Thursday, June 26, 2008

Same-Sex Marriage Foe Calls Mayor an `Adulterer'

Mayor's first wedding since unions became legal interrupted

By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 06/24/2008 12:00:00 AM PDT

Playing catch-up in officiating over same-sex marriages, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wedded his first gay couple Monday in a ceremony that was interrupted by a protester who slipped by security and called him an "adulterer."

The wedding crasher, Rosalyn Schultz of the Church of Christ, arrived minutes after Villaraigosa married Academy Award-winning film producer Bruce Cohen and art consultant Gabriel Catone in a brief ceremony.

As the couple, friends and family toasted with champagne, Schultz walked calmly to the podium and told the small gathering that she opposed gay marriage.

Wearing a white pantsuit and a white and gold hat, she called Villaraigosa an adulterer, in an apparent reference to his affair with a television news anchor.

At one point, Schultz reportedly said, "I am an angel of the Trinity." City staffers cut the microphone before she could say any more and she quietly left the room.

Cohen, who won an Oscar for "American Beauty," and Catone said they were able to laugh off the interruption.

"It added spice to the festivities," joked Cohen, who wore a pink-checked suit and a pink shirt. Catone wore a cream-color suit and slate tie.

"It doesn't spoil our day. It doesn't take away our joy. And it certainly doesn't change the fact that we are legally married in the state of California, by the mayor of Los Angeles."

Please read the rest of the story from it's source with the link provided above.

Isn't it funny how these holier-than-thou "Christians" see it fit to come to our events to disrupt them in the most hate filled ways? How arrogant that she would actually call herself an angel! If you peruse the local blogs you can see the same thing over and over, and the problem starts right from the top. Cardinal O'Maley gave out T-shirts to people that helped get signatures for the failed anti-equality petition to end same sex marriage. Those shirts had printed on them, "All evil needs to be triumphant is for good men to do nothing." When leaders of the church encourage hate where do the good, peaceful, loving Christians turn to find guidance?

Christ had two great commandments; love God, and love thy neighbor as thy self. Apparently the church can overlook it's most important principles handed down from God Himself when it comes to GLBT people. Maybe these leaders know better than God? Like diligent lawyers they scour the Bible and come up with a handful of references to justify their own hatred while overlooking the mountain of evidence that God intended us to live together in peace as respectful brothers and sisters.

I for one will continue to reach out to these hate filled few and try to make a difference in their lives. Perhaps over time they can come around to understand that their fears are unfounded, all people should be judged by their own actions, and that equality is not something that should be denied anyone based on who they inherently are.

When I grew up people were abused by the very same type of people for merely seeming to be gay. This hatred is so powerful that it transcends the boundaries claimed by those who feel it and it reaches out to those who have nothing to do with the focus of that hatred. It is time to stand up as a society and denounce hate at all costs. Although things have improved for GLBT people we still obviously have a long way to go.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Update on the California Petition

From a real lawyer, Arthur S. Leonard:

A coalition of LGBT rights groups and law firms filed suit in the California Supreme Court on June 20, seeking to have a proposed initiative to ban marriage for same-sex couples excluded from the general election ballot this November. Bennett v. Bowen is the name of the case, with California Secretary of State Debra Bowen sued in her official capacity, and the individuals whose names appear as proponents on the initiative named as real parties in interest.

Pre-election litigation against ballot measures is by no means unprecedented, although courts generally prefer to avoid deciding controversial questions unless they have to do so, and if the initiative is not approved by the voters, the court would never have to rule on its validity. But in their memorandum of law supporting the motion to stay voting on this measure, the petitioners have made strong arguments along two lines.

Rest of his analysis is here:

MassMarrier has more, too.


Monday, June 23, 2008

Religious Groups Plan Gay Marriage Fight

By Gary Stern
The Journal News • June 22, 2008

Religious lobbyists on both sides of the contentious gay-marriage debate are digging in for an all-out battle over Gov. David Paterson's call for state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

Opponents of the directive, who feel a particular sense of urgency, are developing long-term strategies to portray gay marriage as a threat to their religious freedom and to keep control of the state Senate in Republican hands.

On Thursday, New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, an evangelical lobbying group, drew 250 ministers to the Capitol in Albany to promise a relentless fight against Paterson's directive.

"Quite a few pastors came up to me and said, 'When are you scheduling another one?' " said the Rev. Duane Motley, founder and head of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. "We're trying to put pressure directly on the governor. If there is a large outcry, a groundswell of public opinion, he might back down. He seems to be letting his staff run his office."

For the rest of this story use the link provided above.

This is the same old story played out to it's final conclusion here in Massachusetts already. These people feel threatened by their neighbors having the same liberties they do. Since they cannot prove those fears are based on facts in order to convince the moderate middle to be on their side, they now attempt to force their will upon others whatever way they can. I find it ironic that the name of the group doing this is "New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms", yet DENYING freedom is their goal. The name reminds me of all the communist countries that used "democratic" in their name.

One thing seems certain, groups like these are fooling less people than they used to. Ever since Greg Kimball wrote an article on I can't help but smile when I see the word "groundswell" used by our opposition. This case is the same as when Greg addressed Kris Mineau in his article, "It's looks like your groundswell needs Viagra."

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Gay Marriage Comentary Video



I know right out of the starting blocks that this post is going to offend a great many people, but I feel very strongly that many LGBT people are seriously sabotaging the cause for full and equal civil rights by referring to themselves by the use of historically and current hateful epithets, using such terms as "Queer," "Dyke," "Fag," and other such demeaning and hateful words that have been historically used by their oppressors, and are still being used by their oppressors. Also, the many behaviors and images that are viewed by most potential allies as offensive, and that become public presentations of self, help reinforce the fallacious stereotype that Gay people are sex-obsessed deviant and abnormal hedonists, and these public images are doing tremendous harm to the struggle for, and the cause of acquiring, full and equal civil rights.

I'm Jewish, and not only have I never considered myself a "Kike," or a "Yid," I would verbally assault anyone who would dare use those epithets in referring to me or to any other Jewish person. It's a matter of honor! It's a matter of dignity! It's a matter of having a healthy self-esteem. It's a matter of self-respect.

And there are some clueless Gay people who use self-denigrating and historically offensive epithets as self-identifiers and who articulate them to the world, and by so doing not only show themselves to be lacking in these characteristics, but they are also unwitting victims of a variation of the Stockholm Syndrome where, in this case, one helps provide the very ammunition that one's abuser can and does use to help maintain the oppression of the individual. By so doing, these clueless Gay people are actually knowingly or unknowingly facilitating and enhancing the rage of the homophobes, the oppressive abusers, many of whom would even kill them if they could get away with it. Indeed, some homophobes do assault and kill LGBT people, all the while using these hateful epithets!

The reason that virtually no one would even think of publicly using words like "Kike" and "Yid" is because they know that all Jewish (and all decent) people and organizations would come down on them like a ton of bricks. (Is it even conceivable that any university in the world would have a course, program, minor, or major entitled, "Kike Studies?" Yet it is very common for faculty and students in universities to routinely use and normalize the word "Queer" when titling courses, programs, minors, and majors dealing with Gay issues.)

However, when people use hateful epithets in reference to LGBT people, they not only know that nothing like that will happen, that there will be absolutely no negative or threatening repercussions awaiting them, but they also see there to be nothing wrong with using these hateful epithets, as many of the people about whom they are publicly talking seem to revel in, and frequently use, those words themselves.

So, for example, universities think they are doing Gay people a favor by using those epithets, such as by entitling courses, programs, minors, or majors "Queer Studies" (apparently not realizing, or perhaps even caring, that a meaning of "queer" means "abnormal.") and think that they are thereby being "progressive."

Jews usually don't have self-loathing; LGBT people all too often do have witting or unwitting self-loathing, and use those historically punishing words on themselves in the name of "liberation," ignorantly (or stupidly) thinking that they are appropriating and neutralizing those words, even when gay bashers use those very words when bashing their victims and, furthermore, they even perpetuate and encourage further use of those words among university students when titling those courses, programs, minors, or majors, and freely use those words within the curricula as they do in other public venues.

Like Jesus says: "Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do." At least on the conscious level!

Sanam Hakim wrote an excellent article entitled, "Words you can't reclaim," on the subject of the use hateful expletives regarding certain minority groups. She concludes her article by saying:

"Words like 'nigger' or 'redneck' or 'bitch' or 'fag' were never words that were originally 'good'. They are words that were created solely out of hatred and it is not our responsibility to add fine print and use them in a different context. It is not our responsibility to convince black people that they actually are 'niggaz,' but that it's a good thing; to convince white working class Americans that they are rednecks, but that it's a good thing; to convince women that they are bitches, but that it's a good thing; to convince homosexuals that they are fags, but that it's a good thing.

"It is our responsibility to make sure when Tim McGraw asks if there are any rednecks in the house, no one cheers. It's our responsibility to stare blankly if DMX asks 'where my niggaz at?' It is our responsibility to make sure our children know these words, the history of where they come from and to make sure they don't ever use them, even if they mean it in a nice way."

She gets it!

As I wrote in my February 21, 2008 post entitled, "On The Need To Grow Up":

"There is a point when one has to own his/her dignity, demand the respect due to any human being, demand full and equal civil and sacramental rights regardless of the negative messages and hostility that have been visited on that person in the past, or even in the present. And those goals will not be realized as long as the minority group accepts its inferior status, and revels in it by referring to its members by the very same terms used by the most virulent homophobes throughout history and in our midst.

"No self respecting person, Gay or Straight, stands for being treated as less than fully human; no self respecting person, Gay or Straight, uses negative self-identifiers that have been historically (and contemporarily) used by their oppressors. The slave mentality is blamed on others, but the fact is that it ultimately resides within each human being whether or not to accept that mentality."

I recently received an email from a good friend of mine who wrote me the following:

"I'm just thinking about some of the horrid monikers we've encountered on the 'Net: 'The Old Dyke.' 'The Angry Fag.' 'Queer Kid Of Color'. "Faggoty-Ass Faggot." Straight people see and hear these vulgar identifiers. What do they make of them? Do they feel they have permission to use them, too? What also occurs to me is that these names don't just speak to a shameful feeling about one's gender and/or sexuality; they speak to an obsession with it! These folks need therapy, Jerry! I've been called the 'b' word, the 'p' word, the 'f' word, and just about every dirty slur you can name. I could never in a million years get my mind around 'reclaiming' that kind of ignorance. Yet, I don't consider myself any different from any other Gay man who's grown up in a homophobic society. Why do I react differently?"

I then wrote him the following response, which I know seems harsh, but this issue is crucial enough to demand such harshness and confrontation if the goal of acquiring full and equal LGBT rights is to be realized, particularly when LGBT rights activists are trying to win the hearts and minds of potential allies, and when the future of civil rights for LGBT people, such as the most pressing and immediate issue of the future of same-sex marriage in California will be put to voters in California in November:

I responded to him with the following: "My answer to your question is that THEY DO NEED THERAPY, but YOU DON'T NEED THERAPY, because you're emotionally intact, and they are not; YOU have integrity and dignity and refuse to be treated as a second-class citizen, and many of THEM revel in being second-class citizens; YOU aren't self-loathing; THEY are self-loathing; THEY love to vent by cursing the candle and loving the darkness; YOU want the light of full freedom, and outspokenly light that candle; THEY are apolitical; YOU see this as a political and religious struggle; THEY usually hate God and the things of God; YOU love God and the things of God; THEY love this world and the things of this world; YOU know that God wants liberation from yokes of bondage for all of His children; THEY frequently suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome; YOU definitely do not; YOU have a healthy self-esteem; THEY feel they deserve to be treated as 'outsiders'; YOU know you're 'normal'; THEY view themselves as 'deviants' and are proud of it. As I've said before, they are traitors and saboteurs to the cause of, and struggle for, full and equal civil rights, and you and I, and I'm sure many others, hate traitors and saboteurs to and of those things that anyone who is emotionally intact seeks for themselves and for others."

Regarding their being witting or unwitting traitors to, and saboteurs of, the struggle for full and equal civil rights, they have become mutual allies with the most reactionary homophobic forces in the religious and secular worlds. The religious
right and other homophobic forces just love them, for they manifest their fear and self-loathing by engaging in rhetoric and behaviors that are wittingly or unwittingly designed to alienate potential allies in the fight for full and equal civil rights, and provide these homophobic leaders with their needed ammunition to shore up their base of homophobes, be they in the "religious" or political arenas.

All a James Dobson, a Ken Hutcherson, a Pete LaBarbera, a Pat Robertson, or any number of other religious homophobes have to do is exhibit one or more of countless images of blatant and public hedonism (fulfilling and reinforcing the ugly stereotype that Gay=Abnormal; Gay=hedonism; Gay=deviant; Gay=immorality; Gay=perverted, etc.) to show those who might be on the fence regarding the acquisition of full and equal civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people that their hateful rhetoric has been correct after all. One cannot present public images that are patently and frequently deliberately offensive and even threatening to potential allies and then expect them to embrace and support full and equal civil rights for LGBT people who are all too often solely identified with those images!

In essence, the professional homophobes, many of whom make a veritable career out of homophobia, can then say to our potential allies, while showing them such images, "See, I told you what homosexuals are like. I told you how destructive they are to the very fabric of society and to civilization as we know it. I told you that they are not fit to be around children. They even want, and sometimes even have, the right to adopt and raise children. They seek to destroy Christianity and our Judeo-Christian way of life and will succeed unless we fight against this evil. And they even want their perverted lifestyle sanctified by law by insisting that they be allowed to marry one another. Before you know it, these people will want to marry their own children. Would you put anything past them after looking at these pictures that represent only a fraction of what they do and what they are?"

And we are to make no mistake: that's exactly what religious homophobes do, and continue to do, by proudly presenting blatant exhibitions of hedonism by some Gay people, further exacerbated by the use of pejorative epithets as self-identifiers by many Gay people that merely reinforce the hateful stereotypes and hateful rhetoric of the homophobes in "justifying" to as many as will listen the evidence as to the "deviance," the "otherness," the "abnormality" of LGBT people.

These epithets and images thereby confirm and reinforce the hateful rhetoric that is spewed by powerful religious homophobes in all sorts of venues, from the pulpit to the media, and serves no better purpose than to provide these religious homophobes with further ammunition that they need and use to sway potential allies away from our cause for equal rights.

Hence, the use of these epithets and the projection of these images that are viewed as offensive (many of which are seemingly designed to be offensive) by most people who conceivably make up our pool of potential allies, makes the purveyors of those epithets and images collaborators with the religious reactionary homophobes; making them partners in the goal of preventing the acquisition of full and equal civil and sacramental rights for LGBT people and their families.

Of course, confirmed homophobes will not be persuaded to become affirming of LGBT people no matter what we do or what we say! However, our concern must be winning over potential allies, those who might be on the fence and confused about this whole issue of LGBT rights. And the rhetoric and images used and projected for public consumption by self-loathing traitors are sabotaging that goal, by their being witting or unwitting allies with those very influential homophobes, by helping to do the homophobes' work for them.

By portraying Gay people as Godless, hedonistic, sexually obsessed individuals who revel in being "abnormal," and who pridefully display depictions that seem designed to offend all decent and religious people, virtually guarantees that those who engage in these practices are the allies of the avowed enemies of LGBT rights who stupidly feel free to vilify and even ridicule and make jokes about LGBT people, knowing that they will be greeted with hearty applause and laughter by their audiences, be they homophobic or potential allies.

Regarding the dynamics of those who manifest self-loathing and the unwillingness or the inability to directly confront the enemies of full civil rights and civil liberties, I absolutely think that seeing themselves as being forever "outsiders" and who revel in that outsider status by manifesting counter-productive and even risk-taking behaviors gives them a sense of security! It enables them to avoid confronting the horrifying fact that they are viewed by the oppressor as inferior, and in order to anesthetize themselves from that reality, they find a seemingly "legitimate" reason to bond with other like-minded people in a subculture that they wish to make a counterculture so as to both affirm themselves (which is understandable) but also insulate themselves from the insults and, at least at this point in their lives, they don't have the ego strength or the will to directly confront their oppressor in a politically meaningful and constructive way.

Hence, not only the use of denigrating epithets about themselves and their very identities, and their often egregious public displays that are bound to offend potential allies, but their rage at anyone who would dare suggest that by so doing they are helping to destroy themselves and their right to be treated with dignity and respect by those oppressors; telling them that by so doing they are witting or unwitting allies of those oppressors.

Because that would mean coming out of their cocoon, confronting a very harsh and even frightening reality, and having to confront both their own homophobia as well as the homophobia that would be visited upon them in direct proportion to their public and consistent demands that they be treated with full respect and as fully equal to their oppressor, and demand the acquisition of the very same rights that their oppressor enjoys.

That takes guts, and ego strength, and too many feel themselves to be too vulnerable, too wounded, to engage in the necessary fight for full and equal civil rights. Hence, to not confront that reality, and to not admit that they are too cowardly to fight the necessary battles for full and equal rights, they create a world where they demean themselves and create the rationalization for that demeaning of themselves by stating that they are doing so to merely appropriate, reclaim (Although those hateful words have never been renounced by the oppressor in the first place.), and neutralize those hateful words, and thereby claim that they are "liberated."

It's a profound tragedy, no matter how we look at it.

But it's a tragedy that must be confronted, overcome, and renounced so that positive, coordinated grassroots activism can occur, in conjunction with the increased assertiveness needed by major LGBT rights organizations, so that increasing numbers of potential allies can be recruited in the fight for equal rights; other LGBT people can become emboldened to demand that they be treated with dignity and demand nothing less than full and equal civil rights that are enjoyed by every other citizen; political savvy and activism be substituted for the counterproductive use of hateful epithets and the assorted public displays of images that denote and communicate a patently offensive public persona virtually designed to drive away allies and thereby sabotage the movement for full and equal civil rights.

As I've written before, such grassroots activism on the part of LGBT people and allies would take the form of "picketing homophobic churches (and there are plenty to choose from!), writing letters to the editors of their local newspapers, having groups of Gay couples who seek to marry continuously demand the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts, speaking out to neighbors and friends, boycotting businesses that in any way discriminate against Gay people, and other such modes of activism to aid and abet the cause of acquiring full and equal civil rights!"

Only then will the homophobic oppressor be forced back under the rock from which he or she came, and the acquisition of full and equal civil and sacramental rights will become a reality!

Monday, June 16, 2008

Gay Rights Pioneers Will Be First Married Lesbian Couple in San Francisco

SAN FRANCISCO — Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin fell in love at a time when lesbians risked being arrested, fired from their jobs and sent to electroshock treatment.

On Monday, more than a half-century after they became a couple, Lyon and Martin plan to become one of the first same-sex couples to legally exchange marriage vows in California.

"It was something you wanted to know, 'Is it really going to happen?' And now it's happened, and maybe it can continue to happen," Lyon says.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom plans to officiate at the private ceremony in his City Hall office before 50 invited guests. He picked Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, for the front of the line in recognition of their long relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement.

Along with six other women, they founded a San Francisco social club for lesbians in 1955 called the Daughters of Bilitis. Under their leadership, it evolved into the nation's first lesbian advocacy organization. They have the FBI files to prove it.

Their ceremony Monday will, in fact, be a marriage do-over.

For the rest of the story click here.

Love that lasts more than half a century should be recognized by all as special. You go girls! ;)

Sunday, June 15, 2008

CBS Poll: Changing Views On Gay Marriage

Most Americans Say Same-Sex Couples Should Have Legal Recognition

(CBS) Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry - the highest number since CBS News began asking this question in 2004.

Twenty-eight percent think same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions, but more than a third - 36 percent - say there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.

Last month, the California Supreme Court struck down that state’s ban on same-sex marriage, paving the way for gay and lesbian couples to marry there.

Americans’ views on this issue have changed since 2004, although opinion has not changed substantially in the last two years. In November of 2004 (soon after the presidential election) just 21 percent of Americans supported the idea of same-sex couples being allowed to marry.

Majorities of both men and women support some form of legal recognition for gay and lesbian couples, but more women (36 percent) than men (24 percent) back the idea of same-sex marriage.

More than six in 10 Democrats think same-sex couples should be allowed to either marry or form civil unions. Fifty percent of Republicans are against either of these options.

There are regional differences, too. Four in 10 of those living in the western portion of the U.S. favor same-sex marriage - the highest of any other region. Americans living in the south are least likely to support it.

Groups most likely to support same-sex marriage include those under age 30, liberals, Americans living in the west, and those who never go to church.

Republicans, conservatives, white evangelicals and weekly church attendees are groups that are least likely to support the idea.

For more information and the details of the poll click here. This is another article that allows you to leave comments in a blog style fashion, and I would adise reading some of the opinions placed there.

Study: Gay Marriage Good For Economy

UCLA Researchers Say Same Sex Unions Will Create Jobs, Generate Revenue

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

During the three-year period, the researchers project that about half of the state's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married and another 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel to California to exchange vows. The nuptial rush is expected to create some 2,200 jobs.

Click here to read the rest of the story from where it was found.

Seems like we reported this story on LLL before, only we were talking about Massachusetts. Now it seems that California is poised to swoop in and take advantage of what we once had a monopoly on but couldn't cash in on because of our pesky 1913 law.

Attorneys Request California Same-Sex Marriage Stay to Court of Appeal

This is the final "hail Mary" (pun intended) for those who think the freedom to marry whom you please is too great a responsibility for GLBT people:

Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • June 12, 2008

Attorneys with Liberty Counsel filed a petition with the California Court of Appeal today requesting a stay on issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

“I think it’s necessary and prudent to stay this decision to allow the Legislature to address the mess the Supreme Court made,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, who argued the case.

“Absent a stay, we’re going to have legal chaos.”

Founded in 1989, Liberty Counsel is a Virginia-based nonprofit education and litigation organization to advance conservative religious beliefs.

For the rest of the story please click on the link provided above.

This online newpaper is following the trend of today and you can blog your opinions there. I think one such reader summed things up rather well:

Imgay wrote:

Definition of: lib�er�ty

a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.
d. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.

Liberty Counsel? Are you kidding me?

Are you kidding me? ..... LOL

I am very proud to be gay and getting married. To all those waiting for the 17th, congratulations and I hope you live long and happy lives!

Liberty for all!

Friday, June 13, 2008

With Love and Pride, Governor Deval Patrick’s Daughter Comes Out Publicly

by Laura Kiritsy
Thursday Jun 12, 2008

Photo: Marilyn Humphries (not shown on LLL)
Editor’s Note: This is the first time that Katherine Patrick has spoken to the media about being an out lesbian and the support she has received from her parents, Gov. Deval Patrick and First Lady Diane Patrick.

On June 14, 2007, the day that lawmakers finally voted down an anti-gay marriage amendment to the state constitution, Katherine Patrick stood outside the State House and looked up at her father. Gov. Deval Patrick was standing on the front steps, surrounded by a jubilant crowd of hundreds that mobbed the brick sidewalk and spilled halfway across Beacon Street. As they cheered the defeat of the amendment - an effort led by the governor, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Sal DiMasi - Katherine had never before felt more proud of her father.

"Because, of course, he didn’t know that I was gay then," the 18-year-old recalls. "So, for someone so publicly to fight for something that doesn’t even affect him was just like, ’That’s my dad,’ you know?" she says with a laugh. "That’s all I could think. I was very, very proud to be part of this family, and this state in general."

Please follow the link above for the whole story printed in Bay Windows.

Seems the governor and hate group leader Amy Contrada of have something in common; they both have lesbian daughters who recently came out of the closet. While the governor shows his daughter unconditional love and affirmation, Contrada has cut her daughter off from the GLBT community leaving us all to wonder if she is in a Rapunzel style tower locked away somewhere.

Governor Patrick, I was proud of you when you became governor, I was proud of you when you stood up for equality on June 14th 2007, and I am even more proud of you now seeing you lead all of us in example for families dealing with GLBT members. Put your other accomplishments aside, I'll take my hat off for this one alone. Your public stand will do much for all of us still fighting the good fight. Thank you!

Two Dads on Father's Day, with Video

By Mike Stuckey
Senior news editor

SEATTLE - They don’t greet you so much as they burst upon you, these three little guys with impish grins that punctuate their beautiful dark features. Here they come, a rumbling, tumbling, laughing, yelling, skipping, crying pack of naughty and nice, snips and snails and puppy dog tails and everything else that is American boyhood.

Meet the Brothers Z: 4-year-old twins Zach and Zayn, and their younger sibling Zeth, fast approaching 3. In many ways, they are typical denizens of the hilly suburban neighborhood where they have lived most of their lives. They spend their days in preschool while their parents both work in the telecom industry. The family owns an SUV and a pickup. They shop at Costco and go to church on Sundays. They work in the yard. They watch Disney movies on their big-screen TV.

But Father’s Day will be a double celebration at their house because the brothers have two daddies — Geoffery and Devin, foster parents for the boys for three years before adopting them.

For the rest of the story please refer to the link provided above. Don't miss the video, it's worth watching!

Special thanks to Ken Weaver over in Arizona who brought this story to my attention.

Resistance is Futile

The notorious anti-gay organization, Massresistance doesn't seem to get it.

It is over; they have lost.

In typical Massresistance style they breathlessly report:

Thursday, May 22, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously caved in to the homosexual lobby. Using a particularly sleazy maneuver they increased the funding for homosexual programs in the schools by $300,000 -- to $850,000 in the 2009 budget.

This money will go (either directly or indirectly) to the hideous Massachusetts Commission on Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Youth, which (among other things) recently organized the disgusting Youth Pride Day on the Boston Common. They had also announced that "parents are the problem" because they teach traditional values.
Oh, but note this:

"...the Massachusetts Senate unanimously caved in to the homosexual lobby."


They even admit that the longer have ANY support in the Massachusetts Senate:

Even the "Good" Senators caved in.

Yep, even the "Good Senators"

It is over.

Massresistance is now nothing more than the proverbial old man yelling at kids to "get off my lawn."


Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Add Norway to the List

The Norwegian government put forth a long-expected gay marriage bill on Friday, clearing the way for homosexual couples to secure the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

The whole story is here.


We Have More in Common

We have more in common than we have in conflict. But to clearly see that, we must examine the differences. At least according this article examining some recent studies, one of the important difference between straight and gay couples is that gay couples are far less influenced by gender stereotypes.

A growing body of evidence shows that same-sex couples have a great deal to teach everyone else about marriage and relationships. Most studies show surprisingly few differences between committed gay couples and committed straight couples, but the differences that do emerge have shed light on the kinds of conflicts that can endanger heterosexual relationships.

The findings offer hope that some of the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women. And that, in turn, offers hope that the problems can be solved.

"..the most vexing problems are not necessarily entrenched in deep-rooted biological differences between men and women."

Of course.

The idea that men and women are so fundamentally different that relationships must be based on a complementary (and conflicting) balance is not inborn. It is purely a social construct, and the experience of same sex couples can teach the rest of us a few lessons.

Notably, same-sex relationships, whether between men or women, were far more egalitarian than heterosexual ones. In heterosexual couples, women did far more of the housework; men were more likely to have the financial responsibility; and men were more likely to initiate sex, while women were more likely to refuse it or to start a conversation about problems in the relationship. With same-sex couples, of course, none of these dichotomies were possible, and the partners tended to share the burdens far more equally.
And yet, at the same time, same-sex couples also experience what this researcher calls the demand-withdraw” interaction.

One of the most common stereotypes in heterosexual marriages is the “demand-withdraw” interaction, in which the woman tends to be unhappy and to make demands for change, while the man reacts by withdrawing from the conflict. But some surprising new research shows that same-sex couples also exhibit the pattern, contradicting the notion that the behavior is rooted in gender, according to an abstract presented at the 2006 meeting of the Association for Psychological Science by Sarah R. Holley, a psychology researcher at Berkeley.
So, not only do straight and gay couples have more in common with each other, so do men and women.

Once we start treating each other as individuals, stripped of pre-conceived gender norms and biases, we will all be better able to navigate the minefield of our relationships.


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Democratic Delegate Removed by Other Delegate For Anti-Kerry Sign?

From the Boston Globe I read this article and decided to make some calls. Allow me to print a portion of that article so you can see what I find interesting:

"Aaron Toleos, co director of the gay advocacy group, said he was physically assaulted during the incident and is considering legal options. He said he has the incident on videotape and planned to post it on YouTube." -By Matt Viser Globe Staff / June 8, 2008

Aaron Toleos and Tom Lang are people I have worked with before, so I decided to call Tom Lang and ask for a clarification as to what was happening. The answers I got were both disturbing and intriguing. It seems that it was another delegate that had removed Toleos by force, not security.

"Does a delegate have the right to physically lay hands on another delegate and remove them from the convention because they don't agree with the sign he was holding?", questions Tom Lang in a phone interview.

When Lang called officials of the democratic committee they first responded by telling Lang that it was a security guard that removed Toleos for his sign. When Lang told them that he had both photos and video footage of the entire incident, as well as of the person in question wearing a delegate badge, the conversation ubruptly ended. One would ask, who is this mysterious delegate that has the power to police other delegates in this manner?

Toleos was originally told that the reason he was removed was that his sign was hand written, yet when he asked if he could correct this with a printed sign he was still told the sign was out of question. Toleos was also denied a clarification while within feet of the rules table. Are dissenting voices being silenced in an above the law fashion?

The civil rights department of the Massachusetts Attorney General's office has taken information regarding this incident, and is in discussion over civil rights violations.

I am a pretty vocal civil rights activist. It amazes me that John Kerry has been able to keep his anti-gay marriage policies under the radar for so long, even in the state where gay marriage began, even from activists like me. I have to thank Aaron Toleos for bringing this to our attention. To make sure there is no confusion let me clarify; Aaron Toleos is not someone that snuck into the convention, he is an invited delegate who was holding a sign as other delegates were.

I'm no legal eagle like some of you out there, and I consider myself also a novice in the realm of politics. I welcome all opinions to come in and bring their own light to this situation.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Sensus Fidelium

The Vatican and the Pope will often speak to the issues of the day, with the supposed authority that comes from Apostolic Succession, but any teaching of the Church that is not accepted by the faithful is invalid.

A very important event in the Church today is the re-emergence of an understanding of the Sensus Fidelium, what the Christian people believe, accept, and reject. It is here, the Sensus Fidelium, wherein resides the promise of Christ to protect us from error with the guidance of the Spirit. Church hierarchy (the rulers) have taught what to believe, accept, and reject, but always with acceptance or a corrective response by theologian (experts) and the faithful even from the very beginning. (Acts 15)

And it is the voice of the faithful that reforms the Church, and "Ecclesia semper Reformanda" (The church must always be reformed).

The Pope recently reiterated that the priesthood is for men only; that teaching is false, as it is in conflict with Sensus Fidelium. Over 70% of the faithful endorse the ordination of women priests.

The Church continues to hold that the use of artificial contraception is a sin; that teaching is false, as it is in conflict with Sensus Fidelium. The vast majority of the faithful do not accept this teaching.

As to the acceptance of gay relationships, I will admit the faithful are not there yet, but the trend is ongoing and positive.

When the Church's teaching conflicts with one's conscience; one's conscience shall dictate.

“Over the Pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”

Cardinal Ratzinger, Doctrine of Vatican II, volume V, page 134
Our service is to be to our fellow man, and our guiding light is the Christ, not the Church.


Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Paul "Fire&Brimstone" Melanson Should Consider His Sources

Paul Melanson is the webmaster of lasalettejourney, a pro-Catholic and anti-gay website. I thought a bit about whether I would call it anti-gay, but see some of the articles he has published for example and decide for yourself:

"We simply want equality.."
Homosexual activists and other anti-Christian bigots attack Christian youth festival
San Fransisco Mayor shows his own form of intolerance and hypocrisy
Homosexuals in the Third Reich
Jewish Holocaust Victim: Equating Homosexual and J...
A slippery slope of perversion...

I could go on and on citing articles that Paul has written, but these are enough to make my point, and make most people uneasy. In his latest he cites a 2006 study from renowned expert on sexuality Judith A. Reisman. Let's review some facts. First off, Reisman has her Masters of Arts and Doctorate in Philosophy and communications. How exactly does that make her an expert on sex? She is famous for challenging the works of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. In turn here is the response she received:

Attention has focused on Dr. Alfred Kinsey recently because of the institute's celebration of the 50-year anniversary of his book and reports that a Hollywood film company is interested in producing a film about Kinsey.

This attention provides an opportunity for long-time anti-Kinsey crusader Judith Reisman to put forth, once again, her opinions on Kinsey and on the Institute. Allegations against Alfred Kinsey and his research on children's sexual responses, as reported in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, were first made in 1981 by Dr. Reisman. She subsequently enlarged on these ideas in a book written jointly with Edward Eichel and published in 1990 (Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud). When The Kinsey Institute responded, Reisman filed suit in 1991 against The Kinsey Institute, then director June Reinisch, and Indiana University, alleging defamation of character and slander. In September 1993, Reisman's lawyer withdrew from the case, and in June 1994 the court dismissed Reisman's case with prejudice (which means that Reisman is prohibited from refiling the suit).

Response to Controversy
Below is a reiteration of previous accusations and the Institute's response.

The act of encouraging pedophiles to rape innocent babies and toddlers in the names of "science" offends. The act of protecting them from prosecution offends. The act of falsifying research findings which, in turn, open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children, offends. (from Dr. Laura's (Schlesinger) website)

This would be a cause of great concern if it were true. Kinsey was not a pedophile in any shape or form. He did not carry out experiments on children; he did not hire, collaborate, or persuade people to carry out experiments on children. He did not falsify research findings and there is absolutely no evidence that his research "opened flood gates for the sexual abuse of children". Kinsey did talk to thousands of people about their sex lives, and some of the behaviors that they disclosed, including abuse of children, were illegal. In fact, many sexual behaviors, even those some between married adults, were illegal in the 1940's and 1950's. Without confidentiality, it would have been impossible to investigate the very private lives of Americans then, and even now.

Where did Kinsey's information about children's sexual responses come from?

Kinsey clearly stated in his male volume the sources of information about children's sexual responses. The bulk of this information was obtained from adults recalling their own childhoods. Some was from parents who had observed their children, some from teachers who had observed children interacting or behaving sexually, and Kinsey stated that there were nine men who he had interviewed who had sexual experiences with children who had told him about how the children had responded and reacted.

In a British documentary, a woman says she was sexually abused by her father and grandfather, and that her father justified it as doing research for Alfred Kinsey by filling out questionnaires.

We have no reason to doubt that this woman was sexually abused. However, Kinsey did not ask people to fill out questionnaires. It is conceivable that this woman's father or grandfather wrote to Kinsey, as many people have done. Following that documentary, we checked through Kinsey's correspondence and could not find any that would match this story. We do know that there have been people who have used Kinsey's name to justify what they do sexually, even recently.

Kinsey used a Nazi SS officer from Germany as one of his key contributors.

In Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey invited people to write to him about their sex lives. In 1955, a German wrote to him and told him about his sexual experiences with children. Kinsey, in his reply, was non-judgmental, as usual.Kinsey never made use of this information. He did however point out how strongly society condemned such behavior. Kinsey never made use of the information from this man. He also had no idea that this man had been a Nazi ten years earlier.... To suggest that Kinsey had something to do with Nazi torture of children is a bizarre fabrication.

The fact that this woman is not a Dr. of psychology or even sociology makes me wonder why anyone cares to call her an expert in sexuality, and the fact that the courts told not to bother coming back with her complaints seems to sum up how valueless her words are.

I was hoping for better from Paul after reading the begining of his blog and his family background. Unfortunately it seems he uses the same tactics as James Dobson; cite people whose work is junk and add in the fear factor to keep people hating their neighbors. Paul, I love you as Christ asks us to, but I am very disappointed in how you show your love to people who are different from you, like me. I hope this article gives all who read it something to think about when they look in the mirror today.

Our Lady La Salette is the reconciler of sinners, not the persecutor of homosexuals. I challenge all Christians to ask yourself one question. By what terms can we live in peace with our fellow man who refuses to follow the path we believe is right? I look forward to your answers. As something to consider, please watch this short video of a man who lived a horribly miserable life repressing his homosexuality, then learned how to love himself as God made him. Therein he finds the peace Christ wants all of us to have.

California High Court Clears Way for Same-Sex Marriages to Start June 17

By Howard Mintz
Mercury News

Article Launched: 06/04/2008 09:22:47 AM PDT

The California Supreme Court today rejected a bid to freeze last month's ruling legalizing gay marriage, paving the way for same-sex couples to begin walking down the aisle as soon as June 17.

Moving swiftly to remove legal uncertainty, the court turned away a request from gay marriage foes to stay the ruling until after the November election, when voters will consider a ballot measure that would change the state Constitution to again outlaw same-sex weddings. The secretary of state earlier this week qualified the initiative for the November ballot.

The justices were divided 4-3 on whether to rehear their earlier decision, the same split that unfolded when the gay marriage case was decided in May. Conservative organizations, joined by 11 other states, asked the court to reopen the case, a move opposed by civil rights groups, San Francisco city officials and Attorney General Jerry Brown.

The Supreme Court found California's ban on same-sex weddings unconstitutional in a 4-3 ruling that reverberated across the country. Since that time, state officials have created new marriage licenses and announced that they would be prepared to handle gay marriages on June 17, the day after the Supreme Court's ruling becomes final.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera applauded the court's move, saying it would have "politicized our judiciary" if the justices had put the ruling on hold until the election. And civil rights lawyers said gay couples were now poised to take advantage of their newfound legal rights.

"Lesbian and gay couples in California will be able to marry on an equal basis starting on June 17," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "Every day, public support for the freedom to marry is growing."

You can read the rest of this story by clicking the link above, turning on the television, radio, reading the newspaper, or pretty much any place else. The opponents of equality wanted to be heard, well now they have been. Looks like America is finally coming to terms with the fact that all citizens are equal no matter their differences. Hopefully other minority groups will start stepping up to their responsibilities to fight discrimination of all forms, not just their own.

As a unified nation we are a force to be reckoned with, and greater still is the contribution we can give to the world. Eight years of selfishness and division has taken it's toll on our allies, the time to heal old wounds and mend fences will soon be at hand.

Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness

From CitizenLink comes this incredible story:

Good News: Tennessee Court Upholds Religious Liberties

A Tennessee court has refused to cave in to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which sought to ban religious expression at a Nashville public school.

The ACLU sued Wilson County public schools, claiming they violated the constitution by allowing student prayer events, National Day of Prayer observances and the celebration of religious holidays. The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) represented parents.

“The court acknowledged that Christians cannot be discriminated against for their beliefs, and that personal prayer, mentions of God and Christmas references are constitutionally appropriate in school,” ADF Senior Counsel Nate Kellum said. “The ACLU hoped to wipe out every reference to God.”

But that is NOT what the court held:

(From the PDF of the actual Court ruling provided by the ACLU)

(C)ertain practices at Lakeview Elementary School...did not have a secular purpose and were allowed or pursued to tacitly approve the activities of the Praying Parents, which had the primary effect of endorsing or promoting their Christian beliefs and programs at the school. Therefore...the Court finds in favor of the Does and against all Defendants except the Board itself.

Hat tip to Fundies Say the Darndest Things

And for the legal minded, Ed Brayton's outstanding coverage:


Time for Non-Gays to Come Out of the Closet

Dr. Marty Klein has a very timely and accurate post on his blog.

I couldn't say it better so I won't even try.

Time for Non-Gays to Come Out of the Closet

Same-gender marriage is not a "gay issue." "Don't ask, don't tell" is not a "gay issue." Parity in child custody decisions is not a "gay issue."

These aren't "gay issues" because compromising the civil equality of any group in America compromises everyone's civil rights. A government that can discriminate against a parent just because he's gay can (and of course does) discriminate against a parent just because she's a stripper or she's into bondage. A government that criminalizes the consensual sex acts of gays can (and of course does) criminalize other private consenting sex acts, such as the use of vibrators and teens' right to have sex with other teens.

The more that legal questions about gay rights are in the news, the more we're told to fear the monstrous Gay Agenda. So it's time for those pushing the Gay Agenda to stand up and make it clear who most of its supporters are: non-gays. Heterosexuals.

Yes, the vast majority of Americans who support the full civil equality of gay people are straight. True enough, much of the passion, the money, the time, and the creative political will is coming from gay men and women. But tens of millions of straight Americans are spending their money and their time supporting the legislative, corporate, and cultural changes so neatly summarized by terrified, angry people as the Gay Agenda.

Because gays are a numerical minority in the U.S., more straight people celebrated the end of laws criminalizing gay sex than gays did. More straight than gay people celebrated the California court decision legalizing same-gender marriage. More straight than gay people are working hard to change county bureaucracies across America that currently discriminate against gay parents.

When you hear Focus on The Family or Concerned Women for America or Morality in Media decrying "those" people pushing "their" Gay Agenda, stand up and make it clear: the problem isn't "those" people and "their" goals--it's "me" and "my" goals. It's "us" and "our" goals.

You don't have to be Black to promote racial equality. You don't need to be a woman to demand total access to Emergency Contraception. And you don't need to be gay to support gay rights.

You just need to appreciate the urgency of guaranteeing that all Americans enjoy the same civil rights. And you need to appreciate that your rights are best protected in a country that protects everyone's rights.

So the next time Jerry Falwell--or your neighbor--goes off about the Gay Agenda, smile and say "Yes, our Gay Agenda. Isn't it wonderful!"

Check out his excellent site. It is a worthy read.


The Truth Shall Set You Free

I am often accused of being hostile to people of faith; I am not.

I am hostile to those who would use their faith as an excuse for bigotry and intolerance. I also believe (perhaps naively) that there exists a huge number of people of faith who are victims of their leaders. These are good people, led astray by ancient superstitions and prejudices. I am encouraged by this story:

The Journey, a megachurch of mostly younger evangelicals, is representative of a new generation that refuses to put politics at the center of its faith and rejects identification with the religious right.

They say they are tired of the culture wars. They say they do not want the test of their faith to be the fight against gay rights. They say they want to broaden the traditional evangelical anti-abortion agenda to include care for the poor, the environment, immigrants and people with H.I.V., according to experts on younger evangelicals and the young people themselves.

"Evangelicalism is becoming somewhat less coherent as a movement or as an identity," said Christian Smith, a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame. "Younger people don't even want the label anymore. They don't believe the main goal of the church is to be political."

Make no mistake. These young people are not on our side, but they seem to be able to examine their consciences and question their Authorities.

These young people are, in my opinion, educable.


Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Texas Loses Court Ruling Over Taking of "Yearning for Zion" Children

Published: May 30, 2008

New York Times

HOUSTON — Bringing polygamist families closer to regaining custody of their children, a divided Supreme Court of Texas agreed Thursday that the state had illegally seized 468 girls and boys from a West Texas ranch last month on unproven grounds of physical and sexual abuse.

State officials said they would move swiftly to return the children.

The decision upholding a ruling of the Third Court of Appeals last week directed a state judge to revoke the custody order taking the children from the Yearning for Zion ranch in Eldorado.

But it gave no timetable for their return and said that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services could still seek authority to protect any of the children in individual cases.

The decision was supported in full by six justices; three justices dissented in part.

Read the rest of this story from the source by following the link provided above.

Monday, June 02, 2008

Top prosecutor moves to block first gay marriage in Greece by island mayor

The Associated Press Published: May 30, 2008

ATHENS, Greece: Greece's top public prosecutor on Friday moved to block a gay marriage ceremony after a mayor on a tiny Greek island said he was willing to perform one.

Supreme Court prosecutor Giorgos Sanidas is trying to stop a ceremony expected to take place this summer on the east Aegean Sea island of Tilos — issuing a directive to prosecutors saying same-sex marriages were illegal.

In March, a lesbian organization discovered a loophole in a 26-year-old law that does not specify gender in civil weddings. Two gay men in Tilos are trying to become the first pair to test it.

Sanidas' directive states that marriage between same-sex couples would be "automatically nullified and considered illegal."

Sanidas said the directive — forwarded to prosecutors on the island of Rhodes — was based on an article in Greece's constitution to protect family rights that defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Rhodes is the administrative capital for an island group that includes Tilos.

It was not immediately clear if gay groups would try to challenge Sanidas' directive.

On Thursday, Tilos Mayor Tassos Alfieris said he would carry out a ceremony for the men, who took the first official step toward marriage by posting a wedding notice in a Greek newspaper.

No date has been set for the service. Greek civil ceremonies are conducted my municipal officials.

Gay groups in Greece were angered after the conservative government left gays out of plans to create civil partnerships that would improve financial rights for unmarried couples

Justice Minister Sotiris Hatzigakis also said he believed gay marriages could not take place. "This is not possible. It would not be legal," he told state-run NET television.

Greece's influential Orthodox Church has expressed strong objections to gay marriage in the past.

Majority of Californian's Views Now Favor Same-Sex Marriage

10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, May 27, 2008

The Press-Enterprise

A majority of Californians now support same-sex marriages and oppose a constitutional ban on them, the first time in 31 years that voters have favored such unions, according to a statewide poll.

"This is a groundbreaking poll. The line has been crossed," said Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo on Tuesday. The poll said Californians accept such marriages 51 percent to 42 percent.

But there remain deep divisions among Californians along regional, political, religious and age categories, the Field Poll released Tuesday concluded.

Read the rest of this story from the link provided above.

Looks like the vote on marriage that opponents of equality want is not going to be to their liking. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts tried to pass a similar amendment but had to gain approval of at least 25% of the legislators, yet could not muster even that minimal support. This sent them a clear message, "Don't bother", and they have not since.

Star Trek" Actor to Wed After Gay Marriage Ruling

Mon May 19, 2008 7:59pm EDT
By Iain Blair

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Actor George Takei, best known for playing Mr. Sulu on "Star Trek," says he plans to wed his longtime partner now that the California Supreme Court has overturned a state ban on gay marriage.

Takei, 71, told Reuters on Monday that he and Brad Altman, his 54-year-old business manager, are going through the "delicious process" of planning their nuptials.

"There's no tradition in terms of same-sex marriage. We are designing and shaping our own wedding in our own way, so it's going to be singular and unique," added Takei, who first made his wedding plans known on his website during the weekend.

Read the rest from the provided link above.

Add George Takei to the list of heroes who stand up against discrimination not just for themselves but for those who need someone to stand for them. The more exposure the GLBT community gets the more people are going to realize that we are just like them with only one difference that should not concern them.

Gay Marriage Documentary Aims To Educate

By On Top Magazine Staff
Published: May 20, 2008

Charlotte Robinson believes America will come to accept gay marriage. “I believe it will happen, but it's an evolutionary process,” she told On Top Magazine in a phone interview from her home state of Massachusetts.

Robinson knows what she's talking about. The Emmy-award winning producer/director has been documenting the fight for marriage equality for the past five years as it has unfolded in Massachusetts. The State started offering gay marriage in 2004 after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled the practice of denying same-sex couples the right to marry unconstitutional. The case was Goodridge V. Department of Public Health and the consequences of that decision have rippled through American society since.

Last week, California joined Massachusetts in offering marriage equality. After the announcement, cheers were heard outside San Francisco's City Hall, where Mayor Gavin Newson suddenly began offering marriage licenses to gay couples in 2004. Those marriages were eventually invalidated, but the city joined gay couples in a battle that led to the Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, also found denying gay couples the right to marry unconstitutional.

Mayor Gavin Newson, clearly elated by his vindication, said, “At the end of the day, this is about real people and their lives. This is about their families. It doesn't get much more personal than this. ...This is an extraordinary day. This is an extraordinary moment.”

Please use the link above to read the rest of the story at it's source.

This effort comes at a critical time for America and even the world in general as we struggle to understand what truths and untruths are being dispensed. My position has always been the same on this; don't believe anything you have not verified the facts on for yourself. Once you discover a lie you know you have to consider all things said by that same source with strict scrutiny.

In the end we are all neighbors, all citizens of the same country. It is our responsibility to find a way to live in peace together and not allow people to profit off our fears.

Sunday, June 01, 2008

Let the People Vote?

This is Democracy in action:

(CBS) A Port St. Lucie, Fla., mother is outraged and considering legal action after her son's kindergarten teacher led his classmates to vote him out of class.

Melissa Barton says Morningside Elementary teacher Wendy Portillo had her son's classmates say what they didn't like about 5-year-old Alex. She says the teacher then had the students vote, and voted Alex, who is being evaluated for Asperger's syndrome -- an autism spectrum disorder -- out of the class by a 14-2 margin.