General: March 2006 Archives

DAYTON, Ohio - A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage bars prosecutors from charging some unmarried people under the state's domestic violence law, a state appeals court ruled.

Friday’s decision by the 2nd District Court of Appeals is the first from Ohio’s 12 appellate courts to rule that the Defense of Marriage amendment, passed by voters in 2004, means that the domestic violence law does not apply to unmarried people.

The appeals court upheld the dismissal of a domestic violence charge against Karen Ward of Fairborn, charged with assaulting her live-in boyfriend in Greene County. (source)

Pope Benedict XVI’s gay stance is as bad as prejudices of “Hitler and Himmler” in Nazi Germany, according to an Irish Senator.

Senator David Norris criticise the pontiff over his constant condemnation of homosexuality and refused to take “moral instructions from a man with a swastika on his arms.”

He referred to the Pope’s former membership of the Hitler Youth Movement in Germany in the 1940s and labelled Vatican statements on homosexuality as “objectively evil” and “intrinsically disordered” and “in line with the prejudices that included Hitler and Himmler.” (source)

To the Pope’s defense, if he was raised a Nazi, those habits are so hard to break. It’s kind of like masturbation, I would assume.

A year after the death of Terri Schiavo, her parents and husband are due to release books this week attacking each other on the decision to let the brain-damaged Florida woman die by removing her feeding tube.

Terri died on March 31 2005, at the age of 41 - 13 days after the feeding tube was removed under a legal order granted to her husband, Michael, and opposed by her parents, the religious right, Republican leaders in congress and President George W Bush. [...]

Michael had insisted for a long time that Terri had told him she would not want to continue living in such a condition.

But her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, said they believed she did not want to die and could improve with treatment.

Their long legal battle eventually became a cause celebre for the Christian right and other groups concerned about issues raised by the case.

Bush, congress, the Vatican and federal and state courts became involved and hundreds of demonstrators flocked to her hospice near St Petersburg in the days before her death.

In their book, A Life That Matters: The Legacy of Terri Schiavo - A Lesson for Us All, the Schindlers again accuse Michael Schiavo of abusing Terri and say she wouldn’t have wanted her feeding tube removed. [...]

In his book, Terri: The Truth, Michael Schiavo said he was determined to carry out his wife’s wishes, despite death threats and other pressures.

“A religious zealot put a $250 000 bounty on my head, urging that I be tortured before I was killed.

“I was condemned by the president of the United States, the majority leaders of the house and senate, the governor of Florida, the pope, Jesse Jackson and the rightwing media,” Michael said in an excerpt from the book, written with Michael Hirsh and published by Dutton. [...]

Michael’s book goes on sale March 27, a day before the Schindlers’ book. (source)

Now, the only two books left to publish is...

1) Answering the Accusations of why I dropped everything and fly back to Washingtom from Crawford, Texas to play politics using Terri Schiavo as a political excuse to increase my popularity with the Religious Right, by President George W. Bush. We need to work on that title a bit. Perhaps, “I care deeply about the Terry Schiavo’s of the world - I Feel Their Pain!” That might work.

2) Why we care for all the Terri Schiavo’s out there, by selected members of Congress.

There’s money to be made out there guys. Come on, if you get moving on this soon, you might just be able to pick up a few more votes before the elections! Terri’s dead and gone, but people still remember. It’s not too late to pull on those heart strings for a few last minute votes - to show us how much you really care.

It’s all for a good cause, right?

There’s another part of the 2006 Republican strategy. This spring and summer, Republican leaders in the Senate and House plan to bring up a series of issues that are popular with the Republican base of voters. The aim is to stir conservative voters and spur turnout in the November election. Just last week, House Majority Leader John Boehner and Whip Roy Blunt met with leaders of conservative groups to talk about these issues.

House Republicans, for their part, intend to seek votes on measures such as the Bush-backed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a bill allowing more public expression of religion, another requiring parental consent for women under 18 to get an abortion, legislation to bar all federal courts except the Supreme Court from ruling on the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a bill to outlaw human cloning, and another that would require doctors to consider fetal pain before performing an abortion. (source)

Note: emphasis is my own.

Several members of Congress are proposing a federal solution to anti-gay protests at the funerals of military personnel.

Reps. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., and Mark Rogers, R-Mich., are co-sponsors of a bill that would restrict funeral protests at national cemeteries. Kennedy said he would also push for an amendment that will restrict the Defense Department from spending money on permits authorizing demonstrations at military funerals held on Veterans Affairs or Defense Department property, the Associated Press reported.

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said he plans to introduce similar legislation in the Senate.

“Our troops are among the most selfless and idealistic people I have met, and they should be buried with the dignity they have earned,” Bayh said in a statement.

The legislation is a response to protests by the Rev. Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church at military funerals. (source)

Will this be the end of protests at funerals by the members of the Westboro Baptist Church led by Fred Phelps? Who knows? That’s actually not the important question to ask. There is another question to ask that no one wants to ask. Here it is...

If the issue of this group protesting the funerals of soldiers is so damn repulsive to lawmakers to get them to author a bill to prevent such protests, where the hell were they when this group was protesting at the funerals of gay men, and the funeral of Matthew Shepard?

You see, this is why America is so fucked up today. People pick and choose who is worthy of equality. Hell, we even have people voting on who will get rights and who will not. People pick and choose who is better than the next person.

When Fred Phelps’ pathetic group was doing this to gay men, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO GAVE A DAMN WERE THE RELATIVES AND FRIENDS OF THOSE GAY MEN. NOT ONE LEGISLATOR ROSE TO THE OCCASION OF CARING ENOUGH TO PASS A LAW TO PREVENT IT.

I support our troops and what they are going through. The Bush Administration has let them down, and for that, I feel bad. But I have no sympathy for what is happening at the funerals of military personnel killed in Iraq. You don’t pick and choose who deserves the wrath from a group of religious fanatics who care nothing for the grief the family and friends of a loved one is going through.

You don’t pick and choose that, any more than you should pick and choose who should receive rights and who should not receive rights at the ballot box.

If it is ok with America to allow this group to dish out this crap at the funerals of gay men, then it is good enough for this group to dish out this crap at the funerals of soldiers.

America, get a good taste of what it has been like for us. Are you getting it now?

The White House said Wednesday a revised policy on granting security clearances to gays and lesbians does not reflect a change in how the government will treat sexual orientation.

Then why change anything?

In the 1997 regulation.... sexual orientation “may not be used as a basis” for denying clearances or determining whether individuals should be eligible to access classified information unless it could make them vulnerable to coercion or exploitation.

Yesterdays update to the regulation states that security clearances cannot be denied “solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.”

Apparently that’s true. Jeff Gannon went even farther by being a male prostitute. Yet, he got a job with the White House press core, apparently to ask soft questions that even the President would not have a problem answering (like, “What is your full name?”).

If sexual behavior is “strictly private, consensual and discreet,” that could lessen security concerns, according to the regulations that came as part of an update to clearance guidelines distributed in December. [...]

Neither allows someone’s sexual orientation to be used by itself, Duhnke said, but in both cases some other behavior must give the government pause. If someone were trying to hide the fact that they are gay, for instance, he or she could be susceptible to coercion or blackmail.

I would agree with that, but I wouldn’t say that Jeff Gannon exactly kept his sexual behavior “strictly private”, but that’s just my opinion. Hell, he even had a website listing his “services”.

Waxman and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the revisions come as the administration has refused to enforce a policy that protects federal employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The administration has rejected the allegations.

Well, that’s stating the obvious. The Federal Government has yet to add sexual orientation protections at the federal level for gay Americans. In any federal agency today, you can be fired just for being gay, with no other reason. This change in policy, if you can figure out what has changed, seems to me to be much ado about nothing. What has changed?

Source data

I received a postage paid request today from Senator Hillary Clinton asking me for money so they could “elect a Democratic Senate”. A few thoughts on this, and life...

Never sacrafice your principles for anyone. If you win by doing that, you have lost. Never vote for someone or support someone who is “less bad” than the alternative.

There is good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust, equal and unequal. These are absolutes. They are not bargaining chips and they are not negotiable. You do, or you do not. You support equality, or you do not support equality. You support what is right, or you do not support what is right. It really is black and white. These are absolutes.

This was my response to Senator Clinton’s request for my financial support.

March 13, 2006

Dear Senator Clinton:

I received your request for financial support today. In your first sentence you state, “If there has ever been a time in America’s history that called for strong leadership, long-range vision, and the courage to confront our most serious problems, that time is now. Sadly, the Republican Part does not agree.”

Senator Clinton, sadly, the Democratic Party seems to be unable to get their collective mind together to get anything done. Honestly, do you know what you stand for? Apparently nothing.

The Democratic Party basically rolled over and played dead as John Roberts and Samuel Alito were confirmed to the Supreme Court. This is your “vision”? I can understand that the Democratic Party is not the majority party at this point in time, but I hear very little from any of you on any given issue, except for Senator Harry Reid.

And now, you want my financial help? That has to be earned, and NONE OF YOU HAVE EARNED IT.

I have been with my partner for the last 31 years. That’s right, we are what you would call a “same-sex couple”. And you, Senator, have stated that you do not support marriage equality for couples like us. A quote from you:

“Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman.”

So let me ask you one question:

Why the hell should I support bigotry by supporting you?

Are there bigger issues facing our country than gay marriage? Yes, there certainly are. But, you don’t build a party by actively supporting a system the advocates the existence of a tier of citizens who are second-class. And that concept is more important than any issue facing our country.

Until you support equality for all people, you may take me off your mailing list because I will not give you time of day. I no longer wish to receive your mailings.

Sincerely,

Bill Cannon

And, I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Mrs Clinton, the former first lady and wife of President Bill Clinton is widely believed to be considering standing to become the Democrat’s nominee for the next Presidential election.

Alan Van Capelle, a leading gay rights activist, who represents the Empire State Pride Agenda, said Mrs Clinton was “a complete disappointment” over her opposition to same-sex marriage and her support for a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

In a memo to board members he said that he refused to “lend my name and sell tickets” to any event raising funds for Mrs Clinton’s campaign to be re-elected as a senator, and eventually to seek the nomination of the Democrat party. He said supporting such fund-raisers for Mrs Clinton would “actually hurt” the gay and lesbian community. (source)

Those were the comments of a reader of this site. The comment was left recently. I’ve been thinking a lot about that comment, and I thought that it warranted a response. I should make it clear that this is not a response directly to that comment, and that in no way is this entry an attack against that person.

The very reason I do tear my country down so much is because of what is happening to it. I am not the problem with America. There are people in power now who do not love America. They are using different techniques to achieve their purposes. They lie. They tell you one thing, then turn around and behind the scenes, do another. There was a reason that we went to war with Iraq. “Weapons of mass destruction” was never the reason. We were lied to.

Senator Frist has decided to push ahead, once again, for a national constitutional amendment against gay marriage. He stated that he knows he does not have the votes to pull this off, but it’s not about that. He is simply doing this for his own political gain. He has no concern of how divisive this issue is. He is using it to be able to say that, at least he tried to stop gay marriage. That will be very convenient for him when he runs for president.

There will be a day of reckoning for those who do these deeds. There will be a day where the Constitution will speak again to all of us. Until that happens, I will do everything in my power to bring America back to the great country it used to be, in so many ways.

People need to start caring. People need to take their country back. How do you do that? You vote. That is your power. In other countries, people risk their lives just to get to the voting places. In America, only a fraction of our total population votes. The point I’m trying to make here is that the person who made that quote above, didn’t vote in the last presidential election because she was too busy... didn’t have time.

You know, if you don’t take the time to vote, you really have no room to bitch about where the country is at. And, you certainly give up your right, on this website, to bitch about what I am saying!

A judge in US state Tennessee has ruled that an anti-gay amendment vote may proceed, even though legislators failed to meet a deadline laid out in the state Constitution.

Under Tennessee rules, a constitutional amendment must pass two legislative sessions before facing a public vote.

After an amendment passes the first session, lawmakers must publish a legal notice six months prior to the next election. The rule is meant to ensure that the public can take the amendment into account before electing the next legislature.

In 2004, the state’s General Assembly advanced a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. But instead of posting notice in May, it waited until June 20, missing the deadline by roughly six weeks.

While it may appear to be a technicality, it is in fact a clear-cut violation of state law and should have been enough to invalidate the amendment and send the lawmakers back to square one. [...]

Citing the “unusual and unique facts of this case”, Lyle wrote that the “extensive” media and Web site coverage meant that “the proposed amendment was actually, although not officially, published well in advance of the six-month window required by the Constitution”.

The notion that blog discussions and newspaper articles could substitute for a specific step in the amendment process did not sit well with the ACLU, which promised to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court.

“Constitutional requirements are not technicalities,” said ACLU Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg in a written statement.

“They were put in place because amending the Constitution is a very serious decision. (source)

I was shocked by this story. I thought that the procedure of amending a state constitution would be followed to the letter. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU looses this case. I wish I could put more faith in the lawmakers in Tennessee, but they want this to happen. So, it’s going to happen, whether the amendment is “technically” correct or not.

What boggles my mind is that this means that anything I say, along with other bloggers and websites that publish information, is in effect giving notice of pending legislation or amendments, if you believe Chancellor Ellen Hobbs Lyle. And, the chancellor is using that to say that missing the deadline, although a technical problem, is not enough to stop this amendment.

Also, one would think that there would be a very special procedure for publishing this “legal notice” with very specific information about what the amendment will do. Relying on websites to be do what the legal system should be doing is ludicrous.