Fact Sheet for S. 2637, The Anti-Bully Bill

From Don Gorton we learn:

Enacted by Senate, Pending in House Ways and Means

Bullying defined as “any unwelcome written or verbal expressions, physical acts or gestures directed at a student … with the intent to intimidate, frighten, humiliate, or cause physical or emotional harm to that person.”

Bill would require school districts to develop “a bullying prevention and intervention plan” including these components:

Policy statement against bullying;

Developmentally appropriate training for students about the consequences of bullying;

Procedures for reporting, investigating, and responding to complaints of bullying;

Disciplinary sanctions for bullying;

Designation of school official responsible for implementation of the Plan;

Annual faculty and staff trainings covering the Plan.

No private cause of action for students and parents is either created or abrogated.

Dept. of Education to develop “model bullying and prevention and intervention plan” for school districts, in collaboration with the Depts. of Public Health, Mental Health, and the Attorney General

Department of Education to compile, in consultation with the Depts. of Public Health, Mental Health, and the Attorney General, a list of bullying prevention and intervention resources, existing evidence-based programs, best practices, and academic research for use of school districts

Please join me and others in supporting this bill with your legislators. I can't imagine why anyone would be against such a bill, but I am sure that someone will have a beef with it. I think it was Robert Kennedy that said, "Twenty percent of the public will be against anything."

In passing a will say that our thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Ted Kennedy and his family. Get well soon sir, and continue to lead us as is your gifted talent.

Tom Lang Celebrates 4 Years of Marriage Equality in Massacusetts

Tom Lang and his spouse Alexander Westerhoff were married on May 17th 2004, the first day they were legally able to. They have come back every year since then on their anniversary to hold a sing on the statehouse steps which simply thanks people for their equality. Friends came out with them to show support and help celebrate this important day in the history of civil rights.

Happy Anniversary my dear friends, and thank you for sharing your important day with the public in such a selfless act of love for your fellow man. You are an example for others to follow.

(From right to left are Alex, Tom , Myself, Raymond, Liz, Andrew, and Scott.)

See also:
Boston.com
Last Year
OutTakeOnline

Rev. Dr. Professor Emeritus Jerry Maneker: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA

Use this link to hear what Father Jerry Maneker has to say on this joyous event:

A CHRISTIAN VOICE FOR GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER RIGHTS: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IN CALIFORNIA

Kris Mineau on California Gay Marriage

This media statement was released today by our partner organization Massachusetts Family Institute:

Woburn, MA - The California Supreme Court, seemingly taking its lead from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, legalized same-sex marriage in a 4-3 decision today.

In 2000, the voters of California approved Proposition 22 by 61 percent, which said that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California." Four judges have now ruled that the vote of the people does not matter.

"We empathize with the people of California in this direct attack on democracy and the rule of law," said MFI President Kris Mineau. "We have been fighting for years to allow the people of Massachusetts to vote on marriage. Today, the California Supreme Court went a step further than our own SJC and directly overturned the will of the people."

The California Supreme Court rejected the state's marriage laws as discriminatory, ruling that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry. The long-awaited court decision stems from the same-sex marriages that took place in San Francisco in 2004. The court's decision stands in contrast to rulings in New York, Washington and New Jersey that refused to grant same-sex couples marriage rights.

"The voters of California, though, have a luxury that Massachusetts voters do not have and that is a direct initiative petition process," continued Mineau. "Thanks to the hard work of our counterparts in California, who anticipated this decision, there will be a constitutional amendment on the ballot this November and the people will be able to protect traditional marriage from activist judges."

Initially in 2005, a San Francisco trial judge ruled that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but that ruling was later overturned by a 2-1 vote by an appeals court, sending the case to the state Supreme Court. As in Massachusetts, one of the first couples to wed in San Francisco and the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the marriage laws have since separated and they are no longer part of the case.

"We must change the political climate on Beacon Hill so that the citizens of Massachusetts can vote on the definition of marriage," Mineau concluded.

No Kris Mineau, what we need to do is learn how to live as one people in a diverse population. We don't need to conform to the will of others unless by our exercise of liberty we curtail someone else's right to happiness. That accusation has been brought but never actualized in evidence, much like when you accused the legislators of being bribed last year at the June 14Th Constitutional Convention. You lack proof and therefore you also lack credibility.

Inalienable rights like the pursuit of happiness via marriage don't get voted away, end of story. It is thinking like yours that prevents America from being as strong as it once was and can still be. Ever hear of a motto, "United we stand, divided we fall"? We are all brothers and sisters under the flag of the United States of America, and not the selective teachings from the Bible. Fear of our fellow citizens is not an American value, nor is it productive to focus on fear to motivate your base support against those who have never done you any harm.

I pray for a day when people like you, James Dobson, Ted Haggard and the like can't fool enough people to stay in the Hate business.

California Supreme Court Validates Gay Marriage

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday the state cannot bar same-sex marriages, marking a major victory for gay rights advocates that may have national implications.

"Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest," the court said in a majority decision.

"Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional."

Read the rest of the report here.

For the legal eagles who want the full decision here is a link to all 178 pages of it.

For those of us who want an abridged version, here is the gist of things:

Page 107:

In the present case, the question before us is whether the state has a constitutionally compelling interest in reserving the designation of marriage only for opposite-sex couples and excluding same-sex couples from access to that designation, and whether this statutory restriction is necessary to serve a compelling state interest.

page 108:

"throughout this state’s history the Legislature, of course, has effected numerous fundamental changes in the institution of marriage, dramatically altering its nature from how it existed at common law."

In contrast to the position advanced by the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the Campaign, the Attorney General and the Governor recognize that the California Constitution does not define or limit the marriage relationship to a union of a man and a woman.

on Page 111 we find some legaleze I have had translated for me:

"By the same token, the circumstance that the limitation of marriage to a union between a man and a woman embodied in section 308.5 was enacted as an initiative measure by a vote of the electorate similarly neither exempts the statutory provision from constitutional scrutiny nor justifies a more deferential standard of review. Although California decisions consistently and vigorously have safeguarded the right of voters to exercise the authority afforded by the initiative process (see, e.g., Associated Home Builders, etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 591), our past cases at the same time uniformly establish that initiative measures adopted by the electorate are subject to the same constitutional limitations that apply to statutes adopted by the Legislature, and our courts have not hesitated to invalidate measures enacted through the initiative process when they run afoul of constitutional guarantees provided by either the federal or California Constitution."

Translation:

"It is my belief that the statement holds that a constitutional amendment motivated by voter referendum has the same constitutionally mandated burden of judicial review and due process as any there legistlature motivated statute."
~Raymond A. Grinnell IV

In a nutshell this means were this petition to change the constitution to be approved by voters it will bring the process back to the same judicial body that just said they approved marriage equality. This of course will send the opponents of equality to find relief from the federal government, setting the stage for a federal court fight where the Supreme Court will have to rule for all states at once. This is something they are desperately hoping to avoid.

"Instead of presuming the validity of the statutes defining marriage and establishing domestic partnership, in effect the majority presumes them to be constitutionally invalid by characterizing domestic partnership as a 'mark of second-class citizenship.'" - California Supreme Court

"An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. " - CNN
(Both above quoted from queertoday.com)

Opponents of marriage equality in Califonia are pressing on with their petition to put discrimination in their constitution, but the their supreme court, legislators, and governator against them someone needs to call in the fat lady.

Thank you California, and welcome to the land of the free!

For more reading on this subject visit:

KnowThyNeighbor.org
MassMarrier

Moldova Government Creates GLBT Danger

Safety, Lives of LGBT Moldovans Under Immediate Threat; Action Needed Now!
A C T I O N A L E R T | Your Help Urgently Needed

The safety and human rights of LGBT people in the Eastern European nation of Moldova are under threat right now.

The government of Moldova is threatening to arrest Rev. Elder Diane Fisher and Eastern European LGBT activist Florin Buhuceanu if they hold worship services for the LGBT community this weekend.

And they are refusing to provide police protection, despite numerous death threats made against Diane and Florin and the LGBT community there.

The government is also refusing police protection for this weekend's LGBT Pride March in Moldova's capital city of Chisinau, where members of the International Lesbian and Gay Association of Europe and Romania's human rights organization, ACCEPT, are also gathered. All legal procedures were followed to obtain the appropriate permits, and despite early promises, the mayor of Chisinau has withdrawn approval for the march permits.

At last report, the government will allow a maximum of 50 LGBT people and their supporters to march -- but will allow an unlimited number of anti-gay protestors to gather -- all without police protection.

Moldova's government urgently needs to hear -- NOW! -- from people of goodwill around the globe!

Your e-mails will help to protect LGBT Moldovans and their supporters who are taking the first bold steps toward forming a community and seeking equality under the law.

And your e-mails can help stop the threats of arrest and harassment made against Rev. Elder Diane Fisher, activist Florin Buhuceanu, and Moldova's growing, fledgling LGBT community.

Here are four steps you can take to make an immediate difference:

1. Write a brief e-mail to the Moldovan government. Ask them to honor their nation's laws and to allow the peaceful gathering of LGBT people and their supporters. Ask that the rights of LGBT people be protected. Let them know the eyes of the world are focused on Moldova this week.

2. Send your e-mail to as many of the following contacts as possible:

-- Moldovan Ministry of Justice -- secretariat@justice.gov.md

-- Moldovan Ministry of Social Protection -- lucia.gavrilita@mpsfc.gov.md

-- Moldovan Advocate for Human Rights -- cpdom@mdl.net

-- Moldova's Embassy in Washington, DC -- washington@mfa.md

-- Chisinau City Hall (Moldova's Capital City) - primaria@pmc.md

3. Forward this Action Alert to friends, LGBT groups, and listservs.

4. All people of faith are encouraged to hold LGBT Moldovans and their supporters in your prayers, and to pray for a breakthrough from the Moldovan government.

The situation is critical. Time is of the essence. Your help can make a difference. Please, please take action now.

From the MCC Global Justice Team
The Reverend Pat Bumgardner, Chair
CONTACT:
Moldovan Ministry of Justice -- secretariat@justice.gov.md

Moldovan Ministry of Social Protection -- lucia.gavrilita@mpsfc.gov.md

Moldovan Advocate for Human Rights -- cpdom@mdl.net

Moldova's Embassy in Washington, DC -- washington@mfa.md

Chisinau City Hall (Moldova's Capital City) - primaria@pmc.md



METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY CHURCHES
PO Box 1374 • Abilene, Texas 79604 • Phone: 310-360-8640 • Fax: 325-690-6328

May Seems the Month of Gay Equality

Gay-marriage amendment likely dead for year in Pennsylvania

Wednesday, May 07, 2008BY JAN MURPHY Of The Patriot-News:

An effort to add an amendment to Pennsylvania's Constitution banning gay marriage was dealt a major setback in the state Senate on Tuesday.

The Senate was expected to consider legislation to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman, and not recognize any other "functional equivalent of marriage," such as civil unions.

The Senate tabled the bill, signaling it is unlikely to move anywhere this year. The Democratic-controlled House has shown no interest in taking up the measure.

A majority of Democratic senators and enough Republican senators struggled with the proposal's inclusion of "functional equivalent." Some considered it discriminatory. Others, such as Sen. Patricia Vance, R-Cumberland County, found it to be too nebulous.

"If you say marriage will be between a man and a woman, that's not hard to understand. But if you say functional equivalent, I'm not sure what that means," Vance said.

She said she was prepared to offer an amendment on the Senate floor striking the term "functional equivalent" from the proposal.

Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia County, a staunch opponent of the amendment, and others predicted Vance's amendment would have garnered at least the 26 votes needed to pass.

They claimed that was the real reason why the measure was tabled and not the excuse offered on the Senate floor. Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster County, the bill's sponsor, said there was no point in passing the bill, since the House leaders indicated they had no plans of moving it if it came to that chamber.

Read the rest of the story at the link provided above.

I Love New York

Baby steps, yes, but the move toward equality takes a step forward today as New York officially acknowledges the obvious:

Couples married outside of New York are recognized as married under New York Law.

Gay marriage advocates have won a partial victory in New York, as the state's highest court has left in place a lower court ruling that recognized a lesbian couple as being married.

The Court of Appeals declined yesterday to review the mid-level appellate court's decision to recognize the couple's Canadian marriage, the first such ruling by an appellate court in New York State.

For now, that lower court decision remains binding across the state.

In 2006, the state's Court of Appeals found that there was no right to same-sex marriages under the state constitution, leaving unanswered the question of whether the state would recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions performed in other states and abroad. So far, lower courts around the state have mostly said yes.

It is only a matter of time now. New York will, I guarantee, soon realize the frivolity of recognizing marriages that take place in other states and countries while denying it's own citizens the right to marry within the state.

Read the rest of the story here.
..