Gay Marriage's topics - tribe.net

Church's Billboards Affirm Gay Love

missouriboy — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:42:22 GMT

Four billboards along Interstate 30 between Fort Worth and Grand Prairie will likely send some drivers into fits.

The billboards are inviting Christians to be more Christian by not excluding gays and lesbians from their churches, while asserting that it is OK in the eyes of God to be homosexual -- a practice thought by many conservative Christians to be an abomination.

The "Would Jesus Discriminate" campaign is sponsored by five DFW Metropolitan Community Churches, whose congregations are predominantly gay and lesbian. The purpose of the campaign is to "engage people in a friendly discussion about Jesus' message of inclusion," according to the whywouldwe.org Web site.

With statements such as "Jesus affirmed a gay couple" and "Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve," the billboards assert homosexuality has been around for thousands of years. The billboards also offer a scripture reference that is meant to validate the message.

Each billboard also asks the reader, "Would Jesus discriminate?"

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

hi hola

lgbtvideos — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:53:25 GMT

hi my friends go to mylovingay.com and enjoy for free internet radio station, tv, news, profiles, advices, lgbt history and more

olá! meus amigos vão a mylovingay.com e apreciam para a estação de rádio do Internet, a tevê, a notícia, perfis, conselhos, a história do lgbt e mais livres

hola a todos los invito a mi web mylovingay.com donde podran disfrutar radio internet, tv, contactos, consejos, historia de nuestra comunidad y mas gratis

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

March on Washington October 11th

Hummingbird — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 03:38:18 GMT

http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?page_id=19

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

new tribe

Gregg — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:46:06 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/fuckobama

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Yes to the March on Washington this October

Hummingbird — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 15:40:50 GMT

http://equalityacrossamerica.org/blog/?page_id=19

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

new tribe - opposite sex marriage!

jmparker — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:51:42 GMT

http://tribes.tribe.net/65ca4bde-0272-47ba-9837-297a41b8d9dd?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B65ca4bde-0272-47ba-9837-297a41b8d9dd%5D

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

A Musical Reply to the Haters

Hummingbird — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:36:19 GMT

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/05/best-gay-antihate-youtube-collaboration-ever.html

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Excellent Video!

Hummingbird — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:33:30 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fslog%2Ethestranger%2Ecom%2Fblogs%2Fslog%2F&feature=player_embedded

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

We Just Won in Vermont!

Hummingbird — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:08:48 GMT

The legislature voted to override the Governor's veto. Vermont is now the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage.

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

The Christian Nation Myth

Hummingbird — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:41:39 GMT

Useful information for the marriage equality debate.

www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

online Poll- please help Vermont! We're in a good place, help us stay there!

fixit — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 04:20:15 GMT

http://www.wptz.com/news/18656307/detail.html

Our marriage equality bill was introduced Friday by two lawmakers with ******59******* co-sponsors!!!!
So amazing and fantastic.
This poll keeps swinging back and forth, and I decided it's time to bring in some more supporters.

When we got Civil Unions in 2000, so many supporters got voted out in the next election cycle.
Please help today's lawmakers feel confident that it won't happen this time- it won't!
Most people are paying no attention right now, given our financial turmoil...

VOTE! Thanks.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

No on 8 Leaders (Control junkies) Admit Errors At California Equality Summit

varianpierce — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:01:57 GMT

Who do you trust: Consultants and pollsters? Or your gut?

More than 400 gay activists gathered at the Los Angeles Convention Center Jan. 24 to organize and strategize to win back same-sex marriage in California. But attendees at the daylong Equality Summit spent just as much time looking backward - at the errors made by the leadership of the No on 8 campaign in its failed effort to stop voters from re-banning same-sex marriage.

And, for the first time since the Nov. 4 election, several of those leaders publicly detailed what they did wrong.

“When I look at what was the biggest mistake, when I lie awake at night prepping my e-mails I’m going to send to all of you and I think about the biggest mistake that we made, it’s that we’ve turned everything over to political experts and political consultants,” said Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors. “And I would never ever do that again. You know, when we started Equality California, everyone was, like, ‘Hire professional lobbyists to go lobby on LGBT issues,’ and I was, like: ‘You gotta be kidding. We’re going to do our own lobbying because it’s about our lives and we know what we’re talking about and we know how to do this.’ One thing, you know, that I would never do again ... we should have been in the strategy room and part of those (consultants’) conversations, and that was a huge mistake.”

Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center CEO Lorri Jean, another key member of the No on 8 leadership team, was similarly forthcoming.

“How could we have realized earlier that professional, high-paid consultants were not delivering product?” Jean asked. “I’m trying to say this and not be too provocative, since we have so many professional political campaign consultants in the room. But, you know, there is an approach that people who are professionals use to do this. And I think one of our challenges as a community, given that issues of relevance to our community are different than anything else that goes on the ballot because of the emotion and the other things that are associated with them, we have got to find a completely different way than business as usual to do this work.”

The tension between conventional ballot-initiative wisdom and the possibly special nature of gay issues was nowhere more prominent than in the $40 million of ads the No on 8 campaign ran on TV, said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a prominent member of the No on 8 leadership.

In an interview, Kendell said: “One tension that’s surfacing (today) - and it’s one we faced in the No on 8 campaign - is, Do we ignore our campaign consultants and the polls and the focus groups - which will almost always tell us that showing gay couples and families is not the most effective messaging for undecided voters - do we ignore all that and show those families anyway because we instinctually and viscerally know that people who see gay images, who have conversations with gay people, who have LGBT people in their lives are better on our issues?”

Kendell called that question “a fundamental choice” for any future campaign on same-sex marriage.

“Do you sublimate the presence of gay people in your TV ads in order to move undecided voters? Or do we ignore the (consultants’ polling) numbers because we just don’t believe they’re true in order to continue a narrative about our lives and our relationships in full view?”

Kendell said that all the leaders of the No on 8 campaign “wanted to have TV ads with gay people in them.”

“But the polling showed that the more undecided voters saw of images of gay people getting married, the more they were moved to the ‘yes’ side.”

Kendell said she would be “completely supportive” of a strategic decision to dump the consultants, pollsters and focus groups in favor of trying a from-the-gut campaign to win over Californians on same-sex marriage.

“If we decide to do that, I am completely supportive of that,” she vowed. “But we would be moving a campaign forward that breaks every convention of statewide campaigns in California. And there will be campaign experts who will tell us we are making a terrible mistake. And yet, given how many times we’ve lost, it may be time to think about a model that is provocative and shocking.”

State Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, was among the summit attendees who criticized No on 8’s gay-free TV ads.

“The TV commercials were bland,” Ammiano said in an interview. “Where were the gay people? We were missing in action, and that’s what this is about. We can be a lot more incisive and direct if we are required again to have a campaign where there are going to be TV commercials.”

Ammiano, who worked with gay icon Harvey Milk on the 1978 campaign that beat back an initiative to ban gay teachers from California public schools, said there also were additional problems with how the No on 8 campaign behaved.

“Communities of color made gestures to the No on 8 campaign to help and they were not well-received - Latino groups and some black groups,” he said. “I don’t think we took full advantage of the blogosphere or the ethnic press and those are very, very powerful today. ... We also can’t forget the grassroots. There is a hierarchy in the community ... but that hierarchy is really dependent on your everyday rank-and-file person, and they were not included in the way that would have benefited the campaign.”

Many of those attending the summit applauded and cheered when various speakers suggested that the leaders of the No on 8 campaign had done the best job they could. But that sentiment was far from unanimous.

“Today is about the same people ... taking control of anything that goes forward, being in charge, and collecting the money and having the power,” said Miki Jackson, a longtime lesbian and AIDS activist in Los Angeles.

“These people are control junkies, they are power junkies, and we are at their mercy,” Jackson said in an interview, singling out Kors and Kendell by name. “They’re up at the podium and they’re talking at everyone. ... Grassroots people can’t even stand up and ask a question. It has to be read (from a notecard) by a moderator. There isn’t a rift between the grassroots and the No on 8 usual suspects - there is a wall they have built. We have a place, and they want us in it. You can see it here today.”

In addition to the occasionally raucous plenary sessions, much of the summit consisted of “breakout” sessions in which smaller groups of people focused on topics such as African Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, media, faith communities, families, government, labor, Latinos, legal issues, Netroots/Web 2.0, transgender issues and youth.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made an unplanned appearance at the summit, saying he’d just heard about it that morning.

“In 1994, I first began to stand up on the floor of the Legislature and talk about these issues, and talk about that this was the last frontier of the civil rights movement, that this was the only area where people of conscience, people who think they’re not bigoted in any way, feel like they can discriminate ... feel like they can say no to you for a job, no for housing ... say no to this community and equality of rights when it came to domestic partnerships, and now equality of marriage,” Villaraigosa said.

“We know it’s time to say: ‘Yes. Yes, we can. Yes, we will,’” he said. “I’m going to stand with you every step along the way ... not because it’s popular (but) because it’s the right thing for us to do.”

by Rex Wockner, San Francisco Bay Times
http://www.sfbaytimes.com/?sec=article&article_id=9989

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

New Word

Hummingbird — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:12:08 GMT

from the same people who brought us santorum
www.saddlebacking.com

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Rallies for Repeal of DOMA Jan. 10th

Hummingbird — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:48:33 GMT

Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
www.jointheimpact.com/

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

Nationwide Rallies for Marriage Equality

Hummingbird — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:45:11 GMT

November 15th www.jointheimpact.com/

posted in Gay Marriage - 11 replies

Harvey Milk Day

CCM — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 11:17:38 GMT

Hi, some people have requested that I create a location to post my ideas of action on the gay rights issue. I have never created a blog before, so it's kind of scary...

I have an idea about the vetoed Harvey Milk Day here in California. Our legislature passed a bill to have May 22 Harvey Milk Day, in honor of the first openly gay elected public official in the US. Governor Schwartzenegger, bowing to the same people who took away our marriage rights in this state, chose to veto the bill, on Sept 30th--just a few days before the election and it's aftermath that was so public.

This veto was ignored and I think we should step forward and be counted, please act:

http://ourrightstoday.blogspot.com/

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Sad? Let's do something!

CCM — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:18:59 GMT

I have an idea... President-Elect Obama has a website. And on that website they are asking for policy suggestions. Below is the civil rights section where you can make those suggestions.

If we all write his people assigned to civil rights maybe we can cause positive change right from the beginning. As it is, all these presidential candidates (Obama included) have stated that it is an issue of the state. We can see here in California that many people cannot separate their religious ideas from legal policy. We must attack the notion from that point. It must be on the federal agenda from the equal protection and separation of church and state points of view--it is a civil rights issue that must be addressed at the federal level. This is the time. Especially with a Democratic Congress. We have to force them to deal with the issue at a national level, once and forever.

Please write your ideas for policy change:

http://change.gov/agenda/civilrights/

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

How do you feel today?

jmparker — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:21:11 GMT

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

Yay California! Vote in national MSNBC poll!

fixit — Fri, 16 May 2008 01:36:17 GMT

Read the article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/

Just vote!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24651883/?previewmode=1

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Vermont is moving forward! Vote YES in this poll to show support, Please!

fixit — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:23:27 GMT

A commission is being formed to discuss dropping the whole Civil Union thing and instating true Marriage Equality for Vermonters.
(one small step for man, helping form the bigger snowball...)

We were holding steady around 74% YES yesterday, but it's been dropping, and we need help!
It's really quick, so click click click:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707260314

While I'm posting, have you signed the Human Rights Campaign Petition?
It's also very quick if you don't give your mailing address.
They're going for a million signatures, and they're up to 841,000 so far:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/millionformarriageac

Pass it on!

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

Romney - a shift for the worse?

jmparker — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 05:31:16 GMT

By MICHAEL LUO
Published: September 8, 2007

Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.

“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.

A year after his election, Massachusetts’ highest court legalized same-sex marriage, and Mr. Romney began backing adoption of a state constitutional amendment to ban it. The proposal ultimately failed, but Mr. Romney has carried the fight to the presidential campaign trail, an ever more visible crusader against such unions as he works to position himself among conservatives.

Indeed, the issue has become a bedrock of his message. He has fought same-sex marriage “every way I have known how to,” he said recently in Iowa, “and the fight isn’t over.” He has called for the federal Constitution to be amended, and he was the first presidential candidate to condemn last week’s ruling by a judge in Iowa that overturned that state’s ban on such marriages.

Mr. Romney bristles when he is accused of shifting on the issue, as he has on abortion, pointing out that he has been consistent in personally opposing both marriage and civil unions between people of the same sex.

On the stump, he usually makes a point of saying that he opposes discrimination against gays. But he refrains from details when pressed as to how he might fight it.

Jonathan Spampinato, a Republican activist who is openly gay and worked as Mr. Romney’s deputy political director during the run for governor, says he always felt that Mr. Romney was comfortable with gays. When it came to gay rights beyond the issue of marriage, Mr. Spampinato recalls, Mr. Romney asserted during that campaign that there was only the smallest difference between himself, a supporter of domestic partnership rights like survivorship and hospital visitation, and his Democratic opponent, Shannon O’Brien, who backed civil unions.

“He explained his position to Log Cabin club members early on,” Mr. Spampinato remembered, “by saying, ‘Regardless of what you call it, if you look at the benefits I support and the benefits Shannon supports, there’s probably a hair of difference.’ ”

Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage.

“It’s definitely a shift in political priorities and strategy,” he said.

Recollections by gay Republicans whom Mr. Romney courted and worked with during his campaign for governor, and in his unsuccessful run for the Senate in 1994, produce a portrait of a man they genuinely saw as their partner in their fight for broader acceptance.

After the breakfast meeting in 2002, where the Log Cabin board unanimously decided to endorse him, he said in an interview with Bay Windows, a gay newspaper, that he would use his bully pulpit as governor to lobby legislators for domestic partnership benefits.

“Those kinds of things I think I can generate a great deal of public support for,” he said, “and therefore create pressure for legislators that otherwise might not think in those terms.”

And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.

But far more express a sense of outrage at what they deem a betrayal in his current positioning.

“I didn’t see him necessarily carrying the flag with missionary zeal” for gay rights back in 2002, said Richard Babson, a Log Cabin member who was at the breakfast meeting. “But I also didn’t see him carrying the flag with missionary zeal for the other side.”

Mr. Romney’s eldest son, Tagg, 37, says that back in the early 1990s, he told his father privately that he was thinking about becoming a Democrat.

His father sat him down to dissuade him, taking him through the differences between Republicans and Democrats. Tagg Romney says he does not remember his father’s talking about abortion, another issue that has troubled his candidacy, but he does remember being warned that Democrats would lead the country toward same-sex marriage.

“He thought it was very wrong to discriminate,” Tagg Romney said. “But where Democrats are going, they’ll eventually want to extend marriage to gays. I said, ‘No way.’ ”

Even as early as 1994, when Mr. Romney challenged Edward M. Kennedy for a Senate seat, there were some Log Cabin members who harbored reservations about him. The Boston Globe published an article quoting several people who said Mr. Romney had delivered an address at a Mormon gathering that year in which he called homosexuality “perverse.”

For all of that, some activists were optimistic about him. Log Cabin members had been very supportive of William F. Weld, the Republican incumbent as governor, who was fiscally conservative but moderate on social issues. Many members of the club believed Mr. Romney would be similar, especially after meeting with him.

“He couldn’t have been more kind and interested in understanding gay rights,” said Rich Tafel, who was executive director of Log Cabin’s national organization at the time. “He struck me as a business person who just wanted to understand this issue, and he wanted to communicate that he wasn’t antigay at all.”

Leaders of the group worked with Mr. Romney’s Senate campaign to draft a letter, which he eventually released, about his commitment to gay rights. He declared that he would go beyond Mr. Kennedy’s considerable record on the issue. He pledged his support for federal legislation that barred discrimination against gay men and lesbians in employment, and praised President Bill Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for the military as a first step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly.”

“If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” he wrote. “My opponent cannot do this. I can, and will.”

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

NYC LGBT PRIDE EVENTS

SilverdenStarson — Tue, 22 May 2007 15:17:29 GMT

New York City’s Mayor’s Office and the Community Assistance Unity have denied Heritage of Pride a permit for the re-envisioned PRIDEfest, our annual street festival, however the other annual Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride events will proceed as planned.

Below is a list of events, including the date and times of each. Please visit our website, Hopinc.org, for more information.

THE RALLY
Bryant Park
42nd Street and 6th Avenue
Sunday, June 17th, 2007
2:00pm - 6:00pm

RAPTURE: A WOMEN’S DANCE
Pier 54 (13th Street @ the Hudson River)
In the Hudson River Park
Saturday, June 23rd, 2007
6:00pm - 11:00pm

THE MARCH
5th Avenue and 52nd Street to Christopher Street and Greenwich Street
Sunday, June 24th, 2007
12:00pm - End
Moment of Silence: 2:00pm

DANCE 21: THE DANCE ON THE PIER
Pier 54 (13th Street @ the Hudson River)
In the Hudson River Park
Sunday, June 24th, 2007
4:00pm - 11:00pm

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Will you please participate in my survey on masculinity?

Michael — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:13:07 GMT

Will you please participate in my survey?
I am a doctoral student seeking participants to complete a survey that explores the psychological experiences of being a man and how it influences your life. You must be a male who is 18 years of age or older

The survey will take approximately 45 minutes to complete and your participation is anonymous.

If you are interested in contributing to knowledge about how being a man impacts how you view yourself and others, please go to the following website: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=218103339703

Thank you for your help.
Michael Franco
831.480.5180
masculinitystudy@yahoo.com

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

Marriage Equality Rally, Barnstable County Court House, CapeCod, Sat.12/9/1:30p

Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:04:22 GMT

You probably saw the news coverage of Governor Romney's anti-marriage rally on the steps of the State House a few weeks ago following the legislature's vote to recess the Constitutional Convention until January 2nd. While it is obvious to almost everyone that the lame-duck governor was grandstanding for the sake of his presidential aspirations, several hundred opponents of equality turned out for the event. Yet, with little publicity or advance notice on our side, supporters of equality came out in full force to counter their message of discrimination. Now we need your help once again.

This Saturday, anti-marriage advocates are planning a rally at 1:30 PM outside the Barnstable County Courthouse. Local activists are organizing a group of marriage equality supporters to gather at the Courthouse at that time. Please join us and show your support for equality to ensure that the only messages heard on that day are not our opponents' mean-spirited attacks on same-sex couples and their families.

Marriage Equality Rally
Saturday, December 9th
1:30 PM
Barnstable County Court House
For more information, email Len Stewart at LenStewart2001@yahoo.com

Bring your homemade sign in support of equality and the 109 legislators who took a stand against discrimination. The event will not last long, so please take an hour or two out of your day and stand up to those who oppose equal rights. Please come out and show your support for equality!

Although 109 legislators took a courageous and principled stand to recess the Constitutional Convention and effectively kill the discriminatory amendment, it is increasingly likely that legislators will need to show up and take final action on the last day of the legislative session -- January 2nd. We need to demonstrate our strong support for marriage equality!

Thank you,

Matt McTighe
Political Director

MassEquality.org

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

1,138 federal marriage rights & protections denied to gays.

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 05:50:52 GMT

Rights and Protections Denied Same-Sex Partners.~ Full list @ http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16980

Because same-sex couples are denied the right to marry, same-sex couples and their families are denied access to the more than 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples. Among those are:

* The right to make decisions on a partner's behalf in a medical emergency. Specifically, the states generally provide that spouses automatically assume this right in an emergency. If an individual is unmarried, the legal "next of kin" automatically assumes this right. This means, for example, that a gay man with a life partner of many years may be forced to accept the financial and medical decisions of a sibling or parent with whom he may have a distant or even hostile relationship.

* The right to take up to 12 weeks of leave from work to care for a seriously ill partner or parent of a partner. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 permits individuals to take such leave to care for ill spouses, children and parents but not a partner or a partner's parents.

* The right to petition for same-sex partners to immigrate.

* The right to assume parenting rights and responsibilities when children are brought into a family through birth, adoption, surrogacy or other means. For example, in most states, there is no law providing a noncustodial, nonbiological or nonadoptive parent's right to visit a child - or responsibility to provide financial support for that child - in the event of a breakup.

* The right to share equitably all jointly held property and debt in the event of a breakup, since there are no laws that cover the dissolution of domestic partnerships.

* Family-related Social security benefits, income and estate tax benefits, disability benefits, family-related military and veterans benefits and other important benefits.

* The right to inherit property from a partner in the absence of a will.

*The right to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner after the loss of a job.

Such inequities impose added costs on these families, such as increased health insurance premiums, higher tax burdens and the absence of pension benefits or Social Security benefits in the event of a partner's death.

Some same-sex and transgender families consult attorneys to draw up legal documents such as powers of attorney, co-parenting agreements and wills, that will at least permit them to declare who they wish to make health care and financial decisions for them if they become incapacitated; how they wish to share parenting responsibilities or, in the event of a breakup, custody of a child; and what they want to happen to their property when they die. However, these are not a substitute for legal protection under law and cannot provide the broad range of benefits and protections provided by law.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Boston, MA State House Protest for Gay Marriage Equality Sunday 11/19/06/1p

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:13:49 GMT

Governor Romney is at it again, trying to score political points off the backs of same-sex couples and their families. Last week, by a vote of 109-87, a majority of Massachusetts legislators voted to derail our opponents' plans to write discrimination into our constitution and end marriage equality.

This Sunday afternoon, Governor Romney will lead a rally on the State House steps to further his presidential ambitions by using marriage equality as a divisive wedge issue. Since we began our campaign to protect marriage equality almost exactly three years ago, we've countered our opponents' message of fear and divisiveness with an even more powerful message of love and equality. Please join us across the street from the State House at 1 PM on Sunday to show your support for marriage equality and the Legislature's action. Bring your friends and family, along with signs displaying your support. The event will not last long, so please take an hour or two out of your day and stand up to Governor Romney and those who would take us back to a darker time.

Also, if you haven't done so already, please make sure you thank the 109 courageous legislators who took a principled stand against discrimination at last week's Constitutional Convention. Contact your legislators or see the full list.

I hope to see you at the State House this Sunday.

Thank you,

Marc Solomon
Campaign Director

MassEquality.org

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

South Africa

jmparker — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:27:45 GMT

... I'm surprised nobody else here has mentioned it yet!

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

How many of us are gay and married?

Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:09:31 GMT

My husband and I just celebrated our first wedding anniversary. How many of us are there?
BTW -- we don't know any straight couples whose marriages have ended since we got married, but three guys in my office proposed to their girlfriends since then, two within a month of our marriage. It's a tiny statistical sample, but it looks like perhaps that saw about gay marriage destroying straight marriages has it in reverse. Apparently the desire for two gay men to fly to another country to marry caused these straight couples to see greater value in marriage than they had before, and they've taken the plunge.

posted in Gay Marriage - 15 replies

Ban rejected.

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 06:48:17 GMT

We are thrilled to report that Massachusetts legislators today soundly rejected one constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and recessed the Constitutional Convention until January, thereby effectively derailing a proposed ballot measure which would have ended marriage equality in Massachusetts.

By taking this action, the Legislature sided with the majority of people in Massachusetts who believe that marriage equality is good for families and communities and that it's time to move on to more pressing matters.

In addressing two proposed constitutional amendments that would have stripped away marriage rights for same-sex couples, legislators overwhelmingly defeated the first by a 196 to 0 vote. They then moved to end the debate altogether, thereby effectively terminating our opponents' drive to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the 2008 November ballot. That vote was 109 to 87.

We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the many courageous legislators who took a principled stand to stop these discriminatory amendments. They took an historic vote that honors and protects the more than 8,500 married same-sex couples and their families. We especially want to single out the leadership of House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who was relentless in his defense of marriage equality today.

In the next few days, we will ask you to follow up with your individual legislators. In the meantime, please send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper praising today's action.

Special thanks for making today's victory possible go to our talented and hardworking staff, our dedicated board of directors, our committed coalition partners, and the thousands and thousands of you who have taken actions - both large and small - to protect marriage equality here in Massachusetts.

Because of your personal contact with legislators, your letters to the editor, your personal conversations with your family members, friends and co-workers, we have a solid victory today. Without your support, both financial and on-the-ground, today would not have been possible and marriage would still be threatened.

Yes, it is time to celebrate the protection of marriage equality in Massachusetts and I salute you.

With gratitude and admiration,

Marc Solomon
Campaign Director

MassEquality.org

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Good news from N.J.!

soxfan — Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:17:26 GMT

Although the state Supreme Court refused to force the state to grant same-sex couple marriage licenses, it said same-sex couples must be granted the same rights:

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/10/102506njRxn.htm

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Whoa! Brad Pitt's Marriage Statement

theatremama — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 21:08:07 GMT

Go Brad!
http://www.theatremama.com/ccount/click.php?id=208

Didn't see that one coming, but thought I would share!

M-

posted in Gay Marriage - 5 replies

Same-sex couples from Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts. 9/29/06

Fri, 29 Sep 2006 20:48:52 GMT

This morning, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled that same-sex couples from Rhode Island can marry in Massachusetts.
Earlier this year, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a 1913 law used to stop same-sex couples from outside Massachusetts marrying here could be applied only if a couple's home state expressly forbids same-sex marriage. While most states do expressly forbid same-sex couples from marrying, Judge Connolly ruled today that nothing in Rhode Island law "explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage." With this ruling, Rhode Island couples can now marry in Massachusetts.
This decision is significant as it means that same-sex couples from TWO states can legally marry.
We extend our heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the hardworking team of attorneys at Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) and to the plaintiffs in this case, Wendy Becker and Mary Norton of Providence.
For more information about the case, the ruling, and the potential legal implications for Rhode Islanders who might want to marry in Massachusetts, please visit GLAD online.

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

canada eh?

stephen — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:46:36 GMT

http://www.hudsonnuptials.com/same-sex-marriages.html?gclid=COLSn4CSmYcCFS4BGAodCBjZug

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Until Everyone Can- Need Suggestions!

Ali — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:42:15 GMT

Greetings!

I'm creating a website to show what people of good conscience can do to support the cause of marriage rights for everyone, and I need suggestions!

Please take a moment to look at the site, www.untileveryonecan.com; and let me know ways that people can stand up for what they believe in!

The site is still very much in it's infancy- but I would love suggestions to make it better.

Ali

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

vote for tom chambers - wa state

stephen — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:10:12 GMT

tom chambers is a washington state supreme court justice up for re-election in position 9. he voted to overturn the ban on gay marriage and we need to keep him on the bench. this election will be decided in the primary vote on sept 19, 2006. if you wait for the nov 7 general election it will already be over! ya gotta vote in the primary sept 19. supreme court positions are non--party statewide elections.

also vote for susan owens in position 2.

we don't have a good choice for position 8. gerry alexander may be the lesser of two evils.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

and now for some good news...

jmparker — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 04:49:58 GMT

By JOHN FILES
Published: August 15, 2006
WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 — The Defense Department discharged 726 service members last year for being gay, up about 10 percent from 2004, figures released by a gay rights group show.

On Monday, the legal group released a breakdown of discharges by installation. A sharp increase occurred at Fort Campbell, Ky., where in 1999 a soldier was bludgeoned to death in his barracks by fellow soldiers who thought he was homosexual. In 2004, 19 service members from the base were discharged, a number that climbed to 49 last year.

Fort Sill, Okla., had 27 dismissals last year, up from 8 in 2004. Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., had 60 dismissals, up from 40 in 2004, and the Marine base at Parris Island, S.C., discharged 22, up from 12.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

The Dark Side weakens...

jmparker — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:44:06 GMT

... from your friends at USA Today:

Senate tackles gay marriage ban
Posted 6/5/2006 4:16 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush and congressional Republicans are aiming the political spotlight this week on efforts to ban gay marriage, with events at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — all for a constitutional amendment with scant chance of passage but wide appeal among social conservatives.
"Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society," Bush said in his Saturday radio address. "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."

The president was to make further remarks Monday in favor of the amendment as the Senate opened three days of debate.

ANALYSIS: Bush tries to regain his footing on once-rock-solid conservative base

All but one of the Senate Democrats — the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska — oppose the measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year.

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.

"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

The House also is expected to take up the measure this year.

Fueled by election-year politics, the gay marriage issue is the most volatile Congress will consider as it returns from a weeklong Memorial Day recess.

Other legislation has better chances for success, particularly a record-size emergency spending bill to continue U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast.

The Pentagon says it needs its money — about $66 billion — right away or delays could begin to affect the conduct of the war in Iraq. The Senate added new relief for farmers and other aid to the package, swelling its cost to more than $100 billion. Bush is demanding that the price tag stick within his $92.2 billion request, plus $2.3 billion to combat avian flu.

An agreement could be passed this week.

The House is expected to consider a $32 billion spending bill would give the Homeland Security Department $1.8 billion more in 2007 than this year. It also is likely to send Bush a Senate-approved bill to raise indecency fines tenfold, to $325,000 per violation, for television and radio broadcasters.

Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing Tuesday on government surveillance of journalists who publish classified information, the result of probes into published reports on secret prisons overseas and the Bush administration's domestic wiretapping program.

An election-year debate on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was never in doubt, however doomed the legislation. As Republicans geared up to defend their majorities in the House and Senate, conservative groups earlier this year let them know that they were dissatisfied with the GOP's efforts on several social issues, including gay marriage.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, promptly placed the amendment on the floor schedule, with Bush's promotion central to the plan.

In his Saturday radio address, Bush cast the amendment as a defense of the stability of society and a strike back at judges who have overturned state laws similar in intent to the proposed legislation.

"In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives," Bush said. "And in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people, not by the courts."

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said Sunday that the amendment is unnecessary. "We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. ... Nobody has violated that law. There's been no challenge to that law. Why do we need a constitutional amendment?" Biden said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Parliamentary maneuvers were likely to sink the amendment for the year. Senate procedure requires two days of debate before the 100-member Senate decides — 60 votes are required — whether to consider the amendment on an up-or-down vote.

Even the amendment's proponents don't expect it to survive this first step, let alone Senate passage by the two-thirds majority needed in both houses to send it to states for ratification.

"This is important throughout the country," Sen. George Allen, R-Va., said Sunday on CNN's Late Edition. "The fact that we'll have a majority vote but not a two-thirds vote doesn't mean that you don't try."

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Let's hear it for procedural flaws!

jmparker — Wed, 17 May 2006 12:02:15 GMT

Same-Sex Marriage Amendment Is Struck Down by Georgia Judge

By SHAILA DEWAN
Published: May 17, 2006
ATLANTA, May 16 — A state amendment banning same-sex marriage was struck down Tuesday by a judge who upheld the voters' right to limit marriage to heterosexual couples but cited procedural flaws in the wording of the amendment, which was approved by more than three-quarters of voters.

The decision is one of the first successful challenges to a ban on same-sex marriage, one of a spate of similar amendments passed in 11 states in November 2004, said Jack Senterfitt, a senior staff lawyer in the Southern regional office of Lambda Legal, a national gay rights group.

Lambda Legal filed the suit along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia. Besides Georgia, 18 states have such laws, a spokeswoman for Lambda Legal said.

The Georgia amendment defined marriage as between a man and a woman, banned same-sex civil unions and said that same-sex unions performed in other states would not be recognized. The judge, Constance C. Russell of Fulton County Superior Court, ruled that the amendment violated Georgia's single-subject rule, which limits each amendment put before voters to one topic.

"People who believe marriages between men and women should have a unique and privileged place in our society may also believe that same-sex relationships should have some place, although not marriage," the judge wrote. "The single-subject rule protects the right of those people to hold both views and reflect both judgments by their vote."

Mr. Senterfitt said he expected the ruling to be appealed.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

What is special on Gay-Marriage

prayoga — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:26:28 GMT

I just repaid to a friend about my marriage picture. And I realized, YES, I have a special life, a special marriage. I wont say straight relations cannt be this way but my mother wouldn't get it if she knew all the details. So what is special about Gay-Marriage?
Here is what I had to say:
Darling I have a lovely wonderful marriage over 12 years now. I don't want another life, but gay marriage is not a prison, there is room for guests, for friends, for buddys, for pleasure, for escapes, for near faults, for anything we can imagine to explore. (Oh I'm getting carried away in romance) Anyway, you can come and hold me tight or hold us both tight or just enjoy the country and leave us behinde as old trash(JOKE).
It was a way to say I adored seeing you, and anything is posible.
LOVE
Pray ...
(or am I just carried away in Romance???)

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

An argument for Civil Disobedience

Sat, 17 Sep 2005 09:49:27 GMT

As best as I can tell, the struggle for marital equality has been largely driven by protests and lobbying. I think it's time to step it up a notch.
Here's how, and why.

How:
State, Local and Federal governments create a lot of paper work.
There are all sorts of forms out there. A lot of them ask you to list marital status. If large numbers of same-sex couples started to list themselves as married on every government form they fill out, it could create quite a headache. Yes, I'm talking about tax forms too.

Could you imagine if every couple that was married in San Francisco...
Got together on April 15th...
And went to the biggest post office in town...
And filed their state and federal taxes jointly...
While the TV cameras rolled?

Could you imagine couples in other cities doing the same?

•••••

Why:

You may ask:
Why bother? - the IRS will just send the forms back!
... So send them right on back to the IRS again!

You may say: Well then they'll just start arresting people.
...They may, but if there are enough protesters, they'll have to arrest thousands. And they'll have to do it by coming into private homes. If they do this, they lose, particularly if the arrests get videotaped.

See middle America may be homophobic, but they're usually pretty lazy about it. Saying "you can't get married" is a passive sort of oppression. They don't have to drag anybody to jail, they just refuse to issue certain documents.

Oppression becomes a lot more difficult when the victim dares his oppressor to act. Think about the riots years ago in San Francisco and New York. People saw gays being violently mistreated, and some of them started to sympathize. This was a great source of momentum.

••••

So, let me summarize my suggested plan:
1. Gays and Lesbians around the country should file their state and federal income taxes jointly, at well publicized events. For good measure, everybody also vows to list themselves as married on Driver's License renewals, deeds, and absolutely any other official document.

2. Next, well publicized letter opening parties: The govenment will inevitably send notices saying that the joint filings are not allowed. Gays and Lesbians around the country can get together at well publicized events, open the notices, and burn them.

3. The government then has two choices: Arrest a lot of people, or surrender. If they surrender, great. If they decide to be mean, they'll have to do it on camera, and every viedo clip will be a nail in the coffin of homophobia. People don't like to see oppression. The way it is now, they can look the other way. That has to change. If couples are hauled off in cuffs, on camera, just for decclaring their love to the state, something major will start to give way.

So that's it, that's my plan. Any comments?

posted in Gay Marriage - 8 replies

gay marriage

ken — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 06:29:05 GMT

I live in canada, one of the first countries to acknowledge gay marriage.

We are into an election where the likely winner is about to deny this rite.

I am embarassed by this turm around.

Please be assured that we the gays and lesbians of canada will fight to retain our rites.

WE need your support, as the George w. bush effect has an impact here.

thanks for your support

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

What is more important?

Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:07:08 GMT

The fact that homosexuals are suffering horrible abuses by our legal system every day is lower on the piority list than the fewer than half of homosexuals who desire relationship equality is disgusting. Why should I want married tax status over freeing homosexuals wrongfuly imprisioned by our justice system? Where is the justice in that? Let fags die in prision as long as society reconises my relationship first? How selfish, how evil, how WRONG!

http://www.freebaran.org/

Go to that website and then tell me marriage equality is more important than basic freedoms such as the right to not be wrongfully imprisioned. Marriage is a luxury compaired to basic freedoms.

I have been in my relationship for 20 years, and my relationship is very important to me, but I reconise where it's importance is, and that is lower than basic freedom rights.

Tolver.

posted in Gay Marriage - 4 replies

Yay South Africa!

soxfan — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:39:07 GMT

South Africa's constitutional court has ruled that the country's "one man, one woman" definition of marriage is unconstitutional:

http://365gay.com/Newscon05/12/120105safMarr.htm

posted in Gay Marriage - 5 replies

T-minus 24 hours - ‘MATURE’ queer/trans/str8 dive bar & grill on tribe.net LAUNCHES NOW - OUR reveal party prior to 12/20 & your liberty & libations are on the house!

Bob 69 — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 10:11:00 GMT

Greetings to those disgruntled by Tribe.net recent course of action in our ‘peer to peer’ Internet community which includes all my brothers and sisters,

I myself who just joined Tribe.net on Thanksgiving, have had one hell of a roller-coaster ride of awesome highs AND the disturbing arrival of the low-down reality of ‘status quo’ censorship.

I’ve always done my best to face challenge ‘head on’. Whether it be a silicon melt-down or coming up with a solution for what really pisses this faggot off!

Therefore instead of bolting Tribe.net, I’ve decided to hang and find out who will eventually win the ‘War of Liberty”. So after giving it much thought I’ve decided to started a new tribe as pf 12/18/05 AND I’m inviting you especially to take a ‘peek’ and check it out..

This new tribe in no way is meant to take any thunder away from any 'alternative tribes’ of which I’m a proud member of.

With the moderator’s permission I’d like to invite you to visit this new ‘mature’ tribe today, Monday December 16, 2005 while it’s still on ‘moderated’ status before it becomes ‘private’ and by sent only invitation tomorrow (on Tuesday).

The URL is:

http://tribes.tribe.net/queerthinktank?_click_path=Application%5Btribe%5D.Tribe%5B09ffbf11-1a37-48b7-a79d-cf1dd84f6266%5D

If for some reason the link above doesn’t work today, send me a message and I’ll get you in anyway.

As of 5:00 PM PST/11:00 PM EST TODAY this invitation thread will be no more on all tribes that it’s posted to.

The newly formed 'Queer Think Tank' tribe, is a 'MATURE' trans-generational meeting place, all-inclusive watering hole, trash salon, mobile dive bar & grill where liberty is on tap.

As I previously said, I've only been a member of Tribe.net since Thanksgiving and this 'newbie' is very appreciative that in a short period of time I've met people like you who choose to include me & help me out WHILE watching my back in the process for which I’m truly grateful for.

Now it’s my turn to return the favor.

YES MAM', SIR, and/or it; the 'Queer Think Tank' tribe is a private 'MATURE' trans-generational, all-inclusive watering hole, roadhouse & trash salon group on Tribe.net.

Thank you for your time and consideration, BTW you ROCK, thank you for your time and consideration and have a great week!

Now, where's that voice of liberty anyway? I know they’re around here somewhere.

Peace, understanding, peace & let’s get this party started,
Bob 69

PS, Even though the 'Queer Think Tank' tribe is now 'open for business' please expect much more by the end of this year. You know how a pre-release reveal party can get & "the show must go on" & Daddy needs to ‘chill’ for 72 hours.

FYI, This weekend my laptop decided to have a temper tantrum and I had a m*ther f*ckin’ "tiger by the tail" with no cage in sight, but now the beasty Mr. Happy seems to be behaving himself once again. After all, he’s just a wild-eyed and boisterous silicon chip off the old block. Anyway…

I've launching the tribe yesterday; December 18, 2005 before Tribe.net changes it's TOU policy and institutes 'community flagging' because of federal enforcement of '18 U.S.C. Section 2257' on December 20, 2005.

At your EARLIEST convenience TODAY, I implore you to check out the description of 'Queer Think Tank' and decide for yourself, if it's serving up what can quench your thirst or at least, wet your whistle.

IF you know of other tribe member who might like to join this 'MATURE' group of "ill repute & intellectual & social pursuits" please by all means, point them in our direction and ask them to send me a message!

Thank you.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Connecticute Civil Unions start today!

Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:02:39 GMT

my home-state :)

Connecticut will begin performing civil unions on Saturday, joining Vermont as the only two states in the country offering this particular form of legal recognition to same-sex couples.

"Saturday is going to be a landmark day in the civil rights movement in Connecticut," said the sponsor of the civil union bill, state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, one of the few openly gay legislators in Connecticut's General Assembly.

LGBT activists are planning several ceremonies for Saturday, including one officiated by Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy, who's running for governor.

Lawmakers passed Connecticut's civil union law in April without a court order, unlike the civil unions in Vermont or same-sex marriages in Massachusetts.

While Connecticut will recognize Vermont's civil unions and California's domestic partnerships, it will not recognize same-sex marriages from Massachusetts because state law specifies marriage is between a man and a woman.

Connecticut's civil unions, which will not be available to heterosexual couples, will give same-sex couples the same legal protections of married couples. However, once a couple with a civil union leaves the state, those protections evaporate, since the federal government defines a spouse as someone of the opposite gender.

"Our rights end at the state line," said Kix Ryen, who is planning on getting her civil union license on Saturday with her partner Cathy Ryen.

"I think it's a wonderful step in the right direction. I think most people who support civil unions but oppose same-sex marriage will eventually learn that there is a difference between the two," Ryen told the PlanetOut Network.

"In Connecticut we will both be recognized as the child's parent," Ryen said of the child she's expecting in seven months. "But we were advised to have a second-parent adoption because federally our union will not be recognized."

Ryen added she was lucky her town hall is open this weekend to grant the license, since many others will be closed at that time.

"I think you will see less of a rush on Saturday and more of a steady trickle," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, the organization that at one time fought the civil union law before finally embracing it.

"We're pleased that significant rights and privileges are being extended to same-sex couples, but obviously we want same-sex marriage," Stanback said, adding she hoped lawmakers would consider marriage equality again in 2007.

"We actually have a lawsuit going," she said. "It was filed in August 2004 by GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders). It will probably be another several years before that case is completed." Arguments are scheduled for January for the lawsuit brought by eight same-sex Connecticut couples.

The civil union law is also creating confusion with some employers who will be required to extend health benefits to same-sex couples.

"I think employers are going to start getting requests (for benefits) as soon as Monday. And they're not prepared," Bruce Barth, an employee benefits attorney at Robinson and Cole in Hartford, told the Associated Press (AP).

Health insurance for civil partners, for example, will be taxed by the federal government as income because couples are not considered married under federal law.

"There is certainly a level of complexity that benefit administrators are going to have to deal with," Michael Dimenstein, director of compensation and benefits for the Yale-New Haven Health System, told the AP.

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, about 7,400 same-sex couples live in Connecticut, but there's no estimate on how many will seek civil unions.

"We're ready," said Sandra Hutton, president of the Connecticut Town Clerk's Association. "We have the proper documentation. We won't have any problems at all."

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

HRC pledge - take back Congress in 2006

soxfan — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:35:11 GMT

Join HRC's "One year out - count me in" campaign -- take Congress back from the right-wingers in 2006:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/1yrout

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Ask your senator to defeat the FMA

soxfan — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:04:13 GMT

Today the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing on the Federal Marriage Amendment -- as if, with everything else going on, they don't have enough to do. Tell your senator to stop wasting time and money on discriminatory legislation:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/Stop_FMA_1005hearingb/

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Please take a moment to call CA Governor

Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:33:08 GMT

Where are all the Marriage posts?!

As you know, CA is so close to the passage of a same-sex marriage bill. All that is needed now is the Governor's signature. Even though he's threatened to veto it, he HASN'T yet. Here is an opportunity to tell him that the people of CA are for legalizing same-sex marriage. So please call him! It only takes a few seconds.

Call his office at (916) 445-2841 and follow these simple steps. (You don't even have to talk to anyone!)

1. Press "2" to comment on legislation
2. Press "1" to comment on AB 849 (AB 849 is the gender neutral bill that will allow same-sex couples to marry)
3. Press "1" to support it

I assume the 'radical right' is also calling. So please forward this to your friends and family who might lend their support.

THANKS,
Craig

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

touch-tone democracy

loganotron — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:29:43 GMT

If you're so inclined:

1. Call the Governor: 916-445-2841
(This number is listed at http://www.governor.ca.gov)
2. Push: 2 (voice your opinion on legislation)
3. Push: 1 (gender-neutral marriage bill - Senate Bill 849)
4. And push: 1 to support marriage equality

it takes about 30 seconds to do...

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

What are the Real OBjections?

railoi — Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:58:52 GMT

So... it seems that objections are the following:

Due to "common law marrage" laws any people living together could be concidered married "even str8 roommates" (phobia strikes again)

Religous - (actually a problem in peoples minds ) supporting marrage of "homo's" doesn't mean that any particular "Church" has to support that union. (Certian religions believe in polygamy - yet another issue)

secular - Marrage is designed to protect family units for procreation and the furtharence of society -- and there for benifits should not be given to people who choose not to procreate in the "standard way"

posted in Gay Marriage - 4 replies

Why Can't Religious Leaders Sign Domestic Partner Forms

Sat, 20 Aug 2005 02:03:52 GMT

In California, a religious leader cannot sign a domestic partnership form. You have to get it notorized. It is a second class way to enter into something that supposedly gives you all the California state's rights of marriage (i.e. community property) but you have to get it notorized. A religious leader cannot sign it. It is insulting. I have raised my concern with a Los Angeles leader and she is going to bring the issue up at a multi-faith meeting in September. Hopefully someone can end this discriminatory policy.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

MassEquality.org petition

soxfan — Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:20:28 GMT

A letter I received the other day from MassEquality

Dear xxxx,

Today, our opponents officially open a new front in their efforts to take away marriage equality. A coalition of vehemently anti-gay organizations -- including national groups like Focus on the Family and local groups such as the Catholic Conference and the Massachusetts Family Institute -- today filed a new amendment with the attorney general. The amendment would take away the right of gay couples to marry and leave them with no protections for their families whatsoever.

If the attorney general certifies this language, our opponents will begin collecting signatures this fall to try to put this new amendment on the ballot. Make no mistake about it -- these groups are powerful and extreme (Focus on the Family alone has an annual budget of over $100 million), and will stop at nothing to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry in Massachusetts.

While we fight this effort, we continue to work hard to defeat the amendment that was approved in last year's constitutional convention. That amendment would take away marriage equality and replace it with separate-and-unequal civil unions. We expect the legislature to vote on this amendment sometime this fall.

We are asking for your help in two ways. First, it has never been more important that you ask your friends, family members, neighbors, and others to sign the equality petition. We need as many people as possible -- gay and non-gay-- to register their support for marriage equality (our opponents have pledged to collect 130,000 signatures for the new anti-gay amendment). To do so, simply click here; we've made it easy for you to send them an email asking them to do so. (http://www.massequality.org/May17/petition/index.php)

Second, our work to defeat both amendments at once will stretch us as we have not been stretched before. Please consider making a contribution today. Whether $500, $100, or $25, your dollars are needed now more than ever before.

Working together, we will ensure that gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts will preserve the right to marry far into the future.

Sincerely,

Marty Rouse
Campaign Director
MassEquality

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Discriminatory Ballot Measure in California

maxx_la — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:04:27 GMT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 25, 2005

EQUALITY CALIFORNIA AND EQUALITY FOR ALL DENOUNCE MEAN-SPIRITED BALLOT INITIATIVE TO ENSHRINE DISCRIMINATION IN THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Measure Would Repeal and Permanently Ban Existing Safety Net for Legally Recognized Domestic Partners

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – An unprecedented coalition of diverse organizations today denounced a proposed constitutional amendment that would repeal the existing safety net for legally recognized domestic partners and permanently ban marriage protections for same-sex couples. The announcement comes in response to the California Attorney General’s authorization for sponsors of the measure to begin collecting signatures to qualify it for the ballot it for 2006. (Click Here to Read the Title and Summary)
"This extreme measure is nothing short of a nuclear weapon being launched at lesbian and gay Californians," said Geoffrey Kors, Executive Director of Equality California, California's LGBT Advocacy Organization. "It would totally wipe out all existing legal protections for legally recognized domestic partners and their children, leaving families vulnerable and placing children at risk. Equality California has been the lead organization working to obtain these legal protections for California, and we will continue working with our coalition partners to make sure that these rights, supported by both Democratic and Republican Governors, are not repealed," Kors added.

Equality California, and our more than 40 chapters across California, have been working for more than 2 years in anticipation of this type of assault by educating their communities and identifying voters who support equality. We have identified hundreds of thousands of Californians who support equality and have built a statewide coalition of LGBT and non-LGBT organizations who are standing together to fight this attack on our rights.
“The impact of this amendment would be devastating to hundreds of thousands of California families by taking away nearly all the responsibilities and protections currently afforded to legally recognized domestic partners,” said Sid Voorakkara, interim campaign manager, Equality for All. “Californians have a long history of rejecting discrimination and we are confident they will reject this attempt to single out one group of Californians for permanent second class status.”
Later this week, the Attorney General is expected to announce that two other measures with similar language may be placed in circulation for signature gathering. Any one of the measures, if passed, would deny California couples the ability to make medical, financial, and funeral decisions for themselves and their families. All three amendments would require a tax increase on property jointly owned by unmarried same-sex and senior citizen couples, upon the death of either partner.
In Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, and Utah, which passed similar constitutional amendments last November, the amendments have already been used as justification for denying domestic partner benefits, weakening domestic violence laws as they apply to unmarried couples and revoking custody agreements between same-sex couples.
“We have seen the effects of similar amendments passed in other states last year and their impact is real and immediate, not only to same-sex couples, but to thousands of other unmarried couples, ” continued Voorakkara. “The organizations behind this initiative have a long history of pushing an anti-gay agenda and they will run a campaign of lies and deceit to win.”
The Equality for All campaign launched in May 2005 to defeat any proposed ballot initiative that would amend California’s constitution to permanently deny marriage protections for same-sex couples and eliminate the rights, protections and responsibilities afforded to legally recognized domestic partners.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Join HRC's "Team Supreme"

soxfan — Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:57:03 GMT

Sign up for HRC e-mails and action items concerning the choice of a Supreme Court justice:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/teamsupreme

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Two new HRC petitions

soxfan — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 14:22:48 GMT

Tell Scott Bloch to do his job:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/bloch_urge

End the unfair tax on domestic partner benefits:
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/dptax_senate_urge

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

double

jmparker — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 13:53:55 GMT

The number of countries worldwide with equal marriage rights DOUBLES this summer.

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Ask your rep to cosponsor health coverage for domestic partners

soxfan — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:10:22 GMT

Ask your representative to sign on to the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, which would extend health insurance coverage to domestic partners:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/dpbo_house_urge

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Ask your rep to support immigration benefits for same-sex foreign partners

soxfan — Tue, 14 Jun 2005 21:14:25 GMT

Sign HRC's petition to ask your rep to cosponsor the Uniting American Families Act:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/uafa_house_urge

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Oppose Pryor's nomination

soxfan — Mon, 06 Jun 2005 20:07:32 GMT

Urge your senators not to confirm a judge who might roll back equal rights:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/opposepryornomination/

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Latest HRC newsletter ...

soxfan — Fri, 27 May 2005 13:22:27 GMT

... for anyone who's not on their mailing list:

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/actioncenter/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=3342867

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

California Judge could use our support

Sinnerjee — Tue, 12 Apr 2005 03:53:45 GMT

i received the following message today.

while i am personally not 100% in favor of marriage,
i AM 100% against harassment and threats of violence directed at folks who make a stand for what they believe is right.

Subject: Please write in support of Judge Kramer, the rule of law, and civil rights for gay & lesbian partners.

Dear friends and colleagues,

A judge is being followed 24/7 by bodyguards to protect him against
death threats and hate mail that he has been receiving. You might think this story comes from Iraq, but it's happening in San Francisco right now. It's happening to Judge Richard Kramer, who recently issued a historic decision that determined it is against California's state constitution to deny civil marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

According to a good friend of mine who speaks with Judge Kramer
regularly, Judge Kramer is depressed that mail against his decision
outnumbers mail in favor by a ratio of 10 to 1. He is depressed
because he is bathing daily in a bath of vituperation and hatred. He
is depressed because the people who oppose his decision are not
interested in the rule of law but the rule of ideologies and emotions.

So I am asking you a favor: Please take out your pen - yes, your pen, I ask for your hand in this - and write Judge Kramer a brief note of support.

If you live out of state, explain how it might touch and affect you to
know that a California judge has had the courage to interpret the law scrupulously and in accordance with the evidence and our fundamental principles of equal justice for all, as our system requires.

Please note that Judge Kramer is known to be a conservative and prudent jurist. He is a married Catholic and a Republican, and was appointed to the bench by a Republican. So it is difficult to write off his opinion as one biased by a liberal or personal agenda.

And please, forward this email on to your own list, and ask your friends and colleagues to write as well.
If we do not support and defend people who act with integrity and stand up for what is right, who will?

Your letter should be sent to:

Judge Richard Kramer
CIVIC CENTER COURTHOUSE
400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102-4514

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

GOP consultant marries partner

jmparker — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 10:53:11 GMT

from the NYTimes
G.O.P. Consultant Weds His Male Partner
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Published: April 9, 2005

ASHINGTON, April 8 - Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.

Advertisement

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.

He declined further comment on the wedding, which was in December.

Some of Mr. Finkelstein's associates said they were startled to learn that this prominent American conservative had married a man, given his history with the party, especially at a time when many Republican leaders, including President Bush, have campaigned against same-sex marriage and proposed amending the Constitution to ban it. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy. He was identified as gay in a Boston Magazine article in 1996.

One of Mr. Finkelstein's associates, who declined to speak on the record, citing Mr. Finkelstein's desire for privacy, said Mr. Finkelstein did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. This associate argued that over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.

Mr. Finkelstein's associates declined to provide his spouse's name. He was married at his home by a gay state official, whose name and office were not released. The ceremony was attended by relatives of both men, a few friends and a state legislator, an attendee said.

None of Mr. Finkelstein's better-known political clients, among them Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York, attended, that person said. Several of Mr. Finkelstein's long-term political associates said that he had not told them about the wedding, and that they had learned about it from a reporter.

The wedding was disclosed by an associate of Mr. Finkelstein's, and he confirmed it in the interview.

Mr. Finkelstein has frequently come under criticism by gay rights groups for representing politicians who have been ardent foes of gay rights. He helped create the template for a line of attack he repeatedly invoked against Democrats, including Mario M. Cuomo of New York, describing them as liberal.

In Israel, Mr. Finkelstein used similar attacks against the Labor Party as an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and as a consultant to the winning and losing campaigns of Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government. In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.

Details of Mr. Finkelstein's relationship have appeared in regular news accounts over the years, as they did in the Boston Magazine article, which reported that Mr. Finkelstein lived with his partner and two children in Ipswich, Mass.

Still, some conservative friends said Mr. Finkelstein's marriage would roil conservatives and highlight divisions among them over the importance of social issues to their movement.

"In recent years, Arthur hasn't pretended to be a social conservative," said one longtime conservative associate, who cited Mr. Finkelstein's aversion to publicity in declining to be identified. "But this is the same man who was the architect of Jesse Helms's political rise."

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

If a Contstitutional ban does happen...

Amber — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:59:38 GMT

Forgive me if this has been mentioned before. I've been really busy the last few months and haven't had time to read or post. But I've been really worrying a lot about this topic lately.

If a Contstitutional ban does unfortunately happen (which I hope it doesn't, but I can't fortell the future), would that mean that no one ever would be allowed to change it in the future when hopefully people are more educated and understanding towards orientations?

Does a constitutional ammendment stand forever or can it be struck down? I know laws can be struck down, but in my understanding, (and forgive me if I'm wrong...I don't know a lot about politics and government) what's in the Constitution can't be changed once it's there...like freedom of speach and all that. Will marriage forever be the priviledge of just those who fit a certain stereotype of what's traditional (despite the fact polygamy came before the current traditional marriage definition...and the fact that blacks couldn't marry whites -- or am I wrong on that last one too?)

Anyway, forgive any mistakes I may have quoted. Like I said, I don't know a lot about this, but it seems that the reasoning behind Bush and his like-minded minions wanting such an ammendment would be because it would have permanant status for as long as the government as we know it exists. Am I wrong here? I hope so. Please help me out with this because that would severly impair future generations to make progress in human rights and equality. And it seems to me that that's the idea behind Bush's proposal and the intentions of him and his followers.

I mean, what if 100 years ago there was an addition to the constitution that stated black people could never marry whites, vote, or whatever other limitation they, in their ancient mindsets, deemed was necessary to the preservation of the white society that this country was built on? That sounds very much like the words they speak now regarding what our society was supposedly built on.

But the fact is that you can't base today and tomorrow and the entire future on what was considered moral, or right, or wrong, or traditional in the past. We slowly learn and become more civilized and understanding of others (though it takes some real arm twisting for some people to give up certain things) and realize that the things we believed about people in the past were based on ignorance, misinformation, stereotypes, and whatnot...at least some of us do.

The fact that there still exists a KKK (though not nearly as large in membership and visibility) proves that there will always be people who hold on to discrimination, probably due to the fact that it makes insecure people feel like they are better than someone and serve some sort of purpose in trying to keep those that are "less worthy" or "heathens" or whatever in fear or something. They want to make sure that they will never feel completely as if they are a full member of society.

I realize and unfortunately accept the fact that there will always be those that hate (or as some say "not hate the person but hate the sin") gay people and those that have learned from peers, parents, or whoever that homosexuality is "gross" and affiliation with someone who is such would cause their own reputation to be in question, etc.

Anyway, I've typed quite a bit, so I'll stop about now...sorry about that. But the bottom line is the question I asked at the beginning of the topic, "If a Contstitutional ban does unfortunately happen, would that mean that no one ever would be allowed to do away with it or somehow fix it in the future?"

Please, if there are people on here who know about this kind of thing, please help me out. It's been bothering me for too long.

Amber
http://www.saphronstar.com

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

TALK ABOUT A NO BRAINER.........

Fri, 18 Feb 2005 23:19:03 GMT

from jill...

Hello everyone. It will be interesting to see who responds! I told a guy that I could find 300 people who believe in gay marriage before he could find 300 people who do not believe in gay marriage. If you believe in gay marriage, please copy and paste this onto a blank e-mail form (leaving off the headers). or repost it..

Add your name and send it to your friends and family or repost it. If you happen to be the 300th person signing this, please send it back

to, Andrew Nelson. His e-mail address is: Rnbowzrok4evr@aol.com

Thanks!

1)Taylor

2) Jeremy

3)DUSTIN OH YEAH BABY

4) Michael (equality baby)

5)Doran

6. Ryan

7. Jason

8. Stephanie

9. Heather.

10. Misty

11. Jeremiah

12. Katy Calvin

13. Katy Davy

14. Jamie

15. Angel

16. Roxy

17. Fernando

18. MATTT

19. Matt Moo

20. Joseph

21. Chrix

22. Greg

23. jenn

24.christine

25.christina

26. Patrick

27.Jill

28.Melissa

29.Krystal

30. Al

31. Matt G.

32. Valerie

33Heather

34. Steve

35. Karl

36. Paul

37.Christine

38. Daniella

39. Phillip

40. Mike

41. Charlotte

42) Katie

43. Malika

44 Joshua

45. Irma

46.Liz

47. Alyssa

48. Michael

49.Doug

50. Justin

51. Peter

52. Lindsey

53. David

54. Fawn

55.Deborah

56. Jenna

57. Kate

58. Dennis

59. Jennie-Marie

60. malibu mike murphy

61. joanna

62. lea

63. joshua

64. Nicole

65. Rina

66. Jill V

67. Alex K

68. Lorna H

69. Melissa L

70. Jill S.

80. Melissa S.

81. Terry S.

82. Trasbin S.

83. Geoph P.

posted in Gay Marriage - 10 replies

Too quiet for such an amazing day!!!

Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:47:42 GMT

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/031405CalMarr.htm

GREAT READ!

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

No. 36

Sat, 09 Oct 2004 16:08:00 GMT

from www.noon36.com

Only 24 days left until the election!

Q: What is Constitutional Amendment 36 and what would it do?
A: Constitutional Amendment 36 would change our state Constitution to treat gays and lesbians unequally by banning gay marriage.

Q: Why should Oregon voters vote No on Constitutional Amendment 36?
A: Constitutional Amendment 36 might seem simple but it goes beyond banning gay marriage. It hurts real people by putting unequal treatment for gays and lesbians into our Constitution. Do we really want to deny thousands of Oregon children and families health insurance, fair inheritance and the ability to make life-saving medical decisions? We may disagree about social issues such as marriage but those disagreements do not belong in our Constitution. Vote NO on Constitutional Amendment 36.

Q: What makes you think that this campaign is winnable? No other state has been able to stop this.

A: Our polling shows this race is a statistical dead-heat with neither side over 50%. While other states have passed similar amendments, we all know Oregon is different. We have successfully defeated three anti-gay ballot measures in the past 12 years. We also know the more we talk to voters about the real harms of Constitutional Amendment 36, the more they reject it.

Q: What would this Constitutional Amendment do to the same-sex couples already married in Oregon?

A: We don’t know for sure; the marriages could be invalidated. We do know that if Constitutional Amendment 36 passes, gay and lesbian couples will be locked out of critical protections like health care coverage (or access), pension and property rights and the ability to make lifesaving medical decisions for a loved one.

Q. I think we should leave marriage alone and just push for civil unions.

A. Civil unions, even at their best, do not provide the same broad recognition in law as marriage. We should continue a conversation in Oregon about civil unions and marriage, but we can’t assume the Legislature will ever pass civil unions. So we shouldn’t put unequal treatment of gays and lesbians into our Constitution, especially without any assurance that their rights will be protected by future legislation.

Q. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. Voting Yes is the only way I can support that.

A. Oregonians may disagree about social issues such as marriage. But, social disagreements don’t belong in our Constitution. You do not have to approve of gay marriage to vote no.

Q: Gay people can’t marry in Oregon now, so if this passes it doesn’t really change anything right?

A: Constitutional Amendment 36 does change the Oregon Constitution to say that it is OK to treat gay and lesbian Oregonians unequally. This amendment will harm real Oregonians by denying many families access to health care, inheritance rights and the ability to make lifesaving medical decisions.

Q. Will my church have to perform gay weddings if Constitutional Amendment 36 is defeated?

A. No church has ever been required to perform any ceremony outside its tradition. This will not change, regardless of whether Measure 36 is defeated.

Q. This isn’t really discrimination because you can get everything you need from legal contracts, right?

A. There are times when legal contracts can protect families in times of crisis, but even the most ironclad documents don’t work in every case. Gay and lesbian Oregonians should not be treated unequally by having to seek out costly and complicated legal protections for their families.

Q. If we don’t draw the line now, where and when will we draw it? What will we allow next?

A. Voting No on Constitutional Amendment 36 does not change marriage in Oregon. Marriage will always remain a personal commitment between two otherwise unmarried adults, who agree to share love, commitment and responsibility.

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

write your senator

jmparker — Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:19:09 GMT

at

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/senate_mpa_oppose

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

so hum huh what where do i go?

Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:19:15 GMT

Me and my boyfreind are wanting to get married this coming spring, we had planned on going to Hawaii, but i have heard they placed a ban on gay marriage, is vermont the only only place left in the us where homosexual couples can get a completly legal union? Is there any plans of action to ban it in Vermont? I know i probably sound misinformed , i never watch tv and the gay radio puts me right to sleep ,lol.

posted in Gay Marriage - 4 replies

Same Sex Marriage in Canada

mel-o-nee — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:20:16 GMT

Yay! We got it!
And New Zealand [my other citizenship] has approved a marriage-like union for gay couples.

Here's a website run by a friend, it's really quite good.
"Free vote on same-sex marriage" http://www.marriagevote.ca/

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

South Africa

Dr_SteveSS — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:27:54 GMT

What's happening in South Africa, you might ask? About the same thing that's happening here:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20041220100705182C944364

And S.A. has one of (if not the most) far-reaching and encompassing Constitutions, as far as gay rights are concerned, in the world.

This will be an interesting case to watch, I suspect.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Is it not amazing how this issue is getting treated

Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:04:23 GMT

I am surprised it is even a daggon issue. I get into a debate about gay marriage ALL the time, some people think i AM gay. (I an actually bi). It is just absolutely absurd that people give a rat's ass who someone else chooses to sleep with at night. I am amazed, and pissed!

posted in Gay Marriage - 4 replies

gay "A Wedding Story"

Jules/C — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:43:17 GMT

here's something to look forward to
the tv show "A Wedding Story" on The Learning Channel
is profiling a gay wedding between 2 women

the show will be title "Shana and Kelli" or ("Kelli and Shana")
and air sometime around january

i know this because i was the dj at the wedding!

keep a look out for it, it is the first same-sex wedding of the tv series

cheers,
Julie aka djshakey

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

1:30pm gay marriage on TV TODAY!! thurs. 12/2

Jules/C — Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:32:56 GMT

airing thursday 12/2, also look for frequent repeats

Hi friends,

I dj'd a wedding that was videotaped for the show "A Wedding Story"
It is the first "same sex" wedding being shown on the series!
the title is "Kelli and Shayna" (btw, Shayna is misspelled in the TLC schedule, it should be Shana..)
it's showing on The Learning Channel at 1:30pm EST

i am very curious of the reaction america will have to this show.
as a participant, i found it very touching, the toasts were awesome.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Church Ad banned on NBC and CBS/Gay book ban

Dr_SteveSS — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 23:15:03 GMT

New York (CNN/Money) - CBS has refused to run an ad by a liberal church promoting the acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation because the network believes the ad is advocacy advertising.

The church also says the ad was banned on NBC.

The 30-second spot, run by the United Church of Christ, features two muscle-bound bouncers standing outside a church, selecting people who could attend service and those who could not. Among those kept out are two males who appear to be a couple. Written text then appears saying, in part, "Jesus didn't turn people away, neither do we."

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/01/news/fortune500/jesus_ad_ban/

And in a related story:

Gay Book Ban Goal of State Lawmaker

Montgomery - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.

A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."

"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.

Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.

"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.

...<snip>...

Allen said no state funds should be used to pay for materials that foster homosexuality. He said that would include nonfiction books that suggest homosexuality is acceptable and fiction novels with gay characters. While that would ban books like "Heather has Two Mommies," it could also include classic and popular novels with gay characters such as "The Color Purple," "The Picture of Dorian Gray" and "Brideshead Revisited."

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml

This is very frightening to me. It is the beginning of the end. When a government controls the mass media, however circumspectly, it spells the end of democracy. 49% of the country knew, or at least had some underlying fear, that this would happen. I just didn't think it would happen so soon.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Santa Barbara

politically coverdup — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 21:50:09 GMT

Hello all-

I just started a Gay in Santa Barbara tribe.

For those of us who are, you know how limited SB is... so I hope this helps. Join!
B-Dup

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Great website

lawaynew — Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:30:17 GMT

Check out www.sorryeverybody.com and look in the gallery.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

Shane — Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:05:27 GMT

Hey everyone! I sent the following letter to the editor of my local papers in response to anti-gay rights letters. Thought you all might enjoy.
Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

Dear Editor,

Let me start by saying everyone’s soul is their own responsibility. However, I feel like someone needs to speak up and at least get the conversation going. It’s kind of a shame that when the founding fathers insured freedom of religion, they didn’t phrase it “freedom from religion.” I struggle with my faith, however, like most Christians, I pick and choose which parts of the Bible I will follow. For instance, I don’t greet other Christians with a Holy kiss, or believe witches should be killed, or believe in slavery or believe people should have multiple spouses, etc. I have studied New Testament Greek and can argue that the New Testament says nothing about homosexuality. But, I try to tread carefully when speaking to others about spiritual issues. Who am I to tell others how they are to live or what they must believe? That would be like me trying to remove the speck from someone else’s eye while having a beam sticking out of my own. But, at the same time, who are others to tell me how I am supposed to live or what I must believe? I believe “With Liberty and Justice for All” should apply to all people, not just the majority. The problem, as I see it, is that American Christians, today, have an extremely short memory. We like to forget things that are inappropriate in today’s society. For instance, the History Channel reports, the Church convicted over 40,000 people in the 1600’s for being werewolves and the majority put to death. People were suspected if they had eyebrows that connected or rough palms, which was evidence that the person had been shaving their palms. We prefer to believe Church leaders are infallible or at least on the right track. We forget that Hitler was a Christian and performed atrocities in the name of God. By the way, homosexuals were rounded up by the Nazis and put to death in the concentration camps also. And some Right Wing leaders in America still believe homosexuality should be punishable by death. (Pat Robertson included it in his platform when he was running for President.) Now, setting aside Christianity, there are other religions that support and affirm same sex marriage. Certain Jewish groups (Reconstructionist and Reform), Buddhist sects, Druid, Wicca, Pagans, Earth Religions, Native and Aboriginal religions, etc. have no problems with same sex unions. Freedom of religion would seem to support the concept that if your religion supports a union, the government has no right to claim the union invalid. If marriage is a religious institution, should atheists be denied the right to get married even if they are male and female? The interesting thing is that my spouse and I were married (it was called a Holy Union) in a Christian church in a Christian ceremony. So, why is our union not considered the same as other unions? Don’t we all have equal protection under the law? Apparently not.

Shane Hicks-Lee
Blossburg, PA

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

how the grinch stole marriage - haha!

Jules/C — Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:46:56 GMT

How the Grinch Stole Marriage

by Mary Ann Horton, Lisa and Bill Koontz
(with apologies to Dr. Suess.)

Every Gay down in Gayville liked Gay Marriage a lot......
But the Grinch, who lived just east of Gayville, did NOT!!
The Grinch hated happy Gays! The whole Marriage season!
Now, please don't ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right.
It could be, perhaps, his Florsheims were too tight.
But I think the most likely reason of all was
His heart and brain were two sizes too small.
"And they're buying their tuxes!" he snarled with a sneer,
"Tomorrow's the first Gay Wedding! It's practically here!"
Then he growled, with his Grinch fingers nervously drumming,
"I MUST find some way to stop Gay Marriage from coming!"
For, tomorrow, he knew... All the Gay girls and boys
would wake bright and early. They'd rush for their vows!
And then! Oh, the Joys! Oh, the Joys!
And THEN they'd do something he liked least of all!
Every Gay down in Gayville the tall and the small,
would stand close together, all happy and blissing.
They'd stand hand-in-hand. And the Gays would start kissing!
"I MUST stop Gay Marriage from coming! ...But HOW?"
Then he got an idea! An awful idea!
THE GRINCH GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA!
"I know what to do!" The Grinch laughed in his throat.
And he went to his closet, grabbed his sheet and his hood.
And he chuckled, and clucked, with a great Grinchy word!
"With this beard and this cross, I look just like our Lord!"
"All I need is a Scripture..." The Grinch looked around.
But, true Scripture is scarce, there was none to be found.
Did that stop the old Grinch...? No! The Grinch simply said,
"With no Scripture on Marriage, I'll fake one instead!"
"It's one man and one woman," the Grinch falsely said.
Then he broke in the courthouse. A rather tight pinch.
But, if Georgie could do it, then so could the Grinch.
The little Gay benefits hung in a row.
"These bennies," he grinned, "are the first things to go!"
Then he slithered and slunk, with a smile most uncanny,
around the whole room, and he took every benny!
Health care for partners! Doctors for kiddies!
Tax rights! Adoptions! Pensions and Wills!
And he stuffed them in bags. Then the Grinch, with a chill,
Stuffed all the bags, one by one, in his bill.
Then he slunk to the kitchen, and stole Wedding Cake.
He cleaned out that icebox and made it look straight.
He took the Gay-bar keys! He took the Gay Flag.
Why, that Grinch even took their last Gay birdseed bag!
"And NOW!" grinned the Grinch, "I will pocket their Rings."
And the Grinch grabbed the Rings, and he started to shove
when he heard a small sound like the coo of a dove.
He turned around fast, and off flew his hood.
Little Lisa-Bi Gay behind him sadly stood.
The Grinch had been caught by small Lisa-Bi.
She stared at the Grinch and said, "My, oh, my, why?"
"Why are you taking our Wedding Rings? WHY?"
But, you know, that old Grinch was so smart and so slick
He thought up a lie, and he thought it up quick!
"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Shepherd sneered,
"The judges are evil, the other states weird."
"I'll fix the rings there and I'll bring them back here."
It was quarter past dawn... All the Gays, still a-bed,
all the Gays still a-snooze when he packed up and fled.
"Pooh-Pooh to the Gays!" he was grinch-ish-ly humming.
"They're finding out now no Gay Marriage is coming!"
"Their mouths will hang open a minute or two
then the Gays down in Gayville will all cry Boo-Hoo!"
He stared down at Gayville! The Grinch popped his eyes!
Then he shook! What he saw was a shocking surprise!
Every Gay down in Gayville, the tall and the small,
was kissing! Without any bennies at all!
He HADN'T stopped Marriage from coming! IT CAME!
Somehow or other, it came just the same!
And the Grinch, with his grinch-feet ice-cold in the snow,
stood puzzling and puzzling: "How could it be so?"
"It came without lawyers, no papers to sort!"
"It came without licenses, came without courts!"
And he puzzled three hours, till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before!
"Maybe Marriage," he thought, "doesn't come from the court.
Maybe Marriage...perhaps... comes right from the heart.
Maybe Marriage comes from all the words the Gays say.
Words like Husband, like Wedding, and Spouse who is Gay."
And what happened then...? Well...in Gayville they say
that the Grinch's small brain grew three sizes that day!
And the Gays had their Weddings. They promised for life.
They swore to be faithful, to Wife and her Wife.
The Husbands were happy, to each other they vowed
To be Out and be Honest, be Gay and be Proud.
They told all their neighbors and friends of their Spouse,
They told of their Marriage and sharing their house.
They said "We got Married." They shouted it loud.
Their marital status was "Married and Proud."
And the minute his heart didn't feel quite so tight,
He whizzed with his load through the bright morning light.
And he brought back the rings, cake and Gay birdseed bags!
And he... ...HE HIMSELF... hung the Gay Rainbow Flag!
...
The Lord looked down, at the proud and the tall,
and said "These are my children, and I love them all."
The moral of this story is that we don't need a piece of paper and the
approval of the state to get married. We can just get married. Instead of
having a committment ceremony, we can have a wedding. Instead of partners,
we can have husbands and wives. Instead of calling our relationship a
Domestic Partnership or a Civil Union, we can call it a Marriage. Whether
any government recognizes it is separate from what we call it. It's a free
country and we can call ourselves what we like.
In 5 or 10 or 20 years, with plenty of visible same-sex married couples,
the world won't see us as strange or scary, we're just the married couple
down the street that happens to be gay. Eventually, the legal
recognization of our marriages will follow.
If we allow ourselves to voluntarily sit in the back of the bus, we'll
never make any progress. Rosa Parks had to sit in the front of the bus to
make a difference. We must as well.
Copyright (c) 2004 by Mary Ann Horton. Permission granted to copy in
whole, with attribution. This is a parody of "How the Grinch Stole
Christmas."

Ted

Bumper Sticker: "One thousand points of light and we had to get the dim
one -- twice."

The new mantra: "Hope is a duty."

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

"Don't Stop the Vows" Overcoming Gay Marriage Bans

Sat, 06 Nov 2004 08:02:51 GMT

Hey everyone. As we look past the disappointment of the election results, and into our future as citizens who care about our country and communities, we'll be helped by finding opportunities to take positive actions towards a better tomorrow. In Portland, we lament the passing of Measure 36, but there is something to be done.

Right now, Basic Rights Oregon and the ACLU are engaged in a lawsuit that they hope can bring down the ammendment. While we should all cross our fingers for a positive outcome there, that victory, if it comes, will surely be derided as an action by "activist judges" and won't carry with it the force of a grass-roots level victory.

With this in mind, I propose a civil disobedience campaign to break Measure 36. This is how it would work:

Gay and Lesbian couples should continue to be married by supportive individuals in religious and secular ceremonies. They should file applications for marriage licenses and maintain proof of those filings.

With the assistance of supportive CPA's (or on their own) married couples should file their Oregon tax returns jointly, and refuse any requests by the state treasury to resubmit or pay fines.

If enough people do this, the state and counties will be faced with having to enforce the new law, which in of itself is unenforceable. The law effectively states that men cannot be married to men and women cannot by married to women; however, this can be easily disproven by simply marrying anyway. Those opposed to gay marriage will have only one recourse, the denial of those marriages, at which point the married couple respond "No, we ARE married." At which point the opponent says, "You can't get married." and the couple say "Yes, in fact we just did." The act of marrying cannot be refuted unless the couple that is being married accept that they are not allowed to be.

It is my hope that this campaign will exhaust the Defense of Marriage Coalition et. al. by the simple fact that it removes their litmus test for success. To put it another way, we won't oppose their arguments, but instead we will step aside and allow them to hit the pavement, much like an Aikido expert allows his assailant to throw himself into the ground.

Now, on the issue of legal ramifications of not paying taxes in the manner the state expects, there is the potential for some penalty; however, I expect that if this is a campaign of hundreds or thousands, rather than a few dozen, it will be too much work for the state to pursue everyone, and may be able to break (at least that part) of the marriage ban.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Red Socks Win

lawaynew — Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:09:22 GMT

Ok gang is the Red Socks winning after 86 years a good sign that Kerry/Edwards will win on Tuesday or that the evil of Bush/Dick has frozen hell over?

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

???

Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:50:55 GMT

snagged this link from another group...whaddya think?
www.advocate.com/new_news.asp

posted in Gay Marriage - 9 replies

church'n'state

Jules/C — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:53:20 GMT

disclaimer: i am PRO gay marriage in the sense that legal life partners can be same sex, etc.
i'm a dj, i've dj'd same sex weddings and loved it.

but something has always bothered me. i don't think marriage, which is a religous rite, should be governed by the state AT ALL. i think it is a co-mingling of church and state, same as prayer in schools, swearing on a bible in court, and having "in god we trust" on the dollar bill.

at this point in time, i think ALL life partners (same sex, opposite sex) should be joined in civil unions. if people want to perform a religious ceremony, go right ahead. but the piece of paper the couple signs should not be a "marriage license", it should be a civil union, for everybody.

posted in Gay Marriage - 8 replies

Wrote a song about George Bush and Gay Marriage

pythius — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:52:37 GMT

Check this out and welcome feedback.

http://www.ipythias.com/udealit.mp3

thanks

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Spain approves gay marriage bill

Fri, 01 Oct 2004 15:34:52 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3706414.stm

The Spanish government has approved a draft law which will legalise homosexual marriages.

Links to original texts in Spanish (from liberal to conservative):
http://www.elpais.es/ (pay site so you can only read the headline and the first few sentences)
http://www.lavanguardia.es/web/20041001/51164815986.html
El Gobierno da luz verde a las bodas entre homosexuales
España es el tercer país de Europa en legalizar el matrimonio gay
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2004/10/01/sociedad/1096630009.html
SUPONE LA MODIFICACIÓN DEL CÓDIGO CIVIL
El Gobierno aprueba el derecho al matrimonio de los homosexuales
http://www.abc.es/abc/pg041001/actualidad/nacional/nacional/200410/01/homosexuales.asp
De la Vega asegura que no hay diferencias entre los niños que crecen en familias de homosexuales
http://www.larazon.es/noticias/consejo.htm

posted in Gay Marriage - 6 replies

Kudos

Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:07:14 GMT

to the T mobile "Couples talk free" Commercial for depicting a "possibly gay couple". When the couples complain that the bill is too high and one asks "Who have you been talking to" the resounding answere from all couples to their partners is "you!" One scene has a guy shaving and another guy standing in the doorway yelling "you" at him. And it was actualyl shown at primetime in the 7pm time slot. Guess its not a major deal but I cant think of any commercials other than this one that depict gay couples. If their are Ive missed em.

posted in Gay Marriage - 4 replies

nu pics

Fri, 08 Oct 2004 02:00:07 GMT

added a couple of nu pics to the album..enjoy

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Gay marriage is a threat! Hmmmm.

xerberus — Fri, 01 Oct 2004 23:04:58 GMT

I'm cross posting this from another tribe. Enjoy.

flyer was found at the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) on September 30th of 2004. Needless to say, I got a BIG kick out of this.

1.) Homosexuality is not natural. (Eyeglasses, polyester, and
birth-control are not natural.)

2.) Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce
children. (Infertile and elderly couples cannot get legally
married because the world NEEDS more children.)

3.) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children. (Because
sraight parents only raise straight children.)

4.) Straight marriages will be less meaningful. (Since Britney
Spears' 5-hour, just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.)

5.) Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and
it has never changed. (Because women are still property,
African-Americans cannot marry Caucasians, and divorce is
still illegal.)

6.) Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the
courts. (Because the majority-elected legislatures, not
courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.)

7.) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. (In a theocracy
like ours, the official state religions are always imposed on
the entire country.)

8.) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay. (The same
way hanging around tall people makes you tall.)

9.) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of
crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets.
(Because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage
license.)

10.) Children will never succeed without male/female roles.
(That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.)

11.) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. (We
could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't
adapted to cars, long lifespans, etc......)

12.) Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage
with a different name are better. (Because a "seperate-by-
equal" institution is ALWAYS constitutional. Seperate school
for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate
marriages will for Gays & Lesbians.)

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Text of a letter sent to me by a friend

xerberus — Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:13:40 GMT

So this was written by someone I don't really know. He is obviously a Christian. I don't think he intended it for wide publication, but I thought it was pretty good anyway. It was intended of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Coalition" in Oregon.

September 30, 2004

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I received an invitation to your event on October 5. I will not be attending the event and this is why:

I have no idea from whom you are attempting to save marriage. Marriage has never been the domain only of conservative Christians and never will be. Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and others have been practicing marriage for millennia and it has never diminished Christian marriage. I see no reason to believe that expending this right to anyone who wants a civil marriage diminishes the institution. My wife and I have been happily married for over 35 years and will be for years to come, regardless of whom else is permitted to marry.

As far as I can tell, gay and lesbian people are required to pay the same taxes that I am required to pay. They also have fewer children than couples like my wife and I. That means that a lot of them helped put my children through school. If they have to pay taxes to support our kids and other social programs, then they should be entitled to the same rights, including marrying the person they wish to marry in a civil union.

I’ll be pursuing worthwhile endeavors on Tuesday October 5. I suggest you find something worthwhile to do as well. The amount of time and money Measure 36 has drawn away from charities for children, the homeless, battered women and other important causes is criminal. Right now Oregon’s economy is in serious trouble. The Oregon Health Plan has been cut leaving thousands of children and adults with insufficient or no health care. Education has gone down the tubes (my wife is an educator so I know this first hand), and many other social ills that put people in real danger need my attention.

However, if you don’t care about children, education, and human needs and defense of marriage is really your only concern, I suggest you go after reality television shows like that promote marrying for money and decrying celebrities such as Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, etc. who abuse the institution openly on international media and leave people who sincerely want to partake in marriage to live their lives in peace.

One last point: As far as I can tell, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior spent a good amount of time healing the ill and feeding the hungry. He preached a message of love and kindness and expressed anger at those who abused their power as religious leaders. But never once did he preach against inclusiveness or encourage us, his followers, to go down that path.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Evangelism at its finest

Thu, 23 Sep 2004 03:06:42 GMT

From the Planet Out website

###########
Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network

SUMMARY: A Canadian television station is under investigation after
airing U.S. evangelist Jimmy Swaggart's remarks threatening to kill
gay people.

A Canadian television station is under investigation by the Canadian
Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission after airing
evangelist Jimmy Swaggart's remarks threatening to kill gay people.

During a televised sermon Swaggart said: "I'm trying to find the
correct name for it … this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity
of men marrying men. … I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to
marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like
that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died."

Swaggart added, "I'm not knocking the homosexuals. They need
salvation just like anyone else. I'm knocking the politicians."

The program aired in both Canada and the United States last week.

Omni 1, which aired the segment in Canada, refused to comment about
the incident, admitting only that it now faces a government
investigation.

On Monday, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (news - web sites)
(NGLTF) criticized the evangelist and some of his colleagues.

"The Task Force calls upon the leaders of [the] simulcast -- Dr.
James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Tony Perkins (Family Research
Council), Ted Haggard (National Association of Evangelicals), Richard
Land (Director of the Religious Liberties and Ethics Division of the
Southern Baptist Convention) -- to immediately denounce anti-gay
violence and specifically repudiate evangelist Jimmy Swaggart's
statement," the NGLTF said in a press release.

Swaggart's remarks also caught the attention of morons.org, a Web
site whose members poke fun at some news events. Kenster 999
wrote, "I love how he's going to 'tell God he died.' As if God
doesn't already know the truth, and is waiting to get his information
from Jimmy Swaggart. This really shows where Swaggart thinks he
stands in the rank of things."

Swaggart has had widely publicized opposite-sex marital problems. On
Feb. 21, 1988, he resigned his ministry after it was revealed he had
been consorting with a prostitute.

Jimmy...maybe I should pray for YOU!!!

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Excellent question for an anti gay rights conservative

NickD — Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:25:32 GMT

While the democratic convention was going on, Benji from the Howard Stern show was asking people this question:

"If there was a way to tell if a baby was going to be gay, would you allow for abortion?"

They all dodged answering the question because they argued that there was no way to tell. They just got frustrated, so he would ask the question again, working it differently, and they would still avoid a direct answer. It was great listening to them squirm.

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Terror At Home

Shane — Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:42:23 GMT

I recently sent the following letter to the editor of my local newspaper. I thought you all might appreciate it.

Terror at home

Dear Editor:

What’s so scary about gay marriage? My spouse and I will have been together for 16 years in November. We have had two kids who we parented while things calmed down in their own homes. While this is the case, we are not allowed to enjoy the same basic rights offered to straight couples. The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Evidently, some are more equal than others.

In an article in the August 18th Mansfield Gazette, Rick Santorum throws his support behind the Federal Marriage Amendment. In the article, he says, “…protecting traditional marriage, our most basic social institution for protecting our children and future generations.” I support Mr. Santorum’s right to believe as he wishes. What I take issue with is his use of scare tactics to gain the support of his constituents. Didn’t Anita Bryant claim something similar back in the 1970’s which was proven to be nothing but hot air? What is it that he wishes to protect our children from specifically? Since he does not clarify this in the article, I like all other readers of the article, have to make assumptions as to what he means.

There is no credible research showing that gay and lesbian parents are any less loving or supportive than their straight counterparts. In fact, in a news article on 20/20, Barbara Walters found that the children interviewed for a program on gay and lesbian parents seemed to be just as well adjusted as any kids. Some studies indicate that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are actually more tolerant of other people’s differences.

I have heard the concern that gay and lesbian parents raise gay and lesbian children. That just isn’t the case. I was raised by heterosexual parents, as was my brother. He is straight and I am gay. Straight parents raised the vast majority of gay and lesbian people. So, clearly, gay parents do not cause gay kids anymore than straight parents cause straight kids.

Another thing I have heard is that homosexuals want to recruit kids to be homosexual. How absurd. Why would any adult gay man or lesbian want anyone to have to go through the crap we went through? Being rejected by our families, kicked out of our churches, beaten up at school, harassed, called names, etc. isn’t something I would wish on any child. What every gay and lesbian person I know wishes for all children regardless of sexual orientation is to be accepted, loved and protected. An interesting footnote is that the leading cause of death for children 1-24 is motor vehicle accidents according to the National Safety Council; however, reports indicate that the leading cause of death for gay and lesbian teens is suicide. Education Week, a newsmagazine for teachers, reports that gay and lesbian youth are 5 times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexual youth. We attempt it more often, at least in part, because we are constantly told how horrible we are.

So what does Senator Santorum think we need to protect our children from? Well, I can think of one other thing.

I was raised in a very conservative Southern Baptist family in North Carolina. I was taught, through family, friends of the family, teachers, pastors, etc., that homosexuals were child molesters. But, the facts don’t support this view.

According to the Kinsey report, 10% of the population is gay. (Actually the report says 10% of white males are gay, but let’s not quibble.) According to Advocates for Youth, a group based in Washington, DC, 96% or more of accused abusers are recognizably heterosexual. (Their figures came from an article in “Pediatrics”.) According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, a child is ONE HUNDRED times more likely to be molested by the heterosexual partner of a relative than by someone who is gay, lesbian or bisexual. In fact, sexual abuse by lesbians is so rare, that it almost never shows up in statistics. That’s not to say that these things don’t happen, but that they are extremely rare. One could use these statistics to show how safe gays and lesbians are with children.

According to Focus on the Family, one in three to one in four girls are sexually abused before the age of 18. According to Voices in Action, an international organization providing support for victims of child sexual abuse, one in five boys are sexually abused before the age of 18. 95% of all perpetrators are known by the victims; and, 85% are relatives. The American Medical Association reiterates this by stating most child sexual abuse is incest; less common is sexual abuse by an acquaintance or stranger. They also indicate that most children who are victims feel confused, uncomfortable and unwilling to talk about the abuse. Nearly all child advocacy groups agree that many children never report the abuse. Think about that for a minute. This is a terrifying epidemic! Why aren’t our elected officials speaking about stopping these atrocities? Why aren’t we fighting “The War Against the Sexual Abuse of Our Children”? Probably because no one wants to talk about it. Doing the research for this letter was making me sick, so I can understand. However, that does not excuse our society from dealing with this crisis.

So, again, if Senator Santorum’s true concern is protecting our children and families, how does supporting a ban on gay marriage do anything constructive?

Wake up America, this isn’t a drill!

Shane Hicks-Lee
Blossburg

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Excellent bumperstickers

sonya — Sun, 22 Aug 2004 19:03:46 GMT

How often does a bumper sticker cause you to get a lump in your throat? I love this:

http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods.10434567

More good ones here:
http://www.cafepress.com/irregulargoods/294041

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

post missouri depression

boulder — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:45:38 GMT

ok, i live in massachusetts. i can marry if i talk my boyfriend into it.

but...

how long will this last?
was listening to npr yesterday after the missouri vote. sounds like there are other constitutional amendments about to be approved in other states. hell, the amendment may still pass here in my state in a couple of years. the majority of voters nationwide don't want this. i was feeling encouraged for a while, but am flagging right now. anyone else think this might be a lost cause?

sorry for being negative. that was just my impression after yesterday's news.

posted in Gay Marriage - 2 replies

George Bush make up your mind

Tina — Thu, 05 Aug 2004 04:51:39 GMT

BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]

...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]

Thanks to a post on another tribe i got thos info
Tina

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

The State of Oregon must immediately record the marriages of the more than 3,000 same-sex

railoi — Sat, 10 Jul 2004 02:02:50 GMT

Portland, July 9, 2004--State of Oregon Must Record Same-Sex Marriages---The State of Oregon must immediately record the marriages of the more than 3,000 same-sex couples married in Oregon, according to an Oregon Court of Appeals decision today. The Court denied the State of Oregon's request for a stay of the portion of the circuit court decision that required the state to register those marriages. The court had previously granted the state a temporary stay while it considered the merits of the State's request for a stay pending appeal. The temporary stay is no longer in effect.

posted in Gay Marriage - 0 replies

Oregon on the Defensive

xerberus — Tue, 06 Jul 2004 23:56:34 GMT

It looks like we're facing a ballot measure in Oregon that would ban gay marriage in the state. It will be on the ballots in November, I believe. I guess we have a fight ahead of us. It's going to be ugly. As if this election year weren't already stressful enough...

posted in Gay Marriage - 3 replies

Spousal Unions

PragmaticIdealist — Wed, 26 May 2004 23:09:28 GMT

Separate, but equal, status is unacceptable. However, removing the word, "marriage", from the law, entirely and replacing the term with "spousal union" or something similar may satisfy everyone. In that way, the legal definition of "marriage" or "spousal union" may be considered separately from the social or religious definitions, which are so culturally ingrained.

Advocating a neutral term, such as "spousal union", for all couples, heterosexual and homosexual, may more easily bring about consensus among Americans on this issue.

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Bad Timing

PragmaticIdealist — Tue, 25 May 2004 23:41:38 GMT

Wait until after the presidential election to force the issue. George Bush is just using the prospect of gay marriage to his political advantage among voters who might otherwise be reluctant to reelect him.

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

April 21 is the national day of silence.....

Pandora-Frijole — Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:46:39 GMT

hello. i dont know if any of you are aware that april 21st is the national day of silence to protest the ill-treatment and discrimination faced by gays, lesbians, and transgendered folks. its a vow of silence to last throughout the day.....more info at dayofsilence.org (i found out about it through amnesty international). a club i am involved in at school (students for social justice) are going to go throughout the day with stickers on our mouths (either that say "oppression" or the ones available to print out on the site) there are also cards available to print out on the site to hand out to people to express why you are silent. just thought id mention it in case anyone is interested...(power in numbers and all...) much love.

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply

Oregon- Multnomah County - Public process; same result

railoi — Sat, 03 Apr 2004 07:30:09 GMT

If you don't know The Multnomah commissioners asked for an opinion from its county counsel, Agnes Sowle, and an outside counsel that denying same-sex marriage licenses violated the Oregon Constitution.

So their wern't any public hearings meetings the County Chairwoman Diane Linn just instructed the county to issue licenses. People roared that there was no public hearing but the commission isn't really required to have hearing to implement existing law.

Since then, neither Judge Koch, Attorney General Hardy Myers nor Legislative Counsel Gregory Chaimov has said the opinion was wrong.

"This letter responds to your request for our opinion whether state law requires a county clerk to license the marriage of a same-sex couple," Chaimov wrote. "The answer is yes."

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/editorial/107978786770950.xml?oregonian?yedcds

After all 230 witnesses had their say in four sessions of testimony, none of the Multnomah County commissioners' minds had changed the vote was 4-1 reaffirming the county's stance on same-sex marriage.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1080910867297910.xml

posted in Gay Marriage - 1 reply