General: November 2004 Archives

Or, I could have just named this article, “People who deserve Hell”.

Gay people have given much more to this society than we’ve gotten back. We’ve been beaten, killed, taxed like everyone else, but without the same benefits, died for our country in wars - yet given absolutely no credit for even contributing, kicked out of the military and given a section 8 discharge before don’t ask, don’t tell, and a general discharge after don’t ask, don't tell... and all because of assholes like this.

I’m getting to a point that I’m tired of being civil to people like this. They are worthless scum. And you can quote me on that.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. A lawmaker seeking to ban gay marriages also wants to prohibit state money from being spent on any materials or programs that “recognize” or “promote” homosexuality.

Republican Representative Gerald Allen says, “We have a culture that's in deep trouble.”

But Representative Alvin Holmes -- a Democrat -- says Allen’s measure was an unconstitutional form of censorship aimed at enhancing Allen’s standing with the right-wing conservatives.

If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, college theater groups would not be able to perform plays like the Tennessee Williams classic “Cat On A Hot Tin Roof” where homosexuality is a theme, and public school libraries could not display books that include lesbianism like Alice Walker’s “The Color Purple.”

Allen says the method of weeding out objectionable material and programs was still to be determined. His bill has been prefiled for action in the 2005 session. (source)

And from the Birmingham News

This is the first strike against the Solomon Act. Basically, the act states that any school or university who bars military recruiters from it’s campus because the school disagrees with the military’s don’t ask, don’t tell policy, that school could lose their federal funding.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that the act is unconstitutional because it sought to override the First Amendment.

I say it’s about time that the Federal Government start living by the law of the land, as we all do.

Ironically, a ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts of America disallowing homosexuals actually helped overturn Solomon.

The Solomon Amendment requires law schools to express a message that is incompatible with their educational objectives, and no compelling governmental interest has been shown to deny this freedom. - Judge Thomas L. Ambro (source)

The two-judge majority based its decision in part on an earlier Supreme Court ruling that the Boy Scouts of America could bar homosexuals from becoming scouts or troop leaders.

The court reasoned that if the Boy Scouts could legally reject gays because it had a core belief that homosexuality is illegitimate behavior, then other institutions could impose an opposite type of restriction if it had a core value that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong.

“The court understood that if bigots have a First Amendment right to exclude gays, then enlightened institutions have a right to exclude bigots,” said E. Joshua Rosenkranz, a lawyer for The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, which was the lead plaintiff in the suit. (source)

Other Opinion
Solomon Ruling Raises Recruitment Questions
Solomon’s Revenge - An Editorial

Prejudice is something that goes back as far as history does. The people of today like to flatter themselves and say that we, unlike our forefathers, now know that it is wrong, and we like to say that we’ve fixed the problem by making multiple anti-prejudice laws and such. But there are more types of prejudice than just that of race or gender. Discrimination against a person’s sexuality is a huge problem today. Nearly 40% of American’s today suffer from something called “Homophobia”. [...]

Homophobia is often considered an acceptable prejudice. I know kids, even adults that I simply pass on the street using words like “fag” and “homo”, even if it’s just to be a light- hearted insult. Winking jokes about being gay are still a common element found on television and in movies today. Probably the most to point quote about homophobia I’ve found was from Dr. Leon Hoffman. Hoffman simply classified homophobia as “a ‘family values’ prejudice.” And with the way people are brought up now-a-days, its true. [...]

But as I see it, homohphobia not only consists of hate, I think a lot of it has to do with fear, and lack of understanding. What does that mean? Basically, what people don’t know scares them. Since a majority of people in the world through the ages have been brought up learning that the only way to have a relationship is between a man and a woman, anything else is just wrong, weird, and unnatural. So naturally people are against it. My only hope is that someday, we’ll get over our prejudices, immaturity, our ignorance... and realize that we need to accept people just the way people are. (source)

What a great line to start an entry off with! I love it. It is a quote from a high school girl who was fed up with protesters who were visiting her town because of a gay citizen in her town.

I read about Michael Shakelford in September in an article in the Washington Post entitled “In the Bible Belt, Acceptance Is Hard-Won”. I was touched by the courage of this young man and how mean people at his school and the community had been to Michael and his mother.

But now, something miraculous has happened. The Westboro Baptist Church from Topeka, Kansas was arriving in Michael’s town of Sand Springs, Oklahoma to protest the town’s acceptance of homosexuality and the churches there that are not being outspoken enough to condemn homosexuality. It seems the town has started to show some support for Michael in coming out against the protesters. It’s a story with a silver lining, I suppose you could say.

There are some people in this world who are made to be destroyed. - Fred Phelps

The fliers arrived three weeks ago. Some came over the fax machines of local churches, and others appeared mysteriously around town. Printed in bold was the heading “Westboro Baptist Church.” No seeming cause for alarm. Sand Springs, population 18,500, is a Christian stronghold in the gently rolling hills of eastern Oklahoma.

But the message that followed was a rant against a 17-year-old Sand Springs resident named Michael Shackelford and his mother, Janice, the subjects of a recent Washington Post series examining Michael’s struggles as a young gay man in the Bible Belt. The fliers posted a photo of Michael, called him a “doomed teenage fag” and announced that followers of Westboro Baptist in Topeka were on their way from Kansas to stage antigay protests in Sand Springs. [...]

When Phelps announced that his group was coming to picket at several churches and the high school, fresh battle lines were drawn. To many here, homosexuality was a sin, but Michael Shackelford was their sinner. Just as the November election was reducing moral issues to red or blue, Sand Springs confronted subtler shades of truth. Janice Shackelford was terrified by the persecution of her son, then surprised by what happened next.

“This Westboro outfit thought they could come to this town and break it apart,” Janice said. “But it has brought the town together. It has opened some doors to talk.” [...]

The response surprised Michael, who thought he would be cast out. People were being nice to him. Only a few weeks earlier he’d been called a “queer” at Arby’s. Now there was a new menace in Sand Springs, and it was Fred Phelps. [...]

Inside the church, the congregation was standing and the six-piece guitar band was rocking. The music and energy built until Pastor Eubanks bounded onstage.

“There is darkness and there is light and we are in the middle of the light,” Eubanks said, to more thunderous applause. “Say it: God loves us all. All of us!”

After the service, several people came up to hug Janice. One woman held her in an embrace that lasted two minutes, whispering to Janice the whole time.

A burly man with a crew cut gave Michael a thumbs-up. “Man, you be who you are,” Shannon Watie said, holding his Bible. “We got your back.” (source)

I got a card today in the mail from the Salvation Army. It read:

Dear Christmas Friend,

Could you open your heart and share your blessings this Christmas? With your donation, we can give the less fortunate in our community holiday meals, warm clothes, toys, and Christmas joy.

A gift of any amount is very much appreciated!!

Thank you and God Bless.

I know this sounds harsh, but to the Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts who both ask for donations out in front of Highland Market where I shop for groceries, I want to say, “fuck you!”

The scout masters always look at me like they can read my mind as I go by them. They never talk to me because the can probably tell by the expression on my face that as far as they are concerned, they can go to hell.

As for the Salvation Army is concerned, I would like to know why you are fighting domestic partner benefits? I thought that your main focus is on helping the poor, but you seem to have plenty of time to gay bash. They are well known for their anti-gay attitudes and practices.

People who know me know that I have a big heart and help people when I can, but I won’t sell my soul to do it. I’m going to put the following reply on the card and send it back to them.

Dear Salvation Army:

I’m a gay American. I have in the past given to your organization because I believe in helping people when I can. But, I will not support your bigotry against gay Americans. So, with all due respect, you can go to Hell.

Merry Christmas.

I’ll send it out tomorrow. We’ll see if, between now and then, I tone down my message. I hate bigotry and you can't fight bigotry by supporting these organizations, no matter how “noble” their cause.

Don’t you wish other schools would stand up to preassure to do the right thing? I’m so tired of gay kids being called names and being harassed. It’s time that they get the respect that they deserve - the same respect given to all students.

A Toronto District School Board elementary school, hosting mandatory same-sex sensitivity training for its schoolchildren, is not allowing any exemptions -- even for Muslim children whose parents object to the content of the instruction.

The videos and discussion, called “anti-homophobia education” by the board, are aimed at children, to purportedly eliminate the bullying of children living in families with same-sex parents. (source)

It’s about time Mayor Bloomberg. I’ve been annoyed with the NYC Mayor Bloomberg over this entire issue. He's been dragging his feet all the way, despite the fact that the state Attorney General has order him to honor these relationships.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Wednesday that he will direct his appointees on the city’s pension fund boards to treat city employees in gay marriages the same way as those in traditional marriages. [...]

If the idea is approved by the city’s five pension fund boards, same sex couples who are legally married or involved in a civil union with a city employee, would receive pension benefits, including for instance, accidental death benefits. [...]

State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has ruled that though same-sex marriages could not be legally performed in New York, the state must recognize those performed legally elsewhere. (source)

CHICAGO - The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops, partially resolving claims that the government has engaged in religious discrimination by supporting a group that requires members to believe in God.

The settlement announced Monday is part of a series of legal challenges in recent years over how closely the government should be aligned with the Boy Scouts of America, a venerable organization that boasts a membership of more than 3.2 million members.

Civil liberties advocates have set their sights on the organization's policies because the group bans openly gay scout leaders and compels members to swear an oath of duty to God. The ACLU believes that direct government sponsorship of such a program amounts to discrimination. (source)

What do you think?

On a personal level, I agree with the ACLU on this one. But if the Boy Scouts can get away with discriminating against gays because they are a private organization, what's the difference if they discriminate against those who do not believe in God? You can't have it both ways and it looks as if their discriminatory policies are catching up to them.

The court was right. They are a private organization and can therefore kick out gays, atheists, and others they don't want in their organization. But there is a price to having those policies.

Discrimination is discrimination, and it doesn't really matter who is being discriminated against. If you condone it for one group you don't like, sooner or later it will come around and bite YOU in the ass.

Just my opinion...

Additional background:
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

Too depressing to really go into.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Michael Winn, 62, a health care industry professional who lives in Deerfield, Beach, Fla., said he voted for George W. Bush for president this year after having voted for Al Gore four years ago. Winn is a gay man and a lifelong Democrat, although he admits he “strayed” from his party in the 1980s when he voted for Ronald Reagan.

“When 9-11 happened, I thought President Bush was so wonderful because he brought the country together,” he said. “He began the war on terrorism, which I strongly support.”

Winn makes clear that he disagrees with the president on some issues, such as a constitutional ban gay marriage and stem cell research. “But I feel the issue of national security is more important than the issue of gay marriage and the other issues I don’t agree with him on,” he said.

Winn is among those who put a face on the 23 percent of the gay electorate that a national exit poll claimed voted for Bush, breaking from the 77 percent of their gay brothers and sisters who reported voting for Democrat John Kerry.

The 23 percent of gay voters who backed the president translate into more than one million gay male, lesbian, or bisexual voters, according to the exit poll, a figure that stunned and baffled many gay activists. (source)

Humans are pack animals, and the need to belong to the pride is written in our genetic code. Gays and lesbians have spent decades redefining notions of family and community, crafting an identity to make up for the exile of their lives, but that need to belong never quite goes away. When Newsom (Mayor of San Francisco) offered this fleeting chance to join the pride, they remembered how much they craved it, and the elation they felt when they came in from the cold changed their lives forever. (source)

I read a letter this morning from Mary Bonauto, the civil rights director of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders who was an attorney in both the Vermont and Massachusetts marriage cases, and Marty Rouse, the campaign director of MassEquality, a coalition dedicated to upholding the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision upholding gay marriage.

It gave me some insight and some hope. Here’s an excerpt:

NATIONAL Democrats and pundits make a mistake if they walk away from the presidential election results deciding that the issue of marriage equality is radioactive. Yes, the ballot initiatives in 11 states banning same-sex marriage won decisively, even in Oregon. And many of the initiatives are particularly punitive, perhaps prohibiting even private industry from providing health benefits or bereavement leave.

But these lopsided tallies should be viewed alongside the election results in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont. Yes, these are blue states. But they, too, have been embroiled in the conversation about marriage equality, a conversation that has become more nuanced as voters have seen the reality of gay families. [...]

The quest for marriage equality certainly won’t go away. But the more balanced, informed lesson for Democrats or anyone who cares about issues of equality might be more education, not less; more conversation, not less; and a dialog that stresses the value and importance of equality in this country.

You can read the entire letter if you wish by selecting the "Continue reading" link at the end of this entry.

It’s clear to me that there is a big disconnect where the gay population in this country is concerned. We just don’t communicate ourselves well, and in large measure, it’s because we just don’t understand each other.

We have to get beyond we’re queer, we’re here, get used to it!. That is going to meet with resistance and I can understand why. No one wants any issue in their face as if it’s end of discussion. We in the gay community must realize that we are not only fighting to have equal marriage rights, but also fighting generations of bigoted attitudes towards us. I don’t know about you, but I’m called a “faggot” more than I’d like to be. It’s all part of the same problem. Calling someone a name devalues them and puts them into a class. Then, we come along and want to be married, just like normal everyday people. We have to understand that this is threatening to people.

I don’t often agree with Senator Dianne Feinstein, but I think she hit the nail on the head when she talked about gay marriage as being “too much, too fast, too soon.”

But, as historian George Chauncey put it, “One of the reasons marriage has survived as an institution is because it has constantly changed and adapted to changing social realities and moral values. I think all 11 of these (state) referenda initiatives to ban gay marriage passed because there still hasn’t been enough time for discussion and for people to understand the reality of lesbian and gay lives and why gay and lesbian couples need the protection that marriage, and only marriage, confers.”

He’s right. But as Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle wrote in her editorial The Homophobic Party:

That is, of course, unless the intolerance of the gay-marriage lobby chases would-be supporters away. When they frame all opponents to same-sex marriage as bigots and haters, they show themselves to be intolerant of those whose deeply held religious convictions tell them same-sex marriage is wrong.

In 2000, I voted against Proposition 22 because I believe in the benefits of marriage, for gays and straights. But the reaction to this election chills me and makes me wonder if it makes more sense for advocates to push for civil union legislation now, and marriage later, when the public is ready.

It doesn’t help when advocates demonize those who hesitate to change laws that have existed for a long time and that shape American families. It doesn’t help when they blame Bush voters for sentiments also shared by Kerry voters. It doesn’t help because it shows America that same-sex marriage advocates, who complain about being demonized, are happy to demonize GOP voters when it suits their purposes.

All true. But one thing that gets lost here is that the people who want a U.S. Constitutional amendment against gay marriage, also do not want to allow civil unions. At first, civil unions were thought to be a compromise. After the election and the passing of state constitutional amendments banning marriage for gay couples in 11 states, suddenly the demands changed. This was brought home to me last night on the Jim Lehrer program.

Margaret Warner had as guests Shannon Royce, executive director of the Marriage Amendment Project, a coalition of groups pushing for state and federal marriage protection amendments; and Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

From the program transcript:

MARGARET WARNER: Well, finally, let me ask you about the federal amendment, because President Bush, who promoted this idea to start with, has said... has made it pretty clear -- at least it seems that way -- that he thinks marriage should be preserved for just a man and a woman, but he would be in favor of civil unions. Would a federal constitutional amendment that specifically said that, could that be a possible compromise position here?

SHANNON ROYCE: I think any amendment that would say that specifically would be opposed by the pro-family representatives who I work for. The amendment as it’s currently drafted says marriage is between a man and a woman but leaves the civil union/domestic partnership benefits questions, if you will, to the state legislatures. And that’s where we believe those questions should be settled, in the state legislatures by elected officials of the people.

MARGARET WARNER: But, so why are you saying that an amendment that said that specifically, that said “but the matter of civil unions will be reserved for state legislatures...”

SHANNON ROYCE: The current amendment says that. It leaves it specifically to... it doesn’t use the term civil unions.

MARGARET WARNER: No, it doesn’t.

SHANNON ROYCE: It talks about benefits of marriage being left to state legislatures.

MARGARET WARNER: Mr. Foreman, could that be a compromise that the gay community could live with?

MATT FOREMAN: We can’t compromise about being full citizens under American law. If that compromise took effect, I can’t leave my Social Security benefits to my partner. I still will get screwed in federal estate taxes. I mean, all of the big-ticket items that take care of families in this country come from the federal government. So maybe if they want to put on the table, oh, a federal marriage amendment but we’ll create a federal civil union law that gives us equal civil rights and responsibilities, hey, we could talk about that.

Matt is absolutely correct. Leaving it to the states to allow or disallow civil unions is no compromise at all. The “big-ticket items” are all at the federal level and do more than any state benefit for gay couples; social security, federal estate taxes, 401(k) retirement, and many others are not governed by state laws.

I would be willing to live with the term civil union if:
a) the state afforded exactly the same rights to that civil union as heterosexual marriages
b) the federal government created a separate category called civil union and afforded exactly the same rights to that civil union as heterosexual marriages

That is separate, but hopefully equal. Every single time a law is passed or amended at the federal level for marriage, a like-law would have to be passed or amended for the federal civil union.

Does this make sense? From a logical point of view, not really. It is still creating a different and separate class of citizens. It would be very expensive to implement a totally different set of laws that do exactly the same thing for the separate group of people.

From a practical point of view, maybe it’s the best we can hope for.

While this all seems like it might work because we won’t be using the word “marriage”, our opponents will never go for it. Expect them to label it, “marriage by just another name.” The bottom line is, they do not want us to have any social recognition what so ever. But we can hope that reasonable people will win the day. We can hope.

If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you to go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.