Story on Virginia Republican Caught on Grindr Goes Viral

The other day this blog noted a story at GayRVA about an anti-gay Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates who was caught using his Grindr account in Richmond to look for hookups while snowed in during the recent snow storm.   Since then, the story has gone viral and has been picked up by LGBT blogs around the country and has ignited yet another running debate of the propriety of "outing" closeted anti-gay politicians.  Some have criticized GayRVA for failing to reveal the identity of the legislator.  While I understand the concerns that lead to the decision to not reveal the individual's identity, I would likely have "outed" him after a little more investigation.  A piece in Metro Weekly looks at the debate and information that seemingly narrows down who this hypocrite is.  Here are highlights:

The Grindr-cruising lawmaker has voted:

• In favor of a “conscience clause” exemption allowing adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex couples.
• In favor of allowing on-campus university clubs and groups to discriminate against LGBT individuals for the purposes of membership.
• Against an amendment that would have prohibited anti-LGBT discrimination in state employment.
• Against the nomination of Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland, Virginia’s first openly gay judge, to the Richmond General District Court.

[O]nline commenters have noted that the clues provided by Kutner essentially come close to revealing the lawmaker’s identity — for instance, while many Republicans voted against Thorne-Begland’s nomination for a judgeship when he was first nominated in 2012, only four currently-serving Republican lawmakers from Southwest Virginia were in the legislature and voted against Thorne-Begland’s subsequently successful nomination in 2013.

In an interview with Metro Weekly, Kutner said he’s received several requests from readers interested in learning the man’s identity.

“A Grindr conversation alone is debatable evidence,” Kutner says. “That certainly played a role into whether or not I wanted to out somebody, without really confirming things.

Kutner hopes the lawmaker will use this incident to think carefully the next time he’s faced with an LGBT-related piece of legislation, such as restricting the bathroom use of transgender students in school or granting county court clerks an exemption to refuse to issue marriage licenses.

But for those who insist that Kutner has a duty to “out” the closeted gay lawmaker, he says they’re missing the larger point: that the atmosphere in Virginia is so toxic that a person in a position of power feels the need to stay in the closet. 

“I’m not surprised to see people go on this witch-hunt, but outing this person is not going to make it illegal to fire gay people, it’s not going to remove the anti-gay animus. Honestly, it’s only going to make things more combative. . . . . we are flipping out to find out who’s gay — which is the same thing they’re doing,” he says. “Can you imagine Victoria Cobb right now, figuring out who she can out and try and ruin? It’s scary and weird. I’m not surprised by the reaction, but I would definitely like to see this energy shifted to a bit more of a positive place.”

Again, I understand the reasoning, but I would not have been so kind to this scum bag.   Dan Savage and I are on the same page in terms of the appropriateness of outing such politicians.  Here are excerpts from The Stranger:

I disagree: this legislator's votes against workplace protections for LGBT people, adoption rights for same-sex couples, and the judicial appointment of a qualified out gay man speak loudly of his hypocrisy and the the particular kind of damage done when closeted conservatives abuse their political power to protect their closets. We've heard this song about a thousand times before...

Just another closeted conservative asshole throwing other LGBT people under the bus—attacking other LGBT people with his votes—to deflect attention away from his own sexuality. He figures that no one will suspect him of being gay so long as he maintains a perfect anti-gay voting record—that more than qualifies this asshole for an outing. Here's hoping Internet sleuths are already on the case; there's more than enough detail in Kutner's open letter (and those Grindr pics) to identify this guy, if only through process of elimination. Get on it, Internet.

But, hey, even if the Internet sleuths fail us... this guy may wind up outing himself in the end. "[We’re] choosing to leave [him] anonymous," the say the editors at GAYRVA, "however we hope this message reaches [his] desk and [he'll] consider the words below if and when [he] have a chance to vote on LGBTQ related bills in the future."

If he casts another anti-LGBT vote, GAYRVA will out him. But if he pulls a 180 and suddenly starts casting pro-LGBT votes, he'll be outing himself. Checkmate either way.

And yes, I WILL be working to confirm the individual's identity. 

Archbishop Suspected of Ordering Massacre and Ex-Gay" Advocate Support Nigeria's Anti-Gay Bill

It's been a good while since I have mentioned Archbishop Peter Akinola, former Anglican primate of Nigeria and a strong supporter of break away Episcopal parishes in the USA. Akinola is violently anti-gay and is suspected by many to have ordered the massacre of 660 Muslims Yelwa, Nigeria, by the Christian Association of Nigeria (Akinola was president of the organization at the time of the massacre). A lengthy piece in The Atlantic in 2008 looked at the massacre and other atrocities in Nigeria about which Akinola's only comment was "My views on Islam are well known: I have nothing more to say." Here's a highlight from the article on the "Christian" militia's behavior:

During the Christian attack, the two young women took shelter in an elder’s guarded home. On the second day, the Christian militia arrived at the house. They were covered in red and blue paint and were wearing those numbered white name tags. The Christians first killed the guards, then chose among the women. With others, the two young women were marched toward the Christian village. “They were killing children on the road,” Danladi said. Outside the elementary school, her abductor grabbed hold of two Muslim boys she knew, 9 and 10 years old. Along with other men, he took a machete to them until they were in pieces, then wrapped the pieces in a rubber tire and set it on fire.

When Danladi and Ibrahim reached their captors’ village, they were forced to drink alcohol and to eat pork and dog meat. Although she was obviously pregnant, Danladi’s abductor repeatedly raped her during the next four days.

Akinola's views on gays are also well known and as the Lagos Guardian reports, Akinola is strongly behind the currently pending anti-gay legislation in Nigeria. Other supporters of the bill which would impose lengthy prison sentences include Felix Jovi Ehwarieme, Adjunct Professor of Scientific Theology and Biblical History at the United Bible University, Lagos and President of Shepherd Organization, which runs "ex-gay" therapies. Akinola and Ehwarieme embody the religious extremist behind the legislation. It goes without saying that American Christianists have had their hand involved in stirring up anti-gay hysteria in Nigeria as well. Here are some highlights from the Guardian article of the foul forces supporting this legislation:

Since its passage by the Senate, Nigeria has received strong criticisms and warnings from the British, Canadian and the United States of America governments, which have individually threatened to withdraw aids and other forms of assistance to Nigeria, if the law is allowed to exist.

But Akinola, in an exclusive interview with The Guardian, urged President Jonathan not to succumb to such pressure, but rather tow the path of God by assenting to the bill.

Akinola, who described the bill as “a new orientation towards transformation and reformation of Nigeria from its moral decadence into a new platform of sound morality,” said President Jonathan would be going against God’s will for Nigeria if he refused to sign the controversial bill into law.

He stated that Nigeria needs such law to preserve the nation’s sacred moral heritage for national development. The former Primate of Church of Nigeria, who described homosexuality as an aberration, said it was repugnant to the word of God and African beliefs. “Same-sex marriage is against natural order of creation; it is against the laws of our religions, and it is against our African custom and traditions,” he said.

Felix Jovi Ehwarieme, who has worked with a lot of homosexuals to overcome the condition, said homosexuality is a learnt habit devoid of genetic manipulations.

Ehwarieme, a surgeon and author of Homosexuality, explained that the habit often starts from masturbation taken to extremity. He added that although homosexuals use the Bible to argue their case, the Bible has clearly shown that those involved in the act would not inherit God’s Kingdom.

“An average male child has masturbated at one stage of his life or the other. If this behaviour were not controlled, it would lead to lack of interest in the opposite sex. This often happens in the subconscious mind, so that by the time one grows into it, one would not know why one hates the opposite sex. This is because when one masturbates, one may have practiced it with other male children,” he argued. “So, by the time they are qualified to have sexual relations, they just discover that they have something that satisfies them more than natural sex.” “The problem with homosexuals is that they do not know how they become what they are,” he surmised.

Chaplain of Blessed Tansi Catholic Chaplaincy at Anambra State University (ANSU), Rev. Fr. Paul Ifeanyichukwu Obiaga, described homosexuality “ as satanic and sin against nature.”

Yep, as always, the Catholic Church is spreading anti-gay hatred as well. This ignorant, hate- filled rhetoric (which is sweeping much of Africa) is part of what prompted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to take action earlier this week. People don't come much nastier than Akinola in my opinion and it is far past time that hate and extremism based on supposed religious belief be reined in and ended. A glimpse of what's happening in Nigeria makes a strong case that the world would be a far better place if religion simply vanished from the face of the earth.

Anti-Gay Bill Circulating In Uganda

Like many nations in Africa Uganda has many problems that need attention and coordinated efforts between the country's government and liberal outside agencies that can provide needed services and funding. Abject poverty is one such problem. All too typically, however, the national government and Christian extremists within the country are focused on demonizing gays and working on punitive anti-gay legislation. Actions that will only give the country a bad name and likely discourage some sources of aid to look to different countries in which to concentrate their efforts. Just as in backwards areas of the USA - e.g., Southwest Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, etc. - this type of governmental action only makes Uganda LESS attractive for foreign investment and activities that will promote education and jobs. This, of course is fine with Christianist religious leaders because an ignorant populace is key to their continued power and control. It is truly a sick situation and personally, other than a pro-gay organization, I would not give even a dime to an organization that would spend my money in Uganda. Here are highlights from Box Turtle Bulletin:

*

Uganda appears to be inching closer to “strengthening” its already draconian anti-gay laws which already provide for a possible life sentence for those convicted of homosexuality. A draft of the proposed bill obtained by Box Turtle Bulletin indicates that Ugandan lawmakers intend to go much further.

*
In a draft dated April 20, 2009 and being circulated surreptitiously, the proposed bill creates an offense of “aggravated homosexuality” and provides for the death penalty under specific circumstances. It also provides for at least five years imprisonment (and no apparent maximum) for advocating on behalf of LGBT people. This extends not just to activists and organizations, but to individuals as well, including bloggers or anyone else using the internet or mobile phones — as well as anyone who makes a donation or offers a safe refuge for LGBT people. Furthermore, if anyone is “aware of the commission of any offense under this Act” and fails to report it to the police, they will be liable of up to six months imprisonment.

*

The accompanying memorandum calls on the Uganda government to withdraw from any international obligations or treaties which the government interprests as running counter to the country’s anti-gay policies.

*

In July, Uganda’s Minister of State for Ethics and Integrity James Nsaba Buturo confirmed their intention to eliminate free speech for and on behalf of LGBT people. Meanwhile, a full-fledged public vigilante campaign was released on Uganda’s gay community, leading to several reports of arrests and reports.

*

A full copy of the proposed bill can be found at Box Turtle Bulletin. Candidly, the country is going to Hell in a hand basket and the anti-gay jihad appears to be yet one more way for the national government to distract people from its failed rule. Likewise, the Christianist extremist once again are using LGBT lives to further their own goals and thirst for power. I find it all sickening.

Why Estate Planning Documents Are Crucial

At dinner with friends the other night our hosts and the boyfriend recounted the horror story of a same sex couple where one became very ill and ultimately died. Most of the couple’s assets were in the name of the deceased partner and the surviving partner lost almost everything, including his home and a business that he had helped build. In fact, he had to prove in court which assets he had purchased in his own right in order to have them not incorporated into the deceased partner's estate that went only to his blood relatives. These kinds of nightmares happen with all to frequent regularity. Meanwhile, they CAN be avoided through proper estate planning documents. I have set out below an article I put together on this topic for my LGBT clients (NOTE: While the article deals with Virginia law, the concepts are generally applicable in other states):

*

ESSENTIAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR LGBT COUPLES
*
There are some things same-sex couples can and should do to provide for some of the legal protection automatically conferred on married couples. Unfortunately, far too many such couples fail to take the relatively simple steps to avoid the adverse and/or unexpected effects of current law.
*
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND STEPS: There are some basic documents and steps that every unmarried couple and every same-sex couple should have prepared and duly signed. These include:
*
Will - A will specifies how you wish your property to be distributed upon your death. In a will, you designate the person you wish to handle your estate -- your partner or another individual. Without one, your partner receives absolutely nothing. Pursuant to § 64.1-46 of the Virginia Code, anyone who is over the age of 18 years and not mentally incompetent may make a will and thereby dispose of any estate to which he shall be entitled, at his death, including any estate, right or interest to which the testator may be entitled at his death, notwithstanding he may become so entitled subsequently to the execution of the will. Inasmuch as neither § 64.1-46 or other provisions of the Virginia Code restrict permitted devisees to spouses or blood relatives, both unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples may make wills leaving assets to their partners.
*
Trust - A properly established and funded trust avoids publicly probating assets owned by the trust at the time of one’s death and is more difficult to challenge in court than a will. In addition, a trust can provide beneficiaries with creditor protection in certain circumstances. Properly structured, a trust can provide support for one’s surviving partner for the remainder of his or her life, with the remainder to pass to other relatives and designated beneficiaries, bypassing potential taxes associated with the surviving partner's estate. Chapter 4, Title 26 of the Virginia Code governing the appointment, qualification, resignation, removal of fiduciaries, including trustees, contains no provision restricting permitted trustees or trust beneficiaries to spouses or blood relatives. Therefore, both unmarried heterosexual couples and same-sex couples may create trusts naming their partners as beneficiaries in a manner that does not purport “to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage.”
*
Medical/Health Care Power of Attorney - A health care or medical power of attorney allows one’s partner regardless of gender to make medical decisions on your behalf in the event you are not able to do so due to incompetency or other incapacity. Properly drafted, a health care power of attorney can also ensure hospital visitation rights to the designated attorney-in-fact
*
Advanced Medical Directive - § 54.1-2983 of the Virginia Code provides that any mentally competent adult may, at any time, make a written advance directive (i) authorizing the providing, withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures in the event such person should have a terminal condition, and (ii) appointing an agent to make health care decisions for the declarant under the circumstances stated in the advance directive if the declarant should be determined to be incapable of making an informed decision. Advance medical directives must be signed by the declarant in the presence of two subscribing witnesses who cannot be the spouse or blood relatives of the declarant.
*
There is no statutory restriction that one’s agent must be a spouse or blood relative. Rather, §54.1-2982 of the Virginia Code provides that under any such advance medical directive, an agent means “an adult appointed by the declarant under an advance directive, executed or made in accordance with the provisions of § 54.1-2983, to make health care decisions for him. . ." Such authority includes visitation rights, provided the advance directive makes express provisions for visitation. Therefore, properly drafted and executed advanced medical directives by a same-sex couple should not be deemed to “bestow a privileges or obligations of marriage.”
*
General/Business Power of Attorney - This form of power of attorney allows a member of either an unmarried couple or a same-sex couple to authorize their partner to handle their financial affairs in the event of disability or unavailability.
*
Title on Deeds and Accounts - How title to property is held can effect both future ownership and tax liability. Joint tenancy with rights of survivorship, for example, will ensure that the surviving partner will have full ownership upon the death of the deceased partner and avoid ownership disputes with surviving blood relatives. However, it can create certain negative estate tax treatment depending on the size of one’s taxable estate. Historically, deeds creating a tenancy by the entirety have been reserved for husband and wife couples. In light of the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act cited above, such a deed conveying title to a same-sex couple even though validly married in another state such as Massachusetts would not be effective in Virginia.
*
BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS: Most securities and retirement accounts provide for the designation of beneficiaries. These should be reviewed periodically to ensure that desired goals are achieved and also should include the designation of contingent beneficiaries to ensure the desired parties are named in the event of the death of the principal beneficiary.
*
LIFE INSURANCE: Properly utilized, life insurance can provide funding for payment of estate taxes, outstanding mortgages, charitable trusts, education of minors, and other functions.
*
NOTE: This article contains a general discussion of estate planning matters which vary greatly in asset structuring needs and potential tax liability based on the particular facts and circumstances of individuals and the nature of their assets. Therefore, it should not be relied upon as a substitute for individualized legal advice addressing one’s particular situation.

Florida Ban on Gay Adoptions Unconstitutional

As a number of media outlets are reporting, including the Miami Herald, in a well written opinion and with plenty of expert testimony to support the decision, a Miami-Dade circuit judge Tuesday declared Florida's 30-year-old ban on gay adoption unconstitutional, allowing a North Miami man to adopt two foster kids he has raised since 2004. In opposing the suit by the foster parents, the State of Florida incredibly relied on the "expert" testimony of two psychologists who were less than objective. One, Dr. George Rekers, is an ordained Baptist minister, was paid an advance retainer of $60,900 by the state, and has authored anti-gay article. The other, Dr. Walter Schumm, likewise could not separate his religious fanaticism from legitimate research and had written an article in which it was stated in part that: we prefer to accept the authority of the Bible as the best guide for sexual decision making, . . . Not surprisingly, the judge based her ruling on the testimony of the numerous other non-Christianist experts. Here are some highlights from the Miami Herald story:

*

In a 53-page order that sets the stage for what could become a constitutional showdown, Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman permitted 47-year-old Frank Gill to adopt the 4- and 8-year-old boys he and his partner have raised since just before Christmas four years ago. A child abuse investigator had asked Gill to care for the boys temporarily; they were never able to return to their birth parents.

*

Moments after Lederman released the ruling, attorneys for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum announced they would appeal the decision to the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami.

*

In her ruling, Lederman said children taken into state care have a ''fundamental'' right to be raised in a permanent adoptive home if they cannot be reunited with birth parents. Children whose foster parents are gay, she said, can be deprived of that right under the current law. ''The challenged statute, in precluding otherwise qualified homosexuals from adopting available children, does not promote the interests of children and, in effect, causes harm to the children it is meant to protect,'' Lederman wrote.

*

In a ruling that, at times, reads more like a social science research paper, Lederman dissected 30 years worth of psychological and sociological research, concluding that studies overwhelmingly have shown that gay people can parent every bit as effectively as straight people and do no harm to their children.

*
''Based on the evidence presented from experts from all over this country and abroad,'' Lederman wrote, ``it is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic.

Trial Judge Finds Florida Gay Adoption Ban Unconstitutional

In a long over due decision a Florida Circuit Court Judge has ruled that Florida's statute banning gays from adopting is unconstitutional. The ban obviously deprived would be gay adoptive parents of equal protection and rights under the Florida Constitution, not to mention in my view the United States Constitution. Moreover, the judge recognized that allowing the gay father and his partner was in the best interests of the child - what is ALWAYS supposed to be the guiding principle in child placement decisions. Even more interestingly, the judge found that there was no justification for the ban other than to treat gay and lesbians in a punitive manner. I have always maintained that the Christianist backed anti-gay statues have never been about protecting marriage or children but rather ONLY about punishing gays and lesbians for not conforming to Christianist religious views. Here are some highlights from the 67 page opinion (which can be found here-order [PDF text]):

*

The Court finds the foregoing facts to be true: (a) The fact that Petitioner is a gay man is irrelevant to his skills as a parent and his fitness to adopt. Irrespective of Petitioner's sexual orientation, it is in the minor's best interest to be adopted by Petitioner, (b) Floridians who are gay or lesbian are not for that reason inherently incapable of parenting an adopted child, (c) In view of the less restrictive alternative safeguards that exist, there is no need for categorical disqualification of all gays and lesbians in Florida from adoption to ensure that no child is adopted by an inappropriate caregiver, and (d) After having listened to and read the legislative history surrounding the enactment of SB 354, the Court finds that there was no non-punitive purpose for categorically excluding every single gay and lesbian Floridian from adopting children.

*

In the ruling, the judge also Florida noted that the statute was passed by lawmakers in 1977 amid a politically charged campaign led by singer Anita Bryant to send gay people ''back into the closet'' following her efforts to repeal the Dade County anti-discrimination ordinance. The judge said the law violates the Constitution's separation of powers by preventing family court and child welfare judges from deciding case-by-case what is best for a child. The judge also noted:

*

''Contrary to every child welfare principle,. . . 'the gay adoption ban operates as a conclusive or irrebuttable presumption that . . . it is never in the best interest of any adoptee to be adopted by a homosexual.''

*

While the decision is not binding precedent, the opinion lays out a logical and reason basis that could be utilized by other fair minded members of the judiciary. Unfortunately, as I found in my own divorce case, there are far too few fair minded judges on many state court benches.

India's Uneasy Relationship With Gays

I have a number of Indian clients, the vast majority of which are Hindu and strike me as fairly religious, yet very respectful of the religious beliefs of others - in sharp contract to the wingnut Christianists plaguing the country. Would that the fundies would learn some tolerance from Hidus and others that the Christianists look down upon. Some I believe know that I am gay and really seem to have no issue with it whatsoever. They trust my abilities as an attorney and that is why they use my services. I even have one Indian client who is gay, although homosexuality is not something looked upon favorably and one sees very few Indians out at the gay clubs. Thus, I found Newsweek's article on India and Gay Pride interesting given my interation with so many clients from India or of Indian descent. One can hope that in time India and its people will come to recognize that gays were made the way we are by the creator no matter what name he/she is given. As such, we are deserving of respect and equality. Here are some story highlights:

*

India may pride itself on being the world's largest democracy, but it still takes a dim view of gay rights. Homosexuality is illegal and deemed an "unnatural sexual offense" under section 377 of the country's penal code, where it is categorized alongside bestiality and punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

*

So it was with a mixture of defiance and celebration that several hundred participants in New Delhi's first gay pride parade rallied through the capital on Sunday, beating drums, shouting slogans and waving rainbow-striped pride flags. Simultaneous marches were held in Calcutta and Bangalore, along with dozens of other cities the world over.

*

Lesley Esteves, a New Delhi magazine editor who helped organize the parade, dubbed it a "community event" and explained the challenges of pushing the bounds of social acceptability in India: "India functions like this—you have this massive media coverage and people know what the word 'queer' is." But at the same time, "We are still having to go to the courts to convince families against holding their children captiv[e] in their homes because they are homosexuals."

*

Indian newspapers are rife with tales of suicides of homosexual men and women pressured into traditional, arranged marriages. And those with the means to leave the country sometimes do so, seeking asylum in more sympathetic climes. . . . This 150-year-old chapter of Indian history may be coming to a close soon. The Delhi High Court is weighing a petition against Article 377, and a ruling is expected in the near future. Brought by the Naz Foundation, an Indian organization that works to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, the petition is currently pending on appeal and the next hearing is July 2. Perhaps next year, marchers will feel more at ease showing their faces.

Anti-Gay Marilyn Musgrave Renews Call For Federal Anti-Gay Amendment

In what may be a sign of desperation, anti-gay extremist Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave has - after months of silence - suddenly renewed her calls for the passage of a federal anti-gay amendment to the United States Constitution. After barely scraping by in a close re-election contest in 2006, Musgrave is facing what may be an even stronger challenge this year from Democrat Betsy Markey. As we all know, when faced with close elections, the GOP always panders to hate and bigotry and using LGBT Americans as their favorite whipping boys. Inasmuch as it is a foregone conclusion that the Democrat controlled Congress will not advance the amendment proposals, Musgrave's move can constitute little else than an effort to secure the votes of died in the wool gay haters. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*

(Denver, Colorado) The architect of two failed attempts to amend the US Constitution to bar same-sex marriage is throwing her support behind a new bid to advance the measure. After more than a year of silence on amending the Constitution, and now facing a tough battle for re-election to a third term, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.) has signed on as a co-sponsor of the latest attempt to gain Congressional approval.

*

The spokesperson for Musgrave's Democratic opponent for re-election, Betsy Markey, was quick to attack Musgrave. "Nothing's changed," Markey spokesperson Anne Caprara told The Coloradoan. "She's made this big deal about being this new person, this new image, but we're still back on same old issues when people are paying $4 for gas and wondering how they're going to be paying for their grocery bill."

Women Discharged Disproportionately Under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

In yet another look at the unequal application of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to women in the Military, the Houston Chronicle has a story that shows just how outrageous the situation truly is. I know in this area, there seems to be a conscious effort to discharge lesbians, particularly careers officers, shortly before retirement so as to wipe out their pension benefits. One close friend lived in constant fear that something would happen before she completed her twenty years. Fortunately, she made it and is now safely retired. All of this demonstrates why this foul, unfair policy needs to go and go soon. The bottom line is that there is NO legitimate reason for the policy other than to pander to the Christianists who strive to maintain discrimination against gays based on religious belief in effect. Something that should be unconstitutional in itself. Here are some highlights:

*

Today marks the 30th anniversary of Houston's Gay Pride Parade. During those three decades the lot of gays and lesbians has improved immeasurably, but the same cannot be said of those serving in the armed forces. In 2007, discharges under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy rose to 627 highly skilled and valuable personnel, up from 612 the year before. More disturbing, Pentagon statistics reveal that almost half of those discharged by the Army (46 percent) and Air Force (49 percent) were women. As only 14 percent of Army troops and 20 percent of Air Force personnel are women, this represents a startling disparity between the sexes.

*
The military did not volunteer these data. They were compiled under a Freedom of Information Act request by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a military advocacy group. The Pentagon had no explanation for the sharp disparity, nor did it seem inclined to pursue the matter. . . . That's unfortunate and irresponsible.

*

Since the start of the Iraq war, the military has lowered its standards drastically. It now offers large cash bonuses at enlistment, has loosened age and weight requirements, and grants "moral waivers" to recruits with criminal pasts, including thousands of felons. Yet it insists on a discriminatory policy that results in the loss of dedicated career personnel with valuable skills.

*

"I wonder about that when I'm in court fighting my discharge," said Stacy Vasquez, an Army recruiter in Dallas in 2003 when she was discharged after someone reported she had been seen kissing a woman in a gay bar. "I have no criminal record, I have a master's degree and 12 years of experience. You'd think the Pentagon would be concerned about this when they have problems recruiting qualified applicants."

*

The logical next step would be for Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell," a course favored by many senior former officers. Most European countries, including Great Britain, have lifted their bans on gay soldiers, with no ill effects, and four out of five American soldiers feel comfortable with gay comrades.

Gay Marriage Backers Seek to Remove Marriage Ban from California Ballot

In an interesting story in the San Francisco Chronicle, gay rights supporters are seeking to remove the gay marriage ban initiative from the November ballot arguing that the ban's consequences are such that a mere initiative is not in compliance with the existing requirements fro amending the California constitution. The basic argument seems to have some merit. It seems unconscionable that a simple majority vote can be used to wipe away the rights on any minority group that may be unpopular from time to time. It sounds like a therory that Hitler would have loved. If this initiative goes forward EVERY minority group in California is at risk. I would also add that from my reading of legal briefs filed in many of the major gay rights cases, the pro-gay attorneys generally out class the wingnut attorneys every time. I'd even go so far as to say that in Lawrence v. Texas, the amicus briefs filed by the gay haters were not only of very poor quality, but they probably went some distance in convincing the majority of the justices that the anti-gay element were down right nut cases. Some of the briefs were so bad that I'd have been embarrassed to sign my name to them. Religious fanaticism does not equate with legal competence as an attorney - it seems to usually trend in exactly the opposite direction. Here are some story highlights"

*

SAN FRANCISCO -- Gay-rights advocates asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to remove a proposed state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage from the November ballot, saying it would destroy fundamental rights that cannot be legally altered by a voter initiative.

*

In papers filed four days after the legalized same-sex weddings began around the state, advocacy groups argued that the measure would change the state's Constitution so profoundly that it would amount to a revision. Under the law, the Constitution cannot be revised by initiative alone - a two-thirds legislative approval is also needed before the measure goes to the voters. "If enacted, (the November initiative) would eviscerate the principle of equal citizenship for gay and lesbian people and strip the courts of their authority to enforce basic constitutional guarantees," said Stephen Bomse, lawyer for the groups. He said the measure would "destabilize our Constitution and our basic government plan ... by establishing that any group may be deprived of equal protection and fundamental rights through a simple majority vote."

*

Backers of the measure quickly denounced the suit. "Equality California and its allies are desperate to evade democracy," said attorney Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund. Prop. 22 was the 2000 ballot measure, approved by 61 percent of the voters, that declared same-sex marriages illegal, reaffirming a statute passed by the Legislature in 1977.

70 Percent In Jamaica Oppose ANY Rights For Gays

For some time now I have argued that gays need to really start using their immense financial clout to punish anti-gay businesses and tourist destinations. Based on a recent poll, Jamaica should be at the top of the list of targeted destinations. I truly cannot understand the violent dislike of gays that seems to have swelled to huge proportions in that country. This attitude - despite all the advertising trying to depict Jamaica as a wonderful destination - to me shows a general populace that is more than alittle bit f*cked up. With the poverty and many problems that the average the Jamaican lives with daily, it would seem that there would be much more pressing things to get emotionally over wrought about. Who and what - besides gangster Reggae performers - is feeding this extreme and violent hatred. Any gays that travel to Jamaica or makes any expenditure that helps the Jamaican economy is a fool in my opinion. Such hatred needs to carry a severe financial price and LGBT individuals should exercise a 100% boycott of Jamaica and Jamaican products. Moreover, they should encourage others to do likewise. Note that this poll isn't about gay marriage - its about gays having ANY CIVIL RIGHTS. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com:

*
Kingston) There is little chance laws against homosexuality will be repealed in Jamaica if a public opinion poll released Friday is any indication. The survey found that 70 percent of Jamaicans do not believe gays and lesbians should have any civil rights.

*

Last month Prime Minister Bruce Golding condemned Britain and other Commonwealth countries for criticizing the treatment of gays in the Caribbean nation. ''Jamaica is not going to allow values to be imposed on it from outside,'' he said during an interview broadcast on the BBC. (story). Jamaica has been described by human rights groups as having the worst record of any country in the New World in its treatment of gays and lesbians. . . . . More than 30 gay men are believed to have been murdered since 1997 J-FLAG says. In most of the cases the killers have never been brought to trial.

*

In 2004 Brian Williamson, Jamaica's leading LGBT civil rights advocate was brutally murdered. He had been stabbed at least 70 times in the neck. A 25 year old man is currently serving a life sentence for the murder. In December 2005 Lenford "Steve" Harvey who ran Jamaica AIDS Support for Life was killed. Harvey was shot to death on the eve of World AIDS Day. (story) His organization provided support to gay men and sex workers. Four men were arrested almost a year later. In 2006 the bodies of two women believed to have been in a lesbian relationship were found dumped in a septic pit behind a home they shared. The killers of Candice Williams and Phoebe Myrie have not been caught.

*

In February, 2007 three men in "tight jeans" and wearing what some witnesses described as makeup were cornered by a mob of 2000 in a drugstore. There were yells of "kill them" along with gay slurs and demands the three be sent out "to face justice". Police had to fire teargas into the crowd to rescue the three. Reggae, or Jamaican dancehall music, is blamed for fueling homophobia. Reggae star BujuBanton's hit song Boom Boom Bye Bye which threatens gay men with a "gunshot in ah head".

Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment Introduced in Pennsylvania

First Florida, then Arizona, and now Pennsylvania – faced with a potentially disastrous general election in November, the Republicans are once again trotting out wherever possible anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments to induce the wingnut fundies to come out and vote against us Godless faggots. I guess the concept of winning elections based on the quality of a political party’s policies, proposals and ideals (not to mention the concept of treating all citizens equally) are utterly unknown to these folks. Here’s a portion of the bill introduced in Pennsylvania on Valentine’s Day of all days (all but two of the sponsors are Republicans):

SENATE BILL
No. 1250 Session of 2008

INTRODUCED BY BRUBAKER, MUSTO, GORDNER, SCARNATI, KASUNIC, ARMSTRONG, CORMAN, EICHELBERGER, FOLMER, REGOLA, MADIGAN, ROBBINS, PICCOLA, WAUGH, RHOADES, PUNT AND WONDERLING, FEBRUARY 14, 2008

REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008

A JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for marriage between one man and one woman.

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania hereby resolves as follows:

Section 1. The following amendment to the Constitution of Pennsylvania is proposed in accordance with Article XI: That Article I be amended by adding a section to read: § 29. Marriage. No union other than a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage or the functional equivalent of marriage by the Commonwealth.

Lawmakers Must Address Real Issues, Not Gay Marriage

This column from Tucson, Arizona (http://www.azstarnet.com/opinion/225155.php) looks at the cravenness of the GOP effort to get an anti-gay marriage initiative on the November, 2008, ballot in Arizona. The editorially rightly identifies that the real motivation has nothing to do with protecting families or the institution of marriage. It’s all about getting out the wingnut voters and political opportunism by one of the initiatives sponsors. Moreover, this kind of political garbage helps create an atmosphere where junior high students beleive it is OK to kill gays. It all too clearly shows what has happened to the GOP and why I ceased to be a member of that political party a number of years ago. Here are some highlights:

Arizona voters rejected a 2006 ballot measure to outlaw gay marriage, civil unions or domestic-partner benefits. But state Senate President Tim Bee is leading a new push to ask voters to place a definition of marriage in the Arizona Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. The effort is discriminatory and unnecessary. It is wrong to enshrine discrimination against any group of Arizonans into the Constitution. What's more, Arizona law already prohibits same-sex marriage. The proposed amendment is a giant waste of time.

Arizona has a whopping deficit, serious problems with education, residents who can't afford food or utilities, and questions about the economy. Making extra double sure that two men or two women can't marry each other will not improve our schools, help local businesses thrive or fix our roads.

This may be a cynical political move. Bee is running for Congress in District 8, trying to unseat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat. Republicans have used the threat of gay marriage as a political tool before to motivate conservative voters to get to the polls. In Arizona, it's a false threat. The existing law has been upheld by the appellate court and the theory that the Legislature would one day change the law is laughable.

As a result, the Senate president is in a position to use his state office to further his Congressional hopes. Pushing for a constitutional amendment won't do anything for Arizonans, but it could help his political aspirations. Bee should remember that he already has a job. His first responsibility is to the people of Arizona. The state budget is in dire straits. Arizona's educational system is among the most Underfunded in the nation. One in five Arizonans don't have health insurance. Arizonans need lawmakers who work for the good of the state, not those who use state offices to further their own political goals.

Arizona to Possibly Mull Gay Marriage Ban - Again

First Florida and now possibly Arizona - the GOP is still up to its old gay-baiting tricks to try to turn out the Kool-Aid drinkers in November. It is very sad that instead of seeking to win based on the strength of the party's positions and policies, demonizing a segment of citizens (actual several when one considers immigrants and non-whites in addition to gays) is the principal "get out the vote" mechanism for the Republicans. To me, it indicates a bankruptcy of new ideas and a focus on moving the country forward instead of backwards. Here are some highlights from 365gay.com (http://365gay.com/Newscon08/02/021208ariz.htm):

Republican lawmakers on Monday proposed asking voters in November to amend the Arizona Constitution to ban same-sex marriage in the state, which was the first to turn down such a measure.The proposal was backed by 16 of 30 state senators, and an identical proposal was introduced in the House. Both chambers would have to approve the measure in a vote for it to be included on the ballot.Under the amendment, "only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state." The proposal comes after Arizona voters narrowly rejected a similar measure in November 2006.

State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who led the opposition campaign to the 2006 measure, said she opposes the new proposal."I don't think it's needed. I don't think it's necessary," she said. "We've already had this fight a couple of times."The ballot measure proposal comes as a state commission prepares to review rule changes proposed by the administration of Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano that would provide health care and other employee benefits to the domestic partners of state government employees and retirees, no matter their gender.

The Christo-Facsists Are Alive and Well in Tennessee

As yet another example of the Christianists endeavor to re-write history to comform with their agenda, a bill has been introduced into the Tennessee Legislature according to the Memphis Flyer (http://www.memphisflyer.com/memphis/Content?oid=oid%3A38592) that would prohibit any references to any sexual orientation other than heterosexual in elementary and middle schools. Apparently, Christo-facsist Stacey Campfield of Knoxville doesn't care how ignorant students are so long as they do not know that many important figures throughout history have been - OMG, God forbid - GAY!! The level of ignorance by these people (who generally do not want evolution tought either) is simply incredible. Who elected this nitwit to the legislature?? Here are some story highlights:

Playwright Tennessee Williams was gay. Poet Lord Byron had several homosexual affairs in his day. And artist Leonardo da Vinci was charged with sodomy at the age of 24. But public school students in Tennessee won't learn that information if a bill passes barring teachers from discussing homosexuality. Representative Stacey Campfield of Knoxville filed a bill last week that would prevent public elementary and middle schools from allowing "any instruction or materials discussing sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

Over the years, Campfield has proposed other controversial legislation, such as replacing the state's food tax with a tax on pornography and requiring the state to issue death certificates for aborted fetuses. In 2005, Campfield compared the state's Black Caucus to the Ku Klux Klan when they refused to let him join because he is white.

Though Campfield's bill is intended to deal with instruction, opponents worry that it would have a chilling effect on students' free speech. "Let's say you have an eighth-grade writing class with an open-ended essay assignment. What if a student chooses to write about a current issue on sexuality?" says Chris Sanders, president of the Tennessee Equality Project. "This bill could be misinterpreted. It's overly vague and far-reaching." Wiman worries the bill could lead to further alienation of gay students or students of gay parents.

"We have such a high adolescent suicide rate, and a large number of those killing themselves are struggling with sexual orientation," Wiman says. "It's a real concern for us that we be able to help boys and girls without some kind of arbitrary restrictions."

As one online comment on the article said, "Maybe Campfield should look in his own closet." Only an extreme closet case would be this obsessed with not even having the word gay spoken. He looks like a queen to me in his official website photo (see above left)!!

Gujarat India's Gay Prince to Adopt Child

In the past I have posted concerning Manavendrasinh Gohil, Prince of Rajpipla, India, who initially was disinherited by his extremely wealthy and prominent family for being gay. In India, homosexual acts are still illegal under laws tracing back to the Victorian period and most Hindus strongly disapprove of gays. However, happily, the prince's parents changed their minds and he is back in line as heir to the family title and fortune. Now, the prince is preparing to break new ground and adopt an heir as reported by the India Times. Here are some story highlights (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Gujarats_gay_prince_to_adopt_child_soon/articleshow/2744807.cms):

BHARUCH: Gujarat's gay prince of Rajpipla, Manavendrasinh Gohil, who was disinherited by the family for going public about being gay but later taken back into the fold, now wants to carry on the royal bloodline, in a manner of speaking. The gay prince, who wants to ensure the lineage does not end with him just because he can't have children, wants to adopt a child and make him the royal heir. Manavendra hit the headlines recently by going on the Oprah Winfrey Show and proclaiming his homosexuality.

Manavendra, who is a divorcee, added that adoption was not new for the royal families as many had taken this route in the absence of a legal male heir. "The Gohil dynasty itself is a case of adoption. Rajpipla was ruled by the Parmar clan, not the Gohils. But the Parmars at one point did not have a male child. One of the Parmar princesses then married the maharaja of Bhavnagar. One of their sons was adopted by the Parmars giving birth to the Gohil dynasty." But the boy is unlikely to be a complete commoner. Manavendra said it was common in royal families to adopt a child from the extended family. "I will also adopt a child from my extended family only."

Although there are no known cases of single gay men adopting children in India, advocate Sudhir Nanavati says Manavendra should not have legal hassles in adoption.

Arkansas Voter Drive Kicked Off To Bar Gays From Adopting

With children being shuffled from foster home to foster home like some piece of used furniture (not to mention the children living in poverty and starving around the world) one would think the true Christians would direct their efforts to addressing such needs. But not the Christianists in this country. They far prefer to spend time and resources demonizing gays and seeking to marginalize their rights as equal citizens. This Arkansas group of gay haters is merely the latest example. No doubt these people are Mike Huckabee's religious brethren. I wonder whether Mr. Jerry Cox has a real job or if he is another sad individual who has to come up with anti-gay causes so that he can shake down the sheeple to support himself? I also have to wonder whether he's another repressed closet case who is taking out his own self-loathing on other gays. Here are highlights from 365gay.com ( http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/01/012508arad.htm):

(Little Rock, Arkansas) A conservative social policy group launched its campaign Thursday to collect enough signatures to force a ballot measure in November to bar same-sex or unmarried opposite-sex couples from adopting or becoming foster parents in Arkansas. "What we are doing is, we are protecting the welfare of children,” Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council Action Committee, said at a news conference at the state Capitol. The same organization was largely responsible for the passage of an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution banning gay marriage.

The present measure would prevent a child from being adopted or placed in a foster home "if the individual seeking to adopt or to serve as a foster parent is cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage which is valid under the constitution and laws of this state." The Council must collect nearly 92,000 signatures by July to put the measure on the ballot. Cox said he expects to submit more than 100,000 names.

Arkansas’s Child Welfare Agency Review Board had established a policy in 1999 that banned gay people from serving as foster parents, and the Arkansas Supreme Court struck it down after a seven-year legal battle between the state and the ACLU.

Several state and national child welfare groups filed friend-of-the-court briefs urging the court to strike down the exclusion because it worked against the best interests of foster children. In its unanimous ruling, the court said testimony in the state's appeal demonstrated that "the driving force behind adoption of the regulations was not to promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children but rather based upon the board's views of morality and its bias against homosexuals."

Outdated Virginia Law Prevents Company from Providing Partner Coverage

The less than wonderful aspects of living in Virginia just never cease - the state has in the past and continues at this time to go out of its way to penalize gay couples. Yet another example is illustrated by this Washington Blade story that looks at Virginia laws that bar partners from being named beneficiaries on employer paid life insurance. It is a near endless task to drag Virginia kicking and screaming into the 20th century, much less the 21st century. Here are some highlights (http://www.washingtonblade.com/2008/1-25/news/localnews/11921.cfm):

The inability of a Virginia resident to take out a life insurance policy on his same-sex partner has inspired a piece of legislation that is before the state’s legislature.

Arlington resident Kelly Young last summer started his job as an attorney for H5 Technologies, a California-based legal consulting company. When he tried to take advantage of his company’s insurance benefits and take out a life insurance policy on his partner of almost 10 years, Bill Reinsmith, H5’s insurance company informed Young that Virginia law prohibited the company from providing such benefits. “The insurance company rejected the application because I’m a Virginia resident,” Young said. “They came back to me with the explanation that ... even if they wanted to, they couldn’t do anything about it without a change in the legislation.”

Virginia law restricts supplemental life insurance coverage to legal spouses and dependent children under 19 or 25 if the child is a full-time student.“Modern gay couples are caught up in an old, outdated insurance scheme,” he said. “This really is an old, outdated policy that when it was written, didn’t even contemplate [the existence] of gay couples, I suspect, but we now find ourselves caught up in it.”

Del. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria), after hearing about Young and Reinsmith’s situation in the fall, filed a bill earlier this month with the state legislature that would address the issue. The legislation, House Bill 685, would allow private companies that have an employee life insurance program to extend coverage to any person agreed upon by the business and the policyholder.

When asked about the likelihood of the bill making it into law, Ebbin noted that the Legislature approved a similar bill in 2005 that expanded opportunities for employers to provide medical benefits for same-sex partners.“The bill shouldn’t be controversial ... but I’m committed to do what I need to do to get the bill passed,” Ebbin said.

Indiana Gay Marriage Ban Won't Get Hearing

It is refreshing to see that some state legislatures - unlike Virginia's - understand that there are more important issues to be addressed than constantly persecuting gay citizens. Naturally, it takes a Democrat to see that gay marriage is not even on the radar as a crucial issue. Plus, killing the measure will impede the GOP attempt to use gay bashing as a way to motivate Kool-Aid drinkers to go to the polls. The Christianists seem increasingly frantic in their attempts to marginalize gays since, I suspect, because they know that the younger generation isn't falling for their gay baiting tactics. Here are some story highlights from the Indianapolis Star (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080119/LOCAL/301190002):

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages in Indiana likely was dealt a fatal blow Friday when a key lawmaker said he would not give the issue a hearing. Rep. Scott Pelath, D-Michigan City, who is chairman of the House Rules and Legislative Procedure Committee, said Friday that the most urgent issue facing the state is property taxes, not same-sex marriage, which already is banned by Indiana law.

“I’m not planning on having a hearing,” Pelath said. “The short session (of the legislature) was designed to deal with emergencies. We have a very serious problem with the property tax system, and we don’t have any gay marriages in Indiana.”

To become part of Indiana’s Constitution, the proposed amendment must pass two separately elected legislatures and then be approved by voters statewide. The proposed amendment, which declares that marriage in Indiana is defined only as the union between one man and one woman, overwhelmingly passed the Indiana Senate and House in 2005.A new legislature was elected in November 2006, and it voted on the amendment in 2007. While the Senate approved it 39-10, the House Rules committee deadlocked 5-5, and the amendment was dead for the year.If it does not pass this year, the process must begin anew, and the earliest it could be on the ballot for voters to have the final say is 2012.

A November poll for The Indianapolis Star and WTHR (Channel 13) showed that 49 percent of Hoosiers support the amendment, down from 56 percent in 2005.