General: February 2007 Archives

Student Activism
This was kind of an interesting article from student Jay Richards from the Univ. of Utah. It’s nice to see enlightenment springing up here an there with young people.

People need to stop using the Bible to justify their bigotry. To purposefully and coldly deny a large group of Americans their civil rights based entirely on a book that justifies human slavery is ridiculous. (source)

And this....

A high school principal wants to tighten control of the student newspaper after a sophomore wrote an editorial advocating tolerance for gay people.

Woodlan High School student Megan Chase said she wrote the piece after a friend told her he was gay.

“I can only imagine how hard it would be to come out as homosexual in today’s society,” Chase wrote in the Jan. 19 issue of the Woodlan Tomahawk. “I think it is so wrong to look down on those people, or to make fun of them, just because they have a different sexuality than you.”

After the article was published, Principal Edwin Yoder wrote a letter to the newspaper staff and journalism teacher Amy Sorrell insisting that future issues be subject to his approval. Sorrell and the students contacted the Student Press Law Center, an advocacy group for student newspapers, which advised them to appeal the decision. [...]

“I didn’t think anybody would be upset about it,” Sorrell said. (source)

I know... hard to believe that people would be upset for advocating some tolerance. Go figure.

And again out in Utah, liberal capitol of the world, there’s this...

The House gave final approval today to a measure that bans gay-straight alliance clubs at public high schools. [...]

The key provision of the legislation bans any clubs that --- quote -- -“involve human sexuality” or threaten the “moral well-being” of students. (source)

Sounds like a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Barack Obama
I received a mailing yesterday from Barack Obama, asking for money, of course. I suppose Hillary’s will be coming soon. I’ve lost patience with politicians. They can be trusted about as much as prostitutes, in my opinion.

Instead of giving them money, I’ve gone to a new tactic. I make them live up to their words. For example, in his leaflet, Obama states, “Make no mistake. The people I’ve met in coffee shops and town halls still believe in an America where anything’s possible -- they just don’t think their leaders do.”

So, instead of giving him money, I wrote on the leaflet the following:

Dear Mr. Obama, I will make no mistake. So, in trying not to make a mistake by sending you money, I will simply say this... you state, “people I’ve met in coffee shops and town halls still believe in an America where any thing’s possible -- they just don’t think their leaders do.”

My question therefore is this. My partner and I have been together for 32 years. We live in Connecticut where Civil Unions are permitted, but we do not have access to marriage. So do you think it is possible (you did say any thing’s possible, right?) if you are elected President of the United States for the Federal Government to recognize civil unions and, of course, the marriages afforded to gay couples in Massachusetts, and give them access to all 1,049 federal-level-rights afforded to marriage?

Let me know. If you think you can pull that off and if you will work for that, I might send you money. But, I want to hear from YOU -- not one of your staff people.

I’m well aware that I may not be voting for President next time. I’ve come to a decision in my life about voting. I’m tired of voting for losers that I kind of like (you know, the “lesser of two evils”), but who will not go out on a limb for things gay Americans need, when they claim they will work for all Americans. They aren’t working for all Americans. Working for all Americans means that you work also for the little guy, you know, the one that nobody really cares for.

I’m sick and tired that in 2007 I’m still constantly hearing about couples being denied hospitalization for an ailing or dieing partner, gay people fired for being gay, soldiers being discharged from the armed forces for being gay, custody battles over children because the couple never had a way to legalize their relationship (denied access to the legal system), and for gay bashings that are still not taken seriously by police.

It’s time for this crap to stop. That’s what I want to hear from a presidential candidate. The fact that Barack Obama is a black man, or that Hillary is a women really isn’t enough. African Americans do know hardship in this country, and American history has not been kind to them. But that hasn’t translated into support from the African American community for the gay community with the issues of discrimination we face. Remember, George W. Bush relied heavily on the black vote to win his re-election. And for every woman out there who supports equality for gay citizens, there’s another one who goes in just the opposite direction.

I say all of this because there seems to be this notion in the gay community that just because someone is a minority, they should automatically pass our litmus test. I used to be that way as well. But then candidate after candidate turned right around and lied about what they were really about. Barack Obama says he wants the gay vote. Is he willing to go up against all those black social conservatives that believe there should be “civil rights” for everyone, except for gays -- the same people Bush relied so heavily on?

Not one of them, so far, would make me want to even cross the road in front of my house to vote for them. Not one.

I went to the capitol building today for Lobby Day, sponsored by Love Makes a Family. We started off at 10:00 with general information, and listening to a few of the legislators talk about the introduction of the marriage equality bill this year. Rep. Mike Lawlor gave probably the most passionate speech about the inevitability of marriage equality for gay couples. He said that Tuesday night to members of Greater New Haven Young Democrats, but his message this morning to us was the same.

With legislative battles yet to come on the issue of gay marriage in Connecticut, State Rep. Mike Lawlor told members of the Greater New Haven Young Democrats at a downtown gathering Tuesday night that approval of a bill instituting statewide gay marriage is “inevitable.”

Lawlor, who heads the legislature’s Judiciary Committee and represents East Haven, spoke alongside Tom Ude (pictured) of the grassroots advocacy group Love Makes A Family. He made clear his opinion that though gay marriage has again become an issue in Hartford, it need not be, simply for the reason that, one way or another, gay marriage will be a reality. “Either the courts are going to do it, or the legislature’s doing to do it,” he said. (source)

He’s right. Eventually, this will happen. He says it will happen within two years. Yet, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has stated that she will veto the bill if it should reach her desk. I recall last time she threatened a veto IF the current civil union bill advocated “marriage”, that she would veto the bill because she is “old fashioned about such things.” Pardon me, but isn’t that a rather lame excuse to put a class of people into second-class status? Shouldn’t you try to remove your own pet prejudices from the equation and see the arguments based on merit, instead of your personal prejudices?

So, my question to Betty Gallo, the lobbyist for Love Makes a Family was simply this... “The Governor has stated that when the marriage equality bill reaches her desk, she will veto the bill. Should we stop by to talk to her?” Betty said that it’s unlikely the Governor would meet with us, which is true, but I thought it might be good for her to hear that we are at least a bit peeved about it.

Well, I decided the Governor was probably not the best use of my time. I stopped by my representative’s office, along with that of my senator. In each case, they were in committee. I left my written statement to both, and left.

The really bizarre thing about the whole experience is that the “other side” - you know, the people who are trying to “protect” marriage from the likes of gay couples, were also having their lobby day today. This was no coincidence. When they heard that Love Makes a Family were doing this today, they scheduled theirs as well on the same day. It was strange to see them react to us. We had these big stickers stuck to our jackets that said,

So, every time I would pass one of them, I’d usually get this glare of contempt. I hissed at them, and moved on (but in a polite way). We were asked to be nice and polite, which I believe is the best thing for everyone. Will my legislator hear or care what I had to say? I’m not sure. I’m told they do care. We’ll see how they vote. One of the things suggested was to invite our legislators over to dinner. My representative is a Republican. Do I serve steak or fish? I’m thinking red meat.

I suppose if I wanted to be really creative, I could serve faggots, a rather bizarre British dish, that sounds rather disgusting to me. But it would probably not be very politically correct to serve that. I mean, how on earth would Miss Manners inform the guests about dinner... “We’ll be having faggots for dinner.”? Yup, that’s a show stopper.

I came across an interesting poll over on Outside The Beltway, that ranked candidates that Americans would be least likely to vote for. Here are the results.

Here are a few interesting comments that were left regarding this poll....

It saddens me to the core that over half of Americans won’t vote for someone just because they don’t believe in an imaginary creature. - Frank N. Stein

Many folks think Americans have already elected a homosexual President... And an atheist: Thomas Jefferson - Michael

A Michigan appeals court on Friday ruled that public colleges and universities in the state may not offer health insurance or other benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. The ruling said that a state ban on gay marriage, approved by voters in 2004, barred such benefits. [...]

According to the database of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, 11 public colleges and universities offer domestic partner benefits: Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Grand Valley State, Michigan State, Northern Michigan, Oakland, and Wayne State Universities; Lansing Community College; and the University of Michigan’s campuses at Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint. [...]

Mike Cox, the state’s attorney general, vowed to defend the position of the appeals court, which he said was consistent with what the people of Michigan wanted. “I am committed to protecting the will of the people,” he said in a statement. (source)

Well, you didn’t really think they would stop at marriage, did you? This has been their agenda all along. But I no longer get emotionally involved with this (no, I really don’t). I simply want to make a few points and observations.

First, this will also play out in other states who have passed similar amendments. This is only the beginning...

A Michigan appeals court ruling that bans public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance to partners of gay employees has alarmed gay rights advocates nationwide.

They fear the decision could encourage similar rulings in 17 other states whose bans on gay marriage could be interpreted to prohibit domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

Michigan last week became the first state to rule that public employers cannot offer health benefits if the benefits are based on treating same-sex relationships similar to marriage.

“It really is just a matter of time before we start seeing wholesale litigation in this area,” said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington.

In Alaska, the only other state to rule on the benefits given to same-sex partners of public employees, the courts ruled the other way, saying it was unconstitutional to deny them.

More than 20 other states have yet to decide how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.

Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University, worries that Michigan’s ruling will strip his partner’s health insurance.

The couple have adopted four foster children, one with a developmental disability, and Tom Patrick works part-time so he can care for them.

“If he has to go back to work full-time, that hurts our family. Or we have to pay for health benefits out of pocket, which hurts our family,” Dennis Patrick said. “To me that either demonstrates a lack of understanding of how this can affect our family or other families, or it’s just mean and cruel.” (source)

Second, it’s really quite simple as far as I’m concerned. Michigan Attorney General Cox stated that this is “what the people of Michigan wanted,” even though I would venture to guess that 98% of those people didn’t even read the wording of the amendment. I think it really is very simple. It think there are two things going on; the citizens couldn’t be bothered really studying this issue because for the most part, it doesn’t effect them directly. Therefore, they don’t care about it. Which mean, that it’s basically just mean and cruel.

If this is what they want, let’s give it to them. The effects of this will not happen through anger, but rather through practicality. If you are in Michigan and have a partner, and you lose your ability to have health benefits for that partner, what do you think these people will do?

If you are looking at a position at a Michigan university, would you take the position with this political climate? The majority of straight people, in my experience, at the university level, are turned off by an atmosphere of intolerance.

And if you are a single gay person, who hopes to someday have a partner, would you opt to go to a place where you would not have access to health insurance for that partner? Perhaps you would if it were your only job offer and you were fresh out of graduate school. But, I bet you would eventually leave, where there are better opportunities and a better climate to be creative and open.

This will all happen naturally. In time, Michigan will lose people because of this. And I would venture to say that as I write this, there are people out there who are (were) considering positions at institutions of higher learning in Michigan, who will now go elsewhere.

Let the will of the people be followed and heard. They wanted it, after all. And, let their institutions of higher learning become third rate. And down the road, say 15-20 years, they will realize that they simply aren’t attracting the best people anymore. Then, they will reverse this amendment, and spend the next 30 years trying to get back to where they were before the amendment was passed in the first place.

Sometimes it’s nice to be able to see the future.

Usually, politicians at least try to look sincere, and hide their tracks a bit better. But this is just simply sleazy.

Former Senator Jeff Miller now wants to be friends to the gay community. This is the same senator who sponsored the “Marriage Protection Act” and spearheaded the drive to amend Tennessee’s constitution against same sex marriage. Oh, and he also has a gay brother, Gregg. Not that it makes any difference, but if my brother did something like that to me.... well, I can’t really say online what my feelings on that are. We’ll keep it a bit more civil here.

My issue is this. First, he has a brother who is gay. Does he know nothing about some of the issues that this minority faces? Second, he’s a hypocrite.

Brigitte Miller, Sen. Miller’s wife of 15 years, said he is having an affair with a legislative researcher and that he and the young lady accompanied the Millers’ three daughters to a November Martina McBride concert in Nashville.

“They’ve been seeing each other for a while,” Mrs. Miller told a Capitol Hill reporter. “Now he admits things. But he said it’s only been since he moved out. But I know better. I’ve got things that tell me differently.”

Their divorce suit was filed Feb. 25, 2006. After all of this, he openly opposed an amendment to his own bill that stated: “Adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee.” No surprise there, since it was apparently hitting a little to close to home for him.

So, now that he’s no longer a senator, he’s gearing up to be a lobbyist. By law, he has to wait one year before he can approach any legislator on any issue. But, he can try to garner future business. He’s been reaching out to many, among whom is the state’s largest LGBT civil rights organization, Tennessee Equality Project.

This was their response.

“I suppose he thinks helping pass discriminatory bills would make him an effective advocate for the gay, lesbian and transgender community,” Chris Sanders, Equality Project president told the Times Free Press newspaper.

Sanders said the letter was met with a “mixture of derision and hostility” and noted his proposal “is certainly not one that we’re going to follow up on.” (source)

Perhaps he just doesn’t realize just how offensive this is to some of us. At any rate, this was the letter he sent out.

January 23,2007

To Whom It May Concern: