The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe Willow & Tara Forever

by **WebWarlock** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:42 am

Here's one,

www.chicagotribune.com/ne...nworld-hed

Quote:

After 17 years and 2 kids . . .

. . . gay couple goes to Washington's top court to fight for right to marry, protect their family

By Rebecca Cook

Associated Press

Published March 6, 2005

SEATTLE -- The Castle-Bauer household moves to a familiar rhythm.

Celia Castle wakes before dawn on a school day, starts the coffee, feeds the pets and fixes her daughters' lunches.

Soon the house will fill with light and the sounds of 12-year-old Nicola and 9-year-old Robbie as they wake up. There will be school and work, choir and piano practice, and when it gets dark again, everyone will gather around the dinner table and share at least one good thing about their day.

Small dramas punctuate their routine: A hamster escapes, a science project deadline is imminent, aging plumbing dies.

But Tuesday will be different. They will head to Olympia, where lawyers will stand before the state Supreme Court and debate the family's fate in the cold language of constitutional law. Then they'll wait for nine justices to decide whether Nicola and Robbie's mothers can marry.

Although they are lead plaintiffs in Washington state's gay marriage lawsuit, Brenda Bauer, 48, and Castle, 49, did not set out to become gay-rights pioneers. They watched with interest but little urgency as gay marriage was legalized in British Columbia in 2003 and then briefly in San Francisco last year.

But when Oregon's Multnomah County started granting same-sex marriage licenses last spring, they drove there to exchange "I do's" before a judge.

The Castle-Bauers' Oregon marriage license is in legal limbo now, as are the unions of 3,000 other gay couples who got married there last spring. Oregonians, along with voters in 10 other states, passed a ballot measure last November banning same-sex marriage. The fate of the Multnomah County marriages lies with the Oregon Supreme Court, which is expected to rule soon.

Meanwhile, gay-rights activists in Washington state decided to ask the courts to overturn a 1998 state law forbidding same-sex marriage.

The American Civil Liberties Union sought gay pillar-of-the-community types across the state. A friend suggested Bauer and Castle, and they joined a list of plaintiffs that includes a police officer, a judge, a college professor and a nurse.

Skeptical about marriage

Castle, a Bellevue firefighter, had been skeptical about marriage. One of the things she liked about being a lesbian was how it freed her from traditional sex roles. But after the Oregon trip, she had to admit there was something to marriage, even after 17 years and two children together.

"It was just a sense of permanence that was not there before. I thought, `Naw, that's absurd. How could a piece of paper and 10 minutes in a judge's office change the nature of how you looked at things?"' she says. "But it does."

When Bauer looks back, she says the need for civil marriage crystallized at the birth of their first daughter. Bauer is the biological mother of both girls, who were conceived through artificial insemination.

She started bleeding heavily the night she came home from the hospital with Nicola. As the medics prepared to transport her to the emergency room, she tried to remember where she had put the medical power of attorney papers and wondered whether the hospital would even honor them. Fighting unconsciousness, she worried that if she died, Castle would have no legal rights to her daughter.

"I was literally bleeding to death and thinking, we have no rights," Bauer said.

The two women have built an approximation of civil marriage through careful layering of legal agreements and adoptions. Still, the pseudo-marriage patchwork they have created doesn't fully protect them.

For example, if Castle rushed into a burning building to save someone and was killed, Bauer wouldn't get her pension benefits, as another firefighter's spouse would.

They won their first court battle. A Thurston County Superior Court judge said the gay marriage ban violates the state constitution's promise of equal "privileges and immunities" for all citizens. A King County judge also ruled in favor of gay marriage in a separate case. The state Supreme Court will hear appeals on both cases Tuesday.

Family group opposition

Opponents of a Castle-Bauer marriage include Jeff Kemp, a former National Football League quarterback whose organization, Families Northwest, filed a brief in the lawsuit.

Gay marriage wouldn't destroy his 21-year marriage or warp his four children's minds, Kemp says. But he believes it would hurt society, much the way he believes the rise of no-fault divorce in the 1970s did.

"I am not talking about individual couples damaging me," Kemp says.

Kemp says the fundamental nature of marriage is its union of two opposites, the male and the female. In his view, same-sex marriage changes the definition so much that it isn't really marriage anymore.

It is easier to oppose gay marriage in general, Kemp acknowledges, than to tell specific people that their relationship damages society, although he believes that to be true. In fact, he believes he and the plaintiffs probably share similar motivations, even though they come to opposite conclusions.

"They, too, care for the health and well-being of children and families," Kemp said.

Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"We’re gonna light up the dark of night like the brightest day in a whole new way."

by **Gatito Grande** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 2:37 pm

Quote:
Kemp says the fundamental nature of marriage is its union of two opposites, the male and the female. In his view, same-sex marriage changes the definition so much that it isn't really marriage anymore.

Whether it's the Ten Commandments etched on the courthouse wall, or something like Kemp's bubble-headed thought-bubble above, it never ceases to amaze me that some people think that their personal beliefs have to be worshipped (and paid for, through taxes) by EVERYBODY.

GG Kemp can believe whatever the hell he wants. Why should *I* be compelled to give a damn? Out

Good luck, Castle-Bauers! (and all other queer families)

by **skittles** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:25 pm

from the NYTimes

Quote:
Connecticut Takes Steps Toward Gay Civil Unions

By WILLIAM YARDLEY, March 7, 2005

HARTFORD, March 6 - The debate over a bill that would allow same-sex civil unions in Connecticut in some ways has been predictable: Some church groups and Republican lawmakers are opposed, calling the measure a slippery slope to gay marriage. Some Democrats are in favor, saying gays are being denied important rights and protections.

Yet in other ways, the debate may seem counterintuitive.

"I don't have any trouble with the concept," Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, said on Friday when asked about civil unions. "I've said all along I don't support any kind of discrimination and I don't believe in discrimination of any kind. If we can address those concerns without marriage, then I am open to the concept."

In fact, the governor, who emphasized that she wanted to read the bill closely before committing, may be more open to the idea than Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, the state's leading advocacy group for same-sex marriage.

"We don't support civil unions in concept," Ms. Stanback said. "We're saying that we don't think that Connecticut needs to take a half-step to marriage."

Given that 11 states voted on Election Day to ban gay marriage, central figures in Connecticut could seem to be out of sync with national developments. But lawmakers and gay activists say the shifting and relatively muted debate here reflects views that have evolved rapidly in response to historic changes in neighboring states.

It has been five years since Vermont, following a court ruling, became the first state to establish civil unions between same-sex couples. It has been less than a year since Massachusetts, following a court ruling, began allowing same-sex couples to marry.

And in Manhattan last month, a state judge ruled that a law that effectively banned gay marriage violated the State Constitution. The ruling, which is under appeal, could open the door to gay marriage in New York State if it is upheld by the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.

But in Connecticut, the exit ramp to New England and its distinctive style of social liberalism, no court ruling has been necessary to push state-sanctioned civil unions toward what lawmakers in both parties say is likely passage. And while changes in neighboring states may have altered perspectives here, some say the state has long been known for tolerance, or at least pragmatic apathy.

"I think there's a broad consensus in Connecticut that what consenting adults do, the public doesn't question that," said Robert M. Ward, a Republican who is the State House minority leader.

Yet some gay activists worry that allowing civil unions will mean losing momentum for the real goal - gay marriage. Mary L. Bonauto, a gay rights lawyer, said that while civil unions can improve couples' rights to state benefits in areas like health care and personal taxes, those couples might not receive the same Social Security, pension and 401(k) benefits given to married couples. Ms. Stanback and others say only marriage will bring full legal and cultural protections.

"Massachusetts is the gold standard," Ms. Stanback said. "What Love Makes a Family felt was that with Massachusetts allowing gay marriage, the five-year-old civil unions law in Vermont was no longer the standard to shoot for."

Last month the Judiciary Committee of the Democrat-controlled General Assembly easily passed the bill that would allow gay and lesbian couples to be joined in civil unions. The bill, which must be considered by the full General Assembly and the governor, would make Connecticut the fourth state, after Vermont, Massachusetts and California to give same-sex couples many of the protections of marriage, if not necessarily marital status.

The committee, which approved the measure by a 2-to-1 ratio, rejected proposed amendments that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And one Democrat voted against the bill because it did not allow gay marriage.

Going into the vote, Ms. Stanback's group had insisted it would accept nothing less than marriage. That position generated criticism from some lawmakers, including those who said it threatened the civil unions bill. Now the group is no longer opposing the civil unions bill, but it plans to continue to push for marriage.

"It is discrimination to exclude gays and lesbians from the civil institution of marriage," Ms. Stanback said, referring to Mrs. Rell's opposition to discrimination.

Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat who is the House co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee and who supports gay marriage, said adopting civil unions now would increase the chance for gay marriage in the future. He said other residents are becoming accustomed to gay couples as social peers - as neighbors who raise children, for example.

"Once you become comfortable with that, then it's hard to argue against civil unions," he said, "and it will be hard to argue against marriage."

Andrew J. McDonald, a Democrat who is the committee's Senate co-chairman, said one key to the debate in Connecticut has been casting civil unions as a civil rights issue rather than one with religious or cultural undertones.

By removing the word marriage from the equation, he said, "People started to realize this was really just a bundle of legal rights."

Mr. Ward, the Republican leader, said that while he and some other Republicans were likely to support a civil unions bill, marriage was another matter for lawmakers and voters. "When you call it marriage," he said, "they view it as literally changing the definition of the word."

The most recent public poll in the state, released last June by Quinnipiac University, showed that 59 percent supported civil unions, while 50 percent opposed gay marriage and 45 percent supported it.

Opponents of gay marriage and civil unions plan a rally at the Capitol on April 24.

Marie T. Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, is helping organize the rally. She said that her group wanted a referendum on civil unions and marriage and that she believed Mrs. Rell, who opposes gay marriage, might be wary once she reviewed the civil unions bill.

"I don't think it's a slam-dunk," Ms. Hilliard said. "I think if you look line by line at the bill, it was much more than anyone really intended when they used the word civil union. Every right that's been ascribed in marriage is ascribed to couples in civil unions."

skittles

"The problem with political jokes is how often they get elected."

"Closed minds always seem to be connected to open mouths"

by **Gatito Grande** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 10:58 pm

I don't have a problem w/ a two-pronged approach: accepting civil unions for what they are as soon as possible, while continuing to fight for marriage (and I still hate, Hate, HATE seeing the phrase "gay marriage": no, it's just marriage---extended to same-sex couples---PERIOD).

The biggest problem w/ civil unions, ultimately, isn't that they're "separate but equal." It's that they're separate, and for that reason, will be legally found to be unequal. But maybe the compelling case---legally AND politically---for *marriage* can only be made, nation-wide, after civil unions have been tried and found wanting. Seen in this light, civil unions---fighting for them, getting them (personally), and adjudicating them---can be seen as a direct stepping stone to marriage.

GG I just think that committed same-sex couples better get used to "tying the knot" again and again and again (this year's civil union, next year's Canadian wedding, the following year's Massachusetts in-state resident's marriage, maybe a New York City wedding bash the year after that). Hey, y'all will just keep getting more and more wedding presents that way! Out

by **AmbersSecretAdmirer** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 6:32 am

I have to agree entirely. Here in the UK Civil partnerships should be out and about by the end of the year but if the small print of this Bill is looked at what it actually does is segregate gay couples who register to second class status. The X-Men's idea of the Mutant Registration Program suddenly becomes a benign reality.

I do hope, that Civil Partnerships/Unions, are the first step to the rightful goal of full marriage equality. I can marry, why can't gay people? No-one can give me a reasonable argument, because there are none.

Tara & Willow Together Forever!!! Blessed Be Eternally!!!

by **Warduke** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:58 pm

From Yahoo...

Quote:
High school gays get a harsh lesson

By Dahleen Glanton Tribune national correspondent

Kerry Pacer was used to the whispering behind her back, the name-calling and the snickering when she walked down the hall. But when almost the entire student body at White County High School booed as she accepted a rose from a female friend during a Valentine's Day program last month, she knew it was time to do something.

Pacer, who said she has never tried to hide the fact that she is a lesbian, did what other gay students in schools across the country have been doing for more than a decade. The 16-year-old junior began trying to organize a chapter of the Gay-Straight Alliance, which promotes tolerance and acceptance of homosexuals.

But in White County, a hub of Christian conservatism in the north Georgia mountains, the idea of a school-based group backing homosexuality caused an uproar and thrust this quiet haven, where Cabbage Patch dolls originated, into the national gay-rights debate.

"There has always been a lot of bullying at school, and there was never anyone to stand up for me," said Pacer, explaining that she and other gay students felt a Gay-Straight Alliance club would promote understanding. "I knew there would be people who disagreed with it, but I had no idea it would grow this big."

With heightened national attention on family values as championed by Christian conservatives, students such as Pacer said they have felt pressure to keep their sexual orientation hidden, particularly in Bible Belt states where many people believe homosexuality is a sin. Those attitudes were manifested last November when voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments banning gay marriage.

Throughout the country, school districts have become a legal battleground for issues that disproportionately affect gay students such as bullying and harassment. Though there are more than 1,300 Gay-Straight Alliance groups in schools nationally, some gay-rights groups report a rise in hostility at schools in communities that are less accepting of such organizations. As a result, courts have intervened to ensure the rights of gay students.

Prom a catalyst

Often, the cases come to light during the spring as students prepare for proms and other social events. Some schools try to bar teenagers from attending the prom as a same-sex couple. Those who do attend often say they feel unwelcome. Meanwhile, gay students increasingly are holding their own proms.

"During the election cycle, there was a lot of rhetoric being used about gay people, some of which was not supportive of gay people and their families," said Heather Sawyer, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a New York-based gay-rights group that handles cases on behalf of gay students. "When young people hear the message that we as a country want to deny gay families civil protections we provide other families under law, it has a negative boomerang effect on how young people may treat other students they know or perceive to be gay. . . . It sends a message that gay people are not entitled to [the] same equality and rights as non-gay people."

Despite the federal Equal Access Act of 1984, which requires public schools to allow all non-curricular clubs the same ability to organize as the traditional chess club or pep squad, some districts have tried to get around the law, often bowing to pressures of the larger religious community.

A high school in Salt Lake City recently created a policy requiring students to submit written permission from their parents if they want to take a same-sex date to a school dance.

The Alabama Legislature is considering a bill to prohibit the use of public money to purchase textbooks or library materials "that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle."

Here in Cleveland, hundreds of residents turned up recently for a School Board meeting where the Gay-Straight Alliance proposal was expected to be heard. But before the meeting the students withdrew the proposal, opting instead to form a chapter of Peers Rising in Diversity Education, or PRIDE, that would focus on tolerance and diversity. While school officials acknowledge that they likely would lose a court battle to prohibit the club, community members still oppose it. On Monday, dozens of opponents protested at the school, led by anti-gay activist Rev. Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kan.

Meanwhile Pacer, a teenager with streaked brown hair and a penchant for red nail polish, has become a well-known gay activist in this town of about 1,900 people.

Bullying and safety issues are a major problem for gay high school students, according to activists. A national survey conducted in 2003 by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network found that most gay students feel unsafe at school. Forty-one percent said they had been assaulted because of their sexual orientation.

Last year, six gay and lesbian former high school students won a $1.1 million settlement against the school district in Morgan Hill, Calif., for discrimination they suffered while students. They were verbally and physically abused by other students, according to the suit.

A number of court cases have set a precedent for Gay-Straight Alliances, including a lawsuit filed in 2003 against the Lubbock Independent School District in Texas, which tried to bar students from forming an alliance on campus. Similar cases have gone to court in Orange County, Calif., and Cannonsburg, Ky. The courts ultimately agreed with the students, saying schools that receive federal money could not discriminate.

Despite the law, such clubs remain a hard sell in places such as Cleveland.

"I just don't think it's right to have a club like this. It ain't in the Bible," said Gary Colwell, 18, a brick mason who grew up in the area. "We see them walking around holding hands, and it makes everybody feel uncomfortable."

Many of the 1,000 students at the countywide high school feel the same way. Some of them said it would be almost impossible to get straight students to join a club that supports gays.

"I don't know anybody who would want to join," said Logan Stewart, a 16-year-old sophomore at the high school. "We used to be known as the redneck school, now everybody is calling us the gay school. I wish the whole thing would just go away."

White County School Supt. Paul Shaw has met with religious leaders to try to explain the law and ease the controversy. He said outside pressures have made it more difficult to resolve the issue.

`An emotional issue'

"The religious community has been against it. You try to listen to both sides, but this is an emotional issue because we are a very conservative county," Shaw said. "If this were left up to the kids, it would get resolved very soon. But regardless of what happens, in the end we will still be White County."

That, too, could cause a problem in the long term. Part of the difficulty, according to Rev. Phil Hoyt, pastor of Cleveland United Methodist Church, is that many newcomers are moving into the area, bringing big-city values that longtime residents are reluctant to accept.

"People are moving here from all over, so the climate is changing. It's getting more progressive and changing the culture, and people are afraid of that," said Hoyt, adding that he sees the case as more of a legal issue than a moral one. "We now have to acknowledge that we have gay students in our high school, and people are in an uproar."

Savannah Pacer, 51, Kerry's mother, is one of those transplants. She and her ex-husband moved with their two daughters to Georgia from Baltimore in 1995. She said she knew things would be different in the Bible Belt South, but she had not expected this.

"We have always supported Kerry and taught her to stand up for what she believes in," said Pacer, a real estate agent and a co-director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, which works with Gay-Straight Alliance clubs in Georgia. "Kerry is lucky to have her family's support. But there are a lot of teenagers out there who don't."

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **Ben Varkentine** » Thu Mar 17, 2005 2:28 am

From RawstoryQ...

Quote:
Wanda Alston, Washington DC Mayor’s LGBT liaison is murdered in her home

by Michael Rogers for RawStoryQ

Wanda Alston, the woman who served as Mayor Anthony Williams’ liaison to the lesbian and gay community, was found murdered in her Washington DC home this evening. Alston, a longtime Democratic activist, was the head of the Mayor’s Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Affairs.

According to sources on the scene, Police Chief Charles Ramsey personally responded to Alston’s home after the body was discovered at approximately 5:45 Wednesday evening. The city’s school board adjourned early to allow president Peggy Cooper Cafritz and vice president Mirian Saez, both friends of Alston’s, to go to the scene.

Alston was found by her partner in the home they shared in NE Washington, DC. A medical examiner’s report is expected to show the actual cause of death.

Last September Alston was appointed to her post by Mayor Williams. She had served in a similar capacity, in another post, for three years. Alston was a delegate to the Democratic convention and was involved in a number of organizations including the National Organization for Women.

The Metropolitan Police are searching for Alston’s automobile, which has been reported missing. The car is a 2000 silver/grey Nissan Sentra, with DC license plates A-2-9 5-9-7 issued in DC. Anyone with leads or pertinent information is asked to call the police at (202) 727-9099.

Ben

"We are strong now/Put down the ammunition/For what we know is right/Is gonna breakdown this division"

--Erasure, "It Doesn't Have To Be"

by **WebWarlock** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:11 pm

sportsillustrated.cnn.com...ostpopular

Quote:

Navratilova endorses gay travel co.

KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. (AP) -- Martina Navratilova agreed to endorse a travel company for lesbians Thursday, hoping the deal will encourage acceptance of gays.

"Anytime you raise awareness, you're helping the issue," Navratilova said. "People are uncomfortable with what they don't know. Once you put a face on it and make it personal, it changes things."

The only other athlete sponsored by the company, Olivia, is golfer Rosie Jones, who announced her deal a year ago and simultaneously disclosed she's a lesbian.

Navratilova's homosexuality was revealed in a newspaper story in 1981, and she acknowledged that many gay athletes remain reluctant to discuss their sexual orientation.

"People still think they will lose endorsements," Navratilova said. "For some it's an issue of not wanting to call attention to that. One day I hope it will not matter. That's the goal."

When asked how much endorsement money being gay has cost her, Navratilova said, "Who cares? It's millions of dollars, but so what?"

Navratilova, 49, is playing doubles at the Nasdaq-100 Open. Her 167 singles titles are the most of any player, and the deal with Olivia is her first with a company aimed exclusively at gays.

"This is a real dream come true for this company," Olivia founder Judy Dlugacz said. "How great it is to have someone who can just say, 'I'm so comfortable being a lesbian, it's not the main issue I have to work on.' It's such a rarity still today."

San Francisco-based Olivia was founded in 1973 and has focused on travel for the past 15 years, arranging more than 70 cruises. The ships have no tennis courts, but Navratilova said that doesn't bother her.

"I just want to hit some golf balls off the deck," she said.

Here is a link to the site.

www.olivia.com/

Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"We’re gonna light up the dark of night like the brightest day in a whole new way."

by **Ben Varkentine** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:08 pm

www.newsday.com/news/nati...on-big-pix

Quote:
For gays, it happens all the time

As the fight over Terri Schiavo's fate played out in court, gay and lesbian organizations watched quietly from the sidelines, aware that any outcome would speak to one of the key motivations in their quest for same-sex marriage: the right to make medical decisions for a partner.

It's an issue faced regularly by same-sex couples, and the battle that Michael Schiavo waged with his in-laws as he sought to remove his wife's feeding tube only underscored their difficulties, said David Buckel of the New York-based gay rights group Lambda Legal.

"It certainly resonates with us," said Buckel, director of marriage-related activities for Lambda Legal. "If folks look at this situation and see that a spouse is struggling to carry out the wishes of his loved one, imagine what folks face when they don't even have access to the spousal relationship because they can't get married."

Just such a situation landed a lesbian couple in the national spotlight 20 years ago, after a drunk driver slammed into a car driven by Sharon Kowalski, then 27, leaving her comatose. Kowalski's longtime partner, Karen Thompson, then 37, a physical education teacher at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, sued Kowalski's parents for guardianship after they refused to recognize the women's relationship, blocked Thompson from visiting Kowalski, and disagreed with Thompson on Kowalski's care.

After a bitter legal battle lasting nearly a decade, a court sided with Thompson. She still cares for Kowalski, who emerged from her coma with severe brain damage and other physical problems.

Gay-rights groups had hoped the case would mark a turning point in their effort to have more say over partners' medical treatment, but it hasn't always worked that way. While some states such as California, Vermont and New Jersey grant medical decision-making rights to registered domestic partners, most, including New York, offer limited rights or none at all.

Partners of gay hospital patients often can't even visit, much less make life-and-death decisions for their loved ones, particularly if blood relatives object, said Carissa Cunningham of Gay&Lesbian Advocates&Defenders, a Boston-based group.

GLAD is representing several couples in a lawsuit to try to force the Connecticut Department of Public Health to recognize same-sex marriage. Two of the women involved, Carol Conklin, 51, and Janet Peck, 53, of Colchester, Conn., have been together nearly 30 years but say they still are not ensured access to each other in the hospital.

After Peck underwent major surgery, Conklin was initially denied permission to visit her in intensive care. When she identified herself as Peck's partner, the attending nurse said she did not know what that meant. Conklin was not allowed to designate herself Peck's next of kin during another hospitalization.

"It's very routine. It happens all the time," said Cunningham.

Such cases rarely make headlines, but they are no less tragic than the Schiavos' situation.

Two years ago, a Baltimore jury rejected a claim by Bill Flanigan, 38, of San Francisco, who sued Baltimore's Shock Trauma Center of the University of Maryland medical system after it did not let him visit his partner, 32-year-old Robert Daniel, as he died of AIDS. "By the time he finally got into the hospital room, his partner had lost consciousness and never regained it, and they never had a chance to say goodbye," said Buckel.

The hospital denied the accusations of discrimination.

Two of the women involved in the landmark lawsuit that led the Massachusetts Supreme Court to clear the way for same-sex marriages last year said they were prompted by medical concerns. When 59-year-old Linda Davies learned that she required double hip replacement surgery, she and her partner of more than 30 years, Gloria Bailey, 63, discovered that there was no guarantee Bailey would be allowed unfettered access to Davies during her 11-day recovery.

"Some hospitals said they could not guarantee Gloria would be allowed in," said Davies, who lives with Bailey in Orleans, Mass., and queried several hospitals before choosing one for the operation. "We realized how much we really needed to be married when I went into the hospital. That's when we realized how vulnerable we were."

Opponents of gay marriage say same-sex couples can opt to register as domestic partners or enter civil unions, but such partnerships don't always include the power to make major medical decisions for each other.

In addition, because such rights differ by state, there is no guarantee that a couple will be able to share in each other's medical decisions should disaster strike far from home. Flanigan and Daniel, for example, were from California, but they were in Maryland when Daniel fell ill.

And gay activists say even if they have gone through the legal machinations of having their partners declared health-care proxies, hospitals might be unfamiliar with such rights or simply refuse to respect them. If the partners don't happen to be carrying the paperwork to prove their status, they can similarly be refused their rights, said Buckel.

Ben

"We are strong now/Put down the ammunition/For what we know is right/Is gonna breakdown this division"

--Erasure, "It Doesn't Have To Be"

by **vix84** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 5:26 pm

From the Sydney Morning Herald

Doctors denied visas for gay partners

By Ruth Pollard, Health Reporter

April 1, 2005

Two overseas-trained doctors have been prevented from taking positions at Campbelltown and Liverpool hospitals because the immigration department will not issue their same-sex partners with a family visa.

Frustrated health officials and the Australian Democrats have appealed to the Minister for Immigration, Amanda Vanstone, saying the decision exacerbated the chronic shortage of psychiatrists in public hospitals.

Both jobs were classed as "area of need" positions as there were not enough doctors willing or able to fill them.

"Given this situation ... discriminatory barriers, such as the non-recognition of same-gender relationships as de facto relationships for the purpose of granting a visa are inappropriate," a NSW health official said in a letter to the department.

The clinical director of Liverpool Hospital's mental health unit, Roger Gurr, said it was a major blow for south-western Sydney to lose both overseas-trained psychiatrists.

"Now the situation is drastic ... NSW needs 41 trainee psychiatrists to enter the system every year to provide the services - last year only 22 people were accepted into training. This year there was only 19. So there is an enormous backlog of vacancies."

Len Holt, the national president of the Migration Institute of Australia, said that unlike married or de facto heterosexual couples who were granted a four-year residency visa as a family, only the doctor being offered an area-of-need position was granted a long-term visa. Their same-sex partner could apply for a 12-month visitor's visa that must be renewed overseas and did not allow them to work while in Australia.

"The same-sex partners do not meet the definition of spouse, which in this day and age doesn't make a whole lot of sense," Mr Holt said.

It was not only doctors who could be caught in this situation - any skilled worker coming to Australia on a temporary visa would face the same discriminatory situation, he said. "In a time when we are faced with all manner of critical skills shortages ... it could result in Australia being denied a certain level of skills because of this."

A spokesman for Senator Vanstone said same-sex partners could apply to come to Australia under visitor's visas, or wait until their partner was granted permanent resident status and then apply for a longer-term visa.

The director of the NSW Institute of Psychiatry, Dr Louise Newman, reacted angrily to the decision. "It's clearly discriminating against people in same-sex relationships," she said.

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

by **WebWarlock** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:04 am

Some "new" news,

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=...riage_vote

Quote:

Kansas Voters Approve Gay Marriage Ban

TOPEKA, Kan. - Kansans overwhelmingly voted to add a ban on gay marriage and civil unions to their state constitution, but supporters and opponents predicted court battles over the amendment.

The ban reaffirms the state's long-standing policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage, prohibiting the state from authorizing civil unions for gay couples.

With final, unofficial results from 104 of the state's 105 counties on Tuesday, 414,235, or 70 percent, voted "yes," and 178,167, or 29 percent voted "no."

Critics argued the amendment could have unexpected consequences, such as potentially preventing companies from offering health benefits to employees' partners — gay or heterosexual.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, predicted the amendment will spawn lawsuits in Kansas courts as gays, lesbians and unmarried heterosexuals encounter problems.

"Does this impact living wills?" he asked. "Powers of attorney? Custody agreements? The enforcement of custody agreements?"

The Rev. Terry Fox, senior pastor of Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church and a leader of the effort for the amendment, also predicted a legal attack by opponents. He was confident the amendment would withstand scrutiny.

"We always felt like if Kansans were given an opportunity to vote, they would vote strongly to protect marriage and defend marriage in the way it has traditionally been defined," Fox said.

Voters in 13 states, including Missouri and Oklahoma, approved constitutional gay marriage bans last year, joining four others. Similar proposals will be on the ballot next year in Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee.

Meanwhile in Connecticut, lawmakers said Tuesday they believe they have enough votes to pass a bill that would make the state the first to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples without intervention from the courts.

Some Kansas voters, like 24-year-old Eric Hetzel, saw the amendment as a way to protect the traditional definition of marriage, enshrined in Kansas law since 1867, from legal challenges.

"I am a Christian," Hetzel said. "I believe in the Bible and what it says that marriage is between a man and a woman."

But Byron Defreese, a 65-year-old retiree, called the amendment "total foolishness."

"I don't know how this is going to defend my marriage of 43 years," he said. "I think it's a diversion from the real issues."

With this and the recent rulings by the Kansas Board of "Education" on not teaching Evolution I have to ask this clear and publically.

Are the people of Kansas the dumbest people in this country?

Sheesh. Kansas is making some good arguments for a state imposed sterilezation and eugeneics program.

Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"We’re gonna light up the dark of night like the brightest day in a whole new way."
Edited by: WebWarlock at: 4/6/05 7:07 am

by **AmbersSecretAdmirer** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:19 am

Words fail me. I think Kansas could not only be a candidate for dumbest State in the USA, but possibly of the Western World.

This vote shows that religion DOES demonise the GLBT community and if this horrendous trend is not reversed soon, then the USA, the bastion of freedom in the West, will go down in history as the first Country to deliberately consider segregation of a legal minority as justified. And that my friends, is something that all who value decency and freedom in the world, should be ashamed of.

Tara & Willow Together Forever!!! Blessed Be Eternally!!!

by **TaraBaby77** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 11:52 am

Found this article sitting in my Gmail box... Thought I would share it. =)

Military Gay Policy Costs Talent

WASHINGTON - Hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the Pentagon's rules on gays, at a cost of nearly $200 million, the first congressional study on the impact of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy says.

The estimated cost was for recruiting and training replacements from 1994 through 2003 for the 9,488 troops discharged from the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine Corps because of the policy, the General Accountability Office estimated.

The study released Thursday said the government does not collect financial information specific to each individual's case. The investigative arm of Congress estimated the costs based on how much the Pentagon and each service branch spends to recruit and train the general military population.

Other costs, such as for discharging officers, are not included.

Congress approved the policy in 1993. It allows gays and lesbians to serve as long as they abstain from homosexual activity and do not disclose their sexual orientation.

Of those who left, 757 held critical jobs for which the Pentagon offers re-enlistment bonuses because of their specialized nature, such as data processing technicians and translators.

Many who were discharged had intelligence-related jobs. Also, 322 spoke foreign languages, including Arabic, Farsi, Korean, and Mandarin, which the Pentagon has called critical skills amid threats from terrorists.

The report said most gays left within the first 2 1/2 years of enlistment.

"What the research has found and what the GAO confirmed is that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' harms military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara. The center released its own similar study last year.

In a response to the GAO report, David Chu, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, stressed that the number of those in the military who left because of the policy made up only 0.37 percent of all troops discharged during the decade.

The Pentagon said this month that the number of service members discharged under the policy declined last year by 15 percent - to 653 - and has fallen by nearly one-half since 2001, when 1,227 were discharged.

Democratic Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts, who requested the GAO study, is working on legislation that would repeal the policy enacted under the Clinton administration.

The proposal would ban discrimination in the military based on one's sexual orientation. It also would contain a measure designed to prevent the military from re-instituting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

In December, 12 gays expelled from the military because of their sexual orientation sued the government, citing a Supreme Court ruling that state laws making homosexual sex a crime were unconstitutional. The Bush administration has asked a federal court to dismiss the suit.

*************

I can't really make a political judgment, but I do want to say that Congress and the U.S. Military need to get their heads out of there %#&es and realize that not only are they decreasing our overall military numbers but they are affecting the stability of our homeland security and total deployable coverage by forcing such a (my opinion) stupid and ignorant policy... Anyhoo, that's my two cents. Take care all. =)

Aaron

'Tarababy77'

"Don't buy into all the media crap. Love yourself for who you are, not what others THINK you should look like. It's DEFINITELY more important in this life to love each other despite our imperfections." - Amber Benson

Edited by: TaraBaby77 at: 4/6/05 10:56 am

by **vix84** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:25 pm

"Sheesh. Kansas is making some good arguments for a state imposed sterilezation and eugeneics program."

Lol, unfortunately it would probably result in the wrong people being sterilized.

by **CrazyTaraWitch** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 10:07 pm

okay, that shit about Kansas really pissed me off, but what i really wanted to talk about is the Day of Silence.

On April 13th students and staff all across the nation will be silent for the day in protest of the silence pressed upon GLBT people and their allies. This is meant to oopose the harrasment, prejudice and dicrimination against GLBT students.

for more information or to register, visit http://www.dayofsilence.org

grosses bisses

~jas

by **Warduke** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:14 pm

From Yahoo...

Quote:
Gay U.S. Soldier Wants to Serve Openly

By MALIA RULON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - An Army sergeant who was wounded in Iraq wants a chance to remain in the military as an openly gay soldier, a desire that's bringing him into conflict with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell"

Sgt. Robert Stout, 23, says he has not encountered trouble from fellow soldiers and would like to stay if not for the policy that permits gay men and women to serve only if they keep their sexual orientation a secret.

"I know a ton of gay men that would be more than willing to stay in the Army if they could just be open," Stout said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But if we have to stay here and hide our lives all the time, it's just not worth it."

Stout, of Utica, Ohio, was awarded the Purple Heart after a grenade sent pieces of shrapnel into his arm, face and legs while he was operating a machine gun on an armored Humvee last May.

He is believed to be the first gay soldier wounded in Iraq to publicly discuss his sexuality, said Aaron Belkin, director of the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

"We can't keep hiding the fact that there's gay people in the military and they aren't causing any harm," said Stout, who says he is openly gay among most of his 26-member platoon, which is part of the 9th Engineer Battalion based in Schweinfurt, Germany.

Stout, who served in Iraq for more than a year as a combat engineer, said by acknowledging he is gay, he could be jailed and probably will be discharged before his scheduled release date of May 31.

"The old armchair thought that gay people destroy unit camaraderie and cohesion is just wrong," Stout said. "They said the same things when they tried to integrate African-Americans and women into the military."

Before the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, enacted in 1993 under the Clinton administration, the Pentagon had explicitly barred gays from military service. At least 24 countries, including Great Britain, Germany, France, Australia, Canada and Israel, allow gays to serve openly.

In an e-mail following the AP interview, Stout said he had been ordered not to speak to the media. "I guess they found out somehow that I was talking to the press and now they are having a fit. I will try to get everything straightened out," Stout wrote.

Martha Rudd, a spokeswoman for the Army at the Pentagon, said soldiers who are discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" typically receive honorable discharges, although the timing would be up to the individual's commanding officer. She declined to comment about Stout, saying the Army doesn't comment on specific cases.

The issue of whether gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military has received increased attention in recent months as the Army has struggled to meet its recruiting goals. Twelve gays expelled from the military sued the government in December, citing a Supreme Court ruling that declared unconstitutional state laws against homosexual sex.

The Bush administration has asked a federal court to dismiss the lawsuit.

Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey has said he opposes changing the policy, although Pentagon figures show a sharp decline in the number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual, falling from 1,227 in 2001 to 653 last year.

A recent congressional study on the impact of "don't ask, don't tell" said that hundreds of highly skilled troops, including many translators, have left the armed forces because of the rule, at a cost of nearly $200 million, mostly for recruiting and training replacements for 9,500 troops discharged between 1994 and 2003.

Gary Gates, a statistician at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates there are about 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in the military, accounting for about 2.8 percent of all personnel. He estimates that at least 25 gay soldiers have been killed in Iraq.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said a better way to avoid the cost of replacing soldiers who are discharged for being gay is to make it very clear to people who enlist in the military, including Stout, that they are ineligible to serve if they are gay.

"I honor and respect his service to this country, but the fact that he's wounded really doesn't change the underlying fact. ... He is not eligible to serve," Donnelly said, adding that there are many reasons why people aren't eligible to serve. "This is just one of them."

Stout said he suspected while in high school that he was gay but didn't acknowledge it until later. "Then I noticed that it wasn't a phase or anything. This is me," said Stout, who enlisted in the Army after graduating in 2000.

"The 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, when it first came out, was a good stepping stone, but it's outlived its usefulness," he said. "We've progressed past it both as a military and as a society."

Recent media polls indicate some increased public acceptance for allowing gays to serve openly in the military, with more than six in 10 Americans supporting the idea while about half supported it a decade ago. An Annenberg poll taken last fall among members of the military showed a majority opposed to such service, though half of junior enlisted personnel said gays should be allowed to serve openly.

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **Gatito Grande** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 3:27 pm

Quote:
Pentagon figures show a sharp decline in the number of U.S. military members discharged for making it known they are homosexual, falling from 1,227 in 2001 to 653 last year.

Coincidence?

GG i.e. Rummy&Co. think "We don't care if our cannon-fodder are FAGS, we just need cannon-fodder now!" Out

by **walker** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:47 am

I don't know how the Vietnam war is taught in history books in the U.S. but we were always told that one of the key points of the defeat was that the U.S. dismissed vital intelligence staff prior to the war. Why on earth would you fire your experts on Vietnam just when you needed them most? Because they're gay. It seems that the lesson has yet to be taken to heart by the U.S. government.

If you've lost your faith in love and music the end won't be long - The Libertines

by **Ben Varkentine** » Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:05 pm

You may have heard about the New York University law student who asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia "Do you sodomize your wife?" at a public lecture recently.

The guy who did it has written an excellent open letter to his classmates explaining his reasons for doing so both as a gay man and as a law student.

Wonkette has the whole thing; herewith some excerpts.

Quote:
How am I to docilely engage a man who sarcastically rants about the "beauty of homosexual relationships" (at the Q&A) and believes that gay school teachers will try to convert children to a homosexual lifestyle (at oral argument for Lawrence)?

Law school and the law profession do not negate my identity as a member of an oppressed minority confronting injustice.

Beyond exerting official power against homosexuals, Scalia is an outspoken and high-profile homophobe. After the aforementioned sarcastic remarks about gay people's relationships, can anyone doubt how little respect he has for LGBT Americans? Even if no case touching gay rights ever came before him, his comments from the bench (that employment non-discrimination is some kind of "homosexual agenda," etc.) and within our very walls are unacceptable to any self-respecting gay person or principled opponent of discrimination.

There's more, there's much, much more. Go, read. And be glad this guy is on our side!

Ben

"We are strong now/Put down the ammunition/For what we know is right/Is gonna breakdown this division"

--Erasure, "It Doesn't Have To Be"

by **sam7777** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:04 pm

Why Doesn't Uncle Sam Want These Troops?

Quote:
The Pentagon is forcing some soldiers to stay in Iraq longer than expected and struggling to meet its recruiting goals. At the same time, it's kicking good soldiers out, and that makes me want to say, "Give Me a Break."

Thousands of soldiers serving in Iraq now have finished the tours they signed up for, but are being kept in Iraq anyway. Mark Bryant is one of those soldiers. In 2000, he signed up for what he thought would be a four-year hitch in the army. Last September, he completed those four years and was looking forward to spending more time with his wife and son. But what he and thousands of others didn't know was that the fine print in their contract said that they could be kept on longer in a period of war or national emergency.

Now his wife, Michelle, is upset that her son can only see his father's image on a TV screen. "I don't think it's fair, and because of that fine line print, he gets sent over there, when there are people wanting to go over there," she said.

The "people" she's referring to are soldiers who were kicked out of the military because they're gay. Although the phrase "Don't ask, don't tell" implies that if you don't announce you're gay you won't be discharged, that's not always how it works.

Jack Glover and David Hall, for example, did not tell. They were confronted by their commanding officer after another soldier told the commander that Glover and Hall were in a relationship. Both refused to say whether they were gay.

"Three months later, we were called in by our commander to say you know we've been told that we have to dis-enroll you," Hall said.

Justin Peacock was thrown out of the Coast Guard after another soldier reported that he had been holding hands with another man.

"The military said that I was gratifying, gratifying myself and it was a sexual desire and they had to discharge for it because it was a homosexual act," Justin said.

Glover, Hall and Peacock are among the 10,000 soldiers who have been kicked out of the military for being gay since "Don't Ask, don't Tell" was implemented in 1993.

This year, a GAO report found the military has discharged hundreds of gay soldiers even though they were in "critical occupations" — people like Arabic translators and intelligence analysts. Recruiting and retraining soldiers to fill the positions left open by discharged gay soldiers has cost the Department of Defense almost $200 million.

Check the link for the rest of the article. Thsi administration weakening this country by bigotry to the point of suicidal stupidity.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

by **WebWarlock** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:00 am

Some printable news for a change.

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

Quote:

High school teens face a gay T-shirt showdown

By Jennifer Skalka

Tribune staff reporter

Published April 19, 2005

Jamison Liang came out to his family members one at a time. A Homewood-Flossmoor High School senior, varsity tennis player and the youngest of four children, he told them each he has known he was gay "forever."

On Tuesday Liang comes out to a much wider audience: the Homewood-Flossmoor community. As part of a daylong awareness campaign, he and as many as 225 other students could wear T-shirts to school that say: "gay? fine by me."

"I feel like I'm ready for it," said Liang, who will enter Washington University in St. Louis this fall. "I mean, I'm confident in who I am. There's no sense in hiding it."

But the T-shirt campaign, which made a quiet debut last year, is meeting opposition from some of the school's Christian students. In what will amount to a schoolyard battle of messages, a couple hundred other students are expected to wear shirts citing "crimes against God," namely "discrimination against ... my 10 Commandments, my prayers, my values, my faith, my God."

Those shirts, printed by the Family Harvest Church in Tinley Park, also include the 1st Amendment, which begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ..."

Jacques Jacobs, a youth minister at Family Harvest Church, said his church is "not fighting anybody, we are only standing up for the rights of the Christian student."

He said the T-shirts have been circulated among students at dozens of other high schools in the Chicago area.

"I do know that Christian students, their right to pray has been taken from them," Jacobs said. "Their right to believe in their values has become an offense to many people. The Bible has become an offense."

Students and school officials said they had heard rumors that local churchgoers opposed to the "gay? fine by me" message will protest outside the school. Jacobs said his church was not involved.

David Thieman, a Homewood-Flossmoor school spokesman, said both contingents could wear the shirts as long as they comply with the student code of conduct, which forbids the promotion of violence or drugs.

Liang, 17, and classmates Alissa Norby and Myka Held, both 18, said they organized the T-shirt rally to draw attention to a lack of gay and lesbian support services at Homewood-Flossmoor. They also said the school environment is not friendly to young gays and that they wanted to promote tolerance on campus.

Norby, who will start at Mt. Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass., in the fall, said she's tired of people using pejorative language to describe her. "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve," she said people chant at her as she walks to classes.

Held, who is not gay and will attend Brandeis University outside Boston, said she wanted to help her friends feel more comfortable at school and "to let people know that HF was a safe place to go."

The "gay? fine by me" slogan is being promoted at schools, mostly colleges, around the country. The campaign began at Duke University in 2003, according to the project's Web site.

With almost 2,950 students, Homewood-Flossmoor has a diverse population. Thieman said 52 percent of the school is white, 42 percent black, 3 percent Hispanic and 2 percent Asian.

The school does not have a club promoting a gay and straight alliance. But Thieman said if students feel bullied, they should let an adult know.

"That kind of behavior is not tolerated at HF," he said.

According to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network in New York, 4 out of every 5 lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender students have reported being verbally, sexually or physically assaulted at school because of sexual orientation. Riley Snorton, the group's spokesman, said a recent survey showed 1 in 3 gay students has skipped a class in the last month because of fear.

Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, said he thinks the gay advocacy T-shirts miss the point.

"I don't like the message because to me it trivializes the whole issue," he said. "For gay guys, you have serious health issues."

LaBarbera said he's glad the 10 Commandments T-shirt will be worn Tuesday too. "I think it's good there's another viewpoint coming in," he said.

Sherry Liang, Jamison's mother, said she was concerned about how her son will be received.

"I said, `Are you really ready for this?' If Jamison's going to come out to the newspapers and TV, there are going to be repercussions," she said. "He feels very strongly that this is something that needs to be out there."

Liang said he has always been known as a quiet guy. Today, he'll walk proud, hoping that others will follow his lead and come out.

"I know there are more, but they're just too scared," he said.

And here is the website.

www.finebyme.org/

UPDATE:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... i-news-hed

Quote:

T-shirt campaigns divide school

Students stand up for their beliefs

By Jennifer Skalka

Tribune staff reporter

Published April 20, 2005

A gay rights campaign Tuesday at Homewood-Flossmoor High School produced a few fights, some name-calling and dueling T-shirts from protesters.

"We took so much [abuse]," said Susie Seaman, 16, who wore a "gay? fine by me" T-shirt to school as part of a campaign for tolerance. Seaman, who is straight, said other students taunted her in the halls.

Students sold 225 shirts in the lunchroom boasting that slogan, part of a campaign started in 2003 at Duke University. Other students wore T-shirts printed by Family Harvest Church in Tinley Park that said "Crimes committed against God" on the front and "discrimination against ... my 10 Commandments, my prayers, my values, my faith, my God." The 1st Amendment, which promotes free speech and religious expression, also was printed on the shirts.

School spokesman Dave Thieman initially said Principal Von Mansfield seized several of the religious T-shirts, which were being handed out, because students did not get advance permission to distribute them. Later he said he wasn't sure which of the shirts the principal confiscated, but he said students could pick them up after school.

Several students wore the shirts to school, including Lauren Waters, 15, who said she believes all people are sinners, but she doesn't support "the actions that [gays] are doing.

"I am a Christian," she said. "And I base what I do off of the Bible."

Alex Suhrbier, 16, made and wore his own T-shirt. On the front, he wrote: "It's not OK to be gay." On the side, he drew a rainbow with a slash through it.

While he was being interviewed, a female student walked by and growled at him. "Guys were hitting on me at lunch just to [tick] me off," he said.

Warlock

Web Warlock, web.warlock@comcast.net, The Other Side.

Liber Mysterium: The D20 Netbook of Witches & The Dragon and the Phoenix: New Adventures of Willow and Tara

"Thats some powerful goodness." - Frozone, Mr. Incredible and Pals
Edited by: WebWarlock at: 4/20/05 12:40 pm

by **Gatito Grande** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:18 pm

Two stories in the news demonstrate the difference---

First, the Good News:

Quote:
Rell Signs Bill Giving Same-Sex Couples Right To Civil Unions

POSTED: 9:03 pm EDT April 20, 2005

UPDATED: 9:55 pm EDT April 20, 2005

HARTFORD, Conn. -- Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed legislation Wednesday giving same-sex couples the right to civil unions.

Rell signed the bill less than 90 minutes after the state Senate gave final approval to the legislation.

In order to appease gay marriage opponents and to avoid a possible veto from Rell, who is a Republican, the Democrat-controlled House had added an amendment to the bill to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Last week, the House of Representatives approved civil union legislation with the amendment included.

The Senate voted 26 to eight Wednesday in favor of the House version of the bill.

The legislation gives gay and lesbian couples the rights and privileges of marriage under Connecticut law, with the exception of a marriage license.

Connecticut is the first state to pass such legislation voluntarily. Vermont has approved civil unions and Massachusetts has gay marriage, but those changes came about only after same-sex couples brought lawsuits.

Rell said the bill bars discrimination while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman.

Opponents of civil unions who had hoped to persuade Rell to veto the legislation, have planned a rally for Sunday.

A gay rights organization that wanted legislators to pass a gay marriage bill said civil unions are an important step toward protecting the rights of same-sex couples.

www.nbc30.com/news/4400244/detail.html

(Do click on the link: it includes a poll to indicate you support civil rights---as opposed to arseholes who reject gay equality)

Now, the Bad News (from the homestate of Guess Who?):

Quote:
Texas Says Gays Can't Be Foster Parents

By NATALIE GOTT, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Texas could become the only state to bar gays from becoming foster parents under legislation passed Wednesday by the House.

The ban is part of a bill to revamp the state's Child Protective Services agency. It passed 135-6 with two abstentions and now heads to the Senate.

The foster parent amendment is not included in the Senate version of the legislation, but that body could accept the House bill.

"It is our responsibility to make sure that we protect our most vulnerable children, and I don't think we are doing that if we allow a foster parent that is homosexual or bisexual," said Republican Rep. Robert Talton, who introduced the amendment.

If the House version of the bill becomes law, Texas would be the only state to prohibit homosexuals and bisexuals from becoming foster parents, according to the American Civil Liberties Union Lesbian and Gay Rights project.

Arkansas had barred gays from becoming foster parents, but a judge said the law was unconstitutional in December.

Under the Texas House bill, anyone who applies to be a foster parent or a foster parent whose performance is being evaluated must say whether he or she is homosexual or bisexual. Anyone who answers yes would be barred from serving as a foster parent. If the person is already a foster parent, the child would be removed from the home.

Talton wouldn't comment Wednesday, but during debate on the bill the day before he said, "I don't think it is right for young children to be exposed to this type of behavior when they are young and innocent."

Eva Thibaudeau, a social worker, said she and her partner of eight years have adopted four children and have served as foster parents to 75.

"I am just so hurt and surprised, especially now (when) we are facing an ongoing crisis of not having enough resources to take care of foster children," she said.

Randall Ellis, executive director of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas, estimated that between 2,000 and 2,500 children could be affected.

"The truth is that a parent's sexual orientation has no negative consequence on the children that are raised in those homes," he said.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry does not want the child protection bill to get bogged down with a "side issue," though he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, spokeswoman Kathy Walt said.

The bill to overhaul the system follows recent child slayings that occurred after caseworkers investigated suspicions of neglect or abuse and decided the children were safe to remain with their parents.

It would give all of Child Protective Services' foster care and case management duties to private companies, which already manage 75 percent of foster homes in Texas.

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar...740D00.DTL

This is so very much Bullsh*t! (the Texas bill). It does nothing to fix the problems the foster care system actually does have, and instead scapegoats the one group whom (I'm willing to bet) have NEVER been a problem!

GG Can we in the Blue States simply have our own Federal Government, too, and let that be that? Out

by **TemperedCynic** » Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:06 pm

Good to know the right is still dumb as stumps. The Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws last year and they pass this drivel knowing that the SC will no doubt strike this down too? Wow, amazing any laws get passed in Texas.

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

by **Ben Varkentine** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:07 am

Quote:
NOTE: This post is long because it's important. What I describe in detail below, Microsoft caving to religious right extremists, is not just outrageous and unprecedented, it's downright dangerous for all of our civil rights considering the precedent Microsoft has just set for other businesses that follow its lead. We have a little over 24 hours for Microsoft make things right, otherwise Microsoft may have just killed a major gay rights bill out west.

If anyone out there has inside phone numbers and email addresses for the Microsoft brass, please email them to me. I have some email and phone contacts at the end of this post, PLEASE USE THEM. Thanks.

----------

MICROSOFT SECRETLY PULLS SUPPORT FOR GAY RIGHTS BILL IN WASHINGTON STATE TO CURRY FAVOR WITH RELIGIOUS RIGHT

Microsoft Corporation pulled its support for a gay rights bill in Washington state last month after complaints from a single radical right anti-gay leader, according to an article just published in the Seattle paper, The Stranger (the article is on the news stands already, online Thursday).

My sources in Washington state tell me that the vote on the bill, expected in two days (Friday), is SO CLOSE that Microsoft's actions may be pivotal in KILLING THE PRO-GAY LEGISLATION.

The radical right activist reportedly told Microsoft it had better pull its support for the gays or anti-gay bigots would launch a nationwide boycott of Microsoft, and guess what - Microsoft caved. A single anti-gay jerk, and Microsoft chose to reverse over ten years of policy and bash gays.

This is outrageous. It's also incredibly dangerous. For over a decade Microsoft, along with hundreds of other corporate leaders, has endorsed gay rights legislation in the states and nationally. And now, suddenly, because ONE ANTI-GAY ACTIVIST COMPLAINED, they've suddenly changed their minds ON A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. A rather big "oops" after ten years of being in favor of civil rights, don't you think?

WILL MICROSOFT NOW PULL ITS SUPPORT FOR OTHER GAY RIGHTS?

What other "oopsies" does Microsoft now have in store for America's civil rights community?

- Does Microsoft now regret having endorsed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act at the federal level, something it did years ago?

- Does Microsoft regret having received a friggin' gay rights award from the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community Center back in 2001? I know I regret their receiving it.

- And does Microsoft now regret having bragged ON THEIR OWN WEB SITE that they're such a big supporter of local and national gay rights legislation? I certainly hope THAT Web page is coming down, and soon.

Come on Microsoft, you can't have your fags and bash them too.

Are you pro-gay or not? Do you support civil rights or not? You clearly did support gays, for over 12 years now that I've been involved in gay politics, yet now suddenly we give you the willies? And what's worse, the statements your company has made about this specific issue are terrifying in terms of what they imply for how you're going to treat civil rights issues nationwide in the future.

Let me give you a taste of what Microsoft said, per the article (an astute AMERICAblogger in Seattle got a copy of the paper and faxed me the article, not gonna transcribe the whole thing, you can read it online on Thursday).

EXCERPTS FROM "THE STRANGER" ARTICLE ON MICROSOFT

From The Stranger:

In a move that angered many of the company's gay employees, the Microsoft Corporation, publicly perceived as the vanguard institution of the new economy, has taken a major political stand in favor of age-old discrimination.

The Stranger has learned that last month the $37-billion Redmond-based software behemoth quietly withdrew its support for House bill 1515, the anti-gay-discrimination bill currently under consideration by the Washington State legislature, after being pressured by the Evangelical Christian pastor of a suburban megachurch.

The pastor, Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, met with a senior Microsoft executive in February and threatened to organize a national boycott of the company's products if it did not change its stance on the legislation, according to gay rights activists and a Microsoft employee who attended a subsequent April 4 meeting where Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president, general counsel, and corporate secretary, told a group of gay staffers about Hutcherson's threat....

At the April 4 meeting, Smith told members of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian employees group at Microsoft, that the company had switched its official stance to "neutral" on the bill, and took personal responsibility for the decision. He characterized the shift as part of a broader general review of company policy designed to more precisely formulate criteria for determining when Microsoft should involve itself in "social issues," but also disclosed the pressure that had been brought to bear on him by Hutcherson....

MICROSOFT SAYS ANTI-GAY POLICY SHIFT IS NOT ISOLATED INCIDENT

What you just read in the quote above is important for two reasons. First, later on you'll see that Microsoft tries to lie about why it dropped its support for gay civil rights in Washington state.

But more importantly, read what Microsoft is really saying. This isn't just an isolated incident. Microsoft having chucked the gays in Washington is part of a "broader general review of company policy" - i.e., they didn't do this in a vacuum, but rather, this is a sign of a bigger shift in Microsoft's policies, policies that have clearly now moved away from their past support of the civil rights of their gay and lesbian employees.

More from The Stranger:

That one of the world's best-known corporations, synonymous with cutting-edge workplace innovation, would reverse its stance on such a basic piece of legislation because of threats from one minister seems to be yet another sign of the ongoing reverberations of last November's presidential election, when "moral values" voters were widely - if probably erroneously - perceived to have played the role of kingmaker in ensuring the reelection of President Bush.

"The pastor of a megachurch gets a meeting in two weeks with one of the top executives at one of the world's most powerful corporations. He makes these idle threats and he gets everything he wants," the GLEAM member who reported Smith's comments says. "Microsoft just got taken to the cleaners on this issue."

WHAT THE BILL DOES & OTHER COMPANIES WHO ENDORSE IT

From the Stranger:

House Bill 1515 would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, housing, banking, insurance, and other matters by adding sexual orientation to a state law which already bars discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, gender, marital status, and mental or physical handicap. More than a dozen states currently have similar laws on the books....

The list of high-profile companies that endorsed the bill this year reads like a who's who of the Pacific Northwest corporate world. It includes the Boeing Company, Nike, Coors Brewing, Qwest Communications, Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Corbis, Battelle Memorial Institute, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen's Vulcan Inc., and others. And as late as February 1, Microsoft, which issued a letter in support of the bill last year, appeared poised to do so again....

MICROSOFT BRAGS "NO ONE WILL KNOW" IF COMPANY'S ACTIONS KILL PRO-GAY BILL

From the Stranger:

DeLee Shoemaker, an aide to former Governor Gary Locke who now handles state-level government relations for Microsoft, had issued a letter in support of the bill. "We are going to be providing copies of that letter to the committee," he said. McCurdy spoke too soon. Murray says that beginning on February 7 he began receiving calls from company employees informing him that Hutcherson was pressuring the company to change its position on the bill. Murray eventually contacted Shoemaker. She admitted to him that Microsoft was planning to change its position on the bill. "I told her, 'This is a crisis. It will kill the bill,'" he says. "She said no one will know."....

SEE MICROSOFT LIE. LIE, MICROSOFT, LIE.

From the Stranger:

[A]ccording to Microsoft corporate communications spokesperson Tami Begasse... "Microsoft's position on the bill this year was not the result of "any external factors... In this case there was some apparent confusion surrounding some employees who testified as individual citizens in Olympia in February, and the company felt it was appropriate for the employees to make their roles clear as they were not representing or speaking for the company."

Excuse me, but the "apparent confusion" wasn't over Microsoft's employees testifying and saying that Microsoft supported the legislation. That's all true and incontrovertible. According to the Stranger article, Microsoft supported the legislation last year:

"Microsoft, which issued a letter in support of the bill last year..."

No confusion there. And Microsoft endorsed the bill this year too, before it changed its mind. Again from the Stranger:

At the April 4 meeting, [Microsoft's general counsel] told members of GLEAM, the gay and lesbian employees group at Microsoft, that the company had switched its official stance to "neutral" on the bill, and took personal responsibility for the decision.

DeLee Shoemaker, an aide to former Governor Gary Locke who now handles state-level government relations for Microsoft, had issued a letter in support of the bill.... She admitted to him that Microsoft was planning to change its position on the bill. "I told her, 'This is a crisis. It will kill the bill,'" he says. "She said no one will know."

The confusion was not surrounding what the employees said. The confusion is because Microsoft was for the bill before it was against it.

Not to mention, you gotta love the last part of that Microsoft quote. Yes, that's right, no one will know - hee hee hee - if Microsoft is secretly responsible for callously killing legislation granting gays and lesbians their share of the American dream. Pretty sneaky of you, Microsoft. Too bad you got caught.

Which begs a much larger question. Why did Microsoft, which has been so good on gay issues for at least 13 years that I know of, suddenly pull the plug and apparently change their entire corporate outlook on civil rights issues simply because one right-wing kook walked into their offices. Makes you wonder if something else isn't going on here, some quid pro quo or something.

Could the Bush Administration have had a hand in this? Remember, Bush worked out a backroom deal with the Salvation Army a few years back to kill local gay rights laws. Did something like that happen here too? Did Microsoft's decision to change its pro civil rights stance have anything to do with the larger issue of the feds dropping their anti-trust investigation of Microsoft? Something doesn't smell right about Microsoft's sudden about face on civil rights. These are questions that need to be answered.

And in the meantime, Microsoft can go to hell. If it wants to throw minorities and our civil rights to the back of the bus in order to pander to bigots, then Microsoft can now pay the full price of its prejudice. And I promise you, it will be costly.

********** TAKE ACTION **********

1. Call Microsoft's director of Government Relations, Jack Krumholtz, at tel. 202-263-5900 and tell him:

- You know about Microsoft secretly pulling its support for the Washington state gay rights bill, and you're not happy about Microsoft kissing up to anti-gay bigots.

- You demand that Microsoft IMMEDIATELY and PUBLICLY endorse the gay rights bill in Washington state, and demand that Microsoft publicly repudiate its new policy of backing-off of support for the civil rights of gays and lesbians and other Americans.

- Tell him that if the Washington state gay rights bill dies on Friday, Microsoft's reputation goes down with it.

2. Contact these other contacts for Microsoft and its public relations reps and tell them the same thing:

- Jim Desler,

Microsoft US

425-703-6061

jdesler@microsoft.com

- Dirk Delmartino,

Microsoft Europe

+32 (0)2 550 06 21

dirkdelm@microsoft.com

- The firm handling public policy for Microsoft in DC:

The Glover Park Group

Washington, DC

202-337-0808

- The firm handling Microsoft's "rapid response" to questions:

Waggener Edstrom Rapid Response Team

rrt@wagged.com

503-443-7070

- Media Relations for Microsoft

Global Communications & Television

(212) 339-9920

mediarelations@gctv.com

- Microsoft Investor Relations

Curt Anderson

(425) 706-3703

- Shoreen Maghame, Edelman, (323) 202-1061, shoreen.maghame@edelman.com

- Sean Durkin, Edelman, (206) 268-2229, sean.durkin@edelman.com

- Walt McGraw, Edelman, (206) 223-1606, walt.mcgraw@edelman.com

- Shon Damron, Edelman, (323) 857-9100, shon.damron@edelman.com

Carlos de Leon,tel. 425-703-3824, or carlosde@microsoft.com

Katie Goldberg, tel. 206-268-2244, or katie.goldberg@edelman.com

2. Demand that Microsoft return the award it received from the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center. We don't give corporate bigots awards, and we don't expect them to keep such awards under false pretenses. If Microsoft has now rethunk its position on defending civil rights, then give back the damn award:

Per Microsoft's own Web site:

Microsoft has been honored for its pioneering work on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community with the annual Corporate Vision Award of the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center.

Yeah, I don't think so.

And finally, maybe it's time I gave some serious thought to buying that Mac Mini, and testing the waters as to whether it's time to go Mac and never go back.

An Apple a day keeps the bigot away?

americablog.blogspot.com/...-gays.html

Ben

"We are strong now/Put down the ammunition/For what we know is right/Is gonna breakdown this division"

--Erasure, "It Doesn't Have To Be"

by **Warduke** » Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:30 pm

From Yahoo...

Quote:
Gay Marriage Bill Makes Progress in Spain

By CIARAN GILES, Associated Press Writer

MADRID, Spain - The lower house of the Spanish Parliament approved the Socialist government's gay marriage bill Thursday, a major step toward making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third European country to legalize same-sex marriages.

The bill, which also will pave the way for gay couples to adopt children, will now go to the Senate — where the Socialists have ample support — for final approval in the coming weeks. Belgium and the Netherlands are the only two other European countries that have legalized gay marriages.

Representatives of gay and lesbian groups cheered and applauded from the chamber's public gallery when the vote result was read out. The bill passed by a 183-136 vote, with six abstentions.

"This is a great and historic day because never before has such a small legal reform made such an important improvement in rights and in favor of freedom and equality," said Pedro Zerolo, a leader of Spain's homosexual rights group.

The bill reflects the radical change in recent decades in Spain, for centuries a bastion of the church. According to Madrid's Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, while 80 percent of Spaniards consider themselves Catholic, half ignore church teachings, and religion for most is more an inherited tag than a way of life.

Polls say nearly half of the country's Roman Catholics almost never go to Mass, and a third say they are simply not religious.

Spain's Roman Catholic church and the conservative opposition Popular Party opposed the bill.

The Spanish Bishops Conference issued a statement saying the bill "went against the common good." It added that it was "unfair that real marriage should be treated the same as the union of persons of the same sex."

Last year, conference spokesman Antonio Martinez Camino said allowing gay marriage was like "imposing a virus on society, something false that will have negative consequences for social life."

Organizations representing the Jewish, Protestant and Orthodox faiths in Spain also expressed opposition to the bill, saying that recognition of other types of unions between couples should not alter the institution of matrimony.

In an opinion poll on the issue carried out by the government-run Center for Sociological Investigations last June, 66 percent of Spaniards favored legalizing gay marriage, while 26 percent opposed.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialists proposed the bill in October, seven months after winning general elections that ended an eight-year stint in office for the Popular Party.

At a news conference before the vote, Zapatero was asked how he thought newly elected Pope Benedict XVI might greet the news.

"If the new pope wants to say something about it, I'm prepared to respect whatever he says, he can count on my respect for him," Zapatero said.

"One of the guarantees of democracy is the freedom of religion, freedom of opinion and freedom to carry out a political project with the citizens' vote."

In a separate vote Thursday, the lower house also approved the government's proposed fast-track, no-fault divorce law, which scraps the trial period of separation and lets people file directly for divorce three months after getting married.

Under the existing law, a man or woman filing for divorce had to state a reason to the judge, such as infidelity. The new bill says either can simply request a divorce — no questions asked — and the judge has to grant it.

Government figures show that 60 percent of Spanish marriages end either in separation or divorce.

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

by **TemperedCynic** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:25 pm

AMERICAblog.com has the story here.

Friday, April 22, 2005

Holy Sh*t. Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center asks Microsoft for its award back

by John in DC - 4/22/2005 06:21:00 PM Edited by me.

Oh. My. God.

Now THAT is balls.

And by the way, this is why this is signfificant:

"Founded in 1971, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center is the largest gay and lesbian organization in the world. With an annual budget of $35 million, the Gay & Lesbian Center offers the widest array of services to gay men and lesbians available anywhere in the world."

Now here's the Center's press release:

In response to Microsoft's withdrawal of support for legislation that would have outlawed discrimination against gay and lesbian people in Washington, the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, which presented Microsoft with its Corporate Vision Award in 2001, is asking the company to return the award.

"We honor companies that, among other things, set a high standard for others by exhibiting leadership in advancing the cause of lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual equality," said L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center Chief of Staff Darrel Cummings. "Because of Microsoft's apparent capitulation to the demands of anti-gay extremists and withdrawal of support for a bill that would do nothing more than protect gay and lesbian people from discrimination, we believe it's no longer worthy of our highest corporate honor."

At the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center's 30th Anniversary Gala in 2001, Microsoft was honored because the company had been a leader in opposing anti-gay initiatives, was one of the first companies to offer domestic partnership benefits and include sexual orientation in its corporate non-discrimination policy, and has supported AIDS and GLBT organizations across the country. Center leaders are concerned about the company's apparent shift in its support of civil rights legislation for the GLBT community. Phone calls from the Center to Microsoft have not been returned.

"One of the most basic civil rights is protection from discrimination," said Cummings. "By withdrawing support for legislation that would protect the GLBT community from discrimination -- especially in its home state -- we're very concerned about the direction Microsoft is headed. It sends a dangerous message to the rest of corporate America, and to society in general, and may be cause for our community to evaluate its support of Microsoft."

More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. Woody Allen (1935 - )

by **justin** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:36 pm

There's a letter from Steve Balmer about Microsoft's reasons for the change in policy here

It's rather long so I won't quote it but the gist is the reason for the change in policy is because they're tightening there focus on legislature to just bills that directly affects the company. He also says that it has nothing to do with external pressure.

He doesn't say whether or not they'll be returning their reward.

I noticed in the origional article it said

An apple a day keeps the bigot away

I'm curious if anyone knows what Apple's track record is on supporting bills like this one.

by **maudmac** » Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:06 pm

It's interesting that Ballmer doesn't even mention whether they'll be returning the award or not. I was pleased that the Center and HRC are taking Microsoft to task, and in a very public way. It was meant to force Microsoft to address the issue and it looks like Microsoft is just standing there blinking and sputtering. Very lame.

Ballmer said that personally, both be and Chairman Bill Gates supported the gay-rights bill.

"But that is my personal view, and I also know that many employees and shareholders would not agree with me." he wrote.

"We are thinking hard about what is the right balance to strike — when should a public company take a position on a broader social issue, and when should it not? What message does the company taking a position send to its employees who have strongly held beliefs on the opposite side of the issue?"

What message does the company send when it backs off supporting a civil rights issue? So, okay, they want to be sensitive to the bigots among their employees. This is one of those times when not taking a stance is taking a stance.

by **WebWarlock** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:04 am

An older one, been a busy week for me.

Women who kissed celebrate court victory
Swedish restaurant owner fined for kicking out couple 'making out'
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7630152/

Warlock

by **sam7777** » Tue May 03, 2005 12:16 pm

http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?start=5/2/05#516
Talking sense in Texas

Texas Representative Senfronia Thompson (D-Houston) gave this speech on the floor of the Texas House before they voted on an amendment to ban gay marriage. Other representatives tried to shut her up, I'm told, but she didn't stop until she was done:

I have been a member of this august body for three decades, and today is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction, in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all know what this is about, this is the politics of divisiveness at its worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide.

Members, this issue is a distraction from the real things we need to be working on. At the end of this session, this Legislature, this leadership will not be able to deliver the people of Texas, fundamental and fair answers to the pressing issues of our day.

Let's look at what this amendment does not do: It does not give one Texas citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund our education system. It does not restore one child to CHIP, who was cut from health insurance last session. It does not put one dime into raising Texas' Third World access to health care. It does not do one thing to care for or protect one elderly person or one child in this state. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.

Members, this bill is about hate and fear and discrimination. I know something about hate and fear and discrimination. When I was a small girl, white folks used to talk about "protecting the institution of marriage" as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to marry people of Mr. Chisum's color, you'd often find the people of my color hanging from a tree. That's what the white folks did back then to "protect marriage." Fifty years ago, white folks thought inter-racial marriages were a "threat to the institution of marriage." Members, I'm a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book, and do my best to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, "gay people can't marry." I have never read the verse where it says, "though shalt discriminate against those not like me." I have never read the verse where it says, "let's base our public policy on hate and fear and discrimination." Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and forgiveness-not hate and discrimination.

I have served in this body a lot of years, and I have seen a lot of promises broken. I should be up here demanding my 40 acres and a mule because that's another promise you broke. You used a wealthy white minister cloaked in the cloth to ease the stench of that form of discrimination.

So, now that blacks and women can vote, and now that blacks and women have equal rights — you turn your hatred to homosexuals — and you still use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred. You want to pass this ridiculous amendment so you can go home and brag — brag about what? Declare that you saved the people of Texas from what? Persons of the same sex cannot get married in this state now. Texas does not now recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, religious unions, domestic partnerships, contractual arrangements or Christian blessings entered into in this state — or anywhere else on this planet Earth.

If you want to make your hateful political statements then that is one thing; the Chisum amendment does real harm. It repeals the contracts that many single people have paid thousands of dollars to purchase to obtain medical powers of attorney, powers of attorney, hospital visitation, joint ownership and support agreements. You have lost your way; this is obscene.

Today, you are playing to the lowest common denominator; you are putting aside the real issues of substance that we need to address so that you can instead play on the public's fears and prejudices to deceive and manipulate voters into thinking that we have done something important.

I realize that gay rights are not the same as civil rights, but I can guarantee you we are going in the wrong direction. I cannot hide my skin color. In fact, in most of the South, people as pink as Rep. Wayne Smith were still black by law if they had a great grandparent who was African. I was unable to attend an integrated and equally funded school until I got my master of laws degree. There were separate and unequal facilities for nearly everything.

I got second-hand textbooks even worse than the kind you're trying to pass off on every public school student next year. I had to ride to school on the back of the bus. I had to quench my thirst from filthy coloreds-only drinking fountains. I had to enter restaurants from the kitchen door. I was banned from entering most public accommodations, even from serving on a jury.

I had to live with the fear that getting too uppity could get you killed — or worse. I know what third-class citizenship feels like. In my first term, one of my colleagues walked up and down this aisle muttering about how "nigras" should be back in the field picking cotton instead of picking out committees.

So, I have to wonder about Rep. Chisum's 3/5 of a person amendment. Some of you folks hid behind your Bible then, too, to justify your cultural prejudices, your denial of liberty, and your gunpoint robbery of human dignity.

We have worked hard at putting our prejudices against homosexuals in law. We have denied them basic job protections. We have denied them and their children freedom from bullying and harassment at school. We have tried to criminalize their very existence.

But, we have also absolved them of all family duties and responsibilities: to care for and support their spouses and children, to count their family's assets in determining public assistance, to obtain health insurance for dependents, to make end-of-life or necessary medical decisions for their life partner — sometimes even to visit in the hospital, even to defend our own country. And then, we can stand on our two hind legs and proclaim, "See, I told you homosexual families are unstable." And nearly every one of you on this floor has a homosexual in their extended families.

Some of you have shunned and isolated these family members. Some of you, even some of the joint coauthors, have embraced them within your own family for the essence of Christianity is love. Yet, you are now poised to constitutionalize discrimination against a particular class of people.

I thought we would be debating real issues: education, health care for kids, teacher's health insurance, health care for the elderly, protecting survivors of sexual assault, protecting the pensions of seniors in nursing homes. I thought we would be debating economic development, property tax relief, protecting seniors pensions and stem cell research, to save lives of Texans who are waiting for a more abundant life. Instead we are wasting this body's time with this political stunt that is nothing more than constitutionalizing discrimination. The prejudices exhibited by members of this body disgust me.

Last week, Republicans used a political wedge issue to pull kids — sweet little vulnerable kids — out of the homes of loving parents and put them back in a state orphanage just because those parents are gay. That's disgusting. Today, we are telling homosexuals that just like people of my ilk, when I was a small child, they too are second-class citizens. I have listened to all the arguments. I have listened to all of the crap.

Mr. Chisum is a person who I consider my good friend and revere. But, I want you to know that this amendment [is] blowing smoke to fuel the hell-fire flames of bigotry. You are trying to protect your constituents from danger. This amendment is a CYB amendment for you to go home and talk about.

The Texas House then voted to approve the constitutional ban on gays have equal marriage rights by a vote of 101-29, one more than needed.

Representative Senfronia Thompson showed the true meaning of moral values. It is truly a shame that even these truths cannot thrive in the darkness of bigotry and hatred.

The Kitten, the Witches and the Bad Wardrobe Willow & Tara Forever

GLBT News

Another one

Re: Another one

Connecticut Takes Steps Toward Gay Civil Unions

Re: Another one

Re: Another one

High school gays get a harsh lesson

Wanda Alston, Washington DC Mayor’s LGBT liaison is murdered

Something new

Making the connection

Lame, much?

No suprises here...

Re: Making the connection

Re: Military Gay Policy Costs Talent

Kansas

Day of Silence

Gay U.S. Soldier Wants to Serve Openly

Re: Gay U.S. Soldier Wants to Serve Openly

Re: Gay U.S. Soldier Wants to Serve Openly

Scalia Subjected to Probing Question, the Aftermath

Bigotry and Stupidity

"gay? fine by me."

Blue States, Red States: the gap keeps widening . . .

Re: Blue States, Red States: the gap keeps widening . . .

Microsoft abandons gays

Gay Marriage Bill Makes Progress in Spain

Re: Gay Marriage Bill Makes Progress in Spain

Re: GLBT News

Re: GLBT News

Re: GLBT News

Profile in courage

Who is online