November 2004 Archives
Or, I could have just named this article, “People who deserve Hell”.
Gay people have given much more to this society than we’ve gotten back. We’ve been beaten, killed, taxed like everyone else, but without the same benefits, died for our country in wars - yet given absolutely no credit for even contributing, kicked out of the military and given a section 8 discharge before don’t ask, don’t tell, and a general discharge after don’t ask, don't tell... and all because of assholes like this.
I’m getting to a point that I’m tired of being civil to people like this. They are worthless scum. And you can quote me on that.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. A lawmaker seeking to ban gay marriages also wants to prohibit state money from being spent on any materials or programs that “recognize” or “promote” homosexuality.
Republican Representative Gerald Allen says, “We have a culture that's in deep trouble.”
But Representative Alvin Holmes -- a Democrat -- says Allen’s measure was an unconstitutional form of censorship aimed at enhancing Allen’s standing with the right-wing conservatives.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, college theater groups would not be able to perform plays like the Tennessee Williams classic “Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” where homosexuality is a theme, and public school libraries could not display books that include lesbianism like Alice Walker’s “The Color Purple.”
Allen says the method of weeding out objectionable material and programs was still to be determined. His bill has been prefiled for action in the 2005 session. (source)
This is the first strike against the Solomon Act. Basically, the act states that any school or university who bars military recruiters from it’s campus because the school disagrees with the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy, that school could lose their federal funding.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the act is unconstitutional because it sought to override the First Amendment.
I say it’s about time that the Federal Government start living by the law of the land, as we all do.
Ironically, a ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts of America disallowing homosexuals actually helped overturn Solomon.
The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom. - Judge Thomas L. Ambro (source)
The two-judge majority based its decision in part on an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the Boy Scouts of America could bar homosexuals from becoming scouts or troop leaders.
The court reasoned that if the Boy Scouts could legally reject gays because it had a core belief that homosexuality is illegitimate behavior, then other institutions could impose an opposite type of restriction if it had a core value that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.
“The court understood that if bigots have a First Amendment right to exclude gays, then enlightened institutions have a right to exclude bigots,” said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which was the lead plaintiff in the suit. (source)
Other Opinion
Solomon Ruling Raises Recruitment Questions
Solomon’s Revenge - An Editorial
I have received yet another message of hate in my guest book. I suspect that it may be the same person who composed the first one, but they won’t put down a valid email address or name (other than saying they are from “Paris, Texas”). That’s the way hate is. I likes to be anonymous. It will never make itself known in public.
I have a long standing policy about posting to this board. I post a lot about issues important to the gay community, but I also talk about a lot of other issues. On every single issue, I welcome all opinions, both for and against the arguments I put forth. It really doesn’t matter to me if you agree with me or not. I do love to be challenged to look at issues differently, and that is where opposing points of view can be very enlightening.
But there is a strong difference between opposing points of view and hateful messages, and if you don’t know the difference, you shouldn’t even bother to respond to the posts on this board. If the point you are trying to make can only be made by using hateful epithets, then your argument is so weak it’s honestly not worth talking about.
The guest book, comments to entries, and the forum have not required moderation for people to post. That is, when you make a post to this board, it is immediate, and it is seen by everyone... immediately.
That has changed with the guest book. The guest book will now be moderated. I will review it periodically for new entries. If they contain hateful messages, you can rest assured that they will be deleted on site. Post away! I figure it takes you a lot more work to type your hate out than for me to simply click on the “delete” box.
I’m a bit more lax about the forums (there’s also a link in the upper right hand corner of this page). They are open to a whole range of subjects. In fact, if the poster of the hate message reads this and really wants to post hateful messages, I’ll set you up with your own little forum and you can post away. I rarely go to the forums myself because I’m so busy with this blog. They really belong to the public, and I’m totally open to others forming their own forum subjects within the forum. I do visit occasionally to check on issues of legality and that sort of thing, but unlike the guest book, your posting (assuming it’s not advocating illegal activities) will not be deleted. The forums do require registration. You will have to enter a valid email address and you will have to respond to that email address to post to the forum. Other than that, the restrictions are posted in the General Information section of the forum.
In short, the blog is where I’m the author. The forums are were you are all the authors.
An election is a bloodless revolution. Each voter gets one bullet to shoot, i.e., one ballot to cast. This year the MSM spent hours predicting a huge “anti-Bush” vote was lurking in the weeds and provided numerous reasons why “core” Democrat constituent groups like blacks and young voters would show up en masse to “re-defeat Bush.” Yet, in the end, what materialized was an “anti-Kerry” vote. Were these Bush voters motivated by moral issues?
For many reasons they were. However, from a purely political perspective, there is an overarching explanation. Voters this year were motivated by one basic issue: “collective greed.” I believe the vast majority who cast votes for Bush simply did not want their taxes raised. In the end, they voted their pocketbooks. [...]
Fortunately, Democrat leaders continue to “misunderstandestimate” (Mr. Bush’s word) the effect taxes have on an aging population. Even though I have been providing Joe with these facts for years, his party still fails to understand the boomer’s “collective greed” motivation. From the day John F. Kerry began talking about raising taxes, he never stood a chance.
But here’s the kicker: had Dems nominated Joe Lieberman, they could have won the election. A fiscal conservative who is strong on defense but socially liberal, Lieberman would likely have grabbed sufficient Iraq-weary Republican crossover votes to win by a narrow margin. I suspect Lieberman would not have touched the tax issue. (source)
I too agree that, in the end, it was “collective greed” that determined the election. But, it the writer thinks that Joe Lieberman, an out of the closet Jew would not have issues in this country being the Vice President of the United States, I think he’s naive. There is a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment out there among the voters. I believe it would be an issue, perhaps not as openly as gay marriage or Kerry’s past military issues, but it would have shown itself at the ballot box.
My problem with Lieberman isn’t that he’s Jewish (because I have zero problem with Jewish people), it’s just that every time Joe Lieberman has a decision to make, he puts his finger up in the air to see what direction the wind is blowing. Then, he makes his decision. I’ve sometimes wondered, does Joe have any original ideas that he’s willing to stake his political career on? That is what I want in my Vice President. As far as finding that quality in a President, I’ve given up on looking for it.
The Second Congregational Church in Coventry, Connecticut is “open and affirming” to gay couples. What does this mean? It means that if you are a gay couple, and want to have a service there blessing your relationship, they will allow you to use their church for that purpose. I don’t think that being a member of the church is a requirement. But I’m sure the hope is that you will keep coming back to belong to their church community, and contribute to that community, hopefully with money, but there are other ways to contribute as well.
But is that really enough? You are basically being told by the church, yes we will give some sort of recognition to your relationship you have with your same sex partner, but we will not marry you. It gets a bit dicey at this point. Some of you might say that’s not the churches’ fault. That’s the fault of the state you live in for not allowing gay marriage in the state.
I can agree with that, except for one small thing. When a heterosexual couple gets married in the church, one of the things the minister will say is, “...by the power vested in me by [insert church name here] and the State of [insert state name here], I pronounce you man and wife.”
In this light, the church is playing no small roll in contributing to the second class recognition that our relationships are given. This is why I stopped going to that church. I wasn’t alone. Before I left, there was a lesbian couple and a gay male couple leave because of this. And the church is left wondering, “Why? We said we didn’t have a problem with their relationships and would affirm thier relationships.”
But you do have a problem with our relationships. If you are an “affirming church” out there reading this, and I mean truthfully affirming, you would refuse to perform or honor any further weddings for ANYONE until ALL couples could be honored EQUALLY.
Now that is AFFIRMATION!
You ever think that maybe the United States should think a bit more about letting the Christian Right have such a large say in where are country is going?
I read this interesting article about a summit between President Bush and Canada Prime Minister Paul Martin.
Whether it be war in Iraq and U.S. unilateralism, missile defense, American trade protectionism, border security, same-sex marriage or marijuana laws, pollsters say there’s a continental divide in mainstream public opinion that breaks along the 49th parallel. (source)
This simply is not a credible piece of journalism. This piece says much, much more about 20/20 than it does about the murder of Matthew Shepard.. - GLADD Executive Director Joan M. Garry
20/20 does not put forward a single piece of incontrovertible evidence to back its assertion that drugs were the central cause of Matthew Shepard’s murder. Its case is based on conjecture, sensational repetition of unsubstantiated claims, and sources whose credibility is highly dubious at best.
The show relies on interviews with sources seriously lacking in credibility, including but not limited to: Doc O’Connor, Kristen Price, Elaine Baker and Aaron McKinney -- all of whom offer stories that are contradicted by others and/or by the public record. In Price’s case, her newly invented story suggests she may have committed perjury as well. It is doubtful that any credible news organization would use such sources as the foundation of a story.
20/20 ignores critical facts to advance its claim that anti-gay bias played no role in Shepard’s murder. The show fails to examine McKinney’s confession to sheriffs’ investigators, which was one of the key sources of information about the anti-gay bias element in the case. 20/20 also fails to acknowledge that the drug angle it presents as news received wide coverage in 1999 as part of McKinney’s defense strategy and as part of a “Harper’s” magazine story that explored many of the exact same themes.
On Nov. 9, GLAAD received a press release from 20/20 promoting the sweeps-month show. GLAAD’s Garry then reached out to 20/20 Executive Producer David Sloan, raised serious concerns about the sensationalistic tone of the release, and requested a preview copy of the show -- a request Sloan declined. GLAAD subsequently secured a press screening copy from a source outside ABC.
“This was indeed a complex murder; no one is suggesting otherwise,” Garry concluded. “But for 20/20 to lay out a case based on speculation, innuendo, the avoidance of critical facts, sources lacking in basic credibility, and reliance on conflicting pieces of information is reckless journalism.” (source)
That pretty much sums up my opinion of the 20/20 piece that aired last Friday night. On the 20/20 program, Elizabeth Vargas takes the position that the description of this murder as an anti-gay hate crime is entirely wrong. She is on very thin ice here. During the 60 minute program, McKinney’s girl friend, McKinney himself, along with Russell Henderson all said that the story they told the court that Matthew had made a pass at McKinney was a lie. The story was that that alleged pass infuriated McKinney who was driven into an anti-gay panic/rage and that is why he killed Matthew Shepard. They lied because, as McKinney’s girlfriend said, they thought they would get a lighter sentence if they played the “gay panic” defense card. It back fired on them. The prosecutor would have no part of it and neither did law enforcement.
Also, during the same program, for everything McKinney said, along with his girlfriend, they were caught in lies, right on the same program. So, why are we suppose to believe anything they said?
Lie # 1: McKinney said he didn’t know Matthew Shepard and didn’t even know he was gay. This was immediately refuted by at least three people who had seen him and Matthew together, when Matthew was allegedly buying drugs from Aaron McKinney.
Lie # 2: McKinney said that he had no hatred of homosexuals and had never done anything homosexual in his life. They then interviewed the owner of the limo service in Laramie, who told Vargas that was just not true. He knew for a fact that McKinney had been with another man. Vargas asked how he got that information. The man said, “I’m the man who was with him.” Enough said.
This is all very interesting, but it really isn’t what offended me so much about the piece.
According to a drug buddy interviewed by Vargas, McKinney had been on a week long no-sleeping bender before he murdered Shepard. Henderson says on camera that he was so worried about McKinney’s drug-induced volatility that night that he hoped to keep him drinking in a local bar until he calmed down. (source)
Basically, 20/20 would have us believe that the killing of Matthew Shepard was not a hate crime at all, but was a simple robbery. Aaron McKinney robbed Matthew Shepard because he looked like he had money, Aaron had been on a drug binge for awhile, and was now coming off the drugs. He disparately needed money for more drugs and the easiest was to get that money was to rob someone.
That I can buy. What I have a real problem with is the extreme savage way that Matthew was murdered. If you are so disparate for money, you rob your victim and do the one thing that is first and foremost on your mind: to take that money and go to where you can buy more drugs to satisfy your need. That is not what Aaron did. He robbed Matthew of $30, all that Matthew had on him at the time. Matthew told them, after receiving several blows from the butt of the gun Aaron had with him, that he (Matthew) had more money at his place and if they would only drive him there, he would get it for them.
This should have been something Aaron would have readily agreed to, if robbery were the motive. Instead, Aaron took the time to drive 10 miles to the outskirts of Laramie where Aaron savagely beat Matthew to death. Does this sound like a robbery to you?
Aaron McKinney got exactly what he deserved - two life sentences to be served consecutively.
Russell Henderson received the the same exact sentence, even though he said he never placed a hand on Matthew, unless you count when he tied Matthew’s hands behind his back and onto the fence. Did Russell deserve the same fate as Aaron McKinney? Well, you decide. In Russell’s own words, he said that he was there. He could have stopped the beating of Matthew, and he didn’t. He did nothing to stop it.
I’m especially angry and disappointed in Vargas and the 20/20 program. Matthew Shepard deserves better than a character assassination, six years after his death. And that is, in the end, all this program was about. And for the record, both McKinney and Henderson were not prosecuted on a hate crime. Wyoming has no such statute on it’s books for such a prosecution - something that came out during the trial. So, the point of whether this was a hate crime or not is mute as it was never a factor. More time was not added to the sentencing because of it.
Elizabeth Vargas should stick with what she apparently is best at, that of being a tabloid news reporter. She will do better at that. She, along with 20/20 have lost my respect. I will never watch either of them again.
It was clear today so we decided to drive around a bit. We went over to Willimantic. We don’t get over that way too often. I took a couple of pictures of some of our local sculpture at Frog Bridge (who says we have no culture!).
We then came back by Schmedley’s in Eagleville, CT and stopped for a beer (ok... mostly we stopped for the rest room, but it seemed rude not to order something). Then it was on our way back home, where I snapped the photos of the sunset over Coventry Lake. The actual name of the lake is Wangumbaug Lake, but I can never remember that, so I just call it “Coventry Lake”.
Frog Bridge in Willimantic, Connecticut
Frog Bridge in Willimantic, Connecticut (close up)
Sunset over Coventry Lake, Coventry, Connecticut (where we live)
Sunset over Coventry Lake, Coventry, Connecticut (where we live)
We had a great Thanksgiving Day. We slept in until almost 9:00! We lounged around the house until noon in pajamas and robes. And even though it had rained hard with high winds during the night, and was still raining the next morning, we went about our business of cooking a big breakfast. We usually have small breakfasts, but today we had poached eggs, bacon, hash browns, toast, orange juice, and coffee. It was great.
After that, Kent wanted to write, and I decided to try to finish off the new movie I bought, Van Helsing. For some reason, it’s taken me three days to get through it. I keep getting interrupted. I managed to finish it off this time.
I got around to showering around 12:30pm, and did a bit of writing myself. We had plans to go out for Thanksgiving dinner this year. I usually cook, but there is just the two of us this year, and with no invitations to go anywhere else, we opted not to cook this year. We went to The Inn at Mystic Seaport and at the Flood Tide Restaurant in the mansion.
The dinner was absolutely wonderful! And, as a bonus, the Inn lost power a quarter of the way through dinner, so everyone in the restaurant was eating by candle light. Not to worry though; the kitchen was using gas for cooking along with a large oven, heated by wood. It was very romantic. It was how I imagine the inn would have operated a hundred years ago.
This is what we had for dinner:
Cocktails
Grey Goose vodka martini with olives (Bill)
Appetizer
Foie gras with truffle maple syrup (Bill)
Quail with white beans (Kent)
They were both so good, that half way through, we actually switched plates! Are you suppose to do that in a nice restaurant?! Doesn’t matter, we did because they were both wonderful!
Soup
Pumpkin bisque finished with maple cream
This was a somewhat sweet warm soup, with a strong hint of nutmeg.
Wine
Louis Latour, Puligny Montrachet, 2002
This wine was unbelievable. Very “buttery” finish to it and was a perfect accompaniment to the entire dinner.
Salad
Sliced pear with goat cheese, frissee, and finished with balsamic drizzle
Entree
Turkey, sausage dressing, whipped potatoes, braised root vegetables
I have never had sausage dressing, but I have to say, the next time I make dressing, I’m putting sausage in mine! It made the dressing!
Dessert
Pumpkin crumb pie (Kent)
Warm apple and cranberry crisp with vanilla bean ice cream (Bill)
We arrived at 4:00 and were finished at 6:30. We got home an hour later and did absolutely nothing. I got undressed and watched TV in bed until I fell asleep an hour later.
It was a good day. As I was eating my wonderful dinner, I spotted another family who were having dinner just a few tables away from us. The son with them was in a sailor uniform. It made me think of our guys on the battlefield in Iraq and how I was hoping for their safety. There are so many different levels of existence on this planet. Here I am having this wonderful meal in this beautiful restaurant overlooking Mystic Harbor, and they are in Iraq, fighting on a dusty, hot, battlefield with so many around them trying to kill them. It’s unimaginable to me. I wish they knew that we are at least thinking about them. I guess that’s all we can do.
Casper, Wyoming has elected it’s first openly gay Mayor. Guy Padgett will take his new leadership roll on January 4, 2005.
Casper, Wyoming was the home town of Matthew Shepard, who was murdered on the outskirts of Laramie, Wyoming in 1998. We live in amazing times.
(Casper, Wyoming) City councilman Guy Padgett will become Casper’s first openly gay mayor and its first mayor under 30 years old.
Padgett, 27, was informally voted in as mayor for next year by the city council Tuesday.
“I look forward to representing my community and city council in the year to come,” Padgett said after his fellow city council members unanimously chose him. [...]
Padget said he was deeply affected by the murder of Shepard (pictured). Two had gone to high school together. When Padgett moved back to Casper from Yale University, Shepard was part of his circle. “We weren’t that close,” said Padgett. “But it felt very personal when he died. It hit me very hard.” [...]
Padgett said he was relieved to get the whole mayoral election over with, even though he did not receive any negative feedback from the community due to his sexuality or his age in the past few weeks. (source)
Just when you think you’ve heard it all, something new comes out that completely blows you away. Well, here it is. A British company called Traffic has released a computer “docugame” called “JFK Reloaded.” The game recreates President Kennedy’s assassination and includes computer images of a figure with a rifle pointed at a presidential motorcade.
A spokesman for the company said that the game was more a learning tool than a game. The intention was to “reignite people’s passion for history.”
There are far, far better ways to get people interested in history than to release a game so graphically depicting one of this nation’s lowest points in the 1960s. If the company really wanted to reinvigorate the passion for history, it should have donated funds to any public school district in the country or sponsored fellowships for the study of history or become a financial backer for our historic parks.
We are becoming a society that accepts the unacceptable, that looks the other way when our neighbors are in need or if a wrong is being committed. We continue to watch the videotape of professional basketball players jumping into the seats to attack unruly fans. We allow our children to play games that depict graphic violence. And all we do is say, “Tsk, tsk.” We should do more.
And we should start by making sure the sales of “JFK Reloaded” are very, very poor. (source)
Prejudice is something that goes back as far as history does. The people of today like to flatter themselves and say that we, unlike our forefathers, now know that it is wrong, and we like to say that we’ve fixed the problem by making multiple anti-prejudice laws and such. But there are more types of prejudice than just that of race or gender. Discrimination against a person’s sexuality is a huge problem today. Nearly 40% of American’s today suffer from something called “Homophobia”. [...]
Homophobia is often considered an acceptable prejudice. I know kids, even adults that I simply pass on the street using words like “fag” and “homo”, even if it’s just to be a light- hearted insult. Winking jokes about being gay are still a common element found on television and in movies today. Probably the most to point quote about homophobia I’ve found was from Dr. Leon Hoffman. Hoffman simply classified homophobia as “a ‘family values’ prejudice.” And with the way people are brought up now-a-days, its true. [...]
But as I see it, homohphobia not only consists of hate, I think a lot of it has to do with fear, and lack of understanding. What does that mean? Basically, what people don’t know scares them. Since a majority of people in the world through the ages have been brought up learning that the only way to have a relationship is between a man and a woman, anything else is just wrong, weird, and unnatural. So naturally people are against it. My only hope is that someday, we’ll get over our prejudices, immaturity, our ignorance... and realize that we need to accept people just the way people are. (source)
This particular entry was made to my guest book (since removed). Instead of just removing it, I thought that you might like to see some of the 5-10 hate messages I get in any given week.
It’s indicative of the kind of prejudice that is out there in 2004.
Post Date: Tuesday 11/23/2004 9:23:01pm
Name: sicktodeath ofyou
Email Address: gayskilllife@gaysarewhores.com
Drama queens are really frigging boring, be it with balls or clits, drama queens cost the world too much frigging energy.
you try to tilt the axis of the world because you’re anatomically inept? Can’t be happy with one ‘hole’ but have to have the other ‘hole’?
What raving, rancid ego is it that seeks to destroy the given world for the sake of their bloody god da*n orgasm.
And don’t give me bilge about relationship - there goes your drama queen nature. Have to play house, have to pretend to be one of those breeders that you revile.
Well, by your choice you are not and that was fine as long as you imposed your choices on no one but those so inclined. But now you come after my world just so you can get your rocks off??? Give me a freaking break. No way dude, no way.
This is a fight you will regret. The election you so abhor is indicative of the will of your nation and sweetheart, Canada is just a northern kiss away.
Please, take your narcissist cant and skank a**hole out of America. She requires whole people, not neurotic self absorbed cowards.
Around the country, gay-rights activists are trying to catch their breath after the gut-punch of the national elections and the fact that 11 states amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage.
But in Connecticut, the same-sex marriage movement is on the move, scoring resounding victories in this month’s legislative elections. And it seems almost inevitable that Connecticut will pass a landmark law next year.
“The real discussion,” says state Rep. Mike Lawlor, “seems to be whether you want to settle for civil unions or hold out for marriage.”
Lawlor is in as good a position as anyone to size up Connecticut’s mood on same-sex unions. A liberal Democrat from more conservative East Haven, he has long co-chaired the Judiciary Committee, where he’s one of the legislature’s leading gay rights advocates.
The Republicans didn’t run a candidate against him this year. But the Family Institute of Connecticut, an arch-conservative group that focuses almost exclusively on the gay-union issue, did back a challenger to Lawlor. Dan McCann petitioned his way onto the ballot with a single-issue campaign: Stop those gays. [...]
Much more surprising was the outcome of one of Love Makes a Family’s other targeted races, that of state Sen. Win Smith. The Milford Republican sits on the Family Institute’s legislative advisory board and is the Capitol’s leading anti-gay-rights voice.
Make that “was.” He was just defeated by Democrat Gayle Slossberg. She supports civil unions.
So, apparently, might Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican. She came out last summer against Bush’s proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Back then, a spokesman made it clear that while Rell doesn’t support “marriage” for gay couples, she’s open to civil unions.
You remember civil unions. Four years ago when Vermont became the first (and so far only) state to allow this marriage-in-all-but-name, it was revolutionary. Opponents predicted that legislators who voted for civil unions--in order to comply with a state Supreme Court ruling--would lose their jobs that fall.
Most stayed in office. By now, a large majority of Vermont voters support civil unions. As do a majority of Connecticut voters: 59 percent in a Quinnipiac poll this June, 74 percent in a UConn poll in April.
In 2000, “those of us who supported civil unions were considered extremist,” Lawlor says. “And now people who oppose it are considered extremist. It’s the mainstream, middle-of-the-road position.”
Too middle-of-the-road, in fact, for Love Makes a Family. At least as an opening gambit.
“We expect to see a [same-sex] marriage bill raised in the Judiciary Committee,” says Anne Stanback, the organization’s executive director. “Our position is it’s too early to start talking about compromise, when the legislature hasn’t even gone into session.”
The difference between civil union and full-fledged gay marriage is mostly, if not entirely, symbolic. The federal government recognizes neither. So each arrangement would confer the same rights and benefits, but only in Connecticut and in any other state that recognizes it.
But symbolism matters. Marriage stands for full equality for gay and lesbian couples. Separate-but-equal status is not the same. (source)
I agree with Love Makes A Family. We should have full marriage, and none of this “civil union” crap. In fact, I wrote Representative Lawlor concerning just that. Here’s the letter, dated November 17, 2004:
Dear Representative Lawlor:
My partner and I are residents of Connecticut and live in Coventry. We have been together since 1975. A year ago, we went to our Town Clerk in Coventry and asked for a marriage license.
We knew that we would be turned down, but we have our dignity and wanted to show our small town that we are here, we pay taxes, and we are good citizens.
I have read that in this coming legislative session, a bill may be introduced to allow gay couples to enter into a “civil union” type of arrangement, that would afford committed gay couples the opportunity to have some of the rights of marriage. I strongly urge you NOT TO DO THIS.
My partner, who is a professor at the University of Connecticut, and I are not interested in having “some” of the rights of marriage. Our relationship IS a marriage in every way possible. To introduce such a bill is not only a slap in the face to what we have, but seriously denigrates our very relationship. In short, it is extremely insulting. This is separate and VERY unequal treatment under the law, and we will have no part of this.
Everyone needs to understand the difference between civil marriage and a religious ceremony. We are not asking, nor will we ever ask, any church to bless or approve of our marriage. We do, however, as tax paying citizens, expect our state government to treat us equally under the law. Civil unions would not do this. All a civil union bill would do is send a message that it is ok for gay couples to be second-class citizens. Is that what the legislature really wants to accomplish?
There is nothing equivalent to civil marriage. Nothing. At this time, my life partner and I are trying to achieve the protections of marriage. We have met with an attorney for this purpose, but have been told by her that there are no guarantees. She told us that she will try to give us the legal protections of marriage, but in the end, there will be no document that she can draft that will be as strong as civil marriage.
And, our attorney specializes in legal issues specifically for gay couples. When this process is done, we will have to carry these papers with us when we travel, and just hope that in the case of an accident, the hospital and the state will honor our wishes stated in those documents.
I have high hopes that you will do the right, the fair thing. We are asking for civil marriage with full legal rights. If the state legislature can accomplish that, then you will truly have accomplished something that will be historic; actual full fledged legal marriage rights for gay couples in the State of Connecticut, passed not by a court order, but by the Legislature! That will be something that we can all be proud of.
Fourth-year world arts and culture student Kian Boolori returned from the funeral of one of his friends Thursday, only to find out a few hours later that another friend of his had died that evening.
“My initial reaction when I heard about Mandy was complete shock and trying to simply comprehend what was going on,” Boolori said. “I felt compounded by the fact that it was so recent of Steven passing away.”
Steven Thang Quoc Le, 22, and Amanda Hafleigh, 19, both died within a week of each other. Boolori knew the two because they were all involved in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community on campus.
Le, the 2003 - 2004 president of the Vietnamese Student Union, died at his home in Orange County Nov. 11, and Hafleigh, a second-year American literature student, was found dead in her Dykstra third floor dorm room Nov. 18.
The deaths of Le and Hafleigh, both of whom were homosexuals, have landed difficulty on the LGBT campus community.
Hafleigh’s death, an apparent suicide, has also raised questions about the high suicide rate among homosexual youths.
Homosexuals account for 30 percent of all suicides among youths aged 15 to 24, and homosexuals are two to three times more likely than their peers to take their own lives. (source)
Does it matter if the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard was a “hate crime” or not?
On Friday night ABC’s “20/20” will devote it’s full hour to determining if the brutal 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard was a crime motivated by hatred of homosexuals. I ask myself, where is this leading?
Russell Henderson has already tried to have his sentence reduced. He and Aaron McKinney are both serving the same sentence - two life terms in prison, to be served consecutively. That alone guarantees that they will never see life outside of a prison wall again.
It really doesn’t matter to me that they may have been high on drugs. They chose to take those drugs. At any point in time, they could have let Matthew go after they had his money. Instead, they drove Matthew out of town, beat him, burned him with cigarettes, kicked him in the groin (based on reports of bruising in that area of his body), and hit him no less than twenty times, mostly in the head, with the butt of a gun, until he lost consciousness.
They then left him to die alone on the Wyoming prairie in close to freezing temperatures. Matthew was found 18 hours later. He died 5 days later in a hospital, tied to life support.
These are the facts. Russell Henderson says he never struck Matthew Shepard. That may be true. He held Matthew while Aaron McKinney did the work. He stood by and watched another human being be beaten to death, and HE DID NOTHING TO STOP IT. He was also the one who tied Matthew’s hands behind him to the fence.
So you tell me. Should Henderson have gotten less time because he claims he never struck Matthew Shepard. Does that make him a model citizen? Should we pat him on that back and say, “We are so thankful that you only held and tied Matthew’s hands, but didn’t strike him. I’m so thankful that you aren’t a gay basher!”?
They deserve exactly what they got and I for one am deeply offended that ABC or any other network is giving them the time of day. As far as I’m concerned, prison was too good for them.
The hundreds of people who saw the Madison East High School production of “The Laramie Project” last weekend may find this week’s “20/20” broadcast of particular interest.
The ABC news show will devote its entire hour Friday to an investigative report that raises questions as to whether the murder six years ago of gay college student Matthew Shepard in Laramie, Wyo., was really a hate crime. The play is based on the crime.
In their first interviews since being sentenced, the two men convicted of killing Shepard - Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson - claim Shepard’s sexual orientation had nothing to do with his murder.
The two men tell “20/20” co- anchor Elizabeth Vargas that they set out to rob someone that night, happened upon Shepard at a bar and later attacked him because they were in the midst of drug-induced rages. [...]
At the request of the State Journal, the advance copy was watched by John Quinlan, executive director of OutReach, the Madison community center for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people.
Quinlan said the show does not change his belief that Shepard’s murder was a hate crime. He bases this on several factors, he said, including the brutality of the beating, statements made to police by the killers and the “gay panic” defense used by McKinney at his trial.
“They were willing to use the gay panic defense when it would have helped to lessen their responsibility, but now that it would make them look less prejudiced in the eyes of the world, they’re suddenly saying that Matthew’s being gay had nothing to do with it. There is little credibility in that.”
Quinlan said that although it’s impossible to get inside the heads of the killers, their use of the gay panic defense turned the crime into a hate crime.
“A hate crime is a crime that doesn’t just affect the victim. It’s also the fear that resonates out from there,” he said. “It’s an act against a whole group of people. They engineered the means for it to be a hate crime. They used homophobia to try and justify their actions.”(source)
Further reading
Remembering Matthew - my photo album for him
The Matthew Shepard Foundation
Dennis Shepard's Statements to the Court - November 4, 1999
Gay porn sent to Italian Senators
If you are like me, you are getting up to 75 spams a day advertising Viagra, other stimulants, “hot lesbians in leather”, or some such. To all the porn people sending their gay porn to the Italian Senators, you know my email address. Send it to me damn it!!!
Italian senators opening attachments promising gay porn have triggered the government’s computer system.
The worm penetrated the AV checker and then opened a back door to shed loads of gay porn which swamped the server.
Are Americans Stupid?
In a word, YES!
As shown in the last election, the majority of Americans will buy into just about anything, as long as it makes them feel safe. Safe from war, terrorism, queers, gay marriage, and the ever popular umbrella, “attack on the American Family” (which covers everything else that I’ve left out).
People today, for example, know gay people. The majority of Americans know someone who is gay, either through their work, or someone who is a member of their immediate or extended family. Yet, many of the people I know voted for President Bush because it is “for the good of the country”. Deep down they tell me that it was for fear of terrorism, and a few has said that we have to stop gay marriage, and President Bush “has a plan” to do that.
Yet, there’s absolutely no evidence that giving full marriage rights to committed gay couples will harm America. They have bought into the fear and, despite knowing what gay people are really like through their personal relationships with them, they have opted to give into that fear.
In a perhaps less virulent way, this is what many people fear if today’s liberal intellectuals should ever get their way: Restrictions on liberties ordinary Americans prize (such as parental, private-property, and gun-ownership rights, economic liberty, religious freedom). The repudiation of morality (homosexual marriage, sexual permissiveness, abortion, cultural license). Experimentation that discards and seeks to redesign human life (the destruction of embryos for their stem cells, genetic engineering, cloning, designer babies).
But the question remains, are Americans stupid? Mental functions involve two different spheres: intelligence (mental ability) and knowledge (mental content). It is possible to have one without the other. Americans across the spectrum do seem to have intelligence, whether highly specialized mental abilities or down-to-earth common sense. They are certainly not so stupid as to allow intellectuals to rule over them. Americans do tend to be smart. Sometimes, though, they lack knowledge, or the knowledge they think with is untrue. [...]
Americans are smart enough, but it would be helpful for Americans—liberals, conservatives, Christians, and everyone—to know more, to be open to truths that go beyond their own limited interests, desires, and preferences. “My people are destroyed” not for lack of intelligence, but “for lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6).
ACLU sues Missouri school district
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It’s a trite saying, but it’s true. If you give one student or group the ability to express themselves, it opens up all kinds of possibilities.
This has all come about because of a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that said schools cannot force students to give up their right to freedom of expression. In this particular case, a gay student has worn gay pride-themed T-shirts to class and was asked to either reverse the shirt or be sent home.
Other’s have worn anti-gay themed T-shirts and the gay student wants the same right. I agree with him.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday sued a southwest Missouri school district for prohibiting a high school student from wearing gay pride-themed T-shirts.
The district has said the T-shirts were disruptive and therefore a violation of school dress code. The lawsuit filed in federal court also names Webb City High School Principal Stephen P. Gollhofer.
“Because I’m gay, my school is trying to take away my constitutional right as an American to express myself,” the student, Brad Mathewson, said in a statement.
“The school lets other students wear anti-gay T-shirts, and I understand that they have a right to do that,” he said. “I just want the same right.” [...]
The ACLU is basing its case on a 1969 Supreme Court ruling that said schools cannot force students to give up their right to freedom of expression.
‘Alexander’ the Not-so-Great
Ok, I admit... I was looking forward to seeing the hot sex scenes (hot gay sex scenes) with Colin Farell. They were originally filmed, but were taken out of the final cut because it was deemed “too controversial” for many in society.
Well, because of that, along with the bad reviews this movie is getting, I won’t go see it. It’s not because the gay sex was cut out. I just believe that if you are going to do a project, you owe it to your audience to be accurate. The truth of the matter is, in the time period that Alexander lived, gay sex was a norm and was fully blessed by society. To give the movie historical relevance, Oliver Stone should have pulled his head out of his ass and done it right. What he ended up with is a half-assed attempt to show a sanitized Alexander who is just as boring as anyone else in today’s world.
The bad acting coupled with the daytime drama-like music gave the picture an unintentionally campy feel. The dialogue was either trite or overreaching. The action scenes were too obviously computer enhanced with a cheesy CGI hawk guiding the focus of the cinematography. The whole movie had a very clichéd feel to it and it made me embarrassed for the filmmakers while I was watching it.
The only somewhat compelling storyline was the relationship between Alexander and his gay lover Hephaistion. But even that was half-assed. They only show the lovers hug. And what lovers do you know who only hug?
Or, as another reviewer put it:
Aristotle (Christopher Plummer) teaches the boys to wrestle-- Alexander loses to his special friend Hephaistion (Jared Leto)-- and lectures them on when it's okay for men to “lie together.”
You’ve heard the rumors. Stone doesn’t gloss over Alexander’s well-documented bisexuality. In fact, he goes a step further and points out the gay element Wolfgang Petersen left out of Troy earlier this year, as Alexander and Hephaistion frequently compare their love to that of Achilles and Patroclus.
But while they talk about love and exchange longing looks (there are a lot of longing looks in this movie), Stone applies a double standard to avoid grossing out homophobic viewers. The two men never kiss, only embrace-- in a manly way-- three times. Alexander kisses a male dancer in one scene, there's some male-male hanky-panky going on in the background at some orgies, and there's a big smooch as prelude to an assassination; but we never see the main character kiss the love of his life. (source)
A letter reprinted from Fredericksburg.com:
Homosexuals deserve equal rights. That’s a plain fact.
Date published: 11/24/2004
Mr. Herbert W. Lux Jr. [“Those who stood up for marriage deserve thanks,” Nov. 18] states: “To impose the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality on our society is wrong.”
He furthers states: “Nor should there be a watered-down version called civil unions in an attempt to get rights that come with legitimate marriage.”
This man must think that parents of gays and lesbians asked God to deliver to them a gay son or lesbian daughter.
Now that’s absurd; God brought these children into this world, just as God brings into this world all children.
Our God is a loving God. When a gay or lesbian is brought into this world, God and the parents are asked to love this child as any other child.
As a result, our God can see the hate in the eyes of Mr. Lux and all others who follow his beliefs.
But “it’s in the Bible,” he probably says.
This problem was around when God was born, and it will always be a problem.
Marriages are “until death do us part,” but divorce hits 50 percent of marriages and a divorce hurts both parties.
Gay and lesbian unions go through the same hurt as marriages when they end, but many of these partnerships also last for a lifetime.
It is time for Mr. Lux and others to accept their relationships as something from God.
It is also time for him and others to accept some sort of civil union that will give these people equal loving rights.
Gerald R. Korb
Locust Grove
Today was a beautiful day. I woke around 7:30am. Kent was long gone to work. I had a small breakfast and decided to spend my day hiking around Mashapaug Pond. I hiked out to my favorite place on the pond, Rock Point. I had the entire park all to myself. I stayed for almost four hours. It was a nice day.
The pond from Rock Point
Reflections in the leaves
Local wildlife I spotted along the trail leading to the pond
Me, reflecting on life at one of my favorite spots, Rock Point
A last look as I was leaving for home
A letter republished from the Indiana Statesman:
Gay Marriage is a Family Value Guest Editorial
By Levi Harris
November 17, 2004So on Nov. 2, 11 states voted to insert gay marriage bans into their constitutions. Add to that the fact President Bush may soon name as many as three Supreme Court justices, and gay Americans’ prospects for equal rights may now be postponed for a generation. But legalizing gay marriage is still the right thing to do as a matter of policy and morality.
First, it’s ridiculous when conservatives say they want to preserve a definition of marriage that’s existed for thousands of years. Marriage has never been a static institution. In the Bible, Jacob, David, Solomon and others were polygamists. In the New Testament, polygamy was widespread enough for St. Paul to mention that church leaders should be “the husband of one wife.”
At old common law, wives were merely property. In America, slaves were forbidden to marry, no matter how long they’d been together. Until Loving Vs. Virginia in 1967, states could ban interracial marriage. So 37 years ago, it would have been illegal in some states for Clarence Thomas to marry Lynne Cheney.
Marriage is always evolving, yet it’s survived every change, and anyone who has seen “Casablanca” knows why: “The world will always welcome lovers.” Marriage won’t be destroyed by allowing two men to marry any more than it would when blacks and whites marry. (For the record, people used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, too.)
Then there’s this argument that gays getting married will cheapen everyone else’s marriage, which is not only wrong, but also illegitimate. That’s like saying people I don’t like shouldn’t be allowed to have birthdays because my cake won’t taste as sweet. Or more on point, it’s like saying voting became less meaningful when blacks, women and 18-year-olds were granted the franchise. Selfishness and elitism do not make a constitutional argument.
Gay people don’t want to destroy marriage. Why would they spend their money and time fighting to be a part of something they want to dismantle? No, the way to destroy marriage is to refuse to let it adapt. Institutions must change to keep pace with reality, or they’ll become irrelevant. If gay Americans can’t marry, more and more families, straight and gay, will be created outside marriage so that someday marriage itself will be the exception, not the rule. The way to protect marriage is to expand it so more people are socialized to view it as having real meaning for their lives.
You know, conservatives like to talk about family values, but gay marriage IS a family value. We live in a country where gay parents can have their children ripped away from them only because they are gay. Gay Americans often have no legal standing to visit their partners in the hospital; to adopt children; to take medical leave when their partners are sick or dying; to receive their partner’s pension or life insurance benefits; or even to decide where to bury their partners.
For 24 years, I’ve heard conservatives whine about how disgusting gay folks are, how all they want to do is shop, dance, do drugs and sleep with as many different people as possible. At church, they showed me videos of Pride Parades, where these moral lepers would flaunt their depravity in the streets. The Right-Wingers taught me all gay sex was good for was spreading AIDS and other diseases.
But if they believe that, then how DARE they deny gay Americans the right to marry? When gay folks want to settle down, raise families and be monogamous, how dare the conservatives refuse them?
Trumpeting the virtues of marriage and then denying gay people that right is no different than making a room of black schoolchildren say the Pledge of Allegiance and sing “My Country ’Tis of Thee” and then telling them they can’t vote. Shame on the conservatives.
We hear conservatives speak of gay marriage as being part of the “Gay Agenda.” Well, if gay marriage is part of a “Gay Agenda,” then the Underground Railroad and the march in Selma were part of a “Black Agenda,” because all gays want is what Americans have always wanted: the freedom that comes with having their full-citizenship rights. Gay folks should be proud; there’s no shame in having an agenda for freedom.
It’ll be a hard row to hoe. Like most of the great victories of the Civil Rights Movement, I believe this battle will be fought in the courts. Courts are generally one progressive step ahead of the population, and legislatures one conservative step behind. If it hadn’t been for “activist judges” like Earl Warren, blacks and whites would still be going to separate schools in Birmingham and Little Rock.
Depending on how the Supreme Court changes in the days ahead, this fight may take 30 years. But we’ll keep fighting, and someday this discrimination will go the way of slavery, of internment camps, of segregation, and of anti-sodomy laws, because now, like then, we progressives are in the right. And we have some powerful allies: the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, reason and the irrefutable morality of recognizing the fundamental equality and human dignity of all people for all time.
If you’re gay, come out and stand up for yourself. If you’re straight, stick up for your gay friends. And if you’re interested in being a part of the struggle for equal rights, take the LSAT. We could always use another lawyer.
Levi Harris is a second-year law student at Indiana University in Bloomington. He is a 2003 alumnus of ISU and former Opinion Editor and columnist. You can contact him at Lsharris@indiana.edu.
A letter published on TheDay.com (reprinted with permission from theday.com).
Published on 11/22/2004
Letters To The Editor:
This is in response to the letter titled “Tell Congress to keep marriage safe,” published on Nov. 18.
The genius of our great nation’s founders built into our government a system of checks and balances. This system guarantees that popular opinion of a majority, even if based on currently popular religious beliefs, does not infringe on the civil rights of the other 49 percent of the population. It protects us all.
The Bill of Rights guarantees equality to every citizen, not privilege to large groups of heterosexuals who believe their God made them a chosen people. Rewriting the Constitution to suit popular opinion was purposefully made difficult by our founders. Not even popular vote can override equality in America.
Judges who have ruled to uphold the Bill of Rights over popular religious beliefs have been called “rogues.” Upholding the Bill of Rights and the Constitution above popular vote and religious beliefs is their job.
Those who do not hold the same religious beliefs as the 51 percent of the population who voted for Mr. Bush are often referred to as “liberals,” immoral, anti-family, dangerous and even evil for supporting the fact that gay people do exist and should have the same rights as every other U.S. citizen.
Even if you think that they should disappear or pretend to be heterosexual or should accept discrimination as a price for being who they are or should only be entitled to some of the legal protections available to heterosexual couples, this is not what the Bill of Rights suggests.
One day, America will be returned to all citizens. America will again stand for equality and justice, not the blind power of the majority and outspoken.
In America, you’re entitled to keep your religious beliefs. I choose to put my faith in justice, equality and the Bill of Rights.
Michael Hargrave
East Lyme
Every five hours, a gay or bisexual youth that cannot deal with the pressure commits suicide.
EVERY FIVE HOURS. That's a pretty sobering statistic.
This is only one of many that you never hear about. There are suicides that happen every day in the teen community and, if you are gay, you are, according to some statistics, at least eight times more likely to commit suicide in our society.
It takes a lot of bravery to grow up in today’s world, and with all the very negative publicity about gay people in general, and gay marriage specifically, it’s no surprise to me that the suicide rate is what it is. I actually expect it to get worse for our teens until fully acceptance is given to our community and our relationships.
Amanda Hafleigh was a second-year American literature student at UCLA. She died last Thursday night in her room in what police say is an apparent suicide. She was only 19 years old.
Amanda “Mandy” Hafleigh, a second-year American literature student, died last Thursday night in her room on the third floor of Dykstra Hall in what police say is an apparent suicide. She was 19. [...]
Hafleigh was also an active member of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. With the help of friends in the LGBT community, Hafleigh came out as a lesbian and by spring 2004 was actively involved in the community. She participated in this year’s National Coming Out Week events and was a member of the Queer Alliance. To combine her leading interests, Hafleigh had planned to create an LGBT intramural athletics team.
“I remember during the (presidential) election, she was very passionate for rights for gay marriage,” said Ramsey Kyles, another one of Hafleigh’s floormates. “It was something she was really worked up about.”
Many of her friends agree that it was easy to like Hafleigh.
“She had a magnetic personality,” said Paymon Ebrahimzadeh, chairman of the Queer Alliance. “She was someone you always wanted to be with.”
People who knew Hafleigh benefited from her effervescent personality and said she helped other freshmen last year adjust to the new college environment.
“She influenced me to be open and welcome other people,” said Kyles, who also lived with her during their first year. “She helped me meet people and further (my) people skills in college.” (source)
What a great line to start an entry off with! I love it. It is a quote from a high school girl who was fed up with protesters who were visiting her town because of a gay citizen in her town.
I read about Michael Shakelford in September in an article in the Washington Post entitled “In the Bible Belt, Acceptance Is Hard-Won”. I was touched by the courage of this young man and how mean people at his school and the community had been to Michael and his mother.
But now, something miraculous has happened. The Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas was arriving in Michael’s town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma to protest the town’s acceptance of homosexuality and the churches there that are not being outspoken enough to condemn homosexuality. It seems the town has started to show some support for Michael in coming out against the protesters. It’s a story with a silver lining, I suppose you could say.
There are some people in this world who are made to be destroyed. - Fred Phelps
The fliers arrived three weeks ago. Some came over the fax machines of local churches, and others appeared mysteriously around town. Printed in bold was the heading “Westboro Baptist Church.” No seeming cause for alarm. Sand Springs, population 18,500, is a Christian stronghold in the gently rolling hills of eastern Oklahoma.
But the message that followed was a rant against a 17-year-old Sand Springs resident named Michael Shackelford and his mother, Janice, the subjects of a recent Washington Post series examining Michael’s struggles as a young gay man in the Bible Belt. The fliers posted a photo of Michael, called him a “doomed teenage fag” and announced that followers of Westboro Baptist in Topeka were on their way from Kansas to stage antigay protests in Sand Springs. [...]
When Phelps announced that his group was coming to picket at several churches and the high school, fresh battle lines were drawn. To many here, homosexuality was a sin, but Michael Shackelford was their sinner. Just as the November election was reducing moral issues to red or blue, Sand Springs confronted subtler shades of truth. Janice Shackelford was terrified by the persecution of her son, then surprised by what happened next.
“This Westboro outfit thought they could come to this town and break it apart,” Janice said. “But it has brought the town together. It has opened some doors to talk.” [...]
The response surprised Michael, who thought he would be cast out. People were being nice to him. Only a few weeks earlier he’d been called a “queer” at Arby’s. Now there was a new menace in Sand Springs, and it was Fred Phelps. [...]
Inside the church, the congregation was standing and the six-piece guitar band was rocking. The music and energy built until Pastor Eubanks bounded onstage.
“There is darkness and there is light and we are in the middle of the light,” Eubanks said, to more thunderous applause. “Say it: God loves us all. All of us!”
After the service, several people came up to hug Janice. One woman held her in an embrace that lasted two minutes, whispering to Janice the whole time.
A burly man with a crew cut gave Michael a thumbs-up. “Man, you be who you are,” Shannon Watie said, holding his Bible. “We got your back.” (source)
I got a card today in the mail from the Salvation Army. It read:
Dear Christmas Friend,
Could you open your heart and share your blessings this Christmas? With your donation, we can give the less fortunate in our community holiday meals, warm clothes, toys, and Christmas joy.
A gift of any amount is very much appreciated!!
Thank you and God Bless.
I know this sounds harsh, but to the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts who both ask for donations out in front of Highland Market where I shop for groceries, I want to say, “fuck you!”
The scout masters always look at me like they can read my mind as I go by them. They never talk to me because the can probably tell by the expression on my face that as far as they are concerned, they can go to hell.
As for the Salvation Army is concerned, I would like to know why you are fighting domestic partner benefits? I thought that your main focus is on helping the poor, but you seem to have plenty of time to gay bash. They are well known for their anti-gay attitudes and practices.
People who know me know that I have a big heart and help people when I can, but I won’t sell my soul to do it. I’m going to put the following reply on the card and send it back to them.
Dear Salvation Army:
I’m a gay American. I have in the past given to your organization because I believe in helping people when I can. But, I will not support your bigotry against gay Americans. So, with all due respect, you can go to Hell.
Merry Christmas.
I’ll send it out tomorrow. We’ll see if, between now and then, I tone down my message. I hate bigotry and you can't fight bigotry by supporting these organizations, no matter how “noble” their cause.
Hell I would have taken the pig in myself if I had a farm and could pay shipping to get the 220 pig to America from Bulgaria. As a boy who lived on a farm, I would occasionally come across gay animals. We didn’t really think anything about it. They usually became my pets because I understood them.
I think he looks awesome and I can see he’s gay. Just look into his eye.
Shumen, Bulgaria - A Bulgarian farmer is demanding substantial damages in court after claiming the prize-winning pedigree pig he bought from a breeder was homosexual.
Galen Dobrev, 43, told the court: “It’s a disgrace, all he was interested in was other male pigs.”
The farmer took pictures of the gay pig to prove the 220-pound boar was homosexual and had fellow farmers testify on his behalf as to the pig's sexual preferences.
He told the court that when his fellow farmers heard about the gay pig it had also been impossible to sell him - and in the end he had turned the animal into sausages.
But the breeder who sold the pig claimed that the farmer had acted too soon by making pork sausages, and said that if he had waited until the pig was sexually mature he would have found it performed perfectly normally. (source)
Three people have filed an election challenge, asking that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Kentucky be overturned. (source)
Don’t you wish other schools would stand up to preassure to do the right thing? I’m so tired of gay kids being called names and being harassed. It’s time that they get the respect that they deserve - the same respect given to all students.
A Toronto District School Board elementary school, hosting mandatory same-sex sensitivity training for its schoolchildren, is not allowing any exemptions -- even for Muslim children whose parents object to the content of the instruction.
The videos and discussion, called “anti-homophobia education” by the board, are aimed at children, to purportedly eliminate the bullying of children living in families with same-sex parents. (source)
It’s about time Mayor Bloomberg. I’ve been annoyed with the NYC Mayor Bloomberg over this entire issue. He's been dragging his feet all the way, despite the fact that the state Attorney General has order him to honor these relationships.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Wednesday that he will direct his appointees on the city’s pension fund boards to treat city employees in gay marriages the same way as those in traditional marriages. [...]
If the idea is approved by the city’s five pension fund boards, same sex couples who are legally married or involved in a civil union with a city employee, would receive pension benefits, including for instance, accidental death benefits. [...]
State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has ruled that though same-sex marriages could not be legally performed in New York, the state must recognize those performed legally elsewhere. (source)
This is all we need, for Russia to now start the development of a “new type of nuclear missile”, which the United States will undoubtedly want to match in some fashion. The new missile is suppose to be “unlike any that other nuclear powers have”.
As a human race, we need to stop playing with this technology and this class of weapons. If we don’t, it will be our end. It’s hard for me to think how a nuclear bomb could be made into a deadlier weapon, but if the human mind can imagine it, it will happen.
Russian President Vladimir Putin says his country is developing a new type of nuclear missile. Mr. Putin spoke at an annual meeting of the armed forces’ senior leadership.
President Putin says research is underway on developing new nuclear missiles as part of the effort to improve Russia’s armed forces.
Speaking at a meeting of senior military leaders, Mr. Putin said international terrorism is one of the major threats facing Russia.
But he added the country cannot ignore nuclear threats and the need to develop new missiles.
President Putin said the new systems will be unlike any that other nuclear powers have. He said they will be deployed ‘in the future,’ but did not say when. The Russian leader did not provide any further details. (source)