GLBT News

[tyche]

Found this story on a controversial 7-Up commercial. It's hard to say without having seen the commercial, but it does sound somewhat homophobic from the descriptions of the action.

Alyson Hannigan is a frickin' amazing kisser. - Amber Benson

Bitterness Central

[Elianna]

Could someone tell me where the poll is? I couldn't find it, but I'm very bad at searching websites. Could someone post a link to the article and hopefully the poll?



Thanks,

Elianna

"I hate computers and computers hate me. It's a mutual hatred."

[skittles]

http://www.cnn.com



it's on the right side of the page just under the main group of headlines... before you get to the sections for world & US news..



I really hate the wording.. that's why the poll is so skewed: Should a show about same-sex parents be part of children-oriented programming?



the wording of a poll can predetermine the response.. & this one proves it!!

skittles

.. for when I see you even for a moment, then power to speak another word fails me, instead my tongue freezes into silence... -- Sappho

[xita]

Thanks for the link, voted!

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

Willow: (to Tara) I could heal.

Tara: (to Willow)And we’re gone.

[Penrose Orleans]

The state's highest court today upheld the legality of a ballot initiative that would make same-sex marriages unconstitutional in Massachusetts.



"We hope the legislators are paying attention to this important decision," said James Lafferty of Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, which supports the ballot question, now under consideration in the legislature. "Now is the time for the legislature to act in an honest and straightforward way and allow the people to vote."



Jennifer Levi, a lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, which opposes the initiative, said: "It's unfortunate that the court did not see the broad implications. I'm still optimistic that when the people consider the incredibly harmful effects of this initiative they will vote it down."



The state does not recognize gay marriage, and the proposed initiative would amend the state's Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.



Opponents of the amendment challenged it on two grounds: that it illegally infringes on the powers of the state courts and that it touches on unrelated topics, in violation of the law governing ballot questions.



The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the question "does not strip the court of its basic power to affirm and annul marriages." It also stated that while the initiative addressed many statutes, including who can inherit or receive benefits, they all related "to the common purpose of restricting the benefits and incidents of marriage to opposite-sex couples."

"One frequently only finds out how beautiful a woman is after considerable aquaintance with her"
--Mark Twain

[supermus]

Do you figure this James Lafferty guy is related to Andrea Lafferty, head of the Traditional Values Council which was bugging Nick about that "My Family is Different" special? I mean, they have the same last name, same agenda.

[Penrose Orleans]

That would figure, wouldn't it! That article just wigged me out a little... creepy Lafferty-man...tired...

"One frequently only finds out how beautiful a woman is after considerable aquaintance with her"
--Mark Twain

[Cipher]

I watched the Monday morning session where the judge decided on the defense motion for a new trial. Unfortunately I missed the afternoon sentencing because my boss called me away just as they were starting (I shoulda set my VCR to record it, but I thought I could listen on the radio).



It sucks that the maximum sentence they can get (without an unlikely retrial or new charges for perjury) is 4 years, minus what they've already served; they really deserve more than that. But I can kind of understand the judge's ruling. He started by summarizing all the evidence about prior incidents and particularly the two near-attacks where the dog got within inches of biting someone and Robert Noel barely managed to hold the dog back (I'm not sure which of the two dogs these were, or one of each). It sounded like he would be ruling against the defendants, and he specifically rejected most of their arguments such as what he called the "one free death" argument and the argument that she'd have to know that "this particular time would be fatal" (the Russian roulette example makes that argument absurd). But I think (from his final decision) the prior incidents which showed the danger of the dogs had only been with Noel and not with Knoller (I'm not familiar with the specifics of the incidents, but had she been there I don't see how he could have ruled the way he did), and he believed one and only one thing from her testimony which was that she had no idea the dogs could do something like that. Frankly, I don't believe that she really didn't have any idea how dangerous the dogs could be, but it doesn't seem like there's any way to prove that she did--if she wasn't present for those particular near-attacks that demonstrated the danger. If she was present for those, then I don't know what the judge was thinking, and I'd have more hope the conviction could be reinstated on appeal (I think they can appeal the motion for a new trial).



What he basically ruled was that upon review of the evidence they had not established that when Marjorie Knoller took the dogs out of the appartment that day that she "subjectively knew" (not that a "reasonable person" should have known, which is a key distinction) that they posed a significant risk of (serious injury? or) death, at least not beyond reasonable doubt. Such knowledge is a required element of the "implied malice" (that she knew the danger and didn't care) by which they charged her with Murder 2. His ruling granted the defense motion for a new trial on the Murder 2 charge (but rejected the motion for the lesser charges, letting those convictions stand). I'm guessing that the motion and his review (as opposed to his earlier refusal to summarily dismiss the Murder 2 charge before it went to the jury) may have been partially based on insufficient jury instructions, but it could also have been that "no reasonable objective jury" (or some such) could make that finding of fact based on the evidence at trial. The evidence for the elements of the lesser charges was fairly overwhelming. My understanding is that Knoller could be retried on Murder 2 without double-jeopardy (she wasn't acquitted, she was found guilty so a new trial is actually already in her favor), but it might be that technically they can't retry her on Murder 2 if they accept sentencing on the manslaughter charge which could be why her sentencing was delayed another month (while they figure out whether they'll retry or what other options to pursue). I think they said the judge's ruling could also be appealed and a higher court could reinstate the Murder 2 conviction (though that seems unlikely).



The judge seemed surprised that Noel hadn't been charged with murder 2 as well, since it seemed he acted far more recklessly with far more knowledge of the danger, leaving a dog that needed frequent walks (due to medication side-effects after surgery) with Knoller alone all day and incapable of controlling even one of the dogs if it decided to go after someone. Unfortunately the grand jury indicted only Knoller for murder 2 because she was the only one with the dogs when they finally killed someone, and the DA didn't charge him with it either (I'm not sure if they could have after the indictment for only manslaughter, but I don't see why not if they had the evidence and if they had realized how they could argue he fit the statute; the DA can file charges without an indictment, but it might be easier for the defense to have a judge summarily dismiss the charges in that case or something like that). The judge seemed to be suggesting that Noel leaving the dogs in her sole care all day was an act that could itself meet the "implied malice" standard: He knew the dogs would seriously hurt or kill someone if they couldn't be held back, he knew he'd had difficulty holding them back himself, he knew Knoller was much smaller than himself and couldn't possibly hold them back if they got aggressive, he knew they'd have to be walked often, and yet he left her alone to deal with them such that she inevitably had to take them (or one, I'm not sure which had had surgery) out alone. That was his criminal act of implied malice, at least in my far-from-expert interpretation of things. The only reason no one had been hurt or killed before was that he had (barely) managed to physically restrain the dogs when they lunged; and then he allowed a situation in which he wouldn't be there to restrain them, with reckless disregard for the possible consequences to the public. But since he wasn't charged with Murder 2, it would be double-jeopardy to do so now, so the bastard gets away with a mere manslaughter conviction and a maximum of 4 years.



I really hope they go after them for perjury, though I'm not sure how they'd go about proving it.

[tyche]

Oh yeah. Of course. That's why there's nothing but positive images of gay characters on TV and in films. *bangs head against wall.*

www.empireonline.co.uk/news/news.asp?4005

Don't keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. - Quentin Crisp

Bitterness Central

[xita]

Oh yikes, yeah Gay Mafia. Ovitz has lost it. Seriously, to even think of saying that, does he know how stupid he sounds?

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

Willow: (to Tara) I could heal.

Tara: (to Willow)And we’re gone.

[urnofosiris]

Oh yeah the Gay Mafia, and they are very succesful as well, none have ever been caught.

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



"I am giving you what you need, not what you want"
-The perfect excuse to be an asshole

[skittles]

FYI: This was posted this morning at CNN ...



Court strikes law banning same-sex relations

posted at CNN.com 7/6/02 7:13 am EDT

link to story



LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas (AP) -- Gay rights advocates won a victory in court with a ruling that called a law banning sexual relations between same-sex couples an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.



One of the seven plaintiffs who brought the case before the Arkansas Supreme Court said Friday's ruling came with a price.



"It is satisfying that we are no longer considered criminals," Randy McCain said Friday. "I'm sure all of us would rather have not brought a part of our intimate lives to the public, but we felt we had to because of fear of this law being enforced."



The Legislature passed the law in 1977, but it apparently has never been used to prosecute anyone.



The seven plaintiffs who challenged the law said they don't want their conduct to be considered illegal.



"We agree that the police power may not be used to enforce a majority morality on persons whose conduct does not harm others," the court said in the ruling.



"A fundamental right to privacy is implicit in the Arkansas constitution" and the state has a tradition of protecting that right, the court wrote.



A judge had ruled in 2001 that the law was unconstitutional, but the state appealed. The attorney general's office argued the Legislature should be allowed to consider moral judgments when creating laws.



A dissenting opinion by two justices said the court should not act because there was no criminal case brought under the law. The plaintiffs failed to show an actual threat of prosecution or harm from the law's existence, the justices said.



The law carried a penalty of a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.



Arkansas was one of six states that criminalized gay and lesbian sexual conduct involving consenting adults. The others are Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.

skittles

.. for when I see you even for a moment, then power to speak another word fails me, instead my tongue freezes into silence... -- Sappho

[urnofosiris]

Amazing that a law like that could have ever gotten passed in the year 1977, these are not the bloody Middle Ages, but then I have to wonder whether the Middle Ages weren't less bigoted than our current age to begin with, at the very least they can give our day and age a run for it's money when it comes to barbaric and intolerant behaviour.



Kudos to those people who stuck their neck out on this one.

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



"I am giving you what you need, not what you want"
-The perfect excuse to be an asshole

[xita]

Ok those 2 justices are lame. So the law should stay because no one had been prosecuted under it. That is lame, if is unconstitunial it is and that's the end of it, it needs to be removed. Thank god it was only 2 of them that felt that way.

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

Willow: (to Tara) I could heal.

Tara: (to Willow)And we’re gone.

[relativegirl]

One of the things that I thought was particularly refreshing about the Arkansas case was that both the American Psychological Association and a coalition of Christian and Jewish denominations filed briefs in support of overturning the criminal statute. In other words, they did more than just have representatives offering testimony in support of the 7 couples who filed the lawsuit -- these are organizations (none of whom have GLBT issues as their raison d'tre) who felt strongly enough about the issue to put up their own money for lawyers to argue on behalf of the rights of gays and lesbians -- and they did this in the Bible Belt no less!



Texas has the same type of criminal statute about private sex between consenting same-sex adults and it has been challenged as well. I believe that case is going up to the United States Supreme Court in the next session. Hopefully the US Supreme Court will follow its Romer v. Evans 1996 decision which struck down Colorado's constitutional amendment prohibiting legislation designed to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination as a violation of the US Constitution. Both the Colorado case and the Texas case are based on the same legal arguments (equal protection), so the chances seem pretty good that the US Supreme Court will strike down the Texas statute. Also, in the Texas case, 2 men were actually indicted and prosecuted for having sex at home in private so the position taken by the 2 dissenting Arkansas justices about nobody yet being prosecuted is a non-issue.



As wonderful as the Arkansas Supreme Court's ruling is, it can't directly change things outside of Arkansas. What we need is one huge US Supreme Court decision, like Brown v. the Board of Education was for the civil rights movement, to really produce sweeping changes in this country. While I doubt that any case involving a criminal (as opposed to civil) statute will result in such a decision you never know. So here's hoping!

~ If I should rock you,
the whole world would rock within my arms ~

[xita]

In the Texas case, didn't the 2 guys involved set themselves up on purpose in order to challenge that law? I seem to remember reading that.

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

Willow: (to Tara) I could heal.

Tara: (to Willow)And we’re gone.

[AutumnT]

xita, I had not heard that and I was living in Texas at the time.

Autumn

-----------

It grated, like something forced in where it doesn't belong.

[relativegirl]

The 2 guys in Texas were arrested when police responded to a report of an armed intruder in the apt where the 2 guys were having sex. It turned out of course that there was no intruder and the man who called 911 was actually the roommate of one of the guys arrested. I think that led to speculation that the 2 guys intentionally set themselves up in order to challenge the law (which is quite common in strategic civil rights litigation). Sometime later one of the 2 men arrested was arrested again, this time for assaulting his roommate -- the same man who made the 911 call. It then came out that these roommates have had a volatile history and that they pretty regularly called the cops on each other, so I think that seems to discredit the idea that the 2 men were trying to get arrested.



Usually when you pursue strategic civil rights litigation you try to pick plaintiffs who are very sympathetic or even people with whom the judge and/or jury (and public) would empathize. In the Arkansas case the plaintiffs look like everyone's idea of an ideal neighbor -- a Spanish teacher, a nurse, a minister, etc. -- which is hardly accidental. I don't think the men in Texas quite fall into the category of ideal plaintiffs for strategic civil rights litigation. Lambda is behind both cases so I doubt they would have structured the Arkansas case so "by the book" and also decided to go with "non-traditional" plaintiffs in the Texas case.



BTW, if you get a chance to hear the led plaintiff in the Arkansas case -- Elena Picado -- be interviewed it's well worth your time. She's very interesting and articulate. I once heard her speak quite eloquently about the need for teachers to have the freedom to be out to their students b/c of the tremendously positive effects having an openly GLBT teacher can have on young people who are GLBT or questioning.

~ If I should rock you,
the whole world would rock within my arms ~

[concrete]

Found this article in the Advocate site. A question of too little, too late? Or benefit, doubt, etc.etc......hmmmm.

QUOTE:

Michael Ovitz apologizes for "gay mafia" comment

Variety reports that Michael Ovitz has issued a formal apology for his remarks--including blaming his downfall in show business on Hollywood's "gay mafia"--in the August issue of Vanity Fair magazine, which begins hitting newsstands Wednesday. The article, about how the once-powerful Ovitz essentially became persona non grata in Hollywood, features the ex-mogul blaming openly gay DreamWorks cofounder David Geffen and others for his troubles. While Ovitz has not retracted any of the remarks he made to journalist Bryan Burroughs, he did seek to clear up misconceptions. "I made some statements that were inappropriate during an open and frank discussion with Vanity Fair," said Ovitz, through a spokesman. "In particular, the term 'gay mafia' does not reflect my true feelings or attitudes. It is regrettable, and I am truly sorry."

UNQUOTE

sad git.

It's not so much that I'm always right, it's just that I'm never wrong
Time cannot erase.....the memory of your face

[Zahir al Daoud]

I'm glad Michael Ovitz lost his power, which btw if anything came from his mouthing off about stuff most people found icky. I maintain *most* Americans are only economically conservative. By and large we are socially pretty liberal. Typical that this jerk tried to blame a social group rather than take responsibility for his own words. Bill Maher lost his t.v. show for saying something that got people's dander up in a big way. Ovitz said stuff a lot more offensive, if subtler, more often.



And btw, as cases like this wind their way through the Federal Courts, I miss Bill Clinton more and more.

"O Let my name be in the Book of Love!
If it be there I care not of that other Book above.
Strike it out! Or write it in anew, but
Let my name be in the Book of Love!"
--Omar Kayam

[xita]

hee, because gay mafia is a term we all use regularly. I mean cause that's the only way something like that might slip in an interview, casually. Whatever, lame apology.

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

What's this? Bag of tricks?

Pack of lies

[tyche]

About time too.

news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_2122000/2122094.stm

Don't keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. - Quentin Crisp

Bitterness Central

[Zahir al Daoud]

Oh, another piece of good news! Thanks Tyche!

"O Let my name be in the Book of Love!
If it be there I care not of that other Book above.
Strike it out! Or write it in anew, but
Let my name be in the Book of Love!"
--Omar Kayam

[kukalaka]

I'm starting to really love this court. Just a great (if slow ) way to knock some sense into some people. (OT: Still don't agree with their decision on euthanasia, though.)

[tyche]

Er .. gee, I never knew that.

news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/music/newsid_2123000/2123396.stm

Don't keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level. - Quentin Crisp

Bitterness Central

[Lindy]

Hee, the vid is so damn funny.

*********

Buffy: Kill the bad fairy... destroy the bad fairy's
powercenter, whatever, and all the troubles go away? ...

World is what it is. We fight. We die. Wishing
doesn't change that.

Giles: I have to believe in a better world.

[kukalaka]

There was a report on same-sex-marriage on German TV yesterday. They also had someone from our conservative party who said a lot of really stupid stuff (example: "the suicide rates among homosexuals clearly show that this is an unsatisfying way of life") and they did a great job in making him sound absolutely ridiculous. I'm still happily giggling when thinking about it



And my parents watched it, too

[Lindy]

Yeah, damn, I haven't kept up with Stoiber's stupid talks recently, because I really cannot listen to anything he says without getting literally sick.



So, what's the thing? He wants to reverse the new law about same sex marriage when he gets chancellor? But, he can't do that. They printed already a whole bunch of new forms and papers for the public authorities including the option to mark a box saying you are in such a registered relationship (which I find a very strange thing to do, because I always have to expect to be declined because I am gay.. of course they will find another official reason, but, you know, they will know that I am gay, and if they find that thing offensive.. they take out their big stamp that says: No way you will get money from us, muahaha!).



Uhm.. I lost track in my post. So, what's his deal, what does Stoiber want?

*********

Buffy: Kill the bad fairy... destroy the bad fairy's
powercenter, whatever, and all the troubles go away? ...

World is what it is. We fight. We die. Wishing
doesn't change that.

Giles: I have to believe in a better world.

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

(example: "the suicide rates among homosexuals clearly show that this is an unsatisfying way of life")

---

I am not aware of the exact nature of the German suicide statistics, but even if this is the case, then that could not possibly have anything to do with the 'unsatisfying' way society, and the likes of him that are part of governing said society, are treating homosexuals now could it?

Hmm, maybe we should ask Joss Whedon, he seems to know everything. I'm sure he'll have a clever witty answer for us.

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


Tara: "uh Willow?"

Willow: "No dancing naked, huh?...It just won't be the same."

Tara: "That's all right, we can save it for later" ----From Wilderness, the newest WT comic written by Amber Benson and Christopher Golden

Edited by: DrG at: 7/12/02 4:16:53 am

[kukalaka]

It wasn't Stoiber, but Norbert Geis (rechtspolitischer Sprecher der CDU/CSU-Bundestagsfraktion), but he's a member of the CSU. Unfortunately I didn't catch the beginning, but according to his website he "believes and hopes" our Supreme Court is going to declare the law unconstitutional. Fortunately I don't see that happening (hope I'm right).

Quote:

---

I am not aware of the exact nature of the German suicide statistics, but even if this is the case, then that could not possibly have anything to do with the 'unsatisfying' way society, and the likes of him that are part of governing said society, are treating homosexuals now could it?

---

That's what I meant with "really stupid". And right now he's not part of the government, but I fear he'll be soon since we'll have elections in September and they are leading the polls.



Edited to add: You're right with the forms, Lindy. Hope it won't take them to long to actually call it marriage, too. (Meaning I hope it'll only be years not decades )

Edited by: kukalaka at: 7/12/02 5:08:55 am