Saturday, January 09, 2010
US Government “At the Beck and Call” of the Family
As I believe I have mentioned, I am in the process of reading Jeff Sharlet's book, "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power." In many ways, it is a frightening read since Sharlet was inside The Family himself and got a taste of how it operates. One positive thing that is flowing out of the "kill the gays" legislation pending in Uganda is that just maybe, if we are lucky, "The Family," insidious tentacles throughout the U. S. government and its activities overseas will finally be spotlight and - hopefully - derailed and killed. Sharlet has been on Rachel Maddow's show - including this past week - and he continues to expose the untruths being put out by a few visible members of The Family as they try to hide the organization's sinister activities. Personally, I have very serious problems with U. S. Senators and other elected officials who are abusing their power and positions as elected CIVIL officials to further religious goals not shared by many, many citizens. Indeed, it is arguable that they have violated their oaths to uphold and defend the U. S. Constitution by placing sectarian goals above the nation's laws - violation which if fully examined might require their removal from office. I am also deeply disturbed at some of the financial self-dealing that also seems to be so pervasive. The Family makes the Mafia look bush league in comparison and some of its activities are likewise just as illegal in my opinion. Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has a good review of Sharlet's latest appearance on Rachel's show this past Thursday. Here are some highlights:*
Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show tonight to counter some of the claims made by “The Family” member Bob Hunter on Tuesday’s show. Hunter had claimed that Sharlet disavowed much of his own book, that The Family was not involved in politics, and that Uganda’s Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo, one of the prime supporters of Uganda’s draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, was not a member of the Family.
*
Sharlet revealed that just this week he had obtained a budget for The Family’s work in Africa “identifying (Sen.) Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as the designated point man selected to work with eleven African leaders, most of them Presidents including the President of Uganda Museveni, President of Rwanda Kagame and to work with them to help set their nations on a sort of a Jesus footing. … There’s a budget, there’s money, there is a support staff, it’s a very formal effort that he’s undertaking.” Sharlet also said that the Senators use their status as U.S. Senators to open doors for the Family in Africa.
*
Sharlet said of Hunter: He explained to me that those senators who were traveling with The Family… I had made the mistake of saying that Mr. Hunter travels at the behest of the U.S. government. He corrected me. He said ‘No, Senators travel at the behest of me. I use them as bait; I use them as tools to reach those in power, and then we can go about trying to get them on this Jesus footing. Rachel clarified that it is not the Family that is at the beck and call of the U.S. government, but that the U.S. government is at the beck and call of the Family.
*
Hunter had denied knowing Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo, implying that Buturo was not a member of The Family. Sharlet said he was puzzled by that, saying that Hunter had told him that establishing the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity had been created for The Family, and that Buturo “inherited” that position, along with his position in the Family. Buturo has since traveled overseas representing Uganda at Family events.
*
Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, appeared on Rachel Maddow’s show tonight to counter some of the claims made by “The Family” member Bob Hunter on Tuesday’s show. Hunter had claimed that Sharlet disavowed much of his own book, that The Family was not involved in politics, and that Uganda’s Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo, one of the prime supporters of Uganda’s draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill, was not a member of the Family.
*
Sharlet revealed that just this week he had obtained a budget for The Family’s work in Africa “identifying (Sen.) Jim Inhofe (R-OK) as the designated point man selected to work with eleven African leaders, most of them Presidents including the President of Uganda Museveni, President of Rwanda Kagame and to work with them to help set their nations on a sort of a Jesus footing. … There’s a budget, there’s money, there is a support staff, it’s a very formal effort that he’s undertaking.” Sharlet also said that the Senators use their status as U.S. Senators to open doors for the Family in Africa.
*
Sharlet said of Hunter: He explained to me that those senators who were traveling with The Family… I had made the mistake of saying that Mr. Hunter travels at the behest of the U.S. government. He corrected me. He said ‘No, Senators travel at the behest of me. I use them as bait; I use them as tools to reach those in power, and then we can go about trying to get them on this Jesus footing. Rachel clarified that it is not the Family that is at the beck and call of the U.S. government, but that the U.S. government is at the beck and call of the Family.
*
Hunter had denied knowing Ethics and Integrity Minister James Nsaba Buturo, implying that Buturo was not a member of The Family. Sharlet said he was puzzled by that, saying that Hunter had told him that establishing the Ministry of Ethics and Integrity had been created for The Family, and that Buturo “inherited” that position, along with his position in the Family. Buturo has since traveled overseas representing Uganda at Family events.
*
Inhofe needs to be investigated and, if abusing his power and/or supporting religious organizations over the government, ought to resign. This nation has not sunk to the depths of Islamic states that blur the line between the government and religion. At least not yet.
The Moral and Constitutional Case for Gay Marriage
There perhaps are some that believe I am beating a dead horse in my frequent posts about gay marriage. However, I do believe that a fair, non-religiously biased reading of the U. S. Constitution requires equal marriage rights now that legitimate medical and mental health experts view sexual orientation as unchangeable. The arguments of Christianist that gays have the same rights as straights to marry individuals of the opposite sex ignores the immutability of one's sexual orientation. Their argument is just as specious as it would be for gays to insist that straights marry individuals of the same sex. We know it and they know it. They simply don't give a damn about gays - or for that matter, the straights that gays marry in an effort to conform only to have the marriage fail and misery be spread around to all involved (including the children born to these doomed marriages). In my view, the Christianists' attitude is one of utter selfishness. They truly do not care what harm or misery they inflict on LGBT individuals. Anything that challenges their simplistic world view or requires serious thought and analysis is to be forbidden. A column Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, New York Daily News recently made the moral AND constitutional case for same sex marriage. Here are some highlights:*
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty put it this way: "Marriage inequality is a civil rights, political, social, moral and religious issue." He covered all the bases, except one: It's a constitutional issue as well.
*
Thomas Jefferson set the stage in the Declaration of Independence: "[T]o secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men." The primary purpose of government is to safeguard individual rights and prevent some persons from harming others. Heterosexuals should not be treated preferentially when the state carries out that role. And no one is harmed by the union of two consenting gay people.
*
For most of Western history, marriage was a matter of private contract between the betrothed parties and perhaps their families. Following that tradition, marriage today should be a private arrangement, requiring minimal or no state intervention. Some religious or secular institutions would recognize gay marriages; others would not; still others would call them domestic partnerships or assign another label. Join whichever group you wish. The rights and responsibilities of partners would be governed by personally tailored contracts - consensual bargains like those that control most other interactions in a free society.
*
Whenever government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." That provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states, and implicit in the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the federal government.
*
Of course, government discriminates among its citizens all the time. By the 1920s, 38 states prohibited whites from marrying blacks and certain Asians. Until 1954, all states were allowed to operate segregated schools. Thankfully, the Supreme Court invalidated both interracial marital restrictions and school segregation. The court applied the plain text of the Equal Protection Clause despite contrary practices by the states for many years even after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
*
No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage.
*
Instead, most states have implemented an irrational and unjust system that provides significant benefits to just-married heterosexuals while denying benefits to a male or female couple who have enjoyed a loving, committed, faithful and mutually reinforcing relationship over several decades. That's not the way it has to be.
*
According to the federal Office of Personnel Management, nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies confer employment benefits on domestic partners. Yet our politicians, unwilling to privatize marriage, seem congenitally unable to extricate themselves from our most intimate relationships. One would hope, in the coming months and years, that more enlightened federal and state legislators will have the courage and decency to resist morally abhorrent and constitutionally suspect restrictions based on sexual orientation. Gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity accorded to all Americans.
Virginian Pilot Editorial Slams Lisa Miller
To my shock and amazement, the Virginian Pilot's main editorial today takes Lisa Miller (and by implication her Christianist attorneys and ex-gay "ministries" that are assisting her) to task for her defiance of court orders - both from Virginia and Vermont courts to turn custody over to Janet Jenkins. The editorial in fact argues that Miller has forgotten the best interest of her daughter and needs to be held accountable. Needless to say, the local holy rollers will be wetting themselves and going into convulsions over the editorial. I can hardly wait for some of the reality untethered letters to the editor that will likely follow. Here are some editorial highlights:*
Isabella Miller-Jenkins is not an abstract political principle or a religious creed. She’s a little girl whose seven short years have been marred by the chaos and uncertainty of a custody battle that has gone tragically awry. Thousands of children each year are torn between warring parents, but Isabella’s suffering has been prolonged because the two adults fighting over her are both women whose civil union dissolved into a national debate over gay rights.
*
It is difficult to imagine a life more traumatizing than the one Isabella has had, and Miller bears much of the blame for her daughter’s pain. . . . Miller chose to move to Vermont because that state recognizes civil unions. She later fled to escape those same laws but only after she invoked them by filing for dissolution of her union and acknowledging Jenkins’ parental rights.
*
Now, Miller has disappeared from her Virginia home with her daughter in a final reckless act of defiance. Isabella faces months or years of displacement and anxiety as a fugitive. She may one day visit her mother behind bars if Miller is apprehended and convicted for contempt.
*
Yet Miller is convinced she is protecting Isabella, a belief encouraged by attorneys wanting to use the child as a test case to challenge laws in states that recognize same-sex civil unions or marriage. Liberty Counsel, a group affiliated with Liberty University’s School of Law, has pursued the case for years after Miller’s financial resources were tapped out.
*
The result has never been in question. Miller has repeatedly violated court orders and ignored the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which prohibits a parent who is unhappy with a child-custody ruling in one state from seeking a second opinion elsewhere.
*
In a 2005 interview, Miller described “bargaining with God” to end her lesbian relationship if her efforts to have a second child failed. Miller says she has been born again, but that does not free her from the consequences of her actions. One day she will have to face her past.
*
It is difficult to imagine a life more traumatizing than the one Isabella has had, and Miller bears much of the blame for her daughter’s pain. . . . Miller chose to move to Vermont because that state recognizes civil unions. She later fled to escape those same laws but only after she invoked them by filing for dissolution of her union and acknowledging Jenkins’ parental rights.
*
Now, Miller has disappeared from her Virginia home with her daughter in a final reckless act of defiance. Isabella faces months or years of displacement and anxiety as a fugitive. She may one day visit her mother behind bars if Miller is apprehended and convicted for contempt.
*
Yet Miller is convinced she is protecting Isabella, a belief encouraged by attorneys wanting to use the child as a test case to challenge laws in states that recognize same-sex civil unions or marriage. Liberty Counsel, a group affiliated with Liberty University’s School of Law, has pursued the case for years after Miller’s financial resources were tapped out.
*
The result has never been in question. Miller has repeatedly violated court orders and ignored the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, which prohibits a parent who is unhappy with a child-custody ruling in one state from seeking a second opinion elsewhere.
*
In a 2005 interview, Miller described “bargaining with God” to end her lesbian relationship if her efforts to have a second child failed. Miller says she has been born again, but that does not free her from the consequences of her actions. One day she will have to face her past.
Europe's Gay Leaders: Out at The Top
With Portugal on the way to allowing gay marriage and a number of European countries already providing forms of civil unions/partnership rights for same sex couples, "Old Europe" is moving to the future while the backward thinking, religiously bigoted USA slides more and more into the past socially. Besides fighting for legal discrimination against LGBT citizens, the other frightening aspect of the strong Christianist movement is that it is so strongly anti-knowledge. One need only look at the lunatic Creation Museum that has humans and dinosaurs interacting to release that the Christianist want the equivalent of a national lobotomy so that nothing challenges their increasing fragile and non-reality world view. These forces are truly just as anti-knowledge and anti-modernity as the Islamic extremists of the Middle East. It baffles me at times that more people can't see the exact parallel. Time has an article that looks at Europe's movement towards the social future while the USA lags behind. Here are some highlights:*
When Iceland installed Johanna Sigurdardottir as Prime Minister last February, newspapers around the globe printed variations of the same headline: ICELAND APPOINTS WORLD'S FIRST GAY LEADER. Everywhere, that is, except Iceland. The Icelandic media didn't mention Sigurdardottir's sexuality for days, and only then to point out that the foreign press had taken an interest in their new head of state — a 67-year-old former flight attendant turned politician whom voters had consistently rated Iceland's most trustworthy politician. Sure, she was gay and had entered a civil partnership with another woman in 2002. But Icelanders hardly seemed to notice. . . . "Being gay is a nonissue here. It's considered unremarkable."
*
Buoyed by liberal attitudes such as those, politicians across Western Europe are stepping out of the closet and into their country's highest political offices. Eleven openly gay men and women now serve in the British Parliament, including two in the Cabinet. Last June, Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Frédéric Mitterrand, a gay television presenter, to the post of Minister of Culture. Paris' Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, tipped by some to contest the 2012 presidential race, is gay. And Guido Westerwelle, chairman of Germany's Free Democratic Party, has just become his country's Foreign Minister, joining a gay élite that includes the mayors of Berlin and Hamburg, Germany's two largest cities. That's a far cry from the climate in most of the U.S., where — despite the recent election of Annise Parker, a gay woman, as mayor of Houston, America's fourth largest city — honesty can still end a gay politician's career.
*
David Rayside, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He believes that the relative strength of incumbency in the U.S. creates a barrier to the corridors of power, as does "the strength of religious conservatives." Of the 511,000 elected offices in the U.S. — from local school boards way up to President — openly gay men and women occupy just 450 of them
*
The gap between the U.S. and Europe doesn't just exist at the top: 49% of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center in 2007 believed that society should "accept" homosexuality. Contrast that with attitudes in Europe where more than 80% of French, Germans and Spaniards had such a view. Only Catholic and conservative Poles felt as uncomfortable with the idea as Americans.
*
The same year [1007] in Exeter, a constituency in southwestern England, Conservative party candidate Adrian Rogers attacked his openly gay opponent Ben Bradshaw by describing homosexuality as "a sterile, disease-ridden and godforsaken occupation." Voters awarded Bradshaw the seat, in one of the biggest swings away from the Conservatives in the country that year. "He tried to use my sexuality as a political weapon and that blew up in his face," says Bradshaw, now the U.K.'s Minister of Culture. "That election was a huge sea change in our politics. Since then we've been in a new world."
*
Gay-baiting has proved equally ineffective in Germany. Andreas Heilmann, a social scientist at Berlin's Humboldt University, believes that a politician who discloses his sexual orientation is insulated from criticism. "They embody a certain authenticity and credibility because they're open," he says. By contrast, opponents who make sexuality an issue are typically viewed as mean-spirited and politically incompetent.
*
It helps that Europe's liberal laws — 18 European countries allow gay marriage or same-sex civil unions, and gay couples in nine countries can adopt children — have largely normalized perceptions of gays. Christophe Girard, the deputy mayor of Paris, believes the legal framework for gay partnerships has "forced respect."
*
For a group fighting for the right to marry and serve in the military while openly gay, success in politics is about more than pride. "We need to have people at the table of power when decisions are being made about our lives," says Dison of the Victory Fund. "Our straight allies and nonallies get to know us as human beings, and that tends to affect hearts and minds."
*
It goes without saying that the goal of the Christianists is to continue to depict gays as sub-human, thus making it easier for anti-gay bigotry. Meanwhile, study after study shows that talent and creativity is drawn to areas with tolerance and diversity. Mush of the USA is sending a message for talent to stay away or leave. Not a wise trend in my opinion.
When Iceland installed Johanna Sigurdardottir as Prime Minister last February, newspapers around the globe printed variations of the same headline: ICELAND APPOINTS WORLD'S FIRST GAY LEADER. Everywhere, that is, except Iceland. The Icelandic media didn't mention Sigurdardottir's sexuality for days, and only then to point out that the foreign press had taken an interest in their new head of state — a 67-year-old former flight attendant turned politician whom voters had consistently rated Iceland's most trustworthy politician. Sure, she was gay and had entered a civil partnership with another woman in 2002. But Icelanders hardly seemed to notice. . . . "Being gay is a nonissue here. It's considered unremarkable."
*
Buoyed by liberal attitudes such as those, politicians across Western Europe are stepping out of the closet and into their country's highest political offices. Eleven openly gay men and women now serve in the British Parliament, including two in the Cabinet. Last June, Nicolas Sarkozy appointed Frédéric Mitterrand, a gay television presenter, to the post of Minister of Culture. Paris' Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, tipped by some to contest the 2012 presidential race, is gay. And Guido Westerwelle, chairman of Germany's Free Democratic Party, has just become his country's Foreign Minister, joining a gay élite that includes the mayors of Berlin and Hamburg, Germany's two largest cities. That's a far cry from the climate in most of the U.S., where — despite the recent election of Annise Parker, a gay woman, as mayor of Houston, America's fourth largest city — honesty can still end a gay politician's career.
*
David Rayside, a professor of political science at the University of Toronto. He believes that the relative strength of incumbency in the U.S. creates a barrier to the corridors of power, as does "the strength of religious conservatives." Of the 511,000 elected offices in the U.S. — from local school boards way up to President — openly gay men and women occupy just 450 of them
*
The gap between the U.S. and Europe doesn't just exist at the top: 49% of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center in 2007 believed that society should "accept" homosexuality. Contrast that with attitudes in Europe where more than 80% of French, Germans and Spaniards had such a view. Only Catholic and conservative Poles felt as uncomfortable with the idea as Americans.
*
The same year [1007] in Exeter, a constituency in southwestern England, Conservative party candidate Adrian Rogers attacked his openly gay opponent Ben Bradshaw by describing homosexuality as "a sterile, disease-ridden and godforsaken occupation." Voters awarded Bradshaw the seat, in one of the biggest swings away from the Conservatives in the country that year. "He tried to use my sexuality as a political weapon and that blew up in his face," says Bradshaw, now the U.K.'s Minister of Culture. "That election was a huge sea change in our politics. Since then we've been in a new world."
*
Gay-baiting has proved equally ineffective in Germany. Andreas Heilmann, a social scientist at Berlin's Humboldt University, believes that a politician who discloses his sexual orientation is insulated from criticism. "They embody a certain authenticity and credibility because they're open," he says. By contrast, opponents who make sexuality an issue are typically viewed as mean-spirited and politically incompetent.
*
It helps that Europe's liberal laws — 18 European countries allow gay marriage or same-sex civil unions, and gay couples in nine countries can adopt children — have largely normalized perceptions of gays. Christophe Girard, the deputy mayor of Paris, believes the legal framework for gay partnerships has "forced respect."
*
For a group fighting for the right to marry and serve in the military while openly gay, success in politics is about more than pride. "We need to have people at the table of power when decisions are being made about our lives," says Dison of the Victory Fund. "Our straight allies and nonallies get to know us as human beings, and that tends to affect hearts and minds."
*
It goes without saying that the goal of the Christianists is to continue to depict gays as sub-human, thus making it easier for anti-gay bigotry. Meanwhile, study after study shows that talent and creativity is drawn to areas with tolerance and diversity. Mush of the USA is sending a message for talent to stay away or leave. Not a wise trend in my opinion.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Same-Sex Marriage Law Passed by Portugal's Parliament
As I posted previously, today gay marriage was considered today by Portugal's Parliament. The act granting same sex marriage rights was passed. A final vote will occur after a committee review of the act's language. Thus, the majority of the USA falls behind yet another modern nation in the recognition equality under the law and a separation of church and state. If heavily Catholic Portugal can figure out that religion does not belong in the civil laws, why can't the USA? Here are highlights from the BBC:*
Portugal's parliament has passed a law to legalise same-sex marriage . . . The bill was approved with the support of the governing Socialist Party and other parties further to the left. Prime Minister Jose Socrates opened the debate with an appeal to back the law, saying it would put right an injustice that had caused unnecessary pain. The law has been fiercely opposed by conservatives in the Catholic country.
*
Rightist parties had sought a national referendum on the issue following a petition that collected more than 90,000 signatures, but their proposal was rejected. The bill will now be reviewed in committee before coming back for a final vote in parliament.
Rightist parties had sought a national referendum on the issue following a petition that collected more than 90,000 signatures, but their proposal was rejected. The bill will now be reviewed in committee before coming back for a final vote in parliament.
*
If the law is ratified by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, it could come into effect in April - just a month before a visit to Portugal by Pope Benedict XVI, a staunch opponent of gay marriage. The ratification would make Portugal the sixth country in Europe to allow same-sex marriages after Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Many other countries have introduced civil partnerships, which give lesbian and gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals.
If the law is ratified by President Anibal Cavaco Silva, it could come into effect in April - just a month before a visit to Portugal by Pope Benedict XVI, a staunch opponent of gay marriage. The ratification would make Portugal the sixth country in Europe to allow same-sex marriages after Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Norway. Many other countries have introduced civil partnerships, which give lesbian and gay couples some of the rights of married heterosexuals.
*
Meanwhile, gays in Virginia remain third class citizens and can be fired from their jobs at will, have no state legal rights with their life partners, and can be discriminated against in housing and other areas of daily life. It's a sad commentary on Virginia and many other U. S. states.
20% of Gay youth Sexually Abused in Government Custody
The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report yesterday that found that 12% of youth in government custody experienced sexual abuse. For gay youth, the number was worse - 20% were sexually abused while in government custody. It is a sicken statistic, but given the mentality of many police and the bubbas who work in other areas of law enforcement I guess I should not be surprised. It seems too often that those who are least psychologically fit to have the power of a badge or similar institutional authority are the ones that gravitate toward that line of work. Obviously, the situation is likely even worse in states were homophobia is enshrined in the civil laws and Christianism is the de facto state religion. Unfortunately, it doesn't the least surprise me to see that one of the facilities with a rough 30% rate of abuse is located in anti-gay Virginia. Here are some highlights from Raw Story:*
Some 12 percent of minors held in government custody are sexually abused, and in some facilities the rate reaches a stunning one in three children, says a report released Thursday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
*
The first-ever National Survey of Youth in Custody found that no less than 10 percent of the 26,550 juveniles being held in detention facilities in the US are abused by staff at the facility, while another 2.6 percent report abuse at the hands of other inmates.
*
Among the facilities studied were six identified to have rates of sexual abuse as high as three in 10. According to the Associated Press, those six facilities are Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility in Indiana; Corsicana Residential Treatment Center in Texas; Backbone Mountain Youth Center in Swanton, Maryland; Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina.; Cresson Secure Treatment Unit in Pennsylvania; and the Culpeper Juvenile Correctional Center, Long Term, in Mitchells, Virginia.
*
The study was mandated by a 2003 law, the National Prison Rape Elimination Act, which also created the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Human Rights Watch notes that six months ago the commission set out "comprehensive, effective standards for the prevention, detection, and punishment of prison rape," but the Justice Department has yet to act on those recommendations.
*
The survey found that gay youth were at higher risk than heterosexual youth, with one in five reporting abuse at the hands of a staffer or fellow inmate. Males were more likely to report being abused than females (10.8 percent to 4.7 percent). And 95 percent of those abused by staff reported that the abuser was female. But that number may be influenced by the fact that 91 percent of youth in custody are male.
*
Additional details can be found at the San Francisco Chronicle here.
Some 12 percent of minors held in government custody are sexually abused, and in some facilities the rate reaches a stunning one in three children, says a report released Thursday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
*
The first-ever National Survey of Youth in Custody found that no less than 10 percent of the 26,550 juveniles being held in detention facilities in the US are abused by staff at the facility, while another 2.6 percent report abuse at the hands of other inmates.
*
Among the facilities studied were six identified to have rates of sexual abuse as high as three in 10. According to the Associated Press, those six facilities are Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility in Indiana; Corsicana Residential Treatment Center in Texas; Backbone Mountain Youth Center in Swanton, Maryland; Samarkand Youth Development Center in Eagle Springs, North Carolina.; Cresson Secure Treatment Unit in Pennsylvania; and the Culpeper Juvenile Correctional Center, Long Term, in Mitchells, Virginia.
*
The study was mandated by a 2003 law, the National Prison Rape Elimination Act, which also created the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. Human Rights Watch notes that six months ago the commission set out "comprehensive, effective standards for the prevention, detection, and punishment of prison rape," but the Justice Department has yet to act on those recommendations.
*
The survey found that gay youth were at higher risk than heterosexual youth, with one in five reporting abuse at the hands of a staffer or fellow inmate. Males were more likely to report being abused than females (10.8 percent to 4.7 percent). And 95 percent of those abused by staff reported that the abuser was female. But that number may be influenced by the fact that 91 percent of youth in custody are male.
*
Additional details can be found at the San Francisco Chronicle here.
New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill
Sadly, the New Jersey Senate whimped out yesterday and further underscored the fact that the USA is increasingly sliding toward becoming a semi-theocracy where one set of Christian beliefs trumps the civil laws and gay affirming denominations are told to go f*ck themselves. How many banana republics will have to approve gay marriage before most of the USA stops demonstrating that the nation's Constitution is a farce and that legal equality and full freedom of religion are a myth in this country? Portugal appears headed to "getting it" but not New Jersey and a host of other states that have made anti-gay Christianism the de facto state religion? I know that there are many gay affirming Christians, but Christianists continue to prove that they are enemy No.1 when it comes to gay equality and freedom of religion. The New York Times has coverage on New Jersey's knuckling under to religious based bigotry. Here are some highlights: *
TRENTON — The State Senate on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same-sex couples. The vote was the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.
*
After months of intense lobbying and hours of emotional debate, lawmakers voted 20 to 14 against the bill, bringing tears from some advocates who packed the Senate chambers and rousing applause from opponents of the measure, who also came out in force. The vote ends the effort to win legislative approval of the measure, and sets the stage for a new battle before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
*
With the effort to win legislative approval now dead, supporters of same-sex marriage vowed to focus their efforts on the state’s highest court, which in 2006 ordered lawmakers to give same-sex couples the same rights as others whether or not they called such unions marriages. The Legislature responded by enacting a civil unions law, but gay-rights leaders say that the measure still leaves them subject to discrimination when applying for health insurance or trying to visit partners in hospitals, and that they will ask the court to grant them equal treatment.
*
[L]eaders of Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which has helped coordinate gay rights causes in New Jersey and elsewhere, said they said they were confident that the court would prove more receptive than the Legislature. “We are upset, we are disappointed, but we aren’t done fighting,” said Leslie Gabel-Brett, Lambda’s director of education and public affairs.
*
[S]upporters of gay marriage view their cause as a matter of civil rights which should be settled by the courts and Legislature, and point out that in 1915, New Jersey voters in a referendum rejected giving women the right to vote. Five years later, the 19th Amendment granted women voting rights.
*
Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat from Essex, said that the furor surrounding gay marriage was based on the same type of unfounded fear of the unknown that was used to justify discrimination against women and racial minorities. “One day people will look back and say, ‘What were they thinking?’ ” Senator Codey said, and, “ ‘What were they so afraid of?’ ”
TRENTON — The State Senate on Thursday rejected a proposal that would have made New Jersey the sixth state in the nation to allow marriages involving same-sex couples. The vote was the latest in a succession of setbacks for advocates of gay marriage across the country.
*
After months of intense lobbying and hours of emotional debate, lawmakers voted 20 to 14 against the bill, bringing tears from some advocates who packed the Senate chambers and rousing applause from opponents of the measure, who also came out in force. The vote ends the effort to win legislative approval of the measure, and sets the stage for a new battle before the New Jersey Supreme Court.
*
With the effort to win legislative approval now dead, supporters of same-sex marriage vowed to focus their efforts on the state’s highest court, which in 2006 ordered lawmakers to give same-sex couples the same rights as others whether or not they called such unions marriages. The Legislature responded by enacting a civil unions law, but gay-rights leaders say that the measure still leaves them subject to discrimination when applying for health insurance or trying to visit partners in hospitals, and that they will ask the court to grant them equal treatment.
*
[L]eaders of Lambda Legal Defense Fund, which has helped coordinate gay rights causes in New Jersey and elsewhere, said they said they were confident that the court would prove more receptive than the Legislature. “We are upset, we are disappointed, but we aren’t done fighting,” said Leslie Gabel-Brett, Lambda’s director of education and public affairs.
*
[S]upporters of gay marriage view their cause as a matter of civil rights which should be settled by the courts and Legislature, and point out that in 1915, New Jersey voters in a referendum rejected giving women the right to vote. Five years later, the 19th Amendment granted women voting rights.
*
Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat from Essex, said that the furor surrounding gay marriage was based on the same type of unfounded fear of the unknown that was used to justify discrimination against women and racial minorities. “One day people will look back and say, ‘What were they thinking?’ ” Senator Codey said, and, “ ‘What were they so afraid of?’ ”
*
Let the litigation resume and hopefully the justices of the New Jersey Supreme Court will have the guts and integrity to demand that religious based discrimination against same sex couples cease.
Challenging Prop 8: The Hidden Story
Shortly, the trial will begin in the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is being quarterbacked by top tier attorneys, Ted Olson and David Boies (at right), and bankrolled by the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER). As any casual reader of this blog will know, I fully support the lawsuit and believe that if religion is stripped from the reasoning of the judge (and justices on appeal) the striking down of Proposition 8 should be a slam dunk under the plain meaning of the United States Constitution. The problem, of course, is finding judges and justices that can leave their religion at the door of the courtroom and base their verdict solely on the facts and the constitutional language. The California Lawyer has a good and detailed look at the lead up to the case and what it might lead to. I do truly believe that LGBT citizens will first gain full equality through the courts - just like other minorities have done so in the past. Here are a few story highlights (the article merits a full read):*
The Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher associate had been told by his firm that secrecy was absolutely critical. Monagas hadn't revealed to anyone—not even his secretary or family—anything about the case. Secrecy was the reason he was filing in person rather than using Gibson Dunn's regular service. His instructions were to wait until the last possible moment, and the deadline for presenting new matters was 3:30 p.m. Dressed in his usual casual Friday clothes, Monagas nervously handed over the short stack of papers.
*
After all the copies were stamped, the clerk entered the filing information into the computer, which assigned a case number and randomly selected a judge. Monagas saw the initials "VRW" and realized that the case—Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-2292—had been assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Monagas walked out of the building hoping that no reporter would pick up the story over the long weekend. No one did.
*
For months, the people backing the Perry suit had worked in the shadows. They wanted the complaint to be the challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November 2008 statewide ballot initiative that declared, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7.5.) That measure effectively repealed the right of same-sex couples to marry, which California's Supreme Court had recognized under the state constitution's privacy clause in June 2008 (In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008)).
*
"We didn't want there to be an explosion of lawsuits around the country," says Theodore Boutrous Jr., a partner in Gibson Dunn's Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., offices who helped draft the complaint. Anticipating an adverse ruling by the state Supreme Court in a case challenging the validity of Prop. 8, the Gibson Dunn team had planned to file its complaint just before the scheduled announcement of the court's decision on May 26, and to reveal its star litigators—former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and celebrated trial lawyer Davis Boies—at a press conference the following day.
The plan worked perfectly. On May 26 the court upheld Prop. 8, though it declared valid the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed from June to November 2008 (Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364 (2009)). The next day, leaders of a freshly minted organization called the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) stood before the national press at a hotel in downtown Los Angeles to announce its lawsuit and reveal that Olson and Boies—opposing counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore—would be leading the trial team. "We're taking this fight to the federal courts in order to protect the equal rights guaranteed to every American by the United States Constitution," declared Chad Griffin, AFER's board president.
*
Boutrous describes Gibson Dunn's fee arrangement with AFER as a "hybrid." "We agreed to make a pro bono contribution of the first $100,000 of our services and then flat fees for the various phases, to be augmented and adjusted in our collective discretion," he said.
Millions of dollars in fees and expenses would be required. To raise it, Griffin gathered people from the business and entertainment industry for a series of private meetings in Los Angeles and New York. Olson attended nearly every fundraiser, and Boutrous all the Los Angeles events. The foundation met its goals, though Griffin won't identify the donors, saying he'll reveal them only when the Prop. 8 proponents disclose their supporters. By this time, the Gibson Dunn legal team included partners and associates in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., offices.
*
Ted Olson—keenly aware of his reputation as a prominent conservative—says he knew from the beginning that he would need to try the Perry case with co-counsel. "I wanted to have someone who would have credibility with people who might be suspicious of what I'm doing here," he says. "I wanted people to be comfortable with the lawyering, and the judiciary to feel that this was not a liberal or a conservative issue; that it wasn't a political issue, it was a legal issue."
*
The Perry case was no longer simply a matter of law. It was taking on the feel of another historic civil rights case: Brown v. Board of Education.
The Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher associate had been told by his firm that secrecy was absolutely critical. Monagas hadn't revealed to anyone—not even his secretary or family—anything about the case. Secrecy was the reason he was filing in person rather than using Gibson Dunn's regular service. His instructions were to wait until the last possible moment, and the deadline for presenting new matters was 3:30 p.m. Dressed in his usual casual Friday clothes, Monagas nervously handed over the short stack of papers.
*
After all the copies were stamped, the clerk entered the filing information into the computer, which assigned a case number and randomly selected a judge. Monagas saw the initials "VRW" and realized that the case—Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 09-2292—had been assigned to Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Monagas walked out of the building hoping that no reporter would pick up the story over the long weekend. No one did.
*
For months, the people backing the Perry suit had worked in the shadows. They wanted the complaint to be the challenge to the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the November 2008 statewide ballot initiative that declared, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 7.5.) That measure effectively repealed the right of same-sex couples to marry, which California's Supreme Court had recognized under the state constitution's privacy clause in June 2008 (In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal. 4th 757 (2008)).
*
"We didn't want there to be an explosion of lawsuits around the country," says Theodore Boutrous Jr., a partner in Gibson Dunn's Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., offices who helped draft the complaint. Anticipating an adverse ruling by the state Supreme Court in a case challenging the validity of Prop. 8, the Gibson Dunn team had planned to file its complaint just before the scheduled announcement of the court's decision on May 26, and to reveal its star litigators—former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and celebrated trial lawyer Davis Boies—at a press conference the following day.
The plan worked perfectly. On May 26 the court upheld Prop. 8, though it declared valid the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed from June to November 2008 (Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364 (2009)). The next day, leaders of a freshly minted organization called the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) stood before the national press at a hotel in downtown Los Angeles to announce its lawsuit and reveal that Olson and Boies—opposing counsel before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore—would be leading the trial team. "We're taking this fight to the federal courts in order to protect the equal rights guaranteed to every American by the United States Constitution," declared Chad Griffin, AFER's board president.
*
Boutrous describes Gibson Dunn's fee arrangement with AFER as a "hybrid." "We agreed to make a pro bono contribution of the first $100,000 of our services and then flat fees for the various phases, to be augmented and adjusted in our collective discretion," he said.
Millions of dollars in fees and expenses would be required. To raise it, Griffin gathered people from the business and entertainment industry for a series of private meetings in Los Angeles and New York. Olson attended nearly every fundraiser, and Boutrous all the Los Angeles events. The foundation met its goals, though Griffin won't identify the donors, saying he'll reveal them only when the Prop. 8 proponents disclose their supporters. By this time, the Gibson Dunn legal team included partners and associates in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., offices.
*
Ted Olson—keenly aware of his reputation as a prominent conservative—says he knew from the beginning that he would need to try the Perry case with co-counsel. "I wanted to have someone who would have credibility with people who might be suspicious of what I'm doing here," he says. "I wanted people to be comfortable with the lawyering, and the judiciary to feel that this was not a liberal or a conservative issue; that it wasn't a political issue, it was a legal issue."
*
The Perry case was no longer simply a matter of law. It was taking on the feel of another historic civil rights case: Brown v. Board of Education.
*
[T]he LGBT legal groups chose to cooperate with the Perry team. They have provided background material that includes expert witnesses who had been used in other cases, and briefs from gay-rights litigation. "We are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible," says James Esseks, co-director of the ACLU's LGBT Project. "And we wish the plaintiffs' legal team the best. We know they're doing everything they can to put together a great case." But does he support the litigation? "What I'd say is: We think they've got it right about the law," Esseks replied. "We think that Prop. 8 violates the federal Constitution. We think that is crystal clear." The LGBT legal groups also agree that Olson's involvement is a significant and positive development.
[T]he LGBT legal groups chose to cooperate with the Perry team. They have provided background material that includes expert witnesses who had been used in other cases, and briefs from gay-rights litigation. "We are interested in doing whatever we can to make sure their case is as successful as possible," says James Esseks, co-director of the ACLU's LGBT Project. "And we wish the plaintiffs' legal team the best. We know they're doing everything they can to put together a great case." But does he support the litigation? "What I'd say is: We think they've got it right about the law," Esseks replied. "We think that Prop. 8 violates the federal Constitution. We think that is crystal clear." The LGBT legal groups also agree that Olson's involvement is a significant and positive development.
*
I will freely admit that I'd love to work on such a case as this one. In my heart, I'm an activist and I want to make a difference.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
More Hypocrisy: Anti-gay MP Iris Robinson's Lover Said to Have Been under 21
I written before about Irish gay-hater, Iris Robinson (pictured at left), a Member of Parliament who condemned gays as sinners, advocated for reparative therapy, and pushed an anti-equality agenda. Recently, Ms. Robinson announced that she would be retiring from politics for health and family reasons. Turns out, Robinson must have been studying GOP politicians in the USA. It seems that the real story behind her resignation is that she was having an adulterous affair with Kirk McCambley (at far left), a man believed to be one third her age. Oh dear, another homophobic sinner caught by her own disregard of the "family values" standards she would impose on others. Of course, when it comes to hypocrisy, Ms. Robinson is in the good company of the child abusing Catholic Church. But maybe she just thought she really WAS Anne Bancroft in the movie, The Graduate. Both Pink News and the Daily Mail have more details. First some highlights from Pink News:*
Homophobic Northern Ireland MP Iris Robinson's affair was thought to have been with a young man aged under 21 at the time. News channel UTV, which broke the story of her affair and suicide attempt yesterday, reported the claim this evening. Robinson, who is 60, said the affair and suicide attempt took place in March 2008. She said the "brief" liaison began "completely innocently" when she offered support to someone who had suffered a family death.
*
Earlier today, The Times reported that a BBC investigation into the finances of Robinson and her husband Peter, who is Northern Ireland's first minister, was what prompted her to reveal details of her affair and attempted suicide. The "embarrassing" television documentary was to be broadcast with allegations over the first family's financial affairs.
*
Robinson, a fundamentalist Christian, was labelled a bigot for a series of outbursts last year in which she made offensive comments about homosexuality. In 2008, she told the Belfast Telegraph that homosexuality was comparable to paedophilia. She also told a radio show that homosexuality was a mental illness and could be "cured".
*
Not surprisingly, the Dail Mail has some juicier tid bits on the affair and refers to McCambley as obinson's toyboy. Here are some highlights:
*
Last night sources close to Mrs Robinson revealed her lover's name to be Kirk McCambley - and they said he was 19 when the pair became involved 18 months ago. . . . They apparently met in March 2008 at the funeral of Mr McCambley's father, a friend of Mrs Robinson. The young man, now 21, owns the Lock Keeper's Inn in south Belfast. Details of the affair were revealed by the BBC in an interview with her husband. Last night it was claimed that Mrs Robinson organised a £50,000 loan to help her toyboy lover set up the restaurant business.
*
Mrs Robinson and Mr McCambley's affair lasted for around five months, ending after they allegedly rowed over the repayment of the money. . . In her statement she said: 'Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions... I am so, so sorry. It had no emotional or lasting meaning, but my actions have devastated my life, and the lives of those around me.'
*
Homophobic Northern Ireland MP Iris Robinson's affair was thought to have been with a young man aged under 21 at the time. News channel UTV, which broke the story of her affair and suicide attempt yesterday, reported the claim this evening. Robinson, who is 60, said the affair and suicide attempt took place in March 2008. She said the "brief" liaison began "completely innocently" when she offered support to someone who had suffered a family death.
*
Earlier today, The Times reported that a BBC investigation into the finances of Robinson and her husband Peter, who is Northern Ireland's first minister, was what prompted her to reveal details of her affair and attempted suicide. The "embarrassing" television documentary was to be broadcast with allegations over the first family's financial affairs.
*
Robinson, a fundamentalist Christian, was labelled a bigot for a series of outbursts last year in which she made offensive comments about homosexuality. In 2008, she told the Belfast Telegraph that homosexuality was comparable to paedophilia. She also told a radio show that homosexuality was a mental illness and could be "cured".
*
Not surprisingly, the Dail Mail has some juicier tid bits on the affair and refers to McCambley as obinson's toyboy. Here are some highlights:
*
Last night sources close to Mrs Robinson revealed her lover's name to be Kirk McCambley - and they said he was 19 when the pair became involved 18 months ago. . . . They apparently met in March 2008 at the funeral of Mr McCambley's father, a friend of Mrs Robinson. The young man, now 21, owns the Lock Keeper's Inn in south Belfast. Details of the affair were revealed by the BBC in an interview with her husband. Last night it was claimed that Mrs Robinson organised a £50,000 loan to help her toyboy lover set up the restaurant business.
*
Mrs Robinson and Mr McCambley's affair lasted for around five months, ending after they allegedly rowed over the repayment of the money. . . In her statement she said: 'Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions... I am so, so sorry. It had no emotional or lasting meaning, but my actions have devastated my life, and the lives of those around me.'
*
Her name will bring to mind the fictional Mrs Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft who had an affair with a man half her age, played by Dustin Hoffman, in the 1967 film The Graduate.
Catholic Portugal Set to Legalize Gay Marriage
It is interesting to consider that many of those who emigrated to America in the early period the nation's colonization were motivated by a desire to escape religious based discrimination in Europe. Now the circle has come full circle with most of the European nations recognizing the separation of church and state and that religion has no place in the civil laws while in the USA the GOP and Christianists reject that understanding. Indeed, they seek to impose religious based discrimination on those who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs, particularly gays. It is likewise interesting (actually very distressing) that Virginia - which provided so many of the great thinkers of the Founding Fathers of the nation - is one of the worse offenders when it comes to encoding religious based discrimination in the state's civil laws. As for Portugal, I am shocked that the Roman Catholic Church not thrusting itself into the issue. Perhaps seeing the Church in melt down in Ireland the decision was made to maintain a low profile. Here are some highlights from Agence France-Presse (AFP):*
LISBON — Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe's most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalisation of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss. With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.
*
In contrast to Spain, where the lead-up to the legalisation of gay marriage in 2005 brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets, the bill in Portugal has provoked only muted opposition even from the right. While normally vocal on the role of marriage and the family in society, the Catholic Church has refused to mobilise on a subject which, according to Lisbon's Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo, is "parliament's responsibility".
*
"I think the Portuguese people have learnt one of the fundamental tenets of democracy: respect for the rights of the individual," Miguel Vale de Almeida, Portugal's first openly-gay lawmaker who was elected in September, told AFP.
*
Vale de Almeida, who is the Socialists' pointman on the legislation, said there is now a political majority in favour of gay marriage and that it is "too simplistic to link Catholicism and conservatism."
*
LISBON — Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe's most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalisation of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss. With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.
*
In contrast to Spain, where the lead-up to the legalisation of gay marriage in 2005 brought hundreds of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets, the bill in Portugal has provoked only muted opposition even from the right. While normally vocal on the role of marriage and the family in society, the Catholic Church has refused to mobilise on a subject which, according to Lisbon's Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo, is "parliament's responsibility".
*
"I think the Portuguese people have learnt one of the fundamental tenets of democracy: respect for the rights of the individual," Miguel Vale de Almeida, Portugal's first openly-gay lawmaker who was elected in September, told AFP.
*
Vale de Almeida, who is the Socialists' pointman on the legislation, said there is now a political majority in favour of gay marriage and that it is "too simplistic to link Catholicism and conservatism."
*
Deputies are also expected on Friday to vote two other bills submitted by the Green party, the Left Bloc and others which would grant gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt children. If the gay marriage proposals do pass through parliament, they will the have to go through a parliamentary commission before coming back for the final approval.
*
According to media reports, both the government and the Catholic Church wants the gay marriage issue to be resolved before the visit of the pope, scheduled for May 11-14.
According to media reports, both the government and the Catholic Church wants the gay marriage issue to be resolved before the visit of the pope, scheduled for May 11-14.
HRBOR's January Third Thursday Network Event
Hampton Roads Business Outreach ("HRBOR")'s January 2010 Third Thursday will be on January 21, 2009, at The Artists Gallery in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Artists Gallery is a wonderful working marketplace for visual artists and offers visitors the opportunity to experience artists creating, displaying and selling their original works of art. All artist work will be on exhibition for the Third Thursday event. In addition to new works on display, the gallery sponsors group shows and individual exhibitions by members and invited guest artists. I hope local readers will try to make a point of attending the function and RSVP here.
DATE: January 21st, 2010
TIME: 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
HOST: The Artists Gallery,
Vinnie Bumatay and resident artists
PLACE: 608 Norfolk Avenue, Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451757-425-6671 www.theartistsgallery.org
For newer readers, Hampton Roads Business OutReach (HRBOR) is a broad based coalition of LGBT owned and LGBT supportive businesses and professionals dedicated to the development, growth and advocacy of Hampton Roads and its LGBT community. By promoting an environment in which diversity can flourish, HRBOR is committed to the economic growth and prosperity of our members and our community.
Washington Post: Uganda's Bill an Outrage
While it is a strong editorial condemning Uganda's proposed "kill the gays" bill, the Washington Post's editorial fails to connect the dots between American Christianists and the pending legislation in Uganda. Only by being exposed to the full light of day will future anti-gay efforts by Christian extremists be diminished. It is also important that the American public be made aware of just how dishonest and crazy these homophobes actually are - despite efforts by those like Rick Warren to distance themselves from the results of their handiwork. Ideally, the nutcase Scott Lively should be made the poster boy for the Christian Right because even though those like Warren, James Dobson, Tony Perkins and Maggie Gallagher try to put a kinder face on their anti-gay agenda, their goal of stripping gays of legal rights and protections is ultimately not so very different. Here are some editorial highlights:*
THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY Bill of 2009 is an ugly and ignorant piece of legislation being considered in Uganda. If it is approved, the gay people of that nation would be subject to life in prison. This retreat from the death sentence originally proposed should neither be celebrated nor considered a concession by the government in response to pressure from the United States and other nations. The proposal is barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations.
*
The law would apply to citizens or permanent residents of Uganda, and would cover behavior both in and outside that country. The measure would turn neighbor against neighbor by requiring those with knowledge of a gay person to report them to police within 24 hours or risk three years in prison. A seven-year jail term awaits the Ugandan who "aids, abets, [or] counsels" homosexuals. And anyone convicted of "aggravated homosexuality," which could mean someone who is HIV-positive and is intimate with another person of the same sex, could "suffer death."
*
[S]entencing men and women to life imprisonment because of their sexual orientation is an atrocity. Gays and lesbians would be punished by their own government for who they are. Contrary to the backward thinking of the Ugandan government, being gay is not a choice. But pushing homophobic laws that foment hate is.
*
If Uganda approves the anti-homosexuality bill, it risks making itself a pariah among nations.
*
THE ANTI-HOMOSEXUALITY Bill of 2009 is an ugly and ignorant piece of legislation being considered in Uganda. If it is approved, the gay people of that nation would be subject to life in prison. This retreat from the death sentence originally proposed should neither be celebrated nor considered a concession by the government in response to pressure from the United States and other nations. The proposal is barbaric. That it is even being considered puts Uganda beyond the pale of civilized nations.
*
The law would apply to citizens or permanent residents of Uganda, and would cover behavior both in and outside that country. The measure would turn neighbor against neighbor by requiring those with knowledge of a gay person to report them to police within 24 hours or risk three years in prison. A seven-year jail term awaits the Ugandan who "aids, abets, [or] counsels" homosexuals. And anyone convicted of "aggravated homosexuality," which could mean someone who is HIV-positive and is intimate with another person of the same sex, could "suffer death."
*
[S]entencing men and women to life imprisonment because of their sexual orientation is an atrocity. Gays and lesbians would be punished by their own government for who they are. Contrary to the backward thinking of the Ugandan government, being gay is not a choice. But pushing homophobic laws that foment hate is.
*
If Uganda approves the anti-homosexuality bill, it risks making itself a pariah among nations.
*
Not only should Uganda be a pariah, but so too should the Christianists who set the stage for the introduction of such legislation. It is beyond time that the world recognize that Christian extremists are just as big of threat to peace and security as are Islamic extremist. The mindset is truly the same.
Loudoun County Enacts Nondiscrimination Protections Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
As I have noted many times, Virginia is an extremely unfriendly state if one happens to be an LGBT citizen. There are ZERO state laws that protect us from employment or housing discrimination and the newly elected statewide officials have severe difficulty understanding the concept of religious freedom for anyone other than Bible beaters and ultraconservative Catholics. Thus, the only protections one can hope for come from local municipalities that grant such employment protections. Each week I receive calls from LGBT individuals considering a move to Virginia and to be candid with them I have to tell them that they will have little protections under the law in Virginia. Indeed, I typically suggest that they look elsewhere if they want a gay friendly legal climate. Loudoun County in Northern Virginia has figured out that Virginia's unfriendly climate makes that county non-competitive in the workplace recruiting world and just passed its own local non-discrimination protections for county employees. Naturally, the Bible beaters are incensed. The Loudoun Independent has a great editorial taking the homophobes to task. Here are some highlights:*
It seems outrageous, but prior to this week it was a perfectly plausible outcome for an employee of the Loudoun County government who happened to be gay or lesbian. There will doubtless be those who become histrionic about a Jan. 5 decision by the Board of Supervisors to enact a county policy not to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, claiming either that gays and lesbians are being given “special rights” or that the decision adds to the moral decay of the country by condoning a certain lifestyle. There is credence in neither argument.
*
Talking to reporters after Tuesday's vote, Board Chairman Scott York (I-At Large) derided the motion, stating that it was unnecessary and that the discussion was “a waste of 20 minutes."
*
This is the response of someone who does not understand the issue. Virginia has passed legislation banning same-sex marriage and has consistently not acted to protect the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. (Although, Gov. Tim Kaine did mandate in 2006 that state agencies not discriminate based on sexual orientation.) In the most recent election, Virginia elected three socially conservative officials for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. While social conservative ideals were not part of the storefront of their respective campaigns, none of them are likely to defend the rights of gays and lesbians. Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli (R) is on record with his belief that state policies should reflect his belief that “homosexual acts are wrong.”
*
With that in mind, existing county employees and qualified applicants researching Virginia’s current approach to equal protection for gays and lesbians might feel that having a nondiscrimination policy in writing is extremely comforting. Those listening to the borderline-incomprehensible arguments against the proposal by Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) would likely demand that those protections be in place.
*
A strong nondiscrimination policy attracts stronger applicants (gay and straight) and it allows those gays and lesbians already working for the county a sense of respect and security that will allow them to dedicate themselves to their jobs. The decision to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the county’s nondiscrimination policy tells residents and employees that so long as you do your job well and pay your taxes, then you’re welcome here. It may have been true before, but sometimes it’s nice to say it out loud. Was it a waste of time to guarantee that Loudoun continues to not discriminate?
Absolutely not.
It seems outrageous, but prior to this week it was a perfectly plausible outcome for an employee of the Loudoun County government who happened to be gay or lesbian. There will doubtless be those who become histrionic about a Jan. 5 decision by the Board of Supervisors to enact a county policy not to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity, claiming either that gays and lesbians are being given “special rights” or that the decision adds to the moral decay of the country by condoning a certain lifestyle. There is credence in neither argument.
*
Talking to reporters after Tuesday's vote, Board Chairman Scott York (I-At Large) derided the motion, stating that it was unnecessary and that the discussion was “a waste of 20 minutes."
*
This is the response of someone who does not understand the issue. Virginia has passed legislation banning same-sex marriage and has consistently not acted to protect the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. (Although, Gov. Tim Kaine did mandate in 2006 that state agencies not discriminate based on sexual orientation.) In the most recent election, Virginia elected three socially conservative officials for Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General. While social conservative ideals were not part of the storefront of their respective campaigns, none of them are likely to defend the rights of gays and lesbians. Attorney General-elect Ken Cuccinelli (R) is on record with his belief that state policies should reflect his belief that “homosexual acts are wrong.”
*
With that in mind, existing county employees and qualified applicants researching Virginia’s current approach to equal protection for gays and lesbians might feel that having a nondiscrimination policy in writing is extremely comforting. Those listening to the borderline-incomprehensible arguments against the proposal by Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio (R-Sterling) would likely demand that those protections be in place.
*
A strong nondiscrimination policy attracts stronger applicants (gay and straight) and it allows those gays and lesbians already working for the county a sense of respect and security that will allow them to dedicate themselves to their jobs. The decision to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the county’s nondiscrimination policy tells residents and employees that so long as you do your job well and pay your taxes, then you’re welcome here. It may have been true before, but sometimes it’s nice to say it out loud. Was it a waste of time to guarantee that Loudoun continues to not discriminate?
Absolutely not.
*
Virginia cities like Norfolk and Hampton need to wake up to the fact that they need to move into the 21st century and enact similar protections. Otherwise top employment candidates will continue to move elsewhere and Virginia will continue to have its most talented LGBT citizens often decide to leave the state.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Market For LGBT Travel Still Grows
In a still struggling economy, one travel segment continues to grow - LGBT travel. Thus, one would think that localities and regions dependent upon tourism - Williamsburg is one such place locally that has been hard hit by the economic down turn - would get the message that anti-gay laws are a bad thing financially. After all, what LGBT individual wants to visit a state where dogs and cats get more legal protections than LGBT citizens (not that I'm against dogs and cats). Yet states like Virginia - and Neanderthals like Bob McDonnell, Randy Forbes and Eric Cantor - go out of their way to induce the sought after tourist dollars to go elsewhere by keeping gays third class citizens. Believe it or not guys, we gays can recognize a place that is not welcoming and which has legislatively approved homophobia. It's particularly ironic since Virginia Governor elect McDonnell is slashing salaries for cabinet officers, etc., because the state is in such a financial bind. Increased tourism revenues are particularly needed now. But where do many Virginia gays go to vacation? Places that are more gay friendly and OUTSIDE of Virginia (the boyfriend and I NEVER vacation in Virginia). NY1 looks at the still vibrant gay travel market. Here are some highlights:*
In this down economy, at least one market that has seen growth in the beleaguered tourism industry. Travel directed for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender vacationers is proving to be recession-resistant. "Gay and lesbian travelers have not been pulling back on travel spending, the number of vacations they are taking or the number of days they are spending on vacation the way the general public is," says Passport Magazine editor Andrew Mersmann. Data show that a gay couple spends $7,000 on a week's trip, about $2,000 more than their heterosexual counterparts.
*
The weather for an LGBT trip can be either hot or cold, but the biggest turnoff is an intolerant climate. "We are not going to book a whole lot of travel to Jamaica anytime soon because there is such systemic homophobia and violence against the gay and lesbian community, it's not safe to go there. And you don't want to spend your dollars there," says Mersmann.
*
The gay community will generally find it smooth sailing onboard cruise ships. "There are all-gay cruises, and on most of the large cruise ships there tend to be gay groups with specific events, cocktail parties," says Mersmann.
*
If Virginia and Virginians were smart, they'd take down the "gays not wanted" signs and not only hang onto Virginia gay dollars, but gather them in from other states as well. Gay friendly Key West will be getting our travel dollars soon.
Congressman Randy Forbes Insults Thomas Jefferson's Memory
I have addressed before my concerns over the inability of Virginia Congressman Randy Forbes - one of my former law school classmates - to grasp the concept of freedom of religion so strongly advocated by Thomas Jefferson and embodied in Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom (which Virginia Republicans utterly ignore). Indeed, this statute was one of the three things that Jefferson was most proud of and which is on his gravestone at Monticello in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now, Forbes has thrust himself into the anti-gay agenda to overturn the recently passed legislation in Washington, D.C., that allows for marriage equality. Joining Forbes in an amicus brief supporting a voter referendum that the homophobes hope would repeal the newly enacted marriage rights is another Virginia Congressman, Eric Cantor. It's disgusting and Forbes needs to mail his law degree diploma back to Mr. Jefferson's university so that it can be burned. Mr. Forbes truly needs to consider moving to Iran or some other nation ruled by similar religious extremists. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post:*
Thirty-nine congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), have filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District.
In the filing, U.S. senators James Inhofe (Okla.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) and 37 House Republicans align with Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church, in asking the court to reverse a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision prohibiting the same-sex marriage question to be put before voters.
the court brief underscores the challenge same-sex marriage supporters face in trying to protect the new law in both the current and future Congresses, particularly if the GOP retakes control.
In addition to the two senators and Boehner and Cantor, the brief was signed by U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), J. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), John Fleming (La.), J. Randy Forbes (Va.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Jack Kingston (Ga.), John Kline (Minn.) Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Robert Latta (Ohio), Don Manzullo (Ill.), Michael McCaul (Tex.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Randy Neugebauer (Tex.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Mark Souder (Ind.) and Todd Tiahrt (Kan.)
Thirty-nine congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and Minority Whip Eric Cantor (Va.), have filed an amicus brief in D.C. Superior Court calling for a voter referendum on whether to legalize same-sex marriage in the District.
In the filing, U.S. senators James Inhofe (Okla.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.) and 37 House Republicans align with Bishop Harry Jackson, pastor of Hope Christian Church, in asking the court to reverse a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision prohibiting the same-sex marriage question to be put before voters.
the court brief underscores the challenge same-sex marriage supporters face in trying to protect the new law in both the current and future Congresses, particularly if the GOP retakes control.
In addition to the two senators and Boehner and Cantor, the brief was signed by U.S. Reps. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), J. Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Roscoe Bartlett (Md.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), John Boozman (Ark.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), John Fleming (La.), J. Randy Forbes (Va.), Virginia Foxx (N.C.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Phil Gingrey (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Tex.), Jeb Hensarling (Tex.), Wally Herger (Calif.), Walter Jones (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Jack Kingston (Ga.), John Kline (Minn.) Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Robert Latta (Ohio), Don Manzullo (Ill.), Michael McCaul (Tex.), Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.), Patrick McHenry (N.C.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Randy Neugebauer (Tex.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Mark Souder (Ind.) and Todd Tiahrt (Kan.)
*
If readers see their representative's name listed above, you need to contact their office and voice your displeasure. We cannot permit the wingnuts at FRC, Focus on the Family and similar hate groups give the appearance to those such as Forbes that their actions are going unnoticed or that they will be without negative consequences.
Scott Lively'sAnti-Gay “Nuclear Bomb” in Uganda
Fortunately, more and more blogs and news outlets seem to be slowly adding coverage about the "kill the gays" legislation pending in Uganda. Better yet, increasing focus is being placed on the role played by hysterical, lying Christian activists in setting the stage for such legislation. In the forefront of the lies and bogus anti-gay propaganda disseminated by the (in my opinion, based on my past e-mail exchanges with him) utterly deranged Scott Lively. Aiding and abetting him - even though many are now disavowing their roles - have been The Family, Rick Warren, folks at Exodus International and others of their ilk. Jim Burroway at the Box Turtle Bulletin has secured copies of some of the videos presented by Lively back in March in Uganda. The bulk of the information in the videos is utterly untrue, relies on fraudulent "research" and is contrary to the findings of legitimate medical and mental health associations. These people are a clear and present danger to religious freedom and peace and order and the public needs to wake up to this reality. Jim summarizes the video presentations as follows:*
This first video explores that “nuclear bomb” and its repercussions. In this video, you will see:
*
■Lively’s defense against being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (Ex-Gay Watch has posted a longer unedited video segment of his defense),
■Lively’s equating homosexuality with Nazism and fascism, and blaming the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people,
■Lively’s reinforcement of the false stereotype of gay people as child molesters,
■Lively denouncing foreign influences to “promote” homosexuality,
■Lively describing AIDS as just punishment for homosexuality,
■and the aftermath of Lively’s “nuclear bomb” in Uganda.
This first video explores that “nuclear bomb” and its repercussions. In this video, you will see:
*
■Lively’s defense against being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (Ex-Gay Watch has posted a longer unedited video segment of his defense),
■Lively’s equating homosexuality with Nazism and fascism, and blaming the 1994 Rwandan genocide on gay people,
■Lively’s reinforcement of the false stereotype of gay people as child molesters,
■Lively denouncing foreign influences to “promote” homosexuality,
■Lively describing AIDS as just punishment for homosexuality,
■and the aftermath of Lively’s “nuclear bomb” in Uganda.
*
Of the three videos we are debuting today, this is the most important as it puts Lively’s presentation in context with existing homophobia in Uganda.
*
In this second video, we show more clips of him pumping up his credentials and expertise. He then goes on to completely mangle the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of “sexual orientation,” conflating it with a completely different category of sexual paraphilias. (Ex-Gay Watch’s longer unedited video segment is here.)
Of the three videos we are debuting today, this is the most important as it puts Lively’s presentation in context with existing homophobia in Uganda.
*
In this second video, we show more clips of him pumping up his credentials and expertise. He then goes on to completely mangle the American Psychiatric Association’s definition of “sexual orientation,” conflating it with a completely different category of sexual paraphilias. (Ex-Gay Watch’s longer unedited video segment is here.)
Andrew Sullivanhas a relevant analysis of what Lively's video speechs reveal. Hopefully, more and more Americans will wake up to what the the Christianist and GOP anti-gay jihad ultimately comes down to. Here's a snippet of what Andrew had to say::
*
Well, here's a video of Lively's talk in Uganda that reveals what he says when he doesn't think he's being watched by Americans. He likens gays to mass killers, as the kind of people who would create a holocaust, as terrible dangers to civilization. This is the core of the Christianist message and the Christianist message is now the core of the GOP. At some point, you have to take these people's words seriously.
Gay Marriage in Iowa Appears Safe for a few Years
Provided the Democrat controlled state legislature refuses to vote on a gay marriage amendment this session - which appears likely at this time - no popular vote can take place until 2014. Not that the Christo-fascists won't be using the gay menace to line their pockets and continue gay bashing in the interim. After all, Maggie Gallagher and her minions DO want to keep paying themselves fat pay checks. One can only hope that after another four years, normal Iowa citizens will see that the world and civilization have not ended because same sex couples have civil legal rights and there will be minimal support to ban gay marriage outside of the swamps of freeper land. In addition, Iowa - unlike backwards Virginia - requires a super majority vote to amend the state's constitution. Here are some highlights from the Chicago Tribune: *
DES MOINES, Iowa - Gov. Chet Culver and Democratic legislative leaders intend to focus on the state's budget shortfall when the Legislature convenes next week, but activists are working to get gay marriage on the agenda. The Iowa Family Policy Council, a group leading the push to approve a constitutional amendment overturning the court ruling, also is criticizing Culver for issuing a proclamation that supports the rights of transgender people.
*
"Iowans know that Governor Culver does not share their values," said Chuck Hurley, president of the council. "As if the governor's unwillingness to exercise the influence of his office in the defense of marriage wasn't enough, we now know that he is spending his time creating special days celebrating sexual disorientation."
*
Price said the governor felt issuing the proclamation was an appropriate way to honor transgender people who have died. "He believes that all Iowans should be protected from discrimination and abuse," said Price, adding that he thinks Hurley was using the issue to score political points and gain attention in the days before the group's rally.
*
One Iowa spokesman Justin Uebelhor said civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. "We've never in the history of Iowa had a basic civil rights issue put to a vote," he said. "We don't think it's appropriate." Instead, Uebelhor said lawmakers should focus on creating jobs and helping the state economy. He said those are issues people care about, and "not issues that pit neighbor against neighbor."
*
Culver has said he favors marriage as being between one woman and one man but that he won't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Democrats control both legislative chambers and argue that the state's budget crunch has forced them to shorten the upcoming session, leaving no time for a debate over marriage. Amending the Iowa Constitution is a long process requiring approval in two consecutive general assemblies and a statewide vote. If lawmakers this year don't act on the issue, the soonest it could be on the ballot would be the general election of 2014.
DES MOINES, Iowa - Gov. Chet Culver and Democratic legislative leaders intend to focus on the state's budget shortfall when the Legislature convenes next week, but activists are working to get gay marriage on the agenda. The Iowa Family Policy Council, a group leading the push to approve a constitutional amendment overturning the court ruling, also is criticizing Culver for issuing a proclamation that supports the rights of transgender people.
*
"Iowans know that Governor Culver does not share their values," said Chuck Hurley, president of the council. "As if the governor's unwillingness to exercise the influence of his office in the defense of marriage wasn't enough, we now know that he is spending his time creating special days celebrating sexual disorientation."
*
Price said the governor felt issuing the proclamation was an appropriate way to honor transgender people who have died. "He believes that all Iowans should be protected from discrimination and abuse," said Price, adding that he thinks Hurley was using the issue to score political points and gain attention in the days before the group's rally.
*
One Iowa spokesman Justin Uebelhor said civil rights shouldn't be put to a vote. "We've never in the history of Iowa had a basic civil rights issue put to a vote," he said. "We don't think it's appropriate." Instead, Uebelhor said lawmakers should focus on creating jobs and helping the state economy. He said those are issues people care about, and "not issues that pit neighbor against neighbor."
*
Culver has said he favors marriage as being between one woman and one man but that he won't support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Democrats control both legislative chambers and argue that the state's budget crunch has forced them to shorten the upcoming session, leaving no time for a debate over marriage. Amending the Iowa Constitution is a long process requiring approval in two consecutive general assemblies and a statewide vote. If lawmakers this year don't act on the issue, the soonest it could be on the ballot would be the general election of 2014.
Rhode Island Legislature Overrides Veto of Bill Granting Funeral Rights for Gays
Maggie Gallagher and similar gay-haters pretend that they are only concerned with "protecting marriage." Recent events in Rhode Island where NOM and other religious based bigots convinced the state's governor (pictured at left) to veto a bill that would have granted funeral rights to gay couples proves otherwise. Their true agenda is to diminish and marginalize gay lives in any and every way possible. It's beyond heartless and down right cruel and fortunately the state legislature saw the obvious and overrode the veto. Once again, the self-congratulatory "Christians" are the least Christian of all when one observes their behavior and motives. I truly believe that Ms. Gallagher and her likes view LGBT citizens as less than animals. It sickens me. Here are highlights from the Washington Post: *
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Rhode Island lawmakers voted Tuesday to allow same-sex and unmarried couples the right to plan the funerals of their late partners, overriding a veto by the governor, who warned it eroded traditional marriage. The bill passed 67-3 in the House and 31-3 in the Senate, and enjoyed support from several Republican lawmakers in the same party as Gov. Don Carcieri, an adamant opponent of same-sex marriage in a state that does not recognize gay unions. The new funeral planning rights also apply to unmarried heterosexual couples.
*
Mark Goldberg, 49, pushed for the legislation after struggling for five weeks to claim the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, who committed suicide in October 2008. The state medical examiner would not release Hanby's body to Goldberg because they were not married or relatives, even though the couple had wills and other legal documents attesting to their relationship.
*
To qualify for funeral planning rights, a couple must be at least 18, have lived together for one year and prove they were financially dependent, for example, by owning property together or sharing a bank account.
*
Carcieri argued that state law already allows residents to designate people to plan their funerals. He said the requirements in the bill meant to prove a relationship were too vague. "Finally, this bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue," Carcieri wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Rhode Island lawmakers voted Tuesday to allow same-sex and unmarried couples the right to plan the funerals of their late partners, overriding a veto by the governor, who warned it eroded traditional marriage. The bill passed 67-3 in the House and 31-3 in the Senate, and enjoyed support from several Republican lawmakers in the same party as Gov. Don Carcieri, an adamant opponent of same-sex marriage in a state that does not recognize gay unions. The new funeral planning rights also apply to unmarried heterosexual couples.
*
Mark Goldberg, 49, pushed for the legislation after struggling for five weeks to claim the body of his partner of 17 years, Ron Hanby, who committed suicide in October 2008. The state medical examiner would not release Hanby's body to Goldberg because they were not married or relatives, even though the couple had wills and other legal documents attesting to their relationship.
*
To qualify for funeral planning rights, a couple must be at least 18, have lived together for one year and prove they were financially dependent, for example, by owning property together or sharing a bank account.
*
Carcieri argued that state law already allows residents to designate people to plan their funerals. He said the requirements in the bill meant to prove a relationship were too vague. "Finally, this bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue," Carcieri wrote in a letter to lawmakers.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Ugandan Presidential Politics Behind "Kill Gays" Law?
David Mixner has a very interesting and intriguing post on his blog that has a different take on what may be ultimately behind the Uganda "kill the gays" legislation pending in the Ugandan Parliament. We it true, it would still fit hand in glove with the efforts of American anti-gay Christianists, including nutcase, Scott Lively. What it might be? The goal of keeping the current pro-Christian conservative president of Uganda in office. It would make a kind of sick sense. The Christianist allies of Republicans - who love to depict campaign opponents as possibly gay - in effect helping set the stage to discredit or criminalize a potential presidential opposition candidate. You see, President Museveni is worried about the return of Olara Otunnu to possibly head up the opposition in the next election. Olara Otunnu is is single and with no children,and we all know what that might mean! Indeed, it sounds like something Karl Rove would dream up. I will reserve judgment for now, but here are some highlights from David's post:*
Could it be that the upcoming Ugandan presidential election is one of the main reasons behind the "kill the gays" legislation before the Ugandan Parliament? President Museveni must be very concerned about the return of renowned and honored statesman Olara Otunnu to possibly head up the opposition in the next election. Otunnu is single and with no children and the presidential allies have been spreading rumors about his private life far and wide. You can fill in the spaces.
*
Most importantly, Mr. Otunna (photograph) brings an astounding resume back to Uganda after a more or less self imposed exile from the country since 1986. Likely to be the nominee of the Uganda People's Congress, Otunna would be a bright light in a nation that increasingly is becoming a dark place including the anti-gay legislation. Rarely has a more distinguished person sought the presidency of Uganda. Oxford and Harvard educated, Otunna has been viewed as the conscience of his countrymen.
*
Clearly the return of this international human rights activist and hero has been perceived as a threat to President Musevenia and recently the opposition leader was the victim of a highly suspicious traffic accident.
*
According to NewVision in Uganda, the Otunna escaped unhurt after his automobilie was hit by a jeep of the Presidential Guard Brigade. The ruling party explained it as a simple accident while Otunna and his entourage have a different view.
*
Not only does the LGBT community have a stake in this next presidential election in Uganda but so do the children of the world, the people of Uganda and believers in the future of Africa.
*
On her show tonight, Rachel Maddow interviewed a spokesman for the secret Christianist organization, The Family. Interestingly enough, he referenced "private" communications to have President Musevenia kill the anti-gay legislation. With many Ugandans whipped into a an anti-gay frenzy, could it perhaps be that the legislation can now be allowed die and Otunnu could still be damaged by the atmosphere deliberately manufactured to help Musevenia?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)