General: May 2004 Archives

HALEDON, N.J. -- A police sergeant has sued the borough and several officials, claiming he was passed over for promotion because he is gay.

Sgt. James Len filed suit Wednesday in state Superior Court against the borough, Mayor Ken Pengitore, Councilman Ayman Mamkej and Police Chief Harold Engold Jr. All three defendants said they had not seen the suit and declined to comment when reached by the Herald News of West Paterson. [...]

According to the suit, Len, 42, told his wife and children in April 2002 that he is gay. He moved out two months later.

As word circulated through the police department, others began treating Len differently, according to his lawyer, Charles Sciarra.

"He was in line for promotions and was on the short list for the chief of police," Sciarra told the newspaper. "Len went from favorite son to pariah instantaneously. They did not just ostracize Jim; they targeted his job solely because it was revealed he is gay."

The suit claims several officials assured Len he would be promoted to lieutenant, but withdrew their support after learning he was gay. (source)

I recently read a letter published in the Modesto Bee (California), about a teacher who was reflecting on his path to tolerance. The seed for that tolerance was from a gay student he had taught 15 years ago.

The student had been asked to write and essay to the topic "My Biggest Problem". Don Shaw, the teacher and author of the letter writes:

He had experienced homophobia in a variety of ways. He told of taunts and jibes and ostracisms. He mentioned no physical abuse, but something worse -- having to endure the widespread intolerance of people indoctrinated into communal forms of hatred, that hatred which often finds its severest expression in the frightening inhumanity of an adolescent subculture.

The slice of reality depicted in that essay became, for me, a learning experience. Learning usually involves some rethinking and that was the case here. I had never considered myself homophobic, but at the same time, gay rights had never ranked high on my personal agenda for social reform. "Don't ask, don't tell" actually sounded pretty good to me.

So I had to re-examine some of the teachings I had grown up with. The Christian denomination I belonged to (Presbyterian) was relatively tolerant, but since many Christians still insisted that same-sex relationships were unequivocally sinful, I decided to look more carefully at what the Bible says.

Things are changing everyday. When I was in high school, if a teacher had asked us to write an essay on "My Biggest Problem", there was no way I would have written about the daily harassment and taunting I was having to endure. There was no way I would be able to convey that I was unsure if I would be alive by the end of the school year. To do so could possibly have made me a bigger target of harassment. I graduated from high school in 1974.

Yet, 15 years ago, this student felt that he was able to write what he was going through. Today, many schools are developing Gay-Straight Alliance-type clubs and organizations they can join to at least feel that there are those around who at least care about the issue.

In some ways, things haven't changed so much. The author states, "The Christian denomination I belonged to (Presbyterian) was relatively tolerant". In Coventry, Connecticut, Kent and I contacted our local Presbyterian Church not long after moving to Coventry (that was seven years ago), and had an intention of going there, since Kent had been raised Presbyterian. I thought it would be a good way to meet new people in our neighborhood. It didn't matter to us if they had any gay people attending since that wasn't why we were attending church.

But, I also thought that it was important to be honest with the pastor of the church and tell him that we are a gay couple who would like to attend the Coventry Presbyterian Church. It was not my intention of putting the fact that we are a gay couple in his face. But rather, to make him aware of our situation so we could avoid any awkward situations in the future. I wanted him to know up front that we were a gay couple. We don't hide that fact anymore because we are not ashamed of our marriage.

The pastor flat out told me that we were not welcome in his church unless we were willing to change. Maybe if he would have used that line on me when I was 16 years old, I would have taken him up on it. But now, a statement like that doesn't go far with me. I told him that his attitude was very un-Christian and that he would do well to look inside himself and what he truly believes about the teachings of Christ. It also made me sad. We were new in town. I started to doubt if we had made the best decision by buying a home in Coventry. Would this be typical of the greeting we received?

I found those stern passages in Leviticus that include homosexuality among practices condemned by the tribal code of the Israelites. But our culture has long since declared inapplicable many other requirements of that code such as dietary restrictions and draconian demands for the stoning to death of disobedient sons and brides who cannot prove their virginity. It would seem that common sense would require a similar reconsideration of other demands from that area of Scripture.

Hypocrisy is my biggest problem with people who preach to me about how "sinful" my life is. They usually go to Leviticus and preach the same passage time and time again. At the same time, they conveniently ignore all the other things that would condemn them to Hell, according to Leviticus. In other words, the Bible to them is simply a menu of sins that they select from when it serves their purpose. Fred Phelps and his group preaches only on homosexuality. His website tells it all just by the name, gothatesfags.com (you can go there if you want, but I will not link to it). It's as if the rest of the Bible doesn't exist to him, because it doesn't further his cause when the Bible speaks of the sin of judging others.

I became convinced that there is no basis for condemning same-sex relationships on biblical grounds. It became clear to me that the only valid moral principle on the subject to be derived from Scripture is an affirmation based on Jesus's "new command" in John 13, that we "love one another."

Amen.

The full letter is given below.

Some United Way chapters, The Boy Scouts of America, and now the Salvation Army.... it's just getting harder and harder for groups who practice bigotry to find like-minded folks around that will support it.

The evangelical nonprofit organization is facing a major showdown with the city over a bill that would force it to offer health benefits to gay and unwed spouses of New York staffers.

If the organization leaves town, it would give up $70 million a year in city funding.

The loss of public financing - half the Army's yearly budget in the city - would cripple its programs, which serve 5 million New Yorkers, the group says.

Salvation Army insiders said they will refuse to comply with the proposed law because it goes against one of the organization's core beliefs - that marriage is for straight couples only. (source)

It's too bad that they are so hell-bent on carrying on this type of behavior. "The Equal Benefits Bill, an extension of a 1998 city law that gave domestic-partner benefits to city workers, does offer an olive branch to religious groups: Benefits don't have to be to a spouse, but can go to any family member."

But that's not good enough for them. I say, let them leave and good riddens. It really makes you wonder about how much they really care about the people they help.

California supreme court to weigh gay marriage vs. mayoral powers

In the debate over gay marriage, all eyes are shifting from Massachusetts to California. That state's supreme court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday, May 25, regarding whether San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom (pictured left) misused his power when he allowed the issuance of 4,000 marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples earlier this year.

The highly charged hearing will have everything and yet nothing to do with same-sex marriage, since the justices already declined to address the civil rights issues involved. Those battles will have to percolate up through the state courts.

Of course, what is at stake here are the thousands of marriage licenses that were issued to gay couples. Will they end up being invalidated?

Gay Republicans in North Carolina said state party officials told them their group isn't welcome at a convention this weekend because "homosexuality is not normal" and their agenda is "counterproductive to the Republican agenda." (source)

Well, what did they expect? We are talking about the same part as our current President. The same President who has such a low opinion of gay families that he wants to pass an amendment to the US Constitution to stop them.

I honestly don't understand why we give the Republican Party time of day. I'm not that much of an activist anymore. I am actually quite domestic. I care about my town I live in, state matters, and the country. But, very little that concerns my life is centered around being gay - gay marriage aside. Gay marriage is different because it does effect every aspect of our lives.

When I heard my President get up and call me a second-class citizen, unworthy of full civil rights, that did it for me. He lost my respect. What I don't understand is how some in our community have so little respect for themselves or the gay community to cater after these people. Astonishing.

Former Boy Scout leaders unveiled a plan Wednesday that asks current members to wear a patch on their uniforms identifying themselves as someone a Scout can talk to about their sexual orientation without fear of being thrown out of the group, reports the Chicago Sun-Times. [...]

Under the plan, Scouts who display the badge will be seen as an ally to kids who may be questioning their sexuality. The Scouts who have the badge promise not to reveal the information to leaders who may move to expel the Scout. (source)

Most of you know that the Boy Scouts of America will terminate the membership of any scout leader or boy scout who is found to be gay. I think this is a great idea, but isn't it making a target out of kids who would like to be understanding to gay kids?

Let's say I'm a straight kid and also a boy scout. I have no problem with gay scouts and I want to show my support by wearing this badge. If I were the Boy Scouts of America, I would suspect anyone who wore the badge.

Kent and I went to our usual brunch this morning at Monet's Table this morning and while having a delicious breakfast, I read that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is going to make a determination on Monday if same-sex marriages performed elsewhere will be deemed valid in Connecticut. He is responding in part to a letter Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney sent to the attorneys general of the other 49 states, inquiring whether same-sex marriages are permitted.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Friday that he plans to issue an advisory opinion Monday on whether same-sex marriages performed elsewhere will be deemed valid in Connecticut. He is responding in part to a letter Romney sent to the attorneys general of the other 49 states, inquiring whether same-sex marriages are permitted. [...]

Connecticut's statutes and case law, Murphy said, make it clear there are only four categories of marriages deemed invalid in this state. They include marriages between blood relatives; marriages performed by an unauthorized person; bigamist marriages; and those in which one or both parties never intended or consented to be married.

"We do not have any laws at all that say same-sex couples cannot get married," Murphy said. (source)

We weren't going to go to Massachusetts to get married because we felt that it wouldn't be legal when we returned to Connecticut. Well, apparently, that may not be the case. When I read this, I was overcome with hope.

I actually wanted my home state of Connecticut to marry us, but would it really matter? Connecticut will not issue a marriage license to a gay couple. We have tried that, and we were denied. But, if the will honor a gay marriage from Massachusetts, isn't that in the end, the same thing? I mean, they are honoring the marriage. Would we not then get the full protection of marriage, at least at the state level?

I can't wait for Monday to happen to see what the Attorney General rules. He seems like a fair man, and if the law is as clear as what I've stated above, it would seem that there is only one way he can rule.

(Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) A national ad campaign that began running Monday in USA Today is advising corporations not to relocate in Oklahoma.

Headlined "Oklahoma Going Out of Business" the featured a map of the state with a "closed" sign hanging from it.

"Companies thinking of relocating to or doing business in Oklahoma should look hard at Oklahoma's worsening culture of intolerant exclusion and its resulting brain and talent drain," the half page ad said.

"Studies show that a state's level of tolerance for its gay and lesbian citizens directly impacts its success in attracting the talented people and creative atmosphere essential for economic growth in today's competitive marketplace," the $100,000 said ad which appeared in the paper's Money section.

The ad was sponsored by LGBT civil rights group Cimarron Equality Oklahoma in response to a proposed amendment to the state constitution to ban same-sex relationships. The amendment proposal passed the legislature last month (story) and will be put to voters in November. (source)

This is a follow-up story about the gay father in Idaho who lost custody of his children for being in a gay relationship.

This is an excerpt from the Idaho Statesman. It does sound like they are giving the case fair coverage.

If Theron McGriff had a live-in girlfriend instead of a live-in boyfriend, would he have lost custody of his two children?

That is the crux of a case argued Monday before the Idaho Supreme Court.

McGriff believes he lost custody because he is gay. [...]

Each side had 30 minutes to argue its case before the five members of the state's highest court. As each attorney presented arguments, justices interrupted with questions and comments that cut to the key issues of the case, peppering each side equally:

• Justice Wayne Kidwell to McGriff's attorney, Richard Hearn: "I'm wondering if the magistrate was on fairly solid ground if he had not referred to the same-sex matter."

• Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout to Hearn: "There were a number of factors of conflict between the mother and father. There was even the father's own statement that he does not want to talk to the mother. That's not enough evidence?"

• Justice Kidwell to Weingartner's attorney, Marie Tyler: "You say this is not a gay rights issue. I've gone through the file fairly carefully, and the only thing I see is about homosexuality. It's very convenient now for you to say no, when it's very clear that was the concern when you filed the petition. You made it a gay rights issue."

• Justice Roger Burdick to Tyler: "Every time I get in a spat with my ex, do I have to go back to court to discuss the custody of my children? One person's non-cooperativeness is another's one-on-one."

This just in the news:

Germany has agreed to expand its civil union legislation, so as to ensure the financial benefits received by same sex couples are on an equal par with heterosexual couples.

The decision, made by the country's labour court late last week, follows a case of a male nurse filing for the same benefits as his straight colleagues. He had claimed it was unfair that he and his partner received less than his married co-workers. (source)

It's funny how things in history have a way of turning around. Now, Germany is expanding rights for it's gay citizens, but between 1933 and 1945, Paragraph 175 was in effect, under which 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality. Only about 4,000 survived.

Paragraph 175 Defined:

It will be very interesting to see what happens when May 17th comes around. I'm sure you have all noticed how attention to gay marriage has settled down in the last month or so, now that New Paltz, NY and San Francisco are no longer handing out marriage licenses.

But, that's all about to change. I'm sure that when May 17th arrives, when the first marriage licenses that are sanctioned by a state are issued, the matter will be even in the spotlight more than ever.

Of course, behind the scenes, there is a lot of political maneuvers going on. Governor Mitt Romney is doing everything he can to invoke a 1913 law to prohibit out of state couples from being able to marry.

And now, C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League is trying to get the high court from allowing any marriage to same-sex couples until the legislature can rule on a constitutional amendment in 2006. He failed to win that endorsement from the court.

Justice Roderick Ireland, one of four judges who voted to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts as of May 17, said that C.J. Doyle, the executive director of the Catholic Action League, had no standing to ask for the delay.

Even if he did, Ireland said, he would have denied it.

"Why should same-sex couples, who have been determined to have the right to marry under the Massachusetts Constitution as it exists here and now, be required to wait to exercise that right simply because the petitioner and others hope ... to be able to amend the Constitution and take away that right at some point in the future?'' Ireland wrote. (source)

To be fair, this case just happens to be in the Idaho courts. It could just as well be with any other states that surround Idaho, or even in the South.

This is the story of a gay dad who lives in Idaho. He lost custody of his two children because he is gay and was denied visitation rights as long as he lived with his same-sex partner.

After six years of marriage, Theron McGriff and his wife, Shawn McGriff, divorced. Theron was given custody of their two daughters under the divorce agreement.

But then Theron met another man, fell in love, and they bought a home together. Shawn McGriff went back to court claiming a gay relationship wasn't in the best interest of their two daughters. Bonneville County Magistrate L. Mark Riddoch agreed, and removed the girls from Theron McGriff's custody and gave them to his ex-wife. Riddoch further ordered that the children not visit Theron McGriff as long as he lived with his partner. (story)

In the ruling, the judge said that Theron McGriff hadn't considered the impact his "lifestyle" would have on the girls, especially in their conservative and heavily Mormon city of Idaho Falls. He also ordered him to pay all the legal fees in the case, estimated at more than $30,000.

So now, the Idaho Supreme Court will hear the case, and I would be totally surprised if they rule in favor of this man. I feel bad for him. This is exactly why I don't live in Idaho anymore.

What really saddens me in this country is the hypocrisy under which we live. We love to call ourselves the "land of the free", "equal rights for all", blah blah blah. We aren't free at all and our citizens are no where near having equal rights.

When I go out with my partner, we are always careful not to show affection subconsciously. A straight friend actually told me once that we never show affection. I said, "We won't. Not around you or anyone else. Society has trained us very well." That's just wrong and I'm so tired that no one seems to give a crap about our minority. No one seems to be upset that we do not have the same rights as others.

"No one is free unless everyone is free"... seems to be crap.

Sources for this story: 365gay.com and The Advocate.