“It’s been what, 30 years since he’s been someone that America gave a s--- about? Other than the Star Trek fanboys, of course. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great for him that he’s come out of the closet, it’s just too late for it to make any kind of difference. For that, I’ll be honest, I’m a little ticked off.” (source)

I read today that George Takei came out of the closet. I remember growing up that I had this huge crush on Walter Koenig (played Chekov) when I was a kid. I wanted to be just like him. There was one scene where Sulu was crazy (I forget the plot), and I remember him running around without his shirt with this huge sword. I was thinking, “OH MY GOD!” If I had any doubts what so ever about being gay, that confirmed it.

I’m personally disappointed that George Takei waited so long to come out. My feelings are in line with the quote above. But, I do understand it. The truly unfortunate thing about him waiting so long is the fact that he could have sent a powerful message to kids like me; the message that it was “ok” to be who you are. It says less about the integrity of Mr. Takei, and more about the cruel and judgmental world we live in. Had he come out twenty years ago, do you really think Mr. Sulu would have continued with Star Trek?

There are many many people in the United States today who are in the closet, out of fear. They fear judgment, rejection, gay bashing, and murder. We are not a free country. Many of us live in tyranny.

Addition Source Material

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Overturning a lower court ruling, the state high court said barring benefits for state and city employees’ same-sex partners violates the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection clause. [...]

Anchorage city attorney Fred Boness said city officials would not appeal the court’s decision.

But Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski was “outraged” by the ruling and directed the attorney general’s office to determine the best way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg. [...]

Nine gay or lesbian government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union in appealing the lower court ruling. The case stems from a 1999 lawsuit filed against the state and the Municipality of Anchorage after voters passed a constitutional amendment blocking state recognition of gay marriage.

In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible.

The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot. (source)

It’s just basics really and is all summed up in that one phrase: “The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot.” And of course, all of this would be a mute point if we could legally get married.

It’s amazing to me all the legal challenging that is going on to achieve equality. It’s not like the country hasn’t gone through this sort of thing before. But America’s memory is a short one. We’ve been through this before with African Americans. I know, African Americans say that there is no comparison to their struggle, their’s being much worse than ours. It’s true. There are differences, but there are also some alarming similarities. I don’t know, you tell me which is worse. African Americans at one point had to sit in the back of the bus. We can ride in the bus - we never had that challenge, but let me put this real life case before you. A partner of a gay couple ends up in the hospital in a serious condition. The hospital refused to let him in to see his partner until his partner’s brother showed up six hours later to tell the hospital that it was ok for his partner to be let in to see his partner. But, it was too late. His partner died two hours before. He never got to say goodbye to his partner.

Heart wrenching isn’t it? And, opponents of equality for us will call it rubbish. The only problem is, it’s a real story. So, I suppose that African Americans were never restricted from hospital visitation, but they did have to sit in the back of the bus. I don’t know which is worse, but the one question that I have is this. Does it really matter who suffered more? Equality, or the lack of it, is, in the end, a very simple matter. You either have equality, or you don’t.

Alaska, I’m happy to see, is starting to understand that. The Governor and right wing politicians in Alaska are quite another thing. This is what is happening to overturn that ruling.

State Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, said Monday that he plans to draft legislation that would not require the state to extend the rights and benefits given to married couples to “any other union, partnership or legal status.” He said he would draft the legislation on similar amendments passed in other states.

Dyson said the Supreme Court is out of touch with Alaskans, who approved a 1998 amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

“The people of Alaska voted well over 70 percent for the definition of marriage. All we would be doing here is making it possible for the will of the people to persevere,” Dyson said. [...]

House and Senate Democrats were noncommittal Monday about the possible constitutional amendment. Senate Minority Leader Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, released a one-sentence statement through the Democrats’ press office that said: “We’ll be happy to listen to Sen. Dyson explain why health benefits for a handful of Alaskans creates a constitutional crisis.” (source)

Maybe we won’t be taking that Alaskan vacation after all. We were talking just days ago about taking a cruise in Alaska. I don’t know if that will happen at this point.

This is just a sample of the emails I receive every day. If you can make heads or tails of this, you are doing better that I am.

You know what? I just can't do this anymore! Just as they were wanting to enjoy being family again, another man came. Dropped an advolt on his head? It is because this was a special fawn. Why ask him? He was a young Prince. Unitl finally, the mean old bully was hurt and limped off all alone. The same deafening sound Bambi had heard before. Chocolate thai is yummy At last winter left, and spring returned. Listen up well, you might learn something.

Parents already worry about razor-spiked apples and poisoned candy when they send their kids out trick-or-treating on Halloween. Now, there’s a growing concern that children could unwittingly be seeking treats from sex offenders living in the neighborhood. In communities across the country, local officials are taking steps to keep sex offenders away from kids on Halloween night.

Communities in several states are requiring offenders to report to county offices for educational or counseling programs, while others are going so far as to bar registered sex offenders on probation from answering their door to trick-or-treaters or putting so much as a pumpkin on their porch.

About 45 registered Level 2 and 3 sex offenders who live in Westchester County, just north of New York City, will receive special invitations to attend an educational program between 6 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Oct. 31, under an initiative spearheaded by Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano. Those who don’t attend will receive a personal visit from probation officers and police. Level 1 sex offenders and those on probation who have committed crimes of a sexual nature will also receive a home visit, according to a statement released by Spano’s office.

“We’ve done home visits on Halloween nights in the past, but this is the first year that we’ve asked sex offenders on probation to come in to our offices,” said Victoria Hochman, assistant communications director for the county executive. (source)

“...while others are going so far as to bar registered sex offenders on probation from answering their door to trick-or-treaters or putting so much as a pumpkin on their porch.”

I would think that somewhere in the midst of all these actions the law enforcement is taking against past sex offenders, are possibly some civil rights violations. I mean, come on! You can’t answer your door or put a pumpkin on your porch?

I’m all for protecting children from these people. I’m not arguing that. But at some point, you have to draw the line on common decency. We already post their names and addresses on the Internet. I’m frankly surprised that more of these offenders haven’t turned up dead or harmed in some physical way. I know for a fact that many have been denied jobs and housing. Many would say, “Good! They deserve any damn thing they get!”. But do they really? If you are going to make that distinction for that group, it gets a bit easier to do it for the next group. And so it goes.

All of this hysteria of course has made me rethink my awareness to children in my immediate vicinity. I will never be caught alone with them, not because I would do anything to them what so ever. I just don’t want to open myself up to the issue because all it takes is one kid to accuse anyone of touching them wrong. This is where we are today. At that point, it is your word against theirs, and who do you think they will believe? And yet, I see parents at the mall all the time letting their kids roam all over the damn place because they don’t want to take the time to be inconvenienced with the job of being a parent. I’ve also heard children who are being verbally disciplined by their parents threaten to call the Department of Children Welfare if their parents don’t lighten up (read, let them have their way). This is what it’s come down to.

I have also made a decision that, because of this hysteria, I am no longer going to be available on Halloween for trick-or-treaters. Every year, we get anywhere from 75 to 150 kids that stop by for candy. We have always been open to it. This year, my home will be closed to them. We will go out to dinner and a movie, or simply lie in bed with the lights out watching TV for the night. Why put myself at risk? It’s simply not worth it.

I suppose it was inevitable that Halloween would eventually be the victim of the hysteria over sex offenders.

Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, Bill Kristol, Laura Ingraham and their conservative colleagues didn’t sink the Harriet Miers nomination on their own. But in the blink of a news cycle, they turned against their president, framed the debate and provided the passion that undermined her case.

It was Krauthammer who offered the White House last Friday what he called “the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum” by using a refusal to turn over Miers’s internal memos as a fig leaf for withdrawing her Supreme Court bid -- which is precisely what she did.

“I guess she reads my column,” the Washington Post and Fox News commentator said yesterday. “All that was missing was the footnote.”

This time, no one can blame the liberal media. And what made the right’s revolt all the more remarkable was that its opinion-mongering wing didn’t simply stand in polite opposition to Miers. Its troops hit the trenches, attacked Miers as unqualified, ripped President Bush for cronyism and in some cases raised money to defeat the nomination. (source)

I suppose that the title to this entry could also be, “What It’s Like for Our Country to Be Owned by the Radical Right". I’m all for being fair and equitable. I can understand that the Right have different view from me. I am, after all, a social liberal. I don’t believe that the government has a right to tell me how to live my life as long as I do not break any laws. I don’t believe that it is the government’s role to tell me who and who I cannot marry. I am a fiscal conservative. I don’t believe we should be initiating programs that we can’t pay for right now - today. We look back on the Katrina disaster and many wonder, “What went wrong?” I’ll tell you what went wrong. Iraq went wrong. We were lied to and we went to war based on lies. The President went wrong. He should be facing impeachment. But until that happens and until Americans get their fill of the vile hypocrisy, lies and deceit, and playing one group of citizens off against another group of citizens, this will continue to go on.

In the end, America loses. It should be abundantly clear by now that the religious right are at the helm and are running this country. They are calling the shots because they basically own the President. The pull they had in killing the Harriet Miers nomination should be proof of that.

But the real question is, what’s next?

The first TV advertisements of the campaign feature three people who testified about discrimination before the Legislature.

“The goal is to focus on what we believe the message of this campaign has been all along: Discrimination happens in Maine. Discrimination hurts real Maine people,” said Jesse Connelly, campaign manager for Maine Won’t Discriminate.

Maine Won’t Discriminate is leading a push to strike down a referendum aimed at repealing a gay rights law signed by Gov. John accidental in March.

Opponents collected enough signatures to force a statewide vote on the law, which expands the Maine Human Rights Act to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

The Nov. 8 election will mark the third statewide vote on the issue. Mainers rejected gay rights proposals in two previous campaigns. (source)

So this may be the fourth time that Maine says that it’s wok to fire people for being gay. It’s so strange. Maine is strange that way. The civil rights bill came before the legislature and the Governor, and has passed three times before, only to be voted down by the voters via a ballot referendum.

I suppose if I didn’t care, or if I were a shallow person, it would be wok for them to vote the bill down... and I would still go there for my vacations. But, I’m not. It’s an issue for me.

Years ago, I had in my hands a resume of someone who was very religious. I knew this because his resume was rich with references to his faith and his church activities. But he was applying for a job in technology. I realized that it would have been easy for me to dismiss him immediately without even granting him an interview, despite the fact that he had good qualifications. Within one minute of confronting this dilemma, I came to the only obvious conclusion I could; discrimination and bigotry in all it’s forms, is wrong.

I will not be a part of it and I will not support it. The man did not get an interview, but it had nothing to do with his church activities. There were many great applicants (over 100, as I recall), and I had to come up with 10 that I would interview. He didn’t make that grade based solely on his qualifications.

On the flip side of that, I don’t want to support any entity that practices discrimination. If Maine votes this down, people will suffer. The reason this law came into being is because of a need to address discrimination faced by gay, lesbian, and transgendered citizens living in Maine.

It saddens me. I may end up simply viewing my photos from past vacations to Maine, instead of going there again. We’ll see how this all pans out.

It’s getting towards the end of the month for me. That means, I’m almost at the end of my bandwidth allotment. When you host a website, you pay for server space and bandwidth. As the site gets more popular (more people come to the site), your bandwidth will increase. My bandwidth has increased from 6 GB (gigabytes) used in January, 2005, to over 30 GB this month. Along the way, I’ve had my Internet Service Provider increase the bandwidth, at a cost to me.

What can I do about this? Well, a couple of things. First, I’ve stopped what is called “hot linking”. That is when other sites simply place a link to an image on my site from their site. By clicking on the link on their site, my site has to serve the image up (uses MY bandwidth) for their viewers to view. This does not increase their bandwidth at all. Now, they are no longer able to do that. They must come to my site to view the photos.

And speaking of photos... I’ve temporarily taken the photo gallery completely off-line. If you try to view any photos, it will bring you back to the home page of the blog. Photos take the most bandwidth of all.

I’ve also learned that there is a concerted effort to bring my site down by forcing the bandwidth up and causing me to pay more and more each month. You can use your own imagination to guess who may be doing this, based on the content of my site. I am not going to throw stones here or open myself up to possible litigation by mentioning names.

The Abu Ghraib Prison abuse photos are gone. I deleted the photos and put up a notice that they were not deleted because of any government pressure, but rather one of expense. They were getting thousands of hits per month. I simply don’t want to pay the expense, when it is such a small focus of what I am and what this site is about. I disagree with what happened at Abu Ghraib. I think that statement has been made.

My bandwidth recharges as of October 31 at 11:00PM EST. At that point, the counter will go back to zero. But, I’m right on the line and I will not pay for more bandwidth. Once it reaches 31 GB, the site will refuse everyone, until October 31st. I mention this so you will know what happened should you be refused. If that be the case, I will see you all again after Oct. 31.

Continue to leave comments as you wish, and I will continue to post as the spirit moves me. All of that takes virtually no bandwidth.

“They’ve asked for paperwork about the decision-making process, what her recommendations were. That would breach very important confidentiality and it’s a red line I am not willing to cross.” Disclosing that material “would make it impossible for me and other presidents to be able to make sound decisions.” - President George W. Bush (source)

I’m seriously trying to take this seriously, but it is difficult. I understand that the our current President considers the recommendation of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court to be a “sound decision”. That’s just very troubling. I also find it equally troubling that he is unable to form complete sentences.

Judge Robert Bork should not have been placed on the court either. His rejection, in my view, was valid. However, Bork did bring scholarship and experience to the table. Not to be unkind, but Miers lacks both.

Worshippers there strongly believe in the traditional definition of marriage set out in the Bible, said Rev. Max Dawson, the church’s pastor.

Congregants are not told how to vote, but they are reminded from the pulpit that gay marriage is immoral.

“God is the one who instituted and regulates marriage, and its clear that marriage is between one man and one wife,” Dawson said. (source)

Really? So Mormons were simply testing that concept of "one man, one woman"... six or seven or eight times over? I mean, if GOD defined marriage, and GOD defined marriage as ONE man and ONE woman, the Mormons were probably just trying to get it right (in the music world, we call that practicing).

Right?

Well, I suppose you have to give them partial credit. They got the "one man" part right.

If Proposition 2 passes, opponents say it would make Texas less competitive in hiring and recruiting.

Mary Mason, chairwoman of Missing Lynx Systems Inc., says the San Ramon, Calif.-based software company aborted its plans to move to Ohio after that state passed an amendment banning gay marriage.

It was the last straw for about half the company’s 20 employees, who already were wavering on moving for other reasons, including cold weather.

Mason says Missing Lynx still plans to expand in a new city, and Austin is one of the contenders. But Mason says a marriage amendment would discourage the company from looking more closely at Texas.

Tech businesses “are all being courted by Galveston and Austin, who are looking to bring in high tech development,” Mason says. “They are talking nice, but I can’t get the people I need to move there.”

“Part of what I’ve found is that people who can think creatively and can do this kind of work need a tolerant environment. Texas will wind up looking un-American, intolerant and very foolish.” (source)

A federal judge has refused to allow Love In Action ministry, which counsels gay clients to turn straight, to continue treating people who are mentally ill and require prescription medication.

An injunction was sought against an order from the state Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, which found that the group’s two Memphis facilities were controlling patients’ access to prescription medication and thus needed to be licensed as a mental health facility.

Love In Action International Inc. has sued the state to oppose being required to get a license. It claims that the facility did not restrict access to medication but kept it in a central location to prevent theft and tampering.

The ministry is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian legal organization. (source)

Other Sources
Love in Action files suit against state
Judge Nixes Ex-Gay Injunction

Mind control is mind control by any other name...

Hopefully, over time, people will see this for what it is, voodoo medicine. It is nothing more than mind control. What damage does it cause people who are constantly being taught that they can change their sexual orientation? In my opinion, if they can change or not is not really the hot issue, because I truly know they can’t. The really hot issue is how it will damage their mental well being and their ability to form long lasting relationships that have meaning.

Love in Action does nothing but put up a smoke screen of hope - their own brand of hope. They label homosexuality as this mental and spiritual prison that one must escape from in order to have salvation and/or happiness.

Ok. So you are gay. You go to Love in Action. They convince you that you are a straight guy who has gay tendencies that can be suppressed with weekly counseling from them (at a substantial cost, I might add - but this isn’t really about cost is it?). You finally get married (hey, it’s working! YAY!!!). That’s right, married! That happy day has come! A real marriage too because you are now, after all, a heterosexual, so you have access to marriage. All is good!

Six months later, your wife is pregnant. Nice. You have yet more to celebrate. Yet, under all this celebration, something is missing from your life. You don’t know what it is. You pray. You concentrate on work more, and family, and you consider going back into counseling at Love in Action or some other like-minded ministry, because you are starting to have “those feelings” again.

In the end, you end up cheating on your wife with some guy in an ally or a park, because that is after all, what society has set aside for the queers that Love in Action is trying to save you from. It’s a bit trashy and sleazy, but hey, that’s what they all said this “lifestyle” was about anyway, right? Yup, sleaze and disease. That’s their punchline.

The only problem is, as time goes on, it doesn’t hold water. Is it true that the only places that society set aside for us were sleazy back allys and dark parks at night to meet in? Well, yes, that is true. You could meet in a bar, but you also ran the risk of that bar being raided by the police. There used to simply be no place that gay people (they called them “queers” pretty much exclusively back then, and not in a good way) could safely congregate.

Today, people are out and proud. We have claimed our lives. We are standing up to the lies that organizations such as Love in Action and others are putting out. We have our own families and the threat to those families is not “the lifestyle” of homosexuality. The threat comes from organizations such as Love in Action who want to give gay kids a virtual lobotomy. But that is also changing. Just look at this ruling.

Also, the most unlikely people are opening up a bit more and seeing the larger issues of what we face as people. We are in the middle of some nasty culture wars at this time, such as what is about to happen in Texas. Hopefully, we will be seen as equals and treated as such.

Related Article
July 15, 2005 - Father Of Gay Teen Sent To ‘Ex-Gay’ Camp Comes Forward

I usually don't post cartoons that gain laughs at the expense of others, but I have to admit that I got a chuckle out of this.

Kansas cannot punish illegal underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct, the state’s highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case watched by national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that a law that specified such harsher treatment and led to a 17-year prison sentence for an 18-year-old defendant “suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex.”

“Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest,” said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

The defendant, Matthew R. Limon, has been behind bars since he was convicted in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy. Had one of them been a girl, the state’s “Romeo and Juliet” law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months. (source)

I’ve been following this story for awhile now. I made three previous entries concerning it. This is a final update.

Previous Entries
December 3, 2003 - Appeal Begins For Teen Sentenced To Prison For Gay Sex
January 31, 2004 - Sterner penalty OK’d in same-sex relations
September 3, 2004 - ACLU again fights teen’s 17-year jail term

If Mr. Limon had been treated with equality, instead of the 17 year sentence that he received, he would have received 15 months.

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the double standard is unconstitutional.

The Kansas Supreme Court decided the clause, as applied to only heterosexuals, violated the equal protection clause.

That was based on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas ruling a Texas law against gay adult sex unconstitutional.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said the state high court ruling would lead to incest and “other less-than-desirable couplings” but said he probably won’t appeal. (source)

I guess that makes Kent and myself, along with other gay couples, “less-than-desirable couplings”? Some people seriously need to get a life and get out more.

At least Matthew can now get on with his life, and that’s the important thing.

But as long as we are talking about Kansas... I remember when we were bidding on a new mortgage for our home, the best rate came from a company located in Kansas. I tried to explain to the man why, even though he was giving us a better rate for the mortgage, I would not put my money into any institution that discriminated against people based on sexual orientation.

He kept telling me that they don’t, and can’t discriminate against anyone, by law. He said, “We don’t discriminate against anyone.” I asked him, “Does your state have a provision in state code that specifically states that people working for the state can’t be fired for being gay, or denied housing, or accommodations?” He had no idea what the hell I was talking about. I answer the question for him and told him that, although I thought he was very nice to work with, the state they are situated in is not very nice to people like me. I am simply returning the favor by taking my business elsewhere.

What goes around comes around. The world is a smaller place now. Companies in the individual states can do as they please. But people like me, who are paying attention and actually check the track record of the company I’m about to put money into (not a difficult task on the Internet), will pay for those decisions by not gaining my business. And if we’d all do that...

Two attackers have received suspended sentences and fines for beating up two gay men. A third has received a fine.

Ian Crutchley, 20, and Michael Poole, 19, both pleaded guilty to attacking their victims earlier this year, admitting assault and threatening behaviour. Both were given suspended sentences of four months and ordered to pay costs.

Gavin Shaw, 19, had to pay costs after admitting to threatening behaviour.

The incident left one of the victims with a broken nose and haemorrhaging to his right eye. Both men say the attack was all the more shocking because the village in which they live is generally accepting of their sexuality.

They have hit out at the sentences, warning that the men will be allowed to walk free if they “keep their noses clean”. (source)

They were allowed to walk free if they “keep their noses clean”. And they are shocked that these crimes still happen? It’s amazing.

The Metropolitan police have announced that they believe that the men who murdered gay bar manager, Jody Dobrowski (pictured), 24, on Clapham Common verbally abused a woman fifteen minutes earlier in a nearby street.

Mr. Dobrowski was found unconscious in the early hours of Saturday but died later in hospital. He had suffered a violent, homophobic attack that caused head, neck and facial injuries.

Det Chief Insp Nick Scola, who is leading the investigation made an appeal to the public for “anyone who had a similar encounter with these men or who may have seen them in the area earlier in the evening. If it was you involved in this incident please come forward so you can be eliminated from the inquiry.”

It emerged today that two 17-year-olds and a 13-year-old, arrested in Battersea, southwest London, who were arrested in connection to the enquiry were released on bail. (source)

Update - 10/24/2005
Two men were charged on Monday with the murder of gay bar manager Jody Dobrowski. [...]

Thomas Pickford, 25, who is reportedly unemployed and homeless, and decorator Scott Walker, 33, both from the Clapham area, appeared in a custody hearing on Monday. (source)

This was a horrific murder, yet, they were released on bond. Jody was beaten to death by two 17 year olds and one 13 year old. Yet they have been released on bail. Is there no consideration for what they may do again? Is there no consideration for Jody’s family, or the rest of the community?

I had hoped to visit the UK next summer in our travels to Europe. That has changed. I won’t go to a country where I fear for my safety, and I won’t go to a country who doesn’t take the safety of my community seriously. Apparently, the UK has some serious house cleaning to do.

President George W. Bush said he chose White House Counsel Harriet Miers as his U.S. Supreme Court nominee in part because he wanted the court to have the perspective of someone who has never been a judge.

“It’s an unusual nomination because she’s never been a judge,” Bush said at a news conference with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas today at the White House. “I picked Harriet for a lot of reasons. One reason is she’s never been a judge.” (source)

He’s an idiot. I guess there’s nothing like practicing to be a judge where it counts... on the highest court in the land. I just hope that she’s at least read The Constitution.

And here’s some more comforting news.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refused yesterday to rule out military action against Syria and Iran -- two countries she accused of supporting the insurgency in Iraq. (source)

I’ve been following the ballot initiative in Massachusetts. Supporters of an amendment that would ban gay marriage and civil unions in the State of Massachusetts are trying to get enough signatures to place the ballot question on the 2008 ballot. To achieve that, they must gather at least 65,825 signatures from voters before December 7, 2005.

BOSTON - Supporters and opponents of an anti-gay marriage ballot question designed to roll back the state’s historic court ruling allowing same-sex marriage are trading accusations of dirty tricks.

Opponents say signature gathers are using “bait and switch” tactics to dupe voters into signing the question, while supporters say gay activists are stealing blank petitions, defacing others to invalidate signatures, and shoving and spitting on signature gatherers.

The dueling allegations were made at a crowded Statehouse hearing Tuesday.

The hearing included 10 voters, each of whom said signature gatherers tried to trick them into signing the anti-gay marriage petition.

In each case, the voters said they were asked to sign a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores and were then told to sign a second sheet of paper without being told it was the anti-gay marriage amendment. In some cases they said told the second sheet was a “back up” sheet for the wine question.

“She said ‘could you sign the back up copy?’ She completely made it clear that it was for beer and wine,” said Somerville resident Victoria Ellis. “I was really disgusted by the tactic.”

Angela McElroy, a Florida college student who worked as a paid signature gatherer said her boss taught her how to deceive voters by arranging both petitions on her clip board so she could ask voters to sign twice, but they would only see the language for the wine question.

“Mark trained me personally in bait and switch tactics...The fraud was looked upon as a game,” she said. “I felt horrible for lying to so many people.”

Mark Jacoby is a subcontractor working for California-based Arno Political Consultants. Jacoby twice declined to comment. (source)

And why would we expect them to play fare? This is driven by the Catholic Church after all - the same entity that moved known (within their church) child molesters from one church to the next for decades, just to escape prosecution and exposure. You can’t get any lower than that. And then the Vatican turns around and bans gay men from the priesthood saying that it’s the gays who are molesting the children. But that will all get sorted out in time, just like it eventually became known that the church was moving priests around to avoid bad press and prosecution.

My personal feelings are that, even if they get the question to the ballot, the voters of Massachusetts will vote it down. I feel that way because I believe them to be fair minded people. I think that, after living with married gay couples for the last two years, they will see this issue for what it is; one of equality. This is a non-issue for them. I also feel that what ensures it’s defeat is the fact that if it were to pass, it would not only prevent marriage for gay couples, but it would also prohibit those couples from even forming civil unions. That is just mean spirited moralistic crap.

What needs to happen is a complete invalidation of all the petitions at this point. That is the responsibility of the Attorney General of Massachusetts. Attorney General Tom Reilly, DO YOUR JOB! You have more than a smoking gun here. You have one of the petitioners (Angela McElroy) openly admitting to fraud, along with the testimony of voters who were confronted with the fraud. I think that deserves more than a quite spot check for valid signatures from the Attorney General.

Better yet, if you live in Massachusetts, you can ask him yourself and ask him why he doesn’t invalidate the petition in light of fraud.

Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place
Boston, MA 02108
Attorney General Tom Reilly
Main Telephone (617) 727-2200

Or, send an email.

The gay partner of a Massapequa man who was hit by a car in Manhattan doesn’t have the right under state law to sue the hospital where the injured man died, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

In a 3-2 decision seen as a blow to gay rights, the Appellate Division Second Department in Brooklyn reversed an order by a Nassau County Supreme Court judge that would have allowed Neal Spicehandler’s domestic partner to sue St. Vincent’s Hospital for wrongful death.

The appeals court ruled that while Spicehandler and John Langan, 41, had a domestic partnership recognized in 2000 under Vermont law, their relationship did not allow Langan to sue the hospital under New York law.

The court acknowledged that Langan and Spicehandler had a committed relationship much like spouses in a traditional marriage. New York’s wrongful-death statute allows spouses and other relatives to sue for negligent death. However, the court said a same-sex partner can’t be viewed as a spouse. (source)

This is exactly why I keep complaining about civil unions. This is why I chose not to get a civil union, either from Vermont or from my state of Connecticut. They aren’t worth the piece of paper they are printed on.

I feel bad for this man. He lost his husband, and now he has to live with the reality that he gained no security or protection from having a civil union. It’s maddening. I feel powerless. I guess we have to keep trying, but it’s hard not to give up hope.

The law allows doctors in some instances to refuse treatment based on religious grounds, such as performing abortions or doing blood transfusions. Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Benitez, said that exemption does not apply in this case because the doctors singled out Benitez because of her sexual orientation. (source)

Would this even be an issue if gay couples in California had a real marriage? One has to wonder. When you have a second class legal recognition of your relationship by the state, is it so hard to believe that situations such as this don’t come up.

Do we ever hear of people in the court system refusing to grant married couples a divorce because it is against their religion? If that happens, I’ve never heard about it. Marriage is accepted. Also accepted are all the things, good and bad, that come with that acceptance.

Here, it seems that where “domestic partnerships” are concerned, they just don’t carry the same weight as a regular good old marriage. Thus, we have this lawsuit.

It makes you wonder, where “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” or whatever the state decides to call a union between two men or two women so they won’t have to call it marriage, how many more issues like this will arise? When tested, how much power will the Connecticut civil union really have?

That’s pretty scary. You enter into this legal arrangement thinking you are protected. Then, it’s challenged. It can be challenged because, unlike marriage, there is very little in case law to support it. So the rights that the civil union supposedly affords you in your state could be challenged.

Who the hell needs that in their life. I don’t want to live under the presumption of a protection that I may or may not have. The protection of marriage for Kent and me, will come into play at a time when one of us is sick or dying, or have been in an accident of some kind.

Will I show up at the hospital with my civil union certificate (I assume I will have to prove that we have a civil union, although heterosexual married people don’t seem to have to pass that test), only to be told that I can’t see him because it is against the religious beliefs of some moron in charge?

In my opinion, if your religion trumps the oath that you took when you became a doctor, you have no business practicing medicine.

When a gay couple’s Lakeland home was torched and a slur spray-painted on their doorstep this summer, outraged sympathizers from coast to coast reached out, offering money, furniture and even free legal assistance.

But when one of the men confessed to setting the fire, hiding items he’d reported stolen and was charged with arson and insurance fraud Wednesday, supporters said they felt betrayed.

“I feel duped. I feel played, and I’m just physically reeling right now,” said Kim Steffgen, an Oregon writer who had planned to tell the men’s story via a visual arts and writing project with her spouse, artist Gregg Frederickson.

“Well, so this means that the world is a little less filled with hate-mongers, but a little more filled with cheaters and opportunists,” Steffgen concluded when a reporter asked for her reaction. “Safety certainly is relative.”

Christopher Michael Robertson, 23, confessed to setting fire to his and Paul E. Day’s house in Kings Manor Mobile Home Park on July 25, the Lakeland Fire Department said Wednesday.

He told an investigator he took items he had reported stolen from the home and placed them in storage, fire investigators said. Some of those goods were sold, while others remain in his possession. (source)

Past writings on this story
You Have to Love Florida
Gay Arson Victims Hit Again

Having been a past victim of a hate crime (they didn’t call them “hate crimes” then), where there was little interest to do anything about it because my attackers “were good boys who came from good families”, I am absolutely outraged at the outcome of this story.

I posted two past entries (noted above) on this story. I even posted the account at Washington Mutual Bank where people could send money to help out this couple. And now, apparently, it was all a hoax.

I can understand Chris Robertson wanting to move away from Florida. I would probably feel the same way. It sounds as if he set fire to their home just to collect the insurance money. Then, in the second story, they were the victims once again when what was left of their home was robbed.

As it turns out, it was Chris Robertson who took the items. I received a letter via email (uncorroborated) that Paul Day became suspicious of his partner when items, that were supposedly stolen, magically started reappearing around their new place. The police have concluded that Paul Day had no part in any of this. In fact, the story even refers to Paul as Chris Robertson’s “boyfriend at the time”, suggesting they are no longer together.

That makes sense. If your partner destroys your home, lies to you and the police about all of it, it’s time to get the hell away from him. I don’t honestly think I would trust another human soul again if it were me.

My feelings on this are many. I feel outrage and betrayal. I am outraged because a person in my community has used the term “hate crime” to arouse sympathy to what they were going through. To try to insure that, Chris spray painted the words, “Die Fag” on their front step. My outrage is that I’ve had those very words said to me and at the time, the police did nothing about it. Now, police in some parts of the country are actually doing something about these crimes and in some cases, where legislation has been passed, can deliver harsher penalties if the incident is labeled a “hate crime”. Chris Robertson, in doing this, has used hate crimes, which happen to many in my community, as a way to obtain personal financial gain.

I am also very concerned about this. In so many areas of the country, we are already hated and persecuted. This is only going to add fuel to that hatred. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit if some horrible crime happened to someone in my community, and the gay bashers make reference to this by saying something like, “This time, it’s a real hate crime - not like the one in Florida”. I’ve seen it happen in the past. What will be the backlash from this?

Chris Robertson deserves what he gets. He’s a low-life punk who only cares about himself and material possessions.

As for me, it will be the last time that I use this site to post any sort of information on how to help someone who has been the victim of a hate crime. Trust was lost. And for those of you who sent money to the Washington Mutual Bank to the fund that was set up for Chris and Paul (noted in my past posting), you have my deepest apologies. For what it’s worth, I personally called Washington Mutual Bank to insure that they had an account set up for this purpose at the time I posted the information. I hope that you will be able to collect the money you have sent.

Can anyone be trusted anymore? I don’t know. Paul Day lived with Chris Robertson for a year and thought that he could trust him. He was wrong.

I try to help people. I am currently helping some of our troops overseas by providing phone cards at my expense, so they can call home. Many of them I’m sure would have a problem with me, as a gay man. But I have not offered that piece of information, because I’m not doing that to garner their support for our cause. I do it because, if I were a soldier in Iraq, I think it would mean a lot to be able to call your family and talk if you didn’t have the money to buy a phone card. But can I trust any of that now? And, should I?

I live my life a certain way. If I tell you I’m going to do something, I do it. You can bet your life on it. If I give you my word on something, consider it written in blood because it is my bond - it cuts to what I am as a person and my integrity. I don’t lead friends on. My friends know that if they do something I have a problem with, they are not going to hear it from someone else. They will hear it from me. I also tell them how I feel about them. I tell them how much they mean to me. I think that’s important. But that’s just me.

What a world we live in.

Depending on whom you ask, this election season will be about the sanctity of marriage, the protection of individual rights, or nothing but a setup for the real races in 2006.

Either way, all the talk is going to be about gay marriage.

The fight over same-sex marriages in Texas is heating up, as both sides ratchet up their arguments over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Texas is the only state with an amendment on the ballot involving the hot-button issue this year, making it a focus of the gay-marriage movement -- pro and con -- for the next month.

After a summer in which the topic has been all but ignored, amendment supporters and opponents are hoping to stir up ample indignation. And win or lose, any group that energizes its base could see rewards well beyond Election Day. (source)

ok... I’m tired (very tired) of being played as a political football to “get masses to the polls” to show that they all support the “sanctity of marriage”, even though most of them are on their third marriage.

Texas will be an easy win for them. Gays are barely tolerated there if not outright hated. There are only little islands of tolerance in Texas (Austin) and a few others to a lesser extent (so I’ve been told - I won’t set foot in their state). So, in a sense, this is just symbolism. They will use it to drive people into a frenzy. They will go to the polls to do their Christian duty, and that will be the end of that. The gays will once again be put in our place -- the place where all second-class citizens belong.

So, if it’s a given, I’m not going to worry about it.

Kent’s parents are coming out for a visit next week and I have plenty of other things in my life to occupy my time other than a battle that doesn’t directly affect me. I feel bad for the gay couples in Texas, but I can’t affect that.

Someday, I know that this nation will look back on all of this and be shameful of the way we were treated. This is not the sort of thing that people change their minds on. This is the sort of thing where a generation of less enlightened people die off (the “hate the sin, love the sinner” crowd), and the next generation takes their place. That is the generation that will realize that you don’t deny anyone equal civil rights based on religious dogma. They are the crowd who will truly understand the purpose of the separation of religion and government. Polls show they have little problem with us vowing to support our loved ones in marriage. Their battle will not be if this is right or wrong. Their battle will be to undo all the hateful constitutional amendments in place and go from there.

My last entry pointed to a dialog on gay marriage. What really surprised me is that there are more and more straight people who are speaking out in our favor. It’s very gratifying indeed.

As for Connecticut, talk is already starting in Hartford that we need to replace this civil union with marriage. When that happens, I have to get in gear about deciding on cakes, tuxedos, receptions, food, and all the rest. It’s funny. I always hated weddings, I suppose because it was symbolic of what I would never have in life. Who knows, I just may have the most important day in my entire life ahead of me!

An abolutely fascinating dialog on gay marriage in general. I couldn’t stop reading it. Hope you enjoy as I did. It was all so fascinating that I couldn't even decide what to quote.

Homosexual and lesbian unions under any arrangement does not, and never will, constitute a family. Simply put, no homosexual or lesbian union is ever appropriate; rather, it is utter perversity. A legitimate family, as ordained by God, can only exist between a man and a woman within the context of marriage. As a committed Christian, I recognize this as a bedrock principle. - Michigan State Senator Michael J. Goschka

(Saginaw, Michigan) State Sen. Michael J. Goschka brushed off an apology demand from a gay rights group upset by his description of unions between committed gay couples as “utter perversity.”

The Brant Township Republican voted Thursday with a majority of the Senate in favor of resolutions urging the Michigan Supreme Court to block public-sector employers, including state government, from providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees until the court makes a final ruling on the issue. (story)

In an e-mail sent to a constituent earlier in the week, Goschka invoked God and Christian principles as “bedrock” reasons for gays not to be covered by health insurance through a partner’s public-sector job. (source)

Contact Information
The Honorable Michael Goschka
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
Phone: (517) 373-1760
Email Address
View campaign contributions to Sen. Michael Goschka

Goschka said his comments weren’t intended to be a personal attack.

“I’ve had gays work for me,” he said. “Not a lot. But I don’t ask.”

Of course they’re not personal attacks. I have worked for people like Senator Goschka. And, I have been fired from jobs by people like Senator Goschka, just because they found out that I’m gay. But being fired from your job for being gay... how can that be personal? Congratulations Senator Goschka, you just made it into my album, “People With Issues”.

He would probably say that “I’m a trouble maker” or that I’m “pushing my own agenda”. Well, I’ve been at my present job for 18 years and prior to that, I held a job in California for 6 years. When I left that job, things were getting a bit dicey because they were starting to talk about me. It didn’t really matter though. That is when Kent accepted a job in Connecticut, and we moved out here. Hopefully, things have changed a bit for the company I worked for in California, but who knows? I’m a solid worker. Leave me alone to do my job, and I’ll do it. But one thing I will not do is to pretend to be the mold for Mr. Heterosexual USA, just to make someone else who has issues with bigotry, feel better and “more comfortable”. Let’s get it clear; if I have to sacrifice my dignity for your comfort, I don’t give a shit about your comfort zone. Moving on...

I know exactly the kind of person Senator Goschka is. He is entitled to his personal opinions. But when he starts saying that he doesn’t want taxpayer money going towards benefits for relationships that are “utter perversity”, it reminds me of the days in the 1980’s that some woman said to me, “I don’t want my tax dollars to go for programs to help perverts with AIDS.” I responded, “Fine, then I don’t want my tax dollars to go towards school projects for your fucking inbred children.” (I’ve since mellowed... somewhat).

The point it, it’s a stupid argument. Tax dollars and benefit programs should go to help all tax paying citizens in the state and nation. This notion of picking which group to deny benefits from is dangerous and only serves to be needlessly punitive and hateful.

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden’s stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians. (source)

Great. God talks to our President. Yeah, that give me a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside. Hopefully, God won’t tell GWB to launch the nukes.

On my way to lunch today, I was listening to CNN. They were with the families greeting Company LIMA back home from serving in Iraq. It was a joyous occasion, and I felt good for them and their families. This was part of the dialog (paraphrasing from memory)...

CNN: There are many people here cheering and waving flags looking for their loved ones. I see some families hugging the service men after reuniting with their families.

Here’s a service man who hasn’t found his family yet and is just looking around in the crowd for them. Sir, what is your name?

Service Man: Sgt. [name omitted].

CNN: Who are you here to meet today?

Service Man: I’m here to meet my girl friend and the rest of my family.

That is what actually happened. Here’s another scenario...

CNN: There are many people here cheering and waving flags looking for their loved ones. I see some families hugging the service men after reuniting with their families.

Here’s a service man who hasn’t found his family yet and is just looking around in the crowd for them. Sir, what is your name?

Service Man: Sgt. [name omitted].

CNN: Who are you here to meet today?

Service Man: I’m here to meet my boy friend and the rest of my family.

The difference is, in the second scenario, a discharge from military service would be sparked by mentioning that he was there to meet his boyfriend.

If he were there to meet his partner (or boyfriend), he would simply have to say, “I’m here to meet my family.” When he met his boyfriend, he would shake his hand and show no outward emotion -- as though they were just friends. A hug would be highly suspicious since they aren’t related.

And here, all this time, I thought that we didn’t live in a free country!

America, “Home of the FREE”.

I want to add a couple of thoughts that I think are appropriate. Those are the thoughts that came to my mind while listening to that. He outwardly mentioned his girl friend. We can’t do that. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has got to go. It’s cruel and inhumane to make people go through this. If some one goes to Iraq and risks his life for this country, I think the least this country should do is to honor what he has with his partner in life.

The second thought I have is that many service men in Company Lima have died in Iraq. This entry in no way takes away from their sacrifice for our country. They died defending our country. The men returning home have lost those friends. I have the greatest respect for these men and I’m glad they have returned home safely.

I always find the evangelists amusing. I know that some take them seriously, but I just can’t seem to bring myself to it. Think about it. It wasn’t so long ago that Pat Robertson said about the “gay days” at Disneyworld: “I would warn Orlando that you’re right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you, This is not a message of hate -- this is a message of redemption. But a condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs; it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes, and possibly a meteor.”

So I guess 9/11 is our fault? Well, yes it is. He also stated that as well. And now, we have Franklin Graham suggesting that God made Katrina happen to wipe out the sinners of New Orleans.

If that’s the case, why did God spare the French Quarter? That is where all the bars are. That is where the gays and lesbians operate. Laughable.

KING: Another thing you said in the wake of this is -- and you just touched on it a moment ago. Speaking of New Orleans: “It’s a city that has strong ties to the gay and lesbian movement and these type of things.” Is it your hope now, sir, that these elements, the gay and lesbian community, will somehow be purged from New Orleans?

GRAHAM: Well, I certainly hope that the gospel of Jesus Christ will be preached. I want to see men and women converted. Jesus said, “I am the way, the way and truth and light. No man comes to the father but by me.” I believe that the only way that we can approach a holy God is through the person of Jesus Christ.

And Jesus Christ came for sinners. I am a sinner, and Jesus Christ gave his life on Calvary’s cross for the sins of this world. We put our faith and trust in him. God will forgive us and he will cleanse us of all of our sins.

And I would certainly pray that the gay and lesbian movement, the people that have this lifestyle, will come to know Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior and experience their sins being forgiven. God -- the Bible says -- “God so loves the world” -- that includes New Orleans -- “that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shouldn’t perish but have everlasting life.”

KING: Sir, I was in New Orleans last week, and as the French Quarter started to reopen among the first businesses to reopen were the strip clubs. By your account of God’s purpose, I would assume that things aren’t going as you would envision them or wish them so far?

GRAHAM: Well, this is the type of thing that I think the archbishop and other ministers would hope would not reopen in New Orleans.

KING: Let me ask you about -- there’s a bigger question here about what type of New Orleans will be rebuilt. Should the energy of church and men of faith like yourself be spent on worrying about what the gay community and the lesbian community does? Or would it be better focused on worrying about what happens in the Lower 9th Ward, where most of the residents live way below the poverty line?

Most of them rented and do not have a right to return to their home. They don’t even know if their community will be rebuilt. And their fear is that rich developers will ... get in there, and they will not be welcomed home. What is a better use, if you will, of the focus of the church? (source)

NEW YORK -- Though decried by many gay rights leaders, “outing” -- the practice of exposing secretly gay public figures -- is expanding into new terrain as Internet bloggers target congressional staff members, political strategists, even black clergy whose sermons and speeches contain antigay rhetoric.

Few issues are as divisive within the gay community. Numerous gay organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, staunchly oppose outing, yet many other activists support it when the targets are public figures -- or their aides -- who work against gay rights or condemn homosexuality.

“It’s not the gay thing that’s the problem; it’s the hypocrisy,” said Michael Rogers, creator of a Web log that has been at the fore of several recent outing campaigns. “I’m going to be calling out the politicians who vote against us and work against the interests of the very community they come from.” (source)

I agree with outing. I used to have a more moderate approach on this subject. I only approved of the practice for extremely homophobic individuals who were known to be gay in private circles, but outwardly did harm to our community

Today, there’s too much at stake. Usually, when a public official speaks out against us, it concerns gay marriage and local or state benefits for gay couples, or job discrimination against gay and transgendered people.

I am all for free speech rights, but that is not the issue here. If you are a public figure, you can still say and do whatever it is you want to say or do, but you have to understand that your actions can have consequences. If you are supporting the denial of rights for gay people, and you are gay yourself, that information if fair game for the public to know.

Real people and real families are being hurt because of this hypocrisy. It should be exposed. There’s too much at stake. If you are a politician who happens to be gay, do as you wish. But if you continually try to prevent equality in the workplace or in our everyday lives, and try to benefit in your political life at our expense, you deserve to be outed.

On Sunday the military acknowledged that it has missed its enlistment target by the largest margin since 1979. Monday the secretary of the Army announced that effective immediately the military is lowering its recruitment standards.

Francis J. Harvey announced said the military now will accept recruits who score near the bottom of military aptitude tests.

It seems strange, to say the least, that our military would think the American people are safer with drug offenders and academic under-achievers on duty than with qualified gays and lesbians reporting for duty. - Steve Ralls, a spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

Source

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- U.S. politicians and policymakers’ perceptions towards the Iraq war have reached another tipping point: There is now a widespread recognition shared among senior uniformed U.S. military officers and Washington foreign policy analysts that plans to rapidly build up the Iraqi army as a new, independent effective fighting force have failed disastrously.

The Senate heard testimony last week from some of America’s top generals that the war in Iraq is going worse than ever and that only 1 out of 119 Iraqi army and security battalions can operate by itself in combat situations without U.S. military backup.

Top U.S. generals admitted in testimony Thursday to the Senate Armed Services Committee that only a single Iraqi battalion was prepared to operate on its own without U.S. military support. This was a stunning decrease from the three battalions that U.S. generals had assured Congress in previous testimony were ready to operate independently. The Iraqi army consists of 119 battalions. But the generals’ testimony meant that after two and a half years of U.S. efforts, only 750 men out of 200,000 can be relied upon to operate and obey orders independently in combat situations. Highlighting, my own. (source)

So, what do we do now?

"This is a historic day. We're beyond ecstatic." - Randy Sharp, 46, of Plainville, who applied for a civil union license with his partner Jeff Blanchette, 44.

"If the state of Connecticut would recognize a Britney Spears weekend Las Vegas marriage, surely they can recognize the marriage of couples who have been together ten, twenty, or thirty years." - Frank O'Gorman, director of People of Faith for Gay Civil Rights.

"Today was a sad day for our state. It was a sad day for our state's children." - Brian Brown, executive director of Family Institute of Connecticut.

"We don't want any of this crap in our state. Look what happened in Massachusetts, California, all that crap. We don't want gays here. We just figure they will breed themselves out." - Protester who identified himself only as Brandon.

"Politicians tend to be afraid of this issues because they think it's political suicide, and I think what happened in Connecticut completely and totally disproved that." - state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, a key sponsor of the law.

Source