A personal blog by a graying (mostly Anglo with light African-American roots) gay left leaning liberal progressive married college-educated Buddhist Baha'i BBC/NPR-listening Professor Emeritus now following the Dharma in Minas Gerais, Brasil.
Like the world's children, gays and lesbians have way too many rights. Republicans in several states would like to remedy this problem. The Texas GOP, which actually has the gall to say that homosexuality "tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases," opposes same-sex marriage, child custody rights for gays, and insurance and retirement benefits for same-sex couples.
Texas Republicans also think it's unfair that gays have the right to be gay, but that straight people don't have the right to stop them from being gay, so the platform has this ominous plank: "We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."
Meanwhile, Texas Republicans think civil officials who perform the perverse act of wedding people who love each other should be arrested and charged with a felony. Yes, the Texas GOP wants to jail anyone who performs a ceremony or issues a marriage license to a same-sex couple.
Montana Republicans would like for gay sex to be against the law, promoting legislation "to keep homosexual acts illegal."
It's unbearably hot because Mother Earth is tired of getting deep drilled, but is that the top news? Oh, no. Levi Johnson and Bristol Palin are getting married. - Kate Clinton
"I should begin with an apology. I am sincerely sorry for the votes I cast and the actions I took that harmed lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Just as important to me, I am sorry for not stepping forward and speaking up as an elected official on behalf of equal treatment for all people. For nearly 26 years, the voters in my area of California trusted me as their elected representative. I look back now knowing there is so much more I could have done to inform the public about LGBT people and to fight for equal rights under the law. Regrettably and selfishly, I took another path in my life and political career—I chose to conceal who I truly am and to then actually vote against the best interests of people like me. All this was done because I was afraid–terrified, really–that somehow I would be revealed as gay.
"My past actions harmed gay people. In fact, all people are harmed when there is unequal treatment of anyone under the constitution and laws of our country. I do not believe in discrimination, and yet my votes advanced unequal of treatment of gay people and promoted the suspicion and fear that limits people from being forthright and accepted in society.
"Now, from what I have lived and learned, I want to do the best that I can to advance equality and freedom for all people. Given the shame and confusion that many feel over their sexual orientation, perhaps my situation can serve as an example of both the harm that can come from denial and fear, and the opportunity to try to make things right." - Recently outed CA Sen. Roy Ashburn, continuing his campaign of apologies with a lengthy essay for Gay Politics.
Californians' acceptance of same-sex unions had been steadily growing, the state Supreme Court had overturned a statutory ban on gay marriage, and the 2008 presidential election had a big turnout of young and nonwhite voters presumed to support "marriage equality," as advocates call it.
It later became apparent from exit polling, however, that Proposition 8 enjoyed strong support among black and Latino voters, which may have been decisive.
Despite the narrow passage of Proposition 8 in 2008, a slim majority of California registered voters favors allowing same-sex marriage, according to a Field Poll released today.
Simon Hughes, a top official with the Liberal Democrats party, has promised that Britain's new coalition government will grant full marriage equality before the next general election.
Mr Hughes said a consultation would take place in the coalition government on taking civil partnership to the next level. Speaking in a video interview, he said: "It would be appropriate in Britain in 2010, 2011, for there to be the ability for civil marriage for straight people and gay people equally. "That's different of course from faith ceremonies which are matters for the faith communities… they have to decide what recognition to give. “The state ought to give equality. We’re halfway there. I think we ought to be able to get there in this parliament.”
“I think it’s possible to have fun, and even to poke fun at people in my businesses, without this kind of completely unfair attack. And while I don’t usually feel compelled to comment on what various entertainers do, since you did include me in that show I wanted to make it very clear that I thought what you did was wholly unfair and inappropriate. It’s the kind of thing that makes it less likely that I or others can cooperate with you in the future.” - Rep. Barney Frank, writing to Kathy Griffin over last week's episode of her show in which she referred to Sen. Scott Brown's daughters as "prostitutes."
Today President Mary McAleese signed Ireland's civil partnerships bill into national law.
It extends marriage-like benefits to gay and lesbian couples in the areas of property, social welfare, succession, maintenance, pensions and tax. The act also offers additional rights and protections for other cohabiting couples including a redress scheme for financially dependent long-term cohabitants on the end of a relationship. Announcing the signing of the Bill today, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern described it as "one of the most important pieces of civil rights legislation to be enacted since independence." "This Act provides enhanced rights and protections for many thousands of Irish men and women. Ireland will be a better place for its enactment," he said. "It is of tremendous social significance, for the couples who can now register as partners, for their friends and families - ultimately, for all of us," Mr Ahern added.
Earlier this month the bill passed nearly unanimously in both of Ireland's legislative chambers. The first civil partnerships will take place early in 2011.
Over the foaming-mouthed objections of American evangelicals and some members of the GOP, today the United Nations granted official consulting status the International Gay & Lesbian Human Rights Commission.
"Today's decision is an affirmation that the voices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have a place at the United Nations as part of a vital civil society community," said Cary Alan Johnson, IGLHRC Executive Director. "The clear message here is that these voices should not be silenced and that human rights cannot be denied on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity." The resolution passed with 23 in favor, 13 against, and 13 abstentions and 5 absences. This victory is particularly significant, coming as it does after a prolonged 3-year application process in the sub-committee that makes initial recommendations on status. Despite full compliance with all procedures IGLHRC faced deferrals, homophobic questioning, and procedural roadblocks in the ECOSOC NGO Committee.
Voting yes was much of the EU and South America, as well as Japan and South Korea. Voting no: Bangladesh, China, Comoros, Egypt, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Niger, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Zambia.
Sacramento LGBT Community Prepares to React to Federal Prop 8 Ruling
Sacramento, CA – Any day now, Judge Vaughn Walker will released his decision in the Perry v.Schwarzenegger Federal Prop 8 Trial. The leadership of Equality Action NOW and the staff of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center are preparing for that day.
We are hoping the Judge will give everyone at least 24 hour notice but there has been no indication that he will do so. Unfortunately there have been two false alarms, however they did serve as early indications that our social networking works very well and given no other major news outbreak occurs at the time, the media has demonstrated a high interest in our reactions.
If we win, the leadership of Equality Action Now and the staff of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center are planning a party tentatively to be held at K Street and 21st in Midtown, in the parking lot behind McMartin’s Realty beginning at 6:00pm.
If we lose we will march from the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center, 1927 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95811, to the west steps of the State Capitol beginning at 6:00pm. There will be speakers and participants will have the opportunity to express their feelings in an open mic forum.
No matter how it goes, a Press Conference will be called within 2 hours of the ruling announcement on the front steps of the Sacramento Gay and Lesbian Center. If you can make it to the Center for the announcement there will be Media who will want to get the immediate reaction to the ruling from people who this effects the most. It is important you have your voice be heard no matter the outcome.
While this ruling can be a huge step forward or a temporary barrier towards equal rights for same-sex marriages, it is well understood that this case will serve as the bases for an appeal. Opponents of same-sex marriages will continue their fight by using every available means legally, as well as in the public arena to deny full and equal rights to LGBTQI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex) individuals – and so will we.
It is important to us to continue to build bridges to other communities by coming out and being vocal with our personal stories and issues.
As witnessed in the this trial, what we have on our side is the Constitution and evidence that no one can dispute the fact that same-sex marriages will do no harm to the institution of marriage. In addition there is an abundance of evidence (and common sense) that same-sex marriages will actually strengthen our society and family structure.
Organizations throughout the state and here in Sacramento are urging the community to continue to amplify the themes underscored by Olson/Boies which focused on the inclusion and integration of LGBT people within the legal protections enjoyed by all Americans and framed this current controversy within the larger historical context of past discriminatory laws that have been eliminated. In this way, marriage discrimination against the LGBT community is seen as one more instance of unfounded bias and prejudice that is eliminated and is consistent with the enduring American principle of extending Constitutional protections and fairness to all people.
On the Day of Decision our response to Judge Walker's ruling must include reaching out in fellowship and compassion to those who voted for Proposition 8 in 2008 out of fear and lack of information. Just like the evolution of Governor Schwarzenegger, U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein and San Diego Mayor and Prop 8 trial witness Jerry Sanders, we need to ensure we celebrate or protest with a grace that allows people to evolve in their position towards marriage equality with dignity and join us as we move forward. We need to ensure we do not view this win or lose as a zero sum game against our adversaries - but rather the unfolding of a more inclusive, kind, loving country for everyone.
For National Prop 8 Trial Tracker text “EQUAL” to 69866.
Couples of all ages, married or not, gay or straight who would like to volunteer as Media Spokespersons please contact: Ken Pierce – kpierce8272@yahoo.com
"During the 1990s, when I worked as an escort in Denver, Colorado, I estimate at least 15 percent of my clientele were clergy or connected with the church in some way. There were one-timers and there were guys who came back again and again and again, and they were all the same: positively giddy when the encounter began, unable to look you in the eye as they left. The excitement that initially animated them was wholly overshadowed by the despondency and guilt that would overcome them as soon as it was over.
"I can’t imagine the guilt they were feeling. Not only were they having sex with another man—a sin punishable by God, in their minds—but I believe many of them were doing exactly what Father Gray did: stealing from their own churches. Maybe not a million bucks, maybe not even so much that anyone would notice. But more than once I was paid for my services with a handful of crinkled ones and fives. I would think to myself, how could they take from their own church’s collection plate? The answer is simple and sad: addicts will do whatever they need to do to support their habit." - Former rentboy and outer of Ted Haggard, Mike Jones, writing about Father Kevin Gray for the Daily Beast.
"But theology and history aside, it is clear from the lack of consistent reaction to and organization against the litany of other present-day sins that a large number of people who call themselves Christians do not follow the literal interpretation of the Bible either. So, if some of us are picking and choosing which Bible verses to follow, why are so many opting to pick and choose verses that appear to condemn homosexuality and not the one against marrying a woman who isn't a virgin?
If sin is sin, why such Christian angst directed at the GLBT community and not the greedy corporate community, which, quite frankly, has more direct impact on the average person's life?
The answer is simple: Those who are uncomfortable or fearful of someone who is different from them sometimes hide behind religion to gain power, nurture their ignorance and justify their prejudices.
It's no different from Christian slave owners using Scriptures to feel better about enslaving Africans, or men pointing to Jezebel as a way to keep women out of the clergy, or Bob Jones University picking verses that supported the school's ban on interracial dating.
The extremists aren't fighting gay rights because of sin and honoring Leviticus 18:22. If they were, then where are the faith-based organizations spending millions trying to make adultery a crime punishable by death, as suggested in Leviticus 20:10? Is 18:22 more true than 20:10, or does it just support a more common and entrenched prejudice?"
On the heels of Argentina becoming the tenth country to achieve marriage equality (and the first in South America) Wednesday night, there was yet another important victory closer to home. On Thursday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled against foes of D.C. marriage equality. Our opponents had wanted to use a ballot initiative to repeal D.C.'s equal marriage law, which the D.C. Council overwhelmingly passed in 2009. Because D.C. law prohibits ballot initiatives that would abridge civil rights, the Board of Elections and Ethics refused to put the discriminatory measure on the ballot. This week, the District's highest court said that the people cannot, by a popular vote, rob their neighbors of basic civil rights. We applaud that decision, which is a victory both for fairness and for common sense.
The D.C. marriage decision teaches us so much. The Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009—the statute under attack—was the result of a long and coordinated effort among elected officials, grassroots activists, civil rights organizations, communities of faith and others. This achievement remains today because of expert legal work of skilled advocates and because of fair-minded city leadership. You cannot point to one single day, or one actor or one tactic that made the difference. Doing it ALL made the difference.
LGBT civil rights progress through thousands of channels. Across the nation—in localities, states, the federal government and the private sector—many actors, many rules, many policies, and many people have profound impacts on our lives. We have to make a mark on all of them.
In some instances, the multiple facets of a civil rights problem are obvious. As we work to repeal DOMA, we know that repeal will not mean that every couple has access to the many state rights and benefits that marriage affords—so the push for marriage equality remains urgent. And as marriage equality has taken hold, we have still seen that hospitals are not yet according our community equal respect—something that we can remedy both with direct advocacy and through the upcoming federal regulations protecting us.
Other policy goals are less immediately obvious. As ENDA proceeds through Congress, we are faced with many other discriminatory policies that it does not directly address—such as barriers to same-sex parents using time off from work under the Family and Medical Leave Act to attend to an adoption or care for a sick child.
In the past year, we've been successful in dismantling several of these regulatory problems, which has made life better for real people. There are many more of them, and they are in our sights.
For a community that is frequently outspent by opponents of equality, and sometimes drowned out by their grassroots, it could seem unwise to focus on more than one or two priorities. I don't believe so. In fact, I believe that by engaging government actors and making tangible and visible progress, we are positioning ourselves better for the high-profile battles. We're showing that it can be done.
Our community has a great track record of speaking up for our civil rights. It might seem more difficult to make a difference when you're not trying to persuade an elected official. I encourage you to read our Blueprint for Positive Change and speak out on an issue that matters to you.
