GLBT News

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by Jimmi Magnus

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by Kalita



Y'know, I managed to miss the tabloids when I went to get my grocieries earlier tonight. Know why? The new self-serve lanes have no mag racks.



I like those self-serve lanes. I think I'll keep using them, and lower my stress level considerably...

[Jennifer]

I couldnt even buy yogurt today without glancing over and seeing that headline. It made me sick. I didn't even bother reading the "article", I figured I'd seen it all. *shakes head*

"Take my hand, live while you can. Don't you see your dreams are right in the palm of your hand?" Vanessa Carlton
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." James Dean
My Journal

[Rane018]

bob, i dont want to click on the link because i dont want to give them hits on NE's site but could you give a little more description please. you can email me if you'd like. thanks

[BBOvenGuy]

I didn't read the article. Like Jennifer, I figured the headline said it all.

------------------------------------------------
"A man who fails well is greater than one who succeeds badly. - Thomas Merton

[Rane018]

perfect. thanks. would've upset me anyhow.

[the kat whisperer]

Similarly, in the UK, Channel 5 are showing a documentary on Tuesday named: "Was Hitler Gay...? Revealed."



I just don't understand the point of asking the question. I can't figure out whether they want folks to go all politically-correct and say, "oh, so he had a redeeming quality after all," or so folks can say, "well, of course, that explains why he was so evil."



But then I shouldn't expect anything less from a sensationalist channel like 5.



kw

I feel just like I'm sinking, and I claw for solid ground.
I'm pulled down by the undertow, I never thought I could feel so low.
And, oh, darkness I feel like letting go.

[skittles]

More & updated info on the UK adoption issue & fight...

Essentially, what I'm reading says that Mr. Bercow is resigning his "front bench" position because his party opposes the new adoption regulations/law. He agrees with the change & will not allow his vote to be automatically counted as against this law as his party wishes.



Any UK kittens: please let us know if there's anything else we need to know about this legislation, as we are interested in it... (or at least I am interested.)



Tory resigns over adoption vote



BBC News



Tory shadow cabinet member John Bercow has resigned over the party's opposition to allowing unmarried couples - heterosexual and gay - to adopt children.



Mr Bercow, shadow pensions minister, has stepped down from Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith's front bench, arguing it is an issue of conscience.



Mr Duncan-Smith is imposing a three line whip on the vote - putting Tory MPs under orders to vote against allowing adoption by unmarried and gay couples.



But Tory chairman Theresa May denied that the decision to oppose the change to adoption rules was another case of the Conservatives being the "nasty party".



She said that it was motivated by the desire to provide the most stable future possible for children being adopted - with married couples likely to stay together longer than unmarried couples, and therefore providing a more stable background.



Defying the leadership



Mr Bercow is the first person to resign from Iain Duncan Smith's shadow cabinet over a matter of policy.



In his resignation letter, dated Monday and starting "Dear Iain", he says: "As you know from our recent discussions, I have been very unhappy with the decision to instruct colleagues to vote against amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill which would allow unmarried couples jointly to adopt."



He said extending the pool of potential adopters "would allow more of our most damaged children to have the chance of a secure and loving home with two parents who share responsibility for them".



He wrote: "I agree with the case for reform and it is a great pity that Conservative MPs are not to be given a free vote."



While he "reluctantly" stayed away last time the issue came before the Commons "I really do not wish to do so again", he said.



"Instead, I shall speak in the debate - if I am called - and shall vote in favour of change.



"For this reason, and this reason alone, I am stepping down from the shadow cabinet."



Rumours of plots



It is understood that there was a row at the recent shadow cabinet meeting where the party line was decided.



Mr Bercow was the most vociferous supporter of the liberal amendments with David Davis and Michael Howard being the staunchest defenders of the status quo.



Other social liberals who have abstained in Commons votes on the adoption issue include Tim Yeo and Damian Green.



But Mr Bercow's going is a further blow to Mr Duncan Smith at a time when his leadership has been under the spotlight, with rumours of plots within the party to replace him.



Former shadow cabinet minister Andrew Mackay said: "I think it is difficult to explain and understand why we are doing it."



Another former shadow cabinet minister, Andrew Lansley, said he would defy the leadership since he believed adoption legislation was not the place to engage in "social engineering".



'Nasty party'



Shadow Home Secretary Oliver Letwin told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was "very sad" that Mr Bercow had felt it necessary to resign.



He said he did not want "to bash or discriminate" against anybody but saw the Conservative position as one which would best protect children by placing them with parents who had the greatest chance of remaining as a couple.



Asked about whether Mr Duncan Smith had been right to impose a three line whip, Mr Letwin said it was "a very, very difficult judgement".



He said there had been a compromise to make it a "soft" three line whip - with those opposed to the party line allowed to be elsewhere on "important business" on that day.



Mr Duncan Smith has refused to be drawn on possible punishment for rebels, insisting "only a few" were opposed to his strategy.



He rejected claims his stance on adoption was at odds with his efforts to rid the Conservatives of their old "nasty party" image, arguing children always came first.



He added that heterosexual couples who were "serious" about adoption could always get married.



As to talk of leadership challenges, Mr Duncan Smith reminded critics he had been the first Tory leader to be elected by the whole membership of the party and not just the MPs.



**end of article**

skittles



"....in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful. Strive to be happy." -- from Desiderata, Max Ehrmann, 1927

[cesario21]

Hey Skittles! The news here has been covering this story all day...Mr Bercow wants to vote against his party line, which I think is admirable...the Tories are basically telling all their MP's to vote against legalising it. B'stards. ANd as for saying that if staight couples are serious about adoption they can always get married...well, the mind boggles!!! ANd how can they say that married couples are likely to stay together longer?!?!? Have they got any proof?? Sure doesn't sound like it, especially went they use a word like 'likely' !



Anyway, will keep you posted if I hear anything more!



SNuggles,

Pillows xxx

...there was a table set for six and five were there;I stood outside and kept my eyes upon that empty chair;there was steam on the windows from the kitchen;and laughter like a language I once spoke with ease...

[walker]

More news on gay people adopting in the UK.



The vote was held in the House of Commons yesterday. Very prominent members of the Tory party went against the whip and voted in favour of the Bill allowing gay parents to adopt. This revolt is, in my opinion, more to do with certain members of the Tory party wanting to de-stabilise the current leadership. This is so that they themselves can run for leader of the party. So I'd say this vote has more to do with this than an actual belief that all good loving parents should be able to adopt. Many Tories who were unwilling to vote against their party but at the same time did not want to oppose the passing of this Bill chose not to turn out for the vote. The vote was won by a decisive majority of 199.



The vote was expected to pass the Commons as it had already done so before. No big surprise. Yet.



Here comes the surprise. The House of Lords had been expected to reject the Bill, as the had done previously. They didn't. The adoption and Children Bill was passed tonight by 215 voted to 184 votes.



A cynical person (for that read BBC correspondent) might say that this was done as defying the Commons again would have risked losing the whole package of legislation. I might agree but at least it means we don't have to wait until the damn thing goes through the Parliament Act to have it enacted. So yay completely unelected House of Lords for doing the right thing through the medium of trying to retain some relevance and dignity.

"I hope that when the time comes I die like my Dad, peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming in fear like his passengers." The Son of a recently deceased American bus driver.

[the kat whisperer]

Here's the story from Yahoo. It's pretty much what walker has just said.

Quote:

---

Tuesday November 5, 07:58 PM



Gay couples win adoption rights



LONDON (Reuters) - The government has forced through plans to allow unmarried couples, including gay and lesbian partners, to adopt children.



After an intense round of political ping-pong, the House of Lords backed down and voted through the key part of the Adoption Bill by 215 votes to 184. It will now become law.



The peers had already rejected it once but many were swayed by a second vote in favour of the bill in the House of Commons on Monday.



Any unmarried person, straight or gay, can already adopt but as the law stands their partners would have no rights over the children if their relationship broke down.



The government argues that the worst scenario for any parentless child is to remain in the state care system for years. Conservatives say a far higher proportion of unwed couples split up than their married counterparts.



Health Minister Lord Hunt on Tuesday said data showed those brought up in care were more likely to end up in prison and on drugs.



The British Association for Adoption and Fostering figures show that in May 5,000 children across the country were waiting to be adopted. The average length of time between a child going into care and being adopted is two years and nine months.



The Lords are allowed to delay legislation but custom dictates they do not defy the Commons indefinitely.



The Conservative Party has already torn itself apart over the issue. Despite attempts to soften its image, Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith ordered his members to vote against the government's plans on Monday, prompting John Bercow to quit as the party's work and pensions spokesman.



Former ministers and party heavyweights Michael Portillo and Kenneth Clarke also defied their leader, sparking speculation about plots to oust him.



Duncan Smith, self-styled "quiet man" of UK politics, has been dogged by rumours of a leadership challenge after making little impact on opinion polls in his 14 months at the helm.



He was forced to tell his party on Tuesday to "unite or die" but was then mocked for failing to punish the rebels.

---

kw

Oh miss, what a thing to do!

[BBOvenGuy]

Okay, can someone from the UK explain just exactly what the House of Lords is and where it fits in the government? The Lords aren't elected - how do they get chosen? Do the Lords belong to political parties or do they organize themselves differently? And does the House of Lords function on an equal footing with the House of Commons - like the House of Representatives and Senate do in the US - or is it different?

------------------------------------------------
"A man who fails well is greater than one who succeeds badly. - Thomas Merton

Edited by: BBOvenGuy  at: 11/5/02 5:29:25 pm

[walker]

The House of Lords is our second chamber, very rough approximation of the senate, and the highest court in the Land. There are two types of member of the House - lifelong and hereditary peers.



It used to be made up mainly of hereditary peers. Hereditary peers recieve their place in the House by birth right. If some ancestor of yours did something of note in 1689 or whenever and was given a place in the Lords that means you could take a seat there. Hereditary peers used to number 700 but have been cut to roughly 10% of that by a recent Labour Party ammendment.



Lifelong peers I'm not so clear about, but to be fair everyone's debating how they should be/are selected at the moment. How they choose members to the House now is under great debate and they're still not entirely sure how it's going to work. When they took out the hereditary peers they made the biggest constitutional change this country has seen in hundreds of years but didn't think of what to replace it with before they did it. Generally lifelong peers are nominated by a political party due to some great contribution they have made to the country. Many an ex-House of Commons member has been put out to pasture here. Margret Thatcher being a prominent example.



The House of Lords is not by design a realm of political parties. As you are either a life of hereditary peer you cannot be voted out so you have the freedom to vote with your conscience. Y'know the old saying,

"What is right isn't alway's popular and what is popular isn't always right." The Lords are essentially a check in the political system, there to safeguard us from populist government rule that could harm the country. However in practice they do form along British party lines.



Imagine if you can that the Republicans hold senate. Always. That's essentially what we had in this country for many years as for decades the House of Lords has had a very large Conservative majority. Labour tried to gain parity for themselves and other parties by allowing nominations for themselves and others of life long peers to the House of Lords after they got rid of the hereditary peers.



Now as to the question are they on an equal footing to the House of Commons. In a word - no. They are an unelected body so without the legitimacy of being selected by the British public they cannot have as high a standing. The Parliament Act I referred to is the House of Commons safety net against the Lords. The Lords can only refuse a Bill a certain number of times, then even if they reject it, it is passed through the Parliament Act. They can be a pain in the arse and hold and ammend Bills, sometimes with very good cause, but they cannot stop a Bill being passed.



There's more to it than that, as there always is with politics, but it's 2am here. That's as coherent as I get at this time in the morning.

Edited by: Warduke at: 11/5/02 7:14:07 pm

[Evercat]

One thing that struck me - Duncan Smith and the Conservative party are now very keen to shed their old "nasty" image of being anti-gay, etc. So they focus on children's welfare and claim that married couples make the best adopters.

So far so good, but if they really don't want to be anti-gay, they need to propose some way for gay couples to adopt. Given the above, the only logical course would be to allow gay marriage. Someone should ask the Conservative leader if he supports that.

--
10^57 varieties

[kukalaka]

Great news



And thanks a lot for the explanation, walker.



Just one more question: What exactly is a three line whip?

---

Wenn Du denkst, Du denkst, dann denkst Du nur, Du denkst, denn beim Denken der Gedanken kommst Du nur auf den Gedanken, daß das Denken der Gedanken ein gedankenloses Denken ist.

[Evercat]

The word "whip" seems to mean about 3 things in British politics, none of them also involving chains...

Firstly, a "whip" is the enforcer of the party who's supposed to keep the members in line and make sure they vote the way they're supposed to.

They distribute an agenda of house business to members, apparently also called a "whip". On each item, they indicate its importance by underlining it. If underlined 3 times, this means members are really expected to turn up and vote for the party line.

The ultimate sanction against people who defy their party is to have the "whip" withdrawn, which means they're no longer regarded as members of the party.

--
10^57 varieties

[Dumbsaint]

Hee. As much as I'm enjoying British Political Structure 101 (I was close to asking, myself. Thanks, Bob!), I must say... that's the most terribly disappointing explanation of a "three line whip" ever.



Where are the lady pirates, the bound wrists, and the mizzen masts?

"And never let it be said that I left a Tara craving unsatisfied." Willow, Wilderness Pt. 1

Edited by: Dumbsaint at: 11/6/02 6:26:03 am

[relativegirl]

Julia, I feel it is our duty as red-blooded culturally-imperialistic Americans to hop on the next flight to the UK and re-introduce our mates to the proper meaning and use of the 3-line whip. As well as the proper techniques for mounting lady pirates to our mizzenmasts with leather straps and such.



What? It's the least we can do. Strengthening those Anglo-American ties one lady pirate at a time.

[kbk3022]

From Yahoo News:

Quote:

---

Vatican Drafts New Priest Guidelines

Tue Nov 5,12:26 PM ET

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer



VATICAN CITY (AP) - The Vatican (news - web sites) said Tuesday it is drafting new guidelines for accepting candidates for the priesthood that will address the question of whether gays should be barred.



The brief statement by the Vatican's Press Office gave no indication what the conclusion may be despite news reports that the document will include directives against the admission of homosexuals.



Vatican congregations have been studying the issue for several years, but the question has received renewed attention after the clerical sex abuse scandal in the United States.



Most of the victims of molestation by priests have been adolescent boys. Experts on sex offenders say there is no credible evidence that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children, but several church leaders have argued that gay clergy are to blame for the scandal.



The Press Office said the Congregation for Catholic Education has begun drafting the document, but no publication date has been set. It will not be published at least until next year, the office said.



A Vatican official, requesting anonymity, said the question of admitting homosexuals and other issues will be addressed in a letter to seminaries.



The Press Office issued the statement after the Rome newspaper La Repubblica published an article Tuesday saying an initial draft had concluded seminaries should bar men with "homosexual tendencies" and that Vatican officials were rushing to complete the document because of the U.S. scandal.



The Catholic News Service of the United States reported last month that a draft document containing directives against admitting gays was circulating among various Vatican consultants but that it was not clear when it might be published.



As an indication of the debate going on, an American staff member of the Congregation for Bishops, the Rev. Andrew Baker, published an article in September in the Jesuit magazine America arguing that gays should not be ordained.



If a man is gay, "then he should not be admitted to holy orders, and his presence in the seminary would not only give him false hope but it may, in fact, hinder" the therapy he needs, Baker wrote.



The magazine took up the issue in an editorial last week, declaring that healthy and dedicated gay priests "make an important contribution to the life of the church."



"Ensuring that the church ordains only psychologically healthy priests is one answer to the sexual abuse crisis," the editorial said. "Scapegoating healthy and celibate gay priests is not."



The Italian gay rights group Arcigay called the news reports that the Vatican was moving to exclude gays from the priesthood "a dark page in relations between the Vatican and homosexuals."

---

[Dumbsaint]

Enid, you're a girl after my own heart. After my own whore, even. One might say.

"And never let it be said that I left a Tara craving unsatisfied." Willow, Wilderness Pt. 1

[walker]

More good news in the UK.



--------------------------------------------



Tenancy ruling marks gay rights watershed



A gay man has the same rights as a spouse or a cohabitee of the opposite sex to take over a dead partner's tenancy, the court of appeal ruled yesterday in a historic judgement for gay rights.



Three appeal court judges used the Human Rights Act to overturn a House of Lords ruling that gay partners can be treated as members of the same family for the purposes of succeeding to a statutory tenancy, but are not entitled to the stronger rights of heterosexual partners living together as husband or wife.



In only a handful of cases have the courts used powers in the two-year-old Human Rights Act to reword an act of parliament to make it comply with the European convention on human rights.



Lord justices Buxton, Keene and JFK ruled that the right conferred by the act on a person who was living with the original tenant "as his wife or husband" - intended by parliament to cover unmarried heterosexual couples - should now be read as "as if he were his wife or husband".



The gay rights organisation Stonewall had intervened in the case and briefed a QC to present the successful human rights arguements. Angela Mason, Stonewall's executive director said: "The court of appeal has ruled it is discriminatory to differentiate between straight couples living together as husband and wife and gay partners. This judgement will affect many other areas of the law, including inheritance, fatal accidents, pensions, and housing benefit."



Limiting the right to pass on a tenancy to heterosexuals was discrimination, in breach of article 14 of the European convention on human rights, the judges said.



The legal battle was over a flat in Kensington, west London, rented by Hugh Walwyn-Jones from 1983 and shared by his partner, Juan Antonio Mendoza, who had lived with him since 1972.



When Mr Walwyn-Jones died, the landlord, Ahmad Raja Ghaidan, wanted to end the statutory tenancy, which is subject to rent restrictions.



A West London county court judge ruled that Mr Mendoza, as a family member, was entitled to an assured commercial tenancy at the market rate. But he could not take over the statutory tenancy because the Rent Act barred same sex partners from passing it on.



Lord Justice Buxton, concluding that Mr Mendoza should win his appeal, said: "Sexual orientation is now clearly recognised as an impermissable ground of discrimination."



Parliament had already remover the requirement that heterosexual partners must be married to inheret tenancies and it was not "for this court to strain at the gnat of including such partners who are of the same sex as each other.".



Lord Justice Keene said that in cases involving discrimination against a minority group, the courts had to be satisfied that there was rational justification for the legislation: "I am not satisfied that any such basis has been established."



Russell Conway, Mr Mendoza's solicitor, said:"This is a sensational judgement because the court of appeal has put itself above parliament and rewritten the act. This is exactly what the Human Rights Act was designed to do."



--------------------------------------------------

[skittles]

Sometimes, I am able to post some good news.

Alleluia!! Alleluia!!



from the NY Times, November 13, 2002



In a First, a Lesbian Is Elected District Attorney in San Diego

by John Broder



NY Times article link



One of the bitterest San Diego campaigns in memory came to a welcome close today, when officials declared that a state judge had ousted the district attorney after an 18-month campaign featuring charges of corruption, anti-Semitism, mental instability and sex discrimination.



But one issue that was not aired in this conservative county was the winner's sexual orientation. With her victory over District Attorney Paul Pfingst sealed, Judge Bonnie Dumanis of Superior Court will become the first openly gay prosecutor elected in the country, gay advocates say.

skittles



"....in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul.

With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world.

Be cheerful. Strive to be happy." -- from Desiderata, Max Ehrmann, 1927

[Ben Varkentine]

Found this at alternet.org, thought Kittens would be interested, and this seemed like the most likely thread; moderators, feel free to move it if you disagree.



Anyway, it's a piece about the author's belief that "The changing popular view of Eminem -- from gay-bashing woman-hater to potential Oscar nominee -- mirrors the march of public opinion from left to right since Sept. 11."



I also think some of it may be revealing of the "SPuffer" mindset (you'll know what I mean.)



www.alternet.org/story.ht...ryID=14533

Ben Varkentine



Sig quote pulled for research and development

[The Shadowcat]

This is why I've stopped reading about GLBT news. It's so damn depressing. This is an article about the beginning of the trial. The results follow.



New York Daily News, June 20, 2002

450 West 33rd Street, New York, NY 10001

(Fax: 212-682-4953 ) (E-Mail: voicers@edit.nydailynews.com )

( http://www.nydailynews.com )

http://www.nydailynews.com/2002-...154784.asp



900G Toys 'R' Us Bias Suit

Transsexuals say staffers harassed them in Dec. 2000



By John Marzulli, Daily News Staff Writer



A transsexual fled a Brooklyn courtroom in tears yesterday after recounting how she was menaced in the Barbie aisle by baseball bat-wielding employees of a Toys 'R' Us in Bensonhurst.



"They know what happened in there," Donna McGrath sobbed after a lawyer for the toy store chain finished questioning her about inconsistencies in her testimony.



McGrath, 28, and three other postoperative transsexuals are suing Toys 'R' Us - each seeking $300,000 in damages - charging they were discriminated against based on their sexual orientation on two occasions in December 2000. The jury trial started on Monday.



McGrath, Robert Jinks (aka Tanya Jinks) and Norbert Lopez (aka Tara Lopez) say they were subjected to antigay slurs and threatened with bats by the store employees. They reported the incidents to store management, who they say failed to take corrective action against the employees. McGrath, who said she is married to a soda deliveryman, testified yesterday in Brooklyn Federal Court that she was looking to purchase a life-size "Butterfly Barbie" doll when she went to the Bay Parkway store with her friends on Dec. 13, 2000.



'I Am Not a Transvestite'



As she browsed the shelves, McGrath overheard a female employee commenting about the transsexuals who were in another aisle. The employees allegedly referred to the transsexuals as "faggots," and "transvestites," McGrath said.



"I felt humiliated, I am not a transvestite," she said, adding that she has undergone hormonal therapy and has breast implants.



After reporting the employees' behavior to store manager Bob Moloney, who apologized and gave McGrath a 50% discount on a Barbie Bungalow Beach House, Scooby Doo ball and Scooby Doo sleeping bag she was buying, the transsexuals returned to the store a week later.



McGrath was in the Barbie aisle when two male employees appeared, holding bats.



"One said, 'If one of them passes me, I'm gonna hit them with the bat,'" McGrath said. "Regardless of my sex, I was being attacked by people that work there. They made me feel like garbage," she said.



Under Gag Order



They made a formal complaint to the management and received a reply one month later on Toys 'R' Us letterhead. The toy chain noted that "the fact an incident occurred on our premises does not automatically make us responsible."



After the transsexuals filed a complaint with the city Human Rights Commission, Toys 'R' Us offered each of them 100 "Geoffrey Dollars," a gift certificate named for the toy store mascot Geoffrey the Giraffe. They rejected the offer and filed a federal lawsuit. Toys 'R' Us lawyer Nicholas Goodman and the transsexuals' lawyers Thomas Shanahan and Anthony LoPresti all declined to comment, citing a gag order issued last week by Federal Judge Charles Sifton.





Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 6:30 PM

Subject: LGBT news



1. Toys 'R' Us Ordered to Pay Fees for Transsexuals



Thursday, October 31



Toys 'R' Us Ordered to Pay Fees for Transsexuals



An Eastern District judge has ordered Toys "R" Us to pay nearly $200,000 in attorneys' fees for three transsexuals who claimed they were harassed by workers while shopping at a Brooklyn store. A jury in June found that the plaintiffs were harassed but awarded them only $1 each. They had each sought $300,000 in damages. In a 12-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Sifton labeled the lawsuit "the first case in which the rights of transsexuals were asserted and vindicated." Nicholas Goodman, a Toys "R" Us lawyer, said the retailer would appeal on the grounds that "the judge abused his discretion."



---------



One freaking dollar. I'm so glad that they won the appeal. The verdict in June was insulting, to say the least.



---------



To avoid double posting, I'll just add the other article that made my jaw drop. This is a different spin, but even more ridiculous.





The Wall Street Journal



Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.



Wednesday, October 30, 2002



Protests About Gay Tolerance Prompt Firings



By James Bandler



EASTMAN KODAK Co.'s recent firing of an employee who criticized a company initiative on behalf of gay workers has touched off a rancorous debate between proponents of corporate diversity and free expression.



The dispute echoes recent ones at companies including AT&T Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. in which workers alleging they were disciplined for opposing policies advocating gay acceptance have sued, claiming violations of their rights to religious expression.



The Eastman Kodak dispute started earlier this month when Rolf Szabo, a metalworker at a Rochester, N.Y., plant, received an e-mail touting "National Coming Out Day." The memo, forwarded by a supervisor, suggested ways to make "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered" workers feel more comfortable discussing their sexual orientations.



Mr. Szabo typed out a terse response: "Please do not send this type of information to me anymore as I find it disgusting and offensive." He pushed the send button, disbursing his response to about 1,000 employees who had received the original memo.



Kodak says it fired the 23-year company veteran after he refused to sign papers apologizing for his e-mail and outlining the steps he had taken to prevent a reoccurrence of such actions. His firing was reported by a Rochester TV station.



Gerard Meuchner, a Kodak spokesman, said Mr. Szabo wasn't dismissed for holding a particular opinion or belief, which he says Mr. Szabo could have expressed to supervisors or the human resources department without fear of recrimination. But he said Mr. Szabo erred by sending it as a mass-mailing. "In the company's view this act created the potential for a hostile work environment," he said.



Mr. Meuchner said Mr. Szabo was told that the Rochester-based company didn't wish to dismiss him, but that it merely wished to counsel him about why his conduct was inappropriate. "He was not asked to admit that his opinions were wrong, but to acknowledge the way he communicated them was inappropriate."



Mr. Meuchner added that Mr. Szabo refused to sign an "Employee Commitment Plan" to that effect, despite knowing that his refusal to do so would result in his dismissal.



Reached at home, Mr. Szabo said he had applied for unemployment and was looking for another job. He declined to comment further, saying "this is all going to end up in court. The case has drawn the attention of conservative Christian groups as well as gay-rights organizations. Kodak says it has received e-mails about the dispute, most supporting Mr. Szabo. "Some people have said they will not buy Kodak products," said another company spokesman, James Blamphin, who declined to disclose how many messages had been received.



Cognizant of gay Americans' economic power and growing political clout, many companies are adopting diversity policies aimed at making their environments friendlier places for gay workers.



But the policies have, in some workplaces, created a backlash, and have raised questions about how much tolerance there is for employees who disagree with these more inclusive policies.



In the AT&T situation, a former employee sued the company in U.S. District Court in Denver last spring, alleging he was fired after he refused to sign off on portions of the company's handbook that called on employees to respect and value differences among them, including "sexual orientation." The employee said his strongly held religious beliefs do not allow him "to condone, approve, respect or value" the practice of homosexuality. Later in the spring, a Verizon employee sued that company in federal court in New York claiming she was punished for her religious beliefs because she refused to sign the company's code of conduct, which she says requires employees to respect gays.



A Verizon spokeswoman said the suit had no merit. "We have a code of business conduct that governs the way we do business," she said. "It is based on integrity and respect for customers and employees." An AT&T spokesman couldn't be reached for comment.



The Verizon and AT&T plaintiffs are represented by Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Va., group that specializes in religious-freedom cases. John Whitehead, the institute's president, said the group had been asked to take up Mr. Szabo's case, but would do so only if it was rooted in religious grounds. Nonetheless, Mr. Whitehead criticized Kodak's policies, which he said emphasized tolerance "but when it gets to this one person who objects to it, they're not very tolerant."



Lou Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, a Christian lobbying organization in Washington, D.C., that organized boycotts against Walt Disney Co. for its gay-friendly policies, also said he was appalled by Mr. Szabo's termination, attributing it to "political correctness gone berserk" and the influence of gays in Kodak's human resources department. But Rev. Sheldon said his group wanted to talk with Kodak before initiating any boycott.



"It's totally wrong to fire someone who opposes homosexuality," he said. "We need to go to the boardroom, the corporate players, to explain to them that this is not right."



Gay-rights advocates are divided on Kodak's handling of the matter. William Dobbs, a gay civil libertarian who is part of an ad hoc group called Queer Watch, said that while he might find Mr. Szabo's sentiments appalling, the punishment seemed excessive. "It is simply going to create a backlash instead of genuine understanding," he said.



But Kim Mills, spokeswoman for Human Rights Campaign, a major gay-rights group in Washington, D.C., applauded Kodak's actions. She said that by sending the mass e-mail and using such inflamed rhetoric, Mr. Szabo had "really crossed a line." She added: "What if he was talking about Jews or African-Americans or others protected by the Kodak policy?"



Joseph Weintraub, a management professor at Babson College in Wellesley, Mass., said Kodak appeared to be on "pretty strong ground" in firing Mr. Szabo. Mr. Weintraub said employees check their free-expression rights at the workplace door. He noted that some religions don't believe men and women are equal, for example. "Just because you think women are second-class citizens doesn't allow you to exercise this belief at work," he said.

Edited by: The Shadowcat at: 11/13/02 8:21:07 pm

[Warduke]

Just read this over at Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Army Dismisses Gay Arabic Linguists

Thu Nov 14, 4:27 PM ET



By MARGIE MASON, Associated Press Writer



SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Nine Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay.



The soldiers' dismissals come at a time when the military is facing a critical shortage of translators and interpreters for the war on terrorism.



Seven of the soldiers were discharged after telling superiors they are gay, and the two others got in trouble when they were caught together after curfew, said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that defends homosexuals in the military.



Six were specializing in Arabic, two were studying Korean and one was studying Mandarin Chinese. All were at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, the military's primary language training center.



The government has aggressively recruited Arabic speakers since the Sept. 11 attacks.



"We face a drastic shortage of linguists, and the direct impact of Arabic speakers is a particular problem," said Donald R. Hamilton, who documented the need for more linguists in a report to Congress as part of the National Commission on Terrorism.



One of the discharged linguists said the military's policy on gays is hurting its cause.



"It's not a gay-rights issue. I'm arguing military proficiency issues — they're throwing out good, quality people," said Alastair Gamble, a former Army specialist.



Harvey Perritt, spokesman for the Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe in Tidewater, Va., confirmed the dismissals occurred between October 2001 and September 2002, but declined to comment further on the cases.



He said 516 linguists enrolled in the Arabic course this year at the Monterey institute and 365 graduated.



The military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy allows gays to serve provided they keep quiet about their sexual orientation.



Gamble and former Pfc. Robert Hicks were discovered in Gamble's room during a surprise inspection in April, Gamble said.



After their discharges, Gamble and Hicks applied for other federal jobs where they could use their language skills in the war on terrorism, but neither was hired, Gamble said.

---

---

Mozilla : There's a new browser on the block.

[walker]

I remember reading an article a while back, I think it may have been in OUT, about the Vietnam war. They were pointing out that part of the reason that the war there was lost was due to the lack of reliable and accurate information on the area at the time. Why did the US lack information on this volatile area at that crucial time? Because the two CIA agents who were the specialists for the area were fired because they were gay. I thought people, and nations, were supposed to learn from their past mistakes. Clearly not.

Edited by: Warduke at: 11/15/02 1:32:36 pm

[Pixie gishmock]

BAY WINDOWS - New England's Largest Gay and Lesbian Newspaper

November 14-20, 2002

Vol. 20, No. 48

631 Tremont Street - Boston, MA 02118

http://www.baywindows.com



My rabbi's wife is a lawyer who works for GLAD and is involved with this case. I know that my synagogue is one of the institutions supporting this.

Quote:

---

Many support GLAD in marriage case

Ten amicus briefs filed with SJC

By Peter Cassels





Boston's Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) had plenty of company when it filed a brief Nov. 8 with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in its case seeking marriage rights for gays and lesbians.



An unprecedented number of independent organizations-from the Boston Bar Association to the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, the Greater Boston Civil Rights Coalition and a number of child welfare experts-filed ten supporting briefs the same day. Altogether, some 70 organizations and 95 individuals are represented.



The GLAD suit, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, was filed on behalf of seven plaintiff couples in April 2001. It argues that the right to marry the person of one's choice is protected under the Massachusetts Constitution. The brief filed Nov. 8 further argues that the state cannot justify excluding same-sex couples from marriage and the hundreds of protections it provides.



A state Superior Court judge ruled against the plaintiffs in May and GLAD then filed its appeal with the SJC, which is expected to hear the case this winter and hand down a ruling next summer, according to GLAD.



The couples GLAD is representing are Hillary and Julie Goodridge, Robert Compton and David Wilson, and Michael Horgan and Ed Balmelli, all of Boston; Maureen Brodoff and Ellen Wade of Newton; Gloria Bailey and Linda Davies of Orleans; Richard Linnell and Gary Chalmers of Northbridge, and Heidi Norton and Gina Smith of Northampton.



All the plaintiffs are in long-term relationships and most have children, making marriage benefits all the more important. The Goodridges have been together for 15 years and are raising a 7-year-old daughter. Together for six years, Compton and Wilson are parents and grandparents. Brodoff and Wade, a couple for 21 years, are parents of a 13-year-old daughter. Together for 14 years, Linnell and Chalmers are the parents of a 10-year-old daughter. Norton and Smith became a couple 12 years ago and have two sons, aged 6 and 2. Bailey and Davies have been together for 31 years. Horgan and Balmelli became a couple eight years ago.



The friend-of-the-court briefs filed in support of GLAD's case against the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which the legal advocate is suing because it does not grant marriage licenses to same-gender couples, total more than 500 pages.



The Boston Bar Association and others submitted a brief to explain the enormous number of laws protecting married couples, including those that honor their emotional commitment and support their economic interdependence, but which cannot be obtained without marriage.



The Greater Boston Civil Rights Coalition, the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Black Women Attorneys, the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization of Women, the Massachusetts Association of Hispanic Attorneys and many others argue that excluding gays and lesbians from marriage is discriminatory in the same way it was when the state forbade interracial marriage and stripped women of their legal rights when they got married.



Prof. Charles Kindregan, Jr., and attorney Monroe Inker, authors of a leading family law treatise, explained in their brief that marriage has always been legally valid in Massachusetts whether or not couples have children. The brief discredits the procreation argument often used to exclude gays and lesbians from marriage.



The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, the Unitarian Universalist Association and clergy from a variety of faiths filed briefs to remind the SJC that only the legal institution of civil marriage, not the rules of any faith, is at issue in the case, and that many clergy support the right of gays and lesbians to marry.



Attorneys at many of the state's leading law firms wrote and filed the friend-of-the-court briefs. They include Hale & Dorr, Palmer & Dodge, Foley Hoag, Goodwin Procter, Hill & Barlow, Bingham McCutchen, Peabody & Arnold, Choate, Hall & Stewart, Krokidas & Bluestein, and Kimball, Brusseau & Michon.



"The strength of our case-that it's fundamentally discriminatory to deny these couples and families the same protections as others-is clearly demonstrated in the depth and breadth of those organizations and individuals who are standing with us," Mary Bonauto, the lead GLAD attorney on the case, said in a statement. "Our plaintiffs are just like other couples and families throughout the state. Their concerns are universal-that they can provide stability and love as they raise their children, and that in times of need, they can protect one another."



"This unprecedented level of support demonstrates that when people understand the depth of inequity faced by gay and lesbian couples and families today, they see the profound discrimination involved in marriage and want to change it," added GLAD Executive Director Gary Buseck. "We hope and expect the court to come to the same conclusion."



Bonauto told Bay Windows Nov. 11 that the large number of organizations and individuals that filed friend-of-the-court briefs is quite unusual. "I think that our position is part of the legal mainstream," she observed. "All citizens should have the same rights to marry. It is a simply matter of equality. Law firms are particularly responsive to that point."



The briefs, Bonauto noted, represents strong support from the straight community. "I don't know if there's any gay person among them frankly." The numbers alone may be impressive, but their caliber also is, she added.



"The people who are sharing their expertise with the court are people at the top of the field-undisputed experts. It's the breadth and the depth of what they represent." Bonauto also noted that GLAD "could have found a cast of thousands" to submit briefs.



Asked whether the SJC will be receptive to its arguments and those of others filing briefs, Bonauto replied: "I hope that they conclude that there is no legal basis for discrimination. All the reasons offered are just illogical and our constitution speaks to principles of equality and liberty. This case is premised entirely on the Massachusetts constitution. There would be no basis to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the end of the road."



Peter Cassels is the Associate Editor at Bay Windows. His e-mail address is pcassels@baywindows.com.



Comments, criticism or praise regarding this article or writer -- or just about any other subject of interest to the lesbian and gay community -- are always welcome.



Send comments for publication to letters@baywindows.com.



Send comments not for publication to news@baywindows.com.

---

Life is full of changes...The better you are at letting go of things, the freer your hands will be to catch something new. ~from Off The Map by Joan Ackerman
"It's good to be a chicken casserole," Tara murmured before passing out. ~from "Answering Darkness" by Sassette

Edited by: Pixie gishmock at: 11/17/02 6:35:00 pm

[xita]

OOoooooh a GLAD i can stand behind! Thanks for that.

-------------------------------

Buffy?

Let's change it, the Discovery channel has koala bears.

[circular reference]

relativegirl writes:

Quote:

---

Julia, I feel it is our duty as red-blooded culturally-imperialistic Americans to hop on the next flight to the UK and re-introduce our mates to the proper meaning and use of the 3-line whip. As well as the proper techniques for mounting lady pirates to our mizzenmasts with leather straps and such.



What? It's the least we can do. Strengthening those Anglo-American ties one lady pirate at a time.

---

I laughed so hard I almost pissed myself. But you're right... it is the least we can do. American lesbians are of course the worst kind...

--CR

Willow and Tara Forever.

[Ben Varkentine]

Found this on AlterNet.



"Former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out in October in a media blitz. But the real aftermath is being felt now with the homophobic reactions."



Excerpts:



"Demetrious Johnson wrote a column titled, "Parameters need to be set on gay athletes."...The background is that former professional football player Esera Tuaolo came out as a gay man a full two years after retiring from football. Tuaolo was a nose tackle and weighed 300 pounds -- far from anyone's stereotype of a gay man. Johnson and others basically stated that in general they don't have a problem with gay folks or gay athletes, but that they should be in the closet if they play team sports or are in the locker rooms."



"Rape, unprotected sex, cheating, and physical and emotional violence are appropriate locker room talk, but just don't be gay."



"One big step journalists can take in general in covering lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered folks is to not accept and reprint homophobic statements."



www.alternet.org/story.ht...ryID=14557



Edited to add: I hope I'm not the only Kitten watching The Daily Show tonight--the first two segments should be of particular interest to gay viewers (and/or, like me, those who love them). The first is about the Iraqui translators who were fired for being gay, and the second is about one man's concern with "the gay-ing of America." You'll laugh. The show's on again at 12:30 AM tomorrow, and a couple of times tomorrow morning and afternoon.



And to any of the rest of you who watched it, can I just say: Where *is* that room? :)

Ben Varkentine



Sig quote pulled for research and development

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 11/18/02 11:23:43 pm