February 2005 Archives

It’s true... I couldn’t find my way out of a paper bag if my life depended on it. So when Kent and I take day trips around the state, it doesn’t really take too much to get me lost. One time, I went to see a friend in Manchester, Connecticut (the “black hole” of the state). I was lost for almost two hours just trying to find my way back home! When I finally came upon a freeway sign, I was on the other side of the University of Connecticut at Storrs, Connecticut.

So now, I don’t worry about it. We both decided that my sense of direction is so horrible, that we bought a car that at least knows where it is. “Take the Next Right... In half a mile, take the first left.” You get the idea. It talks in a masculine, somewhat aggressive, yet understanding voice. And no matter where I am, I can just say, “Go Home”, and it will take me home. Kinda like those red slippers did for Dorothy!

Gay men employ the same strategies for navigating as women - using landmarks to find their way around - a new study suggests.

But they also use the strategies typically used by straight men, such as using compass directions and distances. In contrast, gay women read maps just like straight women, reveals the study of 80 heterosexual and homosexual men and women.

“Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic,” explains Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist who led the study at the University of East London, UK. “It’s not simply that lesbians have men’s brains and gay men have women’s brains.” (source)

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Complete marriage rights for homosexuals may be a better choice for Connecticut, say Vermont gay rights advocates who have been living with civil unions for five years.

Although the civil union system Connecticut legislators are considering would extend all state rights and responsibilities for married heterosexual couples to gays and lesbians, same-sex couples still could not get married.

And that’s the problem, said Beth Robinson, one of the attorneys who argued on behalf of same-sex couples in a 2000 lawsuit that resulted in Vermont becoming the first state to recognize civil unions.

“There’s no question that law creates a separate box for same-sex couples. It sends a message that says you’re not quite equal, you’re not quite worthy,” she said. “That affects our kids. That affects our families. That affects the couples.” (source)

Separate and somewhat less than equal. Yeah, that’s something we should all strive for. Second best.

I guess this is why I find the whole idea of civil unions so repugnant. Ever since Vermont put civil unions in place five years ago, there has been no push in the state of Vermont towards full marriage for gay couples. Will the same hold try for Connecticut? I guess time will tell, because it looks as if we are heading towards the same conclusion as Vermont.

Do we hold out hope that someday we will have full civil marriage, or do we strive to push the Federal Government to honor civil unions from the states that allow them? Of course, I feel that we should go for civil marriage and dump civil unions altogether. That’s my preference.

Whatever we go for, we need to understand that until the Federal Government honors our relationships and our families, the BIG TICKET ITEMS are at the federal level, such as access to your partner’s Social Security benefits should one of you die, access to 401K funds without taxation, joint tax returns, and all the rest. Here are just a few...

Retirement
When a husband or wife dies, the surviving spouse can move money from the deceased’s retirement plan into his or her own plan without taxation or limitations. But because same-sex couples are treated as strangers under the tax code, a same-sex surviving partner incurs significant penalties and restrictions when transferring a deceased’s retirement plan.

Two retirement options in which many American businesses and employees invest are 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs. In both cases, a federal law called the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) allows a surviving spouse to roll over, or transfer, the deceased’s IRA or 401(k) plan into his or her own plan. The plan, then, continues to grow without being taxed.

Surviving same-sex partners, however, are unable to roll over their partners’ plans into their own and are heavily taxed on the money they receive. This is because same-sex partners are typically restricted to receiving the benefits in lump-sum payments, which has considerable disadvantages.

Continued Health Insurance
When a married heterosexual employee loses or leaves a job, employers are required to offer the employee - and his or her spouse - the opportunity to pay for continued health coverage for up to 18 months, under a federal law called the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, or COBRA.

But when a gay or lesbian employee loses or leaves a job, federal law does not guarantee the employee the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, even if the employer-sponsored plan originally covered that partner. This is true even though it is the former employee, not the employer, who pays the premium for this temporary coverage.

Social Security Survivor Benefits
Although gay and lesbian Americans contribute to Social Security throughout their working lives, their families are denied the same benefits heterosexual Americans receive upon the death of a spouse. Specifically:

* Partners who are Retired or Disabled are denied surviving spouse benefits because they were denied the right to marry.

* Partners raising children are denied Social Security surviving parent benefits because they were previously denied the right to legally marry.

* Children may also be denied Social Security surviving child benefits if the deceased parent was barred from securing a legal relationship to his or her child through second-parent adoption.

This loss of income can be substantial. For example, surviving partners who are 60 years old will lose an average of $9,780 a year - or approximately $166,000 if they live to the average life expectancy of 77. (Based on Social Security Administration calculations that Social Security survivor benefits averaged $815 per month in 2002.)

If there are surviving children, the loss of income is potentially even greater. For example, when a working parent was denied the opportunity to establish a legal relationship to his or her child through second-parent adoption, that child will also be denied the right to Social Security survivor benefits upon that parent’s death. This could translate to a loss of $900 per month, or $10,000 per year, for a child whose parent worked for at least 10 years and earned at least $50,000 in the last year of his or her life.

Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits
As a growing number of employers offer domestic partner benefits, gays and lesbians are discovering a hitch - domestic partner benefits, unlike health benefits provided to married heterosexual couples, are taxed as income. As a result, gay and lesbian employees take home relatively less income than their married heterosexual co-workers who perform exactly the same job.

For example, a gay or lesbian employee earning $40,000 a year and receiving domestic partner health insurance benefits toward which the employer contributes $250 a month would owe income and payroll taxes on a total of $43,000 in income at the end of the year.

A married heterosexual employee earning the same salary and receiving the same health benefits for his or her spouse would owe income and payroll taxes on only $40,000. (source for this data)

Having the state honor the relationship in whatever form is nice, but it just really doesn’t cut it. If something happens to one of us, there are so many ways the Federal Government will screw us over because they see us as legal strangers.

On the heels of a new report by the Government Accounting Office showing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has cost taxpayers more than $200 million since its inception in 1993 a group of congress members has announced plans to introduce legislation to end the ban on gays in the military.

More than 10,000 service members have been discharged over the last 10 years under the policy according to statistics from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Since 9-11 the number of gay discharges has dropped which SLDN says is an indication that when the nation’s security is at danger the military turns a blind eye to gays serving in the armed forces. (source)

Well, we all pay for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But as I read this article, I was also listening to the news on a different topic, that of “stop loss”. Because of “stop loss” soldiers who have completed their tour of duty can be called up for duty several times after their military careers are over. They are unable to leave the military because when President Bush declared that the United States was in a state of “nation emergency”, stop loss kicked in.

Except that is, for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. You can still be kicked out of the military for being gay. I know the essence of the policy is terribly unfair and unjust and has been the destruction of many military careers. But after listening to these soldiers who are going back to Iraq for a second or third time, you have to wonder if the gay soldiers who have been kicked out are the lucky ones.

I honestly believe that our government doesn’t care about our troops. I’ve always been against the war in Iraq, but I’ve always supported our troops. I feel for what they are going through. I feel that to our government, they are nothing more than a number, and that’s a tragedy.

It’s a tough fight. We all have to just keep on going. This was just one setback. There will be more for sure. But with each setback, it will show even more our determination and the gross injustice of this inequality.

ITHACA, N.Y. Feb 24, 2005 — A judge has ruled against a group of same-sex couples who challenged the state’s anti-gay marriage law after they were denied marriage licenses.

The 25 couples sued the city of Ithaca and the state last June, arguing that the law contradicts a 2002 New York statute outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. [...]

“Social perceptions of same-sex civil contracts may change over time,” Mulvey wrote in his ruling. “If that day comes, it is within the province of the Legislature to so act.”

The couples’ lawyer said they would appeal. (source)

I suppose after Abu Ghraib, none of this should come as a surprise. One can hope that the lives of women in Iraq would improve over time. But, once we leave, I have little hopes of that happening. If they couldn’t even be protected from our troops (some of whom have allegedly raped some of the women), the people who came to “liberate” Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, what hope do they have after we leave?

I can’t even imagine what their lives must be like. To be abused in this manner, but to know nothing else or have hope or even knowledge of what life could be.

LONDON -- Nearly two years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, women there are no better off than under the rule of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein, the human rights group Amnesty International said on Tuesday.

In a report entitled “Iraq -- Decades of Suffering,” it said that while the systematic repression under Saddam had ended, it had been replaced by increased murders, and sexual abuse -- including by U.S. forces.

Washington promised that the overthrow of Saddam would free the Iraqi people from years of oppression and set them on the road to democracy. But Amnesty said post-war insecurity had left women at risk of violence and curtailed their freedoms.

“The lawlessness and increased killings, abductions and rapes that followed the overthrow of the government of Saddam Hussein have restricted women’s freedom of movement and their ability to go to school or to work,” Amnesty said.

“Women have been subjected to sexual threats by members of the U.S.-led forces and some women detained by U.S. forces have been sexually abused, possibly raped,” it added. (source)

The following letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant is being reprinted here, with the author’s permission.

The Honorable Governor Jodi Rell
State Capitol
210 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, CT 06106-1535

Dear Governor Rell:

My partner and I have been together nearly 16 years. Whether we actually do marry, or not, is not as important as being in a class of people considered worthy, acceptable for who we are, recognized eye to eye with nothing held back from us. Please try to understand our very real sense of being underclass so long as the civil right to marry the one person we love is denied.

Making “civil unions” available, even if attempts are made to extend all the marriage rights heterosexual couples enjoy, is not acceptable. Being required to eat in the kitchen rather than the dining room establishes two classes. Besides that, having access to civil unions would amount to a virtual dead end so far as legislation is concerned. Legislators and the public would be of the mind:

“We’ve taken care of them, now let’s get on with our work,” and it would take years to get equal marriage rights on the calendar again.

I am aware that you have spoken out against equal rights for same-sex couples. When you pledge allegiance to the US flag and uphold the US Constitution remember that quite a group of law-abiding and country-loving citizens are waiting--albeit impatiently--for a new day. It’s time to put away your fears and do what you can in the name of “liberty and justice for all.”

Sincerely, and with hope,
Dorothy J. Many
Windsor, CT

Thank you.

Lobbyist, Connecticut Gay Rights Group Split

Betty Gallo, the lobbying voice of the gay rights movement in Connecticut for two decades, has broken with the gay community over its all-or-nothing push for a same-sex marriage law. [...]

Word of Gallo’s decision to drop Love Makes A Family, a group she helped found, from her stable of progressive clients circulated among state lawmakers Tuesday, the eve of a judiciary committee vote on civil unions for same-sex couples. [...]

“Without a doubt, she is the most respected ‘white hat’ lobbyist, meaning a lobbyist who only pushes issues she believes in,” said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the judiciary committee.

“This is devastating, just devastating. I struggled for two months over how I could do this,” Gallo said, referring to arguing against civil unions. “I just couldn’t do it.”

Lawlor said he and his co-chairman, Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, will attempt to have the judiciary committee today endorse a civil-union bill that would extend marriage rights to gay couples in nearly every aspect but name.

He applauded Gallo’s decision to drop Love Makes A Family.

“Good for Betty - and too bad for Love Makes A Family,” Lawlor said.

“I was very surprised that Love Makes A Family, at the urging of some national groups, took the position of marriage or nothing. That’s a big mistake. My advice was to say you are for marriage, say civil unions aren’t good enough, but stop there.” [...]

“We respect her,” Stanback said. “We are grateful for all the help she and her firm have given us over the years.”

Stanback said the state’s gay community has a special responsibility to the national gay rights movement: Connecticut is one of only nine states where same-sex marriage has not been precluded by a constitutional amendment or other legislation.

A court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, coming on the heels of a civil-union law in Vermont, raised the bar, Stanback said.

“Our movement has evolved. The world has changed very quickly on this issue,” she said. “The state of Connecticut does not need to go through civil unions to get to marriage. We think our state is ready for marriage.”

Gallo, after conducting a legislative head count, disagreed.

She said she was able to lobby this year in good conscience for same-sex marriage, but could not abide her client’s direction that she also try to convince lawmakers that a vote for civil unions would be a setback to homosexuals or “a political dead end.”

“I don’t believe that,” Gallo said. “I was saying things to legislators that I didn’t believe for the first time in 28 years.”

A civil-union law would extend significant rights to gay and lesbian couples, and it is possible to achieve that this year, she said.

Gallo said she agreed with Love Makes A Family that the capstone of the gay rights movement in Connecticut should be winning the right to marry.

“I think this legislature will give us marriage - not this year, not next year,” Gallo said. “But, eventually, they will.”

I think it’s too bad that Betty Gallo wasn’t able to see the bigger picture here. I found this article very irritating in many ways. Anne Stanback is right. If civil unions are approved in Connecticut this year, there’s no guarantee that the legislature will be willing to visit this issue anytime in the near future.

And let’s face it, the only reason that the legislature is entertaining the idea of civil unions is not out of any desire to be fair. There is a looming court case over the State of Connecticut. Seven gay couples are suing the state for equal marriage rights. This happened in Massachusetts as well, and the end result was the Supreme Judicial Court issuing a directive to the legislature to change state law to allow gay couples to get married. The Mass. Legislature was unable to do that. They tried to settle for civil unions and asked the court if that would suffice. The court said, in a word, “No.”

The legislators in Connecticut are scared to death that the same will hold true here in Connecticut. So, they are trying to be preemptive in this action. This year, they are probably going to offer civil unions. There are people voting for this who would never have been caught dead voting for this, prior to what happened in Massachusetts. So, let’s cut through the crap and stop saying that they want to do the fair thing.

As I told Representative Lawlor, this civil union bill is unequal treatment and no one, other than the legislators, want this bill. Gay couples don’t want it right alone with the people trying to protect family values, and I never in a million years would have thought that we were on the same side of anything. Of course, we want the bill to fail for entirely different reasons.

They want to “protect marriage”. We want equality. So, if the civil union bill does pass, Kent and I will have no part of it. We will not settle for second best, even though this bill would address many of the legal concerns we have. You don’t negotiation with civil rights. Either you have them, or you don’t. Either you are equal, are your are not equal.

One thing got my ire up. When Representative Mike Lawlor said:

Good for Betty - and too bad for Love Makes A Family.

I was very surprised that Love Makes A Family, at the urging of some national groups, took the position of marriage or nothing. That’s a big mistake. My advice was to say you are for marriage, say civil unions aren’t good enough, but stop there.

It prompted this letter from me.

Continued from Connecticut Civil Unions, Part I

“Good for Betty - and too bad for Love Makes A Family. I was very surprised that Love Makes A Family, at the urging of some national groups, took the position of marriage or nothing. That’s a big mistake. My advice was to say you are for marriage, say civil unions aren’t good enough, but stop there.”

Dear Representative Lawlor:

Those are your words. You feel that civil unions are a compromise to civil marriage. It isn’t. Why should my partner of 30 years have to eat in the kitchen when there is a dining room that everyone else (heterosexual married couples) can eat in?

It’s not fair and you know it. You say that our wanting equal rights is “a big mistake”. Equality is NEVER a big mistake. Time will tell if you and others are honestly sincere about returning to this issue in the future. Here is my prediction:

You and your colleagues will pass a “civil union” bill this year (separate but more-or-less equal, something that will never be recognized by the Federal Government), and pat yourselves on the back for “doing the right thing”, knowing full well that this has nothing to do with EQUALITY.

Next year, the issue is dead. Having, in your minds, given us “equal rights” from this “civil union” bill, none of you will want to return to this issue next year. I will, right now, bet you $100 that next year the legislature will not even be looking at a marriage bill for gay couples. In fact, I would extend that bet to three years out. By this I mean that it is brought to the floor and voted on. Will anyone, such as yourself, take it upon yourself to bring a gay marriage bill to life?

In the meantime, if a civil union bill is passed this year, my partner and I will not be participating in this charade for justice and equality. We will never apply for something that is second-best. THAT IS NOT EQUALITY.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT

This was his response to me.

Hey, Bill, as a matter of fact, I myself will bring a marriage bill to life next year.

Mike Lawlor

I responded:

Dear Representative Lawlor,

Please understand my passion for gay marriage. I’m not questioning your motives or your integrity. I believe you to be an honest and fair man. And, I do believe that you will try to bring a marriage bill forth next year for gay couples. What scares me is your ability to give the bill a hearing, if no one else wants that to happen. I know just from hearing the legislators this year and some of the rhetoric that has taken place, that they want this to go away. If we get civil marriage this year, I personally do not believe we will see a bill giving gay couples equal REAL marriage (and not second-class “civil unions”), for another 10-15 years. I honestly believe that.

With all of your best intentions (and I do believe that you want to bring a bill forth next year for full marriage), I don’t believe you will be able to do that. A year is not a long time. If you honestly feel that we can’t pass a gay marriage bill this year, what makes you think the political climate is going to change enough to let it happen next year?

I’m 50 years old this year. That means I’ve been with my partner since I was 20 years old. How much longer should I have to be second-class in this “free” society of ours? If we can’t have marriage this year, or next year, will the legislature at least put through a bill giving us second-class taxes?

Whatever else people think of Betty Gallo, I don’t honestly see what there is to “applaud” (your term). Supporting civil unions is supporting a separate and less than equal system. I don’t know how anyone can be proud of that.

I am grateful for what you are trying to achieve, but anything less than EQUAL is not equal. And, that is simply wrong.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT

New York City officials are halting efforts to identify the remains of those killed in the 2001 terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center.

The city’s medical examiner's office says it has exhausted DNA technology that allowed it to match bodies and body parts to the list of the dead. The office says it has nearly 10,000 bone and tissue fragments it cannot identify.

No remains have been found for 1,161 people killed in the attacks, more than 40 percent of the 2,749 people killed overall. (source)

The following letter on gay marriage was submitted to The Daily Campus, the student paper at the University of Connecticut.

Gay marriage poses no threat By Emily Groff

The past several days have been momentous for gay rights activists. First, Feb. 13 was the one-year anniversary of the first gay marriages in San Francisco.

Sunday, Fox broadcasted an episode of “The Simpsons” featuring gay marriage and England announced the passage of a bill granting “same-sex couples the right to form legally binding partnerships” on Monday.

Although President George W. Bush reiterated his commitment to a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in his State of the Union address, there is a clear difference between the views of the political establishment and popular culture. As America was the last developed country to end slavery and remains one of the last with the death penalty, it appears we will be the last to recognize gay rights.

This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table. - President George W. Bush, February 22, 2005

It’s been a busy day for me. I worked from home today and got a lot done. Life is going well. I’m losing weight and feeling good about life. I’m getting in shape and going to the health club about five times a week now. Why do I go so much? Is it for the adrenaline high?

Sometimes, my writing doesn’t reflect how well my life is going. Sometimes, it doesn’t come through that my life is better now than it ever has been.

I write a lot about the challenges that gay people face in this society. I think about all the awful things that are said about us out in the open now, every day, and I think to myself, “We’ve made things worse for ourselves by pushing for equality.” But, I realize that the awful things they are saying about us were always there, behind the scenes, under everyone’s breath. The hatred was always there. And if any one of us had the courage to be who we really are, what would happen to us? Many things are possible. One possibility would be acceptance. One possibility would be to be shunned and lose your friends. One possibility would be that you would be injured. One possibility would be that you would be killed.

There are many ways for the hatred to show itself. But at least now, the hatred has a place to go. The more that people are talking about it out in the open, the more difficult it will be to do violence against us. Why? Because the more of us who are out, the more people will realize that they actually do know someone who is affected by violence and who is hurt by all this awful rhetoric. Also, I believe that the majority of people in this country really do want to be fair and just. I believe that when this argument has played out, equality will win the day. I believe this because I think tomorrow will be better than today. I’m an optimist.

This week has been a tough one for me because two straight married couples that I know, good friends of mine, have told me of their intentions to separate. Actually, one is getting a divorce, and one is starting the process of separation. Both couples are legally married. Yet, both are throwing away the one thing that Kent and I are fighting like hell to get, marriage. We went through the humiliation of going to our Town Clerk to get this piece of paper that says we are married, only to be turned down.

I know that marriage does not mean that everything will be easy and make the relationship work. I’m simply trying to come to grips with the fact that so many simply choose to walk away from the marriage. For whatever reason, Kent and I have stayed so strong through so many very difficult things in our lives. Everything has been against us, every step of the way. Yet, we want the one thing that half of heterosexual couples seem to have little regard for. It’s puzzling.

I guess I have a very narrow view of what gay is, or maybe I just live in a world completely different from others. I would never that even thought that Shrek or Shrek 2 had any gay overtones to them. When I watch movies such as this, it never even occurs to me. To get my attention in a movie to demonstrate that it’s got a gay character in it, you pretty much have to kiss and do the sex thing to get my attention. Suggestive eye contact isn’t enough for me because to me, that could simply imply, “Wow! I love your hair!”

I think what concerns me more than Shrek 2 having anything in it that could possibly be construed as “gay content” or a “gay character”, is the fact that there are people out there who are so super sensitive to anything gay (as though it’s some disease), they will make it gay, even if it isn’t. Does that qualify for some sort of phobia?

At any rate, now I have to see Shrek 2 to see what it’s all about. I saw the first one (by mistake I might add), and never went to see the sequel.

Shrek 2 is the latest animated film title to be “outed” by Christian fundamentalists in the U.S.

On its website the Traditional Values Coalition is warning parents about the cross-dressing and transgender themes contained in the hit DreamWorks feature, now on DVD.

“Shrek 2 is billed as harmless entertainment but contains subtle sexual messages,” says the coalition, which describes itself as a grassroots inter-denominational lobby with more than 43,000 member churches.

“Parents who are thinking about taking their children to see Shrek 2 may wish to consider the following.”

The article then proceeds to describe one of the characters, an “evil” bartender (voiced by Larry King) who is a male-to-female transgender in transition and who expresses a sexual desire for Prince Charming.

In another identified scene, Shrek and Donkey need rescuing from a dungeon by Pinocchio and his nose, which is made to extend as an escape bridge by getting the wooden boy to lie about not wearing women’s underwear. (source)

Moral of the story: People with long noses are evil. Women’s underwear is evil. People with long noses who actually wear women’s underwear are the Spawn of Satan (especially if that person happens to be transgendered). I’m sure somewhere in the Bible, it says so.

You know... a country who actually values all people the same way.

(London) Same-sex unions will become legal in the UK in December, and the British military has begun sweeping changes to prepare for them.

Legislation to create civil unions will go into effect on December 5. The first partnerships will therefore be in place by Christmas after the 15-day waiting period has passed, the government announced Monday.

The new law will allow gay and lesbian couples to sign an official document in front of the registrar and two witnesses and will offer almost all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage.

In line with the government’s announcement the Royal Navy has become the first branch of the services to say it will welcome lesbian and gay personnel to stay in family quarters once they have registered their unions. The other branches of the military are expected to follow suit. (source)

On one tape, Bush explains that he told one prominent evangelical that he would not “kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?”

Wead said on the tapes that he heard that Bush had promised that he would not hire gay people.

“No, what I said was I wouldn’t fire gays. I'm not going to discriminate against people,” Bush said. (source)

That was from a taped recording of a conversation then Governor Bush had with Doug Wead, a friend of the governor at the time. Bush said he would not fire gay people and would not discriminate against them. But, he didn’t say if he would hire an openly gay person. It goes both ways.

The following is from a transcript in which the President gives support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man, one woman.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. - President George W. Bush - February 24, 2004 (source)

I remember the date well because it’s the same day that Kent and I went to the Town Clerk of Coventry, Connecticut to ask for a marriage license. We were refused.

It’s a bit hypocritical to say on one hand that he won’t bash gays, then later (when he’s President) support a constitutional amendment making all gay couples second class citizens.

I know I keep harping on this, but it drives me nuts that he will say and do anything to get elected and to keep his numbers up as high as they can be, without regard to integrity. How can anyone like that be trusted? Why doesn’t America see that? Are we simply so starved for leadership that we will follow anything?

NEW YORK - Pictures of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan posing with hooded and bound detainees during mock executions were destroyed after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq to avoid another public outrage, Army documents released Friday by the American Civil Liberties Union show.

The results of an Army probe of the photographs were among hundreds of pages of documents released after the ACLU obtained a federal court order in Manhattan to let it see documents about U.S. treatment of detainees around the world.

The ACLU said the probe shows the rippling effect of the Abu Ghraib scandal and that efforts to humiliate the enemy might have been more widespread than thought.

“It’s increasingly clear that members of the military were aware of the allegations of torture and that efforts were taken to erase evidence, to shut down investigations and to humiliate the detainees in an effort to silence them,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.

The Army did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment. (source)

I’m absolutely certain that Abu Ghraib was just the tip of the ice berg. Why else would the Army have evidence destroyed? It amazes me that we let our government get away with this. A few soldiers are being punished, but they are just the scapegoats to make us feel that this issue has been addressed. This all came about and had the blessing from a much higher authority.

I find it interesting that a court would order that after separating from her partner, a lesbian who adopted the children would have to pay child support, yet, cannot obtain marriage under state law.

I would argue that, in the absence of marriage, she has no parental rights to the children. That may seem cruel to some, but I happen to believe that marriage puts a lot of those protections in place along with a lot of the obligations for child custody.

Here, the court is basically saying, “We won’t allow you to get married, but, we are going to hold you to the adoption.” That’s unfair. I would challenge it to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

This is exactly why we need marriage. Marriage would not always work in our favor. If the lesbian couple had been married, this would not have been an issue. She may not have liked the fact that she was responsible for paying support, but she would have opted to get married. Also, in an emergency situation, there’s no guarantee that a hospital would honor the adoption, especially from a same-sex partnership.

There is no substitute for marriage in these matters. The court, in this decision, has said once again that our relationships will be honored, when it is convenient to do so, without giving us the benefits of marriage.

INDIANAPOLIS Feb 19, 2005 — A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman’s biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The woman adopted her partner’s children in 1997. A few years after their breakup, she tried to vacate the adoption. Around the same time, the children’s biological mother, who had remarried and divorced a man, filed for child support.

A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the woman who adopted the children must contribute to the cost of raising them.

“Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties,” Judge John G. Baker wrote in a 22-page ruling.

“That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children’s other parent,” the decision said. (source)

First we had the “twinky” defense, and now I guess we have the “Zoloft” defense. Dan White, a former supervisor of the City of San Francisco, was convicted of killing in cold blood Mayor George Moscone and fellow supervisor Harvey Milk back on November 27, 1978. Harvey was gay. During the trial, Dan White’s attorney argued that Dan was not of his right mind because prior to committing these murders, his entire diet consisted of junk food, specifically, Twinkies.

This became known as the “Twinky Defense” and over time, there have been others, such as the “homosexual panic defense” that argues that a homosexual (usually a man) was murdered because he made “unwanted sexual advances” towards another man. This is still being used today. The man who committed the murder was driven, because of this homosexual panic, to commit the murder because he was so terrified of homosexuals and the sexual advance, that he had no other recourse than to violently murder the homosexual. I good example of this was the result of what happened on the Jenny Jones Show.

But now we are in the midst of yet another kind of case where the defense attorney is arguing that his client murdered his grandparents because he was on the prescription antidepressant Zoloft. This is not the first time this antidepressant has been blamed for this. I seem to recall other cases (although I am unable to cite them) where similar things have happened with this drug. Years ago, Zoloft was prescribed to me during a time I was going through deep depression. The drug made me extremely irritable and it seemed that every little thing annoyed me. I did research at the time and found that on two occasions, others had committed murder because of the use of this drug. I remember Kent and I talking about it at the time. A short time later, I refused to continue taking the drug. For me, I thought it was unsafe. I knew I would not harm another human being while in my right mind, but we all have to understand that these drugs are geared to effect exactly that, the mind. And, they are powerful.

Another issue that brought me little comfort during my time of being treated for depression, was the fact that my psychiatrist would always start his explanations of how the drug worked with “... we THINK it works by...”. In other words, the medical community really does not understand the human brain well enough to know exactly how these drugs work.

Given that, and the fact that we as a society are medicating ourselves more than any time in history, doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.

Given my past experience with Zoloft on a personal level, I can understand how it would change someone to such a degree to drive them to do some act that was not in their nature to do while in their normal state of mind.

I’m not say this to defend this young man, who was sentenced to 30 years in prison. But I don’t think we can so easily explain this away, if we really want to be fair.

CHARLESTON, S.C. -- A 15-year-old boy who claimed the antidepressant Zoloft drove him to kill his grandparents was found guilty Tuesday of murder.

Christopher Pittman hung his head as the verdict was read after about six hours of deliberations. He was sentenced about an hour later to the minimum of 30 years in prison with no chance of parole. [...]

But prosecutors called the Zoloft defense a smoke screen, saying the then-12-year-old Pittman knew exactly what he was doing three years ago when he shot his grandparents, torched their house and then drove off in their car. (source)

(Little Rock, Arkansas) A bill that would have forced schools to use only books that omitted any reference to gay families has failed to win the endorsement of the Arkansas’ Senate Education Committee.

The committee cast a 3 - 3 tie vote. The bill needed at least four votes to move to the Senate floor. It had already passed the House.

The legislation would have applied only to new textbooks purchased by school districts.

The sponsor of the measure, Rep. Roy Ragland (R-Marshall) said the bill was designed to block efforts to promote a gay agenda in schools.

“From my perspective, the agenda is coming from the other end of the spectrum,” Sen. Jim Argue, D-Little Rock, chairman of the committee, said before the vote.

Last November Arkansas voters overwhelmingly endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state. As well, the state is appealing a ruling that struck down a law barring gays from becoming foster parents. (story)

The Texas Board of Education in November approved new health textbooks for the state’s high school and middle school students only after the publishers agreed to change the wording to depict marriage as the union of a man and a woman. (story)

Legislation pending in Alabama would go even further. The bill, if enacted, would bar any representation of homosexuality in schools, libraries, and state funded universities. (source)

And they say we have an agenda. Their agenda all along has been to rid us from existence, viewing us as a scourge upon mankind. That haven’t been able to do that. So, they use everything in their arsenal to make our lives miserable (pass legislation that has it’s basis in religious doctrine, such as the Bible that brands us as an abomination) and, when that fails, try to make it look like we don’t even exist (bar any literature in the libraries that make even the slightest mention of gay people in society).

If there is anything close to evil in this world, it is the complete and utter stripping of someone publicly of the gifts that he or she can bring to enrich the lives of others in society. All of this to profit not God, but the narrow minded view of those who hate us.

“Holy One, convict those who are using their power not to lead or to guide but to harm the gay and lesbian citizens, a small minority in this commonwealth.”

That was the prayer offered by Rev. Debra Peevey of the Journey of the Heart Ministries in Reston, Virginia. It was the invocation to open Friday’s House of Delegates floor session.

In her prayer, Peevey took note of legislation the House has embraced this year to ban same-sex marriage and make it difficult for gays to adopt children. [...]

That didn’t sit well with conservatives in the House. The usual “Amen” chorus at the end of the prayer was noticeably muted.

“I thought it was very inappropriate myself,” said Del. Kathy Byron, R-Campbell County. “This individual basically said we were using our power to harm gay or lesbian citizens.” (source)

It amazes me the amount of hypocrisy some lawmakers have. I would say that when a legislative body puts forth legislation that keeps marriage from being a reality for our community, thereby giving us only second-class status, that it is harmful to gay and lesbian citizens. The rejection from that is having it’s toll on our community. I think they should be held accountable for that. I think they should understand the message they are sending to people and to the young gay people out there who are trying so hard to secure happiness in their future.

I think it is important to point out that they would rather have children remain without homes rather than have gay and lesbian people be able to adopt those children. That would have been the law of the state had some more enlightened lawmakers not done their part to defeat this mean spirited piece of legislation.

I honestly don’t understand how they can sit back and come up with all this crap legislation that is so degrading to our community, then turn around and take offense when someone suggests to them that they are harming our community.

So many people with no sense of compassion. It’s sad.

The Virginia bill targeting gay people for adoptions or being foster parents is dead. I actually thought, with the state of affairs in Virginia, that the bill would pass. Perhaps they are starting to feel a bit dirty from all the awful rhetoric they are putting out.

(Richmond, Virginia) Legislation that would have required social workers in adoption cases to determine whether applicants are gay was turned turned down Wednesday by a committee of the Virginia Senate.

The decision by the Courts of Justice Committee means the bill will not get to the Senate floor for a vote.

“This thing comes awfully close to being pretty bigoted, so I can’t support it,” said Sen. Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax).

The measure passed the House of Delegates last week but only after many of the anti-gay provisions were deleted. (story)

The bill, as originally introduced by Del. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun) would have prevented gays from becoming either adoptive or foster parents. (source)

I found this letter to be very interesting. I used to look at Virginia and wonder what was going on with the state. It seemed that it was turning into some kind of Nazi state, at least in terms of trampling on the rights of it’s gay citizens. Over time, many gay people have been moving out of Virginia to try to find a place where they can live freely and follow their pursuit of happiness. Virginia offers these people little help in achieving it. With no protections of civil liberties for gay citizens, such as the right to not be fired for being gay, the state constitutional amendment looming over the state at this time, and most recently, a bill that will make it illegal for gay couples to adopt children or for children to be adopted if there is another individual in the house who is gay.

It’s hard to believe that today this is happening because I’ve been around long enough and have fought these same battles 20 years ago in California. In some parts of the nation, little progress has been made. And, after the Virginia legislature passes it’s constitutional amendment putting gay citizens in their rightful place (second class), they can all pat themselves on the back at the end of the day and once again go back to living in their little land of OZ.

Gay-marriage foes are defending a long-held notion: Intolerance

Allowing gay unions will strengthen society, not weaken it - Date published: 2/15/2005

VIRGINIA’S proposed marriage amendment is an attempt to short-circuit the debate about marriage equality and America’s growing acceptance and understanding of gays and lesbians.

This amendment affects the lives of real human beings. The 2000 census found gay couples in every county of every state in this country. They are your family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and fellow Americans. Most of them are fine, decent, hard-working citizens who are trying to make the American dream work for them. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and their relationships deserve the same support as heterosexuals’.

The need for love and companionship is common to all humanity, including gays. This amendment will not stop gays from forming long-term relationships.

Denying marriage equality will prevent them only from protecting and caring for their families. What kind of moral value is that?

What did people do before the Internet? For that matter, what did cavemen do for entertainment? Was it all about surviving and hunting? Seriously boring. They didn’t even have an X-box let alone XM Radio. Their version of blogs were writing on the cave walls. I would have died an early age, probably of boredom.

Today, all kinds of people blog about all kinds of subjects. I never considered myself a “journalist” in any sense. I merely write about what I feel at the time. My writing is highly opinionated so, unlike a journalist, I have no pretense of being “fair and balanced”. My writing is what it is, but I don’t think that’s a bad thing. People who come here to read know they are reading my viewpoint.

Also, unlike journalists, I have no legal protections for what I write, although, many journalists today would also say their legal rights as journalists are being eroded over time as well.

Depending on whom you ask, bloggers are either “citizen journalists” who are democratizing media, or bloviating loudmouths posting ill-formed opinions on personal websites between trips to the fridge. They are victimizers when they assault the news organizations they love to hate, and victims when they are treated as “real media” by litigious companies out for blood. [...]

To the Electronic Frontier Foundation, bloggers are “online journalists” who should be treated as print reporters under the law, or a “pack of wolves hacking at their keyboards with no oversight, no editors and no accountability”... [...]

In the end, maybe irritable gossip zine Gawker has it right. Editors there have referred to blogs as the “medium beloved by ’citizen journalists’ and ’14-year-old girls’ alike.”

But should bloggers receive protection under the law as regular reporters? (source)

I don’t know the bloggers they are referring to, but this blogger talks about his real-life situation and also gives opinions on different news articles of the day. And I ALWAYS cite my source if using someone else’s work. My life is not so exciting that I know the next target of Al Qaeda, post it to my blog, but don’t want to reveal my sources. But let’s say that there was such a case, perhaps a bit less extreme. Something I knew about, posted it, made others aware of it, and some government agency wanted to know my source of information. Would I have to give it up, or could I claim that I’m a “journalist” and say that I’m protected?

To me, the argument seems ludicrous. I am no journalist, and I would never claim to be, but that’s apparently not the case with many bloggers out there. Even journalists are no longer able have protection against being forced to reveal their sources.

Two journalists facing jail for refusing to reveal their sources had their appeal quashed yesterday. A panel of three judges panel ruled unanimously that they had no constitutional right to withhold the identity of their contacts from a criminal investigation.

The case has wide-reaching ramifications for freedom of the press in the United States. (source)

I think that is unfortunate because why would anyone talk to a journalist now without guarantees that their identity will be protected? This is a huge blow to freedom of the press and will have huge implications on what issues will come to light in the future. That directly effects us.

For bloggers, we never had this protection, although some have tried to claim that we did.

...contrary to conventional wisdom, journalists don’t have these protections. The press has been under assault from the legislative and judicial branches for the past 40 years. These constitutionally protected privileges have become essentially meaningless to reporters and, by extension, everyone else. Bloggers simply can’t count on the law to protect them from the law. [...]

Most ominously for the blogosphere, Judge David B. Sentelle, in addressing reporters’ privilege, asked if it protected “the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical ’blogger’ sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the world wide web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? (source)

Well, now I’m wondering if someone has surveillance set up on me (looking out my window for cameras pointed at my house). I do often blog in my pajamas (silk, no less! - deep navy blue with little beige diamond figures), or in the buff (if you are really lucky and it’s in the middle of the night)*.

Besides, I will admit that I have times where my I feel my writing is quite good. There are other times that it’s not so good. I am not a professional journalist. As such, I don’t have to go through twenty rough drafts to publish here. I spell check and proof read it. Beyond that, how good the writing is depends very much on my mood. It’s tough to worry about writing well if you are depressed and down (and no, I’m not saying that I’m always depressed and down). But, being depressed and down is also legitimate and does it not also have a place in the writing, if it effects that writing?

What journalistic standards would a diary have to adhere to? What I write would go into a diary or personal journal. The only difference is, I share my journal with the world.

...would it not be possible for a government official wishing to engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally, advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official to disclose?”

The judge seems concerned that bloggers (in pajamas, no less) might be used by their sources. (source)

Well, for my blog, I suppose the only way I could be used by someone else to leak information before it became public would be something on the order of someone informing me that Jennifer Lopez is secretly dating a man who is gay, but she doesn’t know it, and neither does Hollywood. And, I would tell my source that I would never reveal their identity EVER! (unless I was tied up and they used electricity or reptiles). Then, all bets are off.

* disclaimer: this does not imply that I sleep “in the buff” (naked) nor does it imply that I do not sleep “in the buff” (naked).

Conn. could take lead on gay marriage issue
This is the year, or at least it should be. 2004 had plenty of surprises. The Red Sox won the World Series after a sloppy mid-season. George W. Bush broke the Washington Redskins rule and got a second term in office. So why shouldn’t 2005 be the year that a small, East Coast state fond of Republican governors and hawkish Democratic senators makes American history and, working through the legislature, gives full equal marriage rights to the almost 8,000 gay and lesbian couples who live, work and pay taxes there?

Gays lobby for marriage over civil unions
Only 21 miles from her Canton doorstep, gay couples in neighboring Massachusetts can wed. The psychological impact of living so close to the first state to end marriage discrimination has been huge in Connecticut.

Just two years ago, Horne and Otto would have happily welcomed having their state offer Vermont-style civil unions, which carry all the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage. But no longer.

And neither is the Connecticut gay-rights group that the couple belongs to. In a gutsy and principled move, Love Makes a Family recently took the very public -- and controversial -- step of telling legislative allies that it wants marriage and won’t support civil union legislation.

Marriage licenses denied to gay couples
Valentine’s Day is a popular day for people to get married. For others it’s become a day to make a political statement. Today some gay and lesbian couples are heading to city hall to try and get marriage licenses.

Reverend George Chen and Reverend Julio Flores have been together for eight years. They own a home together and consider themselves to be married. But in the eyes of the law they are not.

“For us marriage is a sacrament,” says Rev. Flores. “Gender is irrelevant. People marry who they love.”

Connecticut doesn’t recognizes same sex marriage, but Flores and Chen are trying to change that. They want the legal benefit and rights that go along with marriage.

“Medical care, pension, inheritance, all sorts of things are tied up in the marriage law to which same sex couples are denied,” says Rev. Chien.

Washington -- A federal agency’s efforts to remove the words “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual” and “transgender” from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention have inspired scores of experts in mental health to flood the agency with angry e-mails.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services that is funding the conference on Feb. 28 in Portland, Ore. On the program, at least until recently, is a talk titled “Suicide Prevention Among Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender Individuals.”

Everyone seems to agree the topic is important. Studies have found that the suicide risk among people in these groups is two to three times higher than the average risk.

So it came as a surprise to Ron Bloodworth -- a former coordinator of youth suicide prevention for Oregon and one of three specialists leading the session -- when word came down from SAMHSA project manager Brenda Bruun that the contractor running the program should omit the four words that described precisely what the session was about.

Bloodworth was told it would be acceptable to use the term “sexual orientation.” But that did not make sense to him. “Everyone has a sexual orientation,” he said in an interview Tuesday. “But this was about gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders.” (source)

Maya Marcel-Keyes, the lesbian daughter of conservative Republican Alan Keyes, who is currently featured in an exclusive interview on Advocate.com, appealed to several hundred people at a rally in Annapolis, Md., on Monday to provide more support for gay and lesbian young people who have been deserted by their families and too often wind up being victims of violence on the streets. In her first public appearance since her sexual orientation began to attract public attention, Marcel-Keyes said she was motivated to speak out because of the illness and recent death of a high school friend who was thrown out of the house by his family and by her own relationship with her parents.

At home, “things just came to a head. Liberal queer plus conservative Republican just doesn’t mesh well,” she said at the rally, sponsored by Equality Maryland to protest a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and support bills aimed at guaranteeing more rights for gays. “That was making my life a little bit turbulent,” she said. (source)

I can see why her life would be very turbulent being a lesbian in the home of Republican Alan Keyes. Here are some memorable quotes from Alan Keyes:

“In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship. That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure. The word pleasure in Greek is hedone and we get the word hedonism from that word.”

“You have intervened in order to try to personalize the discussion of an issue that I did not personalize. The people asking me the question did so and if that’s inappropriate, blame the media. Don’t blame me. If my own daughter were a homosexual or lesbian, I would love my daughter, but I would tell her she was in sin.” (source)

Well, apparently, you will have that opportunity Mr. Keyes. Since you made those statements, your own daughter has come out as a lesbian. Now, I suppose you can shun and turn her away as well.

The point I’m trying to make is that when people make derogatory and hurtful statements about gay people, they really should stop and think that maybe some of those who they consider good friends or perhaps even members of their own family, may be gay or lesbian, and are afraid to tell anyone for fear of losing the friendship.

I myself can not count the times that such a thing has happened to me. I trusted the person who I called friend only to have him or her turn around and say some horrible thing about what they think about gay people.

At that point, the friendship has problems. I can try to keep the friendship going and avoid the subject altogether, which is really futile because sooner or later, they will find out. But what has died at that moment in the friendship is trust. Once trust is gone, the lifespan of the friendship is in jeopardy.

Alan Keyes released a statement Monday night saying, “My daughter is an adult and she is responsible for her own actions. What she chooses to do has nothing to do with my work or political activities.” (source)

She’s your daughter. Does that mean nothing to you? If it doesn’t, you will lose her. And, you deserve too.

Further reading:
Anti gay bias hits home

This from Virginia... but will any of them listen?

Discrimination sits a little sourly on the stomach when it’s your own flesh and blood. Del. Dick Black illustrates how personal experience breeds contempt for injustice, as well.

Black, a Loudoun County Republican and one of the most socially and fiscally conservative members of the House, emerged as a surprise champion of indigent defendants this year.

A former judge advocate in the military, Black knows firsthand that prosecutors and defense attorneys need roughly equal resources. Save for his military experience, he might never have noticed the startling mismatch in legal services for Virginia’s poor.

Too bad Black’s personal empathy quotient doesn’t overlap with Cheney’s.

If it did, Black might have been a little less willing to damn lesbian and gay parents with outlandish claims about child abuse on the floor of the House of Delegates last week. [...]

As passed on a 71-24 vote, the bill requires pre-adoption investigations into whether “the petitioner is known to engage in current voluntary homosexual activity” or is unmarried and living with an unrelated adult.

The bill doesn’t say the adoption can’t occur.

But the new language comes right after a section requiring investigators to consider whether the birth parents are morally unfit. There’s not much doubt what the legislature intends. [...]

To have such families tarnished and made fearful by wild accusations and mean-spirited laws feels intolerable. These are not dry statistics or theoretical debating points. They are real people, watching horrified as the General Assembly encroaches further and further into their lives. (source)

This is a follow-up story about the gay pinguins. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I want them to be as they are, but they are endangered. I would hate to see them go extinct. It's odd to me that they can't be artificially inseminated.

A German zoo which suspects its entire male penguin population might be gay has now said the birds can remain as same-sex couples.

Humboldt penguins are an endangered species. So when the six humboldts in Bremerhaven failed to breed, the zoo became concerned.

The penguins had been observed trying to mate with each other, and spent months sitting on stones trying to get them to hatch.

Tests revealed all six penguins were male, so the zoo flew in four females from Sweden.

Director Heike Kück said they wanted to see if the birds were really gay, or just lacking in opportunities.

Gay groups around the world deluged the zoo with angry emails and phone calls. The zoo now says its penguins have shown no interest in the new arrivals.

They say the same sex couples are too well-established, and the males can remain gay if they choose. (source)

Original Story on 02/13/2005

Kent sent me this very disturbing article in the Hartford Courant this morning concerning some of our Senators and Representatives.

A state senator offered a limited apology Monday for calling homosexuality a sickness - a position abandoned 31 years ago by the American Psychiatric Association.

Sen. Thomas A. Colapietro, D-Plymouth, apologized for his choice of words after being confronted by an openly gay colleague, but he did not recant his opinion.

“It’s a sickness, I think,” Colapietro said in a story about same-sex marriage published Saturday by his local newspaper, the Bristol Press. “It’s not a cure for the sickness allowing them to marry.”

Colapietro was quickly criticized on an Internet bulletin board devoted to Bristol-area politics and in person Monday during a conversation with Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, who is gay.

“I feel bad they took the word ‘sick’ as derogatory,” Colapietro said Monday. “It wasn’t meant that way.”

Calling homosexuality “sick” is not derogatory?

What do you really say about someone who is so out of touch with the whole subject of homosexuality that they call it an “sickness”? Part of me wants to say, “Bill, don’t even waste your breath trying to explain it to them. Someday they will die and someone who can actually THINK will take their place.” Ok... I know that also sounds intolerant, but you get to a point that you don’t even want to waste your time with these morons. Unfortunately, they get a vote on the marriage bill. Truly very unfortunate.

Senator Colapietro, I don’t know you, so I do not have the benefit of what you are like as a person to judge you. So, I will simply say, you are a bigot, sir. What you said was bigoted and mean spirited, and you should be ashamed for bringing disgrace to your office. It’s now up to you to prove to me that my opinion of you is wrong. I’ll be watching for that in the papers, although I doubt I will see anything.

Michele, who could not be reached Monday, told the Bristol Press he saw no reason to broaden the definition of marriage. “They already have the same opportunity to get married, just probably not to the person they want to be with,” Michele said. “Everybody can’t have everything.”

Apparently, I have a different definition of marriage than Rep. Michele has. I always felt that marriage was a commitment of people who were in love. Is this not true? Is it more desirable to have homosexuals marry someone of the opposite sex than to have them marry the person they love?

Are some people so blinded by prejudice that they can’t even see this simple truth? They say that gay couples who want to marry will somehow damage marriage. It would seem to me that what he just proposed would damage marriage more than anything else. Yet, this is what they propose.

What frightens me more than this is that there are many people in our society right now who would agree with everything these two representatives said. Some of these people have gay people working for them. We may encounter them on the streets, at the market, and in many other situations. What are people capable of doing who hold that kind of biased against our community? I guess it’s really not hard to understand why there is so much violence against our community. You would think that a representative would hold a higher standard than that.

(New York City) Fifty-six clergy from across New York state representing a broad range of denominations took advantage of Valentine’s Day Monday to issue an open letter supporting same-sex marriage.

The letter says that gay and lesbian couples should have access to civil marriage and the legal rights and protections that come with it.

Signers of the letter said that marriage for same-sex couples as a religious rite was a decision for denominations to make on their own, but were clear in stating their belief that government should not be withholding the legal rights and protections of marriage from same-sex couples that it provides to other families.

“To deny those rights is to engage in discrimination”, the letter states. “Discrimination is immoral.”

The fifty-six clergy were from faith communities that include American Baptist, Episcopal, Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Jewish (Reform), United Methodist Church, Presbyterian, United Church of Christ, Buddhist, Metropolitan Community Church, and Unitarian Universalist. (source)

I agree with that. Of course gay couples should have civil marriage, with all the benefits and rights of marriage. I also agree that religious denominations should continue to control their destiny. That means that they should have the right to deny anyone a marriage in their church. I have seen many of them do this for straight couples. I will probably get some heat for that opinion, but it’s very consistent with the principles upon which this country was founded. And, it’s consistent with the separation of church and state.

Religion in this country wants to claim marriage as it’s own. The fact is, religious marriage and civil marriage have been separate for quite some time, ever since the state and the federal government started bestowing rights and privileges to the institution of marriage. Once that happened, it also became a civil institution. As such, all citizens should be allowed to enter into civil marriage.

Some would say that all citizens now have full access to marriage, that it’s not being denied to gay couples.

Conservative Member of Parliament (Canada) Jason Kenney says gays have every right to marry whoever they want -- as long as it isn’t someone of the same sex. [...]

“The fact is that homosexuals aren’t barred from marrying under Canadian law. Marriage is open to everybody, as long as they’re a man and a woman,” Kenney said. (source)

But I thought that marriage was all about love and commitment and having society endorse and support that commitment. I’ve heard others in the United States make this same statement. And here I thought that I was unable to get married, that marriage was not available to me.

He’s right. I can go find some woman that I don’t even know, pay her enough, and I can probably be married within two days. And society will give us all the state and federal benefits of marriage, along with their blessing.

Now I ask you, how does that benefit society? Is it better for me to do that and have marriage without loving that woman, or to be married to my life partner of thirty years?

Apparently, for some, that’s a tough question to answer.

On the same day that the California Supreme court invalidated the thousands of same-gender marriages performed in San Francisco, marchers took to the streets declaring the courts decision null and void. Here are a few photos from that day.

This is America. The land of the free. The land of equal opportunity... For some of us.

Not much to report today. I woke early and was sick all last night. I have some bug that’s going around. Fever is the worst. I woke up at 2:00am and was shivering. I couldn’t get warm. I got up and took some Aleve, but it didn’t work. It felt like it was 20 degrees in my bedroom. Fever is a weird thing. I finally gave up trying to get warm and got into a hot shower to break the fever. It worked. After 20 minutes, I was finally warm again. I went back to bed and collapsed. And Kent managed to sleep right through all of this. :)

I woke again at 5:30 and couldn’t sleep. When Kent woke up, I was able to make a nice breakfast. We had poached eggs, smoked salmon, toast, coffee, and juice. But the rest of the day was kind of blah for me, which is too bad because it was really beautiful out today. I’m feeling a bit better this afternoon, although I still have a bit of fever.

Friday, I had lunch with the guys I work with. We also met another guy who used to work for me. When we met and sat down for lunch, he looked at me and said, “Bill, you've lost weight!” Boy, did that make my day. But then it occurred to me, how could he tell because I had this heavy winter coat on. I thought, he must be seeing a difference in my face. I told Kent about it. We pulled up a picture of me before I went on the diet, and you can see a big difference. It’s amazing. I make it sound like I’m really big. It’s not that bad actually. I’m just not happy about myself, so I’m trying to change that. It’s one of my New Year's resolutions.

A crowd of 3,000 gay men and lesbians packed into the San Francisco City Hall rotunda on Saturday for a raucous event that became as much a pep rally for the mayor as a commemoration of the same-sex marriages that were performed in the same venue one year ago.

The wedding licenses Newsom’s administration issued for four weeks last winter were later invalidated by the state Supreme Court, which ruled that Newsom had exceeded his authority in allowing gay couples to marry. In December, the underlying case addressing the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage was heard in San Francisco Superior Court. That court is expected to issue a ruling any day.

Though Newsom was widely criticized for helping to energize a conservative electorate and re-elect George Bush, he has said he has no regrets and has continued to strike an unapologetic tone in his public comments. He took aim yesterday at President Bush, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California who said after the election that the push for gay marriage was “too much, too fast, too soon.”

”I’ve never felt more resolved,“ Newsom told the crowd. “I don't care what happens to me, I care what happens to you and to this country.” (source)

The number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual declined last year by 15 percent and has fallen by nearly one-half since 2001, the Pentagon said Friday. (source)

Of course they are dismissing fewer gays from the military. They need them for the war. But after Bush’s little war in Iraq is over (or when they get killed), it will no longer need the gay soldiers.

My question is this. Gays are discharged from the service if it becomes known that they are gay, as stated in the rules of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. One of the founding arguments of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was to maintain “unit cohesion”. It was argued successfully that allowing openly gay service members to serve in the military would damage that unit cohesion. So, don’t they need unit cohesion in time of war? Or could it be that having gays in the military was never hurting unit cohesion. Perhaps it was always about simple bigotry.

You think? Do you feel used yet?

This is a very small step forward in an extremely conservative state. Utah has elected an openly gay man to the Utah Senate. Granted, he won by only three votes, but maybe that is progress.

Gay activist appointed to Utah Senate

SALT LAKE CITY -- The first openly gay member of the Utah state Senate was sworn in Monday. Addressing colleagues in one of the most conservative legislative bodies in the nation, Democrat Scott McCoy, 34, said his sexual orientation will not define his work as a lawmaker.

“The fact that I am gay is certainly one of the characteristics with which I have been endowed by my creator and it is an important part of who I am as a human being,” he said. “But it is certainly not the only characteristic that defines me, just as none of my colleagues can or should be reduced to any one of their many characteristics.” [...]

McCoy was selected by party delegates over the weekend to finish the remaining two years of a term vacated by Democratic Sen. Paula Julander, who resigned because of health problems. Julander had asked that her husband, Rod, be elected to finish out her term; McCoy beat him by three votes. (source)

02/15/2005 Update - German zoo says penguins can stay gay

This is kind of a cute story about pairs of gay penguins. The zoo keepers have been wondering why no little penguins are coming along. It turns out the the majority of the penguin pairs are gay. And yes, I do happen to think that they are a very handsome gay couple, for penguins.

A German zoo has imported four female penguins from Sweden in an effort to tempt its gay penguins to go straight.

The four Swedish females were dispatched to the Bremerhaven Zoo in Bremen after it was found that three of the zoo's five penguin pairs were homosexual.

Keepers at the zoo ordered DNA tests to be carried out on the penguins after they had been mating for years without producing any chicks.

It was only then they realized that six of the birds were living in homosexual partnerships. [...]

But introducing the Bremerhaven penguins to their new Swedish friends may not be as successful as hoped after earlier experiments revealed great difficulties in separating homosexual couples.

In case they show no interest, the zoo has also flown in two new male penguins “so that the ladies don't miss out altogether”, Kueck added. (source)

After trying to get them to mate, there were protests from gay and lesbian groups. We know what persecution feels like. The penguins are just being who they are. I say, leave them alone!

A plan by a German zoo to test the sexual appetites of a group of suspected homosexual penguins has sparked outrage among gay and lesbian groups, who fear zookeepers might force them to turn straight.

“All sorts of gay and lesbian associations have been e-mailing and calling in to protest,” said a spokesman for the zoo in the northwestern city of Bremerhaven on Friday. [...]

“Nobody here is trying to break-up same sex pairs by force,” the zoo’s director Heike Kueck told public broadcaster NDR. “We don’t know if the three male pairs are really gay or just got together because of a lack of females.” (source)

And finally, the results of trying to get the gay male penguins to mate with females. I found this under a headline called “Penguins stay fairy” from an Australian news source. And yes, I do find the title offensive.

The female penguins were flown in especially from Sweden in an effort to encourage the Humboldt penguins at Bremerhaven Zoo to reproduce.

But the six homosexual birds showed no interest in their new companions and remained faithful to each other.

Zoo director Heike Kueck said: “The relationships were apparently too strong.”

A keeper confirmed that the male couples had adopted rocks, which they guarded like eggs in their caves. (source)

I say, take some of the rocks away, and give them some real eggs so they can adopt their own little ones. I bet they would make good parents.

I honestly don’t understand why they are so surprised that the President is going back on his word here. After all, this President has lied about so many things. Why should this be any different?

When you make deals with someone of questionable moral character, you shouldn’t be surprised when he stabs you in the back and runs with what he can get from you (your votes).

They got exactly what they voted for. If it weren’t so painful for all of us to have to deal with in the next four years, I would say to them, you got exactly what you deserved. But, we are all stuck with it.

President Bush may pay a price for pandering. Social conservatives are disappointed that Bush is making Social Security reform and economic issues his priority while essentially ignoring one of their chief goals: passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Some religious conservatives say the “political capital” that Bush has claimed as a result of his re-election should be spent on promoting a marriage amendment since, they believe, they played a vital role in the victory.

A coalition of major conservative groups recently warned Bush’s top political adviser, Karl Rove, that some of the capital could be at risk unless the president pushes Congress to approve a marriage amendment.

“We couldn’t help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side,” the coalition, called the Arlington Group, said in a letter to Rove. (source)

Democrats are not for gay marriage, but “we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people,” he said. (source)

Funny, but I thought that Howard Dean said that was absolutely for giving gay couples the ability to marry. I remember him being one of three Democratic presidential candidates would wanted marriage, as opposed to civil unions, for gay couples. Now, he’s saying that is not what the Democratic Party wants.

He further states that the Party “has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people.” Well, I’m sorry, but that means giving gay couples the ability to enter into marriage, which will give them all the federal benefits (over 1,400 of them) of marriage. That is “equal rights” Mr. Dean. So Mr. Dean, if you truly believe that (I’m very skeptical), you should come out and say that, and stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I found this story to be encouraging. Massachusetts attorney general Thomas Reilly is now in favor of keeping same sex marriage in Massachusetts and has vowed to fight attempts to overturn it. It’s encouraging, because he fought to prevent gay marriage from happening in the state a year ago.

Maybe when people see the issues involved, it changes everything. He said today, “Once rights are given, they should not be taken away.” That’s good, but, if it is the right thing that people have these rights today, wasn’t it always the right thing to do?

BOSTON – The state attorney general, who played a key role in state efforts to fight the legalization of gay marriage a year ago, now says he favors same-sex marriage and will oppose any efforts to ban it. [...]

“Once rights are given, they should not be taken away,” Reilly told The Boston Globe for Saturday’s editions. [...]

Members of the state’s gay and les