General: December 2003 Archives

This is just another effort to trivialize our community to the rest of the nation. Now, they are taking all images of gay gatherings at national sites, including the Millennium March on the Washington Mall, and removing them from videotapes that have been shown at the Lincoln Memorial since 1995.

National Parks Service Deputy Director Donald Murphy is said to have been concerned about pictures in the video that showed same-sex couples kissing and holding hands after conservative groups complained.

That's right folks. How dare we openly show affection for one another? It's almost as though we would like to be equal with everyone else.

Reprinted from a letter to the editor at DenverPost.com:

What's in a term?

Re: "Don't encourage gays,' Dec. 18 Open Forum.

Term, term, what's in a term?

Apparently a lot. It seems difficult to find a term that is understandable and agreeable to everyone. Letter-writer Robert W. Steller was incensed that The Post endorsed a gay-straight alliance club at Palmer High School. He wrote that such a thing encourages promiscuity. One would think that by now he would know that homosexuality is about more than just sex. Why does he think homosexual marriage has been a big issue of late? Some have suggested using the term "affectional orientation' instead of "sexual orientation' to make it clearer.

And many people I have talked to don't like the term "homophobia' being thrown around as much as it is. Would "bigotry' be a better term? That's really what it comes down to.

Still others don't like the terms "gay' and "homosexual.' Though these are typically men who have sex with other men, they will not "put a label on it.'

Can we get past the issue of what is the appropriate term to use and just try to understand each other?

DOUG GRAEN
Denver

And I'm sure the majority of people (who could vote) favored preventing women the right to vote.

I'm sure the majority of people wanted to keep slavery.

I'm sure the majority of people wanted to prevent black people from being able to marry.

I'm sure the majority of people wanted to prevent white and black people the ability to marry (maybe they still do?).

I'm sure the majority of people probably wishes gay people would just "go away" or be put on some island somewhere, where society doesn't have to "deal with" all of these "gay" issues.

I'm sure that for the next two generations or so that the majority of people will not agree that gay couples should have any marriage rights.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!

What the majority wants and what are laws dictate as being fair and equal for all citizens are thankfully separate issues. The "majority" has been wrong many many times before.

They are wrong now about gay marriage. We want to be part of society as equal productive citizens. What is so wrong with that? We give a great deal to this society. We should have the right to be equal in every regard.

Everytime I read a story such as this, I get so angry. The man in this story never even got to say goodbye to his partner who slipped into a coma.

In court testimony, chief physician at Shock Trauma, Dr. Thomas Scalea, said Flanigan was barred because doctors were too busy trying to save Daniel's life to allow visitors. Flanigan was finally permitted to see his partner but only after Daniel's mother and sister arrived hours later. By that time, Daniel was no longer conscious, his eyes were taped shut, and he subsequently died without being able to say goodbye to his partner.

Before reading the verdict which rejected Flanigan's suit, the jury said it felt sorry for Flanigan's loss and thought the University of Maryland Medical System could have "communicated better" with him. (story)

One thing that you might want to look at is the Partner Medical Rights package by Family LLC. The cost is $175.00 (it says you get $35 off at checkout). The documents are created for you and mailed to you. It's probably less costly than seeing a lawyer to try to draft documents to give you some of the rights of marriage with regards to medical decisions.

For the "savage" murder of 41 year old Aaron Webster, a man, who was 17 at the time of the murder, has been sentenced to "three years in custody for a manslaughter conviction".

Webster was repeatedly beaten on the head and upper body with a baseball bat or pool cue. He was found naked except for his hiking boots.

Ryan Cran and Danny Rao, both 21 and from Burnaby, have also been charged with manslaughter in the case and are scheduled for a preliminary hearing in April.

I wasn't there and didn't hear the testimony, but only three years seems a bit lenient to me. The man is dead after all. I'm sure he wanted to live his life, and these hoodlums deprived him of that. I would have said 30+ years would have been more appropriate.

I really thought that after Matthew Shepard, we were beyond simply giving a slap on the wrist for killing a gay person. (story)

12/20/2003 - Sentences for Aaron Webster's killers too light, gays say

Court transcript given below:

One word... MORON!

I honestly don't know why this president doesn't just scrap the Constitution of the United States. When anything else gets in his way, he simply ignores it anyway.

WASHINGTON — President Bush is taking a stand on a constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. And the President's support may help pass a Federal Marriage Amendment when Congress comes back into session early next year.

Last month, the Massachusetts Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage. Now, President Bush has handed down his own verdict on the issue, saying that he would support a constitutional amendment to ban homosexuals from marriage and protect its federal definition. (story)

I think it's time that we just came out and said in the open that the Republican Party has become worthless and devoid of any value. The "compassionate conservative" doesn't know the first thing about being compassionate or accepting. The same can be said for his party. It didn't used to be this way. The Republican Party would at least listen and were reasonable. Today, they are owned by the Religious Right and if you don't believe that, just listen to this president, with all of his "faith-based" initiatives.

GOD and people's religious values have no place in government or the setting of government policy. The line separating church and state are becoming smaller and smaller.

This amendment will fail.

If it becomes part of the Constitution, it will eventually be defeated and removed from the Constitution because it goes contrary to the purpose of the Constitution. This will be an amendment to deny a certain segment of the population equal rights. That is a black eye to that great document. In the end, it will be removed and the efforts to create two different classes of citizens will have failed.

If the states fail to ratify the amendment (if it makes it that far), this President, along with all the Republicans who supported and voted for this amendment's passage, will be shown to be the homophobic bigots that they are. Again, the amendment will fail.

I say, let them go down this path. It will lead them to a place that they don't want to be.

Read more about it.

Detroit Lions president Matt Millen apologized Monday for calling a former Detroit player a "faggot" – twice – in an incident following the Lions game Sunday at Kansas City.

"You faggot! Yeah, you heard me. You faggot!" Millen was heard shouting at Johnnie Morton, a Kansas City wide receiver who played for the Lions for eight years until leaving following the 2001 season.

George Carlin was fond of citing the "seven words you can't say on television" as proof that there are no bad words, just bad thoughts. Repeating the seven words over and over again (as Carlin has done for years) serves to take the sting out of them, the comedian argues.

Why, then, does race remain taboo, but a slur used to describe a homosexual gets a free pass?

The answer: For the same reason that people seem to think that it's ok to deny gay citizens equal rights in every other part of their lives.

In 37 of the 50 states, it's still fully legal to fire a gay person, and they have no recourse, because it's not against the law. Even the Federal Government has not added "sexual orientation" to the other classes of protection - race, disability, etc. We can't even get married to the one we love and I probably never will be able to. I honestly don't expect to live that long.

So, I don't really understand why people are shocked that Matt Millen felt he could get away with calling someone else a "faggot". Let me tell you something. In any given month, I get called a "faggot" or "queer" at least 2-3 times. People that suddenly feel that it's taboo to call another person a "faggot" just don't have a clue.

They can get away with it because most of society thinks it's just fine the way things are.

Yesterday, Idaho sent a clear message to Fred Phelps and the gay-bashing demonstrators of the Westbory Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas.

The Phelps' supporters are trying to establish in Boise a monument that says Wyoming murder victim Matthew Shepard is in hell. Shepard, beaten to death in 1998, was targeted because he was gay.

Nearly 500 people countered Phelps' demonstration of hate.

Catholics, Protestants, Jews, evangelical Christians, gays, toughs, peace advocates, and passers-by in cars quietly countered a protest in Boise by a handful of relatives of Pastor Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. Nine Westboro church members picketed churches Sunday and marched along Capitol Avenue to spread his message that God hates homosexuals.

Everywhere they went, they were met by crowds of Idahoans who, despite their often-conflicting views all shared a disgust for Phelps´ self-described message of hate. Even those who share Phelps´ view that homosexuality is a sin viewed him as an outside agitator meddling in Idaho affairs. (story)

It kind of blows my mind that there were even people there from Emmett, the small town I grew up in. Maybe it's not so closed minded anymore. Who knows? Could things be changing even there?

I have talked in the past about how stupid the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy is. It's costing us a lot of money to enforce, and it's costing us a lot of talent that could be put to good use.

I read this story and was very touched by it.

"What if a married person in the military couldn't tell anyone that his wife exists?" Glover said. "And if he did, he'd be fired?"

That was Glover's predicament. Her partner had moved from Ohio to an apartment in Monterey. Glover told no one, splitting her time between the post and her partner's place, and lying about her whereabouts on the sign-out log. She was afraid to be seen in public with her partner. The hiding took its toll; the four-year relationship ended. The breakup fueled Glover's anger toward "don't ask, don't tell."

An interesting article. It brought back memories. After Kent and I moved to Coventry, I was searching for a church in our area. Kent had grown up Presbyterian, so I called our local Presbyterian Church. I explained to the minister that we were new in town and would like to attend their church and see if it was a good fit for us.

After learning that we were a gay couple (I thought he should know so there would be no awkward surprises), he said that we would not be welcomed and to please not come around. So much for being Christian.

Last week was a strange week for me. Our company had a meeting explaining the new benefits that are being given and what has changed in the benefits.

I've spent a lot of time griping about the lack of protection in the relationships of gay and lesbian citizens. I'm sure some of you have gotten sick of hearing it, almost as much as I got sick of writing about it. Some have said that if the state's put in place "civil union" laws, that would be sufficient.

As I was listening to different speakers talk about certain benefits, a new life insurance benefit is given this year. This interested me because we are getting to a point in our lives where I have a need to be concerned over such issues. If I die, will Kent be taken care of? Will funeral costs be covered? So, I was interested in this. Time after time, the speaker talked about the policy and that you could also put your "spouse" on the policy as well, so that if something happened to your spouse, you would also be covered.

After the meeting was over, I went up to the speaker, and asked if a "significant other" or a "domestic partner" would qualify. The answer was, "No, but you can specify anyone you would like to be your beneficiary." That wasn't the question I asked. In other words, I would be able to do this, but since Kent is not my spouse, we are out of luck on this one. Would "civil union" legislation by the state cover something like this? The company offering the insurance is a national company. Would they even be able to tailor their national policies to conform to state laws?

I shopped around a bit. They are all the same way. So, I'm seeing the discrimination of marriage in my daily life now. I hate meetings like this. With all the benefits offered, the "spouse" is always eligible to partake, but we can't. I end up depressed, and feeling like garbage.

I know it's not me, but I will tell you that it's very difficult to feel like you are equal to everyone else when even the company you work for reinforces that you are simply a second-class employee in a country that views you as a second-class citizen.

Matthew R. Limon was sentenced to more than 17 years in prison after he engaged in voluntary sexual relations with a 14-year-old boy just after Limon turned 18. Had Limon's partner been female, Limon could have been sentenced to about one year in prison.

Limon appealed his sentence all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sent the case back to Kansas in light of its June ruling striking down laws that criminalize gay sex. The Kansas Court of Appeals panel may rule by February.

Justice G. Joseph Pierron, the presiding judge of a three-judge Court of Appeals panel hearing the case of Limon v. Kansas, repeatedly questioned the legislative intent behind a law that lessens the penalty for teenagers who engage in voluntary sexual relations but specifically excludes homosexuals.

In Kansas, sexual relations for those under 16 are always illegal. But under the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law," the punishment is far less severe when the sexual relations are voluntary and between someone 14 to 16 and someone under 19 -- so long as the sex is between a male and female.

So what do you think? It seems reasonable to me that Mr. Limon has a legitimate hope of having his sentence reduced. Of course, we are talking Kansas here, which hasn't exactly weighed in on the sided of reason where gay issues are concerned.

Here's where I weigh in. If a crime is on the books in Kansas that two teens having sex at that age is illegal, that's the way it is. But, sexual orientation should not be an issue in weighing the sentence. Mr. Limon should receive the same sentence as that of a heterosexual in that situation, or, the heterosexual should be given the same sentence as Mr. Limon. Whatever the sentence, it should all be the same for everyone.

At least, it seems that Justice Pierron of the appeals court is trying to be fair. "I'm trying to find what the real reason was other than, 'We just don't like homosexuals,' " Pierron said at one point. Let's hope for Matthew Limon's sake that the outcome is fair.

For the actual appeal, read below.

Here we go again. A few months ago Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas attempted to errect a statue in Casper, Wyoming, the hometown of slain gay student Matthew Shepard.

Phelps has formally asked the city for permission to install a 6-foot granite edifice bearing the name and image of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old Wyoming college student who died in 1998 five days after when he was lured out of a Laramie bar by two men, kidnapped and beaten into a coma. Police said he was targeted in part because he was gay. His attackers were later convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison. ...

Shepard has no known connection to Idaho. He was from Casper and attending college in Laramie when he was killed. Phelps, who picketed Shepard's funeral, has tried to get approval for similar anti-gay monuments in Casper and in Idaho's Minidoka County.

In Casper, the city council voted to move its Ten Commandments monument from a public park to a historic plaza. It's unclear whether that action will be enough to block Phelps' marker.

In Rupert, county commissioners decided not to sell any of the courthouse lawn, either to Phelps or to another religious group that had sought to install a monument to the Ten Commandments.

I've said it before that I think these people are crazy. I've always felt that we should all have free speach, but these people are scary. Of course, now that states have sanctioned the placement of religious monuments on state property, they have opened themselves up for this kind of abuse. (story)

There have been many like James Dale. James used to be an eagle scout in the Boy Scouts of America.

Dale, who was also a volunteer Scoutmaster, spent a decade in litigation against the Boy Scouts of America after it kicked him out following publicity about his participation in a seminar as a gay man while a student at Rutgers University.

In 2000, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' right as a private organization to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

"If I had won, it would have been a great thing for me," said Dale, now 33. "I lost, and I think it was a great thing for America." (story)