Morning Reads

Romney Runs Into Trouble On Gay Rights
Governor Romney’s reversal of his decade-old stance in favor of federal gay rights legislation is angering gay Republicans and being met with skepticism from some conservatives who could be important to the Massachusetts politician’s prospects as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

“I don’t see the need for new or special legislation,” Mr. Romney said last week in response to a question about a bill first introduced in Congress in 1994, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. “My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that Enda would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges,” the governor said in an interview posted on the Web site of a conservative magazine, National Review. (source)

Romney doesn’t feel “the need for new or special legislation” because he doesn’t feel that it’s a bad thing to be able to fire someone simply because they are gay. That is exactly what this is about. He is against adding “sexual orientation” to the protected categories of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Are things getting better for gay citizens in regards to employment and housing issues? I suppose they are, in some areas. But in other areas of the country, it’s still very difficult for folks who can’t pass for straight. I wonder how Romney would feel if he were told that he couldn’t obtain a job he wanted because they don’t hire Mormons? But he would say that was different, of course.

Gay retirement community is a first
SANTA FE, N.M. - Jan Gaynor and Barbara Cohn have decided to spend their retirement years in this city of art and culture, not just because it’s steeped in 400 years of history, but also because it offers something new.

The sixtysomething couple wanted to live in the nation’s first full-fledged retirement community for gays and lesbians. They sold their house in California and moved into a condominium at Rainbow Vision Santa Fe this summer. (source)

I don’t think it’s exactly the first of it’s kind for retirement. It seems to me that I’ve heard of others in the past. It is most certainly true that gays who live in cities tend to live together, for safety primarily. It’s not always a guarantee of safety though. When we lived in San Francisco, we lived in The Castro, and there were many gay bashings happening all the time. When gays live together, it can become a target for violence. But, I see the allure of living within these communities. You can be yourself. You don’t have to hide or tell lies. But isn’t this what we are trying to get away from? I mean, with marriage and all, it seems to me that we are trying to be a part of society. If we live in gay ghettos, how can that happen? Or do we really want to be fully incorporated into all of society?

Gay civil unions may be legal in N.J., but who will perform them?
Same-sex couples looking to enter into civil unions in Cumberland County are better off going elsewhere if they’re thinking of tying the knot at city hall.

That’s because most local mayors said last week they would not perform a civil union ceremony if asked. [...]

The number one reason officials said they would refuse to perform the ceremonies is that homosexuality and same-sex unions run contrary to their Christian values.

“I don’t think anybody’s going to ask me,” Hopewell Township Mayor Hal Bickings Jr. said. “I’m a Christian. The Bible specifically says marriage is between one man and one woman.” (source)

There’s an easy answer to this problem. The legislature of the State of New Jersey has voted on allowing civil unions in the state. If any public official is unable to fulfill the obligations of his/her public office, they must step down. If they are unable to honor the separation of church and state and fulfill the obligations of his/her public office because of their religious convictions, they must step down.

If they refuse to step down, they are breaking the law, and legal authorities should act accordingly.

8 Virginia Episcopal flocks break away
Eight Northern Virginia churches announced yesterday they will leave the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia after their congregations voted overwhelmingly to depart because of liberal trends in the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church. [...]

The departing congregations comprise about 10 percent of the diocese’s 90,000 members and about 17 percent of the 32,000 people in the pew on an average Sunday. Virginia Episcopalians have been in an ecclesiastical civil war since the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, an active homosexual, with the support of Virginia Bishop Peter J. Lee.

“I wasn’t at all surprised,” said Kim Cooke, a former vestry member. “This church has always made a point of being faithful to the Scriptures and God. When faced with a choice between man and God, it was an easy choice.” (source)

It’s funny in a way. Kent and I used to belong to St. Gregory’s Episcopal Church in San Francisco. It was quite a welcoming church. And even back then, circa 1983, the church (at least in San Francisco) was talking about ways to honor the “special friendships” of gay couples. They had a committee formed to discuss all of this. Kent and I were part of that. We ended up with a report that was comprised of all of our recommendations. It was submitted to the bishop. And what do you know? It mysteriously, was lost, never to be heard from again.

I’m sure they were hoping that the committee wouldn’t form or stay together long enough to come up with anything. Just another reason we left the church...

Pentagon: 18 released from Guantánamo this weekend
The U.S. military says it has sent 18 captives away from the Guantánamo Bay detention center -- a big weekend transfer to five different nations -- downsizing the detainee population at the remote Navy base in southeast Cuba.

Seven captives were sent Afghanistan, six to Yemen, three to Kazakhstan, and one each to Libya and Bangladesh.

’’These detainees were recommended for transfer or release by multiple review board processes conducted at Guantánamo Bay,’’ according to a Pentagon statement this morning. (source)

...where they will be tortured or killed. But, at least the United States won’t be torturing or killing people. We don’t do that. Right....

Bush signs U.S.-India nuclear deal
President George W. Bush hailed a new era of strategic cooperation with India on Monday as he signed a new law that is a major step toward allowing New Delhi to buy U.S. nuclear reactors and fuel for the first time in 30 years. (source)

And how does this give us leverage, or any credibility to tell Korea, Iran, or any other country that they should not develop nuclear weapons? In addition to policing the world with our military, are we now the nuclear police, with the power to issue a nuclear license to any country that is (currently) in our favor? We play a very dangerous game.