Fighting Our Fight: the Gay Politics Thread

[Kieli]

Quote:

---

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

---

I wish I could share your optimism but...as I've just read this article, Senate Heads Toward Marriage Vote, I'm not all that hopeful. It seems that there are still too many people with their heads in the sand, willing to let the Senate steamroll over any civil rights we might have left.

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

[Ben Varkentine]

FWIW, I read the same article, Kieli, and my POV on it is more hopeful. To me, it seems clear that those pressing for this vote do not hope to roll back civil rights victories. They simply don't have the votes for that. Rather, it's about



1. Exploiting an emotionally charged issue to divert attention from the increasingly indefensible invasion of Iraq, electoral dirty tricks, and Bush's anti-science, anti-enviroment record.



2. Forcing Democratic senators, not least of all Kerry and Edwards, to declare themselves on an issue they don't want to deal with.



Part of me thinks the second part is a good idea, but I'm queasy about anything the Republicans want so much.

Ben



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

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Kieli]

I wish that I could be so hopeful....but I agree it's forcing Democratic senators to get off their collective asses and start standing up for something, otherwise they're going to be out of a job. The more I read, the more depressed I get. I'm standing in line this afternoon to get my passport renewed....I might be taking an extended trip come November.

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

[Ben Varkentine]

Maybe it's not that I'm hopeful...I just don't think it's end of civil rights, time to leave the country time (that time will come if Bush is elected. Not RE-elected, elected). But it's true that while Republicans tend to run to their base when in trouble, Democrats...tend to run to the Republicans base while in trouble. So while I don't think this is as bad as it might appear, it does bear watching.



There's a good article here about what's really going on, Initiatives to Ban Gay Marriage Could Help Bush in Key States. It's from the LA Times and registration is required but free.



Here's some excerpts, but it's really worth reading the whole thing:

Quote:

---

In the last month, activists in four states -- Arkansas, Michigan, Montana and Oregon -- have gathered enough petition signatures to force a vote in November on marriage amendments to their state constitutions. Five other states had already put the issue on their November ballots; two more will vote on amendments before then. Other states may yet take up the topic. Those state petition drives are welcome successes for conservatives, who say they have found it surprisingly difficult to light a fire at the federal level for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

---

Quote:

---

Conservatives seized the issue because they view same-sex marriage as an affront to the sanctity of a fundamental social institution — and as a political issue that could be as potent an organizing tool as the fight against abortion has been. Although public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage, there is less support for amending the Constitution to ban it. What is more, polls show that only a minority of voters consider the issue a top priority

---

Quote:

---

"You can see what their raw agenda is," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group that supports same-sex marriage. "President Bush believes this will mobilize his extreme-right base."



Gay rights organizations are urging their members to get involved at the state and federal levels. "Bush and his political team are playing with fire," Jacques said. "They awoke a sleeping giant. The gay community is more activated and galvanized than ever before."

---

Ben



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

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Warduke]

From Yahoo...

Quote:

---

Bush Heads Toward Defeat on Gay-Marriage Measure



By Thomas Ferraro





WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's bid to amend the Constitution to ban same sex-marriage headed toward defeat on Tuesday, with Democratic foe John Kerry accusing him of divisive election-year politics.



Proponents scrambled to win the support of half of the 100-member Senate, but both sides said the measure seemed certain to be blocked on a procedural vote on Wednesday.



If its mostly Republicans backers are unable to get 60 votes to end debate and move to a vote on passage, the proposal will likely be dead for the year. But proponents vowed to try again next year.



"You've got to put senators out there and get a vote total, and then people will say, 'Hey, we disagree,"' explained Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and a leading backer of the measure. "People will react."



Polls show most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but split on whether a constitutional ban is needed. Surveys also find voters believe a host of other issues are more important -- such as health care, education and national security.



Republicans forced consideration of the proposed amendment two weeks before Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, will receive his party's presidential nomination at the Democratic national convention in Boston.



Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same sex-marriage, but argue amending the Constitution is not the answer.



Like many Democrats, they say it should be left up to the states to define marriage. They also accuse Republicans of pushing the measure merely to rally their social-conservative base.



Republicans contend gay marriage devalues traditional marriage, which they say is a pillar of civilization, and should be outlawed for the sake of children.



KERRY OPPOSES AMENDMENT



At a fund-raiser in Boston on Monday night, Kerry alluded to the gay-marriage debate as a symbol of what he characterized as a divisive Republican president.



"Values aren't talking about peoples' rights and opening the door of opportunity, and then you turn around and for political purposes in the middle of a campaign, you bring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States just to divide America," Kerry said.



For a proposed constitutional amendment to become law, it must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives and then ratified by 38 of the 50 states.



The House is to consider a proposed amendment to ban same-sex marriage in September, but it is also expected to fall far short of the needed votes.



Bush in February called on the U.S. Congress to approve such an amendment after Massachusetts' highest court ruled gay couples had a right to wed and San Francisco began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.



These actions helped spawn lawsuits across the nation, including ones calling on other states to recognize same-sex marriage.



Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, quoted Vice President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne Cheney, as telling CNN on Sunday that she too believes the matter should be left up to the states.



"We ought to listen to her advice," Daschle said.



Daschle faces a tough re-election campaign in South Dakota where his Republican challenger, John Thune, began airing ads last week in support of the proposed amendment. Daschle said like most residents in his state, he opposes same-sex marriage, but believes the matter should be left up to the states.



(Additional reporting by David Morgan)

---

---

Firefox: One Browser To Rule Them All.

Edited by: Warduke at: 7/13/04 1:43 pm

[Gatito Grande]

OK, I'm confused (there's a shocker! ): I thought both sides wanted an Up-or-Down vote, and now it's going to be blocked procedurally?



GG If it's because the Dems don't want that vote, I'm afraid that will just be seen as weakness . . . Out

[justin]

According to an email from the human rights campaign it was the republicans who have called for cloture on the amendment.



This is a procedure that limits the amount of debate on the issue to less than 30 hours, and is generally used to stop any holding proceedings up through an extended bout of filibustering.

What other people think of me is none of my business - Ellen Degeneres

[Ben Varkentine]

A note of caution sounded in this Daily Camera Editorial...

Quote:

---

A poisonous silence



July 13, 2004



First, the good news: The proposed Federal Marriage amendment is dead on arrival in the United States Senate this week.



Even the Senate sponsor, Colorado Republican Wayne Allard, concedes that the amendment is well short of the required two-third majority. Many senators in both parties have shown a reluctance to write social policy into the Constitution, whatever their views on the issue of same-sex marriage.



Good for them. They'll do the country a service by defeating this amendment. Unfortunately, it will continue to poison national debate long after Congress is through with it.



How will that happen? Look to President Bush's Saturday radio address for one telling example. In a brief talk devoted entirely to the Federal Marriage Amendment, Bush defended "the traditional definition of marriage" against "a few activist judges." True to form, he never edged closer than that to the human reality of the issue. He never used the words "gay" or lesbian," never considered alternatives such as civil unions, never acknowledged the people directly affected by this amendment as human beings who want to live in stable and committed relationships.



This is demonization by silence. Bush would never allow himself to express open contempt for gays and lesbians, but his silence aligns him with those who do. It exploits the fear smoldering in those conservative church people who observed "Marriage Protection Day" on Sunday — and who, for all their strong religious convictions about homosexuality, might approach the subject with greater tolerance in the political arena if the president led them in that direction.



Instead, they're leading him. Bush and the Republican party are using the Federal Marriage Amendment to curry favor with their socially conservative base and to lure a few swing voters in November. The president is making common cause with Allard, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, James Dobson and all the others who would use this amendment to deny gays and lesbians not only the right to marry but also the most basic legal rights and protections as couples.



They've found a suitable instrument for the purpose. Forget the occasional, indignant denials that the Federal Marriage Amendment would impose any limitation on civil unions. As we've commented in the past, the language of the amendment says otherwise.



The widely quoted first sentence defines marriage in the United States as "the union of a man and a woman," but the second sentence adds the clincher: "Neither this constitution nor the constitution of any state shall be construed to require that marriage, or the legal incidents thereof, be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." The words "the legal incidents thereof" provide ample basis for seeking to prohibit any civil arrangement a state might approve for gay couples.



U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., revealed the true concern of the amendment's supporters in a magazine article last week: "If the movement for civil unions and same-sex marriage succeeds, we may well be dealing a fatal blow to an already vulnerable institution." Civil unions and same-sex marriage: To hard-core religious conservatives, they're basically the same.



That clearly is not the view of most Americans. Polls have shown that most Americans oppose same-sex marriage, but a slender majority are willing to consider civil unions and other experiments to provide basic protections under the law.



Congress will leave intact the states' freedom to pursue those experiments. The Federal Marriage Amendment will fail in 2004. But its poisonous spirit will not disappear so long as the president is willing to exploit irrational fear for political gain, both in what he says and what he pointedly declines to say.

---

Ben



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

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Gatito Grande]

[On the "Stop the Anti-gay Amendment!" thread, I kvetched that the following legislation couldn't possibly be Constitutional. I'm pleased to see that others (w/ actual legal expertise! ) agree. Still, these kind of legislative shennigans do gum up the legal works: we would have to overturn this measure, before we could overturn DOMA. But we will! ]

Quote:

---

Legislation would strip federal judges of right to review whether a state that bars gay marriages must accept such marriages from another state.



By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer





WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled House today approved a bill that would strip federal judges of authority to hear challenges to a law allowing states to decide whether to recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by another state.



The White House-backed measure was approved on a largely party-line vote of 233-194. It faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, which last week scuttled a proposed Constitutional amendment barring gay marriage.



Kevin Cathcart, executive director of Lambda Legal, a gay and lesbian legal group, said the House measure "clearly violates our Constitution and will never be allowed to stand."



Supporters of the Marriage Protection Act argued that it was needed to prevent "activist" judges from striking down a provision of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act that says that no state is required to recognize as valid a same-sex marriage sanctioned by another state.



The measure's passage was spurred by a lawsuit filed this week by a lesbian couple wed in Massachusetts seeking to have their union recognized in Florida.



Democrats accused Republicans of pushing the bill to whip up social conservatives to turn out for President Bush in the fall election.



The bill's opponents — including several black lawmakers — argued that it could set a dangerous precedent that could lead to efforts to limit courts' power to hear civil rights cases.



"While every other American will continue to enjoy the checks and balances that come from three branches of government, the Republicans have decided that if you are gay, you should be able to get along with just two branches of government," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.).



Supporters of the bill said the measure was a response to gay marriages in San Francisco and other places set off by a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court earlier this year permitting same-sex marriages in that state.



Supporters disputed that the legislation would deny gays their day in court, saying it provides that challenges to the federal law dealing with whether states must recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by other states must be heard in state court.



Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill would prevent "unelected, lifetime-appointed federal judges from taking away from the states their right to reject same-sex marriage licenses issued elsewhere if states so choose."



While some legal scholars have questioned whether the measure is constitutional, Sensenbrenner contended that Congress has the authority "to prevent overreaching" by the other branches of government.



The legislation, which needs only the approval of simple majorities of both houses of Congress and President Bush, has been proposed as an interim step toward a constitutional amendment, which must be approved by two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.



"They couldn't amend the Constitution last week. So they're trying to desecrate and circumvent the Constitution this week," Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) argued.



Some Democrats contend that the measure was designed to give political cover to Republicans who oppose gay marriage but are uneasy about amending the Constitution.



Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a leading supporter of the constitutional amendment, said he believes the best strategy for dealing with gay marriages is the amendment and predicted that support for an amendment would increase should more courts legalize same-sex marriage.



GOP leaders are expected to bring the constitutional amendment to the House floor this fall.

---

www.latimes.com/news/nati...-headlines (I believe registration is required to view LA Times' articles)



GG Agree w/ those who argue that the real point of all these anti-gay maneuverings right now are to lose them . . . and thus mobilize the Right Wingnuts for Nov. election Out

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

'An Evolution'

Congressman Barney Frank on gay rights, civility—and running for the Senate





By Christina B. Gillham

Newsweek

Updated: 1:45 p.m. ET July 21, 2004July 21 - Democratic Rep. Barney Frank is known for his witty candor and his dedication to liberal causes, particularly gay rights. One of the few openly gay members of Congress, Frank had been in Washington six years before he came to out to his colleagues, and the nation, in 1987. Two years later he found himself embroiled in a sex scandal with a male prostitute named Stephen Gobie that thrust him into the spotlight—and before the House Ethics Committee. But Frank's constituency, Massachusetts's Fourth Congressional District, voted him back into office despite the scandal and the House of Representatives' reprimand. He has handily won every election since. In 1998, Frank fervently defended President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment trial that followed. A film chronicling Frank's role during that time, "Let's Get Frank," directed by Bart Everly, played at a number of film festivals over the past year. It was released in New York City last Wednesday. Frank remains one of the Democrats' most respected members and continues to fight for gay rights, including same-sex marriage, an issue that has recently been in the news again. He spoke by phone from Washington with NEWSWEEK's Christina B. Gillham. Excerpts:



NEWSWEEK: As expected, the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was defeated last Wednesday. So why was it important?

Barney Frank: The fact is it got many fewer votes than we thought it was going to get and fewer votes than George Bush thought it was going to get. The significance is that the public is not supportive of a constitutional amendment. We've had same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for several months; it's a lot harder to say it's going to be the end of the earth when it's already happened and nobody's noticed even a tremor.



Republicans still apparently plan to use this issue to their advantage, though. The day after the vote one supporter of the amendment told the Boston Globe that even though the legislation didn't pass, it "got people on the record," meaning presumably that opponents of gay marriage will use the incident against supporters. Is this going to be a big issue in November?

No, I don't think it will be a big issue because what we saw was the voters don't think it's a big issue. If you're a politician, what you're interested in is not just opinion but how strongly people feel. Are people going to care more about this than how the war in Iraq has been carried out. Or are they going to care more about this than losing health care or the economy? Frankly, I think [the Republicans] had one race in mind [in pursuing the amendment], and it wasn't John Kerry's, it was Tom Daschle's. [The Republicans] think, oh, in South Dakota this will cause him great trouble. The other thing is this: in 1996 the Republicans brought up a bill that banned same-sex marriage [The Defense of Marriage Act]. It passed overwhelmingly. There were 12 votes against it in the Senate. Eight years later there are 52 votes against.



John Kerry was one of those 12 who voted against the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]. Won't this enable Republicans to argue that he is out of touch with "mainstream" America?

They were going to try. But, you know, George Bush has been making a big thing about the fact that John McCain said he couldn't run as Kerry's vice president and that he's really supporting Bush. John McCain voted against the amendment yesterday. It's kind of hard to run John McCain up the flagpole for people to salute and then denounce John Kerry for having a position identical to McCain's here.



Both John Kerry and John Edwards opposed the constitutional amendment, and they support civil unions, but they draw the line at gay marriage. Isn't that sort of an easy way out?

No. Society doesn't get from point A to point Z instantly. In most cases—if you look at the women's movement, civil rights—there's an evolution. Kerry and Edwards have also said that, yes they are personally for civil unions, but they wouldn't prevent a state from [marrying same-sex couples]; that's critical. I disagree with the position, obviously, but I think it's reasonable to say there's a difference between being with us 100 percent, 80 percent and zero percent, and that 80 percent is a lot better than zero percent.



In the documentary "Let's Get Frank" you say that President Clinton's support of gays was of "historic proportions." But wasn't the gay community very upset by Clinton's compromise on "don't ask, don't tell" and his signing of the DOMA?

Yes, but those are outweighed by all the positive things he did. With regard to "don't ask, don't tell"—this criticism of Clinton is really unfair; he tried very hard, we just lost the votes. In fact, I was critical of people in the gay community because they didn't help lobby when we were begging them to. At the same time Clinton abolished the rule that had been in existence for 40 years that said if you were gay or lesbian you couldn't get a security clearance. He appointed openly gay and lesbian people to high positions. He said if you were living in a foreign county and you were being persecuted for being gay or lesbian, you could be a refugee here in America.



Some people think that except for President Bush's position on gay marriage, he has a good pro-gay record. Do you agree?

Oh, no, that's nonsense. People who say that don't know what they're talking about. He did one thing that was supportive of gay people and that was when a man who was a professional foreign service officer got to the point where he either had to be made ambassador or fired. Bush agreed with Colin Powell to name him as an ambassador. He has literally done not one other good thing for gay people.Saying that Bush has been supportive except for gay marriage is a little bit like saying he's a very nice man except for the time he murdered somebody. This

constitutional amendment is a pretty grievous assault.



Do gay issues or the "gay agenda" alienate some who might otherwise vote Democrat?

I think that's true of some, yeah, but I think it's a diminishing number.



And the gun control and abortion issues might do the same thing.

I think the gun issue, frankly, does more, and [also] abortion. But yes, there are people who would support the Democrats [on the economy] who do disagree. Of course, there are also some people who it attracts. There are gay Republicans who voted for George Bush last time who say they're not going to vote for him this time.



How do you feel about Log Cabin Republicans?

I've been very unhappy with them in the past because they've just been apologists. Bob Dole in 1996 returned their check and they still supported him. They supported George Bush in 2000 saying he would be more moderate—well, now we know they were wrong. I think they just couldn't admit how little progress they were making. I do admire now that at least some of them are saying, OK, this is it. This constitutional amendment is such an assault on us we're not taking it anymore.



One thing that struck me about "Let's Get Frank" is that nothing seems to have changed since the Clinton years as far as the level of personal destruction that some are willing to stoop to in order to achieve their political aims. How much has this aspect of politics changed since you first came to Washington 23 years ago?

It's gotten much worse. When Newt Gingrich was in the House he decided that the Republicans would never win as long as people thought the Democrats were decent people with whom the Republicans disagreed. He had to show that the opponents were corrupt and vicious and immoral and unpatriotic. And Gingrich began this whole notion of being personally denunciatory. He was very effective at it and unfortunately he succeeded and then it generated a counterreaction. Only when the people who perpetrate it get punished will it stop.



Are Republicans winning on the values front?

No. The Republicans haven't had a majority in the presidential election since 1988. We would have won the [2000] presidency if it had been a fairly conducted election and the ballot wasn't so screwed up. And then what happened was this terrible mass murder of innocent people on September 11. Any president who was in power was going to get a boost from that. What the Bush people did was cleverly manipulate the reaction to that.



You said in the film that when people write about you, they inevitably write about Gobie. Will that incident always be an albatross around your neck?

It hasn't been so much an albatross as an embarrassment. It's been almost 20 years since the event and it's been [more] an embarrassment.



You appeared to be enjoying your role in the Clinton impeachment trials. In some way, was that your revenge for the Gobie affair?

No. I couldn't live if I couldn't laugh and make jokes. I would just go crazy. I'd get bored.



You also have a sharp tongue. Is civility overrated?

Yes and no. I think this notion that we should all try to be in the center [politically] is overrated. I think it is important to make your differences on the issues, and not personal. There are some bad people, but they are very few, and I think it is very damaging to the democratic system to impute bad personal motives to people just because you disagree with them.



If Kerry wins in November, will you run for his Senate seat?

If the Democrats don't take the House back. If they take the House back, I'd be chairman of a major committee, and I'd stay. But if Kerry wins and the Democrats don't take the House, yeah, I'm going to run for the Senate.

---

Ben



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

-- Doris 'Granny D' Haddock

[Gatito Grande]

The following is very interesting. I'm not saying I agree w/ the general thrust---that Mary Cheney may be quietly helping the cause---but it is a perspective worth hearing about. I happened to be watching the episode of CNN's "Late Edition" mentioned, and I took a break from cooking my omelette when Lynne Cheney unexpectedly all but "came out," opposing the FMA (what the story doesn't convey, is just how upset she seemed about the whole issue: LC may be a bitca, but I think she genuinely loves her daughter, and is disturbed to see her Grand Old Party build its platform by crushing people like her daughter---and her daughter's partner---underneath it).

Quote:

---

Mary Cheney's family values

by Chris Bull, senior political correspondent



At a July 4 campaign stop in West Virginia, Vice President Dick Cheney delivered his stump speech attacking John Kerry and touting the "conservative values of the heartland." Conspicuously absent from the list, however, was White House support for the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), which has become a staple of the Bush-Cheney campaign's appeal to its religious conservative base.

The omission was no coincidence. Smiling at the vice president's side was his beloved daughter, Mary, a lesbian who is director of vice-presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign.



The proximity to her father is hardly unusual for Mary, who is said by friends to be exceptionally close to Cheney and to her mother, Lynne. Father and daughter have bonded during frequent hunting trips and other family outings.



This deep sense of family loyalty, however, has earned Mary Cheney, 34, the enmity of gay activists, who accuse her of betraying the movement for an administration generally hostile to gay causes. DearMary.com, a Web site devoted to attacking Mary Cheney, depicts her pony-tailed head on a milk carton under the words, "Got Mary?" and encourages visitors to write Mary and demand that she "stand up to Dick."



Yet the crushing July 12 defeat of FMA in the Senate -- and the critical role the Cheney family played in it -- warrants a second look at Mary Cheney's political acumen and courage. By avoiding a public spat with her father and playing the insider's role of the loyal opposition, she may have helped bring down an amendment that proposes to write anti-gay animus into the nation's founding document.



Mary Cheney has declined all interview requests, so it is difficult to precisely gauge her role in the FMA debate. Cheney's critics point to her relative silence since 2000, when she left her post as the Coors Brewing Company's liaison to the gay community. She has carefully guarded her private life, much of it spent at a house in an undisclosed location near Denver that she shares with her partner, Heather Poe.



In 2002, Mary Cheney joined the Republican Unity Coalition, an advocacy group that assembles a broad array of Republicans hoping to make gay rights a "nonissue" within the party. Cheney abruptly quit last year when she accepted the reelection campaign post.



But her fingerprints on the Senate FMA debate are easy to discern. On the eve of the Senate debate, Lynne Cheney appeared on CNN's "Late Edition." The show led with a clip of Dick Cheney during the 2000 campaign, arguing that "people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard." In an apparent reversal early this year, Dick Cheney said that he would support the president's position on FMA.



Asked to comment on her husband's original position, Lynne Cheney declared that "the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. ... People should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose ... When it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states."



In three terse sentences, Lynne Cheney had undermined the conservative argument for FMA. Over the next two days, even some of the most conservative senators came out against the bill on identical grounds. FMA is "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" because it violates states rights, declared Arizona Sen. John McCain.



Bob Witeck, a Washington, D.C., public relations executive, got to know Mary Cheney while serving as a business consultant to Coors. "Lynne Cheney reminded the country about Dick's original comment about the need to respect same-sex relationships," he says. "I think she spelled where the family truly stands on FMA. And it was a risky thing to do, because they had to know that Democrats would seize on it."



Indeed, Democrats immediately leapt at the opening she had handed them. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., read Dick Cheney's comments on the Senate floor, imploring other Republicans to follow suit.



The Cheneys are among the few prominent Republicans who can afford to publicly stray from GOP orthodoxy. Dick Cheney is considered the administration's ambassador to hard-core conservatives. He is a favorite of the religious right, and it showed this week. Anti-gay lobby groups lambasted McCain, but left Cheney unscathed.



Mary Cheney's critics are not backing down, however. A founder of DearMary.com, Robin Tyler, compared Mary unfavorably to her mother. "I respect Lynne Cheney and what she did," she says. "It took courage to do this, and to be a good mother of a lesbian. But now it's time for Mary to grow up and speak for herself."



But far from the political limelight, few are privy to what Mary says to her father when they find themselves alone in a hunting blind. Whatever the impact on her father's politics, Americans witnessed, for a moment at least, a prominent conservative family in which love is blind.

---

www.gay.com/news/roundups...sernum=910



GG Though quite apart from LGBT issues, that Mary Cheney could work to re-elect her father as President . . . excuse me, I mean, "Vice-President," is unconscionable. Just for the furkin' War alone! Out

[Gatito Grande]

I almost just put this in the Happy Feelings thread, but I decided I really wanted to bump this thread up from the page 3 or 4 depths.



Today, I finally saw a "Vote No on Proposal 2" (the marriage-discrimination amendment in Michigan) TV ad. It used the metaphor of a car: that one should check under the hood of it, because Proposal 2 "is not what it says it is." Silly, but effective I think.



Then, on a more personal note (but still related to Proposal 2): my priest came through at my church, and (at my emailed request, w/ attached info) placed in the church bulletin today, notice that our bishop (as well as all the Episcopal bishops in Michigan: there are four) had officially opposed Proposal 2.



GG Between the TV ad, and the bishops' opposition, I hope maybe a few minds are changed. I'm still not optimistic, but who knows? Maybe a miracle? Out

[Kieli]

As if I couldn't be any more depressed:



11 States to Weigh in on Gay Marriage

Quote:

---

11 States Weigh in on Gay Marriage Debate



Tue Nov 2, 2:05 PM ET



By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer



The nationwide debate over gay marriage reached the ballot box in 11 states Tuesday as nearly one-fifth of America's voters had a chance to decide whether their state constitutions should be amended to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples.



Most, if not all, of the bans were expected to win overwhelming approval. However, national and local gay-rights groups campaigned vigorously in Oregon, where polls showed a close race, and in a few other states to try to prevent a sweep.



None of the 11 states allows gay marriage now, though officials in Portland, Ore., married more than 3,000 same-sex couples last year before a judge halted the practice. Supporters of the amendments contend the measures are needed as an extra guard against state court rulings like the one in Massachusetts a year ago that legalized same-sex marriage there.



The proposed amendments in Mississippi, Montana and Oregon refer only to marriage, specifying that it should be limited to unions of one man and one woman. The measures in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah would ban civil unions as well.



In most cases, those additional provisions generated extra controversy. Some prominent Republican politicians and GOP-leaning newspapers, while stressing that they opposed gay marriage, spoke out against the amendments on grounds that the measures might prevent the extension of even very limited partnership rights to unmarried gay and straight couples.



In five of the states, legislators placed the proposed amendments on the ballots, while in the six others — Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon — the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions.



Many gay-rights activists and their allies depicted some of the petition drives as a divisive, GOP-backed tactic to boost conservative turnout on Election Day in crucial battleground states like Ohio and Michigan.



Already this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana have weighed in on the issue, with gay-marriage-ban amendments winning more than 70 percent of the vote in both states.



Louisiana's amendment was later struck down in state court on the ground that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions.



Even if all 11 amendments were approved, the debate would rage on. Conservatives say they will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court



Gay-rights activists, meanwhile, will continue pressing marriage-rights lawsuits in states like Oregon, California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.

---

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

[Big Dummy]

Wanna see something scary?



GA Amendment 1 Poll Results



It wasn't even close. I live in one of the grey counties. I suppose it means I won't leave my little island until I leave the state as a whole.

[SoulieBaby]

11 States Ban Gay Marriage



(Washington) In a major setback for same-sex marriage rights voters in 11 states where constitutional amendments were on the ballot passed the measure.



The proposed amendments passed easily in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah. Only in Oregon was there a contest, but in the end, the measure won there too.



In Kentucky and Georgia, the bans passed by a 3 - 1 margin. It was 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.



The amendments in three states, Oregon, Mississippi and Montana, bar same-sex marriage. Those in the other 8 states also ban civil unions and domestic partnerships. But, the Ohio amendment is considered the most draconian preventing any benefits to be granted to same-sex partners. That say opponents could prevent companies from giving benefits to the same-sex partners of their gay and lesbian employees.



Shortly after the amendment was passed in Georgia and Mississippi gay rights groups announced they would challenge the provision in court.



Last week, the Georgia Supreme Court issued a ruling saying that the amendment's legality could not be fully considered until after the election.



"We've maintained from the very beginning of this case that the amendment was flawed when it was created, was flawed in the voting booth and remains unconstitutional now," said Johnny Stephenson, partner at the Atlanta law firm Alston & Bird.



"We are going to file this lawsuit at the earliest moment possible -- after the Secretary of State certifies the results of the election.



The Oregon ban puts into question a legal challenge to an existing state law that prevents gay marriage. Last March officials in Multnomah County challenged the law by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (story) By April 20, when a judge called a temporary halt, 3,022 licenses had been issued. The case is scheduled to be heard by the state Supreme Court next month.



"These amendments don't protect anyone," the Human Rights Campaign's Steven Fisher Told 365Gay.com, referring to the argument made by conservatives that traditional marriage needed to be protected. "The amendments discriminate against gay families. It shows we have more education to do," Fisher said.

[SoulieBaby]

Gay Civil Rights Groups Struggle With Defeats



(Washington) LGBT civil rights groups call Tuesdays election results in which 11 states passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage "disheartening" but vow they will not be deterred.



"This is only round one of a very long fight," Matt Foreman, the Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force told 365Gay.com.



Foreman said despite the losses he is encouraged that one in five who cast votes in states considering amendments cast a vote against the measure. "That's remarkable on its own," he said.



Foreman also said that the amendments and the negative campaigns run by Republicans and Christian fundamentalist groups helped fuel the President's victory Tuesday.



"This was a political strategy to energize the vote for Pres. Bush," said Foreman, adding that Task Force data showed in many states it did not work.



Sen. John Kerry increased the number of votes cast for Al Gore and in Michigan in 200 Foreman noted.



"In Ohio more people voted for pres than for the amendment. That shows the strategy failed," he said.



An angry Cheryl Jacques, President of the Human Rights Campaign said, "These amendments protect no one but instead discriminate against millions of American families."



In a conference call with reporters Wednesday Jacques ultimately gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry will prevail.



"GLBT Americans and our allies are more united than ever before," Jacques said.



"Since the beginning of this fight, we knew it would be a long journey. We are committed and we will not give up. In challenging times, America has grappled with and ultimately stood on the side of fairness, and we will repeat this proud experience. History is on our side."



Both Lambda Legal and the ACLU which are fighting for same-sex marriage in the courts in a number of states said they were energized by the election.



But, Eric Ferrero of Lambda Legal cautioned that it is much harder to change a constitution than to change a statute, "so it is now harder to reverse the harm to families."



But, said Ferrero, "we remain confident that time is on our side."



In Georgia, Lambda Legal, along with an Atlanta law firm and the ACLU of Georgia, will file a lawsuit in state court, challenging the amendment to Georgia's constitution that voters passed Tuesday.



"The case, which will be filed as soon as the election results are certified, argues that the process for voting on the amendment was illegal, partly because the wording the voters actually saw on the ballot didn't reflect everything that will wind up in the state's constitution," he said.



"No movement for freedom has ever had a smooth path to progress, and the movement to end the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage is no different," said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.



"In at least Oregon, more than 45 per cent of the people voted not to keep same-sex couples out of marriage. Only 10 years ago, we could hardly get 30 per cent of the public anywhere."



For gay Republicans the Bush win is both good and bad news. Bad because the Log Cabin Republicans refused to endorse the President's reelection bid, but, as LCR President Patrick Guerriero is quick to point out if the White House is to reach out to any group it is likely to Log Cabin.



"This is a remarkable responsibility, Guerriero told 365Gay.com, adding that it is more imperative than ever for gay civil rights groups to work together.



"This has been a great wakeup call to all of us about how much work we all have to do," he said.



For Don't Amend, the election results are a call to action.



"The next four years will be hell for Bush," said Executive Director Robin Tyler.



"After Nixon was reelected, the resistance to his policies escalated enormously. This will happen now. From the anti-war movement, to the pro-stem cell movement, to the pro choice movement, to the pro environmental movement, to the LGBT movement, people will be in the streets.



"Today is not a day to agonize, it is a day to mobilize," said Tyler.

[Gatito Grande]

This is what happened to me yesterday. My role in it is not very inspiring, but I hope the outcome will be to prosecute a 'phobe.



I volunteered w/ "No on 2", Michigan's anti-gay-marriage (AND civil unions) amendment ballot proposal. My assigned polling place (to work) was a high school in suburban Jackson, MI.



I was supposed to work w/ another volunteer (saying "Please vote No on Proposal 2!" and handing out leaflets to voters as they approached the polls: 100 feet away, of course). But the other volunteer didn't show . . . and there weren't any other campaign volunteers working there either (I mean of any campaign).



Now Yours Truly, for all my butch posturing, is a Big Chicken (and closetcase too, but I digress). W/ no clearly-identified location to be standing (no workers . . . and no "100 Feet" sign either: though I went inside and asked an election worker for the correct location, and she directed me), and w/ lots of high school jocks standing around . . .



To make a long story short, I sat in my car. And sat in my car. And moved my car around the parking lot 4 times, trying to get up my nerve. And sat in my car.



After about an hour-and-a-half, I finally got up the nerve to at least put up the "No on 2" sign . . . as I continued to sit in my car, about 20 feet away.



People did see it. Several walked past (presumably voters). Several high school students hung around it (it was an area where they waited to get picked up . . . I mean, by their parents! ) I watched, and waited, and worried: would it be left alone? For around an hour plus, it was.



Then around 6:30, quarter of 7 (polls close at 8: that's how long I planned to stay), an SUV---which just happened to sport a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker, travelling fairly quickly, hit the breaks right next to it. A giant man got out (I'd say, maybe 6'5"?), and yanked it out.



At that point, I bolted from my car (just a few feet away). "That's my sign, that's my sign!" I yelled.



This guy, looking way down at 5'5" me, immediately got in my face (figuratively speaking). "I have the authority not to allow signs here, and I won't." But I asked the election worker for the lawful location to place it! "I don't care. I don't have to allow signs, and I won't" (So, he seemed to work for the high school, but he gave me no ID or proof of authority whatsoever---even assuming that a high school employee has any authority over an election staff-worker's!).



Feeling completely intimidated (I'm ashamed to say---have I mentioned that I don't come off terribly well in this story, in terms of being all "Out, Loud and Proud"? ) by the "Jackson Giant," I said "Fine, I'll take the sign down. Give it back to me." Him: "How do I know you won't put it back up?" Me: "Because I'm giving you my word."



[Can I tell you, that GG's not used to having phrase things in such stark terms? And even less do I expect . . . ]



He looked at me w/ utter contempt: I was nothing to him! He sneered at me, and said "No, I'm comfortable with the fact that I know it won't go back up, if it stays with me." Just like that, with me standing there, he stole my sign! (ala I've got it, you don't, I'm a lot bigger, any questions?)



At this point, some other guy came up, and started to engage the guy (I don't think he was anybody official). They started to argue (the new guy called the Giant "a piece of work": I might disagree w/ the word "work" ). I saw that this wasn't going anywhere---I was not going to get my sign back.



There was only one thing I could do, and I did it: beat a retreat to my car . . . and write down the motherfuckin' asshole's (GG's "asterisk moratorium" today continues! ) license-plate number!



This was one moment I so regret not having a cell phone (the campaign volunteer who didn't show, was supposed to have one), so I could call my "regional chair" (who's supposed to deal w/ legal matters). As it was, skittles arrived about a half-hour later, and I called in the license-plate (w/ the story) on hers.



As you know, Proposal 2 passed in Michigan (as did all the marriage-discrimination ballot initiatives in the U.S.). I don't know if my sign---all my chickensh*t self was capable of (I will asterisk myself )---did any good whatsoever (I was actually afraid of the opposite: since it was the only sign. Like people might think, why is "No on 2" special to have sign here?). But I felt, maybe I did a little bit to overcome my fear . . . and fight back against a homophobic asshole (as if he would have removed a Bush/Cheney sign? Not!)



GG If/when I hear something about whether any legal actions have been taken against the dick (FYI, his license is Michigan 8CS N02), I'll let y'all know. Out

[Kieli]

Dallas Elects 1st Hispanic Lesbian Sheriff

Read on unattached Texas Kittens!

Quote:

---

Hispanic Lesbian Makes History in Dallas Poll



Wed Nov 3, 1:32 PM ET U.S. National - Reuters



DALLAS (Reuters) - Dallas County, the home to some of the biggest conservative supporters of President Bush (news - web sites), made history Tuesday night by electing an openly gay Hispanic woman as its sheriff.



Democrat Lupe Valdez, 57, pulled off one of the biggest surprises in the Texas races by defeating Republican Danny Chandler.



"Dallas is an international county," Valdez told reporters. That is what I want to represent."



She will be the first Democrat to serve as Dallas County sheriff in about 30 years. Valdez boasted that she has worked on law enforcement at a local, national and international level.



Valdez was an accomplished officer with U.S. Customs and other federal agencies who also served as a captain in the U.S. Army Reserves. She was endorsed by the main local daily the Dallas Morning News, which saw her as the best person to clean up a scandal-tainted sheriff's department.



Her predecessor, Sheriff Jim Bowles, a Republican, cast a shadow over the department when law enforcement officials said earlier this year he was being investigated on suspicion of receiving kickbacks for contracts from a vendor for the county jail.



Valdez's opponent Chandler was a veteran of the sheriff's department and political observers said the scandal may have tainted his campaign.



"We are tickled that Dallas County voters managed to shatter at least four different stereotypes in one fell swoop," the Dallas Morning News said in an editorial.

---

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

[maudmac]

Oh my goodness! Wow.



So, okay, wait...does this mean there might be hope after all? I would weep with joy, but I think my tear ducts might have been crushed by despair.



Thanks for the bit of GOOD gay news. If anything will help, it's seeing that there really are a few teeny spots of blue in that sea of red.

---

rain ain't gonna hurt me

[Kieli]

Don't let your pretty tear ducts disappear, Holls. I keep hoping for more good gay news....I'll be a-searchin' because I know we need something to keep our hopes up. I'd hate like hell to think this country can go the way of WWII Germany.

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

[sam7777]

Gay couples in Oregon fret about benefits

Quote:

---

PORTLAND, Ore. - As she watched her 3-year-old son convert a box into a spaceship, Kelly Burke was dreading the arrival of a letter that could change their lives.



The stay-at-home mom and her partner of 15 years, Dolores Doyle, are among the nearly 3,000 gay couples who wed in Oregon this spring.



Now the status of those marriages, and the benefits that come with them, is unclear after Oregon voters decisively approved a ban on gay marriage this past week.



"The mailman came this morning and I panicked," said Burke, who relies on Doyle's employer for health insurance. "My first thought is: 'Oh my God, here comes the letter. They're cutting me off."'



While 11 states passed constitutional amendments banning gay marriage on Election Day, Oregon is the only state among them where the government has already approved gay marriage, albeit temporarily.



Some 2,960 gay couples tied the knot after Multnomah County momentarily flung open the door to same-sex marriage.



A judge stopped the practice after six weeks, and the state has refused to acknowledge the marriages pending the outcome of a lawsuit on the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage.



Still, some companies took it upon themselves to view the couples as legally married, extending benefits - such as insurance coverage - not previously available.



Before their wedding, Burke paid $200 a month out-of-pocket for her own, minimal insurance.



"With our marriage came a huge financial relief - as well as huge emotional relief. I could actually sleep at night and know I'll be taken care of. That uncertainty has now crept back in," she said.



Kelly Clark, attorney for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said many people who voted for Measure 36, the Oregon amendment to ban gay marriage, nonetheless feel strongly that gay couples should have an equal shot at the legal benefits of marriage.



"It's what I've felt from the beginning and I have consistently said this to gay friends," Clark said. "So what kind of alternatives can we craft? And whatever alternative mechanisms we find have to be fair."



The amendments in Oregon, Mississippi and Montana do not ban civil unions, unlike the measures in eight other states that approved them Tuesday.



According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, there are roughly 2 million people in those states who live in households headed by same-sex couples and could be harmed by the amendments - including state university employees whose domestic partnership benefits could be in jeopardy in Michigan, Ohio and Utah.



Tim Nashif, political director of the Defense of Marriage Coalition, said gay rights groups can lobby state Legislatures to extend domestic partnership benefits without changing the institution of marriage.



He called Burke's family the exception.



"You'd have to search a long way out of these 3,000 couples to find one case like this," he said.



But many gay couples said they were worried about matters such as passing on their inheritance to their loved ones, adoption rights and power of attorney statements. Some, including Burke, are shopping for insurance policies.



Some of the couples married in Oregon have been together for decades and are elderly, a fact that makes pensions and end-of-life arrangements a real issue.



"I don't know if there are any assisted living facilities around that will allow us to share a room if we are not legally married," said Mary Beth Brindley, 65, who has been with her partner Evelyn Hall, 66, for 45 years - a relationship they kept secret for 37 years while living in the deep South. "That's a very real concern for us."



It is unclear what the passage of Measure 36 means for the current lawsuit in the Oregon Supreme Court, in which nine gay couples - including Burke and Doyle - claim that preventing them from marrying is unconstitutional.



The next hearing was postponed until Dec. 15 to give both sides a chance to argue what effect the amendment will have.



Oregon was home to the first court ruling in the nation to interpreted a state constitution to prohibit all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.



In that case, the Oregon Court of Appeals required Oregon Health & Science University to extend insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of its employees.



But since that 1998 ruling, there has been little movement in the Legislature toward a clear policy on same-sex partner benefits.



"These couples stand to lose a lot," said Ken Choe, an attorney with the ACLU Gay and Lesbian Project, who will be representing the gay couples.



"Marriage brings with it hundreds of important protections for families in their times of greatest need, such as sickness and death," Choe said. "And to the extent that these couples are deemed no longer married, they are vulnerable again."

---

More people uninsured in a country where 40million are uninsured is not a good thing. These are the voices of people hurt by the bigotry. I hope that folks (especially gay folks) who voted for Bush look closely at what they have done to gay people everywhere.

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

Edited by: sam7777  at: 11/8/04 6:38 pm

[thx1123]

I just had a crazy thought.How about getting as close to the capital as we can and having a huge gay kiss in.Thousands of gays kissing at the same time hell even get some straight but narrow folk to kiss members of their gender.



It would say we are not going to go into the closet and f you want to keep your job leave us the hell alone or help us but if you attack us you will be on the unemployment line.



Tabby

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Thousands of gays kissing at the same time hell even get some straight but narrow folk to kiss members of their gender.

---

I assume you meant "straight but NOT narrow."



Tell the truth, Tabby, if there were to be such a Kiss-In, I would much rather have our straight allies kiss their own (opposite sex) honeys: that sends the message Our Love is Just Like Their Love . . . and that, moreover, their straight love is in no way altered ("threatened" ) by our queer love.



GG It's almost holiday time: tack up the mistletoe, and let the kissin'---all kinds!---begin. Out

[thx1123]

Quote:

---

Tell the truth, Tabby, if there were to be such a Kiss-In, I would much rather have our straight allies kiss their own (opposite sex) honeys: that sends the message Our Love is Just Like Their Love

---

you are right.I just thought that would give the message is it is not this horrible evil thing,but you are correct.



It is just I want to do saomething,anything to move beyond the "gay issue" without capitulatng to the ignorant and the bigoted..



Medicare and SSI are within decades of becoming insolvent,we are involved in a needless war in Iraq,there is just so much ..I do not want to say cruciual becuase human rights is cruciual but I guess more sensible stuff to adress and debate than whether or not it is okay for me to love whoever I want and call myself whatever gender I want.



This is a waste of energy.Yes,we have to usethe energy to keep our rights but there are just so many better ways to spend our time and energy.



we will never deal with all the bigots but if we could just show the ignorant and fearful that are orientation is beautiful,definitely not something to be feared and put pressure on moderate republicans and fence sitting dems.



Now that I think of it all races,orientations,backgrounds kissing whether or not their partner is the same or oppisite sex.It would be beautiful.



And i meant straight not narrow. Thanx for the correction.

[Jinx]

Okay guys, you may have heard about this one, it may be on a different thread. If it is, I apologize.





ACLU Scolds Missouri High School for Censoring Gay Student

       

October 29, 2004



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



WEBB CITY, MO - The American Civil Liberties Union has come to the defense of a high school junior who was sent home twice from school for wearing t-shirts bearing gay pride messages. The principal cited concerns that other students may be offended by the shirts worn by Brad Mathewson.



"This school allows its students to freely express their views on gay and lesbian rights - but only if they’re on the anti-gay side of the issue," said Jolie Justus, a member of the legal panel for the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri, noting that bumperstickers in favor of Missouri’s recently-passed anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment are ubiquitous in the school’s hallways and parking lot. "This is a classic case of censorship. Brad Mathewson has the same Constitutional right to political speech and expression that the Supreme Court says all students have."



Mathewson was sent to the principal’s office by his homeroom teacher on October 20 after she spotted his t-shirt. The shirt bears the name of the Gay-Straight Alliance at his old high school in Fayetteville, Arkansas (FHS Gay-Straight Alliance), a pink triangle, and the words, "Make a Difference!" When an assistant principal saw it, he told Mathewson to go home and change shirts because someone might be offended by it. Although Mathewson pointed out the anti-gay marriage stickers seen throughout the school, his concerns were ignored. Mathewson was again disciplined when he came to school on October 27 wearing a t-shirt featuring a rainbow and the phrase, "I’m gay and I’m proud."



"Even though nobody complained about my t-shirts, my school told me I couldn’t wear them just because someone might get offended," said Mathewson, a junior at Webb City High School. "But every day I see students at my school with anti-gay stickers on their notebooks and sometimes on their shirts, and I find that offensive. I understand that they have a right to express what they think, but I have a right to do the same thing."



Mathewson and his mother met with school officials yesterday morning to express their concerns about the censorship. In the meeting, two assistant principals and the principal told Mathewson that they wouldn’t allow him to wear shirts bearing gay pride messages because they feared it would cause controversy.



In a letter sent late yesterday to school, the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri pointed to the school’s dress code policy, which only states that students’ clothing must be "free of obscene or suggestive markings, advertisements of tobacco, alcoholic beverages, drugs, and/or other products deemed inappropriate by school officials." The ACLU demanded that officials remove any mention of the incident from Mathewson’s records and allow him to wear the shirts without fear of punishment.



"You can’t trample someone’s First Amendment rights just because someone might take offense at what that person has to say," said Dick Kurtenbach, Executive Director of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri. "Schools that unlawfully censor students’ views should be given an F in civics."



The recently formed LGBT Task Force of the ACLU of Kansas and Western Missouri is working with the national ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in handling Mathewson’s complaint.



The school’s dress code policy can be found online at: www.wccards.k12.mo.us/hig...thandbook/

highschoolhandbook.pdf



end of article





Stuff like this is why I now pronounce my home state 'misery'

[Ben Varkentine]

Quote:

---

Coming Out for One of Their Own

An Oklahoma Teen Finds Love Where He Least Expected It



By Anne Hull

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, November 14, 2004; Page D01



SAND SPRINGS, Okla. -- The fliers arrived three weeks ago. Some came over the fax machines of local churches, and others appeared mysteriously around town. Printed in bold was the heading "Westboro Baptist Church." No seeming cause for alarm. Sand Springs, population 18,500, is a Christian stronghold in the gently rolling hills of eastern Oklahoma.



But the message that followed was a rant against a 17-year-old Sand Springs resident named Michael Shackelford and his mother, Janice, the subjects of a recent Washington Post series examining Michael's struggles as a young gay man in the Bible Belt. The fliers posted a photo of Michael, called him a "doomed teenage fag" and announced that followers of Westboro Baptist in Topeka were on their way from Kansas to stage antigay protests in Sand Springs.



Public theater is the specialty of Westboro Baptist and its minister, Fred Phelps, whose place on the extreme fringe of the antigay movement is symbolized by his Web site, http://www.godhatesfags.com. But this time, Phelps picked a formidable target.



Oklahoma could never be mistaken for a liberal blue state. President Bush grabbed the seven electoral votes here like a sack of candy, winning 60 percent of the popular vote. A state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed by a 3-to-1 margin.



Sand Springs is the essence of pious Oklahoma. Downtown, a veterinary clinic with loudspeakers on its roof plays a taped carillon of hymns and patriotic songs. Michael and Janice Shackelford attend a large evangelical church where lots of worshipers bring their own Bibles.



In the eyes of Phelps, any church that allows an openly gay person to attend Sunday worship is weak. "Was there no Gospel preacher in Sand Springs or Broken Arrow to tell Michael . . . that sodomy is a monstrous sin against God that will destroy the life and damn the soul?" the fliers asked.



When Phelps announced that his group was coming to picket at several churches and the high school, fresh battle lines were drawn. To many here, homosexuality was a sin, but Michael Shackelford was their sinner. Just as the November election was reducing moral issues to red or blue, Sand Springs confronted subtler shades of truth. Janice Shackelford was terrified by the persecution of her son, then surprised by what happened next.



"This Westboro outfit thought they could come to this town and break it apart," Janice said. "But it has brought the town together. It has opened some doors to talk."



After Michael's story was published, competing forces wrestled for his soul. The Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay advocacy group, invited Michael to attend its national dinner in Washington last month.



"Oh, great," Janice remembers thinking. A year and a half after discovering her son was gay, Janice still held hope that he would renounce his homosexuality. She worried for his safety, especially after renting a video at Blockbuster about Matthew Shepard, the young gay man who died after being beaten and lashed to a fence in Wyoming. Mostly Janice worried about Michael's salvation. Attending the dinner in Washington might reinforce his belief that he is gay. "I felt like allowing him to go was condoning the lifestyle," she said, "and it would propel him to that even more."



Yet something inside told her to let him go. One factor tipped it: Michael would get to meet Judy Shepard, mother of Matthew, who would be attending the event. Part of Janice wished that she could go, too, to see what her son wanted so desperately to see. But she worked two jobs and could find no one to take her shift at the barbecue restaurant where she is a waitress. It was decided that Michael would be accompanied by his 23-year-old sister, Shelly.



In Washington, a tux was waiting for Michael in his hotel room.



He brought his disposable camera to the dinner and asked a male model if it was okay to take his picture.



The next day there was a luncheon and sightseeing of the monuments. A lesbian couple with a 3-year-old daughter took Michael and Shelly to dinner in Dupont Circle. Walking around the gay neighborhood, Michael was in awe. "It was like being around family," he said. "Seeing all those successful people, that could be me."



Shelly, who shared Janice's views against homosexuality, was also in shock. "Men were holding hands with men, women were holding hands with women, and no one was yelling at them," Shelly said.



What Michael wanted most was to buy his mother a book on being a Christian parent of a gay child. He found them at Lambda Rising, a gay and lesbian bookstore.



When they got back home, Janice listened to their stories. "There's a life out there," Michael said, before racing off to the drugstore to have his film developed. Janice wept when Shelly relayed a story that Judy Shepard told about going to identify her son's body. He was covered in blood except for the clean streaks on his face where tears had washed down.



Janice took the books Michael brought home -- "Always My Child" and "The Gay Face of God," among others -- but was not ready to read them. She piled them on a table in the living room, which is where they were still sitting when she received a call from her pastor.



"Janice," he said, "We got a fax."



Janice tried remembering where she had heard of Westboro Baptist -- and then it clicked. While visiting her oldest daughter in Las Vegas, she remembered seeing the group picketing a high school that was staging "The Laramie Project," a play about Matthew Shepard's murder in the town of Laramie.



Janice listened with growing anxiety as her pastor, Bill Eubanks of Cornerstone Church, explained that Westboro Baptist was coming to protest Cornerstone for allowing Michael to worship there. When Eubanks called Westboro, a woman who identified herself as Fred Phelps's daughter told him that he had not been strong enough in "prescribing the truth about homosexuals."



Eubanks, 53, has a deep-well Oklahoma accent and a 6-foot-2 frame that makes him a commanding preacher. He pastors a flock of 500, where bluejeans are welcome and men are not embarrassed to brush away tears when praying. The church held a voter registration drive in the run-up to the presidential election. A huge banner, hung from the rafters, said, "Family Under Construction." There was no doubt that "family" referred to a man and woman. Homosexuality is viewed as a sin.



Eubanks had known Michael was struggling with his sexuality. But to the pastor, seeing Michael in church meant there was still a chance that he would turn away from homosexuality.



Eubanks was disturbed by the fliers' hateful message, but he saw an opportunity.



"I get to speak about the grace of God," he said. "No matter what the sin, God loves you. He is saying, 'Come on, come back to the family.' I was an alcoholic and a drug addict. I can see the possibility of change."



"These are the hopes, that Michael will change," Eubanks said.



The week before the protest, the pastor announced from the pulpit that they were in the midst of a spiritual battle. He read parts of the flier aloud. "We are family," Eubanks said. "We are going to stand united as a family."



The response surprised Michael, who thought he would be cast out. People were being nice to him. Only a few weeks earlier he'd been called a "queer" at Arby's. Now there was a new menace in Sand Springs, and it was Fred Phelps.



As more fliers circulated around Sand Springs, Janice knew it was time to talk to her 88-year-old mother, a fervent Baptist with a weak heart. All this time Janice had never told her mother that Michael was gay. "This would put her in the grave," she had warned Michael.



After Wednesday night church, Janice drove to her mother's house. The words simply would not come out. Finally, Janice got up and turned the volume down on the TV and sat beside her mother. "I've been keeping a secret from you," Janice said. She stopped again.



Just tell me, her mother said.



"Michael seems to think he's gay."



"Janice," she recalls her mother saying, "I'm a tough old lady. You should have told me sooner."



And that was that.



The Sunday of the protest arrived. Birds hung in the brittle branches of blackjack oaks lining the driveway of Cornerstone Church. The Phelps entourage had left Topeka at 3 that morning and unloaded in front of Cornerstone in time for the 9 o'clock service. There were nine in all. Fred Phelps had sent his 51-year-old son, Fred Phelps Jr., and his daughter, Shirley Phelps Roper, 47. Under the watchful eye of several Sand Springs police officers, they spread out along the public patch of grass in front of the church.



They raised their signs. Fags Are Worthy of Death. Fags Doom Nation. Fag Church. Your Pastor Is Lying. Others involved obscene drawings and references to excrement. One of the protesters dragged an American flag on the ground.



A truck roared by from the main road and the driver shouted, LET HE WHO CAST THE FIRST STONE!



Phelps gestured toward the church marquee that scrolled the message I hate the sin but love the sinner -- God! "It's a play on words, the sin and the sinner," he said. "You can't separate the two. There are some people in this world who are made to be destroyed."



Shirley Phelps Roper chimed in. "With the right hand they are saying that homosexuality is a sin and they will fix you," she said. "And with the left hand they say that God loves you. They don't own salvation. They don't have the prerogative to fix the heart of man."



Worshipers drove through the bottleneck, refusing to engage. Michael Shackelford rumbled past in his truck without notice. Janice arrived minutes later in her Oldsmobile, nervously gripping the steering wheel, eyes straight ahead.



Inside the church, the congregation was standing and the six-piece guitar band was rocking.



The music and energy built until Pastor Eubanks bounded onstage. "Welcome to the reign of life," he said. "Amen?"



"Amen!" the crowd shouted, whistling and clapping.



"There is darkness and there is light and we are in the middle of the light," Eubanks said, to more thunderous applause. "Say it: God loves us all. All of us!"



After the service, several people came up to hug Janice. One woman held her in an embrace that lasted two minutes, whispering to Janice the whole time.



A burly man with a crew cut gave Michael a thumbs-up. "Man, you be who you are," Shannon Watie said, holding his Bible. "We got your back."



Watie later said that he respected Michael for having the courage to come out. "I have the sin of pride, the sin of lying sometimes," said the 37-year-old father of two. "The reason why Jesus was on the cross was because we all do."



Watie voted for Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage. Civil unions? He might have considered those. Homosexuality? "That's between the person and God," Watie said.



Out in the foyer, Eubanks saw Michael and seized the chance. He invited Michael to lunch. There was work to do.



After church, Michael drove the interstate with the windows of his truck rolled down and the stereo blasting Merle Haggard's "Kentucky Gambler," Michael singing every word.



"I wanted more from life, than four kids and a wife



And a job in a dark Kentucky mine."



In nearby Tulsa that Sunday night, a vigil was held in response to the Phelps demonstrations. It was organized by Tulsa Oklahomans For Human Rights and held at a gay and lesbian community center. Organizers set out 24 chairs. More than 220 people showed up; the overflow strained to hear from the sidewalk.



Janice had been nervous to attend the vigil with Michael but there she was, standing in back. Several Tulsa ministers spoke out against Phelps. Most were from churches that Janice was unfamiliar with; Unitarian, Congregational and Diversity Christian.



The Rev. Russell L. Bennett, president of the Tulsa Interfaith Alliance, took the podium. "You are a gathering of the saints," he said, smiling at the crowd. "Now, in some parts of town, that might be disputed."



Bennett recited a Bible verse in which Jesus scolds the leaders of his time for worrying more about narrow morality than the bigger picture. "Woe to you, hypocrites," the reverend said. "For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy."



Janice was quiet, listening to phrases such as "radical inclusivity" and quotes by Robert F. JFK about the long arm that bends toward justice. Only once did she feel at home, when a man came up afterward and reached for her hand. "You know, we have been praying for you all week," he said.



His name was Toby Jenkins and he was a Free Will Baptist pastor for 17 years before accepting that he was gay. Now he preaches at a gay evangelical church in Tulsa. He told Janice that the Bible is not the black-and-white doctrine that many say it is. He asked Janice if they could pray together, and he took her face in his hands and they stood motionless in the crowd, forehead to forehead, eyes closed.



"I am going to have to think about all this," she said later.



The next morning, the Phelps protesters were back in Sand Springs, this time picketing in front of Charles Page High, the school that grudgingly started a Gay Straight Alliance last year after an openly gay senior forced the issue.



Shirley Phelps Roper stood on the sidewalk, holding her God Hates Fags sign and singing "America the Beautiful." Police were standing by, but all was peaceful. Several cars drove by with their own messages painted on the windows: Go Back to Kansas and God Loves Everybody.



As school let out that afternoon, dozens of people from Tulsa Oklahomans For Human Rights arrived with brooms. In silence, they swept the sidewalk where the Phelps protesters had been. Michael was there, sweeping.



A group of students walked by. One of them, a girl with long, silky hair and a backpack, was obviously fed up with all the protests and counter-protests. "Leave our homos alone," she said, to no one in particular.

---

www.washingtonpost.com/ac...-2004Nov13

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 11/17/04 1:33 pm

[Ben Varkentine]

It's also long, folks, but I think it's important.

Quote:

---

The Washington Post yesterday published a magazine ad supplement, bought by religious right groups, that is one of the most bigoted homophobic things I have ever read. I am astonished the Post would print this filth.



In it you learn things like the fact that sexual orientation isn't genetic. Why? Because if it were genetic it would have to be passed by gay parents who don't have kids! Putting aside a number of holes in that theory, there's the more general scientific point about recessive genes. My point is that this filth isn't even scientifically correct, and the Post is publishing it. I didn't realize the Post had no problems publishing junk science targeting minority groups. Huh.



What's more, the entire publication is based on race-baiting. It is CLEARLY written for the black community in an effort to piss them off against the gays. Funny, but you'd think the Post would have a problem with a scientifically invalid publication whose sole intent was to enrage one minority community against another. But no.



Oh, and it gets better. The publication informs you that gays die at the age of 41. Yep, all of us. What they don't tell you is that this little "study" was conducted by Dr. Paul Cameron, an anti-gay nutjob who has even been disowned by the religious right (let alone he was thrown out of various medical associations). But does the Post have a problem publishing junk science that suggests that certain minority groups are inferior to others? Not at all!



Oh, it goes on and on. Then concludes by invoking Martin Luther King's memory to attack us. Which is again an outright lie since Coretta Scott King has already said that the gay rights movement is part of the larger civil rights movement her husband embraced.



Where the hell is the Washington Post on all of this? Pay them the right price and they'll publish any crap, no matter how outrageous, no matter how wrong, no matter how hateful and obviously race-baiting (note that the fags in the publication are all white).



This is so beyond the pale. You have got to see this. And we have got to respond. On its face this is publishing junk science meant to attack minorities, and is race-baiting, among other things. I wonder if the Washington Post would publish a magazine insert that, oh, specifically targeted the white community, alerting them to studies suggesting that blacks are genetically inferior to whites, more prone to disease and early death than whites, and that blacks therefore don't deserve affirmative action and other civil rights protections because, you know, they're not as worthy as Jewish people? Also, I hear that if they use the right cream, blacks can become white.



I'm serious about this. If the Post refused to run such an ad we could sue their asses off under the DC civil rights ordinance. We need to get the Post on the record explaining the differences between the two ads because there is NO WAY they can defend the science in this ad, on that I'm an expert. This science is the same crap that says blacks are inferior to whites. And if the Post wouldn't run bigoted race-baiting Aryan science studies about blacks - and they wouldn't - then they'd better treat gays with the same journalistic standard.

---

Quote:

---

I think we need to make this a major story, and political effort. One visitor had already mentioned about talking to his media buyer's and asking them to weigh in with the Post. Does anyone have any other ideas for how to blow this up bigger?



4. Finally, someone in the comments mentioned the "freedom of speech" issue - namely, aren't these bozos able to say whatever they want even if we don't like it. It's a valid concern, and I have a valid response:



A word about Freedom of Speech



I have two words for those who might suggest that the Post and this anti-gay group have the right to "freedom of speech": David Duke.



I doubt the Washington Post practices unfettered freedom of speech in its advertising supplements. I refuse to believe that David Duke could run a similar Wash Post supplement about African-Americans, presenting evidence that blacks are physically and mentally inferior to whites, that their struggle was nothing like the struggle of, say, Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, and that therefore blacks don't deserve the same civil rights you and I deserve, and that blacks can change and become white by simply using skin cream, so they're not a "real" minority. Think the Post would run that? Of course not.



What we have here is a double standard in the "freedom of speech" the Washington Post offers those who would attack minorities. Attack a gay, a-okay. Attack other minorities, not so okay. If the Post is going to have standards about what bigotry and quack science it will and won't publish in its advertising supplements, then it should apply those standards equally to all. And I doubt David Duke would get a real friendly welcome from the Post.

---

Quote:

---

Some more info on the guy whose research is cited in the anti-gay magazine the Washington Post published yesterday. His name is Paul Cameron, and he's a kook with a capital k. In particular, Cameron is the guy who did the "study" tens years ago "showing" the median age of death for gay men is supposedly 41! Which is most certainly is not.



This is from Dr. Greg Herek's Web site (he's great, and very credible, I've dealt with him before):

- On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.5 Cameron has posted an elaborate argument about his expulsion from APA on his website, claiming that he resigned from APA before he was dropped from membership. Like most organizations, however, APA does not allow a member to resign when they are being investigated. And even if Cameron's claims were accepted as true, it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.



- At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6



- In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."



- At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:





The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

- Cameron's credibility was also questioned outside of academia. In his written opinion in Baker v. Wade (1985), Judge Buchmeyer of the U.S. District Court of Dallas referred to "Cameron's sworn statement that 'homosexuals abuse children at a proportionately greater incident than do heterosexuals,'" and concluded that "Dr. Paul Cameron...has himself made misrepresentations to this Court" and that "There has been no fraud or misrepresentations except by Dr. Cameron" (p.536).9

---

All these quotes come from AMERICAblog, where you can also download copies of the anti-gay Wash Post insert.

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 11/21/04 1:43 pm

[Gatito Grande]

Thanks, Ben, but you forgot the most important part.



From the Americablog site:

Quote:

---

ACTION:

Contact the Post's ombudsman, Mike Getler:

ombudsman@washpost.com

- (202) 334-7582

I want his mailbox FULL of messages by the time he gets back on Monday. This crosses the line of decency.

---

I strongly urge all Kittens to contact Mr. Getler. Here's what I sent him (as an example)

Quote:

---

Dear Mr. Getler,



I write to *strenuously protest* the decision of the Washington Post to accept a bigoted, junk science and patently race-baiting paid supplement, "Both Sides Magazine". No justification of "freedom of speech" can be made for a publication that is so obviously based on *lies* and designed to incite hatred against LGBT people.



Please respond to this message as soon as possible, to advise me how the Washington Post will publish



1) Corrections to all the lies in the supplement

2) An apology to the LGBT community, libeled in the supplement

3) A stated *policy* outlining how such a travesty as this supplement will NEVER be published in the Post ever again.



The Washington Post has a long tradition of journalistic integrity. The publication of the above-mentioned supplement is a serious blight on this record, and needs *immediate* remedy. I look forward to hearing from you.





Sincerely,

[GG]

---

GG What John on the Americablog said: "I want his mailbox FULL of messages by the time he gets back on Monday"!!! Out

[Ben Varkentine]

Good catch, Gat. I shouldn't have left that out.

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

[Ben Varkentine]

...but the FBI has released a report on the 7,489 hate crimes, including 14 murders, reported in the US last year, and the news is not good.

Quote:

---

Nearly 7,500 hate crimes, including 14 murders based on sexual orientation, race or ethnicity, were reported in the United States last year, the FBI said on Monday.

In an annual report, the FBI said murder accounted for only 0.3 percent of the total number of hate crimes in 2003.



Six of the 14 murders were committed as a result of a sexual-orientation bias, five involved racial prejudice, two were committed because of a bias against an ethnicity and one was the result of a hostility toward a disability, the bureau said.



Intimidation was the most often reported hate crime against an individual followed by simple assault, it said.



Damage, destruction and vandalism was the most frequently reported hate crime offense against property, accounting for 83 percent of all such offenses.



Of the total 7,489 hate crimes reported in 2003, just over half were motivated by racial bigotry. Nearly 18 percent were caused by religious intolerance and nearly 17 percent were the result of a sexual-orientation bias.



The FBI said the crimes were committed by 6,934 reported offenders -- just over 62 percent of them white and about 19 percent black.



Nearly 32 percent of the incidents occurred in homes. Another 18 percent took place on highways, roads, alleys or streets, while schools or colleges were the settings of about 12 percent, the FBI said.

---

Stay safe, you guys, won't you?



ETA: I wonder if information like this causes any Joss Whedon zombies to have just a lick more compassion towards those who thought Tara & Willow were more important than Joss' "genius."



Do they see the world lesbian fans are living in? Do they understand what Willow & Tara meant to them? Do they get what Whedon took away to serve his tragically limp storyline?





www.reuters.com/newsArtic...ss/topNews

Ben



"One voice is easily ignored or silenced, but when other people add their voices to yours, you become a chorus not easily ignored."--Wil "Just A Geek" Wheaton

Edited by: Ben Varkentine at: 11/23/04 4:10 pm