same-sex marriage

Catholic League Bill Donohue Quotes

According to transcripts of his speech at Justice Sunday:

The most insane idea I’ve heard in my whole life, of two men getting married, I mean – that’s something that you expect in the asylum, quite frankly.

Donohue on MSNBC:

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It’s not a secret, OK? And I’m not afraid to say it. That’s why they hate this movie. It’s about Jesus Christ, and it’s about truth. It’s about the messiah. Hollywood likes anal sex.

Donohue on homosexuality:

Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style.

Read more about what this crazy nutjob has to say.

Fuck you, Bill.

Continue ReadingCatholic League Bill Donohue Quotes

The importance of contacting your elected officials yourself

I’m going to emphasize my point at the very beginning of this post, rather than toward the end: If you don’t want people to speak on your behalf — to potentially agree to things you don’t agree with, or to make decisions for you — then you have to speak up yourself. If you don’t do that, you bear at least a bit of the blame if someone does something in your name that you wouldn’t do.

The only way that you can get misrepresented is if you don’t represent your own views, from your own mouth.

Why am I saying this? Well, remember back in October, just before the election, I posted a message entitled “Oh my god, Did Bauer just throw us under the bus?” in which then Indiana Minority Leader Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, who is now Majority leader, said this about SJR-7:

“I just think that the only way for (Republicans) not to (continue to) demagogue it is to have a redundancy. It’s too bad it has to go in the constitution, but so be it,” Bauer said. “It’s not worth the time, the trouble, to point out that it’s not a problem (in Indiana), so it’s better just to have the vote and see how it goes.”
Under GOP leadership, both chambers of the General Assembly passed a same-sex marriage amendment last year. The measure must be approved by the newly elected Legislature next year or in 2008 before it could go on the statewide ballot for approval from voters.

At the time, the statement shocked the hell living shit out of the gay community, who had expected (and been assured) that Democrats were going to continue to fight like hell against SJR-7, including not letting it get heard at all. No one could figure out why Bauer had suddenly thrown in the towel, or suggested that it was okay that gay people aren’t allowed to get married.

Lately some of the speculation about that has come out into the open in the gay community. First Ted Fleischaker, publisher of The Word, printed an editorial in this issue of his paper (PDF download), generalizing that Bauer changed his public stance on SJR-7 because some unnamed “community leaders” told him that the gay community would be okay with SJR-7 succeeding if it helped him get leverage on other issues with Republicans.
Then Gary Welsh took the issue a bit further in a recent blog post by naming the “community leader(s)” who supposedly sold us all down the river – He says it was Mark St. John – so that Bauer could throw us under a bus.

Whether or not that occurred – this much is true: the vast majority of LGBT Hoosiers not only want gay marriage, but they want SJR-7 defeated, as swiftly as possible. The idea that they’d be okay with it passing – universally and patently false.

I myself want to get married more than anything in the world, and if I had a magic wand, I would consign SJR-7 to the lowest depths of hell, along with any person who even thought for a second about supporting it.

So if this did actually happen – the gay community would indeed be justified in raining hellfire and brimstone on the heads of gay “community leaders” who agreed to such a thing. (Not that we have the time to waste energy on doing that now, since first things first – we have to defeat SJR-7.)

HOWEVER – if more people from the gay community communicated with their legislators about what they actually want, no one could get away with saying something like this, if it occurred.

To quote my mother’s favorite Longfellow poem, “Why don’t you speak for yourself, John?” We can’t let other people do this for us. Every single gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered person needs to step up, for our own sakes, and that of future generations.

Continue ReadingThe importance of contacting your elected officials yourself

SJR-7 Update

SJR-7, the bill to amend the Indiana Constitution to prevent equal marriage rights for gay people, was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee today, and will soon be presented to the full Senate for voting – probably next week.

That’s pretty bad news, especially since two amendments to the legislation that were presented were struck down and it will be going to the Senate as is.

The supporting and opposition testimony at the hearing was heavily about that highly controversial and very ambiguous second sentence that I blogged about earlier. Let me refresh your memory:

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

Yeah, that’s the one. The guy who introduced the bill, Republican Senator Brandt Hershman, admitted under questioning that even he doesn’t know what “legal incidents of marriage” actually means from a legal standpoint, although he is for some reason confident that it won’t affect anyone but gay people, and that all the other consequences that I blogged about, and that constitutional scholars are sending up red flags about, will never, ever come to pass, gee fucking whiz. Not that he had any explanation about why that wouldn’t occur. We apparently should just trust him. Right.

Both amendments to the legislation that were struck down were about that second clause – one sought to alter it so that legislatures in the future could, when Hoosiers are no longer hate-filled bigots, alter the definition of marriage to be defined in whatever way future Indiana citizens see fit. That was struck down.

The other amendment sought to remove the second sentence altogether, so the ambiguity and potential future lawsuits and controversy that will inevitable arrive from it don’t occur. That, too was struck down.

The defeat of the amendments and the approval of the bill all got votes of 7-4.

Voting against this bill:
Sen. Anita Bowser (D-Michigan City), Sen. John Broden (D-South Bend), Sen. Sam Smith (D-East Chicago) and Sen. Tim Lanane (D-Anderson).

and the bigots voting in favor:
Sen. Jeff Drozda (R-Westfield), Sen. Brent Steele (R-Bedford), Sen. Teresa Lubbers (R-Indianapolis), Sen. Joe Zakas (R-Granger), Sen. Richard Bray (R-Martinsville), Sen. David Ford (R-Hartford City) and Sen. Ron Alting (R-Lafayette).

As I said, we’ll be marking it down on their permanent records.
What happens next with SJR-7?

I’m going to project a bit here, based on my experience following legislation in the past.

First it will go to the Senate – probably next week, between February 5-9. With any luck it will die there. But it probably won’t, ’cause our Senate is full of bigots who hate gay people. But you should be sending a slew of calls and email to your Senators, no matter what.

If it passes the Senate, it will go to a hearing before a House Committee, similar to today’s hearing. That would probably happen the week of February 12-16. Just in time for Valentines Day! How fracking lovely. If we are very lucky, it will die there. If we’re only sorta lucky, they’ll at least alter that second clause before approving it. (please Jesus, Buddha and Hanuman.) Again, contacting the people on the committee will be helpful critical.

If it doesn’t die there, it would be voted on in the full House, which would probably happen around February 20th or soon after. If it gets to this point – that’s VERY VERY BAD. Which means you better get your ass to the Statehouse, or if you or a family member is on your deathbed, send massive mail or phone calls. And ask your friends and family to do the same.

Continue ReadingSJR-7 Update

Tony Dungy to Speak For Anti-Gay Hate Group

This is really disturbing – Colts coach Tony Dungy will be speaking at a dinner for the Indiana Family Institute, which is a right-wing hate group whose primary purpose is to promote hatred towards gay people.

Make no mistake about what their goals really are – in the same way the the Irish Republican army has a legal, public face in Sein Finn, and the “European-American Unity and Rights Organization” is a modern-day face to the KKK, the Indiana Family Institute is an “appears to be innocuous” religious front for people whose real political goal is to see me put in jail or driven out of the state. Among other things, they are promoting SJR-7, as well as opposing a hate crimes bill and anti-discrimination laws. But their agenda is far deeper than that, and these are no garden-variety Christians.

Man, I already have an email about this – IFI says they’re religious, but what they’re pursuing is political – they lobby the statehouse and pursue legislation (publically. Privately, they pursue more radical stuff) – so this isn’t Tony Dungy expressing his religious beliefs. This it Tony Dungy fund-raising for a political goal – and a hate agenda.

“An opportunity to financially support the Indiana Family Institute will be presented.” Great. I’m posting the invitation from their site, but editing out the contact information. I’m also linking to a report about the site, rather than the site itself. I don’t want to be responsible for driving any traffic their way.

That really puts damper on my excitement for the Colts and the Super Bowl. I had no idea that Tony Dungy hated me. I’m hardly going to be cheering for him now. It happens every time – you get all excited about being a part of something cool, and somebody comes along to remind you – “hey, you’re not really one of us. You don’t belong.” Even though I’ve been out for over 20 years now, it still stings, every time.

IFI 2007 banquet Tony Dungy

No Colts

Continue ReadingTony Dungy to Speak For Anti-Gay Hate Group

Rally at the Indiana Statehouse to Oppose SJR-7

A while back, I wrote about SJR-7, the bill to amend the Indiana constitution to eliminate equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, and I urged people to contact the legislators responsible for this atrocious piece of legislation.

Well, there’s more you can do.

Indiana Equality is organizing a rally at the State House to oppose this amendment, and to support two other pieces of legislation that help protect lgbt people – a hate crimes bill that covers sexual orientation and gender identity, and an anti-discrimination bill, both of which are being introduced this legislative session.
The rally — called the “Read the Fine Print” — will feature Candace Gingrich, sister of Former Speaker of the US House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.

WHAT: “Read the Fine Print!” Rally at the Statehouse
WHEN: Monday, February 19, 2007 from 1:00 pm — 2:30 pm
(Presidents Day)
WHERE: Indiana Statehouse, North Atrium, 200 W. Washington
(Enter off Ohio Street)

Enter the Statehouse using the Ohio Street entrance. Please allow extra time, as you may have to go through security. Also be aware that street parking may be hard to find. The Circle Center Mall garage is only a few blocks away and relatively inexpensive.
Note that this is on President’s Day – a day when many people already have off work — so you can attend this rally. I’ll be there. You will have the opportunity to meet with your legislators at some time during or after the rally to speak your mind if you like (see information on training below.)
You can RSVP that you will be attending at this Indiana Equality link.

ALSO…

You can get training to lobby your legislator prior to the rally, in the morning on the same day. Indiana Equality, Human Rights Campaign, and Stop The Amendment will be providing a two-hour crash course in techniques for constituents to successfully communicate with and educate their State legislators.

WHAT: Lobbying Your Legislator 101
WHEN: Monday, February 19th, 2007 from 9:30am – 11:30am
(President’s Day)
WHERE: Christ Church Cathedral, 125 Monument Circle
COST: $5 (includes training, materials, and continental
breakfast)

Reserve your spot in lobbying training.
Topics of this session will include:
Do’s and Don’ts when talking to legislators
The “Marriage” Amendment

  • Process of amending Indiana?s Constitution
  • Background on the Amendment
  • Facts, talking points, and likely objections

Hate Crimes Legislation

  • How a bill becomes law
  • Background on Hate Crimes legislation
  • Facts, talking points, and likely objections

Street parking may be hard to find. The Circle Center Mall garage is only a few blocks away and relatively inexpensive.

Continue ReadingRally at the Indiana Statehouse to Oppose SJR-7

Nigeria Outlaws Existence of Gay People

  • Post author:
  • Post category:GLBT Issues

According to Peter Tatchell at UK Gay News:

A new bill, currently being debated in the Nigerian parliament, is the most comprehensively homophobic legislation ever proposed in any country in the world.
Its extremism is rivaled only by the death penalty that exists for homosexuality in several Islamic fundamentalist states.

The bill is primarily concerned with banning same-sex marriage, but its sub-clauses go much further. They will strip lesbian and gay Nigerians of their already limited civil rights. The bill outlaws almost every expression, affirmation and celebration of gay identity and sexuality, and prohibits the provision of sympathetic advice and welfare support to lesbians and gay men. And violations will be punished with an automatic five year jail sentence.

The draconian measure will outlaw membership of a gay group, attending a gay meeting or protest, advocating gay equality, donating money to a gay organization, hosting or visiting a gay website, the publication or possession of gay safer sex advice, renting or selling a property to a gay couple, expressions of same-sex love in letters or emails, attending a same-sex marriage or blessing ceremony, screening or watching a gay movie, taking or possessing photos of a gay couple, and publishing, selling or loaning a gay book or video.

Support for this legislation is coming from the completely homophobic Anglican church in Nigeria, and there are some Anglican churches in America supporting the Anglican church there in their terrorism of gay and lesbian people.

Note that our own government has been completely silent on these blatant abuses of basic human rights.

If I were a Nigerian citizen, you can bet I would become a terrorist Freedom Fighter immediately. When in the course of human events…

Continue ReadingNigeria Outlaws Existence of Gay People

links for 2007-01-14

Continue Readinglinks for 2007-01-14

Anti-Marriage Equality Amendment Introduced to Indiana Legislature

As Bilerico is reporting – the massively flawed legislation to put an anti-marriage equality amendment (banning civil marriage for same-sex partners) on the ballot for voting had been re-introduced to the legislature.

Here’s the proposed bill:

DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Definition of marriage. Provides that marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman. Provides that Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

That second line — that’s the massively flawed part. The idea is not only to prevent us from getting married, but also to prevent civil unions. But the wording of this bill is so bad that it has ramifications FAR BEYOND same-sex couples, and far beyond civil unions. This is what happened in Ohio – domestic violence laws are being invalidated for heterosexual couples who are unmarried – and women are being victimized as a result, because they’re abused by their live-in boyfriends, but the police can’t prosecute because they aren’t “married.”

Read that second paragraph again, and think about it for a minute.

Now think about that in context of Stephanie and I, trying to build a life together – to protect our joint property and provide for one another as we get older. That can invalidate wills, powers of attorney, living wills, assets and trusts.

We have to spend thousands of dollars that heterosexual people don’t to protect our lives – you get it just by getting a $10 marriage license. And that second line of this bill – can throw all of it out the window.

This bill is CRAZY – and it’s going to be voted on in the legislature a second time. It’s called SJR-7 – Senate Resolution 7. You can track what’s happening to it at that link.

The Homophobic Hate-Filled Bigots Responsible

Republican Senator Brandt Hershman (Wheatfield) – the Majority Whip

These people know what that second line means – they know how harmful it can be. They’re aware that we could lose our assets and be out in the cold, and they know about the problems in Ohio – but they’re so filled with hatred they don’t care.

Please contact every single one of these utter jackholes (information at the links) and tell them that they’re not good Christians for supporting this kind of discrimination, (make sure to say SJR-7) and call them on being the evil, hate-filled bigots that they are.

Stephanie and Steph

Do it for us — aren’t we cute? Shouldn’t we get to have a life together? Don’t you love us? Let these guys know that what they’re doing hurts people you care about.

Why this should be decided by courts, not by ballot

Civil rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. That’s the key that sets America apart from other democracies – We have a Bill of Rights that protects the rights of the individual from the whims of the masses.

If we let people vote on civil rights, Rosa Parks would still be sitting at the back of the bus right now. Fortunately, the wiser head of a court system were allowed to interpret the law and decide discrimination was wrong.

But if we let Indiana citizens AMEND THE CONSTITUTION just to arbitrarily discriminate against a group of people, we’ll be betraying every principle the country stands for.

Continue ReadingAnti-Marriage Equality Amendment Introduced to Indiana Legislature

A Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

A letter written by the very wise Pam Spaulding on Pam’s House Blend (link has been deprecated) is a great help in sorting out the marriage equality issue for fair-minded people, so I’m reprinting it here in full…

Dear John Edwards,

I have read about some comments you made recently in New Hamphire about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. The article quoted you as saying:

“Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes,” he said. “But it’s a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven’t yet got across that bridge.” … “I wish I knew the right answer,”

I hope that is an accurate quote of your words.

I would like to suggest that perhaps you have not yet considered the right question and that perhaps the right question would help you find the “right answer.”
First, a preliminary question. “Do all American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law?”

If your answer to the preliminary question is no, then there is no need to go on.

If your answer to the preliminary question is yes, then things get a little more complicated. Here we go.

Which of the three options mentioned in your quote offers genuine equal treatment, at least potentially, to all American citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Please keep in mind that the benefits and protections of marriage come from multiple levels of government. The most numerous and significant ones come from the federal level, 1,138 of them according to the latest summary by the GAO. This document, GAO report number GAO-04-353R entitled ‘Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report’, which was released on February 24, 2004 may be obtained from the United States General Accounting Office website. It is available at the following URL. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R

Some of the benefits and protections, considerably fewer, come from the state level. Others come from the county and municipal levels as well as from the private sector.

As you know, the federal Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits any same sex marriage from receiving the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage. If my recollection is correct, you are on record as opposing DOMA. Unfortunately, however, I think the reason you give is not a fully correct reason. As I recall, your reason has something to do with states regulating marriage. That “reason,” which seems to be the Democratic Party line, is oversimplified and misleading. While it is true that each state regulates who can get married, none of the states provide the federal benefits and protections of marriage. They cannot do so. What I’m hearing from your recent comments is that even though you oppose DOMA, you are uncertain as to whether or not gay and lesbians Americans deserve full citizenship benefits.
For the sake of my question, however, lets just assume that DOMA does not exist or has been repealed.

Which of the options you note would provide equal treatment for all US citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Civil unions cannot give access to any of the benefits and protections of civil marriage. They require a separate set to be specified. If these civil unions are at a state level, they only apply within the single state that issues them. They are not portable and provide absolutely no protection to couples crossing a state line. More significantly, they cannot provide access to the most significant and numerous set of benefits and protections at the federal level. The first example that comes to mind is the fast-tracking of citizenship in international marriages. This is something completely outside the jurisdiction of the states.

Partnership benefits have exactly the same limitations as civil unions. The difference between civil union and partnership benefits is in name only.

A civil marriage contract is the only option capable of providing access to all the benefits and protections of civil marriage from all levels.

So then, if you truly believe that all American citizens should be given equal treatment under the law, hopefully the answer you have found to be elusive in the past is now within reach. I have taken you to the end of that bridge. Only you can take the final step required to complete crossing it.

Continue ReadingA Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

Mark Foley blames crimes on being abused

Priest comes forward to tell of his inappropriate behavior with Mark Foley when Foley was young.

Let me make it really clear:

I was not molested as a kid. Most of my gay friends were never molested as kids. I have several friends who were molested. Some of them are straight and some are gay, and there seems to be no correlation whatsoever between the gender of the person who molested them and their current sexual orientation.

Many studies over the years have shown that there is no causal relationship between sexual molestation and homosexuality.

Also — I’m a 38 year old woman. The woman I love is 34 years old. I’m really quite tired of having our loving, nurturing relationship being equated with pedophilia, pederasty or predatory sexual behavior of any sort, and I’m really hating that I’m reading tons of that crap coming from the religious right currently.

Continue ReadingMark Foley blames crimes on being abused