April 2005 Archives
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!!
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
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.”
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 bi