was I approached by a police officer or questioned about what happened.
“The issue is that the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee called the police to throw Democrats out of a room where they were meeting to determine how to respond to a bill we first saw this morning. It is yet another step in there continued effort to shut out Democrats and stifle debate.
“Sometimes I feel so passionate about an issue that I am not as diplomatic as I should be. Whatever was said, I never physically threatened anyone. I did exchange words that were not becoming of my office. I regret that.
“Republicans are using my intemperate words as a diversionary tactic. Republicans cannot stand up and defend the calling of the police to remove Democrats from a room in the people’s House. Chairman Thomas’ behavior today should not be allowed in a democracy. It’s reminiscent of a police state, not America. That’s the issue.”
Well, good job. End of story? Of course not. Fox News, and their allies (see: Rod Dreher @ Jul 25, 11:25 AM) are trying to make Stark's wisecracks the story, instead of the undemocratic behavior of Bill Thomas. Even more amusing is the fact that Florida Congressman *ahem* closet case *ahem* Congressman Mark Foley was quoted in the FOX News article.
Now, one Republican wants to know where is the outrage at the Democrat for his seemingly intolerant remarks.
"This isn't the first time. That's the problem here. The Democrats fail to recognize this is an ongoing problem," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.
This is coming from someone who has held a press conference for the sole purpose of addressing gay rumors, where he called accusations that he was gay as "revolting and unforgivable", but refused to deny that he was gay. At the time, I wrote this:
If calling him gay is, as Foley says, "revolting and unforgivable", then you would think that Foley would also say that he's not gay. Instead, one can only assume that Foley is gay, but considers it, and himself to be revolting. Sounds like a bad attitude to me.
It looks like Pat Robertson is up to his old tricks. I'll be praying, how about you? It'll be a good, old-fashioned prayer-a-thon. Hallelujah!
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson urged his nationwide audience Monday to pray for God to have three justices retire from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced by conservatives.
"We ask for miracles in regard to the Supreme Court," Mr. Robertson said on the Christian Broadcasting Network's "The 700 Club."
Mr. Robertson has begun a 21-day "prayer offensive" directed at the Supreme Court in the wake of its 6-3 vote last month that struck down state sodomy laws. Mr. Robertson said in a letter on the CBN Web site that the ruling "has opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest."
The same letter targets three justices in particular: "One justice is 83 years old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?"
Judging from the descriptions, Mr. Robertson was referring at least to Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Associated Press reports.
Is any further comment really necessary? I think I'll just have a laugh at Rev. Robertson's expense with my boyfriend tonight. Yeah, we'll be praying for you, Reverend.
Justice Harry Blackmun is one of my personal heroes. He was a conservative appointed by Richard Nixon in 1970, but through his service on the court, he found an independent streak, and near the end of his career, he ended up being one of the most consistantly liberal voices on the court. He is best known as the author of the Roe v. Wade opinion, but he also wrote a great dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick (which, in 1986 upheld Georgia's sodomy law on a 5-4 vote). Here's the end of Blackmun's dissent:
I can only hope that here, too, the Court soon will reconsider its analysis and conclude that depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships poses a far greater threat to the values most deeply rooted in our Nation's history than tolerance of nonconformity could ever do. Because I think the Court today betrays those values, I dissent.
The rationale of Bowers does not withstand careful analysis. In his dissenting opinion in Bowers JUSTICE STEVENS came to these conclusions:
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from con- stitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty ” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” 478 U.S., at 216 (footnotes and citations omitted).
JUSTICE STEVENS ’ analysis, in our view, should have been controlling in Bowers and should control here. Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled. The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who,with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual. Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Texas Fourteenth District is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
Brilliant. What's next? Kennedy writes that, "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny...". We'll have to wait and see how broadly this can be interpreted, but following Kennedy's logic, it seems as if there is now a legal arguement for gay marriage, and equal rights for gays and lesbians at every level.
Already, the decision is being used to push for gay marriage in Connecticut:
While Connecticut does not have a sodomy law, Rep. Michael Lawlor said the high court's 6-3 decision helps support the argument for gay marriage in the state.
Lawlor said the Supreme Court justices made clear that it is unconstitutional to single out gays and lesbians and deny them equal rights. He expects that argument also will be used in the push for gay marriage in Connecticut.
Lawlor and several other lawmakers tried to get a bill passed this session that would have allowed same-sex couples to register their relationships with the state. The registry would have given more rights to same-sex couples.
Here's a quote from the dissent by Georege W. Bush's model Surpeme Court Justice:
"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."
How compassionate, Georege, huh? Oh, and I'm amused with the praise that the neocons are giving Clarence Thomas for this statement:
If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
Well good for you Clarence! But you still think that the government has the right to go into gay people's homes, and arrest them for private, consentual sex. You can't have it both ways.
Update: Kos is posting on Scalia's opinion as well. He's right. This is a huge step towards equal rights for gays and lesbians in this country (yes, that includes gay marriage). Why? Because the very foundation in which state sponsored discrimination against gays and lesbians is allowed is because of sodomy laws. Why can't gays adopt children? They're criminals. Why can't gays be protected in hate crimes laws? They're criminals. Why can gays be discriminated against in housing and employment? They're criminals. Lawrence vs. Texas was not just about sodomy. It's about knocking down the foundation of every law in this country that discrimates against gays and lesbians.
Update: I'm still looking at the decision, but I'm pleased that the ruling was on privacy as opposed to just equal protection, as ruling on privacy strikes down all sodomy laws, not just laws in states where there's a different standard for homosexual and heterosexual sodomy (like Texas).
Good line of attack that Howard Dean is using and that all Democrats should pick up on:
The Texas anti-sodomy law was nothing less than government-sanctioned intolerance and discrimination. The fact that President Bush defended the law while he was Governor shows that he is not the uniter he claims to be.
Afro-Netizen
American Amnesia
Atrios Burnt Orange Report
Campaign Web Review
Centerfield
Command Post
Daily Kos
Dave Barry
Dinner for America
Dowbrigade News
Electablog
Greater Democracy
Joho the Blog
Liberal Oasis
Librarian.net
Mathew Gross
Matt Welch
MyDD
Opinions You Should Have
Our Campaigns
Oxblog
Pacific Views
Pandagon.net
Political Wire
Press Think
Scripting News
Talk Left
Westport Now
Wonkette
Polling
American Research Group
Annenberg Election Survey
Gallup
Polling Report
Rasmussen Reports
Survey USA
Zogby
National Dems
DNC Blog: Kicking Ass
DSCC Blog: From the Roots
DCCC Blog: The Stakeholder
TDP Blog: Yellow Dog Blog
CDA Blog
Rock the Vote Blog
Move On
Drive Democracy DSCC
DCCC
Texas Dems
Travis County Dems
Save Texas Reps
Austin United
John Kerry
Democracy for America
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett
State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos
State Rep. Elliott Naishtat
State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez
Linked to BOR!
Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem
Technoranti Link Cosmos
Blogstreet Blogback
Texas Stuff
Austin Bloggers
DFW Bogs
DMN Blog
Free State Standard
The Lasso
Pol State TX Archives
Quorum Report Daily Buzz
George Strong Political Analysis
Texas Law Blog
XLent
TX Lefty Blogs
TX Bloggers (Kuffner)
100 Monkeys Typing
A Skeptical Blog
Alandwilliams.com
Alt 7
Annatopia
Appalachia Alumni Association
Backroads of San Angelo
Barefoot and Naked
BAN News
Belly Fuzz
Braes Dem Blog
Century of Crap
Chrisken
Dru Blood
Easter Lemming
Esoterically
Get Donkey
Greg's Opinion
Gunther Concept
Half the Sins of Mankind
Houston Democratic Forum Blog
Jim Hightower
Norbizness
Off the Kuff
Ones and Zeros
Panhandle Truth Squad
People's Republic of Seabrook
Perverse Memory Access
Rational Rantings
Rhetoric & Rhythm
Roman Candles
Save Texas Reps
Skeptical Notion
Something's Got to Break
Southpaw
Spud Zeppelin
Stout Dem Blog
Ted Barlow
Texas' Favorite Prostitutes
The Chunk
The Scarlet Left
The View
Through the Wall
ToT
Unmedia
Un-adventures of electrNik
Van Zandt Dem. Blog
Writerrific
Yellow Doggeral Democrat
TX Righty Blogs
TX Bloggers (Kuffner)
Bedlar Blog
Blogs of War
Boots and Sabers
Courreges
Courtney
The Curmudgeonly Clerk
Dallas Arena
Grunt Doc
InSane Antonio
Jessica's Well
Publius TX
The Sake of Arguement
Slightly Rough
Strategeric Thought
Texas GOP (unofficial)
The C Blog
The Pros
&c.
ABC's The Note
Eric Alterman
Atrios Eschaton
Blog for America (Dean)
California Insider
CBS Washington Wrap
CJR Campaign Desk
Change For America
Joe Conason
Daily Kos
DNC Blog: Kicking Ass
Drudge Report
Drudge Retort
Matthew Gross
Josh Marshall
Dave McNeely
NDN Blog
Political State Report
Political Wire
NBC's First Read
SEIU
Michelangelo Signorile
Andrew Sullivan
TAPPED
Ruy Teixiera
The Corner
TNR Primary
Washington Monthly
White House for Sale
Matthew Yglesias
state elections 1992-2003
bexar county elections
collin county elections
dallas county elections
denton county elections
el paso county elections
fort bend county elections
galveston county elections
harris county elections
jefferson county elections
tarrant county elections
travis county elections
ABC News
All Africa News
Arab News
Atlanta Constitution-Journal
News.com Australia
BBC News
Bloomberg
Boston Globe
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
Christian Science Monitor
CNN
Denver Post
FOX News
Google News
The Guardian
Inside China Today
International Herald Tribune
Japan Times
LA Times
Mexico Daily
Miami Herald
MSNBC
New Orleans Times-Picayune
New York Times
El Pais (Spanish)
Salon
San Francisco Chronicle
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Slate
Times of India
Toronto Star
Wall Street Journal
Washington Post
Jimmy Swaggert one-upped our friends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson the other day as the lead hate mongering wingnut of the religious right in America. Falwell and Roberson just blame gays and lesbians (and feminists, abortion providers, the ACLU and PFAW, etc.) for 9/11. Swaggert, pictured above, took things a step further. Instead of merely blaming gays and lesbians for terrorism, he advocates the final solution for anyone who would look at him "like that" (although Jimmy, I really don't think ya got too much to worry about).