General: October 2005 Archives

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Overturning a lower court ruling, the state high court said barring benefits for state and city employees’ same-sex partners violates the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection clause. [...]

Anchorage city attorney Fred Boness said city officials would not appeal the court’s decision.

But Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski was “outraged” by the ruling and directed the attorney general’s office to determine the best way to overturn it, said his spokeswoman, Becky Hultberg. [...]

Nine gay or lesbian government workers and their partners in 2002 joined the Alaska American Civil Liberties Union in appealing the lower court ruling. The case stems from a 1999 lawsuit filed against the state and the Municipality of Anchorage after voters passed a constitutional amendment blocking state recognition of gay marriage.

In the 2001 Superior Court ruling overturned Friday, Judge Stephanie Joannides said the state and city did not have to extend benefits to same-sex couples, equating them with unmarried heterosexual couples who also are not eligible.

The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot. (source)

It’s just basics really and is all summed up in that one phrase: “The high court said that comparison failed to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual couples can choose to get married, while homosexual couples cannot.” And of course, all of this would be a mute point if we could legally get married.

It’s amazing to me all the legal challenging that is going on to achieve equality. It’s not like the country hasn’t gone through this sort of thing before. But America’s memory is a short one. We’ve been through this before with African Americans. I know, African Americans say that there is no comparison to their struggle, their’s being much worse than ours. It’s true. There are differences, but there are also some alarming similarities. I don’t know, you tell me which is worse. African Americans at one point had to sit in the back of the bus. We can ride in the bus - we never had that challenge, but let me put this real life case before you. A partner of a gay couple ends up in the hospital in a serious condition. The hospital refused to let him in to see his partner until his partner’s brother showed up six hours later to tell the hospital that it was ok for his partner to be let in to see his partner. But, it was too late. His partner died two hours before. He never got to say goodbye to his partner.

Heart wrenching isn’t it? And, opponents of equality for us will call it rubbish. The only problem is, it’s a real story. So, I suppose that African Americans were never restricted from hospital visitation, but they did have to sit in the back of the bus. I don’t know which is worse, but the one question that I have is this. Does it really matter who suffered more? Equality, or the lack of it, is, in the end, a very simple matter. You either have equality, or you don’t.

Alaska, I’m happy to see, is starting to understand that. The Governor and right wing politicians in Alaska are quite another thing. This is what is happening to overturn that ruling.

State Sen. Fred Dyson, R-Eagle River, said Monday that he plans to draft legislation that would not require the state to extend the rights and benefits given to married couples to “any other union, partnership or legal status.” He said he would draft the legislation on similar amendments passed in other states.

Dyson said the Supreme Court is out of touch with Alaskans, who approved a 1998 amendment to the state constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

“The people of Alaska voted well over 70 percent for the definition of marriage. All we would be doing here is making it possible for the will of the people to persevere,” Dyson said. [...]

House and Senate Democrats were noncommittal Monday about the possible constitutional amendment. Senate Minority Leader Johnny Ellis, D-Anchorage, released a one-sentence statement through the Democrats’ press office that said: “We’ll be happy to listen to Sen. Dyson explain why health benefits for a handful of Alaskans creates a constitutional crisis.” (source)

Maybe we won’t be taking that Alaskan vacation after all. We were talking just days ago about taking a cruise in Alaska. I don’t know if that will happen at this point.

The first TV advertisements of the campaign feature three people who testified about discrimination before the Legislature.

“The goal is to focus on what we believe the message of this campaign has been all along: Discrimination happens in Maine. Discrimination hurts real Maine people,” said Jesse Connelly, campaign manager for Maine Won’t Discriminate.

Maine Won’t Discriminate is leading a push to strike down a referendum aimed at repealing a gay rights law signed by Gov. John accidental in March.

Opponents collected enough signatures to force a statewide vote on the law, which expands the Maine Human Rights Act to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

The Nov. 8 election will mark the third statewide vote on the issue. Mainers rejected gay rights proposals in two previous campaigns. (source)

So this may be the fourth time that Maine says that it’s wok to fire people for being gay. It’s so strange. Maine is strange that way. The civil rights bill came before the legislature and the Governor, and has passed three times before, only to be voted down by the voters via a ballot referendum.

I suppose if I didn’t care, or if I were a shallow person, it would be wok for them to vote the bill down... and I would still go there for my vacations. But, I’m not. It’s an issue for me.

Years ago, I had in my hands a resume of someone who was very religious. I knew this because his resume was rich with references to his faith and his church activities. But he was applying for a job in technology. I realized that it would have been easy for me to dismiss him immediately without even granting him an interview, despite the fact that he had good qualifications. Within one minute of confronting this dilemma, I came to the only obvious conclusion I could; discrimination and bigotry in all it’s forms, is wrong.

I will not be a part of it and I will not support it. The man did not get an interview, but it had nothing to do with his church activities. There were many great applicants (over 100, as I recall), and I had to come up with 10 that I would interview. He didn’t make that grade based solely on his qualifications.

On the flip side of that, I don’t want to support any entity that practices discrimination. If Maine votes this down, people will suffer. The reason this law came into being is because of a need to address discrimination faced by gay, lesbian, and transgendered citizens living in Maine.

It saddens me. I may end up simply viewing my photos from past vacations to Maine, instead of going there again. We’ll see how this all pans out.

A federal judge has refused to allow Love In Action ministry, which counsels gay clients to turn straight, to continue treating people who are mentally ill and require prescription medication.

An injunction was sought against an order from the state Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities, which found that the group’s two Memphis facilities were controlling patients’ access to prescription medication and thus needed to be licensed as a mental health facility.

Love In Action International Inc. has sued the state to oppose being required to get a license. It claims that the facility did not restrict access to medication but kept it in a central location to prevent theft and tampering.

The ministry is being represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian legal organization. (source)

Other Sources
Love in Action files suit against state
Judge Nixes Ex-Gay Injunction

Mind control is mind control by any other name...

Hopefully, over time, people will see this for what it is, voodoo medicine. It is nothing more than mind control. What damage does it cause people who are constantly being taught that they can change their sexual orientation? In my opinion, if they can change or not is not really the hot issue, because I truly know they can’t. The really hot issue is how it will damage their mental well being and their ability to form long lasting relationships that have meaning.

Love in Action does nothing but put up a smoke screen of hope - their own brand of hope. They label homosexuality as this mental and spiritual prison that one must escape from in order to have salvation and/or happiness.

Ok. So you are gay. You go to Love in Action. They convince you that you are a straight guy who has gay tendencies that can be suppressed with weekly counseling from them (at a substantial cost, I might add - but this isn’t really about cost is it?). You finally get married (hey, it’s working! YAY!!!). That’s right, married! That happy day has come! A real marriage too because you are now, after all, a heterosexual, so you have access to marriage. All is good!

Six months later, your wife is pregnant. Nice. You have yet more to celebrate. Yet, under all this celebration, something is missing from your life. You don’t know what it is. You pray. You concentrate on work more, and family, and you consider going back into counseling at Love in Action or some other like-minded ministry, because you are starting to have “those feelings” again.

In the end, you end up cheating on your wife with some guy in an ally or a park, because that is after all, what society has set aside for the queers that Love in Action is trying to save you from. It’s a bit trashy and sleazy, but hey, that’s what they all said this “lifestyle” was about anyway, right? Yup, sleaze and disease. That’s their punchline.

The only problem is, as time goes on, it doesn’t hold water. Is it true that the only places that society set aside for us were sleazy back allys and dark parks at night to meet in? Well, yes, that is true. You could meet in a bar, but you also ran the risk of that bar being raided by the police. There used to simply be no place that gay people (they called them “queers” pretty much exclusively back then, and not in a good way) could safely congregate.

Today, people are out and proud. We have claimed our lives. We are standing up to the lies that organizations such as Love in Action and others are putting out. We have our own families and the threat to those families is not “the lifestyle” of homosexuality. The threat comes from organizations such as Love in Action who want to give gay kids a virtual lobotomy. But that is also changing. Just look at this ruling.

Also, the most unlikely people are opening up a bit more and seeing the larger issues of what we face as people. We are in the middle of some nasty culture wars at this time, such as what is about to happen in Texas. Hopefully, we will be seen as equals and treated as such.

Related Article
July 15, 2005 - Father Of Gay Teen Sent To ‘Ex-Gay’ Camp Comes Forward

Kansas cannot punish illegal underage sex more severely if it involves homosexual conduct, the state’s highest court ruled unanimously Friday in a case watched by national groups on both sides of the gay rights debate.

The Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling that a law that specified such harsher treatment and led to a 17-year prison sentence for an 18-year-old defendant “suggests animus toward teenagers who engage in homosexual sex.”

“Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate state interest,” said Justice Marla Luckert, writing for the high court.

The defendant, Matthew R. Limon, has been behind bars since he was convicted in 2000 of performing a sex act on a 14-year-old boy. Had one of them been a girl, the state’s “Romeo and Juliet” law would have dictated a maximum sentence of 15 months. (source)

I’ve been following this story for awhile now. I made three previous entries concerning it. This is a final update.

Previous Entries
December 3, 2003 - Appeal Begins For Teen Sentenced To Prison For Gay Sex
January 31, 2004 - Sterner penalty OK’d in same-sex relations
September 3, 2004 - ACLU again fights teen’s 17-year jail term

If Mr. Limon had been treated with equality, instead of the 17 year sentence that he received, he would have received 15 months.

The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that the double standard is unconstitutional.

The Kansas Supreme Court decided the clause, as applied to only heterosexuals, violated the equal protection clause.

That was based on a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas ruling a Texas law against gay adult sex unconstitutional.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline said the state high court ruling would lead to incest and “other less-than-desirable couplings” but said he probably won’t appeal. (source)

I guess that makes Kent and myself, along with other gay couples, “less-than-desirable couplings”? Some people seriously need to get a life and get out more.

At least Matthew can now get on with his life, and that’s the important thing.

But as long as we are talking about Kansas... I remember when we were bidding on a new mortgage for our home, the best rate came from a company located in Kansas. I tried to explain to the man why, even though he was giving us a better rate for the mortgage, I would not put my money into any institution that discriminated against people based on sexual orientation.

He kept telling me that they don’t, and can’t discriminate against anyone, by law. He said, “We don’t discriminate against anyone.” I asked him, “Does your state have a provision in state code that specifically states that people working for the state can’t be fired for being gay, or denied housing, or accommodations?” He had no idea what the hell I was talking about. I answer the question for him and told him that, although I thought he was very nice to work with, the state they are situated in is not very nice to people like me. I am simply returning the favor by taking my business elsewhere.

What goes around comes around. The world is a smaller place now. Companies in the individual states can do as they please. But people like me, who are paying attention and actually check the track record of the company I’m about to put money into (not a difficult task on the Internet), will pay for those decisions by not gaining my business. And if we’d all do that...

The law allows doctors in some instances to refuse treatment based on religious grounds, such as performing abortions or doing blood transfusions. Jennifer Pizer, a lawyer for Benitez, said that exemption does not apply in this case because the doctors singled out Benitez because of her sexual orientation. (source)

Would this even be an issue if gay couples in California had a real marriage? One has to wonder. When you have a second class legal recognition of your relationship by the state, is it so hard to believe that situations such as this don’t come up.

Do we ever hear of people in the court system refusing to grant married couples a divorce because it is against their religion? If that happens, I’ve never heard about it. Marriage is accepted. Also accepted are all the things, good and bad, that come with that acceptance.

Here, it seems that where “domestic partnerships” are concerned, they just don’t carry the same weight as a regular good old marriage. Thus, we have this lawsuit.

It makes you wonder, where “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” or whatever the state decides to call a union between two men or two women so they won’t have to call it marriage, how many more issues like this will arise? When tested, how much power will the Connecticut civil union really have?

That’s pretty scary. You enter into this legal arrangement thinking you are protected. Then, it’s challenged. It can be challenged because, unlike marriage, there is very little in case law to support it. So the rights that the civil union supposedly affords you in your state could be challenged.

Who the hell needs that in their life. I don’t want to live under the presumption of a protection that I may or may not have. The protection of marriage for Kent and me, will come into play at a time when one of us is sick or dying, or have been in an accident of some kind.

Will I show up at the hospital with my civil union certificate (I assume I will have to prove that we have a civil union, although heterosexual married people don’t seem to have to pass that test), only to be told that I can’t see him because it is against the religious beliefs of some moron in charge?

In my opinion, if your religion trumps the oath that you took when you became a doctor, you have no business practicing medicine.

Homosexual and lesbian unions under any arrangement does not, and never will, constitute a family. Simply put, no homosexual or lesbian union is ever appropriate; rather, it is utter perversity. A legitimate family, as ordained by God, can only exist between a man and a woman within the context of marriage. As a committed Christian, I recognize this as a bedrock principle. - Michigan State Senator Michael J. Goschka

(Saginaw, Michigan) State Sen. Michael J. Goschka brushed off an apology demand from a gay rights group upset by his description of unions between committed gay couples as “utter perversity.”

The Brant Township Republican voted Thursday with a majority of the Senate in favor of resolutions urging the Michigan Supreme Court to block public-sector employers, including state government, from providing health insurance to the partners of gay employees until the court makes a final ruling on the issue. (story)

In an e-mail sent to a constituent earlier in the week, Goschka invoked God and Christian principles as “bedrock” reasons for gays not to be covered by health insurance through a partner’s public-sector job. (source)

Contact Information
The Honorable Michael Goschka
P.O. Box 30036
Lansing, MI 48909-7536
Phone: (517) 373-1760
Email Address
View campaign contributions to Sen. Michael Goschka

Goschka said his comments weren’t intended to be a personal attack.

“I’ve had gays work for me,” he said. “Not a lot. But I don’t ask.”

Of course they’re not personal attacks. I have worked for people like Senator Goschka. And, I have been fired from jobs by people like Senator Goschka, just because they found out that I’m gay. But being fired from your job for being gay... how can that be personal? Congratulations Senator Goschka, you just made it into my album, “People With Issues”.

He would probably say that “I’m a trouble maker” or that I’m “pushing my own agenda”. Well, I’ve been at my present job for 18 years and prior to that, I held a job in California for 6 years. When I left that job, things were getting a bit dicey because they were starting to talk about me. It didn’t really matter though. That is when Kent accepted a job in Connecticut, and we moved out here. Hopefully, things have changed a bit for the company I worked for in California, but who knows? I’m a solid worker. Leave me alone to do my job, and I’ll do it. But one thing I will not do is to pretend to be the mold for Mr. Heterosexual USA, just to make someone else who has issues with bigotry, feel better and “more comfortable”. Let’s get it clear; if I have to sacrifice my dignity for your comfort, I don’t give a shit about your comfort zone. Moving on...

I know exactly the kind of person Senator Goschka is. He is entitled to his personal opinions. But when he starts saying that he doesn’t want taxpayer money going towards benefits for relationships that are “utter perversity”, it reminds me of the days in the 1980’s that some woman said to me, “I don’t want my tax dollars to go for programs to help perverts with AIDS.” I responded, “Fine, then I don’t want my tax dollars to go towards school projects for your fucking inbred children.” (I’ve since mellowed... somewhat).

The point it, it’s a stupid argument. Tax dollars and benefit programs should go to help all tax paying citizens in the state and nation. This notion of picking which group to deny benefits from is dangerous and only serves to be needlessly punitive and hateful.

On my way to lunch today, I was listening to CNN. They were with the families greeting Company LIMA back home from serving in Iraq. It was a joyous occasion, and I felt good for them and their families. This was part of the dialog (paraphrasing from memory)...

CNN: There are many people here cheering and waving flags looking for their loved ones. I see some families hugging the service men after reuniting with their families.

Here’s a service man who hasn’t found his family yet and is just looking around in the crowd for them. Sir, what is your name?

Service Man: Sgt. [name omitted].

CNN: Who are you here to meet today?

Service Man: I’m here to meet my girl friend and the rest of my family.

That is what actually happened. Here’s another scenario...

CNN: There are many people here cheering and waving flags looking for their loved ones. I see some families hugging the service men after reuniting with their families.

Here’s a service man who hasn’t found his family yet and is just looking around in the crowd for them. Sir, what is your name?

Service Man: Sgt. [name omitted].

CNN: Who are you here to meet today?

Service Man: I’m here to meet my boy friend and the rest of my family.

The difference is, in the second scenario, a discharge from military service would be sparked by mentioning that he was there to meet his boyfriend.

If he were there to meet his partner (or boyfriend), he would simply have to say, “I’m here to meet my family.” When he met his boyfriend, he would shake his hand and show no outward emotion -- as though they were just friends. A hug would be highly suspicious since they aren’t related.

And here, all this time, I thought that we didn’t live in a free country!

America, “Home of the FREE”.

I want to add a couple of thoughts that I think are appropriate. Those are the thoughts that came to my mind while listening to that. He outwardly mentioned his girl friend. We can’t do that. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has got to go. It’s cruel and inhumane to make people go through this. If some one goes to Iraq and risks his life for this country, I think the least this country should do is to honor what he has with his partner in life.

The second thought I have is that many service men in Company Lima have died in Iraq. This entry in no way takes away from their sacrifice for our country. They died defending our country. The men returning home have lost those friends. I have the greatest respect for these men and I’m glad they have returned home safely.

NEW YORK -- Though decried by many gay rights leaders, “outing” -- the practice of exposing secretly gay public figures -- is expanding into new terrain as Internet bloggers target congressional staff members, political strategists, even black clergy whose sermons and speeches contain antigay rhetoric.

Few issues are as divisive within the gay community. Numerous gay organizations, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, staunchly oppose outing, yet many other activists support it when the targets are public figures -- or their aides -- who work against gay rights or condemn homosexuality.

“It’s not the gay thing that’s the problem; it’s the hypocrisy,” said Michael Rogers, creator of a Web log that has been at the fore of several recent outing campaigns. “I’m going to be calling out the politicians who vote against us and work against the interests of the very community they come from.” (source)

I agree with outing. I used to have a more moderate approach on this subject. I only approved of the practice for extremely homophobic individuals who were known to be gay in private circles, but outwardly did harm to our community

Today, there’s too much at stake. Usually, when a public official speaks out against us, it concerns gay marriage and local or state benefits for gay couples, or job discrimination against gay and transgendered people.

I am all for free speech rights, but that is not the issue here. If you are a public figure, you can still say and do whatever it is you want to say or do, but you have to understand that your actions can have consequences. If you are supporting the denial of rights for gay people, and you are gay yourself, that information if fair game for the public to know.

Real people and real families are being hurt because of this hypocrisy. It should be exposed. There’s too much at stake. If you are a politician who happens to be gay, do as you wish. But if you continually try to prevent equality in the workplace or in our everyday lives, and try to benefit in your political life at our expense, you deserve to be outed.