An amendment to the Kansas Constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions went into effect Friday.

The measure was approved by voters April 5, (story) and today the State Board of Canvassers approved the results.

The amendment was accepted by 70 percent of the electorate.

Kansas was the first state to vote on the issue following last November’s election when 11 states amended their constitutions to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying.

But, following today’s meeting of the Board of Canvassers, Attorney General Phill Kline said the amendment would not prevent private businesses from providing benefits to same-sex couples if they chose.

Kline also said he believed the amendment would still allow allow governmental entities to extend benefits, but conservative groups said that if that became the case they would go to court.

Two of the state’s biggest private employers, Sprint and SBC Communications already have said they have no intention of canceling benefits to same-sex couples. (story) (source)

A lesbian Methodist minister defrocked last year after admitting to living with a woman won her appeal against the church’s decision because it had not defined “practicing homosexual,” the United Methodist Church said on Friday.

She was allowed to have a lesser role in the church but could not perform ceremonies such as baptisms and weddings.

“An appeals committee has reversed a clergy court verdict in the case of Irene Elizabeth Stroud,” the statement said.

In a 14-page decision, the committee reversed both the conviction and the penalty on the technical grounds that the church has not properly defined the term “practicing homosexual.” The committee also held that the church law under which the charges were brought was a new standard that had not been formally ratified by the church authorities and so could not be used to convict Stroud. (source)

Good news for the minister. I remember reading about this last year. I took interest in it because I had been raised a Methodist. I never really thought about how they felt about homosexuality, I suppose because I was so young - around 14 years old. A year or so later, when I started having thoughts and feelings for guys, the minister gave this awful sermon about how people like me were going to hell. It was actually strange to hear him say it. He was a mild mannered man who’s sermons were about everyday things. His mannerisms were more light hearted and always seemed to have an upbeat message. But when he started talking about this subject, his voice got loud, and I could hear all the anger coming out.

So, I eventually left the church. I never returned to any church until we got to San Francisco. There, we started going to an Episcopal church called St. Gregory’s. It was quite liberal, even though much of the Episcopal church was not, on this subject.

Growing up as a music student, I was always told to practice. So, I would practice a lot. Then, when the minister stated in his sermon that “practicing homosexuals” would go to Hell, I thought to myself, “Why do they have to practice THAT?” It puzzled me. I thought, “Great!! Just Great!! Before I can do anything with anyone, I’m going to have to practice somehow and how is that going to happen in Emmett, Idaho?” I always tried to take away some message from his sermons. That day, the message I took away was, "If I get good at being a homosexual, I will no longer be practicing it. Therefore, I will not go to Hell because I will no longer be a "practicing homosexual".

I don’t practice anymore at being gay. I just... am. Deep thoughts. Dinner is ready. We are having Moussaka. And no, it’s not Japanese Moose.

Kent and I were talking about this last night at dinner. It’s amazing that the House even continues to operate (some would say that it isn’t), given all the arguing and bickering taking place in that chamber. I told Kent, “Well, one way or the other, eventually, this will be resolved. If the American people get their fill of this crap, the culprits will be voted out of office.”

I know... I put a lot of faith in the American people, and I shouldn’t. The American people go back and forth on so many issues. First, we were all for private accounts over social security. Now, most feel that’s not the way to go.

Then there was the death of Terri Schiavo. The President and our government were very willing to pass legislation to ensure that the family did not have final say in private business. The President even flew back to Washington on Air Force One from Crawford, Texas late at night to be available at The White House when the bill came before him for his signature. They did all of this thinking they had the backing of the American People. Then a funny thing happened. A poll came out that stated that 84% of the American people did not support the government intruding into the private business of the family and individuals. Suddenly, Terri Schiavo was not mentioned by the government at all, as they started receiving more and more negative attention on the news and talk shows.

As a friend of ours pointed out, the President and Congress should thank their lucky stars for timing. It was the death of the Pope that shifted the spot light off of Terri Schiavo and onto something bigger - the death of the Pope. Suddenly, that was all that was talked about.

So, I’m left wondering... Did they ever really care about Terri Schiavo, or was it pure politics? Pretty sad state of affairs really.

Now, the House has overturned rule changes they made to the House ethics process. This, on Wednesday, to try to “restore a way to enforce proper conduct in the House,” however that is defined these days.

“I am willing to step back,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the moving force behind ethics revisions forced through by the majority in January.

After a closed-door meeting with House Republicans, Hastert indicated that the reversal was primarily motivated by a need to resolve the torrent of questions surrounding the conduct of Rep. Tom DeLay, the majority leader.

The reversal was a startling turn as Republicans confronted the fallout from a stalled ethics process that Democrats said was rigged to protect DeLay, who was admonished three times by the ethics committee last year. [...]

One of the most immediate effects of the House’s reverting to the old rules will be the opening of an investigation into persistent questions about DeLay’s overseas travel and relationships with prominent lobbyists. (source)

So on Wednesday night, the House voted 406-20 to approve a resolution that restored the rules known as the Committee on Official Standards of Conduct, that was in place at the start of the year.

Yet more back-peddling of the House. It’s starting to be a pattern.

Repealed ethics rules

The “automatic dismissal rule” required the committee to dismiss a complaint against a member after 45 days if the committee was deadlocked over the matter. Under the old rule, the committee would have to continue considering the complaint.

“Right to counsel” gave members the right to a lawyer of their choice if called before the committee. Democrats complained that would allow one lawyer to represent multiple witnesses and learn all the evidence.

The “due process rule” guaranteed a member the right to respond if the committee were about to issue a public letter of reprimand or admonishment. Democrats said that could force a hearing too quickly, but they agreed members should have some kind of notice.

Source: Washington Post

For David Parker, the first alarm went off in January, when his 5-year-old son came home from his kindergarten class at Lexington’s Joseph Estabrook School with a bag of books promoting diversity.

Inside were books about foreign cultures and traditions, along with food recipes. There was also a copy of “Who’s In a Family?” by Robert Skutch, which depicts different kinds of families, including same-sex couples raising children.

The book’s contents concerned Parker and prompted him to begin a series of e-mail exchanges with school officials on the subject that culminated in a meeting Wednesday night with Estabrook’s principal and district director of instruction. The meeting ended with Parker’s arrest after he refused to leave the school, and the Lexington man spent the night in jail.

Yesterday, Parker was arraigned in Concord District Court on one count of trespassing, and a not guilty plea was entered on his behalf. Bail was set at $1,000, and Parker was freed after being ordered to stay off Lexington school property. He is due back in court June 1. [...]

“This is not about creating a forum for hate . . . for any segment of society,” Parker said after his arraignment. “I’m just trying to be a good dad.” [...]

“We’re not intolerant,” said Tonia Parker. “We love all people. That is part of our faith.” (source)

I’m sure the right wingers are going to be right there to support and use Mr. Parker for their own purposes of furthering intolerance and hatred for gay families.

Listen, I can understand Mr. Parker’s issues on this. But he needs to realize that there is a VERY thin line between intolerance and hatred. He can say he is “tolerant” and that he “loves all people”, but what does it say to other kids in same-sex households and same-sex parents when he wants to totally exclude them from his son’s existence? What will his son say when another child explains to his son that they have two mommies or two daddies?

School is about preparing kids for the real environment - yes, even as early as six years old, and there’s a way to do that. You can do that by being honest with them. There is nothing dirty or shameful about two people who happen to be the same sex who are trying just as hard as Mr. Parker is to provide their children a good home and a good education.

A college production tells the story of Matthew Sheppard, a student beaten to death because he was gay.

And soon, it could be banned in Alabama.

Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen (pictured left) says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.

“I don’t look at it as censorship,” says State Representative Gerald Allen. “I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children.”

Books by any gay author would have to go: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote and Gore Vidal. Alice Walker’s novel “The Color Purple” has lesbian characters. (source)

“I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children.”

From what? Me?

Alabama State Rep. Gerald Allen says that he’s alarmed over the “homosexual agenda.” My “homosexual agenda” is simple as far as children are concerned. I want them safe, first and foremost. I want them to be able to go to school and feel safe, without fear of harassment and bullying. I want them to be in a place where learning is first and foremost. I want them to be able to have their childhood and to understand and comprehend their world. I want them to learn to think for themselves and to go away armed with ideas, words, and a thirst for learning and a desire to see things in a new light.

They will not be able to do that if we spoon feed to them everything they learn, just because the author happened to be gay or lesbian. It’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. It’s almost as though Representative Allen believes that the only thing gay authors create is pornography. Surely that is not the case.

I think what is more accurate is that he doesn’t want children to know of our contribution in this world (I know... he would call this concept the “radical gay agenda to recruit children to be homosexuals”, I suppose). If they know about us, they may want to be like us.

Ok. So you make children’s learning experience at school as sterile as possible (no mention of gays). My only question is, did you really prepare them to deal with the REAL WORLD?

Censorship. It’s truly a very frightening thing. You can make whole races of people disappear from a child’s reality, just by banning the books that talk about them, the books that were created by them, or the books that mention them. I believe that to be Representative Allen’s real objective.

See what you can do when you use words carefully? I’ve said all of this, without once ever suggesting that he might be a bigot.

The more I hear about the inside story at Microsoft, the worse it gets. Now, it appears that social conservative Ralph Reed is being paid $20,000 a month as a consultant for Microsoft. Reed has close ties to the White House and evangelist Pat Robertson.

It’s starting to look to me that Microsoft is trying to take cover on this issue. They want to look like they are progressive. They want to look like they are supportive of the vast diversity of their employees. But you know what? When all is said and done, you are judged by the actions you take. Microsoft made a conscious decision to withdraw support for a bill that would have protected people from being fired for being gay.

What does that tell you about Microsoft? What does it tell you about the commitment of Microsoft and Bill Gates to the principles of fairness and equality?

In my book, not a hell of a lot.

Related Entries
April 22, 2005 - Microsoft under fire for reversal on gay rights bill
April 26, 2005 - Microsoft may rethink position on gay-rights bill

WASHINGTON -- Microsoft Corp. is paying social conservative Ralph Reed $20,000 a month as a consultant, triggering complaints that the well-connected Republican with close ties to the White House and to evangelist Pat Robertson may have persuaded the company to oppose gay rights legislation.

Reed, who got his start in politics by running the Christian Coalition for Robertson and who had a senior role in President Bush’s 2004 campaign, is a leading figure in the social conservative movement that spearheaded opposition to gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, gambling and other issues.

Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said the company has hired Reed on several occasions to provide advice on “trade and competition issues.” He said Reed’s relationship as a consultant with the software company extends back “several years.”

Reed’s history with Microsoft, coupled with Microsoft’s reversal on a gay rights bill for the state, unleashed a vocal backlash against the company yesterday. The bill, which would have made it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance, failed in the state Senate last week by a single vote. Supporters said that Microsoft’s shift tipped the scales. (source)

News and responses from Texas...

A bill banning same-sex marriage may be one step closer to being placed on the November ballot. The amendment is currently in committee, but is expected to pass and land in the hands of Texas voters.

Cade Hammond and Chris Benfer live in Waco and long to be married. They’ve tried to get a marriage license more than once.

Texas law doesn’t allow same-sex couples to marry, so they can’t understand why some Texas law makers wrote a new bill that would extend that ban to the state constitution.

“It seems like the bill is just out there to slap us in the face,” Hammond says.

The Anti-Gay Texas Marriage Amendment would add language to the constitution that states a marriage is between a man and a woman. (source)

RESPONSES

Offer voters two amendments

Regarding the Tuesday’s front-page story, “THE LEGISLATURE / House OKs proposal to ban gay marriage / The measure to amend constitution now goes to Senate”: If the Texas Senate should decide to support the proposed constitutional ban on both gay marriage and civil unions, I hope the Legislature as a whole will offer the ban to voters in the form of two, independent constitutional amendments so that voters can vote on these two issues separately.

Many people have a strong, emotional reaction to the concept of “gay marriage.” Personally, I think it’s wonderful when two people fall in love and make a lifelong commitment to one another: That’s a beautiful part of life. And I really don’t see how such a loving, committed relationship between two gay people “threatens” anyone else’s heterosexual marriage. Nevertheless, it’s a fact of life that many people just plain, simply don’t like the term “gay marriage.” So I ask, how could anyone, with any sense of compassion, deny anyone else the right to visit his/her significant other in the hospital?

Civil unions grant these sorts of common sense, everyday rights to gay people: the same, exact rights — no more, no less — that married heterosexuals have.

Constitutionally ban “gay marriage” if it makes you feel better. But let’s at least be practical and fair.

RICHARD BRAASTAD Houston

How about banning divorce?

It is often stated that same-gender marriage undermines the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. I’ve never really understood how that could be so.

Statistics say homosexuals make up about 10 percent of our population, some of which I feel certain are not interested in getting married. The divorce rate in this country, though, is a staggering 50 percent. I’ve not seen statistics on adultery, but you all know who you are. If there is a true concern for the stability of families and marriage, why aren’t we addressing this overwhelming problem of divorce and adultery, which are definitely affecting the nuclear family?

Can you imagine the uproar if a ban on divorce or adultery were proposed for the Texas Constitution? That would “inconvenience” a few too many people, wouldn’t it?

It’s time we all look ourselves in the mirror face the real problems. Let’s start with hypocrisy.

DEVON AVERY Houston

Too damn late, Microsoft. The bill died with a one vote loss in the Senate. This was the first year the Washington State gay rights bill made it out of the House. It died in the Senate by one vote. This is also the THIRD DECADE that they’ve been trying to give equal rights in hiring, housing, and state services to gay citizens in the state of Washington.

Microsoft, it would have been nice to have your support. Now that the bill is dead, it’s easy to sit back and say, “Next time this one comes around, we’ll see”. And for the record, you will never convince me that you didn’t cave in to pressure. Shame on you.

Related Entries
April 22, 2005 - Microsoft under fire for reversal on gay rights bill
April 27, 2005 - Microsoft's Ties to the Radical Right

Microsoft may re-evaluate whether to support state legislation that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians, Chairman Bill Gates said yesterday.

Gates said Microsoft was surprised by the sharp reaction after it became known that the company took a neutral position on the perennial measure this year, after actively supporting it in previous years.

“Next time this one comes around, we’ll see,” he said. “We certainly have a lot of employees who sent us mail. Next time it comes around that’ll be a major factor for us to take into consideration.” (source)

A satellite broadcast beamed into evangelical churches nationwide Sunday night that featured Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist (TN) and conservative Christian leaders has been denounced for using the pulpit for political gain.

The event was held to drum up support from evangelical Christians for a GOP attempt to muzzle Democrats from attacking President George W. Bush’s picks for the federal court. [...]

Sunday’s telecast was organized by the Family Research Council and featured, along with Frist, a number of groups at the forefront of the battle to get a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

“It is telling that Senator Frist regularly appears at Family Research Council functions, but refuses to meet with gay families regarding his extreme Senate agenda,” said Eric Stern, National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director.

One of the speakers, Catholic League President Bill Donahue, took the stage during the telecast, and preceded to laughingly mock gay families. Specifically, Donahue claimed that support of marriage equality “is a notion that belongs in an asylum.”

The comment drew wide laughter and applause from the audience at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky where the broadcast originated. (source)

Sheep. That’s what people are. Sheep.

I know that sounds very cynical. I suppose it is. But what I really want to tell the religious evangelicals, is that they are being played. They should know that. President Bush played them in the last election by promising that he would push for a constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples. He lied. Now that he is in for four more years, it’s not a concern to him.

The religious conservatives can continue to mock and make fun of our relationships by spitting out such rhetoric that supporting marriage equality “is a notion that belongs in an asylum,” if it makes them feel better. We have been through worse, for sure.

But there is something that is in far greater peril than the absence of equality for our community. The big prize is the Judiciary. A war is just starting. Not the kind with bombs and dead bodies. This war is much nastier because it hides under the guise of freedom and democracy. People such as Senator Frist would like us to believe that by killing the filibuster, that he is preserving democracy because the judges being considered for various courts “deserve an up or down vote”. That’s very convenient and easy to say when you are a majority and can vote to confirm a judge by a simple majority. The only thing that prevents this is the filibuster. It exists exactly to prevent what is about to take place. It exists to prevent the majority party from steam rolling nominations and legislation over the minority party. Do you think Senator Frist would be so ready to change the rules of the Senate and kill the filibuster if these judges were less conservative and more middle of the road?

He’s doing this because this is where the next war is being waged. We all hear about it on our radios on our way home from work, but do we really understand or care what is at stake? These judges, many of whom are in their forties, will be put in these positions for life. We will be dealing with their rulings, for better or worse, for the next forty years. This is one of the biggest objectives of this administration.

They don’t like the way the Judiciary is coming down on social issues. They use gay marriage as a lightning rod. Many of you reading this will also probably believe that you don’t want gay marriage to happen in the United States. I understand that. But, if you really think that the Administration is going after the Judiciary to stop gay marriage, you are being very naive. Killing gay marriage would be nice, and killing pro-choice options would by huge.

But the biggest objective is neutering the Judiciary, because if you put issues of equality and fairness up against a fair-minded court that is deciding these issues based on the Constitution, equality is slowly winning the battle. They want a Judiciary that will vote their way - the RIGHT way.

It’s pretty scary stuff. Think about it. This country is not even the same country it was ten years ago. If you can’t see that, you may just be a sheep.

The following was posted in a South Carolina newspaper online this morning. While we were having bagels at our favorite babel place this morning, I read the same article. From looking on the Internet, it would appear that it is being printed in many papers all over the nation.

What’s important - what me must continuously keep telling ourselves, is that these issues are being talked about, and not swept under the carpet. We are a minority in this country, yet our issues are being talked about big time. Agreeably, they are not always discussed in a positive light. But, bigotry has to openly surface to be addressed. Only then, can we see change start to happen.

The fact that these issues are being discussed will open people’s minds more than anything else. Just look at what is happening in Texas with the gay adoptions. Just a year ago, I doubt that would have been an issue for the GOP.

Gay and lesbian activists are tearful in Washington state, joyful in Connecticut and angry in Texas after a series of legislative votes that reflect America’s tumultuous, seesaw debate over whether to broaden or narrow their rights.

Connecticut, in a historic step last week, became the first state to approve marriage-like civil unions for same-sex couples without the prodding of a court order. The same day, however, the Texas House voted to bar gays from being foster parents; the next day, the Washington Senate defeated a major gay civil-rights bill.

In Alabama, meanwhile, lawmakers considered a bill aimed at keeping books tolerant of homosexuality out of public schools. A despondent lesbian activist, Patricia Todd, told a House committee: “I feel you all hate us.” (source)

You see! When fair-minded people get involved, they can make a difference, even in a very conservative state such as Texas.

Don’t ever feel that you have no power!!

My original post on this.

Leading Republicans in Texas are distancing themselves from a proposal to make the state the only one to prohibit gays and lesbians from being foster parents. It appears the plan will die without becoming law.

The Texas House approved the plan last week, despite concerns that as many as 3,000 children could be removed from their homes. But amid a groundswell of anger and criticism, conservatives backed away from the proposal Friday. GOP leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, said the proposal is so flawed it could endanger a broader initiative to overhaul the Texas Child Protective Services agency. (source)

A gay and lesbian advocacy group that gave Microsoft Corp. a civil rights award four years ago has asked the company to give it back, blasting the software maker for withdrawing its support of a state bill that would have outlawed discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Darrel Cummings, chief of staff for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said in a statement yesterday that Microsoft appeared to have yielded to anti-gay extremists. [...]

Microsoft spokeswoman Tami Begasse insisted the company’s decision to remain neutral came before the legislative session began in January. “(Hutcherson) urged us to change our position from neutral to negative, but we declined,” Begasse said.

In a story published yesterday, The New York Times reported that the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ed Murray, said Microsoft’s top lawyer told him last month that the company was feeling pressure from Hutcherson and was concerned how its Christian employees might react if it supported the bill. Messages left with Hutcherson and Murray were not returned yesterday. (source)

So, in other words, Microsoft is lying to get out of this dilemma. I would rather they just came out and said, “We caved in to a religious bigot and said to our gay employees and gay customers, ‘go to hell’.” At least then I’d have more respect for them.

In the Business and Technology section of the Seattle Times, I read this interesting assessment.

John Aravosis, who has been covering the issue on his Web log after the news of Microsoft withdrawing support was broken by local alternative newsweekly The Stranger, said some people still remember a boycott organized by gays and lesbians against Coors beer in the late 1970s. The boycott reportedly stemmed from Coors’ moves to screen out prospective employees who were gay.

Although the company has changed its policies and worked hard to mend fences, memories of the boycott remain.

“For 30 years they’ve had to fight that spot on their name,” Aravosis said. “You don’t get away from that stuff. That’s the danger [Microsoft] has in the long term.”

But Steve Rubel, a public-relations consultant who tracks the impact of blogs on his industry, said he thinks Microsoft’s actions could have long-term impact only among people who feel strongly about gay and lesbian issues.

The bill is a localized issue and may not get the national or international attention of other controversies, he said.

“The people who are passionate about this subject, whether they’re pro or con, will be vocal about it,” he said. “Until they find something else to write about.” (source)

Probably true. Bloggers like myself will not keep writing about this. I will go on to other issues and talk about them.

But for some one who is a “public-relations consultant who tracks the impact of blogs on his industry” to suggest that the impact of Microsoft’s actions will not be so significant over time because we (bloggers) will “find something else to write about”, really shows that he doesn’t fully understand how things work on the Internet.

You see, all I have to do as a blogger is to make my opinions on any given subject clear in my blog. The search engines that index this data will do the rest. I don’t have to keep talking about it. In time, when someone types in a search phrase such as “Microsoft job opportunity fairness” or “Microsoft gay rights”, my opinions, along with many others, will pop up with the freshness that they were written just yesterday. They become a matter of record long after the newspapers have stopped talking about them and long after they are available online from the newspapers.

It’s a beautiful thing.

This photo was taken on April 24, 2004, just after we brought our orchid home. We bought two books. One called Growing Orchids, and the other called Orchids For Wimps. It looked easy enough. It’s been almost a year. So where are the buds?

It’s sending out these weird things that resemble those tentacles that the alien creature from the move, The Thing, had. But no buds. We even keep a lamp on it 12 hours a day, as the book suggested, to make sure that it has ample light.

Should I take this personally? What does this mean? Can orchids only be grown by wealthy Republicans?

The Microsoft Corporation, at the forefront of corporate gay rights for decades, is coming under fire from gay rights groups, politicians and its own employees for withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Many of the critics accused the company of bowing to pressure from a prominent evangelical church in Redmond, Wash., located a few blocks from Microsoft’s sprawling headquarters.

The bill, or similar versions of it, has been introduced repeatedly over three decades; it failed by one vote Thursday in the State Senate. Gay rights advocates denounced Microsoft, which had supported the bill for the last two years, for abandoning their cause. (source)

So today I’m sitting at my desk at work. My phone rings. I answer it. It’s a representative from Microsoft wanting to sell me a new “add on” product to a Microsoft package my company already owns. I’m the IT Manager for the company I work for.

I reply, “Why?” He starts to tell me about the product and what it will do... I interrupt with, “No. I want to know why!” He said, “I don’t understand.” I said, “Washington State has been trying to pass a gay rights bill for the last three decades. Yesterday, it lost by one vote. This after Microsoft withdrew it’s support for the bill. So, my question to you is, why. Why did Microsoft pull it’s support for the gay civil rights bill in Washington State and why should I, as a gay man, give you, a representative of Microsoft, time of day?”

He said, “Well, I don’t know what to say.” I said, “When you figure it out, you can call me back.” I hung up the phone.

Two hours later I get another phone call from Microsoft. They are having a web seminar that they felt I would be interested in participating in. I said, “Why?” You get the idea.

It’s a small world. I don’t live in Washington State. This bill would have added job protections for gay workers, and I do know something about that. I know what it feels like to be fired for being gay. At the time it happened, I felt degraded, useless, humiliated, and powerless.

Today, I got my power back!

Microsoft can go to hell.

Related Entries
April 26, 2005 - Microsoft may rethink position on gay-rights bill
April 27, 2005 - Microsoft's Ties to the Radical Right

Lawmakers were taped joking “Pop her ... pop her again” at a committee meeting when they tabled a bill aimed at strengthening state law against domestic violence. [...]

“And they wonder why we rank in the bottom on women in office and we lead in women getting killed by men,” Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a Democrat who sponsored the bill, said. House leaders said they plan to reintroduce the bill.

At Tuesday’s meeting, according to the newspaper account, Rep. John Graham Altman asked why the bill’s title “Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)” just mentioned protecting women.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Harrison suggested calling the bill the “Protecting Our People in Every Relationship Act,” or “POPER,” the newspaper reported.

A voice on the tape is heard pronouncing it “Pop her.” Then another says “Pop her again,” followed by laughter.

“I do not understand why women continue to go back around men who abuse them,” Altman told WIS-TV later. “I mean, you women want it one way and not another,” he told the female reporter. (source)

As someone who grew up in a home where my mother and I were beaten on several occasions by my step father, this article really pissed me off. Domestic violence is no laughing matter. Usually you hear about comments like this coming from abusive husbands or partners. It’s especially an issue coming from a state representative. Perhaps Rep. Graham has some issues going on in his own household?

I hope he loses his office over this. To dismiss an issue such as this as a joke is unforgivable.

The Washington State senate on Thursday rejected the gay civil rights bill by one vote, 25-24.

The legislation--a longtime goal of the state’s politically active gay community--appeared dead earlier this month when a senate majority sent it to the judiciary committee, where it was bottled up as a key deadline came and went. On Thursday, the senate narrowly approved a procedural move by Democrats to exempt the measure from the cutoff and allow it to come up for a vote. Senators also voted to pull the bill, House Bill 1515, from the judiciary committee so it could be debated by the full senate.

Senators on both sides of the aisle spoke passionately about the bill, which would have protected gay and lesbian citizens in housing, employment, and public accommodation.

Democratic senator Tim Sheldon, who originally supported the movement of the bill from committee to the floor, voted against the bill because he says there is a wide discrepancy of support for the legislation across the state. Democratic senator Adam Kline and many other Democrats say that the real discrepancy is that gay and lesbian citizens are not included in civil rights protection.

Meanwhile, Seattle’s The Stranger newspaper reported that software giant Microsoft last month withdrew its support for the house version of the gay rights bill after it caved to pressure from a suburban megachurch. (source)

Other Sources
Gay-rights bill falls 1 vote short of becoming state law

04/24/2005 - Follow-up Entry.

The Texas house of representatives passed a bill on Wednesday banning homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals from being foster parents.

If the bill gains approval from the Texas senate, the state will be allowed to investigate the backgrounds of current foster parents and remove children living in non-heterosexual households.

All future foster parents will be required to disclose their sexual preference on an application form, a legislative aide said.

The move was denounced by local activists.

“More than 43,000 gay and lesbian couples in Texas are forming families and raising children, and this attack on LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered) Texans will tear apart our families and remove our children from loving, stable families,” the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Robert Talton (pictured above), who proposed the ban, said he no longer wished to discuss the issue. [...]

Talton’s amendment would require the state to ask a prospective foster parent if he or she is homosexual. Gays and lesbians would be eliminated from consideration, and foster children who live with gay parents would be removed from their homes. The measure would also allow the state to conduct investigations into a prospective or current foster parent’s sexual orientation.

Sources for this story:
News24.com
L.A. Time

It’s astonishing, isn’t it? Just imagine that if you became a foster parent, all of that could end. What’s next? Adoption? If adoption follows and you’ve legally adopted a child, would the child be removed from you? Sometimes, I really do feel like I’m living in some third world country that has no sense of human rights.

This afternoon, the Connecticut Senate passed the civil union bill. The bill had previously been passed by the Senate and sent to the House, where an amendment was added defining marriage as “one man and one woman”. The amended bill went back to the Senate for a vote. Today, the Senate passed that bill with the marriage definition amendment intact. It was then sent to Governor Rell.

Just a few minutes ago, it was announced on the news that Governor Rell has signed the bill into law (pictured left). It will take effect on October 1, 2005. Connecticut now becomes the second state to legalize civil unions after Vermont.

I wish I could feel better about this. But, I have to move on. What’s done is done. Someday I think we will have real marriage, and that is the day I will celebrate. I look at it this way, this has given me a taste of what equality would be like - a step in the right direction. The fact that marriage didn’t happen for us this year does not have to ruin everything else in life, nor will it. I am admittedly depressed right now, but like everything else in my life and your lives, we will rise above how we feel.

This afternoon, I received an email from Anne Stanback of Love Makes a Family. I’ll share part of it with you.

Many of you are rightly disappointed by the insulting and discriminatory amendment that was passed by the House last week. In reiterating our exclusion from the institution of marriage at the same time they extended rights and protections, the House made it clear that civil unions are not “marriage by another name” as our opponents like to describe them.

But civil unions, as seen in the context of a step towards marriage, represent progress and for that reason LMF did not oppose the final bill, even with the offensive amendment.

In light of other states who are passing terribly oppressive and mean spirited bills against our community, I am proud that Connecticut has chosen not to do so. This civil union bill faced fierce opposition from religious groups. Still, the Senate, the House, and the Governor rose above that opposition to make this bill into law.

I’m also aware that some of you reading this will view this as a triumph. It is, in a way. I should acknowledge that. As of October 1st, gay couples who sign up for a Civil Union will have 855 state rights that they did not have before. That is a triumph and I would not blame any of you for getting a civil union.

Should Kent and I sign up? I don’t know. The 855 state rights would be nice to have as protection (and would probably carry more legal weight than our legal documents from our attorney) in case something unfortunate happens, but I’ve spent time bashing this bill on principles of fairness and equality. I shot for the moon, and missed. If I sign up, does that make me a hypocrite? Kent thinks it “makes me human, and humans are allowed to change their minds.” That seems so convenient. I am unconvinced, and I hate hypocrites. I would not want to turn into one.

Your thoughts?

This reminds me of the time that I was in my back yard. All the sudden, everything got quiet. The birds stopped singing, the squirrels were motionless on the trees, and this eeriness set in. Something inside my instinctively put me on heightened alert.

At the end of my yard, I spotted a bobcat looking right at me. I didn’t know if it would attack or not, but I didn’t stand around waiting to see what would happen. Without taking my eyes off the cat, I slowly started backing up towards my front door. Once inside, I shut the door and the windows. I can relate to what happened to this woman.

Mildred Luce came to the rescue of her beloved cat Smudge, when it was attacked by a wildcat at her home in Maine.

Luce says the bobcat had Smudge’s head in its mouth and wouldn’t let go. She tried pressing a snow shovel down on the bobcat’s neck.

When that didn’t work, the elderly woman says she yanked the wildcat’s tail and Smudge’s head popped right out. The pet cat ran into the house, with the wildcat right behind.

Luce managed to lock the bobcat in a bathroom until a game warden arrived. (source)

Pope Benedict? It sounds funny to me.

Well, the Catholic Church has a new pope. This is going to sound a bit strange I suppose, but all of this reminds me of the scene in The Wizard of OZ right after Dorothy squashed the Wicked Witch of the East. The Wicked Witch of the West appears, asking, “Who killed my sister?” Dorothy asks Glenda, the Good Witch of the North, “I thought you said that I killed the witch?” Glenda replies, “That was the Wicked Witch of the East. This is the Wicked Witch of the West, and I’m afraid she’s even worse than the other one.”

From what I’ve heard about this new Pope, he’s going to be more conservative than John Paul II, if that’s possible. We can expect more of the same. If you are gay, you should brace yourself for some caring and love pretty harsh judgment with the words to match. Nothing really new there.

In fact, none of this really effects me, since I’m not Catholic. Well, except for the fact that there are a lot of Catholics who vote. I suppose they will vote the way their Pope tells them too. The thing that bothers me about the Catholic Church and many many Catholics (I’m going to get hate mail on this one), is that from what I can tell, most of them don’t practice church doctrine.

They are right there when the vote is cast to add an amendment to a state constitution outlawing marriage for gay couples, but are they abstaining from sex when the purpose of that sex is not to conceive children? Do they use contraceptives? They aren’t supposed to have sex for recreational purposes, but the majority of Catholics I know feel free to ignore that one. And what about divorce? They know what the church says about it, but I know many who are now divorced and on their third or forth spouse.

I guess most just pick and choose what fits their lifestyle - in any religion. I just wish that more of the religious folks thought that it should be encouraged that homosexuals should be nurturing stable long lasting relationships within marriage and given encouragement to do so, rather than judgement. Perhaps there would be less AIDS, depression, and suicide in our community.

One parting thought that I wasn’t surprised at, but found interesting. It seems that the new Pope was a Hitler Youth. Chew on that one for awhile.

Some Jews in Israel professed concern over the choice of Joseph Ratzinger as pope because of his German origins and links to the Nazis of World War II - especially by comparison to his predecessor - but others say the new pontiff’s record over the last six decades is more important than his youthful affiliations.

To some extent, the concerns arise from an automatic Jewish revulsion for anything linked to the Nazis, who killed 6 million Jews and tried to wipe out all European Jews before Germany was defeated in 1945.

In marking the naming of the new pope, Israel’s government wrapped a positive statement around a barb about Ratzinger’s membership in the “Hitler Youth.” He said he had no choice in the matter.

“Israel is hopeful that under this new papacy, we will continue to move forward in Vatican-Israel relations and we are sure that considering the background of this new pope, he, like his predecessor, will be a strong voice against anti-Semitism in all its forms,” said a statement by Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom. (source)

Keep thinking those positive thoughts.

04/20/2005 FOLLOW UP:
Many gay Catholics disappointed with cardinals' choice for pope, seeing Ratzinger as church's most outspoken foe of equal rights.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, was raised Catholic but left the church in 1986 after former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- the new Pope Benedict XVI -- issued a letter to the bishops on the "pastoral care of homosexual persons." The letter described gays as "intrinsically disordered" and homosexuality as a "tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil." (source)

By Chris Eckel, Collegian columnist

April 19, 2005

I might be too young for it, but I seem to recall studying an era where people clashed over what sort of rights people different from them should have. There was much debate, but in the end, legislation was passed that made all people equal in the eyes of the law. Turns out the Civil Rights Act of 1964 worked out pretty well, huh? Forty years from now, I have no doubts that the era banning gay marriage will be seen as just as shameful as the era of refusing to serve a black man at a lunch counter.

A person is always entitled to his/her opinion, or else editorial columnists like myself wouldn’t serve very much of a purpose. I just wonder why people are so intent on restricting their recognition of a beautiful thing to a narrow definition. Don’t be afraid to recognize the unique wonder of lifelong ardor as expressed through marriage in all of its forms; the world is lacking love sorely right now. On that note, I’d like to wish happy spring and summer weddings to all of my friends, both gay and straight.

Bills introduced to the Montana legislature that were supported by gay rights advocates this season have been killed. One would have established a statewide next-of-kin registry. Another would have prohibited bullying based on many characteristics, including race, color, religion, and ancestry, as well as sexual orientation.

It’s unfortunate that these bills died, although I suppose it is understandable given that last November two thirds of Montana voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. A civil unions measure never made it out of committee.

With marriage or civil unions killed for gay couples, it is truly unfortunate that the “next-of-kin” bill died. This bill would have added powerful protections for gay couples in the absence of marriage or civil unions such as hospital visitation, medical decisions, and receipt of the body after death.

These life and death decisions have more to do with common decency and less to do with sexual orientation.

The Montana legislature voted down several bills supported by gay rights advocates this session. Though none survived, Democratic senator Ken Tootle said gay rights made the largest advance yet with three measures passing the senate before dying in the house.

Those measures would have established a statewide next-of-kin registry, added protection for gays to the Montana Human Rights Act, and implemented a statewide antibullying policy for schools. The political tide is slowly turning, Toole said. “We understand this to be a 15- to 20-year process,” he said. “All civil rights issues traditionally have taken a long time.” [...]

The bill to create a next-of-kin registry failed as well. The measure would have created a statewide registry where any Montana resident could designate his or her legal next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation, medical decisions, and receipt of the body after death. Gay rights advocates frequently voice concerns that gays and lesbians are not allowed to visit their partners in hospitals or make important end-of-life decisions. (AP) (source)

I received the following email this morning. I'm posting it here to get the word out.

Action Alert:

Civil Unions Today - Equal Dignity Tomorrow!

Marriage Equality Action (simultaneous to Family Institute Anti-Equality Rally)

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:00 -- 3:30 PM

CT State Capitol, South Side (overlooking Capitol Avenue) featuring speeches, songs, and A Gay Wedding at 2:00 PM with marriage licenses for same-gender couples!

Celebrate the Marriage Equality Future We Seek Today!

Sponsored by the CT Marriage Equality Coalition

Background:

The Family Institute of CT/ACTION is planning to bring 25,000 people to our Capitol to oppose Marriage for Same-Gender Couples.

Join the CT Marriage Equality Coalition as we celebrate the de facto (but legally unrecognized) marriages of same-gender couples.

To Register as a Couple or to Add your Organization as a Co-sponsor, or to Register to carpool, go to www.ctEQUALITY.org, click on the Contact Us link, and use the form provided.

But don’t tell me that the United States Senate, which likes to be called the “the world’s greatest deliberative body” will vote to confirm President Bush’s pick of John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

John Bolton has what conservatives used to call “book smarts.” He is a distinguished alumnus of a New Haven school that is the alma mater of both Presidents Bush, Yale, as well as of that same university’s law school.

He has a long record of federal appointments, including service as a U.S. assistant attorney general, assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, and from 2001 to 2005, as under secretary of state for arms control.

Bolton on paper has strong credentials. What John Bolton tragically lacks, according to the first-hand testimony of people who have worked with him, is the human touch or mature temperament so important in a colleague and so indispensable in a diplomat. (source)

Actually, I think that John Bolton has exactly what it takes to be an ambassador under the Bush Administration. He should fit in just perfectly.

He has the savvy to tell the United Nations that they are irrelevant, that it’s “our way or the highway”, and that everyone else on this planet (the little people) is somewhat, well, less than the important people (us).

I think he’s a perfect “ambassador” for this administration because he is the epitome of what they stand for. It’s very clear to me why President George W. Bush nominated John Bolton to the United Nations. These two cookies are made from the same mold.

Other writings on Bolton
August 1, 2005 - Bolton Appointed U.N. Ambassador

This is a bit close to home. South Windsor is a neighboring town from where I live. Yesterday, four students wore shirts that said “Adam & Even NOT Adam and Steve”. At first everything went ok until they were confronted by other students during a class. The four students were sent home.

They felt that was unfair because on Tuesday of the same week, the gay straight alliance at the school had a rally at the school. Apparently, the gay-straight alliance had signs that read, “Come out, come out wherever you are.”

These four students feel that they were unfairly singled out because they were asked to remove their T-shirts (which the didn’t do), or ordered to go home. They said that members of the gay-straight alliance were not asked to leave the school. I can see a lawsuit brewing here.

It’s a difficult thing - free speech. Personally, I want to say that what happened was just because they were carrying messages that many view as being intolerant and hateful in nature. I don’t believe that is something that belongs at a school. I also feel that the four students who were asked to go home have a right to voice their views on this. Perhaps they didn’t choose the best way to do it. Perhaps they should have complained about the gay-straight alliance on Tuesday instead of voicing it in this fashion.

That’s the really difficult thing about free speech. It isn’t easy. You have to be willing to defend someone’s right to voice their opinion, even if you find that opinion to be repugnant.

They should have the right to voice their opinion, but I agree with the school in sending them home since it was starting to cause problems in the classroom. The safety of the students much come first.

It there was a way for them to voice their opinion in a safe and respectful way last Tuesday, I think it would have been awesome for the school to facilitate a discussion on that. School is about learning and more times than not on emotionally charged issues such as this, people end up shouting at each other and no one really listens.

As a final note... If those four students really wanted to understand the other side and to put into context the issues they have with gays, perhaps they should attend a few meetings of the gay-straight alliance. It could be a valuable lesson to them to hear what fellow students go through who happen to be gay. Then, if they still feel the way they do now, at least it will be more informed.

Some students in South Windsor don’t agree with gay marriage and they sported t-shirts showing others how they feel. But when they wore those shirts to school, the trouble really started.

Because of their religious convictions they believe gay marriage is wrong. So four students at the South Windsor High School wore t-shirts saying “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

“We wore them to protest a gay straight alliance rally that they had on Tuesday where they wore signs,” said sophomore David Grimaldi. “They had things that said come out, come out where ever you are.” [...]

The principal says it interfered with learning, but Grimaldi and his friends say it wasn’t their fault. Grimaldi says they didn’t protest or yell when students from the gay straight alliance wore offensive signs.

“I was being yelled at and I was being called names I didn’t appreciate, and profanities were being yelled at me and I was very upset,” Shinfield said.

“School is a place that’s supposed to be a safe zone. it’s a time to learn, not to create controversy,” says another male student. (source)

I’ve got spring fever in the worst way. We went out to Monet’s Table for our usual Saturday brunch, and went right to Vinney’s to pick up some things for our outdoor grill and bird seed. We love grilling outside and enjoy having dinner outside when the weather is nice. Then we went to Lowe’s to replace the wheelbarrow that died last fall (yes they can die). Well, never thinking small, we ended up getting this big garden cart on four wheels that can haul all kinds of stuff around the yard.

We got home and I started hosing down the deck and cleaning the grill in preparation for spring/summer stuff. I got the hoses out and have been watering all the flowers that are just beginning to come back to life.

Tomorrow we are having a friend over for dinner and will have steak on the grill. It doesn't get any better than that. The rest of the day I’ll be putting out my wild flower seed so by June, it should look pretty spectacular. We sometimes have people stop out front as they drive by to take a look.

It’s so nice sometimes to sit back and take notice of your life and take a look at the big picture. There are a lot of things that we don't have access to as a couple. But, through our hard work and determination to make life as good as it can be, it really is pretty awesome how good things can be.

In this world that we’ve managed to mess up pretty badly, sometimes we all just have to block all of that out. We do that by really getting into making our home a warm place to live, being with each other, gardening, and enjoying life as much as possible. Through all the obstacles in our way towards equality, we still have so much going for us and so much to appreciate.

Inequality is one part of what is in our lives right now - it doesn't have to ruin everything. That’s my thought of the day.

I spotted the Love and Pride website and was really taken by it because they serve specifically the gay community. The designs of their marriage rings are designed with us in mind. I thought that was classy.

There’s a spot around Sam Ciapanna’s ring finger where his wedding band used to be.

The Bellevue attorney removed the ring yesterday after learning that the Oregon Supreme Court had nullified the marriage licenses of nearly 3,000 same-sex couples, including his own.

In a unanimous ruling that disappointed gay-rights advocates and buoyed opponents of same-sex marriage, the court said that marriage laws are a matter of state, not local, jurisdiction and that Multnomah County lacked authority to issue the licenses last spring. The court noted that Oregonians in November passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage as strictly a union between a man and a woman. [...]

The Oregon ruling came two weeks after Ciapanna and his partner of 14 years, Dean Williamson, celebrated their one-year anniversary. Yesterday they mourned what they called their court-ordered “divorce.”

“It was important for us to be married; it meant something,” Ciapanna said.

The men’s marriage in Portland last year was as much for Ciapanna’s mother, who was dying of Alzheimer’s disease, as it was for them. “It was an emotional thing for us,” he said. “When mom died, in her obituary, Dean was described as a son-in-law. Now she’s gone and I guess the obit was dishonest.” (source)

It’s hard for me to imagine what this couple is going through. I think it would be devastating to be married for a year, and then have the state rip that marriage away from you. I think that’s rather heartless.

At what point do we, as a society, question what has happened to our sense of decency and fairness?

I’m happy and sad for the state of equality in Connecticut. I don’t want to come off sounding like a sour old queen who wants the wedding cake, wants to eat it too, and have the big lavender palace to live in for ever after.

But, there is something fundamentally missing in this civil unions bill that is about to become law in Connecticut. Yet, some are delighted with it, as though it gives them everything they’ve always wanted.

Keith Choate and Mark Ceneri turned to each other, grinning. Then they embraced. State representatives had just voted 85-63 to allow same-sex civil unions, something Choate and Ceneri had been waiting for since they became a couple five years ago. The state Senate passed a similar measure last week.

“We wanted something that was meaningful,” said a beaming Choate. “We wanted something that was real.”

The House action on Wednesday came after more than six hours of debate, much of it centered on adding a definition of marriage - the union of a man and a woman. Gov. M. Jodi Rell praised the lawmakers for approving what she called “a stronger and clearer” bill and vowed to sign the proposal if senators sign off on the amended version.

The problem is, it is real. Well, kind of. In terms of our worst fears; problems with visitation, inheritance, life and death decisions, this bill will assure that, AS LONG AS YOU STAY IN THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT. When you leave our borders, the civil rights that this civil union bill affords to gay couples, evaporates faster than steam from a tea kettle. Keep that in mind when you travel. If something bad happens to you and you have signed up for this civil union bill, you’d better hope and pray that you are within the borders of Connecticut.

One could argue that an actual marriage granted to a gay couple by the state of Massachusetts is the same way. It probably is. Most states have enacted Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) to ensure that they don’t have to honor a marriage from another state (they are really just talking about “gay marriages”) if they don’t want too. And believe me, they don’t want too!

If you are traveling to another state with a DOMA, say Ohio, and you are in a car accident with your partner and he has to go into the hospital, your civil union from Connecticut or your marriage from Massachusetts most likely will be laughed at, and obviously, not honored.

Your best possible protection is legal documents from your home state detailing the nature of your relationship with your partner. And make sure to cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s, because if they can find a loophole, they will use it. And still, there’s no guarantee they will honor those papers, but at least they are legal entities and, by not honoring them, the hospital could be threatened with a lawsuit - something most hospitals will avoid if possible. In other words, those documents, at this point in time, carry more weight than any civil union or marriage a gay couple can achieve in the United States. And, you must carry them with you at all times when you travel! One couple I know of even have a copy of these papers in the glove compartment of their car so they have them when they go to and from work, just in case they are in a car accident. And this is the United States, right?

I emphasize this because that is really what is missing in all of this. Married heterosexual couples would never think when they go on their trip to carry legal papers with them such as their will, power of attorney, etc. They don’t have too. Their marriage guarantees that authority and it is portable (and honored) from state to state, and in most countries.

So, when I’m sitting here bitching about the civil union bill in Connecticut, what I’m really bitching about is the amendment that was added to the bill last night, defining marriage as one man, one woman. It will make it harder in the future to achieve full marriage, which in turn, will make it harder for us to realize, state by state, that these are “real” marriages, and not a civil union masquerading as a marriage. They are as different as a cow is from a horse.

And, at the end of the same article that I quoted above, I spotted a quote from Mary Bonauto, a Boston lawyer who led the fight for same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts, who is also disappointed that the Connecticut legislation was amended with the marriage definition. She gets what I’m trying to say.

“From my perspective, they’re giving with one hand and taking with the other. In the end, they have completely accepted and put into law the second-class status of gay and lesbian families in Connecticut. That is a very bitter pill to swallow.”

Source Information

The Oregon Supreme Court today nullified nearly 3,000 marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples by Multnomah County a year ago, saying a single county couldn't take such action on its own.

The court said while the county can question the constitutionality of laws governing marriage, they are a matter of statewide concern so the county had no authority to issue licenses to gay couples.

The court noted that last November, Oregonians approved a constitutional amendment that limits marriages to a man and a woman. The court also said that long before that vote, state law had set the same limitations on marriages since Oregon became a state. (source)

This was my worst fear, and it’s happened.

The civil union bill was amended today in the House to define marriage as “one man, one woman”, despite the fact that Attorney General Richard Blumenthal assured the Governor that the bill would not allow gay couples access to marriage.

“If the governor is concerned about authorizing same-sex marriages, she can sign this bill with a high degree of comfort,” Blumenthal said. “Emphatically, unequivocally, without any doubt, this law in no way would permit same-sex marriages in Connecticut.” (source)

With this amendment added, this civil union bill will not be a stepping stone towards full marriage. It also will prohibit a gay marriage bill in the future, unless this bill is killed in the future - a much more difficult task.

Connecticut will become the 39th state to have a Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as “one man, one woman”, assuming this bill makes it to the Governor's desk.

The bill now must go back to the Senate who will vote on the newly amended bill. If they approve, it heads to the Governor for her expected signature. Sen. Andrew McDonald who co-sponsored the bill, called the amendment “political comfort food” for people uncomfortable with gay marriage. I would call it a political disaster.

HARTFORD, Conn. Apr 13, 2005 — The state House of Representatives began debating legislation Wednesday that would make Connecticut the second state to establish same-sex civil unions, and the first to do it without a court order.

In hopes of avoiding a veto from Gov. M. Jodi Rell, the House amended the bill to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. That means the Senate, which overwhelmingly approved the bill last week, would need to approve the amended version before it reaches the governor’s desk. (source)

PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - Gay and lesbian couples in Oregon would have marriage-like rights in the form of civil unions under a bipartisan bill introduced in the Legislature on Wednesday.

The move, backed by Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski, came one day before the Oregon Supreme Court was expected to rule on the legality of gay marriage.

The measure would grant same-sex couples legal protections, rights and responsibilities generally afforded to opposite-sex couples through marriage. (source)

I just heard that tomorrow the Connecticut House will vote on the civil union bill. It’s not clear that Governor Rell will actually sign it without a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) attached defining marriage as “one man, one woman”.

If you live in Connecticut, call the Governor’s office at 800-406-1527. It literally takes 5 seconds! Ask that she sign the civil union bill with no DOMA or definitional marriage language.

We’ll keep our fingers crossed.

There are so many times that, as a minority, we work against ourselves. Many times, it’s not that we don’t realize it. It’s that we just don’t care. For example, if we want to go on vacation, and we want to go to a vacation spot that just happens to be located in a state that is very repressive to our community, many of us will say, “What the hell... it’s just this one time.”, and you will go anyway.

It’s important for all of us to realize that when we do this, we actually are hurting ourselves. We are supporting discrimination. It’s like being beaten up by a gay basher, then turning around and paying him for doing that to you. That’s an extreme case, but it is valid. It’s valid because if you contribute money to something (a state or organization) that works against our community, you are donating money to their cause. And money, my friends = POWER.

So this morning, I’m going through my morning email. I spot an invitation to a technical conference on programming. It sounds interesting to me and is one that I may have considered going to. I had been to their conferences before and thought they were very well done. The only problem is, the conference takes place in Kansas City, Missouri. Missouri is one of the states that approved a state constitutional ban on gay marriage in the 2004 elections. So right then and there, that conference was killed for me.

But I didn’t just dismiss it and let it to. I sent the following reply to the organizers of the conference because it’s important for them to know why people don’t attend. There is a price tag to prejudice. They should know that.

I actually would very much like to attend the conference you are offering in Missouri.

However, because of the current political climate in Missouri, with the voters approving a ban on equal marriage rights for gay people, I don’t feel that I can in clear conscience attend your conference.

I’ve attended some of your workshops in the past and have found them to be very good. However, I will not support bigotry in any form and if I were to attend your conference, no doubt some of the proceeds would go to Kansas City or the State of Missouri.

Perhaps at your next conference, you would take this into consideration? One would hope.

Sincerely...

Bottom line: MAKE YOUR MONEY WORK FOR YOU. Next time you plan that vacation, do a little research and find out their feelings on these issues. You may just be working against yourself.

BAGHDAD, IRAQ - Tens of thousands of followers of a radical Shia cleric marched through Baghdad Saturday, demanding the end of the U.S.-led occupation on the second anniversary of Saddam Hussein’s ouster.

In the largest anti-American demonstration since the invasion began, the supporters of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr streamed into Firdos Square, where the statue of Saddam was toppled two years ago. (source)

It’s time to come home. The only satisfaction I get from all of this is the black eye our President has over taking us into Iraq in the first place. That’s little consolation after so many of our men have been killed there. I’m all for helping others out. I’m all for defending our country against threat. Here, we did neither. We assumed they wanted our brand of democracy. We assumed they had weapons of mass destruction. We assumed a great deal from the intelligence we had at the time. That intelligence was crap. And, I believe the President knew it.

Now, Iraq is tired of U.S. bullshit (I can relate). We can be there for the next twenty years. It won’t help.

Britain’s Prince Charles and his long-time love, Camilla Parker Bowles, have married in a private civil ceremony in the town of Windsor, just outside London. [...]

Only about 30 guests - among them Charles’ sons Prince William and Prince Harry - attended the wedding. Thousands of people standing outside the 17th-century Guildhall loudly cheered the two young princes, whose mother, Princess Diana, died in a car crash nearly eight years ago. (source)

Charles finally did it. He married the one he wanted all along. He married the woman he’s had an affair with for 35 years.

And yet, all I can think of is Diana. She deserved better than him. I always thought that. She was pure class. She was a sparkling diamond. Next to that, he looked like a clump of coal.

This entry is in response to a comment left by Tony.

Tony,

I do very much feel a lot of the time that I’m living in a dream world, if you can call it that. It’s very difficult for me... actually, it’s really impossible for me to understand the animosity that society has for us. I thought at one time that we were making progress, before marriage became something that I thought was in our grasp.

You see, I always accepted that I was going to be second class. I never asked to be equal to anyone else. It wasn’t by choice. It was something that I assumed came with the territory of being gay. I never once thought that I would live long enough to be equal to heterosexuals.

So, years ago when I was called a “faggot”, I actually thought that I was a faggot. That’s how I felt. I felt that it was my lot in life to be that - a faggot. When one of us was beaten up, and others of us would take care of those who had been beaten. I accepted that.

Then, Harvey Milk, the first gay supervisor of San Francisco, was assassinated along with then Mayor George Moscone, in 1978. The person who killed Harvey and George was supervisor Dan White. For this, Dan White received seven (7) years in prison. Seven years for killing two men in cold blood! There was talk at the time that he was given such a light sentence because one of the victims was gay. I don’t if that’s true or if the justice system simply failed. What resulted from that was what was called the White Night Riots, where many gays rioted upon City Hall. I was angry and wanted to do something, but I didn’t. I thought, well, this is what we get.

Then, my friends started dieing of AIDS. And astonishingly, no one cared. NO ONE CARED. We made, my community, made a support system for people with AIDS. We did it for them, so they would feel that someone cared. And, as more and more of my brothers died, I became withdrawn, depressed, and at some point, didn’t really give a damn what happened to me. It was the lowest point in my life.

At that point, we left San Francisco and moved to Connecticut. Two weeks after arriving in Connecticut, I received a phone call informing me that one of my best friends, Stan, had passed on from AIDS. I remember thinking through all the love I had for him, “Well, at least it’s over for him.”

We were trying to start our lives over again. I kept things low key. That means, I tried to pass for straight in an effort to find a job. I did find a job, but suffered some pretty severe harassment. It was the only job that I quit without giving warning. I just stopped going to work one day.

Between that job and the one I hold today, I volunteered for the AIDS project in Hartford. I was a “buddy” in the buddy support group. That meant, I cared for people with AIDS – all gay men. Then, we started seeing heterosexual IV drug users coming to us for support. Our first reaction was to turn them away. We built our support systems to take care of our kind, and we did it without the help of anyone else in society because THEY DIDN’T CARE. But then I thought, we can’t turn them away. They have no one but us. It occurred to me at the time that the measure of a person is the strength of his compassion at the time when everything inside is telling him to seek revenge. We did help those people because it was the right thing to do. They are just like us – all of us – they are just people. It would have been easy to lash out at them and do nothing. But I believe that love and compassion must win the day, even to the point that it would mean my demise; I WILL NOT HATE.

And, I always hope that people will some day choose to be compassionate to those viewed to be the least in society. I always come back to what Jesus said: "Whatever you do unto the least of these, you do unto me." Is that not the essence of compassion and love?

Over time we eventually got a civil rights bill passed in Connecticut. That was the first time that I felt that we might be treated equally. Then, the concept that we could enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual couples came along. It gave me new hope that maybe I could have it all. Maybe I didn’t have to struggle so hard to make everything in our lives as good as it could be. Maybe we could actually be married and be equal.

Then, it started happening. The incredible backlash against us. The hatred. How dare we ask for marriage? I’m weary and I’m so tired of trying to achieve this. I tell myself to be strong, and I write about it day after day, even though it brings me down because I honestly don’t think we will ever be equal. So, I write.

Why do I write all of this? Because someday I will be gone. My life will be over. I want the young wonderful gay people who come after us to know the struggle – our struggle - our history. I want them to know what it was like and how we were made to feel and what we went through. I hope that some of this survives me – this chronicle of my life with Kent – a gay couple who just wanted to be equal.

I was looking at my site statistics for March, 2005. In all, the site received 834514 hits for the month of March.

I always find the statistics interesting to review, especially the search phrases. These are the exact phrases people have entered into their search engine to reach our site. For any given phrase, there were undoubtedly other sites listed. For whatever reason, our site was among them. From looking at some of these phrases, you would think that I’m running a sex site here.

abu gharib pictures
torture photo
лещен
men kissing
gay lad=0;en-us official
baby hippo
gay kissing
dachshound
twinky defense
photo de prison de abu gharib
gay handshake
locker rooms
class reunion invitation wording
the carmelite church in faro portugal
lesbians having sex
stomach flu
pepsi with lime
reichen lehmkuhl
photos of naked gay marines
how to hack websites
high jack this fags damn gays
emmett idaho
bad pitt
ten commandments styrofoam
is michael schiavo now married?
red fish lake id
anti pflag
doug wead
surrogacy male gay couples costs
tolerance vs. acceptance
boy lesbians
rasputin picture
stanford 04 boys speedo gay
haddam ct gay
fucking during war photos
personal distaste
photos of lesbians
place condom in gas tank
tyranosaurus rex history
perverts
gay car insurance nj and domestic partnership
anti gay adoptions
crooked neck giraffe
iraqui war photos
cool hippo pictures
dried beaver tail
photo album in drag
living with gays
pictures of gay men
suicide 2003 at copperhills high
2005 guestbook of female directors in asia
gay muscle
tell me about it carolyn hax bisexual

Well, the good news is that the Connecticut Civil Union bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate on Wednesday.

The bad news is that the bill will be going back to the Planning and Development Committee. At every stop our opponents attempt to amend it with a so-called “Defense of Marriage Amendment” (DOMA) that would limit marriage as ONLY between one man and one woman. They want to do this so that in the future, we will be blocked from ever achieving full marriage equality.

I have written a personal letter to my senator since he was one of the 9 senators who voted for the DOMA the first time around. I posted my letter to him. It won’t make a difference - he won’t change his mind.

On top of this, Governor M. Jodi Rell has stated that she may not sign the Civil Union bill if the DOMA isn’t part of it. Right now, Connecticut is ONE of only NINE states that does not have a DOMA. In a couple of weeks, we may have one.

This is really getting me down. Why can’t they just let us have the dignity of basic equality? I’m so tired of this already.

They are going to do whatever it is they want to do. There’s really nothing I can do about it at this point. I’m going to do yard work this weekend. At least when I’m doing that, inequality doesn’t matter - unless the next bill says that gay couples can’t own property together. Honestly, nothing would surprise me anymore.

An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that’s bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.

“I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open,” Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. “But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it’s just not worth it.”

Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May.

He is believed to be the first gay soldier wounded in Iraq to publicly discuss his sexuality, said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

“We can’t keep hiding the fact that there’s gay people in the military and they aren’t causing any harm,” said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany.

Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is gay, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31.

“The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong,” Stout said. “They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military.” (source)

Follow-up Entry
June 1, 2005 - Wounded Gay Soldier Discharged From Army

That’s going to be the exact question posted to voters in Maine on November 8, 2005 if the Maine Christian Civic League have their way. But think about that question.

“Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?”

Now, imagine what it would be like to be gay. Then imagine that you are trying to get a job that you are qualified for. Imagine that you are turned down because your new prospective employer isn’t comfortable with gay people.

Imagine that you are moving into a new apartment but your application is turned down because you are gay.

Imagine that you are denied a loan because you are gay.

All of this used to be the case before Maine passed a law that made this practice illegal. Housing, credit, education, employment... these are all things that we all need for health and happiness. So, back to the question at hand. What “Christian” could possibly endorse taking that protection away.

And, how can they even look in the mirror after being so crass as to word the referendum question in that fashion; “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination...”?

It amazes me how much caring and concern some in our society have for others. You know, I’m not straight, but if the tables were turned, I’d be the first to stand up against someone who was trying to discriminate against a straight person on something like a place to live.

A proposal to repeal Maine’s newly enacted gay rights legislation is ready for circulation by petitioners opposed to the pending law, state elections officials indicated Wednesday.

If anti-gay rights referendum organizers gather sufficient petition signatures by June 28, statewide voters would be asked: “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?”

Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn wrote to Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Christian Civic League, on Wednesday, detailing the ballot question language being suggested. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the group has accepted the wording of the question.

Source: Maine Approves Wording For Gay Rights Law Repeal Question

As many of you know, Connecticut is about to approve a Civil Union bill that would give gay couples most of the benefits of heterosexual married couples at the state level. We would still not be able to file joint state tax returns (since it is not legally a “marriage”), and, of course, the federal government would never honor it.

This will happen assuming that Governor M. Jodi Rell signs off on the bill. It’s still not clear that will happen. She has said that she “supports the concept of civil unions”, but she has also stated that she would really like to have marriage defined as “one man, one woman”, to prevent this civil union bill as being a stepping stone to marriage.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 27 to 9 in favor of legislation to create civil unions for same-sex couples in Connecticut. The Senate also defeated hostile Defense of Marriage (DOMA) amendments by a vote of 23 to 13. If the DOMA had passed, civil unions would be an end product rather than a step towards marriage equality. The DOMA would have defined marriage as “one man, one woman” in state law. There was also an amendment to put the issue on a ballot for the next election. That was also defeated 27 to 9.

What was personally disappointing to me was the fact that my state senator (who has been added to my “People With Issues” album) was one of those who voted for the DOMA, which was defeated. My representative is Senator Tony Guglielmo. Below is the letter I sent him.

April 7, 2005

Senator Tony Guglielmo
100 Stafford Street
Stafford Springs, CT 06076

Dear Senator Giglielmo:

As your constituent, I am writing to express my disappointment in your vote for the discriminatory DOMA. These amendments are unnecessary and unfair to same-sex couples and their families.

My partner and I have been together for 30 years this year. We would like to share the rest of our lives together BEING EQUAL TO YOU. We have endured together when our families and society would have nothing to do with us. In fact, our families at one point completely disowned us for being a couple. My family hasn’t talked to me for twenty years now because of this issue.

Yet, we stayed together through it all. I would dare to say that most of the straight couples I know would have called it quits a long time ago if confronted with the same obstacles we have. We didn’t. Family means a lot to us. Marriage and equality means a lot to us.

Your vote in support of a DOMA for the State of Connecticut is just more of the same kind of discrimination that we have seen all along. We pay first class taxes, yet are given none of the benefits of being a couple. That is unfair, and it is extremely unfair of you to try to make that a permanent fact of life for us.

Right now, I feel nothing but disappointment in you. I will pray that you will find your way and find a way to see that we are all people with the same human needs. We all want equality and fairness.

It is apparent to me that you have no interest in the concept of fairness and equality for all of the citizens of Connecticut.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon
Coventry, CT 06238

This is what Andrew Sullivan had to say about Pope John Paul II. It echoes much of what I’ve said and what I feel about Pope John Paul II.

When it came right down to it, he walked away from his moral responsibility and chose what was politically safe for the church, at the expense of others.

Last night on Hardball, I said what I think needs to be said. Under John Paul II (and his predecessors), the Roman Catholic church presided over the rape and molestation of thousands of children and teenagers. Under John Paul II, the church at first did all it could to protect its own and to impugn and threaten the victims of this abuse. Rome never acknowledged, let alone take responsibility for, the scale of the moral betrayal. I was staggered to see Cardinal Bernard Law holding press conferences in Rome this week, and appearing on television next to the man who announced the Pope’s death. But that was the central reaction of the late Pope to this scandal: he sided with the perpetrators, because they were integral to his maintenance of power. When you hear about this Pope’s compassion, his concern for the victims of society, his love of children, it’s important to recall that when it came to walking the walk in his own life and with his own responsibility, he walked away. He all but ignored his church’s violation of the most basic morality - that you don’t use the prestige of the church to rape innocent children. Here was a man who lectured American married couples that they could not take the pill, who told committed gay couples that they were part of an “ideology of evil,” but acquiesced and covered up the rape of minors. When truth met power, John Paul II chose truth. When truth met his power, John Paul II defended his own prerogatives at the expense of the innocent. Many have forgotten. That’s not an option for the victims of this clerical criminality. (source)

I hate dental hygienists!!!

This afternoon, as I'm laying back high as a kite on nitrous oxide (what can I say, I have a low pain threshold), I can taste blood in my mouth as she is working on my teeth.

As I am listening to Vladimir Ashkenazy perform the Mozart Piano Concerto # 15, I’m wondering, “Is there a truth to the universe? One universal truth? Will I have to be dead to see it?”

I taste more blood in my mouth. She stops and asks one of the most perplexing questions that I think must be a test of some kind, “Do you have any sensitive areas?”

With all the high profile issues in the news these days, one item that has not been given the coverage it deserves is the fate of the filibuster. The filibuster, in short, allows senators to debate as long as they like, which effectively allows them to stall a vote they know they will lose. The Democrats would use the filibuster to stall votes on judicial nominees they find to be unfit for the job because they do not have the votes necessary to stop the nomination. In other words, the filibuster is often used by the minority party.

The contention in all of this is that the Republicans are threatening to kill the filibuster. They would do this by changing the rules upon which the Senate operates. Once this was done, majority rule would nominate whatever judicial appointment the majority saw fit to place on the bench. This has recently been referred to as the “nuclear option” by the Republicans.

One would hope that cooler heads would prevail here, but with judicial nominees at stake, who serve for life, that doesn’t seem likely.

Republicans find this especially irksome because they spent so many decades as the minority party. Now, as the majority party under a Republican president, they want to reshape the federal court system to curb what they see as its liberal bias — especially in decisions on social issues such as school prayer, civil rights and abortion.

Democrats note that most federal judges are Republican nominees — 55%. The proportion on the Supreme Court is even higher, with seven of nine justices Republican appointees. So Democrats contend that Republicans are not just interested in conservative judges or those with a limited view of judicial power, but judges inclined to be activist in the service of conservative ideology.

“They are seeking to take away the independence of the judiciary — the crown jewel in our system of government — so that they can advance their own ideological agenda of the day,” said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). “That is exactly the kind of tyranny that our ancestors fought to prevent.”

As the conflict moves toward its endgame, each side is counting votes. There may be 55 Republicans in the Senate, but a handful — mostly moderates and traditionalists — have expressed concern that the nuclear option is too drastic and would damage Republicans the next time they were the minority. (source)

We all have cause to be gravely concerned about this. I hear more and more conservatives saying that the Judicial system is broken - that it’s not working anymore. “Look what happened to Terri Schiavo”, they say. From my point of view, about the only part of our government who is doing it’s job is the Judicial Branch. The problem is, the very people complaining about the outcome of the Terri Schiavo case are complaining about the filibuster. They want to place any judge they want on the bench to assure (or at least stack the deck) future outcomes of cases such as that of Terri Schiavo.

It won’t stop there. Next will be school prayer, “controversial subjects” being discussed in our schools, which school will receive federal funding based on what they teach, among others.

You didn’t really think that all of this was about gay marriage, did you? That was only the beginning - the catalyst, if you will, to achieve the end-goal; that of killing the filibuster and gaining absolute power.

When that’s done, we will see the beginning of big changes in this country. At the end of the term of this administration, you can expect to see noticeable changes in judicial ideology. But the really big issue - the one that has teeth, is that these nominees will be around years after this administration is long gone.

And the only thing right now that stands in the way of that is the filibuster.

And this is happening now... as you read this.

With all the states passing constitutional bans on gay marriage, and many states still allowing gay people to be fired from their jobs just for being gay.....

All of this leaves me wondering. Are we are ever going to win anything? Will things get better for us? I’m getting to where I can’t stand my own country, and I hate that.

Discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion has long been illegal in Washington state -- but for gay people, the wait for equal protection continues.

Senate Republicans thwarted civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians yesterday by sending the bill back to a committee where it is likely to die without forcing them to take a potentially damaging opposition vote. The House passed the bill in February on a 61-37 vote.

Though Democrats said the bill was not dead and vowed to revive it, the move was a major setback for the effort to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, adamantly condemned the move.

“The Republicans locked up on behalf of discrimination,” Brown said. “With all the issues we have to deal with this session -- transportation, the economy, education -- this is their big stand? It should be an embarrassment to them.”

Brown said moving the bill to another committee is “essentially a vote to perpetuate in Washington state the perspective that it’s OK to discriminate by a landlord or an employer or a banker.” (source)

Not only does this ban gay marriage in the state of Kansas, it also prohibits civil unions, domestic partnerships, or an legal arrangements for gay couples that marriage would offer.

Kansans overwhelmingly voted to add a ban on gay marriage and civil unions to their state constitution, but supporters and opponents predicted court battles over the amendment.

The ban reaffirms the state’s long-standing policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the “rights and incidents” of marriage, prohibiting the state from authorizing civil unions for gay couples. [...]

Critics argued the amendment could have unexpected consequences, such as potentially preventing companies from offering health benefits to employees’ partners gay or heterosexual.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, predicted the amendment will spawn lawsuits in Kansas courts as gays, lesbians and unmarried heterosexuals encounter problems.

“Does this impact living wills?” he asked. “Powers of attorney? Custody agreements? The enforcement of custody agreements?” (source)

California’s sweeping domestic partner law was upheld today by a panel of judges on the state Appeals Court.

Two conservative groups opposing the law, which went into effect in January, sought to have it declared unconstitutional because it gave same-sex couples the most of the rights of marriage.

The appeals court said, “Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the Legislature has not created a ‘marriage’ by another name or granted domestic partners a status equivalent to married spouses.”

Two weeks ago, during arguments in the case, Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund argued that the law violated Proposition 22 which effectively bans same-sex marriage. (story) [...]

The law does not allow for joint filing for state taxes and certain other protections under state law. It also does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy. (source)

I received this in my email, and was requested to post it in my blog. So here it is.

Same Love, Same Rights - A Gay and Lesbian Wedding Expo

The Second Annual Event!

Sheraton Commander Hotel - Harvard Square
16 Garden Street
Cambridge, MA 02138

Sunday May 15, 2005
11 a.m. - 5 p.m.
FREE Admission!

Take our GLBT Marriage Survey

The media will be attending to report on the turnout!
It is very important that you forward this email to your firends, family, yahoo groups, blogs & message boards.

- Fashion Show - Music- Giveaways, Tastings, Samples & More
- Wedding Professionals of All Kinds - over 50 Exhibitors!

If you would like more information about the event please contact Sarah Benoit at 866-251-1564

In a state known for moderate politics and politicians, such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bob Dole, moderation has not defined the debate leading up to tomorrow’s vote by Kansans on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. [...]

The amendment, which is expected to pass easily, would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but also deny “the rights and incidents” of marriage to any other relationship, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships.

That wording, similar to language that was dropped last year from a failed congressional move to amend the US Constitution, worries same-sex couples who say they could lose health benefits, hospital-visitation rights, and the ability to enter contracts.

“This amendment is among the worst in the country,” said David Smith, vice president for policy for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay-advocacy organization in the United States. “Sadly, it has been driven by a deeply rooted, antigay prejudice. It’s not a simple dispute about policy.” (source)

Sigh...

Here we go again. Another state that will probably be passing a constitutional amendment against marriage equality for gay couples (they predict it will pass easily). I guess it’s no surprise that Kansas would do this. But my question is this. If protecting the sanctity of marriage is what they had in mind, why deny gay couples even a civil union or the “‘rights and incidents’ of marriage”? That means that gay couples in the state will no longer be able to enter into any legally binding agreement with one another if they are a couple. Nothing. Nada.

Sometimes, people honestly make me sick. They tell me, “don’t take it so personally.” Well, it is personal. It is very personal.

An interesting tidbit from Montana lawmakers. I wonder how many more might follow.

Montana lawmakers overwhelmingly passed what its sponsor called the nation’s most strongly worded criticism of the federal Patriot Act on Friday, uniting politicians of all stripes.

The resolution, which already galloped through the Senate and passed the House 88-12 Friday, must survive a final vote before it officially passes.

Senate Joint Resolution 19, sponsored by Sen. Jim Elliott, D-Trout Creek, says that while the 2005 Legislature supports the federal government’s fight against terrorism, the so-called Patriot Act of 2001 granted authorities sweeping powers that violate citizens’ rights enshrined in both the U.S. and Montanan constitutions.

The resolution, which does not carry the weight of a law but expresses the Legislature’s opinion, encourages Montana law enforcement agencies not to participate in investigations authorized under the Patriot Act that violate Montanans’ constitutional rights. It requests all libraries in the state to post a sign warning citizens that under the Patriot Act, federal agents may force librarians to turn over a record of books a person has checked out and never inform that citizen of the request. (source)

On April 1st, of all days, I made an entry concerning a comment Colorado Rep. Jim Welker made concerning an amendment to the Colorado state constitution making gay marriage against the law.

I would personally have loved to be at that meeting. There were so many things that happened. It started off with Rep. Kevin Lundberg explaining the need to keep marriage “traditional” and to explain his measure, which would let voters decide whether to amend the state constitution to limit marriage to unions of two people of the opposite sex.

That produced a heated response from Rep. Angie Paccione who went to the podium and said, “We have over 700,000 Coloradans without health care. How could we possibly say that gay marriage is more important than health care?”

Rep. Paccione is half black, and reminded lawmakers that interracial marriage used to be illegal. She said denying gay people the right to marry is no different. Lundberg argued that they were two different issues.

Then Rep. Keith King, who is a co-sponsor of the amendment, got up and argued for the amendment saying that it would keep people out of prisons. Huh??!? King never even discussed gays.

“If we can do things that we can to support it, it will keep our prison systems from having problems. It will save us money in the school finance act in the way we fund at-risk issues,” he said.

“There are so many things that are tied together in the way we do state government and the spending of state government dollars based upon the fact of a marriage and how important it is, and how we raise children, keeping people out of prison.”

Lundberg was asked later if he understood what King was talking about.

“No,” he said. (source)

But then, if that weren’t enough, it got more interesting.

Another co-sponsor, Rep. Jim Welker (pictured left), R-Loveland, said he feared for future legislation if the “Pandora’s box” of same-sex marriage were opened.

“Where do you draw the line?” he said. “A year and a half ago a lady in India married her dog.”

Welker was referring to the marriage of a 9-year-old girl who married a stray dog in 2003 as part of a ritual to ward off an evil spell.

Paccione stopped, stunned.

“Oh, for heaven’s sake,” she said. “Come, on Jim.”

“That is true. That’s a fact,” Welker said.

Paccione exploded.

“It’s not the same to have somebody marry a dog than it is to have two loving people get married. Come on!”

That brings us up to date. But today, there was an article in the Denver Post by staff writer Jim Spencer (which I always enjoy reading) titled, “Bestiality parallel in gay debate stoops to swinish level”. A few key points:

I have great news for state Rep. Jim Welker of Larimer County. Officials at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment report no cases of inter-species marriage.

I know this information will come as a relief to Welker. Last week, he mentioned a woman who married a dog and a man who tried to marry a horse as reasons Coloradans need a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

Welker’s reasoning runs something like this: Now, it’s Adam and Eve. If it becomes Adam and Steve, the next thing you know, it’ll be Adam and Fido.

If this is the intellectual gravity supporters of an anti-gay marriage amendment offer, its chances of passage are the same as my chances of getting permanently hitched to a pony.

And this from veterinarian Steve Johnson, Larimer County’s state senator.

“Although my dog loves me, I think he has more common sense than to want to marry me,” said Johnson, who confessed to being “a cat man.” “This could be good for my business if it were to take off. I could probably get licensed as a justice of the peace, do the ceremonies AND blood tests all at once.”

Makes sense. Marriage is big business. Why not be a “full service” veterinarian clinic?

Mr. Spencer concluded his article with this:

Surprise, you see, is not the operable reaction to blathering stupidity by a member of the state legislature.

Embarrassment is. Embarrassment for the people of Larimer County. Embarrassment for the people of Colorado. Embarrassment for the people of America.

Welker’s talk of people marrying dogs and horses is the stuff of tabloid headlines. Worse, it oozes prejudice.

Colorado now has the distinction of having a state representative who equates homosexuality with bestiality.

That kind of hatred is almost impossible to embrace.

Most of us would rather kiss a pig.

And this is why I love reading Jim Spencer’s column. He pulls no punches and tells it like it is. It would be embarrassing for the people of Colorado, assuming they have a sense of decency and fairness to them. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they do. I personally would be outraged at the comments Representative Welker made, but with all the uproar and criticism over this, I’m sure he wishes the comments were never made and that all of this coverage (all negative) would just go away.

We need voices of reason in all of this. Equating marriage equality for gay couples to bestiality just isn’t going to make sense to a lot of people. Which leaves me wondering, did this idea ever get raised when the interracial marriage issue came up?

This is progress. It’s progress because a year ago, Rep. Welker would most likely have gotten away with his extremely offensive remarks. Today, those same remarks simply makes him look like a bigoted fool and a, excuse the pun, horse’s ass.

It was just on the news this morning that teachers have stopped grading papers in red ink. Studies have found that the red ink on students’ papers “stresses them out”. The new color for grading papers is purple.

I can hear it now. Rev. Jerry Falwell is going to be saying that by using the color purple (many seem to think that the color purple is THE gay color) to grade papers, the “homosexual agenda” is being pushed in the schools. You think that’s far fetched. It wasn’t long ago that conservatives charged SpongeBob SquarePants with “promoting a gay lifestyle”.

And I’ve been looking for gay sponges to come out in the grocery stores ever since.

Purple is the new red, according to teachers, and pen manufacturers can barely keep up with the demand. Educators say the color purple, a mix of red and blue, carries red’s authority but blue’s serenity, making it more constructive for grading.

“Red is just so bold. It’s kind of an angry color,” says Meghan Dorsett, who teaches sixth-grade language arts and eighth-grade math at Skyline Junior High School in Peoria.

Along with purple, Dorsett is likely to use pink, green or yellow, colors that are a bit easier on middle school students’ self-esteem. (source)

I just can’t adjust to this “spring forward, fall back” thing. Why can’t we just pick this time and stay with it? I don’t mind going to work in the dark, but I really do like having all the daylight after getting home.

But today, I got up mid-morning and my body thought that I had the whole day ahead of me. Psychologically, it’s like you’ve lost more than just an hour. I look up at the clock and it says 3:46pm. It feels like it should be around 12 noon to me.

We made breakfast this morning, shared a couple of hours together, then went for a drive to Ashford, Connecticut. There has been so much rain that the rivers are raging. Some roads are impassable. It’s still cloudy so it wasn’t such a good day for photos, but I took some anyway. I’ll look at them, but doubt that any will make it to this blog.

I’m slowly changing a bit of the site. You probably notice the photo album menu. And the polls are back, but I only have one active poll at this point. It’s not hard to make changes. It just takes time to think it through, and time is a hard thing for me to come by these days it seem.

Next weekend, Kent will be away all weekend. I may start my spring activity and start planting my spring flowers. It all depends on the weather. I hate staying inside and doing nothing when Kent is away.

I don’t know if I should even comment on the passing of the Pope. I’m sure I will offend every Catholic person who will come and read this. Tonight I was at the gym working out. I was on the elliptical trainer. In front of me there were six monitors with different stations on them. Two of the stations were covering the passing of the Pope. Three had different sports going. And one had a reality show about how celebrities react to being chased by the media.

I chose to watch the one about celebrities. Why? Because sports really isn’t my thing and I could give a damn about the passing of the Pope. I’m not Catholic. I do have Catholic friends and most of them do not practice the teachings of the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control, abortion, and a myriad of other things. Which leads me to wonder, why belong to that church? What is the lure?

I had a friend who kept trying to get me to go to a Catholic Church in Hartford. She said that they were much more “enlightened” when it came to gay people and were more “affirming”. Affirming to Catholics means that you can come and be part of their church and take part in communion. It does not mean they will affirm your gay relationship in any way, shape, or form.

I told her that I would never belong to a Catholic Church because the thought of any of my contributions (money) making their way back to Rome was enough to turn my stomach.

Why do I feel so strongly you say? Well, this is what this Pope had to say about people like me. We are....
- “gravely immoral”
- “intrinsically disordered”
- “deviant”
- “against the natural moral law”

I’m sorry, but I know for a fact that I’m probably one of the most moral people I have ever met in my life. I am “deviant” from 90% of people based on being a homosexual. From the majority of people I’ve come to know, it’s not necessarily a bad thing to deviate from the norm. Most people are shallow, have no value for friendship, let alone others, and wouldn’t help anyone in need. That’s not me.

I first wrote about the Pope on August 1, 2003. I had hoped that over time, he would change. He didn’t. Now, all I hear on the news is what a great man he was and how much he brought people together. Yet, I have never felt more alienated from Catholics than I do today. To me, that is his legacy.

It matters not to me. I am not Catholic. It bothered me more that I had to be bothered by seeing it on the monitors in front of me. Is that bad? I could sit here and lie to you, but it wouldn’t change a thing.

Food for thought...
Jesus might have been homosexual, says the first openly gay bishop.

And finally, this...

There are many more things that can be said about Pope John Paul II, but what cannot be said of this Pope is that he reached out to the Gay and Lesbian Community. He did not show that same love and respect for individual Gay and Lesbian People. With all his journeys this was one journey he could not, or would not take. He believed in Universal Truths, he could not allow those truths to be challenged in any way, especially by the reality of Gay and Lesbian lives.

For many Gay and Lesbian Catholics we believe this moment in history is a bittersweet moment. We mourn a lost opportunity of pastoral outreach from John Paul II, we also mourn his death. Going forward we look in hope to a new Pope who may be willing to make a pastoral journey to Gay/Lesbian Community that Pope John Paul II was unable to make. (source)

Rebecca Aldworth is the Humane Society of the United States Director of Canadian Wildlife Issues. She has long been an observer of the Canadian seal hunt.

Each year, the Canadian Government allows the “Seal Hunt”. This is what it entails:

Seal hunters call them “beaters”—seal pups who are at least two weeks old. And once a baby seal starts to molt even a part of its white coat, the Canadian government allows hunters to beat the pups to death with a club or a large ice-pick-like hakapik. There have even been reports of sealers killing mothers who try to protect their unweaned pups.

It’s barbaric, to say the least. I admit that I haven’t even been active in this cause in the past. But after seeing the photos and reading Rebecca’s journal, that has changed. I signed the pledge on the Humane Society’s website, and you can bet that before I buy any seafood from my grocer, I will be asking if it came from Canada.

A bit from Rebecca’s journal on March 30, 2005:

CHARLOTTETOWN, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, March 30—Today is one of those frustrating days I have come to know so well over the years here at the commercial seal hunt.

We wake at dawn and begin to prepare for our trip to the ice. But then our pilots call: Gale force winds and freezing rain are forcing a delay until 8 a.m. Everyone waits impatiently for two hours, until we receive another call: The news is not good. The freezing rain continues, and we will have to wait for another update at 10 a.m. And so it goes, with delay after delay, until our pilots finally break it to us: We will not be able to fly for the rest of the day. ...

It is difficult to find ways to describe what we have seen this year on the ice. In interview after interview, I try my best to make the world comprehend the suffering that occurs during this slaughter. Understandably, most people I speak with cannot believe that this is happening in Canada.

The office is a flurry of activity as our video team works to review and edit footage and our PR staff offers it to the media. And while I speak to reporters, I can see the images of our trip to the ice floes yesterday. One monitor shows the face of the seal pup we watched die in agony; another shows sealers running across the ice clubbing pups.

I find it hard not to cry as I watch these baby seals in such obvious pain, but it is fitting to see these images as I speak to journalists. Our role here is to speak on behalf of those who cannot. And these seal pups are in desperate need of our voices.

If you find these photos haunting, do something about it. Get involved!

You know... the idea of marrying my cat never occured to me. What a cool idea!

Representative Jim Welder just got added to my list of morons.

A Loveland Republican on Thursday warned that same-sex marriage could one day lead to interspecies marriage, if the state fails to ban gay nuptials.

“Where do you draw the line?” Rep. Jim Welker asked. “A year ago in India, a woman married her dog.”

Welker’s comments were made at a news conference called by Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, to promote Lundberg’s proposal for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Welker’s comments were made at a news conference called by Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, to promote Lundberg’s proposal for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (source)

Other links
CBS4 Denver
Rocky Mountain News.com

A former official of the Boy Scouts of America is facing up to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty Wednesday to charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.

Douglas Sovereign Smith Jr., 61, was accused of receiving images over the Internet of children engaging in sex acts. [...]

Smith was a national program director and had been with the Boy Scouts for 39 years. One of his duties was leading a task force protecting youth from sexual abuse. [...]

Smith has been an ardent supporter of the BSA’s ban on gays serving as scout leaders.

Last fall Smith wrote a letter to a legal magazine criticizing opponents of the gay ban. (source)

I hesitate to say anything about this, because there are many in society who can’t seem to differentiate between being a gay man and being a pedophile. It’s true. Many people still think this. Take, for example, my new next door neighbor. It was six months before I went over to introduce myself to him. I kept telling Kent that we should do our part to welcome his family to the neighborhood, since our other neighbors had. I could see his children playing with other kids in the neighborhood.

So, I took a nice bottle of Merlot over to him. I did this because I received by mistake a wine catalog with their address on it in my mailbox. It seems that we have a mail carrier who can’t seem to get the addresses right at times. So I knew that they enjoyed wine.

I entered their yard. He was out working in the yard and his kids were there. There were three of them ranging from 3-7 years old, I would say. I walked up to him to give him the wine, and he pulled his kids in behind him. I thought it was a bit strange at the time. But what really gave me the creeps was how he looked at me, as though he had complete contempt for me. He took the bottle of wine and said “thanks” in a cold, distant way.

I started backup up away from him because something inside me told me not to take my eyes off him. I got back home and Kent asked how it went. I said, “Very strange”. I was unsettled by the whole thing.

Does he think I’m a sexual predator? I don’t know. I just found it really weird that he would pull his kids in behind him and look at me in that fashion.

On the Boy Scouts, I think it is terrible that one of their administrators was protecting the policy of banning gay men from the organization, while he was molesting boys. He is a child molester. I don’t know if he is gay or not. Yet some won’t see the difference and will say, “See! This is why we keep gays out of the Boy Scouts.” I know that argument is coming.

And this from Utah...

Utah State University’s attorney has concluded that Amendment 3, banning gay marriage, likely prohibits extending the Logan school’s medical benefits to same-sex couples.

Amendment 3 likely would override any potential same-sex benefit action by state institutions, said USU general counsel Craig Simper. [...]

“Policies are binding,” said anthropology professor Pat Lambert, who helped create the current benefits proposal. “What does it mean when a university doesn’t stand by its policy?” she said.

Lambert said she believes benefits are part of the employee’s salary.

“If we’re not offering equal compensation to all our employees, then we’re not treating everyone equally,” she said. “This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

Offering same-sex benefits is a national trend, with many universities and Fortune 500 companies offering same-sex benefits, she said.

A state lawmaker from northeast Ohio says he’ll introduce a bill this week to close a perceived loophole in the domestic-violence law created by the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Democratic state Representative William Healy of Canton says his bill would define domestic violence as an act committed when individuals reside together, regardless of marital status.

State judges have issued differing rulings recently on whether the amendment bars prosecutors from charging unmarried people with domestic violence. Two Ohio judges have issued differing rulings in the past week on that issue.

A Franklin County judge on Friday decided against dismissing a domestic violence case, disagreeing with arguments that the law doesn’t apply to unmarried couples. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman said Wednesday that domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of the state’s recently enacted definition of marriage. [...]

However, the change in the law will only affect heterosexuals in non married relationships. The domestic abuse law will not apply to same-sex couples because of the constitutional amendment.(source)

You get to a point in all of this that you wonder just how many mean spirited people there are in positions of power. Democratic state Representative William Healy’s bill (H.B. 161) is in response to a domestic violence charge (a felony) being reduced to a misdemeanor.

Even though the case involved a heterosexual couple, the judge dismissed the charge because of Issue 1, the Ohio constitutional amendment that prevents unmarried couples from having the protections of marriage.

Healy’s bill would close that loophole, but only for heterosexual couples.