Fighting Our Fight: the Gay Politics Thread

[Gatito Grande]

Just answer me some questions. Maybe i have the wrong idea. I am more than willing to admit it if i am wrong.



OK, I'm game:



1) Do you believe everyone who is against civil marriage for gays are homophobes?



Yes. Absolutely. Civil marriage is a civil right. To oppose it is to favor discrimination, period (and to discriminate against LGBTs is to be a homophobe).



2) Do you believe everyone who believes homosexuality is a sin is a homophobe.



De jure, No. De facto, Probably. That is, in every instance I've seen, those that believe that homosexuality is a sin, also believe that homosexuals are a special class of sinners, and hence it is appropriate to deny them equal rights. (In the same way that other "criminals" are denied equal rights).



3) Do you believe reaching out to those who oppose is a fruitful strategy.



What kind of "reaching out"? Generally speaking, reaching out is a good thing, but not in a way that compromises who we are. To say that I would permanently accept a second-class status ("civil union" ), in an effort to assuage "those who oppose" is an unacceptable compromise. We've learned by now that "separate but equal" never is (equal).



4) The religous right votes their beliefs. So do we.They work towards a country that reflects their beliefs. So do we.



My "beliefs" do not include barring the religious right from civil marriage, or employment, or any other civil right. I do not work for a country that discriminates on the basis of religious preference. This is a qualitative difference between my beliefs, and the religious right's.





a) Why are they cramming their beliefs down our throat and we are fighting the good fight?.



See above.





b) have you ever considered from their point of veiw we are cramming our believes down their throats.



I know that we are (from their POV). As one can see by plain logic above (they discriminate against me, while I do not want to discriminate against them), their views are irrational. They mistake their current privilege of oppression, with equal rights. Hence, from their POV, losing the power to discriminate against LGBTs, means that they are now discriminated against. This is clearly false: equal is equal.



5)Have you ever considered that however misguided the religous rights oppisition to gay marrage is that it may be motivated by factors other than hate of gays.



Is it possible that whites lynched blacks for reasons other than hate? That Nazis gassed Jews for reasons other than hate? Yes, it's quite possible (fear may be a better description of the emotion than "hate" ). Does it matter? Heck, No! Whether someone thinks I'm a "disgusting perverted faggot" or they're "loving the sinner while hating the sin", if it adds up to the Same Ol' Discrimination, it is a distinction without a difference.



These are questions I am struggling with. Maybe the insight of others can help me.



HTH Ronnie



GG . . . I mean Tabby. Which is it you prefer again? Out

[xita]

I think it would be really good if you talked to a professional abour your issues because they have very little to do with politics and more to do with self-image and self worth. I think when you learn to love yourself for who you are, you'll stop being grateful you don't get killed and start being angry that your rights are being denied.



We are at different places and I think you're trying to figure out really complex things at once. I would say deal with the personal first. That's my advice.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

Edited by: xita  at: 2/25/04 10:33 pm

[willowrulz4ever]

Quote:

---

Yes, anyone who hates me for my sexual orientation is a bigot. No matter their reasoning, they are homophobic

---

But,is disagreeing with your orientation or rejecting the fact that i am a female in a males body hateful.



My pastor and father believe that homosexality is a sin,that since I have a penis I am a man and for me to dress in women's clothing is a sin,they believe marriage is one man and one woman and that to grant civil marriage to gays is to endorse immorality and risk god turning his back on this nation.



However,they have never shown me anything but love and kidness.Pastor Terry removed a deacon who told my friend's rita and Chas that we did not want sodomites in our church.



He said all are welcome in God's church,becuase we are all sinners.he treated bot Rita and Chas with love and resect.



They live the saying love the person hate the sin.



i don't believe they are bigots.



I love these people.I now think theyare wrong but when you call the religous right bigots i feel like you are attacking them.



The past few weeks since Superbwl Sunday have been rough.I realized myself and the people I love are living a lie but they wont see it.and yet I love them.



If i embrace liberalism that attacks people like them am i betraying them.



I can' help but see their side.I used to be them.I used to hate the fact I never felt like a man.I used to hate gays and other trasgendered people becuase I felt we were all abominations.We deserved what ever the gay bashers did to us.The truth is the police never looked into the guys who beat me up for becuase the thought I was queer.I never reported it.I thought I got exactly what I deserved.



I was so pathetic I was not mad they beat me.I was upset they did not kill me.



How can I attack these people when I used to be just like them.



How can I join ya'll in this fight when i am no better than they are.



i supported the persecution of my own people.I beat gay kids so others would not think I was gay.



I cheered when Teena and Matt were killed.I wished it was me.

I have taken my confusion and guilt out on the mambers of this bard.I apologize.



i don't want aynbody growing up hating themselves the way I dif.



But what right do I ave to condemn the rght.



I am sorry.



I will understand if you hate me.It is what I dserve.



I am Tabitha Brandon.Not Ronnie.Not Gentlemam clonetrooper,not red leia.

[Gatito Grande]

Tabitha, I don't hate you---I don't believe anyone here does.



And I don't judge you for your former acts of homophobia. I bet there are a lot of us here in the same boat: I know I am (My freshman year in college, I said on my dorm application that I would not accept a gay roomie. I reasoned "Well, everyone else will check that 'No Gays' box, so if I don't also, I'm sure to get one of THEM." Did I mention I was deep in denial? )

Quote:

---

However,they have never shown me anything but love and kidness.Pastor Terry removed a deacon who told my friend's rita and Chas that we did not want sodomites in our church.



He said all are welcome in God's church,becuase we are all sinners.he treated bot Rita and Chas with love and resect.



They live the saying love the person hate the sin.

---

Yes, in Christian terms, we are all sinners (non-Christian Kittens, bear w/ me for the moment). However, is there one kind of sinner who can get married in your church, and another that can't? (You've said they won't even endorse civil marriage!) Could you be any kind of minister in your church, w/ your gender-nonconforming status?



Just what is their "love and kindness" really worth, if it comes conditionally, that you not act as if you (sinner) are no worse than they (sinners)?



Coming from the background you find yourself in, Tabitha, I'm sure your pastor and father's responses to you seem like a wonderful respite from out and out hatred. However, it is what is sometimes called "cheap grace." As long as they are just "loving the sinner while hating the sin" they don't really have to leave their comfort zones, and consider you equally made in the Image of God (Ask them if they can imagine Jesus being incarnate as gender-queer, and see how far that gets you. Better yet, for your safety Tabitha, DON'T.)



GG FWIW, Tabitha, *I* see you growing, more and more, into the person God made you to be. God loves you, and you should love you too. Give yourself a hand! Out



And if you ever want to talk off the board, it's tgflux@excite.com

[willowrulz4ever]

Thank you, all of you.





Tabitha

[mollyig]

Nothing much was mentioned in the news here in Ireland about Bush's proposal.



However, when we were watching the news last night they reported that Bush is intending to visit here in the summer. I promptly said "Right that's it, we're going to be there with our rainbow flags"

---

". . . and tolerance it ain't acceptance . . ." - Amy Ray

[cattwoman98111]

this may or may not help, hinder or change a damn thing but i "voted" anyway.





www.vote.com/vote/6020679...at=4075633

[JustSkipIt]

The ACLU has set up a 2-step link to allow you to contact your representative and let them know you think the ammendment is wrong.



Thanks. Debra

---

"Your little will can't do anything. It takes Great Determination. Great Determination doesn't mean just you making an effort. It means the whole universe is behind you and with you - the birds, trees, sky, moon, and ten directions." - Katagiri Roshi

[Darcy]

I'm a frequent viewer of the History Channel, and I got thinking today that there was a familiar ring to much of the rhetoric from opponents of marriage equality. I'm still reviewing some of the material I found, but these kind of leaped out at me ....



"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."



U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, 1996



"Marriages concluded in defiance of this law are void, even if, for the purpose of evading this law, they were concluded abroad."



Nazi Nuremburg Laws, 1935



"After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.



On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country."



From George W. Bush's speech calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, 2/24/2004



"From numerous places vigorous complaints have been received of the provocative action of individuals belonging to this people, and the remarkable frequency of these reports and the similarity of their contents point to a certain system of operation.

...The only way to deal with the problem which remains open is that of legislative action."



From Hitler’s Speech in the Reichstag on the Nuremberg Laws, September 1935

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Puff]

Darcy that was frankly very scary. The comparison was incredibly similar.

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[Kieli]

If I remember right, I said something very much like this in the Politics thread when it was first formed and I got slammed for comparing Bush's actions to Hitler's Ah well, at least someone else can see the similarities too.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Darcy]

I normally try to stay away from those kind of inflammatory comparisons, but the similarities were too frightening to ignore. As Santaya said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."



We're not the only ones sensing a repetition here. I was just reading an interesting article recounting an interview with Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst for 27 years, who draws the same conclusions:

Quote:

---

“I’m also talking about the measures that were taken in Nazi Germany after the fire that burned down the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament building, in 1933. It was that fire that allowed Hitler to institute his own legislation."



McGovern draws a parallel between 911 and the Reichstag fire. After claiming that the Communists committed arson, Hitler used the incident to declare a state of emergency and suspend some of the constitutionally protected personal freedoms of German citizens. These rights included freedom of speech and assembly.



“Very much like post-911 legislation instituted here in this country to curtail civil liberties,” McGovern says, "to make people feel that if they speak out against what is happening, they are unpatriotic."

---

The full article is at nathancallahan.com/mcgovern.html

*****************
I don't care if it is an orgy of death, there's still such a thing as a napkin! - Willow in "Superstar"

[Kieli]

Too bad it took three years for some people to actually start seeing the parallels instead of assuming that the comparison was meant to be inflammatory. However, it's better late than never so hopefully more people will start getting outraged enough to take action. No one is comparing Hitler the man to Bush the man....just their policies and political behaviour. One cannot help but notice them. This is what probably kept people from opening their minds. The inability to make the distinction within the criticism.

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Sally McFine]

There's a big rally Wednesday March 3 at 5:45pm at the corner of 17th and Rhode Island Ave. NW in front of the HRC building to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment and in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. All kittens in DC are welcome!

[Gatito Grande]

Happy Michigan Kitten here!

Quote:

---

House short on votes for gay marriage amendment

March 9, 2004, 4:50 PM



LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- The Michigan House failed Tuesday to get enough votes to allow voters to decide this summer whether they want to change the state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman.



The House voted 65-38 on the resolution, short of the 73 votes needed to send it to the Senate. Loud applause broke out outside the House chamber and in the balcony after the vote.



About a dozen representatives spoke on both sides of the issue as a mostly silent chamber listened.



A spokesman for House Speaker Rick Johnson, R-LeRoy, said House leaders haven't determined when the measure would be reconsidered.



The resolution needs a two-thirds vote from the House and Senate to appear on the August primary ballot, where it would need support from a majority of voters to be added to the constitution.



Rep. Gary Newell, a Republican from Saranac who introduced the resolution, said he was disappointed by the vote.



"I was surprised by a couple of the votes out there," he said.



Democratic Rep. Chris Kolb of Ann Arbor, the only openly gay lawmaker in the Legislature, used his floor speech to talk about his seven-year relationship.



"I don't know if I pop the question what my partner's response would be," he said. "I hope someday that if I do that it will be recognized by the state."



The measure was supported by many GOP lawmakers, who said state law limiting marriage to one man and one woman isn't enough. They say an amendment would strengthen the law against legal challenges, pointing to a number of jurisdictions across the country that have allowed gay marriages including those in California, New Mexico and Oregon.



"Today an aggressive assault is being waged aided by activist judges who would attempt to redefine this institution that has stood the test of time for thousands of years," said Republican Rep. Jack Hoogendyk of Portage.



But a few GOP representatives voted against the measure, including Reps. Leon Drolet of Macomb County's Clinton Township and Lorence Wenke of Richland.



Drolet said the resolution was designed to show government's disapproval of a lifestyle.



"I think we found a minority that could be made into a scapegoat," he said. "It's easy to blame them. We're back on the playground still playing 'sneer the queer."'



The House considered a slightly amended version of the resolution.



Newell agreed to change the language to prevent it from affecting public universities and local governments that offer domestic partner benefits. He also moved up the election it would appear on the ballot from November to August to stem arguments that it was politically motivated to turn out Republicans in the general election.



Rep. Ken Bradstreet, R-Gaylord, said voters should be able to decide the issue.



"Let the people decide one way or the other," Bradstreet said. "Do we trust the people or don't we?"



At a news conference earlier Tuesday, a handful of Democrats said they would vote against the resolution. They said state lawmakers should be focusing their efforts on getting more jobs in Michigan and balancing the state budget, which is facing a $1.3 billion deficit.



House Minority Leader Dianne Byrum, D-Onondaga, said Republican leaders who want to hold a vote on the resolution "are ignoring the issues most important to Michigan families."

---

www.freep.com/news/statew...040309.htm



GG Good that quite a few (though want *more*) moderate legislators are seeing through this smokescreen Out

[skittles]

Yeah, TOO!! Another Happy Michigan Kitten!! YAY!!!!



Thanks, GG!!!

skittles



"I'll tell you how the sun rose, --A ribbon at a time." Emily Dickinson

[Puff]

U.S. National - AP



Two States Deal Setbacks to Gay Marriage

1 hour, 13 minutes ago Add U.S. National - AP to My Yahoo!



By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer



SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies.



Meanwhile, Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.



The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents.



The California court did not rule on the legality of gay marriages, and justices indicated they would decide in the coming months whether San Francisco's mayor had the authority to allow the weddings.



The dispute began Feb. 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay couples from around the country have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from the Supreme Court. More than 3,700 couples having tied the knot in San Francisco so far.



The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages.



The justices ruled unanimously that Newsom must "refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized" by California marriage laws.



"They restored order to chaos in San Francisco," said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.



Newsom's spokesman, Peter Ragone, said the city would comply with the ruling as soon as officials receive the order.



Jon Davidson, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal aid group, said the ruling simply puts the issue on hold for now.



"The court has put everything on pause rather than stop," he said. "They are saying that until we hear this, you are on pause."



Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.



Newsom's defiance of California law prompted several other cities across the nation to follow suit, and President Bush (news - web sites) last month said he would back a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.



Massachusetts lawmakers' actions come after the state's highest court ruled in November that it was unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying — a ruling that sparked a legislative scramble to amend the state constitution.



In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are scrutinizing their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them.



Lockyer and the Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples — such as the right to receive the other spouse's property in the absence of a will.





*Personal note* I'm so mad. Heaven forbid all those gay people that got married thought they had any rights. Let's see where this goes from here.

---

So, the day started and I knew my name and had my pants on. So far, so good. Yay.
Amber Benson

[Gatito Grande]

I note that Massachusetts' LGBT activists say it is not all bad news, but . . .

Quote:

---

Gay marriage ban wins preliminary approval, but final support uncertain

By Jennifer Peter, Associated Press, 3/11/2004



BOSTON -- Massachusetts lawmakers gave preliminary approval Thursday to a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but legalize civil unions as the state again took center stage in the national debate over the rights of same-sex couples to wed.



The amendment, which would strip gay couples of their court-granted marriage rights, must still weather several additional votes and anticipated legislative maneuvering by opponents, who said the vote was all part of their strategy to ultimately defeat a ban.



The earliest a ban could end up on a statewide ballot is November 2006, more than two years after same-sex couples can start getting married in Massachusetts.



It was adopted 129-69 with the help of several known advocates of gay marriage, triggering speculation that they could withdraw their support on the critical final vote needed before this year's constitutional convention ends.



"Our ultimate goal is to have no anti-gay amendment on the ballot, so it seems strange that we're glad about the way this vote turned out, but it moves us forward towards that end," Arline Isaacson, co-leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, explained to hundreds of supporters outside the House chamber.



Due to the elaborate constitutional-amendment process, the ban must be approved by the Legislature at least three more times this year -- perhaps as soon as Thursday night -- and then again during the 2005-06 legislative session. Shortly after this initial vote, legislators broke for dinner and were planning reconvene at 6:45 p.m.



Under a landmark high court decision issued in November and reaffirmed in February, gay marriage will become legal in Massachusetts on May 17 -- two and a half years before any constitutional amendment could go on the ballot for popular approval.



The vote in favor of the ban occurred against a backdrop of renewed protests on Beacon Hill, where the Legislature resumed its constitutional convention after a monthlong hiatus filled with behind-the-scenes negotiations.



Ron Crews, head of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which has led the opposition of gay marriage, acknowledged the outcome still remained unclear, but was encouraged.



"The silver lining out of this is you saw a desire here to protect marriage," he said.



The first constitutional convention ended after three versions of a ban met narrow defeats during two days of passionate debate, pitting civil rights for gay couples against the desire to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.



While the national landscape has shifted dramatically since lawmakers last convened, with unsanctioned gay marriages occurring across the country and President Bush endorsing a federal amendment, the spotlight remained on Massachusetts -- the first state to legalize gay marriages.



"No Hatred. Just loving biblical truth," read posters held by some of the opponents of gay marriage who gathered on the Statehouse steps.



Lynn Tibbets, 50, of Boston, held a sign urging "No discrimination in the constitution."



"It used to just make me mad -- the people on the other side. Now it just makes me sad," Tibbets, a financial management consultant, said as she choked back tears.



If an amendment wins final approval, House Speaker Thomas Finneran has said he will seek to prevent the issuance of marriage licenses -- and the potential legal confusion it could cause -- until the voters are able to weigh in on the amendment.



Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes gay marriage, has said he would also seek to avoid the legal confusion, but has committed to following the law as it exists May 17.



The crowds began gathering outside the Statehouse at 6 a.m. and by midday more than 3,000 people had filed through security checkpoints into the building, while 1,000 others rallied outside. Hundreds of gay-marriage supporters resumed their post outside the House chambers, singing patriotic hymns and protest ballads, as they did for hours on the last day of the February debate, forcing lawmakers to walk through their ranks as they went to take successive votes on the amendment.



Many opponents of gay marriage came to the Statehouse wearing baseball hats with crosses on them and shirts bearing biblical phrases, promoting heterosexual marriage. Interspersed among the singers, they prayed silently and sang competing hymns.



"Unfortunately, they believe we don't like them," said Maria Reyes, 51, of Boston, an elementary school teacher who came to support a same-sex marriage ban with the Hispanic Baptist Church in Boston. "That's not the issue here. We need to obey God's will."

---

www.boston.com/news/speci...uncertain/



and if that weren't bad enough . . .

Quote:

---

California's top court blocks gay marriages

Thursday, March 11, 2004 Posted: 6:55 PM EST (2355 GMT)



SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday ordered an immediate halt to gay marriages in San Francisco, delivering a victory to conservatives who have fought for a month to block the ceremonies.



The court did not rule on the legality of gay marriages, and justices indicated they would decide in the coming months whether San Francisco's mayor had the authority to allow the weddings.



The dispute began February 12, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered his administration to issue same-sex marriage licenses. A steady stream of gay couples from around the country have traveled to be married at City Hall, just a block from the Supreme Court. More than 3,700 couples having tied the knot in San Francisco so far.



The action by California's highest court came two weeks after state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and a conservative group asked the seven justices to immediately block the gay marriages.



The justices ruled unanimously that Newsom must "refrain from issuing marriage licenses or certificates not authorized" by California marriage laws.



"They restored order to chaos in San Francisco," said Joshua Carden, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defense Fund.



Newsom's spokesman, Peter Ragone, said the city would comply with the ruling as soon as officials receive the order.



Jon Davidson, an attorney for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay rights legal aid group, said the ruling simply puts the issue on hold for now.



"The court has put everything on pause rather than stop," he said. "They are saying that until we hear this, you are on pause."



Had the court declined to intervene, the legal battle over gay marriage in California would have taken years as gay marriage lawsuits traveled through the state's lower courts.



Newsom's defiance of California law prompted several other cities across the country to follow suit, and President George W. Bush last month said he would back a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.



The California court's action came as Massachusetts lawmakers reconvened Thursday to consider a ban on gay marriage. They gave preliminary approval to a proposal that would ban gay marriage but allow civil unions.



Massachusetts' highest court ruled in November that it was unconstitutional to prevent gays from marrying -- a ruling that sparked a legislative scramble to amend the state constitution.



In statehouses nationwide, lawmakers are scrutinizing their constitutions to see if they could be construed to permit same-sex marriages, even in states where laws now bar them.



Lockyer and the Alliance Defense Fund said the court's action was urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples -- such as the right to receive the other spouse's property in the absence of a will.

---

www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/1...index.html







GG Sez the 'phobe "We need to obey God's will": my queer Christian arse! Out

[xita]

sigh, well the good news is that as long as there isn't a federal constitutional amendment we're doing well. I still say it is only a matter of time and it will seem really ridiculous in the not too distant future. sigh sigh

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Hard work often pays off after time but laziness always pays off now!"

[Gatito Grande]

Some of you may have read about the following over on the GLBT news thread. At the bottom of the story, there's a link you can go to send an e-mail to this b*stard:

Quote:

---

Reverse Decision Allowing Discrimination Against Gay & Lesbian Public Servants



Contributed by Working Assets



The Bush administration has taken steps to make it easier to fire a Federal employee on the basis of their sexual orientation. Since 1980, it has been official Federal policy to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This policy, along with other forms of discrimination, has been enforced by the Office of Special Counsel, an independent office.



The new head of the office, Scott Bloch, was recently appointed by President Bush, after serving as associate director of the Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives. This roll back not only contradicts campaign promises by then candidate Bush, but promises made during the confirmation hearings by Mr. Bloch himself.



The controversy arose when Mr. Bloch ordered the removal of sexual orientation as a protected category on the office’s website as well as its removal from all training materials from his office. He then announced that he was initiating a review of the legal underpinnings of the long standing policy while calling on his staff to catch up on the large backlog of other discrimination complaints not yet investigated by his office.



The timing could hardly be more suspicious. With Mr. Bush behind in the polls, it appears that he is trying to energize his most conservative base by attacking gay and lesbian civil rights.



Call to action



Contact Mr. Bloch and urge him to stick to the task of protecting all Federal employees against discrimination, including that based on sexual orientation.

---

Here's the contact link:



www.workingforchange.com/...emid=16650



GG Is it 2004 or 1954? It seems like Bush & Co. are trying to take us back to the "Good Old Days" of official hate and discrimination. Out

[Diebrock]

www.rheacountygayday.com

Quote:

---

Rhea County is was once best known as the 1925 site of the Scopes "Monkey Trial," when local high school science teacher John T. Scopes was charged with teaching about evolution in violation of state law. It is now best known as the county where homosexuals are not welcome. The County Commissioners approved the process to make it possible for homosexuals in Rhea County to be arrested for "Crimes Against Nature". They took things farther by also approving the process of finding ways to prohibit homosexuals from living or working in Rhea County. After a nationwide uproar the County Commissioners reversed their decisions. We will now celebrate their reversal with an annual Gay Day held at the Rea County Court House located in Dayton Tennessee.

---

_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

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

[BohemianKitten]

Tennesee Kitten here. I live in a county pretty close to Rhea. I will say that people down here are not to open minded. They think it's a good idea!



I hope to attened gay day. Any other kittens going?



and Forever

[Gatito Grande]

Here in Michigan, it looks depressingly likely that the ballot in November will have a measure to amend the (state) Constitution to ban same-sex marriages, and civil unions, too (the 'phobes say they have ~450,000 signatures, to put it on the ballot, and they only need 318,000).



Combined w/ the on-going national struggle (and let's not kid ourselves: even if the Constitutional Amendment is dead---I hope!---in this session of Congress, i.e. the Senate, we have to expect that it will come back, again and again in the foreseeable future), this has got me thinking about our tactics.



In some LGBT&allies (?) quarters, I hear the argument (re these amendments) "We don't need them . . . we've got ____ laws banning same-sex marriage on the books already" (I think a variation of this argument has been heard in the Kerry camp as well, along w/ "leave it to the states").



This is a profoundly mistaken tactic, IMO. The "we don't need it" argument can easily be taken for a back-door endorsement of the concept of banning same-sex marriage---and to endorse the concept, while possibly constructive in winning a given Constitutional amendment battle, is ultimately going to lose us the war.



So, if that's the wrong tactic (line of argumentation), what's the right one(s)?



It would be great if the best defense were a good offense: "Ban same-sex marriage? We should all endorse it!!!" Unfortunately, outside extremely Democratic areas (read "cities w/ large LGBT communities"), I don't think it is. Polls may be ambiguous (depending on wording), but I just don't think we're at the point of the electoral majority endorsing same-sex marriage (boy, do I hope Massachusetts proves me wrong in a couple years! ).



But is there a middle ground (between saying "current marriage-banning laws are OK" and "change those license applications to say 'Spouse 1' and 'Spouse 2'!")? I think so.



The tactic that I---speaking on this Independence Day Holiday---think we should take, is one of "appealing to our American tradition" (I say this, obviously, to U.S. Kittens). That is, to proclaim to the electorate that "the tradition of American democracy, over 2+ centuries, is to do away w/ discrimination and to ever more endorse that "all Americans (law-abiding, tax-paying, etc.) are created equal---equal under the law."



[Uh-oh: GG has the sneaking suspicion I may be repeating myself on this thread. Oh well! ]



The "appeal to American tradition" argument has a number of pluses. First of all, it takes the very concept of "tradition/traditional" back from the 'phobes! (Or at least contests it) Second, it enables us to avoid (unfortunately) Pavlov's Dog phrases like "gay marriage." While this may seem like a concession (what, I'm afraid to name who we are?), I don't see it that way. No, I see it as a way of saying, ala the Socratic logic (?), "All Americans are equal. LGBT Americans are, duh, Americans. Ergo, LGBT Americans are equal." True, that may not quite get us, automatically, to " . . . therefore, LGBT relationships are equal, too." But it certainly leaves the door wide open to that interpretation (which "we have same-sex marriage-banning laws already" does not do).



Happy Independence Day, U.S. Kittens! While I'm the first Yank to admit all the flaws our Republic has had/perpetuated in 228 years, Jefferson's "all [humans] are created equal" line still names a basic truth, which even many 'phobically-inclined have difficulty getting around. (Hello, Cognitive Dissonance! ) Since we have that American tradition on our side, let's use it!



GG W/ apologies to the Red, White & Blue, this is the only flag-waving I like to do. Out



Edited for grammar.

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/9/04 11:46 am

[Kieli]

Speaking of tactics:



Senate to Debate Marriage Amendment

Quote:

---

Senate to Debate Marriage Amendment



22 minutes ago



By MARY DALRYMPLE, Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON - The Senate wades into an election-year debate Friday over whether to write into the Constitution that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."



Its strongest proponents say a constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent federal courts from hearing cases that challenge a federal law disallowing same-sex unions. With such an amendment, they say, a court wouldn't be able to rule that gay marriage is legal.





"Some would define this as the ultimate culture battle," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.





Many Democrats say the debate is a political diversion orchestrated for the weeks running up to the presidential nominating conventions.





"It's all about politics, folks. Let's face it," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "We're going to go on to gay marriage before the Democratic convention so some people can cast a vote that might hurt them in their election. Shame on us."





Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged senators to begin informal debate on the legislation Friday, and said debate would continue Monday and Tuesday with a goal of voting Wednesday.





Senators fighting for the constitutional amendment would have to secure a two-thirds vote — 67 of the Senate's 100 members — to approve it. Some supporters questioned Thursday whether they had even the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles.





"We're going to have to see how that vote comes out," said Sen. Wayne Allard, the Colorado Republican who drafted the proposed amendment.





The Senate's GOP leaders brought a prominent black conservative, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, to discuss constitutional and cultural aspects of the issue with Republican senators.





Blackwell said he also delivered a political message: "You're not at risk of political defeat if you hold your ground."





Several Republican senators have said they're wary of amending the Constitution, the nation's two-centuries-old founding document, before exhausting all other avenues.





And some senators, Republican and Democratic, simply oppose the idea.





"Nuts," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. "To be seen as the party that's coming between two people that love each other doing what they want to do ... to me that's going to be seen as a liability, politically."

---

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[maudmac]

All this scrambling to amend the Constitution indicates that the right-wingers realize that prohibiting gay marriage is currently unconstitutional. Which you'd think would be kind of a sign, you know? Not to these people. Fools. How dare they break their backs to guarantee that any minority of the population be denied the same rights and responsibilities the majority enjoys. It's ludicrous. And infuriating.



I'm so mad I could spit.

---

i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

Gay Rights Site Runs 'Outing' Ad Aimed at the Hill



By Jose Antonio Vargas

Washington Post Staff Writer

Friday, July 9, 2004; Page C01





It reads like an ominous threat: "For Years Our Silence Has Protected You. Today That Protection Ends."



The Washington Blade, the area's gay weekly newspaper, today is running a full-page ad, titled "Final Call to Conscience," that helps fuel anxiety on Capitol Hill involving what local gay rights activists call an "outing craze" over the past two weeks.



The $1,400 color ad -- paid for by the Web site DearMary.com (Mary as in Mary Cheney, Vice President Cheney's openly gay daughter) -- is similar to "Call to Conscience," an ad that ran in the Blade in 1996 when Congress was deliberating the Defense of Marriage Act. John Aravosis, national co-chairman of DearMary.com, said yesterday that as with the previous ad, this one seeks to highlight the "hyprocrisy within gays and lesbians on the Hill who work for anti-gay members of Congress."



This time, the legislation in question is the Federal Marriage Amendment, which President Bush endorsed in February, calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife."



Mary Cheney, who is working on her father's reelection campaign, has not taken a public stance on the amendment. Similarly, gay rights activists say, there are gay men and lesbians on the Hill who lead "closeted" lives at the office, supporting the "homophobic" stance of their bosses, then go to gay bars and attend functions with their gay lovers after work.



Asked to explain what sounds like an ultimatum in the ad, Aravosis said only: "There is no quid pro quo here. What we're saying is, we won't tolerate this anymore."



Aravosis, 40, a political consultant who lives in Adams Morgan, said DearMary.com has raised $23,000 since February and has used the money to run DearMary.com ads online for the past three weeks. "The gay community needs to have a debate: Is it okay for members of our community to help our enemies attack us? This is a big gay town. Lots of gays who work for both Republicans and Democrats."



Adams Morgan fundraiser and consultant Michael Rogers, 40, is leading his own outing campaign. Two days ago he started a Web log that lists the names of congressional staffers who he and his network of a dozen volunteers say are gay, based on tips from "Hill staffers" and "organizational staffers," he said yesterday.



"We're working on a lot of leads, two of them elected members of Congress," said Rogers, who says he has received death threats since launching the blog. "Fact is, a group of congressmen have declared war on gay people, and we're fighting back. We need to expose the hyprocrisy of Congress."



National gay rights groups, such as the Human Rights Campaign and the Log Cabin Republicans, which is based in Washington, oppose "outing tactics."



"Our enemies are the enemies on Capitol Hill and in the White House who are trying to write discrimination in the Constitution," said Steven Fisher, spokesman for the HRC, the largest gay group in the country.



"The outing of staffers is counterproductive," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the LCR, a conservative gay group. "It takes the focus away from changing the hearts and minds of legislators on Capitol Hill. . . . The reality is, there are a lot of courageous Hill staffers having heart-to-heart discussions with their bosses to get them to be on the right side of the FMA issue. Coming out is a personal journey, not one dictated by others."



Both activist groups are campaigning against the marriage amendment. The Senate plans to begin debate on the measure today.

---

Quote:

---

July 9, 2004



Gay Gamble

Next Monday, Senate Republicans are planning to fire up a long-awaited floor debate on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), that infamous constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage once and for all.



The amendment itself has scant chance of ever passing the Senate -- it needs 67 votes to stay alive, and an informal head count suggests that at least 40 Senators will oppose the measure. That, of course, is not the issue. Republicans are hoping to force prominent Senate Democrats -- especially John Kerry, John Edwards, and Tom Daschle -- to take a public stand on a divisive issue. If these politicians oppose the amendment, the thinking goes, they will appear out of touch with mainstream swing voters. As many observers have noted, the political ramifications are endless:





"The goal is to put Democrats in a tough position," said Executive Director David Noble of the Stonewall Democrats, a gay rights advocacy organization. "This is a strategy. [Bush strategist] Karl Rove wants gay people who might not be 100 percent enthusiastic about John Kerry to stay home."



Indeed, the move reeks of cynicism. But who, exactly, is in the tough position here? Are Republicans really correct in their political calculations? Evidence suggests not.



Looking carefully at poll data, it seems that public opinion on the FMA hinges almost entirely on how the debate is framed. A February CBS poll revealed that a formidable 59 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment that would "allow marriage only between a man and a woman." But when asked to weigh in on an amendment that would "outlaw marriages between people of the same sex," support dwindled to 51 percent. Notice how a subtle change in wording can change popular opinion. And there's more: a March poll conducted by the Annenberg Center showed that only 41 percent of Americans favor an amendment saying that "no state can allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other." When voters start thinking about states' rights and discrimination, suddenly the FMA doesn't sound like such a hot idea.



This hardly bodes well for supporters of the amendment. Highly vocal Republicans, like John McCain, have clearly stated that the marriage issue should be left for the states to decide. Incidentally, this was the position taken by Dick Cheney (who has a gay daughter) in 2000, and Democrats like Kerry have taken every opportunity to call attention to this fact. So states' rights will be a huge part of the debate. And let's not discount the emotional effect of those touching pictures of middle-aged women getting married in San Francisco and Massachusetts. All of the sudden, gay marriage might not look so threatening, and a constitutional amendment might seem a lot more discriminatory than it once did - making it harder for conservatives to put their stance in a positive light.



It is possible that Republicans are focusing not on winning a majority but simply on riling up their core supporters. Karl Rove has made no secret of his desire to bring out millions of new evangelical voters in 2004. Forcing a debate over gay marriage might energize the base. Then again, it might not. Ever since the Massachusetts court ruling, the expected evangelical mass outrage has barely emerged, as the Washington Post recently reported:





"As much as evangelicals and other Christians are bothered by gay marriage, it may not be their top priority. Like everybody else, they worry about Iraq and the economy," [said John C. Green, a professor at Akron University who studies evangelicals and politics]…





Marvin Olasky, editor of World, the largest evangelical newsmagazine, said he is not sure that his 135,000 subscribers want to read much about it, either. "We've run three Iraq covers in a row," he said. "We've had some coverage of [same-sex marriage], but it's not our foremost concern."



From the looks of things, Democrats can easily take the high road and call the FMA an unnecessary diversion from Iraq, the economy, health care, and other more important issues.



The prospect for a Republican political victory hardly looks much better on the state and local level. Republicans are hoping that a vote on gay marriage will scuttle Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who is running a tight re-election race in South Dakota and has promised to oppose the amendment. Such hopes, however, are misguided. As The Advocate recently noted, no one in South Dakota seems to care. Daschle campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer has said that, on the campaign trail, the issue "didn't come up once." Also keep in mind that last month, Democrat Stephanie Herseth won South Dakota's at-large congressional seat, even after coming out in favor of civil unions and straddling the marriage amendment question.



In fact, as far as the Senate races are concerned, the FMA could prove more harmful to Republicans. Daschle is the only Democratic incumbent in real danger of losing his seat this fall, whereas Republicans have three Senators facing tight races: Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and Christopher "Kit" Bond in Missouri. It's far from obvious that a debate over gay marriage will help any of these incumbents. In Alaska, a gay marriage amendment sharply split the electorate back in 1998. Murkowski would no doubt prefer to avoid further controversy among voters who already resent her for being appointed to the Senate by her father. Likewise, Missouri is facing a bitter battle over a marriage amendment in August, and a highly charged atmosphere will put unwanted pressure on Kit Bond, who was hoping to cruise quietly to reelection.



But perhaps no one is in a more difficult position than Arlen Specter. The moderate Pennsylvanian has taken pains to avoid speaking out on the FMA, though his record suggests he will oppose it. Specter is deeply unpopular among the state's social conservatives, who backed the ultra-rightwing Pat Toomey in the primary. A vote against the FMA will only further incur their wrath. On the other hand, if Specter endorses the amendment, he risks alienating the moderate urban voters who have kept him in office for fourteen years. It doesn't get more precarious than this.



Democrats may well know how strong a hand they have. On Thursday, Roll Call reported that the party may allow an up-or-down vote on the amendment:





Democrats who advocate this course said forcing a procedural vote would provide an inaccurate sense of support for the measure. Many GOP Senators who would be tempted to vote against the amendment itself, they say, might support the Republican leadership’s right to proceed to the bill, which would become the only vote of record on the issue this year.



Indeed, rather than tiptoe around the bill with cloture votes and procedural votes and votes to end or prolong the debate, the Democrats should go ahead and call the GOP's bluff. All those who want to ban gay marriage, say 'aye' -- and be prepared to pay dearly for it.



- Bradford Plumer

---

Ben



"Never be discouraged from being an activist because people tell you that you'll not succeed. You have already succeeded if you're out there representing truth or justice or compassion or fairness or love."

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 7/9/04 5:08 pm

[maudmac]

About outing, I've always been kind of ambivalent about outing in general. Because gays and lesbians being outed by 'phobes and fundies has been so hurtful. Maybe not so much these days, but years ago, things like that cost a lot of people jobs, among other things. And then when gays and lesbians started outing each other...when was that?...early '90s?...I wasn't sure that was the right way to go, either. The argument was that gay and lesbian celebrities, athletes, and politicians, people in positions of influence and power, they had a kind of political obligation to come out. And if they weren't willing to do it themselves...



I can still argue back and forth with myself about some motivations for outing, but this outing of people who are actively working for politicians who seek to deny us rights...it's very easy to see those gays and lesbians as our enemies. At the very least, they are sleeping with our enemies. Might they be having "heart-to-heart discussions with their bosses to get them to be on the right side of the FMA issue"? I suppose so. Might they not? How can we know? (And if they are having those "heart-to-heart discussions" then surely their bosses know they're gay, so if they're outed, what's the harm?)



I don't know. It's complicated.



Personally, I feel like gays and lesbians do have a political obligation to be out when/if they possibly can be. We all know that it becomes increasingly difficult to be homophobic when you actually know gay people. Obviously, there are many notable exceptions to this. But, as a rule, people become more tolerant when they have personal contact with someone they'd like to hate. They come to see these people not as The Downfall of Human Civilization, but as normal human beings just like they are. So one person coming out of the closet can potentially have a positive effect on a whole community, which benefits all gays and lesbians. And until we have all the rights straight people do, it's perhaps not as much of a "personal journey" as it is a civil rights struggle. (And whether the push for gay rights is a civil rights issue is a whole other gigantic debate.)



Which leads to this: there's also the issue that a whole lot of other people society discriminates against don't have the luxury of passing, of hiding who and what they are in the face of a prejudiced majority.



Now, about Republicans forcing the debate and vote on FMA, I sincerely hope that bites them all in the ass. There's no justification for it other than bigotry and I want to live to see these bigots fall, and fall hard. As jaded as I am, I still haven't entirely given up hope that this country will see the light and quit hating on people for who they love.

---

i wasn't sniffing your spicy brains

[Gatito Grande]

That's a very eloquent post, Holley: kudos.



As far as outing staffers (I have no problem *whatsover* outing 'phobic politicians themselves! ): I think it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Some fresh-out-of-college intern or junior flunkey? No. An official spokesperson (who may well have uttered homophobic public statements) or chief of staff? Yes! Somewhere in the middle? Probably not.



But even in the cases where outing is being considered, said traitors to the family should be approached individually, and given the chance to bow out of their harm-creating jobs quietly (and told that they will receive quiet support from inside the LGBT community if they do). Or, they can stay in their positions, but come clean about being the hypocrites they are!



GG Best of all, of course, they can accept who they are---both publicly and privately---and get on the Gay Righteous side! Out



I'm definitely for an Up-or-Down Vote (on the FMA). It's time for all the Senators to "fish or cut bait" (or cut LGBTs, as the case may be )

[Kieli]

Don't know which of the three threads this should be in but....oh well, just sharing mostly because Bush is sounding more like a frickin' idiot every time he opens his mouth:



Bush Presses Case Against Gay Marriage

Quote:

---

Bush Presses Case Against Gay Marriage



28 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!



By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer



WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.



A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.



Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, "If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened."



His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.



Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering.



Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) of holding inconsistent positions.



Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.



Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. "That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution," he said.



The president urged the House and Senate to send to the states for ratification an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.



Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as Wednesday.



A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly, Bush said, "yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice."



The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.



"I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me," Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in remarks directed at gay and lesbian voters. Smith is a leader in efforts to make attacks against homosexuals a federal hate crime.



The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, said the president and congressional allies "should focus on the priorities of the American people, not the agenda of their extremist base."

---

Time flies by when the Devil drives.
It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.

[Gatito Grande]

I actually find Bush's verbal garbage very encouraging. He (and his handlers, obviously) know that pushing this obscenity (the FMA) on the basis of demonizing gay couples has no chance whatsoever. Gone are the days that they could just point to us, and have Middle America grab their pitchforks: they've given that up! That's a pretty amazing change if you ask me.



So now, that have to turn to the Bug-A-Boo of "a small number of {ayeeee!} Activist Judges." Now, where have I heard that one before? Oh yeah, I know, re abortion ("Curse you, Roe v. Wade!" ) . . . where the Right has gotten *nowhere* w/ the Constitutional Amendment route (after more than three decades). They don't even try for that anymore!



GG They'll get nowhere w/ a Constitutional Amendment on same-sex marriage either. They may have more luck at the level of the states, but as long as we can keep the U.S. Constitution free of this discrimination, we can (eventually) use that same Constitution to overturn discriminatory state laws/constitutions. I wish the process would move faster---though when you look at the last 4 years or so, starting w/ Vermont C.U.'s, there's been a *lot* of progress---but that We Will Win is pretty damn inevitable. But let's all keep up the pressure! Out



ETA: Just click this link, to send emails to your Senators and House Rep. DO IT NOW!

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/12/04 10:27 am