General: August 2003 Archives

I haven't really heard from Wyoming since Matthew Shepard was murdered there several years ago. I read this story about someone who went after a gay man who he felt was just a bit too obviously gay. I can understand the story I suppose, because I've had the same thing happen to me. It's scary when it happens, because you don't really know if the person after you is a nut case.

Michael Grisson, 19, is accused of following and yelling obscenities and threats at the victim, Jimmy L. Bryan, 18. Defense attorney Louis Walrath claims Grissom may have been provoked by Bryan's 'gay' appearance. Walrath says a person who acts gay "invites these kind of remarks." Gee, I hope I'm never in a situation to have him as a lawyer!

You can read all about the story here if you want more info on it.

I know it's not wise to stereotype folks, but it's hard to find ANY veterans who aren't homophobic. When I here the topic of gays in the military come up around veterans, it's almost an instantaneous response from them about how they regret that the "old days" are gone. They would tell stories about what they did to known or suspected gays in the military during the time of World War II. Let me tell you, it's not pretty. In the mildest form, they would beat the crap out of the person until he was either killed or was forced to leave the military, at which time he was given a dishonorable discharge under Section 8. In a combat situation, the gay soldier may never return from a field mission. It would never be proven how he died, but many suspected that it was our own men who killed him. There are a lot of stories just like this.

So, when I saw this story, I was hoping that maybe over time the attitudes have changed a bit. I was hoping that people would someday recognize that the gay soldier also risked his life for his country and many times had to be the most courageous of all, not only from the enemy, but from his fellow soldiers as well.

Well, that time has obviously not come. Their objection is that "soldiers should not be honored based on sexual orientation". I actually think that it's very important for gay soldiers to be recognized. It's important to the gay community to know that so many gay men and women risked their lives for this country. A memorial showing that is certainly not asking for too much.

The news source for this story was the Contra Costa Times:

SACRAMENTO - A small marker unveiled this week in Capitol Park was hailed by gay-rights advocates as the first such state-sanctioned landmark honoring gay and lesbian soldiers killed in action.

The tiny memorial -- about a foot long -- graces the walkway of the California Veterans Memorial and is engraved with an eagle and the words, "In Honor of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Veterans Killed in Action."

But while supporters applauded the pavement marker as symbolically historic and long overdue, some veterans groups blasted it as offensive and disgraceful, saying soldiers should not be honored based on sexual orientation.

Bill thinking outloud.....

Without the benefit of marriage:
spend more on taxes, health insurance, legal bills

when your partner dies, the other has no access to survivor's benefits (pension and social security)

hefty legal bills for wills, power of attorney, etc. (straight married couples do not need these)

if one of you dies, the other one is a legal stranger

not eligible for club membership discounts (for example, the American Automobile Association offers family memberships only to legally married couples, while car rental and insurance companies charge an extra driver fee to unmarried couples)

any cash gifts between spouses are tax free, whereas an unmarried gay couple must pay tax on gifts over $10,000 per year

when one partner dies, the other can incur inheritance taxes avoided by married spouses, who inherit up to $1 million untaxed

joint ownership of property, cash and other assets is also more complex since responsibility for the taxes on each amount is unclear

in the case of divorce, you can't take advantage of tax shelters for liquidation of property that married people can

when selling a house residency requirements for the capital gains tax exemption are less stringent for married couples

even when an employer does offer domestic partnership benefits, they usually end up costing the employee more in taxes than his or her married counterpart would pay, because such benefits are treated as taxable income, whereas the federal tax code extends these benefits to married spouses as part of a worker's pre-tax income.

federal laws dictate that a large part of a pension plan must go to the surviving legal spouse, but each company decides if its employees can name a non-spouse as beneficiary.

unmarried partners cannot roll their partner's 401K (or other retirement investment plan) into their own, which means they don't get the same tax breaks as a married person.

ok... now that I've totally depressed myself, I guess I'll take a walk and reflect about how much I love being a second-class citizen in this country that I love. I hate injustice and wonder why we have so much of it built into our legal system in a country the boasts of having "justice for all".

I've read about this case off and on over the months. Although hate crime charges were not filed against Treve's three attackers, there is no doubt in my mind that the attack was motivated by hate. It seems that to prove it as a hate crime, you must use hatred-filled terms as you are beating your victim to a pulp, such as "faggot" or "queer", etc.

If you think a bit about this, Treve was attacked outside his West Hollywood home - an area heavily populated with gays. He was attacked just afer he had embraced a male friend. This all leaves me asking the question, "Why were they there?" and "Why that area?". It just seems suspicious to me.

News source for this strory is 365gay.com.

(Los Angeles, California) One of three men charged in the vicious baseball bat beating that left actor Treve Broudy near death pleaded guilty Wednesday to mayhem and conspiracy to commit robbery.

The openly gay model and actor, who appeared in the movie The Fluffer and did commercial voiceover work, was attacked as he walked with a friend on a West Hollywood street September 1, 2002.

The beating was so severe Broudy was knocked unconscious and was in a coma for nearly a week. He suffered a loss of vision in one eye and still has difficulty reading.

As I've grown older (and hopefully wiser), I've come to realize the power of the dollar. I never used to think about it. I would buy whatever it was that I needed without really thinking about the philosophy of the company I was buying it from. If the company had oppressive policies towards its workers or was hostile to my community, by buying their products I am in effect an accomplice in their actions. I, in an indirect way, say that what they are doing is "ok".

Well, it's not ok. Just as I have the power of the vote in voicing who I think should be in government, I also have a vote with my money. Every single time you buy anything, you are casting a vote for the company that you are buying from. That is power!

We need to think more about that. Myself, I'm a Reebok customer but from now on, I will be buying Nike. Why? To cast my vote and let Nike know that I approve of their policies and what they do for all their workers. Just think, if every single gay American would do this, how many companies do you think would come around and create equal rights for its gay and lesbian workers and their domestic partners? News source for this story was The Business Journal of Portland.

Beaverton, Ore.-based Nike Inc. received a perfect score in the Human Rights Campaign's second ranking of how large domestic companies treat gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender employees.

The campaign, which bills itself as the nation's largest lesbian and gay political organization, rated companies on a scale of zero percent to 100 percent on seven factors including written non-discrimination policies, health insurance coverage for employees' same-sex domestic partners and diversity training.

You know, when I first saw this episode on Boy Meets Boy where Michael Jason Tiner came out on the show, I was thinking to myself, "uh oh". I was hoping he wouldn't get in trouble for this. I wasn't sure if he was still in the military or perhaps he was not on active duty.

The Navy has discharged Jason because of his appearance on the show. The don't ask, don't tell policy of gay people in the military has once again claimed another victim. Another soldier in our military without one blemish on his record is gone and I'm left wondering, who really lost out here, us or him? It's time for this stupid policy to be abolished. The US military (our government) has to get over the idea that gay men really are not interested in seeing the penis's of straight men! I've lost a lot of respect for our military over this policy. They need to grow up and realize that gay people are a large part of this society and a large part of the military. And John Ashcroft, if you are reading this, fuck you! You and the current administration are a big part of the problem.

The news source on this story is the Southern Voice Online:

SAN DIEGO — The television gay dating game “Boy Meets Boy” may be counting on a dramatic conclusion in next week’s final episode, but one of its most intriguing developments already took place, off-camera.

One contestant, a gay combat systems instructor for the Navy, was discharged from the military for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

Update: UPS Gay Suit Settled - 02-19-2004

I'm frankly a bit surprised to hear this from UPS. I would have thought that a company as big and diverse as United Parcel Service would be a bit more enlightened and sensitive to its employees. This story makes me sick. I would expect something like this to happen with a smaller company like the one I work for, but not UPS. As for me, I'm going with another carrier from now on until they issue a public apology for this.

The way companies treat their employees should be in all our minds when we choose that company to do business with. If you choose a company who you know openly discriminates as UPS did, what does that say about you? Think about it. News source: Contra Costa Times.

A gay San Francisco couple sued United Parcel Service Inc. on Tuesday in Alameda County Superior Court, claiming that the package delivery company unfairly discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation.

The dispute revolves around a benefit that allows UPS managers to follow their spouses to other cities and still keep their jobs and seniority.

Daniel Kline, one of the plaintiffs, has worked for the Atlanta-based company for 20 years, the last 16 of which he spent as a supervisor in Oakland.

Last October, Kline's partner of 27 years, Frank Sories, got notice that he would be transferred to Chicago in January by United Airlines, his employer of 19 years. Sories was four years from receiving full retirement benefits so he took the transfer.

In November, Kline applied for a transfer to Chicago and at first received approval from his bosses and district human resources staff, according to the lawsuit. But in January his transfer request was denied. His Oakland attorney, Alexander van Broek, sent UPS six letters and heard back that Kline was not qualified for a transfer because he was not married.

I suppose you have to consider the source on this one. It came from the Family Research Council (news source Yahoo), a right wing organization whose purpose among other things is the total elimination of all civil rights for gay people. They won't say that because that would sound bad, but they wouldn't feel bad about it if that happened. In fact, these people wouldn't feel bad if all the gays just went away.

The only thing I can say about Rev. King's "I Have a Dream" speech is this: if the words are true for one group, they are true for all groups. Otherwise, they mean nothing.

On August 23rd, groups from around the nation will gather at the Lincoln Memorial to mark the 40th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. The "March on Washington" event is co-sponsored by a number of liberal organizations, and this year, it will incorporate homosexual activist organizations. The Washington, D.C.-based Family Research Council strongly opposes the hijacking of the civil rights movement by homosexual activists, and believes that homosexual behavior cannot be equated with such innate characteristics as sex or race.

This from the New York Post:

August 19, 2003 - More than half of Americans favor a law that bars gay marriage and specifies that wedlock is between a man and a woman, an Associated Press poll found. The survey also found presidential candidates could face a backlash if they support gay marriage or civil unions, which provide gay couples the legal rights and benefits of marriage.

The poll, conducted for the AP by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa., found 52 percent favor a law banning gay marriages, while 41 percent oppose it.

Closing eyes and taking three deep breaths... I don't know where all of this is going to wind up. I don't personally believe that the Constitution will end up being changed to define marriage as one man, one woman. I could be wrong, but I don't think that will happen. I'm more concerned with the environment that we are now living in. Tensions are high and suddenly we have shifted from being acceptable to being a group who wants to destroy marriage. We aren't out to destroy marriage. We just want to be part of our society. We want equal rights, and we have every right to ask for and expect that.

I went to lunch today at one of my usual sandwich places. I got out of my car and noticed that this guy was glaring at me. He was a middle-aged white man. I could tell he was pissed off at something. I looked away from him thinking that I had done something to offend him. Then he yells at me, "You fucking faggots aren't going to destroy marriage in my lifetime. You'll be taken out first!" I don't really enjoy using language like that in my journal, but I think it's important to show the level of hate that is out there. It's certainly not the first time something like this has happened to me, but it's very unnerving when I'm going there with my work on my mind to be confronted with that. I assume that he concluded that I am gay from my bumper sticker (I have a rainbow bumper sticker), or perhaps from the way I was carrying myself (I'm never sure if I look gay or not, although some people say I have gay mannerisms). Whether I do or not is not the issue. I shouldn't have to put out energy to not be me. That's ridiculous. I for one will have a greater sense of my own personal security. I usually eat there, and I usually go inside, get a table, and take a few minutes to just unwind a bit. Today, I got my food and took off. I just wanted to get away from there, and I don't honestly know if I'll go back. I suppose it could happen anywhere. If the police had been there, I would have told them, but I'm not sure if I'd actually get any support from them. They are part of the same system. What if their feelings are the same as this man who apparently had such hatred for me? I'm thinking of perhaps carrying pepper spray with me now. We still live in a free country right? Because today, it's feeling a little bit Iraqish to me.

Just be careful out there. Keep your wits about you and always know who is around you at all times. And remember, it's not all the population who feels this way. We have friends and allies out there as well. We need to remember that despite what these polls are saying, the granting of civil rights is not done by a popularity contest. In the end, I believe honor and good will triumph in our fight for equal rights.

It's important to keep our cool when everyone else seems to be losing sight of what is really important here. I'm going to pull a thought from a well known poem that I think is appropriate to what the gay population in America is going through right now. Some find the poem trite, but I think it does have a message for us. Read the poem, and really try to follow it. I think it will help us. The highlighting is my own.

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you
But make allowance for their doubting too,
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream--and not make dreams your master,
If you can think--and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it all on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings--nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much,
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!

IF by Rudyard Kipling

I spotted this story from The Miami Herald concerning the new Harvey Milk School in New York City:

If the problem is straight kids harassing gay ones, I'm not convinced the best solution is to send the gay ones packing. Especially since the real world doesn't work that way, doesn't allow you to be sealed away in some safety zone from that which makes your life miserable.

If New York schools have $3.2 million to spend on this problem, maybe they should use the money to do what schools are supposed to do: educate. Teach tolerance to the little miscreants who think hitting a gay kid somehow makes them bigger than they are. Teach it to educators and administrators who allow that behavior.

I agree with that to some extent. If the school officials were doing their job and stopping the harassment, we wouldn't need places for gay students who are suffering from harassment. Below are reasons why we need the Harvey Milk School. They speak louder than anything I can say about it. I would also direct you to the story I published of George Loomis, a gay high school student who was forced to drop out of high school because of harassment. No one did anything about it, and because of it, George was unable to gain acceptance to the UC system. He later sued the school district successfully, but nothing will bring back the experience and the years that he lost.

Below I have listed just a few cases in the last few years. The list goes on and on (on the list I'm reading, over 300 cases of harassment). I've listed just a few.

CALIFORNIA April 1998: Five students file a lawsuit against the Morgan Hill Unified School District claiming that officials at Live Oak High School and Murphy Middle School did nothing to stop antigay harassment dating back to 1991. One of the plaintiffs, a seventh-grader, was hospitalized after a group of boys repeatedly beat him at a school bus stop while shouting antigay epithets. The bus driver, the suit says, did nothing.

MASSACHUSETTS
May 1999: Two students at Northfield Mount Hermon School corner a 17-year-old fellow student and carve HOMO in five-inch block letters across his back with a pocketknife. They say they targeted the boy because he likes the British rock band Queen, whose lead singer, Freddie Mercury, died of AIDS-related complications in 1991.

January 2000: A Boston High School student is sexually assaulted and beaten unconscious on a subway by a trio of female classmates who assumed she’s gay because she holds hands with girls. The victim, a Moroccan, grew up in a culture where hand-holding among schoolgirls is customary.

NEVADA
January 2000: Derek Henkle, a former Reno student, sues the school district there for failing to protect him from antigay harassment, including threats that he would be dragged from a pickup truck and an incident in which a lasso was thrown around his neck.

NEW YORK
September 1999: After many days of being subjected to antigay harassment, a 16-year-old gay student at Shenendehowa High School in Clifton Park is ganged up by five students. After he hits one of his tormentors on the head with a stick, he is suspended. School officials allegedly take no action against the assailants. The incident prompts school officials to add the words sexual orientation to the school’s antiharassment policy.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't need the gay high school, but I'm not willing to wait until we have a murder case to give my support to this school.

I'm publishing this story from the September 26, 2000 issue of The Advocate. I thought it was appropriate given the story/controversy over the Harvey Milk School in New York City. Many feel that the school is unnecessary. This story of George Loomis is only one of many that happen every year.

George Loomis sued the Visalia Unified School District for all the harassment he suffered at the hands of teachers and students. In August 2002, the district agreed to pay $130,000 to end the lawsuit.

Triumph over trauma Forced out of two high schools, George Loomis fights for other gay students By Sabrina McIntosh, From The Advocate, September 26, 2000

George Loomis was an above-average high school student. He was active in student government and even served as the student representative on the Visalia [Calif.] Unified School District board of trustees. His grade point average was above 3.5. Then last October, Juan Garcia, his Spanish teacher at Golden West High School, turned to him and spoke.

“He looked at me and said, ‘Only two kinds of men wear earrings, pirates and faggots, and there isn’t any water around here.’ After that he started calling me ‘pirate,’ ” Loomis, 18, recalls. “He said that during class, in front of all the other students. I was humiliated.”

I'd like to talk a bit about this gay backlash that I've read is taking place in the United States. It's easy to look at figures and say "Oh my God! People suddenly hate us and want us to go away!" The fact is, those feelings have always been there. With all the publicity all the sudden about gays in the media, gay programming, and gay people in political circles, peoples attitudes on these issues are also coming out of the closet.

Three separate Gallup polls since the Supreme Court overturned a Texas sodomy law in June have shown declining support for homosexual rights. The percentage of Americans who responded that "homosexual relations between consenting adults" should be legal had increased from 32 percent in 1986 to a high of 60 percent this May. But a poll in late July showed that number had dropped to 48 percent, the lowest in four years. The polls were conducted before the Episcopal Church confirmed the Rev. V. Gene Robinson as its first openly gay bishop last week.

I'm not really sure what people are so surprised about. This is human nature. If you put something out there that people have never in their lives experienced before, they will usually respond to it negatively, unless it in some way benefits them directly.

I think intellectually most straight people would want equal rights for all law-abiding citizens. Emotionally, that can be a different matter, and when the debate shifted to allowing gay people to fully marry, it became an emotional issue for many people. They must feel very insecure and think that society has lost its marbles. We have a few things going for us. Not many, but what we have going for us is very powerful.

Every once in awhile I'll come across a story about a gay couple who are having problems with US Immigration. One of them is a citizen of the United States and the other one is staying in the US with a work visa. Once the visa expires, one of them has to leave the country, or they both have to leave the United States. Without legal status of marriage, there are really no options left. This happened to a couple of friends of mine years ago. Rather than having to end their relationship, the one who was the United States citizen had to leave the United States with his partner. They ended up going from country to country with no real home.

This is the case of the couple I read about today. They are in the process of selling their home and their possessions and must leave the country when the work visa expires in April, 2004.

Under immigration law, only family members can sponsor foreigners for green cards. The permanent partner immigration act now being considered by Congress would create a new category that would give same-sex partners the same privilege without the benefit of marriage.

111 Congress members support the bill, but that's far short of what's needed for passage. And with the current anti-gay marriage atmosphere, this bill won't have a chance in a Republican-controlled Congress. The bill has been introduced in Congress every year for the past three years.

I'm sure you've all read in various news sources about the "backlash" of attitudes in society concerning gay citizens and gay issues. Many very smart people have been analyzing this phenomenon trying to figure out why the sudden shift. Many think that it stems from the overturning of sodomy laws in this country. Their theory states that once the laws were overturned, gay marriage was just a matter of time. In fact sodomy laws being overturned never made my mind think about gay marriage. I saw very little correlation between the two. But, talk started about gay marriage now having no obstacles and that straight America should start getting ready for gay marriage. This theory states that the concept of marriage being perverted by same sex people getting marriage led to the attitude of "enough is enough".

Then, roughly the same time the sodomy laws were overturned, all the new gay-themes television shows came out. These shows generally made Will and Grace look very tame. Bravo came out with two very out shows. One called Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and the other was Boy Meets Boy. One was about five gay men making over a straight man who is usually portrayed as being a slob without any idea on what to do to make himself more presentable. Boy Meets Boy is a dating game just like the other new dating games that have sprung up on TV in the last few years. The difference, it's about a gay guy who has to choose his dream date from 15 men. The twist, some of the 15 men are straight. If he happens to choose a straight man, that man will be able to claim a cash prize instead of going on the date with the gay man. If that be the case, I guess the gay bachlor loses out entirely, or maybe he gets a cash prize as well.

All these shows portray gay men in unusual and for the most part, unrealistic caricatures of what it is to be gay. This is what America is seeing. I'm not saying that some of us aren't flamboyant. I'm saying, we shouldn't care! America is in a rut and is used to one way of life. Out of many factors of how gay people have had to live, we look at the world differently or we sometimes act somewhat different. That doesn't mean that we should hide that from America. It may mean that America isn't ready for it.

I think that one thing America could learn from is the terrible burden that is put on gay Americans by having to hide our identities. In many jobs and with our families, many of us hide who we are, not so much out of shame, but the horrifying fear of being rejected by those we love, or losing our jobs. This makes us good at adapting to being in a war zone a good part of our lives. On Boy meets Boy, Jim, one of the men being eliminated from the show, happens to be secretly straight (on the show). One of the most touching moments for me was when he mentioned how difficult it was to hide amoung all these gay men that he was straight. He said he didn't realize how awful that would be to have to live your life like that and that his experience on the show have blown a lot of stereotypes he sees in society away. As Jim said, "My experience here is kind of a mirror image of how people who are in the closet, still, are experiencing daily life."

In recent years, there have been some strides and improvement in these areas. More people are coming out to their families and many places of work are becoming more accepting of their gay workers. In my opinion, the ONLY way for change to take place is for all of us to come out to everyone. It is scary and can be physically and emotionally risky, but it is worse to live a life built on lies and half-truths! Who the hell needs that? Is it any reason, with recent events of more media coverage on gay issues, that gay people are jubilant over the openness of gay issues in America?

One person said something to the effect "....I'm ok with gay people, but now everywhere I turn it's gay gay gay. Enough is enough". I can see where he is coming from. But, people have to realize that what they are seeing is only a small fraction of what gay people have had to put up with their entire lives. Everything has been geared towards straight society and we have adapted to that. We have had to pretend that we are interested in the opposite sex. When talking to others in any situation, we have had to constantly filter what we have said as to not give away our deep dark secret. Most people have no idea how much energy that takes or what a burden that puts on the mind and ego. Many of us don't make it to adulthood and give up on life. The ones who stuck with it are now just beginning to see that life can be better than empty promises and the danger of ending up like Matthew Shepard. As Harvey Milk once said, "You have to give people hope. Hope that tomorrow will be better." This will only happen when America is not only tolerant of its homosexual citizens, but also accepts them as equal peers.

Gay school in Dallas halts operations. This from The Advocate:

A Dallas private school for gay and lesbian students won't be holding classes this fall. Instead, officials at the Walt Whitman Community School say they'll spend the next 10 months seeking accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. The association is the standard accrediting authority for colleges and universities in 11 Southern states. The struggling school had been the subject of a documentary on MTV earlier this year, which spurred a surge of student applications. But the lack of accreditation has meant a Whitman diploma was meaningless.

Karen McCrocklin, a member of the school's board of directors, says the school has issued general equivalency diplomas--or GEDs--good only for getting students into junior colleges. She says school officials will focus on meeting the Southern Association's requirements. Walt Whitman is one of the nation's few schools established specifically to educate gay and lesbian teens. This fall New York City will open the nation's first public high school for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.

It is sad that the Walt Whitman school is closing in a way. I understand the need for it's existence, but I am also keenly aware that it is of utmost importance that the education one receives be one of quality. The Walt Whitman school was not accredited. It was unable to issue a high school diploma. Therefore, it's students only qualified for a GED that would get them admitted to a junior college. That's not good enough in my book.

Let's talk a bit about this new "gay high school" that is opening in New York City. It's called the Harvey Milk High school (picture left), named after slain gay San Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk. The school is an outgrowth of a longstanding program for gay students. The school will only enroll 100 students in the initial class and they will study a traditional curriculum.

The school has drawn large criticisms from many. The biggest argument is one of segregation. I can't argue that. It is segregation. Most people stop at that and say that segregation is just plain wrong. I agree with that for the most part. In a perfect world, I would agree with it whole heartedly. But, as any gay person will tell you, this world is not only far from perfect, it can be down right dangerous at times. I think many people who immediately label this school as "wrong" on the basis of segregation aren't looking at the full picture. This is not a black and white issue.

Simply put, it is school teachers and administrators who are totally at fault here. If they wouldn't have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to harassment and intimidation, the need for the Harvey Milk High School would not exist. What is more important, to force gay kids to attend a high school where they are scared for their lives or go to a school where they can actually not worry about that and learn something? It's an easy argument for me.

On the other hand, author Joe Miksch makes a compelling argument in his article entitled "Two Steps Forward, One Step Back", where he claims that allowing the Harvey Milk High School to exist is the same as saying the bigots have won. Perhaps so, but my first interest is the safety of the students. I do agree he has some compelling arguments, however:

Think those black kids who eventually got into school in Little Rock, thanks to the intervention of Dwight Eisenhower and federal troops, didn't have to put up with unimaginably vile hate speech and regular violence? Of course not. Think they would have served themselves, their community and society at large by backing down? Likewise, of course not.

Catholic parish pays up for gay wedding

This from expatica.com:

NEUSS - A court in Germany Wednesday ordered a Roman Catholic congregation to compensate two gay men who were not allowed to hold their same-sex wedding reception in the church hall.

Attorneys for the church said the congregation in the Cologne suburb of Neuss had been misled by the couple.

Only after the church had accepted EUR 300 for use of the hall for a "wedding reception" did clergy learn that the happy couple consisted of two men.

Saying the Catholic Church does not recognize homosexual marriage, the parish priest refused to permit the event to be held. The Neuss court judge agreed that the church had the right to determine who uses its premises. But she said it had no right to cancel the event and then also keep the EUR 300.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would like anyone paying for my wedding who couldn't stand me. It seems like it would tarnish it, but then again, I could be the victim of watching too much Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Vatican Launches Drive Against Gay Marriage Laws

The Vatican launched a global campaign against gay marriages Thursday, warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and urging non-Catholics to join the offensive.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family," the document said. "Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

"God's plan" is at best ambiguous enough on the issue of gay people that most of the religious community would say (if they are being totally honest) that it's best to not try to second-guess God on this or any other issue. Being a non-religious gay person, I'm just wondering of all the sins that are spelled out in the Bible, that everyone just focuses on homosexuality. What ever happened to the sin of eating pork, swearing, adultery, etc.? It must be nice to have the luxury of picking and choosing through the sin book on what is important and what can conveniently be forgotten about. Such hypocrisy, it makes me ill.

Catholics Reject Vatican, 57% Support Gay Marriage

(Ottawa) The Vatican's condemnation of gay marriage has fallen on deaf ears in Canada according to a new poll. 57 percent of Roman Catholics surveyed said they would support the right of same-sex couples to marry, a figure higher than for Protestants.

The poll, by Environics Research shows that only 38 per cent of those people who identified as Protestant support gay marriage with 58 per cent opposed.

Among all Canadians, the poll found a slim majority, 53 per cent, support same-sex marriage, while 43 per cent are opposed and three per cent are undecided.

Although the survey was taken prior to the reading of the Vatican pronouncement in churches across the country Sunday, Environics pollster Derek Leebosh said support for same-sex marriage among Catholics appears to be solid.

The inability to marry does in many cases add a greater burden to gay couples. Specifically in Rich Linnell and Gary Chalmers case, there's the extra $3,600 Linnell pays each year because he cannot piggyback, as a spouse could, on the health insurance policy Chalmers gets as a teacher. "We have a college fund set aside for Paige," said Chalmers, who earns about $60,000 a year, about the same as Linnell's pay as a nurse. "I'd like to see that $3,600 going towards that fund. Part of the reason we participated in the lawsuit was securing her future."

"We've taken all those legal precautions we think we can take," said Chalmers, who carries shrunken, laminated copies of Paige's adoption papers in his wallet in case a problem crops up. "It seems like every day or every month, we find out there's another piece we haven't covered, where if we had the right to be civilly married in Massachusetts, all these things would be automatic."

Even if gay marriage goes forward, most tax and many pension issues are governed by federal law (DOMA), which includes a 1996 statute defining marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman."

I have actually talked with my company about getting insurance coverage for same-sex partners. I work for a privately owned company in Connecticut. While I wasn't laughed at (to my face anyway), I was told that it wouldn't be considered until the future (read as NEVER). I was disappointed. I've given 15 years to this company. There are not that many of us and it wouldn't break the bank. They really just didn't want to go to bat for us. Of course, after that, I changed my work ethic. Being loyal and putting in the extra effort is a two-way street. In the end, it's really the company that loses out.

It was only a matter of time I suppose. Jerry Falwell is up to his old tricks again. Apparently, he is coming out of retirement to devote his time to passage of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Shocking huh?

"I am dedicating my talents, time and energies over the next few years to the passage of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which will protect the traditional family from its enemies who wish to legalize same-sex marriage and other diverse "family" forms," Falwell said.

Calling it "his line in the sand' Falwell said he is recruiting one million Americans to sign a Federal Marriage Amendment Petition which would be forwarded to all 535 members of Congress and to President Bush.

Wednesday, Falwell said, "We must not allow our children and children's children to grow up in a nation with legalized polygamy, common law marriage and same-sex marriage. The only way to put the traditional and biblical family form of one man married to one woman safely out of the reach of future courts and legislatures is to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

I just love having my marriage compared to polygamy. I suppose I should be thankful he didn't bring in necrophilia or bestiality.

To amend the Constitution, the legislation must be passed by two-thirds of the U.S. House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislature.

I read this letter on the International Herald Tribune and found it interesting to see what people are saying about President Bush elsewhere:

Regarding the report "Bush seeking means to block gay marriage" (Aug. 1): President George W. Bush's understanding of homosexuals gives me the impression that he lives in a different era - the Stone Age.

America continually tells the world that its people are free and that everyone has rights. But that's the case only for the "right" people - isn't it? To codify marriage as a relationship between a man and woman and to deny all Americans partners of their choice is a terrible mistake. Doesn't anyone remember that in the not so distant past it was illegal in the United States for a man and woman of different races to marry? Apparently not. - David Chester, Tokyo

It is somewhat ironic that while the United States government is promoting democracy, freedom and equality for the rest of the world, it is making every attempt to move backwards on the home front in the areas of individual rights and tolerance - along with the Catholic Church. More than anything this reflects the true fundamentalism behind both of these institutions, especially this administration. - J. Larson, Tokyo