General: January 2005 Archives

Sometimes, things to work out for the best. Read on.

NEW YORK - A former Suffolk County police officer who said he was subjected to death threats and harassment because he is bisexual was awarded $270,000 on Friday by a federal jury, his lawyer said.

John Weeks, a 10-year veteran of the department from East Islip, claimed in a lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Central Islip, that he had been harassed and discriminated against based on his sexual orientation.

“The Suffolk County Police Department turned a blind eye when superior officers violated Officer Weeks’ constitutionally protected rights,” said attorney Rick Ostrove. [...]

Weeks, who was fired in October 2002, said in a statement that he was “gratified that the jury has sent a clear message that discriminatory behavior in the workplace, particularly by a police department, will not be tolerated.” [...]

This is the second time in a year that the Suffolk County Police Department has lost a federal bias lawsuit. Last May, Officer Felicia Collins was awarded $229,500 in damages after winning a civil rights lawsuit in which she claimed to be the victim of a campaign of harassment. She said she was denied advancement because she is a black woman, and that the abuse she suffered came from both her peers and supervisors. (source)

MONTREAL (CP) - Two lesbians who were assaulted as they kissed on the street returned to the spot a week later Friday, this time surrounded by dozens of other smooching same-sex couples.

Joelle Perras, 26, and Brook Morrison, 29, were walking hand in hand last Friday when they puckered up at a traffic light.

Somebody then hit Morrison in the head from behind, pushing her into Perras, who broke her nose. The man then fled without saying anything.

“Something happens like this, it doesn’t just kind of leave,” said Perras, yellow and purple bruises still visible on her face.

“Here we are, we’re being strong, but it’s scary. When we walk out at night, we look around. We haven’t kissed on the street, we haven’t been ourselves because we are afraid. (source)

I know exactly how they feel. Kent and I never show affection in public either. We used to hold hands and be more of a couple in public. But we were hassled and called “faggots” every time we would do it. We got tired of it and scared that some crazy person would hurt or kill one or both of us.

And this happened when we lived in San Francisco years ago. In Connecticut, who knows what would happen? I know exactly how they feel. It’s a shame really that in such a free country as the United States, many of us live in fear and without freedom. I’ve become used to hiding what I am to the outside world. I am good at it. We go to a restaurant to eat, we play it like we are friends. We never do anything to make others think we might be gay.

And on those rare occasions that we go to a really nice restaurant that is romantic, we do get stares, because we are usually the only two guys sitting at the same table together. I try to enjoy myself, but I can see the eyes on us and the judgment they hold.

This is my world. The world of being gay in a world where it is forbidden. Be yourself, and suffer the consequences.

Yeah, that’s freedom.

I was reading an article on the Yale Daily News about allowing ROTC on the Yale campus. ROTC has been denied access to the campus because of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.

Tico Almeida, the writer of the article is naive if he thinks allowing ROTC back on campus will create a change in the military’s attitude towards gay members. That battle will not be won easily, and it will not be won with the military wanting to be inclusive. The military will go kicking and screaming to prevent gays from serving openly in the military, even to the point of discharging people who are vitally needed to the operation of a mission.

I’ve written on this extensively:
12/10/2003 - Army’s policy on gays catches DLI linguists
12/03/2003 - How ’Don’t Tell’ Translates
09/21/2003 - The stupidity of ’don’t ask, don’t tell’
04/16/2003 - Military Gay Linguist Firings Escalate
11/29/2002 - A letter I sent to President Bush this morning
11/27/2002 - Is Osama Less of a Threat to U.S. Than Gays?

So I guess you could say that I have a passionate view on the topic. The policy is wrong, and it should go. It would be equally wrong for Yale to allow the military recruiters on it’s campus. Yale would be giving a nod of approval to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, by doing that.

In the long run, I also suspect that more interaction between the military and our nation’s top-ranked universities -- all of which have shown strong institutional support for gay equality -- would contribute to the demise of the military’s immoral policy of discrimination. (emphasis is mine)

WRONG. The military is not going to change the way it does things until they are told to do so by their commanding officer. That is the President of the United States, the same man has said that he wants an amendment to the Constitution making it impossible for gay couples to achieve marriage. How do you think he feels about allowing gay soldiers to be open (not lie) about themselves?

If anything has gotten the attention of the government, it is a recent ruling by a Federal Appeals Court that came down in favor of a lawsuit allowing academic institutions to bar military recruiters from recruiting on their campuses. Up to that time, schools who prohibited recruiters on their campuses were told that if they didn’t allow the recruiters they would lose all their federal funding. Does that sound like they are willing to meet us half way?

Moreover, the opinions of military personnel are beginning to match those of the American public. For the first time in American history, 50 percent of junior enlisted service members say that gays should be allowed to serve openly, according to the University of Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Survey. However, their officer counterparts are more conservative on this issue, and those officers are the ones who work with Congress to set policy. This is exactly why progressives should be fighting to bring ROTC chapters to all of the campuses with a current ban. All of these universities are top-ranked in both academic quality and support for gay rights, and we should want more graduates of such institutions joining the military and serving as officers. (emphasis is mine)

Education has nothing to do with why the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy is in place. It has to do with simple bigotry that results from the perceived lack of comfort level of the commanding officers (not necessarily the troops themselves). That is what makes this policy continue year after year. Do you think the gay linguists that were discharged from the military were discharged because they were not educated? Do you think they were discharged because they were not needed? No. They were discharged because they were gay. That’s all.

You can not fight an injustice by doing an injustice. Yale doesn’t allow the recruiters on campus because they have taken a stance that bigotry based on sexual orientation is wrong. If they allow recruiters on campus, it will be sending the message that it’s ok for the military to continue Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We’ve lost too many good soldiers to this stupid archaic policy. Caving in to let other people catch up with the rest of the “progressives” is not the answer. We must show that bigotry is wrong, every time.

It’s the same argument with gay marriage. We are told that we are going “too fast”, and to “slow down”, to let everyone catch up. Well, while everyone is “catching up” and getting “more comfortable” with gay people, people’s military careers are being ruined for absolutely no good reason.

It looks as though Oregon will be one of the next states to deal with equality for gay citizens. Last November, Oregon was one of the states where voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage.

That was bad enough, but now, the same group who spearheaded that effort are now going to try to block legislation that would prevent gay citizens from being fired for being gay, harassed on the job for being gay, denied housing for being gay, and denied access to public accommodations for being gay.

As someone who has been fired for being a homosexual, I can tell you it’s not pretty. At the time, I had no recourse for the action. I had to just walk away. I was not “out” to anyone and kept a very low profile. A female supervisor was trying to get me to sleep with her. It was all very strange to me. We worked the night shift together and would get off at 2:00 in the morning. She would have me drive her home after work (it was not something I wanted to do or had a choice in - she told me it was a “condition of the job”), and wanted me to have sex with her on her front lawn as her husband was asleep upstairs. I told Kent about it because she was totally serious about it and I didn’t know what to do.

She was persistent and when I refused time and time again, she asked me if I was “gay or something”. I said nothing. She said, “That’s it, isn’t it? You are gay!”. I got up and walked away.

The next thing I know, no one is speaking with me. The attitudes of my coworkers had changed. Within a week, I was called into her supervisor’s office and asked why I wasn’t being a “team player”. I told him what was going on. He said to me, “Well, whatever else is going on between you and Sue (not her real name), we don’t hire faggots here. Get your things and get out. We’ll mail you your pay.”

That was that. I had no way to complain because what he did was absolutely legal. That happened at San Francisco International Airport, before laws were put into place to stop it.

Now, it’s the same thing in Oregon. And my question is this: Why are we viewed as so damn “anti-family” by groups such as the Oregon Family Council and the Defense of Marriage Coalition? I have friends, dear friends, who have children. I wish them no harm and threaten them in no way. I just want equality for MY FAMILY. That’s all. And I still don’t understand, after all these years, how my getting fired from my job for being a homosexual has strengthened the American family.

The group that led the effort to ban gay marriage in Oregon in November's election has a new target: Gov. Ted Kulongoski's bid to extend antidiscrimination protections to homosexuals.

Kulongoski, in his Jan. 10 State of the State address, listed as a high priority winning passage of a statewide ban on discrimination against gay people in employment, housing and public accommodations.

Tim Nashif, the leader of the Oregon Family Council and the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said that he and his supporters will turn their attention to scuttling the governor's bill in the 2005 Legislature. (source)

NEWARK, N.J. - A gay, disabled veteran in Montclair claims he is being denied a property tax break because he owns his home with his longtime partner, not a wife.

New Jersey law lets disabled veterans seek exemptions from local property taxes.

A judge in tax court questioned attorneys Thursday, but it was not clear when a decision in the case would be made.

Louis Hennefeld, who is considered 100 percent disabled, jointly owns a house with Blair O'Dell. After living together since 1975, they established a Vermont civil union in 2000 and married in 2003 in Canada. That nation recognizes gay marriage. (source)

The Human Rights Campaign started running this ad in the DC metro area this week to coincide with President Bush's Inauguration today.

I’m guessing they want to demonstrate that they can be tough on Bush after all those post-election news stories that indicated they were willing to kiss his ass on demand.

HRC has been in damage control since then. This is the largest gay-lobbying group in the country. They shouldn’t be helping Bush destroy Social Security and they shouldn’t be attacking him just to prove they can.

It’s time to engage the American people. They should be telling America our stories by demonstrating how current laws hurt gay couples and their children. Attacking Bush will not win anyone over. Telling our stories will. (source)

...and I’ve been engaging the American People for most of my life and trying to get them to understand. I’ve tried to tell people what is happening in the America we all live in today. Where has it gotten me?

I have tried to appeal to the kindness and understanding of people in hopes that they will understand, despite our differences, the basic concept of equality. They do not, because 90% of the American People are still not willing to put aside homophobia and give equality a chance.

Even Governor Jody Rell, from my own somewhat liberal state of Connecticut said that she doesn’t see the need for marriage equality for gays. She doesn’t even see the need for civil unions, citing that she’s “old fashioned”.

Well, in the old fashioned days of America, people were discriminated against widely, blacks were lynched and enslaved, segregation was the law of the land, and gays were murdered with no consequences.

I guess I can keep trying for the twenty or so years I have left of my life, but up to this point, asking for equality hasn’t worked.

State high court’s ruling puts in doubt an antisodomy law some say is used to target gays.

RICHMOND, Va. - The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday struck down an archaic and rarely enforced state law prohibiting sex between unmarried people.

The unanimous ruling strongly suggests that a separate antisodomy law in Virginia also is unconstitutional, although that statute is not directly affected. The justices based their ruling on a U.S. Supreme Court decision voiding an antisodomy law in Texas.

“This case directly affects only the fornication law but makes it absolutely clear how the court would rule were the sodomy law before it,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Virginia.

Virginia’s antisodomy law prohibits oral and anal sex even for married couples, but gay rights advocates say the statute is only used to target homosexuals. Legislators for years have rejected efforts to repeal the law. They left it on the books again last year even after the decision in the Texas case held that such laws were unconstitutional. (source)

Now that’s a very sobering thought. I guess that means that gays will have some rights.... here and there.... from state to state.... that can be taken away.... at any given point in time???

Suddenly, the phrase “tyranny of the majority” has a lot more meaning to me.

Source

The Illinois House on Tuesday passed a bill that bans discrimination against gays and sent it to Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who has said he supports the measure. [...]

Opponents argued it would lead to approval of gay marriage and allow cross-dressers to use rest rooms of the opposite sex. (source)

Huh??

The Florida gay adoption ban is an old fight that has been going on for years, ever since the days of Anita Bryant, back in 1977. It was the same Anita Bryant who fought to repeal a gay rights ordinance adopted by Dade County (and the same Anita Bryant who later divorced her husband, go figure. Apparently, religious beliefs only apply when they are convenient).

Curtis Peterson, the state senator who sponsored the adoption ban said at the time that its purpose was to send a message to gay people that “we’re really tired of you” and “we wish you’d go back into the closet.”

Well, that’s not going to ever happen. Things in this country may get worse for gay people and many may opt to move to a more progressive place to live, be it another state, or another country. But one thing that 99.9% of us will never do is to go back into the closet, because the closet is death to life. There is no going back from freedom.

The people who really lost out in this case are the children who will not have the support services of adopted children. There will still be gay people and gay couples with children in Florida, but for the sake of any benefits they may receive from being legally adopted, they won’t receive them. It will be them who will suffer.

Another site that I was reading goes into further detail on this.

Is this what Florida really had in mind?

In a setback for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a challenge to a Florida law that prohibits homosexuals from adopting children.

Florida’s is the only such statute in the country, and the prohibition is the only categorical adoption ban on the state’s books. Florida evaluates adoption applications from all other would-be adoptive parents, including those who have failed at previous adoptions and those with a history of drug abuse or domestic violence.

Conservative groups whose recent focus has been on blocking same-sex marriages cheered the decision. It “sends a huge message that the court is not going to be open to a broad-based homosexual agenda,” Mathew Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Fla., told the Associated Press. Other states, he said, should start considering similar laws. [...]

Although Florida’s adoption laws once contained a preference for married couples, the state repealed that provision in 2003. One-quarter of the adoptions in the state are by single people. (source)

It looks as if the Fred Phelps group is at it again. Last November, the Topeka City Council narrowly approved an ordinance prohibiting bias in city hiring or employment based on sexual orientation. Many were disappointed in the ordinance and hoped that the council would enact a broader ordinance against discrimination in housing and accommodations.

Now that it passed, some in the community are trying to not only roll it back but will try to prevent council members from passing a similar one in the future.

TOPEKA, Kan. - Less than two months after the Topeka City Council approved an ordinance banning discrimination against homosexuals in city hiring, opponents have collected enough signatures to force the city to either rescind the ordinance or put it to a citywide vote. [...]

Petitioners filed the signatures for review by the elections office on Dec. 15. Shirley Phelps-Roper, a member of Westboro Baptist Church, which spearheaded the petition drive, said the petitions contained 6,333 names. The central Topeka church, led by the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr., pickets across the nation, carrying signs with slogans such as, “God hates fags.” [...]

If approved, the measure would not only rescind the ordinance but try to prevent council members from passing a similar one in the future. [...]

Councilwoman Tiffany Muller, who helped sponsor the original measure, said she hoped voters would learn more about the measure before casting their ballots. She said many people who signed the petition didn’t understand what it did and said they were tricked into signing it.

County Election Commissioner Elizabeth Ensley said 64 people asked that their names be removed from the petition after it was submitted. (source)