General: April 2005 Archives

The more I hear about the inside story at Microsoft, the worse it gets. Now, it appears that social conservative Ralph Reed is being paid $20,000 a month as a consultant for Microsoft. Reed has close ties to the White House and evangelist Pat Robertson.

It’s starting to look to me that Microsoft is trying to take cover on this issue. They want to look like they are progressive. They want to look like they are supportive of the vast diversity of their employees. But you know what? When all is said and done, you are judged by the actions you take. Microsoft made a conscious decision to withdraw support for a bill that would have protected people from being fired for being gay.

What does that tell you about Microsoft? What does it tell you about the commitment of Microsoft and Bill Gates to the principles of fairness and equality?

In my book, not a hell of a lot.

Related Entries
April 22, 2005 - Microsoft under fire for reversal on gay rights bill
April 26, 2005 - Microsoft may rethink position on gay-rights bill

WASHINGTON -- Microsoft Corp. is paying social conservative Ralph Reed $20,000 a month as a consultant, triggering complaints that the well-connected Republican with close ties to the White House and to evangelist Pat Robertson may have persuaded the company to oppose gay rights legislation.

Reed, who got his start in politics by running the Christian Coalition for Robertson and who had a senior role in President Bush’s 2004 campaign, is a leading figure in the social conservative movement that spearheaded opposition to gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, gambling and other issues.

Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said the company has hired Reed on several occasions to provide advice on “trade and competition issues.” He said Reed’s relationship as a consultant with the software company extends back “several years.”

Reed’s history with Microsoft, coupled with Microsoft’s reversal on a gay rights bill for the state, unleashed a vocal backlash against the company yesterday. The bill, which would have made it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in housing, employment and insurance, failed in the state Senate last week by a single vote. Supporters said that Microsoft’s shift tipped the scales. (source)

Too damn late, Microsoft. The bill died with a one vote loss in the Senate. This was the first year the Washington State gay rights bill made it out of the House. It died in the Senate by one vote. This is also the THIRD DECADE that they’ve been trying to give equal rights in hiring, housing, and state services to gay citizens in the state of Washington.

Microsoft, it would have been nice to have your support. Now that the bill is dead, it’s easy to sit back and say, “Next time this one comes around, we’ll see”. And for the record, you will never convince me that you didn’t cave in to pressure. Shame on you.

Related Entries
April 22, 2005 - Microsoft under fire for reversal on gay rights bill
April 27, 2005 - Microsoft's Ties to the Radical Right

Microsoft may re-evaluate whether to support state legislation that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians, Chairman Bill Gates said yesterday.

Gates said Microsoft was surprised by the sharp reaction after it became known that the company took a neutral position on the perennial measure this year, after actively supporting it in previous years.

“Next time this one comes around, we’ll see,” he said. “We certainly have a lot of employees who sent us mail. Next time it comes around that’ll be a major factor for us to take into consideration.” (source)

The following was posted in a South Carolina newspaper online this morning. While we were having bagels at our favorite babel place this morning, I read the same article. From looking on the Internet, it would appear that it is being printed in many papers all over the nation.

What’s important - what me must continuously keep telling ourselves, is that these issues are being talked about, and not swept under the carpet. We are a minority in this country, yet our issues are being talked about big time. Agreeably, they are not always discussed in a positive light. But, bigotry has to openly surface to be addressed. Only then, can we see change start to happen.

The fact that these issues are being discussed will open people’s minds more than anything else. Just look at what is happening in Texas with the gay adoptions. Just a year ago, I doubt that would have been an issue for the GOP.

Gay and lesbian activists are tearful in Washington state, joyful in Connecticut and angry in Texas after a series of legislative votes that reflect America’s tumultuous, seesaw debate over whether to broaden or narrow their rights.

Connecticut, in a historic step last week, became the first state to approve marriage-like civil unions for same-sex couples without the prodding of a court order. The same day, however, the Texas House voted to bar gays from being foster parents; the next day, the Washington Senate defeated a major gay civil-rights bill.

In Alabama, meanwhile, lawmakers considered a bill aimed at keeping books tolerant of homosexuality out of public schools. A despondent lesbian activist, Patricia Todd, told a House committee: “I feel you all hate us.” (source)

You see! When fair-minded people get involved, they can make a difference, even in a very conservative state such as Texas.

Don’t ever feel that you have no power!!

My original post on this.

Leading Republicans in Texas are distancing themselves from a proposal to make the state the only one to prohibit gays and lesbians from being foster parents. It appears the plan will die without becoming law.

The Texas House approved the plan last week, despite concerns that as many as 3,000 children could be removed from their homes. But amid a groundswell of anger and criticism, conservatives backed away from the proposal Friday. GOP leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, said the proposal is so flawed it could endanger a broader initiative to overhaul the Texas Child Protective Services agency. (source)

A gay and lesbian advocacy group that gave Microsoft Corp. a civil rights award four years ago has asked the company to give it back, blasting the software maker for withdrawing its support of a state bill that would have outlawed discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Darrel Cummings, chief of staff for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said in a statement yesterday that Microsoft appeared to have yielded to anti-gay extremists. [...]

Microsoft spokeswoman Tami Begasse insisted the company’s decision to remain neutral came before the legislative session began in January. “(Hutcherson) urged us to change our position from neutral to negative, but we declined,” Begasse said.

In a story published yesterday, The New York Times reported that the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ed Murray, said Microsoft’s top lawyer told him last month that the company was feeling pressure from Hutcherson and was concerned how its Christian employees might react if it supported the bill. Messages left with Hutcherson and Murray were not returned yesterday. (source)

So, in other words, Microsoft is lying to get out of this dilemma. I would rather they just came out and said, “We caved in to a religious bigot and said to our gay employees and gay customers, ‘go to hell’.” At least then I’d have more respect for them.

In the Business and Technology section of the Seattle Times, I read this interesting assessment.

John Aravosis, who has been covering the issue on his Web log after the news of Microsoft withdrawing support was broken by local alternative newsweekly The Stranger, said some people still remember a boycott organized by gays and lesbians against Coors beer in the late 1970s. The boycott reportedly stemmed from Coors’ moves to screen out prospective employees who were gay.

Although the company has changed its policies and worked hard to mend fences, memories of the boycott remain.

“For 30 years they’ve had to fight that spot on their name,” Aravosis said. “You don’t get away from that stuff. That’s the danger [Microsoft] has in the long term.”

But Steve Rubel, a public-relations consultant who tracks the impact of blogs on his industry, said he thinks Microsoft’s actions could have long-term impact only among people who feel strongly about gay and lesbian issues.

The bill is a localized issue and may not get the national or international attention of other controversies, he said.

“The people who are passionate about this subject, whether they’re pro or con, will be vocal about it,” he said. “Until they find something else to write about.” (source)

Probably true. Bloggers like myself will not keep writing about this. I will go on to other issues and talk about them.

But for some one who is a “public-relations consultant who tracks the impact of blogs on his industry” to suggest that the impact of Microsoft’s actions will not be so significant over time because we (bloggers) will “find something else to write about”, really shows that he doesn’t fully understand how things work on the Internet.

You see, all I have to do as a blogger is to make my opinions on any given subject clear in my blog. The search engines that index this data will do the rest. I don’t have to keep talking about it. In time, when someone types in a search phrase such as “Microsoft job opportunity fairness” or “Microsoft gay rights”, my opinions, along with many others, will pop up with the freshness that they were written just yesterday. They become a matter of record long after the newspapers have stopped talking about them and long after they are available online from the newspapers.

It’s a beautiful thing.

The Microsoft Corporation, at the forefront of corporate gay rights for decades, is coming under fire from gay rights groups, politicians and its own employees for withdrawing its support for a state bill that would have barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Many of the critics accused the company of bowing to pressure from a prominent evangelical church in Redmond, Wash., located a few blocks from Microsoft’s sprawling headquarters.

The bill, or similar versions of it, has been introduced repeatedly over three decades; it failed by one vote Thursday in the State Senate. Gay rights advocates denounced Microsoft, which had supported the bill for the last two years, for abandoning their cause. (source)

So today I’m sitting at my desk at work. My phone rings. I answer it. It’s a representative from Microsoft wanting to sell me a new “add on” product to a Microsoft package my company already owns. I’m the IT Manager for the company I work for.

I reply, “Why?” He starts to tell me about the product and what it will do... I interrupt with, “No. I want to know why!” He said, “I don’t understand.” I said, “Washington State has been trying to pass a gay rights bill for the last three decades. Yesterday, it lost by one vote. This after Microsoft withdrew it’s support for the bill. So, my question to you is, why. Why did Microsoft pull it’s support for the gay civil rights bill in Washington State and why should I, as a gay man, give you, a representative of Microsoft, time of day?”

He said, “Well, I don’t know what to say.” I said, “When you figure it out, you can call me back.” I hung up the phone.

Two hours later I get another phone call from Microsoft. They are having a web seminar that they felt I would be interested in participating in. I said, “Why?” You get the idea.

It’s a small world. I don’t live in Washington State. This bill would have added job protections for gay workers, and I do know something about that. I know what it feels like to be fired for being gay. At the time it happened, I felt degraded, useless, humiliated, and powerless.

Today, I got my power back!

Microsoft can go to hell.

Related Entries
April 26, 2005 - Microsoft may rethink position on gay-rights bill
April 27, 2005 - Microsoft's Ties to the Radical Right

The Washington State senate on Thursday rejected the gay civil rights bill by one vote, 25-24.

The legislation--a longtime goal of the state’s politically active gay community--appeared dead earlier this month when a senate majority sent it to the judiciary committee, where it was bottled up as a key deadline came and went. On Thursday, the senate narrowly approved a procedural move by Democrats to exempt the measure from the cutoff and allow it to come up for a vote. Senators also voted to pull the bill, House Bill 1515, from the judiciary committee so it could be debated by the full senate.

Senators on both sides of the aisle spoke passionately about the bill, which would have protected gay and lesbian citizens in housing, employment, and public accommodation.

Democratic senator Tim Sheldon, who originally supported the movement of the bill from committee to the floor, voted against the bill because he says there is a wide discrepancy of support for the legislation across the state. Democratic senator Adam Kline and many other Democrats say that the real discrepancy is that gay and lesbian citizens are not included in civil rights protection.

Meanwhile, Seattle’s The Stranger newspaper reported that software giant Microsoft last month withdrew its support for the house version of the gay rights bill after it caved to pressure from a suburban megachurch. (source)

Other Sources
Gay-rights bill falls 1 vote short of becoming state law

04/24/2005 - Follow-up Entry.

The Texas house of representatives passed a bill on Wednesday banning homosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals from being foster parents.

If the bill gains approval from the Texas senate, the state will be allowed to investigate the backgrounds of current foster parents and remove children living in non-heterosexual households.

All future foster parents will be required to disclose their sexual preference on an application form, a legislative aide said.

The move was denounced by local activists.

“More than 43,000 gay and lesbian couples in Texas are forming families and raising children, and this attack on LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered) Texans will tear apart our families and remove our children from loving, stable families,” the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Robert Talton (pictured above), who proposed the ban, said he no longer wished to discuss the issue. [...]

Talton’s amendment would require the state to ask a prospective foster parent if he or she is homosexual. Gays and lesbians would be eliminated from consideration, and foster children who live with gay parents would be removed from their homes. The measure would also allow the state to conduct investigations into a prospective or current foster parent’s sexual orientation.

Sources for this story:
News24.com
L.A. Time

It’s astonishing, isn’t it? Just imagine that if you became a foster parent, all of that could end. What’s next? Adoption? If adoption follows and you’ve legally adopted a child, would the child be removed from you? Sometimes, I really do feel like I’m living in some third world country that has no sense of human rights.

Bills introduced to the Montana legislature that were supported by gay rights advocates this season have been killed. One would have established a statewide next-of-kin registry. Another would have prohibited bullying based on many characteristics, including race, color, religion, and ancestry, as well as sexual orientation.

It’s unfortunate that these bills died, although I suppose it is understandable given that last November two thirds of Montana voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. A civil unions measure never made it out of committee.

With marriage or civil unions killed for gay couples, it is truly unfortunate that the “next-of-kin” bill died. This bill would have added powerful protections for gay couples in the absence of marriage or civil unions such as hospital visitation, medical decisions, and receipt of the body after death.

These life and death decisions have more to do with common decency and less to do with sexual orientation.

The Montana legislature voted down several bills supported by gay rights advocates this session. Though none survived, Democratic senator Ken Tootle said gay rights made the largest advance yet with three measures passing the senate before dying in the house.

Those measures would have established a statewide next-of-kin registry, added protection for gays to the Montana Human Rights Act, and implemented a statewide antibullying policy for schools. The political tide is slowly turning, Toole said. “We understand this to be a 15- to 20-year process,” he said. “All civil rights issues traditionally have taken a long time.” [...]

The bill to create a next-of-kin registry failed as well. The measure would have created a statewide registry where any Montana resident could designate his or her legal next of kin for the purposes of hospital visitation, medical decisions, and receipt of the body after death. Gay rights advocates frequently voice concerns that gays and lesbians are not allowed to visit their partners in hospitals or make important end-of-life decisions. (AP) (source)

I received the following email this morning. I'm posting it here to get the word out.

Action Alert:

Civil Unions Today - Equal Dignity Tomorrow!

Marriage Equality Action (simultaneous to Family Institute Anti-Equality Rally)

Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 1:00 -- 3:30 PM

CT State Capitol, South Side (overlooking Capitol Avenue) featuring speeches, songs, and A Gay Wedding at 2:00 PM with marriage licenses for same-gender couples!

Celebrate the Marriage Equality Future We Seek Today!

Sponsored by the CT Marriage Equality Coalition

Background:

The Family Institute of CT/ACTION is planning to bring 25,000 people to our Capitol to oppose Marriage for Same-Gender Couples.

Join the CT Marriage Equality Coalition as we celebrate the de facto (but legally unrecognized) marriages of same-gender couples.

To Register as a Couple or to Add your Organization as a Co-sponsor, or to Register to carpool, go to www.ctEQUALITY.org, click on the Contact Us link, and use the form provided.

This is a bit close to home. South Windsor is a neighboring town from where I live. Yesterday, four students wore shirts that said “Adam & Even NOT Adam and Steve”. At first everything went ok until they were confronted by other students during a class. The four students were sent home.

They felt that was unfair because on Tuesday of the same week, the gay straight alliance at the school had a rally at the school. Apparently, the gay-straight alliance had signs that read, “Come out, come out wherever you are.”

These four students feel that they were unfairly singled out because they were asked to remove their T-shirts (which the didn’t do), or ordered to go home. They said that members of the gay-straight alliance were not asked to leave the school. I can see a lawsuit brewing here.

It’s a difficult thing - free speech. Personally, I want to say that what happened was just because they were carrying messages that many view as being intolerant and hateful in nature. I don’t believe that is something that belongs at a school. I also feel that the four students who were asked to go home have a right to voice their views on this. Perhaps they didn’t choose the best way to do it. Perhaps they should have complained about the gay-straight alliance on Tuesday instead of voicing it in this fashion.

That’s the really difficult thing about free speech. It isn’t easy. You have to be willing to defend someone’s right to voice their opinion, even if you find that opinion to be repugnant.

They should have the right to voice their opinion, but I agree with the school in sending them home since it was starting to cause problems in the classroom. The safety of the students much come first.

It there was a way for them to voice their opinion in a safe and respectful way last Tuesday, I think it would have been awesome for the school to facilitate a discussion on that. School is about learning and more times than not on emotionally charged issues such as this, people end up shouting at each other and no one really listens.

As a final note... If those four students really wanted to understand the other side and to put into context the issues they have with gays, perhaps they should attend a few meetings of the gay-straight alliance. It could be a valuable lesson to them to hear what fellow students go through who happen to be gay. Then, if they still feel the way they do now, at least it will be more informed.

Some students in South Windsor don’t agree with gay marriage and they sported t-shirts showing others how they feel. But when they wore those shirts to school, the trouble really started.

Because of their religious convictions they believe gay marriage is wrong. So four students at the South Windsor High School wore t-shirts saying “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

“We wore them to protest a gay straight alliance rally that they had on Tuesday where they wore signs,” said sophomore David Grimaldi. “They had things that said come out, come out where ever you are.” [...]

The principal says it interfered with learning, but Grimaldi and his friends say it wasn’t their fault. Grimaldi says they didn’t protest or yell when students from the gay straight alliance wore offensive signs.

“I was being yelled at and I was being called names I didn’t appreciate, and profanities were being yelled at me and I was very upset,” Shinfield said.

“School is a place that’s supposed to be a safe zone. it’s a time to learn, not to create controversy,” says another male student. (source)

There are so many times that, as a minority, we work against ourselves. Many times, it’s not that we don’t realize it. It’s that we just don’t care. For example, if we want to go on vacation, and we want to go to a vacation spot that just happens to be located in a state that is very repressive to our community, many of us will say, “What the hell... it’s just this one time.”, and you will go anyway.

It’s important for all of us to realize that when we do this, we actually are hurting ourselves. We are supporting discrimination. It’s like being beaten up by a gay basher, then turning around and paying him for doing that to you. That’s an extreme case, but it is valid. It’s valid because if you contribute money to something (a state or organization) that works against our community, you are donating money to their cause. And money, my friends = POWER.

So this morning, I’m going through my morning email. I spot an invitation to a technical conference on programming. It sounds interesting to me and is one that I may have considered going to. I had been to their conferences before and thought they were very well done. The only problem is, the conference takes place in Kansas City, Missouri. Missouri is one of the states that approved a state constitutional ban on gay marriage in the 2004 elections. So right then and there, that conference was killed for me.

But I didn’t just dismiss it and let it to. I sent the following reply to the organizers of the conference because it’s important for them to know why people don’t attend. There is a price tag to prejudice. They should know that.

I actually would very much like to attend the conference you are offering in Missouri.

However, because of the current political climate in Missouri, with the voters approving a ban on equal marriage rights for gay people, I don’t feel that I can in clear conscience attend your conference.

I’ve attended some of your workshops in the past and have found them to be very good. However, I will not support bigotry in any form and if I were to attend your conference, no doubt some of the proceeds would go to Kansas City or the State of Missouri.

Perhaps at your next conference, you would take this into consideration? One would hope.

Sincerely...

Bottom line: MAKE YOUR MONEY WORK FOR YOU. Next time you plan that vacation, do a little research and find out their feelings on these issues. You may just be working against yourself.

Well, the good news is that the Connecticut Civil Union bill passed overwhelmingly in the Senate on Wednesday.

The bad news is that the bill will be going back to the Planning and Development Committee. At every stop our opponents attempt to amend it with a so-called “Defense of Marriage Amendment” (DOMA) that would limit marriage as ONLY between one man and one woman. They want to do this so that in the future, we will be blocked from ever achieving full marriage equality.

I have written a personal letter to my senator since he was one of the 9 senators who voted for the DOMA the first time around. I posted my letter to him. It won’t make a difference - he won’t change his mind.

On top of this, Governor M. Jodi Rell has stated that she may not sign the Civil Union bill if the DOMA isn’t part of it. Right now, Connecticut is ONE of only NINE states that does not have a DOMA. In a couple of weeks, we may have one.

This is really getting me down. Why can’t they just let us have the dignity of basic equality? I’m so tired of this already.

They are going to do whatever it is they want to do. There’s really nothing I can do about it at this point. I’m going to do yard work this weekend. At least when I’m doing that, inequality doesn’t matter - unless the next bill says that gay couples can’t own property together. Honestly, nothing would surprise me anymore.

An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that’s bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.

“I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open,” Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. “But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it’s just not worth it.”

Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May.

He is believed to be the first gay soldier wounded in Iraq to publicly discuss his sexuality, said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

“We can’t keep hiding the fact that there’s gay people in the military and they aren’t causing any harm,” said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany.

Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is gay, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31.

“The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong,” Stout said. “They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military.” (source)

Follow-up Entry
June 1, 2005 - Wounded Gay Soldier Discharged From Army

That’s going to be the exact question posted to voters in Maine on November 8, 2005 if the Maine Christian Civic League have their way. But think about that question.

“Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?”

Now, imagine what it would be like to be gay. Then imagine that you are trying to get a job that you are qualified for. Imagine that you are turned down because your new prospective employer isn’t comfortable with gay people.

Imagine that you are moving into a new apartment but your application is turned down because you are gay.

Imagine that you are denied a loan because you are gay.

All of this used to be the case before Maine passed a law that made this practice illegal. Housing, credit, education, employment... these are all things that we all need for health and happiness. So, back to the question at hand. What “Christian” could possibly endorse taking that protection away.

And, how can they even look in the mirror after being so crass as to word the referendum question in that fashion; “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination...”?

It amazes me how much caring and concern some in our society have for others. You know, I’m not straight, but if the tables were turned, I’d be the first to stand up against someone who was trying to discriminate against a straight person on something like a place to live.

A proposal to repeal Maine’s newly enacted gay rights legislation is ready for circulation by petitioners opposed to the pending law, state elections officials indicated Wednesday.

If anti-gay rights referendum organizers gather sufficient petition signatures by June 28, statewide voters would be asked: “Do you want to reject the new law that would protect people from discrimination in employment, housing, education, public accommodations and credit based on their sexual orientation?”

Deputy Secretary of State Julie Flynn wrote to Michael Heath, executive director of the Maine Christian Civic League, on Wednesday, detailing the ballot question language being suggested. Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the group has accepted the wording of the question.

Source: Maine Approves Wording For Gay Rights Law Repeal Question

With all the states passing constitutional bans on gay marriage, and many states still allowing gay people to be fired from their jobs just for being gay.....

All of this leaves me wondering. Are we are ever going to win anything? Will things get better for us? I’m getting to where I can’t stand my own country, and I hate that.

Discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion has long been illegal in Washington state -- but for gay people, the wait for equal protection continues.

Senate Republicans thwarted civil rights legislation for gays and lesbians yesterday by sending the bill back to a committee where it is likely to die without forcing them to take a potentially damaging opposition vote. The House passed the bill in February on a 61-37 vote.

Though Democrats said the bill was not dead and vowed to revive it, the move was a major setback for the effort to outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, adamantly condemned the move.

“The Republicans locked up on behalf of discrimination,” Brown said. “With all the issues we have to deal with this session -- transportation, the economy, education -- this is their big stand? It should be an embarrassment to them.”

Brown said moving the bill to another committee is “essentially a vote to perpetuate in Washington state the perspective that it’s OK to discriminate by a landlord or an employer or a banker.” (source)

California’s sweeping domestic partner law was upheld today by a panel of judges on the state Appeals Court.

Two conservative groups opposing the law, which went into effect in January, sought to have it declared unconstitutional because it gave same-sex couples the most of the rights of marriage.

The appeals court said, “Contrary to petitioners’ suggestion, the Legislature has not created a ‘marriage’ by another name or granted domestic partners a status equivalent to married spouses.”

Two weeks ago, during arguments in the case, Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund argued that the law violated Proposition 22 which effectively bans same-sex marriage. (story) [...]

The law does not allow for joint filing for state taxes and certain other protections under state law. It also does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy. (source)

A former official of the Boy Scouts of America is facing up to 20 years in prison after pleading guilty Wednesday to charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.

Douglas Sovereign Smith Jr., 61, was accused of receiving images over the Internet of children engaging in sex acts. [...]

Smith was a national program director and had been with the Boy Scouts for 39 years. One of his duties was leading a task force protecting youth from sexual abuse. [...]

Smith has been an ardent supporter of the BSA’s ban on gays serving as scout leaders.

Last fall Smith wrote a letter to a legal magazine criticizing opponents of the gay ban. (source)

I hesitate to say anything about this, because there are many in society who can’t seem to differentiate between being a gay man and being a pedophile. It’s true. Many people still think this. Take, for example, my new next door neighbor. It was six months before I went over to introduce myself to him. I kept telling Kent that we should do our part to welcome his family to the neighborhood, since our other neighbors had. I could see his children playing with other kids in the neighborhood.

So, I took a nice bottle of Merlot over to him. I did this because I received by mistake a wine catalog with their address on it in my mailbox. It seems that we have a mail carrier who can’t seem to get the addresses right at times. So I knew that they enjoyed wine.

I entered their yard. He was out working in the yard and his kids were there. There were three of them ranging from 3-7 years old, I would say. I walked up to him to give him the wine, and he pulled his kids in behind him. I thought it was a bit strange at the time. But what really gave me the creeps was how he looked at me, as though he had complete contempt for me. He took the bottle of wine and said “thanks” in a cold, distant way.

I started backup up away from him because something inside me told me not to take my eyes off him. I got back home and Kent asked how it went. I said, “Very strange”. I was unsettled by the whole thing.

Does he think I’m a sexual predator? I don’t know. I just found it really weird that he would pull his kids in behind him and look at me in that fashion.

On the Boy Scouts, I think it is terrible that one of their administrators was protecting the policy of banning gay men from the organization, while he was molesting boys. He is a child molester. I don’t know if he is gay or not. Yet some won’t see the difference and will say, “See! This is why we keep gays out of the Boy Scouts.” I know that argument is coming.

And this from Utah...

Utah State University’s attorney has concluded that Amendment 3, banning gay marriage, likely prohibits extending the Logan school’s medical benefits to same-sex couples.

Amendment 3 likely would override any potential same-sex benefit action by state institutions, said USU general counsel Craig Simper. [...]

“Policies are binding,” said anthropology professor Pat Lambert, who helped create the current benefits proposal. “What does it mean when a university doesn’t stand by its policy?” she said.

Lambert said she believes benefits are part of the employee’s salary.

“If we’re not offering equal compensation to all our employees, then we’re not treating everyone equally,” she said. “This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.”

Offering same-sex benefits is a national trend, with many universities and Fortune 500 companies offering same-sex benefits, she said.

A state lawmaker from northeast Ohio says he’ll introduce a bill this week to close a perceived loophole in the domestic-violence law created by the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Democratic state Representative William Healy of Canton says his bill would define domestic violence as an act committed when individuals reside together, regardless of marital status.

State judges have issued differing rulings recently on whether the amendment bars prosecutors from charging unmarried people with domestic violence. Two Ohio judges have issued differing rulings in the past week on that issue.

A Franklin County judge on Friday decided against dismissing a domestic violence case, disagreeing with arguments that the law doesn’t apply to unmarried couples. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman said Wednesday that domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of the state’s recently enacted definition of marriage. [...]

However, the change in the law will only affect heterosexuals in non married relationships. The domestic abuse law will not apply to same-sex couples because of the constitutional amendment.(source)

You get to a point in all of this that you wonder just how many mean spirited people there are in positions of power. Democratic state Representative William Healy’s bill (H.B. 161) is in response to a domestic violence charge (a felony) being reduced to a misdemeanor.

Even though the case involved a heterosexual couple, the judge dismissed the charge because of Issue 1, the Ohio constitutional amendment that prevents unmarried couples from having the protections of marriage.

Healy’s bill would close that loophole, but only for heterosexual couples.