Skip to content


GLBT News

The place for kittens to discuss GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered) issues as well as topics that don't fit in the other forums. (Some topics are off-topic in every forum on the board. Please read the FAQs.)

Re: GLBT News

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:15 pm

tyche, this poll was discussed today on NPR's "Talk of the Nation." It is contradicted by a Pew Research Poll done at almost the same time---showing new highs of gay acceptance.



Clearly something weird is going on here. If it wasn't the name "USA Today" that raised some doubt (and Gallup has hardly been progressive on these issues either: remember, in every poll the way questions are phrased is *absolutely essential*), there is still the issue of a possible polling blip. As far as I know, all long-term studies show increased acceptance of LGBT's. I really wouldn't get too upset about this one poll.



GG The yahoos predict "definitive backlash" w/ each and every queer advance---when, in point of fact, after every setback, we queers advance! :pride Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: Gay-Themed TV Gains a Wider Audience

Postby friskylez » Tue Jul 29, 2003 7:14 pm

Im just passin thru to note the irony of a new AOL poll that says that "america" is more accepting of gays..In the very next part of the poll regarding television, it says that americans feel that gays shouldnt appear on TV..



Now thats acceptance for ya..Theyll let us live on the same planet, but dont want to know we are here....I guess acceptance=dont ask, dont tell, dont show on TV...And where are the lesbians on TV or even reality shows...



Will and grace is ok but Ellen wasnt? Sheesh i just dont get it..Bring back Willow and Tara, give em their own cable or HBO show..



:pride



edited to add this little cow thing (or is it a pig) cause its so phuckin cute lol :moo




"Life is what happens while waiting for your ship to come in"



Edited by: friskylez  at: 7/29/03 6:17 pm
friskylez
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby xita » Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:08 pm

You know I know I've heard that there have been other gay and lesbian high schools that operate as yeah alternative schools before. I know I heard it in a documentary. It dealt with a school, The Eagle Center, started in Los Angeles for at risk gay and lesbian kids. I don't know if is still in operation or not. The reason I remember hearing about it is because the founder of the school happened to be my middle school ESL teacher, Mr. Jerry Battey. Small world.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last."


-Willie Wonka

xita
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby kpmuse » Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:23 am

Hmmm, they have their lawyers working on a law.



www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/bush.gay.marriage.ap/index.html



Quote:
Bush wants marriage reserved for heterosexuals

Urges America to remain a "welcoming country"

Wednesday, July 30, 2003 Posted: 11:52 AM EDT (1552 GMT)



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday he has government lawyers working on a law that would define marriage as a union between a woman and a man, casting aside calls to legalize gay marriages.



"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and I believe we ought to codify that one way or the other and we have lawyers looking at the best way to do that," the president said a wide-ranging news conference at the White House Rose Garden.



Bush also urged, however, that America remain a "welcoming country" -- not polarized on the issue of homosexuality.



"I am mindful that we're all sinners and I caution those who may try to take a speck out of the neighbor's eye when they got a log in their own," the president said. "I think it is important for our society to respect each individual, to welcome those with good hearts."



"On the other hand, that does not mean that someone like me needs to compromise on the issue of marriage," he added.



Bush has long opposed gay marriage but as recently as earlier this month had said that a constitutional ban on gay marriage proposed in the House might not be needed despite a Supreme Court decision that some conservatives think opens the door to legalizing same-sex marriages.



The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.



Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia fired off a blistering dissent of the ruling.



The "opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," Scalia wrote. The ruling specifically said that the court was not addressing that issue, but Scalia warned, "Do not believe it."



Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colorado, is the main sponsor of the proposal offered May 21 to amend the Constitution. It was referred on June 25 to the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.



To be added to the Constitution, the proposal must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states.


kpmuse
 


Bush Marriage law

Postby WebWarlock » Wed Jul 30, 2003 10:42 am

Yeah, Bush is doing his bit.



From the Chicago Tribune as well.



Keep tabs on your Senators and Represenatives people. If this goes constitional then they are the ones that will be voting to decide the future.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks:
Available October 31st, 2003!


"I love kittens!" - My son

WebWarlock
 


CNN poll

Postby tyche » Wed Jul 30, 2003 4:51 pm

CNN currently have a poll about whether or not there should be a federal law banning gay marriage. Currently, the total is 80% no, 20% yes, so go and vote. (Poll pops up in separate window.)

tyche
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby BasilGray » Thu Jul 31, 2003 6:35 am

Now it's 91% "No" and 9% "Yes" :applause



We should go for the 99% "No" :party

BasilGray
 


GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby Patches » Thu Jul 31, 2003 9:38 am

Hey Canadian Kittens, I received this e-mail from EGALE, with a request to widely circulate. Seems we're not out of the woods yet. Please write your federal MP and the PMO.





*****

EQUAL MARRIAGE OPPONENTS ARE FLOODING MPs WITH LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS

[Please forward widely]



The battle over marriage for same-sex couples is on, and our opponents have been successful in stirring things up and making their voices heard. It is important that you, as a supporter of equality, make your voice heard too.



On June 17, 2003, the Prime Minister made the historic announcement that the government supports equal marriage for same-sex couples, that it would not appeal the court decisions in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec, and that the government will introduce legislation to give the court decisions effect across the country.



The Minister of Justice has stated that after the Supreme Court gives its stamp of approval, the legislation will be put to a free vote in the House of Commons. We must ensure that this legislation passes, otherwise an ominous message will be sent about the nature of our society and the place of LGBT persons within it. In addition, while same-sex couples can marry in Ontario and B.C., this legislation is needed so that equal marriage is a reality all across the country.



Many people assume that the free vote is just a formality, that with the help of the Bloc, the NDP and supportive P.C. members of Parliament there will easily be enough Liberals to support the equal marriage legislation. But our confidence may be misplaced. We are writing you today to let you know that the legislation is in grave danger, and that we must act now if we are to stem the tide of MPs declaring publicly against equal marriage.



As you may know, opponents of equal marriage have been working furiously to turn back the clock, both in the media and with those over whom they have influence. Many of them are using fear to instigate action, saying that clergy will be forced to marry same-sex couples and that freedom of religion is at stake.



Some have gone further. A group called Canadians Against Same-Sex Marriage is planning a rally against equal marriage on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on August 22. Their leader has said that allowing same-sex couples to marry would open a can of worms. Organizer Tom Dooling told reporters "(w)ill it mean that if a man wants to marry his dog, he can legally? If a grandmother wants to marry her cute little grandson, can she?"



Meanwhile, in Catholic churches across the country, people attending Sunday service are being warned about the evils of allowing same-sex couples to marry and that good Catholics must take action and urge their MPs to vote against the legislation. The Archbishop of Ottawa has written to the Prime Minister to tell him that passing the legislation is not something a good Catholic would do. Even the Pope has gotten into the act, announcing that the Vatican will release "instructions" for Catholic politicians to oppose same-sex marriage.



Across the country, MPs are being inundated with phone calls, letters and e-mail opposing equal marriage. Few messages of support for the legislation are being received. As a result, many MPs are getting scared.



Last week, four MPs from the Niagara area of Ontario announced they oppose equal marriage and will vote against the legislation. St. Catharines MP Walt Lastewka said roughly 260 constituents have contacted his office to voice their disapproval and only five have contacted his office in support. Tony Tirabassi, MP for Niagara Centre, said his office has received more e-mails, faxes and other correspondence this issue than any other in recent weeks. He said roughly 95 per cent of constituents contacting his office have indicated their opposition to equal marriage.



We believe that over time MPs' fears will be lessened, especially once the Supreme Court clearly states that freedom of religion is not in jeopardy, and that no clergy will be forced to perform a marriage that goes against their faith. The Alliance knows this, and has announced it plans to introduce a motion in Parliament when it resumes sitting in September, to force MPs to declare in advance of the Supreme Court decision.



That's why it's important to take action NOW to urge MPs to vote for equality and fairness, to support the equal marriage bill once the Supreme Court has given it a stamp of approval.



Tell [your MP] that you support the legislation to extend equal marriage to same-sex couples across the country.



You may also wish to highlight that



* Same-sex couples can already get married in B.C. and Ontario. It makes no sense for a couple to be able to marry in some provinces but not others.



* Marriage is about love and commitment. Since gay and lesbian couples can have the same level of love and commitment as opposite-sex couples, denying them legal marriage is simply unfair.



* Equal marriage will enhance religious freedom because some clergy want to marry same-sex couples, and outside of Ontario and B.C. they currently cannot.



* Religious officials have always been free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs. Courts across this country have recognized that our Charter protects religious officials from being compelled to marry same-sex couples.



* Ask your MP to give you a clear answer about whether they support the Bill.



Please copy Egale on correspondence sent to your MP, and also let us know their response (you can reach Egale at egale.canada@egale.ca).



Act now! Your voice can make a difference!



For further information:



Laurie Arron or Gilles Marchildon

Chair, Equal Marriage Committee Executive Director

Egale Canada Egale Canada

(416) 532-1088 1-888-204-7777

egale.canada@egale.ca

*****



The Archbishop of Alberta has said that our Prime Minister is risking his "eternal salvation" by proposing legislation that will give us the right to marry. Fortunately, this was the response (snip from above linked article)
A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister said yesterday that Mr. Chrétien's primary responsibility is to serve the Canadian public — not his church.



"As Prime Minister of Canada, he has the moral responsibility to protect the equality of Canadians," said Thoren Hudyma, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister's Office. "There needs to be a separation between the church and state."



Mr. Martin also told reporters in Toronto yesterday that his responsibilities as an MP "obviously must take in a wider perspective" than his faith. He added that under the proposed federal law, "no church, not my church, no temple, no mosque, no synagogue will be asked to perform marriages in any way other than as they see fit."




Please excuse this bitter rant, but I thought we'd solved the issue of the separation of church and state several hundred years ago - apparently the church seems to have missed those (thousands) of encyclicals. Any politician who cannot set aside or reconcile his or her personal beliefs and act in accordance with the law, for the good of the people, should get out of politics.



Cheers!!

Patches













You know I've heard about people like me. But I never made the connection. They walk one road to set them free, And find they've gone the wrong direction. But there's no need for turning back 'cause all roads lead to where I stand. And I believe I'll walk them all No matter what I may have planned

Patches
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby bandcampgrrl » Thu Jul 31, 2003 10:50 am

Wow, the CNN vote's at 34295 against the ban to 3369 for being bigoted gits.:banana



Meanwhile, they're starting to sell "Ban Gay Bashing, Not Gay Marriage" bumper stickers online. If only we could ban Bush, too.





bandcampgrrl

bandcampgrrl
 


Canadians in action

Postby Kalita » Thu Jul 31, 2003 2:25 pm

Thanks, Patches, for bringing this up... it's been concerning me, too. Especially with the saber-rattling from the Vatican most recently, we need to get the word out and make sure that law passes in the fall!



By the way, if you don't hapen to know who your MP is (or what their address is), find out. Remember, letters to government members don't need postage!



Let's write some letters! :letter

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. "

- Margaret Mead

Kalita
 


Re: GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby tyche » Thu Jul 31, 2003 3:23 pm

GLAAD have issued a press release calling on the media to scrutinise Bush's statements about gay marriage.

Also, the San Francisco Chronicle has a poll on gay marriage.

tyche
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Warduke » Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:01 pm

Read this over at Yahoo...



Quote:
United Way Charity Suspends Scout Grants Over Gays



PHILADELPHIA - A Philadelphia-based United Way charity suspended funding to the nation's third-largest Boy Scout council after the group capitulated to a national Scout ban against homosexuals, officials said on Friday.



The United Way of Southeastern Pennsylvania canceled the second half of an annual $400,862 grant to the Boy Scouts' Cradle of Liberty Council, saying the Scout group did not comply with the charity's policy of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.



The grant represents over 6 percent of the council's budget.



In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America could bar homosexuals as troop leaders. The Boy Scouts of America National Council claimed the ruling as a victory, saying "an avowed homosexual" was not a proper role model for youth.



The Cradle of Liberty Council, which serves 87,000 youths in Philadelphia and its Pennsylvania suburbs, defied national leaders in May by adopting its own nondiscrimination policy toward gays.



But the group later rescinded the policy and agreed to oust an openly gay scout after the Irving, Texas-based national council threatened to revoke its charter.



The United Way, which also suspended a grant to a smaller suburban Boy Scout group near Philadelphia this week, said the money would be reinstated in both cases if the Scout councils complied with its nondiscrimination policy.



Local and national Boy Scouts officials were not immediately available for comment. But the charity's move was not the only headache confronting Scout leaders in Philadelphia.



The Boy Scouts' ban on gays has already prompted the Pew Charitable Trusts to suspend a $100,000 grant to the Cradle of Liberty Council.



The Philadelphia Inquirer also reported that the City of Philadelphia was looking into whether the Boy Scouts should continue to use city-owned property as their headquarters.



Lil' Trevor : Always the life of the party.

Warduke
 


Petition against anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment

Postby tyche » Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:14 pm

If you're a registered voter in the US, you might want to sign this.

tyche
 


Re: GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby xita » Fri Aug 01, 2003 7:48 pm

I am glad that organizations are fighting the boy scouts where it counts, with money.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last."


-Willie Wonka

xita
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Warduke » Fri Aug 01, 2003 9:12 pm

Again, from Yahoo...



Quote:
Gay Episcopal Advances Bishop Candidacy



By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer



MINNEAPOLIS - A New Hampshire clergyman seeking to become the first openly gay elected bishop in the Episcopal Church won the first of three required votes at the denomination's national meeting Friday.



The decision moves Episcopalians closer to a defining moment for their church and their sister provinces in the worldwide Anglican Communion after years of rancorous debate over homosexuality.



Some warn the outcome could fracture global Anglicanism.



Following a tense morning hearing, a committee decided to let delegates to the Episcopal General Convention vote on whether the Rev. V. Gene Robinson should be bishop of New Hampshire. The panel cast ballots in secret and did not release the tally.



The Diocese of New Hampshire elected Robinson in June, but the church requires that a majority of convention delegates ratify his election.



The next vote will be in a legislative body composed of clergy and lay people, called the House of Deputies, which could occur on Sunday. If they approve, Robinson then faces his final vote — in the House of Bishops.



Robinson said he felt "peaceful" even as one opponent after another stepped up to the microphone at the hearing to condemn homosexuality and his candidacy. An equal number of Robinson's supporters answered back with testimony about his leadership skills and his deep spirituality.



Asked how he reconciles his relationship with his partner of 13 years, Mark Andrew, with biblical prohibitions against homosexuality, Robinson said that in Andrew's "unfailing and unquestioning love for me I experience a little bit of the kind of never-ending love that God has for me. So it's sacramental for me."



Andrew sat nearby, as did Robinson's 21-year-old daughter Ella, who spoke on his behalf, after which an emotional Robinson asked for "a minute to recover." His diocese also released a statement by his former wife, Isabella McDaniel, calling the 56-year-old clergyman "a good priest, a good husband and partner and a good father."



But many who spoke against Robinson's election said their concerns about church unity and living according to Scripture outweighed their respect for him. Bishop Keith Ackerman of Quincy, Ill., told Robinson, "I love you. This is painful."



Ackerman then warned of "severe consequences" if Robinson is confirmed.



The Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, is the U.S. branch of the 77-million-member Anglican Communion. Conservative overseas bishops, representing more than 20 million parishioners, have said that allowing Robinson to serve would force them to consider breaking ties with the American church.



"The matter at hand is much larger than one person. This issue is even larger than one diocese," Ackerman said. "The fragile unity in the church is in the hands of this General Convention."



Despite the divisions, Robinson is expected to be confirmed. The Episcopal News Service found only two bishops in church history whose elections were rejected — both in the 1870s.



The convention, which continues for another week, also will consider approving a blessing ceremony for same-sex couples. A hearing on that proposal was set for Friday night.



Robinson, who wore a button that read "I Am Gene," said that during the morning testimony, he silently recited verses from the Psalms about seeking God's protection from enemies. More than 500 people crammed a hotel ballroom where the meeting was held, with an overflow crowd forced to stand outside to await word of the committee's vote.



He said he would not consider withdrawing his candidacy for bishop to prevent a breakup of the church, as a gay clergyman in England did recently.





"I'm at a very peaceful place with God right now," said Robinson, surrounded by supporters. "God is very near to me."



Lil' Trevor : Always the life of the party.

Warduke
 


NO ONE'S idea of a dream date . . .

Postby Gatito Grande » Sat Aug 02, 2003 8:56 am

. . . to be "tackled" by Republican (et al.) scumbags! :angry



Quote:
Group to Tackle Gay Marriage After Break



WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate will investigate whether new laws should be passed to strengthen the federal definition of marriage as a man-woman union when it returns from its summer recess, a Republican said Friday.



``I believe that we must take care to do whatever it takes to ensure that the principles defined in the Defense of Marriage Act remain the law of land,'' said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who will lead the Senate Judiciary subcommittee effort.



Some politicians, including President Bush, have been concerned that American courts might overturn the federal law that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allowed states to ignore same-sex unions licensed elsewhere.



However, Vermont already has a ``civil union'' law, giving same-sex couples the rights of traditional marriages, and other state courts are debating whether homosexual marriages are legal. The Supreme Court recently struck down a Texas law that made homosexual sex a crime, overturning an earlier ruling that said states could punish homosexuals for having sex.



``As decisions by our courts raise concerns once again, I believe that it is the duty of the Senate to re-examine this important issue,'' Cornyn said.



Bush said at a White House news conference Wednesday that he believes ``a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I think we ought to codify that one way or the other.''



Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the next day that the White House was studying possible responses if pending lawsuits in Massachusetts and New Jersey result in legalization of gay marriage.



His remarks seemed to signal a shift from Bush's position earlier this month, when he said a constitutional ban on gay marriage that has been proposed in the House might not be needed. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., was the main sponsor of a proposal to amend the Constitution to read: ``Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.''



The Vatican then released a document warning Catholic politicians that support of same-sex unions was ``gravely immoral'' and urged non-Catholics to join in combatting such unions.



Some Republican lawmakers are calling for approval of Musgrove's constitutional amendment or new congressional laws that would ban gay marriages nationwide.



``Perhaps no legislative or constitutional response is required to reinforce the status quo. And if it is clear that no action is required, so be it,'' Cornyn said. ``But I believe that we must take care to do whatever it takes to ensure that the principles defined in the Defense of Marriage Act remain the law of land.''




my.aol.com/news/news_stor...9000112285



GG Why don't these *ssholes get real jobs---like fixing the nation's problems, instead of foisting their sh*t off on us? :rage Out





Gatito Grande
 


Re: GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby xita » Sat Aug 02, 2003 12:32 pm

What GG, you don't think homosexual marriages will bring down the entire western civilization? This is important stuff :rolleyes

- - - - - - - - - - -
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last."


-Willie Wonka

Edited by: xita  at: 8/2/03 11:32 am
xita
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby nika » Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:47 pm

Xita does make a good point. Lets face it two people in love who want to commit to each other are just as dangerous to the American way of life as terrorism or anti-capitalism. Jeez even in my arcaic third world little country gay people are being treated with more consideration within the actual constitution.:spin

nika
 


Muslim Religious Leader Condemn Homosexuality

Postby Shinnen » Mon Aug 04, 2003 4:10 am

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this newspaper article, but here goes



The Sunday Star Newspaper (Malaysia) Sunday 3rd August 2003



Quote:
Muslim religious leaders in Singapore condemned homosexuality as a sin but urged the faithful not to humiliate or astracise gays.



In Friday's sermon prepared by the Islamic Religious Council, Muslims were told to reach out and persuade gays to give up their lifestyle.



The position followed Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's disclosure last month that the government was now openly employing gays in positions that included sensitive jobs.



The National Council of Churches urged the government last Tuesday to retain laws against engaging in homosexual acts and prohibiting the registration of gay societies.



The council said, however, that gays should be treated "no less as persons of worth and dignity."



The Islamic Religious Council acknowledged that persuading gays to give up their lifestyle was a difficult, but not impossible task.



Meanwhile, a Christian group has also started an online campaign against gays.



In an email, Pastor Yang Tuck Yoong asked Christians to "express their concern" to members of parliament and write to the media/



Goh had said homosexual acts would remain an offense.




I'm deeply disappointed in a government such as Singapore. Because I believe that most of the gay community are born gay and not influenced gay. Therefore FORCING a gay person to act straight is out of the question. :happy

CheerZ

Shinnen



If you love someone, set her free ...

If she comes back, and if you love her still, set

her free again,repeat ...

Shinnen
 


Re: GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby Warduke » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:03 pm

From Yahoo...



Quote:
Episcopalians Delay Vote on Gay Bishop



By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer



MINNEAPOLIS - Episcopal leaders delayed a vote Monday on whether to confirm the church's first openly gay bishop after allegations involving "touching" and "pornography" emerged against the clergyman, a church spokesman said.

       

Jim Solheim, the Episcopal spokesman, would not elaborate on the allegations against the Rev. V. Gene Robinson.



Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold was expected to make a statement later Monday, Solheim said.



Robinson's spokesman Mike Barwell said he would comment only after Griswold released his statement.



Robinson needs approval from delegates to the church's General Convention to become bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire. His candidacy drew intense opposition from conservatives, who said they would consider breaking away from the church if he was confirmed.



Robinson, a 56-year-old divorced father of two, has been attending the convention with his daughter and partner of 13 years, Mark Andrew.



Lil' Trevor : Always the life of the party.

Warduke
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby WebWarlock » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:53 pm

A little more.



www.chicagotribune.com/ne...i-news-hed



Quote:
Governor: No gay marriage in Illinois



The Associated Press

Published August 4, 2003, 1:42 PM CDT



Gov. Rod Blagojevich today said he wouldn't change Illinois law that says marriage between same sex couples is against the public policy of the state.



Blagojevich said he supports the law the way it's written in Illinois.



He said he opposes discrimination against gays and lesbians and he supports domestic partnership agreements.



But he said his view is that marriage should be between a man and a woman.



Blagojevich made his comments when he was asked about the issue following a news conference on pay raises for the state's judges.




Now bare in mind that Mr. Blagojevich ran on a platform in northern Illinois (but not southern) on accepting gay marriage. In southern Illinois he never talked about it. So another turn by a pol. This one is a Democrat too.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

The Other Side,
home of Liber Mysterium: The Netbook of Witches and Warlocks:
Available October 31st, 2003!


"And she never had dreams, so they never came true.
My fade away angel, angel in blue."
- Angel in Blue

Edited by: WebWarlock at: 8/4/03 1:54 pm
WebWarlock
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby sam7777 » Mon Aug 04, 2003 5:52 pm

This is all saddening news on the gay marriage front. Unhappily the media does not help the issue by portraying comitted gay relationships as tragic 99% of the time while pushing the stereotype that gays do not have committed relationships and are only interested in the sex. TV has become particularily egregious in this regard since Ellen went off the air.

_____________________

I see dead lesbian cliches

sam7777
 


GLBT in Australia - also not there yet

Postby vix84 » Tue Aug 05, 2003 5:30 am

Our Prime Minister likes to echo Bush's every fart. He certainly didn't disappoint this time:

____________________________________

Gay marriage threatens 'survival of the species': Howard

Sydney Morning Herald, August 5 2003



The federal government ruled out any move to legalise gay marriages today in a move gay activists have described as morally reprehensible. Prime Minister John Howard said recognition of gay marriages would weaken the institution of marriage.



"Well, this is not in anyway an attack on gay people, quite the reverse," Mr Howard told reporters in Darwin.



"Traditional marriage is one of the bedrock institutions of our society and I don't want anything to occur that further weakens it.



"Marriage, as we understand it in our society, is about children, having children, raising them, providing for the survival of the species.



"And I think if the same status is given in our society to gay unions as are given to traditional marriage we will weaken that bedrock institution."



Treasurer Peter Costello backed Mr Howard's stand today and said he believed a marriage must involve a man and a woman.



"Marriage is a partnership between a man and a woman; that's the definition we've got in legislation," Mr Costello told Sydney radio 2GB.



"Obviously, people have relationships and they might be long-term relationships between people of the same sex but to have a marriage, it has to be people of the opposite sex.



"I think that's the right legal definition."



Their comments came after the Pope last week reinforced the Catholic Church's opposition to same sex marriages.



Archbishop Francis Carroll, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, welcomed Mr Howard's comments.



"We warmly welcome Prime Minister Howard's strong support of marriage as a lifelong union between a man and a woman, which forms a fundamental institution in our society and is the foundation of family life," he said.



But gay activists condemned the government's position.



Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome said he believed the majority of Australians supported giving same-sex couples legal equality.



"Excluding gay and lesbian people from marriage is just as morally reprehensible as excluding women from the vote or making black people ride at the back of the bus," Mr Croome said.



"The purpose of marriage is to recognise, celebrate and reinforce values like love, commitment and support.



"They are not values that heterosexual couples have a monopoly over."



Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said Mr Howard's comments were old-fashioned and out of touch with reality.



"To support the continued discrimination against gay couples who want to marry is at best mean spirited, and at worst homophobic hysteria," she said in a statement.



Australian Democrats Senator Brian Greig said Mr Howard's views discriminated against gay and lesbian couples.



"By refusing to allow any formal legal recognition to same-sex partners, those who are raising children are experiencing direct discrimination from the commonwealth as a result," Senator Greig said.



One of parliament's openly gay senators, Senator Greig accused Mr Howard of being "anti-gay" and "fundamentalist".



He said Mr Howard's comments that gay marriages did nothing to support the survival of the species were "utterly ridiculous".



And he said Mr Howard's views could harm children being brought up by same-sex couples.

_____________________________________

:yawn C'mon Johnny, at least make a logical argument. You could have said something clever like deviant. Now that would have persuaded me.



ETA: a link to their poll on gay marriage.

~*@.......We are the weirdest person in the world.......@*~

Edited by: vix84 at: 8/5/03 4:37 pm
vix84
 


Re: GLBT in Australia - also not there yet

Postby justin » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:06 am

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding Mr Howards comments. Particularly this line



Quote:
"Well, this is not in anyway an attack on gay people, quite the reverse," Mr Howard told reporters in Darwin.






I really don't see how he can claim that his comments aren't an attack on gay people. In fact it seems as though that by being against gay marriage his in fact pro gay people. :confused Which begs the qestion does Mr Howard think that we're living in bizzaro world or something?



I understand, you should be with the person you l-love


I am


justin
 


Re: Re: GLBT News

Postby sprhrgrl » Tue Aug 05, 2003 8:35 am

'sprobably not where he's coming from, but there are some gay activists who are against gay marriage because that equals assimilation and becoming homogenous with the heterosexual (need I even include rich white) middle class, which is theoretically a setback or something. I don't quite understand the politics, but it's an interesting point of view.

sprhrgrl.com

she's my everything


Sweetie, I'm a fag. I been there. - Tara

The truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off. - Gloria Steinem

sprhrgrl
 


Re: GLBT News

Postby Diebrock » Tue Aug 05, 2003 9:18 am

Found here.

Quote:
Straight Wedge - Why the sudden focus on gay marriage?

Doug Ireland is a New York-based media critic and commentator.





When The New York Times ran an analysis story several days after President Bush jumped with both boots onto the gay marriage issue, this was the lead:



"The amazing thing, gay Republicans said, was that President Bush was not even asked about gay marriage at a Rose Garden news conference on Wednesday. But he plowed ahead and offered his opinion anyway -- he's against it."



Well, only an ostrich should have been surprised by Bush's decision to make political capital out of the gay marriage issue. Just two days before Bush's biblically-framed pronouncements categorizing gays as "sinners," a Gallup poll had shown a dramatic "backlash" (as poll director Frank Newport characterized it) against gays in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision striking down all laws prohibiting sex between consenting adults of the same gender -- the so-called sodomy laws.



Not only did support for same-sex civil unions drop from 49 percent in May to 40 percent, those saying "homosexuality should be considered an acceptable lifestyle" slalomed from 54 percent to 46 percent -- and, even worse, a comfortable 60 percent majority favoring the legalization of same-sex relations plummeted to 48 percent after the Court's decision. Among blacks, the drop on legalizing gay sex was even sharper: 23 points. (A New York Times poll released August 3 tended to confirm the backlash Gallup found, especially among blacks and Hispanics, with strong majorities opposing gay marriage -- 65 to 28 for blacks, 54 to 40 for Hispanics).



The Bush White House is even more poll-driven than Bill Clinton's was, and Karl Rove's opinion-watchers were telling him about the backlash before Gallup did. That was the meaning of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's declaration on Meet the Press the month before that he would "absolutely" support a constitutional ban on marriage for same-sex couples, which Newsweek's Howard Fineman reported at the time was made with "no-fingerprints support from the White House.''



Since then, the GOP's plan to use gay marriage as a wedge issue against the Democrats has become unmistakable. The Senate Republican Policy Committee, chaired by Arizona's Jon Kyl, issued a 12-page July 29 policy paper declaring gay marriage a "threat" that must be dealt with by the Senate, and providing a political roadmap -- reeking of homophobia -- of how to do it. And the Associated Press reported on August 1 that a Senate Judiciary subcommittee chaired by John Cornyn of Texas will take up gay marriage after the August recess; Cornyn thundered that "we must take care to do whatever it takes" to stop it.



Pushing the anti-gay hot button reflects Republican electoral strategy. Bush must hold and energize his base -- the 13 states whose sodomy laws were struck down by the Supreme court were all states that Bush carried in 2000. There are only some 40 Congressional districts considered "marginal" -- in other words, that's the tiny number of swing House seats in which the election of one major party's candidate is not already a foregone conclusion. And those districts are not in more gay-friendly urban areas, but in rural-suburban districts where Republicans expect the gay marriage issue to cut against Democrats. A lot of those districts are in the Bible Belt. Most of the Senate seats that are open (or expected to be) or marginal are on similar turf: Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Illinois (where the urban areas are heavily devout Catholic and half the state is rural) and Alaska. And the high negatives for gay marriage among blacks also play into Bush and the GOP's Southern/Heartland strategy. That's why Rove has made no secret of his preference for Howard Dean as the Democratic nominee -- the White House believes Dean's national identification with Vermont's civil unions for gays makes him easily beatable.



The new embrace of overt gay-bashing reflects the fact that two lawsuits by same-sex couple demanding the right to marry -- one in New Jersey, one in Massachusetts -- have been making their way through the courts. The Massachusetts case will be decided by the Bay State's Supreme Court this summer, and has a significant chance of success for the plaintiffs. As an article by Mary Bonauto in the American Bar Association's Human Rights Magazine Summer 2003 special issue on gay rights points out, "the current litigation demonstrates just how little the states have to rely upon in continuing to exclude same-sex couples from marriage." Their principle argument, as Bonauto notes, is :



"[P]rocreation, i.e., the begetting of children through a particular sexual act, as the raison d'etre of marriage to justify the [plaintiff] couples' exclusion from marriage. Like all other states, Massachusetts allows infertile and aged individuals to marry and remain married. In law and culture alike, marriage is about the love and commitment of the couple regardless of procreative capacity or intent. The state advanced child rearing as a justification, too, but reality and science land squarely on the plaintiffs' side. Children raised by gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents could marry, just as children in other families do. Moreover, child-rearing experts in the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association insist that the love and commitment of two parents is most critical for children -- not the parents' sex or sexual orientation. Among other things, they reassuringly point to 35 years of studies showing that children of gay and lesbian parents are normal and healthy on every measure of child development."



Bush got help from the Vatican when the Pope issued his edict demanding that Catholic politicians oppose not only gay marriage, but civil unions as a first step towards it. Denouncing the Church's political interference as "unwarranted" in an editorial, The Boston Globe also nailed the Vatican's kids-based argument when it said:



"Particularly galling is the language [in the Vatican decree] regarding the adoption of children by gay people, which is already permitted in Massachusetts and elsewhere. The document declares that allowing such adoptions 'would actually mean doing violence to these children' because they would be raised in an environment of 'deviant behavior.'



When it comes to doing violence to children, it seems obvious that the church has lost its moral authority, since it ignored, condoned and covered up a generation of sexual assault -- which was not consensual and not loving -- of children by American parish priests."



Just as the Pope's gay marriage denunciation and his trumpeting that homosexuality is "immoral" are designed to distract attention from the Church's pedophile scandals, Bush's announcement that he's assigned lawyers to figure out how to stop gay marriage is meant to take the play away from the daily Iraq body count of U.S. soldiers killed, the sputtering economy, the North Korea mess and other issues that have eroded his standing in the polls. It may work.



Furthermore, gay liberationist critics of the institutional gay movement's marriage obsession worry that another result of the issue's dominating the national discourse course on gays is that little public space or critical mass will be left to push ahead on other issues of equal or greater importance. As Michael Bronski, author of The Pleasure Principle, wrote in a thoughtful and important article in The Boston Phoenix:



"We can't even pass a federal nondiscrimination bill, much less make the streets safe for transgender kids who are being murdered in their own neighborhoods. So much energy is being expended on marriage that we might not have the resources to fight for other issues in the future, both near and far. It is tempting for social movements to become consumed by their own obsessions. The early women's movement focused entirely, fetishistically, on suffrage for nearly 70 years. When that battle was finally won, the movement nearly died and -- despite so much more to be accomplished -- did almost nothing until the late 1960s. Could this happen to the gay-rights movement?"



Finally, after every great national debate on gays -- like the one over gays in the military and "don't ask, don't tell" -- when the bigots and the advocates of the moral order are in full-throated cry against the queers, there has been a significant rise in incidents of violent gay-bashing, as homo-hating primitives (usually young) hear confirmation of their prejudices leaking from their TV screens. A new wave of physical attacks on gays is probably in the offing.



Bush's decision to surf on the new anti-gay backlash is thus likely to have a number of dark and nefarious negative consequences beyond the 2004 election cycle -- ones which the national media have so far ignored.


_________________

How can you kill people who killed people, to show that killing people is wrong?

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

Diebrock
 


Re: GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:15 pm

Bulletin to secular Kittens: There Yet!!! Gene Robinson confirmed as next Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire, and First *OUT* Gay Bishop in the Worldwide (um, for now) Anglican Communion! Hallelujah! :pray



GG We now return you to your secular queer programming :pride Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: Re: GLBT News

Postby xita » Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:50 pm

Well good one step forward, 2 steps back or whatever. Good for Gene Robinson!



Is it true? Is the gay movement too focused on marriage? Certainly I don't wish to be married and that's not my priority, I'd rather have a federal anti-discrimination bill. But it's become such a symbol now. It's like we aren't human enough to have our love acknowledged by the state. Isn't that what we are about our love, isn't that what makes us gay? TO deny us that is to truly be second class citizens. So, I understand the reasons behind this being a priority. As I watched bravo and it's boy meets boy show and watched the orbitz commercial for it's gay travel service , I wondered why society seems to be so schizophrenic.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"The suspense is terrible. I hope it'll last."


-Willie Wonka

xita
 


Re: Re: GLBT News

Postby Gatito Grande » Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:12 pm

Quote:
Is the gay movement too focused on marriage? Certainly I don't wish to be married and that's not my priority, I'd rather have a federal anti-discrimination bill.




What's really pathetic---or should I say, outrageous---is that we should be forced to choose. I can't recite Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" from memory, but it seems to me that having an affirmed (compensated) place in the world, and having a primary relationship affirmed, are both way up there.



In my own life, I desperately need a job. But what fires my imagination is the deeply-felt desire for a life-partner. There's no way *I* could choose which one to "put off" till some unknown future. I want them both now (well, the possibility of marrying Ms. Right, anyway! "Please Lord, let me find her soon." :heart )



GG Still on a Gene Robinson buzz---Yippie! :pride :party Out

Gatito Grande
 


Re: GLBT News: not there yet.

Postby Urn of Osiris » Wed Aug 06, 2003 7:03 am

Just thought I'd share this here. I've run out of friends and family to send it to.



Supporting gay marriage










Urn of Osiris
Peace is not the absence of conflict; it's the absence of inner conflict. Unknown
When we stand up, we are standing up for everybody. Each of us needs to know, in fact, that we are rainbows in the clouds... for everybody. MAYA ANGELOU

Edited by: Urn of Osiris  at: 8/6/03 6:12 am
Urn of Osiris
 

PreviousNext

Return to Board index

Return to The Kitten

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests


Powered by phpBB The phpBB Group © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007
Style based on a Cosa Nostra Design