Are you f**king kidding me? That's a wonderful idea... Less condoms for young people! Let's not teach our kids about safe-sex? They are bound to do it, would you like them to have safe-sex or unsafe sex? You decide. Yet another waste of tax payers money going into faith-based sex education pushed by the Bushh admin.

Bush Admin Tells Parents Of Gays To Tell Their Kids To Abstain From Sex

(Washington) A new government Web site gives parents advice on how to convince their children that "abstinence is the healthiest choice." That's dictating values, say organizations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to gay rights groups, and they want the site taken down.

But Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, says the Web site is right on target.

The site was designed for parents who are embarrassed about talking with their children about sex, Leavitt said in a statement.

"Parents have a tremendous amount of influence on their children and we want them to talk with their teens about abstinence so that they can stay safe and healthy," he said.

Promoting abstinence is fine, said Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, but the government should also address the needs of teenagers who are already sexually active, gay or lesbian, or who have been sexually abused.

For example, she said, the site should promote the proper use of contraceptives, and it should not imply that homosexuality is wrong by encouraging parents of gay or lesbian children to consult a therapist.

"By and large, it's a Web site that believes in abstinence until marriage," said Rodriguez, whose advocacy group promotes comprehensive sexual education. "Everything on the Web site is designed to promote that value and help parents communicate that value to their children."

Her 41-year-old organization as well as the ACLU, the National Education Association and more than 100 other advocacy groups are asking HHS to take down the Web site.

Bill Pierce, an HHS spokesman, said he was not surprised certain groups dislike the site.

"They've always opposed us on the issue of abstinence. That's fine," Pierce said. "One thing we do know about abstinence is that if you practice it, you will not have an unintended pregnancy or risk catching a sexually transmitted disease."

The site advises parents to tell their teens why they should not have sex: "Tell them abstinence is the healthiest choice. They will not have to worry about getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. They will not have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Nor will they have to worry that the person they are dating is only interested in them because of sex. "

And it paints a bleak picture for teens who get pregnant: "Many teen mothers never finish high school. Teen mothers and their babies are more likely to have health problems. And families started by teen mothers are more likely to be poor and end up on welfare."

For parents of teenagers already having sex, there is a section on contraception.

But Rodriguez said that section promotes unsafe sex rather than safe sex.

The site describes condoms as imperfect, saying they can break or be used incorrectly, and it includes a chart of whether a condom protects a little, some, or a lot, against various sexually transmitted diseases.

"There's this misconception that giving young people negative information about contraception will encourage them not to have sexual intercourse, when all it will do is encourage them not to have contraception, so the strategy backfires," Rodriguez said.

Patrick Fagan, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the Web site's information about condoms looked accurate.

"This is standard, straightforward research on the effectiveness of condoms," he said.

The groups protesting the Web site also contend it is biased against gays and lesbians.

The site says: "If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues."

Rodriguez said the Web site's definition for homosexuality - "a person who prefers sexual contact with people of the same sex" - implied that being gay was a sexual preference rather than a sexual orientation.

"There's no information whatsoever for their parents other than to go talk to a therapist," she said.

Fagan, though, said the Web site would be useful for parents of gays and lesbians.

"Teenagers involved in homosexual acts ... are worth the same transmission of information on the effectiveness of condoms and on the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases," he said.

Earlier today a human rights group said Uganda's progress against AIDS is at risk because of American demands for abstinence programs.

The report, by Human Rights Watch, said Uganda's president has fallen under the influence of Christian conservatives in the United States and is now promoting abstinence more, and condoms less, among young people.

Just before signing the bill before an audience of cheering supporters in the State House Cabinet Room, the governor declared this to be a "proud day for Maine." Baldacci, who submitted the bill, says it not only "offers essential civil rights," but also "serves as a welcome."

The law, which received final House and Senate passage last night, takes effect in late June. It makes Maine the sixth and final New England state to adopt a gay rights law.

But opponents aren't giving up. The Christian Civic League of Maine plans to announce its next move -- and that could be a petition drive to send the legislation out to voters. The civic league helped to organize two previous, successful referendum campaigns to undo gay rights laws. Its online newspaper says the only way to stop the newest bill is through a "people's veto" referendum.

State lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday night to a bill to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. It was expected to be signed Thursday by Gov. John Baldacci.

The bill would amend the Maine Human Rights Act by making it illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"We're thrilled," said Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine, a gay and lesbian advocacy group. "We believe the democratic process of government happened here."

The state Senate approved the bill 25-10; the House voted 91-58. There was no debate in either chamber.

The measure gained ground Wednesday with agreement to an amendment addressing concerns the law would be a gateway to gay marriages.

The amendment says the law "may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry that may exist" under state or federal law.

The Christian Civic League of Maine, which has led two successful referendum efforts since 1998 to overturn legislation to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, said it would announce its next step Thursday.

Its online newspaper said Wednesday the only way to stop the bill is through a "people's veto" referendum.

Smith said her group would wage a campaign to preserve the new law.

The California judge who ruled that gay couples should be allowed to marry stayed his decision Wednesday pending the outcome of anticipated appeals.

On March 14, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that gay couples in California can marry, and that the state's law against it was unconstitutional.

That decision was stayed automatically, but Wednesday's decision was meant to make it clear that no gay couples can get married in California until appeals have run their course. The dispute may not be settled for years.

Gloria Allred, an attorney for a Los Angeles lesbian couple who wanted to immediately marry, told the judge Wednesday that every day her clients cannot marry "is a day they are suffering irreparable harm."

Opponents of gay marriage said they immediately would appeal once Kramer finalized his ruling.

Ken Mehlman, the chair of the Republican National Committee, has finally been asked directly "the question": Are you gay?

By Chris Crain | ccrain@window-media.com

Eric Resnick of the Gay People's Chronicle reports in this week's edition that he cornered Mehlman in Akron, Ohio, on March 19 after he spoke to the Summit County Republican Party. After years of rumor and dodging the question, Mehlman's response: "[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer." Mehlman further claimed that his sexual orientation, gay or straight, "changes nothing" about his leadership of the GOP.

As we reported previously, Mehlman similarly dodged the question last year when he was managing George W. Bush's re-election campaign and was asked by the Blade if any top campaign staffers are gay. Things heated up for Mehlman when GQ reported in its current edition that Steve Schmidt, who works with Mehlman at the RNC, flatly denied the rumor: "Ken Mehlman is not gay," Schmidt told ABC News' Jake Tapper, who penned the GQ article.

By refusing to answer the question, of course, Mehlman only adds fuel to the fire. History may record, at some point, its first genuinely closeted heterosexual, but they are clearly few and far between.

The Chronicle reports that Mehlman peppered his remarks to the Summit County GOP, which is ironically headed up by a married (to a woman) man outed by a local publication, with his usual veiled attacks on gay marriage and abortion rights. He also urged the party to expand its reach to include Latinos and African Americans. Asked after his speech by the Chronicle whether the GOP should widen its tent and embrace gay rights to attract lesbians and gay men, Mehlman again dodged. "The Republican Party is based on ideas. Anyone who shares those ideas is welcome."

In other Mehlman news, RawStory.com has published a "response" by editor John Byrne to my blog posting that took issue with "anonymous sources" who claim I "spiked" a Blade story that would out Mehlman. Byrne now claims that RawStory did not report, and does not believe, that I "spiked" the story, even though ConspiracyPlanet.com published the RawStory piece with a headline saying exactly that. Instead, I "thwarted" or "stifled" the story by hiding information from my own reporters. I'll leave the difference to semanticists, but the claim is rubbish however it is worded.

More interestingly, Byrne trots out as proof of a pattern in this regard that I declined an offer to investigate alleged audiotapes of a profile recorded by Congressman Ed Schrock on a phone sex line. RawStory suggests that I hid this offer from the Blade staff, as well. His only source for that claim is a former staffer who he knows was not even working at the Blade the time the offer was made. The irony here is that Byrne only knows that the Blade was offered the Schrock tapes because I told him, a fact he conveniently fails to report. Does he think I keep secrets from my staff and then blab to RawStory.com? The same goes for my own personal history with Ken Mehlman. RawStory reported the ties as if they were some secret revelations to be exposed, never informing readers that I wrote a very public editorial with the exact same information almost five months earlier.

Q & A with HRC head, Joe Solmonese.

Joe Solmonese is the incoming head of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest gay-rights group in the country.

He arrives at a time when gay-rights advocates are reevaluating their political strategy after the November passage of nearly a dozen state bans on same-sex marriage and the reelection of President Bush, who favors a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Solmonese was executive director of EMILY’s List, a political action committee that works to elect pro-choice Democratic women.

Q: After the elections, some people argued that the gay-rights movement needed to step back from the marriage issue and focus on more moderate goals such as civil unions. Do you think that’s right?

A: I always chuckle when I hear that because I think, if you really understand where we are in history, it is not a setback. … What I’m focused on is the fact we are as committed to that as we are to ending workplace discrimination, hate crimes, a whole range of issues. I don’t think one is mutually exclusive of the other. … The fight for marriage is the thread that runs through all of our work.

Q: Are you at all concerned that gay marriage was the “red Ferrari rolling down main street” [as HRC board member Hilary Rosen wrote in an op-ed shortly after the elections] and that it turned people off to the gay-rights movement?

A: You know, it just depends on who you are. Every American reacts to it in a different way. … What is happening out there in the country is so much bigger than all of us, and it’s our job to try to harness that change and make sure that people understand, if this is happening, why are we seeking that it happen? What is this equality we’re pressing for?

Q: You have said that you plan to take the gay-rights movement “to the next level.” What do you mean?

A: I was referring to the need for us to respond to the changing political landscape. For all that we are doing here in Washington and on Capitol Hill, we need to ensure that our efforts are just as expansive across the country. … We have to make sure there is as much influence coming from the grassroots.

Q: How is the political landscape changing?

A: You have look at where we are over our history as a formal, political movement. … We’re in this big period of change. … These brave people in Massachusetts came forward and said we want to be treated with the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans, and they won and that’s a historic thing. It’s bigger than me, it’s bigger than us, it’s bigger than HRC.

Q: You spent nearly 12 years at EMILY’s List. How does that prepare you to lead a gay-rights group?

A: Well, first and foremost, it enabled me to gain a keen understanding of the social fabric of this country. I spent more time out in America than here in Washington during most of my tenure, and, in doing so, I really seemed to learn how it is that we make gains both in red states and in blue.

Q: Speaking of red states, will you reach out more to Republicans or attempt to become more bipartisan?

A: Obviously if we’re going to make any gains we’re going to have to widen our circle, so in terms of reaching out, when we’re out there in states around the country, these issues don’t really know partisan boundaries, and that’s the same here in Washington.

Q: There are three members of Congress who are openly gay [Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)]. How many more do you think are in the closet?

A: I have no idea.

Q: No idea?

A: None at all. I can tell you it’s not something I think about.

Q: But couldn’t it affect how they think about [gay rights] issues?

A: I’m much more interested in how people vote and what people say. … Our mission is to either change what they’re saying or change what they believe, or, as a last effort, try to change the person who holds that seat. We’re going to be successful if we focus on how they vote and what they say rather than who they are.

Q: You are gay yourself.

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have a partner?

A: No.

Q: If you did, would you want to get married?

A: Yeah.

Q: Newt Gingrich’s sister works at HRC. Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. Do you think family members can have an impact on policymakers? Do you exploit that?

A: The simple answer is: unquestionably. It is at the core of what we need to do. When you know someone — whether it’s a co-worker, a family member or a friend — it influences the way you see the world. It is, I believe, the single most important thing in changing the hearts and minds of Americans.

Q: What do you think of outing campaigns?

A: Different people have different philosophies about this and approach it in different ways. … If you’re outing someone on the Hill, are you doing it because you’re going to change their mind about their vote?... I think that I and the HRC focus on how people vote and what people say.

Q: Would you advise people who are waging outing campaigns to stop?

A: Well, I haven’t really had a long conversation with anyone who’s on this, so I can only speak to what I think.

Q: Can you say whether the campaigns are good or bad, helpful or unhelpful?

A: You ask yourself, good, bad, helpful or unhelpful in doing what? In doing what? I’d be curious to see how they would answer that sentence. Is it in causing someone to lose their job? Is it in changing a vote, changing the direction of Congress? That is the question I would ask.

Q: Have you seen votes changed as a result of outing campaigns?

A: No, I haven’t.

Jerry Falwell had just recovered from viral pneumonia in mid-February; a little before midnight yesterday, he suffered from "respiratory arrest". Let me just say - THANK GOD. When I saw the first report that he had suffered a heart attack (tunred out to be false) I couldn't help but wish that he would go into a "permanent vegetative state". Well that didn't happen. Though he did either stop breathing or his breathing slowed way down. Jesus! Let this man die!

This just figures - the always "moral" Boy Scouts have a new scandal...

The national director of programs for the Boy Scouts of America has been charged with receiving and distributing child pornography, the U.S. Attorney's office here told NBC News on Tuesday.

Douglas S. Smith Jr. was charged with one felony count of having photos that show "minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Sources in the U.S. Attorney's office told NBC that Smith was expected to plead guilty.

The images were of young boys and the investigation started in Germany, the sources added.

In a statement Tuesday, the Boy Scouts of America said it had no indication of prior criminal activity.

"We are dismayed and shocked to learn of the charge," it said. "Smith was employed by the organization for 39 years, with no indication of prior criminal activity. He was not in a leadership position which involved working directly with youth."

The statement said Smith was placed on paid administrative leave immediately after the organization learned that he was being investigated for a crime, and that Smith decided to retire shortly thereafter.

Smith, 61, would not comment when reached by phone at his home.

He was expected to appear in federal court Wednesday morning. If tried and found guilty, he faces prison time ranging from five to 20 years.

A resident of Colleyville, Texas, Smith is himself an Eagle Scout. According to Greg Fields, a Boy Scout of America spokesperson based in Irving, Texas, Smith is no longer involved in troop activity.

A second judge in Cleveland has agreed that the American state of Ohio's new constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage also weakens the state's domestic violence statute.

On Thursday, Cleveland Municipal Judge Lauren C Moore ruled that a man accused of physically abusing his live-in girlfriend could not be charged with domestic violence, because of Issue 1, which voters approved last fall.

That amendment to Ohio's constitution says the state cannot give legal status to unmarried couples.

Moore's ruling came one day after another Cuyahoga County judge reached the same conclusion. In that case, where a man was also charged with striking his girlfriend, Judge Stuart Friedman reduced a felony domestic violence charge to a charge of misdemeanour assault.

Ironically, while Issue 1 was designed to deny legal status to same-sex couples, the vague wording of the amendment is now affecting heterosexual couples, as evidenced by the two judges' rulings.

Eric Stern, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, the largest group of LGBT Democrats, blamed the Bush administration and others who supported anti-gay state constitutional amendments that passed in 11 states in November.

"Instead of protecting families, as President Bush and Republicans claimed these measures would do, these amendments actually undermine the stability of the American family," he said in a press release.

"As we see in Ohio, the ramifications of these amendments extend far beyond discrimination against same-sex families."

County prosecutors said they would appeal Friedman's and Moore's decisions.

Camilla Taylor, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal, said not everyone agrees with Friedman's and Moore's legal opinions. She cited another recent ruling where a third Cleveland municipal judge, Ronald Adrine, had come to the opposite conclusion in a similar domestic violence case.

"I think that these cases will be decided ultimately by the Ohio Supreme Court," Taylor told the PlanetOut Network.

Some supporters of Issue 1 said weakening the state's domestic violence law was not what they intended.

Phill Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an organisation that lobbied for Issue 1, told a Cincinnati television station, "The law the way it's currently written is truly unequal treatment."

He promised to work with state legislators to amend the domestic violence law to fix any inequities.

Source: uk.gay.com

The Mrs. Oregon America Pageant, which showcases married women with talent and beauty, is upset with Mayor Tom Potter. Each year the pageant director writes the mayor of Portland and asks for a letter of congratulations for contestants. This year however, Mayor Potter had a different kind of letter. It stated...

"We've reviewed your request and will have to decline issuing your pageant a letter. On your website under the Eligibility criteria you list "We recognize a marriage as a union between one man and one woman". The City of Portland does not discriminate based on sexual orientation and recognizes everyone equally."

Libby Crawford the director of the pageant says that Mayor Potter turned her down because one particular pageant rule - the organization defines marriage as between "one man and one woman". Libby goes on to say that "He is really discriminating against heterosexual couples. So that means that he will support any other organization. Crawford says defining marriage is like other rules set in place for interested participants. "It also says in our rules that you have to be a natural born female... so... ya know".

Mayor Potter has been vocal in the past regarding GLBT issues. His own daughter is a lesbian as well. Go Tom! It's nice to have a mayor that stands up and actually has some balls.

The $7.75 receipt is tattered at the edges now, and the printing is faded.

But to Melinda Vest and Beverly Morgan, it is precious proof positive that last year, during the brief window when gay couples were allowed to marry in Oregon, their marriage was certified in Multnomah County.

The receipt, saved for months and worn smooth, is one of dozens of pieces of memorabilia being collected and displayed by the county, home to Portland, where more than 3,000 gay couples from across the country came to get marriage licenses before a judge put a stop to the six weeks of impromptu weddings in mid-April of 2004.

The collection, dubbed the "Wedding Album Project" will be on display for a month at Multnomah County's headquarters, then turned over to the Oregon Historical Society for its research archives, and the use of future historians.

A similar collection was put together by the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, which published a special section featuring photographs from gay readers who had gotten married.

In Oregon, every couple that got a marriage license got an invitation from the county in the mail inviting them to take part in the project; so far, hundreds have done so.

Besides the receipt, there are countless photos, of beaming brides and bashful grooms. Some sent photographs of themselves in younger days, alongside pictures of their decades-later wedding day. One couple submitted a DVD of their wedding celebration; another framed their wedding invitations and vows, along with pictures of the ceremony.

"This is a time capsule," said Tracy Waters, who submitted framed photos and the invitation from her wedding to Laurel Harroun, her partner for 30 years. "I am proud of us - we are both proud of each other. We have both had life challenges to sort out, and I have felt compelled to get it in a frame for herstory's sake, because I believe there needs to be room for everyone in the circle."

One woman Xeroxed her journal entry from the day of her wedding, while others wrote testimonials about their time together, their year of being married, and the backlash against gay marriage in Oregon, which culminated in a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"We met on Feb. 5, 1966," wrote Washington resident Vern Robbins. "At the time we met I was working in a night club as a lounge singer. We went home together and never ever slept apart after that."

Robbins' partner, Glen, died in January of diabetes, Robbins writes.

"Thank you, Oregon, for allowing me to grant his greatest wish (to be married)," Robbins' submission concludes.

Gay marriage remains a hot-potato topic in Oregon, with the legislature debating civil unions and a decision pending from the Supreme Court on the legality of the amendment banning gay marriage, which passed in November with 57 percent of the vote.

But Ken DuBois, a spokesman for the Oregon Historical Society, said the organization jumped at the chance to permanently house the wedding album project.

"Whether people are in favor of it or against it, it is part of history and there is no denying that," DuBois said. "We have to have as complete a record as we can possibly get of important times in our state's history. Just imagine how interesting this personal writing will be in 50 or 60 years."

County commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey, one of four county commissioners who spearheaded the county's drive to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, said the idea for the wedding album came up when the county was looking for something to commemorate the first anniversary, traditionally celebrated with gifts of paper.

"We have gotten some calls about this, from people telling us it is the wrong thing to do," said Rojo de Steffey, who said she received hate mail and death threats during the first flush of the gay marriage decision in 2004. "But we feel strongly about it, about commemorating these folks and their marriages."

The county is also considering the possibility of doing an oral history project with some of the gay couples who were married, she said.

Anne Clark, a 43-year-old graduate student in clinical psychology at Antioch University of New England, was one of the couples who got married last year in Multnomah County. She was so moved by the other couples she met that she changed the topic of her dissertation to focus on the meaning of marriage for a cross-section of the couples she met.

When she finishes the dissertation, she plans to donate a bound copy to the wedding album project.

"I felt that I had to do this for historical purposes," Clark said. "I feel like I should be someone who speaks out, who talks about what the experience was like, and who shares the experience with someone else through my own words."

By JULIA SILVERMAN
Associated Press Writer

More than 50 ministers across Kansas called upon voters Friday to vote against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

In a letter to the public, the ministers said the amendment violates a basic tenet of all faiths, which is to treat all people equally, with respect and love. Passage of the amendment, which is on the April 5 ballot, would hurt thousands of Kansans and make their lives harder, the letter said.

“For me, as a Christian, if I am taking the faith seriously, there's only one way I could vote and that's no,” said the Rev. Robert Meneilly, a letter signer who is the retired pastor of the Village Presbyterian Church in Prairie Village. “If we are all made by the same God in the same image, we should all have the same rights.”

The letter is posted at www.kansansforfairness.org, the home of Kansans for Fairness, a coalition of groups that support human rights. Among those signing it were the Rev. Larry Keller of St. Mark's United Methodist Church in Overland Park, the Rev. Holly McKissick of St. Andrew Christian Church in Olathe and the Rev. Tarris Rosell, associate professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Kan.

Bruce Ney, president of Kansans for Fairness, said the letter was put together by clergy members who “are somewhat taken aback by the idea that every Christian religion in the state of Kansas backs this amendment when, in fact, that is not true. This was their attempt to make that clear and get the word out.”

In the letter, the clergy say that “it is not the state government's role to codify one religious interpretation of the Bible, or one religion over another in the Kansas Constitution. To the contrary, the great contribution of our Constitution is to protect the rights of all faiths.”

The Rev. Jerry Johnston , pastor of First Family Church in Overland Park and a leader in the effort to pass the amendment, said the views of the “small group” of ministers do not reflect the views of the majority.

“Religious liberty is to set people free by the power of the gospel, and the aim of all the vast majority who believe in this amendment is to protect marriage,” Johnston said.

If homosexuals receive rights, he said, what's to stop defenders of group marriages from asking for their rights, he said. All of the states that have had an opportunity to vote on a ban on gay marriage have approved it, Johnston said, adding he thinks it will pass in Kansas also.

The campaign in favor of the amendment is led by One Voice of Kansas Inc., a (hateful) nonprofit group.

Besides defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, the amendment would prohibit the state from granting marriage in other relationships.

Bishop's careful apology fails to end dispute and shows even more hypocrisy in the church

The morning after San Diego's Roman Catholic bishop apologized to a family after canceling their gay son's funeral Mass, he left two voice-mail messages for an evangelical Christian activist who crusades against homosexuality.

"James, please take my call," Bishop Robert Brom said Tuesday into the answering machine of James Hartline, a Hillcrest man who supported canceling the funeral Mass. "I have to explain how it's all wrong and how I was done in. We need to talk and we need to meet. Please call me back immediately."

In a second message, the bishop sounded more urgent: "This is Bishop Brom begging you to call me back. I did not cave in. I stood for our position and I still do, but I need to explain, and I need your help."

Hartline said he never returned Brom's calls. Instead, he played the messages for a reporter, saying he was outraged by the bishop's "totally spineless" apology to the family of John McCusker, a nightclub owner who died this month. The bishop had banned a Catholic service for McCusker, citing what the diocese considered his sinful business activities.

In the days after Brom released his three-sentence statement, many are trying to decipher what the leader of nearly 1 million Catholics in San Diego and Imperial counties meant by his words of consolation.

Was he expressing regret for canceling the funeral?

Or was he simply expressing sympathy for the family's turmoil?

From talk shows to e-mails, the nuanced words of the statement have been parsed and debated:

"I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral for John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused them. To help rectify this situation, insofar as it can be, I will preside at a Mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata. In consideration for the family, I will not be available for any further public statements on this matter," Brom wrote Monday.

Adding to the speculation is a cover letter that accompanied the statement when it was sent Tuesday to Catholic clergy.

"The enclosed statement . . . should be read carefully," wrote Monsignor Steven Callahan, a top official with the diocese. "Note the extent and nature of the apology that Bishop Brom offered, free of media interpretations."

Callahan followed up with a notice to clergy on Wednesday that the Mass would be for the family only and closed to the public.

Yesterday Brom, 66, wouldn't answer questions about why he banned the funeral, the first such cancellation in his 15-year tenure, or discuss why he was so concerned about Hartline's opinion.

Brom did, however, indicate that he felt besieged by dual forces as he tried to navigate the controversy: "Throughout this whole ordeal I have struggled with my obligation to clearly define moral principles and at the same time to be properly compassionate."

Meanwhile, the diocese issued another statement yesterday afternoon acknowledging that the apology "has met with a variety of interpretations. The covenant with the McCusker family, found within the statement itself, precludes any comment in this regard." The McCusker family could not be reached.

Mark Brumley, president of San Francisco-based Ignatius Press, a Catholic publishing company, said the bishop's statement was unclear.

"It would serve the community of San Diego well to have some clarification," said Brumley, a former spokesman for the San Diego diocese. "There are people on many sides of this issue who will look to the statement to see where the bishop comes down on the issue and will be unable to do so."

Janet Mansfield, a member of the liberal reform group Call to Action, still regards the apology as important. "For a bishop to actually apologize is something," she said, adding, "I think he's walking a tightrope."

Dignity USA, a national independent advocacy group for gay Catholics, released a statement with its San Diego chapter yesterday praising Brom's apology. Pat McArron, former national president and a San Diego resident, said there is disagreement over what Brom meant by his statement.

"Dignity, quite frankly, has chosen not to pick it apart," McArron said.

But Mike Portantino, publisher of the San Diego-based Gay and Lesbian Times called Brom's statement a "shallow victory."

"Do I feel that the Catholic Church has changed its stance or opinion? No," Portantino said. "I think they felt a tidal wave of publicity coming their way and their public relations arm recognized that this was not only within the gay community but even within Catholic community."

The flap began last week after Brom canceled a funeral Mass scheduled at the Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, where McCusker had been a student. McCusker, 31, died March 13 while vacationing in Mammoth.

The diocese said the funeral wasn't canceled because of McCusker's sexual orientation, but because his "business activities" – he owned a gay bar and a popular nightclub with a largely gay clientele – "were contrary to sacred Scripture and the moral teaching of the church."

The diocese said it had obtained information that a gay porn video had been recorded at McCusker's Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, and that gay porn stars had appeared at his North Park bar, ReBar. But McCusker's friends said he often rented out the nightclub and had no involvement in making the video.

McCusker's family moved the funeral to an Episcopal church last Friday. Monday night, as the gay community and its supporters gathered to discuss a response, his family read Brom's apology and urged people to accept it "as an offering of peace."

But as Holy Week draws to a close and Christians prepare to celebrate Easter on Sunday, the issue doesn't appear to be over.

Yesterday, Sue Lopez of Bay Park was among a small group of protesters gathered outside the diocese headquarters. They were upset that Brom issued any apology at all.

Noting that the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, Lopez said the bishop buckled "under tremendous pressure by the homosexual community."

She added: "We're praying for his leadership, that he'll be a shepherd, not a politician, and not come out with statements that you have to read carefully. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and let the chips fall where they may."

ELLENSBURG, Wash. (AP) — Central Washington University has became the third university in the state and one of 25 nationwide to bar discrimination against openly gay, bisexual and transsexual staff and students.

With little fanfare after more than a year of consideration, the Board of Trustees voted March 4 to add gender identity and expression to the school's non-discrimination policy, which already covered race, color, creed, religion and other group identifiers.

"We want to make Central a community where people feel welcome and are not intimidated," said Nancy Howard, the school's equal opportunity chief. "It also sends a clear message to our university community that individuals are not to be singled out and treated poorly because of these characteristics."

Other universities in the state that specifically bar discrimination against people who express themselves as gay, bisexual and transsexual are the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma.

"It's one of the most oppressed populations on college campuses across the state," said Leslie Webb, director of Central's diversity education center, which sought the change.

Next month Central hosts the first tri-state lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender conference, "The Power of One: LGBT Leadership Conference," which is expected to draw about 200 college and university students and staff from Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was added to the Central's policy about 10 years ago, Howard said. The policy change allows those who feel they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment to turn to the university's informal and formal grievance processes.

"The idea is that we want Central to be a place where employees can pursue their careers and be successful, and students can come and study and have a social life without worry that these type of incidents occur," Howard said.

I just bought this book...

The debate surrounding same-sex marriages has reached a fever pitch, embroiling Americans in an emotionally charged argument that further reflects America's deep social and political divide. Scott Redmond offers a unique perspective on this homosexual plight in his new book Get Over the Rainbow: Why Everyone Should Join the Fight for Gay Rights (now available through AuthorHouse).

"While other books have been written about this issue, Get Over the Rainbow was written by a heterosexual male who had nothing personal to gain from legal, same sex marriage, other than living in a nation where everyone is treated equally," writes Redmond.

The book opens with an interesting theory on why 2004 was a defining year in America's battle over homosexual marriage. It explains how this became a campaign issue in the presidential election, even though both candidates were opposed to offering gays their day at the altar.

Redmond challenges numerous arguments against homosexual matrimony throughout the book. He details the hypocrisy in using the Bible as a tool for discrimination and reminds those who believe that Hollywood promotes the gay lifestyle that mainstream America decides which movies and television programs are popular.

Get Over the Rainbow sets the heated debate over gay marriage in context with earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as legalizing birth control in the '60s and abortion in the '70s. It explains why the majority in Colorado could not win a legal battle against the minority homosexual population, and offers an optimistic outlook, steeped in logical reasoning and historic legal evidence, for the future of homosexuals' right to marry.

A passionate discussion about equal treatment of gays from a straight perspective, Get Over the Rainbow also offers compelling arguments that cut to the chase and eliminate misconceptions.

Redmond was recently fired from his job as a radio talk show host because of his controversial views which, he says, were not accepted by the traditional conservative AM-talk radio audience. Born in New Orleans, he has spent most of his broadcasting career in that city. Known as "Scoot" on the air, Redmond has done radio shows throughout the country and has carefully studied media's effect on society. He also has produced, written and hosted several television talk shows and wrote a regular column, "Straight to the Point" for the gay publication, OUTFRONT. He attributes his close bond with the homosexual community to his struggles with obsessive compulsive disorder. Get Over the Rainbow is his first book.

For more information on this new book click here.

Here starts the backlash of adding unequal treatment into the constitution of many states across the US. First off I do not condone domestic violence in any way, shape or form - although I still find something about this very amusing. For all of you who voted Yes on Measure 36 here in Oregon this one goes out to you!

Just when you thought that passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and therefore not providing equal treatment under the law was a smart thing to do - this is what you get. These amendments are not only hurting hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians - now it's hurting the straights. The first story comes from Ohio with many more to follow. I hope people can learn from this once it effects them and not just gays and lesbians. Here it goes...

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Prosecutors immediately appealed.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not comment further because of the appeal.

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.

"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.

Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict over the domestic violence law would result in the gay marriage ban being repealed.

Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states Nov. 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and gay marriages.

By CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer

Rumors are still running rampant about when the Oregon State Supreme Court will make it's ruling on Li v. State of Oregon (the fate of the 3,021 same-sex marriages). Could be this week or next. My understanding is that the ruling must be before March 31st - or Multnomah County will be forced to begin issuing marriage licenses again. I know that sounds strange considering the passing of Constitutional Amendment 36. There was a 90 day stay issued by the lower court. Assumptions are that they would request another stay if the ruling were to be delayed past March 31st.

Opinions are released on Thursdays, although they post the "Notice of Forthcoming Opinion" on Wednesday. Here is a link to where they are posted: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supremeWednesday.htm

For updates on this case you can visit the Basic Rights Oregon website @ www.basicrights.org

A California judge ruled last week that the state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional—a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the door for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s decision raises a more daunting question for America’s African American community as it relates to the marriage debate:

“If the KKK was opposing gay marriage, I would ride with them.” When black Chicago Baptist minister, the Rev. Gregory Daniels took that provocative stance on same-sex marriage last fall he roiled liberals, moderates and conservatives alike. A day after Daniels shocked even the most conservative Christians, 10,000 black marchers, including Bernice King, the slain civil rights leader’s youngest daughter, called same-sex marriage black America’s “most pressing demon.”

One year after the world witnessed 29 days of San Francisco weddings new data suggests that Daniels, King and other black church leaders are on the wrong page.

“This is not our agenda,” says 27-year-old Megan Stack. Stack an Indiana University medical student who is black and lesbian points to images celebrating the first anniversary of the event. “These folks don’t look like me,” she said.

In fact that’s the picture painted by demographic data released by San Francisco officials who tracked the 4,037 licenses issued between February 12, 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the go ahead to same-sex nuptials, and March 11 when the state Supreme Court ordered them stopped.

According to Carole Midgen, the lesbian chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization who got married, the weddings represented people from everywhere.

“The majority of the over 4,000 newlyweds were 30 to 60 year old, white collar Caucasians,” she said.

Thom Lynch, executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center agreed.

“We saw attorneys, artists, teachers, and couples from New York to Oregon, from Paris, France to Paris, Tennessee. Most couples were white, some were Latino and a few were African America or Asian-American,” Lynch said.

University of Pennsylvania professor, Eric Dyson questions the new black agenda that calls for among other things, privatization of Social Security and a ban on same-sex marriage. Dyson’s upcoming book is titled “Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has The Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?” He said, “Many black church leaders have turned a blind eye to official data that states most gays and lesbians heading to the altar are non-black, middle aged, and have college degrees.”

The sparring over same-sex marriage personifies the deep divisions between black ministers and the black gay community. Raymond Dre Mayes is openly gay. The Fort Wayne short order cook says gay marriage is not a black agenda.

“Most black gays and lesbians are in the closet or so-called DL (down low). Most of us can’t afford to come out. Imagine an openly gay teacher, police officer or city councilman. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.” Mayes said.

Bestselling author J.L. King whose explosive book “On The Down Low” explores sex between closeted black men argues, “Shouldn’t black America be discussing the HIV/AIDS crisis, youth gangs and unprecedented unemployment among black males? Are we ignoring the real issues affecting black families?”

The author joins a growing number of black intellectuals who want the spotlight put on issues critical to black survival. Stack says, the headlines are screaming about the black HIV/AIDS crisis, joblessness, and health disparity.

“Have we allowed right wing conservatives to distract the back community from its real priorities?” asked Stack.

The California ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage is sure to turn up the volume on the marriage debate.

“It’s ironic that some black ministers would make these issues a national priority given the black church’s historical role in fighting for economic empowerment and a more just society,” said Dr. Martinl Luther King’s widow Coretta Scott King.

By Chris Levister

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A gay civil rights bill is one or two votes shy of a majority in the Senate, Sen. Darlene Fairley said Tuesday after a hearing on the measure.

"I am very optimistic," said Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park. "It's the right thing to do."

The state House has already approved the bill, and Gov. Christine Gregoire has said she will sign it into law if the Legislature passes it.

Public opinion at Fairley's committee hearing ran six-to-one in favor of the bill, though some opponents warned of deep-seated opposition across the state.

The bill, which would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and insurance, has been introduced - and rejected - annually for nearly 30 years in the state Legislature.

Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill's sponsor, said he believes this is the year it will pass.

"Some have asked, is this a necessity? Let me assure you, from the school yard to the boardrooms, discrimination is real for gays and lesbians in Washington state," Murray told the Senate panel. "I appeal to you as a gay man, as a native son of this state, as your colleague, to pass this bill."

Opponents included the Christian Coalition, Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and private citizens.

"Tens of thousands if not millions of Christians hold that homosexuality is a reprehensible lifestyle," said Randy Leskovar, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel in West Seattle. "So when we're saying it is a lifestyle that must be accepted ... you're going to have to allow something you think is reprehensible to be looked on as being OK."

Several opponents said they believe homosexuality is a choice, subject to change, and thus should not get the same protections as race and ethnicity.

Supporters of the bill pointed out that religion and creed, which are subject to change, are protected under existing law. And some legislators flatly rejected the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

"This is not a lifestyle. There's no more choice than I have a choice to be five feet tall," said Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton.

"I have seen gay children abused, humiliated, spit on, called 'fag' and 'sissy,' beaten up - I don't know anyone who would choose that lifestyle," said Sen. Brian Weinstein, D-Mercer Island.

"Maybe you don't represent all the people," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, after noting that most of the committee members seemed to support the bill.

"When the homosexual community tried to make this a civil rights issue, I have a real problem with that," said Hutcherson, who is black. "Homosexuals have not had to go through what I had to go through growing up in Alabama."

Vernon Johnson, a Western Washington University professor who is also black, said he supports the bill because he opposes discrimination in all forms.

"I have experienced discrimination and I know firsthand the pain it causes," said Johnson. "I think what we are talking about is the pain of discrimination."

Carol Waymack, a Seattle doctor, told senators she simply wants her lesbian daughter to have the same opportunities as her straight son.

Several businesses wrote letters supporting the bill, including Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Nike and Coors Brewing Co.

"I'm looking at how I'm going to invest $75 million," said Clayton Lewis, chief operating officer of HouseValues, an Internet real estate company that went public last December. As a gay man, Lewis said, "knowing I have the same chance, the same opportunity to succeed, is critical to me."

Fifteen states have anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians.

Fairley said she plans to pass the bill out of the Finanical Institutions, Housing and Consumer Protection Committee on Thursday. There's no word yet on when it might come to the Senate floor.

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Gay marriage ban completes first step.

The Indiana House today finalized a first step toward a state constitutional ban on gay marriage, approving the proposal with bipartisan support today.

Proponents hailed the 76-23 vote as a move toward protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage from activist judges, while opponents decried it as singling out gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"The basic unit of our society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage, and marriage is the union of one man and one woman," said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City. "A strong consensus has emerged in our country and our state that marriage must be strengthened."

All 52 Republicans voted in favor of the proposal, while all 23 who voted against it, including Rep. Craig Fry of Mishawaka, were Democrats.

"I'm offended we would pick on a certain group in our society who are not bothering me, who are not bothering you, who are not bothering anybody," Fry said. "I believe it is a tragedy, and I am embarrassed for this chamber."

The same proposal passed the Republican-controlled Senate 42-8 earlier this session.

However, amending the constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then approved in a statewide vote. That means if the proposal passes again in 2007 or 2008, it could be on the November ballot in 2008.

Indiana, as do at least 42 other states, already has a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage.

A similar resolution passed the Republican-controlled Senate with bipartisan support last year, but Democrats who controlled the House then refused GOP attempts to advance or even debate it. Democrats controlled the chamber 51-49 then, and all 49 Republicans had pledged to support the amendment.

Republicans now have a 52-48 majority in the House, and House Speaker Brian Bosma had pledged efforts to pass it this session. Although debate today was sometimes emotional, Bosma later commended the chamber for debating the issue openly and calmly.

Catholic leader vows to hold Mass in memory of gay nightclub owner

The head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego apologized yesterday to the family of gay nightclub owner John McCusker, less than a week after denying McCusker a Catholic funeral because of his "business activities," according to a statement released by McCusker's family.

In a stunning twist to a controversy that has created an uproar in San Diego's gay and Catholic communities, Bishop Robert Brom also promised to preside at a Mass in memory of McCusker at Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, according to the statement.

McCusker, 31, died March 13 while vacationing in Mammoth.

In the statement released by McCusker's family, Brom said, "I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral for John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation, and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused them. To help rectify this situation, insofar as it can be, I will preside at a Mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata. In consideration for the family, I will not be available for any further public statements on this matter."

Earlier in the day, a woman who answered the phone at the diocese said neither the bishop nor his spokesman would have any further comment.

Last week, Brom forced the Immaculata to cancel McCusker's funeral, declaring that no parish within the diocese, which includes San Diego and Imperial counties, could hold a Catholic service for him.

At the time, the diocese said McCusker's "business activities" – he owned a gay bar and a popular nightclub with a largely gay clientele – "were contrary to Sacred Scripture and the moral teaching of the Church."

In defending its decision at the time, the diocese said it had obtained information that a gay porn video had been recorded at McCusker's Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, and that gay porn stars had appeared at his North Park bar, ReBar.

McCusker's friends said McCusker often rented out Club Montage and had no involvement in making the video.

Last week's decision forced McCusker's family to scramble for an alternate venue for his funeral, which was held Friday at St. Paul's Cathedral, an Episcopal church near Balboa Park.

Last night McCusker's mother, Christine McCusker, read the bishop's latest statement to a packed crowd at the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center in Hillcrest. The crowd of at least 300 people, who showed up expecting to discuss ways to respond to the diocese's actions, was stunned and delighted by the unexpected news.

Christine McCusker told the crowd that when her family met with the bishop yesterday, Brom "regretfully acknowledged his hasty decision."

She urged the crowd to accept the bishop's apology "as an offering of peace and an offering to do what John would have done, as he is a great advocate of reconciliation and forgiveness."

The controversy over McCusker's funeral became a popular topic on the Internet and came at an awkward time for the Catholic church, which has been dealing for several years with fallout from disclosures of widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States.

Those who showed up last night to support McCusker's family said the bishop probably didn't expect the backlash that his actions received.

"I think he saw the response from our community as well as our straight allies," said Ken Riley, 50, a physician and member of Ebony Pride of San Diego.

Some conservatives expressed grave disappointment at the bishop's about-face. Ernie Grimm, who edits the monthly Catholic newspaper San Diego News Notes, said he felt "betrayed."

"He had showed a lot of courage in making his original decision and encouraged a lot of us lay Catholics who had been looking for stronger leadership from our bishops," Grimm said. "He caved in the face of opposition."

James Hartline, a Christian conservative activist from Hillcrest, said he alerted the bishop to McCusker's gay business interests.

Hartline said he spoke with Brom at least four times about the McCusker case, including a meeting yesterday that lasted an hour. At no time did the bishop indicate he would reverse his position, Hartline said last night.

"He emphatically stated to me he would not budge one bit," Hartline said. "It's very, very strange. He was preparing a document that was going to include the fact that he was not going to reverse course at all."

Rebecca Moore, a professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, said Brom acted with grace and compassion in owning up to what she and many others said was a mistake.

"A funeral does not make a statement about the morality of the deceased, but rather it makes a statement about the mercy of God," Moore said. "Bishop Brom had second thoughts about his original decision and had the guts to publicly change his mind. That takes courage."

By Alex Roth and Jeff McDonald
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Union-Tribune researcher Dick Harrington contributed to this report.

A joke at a weekend political roast has raised the ire of some gay advocates in Massachusetts.

"I have to admit, that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman... and a woman and a woman," he told an audience at a St Patrick's Day breakfast attended by members of the legislature.

The Republican governor has been a longtime foe of same-sex marriage. Recently he has been traveling around the country speaking to GOP groups in what many believe to be a test for a possible presidential run in 2008.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a liberal Democrat, lit into Romney for his travels, asking if he'd had trouble finding his way from the airport.

"Are those tickets in your pocket?" he asked. "I don't want to keep you too long. You can leave any time you want."

In a speech last month to Republican Party members in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Romney lambasted Massachusetts's highest court, which paved the way for gay marriage, accusing the justices of striking "a blow against the family.'' (story)

Several days later, in Utah, he declared ''America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts last May, Romney invoked a 1913 law prevented town clerks from issuing licenses to couples who do not reside in Massachusetts.

The law says that the state cannot marry an out-of-state couple if that marriage would be "void" in the couple's home state. It had been created to prevent interracial marriages. The law is now under appeal. (story)

But, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, Romney is still "too pro gay" for some conservatives.

Following a speech in Michigan, that state's chapter of the American Family Association sent a letter to state senators warning of what it called Romney's liberal record on abortion and gay rights.

"While it is certainly the prerogative of the GOP caucus to provide a forum for speakers who hold a diversity of public policy positions ... we also hope you will not allow your event or your hospitality to be used in any way to validate or legitimize Governor Mitt Romney's support of legal abortion-on-demand or his endorsement of homosexual activists' political agenda," wrote AFAM President Gary Glenn.

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau365gay.com

DETROIT (AP) -- A lawsuit challenging a recent attorney general's opinion that bans public employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples in future contracts was filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

The lawsuit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, asks the court to rule that Proposal 2 does not bar government employers from providing health insurance and other benefits to employees' same-sex partners and their children.

Those bringing the suit include a Washington-based AFL-CIO group called National Pride at Work that backs gay rights; Kalamazoo city employees; workers at state universities; and employees at various state agencies and departments.

Proposal 2, which Michigan voters approved 59 percent to 41 percent in November, said a union between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

The ACLU says in the lawsuit that U.S. courts have held that providing health insurance to same-sex domestic partners does not constitute recognition of a marriage or a similar union and is necessary for employers to attract qualified workers.

The ACLU also argues in the suit that the intent of voters was not to deny the families of gays and lesbians health insurance or other benefits. The suit says the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 "consistently and repeatedly" assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.

Last week, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued his first legal interpretation of the amendment, saying that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment.

Cox, a Republican, said his opinion does not apply to existing contracts.

Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, Cox said. Given the constitutional amendment's broad language, conferring benefits recognizes the validity of same-sex relationships, he ruled.

Cox said Proposal 2 also prohibits recognition of unmarried opposite-sex relationships.

In the absence of a ruling from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law generally is binding, Cox spokeswoman Allison Pierce said.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals could hear a Proposal 2-based challenge to same-sex benefits early next month.

Cox said giving benefits itself does not violate Proposal 2. Governments could offer benefits to people designated by employees. But they couldn't be based on a union similar to marriage, he said.

It is unclear how Cox's opinion might affect universities that offer same-sex benefits. The schools have argued the constitution gives them autonomy to make those sorts of decisions.

Cox's decision could affect state employees.

In early December, the Granholm administration decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples -- which were included in new labor contracts -- until a court rules on their legality.

For those who have ever pondered the "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" problem, California's gay marriage debate is about to show us in a big way.

Both sides are escalating their battles to have this issue finally settled forever, one way or another, in the state's constitution.

Monday's ruling by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional threw gasoline on an already inflamed battle.

While Kramer ruled that "no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," his ruling far from settles the case.

This ruling, naturally, will be appealed.

So while Kramer's interesting piece of legal interpretation wends through the courts, larger forces are already at work.

Steaming in from the left flank are the pro-gay marriage forces, bolstered by Kramer's ruling but already hard at work in the Legislature. They hope to amend state law through Assembly Bill 19.

Introduced Jan. 5 by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, this bill seeks a gender-neutral legal definition of marriage for California. It sits today in the Committee on Judiciary.

The bill reads, in part:

"Existing law provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. This bill would enact the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,' which would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons."

Of course, Leno heralded Kramer's ruling as a win for his side:

But let's not be so quick to declare victory for the pro-gay marriage side.

Steaming in from the right comes the Defend Marriage effort backed by the Moral Majority. This side has gathered forces to not only fight AB 19, but to continue to seek a ballot measure for a state constitutional marriage amendment.

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote for the initiative was 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent.

The right also gained huge momentum last fall when all 13 states that had a "traditional marriage" constitutional amendment on the ballot approved them by high percentages: from 57 percent in Oregon to 86 percent in Mississippi.

Both sides recognize the importance of California in leading the nation on the gay marriage issue.

"When one out of eight Americans live in California, you know this is the biggest gorilla that influences everyone else," said Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And already claiming victory in the "traditional marriage" campaign is Matthew Staver, vice president of the Liberty Council, a national organization that describes itself as "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

"The 2004 election energized people of faith and social conservatives with an overwhelming mandate on traditional marriage and morality," Staver writes on the council's Web site. "Every politician must hear the message of the American people loud and clear: If you don't vote right on marriage, then you may want to look for another job."

Clearly, both sides are feeling immovable and irresistible and they are racing straight toward the same target.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom set a lot of this in motion with his February 2004, defiance of state law, personally declaring same-sex marriage prohibitions unconstitutional and allowing some 4,000 gay couples to wed at City Hall.

It was an irresponsible display of contempt for California law that ended in heartbreak for those couples. The state Supreme Court soon nullified their marriages, while chastising Newsom.

Public officials cannot dismiss state law at their whim, the judges wrote. To do so means "any semblance of uniform rule of law would quickly disappear."

It's that uniform rule of law we still seek today.

The high court ducked the elephant in the room during that hearing, limiting its opinion to Newsom's actions only. No ruling was given on the overall legality of same-sex marriage.

That's no surprise. Gay marriage is an incendiary issue few politicians and legal experts want to touch.

Today, though, whether they look to the left or the right, they cannot help but see the large, looming shadow of an issue that will no longer be ignored.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

Some say the universe implodes.

If so, by this time next year, the issue should finally have been decided. One way or another, somebody's universe will fold.

365gay.com reports:

(Washington) An amendment to the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage has been reintroduced in the House.

The measure was put forward by Rep. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) only days after a judge in San Francisco declared that barring gay marriage violated the California state constitution. (story)

Lungren, a former state attorney general, called the ruling by Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer "astonishing" and said that the US constitution needs to be amended to prevent courts throughout the country from ruling on gay marriage.

"The courts aren't democratic institutions," he said.

The proposed amendment amendment would bar same-sex marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Lungren's proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States Shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman.

"No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

"No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State."

If passed, it would mark the first time the Constitution was amended to single out a group of Americans for unequal treatment.

Earlier this week President Bush renewed his call for an amendment. (story)

"Americans don't want the Constitution turned into a tool for discrimination," said Human Rights Campaign spokesperson David M. Smith.

"Congress should be spending its time protecting families, not ensuring their vulnerability under law."

A Senate version of the proposed amendment was reintroduced in January. (story)

Attempts by Republicans in Congress to pass a proposed amendment failed last July. (story) At the time GOP leaders vowed they would keep bringing the measure back until it passes.

According to exit polling in November 2004, 60 percent of Americans support either civil unions or marriage equality for same-sex couple.

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief

The owner of a popular local nightclub with a gay clientele can't have a funeral in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego because the church has deemed his business "inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching."

None of the 98 Catholic churches in San Diego or Imperial counties will be allowed to provide services for Club Montage owner John McCusker as a result of the decision by San Diego Bishop Robert Brom.

McCusker, 31, died Sunday of congestive heart failure while vacationing in Mammoth, his family said. The bishop made the decision three days later after learning that McCusker's family planned to hold his funeral at the Immaculata Catholic Church on the campus of the University of San Diego, where McCusker went to school.

Brom's decision – which prompted the church to cancel the funeral – has provoked heated debate in local Catholic and gay communities. Several prominent gay leaders say they plan to file a formal protest with the diocese and demand that Brom apologize to McCusker's family.

Mike Portantino, a friend of McCusker's and publisher of the San Diego-based Gay & Lesbian Times, said McCusker's family members are devout Catholics and his mother has taught catechism. The family was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The decision, called highly unusual by several local Catholics, immediately drew comparisons to the actions of Brom's predecessor, the late Bishop Leo Maher. In 1989, Maher prohibited state Senate candidate Lucy Killea from taking Communion in local parishes because of her support for abortion rights. Maher's action drew national attention.

McCusker's family scrambled for another venue and settled on an Episcopal church, St. Paul's Cathedral near Balboa Park, which will hold the funeral at 11 a.m. today.

The diocese issued a statement yesterday, saying: "The facts regarding the business activities of John McCusker were not known by church officials when arrangements were requested for his funeral. However, when these facts became known, the bishop concluded that to avoid public scandal Mr. McCusker cannot be granted a funeral in a Catholic church in the chapel of the Diocese of San Diego."

Chancellor Rodrigo Valdivia, a diocese spokesman, said the bishop's order applies to all 98 parishes within the diocese's jurisdiction.

Valdivia wouldn't comment when asked to specify which of McCusker's business activities violated church doctrine. He emphasized that the church's decision had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of McCusker, who was gay. Instead, the decision was based on McCusker's "public activity" as a businessman, Valdivia said.

"We received information that the business he was involved with was inconsistent with Catholic teachings," Valdivia said.

McCusker's nightclub, Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, is one of the city's most popular dance spots. On Friday nights, it tends to attract a heterosexual crowd, while Saturday night is considered gay night, according to patrons and friends of McCusker. He also owned a gay bar in North Park named ReBar.

Valdivia cited Canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides a list of those who must be "deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites." Among those on the list are "manifest sinners" for whom such funeral rites "cannot be granted without public scandal to the faithful." The church uses the term "manifest sinners" to describe those whom it considers obstinate and persistent sinners.

Valdivia was unable to say how often the diocese has invoked this canon to deny funeral rites to Catholics in past years. He couldn't recall any examples.

"Short of reviewing a lot of files, I don't know," he said.

Immaculata church officials declined to comment yesterday, referring inquiries to the diocese.

McCusker's friends, as well as many gay Catholics in San Diego, said they were appalled and outraged.

"I cannot think of a less compassionate thing for the bishop to have done," Portantino said. "Bishop Brom should be ashamed of himself."

Nicole Murray-Ramirez, a longtime San Diego gay activist and one of McCusker's friends, said McCusker was "a very spiritual Catholic. We had discussions of our faith many times."

Ramirez said various Catholic gays and other members of the gay community plan to meet Monday to discuss a response. The group would probably demand an apology from the diocese, among other things, he said.

"Everyone agrees we will do this in the most dignified manner," he said.

After finding out about the diocese's decision, McCusker's family called Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who is lesbian. She steered the family to St. Paul's Cathedral.

"Our basic philosophy at the cathedral is whoever you are and wherever you find yourself on the journey of faith, we welcome you," said the Very Rev. Scott Richardson, dean of the Episcopal church on Sixth Avenue.

Richardson said Atkins called him Wednesday night to tell him the McCusker family "needed some help. We were happy to offer that."

McCusker was active in a variety of local causes, recently serving as vice president of the San Diego Human Dignity Foundation, which offers help to gays and lesbians. He was a member of the Greater San Diego Business Association.

Although Club Montage is hugely popular, it has also had its share of problems over the years. Five years ago, the City Council threatened to revoke its after-hours permit, citing illegal drug use and disruptive behavior at the Hancock Street club.

The diocese said the club's past problems had nothing to do with the bishop's decision.

By Alex Roth
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Staff writer Sandi Dolbee contributed to this report.

The Washington Blade Reports: Solmonese groomed by ‘Massachusetts Gay Mafia’.

Most gay activists familiar with the Human Rights Campaign see Emily’s List CEO Joe Solmonese, the group’s newly designated leader, as a highly skilled political strategist who is well suited to take the helm of the nation’s largest gay civil rights group.

But Solmonese is also a longtime associate of a small group of HRC power brokers who have played a key role in determining the organization’s direction and tone for nearly 20 years.

At the top of the list of HRC movers and shakers, insiders say, is veteran Washington lobbyist Hilary Rosen, former CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America and current media industry consultant. Rosen led the HRC campaign against the Federal Marriage Amendment and has run the organization on an interim basis since January.

Also at the top of the list, say insiders, are Emily’s List founder and former CEO Ellen Malcolm and former labor union official and past HRC executive director Vic Basile, who led the search committee that handed the HRC and HRC Foundation boards an up or down vote on Solmonese.

Malcolm is longtime friends with Rosen and her domestic partner, longtime HRC executive director Elizabeth Birch, and are seen by activists as having collaborated on developing strategy and policy for HRC. Solmonese served as Malcolm’s top lieutenant until he replaced her in 2003 when Malcolm took on the role as head of the pro-Democratic Party political advocacy group America Coming Together.

The gay movement insiders interviewed for this story, who spoke only on condition that they not be identified, said they viewed Rosen, Malcolm, and Basile, along with a dozen or so others considered part of the HRC inner circle, as highly qualified political strategists who have been an asset to the organization.

But at the same time, the movement insiders had mixed views on whether what appears to be a self-perpetuating clique could present problems for HRC in the future.
“I don’t see this as a problem,” said one of the movement insiders. “It is what it is. They are all very influential, but I don’t see this as being bad.”

Another person interviewed said, “HRC does good work. But there is a mentality and a culture at HRC. While it is an open place, they do best with people who think the HRC way. A lot of people become alienated if they think differently.”

Board backs Solmonese
Steven Fisher, HRC’s vice president for communications, said the HRC board and the board of the HRC Foundation, which serves as the group’s educational arm, voted unanimously to appoint Solmonese because of his experience and skills both in Washington and in states across the country.

Fisher points to women candidates who are in favor of gay rights and abortion rights that Solmonese helped elect to Congress and state legislatures in his role as Emily’s List CEO. Fisher said any suggestion that Solmonese’s experience is limited to inside-the-Beltway politics would be wrong.

Others considered part of HRC’s inner circle of movers and shakers include Gwen Baba of Los Angeles, Terry Bean of Oregon, Tim Boggs of New York City, Mary Breslauer of Boston, Edie Cofrin of Atlanta, Curt Decker of Baltimore, Andrew Tobias of Miami, and Jeff Trammell of Washington, D.C.

“I would take any of those people on my home team in a minute,” Rosen said. “It’s true that they have been involved with HRC for a long time. But they are all excellent people.”

Rosen acknowledges that a good number of HRC insiders have also hailed from Boston or nearby communities in Massachusetts, a development that some have jokingly referred to as the gay “Massachusetts Mafia.”

Tim McFeeley, who served as the HRC executive director from 1989 to 1995, is from Boston. Birch, who served as executive director and president from 1995 to January 2004, came from Cupertino, Calif., where she served as legal counsel for the Apple Computer Company.

But her successor, Cheryl Jacques, who held the HRC president’s post for the brief period from January to December 2004, was a Massachusetts state senator prior to her tenure at HRC. Solmonese, a native of Attleboro, Mass., is set to begin his tenure as HRC president in April.

“Not another gay leader from Massachusetts,” wrote gay Republican activist Jim Driscoll in an e-mail to several fellow gay Republicans. “What do HRC, LCR, etc., have against the other 49 states?”

Driscoll, in addition to commenting on Solmonese, was referring to Log Cabin Republicans executive director Patrick Guerriero, who also hails from Massachusetts.

Officials credit Emily’s List
Abby Rubenfeld, a gay civil rights attorney in Nashville, Tenn., who just completed a 7-year term as an HRC board member, said she’s not bothered by either the Massachusetts connections nor the longtime involvement of leaders such as Rosen or Malcolm.

“I’m very committed to HRC,” she said, adding that she happily voted for Solmonese’s appointment as president. “I’m not a Washington insider. But it sounds like he is very well connected to the states and very knowledgeable on the issues.”

Oregon state Sen. Kate Brown, a bisexual Democrat who became majority leader this year, credited Solmonese with playing a key role in making that happen.

“Emily’s List is one reason the Democrats now control the state Senate,” she said, noting that gay rights legislation would have a better chance of advancing. “Joe is very smart, very strategic, very skilled. Under his leadership, they connected with the voters.”

The only open lesbian member of Congress, Democrat Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, credits Emily’s List for helping her first get elected in 1998. Solmonese took over at Emily’s List in 1998.

“I go fairly far back with Joe in his role at EMILY’s List. They were absolutely critical in shattering the glass ceiling by getting me elected to Congress as the first openly [gay] non-incumbent,” she said.

“Organizations grow and become very dynamic when they have different people with different ideas moving in and out,” said the movement insider. “I think it keeps them nimble, it keeps them on the edge, it keeps them very creative and it keeps them very open minded."

By LOU CHIBBARO JR.

Constitutional change would block courts.

The Sacramento Bee Reports: Rep. Dan Lungren (CA) on Thursday introduced a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in a move that irritated gay activists but didn't soothe marriage protectionists, either.

The action by the Gold River Republican and former state attorney general comes just three days after a San Francisco judge ruled that state laws banning gay marriage violate the California Constitution.

Lungren's measure flatly declares that marriage "is a legal union of one man and one woman," and it removes the authority of all state and federal courts from saying otherwise.

"Let's have this issue answered for once and for all," Lungren declared.

Christopher Labonte, legislative director of the Human Rights Campaign, a lobbying group for gay and lesbian issues, dismissed Lungren's bill as "being all about politics."

"We're strongly opposed to any efforts to write discrimination into the Constitution," he said.

On Monday, Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer in San Francisco overturned a 1977 state law barring same-sex marriages and a 2000 statewide initiative, Proposition 22, that prohibited California recognition of gay marriages in other states.

In his ruling, Kramer said the state cannot rely on its long history of recognizing only heterosexual marriages to justify the ban on gay unions, and that offering a domestic-partnership law for same-sex couples "smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal."

The legislation Lungren introduced, however, treks that path.

It would leave states open to establishing laws that Lungren described as "something short of marriage" to protect the civil interests of gay couples but limit the effects of such laws to the states that enact them.

That's not good enough, said Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.

"Marriage is more than a word," he said. "This is similar to other proposals that allow states to create marriage by another name. It plugs some of the holes but leaves others open."

But state Sen. Carole Migden, D-San Francisco, who married her longtime partner last year in San Francisco, said Lungren is trying to draw attention to himself by picking on others.

"The concept should be marriage equity, not gay marriage," she said. "It seems Mr. Lungren is seeking constitutional discrimination."

Another gay legislator, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, called Lungren's bill "an assault on democracy" because of its elimination of judicial review of the issue.

"This is a significant departure from the way business has been in this country for a couple of hundred years," he said.

But Lungren said that amending the U.S. Constitution as he proposes is the only way to get state and federal courts out of the business of overruling what the public decides through ballot measures.

"The courts aren't democratic institutions," he said. By offering the legislation as a constitutional amendment requiring ratification by two-thirds of the states, he said, it would become in effect a "national referendum" on gay marriage that the courts cannot overturn.

"It's the only way the people retain the ability to make this decision," he said.

Lungren said that Kramer's ruling Monday played no role in the timing of his bill's introduction.

He said that he had pledged during his campaign for his 3rd District seat that a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be the first legislation he introduced after taking office, and the measure's introduction Thursday fulfills that pledge.

A constitutional provision limiting marriage to unions between a man and a woman is pending in the Senate, but Lungren's is the first in the House. It also goes further than the Senate bill by barring courts from any further consideration of the issue.

Lungren is a member of the House Judiciary Committee to which his legislation will be referred.

By David Whitney -- Bee Washington Bureau

The Big Story host John Gibson in his March 16 "My Word":

Gays can't have kids -- other than going to the abandoned kids store and getting one or two, or borrowing sperm from someone with more sperm than brains -- so by definition they're out of the marriage game.

Sean Hannity on the March 16 edition of Hannity & Colmes:

BOB BECKEL (guest co-host): Let me just say one thing about the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts, when they allow gay Boy Scouts in the Boy Scouts, then that won't be a problem for me. But they don't.

HANNITY: But they can have the Gay Scouts if they want, if they don't like the values of the Boy Scouts.

Bill O'Reilly on the March 15 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor:

O'REILLY:
"You know, the Founding Fathers didn't write anything into the Constitution about gay marriage. Because back then, if you were gay, they hung you.

So -- you couldn't get married 'cause they put you in the rack. You know, if you were runnin' around wearing a chartreuse hat, you were in lots of trouble. So, we didn't even have to worry about these people gettin' married because if they come out of their closet in the log cabin -- somebody'll shoot them in the head. So, there really wasn't an issue back in the Founding Fathers."

Legislation to include gays and lesbians in Montana's human rights law is discrimination against Christians foes of the measure have declared at a House committee hearing.

"It's an abomination in God's sight," Peter Merkes of Helena said of homosexuality at a House Judiciary Committee which was holding public hearings on the bill.

"You're asking Christian people to support with their tax money something that is diametrically opposed to God's word," he told the committee. "We cannot go there. God's going to hold you accountable."

Another citizen appearing before the committee complained of "drag queens," "French-kissing men" and those who march in gay pride parades dressed as priests and nuns.

Gene Williams said the bill is part of an effort by gay and lesbian activists to "eventually force total acceptance of homosexuality by citizens of this nation."

"The American people will not allow this cultural degradation to prevail," Williams said.

The legislation has already passed the Senate which for the first time in years is controlled by Democrats. In the past Republicans were able to kill gay rights bills.

The bill would add sexual orientation to the state's human rights laws against discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, financial transactions, education, job referrals, licensing, training programs, government services and funding, and public contracts.

"This bill is really about fair treatment," said Sen. Ken Toole (D- Helena) the bill's sponsor.

Among those speaking in favor of the bill was the Rev. F. Vernon Wright of the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ.

Like gender or race, homosexuality is not a matter of preference and should not be treated as such, he said. "One's inborn characteristics, one's innate nature, being in the nature of God is not wrong."

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee tried to kill Toole's measure immediately after the hearing, but the move failed on 10-8 vote.

NASHVILLE (AP) -- The Tennessee House Thursday morning approved the resolution that would amend the state constitution and ban gay marriage.

The Senate had given its approval in February and Thursday's 88-7 House passage sends the issue to voters in next year's gubernatorial election.

Rep. Bill Dunn of Knoxville said he sponsored the bill because "It's proper for government to be involved and put a stamp of approval between a man and a woman."

According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 11 states passed anti-gay marriage amendments in November 2004 and gay marriage opponents have taken steps to do the same in another 17 states.

Good old Alan Keyes still gay hating even after the eye opening event of his own daughter coming out - followed by him kicking her out and basically disowning her. Great family values huh!

The coming out of his own daughter has not softened former Ambassador Alan Keyes' position on gays and same-sex marriage.

The conservative broadcaster and failed senate candidate delivered a scathing attack gay marriage at a Christian rally in St Augustine, Florida.

"Marriage exists in order to respect, recognize and enforce obligations that arise from the fact of procreation," Keyes said in his keynote address at ProFamily Rally 2005.

He then declared that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children do not hurt the institution, but a gay union would annihilate it.

"It's like a wooden iron. It doesn't make any sense," he said.

To cheers and shouts of "Amen", Keyes attacked this week's ruling in San Francisco that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. (story) Keyes told the crowd of nearly 1000 that "one lonely judge comes along and says 'No. That's not how its going to be.'"

He told the audience that allowing a judge to rule that same-sex couples can marry is a form of tyranny.

Keyes also said he does not see that there is a separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution, noting that laws incorporate biblical values.

A group of about a dozen LGBT demonstrators stood silently near the stage. One wore a shirt that read "Hatred is not a family value."

Keyes went down to a crushing defeat when he ran for the GOP against Barack Obama in Illinois last November.

The former conservative talk show host who was parachuted into Illinois to run for the GOP became a thorn in the side of Republicans because of his extreme anti-gay statements.

But, his most incendiary remarks came at the Republican National Convention when 365Gay.com commentator Michelangelo Signorile interviewed him for his Sirius radio show. (story)

Keyes said that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism." Signorile then asked Keyes, the GOP candidate for the US Senate in Illinois, whether he considered Mary Cheney, the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

Following Tuesday's speech in St Augustine Keyes refused to discuss his relationship with his own daughter.

Keyes' daughter came out last month at a Valentines Day demonstration in support of gay marriage in Maryland. (story)

It was Maya Marcel-Keyes first public appearance as a gay activist. Marcel-Keyes said her parents have thrown her out of the house, stopped speaking to her and refuse to pay for college because she is a lesbian.

Governor Mitt Romney, who set off an uproar in Massachusetts with his recent remarks about gay marriage to out-of-state Republican activists, last night appeared to soften his tone, adding language to his stump speech about the need to respect modern families that come in many forms.

Still, speaking before nearly 600 people who attended a fund-raiser for Michigan's GOP state senators, Romney restated his view that ''every child deserves a mother and a father," and praised Michigan voters for their recent approval of a measure banning gay marriage.

Romney's remarks highlighted the careful line he is attempting to walk as he tests the waters for a potential 2008 run for president, aiming at conservative Republicans who vote in GOP presidential primaries.

Massachusetts gay-rights supporters complained that Romney was belittling gay parents last month when, in describing legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, he told a South Carolina GOP audience that, ''Some are actually having children born to them." Activists staged a protest at the State House.

Last night, as he has in recent speeches in Missouri, South Carolina, and Utah, Romney noted that gay marriage is legal in the Bay State, and bemoaned the fact that the state may have to replace ''mother" and ''father" on birth certificates with ''parent A" and ''parent B." But he also added an explanation that, ''I'm not saying this should be about discrimination."

''Americans respect all people. We also recognize that there are many settings where children are raised," he said, citing grandparents and same-sex couples as examples. ''But we choose to recognize one setting as the ideal."

Romney has previously said he opposes discrimination against gays, though his recent political speeches have focused on his opposition to gay marriage. In a Wall Street Journal column last year, he wrote:

''That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation."

Romney says he opposes gay marriage and civil unions for same-sex couples. Last year, however, he urged Republican lawmakers to support a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that would ban gay marriage and legalize civil unions because, he says, he believed it was the only way to stop gay marriage. The Legislature supported that amendment and would need to pass it once more in order to place it on the ballot in November 2006.

''If the choice is between marriage and civil unions, I support civil unions. But my preference is neither civil unions nor marriage," Romney told reporters last night.

Romney, who ran as a moderate Republican in Massachusetts, faces a difficult balancing act as he lays the groundwork for a possible presidential bid in 2008. This week, Michigan conservative activist Gary Glenn wrote a letter to the Michigan GOP state senators asserting that Romney's views on abortion and gay marriage are ''largely indistinguishable" from Massachusetts Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom called Glenn's letter ''a blatant distortion of the governor's record." Yesterday, Fehrnstrom said that the governor is personally opposed to abortion, and supports parental consent laws and a ban on partial birth abortion. As governor, Romney has taken the position of not changing the status quo on abortion, Fehrnstrom said.

Michigan, which holds an early primary, could prove to be friendly territory for Romney if he does seek the presidency. The site of last night's $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser was not far from Bloomfield Hills, the tony Detroit suburb where Romney grew up. Romney's father, George, who served as governor of Michigan from 1963 to 1969, is fondly remembered here.

Like many of the Republicans who dined on filet mignon and chicken stuffed with wild rice at last night's event, 76-year-old Curtis Jacobson, an accountant for the city of Detroit, said he knew and admired George Romney. He said social issues aren't as important to him as economic ones.

''Cut the cost of government," said Jacobson, who has been involved in Republican party politics for 59 years. ''Abortion is between a woman and her doctor."

Social issues loom much larger for most of the current leaders of the Michigan GOP, however. Some of those who received Glenn's letter said Romney assuaged their concerns with last night's speech.

Richard K. Studley, a lobbyist for the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, described himself as ''a Christian and a conservative," and he said he listened very carefully to the ''values" portion of Romney's speech.

''I think he answered those questions and put those issues to rest," Studley said.

In remarks aimed squarely at an audience in America's industrial heartland, Romney said last night that government officials, businesses, and labor unions must work together to prevent China from displacing the United States as the world's leading economic power.

''We did not shed our blood on the battlefield of liberty to lose on the battlefield of jobs and the economy," Romney said. ''You can't have a tier-one military and a tier-two economy. The Russians tried that and Ronald Reagan called their bluff."

Without providing specifics, Romney said, ''It's time to get serious with our friends the Chinese."

He added that, ''Right now, they need our market. It's time for us to use our leverage while we still have it."

Following more than a year of waiting and rulings in several states on the issue of gay marriage, the House of Representatives in Indiana will finally get their turn this week to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Gay rights activists circled the Statehouse Monday morning carrying caskets in a symbolic mourning of what will happen if the amendment passes. The same morning, the House Judiciary Committee voted 9-3 to send Senate Joint Resolution 7, the first step in the amendment process, to the Full House.

A final vote could come as soon as this week.

"I believe the people of Indiana want to define marriage as one man and one woman, and I ask you to give them the chance," said Republican Rep. P. Eric Turner, who introduced the resolution at the committee hearing.

Opponents claimed the amendment is about politics and discrimination rather than strengthening traditional marriage and families.

"This legislation is totally unnecessary and is being forced down our throats for no other reason than to make hay for future political campaigns," said Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, who voted against the resolution. "Our constitution should be above politics -- period."

Defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the amendment also states that neither the constitution nor any other Indiana law may be "construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

The pending vote comes just one day after a judge in San Francisco determined it was unconstitutional to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry and many in Indiana believe the shift of focus toward legalizing gay marriage in states like California and Connecticut may play a role in shaping how the Indiana vote pans out.

If it passes the House, the resolution must be approved again by both branches of a separately elected General Assembly and then put up for a public referendum. The next newly elected General Assembly will convene in 2007, and the earliest the amendment could go to voters is November 2008.

The Senate approved a similar resolution last year but Democrats, who then controlled the House, refused to call it for a vote. That prompted Republican legislators to walk out in a protest that brought the General Assembly to a standstill for more than a week.

Nearly one in every 12 Americans lives in California, which is by far the most populous state. So it was of special significance this week when San Francisco Superior Court judge Richard Kramer ruled that same-sex couples in California have a constitutional right to marry. The issue will likely be decided sometime in 2006 by the California Supreme Court, so gay and lesbian couples shouldn't start planning their weddings yet. But Kramer's ruling, coming a year after the stirring sight of gay marriages performed at San Francisco City Hall, was a welcome step forward.

Last November, voters in states across the country, and especially in Red America, approved measures denying same-sex couples the right to marry, and in some cases took away other rights as well. Yet the movement toward full marriage equality continues. State courts in New York, Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, Maryland, and Connecticut are all considering the issue.

In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage went into effect nearly a year ago, there is still a possibility that this basic civil right could be taken away. In 2004 the legislature gave preliminary approval to a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage and instead create civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The legislature may take up the measure again sometime this fall. If it passes, it would be placed on the ballot in November 2006.

Such a move would be a mistake; if voters were actually to approve it, it would be a tragedy. Fortunately, further legislative action became less likely on Tuesday, when primary voters in two Boston legislative districts elected pro-gay-marriage Democrats Linda Dorcena Forry and Michael Moran to replace anti-marriage Democrats who'd left the House. Right-wing complaints about so-called 'activist judges' ignore the constitutional purpose of the judiciary, which is to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. One's humanity should not be subject to a referendum. Massachusetts voters have grown increasingly comfortable with the notion of gay marriage over the past year. Yet the passions that could be stirred by a well-funded hate group during an election campaign are not to be underestimated.

In Massachusetts, in California, and elsewhere, gay and lesbian couples are winning the right to live their lives just like everyone else. What the law gives, the ballot should not take away.

When is enough - enough? Pandering to his Evangelical Christian base, GWB attempts to use gays and lesbians yet again as his political weapon. Civil rights decisions should be left to the will of the people?? We all know that if that was the case then we'd be all be fucked - that is, unless you are straight, white and a male. Any time that a judge makes a ruling such as this, or anything for that matter that goes against the Bush administration's idealism, these judges are labeled 'activist judges'.

(Washington) In the wake of this week's California court ruling that declared that state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional President Bush on Wednesday renewed his call for an amendment to the US constitution to prevent gays from marrying.

At a White House news conference the president said that only with an amendment could judges be blocked from allowing gay marriage.

Bush denied that he has softened his position if favor of pursuing changes to Social Security.

"No, I haven't changed my position," the President said.

"And as a matter of fact, the court rulings are verifying why I took the position I took. And that is, I don't believe judges ought to be deciding this issue. I believe this is an issue of particular importance to the American people and should be decided by the people. And I think the best way to do so is through the constitutional process.

"I haven't changed my mind at all. As a matter of fact, court rulings such as this strengthen my position, it seems like to me. People now understand why I laid out the position I did.

The president was then asked what he intends to do to promote the amendment?

"Well, I-- you know, the courts are going to promote a lot of the action by their very rulings," he replied.

"And that no matter what your position is on the issue, this is an issue that should be decided by the people, not by judges. And the more the judges start deciding the issue, I'm confident the more the people will want to be involved in the issue" Bush said.

"Once again the President is pushing politics," Human Rights Campaign spokesperson Steven Fisher told 365Gay.com

"The California decision was about ensuring fairness and equality for every American family. That is the most basic value of all Americans."

An attempt by Republicans in Congress to move a proposed amendment along failed last July. (story) The measure was reintroduced in January. (story)

Thirteen Massachusetts city and town clerks are taking the historic step of asking the Supreme Judicial Court to allow them to challenge orders by Gov. Mitt Romney and Attorney General Tom Reilly that the clerks say would require them to illegally discriminate against same-sex couples who come to Massachusetts to marry, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
___________________________________________________

A federal appeals court ruled that a gay Lebanese man suffering from AIDS has enough reason to fear persecution in his homeland that he should not be deported while seeking asylum in the U.S., according to the Washington Post. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, reversing the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals in Washington, found Nassier Mustapha Karouni’s fear of being arrested, tortured, or killed in a country where homosexuality is considered a crime was based on fact.
___________________________________________________

In Indiana, state police had to separate pro- and anti-gay marriage demonstrators inside the Indiana Statehouse. Nearly 2,000 people on both sides of the same-sex marriage issue converged on the Capitol to lobby legislators over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay weddings. The resolution has been approved by the Senate and is now pending before the House.
___________________________________________________

A $25 million lawsuit was filed against the conservative group USA Next and political consulting firm Mark Montini International for stealing a Oregon couple’s wedding photo and using it without permission in a high-profile gay-bashing ad designed to drum up support for Social Security privatization. Following an admission of photo theft by the creator, advertiser, and publisher of the ad, the couple whose image was stolen—Rick Raymen and Steve Hansen of Portland, Ore.—filed a four-count lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C.
___________________________________________________

The Gender Public Advocacy Coalition expressed support for Dawn Dawson, whose employment discrimination lawsuit against a New York City hair salon was dismissed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Dawson claimed discrimination on the basis of sex, sex stereotyping, and/or sexual orientation. Dawson, who is openly gay, stated in her suit that she was harassed for her masculine appearance, called “Donald,” and told that she looked so much like a male that she would scare away wealthy customers.
___________________________________________________

In Ohio, the village of Yellow Springs is challenging Ohio’s new gay marriage ban, the Associated Press reported. A resolution passed by the village council calls the constitutional amendment anti-family, saying it threatens not only gays, but a variety of heterosexual unmarried couples and unmarried women who seek maternity leave.
___________________________________________________

In Iowa, legislation that would help curb bullying and harassment in state schools died after a week of stonewalling by senators opposed to the inclusion of gays and lesbians, 365Gay.com reported. The issue was scheduled to be debated in the Senate Education Committee, but Sen. Paul McKinley, R-Chariton, struck it from the list of measures to be considered.
___________________________________________________

In Chapel Hill, N.C., the town council agreed to oppose a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as being only the union of a man and a woman, the Durham Herald Sun reported. The 8-0 vote also backed the repeal of North Carolina’s “defense of marriage” act and sought passage of a bill to make sexual orientation a protected category under the state’s hate-crimes law.
___________________________________________________

However, a federal district court judge has issued a preliminary injunction against officials at the U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, forcing the college to recognize a fraternity on campus that has refused to admit gays, according to the Greensboro News-Record. The article said “the [ legal ruling ] put the Christian fraternity” on the same footing as non-religious groups that select their members on the basis of commitment.

When a San Francisco Superior Court judge struck down California's laws against same-sex marriage as unconstitutional on Monday, it showed the system is working as it should.

The ruling elated gay rights advocates even as the state government and conservative groups began preparing for the inevitable appeal.

If upheld by higher courts, the ruling would make the Golden State the nation's second — after Massachusetts — to authorize same-sex matrimony. And marriage is a state issue. It doesn't belong to federal government or to local officials.

Granted, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's move last year was a bold one that put the issue front and center in California; but cities and their officials shouldn't have the power to usurp state law. That is a recipe for chaos.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer, a Republican appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson, wrote in his 27-page ruling, finding the ban denies same-sex couples equal protection under the law.

Kramer's ruling does not reinstate almost 4,000 marriages performed in San Francisco last February and March and voided on Aug. 12 by the state Supreme Court, which found that city officials exceeded their authority by defying state laws. The court did not rule on the constitutional issue. It eventually could let those couples and many more wed legally.

But now the issue is in the proper venue, the courts. This is the first in many steps. Next the ruling will be appealed to the state Court of Appeal in San Francisco, and may be headed eventually to the state Supreme Court.

On Monday at Stanford University, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he had hoped that the court would uphold 2000's Proposition 22, which reaffirmed the state's definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman but did not change the state Constitution.

"I believe in what we have now, which is domestic partnership rights,"

Schwarzenegger said, adding he would accept the court's ultimate decision.

The Legislature had passed one of the most sweeping civil unions bills that Attorney General Bill Lockyer cited that as evidence that California does not discriminate against gays. But the judge rejected that argument, citing Brown v. Board of Education: "The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts — separate but equal."

Opponents are considering going to the ballot to make the same-sex marriage ban a constitutional amendment.

Advocates hailed the ruling as the first step toward a civil-rights milestone.

Conservatives called the ruling judicial activism.

But judicial activism is not a bad thing. We hope the U.S. judiciary is filled with activist judges when it comes to the Constitution, otherwise judges would be derelict in their duties. The Constitution has always been about extending rights, not restricting them.

Several lawsuits filed by the state and conservative organizations were consolidated before Kramer, a 57-year-old Roman Catholic.

In his ruling, Kramer wrote, "The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional. Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

The ban's defenders claimed marriage's main purpose is procreation. But Kramer noted "the obvious natural and social reality that one does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married."

State and national leaders of organizations advocating for LGBT equality met this week in Washington, DC to hear from their colleagues and outside experts about the lessons learned from the fall elections and how to better prepare for the upcoming ballot campaigns.

The meeting focused on how to turn the ongoing attacks against LGBT families into opportunities to move forward toward the goal of marriage equality for all Americans.

Twenty-one states are currently considering changes to their state constitutions that would single out same-sex couples to deny them and their children the security and protection of legal marriage. A few of these amendments are expected to be defeated in the state legislatures, but many will be sent to the voters for ratification in 2005 and 2006.

"Next year, Wisconsin citizens will likely need to decide whether all families, or only some families, will be protected by our state constitution," said Christopher Ott, executive director of Action Wisconsin, the state's LGBT advocacy organization. "This meeting allowed us to share some of our work to date in preparing for this fight and to hear from other states about what has and hasn't worked for them."

Participants at the meeting discussed best practices and strategies for combating the misinformation and prejudice that drives these ballot measures and techniques that effectively educate voters about their LGBT neighbors.

Topics of discussion at the meeting included: building existing state group capacity to move forward after a ballot fight, effective research and message development, new techniques for identifying and activating voters, best online and offline fund-raising practices

Despite the passage of anti-gay constitutional amendments in 13 states in 2004, leaders attending the meeting voiced a common belief that justice will ultimately prevail for LGBT Americans.

"This meeting has been a terrific opportunity to share our experiences from last year and talk about how we can all support each other moving forward," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, where an anti-gay constitutional amendment was adopted by voters last November. "Tough as it was last November, we will ultimately change the hearts and minds of the American people by telling our stories about love, commitment and family."

The Washington meeting was organized and hosted by the Equality Federation, www.equalityfederation.org, Freedom to Marry, www.freedomtomarry.org, the Human Rights Campaign, www.hrc.org, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, www.thetaskforce.org

Opponents of same-sex marriage came out swinging in response to a California judge's ruling Monday that struck down state laws prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying.

"This is a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and the voters," said Randy Thomasson, the executive director of Campaign for California Families, one of the organizations fighting to keep California's existing marriage laws intact.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the anti-gay Traditional Values Coalition, called it "yet another example of judicial tyranny."

In his ruling Monday, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that denying gay couples the right to marriage amounts to a form of gender discrimination, thus violating the state Constitution's equal protection clause.

Kramer's decision was stayed for 60 days to allow time for appeals. It has been a foregone conclusion all along that the case will ultimately be appealed all the way to the California Supreme Court.

From the moment the decision was announced, supporters of same-sex marriage have been rejoicing.

"I am so happy that my parents can finally get married," said Ericka Sokolower-Shain, the 15-year-old daughter of Karen Shain and Jody Sokolower, two of the co-plaintiffs in the case.

Leaders on both sides of the debate warned that the ruling would further radicalize anti-gay groups.

"Our opponents are trying to stampede people into making hasty, ill-informed decisions out of prejudice, ignorance, anxiety, discomfort or fear," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a national organization dedicated to marriage equality for lesbians and gays.

California Assemblyman Ray Haynes, a Republican from Southern California, predicted the ruling would fire up efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, as 13 other states did last year.

And Bruce Hausknecht, a legal analyst for Focus on the Family, said the ruling adds credence to his organization's call for amending the federal Constitution.

"Until the U.S. Constitution is amended to protect marriage, we will have to continue to fight to protect marriage from these kinds of challenges," he said.

Mathew Staver, president of the anti-gay Liberty Counsel, told the Associated Press that Judge Kramer's ruling "will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country."

The ruling is significant in part because California is the most populous state in the nation, with the largest number of same-sex couples, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

California already has one of the nation's most sweeping domestic partner laws. Currently, Massachusetts is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal.

Reactions to California's decision yesterday are widely varied. You have the fair minded and the 'all fags should burn in hell' minded. Here are just a few from public figures.

"My reaction is I'm astounded and I believe the decision is absolutely ludicrous. To conclude the state has no rational purpose to preserve marriage to one man and one woman is nonsense. I don't think marriage should be left to the stroke of a pen by a single judge. Marriage as one man and one woman has formed the basis of our society for millennia."

– Mathew Staver, president and general counsel of Liberty Counsel, which represented the Campaign for California Families.
___________________________________________________

"We will not be appealing this decision."

– A jovial Mayor Gavin Newsom, flanked by several same-sex couples and their supporters at City Hall shortly after the ruling was announced.
___________________________________________________

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California, that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families."

– San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera.
___________________________________________________

"It's a foregone conclusion that it's going to go up on appeal."

– Therese Stewart, attorney for city and county of San Francisco.
___________________________________________________

"With plain but compelling logic, the judge has shown us all why – in a nation committed to fairness – gays and lesbians must not be shut out of marriage ... Our constitution promises liberty to all; this decision takes us closer to that promise."

– Christine Sun, attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
___________________________________________________

"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman."

– Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, reacting to the judge nullifying the voter-approved Proposition 22, which prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages.

SAN FRANCISCO – California may have always defined marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, but tradition and time do not make those laws constitutional, a judge ruled in overturning the state's ban on gay marriage.

Opening the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages promised a vigorous fight to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose group represents the Campaign for California Families, one of two organizations that joined the state's attorney general's office in defending California's existing laws.

"This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country," Staver said.

Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

Kramer's decision came in a pair of lawsuits seeking to overturn California's statutory ban on gay marriage. They were brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March, after the California Supreme Court halted the four-week marriage spree Mayor Gavin Newsom initiated when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

Jeanne Rizzo, 58, and Pali Cooper, 49, one of the first couples to be denied the chance to marry after the Supreme Court ruling last year, said they were "basking" in Monday's decision.

"We know we have many steps ahead of us, but we have the opportunity to go from here standing in dignity not defense. ... It is always better to do that," Rizzo said.

"The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts – separate but equal," the judge wrote.

Two groups opposed to gay marriage rights, The Campaign for California Families and the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund, argued that the state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.

Kramer disagreed.

"One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married," he wrote. "Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found."

Kramer struck down not only the state's one man-one woman marriage law but also a 2000 voter initiative that prevented California from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. Both laws violate the civil rights of gays and lesbians because they "implicate the basic human right to marry a person of one's choice," he wrote.

Gay marriage opponents were particularly upset by Kramer's decision to nullify Proposition 22, the ballot measure that was approved by 61 percent of voters. The measure declared that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

"The practical effect is the disregard of close to two-thirds of the people of California who used the initiative process to ensure that marriage would remain between one man and one woman," said Robert Tyler, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, which represented the Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Monday's ruling is the latest development in a national debate on the legality and morality of same-sex marriage that has been raging since 2003, when the highest court in Massachusetts decided that denying gay couples the right to wed was unconstitutional in that state.

Kramer is the fourth trial court judge since August to decide that the right to marry and its attendant benefits must be extended to same-sex couples. Just as many judges have gone the other way recently, however, refusing to accept the argument that keeping gays and lesbians from marrying violates their civil rights. All the cases are on appeal.

Assemblyman Ray Haynes, R-Murietta, predicted the judge's ruling would spur efforts to amend the state Constitution to ban gay nuptials, as was done in 13 other states last year. Haynes has introduced a bill to place such a constitutional amendment on the November ballot, but if the Democrat-controlled Legislature defeats it, he said gay marriage opponents would accomplish the task themselves by petition.

"This ruling demonstrates absolutely what we have to do, which is to amend the Constitution so that we can take the question out of the hands of any judge anywhere at any time," he said.

The case is Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding, No. 4365, Marriage Cases.

(San Francisco, California) Supporters of same-sex marriage found an ally Monday in San Francisco Judge Richard Kramer a Catholic Republican appointed to the bench by a former GOP governor.

"We're certainly feeling the judge's decision is right," said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, whose city's lawsuit prompted Kramer's ruling that gays and lesbians have the right to marry in California, despite a law and a voter-approved measure declaring marriage to be the exclusive realm of heterosexuals.

Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately declared that 57-year-old Kramer is a judicial activist whose decision was "ludicrous" and "nonsense."

"We knew Judge Kramer was under tremendous political pressure to redefine marriage, but we were hopeful he would recognize the limited role of the judiciary," said Robert Tyler, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney trying to uphold California's traditional marriage laws. "We do not believe it is appropriate for judges in this setting to overturn the will of the people."

With a 27-page stroke of the pen, Kramer did just that. (story)

"The parade of horrible social ills envisioned by the opponents of same-sex marriage is not a necessary result from recognizing that there is a fundamental right to choose who one wants to marry," he wrote in the decision, which won't be enforced for 60 days, to give opponents time to appeal.

Lawyers who have practiced before Kramer said the 1972 graduate of the University of Southern California Law Center is among the top judges in San Francisco, and is unswayed by public opinion.

"I think he does what he thinks is right," said Robert Stumpf Jr., who settled a class-action lawsuit for $6.7 million before Kramer last year while representing Wells Fargo.

The bank was accused of illegally selling customers' financial information. Stumpf said Kramer steered negotiations between the bank and plaintiffs attorneys for a year. "His proposal was legally sound and practical," he said.

Gov. Pete Wilson appointed Kramer in December 1996, when Kramer was specializing in bank litigation.

Kramer had made a name for himself in the legal world in 1992, when he successfully defended Bank of America in a class-action lawsuit in which the bank was accused of illegally freezing credit-card interest rates around 20 percent between 1982 and 1986. First Interstate and Wells Fargo, also plaintiffs in that case, had settled for a combined $55 million, but Kramer the lawyer took the case to trial and prevailed.

Nancy Hersh, a San Francisco-based class-action lawyer, said Judge Kramer "listens carefully to both sides. His reasoning is excellent and he has great attention to detail."

"He's not irrational or unreasonable," added Hersh, whose plaintiffs sued Imperial Premium Finance. The Sherman Oaks insurer agreed to provide 30,000 customers with $35 coupons to be used to pay their premiums after Kramer ruled the company was illegally holding onto customer refunds.

Kramer declined to be interviewed for this story. But he gave a sense of how dedicated he is as a jurist in a 1999 interview with the San Francisco Daily Journal, a legal trade publication.

While he said he sought out a judgeship so that he could spend more time with his wife and daughter, he said he spent his first months as a criminal court judge reading the Penal Code cover to cover and driving through crime-ridden neighborhoods in San Francisco to get a sense of what was happening in the community.

"It's all fascinating to me," he told the Daily Journal. "What you have to do is figure out what the person did and what to do about it. And most of these cases require common sense and humanity."

(San Francisco, California) Hundreds of cheering gays and lesbians marched through the Castro Monday night celebrating a court ruling that declared California's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Some waved rainbow flags, others held up their marriage licenses. Couples held hands, others carried their small children.

In West Hollywood hundreds of people crammed into the Abby for a celebration party. A wedding cake was cut symbolizing what gays hope is the first step toward marriage.

Gays began arriving at San Francisco city hall shortly after the written ruling was handed down.

County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer in his ruling said that there is "no rational purpose" in denying gays and lesbians the right to marry. (story)

"The denial of marriage to same-sex couples appears impermissibly arbitrary," Kramer's ruling said. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so."

His judgment went on to say that California's domestic partner law without the ability to marry was insufficient likening it to segregation.

Kramer referred to the landmark 1952 Brown v. Board of Education civil rights decision. "The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal," he wrote.

He also cited a 1948 decision that struck down California's ban on interracial marriages.

Kramer then turned to the arguments made by two conservative groups that gays cannot marry because they cannot procreate.

“One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,” Kramer wrote. “Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found.”

Last February San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began allowing marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. (story)

More than 4,000 gay and lesbian couples were married before the California Supreme Court ruled that Newsom had exceeded his power in granting the licenses. (story) But, the court did not take up the issue of gay marriage itself, saying court cases challenging the constitutionality on the state law should work their way through the lower courts first.

At a hastily arranged news conference Newsom was surrounded by same-sex couples who had launched the suit.

"This is an important day but hardly is this effort complete," Newsom told reporters. "It is inevitable there will be an appeal."

Kramer was also prepared for an appeal. He stayed the execution of his judgment for 60 days to allow California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and lawyers for two conservative groups to file their appeal notices.

"This is just the first phase of a legal challenge." Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told MSNBC. "This will probably go to the Supreme Court in California."

But, Monday night, in the streets of San Francisco there was hope that the long battle may be coming towards its conclusion.

Earlier this month the Washington state Supreme Court heard arguments in another constitutional challenge to barring same-sex marriage. (story)

In New York State the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, is about to take up the issue of gay marriage following last month's ruling by a judge in New York City that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. (story)

PORTLAND, OR - Gay rights activists around the country are hailing the decision released today by a Superior Court judge in California. Richard Kramer ruled that a state law limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman is unconstitutional.

"Oregon Considered" host Allison Frost spoke today with Rebekah Kassell with the group Basic Rights Oregon and asked whether Kassell's group is celebrating the decision.

To listen please click here (mp3)

To read the opinion click here

San Francisco: A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.

"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.

The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote.

Kramer ruled in lawsuits brought by the city of San Francisco and a dozen same-sex couples last March. The suits were brought after the California Supreme Court halted a four-week marriage spree that Mayor Gavin Newsom had initiated in February 2004 when he directed city officials to issue marriage licenses to gays and lesbians in defiance of state law.

The plaintiffs said withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians trespasses on the civil rights all citizens are guaranteed under the California Constitution.

Two legal groups representing religious conservatives joined with California Attorney General Bill Lockyer in defending the existing laws and had vowed to appeal if Kramer did not rule in their favor.

Lockyer's office has said it expects the matter eventually will have to be settled by the California Supreme Court.

A pair of bills pending before the California Legislature would put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the November ballot. If California voters approve such an amendment, as those in 13 other states did last year, that would put the issue out of the control of lawmakers and the courts.

(AP)

The Equal Rights Coalition played host to America's most notable homophobe on Sunday in Fort Wayne.

The Rev. Fred Phelps, who runs the God Hates fags website and whose followers regularly demonstrate against LGBT rights took part in a forum on gay rights sponsored by the Coalition.

About 150 turned out at Indiana University-Purdue University. The Phelps clan and LGBT supporters were separated by a wide aisle. On one side were about 130 gay supporters, on the other only about 15 people from Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. Police outnumbered the Phelps group, but there were no problems.

Phelps and his followers were in Fort Wayne to demonstrate at a production of "The Laramie Project" at the Lincoln Museum and at a half dozen churches and local papers.

Members of Phelps' clan gained national notoriety when they protested outside the 1998 funeral for Matthew Shepard, the gay college student beaten to death in Wyoming.

The murder led to the play "The Laramie Project" in which Phelps is depicted.

The Equal Rights Coalition organized the forum to avoid clashes with the Phelps' group on the picket line.

Phelps debated Kathy Sarris, president of Indiana Equality, and Dan Funk, a member of the Interfaith Coalition on Non-Discrimination.

Funk drew cheers from the gay side of the gym as he declare: “I am a gay man and I am a Christian and I am here to tell you God doesn’t hate fags.”

But, Phelps held his ground saying his "God hates fags" message is not based on hate, but on love.

The aging preacher said that he is required by the Bible to warn people about sin.

“If you love your neighbor as yourself, you will warn him his sin is taking him to hell,” Phelps said.

“We’re talking about a monstrous sin against God Almighty.”

He then said that Shepard is being punished for his sins and that “The Laramie Project,” is only "homosexual propaganda" taking advantage of Shepard’s “pitiful” life.

Asked about same-sex marriage, Phelps said America is going “to hell in a fornicator’s hand basket.”

Sarris, however, said government should be in the business of protecting rights, not defining marriage.

“How is damaging my family protecting yours?”

Pointing a finger at Sarris, Phelps said gays cannot be forgiven their sins because they won’t even admit they are sinning. Instead, he said, they hold pride parades.

Early, members of the Phelps' clan - about half of whom were teens - carried signs outside local churches reading "God Hates America” and “AIDS Cures Fags”.

Connecticut and Oregon appear to be vying to become the second U.S. state to create 'marriage like' civil unions for homosexual couples.

In Connecticut, the Joint Judiciary Committee recently approved a bill to create civil unions, a legal partnership that carries many state rights of marriage but is not called marriage. It is similar to the nation's first civil union law in Vermont, which went into effect in 2000.

The Connecticut bill still needs to go before the Democrat-led House and Senate, but many observers think it can pass. Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, has indicated "general" support for civil unions, although she has not said whether she will sign this particular bill.

Traditional-values groups, such as the Family Institute of Connecticut and Connecticut Catholic Conference, oppose civil unions as "same-sex marriage in everything but name." Last week, they released a poll showing that most Connecticut residents would like to vote on a constitutional amendment that reserves marriage for opposite-sex couples.

Meanwhile, in Oregon, the watch is on for a pivotal decision by the state Supreme Court.

Last year, Multnomah County officials "married" thousands of same-sex couples, prompting lawsuits. Traditional-values groups reacted with a petition drive for a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, which voters approved in November.

The amendment presumably blocks the Oregon high court from permitting same-sex "marriage," although the court still must decide on the legality of the 3,000 Multnomah unions.

Homosexual-rights groups generally oppose civil unions because they are not recognized outside the home state and are not viewed as marriages under federal law. Moreover, since the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex "marriage" in that state in November 2003, the goal has become full marriage rights in every state.

In Connecticut, the Love Makes a Family homosexual-rights group initially opposed the civil-union bill, but changed its position. "We will not stand in the way of expanding our rights," group leader Anne Stanback wrote in the Hartford (Conn.) Courant.

Americans are divided on legal recognition for same-sex unions.

Polls taken in 2004 show strong disapproval of same-sex "marriage," according to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which in December updated its report on public attitudes about homosexuality and same-sex "marriage."

However, in at least seven polls, people were given three options for homosexual couples: "marriage," "civil unions" or "nothing." In five of these polls, the most popular answer was "nothing," the AEI report said. But if supporters of "marriage" and "civil unions" were counted together, they outnumbered those who didn't want any legal recognition for homosexual couples.

I came across this insightful op-ed and thought I would share with you all.

The driving forces to amend the Kansas Constitution to prohibit gay marriages -- and, gratuitously, gay civil unions -- are Christian pastors and many of their followers.

For example, Rep. Steve Huebert, R-Valley Center, found his House vote easy.

"It is the right thing to do on the truth that was spoken (in the Bible)," he said.

Consistent with the times in which we live, Bible interpretation must be addressed first.

Recognizing I am no more (or less) qualified to deal with this subject than any Christian layman, I am turning to the opinions of the Rev. Craig Sweeney, an Episcopal priest (also husband of our eldest daughter and father of three of Jane's and my grandchildren) that were published in an open forum in the Winfield Courier.

The crux of his statement follows.

"People refer to homosexuality as being against God's will, based on seven disconnected verses in the Bible. As a seminary trained priest I know that each of those seven verses can be honestly challenged, based on the modern interpretation of ancient languages, cultural knowledge of the times when they were written, and the personal backgrounds of the inspired, but fully human authors.

"The real issue is that many Christians are quick to seize on an obscure verse in Leviticus about same-gender sex, while they are content to ignore Jesus' own words on divorce. Even the most conservative Christians ignore many of the 612 rules and a myriad other teachings in the Old Testament each day.

"This picking and choosing is what I call 'selective literalism' and I don't understand it. Each person is free to make choices about biblical authority, but I don't understand why their choice of what is sin and what isn't should bind me or anyone else. What gives them that right and authority? Paul tells us that if we want to be under the law, we have to be 100 percent -- I doubt if any of us want to live that way today."

Father Craig continues, "Since I revere Scripture even though it is confusing and contradictory, I look to the overall message there from God, especially from Jesus.

"That message is the great commandment: love God with all you've got and love your neighbor as yourself. On the night before he died, Jesus did not warn his disciples to follow the rules of the Old Testament. He gave them a new commandment: break bread together in his memory, and love each other.

"Since Jesus is God in human flesh, all Scripture is to be judged by this. Jesus reached out to welcome all people that the Hebrew society had cast out. Today Jesus would reach out to love and include gays and lesbians. The only people Jesus criticized were those 'rule-sticklers' -- the Scribes and the Pharisees. He calls them hypocrites."

Father Craig also discusses that many people believe gays and lesbians choose that lifestyle and refutes it with accepted medical and scientific evidence. And then he turns to the critical question, "What is marriage anyway?"

He praises the modern concept of marriage and deplores its shattered status among heterosexual couples today. He points out marriage is a contract between two people to share their lives and assets. And, that in the Episcopal Church, "we do not create marriage -- we believe God has done that before the couple shows up. What we do is pronounce God's blessing on the marriage."

And then something I hadn't even thought about. "Marriage is not a 'God-given' institution; the church didn't get involved in marriage at all until the Middle Ages." And then "solely to protect the distribution of property through the male lineage. It did women no good, since they were property being sold off to men and had no property rights."

He concludes, "Allowing gays to contract together for a shared life and shared assets has nothing whatsoever to do with our country's shameful divorce rate, the broken homes of heterosexual families and the anguish of single motherhood.

"If some churches do not want to pronounce God's blessings on these relationships -- fine. But passing a constitutional amendment to enforce the religious beliefs of some conservative Christians is a terrible thing to do."

Bill Roy, a retired physician, is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives. He lives in Topeka.

A recent poll shows a slight increase in support among Americans for legal marriage rights for gay couples, according to the New York Times and CBS News. The poll by the two media groups found adults still are divided over how to formalize gay and lesbian couples’ relationships, but 23 percent of those polled say gay couples should be able to legally marry, a 2-percent rise since a November poll. The research found 34 percent of those responding support civil unions in concept, while 41 percent would offer no legal recognition at all to same-sex partners, the Times reported. Support for civil unions also was up 2 percent since last fall’s polling, and support for no recognition at all was down 3 percent, the poll found.

It's truly amazing how many people in the world feel like this. Do you feel this way? Share your thoughts. Have insight as to why people feel this way? History tells us that significant progress in a civil rights movement takes time. Now, I can understand this, although when you are in the middle of it - it's frustrating. DOMA after DOMA is passing in states all over our country. An all out attack on gays and lesbians is under way and it doesn't seem to be ending.

Here are some quote from folks in Seattle regarding gay marriage/rights.

Ken Rosencrantz: "It's a very small (gay) minority demanding civil rights for a lifestyle choice, demanding the majority accept their views...They are not normal and never will be."

Roger LaRue: "Why should modern society attempt to normalize (homosexual) behavior by recognizing the marriage of pairs of these sick people?"

Tom Ball writes with a similar theme: "Why should society dignify (homosexuals who) behave in a way that most people think is wrong and self-destructive?"

William Stapleton: "When the gay minority try to legislate (or impose) their beliefs on the majority, the majority must stand up and declare that the (gay) lifestyle is perverted and wrong."

Tim Pitts says that if gays can marry: "Why can't I marry my cousin or my sister? ...Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Anything else and it's not marriage any more.

Please feel free to share your comments.

Group wants state ban abolished; Lawmakers had asked to be defendants.

A group of elected officials opposed to same-sex marriage cannot become defendants in the hot-button lawsuit filed by nine couples who want the state's ban on gay marriage erased, Maryland's highest court ruled today.

The decision, issued by the Maryland Court of Appeals a day after it heard arguments and with no opinion detailing its reasoning, returns the lawsuit to Baltimore City Circuit Court, where the same-sex couples last July sued five court clerks who refused them marriage licenses.

The case ground to a halt when eight legislators and another clerk asked to become defendants represented not by the Attorney General's Office -- who was defending the state law and the clerks who were sued -- but by private attorneys.

"They were interjecting for the sole purpose of delaying this case. This case involves important issues that no matter which side of the controversy you are on should be decided promptly," said Andrew H. Baida, one of the couples' attorneys. Their lawsuit is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation.

Calling the fast and favorable ruling "humane," Lisa Polyak of Baltimore, who sued with her partner, said, "Every day that we wait is another day we have to pay double health insurance and that I have to worry of creating odd legal constructs for us."

The lawmakers and county clerk -- Republican Robert P. Duckworth of Anne Arundel County -- argued in part that the issue should not be decided by the courts, but by voters and the legislature, where efforts to restrict gay rights are stalled.

In a dramatic shift from just one year ago, the Board of Supervisors has enough votes to pass a resolution supporting state legislation that would grant equal marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Yesterday, Supervisor Adrienne Tissier announced she will vote in favor of a resolution to support a bill by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, that would change state law and allow gay marriage.

"It's the right thing to do," Tissier said.

Earlier this week, Supervisor Jerry Hill said he had an epiphany and decided he would also support a county resolution to support Leno's bill. Board President Rich Gordon, who has been in a same-sex relationship for nearly 23 years, is in support of the resolution and the state bill. Supervisor Mark Church does not appear to be in support of the bill or the resolution and Supervisor Rose Jacobs Gibson has been silent on the issue.

San Carlos resident Ramona Gatto, who has continually brought up the issue of same-sex marriage rights at the county and state level, sees Tissier's announcement as positive and believes there is still time to make the vote unanimous.

"I'm not looking at the negative side. I'm absolutely stoked, positively elated. It's fantastic," Gatto said.

Although the vote would be ceremonial since the county has limited influence over bills at the state level, the fact that a resolution could come forward for consideration is in itself an accomplishment. Approximately one year ago, Ramona Gatto and her partner Arzu Gatto stood at the county clerk’s office asking to be wed. They were refused.

The same day, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom asked the city clerk to allow same-sex marriages at City Hall. The gay rights movement forever changed in San Francisco that day with couple after couple lining up to be married. Couples included the Gattos and Belmont Councilman Phil Mathewson and his partner Bob Griffith.

It didn't move so fast in San Mateo County.

The Gattos sought for the county to allow gay marriages here, but were denied. In the meantime, the California Supreme Court ordered San Francisco to stop sanctioning same-sex marriages and invited the city to request a judicial review of Newsom's claim that the state’s ban on gay matrimony violated the civil rights of his same-sex constituents. That legal battle is under way. Later, the Board of Supervisors unanimously condemned a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage.

This year, when the Gattos asked again to be married at the county clerk's office on Valentine's Day, Gordon was outside saying he supported Leno's bill and the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

Marina Gatto, Ramona's daughter, said the news the county Board of Supervisors has enough votes to pass a positive resolution gives her cause for cheer.

"This county has definitely come so far in my eyes," she said.

By Jon Mays Daily Journal staff

Seth Kilbourn, national field director for the Human Rights Campaign, said that Maryland now joins Idaho as the only two states thus far to kill anti-gay marriage measures introduced during the 2005 legislative session.

The Maryland General Assembly rejected two anti-gay marriage bills last week, including one that would have been the first step toward a constitutional amendment to ban marriage for gay couples.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 11-10 against a bill brought by Del. Emmett Burns (D-Baltimore County), which in addition to prohibiting Maryland from recognizing out of state gay unions, would reinforce the state’s existing ban on same-sex marriages.

The committee also agreed to table a constitutional amendment brought by Del. Charles Boutin (R-Cecil & Hartford Counties) that would have banned gay marriage in Maryland.

“Thank goodness the bells of fairness have rung loudly in the Free State and this amendment will not see the light of day,” said Dan Furmansky, executive director of Equality Maryland in a prepared statement.

Jo Deutsch, who lives with her three children and partner Teresa Williams in Prince George’s County, praised lawmakers for rejecting the anti-gay initiatives.

“Obviously, we are thrilled that the state of Maryland did the right thing, that lawmakers realized putting this language into the constitution is unnecessary and discriminatory,” Deutsch said. “We are very happy but we still can’t get married. We don’t have the legal protections that other couples have.”

"Looks like it's anal sex week."

Lou Novak, first vice president for the Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound, upon seeing an AIDS awareness group at the Washington State Capitol. Novak later resigned his position over the remark, which was heard by the group that included a 13-year-old girl and 16-year-old boy. (Associated Press, March 3)

___________________

Oppression is oppression is oppression. Just because we're not the ones who are being oppressed now, do we not stand with those oppressed now? That is the biblical mandate. That's what Jesus is all about.

Rev. Kelvin Calloway, pastor of the Second AME Church in Los Angeles, said about the new breed of black religious leaders who are siding with Republicans on gay rights issues. (New York Times, March 6)

Statewide network gathering forces for April 5 election:

Calling it a "David versus Goliath" effort, a new group on Thursday announced its statewide campaign to defeat the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

"We're obviously a new organization that doesn't have a lot of time to get its feet under it," said Bradley Kemp, of Lawrence, a spokesman for Kansans for Fairness. "The opposition is pretty well-organized, well-funded, and has a lot of Kansans' ears. ... It looked like the amendment was just going to go sailing through without anyone making a concerted or sophisticated effort to campaign against it."

Kansans for Fairness formed Feb. 12, shortly after the Kansas House approved putting the amendment to a public vote. But it wasn't until Thursday that the organization announced it was coordinating and promoting the efforts of grassroots groups in cities across the state, including Salina, Manhattan and Wichita.

"For once you're going to see kind of a unified message and effort," said Bruce Ney, of Lawrence, chairman of Kansans for Fairness.

The group is producing a testimonial advertisement featuring the mother of a gay man that will run on the group's Web site -- http://www.kansansforfairness.org/ -- and possibly on television.

The campaign will highlight the efforts of organizations around the state, such as a group in Manhattan that's distributing literature door-to-door and another in Salina that produced a show on the subject for local public-access television.

Ney said the campaign also made contact with a coalition of Baker University students from the group Students Active For Equality. On Thursday, anti-gay minister Fred Phelps, of Topeka, announced he was picketing Baker because of the students' plan to travel the state during spring break in opposition to the amendment.

Kemp wouldn't say how much money Kansans for Fairness had raised so far, but he said "we're not a rich campaign." Much of the group's money has come from individual donors, he said, but Human Rights Campaign -- a national gay rights organization -- has chipped in $1,000.

Kemp said the campaign would appeal to Kansans' sense of fairness. Another goal is to call attention to the lesser-known "Part B" of the amendment, which prohibits even civil unions, by saying no relationship other than marriage is entitled to the rights of marriage.

Some attorneys have said the amendment could restrict the rights of unmarried heterosexual couples or prevent private companies from offering insurance benefits to gay employees' partners.

The amendment goes to a statewide vote April 5.

Scott Hanks, pastor of Heritage Baptist Church in Lecompton, said he was surprised by the campaign's use of the David and Goliath story.

"It's amazing that they want to use a Bible character such as David and Goliath to go against the Bible's principle that homosexuality is sin," he said.

Now - I've always known the religious right to be a crazy bunch - but this? Looks like SpongeBob has 'overcome' and is now being sent to schools in his new video. Here's the latest...

A children's music video that conservatives charge is part of an effort to encourage acceptance of homosexuality is being distributed to more than 60,000 schools nationwide this week, producers said Thursday.

The video features about 100 children's TV characters including SpongeBob SquarePants, Miss Piggy and Oscar the Grouch singing the disco hit "We are Family." It will be accompanied by a teaching guide that promotes tolerance of diversity.

"The opportunity to bring that message to children around the entire country is truly exciting," said Caryl Stern, senior associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League. "We know at ADL that people are not born as little haters, we learn to hate. And just as we learn to hate, we have to unlearn to hate."

To produce and distribute the video, the ADL has teamed up with the We Are Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded by music producer Nile Rodgers, who co-wrote the hit 1979 song "We Are Family."

Television networks and production companies also are involved, and FedEx has agreed to ship the videos for free.

The effort sparked controversy in January when the Mississippi-based American Family Association, in an article by the editor of its monthly journal, charged that the video had a pro-gay subtext. (story)

"On the surface, the project may appear to be a worthwhile attempt to foster greater understanding of cultural differences," wrote Ed Vitagliano. "However, a short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality."

The video was also criticized by James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who alluded to SpongeBob SquarePants' role in a "pro-homosexual video" during remarks to a pre-inauguration dinner in Washington.

In a telephone interview Thursday, Vitagliano said he does not object to the "innocuous" video itself but to the accompanying teaching guide, which he said "distorts the definition of family to produce a nontraditional model."

Although the guide does not specifically mention sexual orientation, Vitagliano said it is designed to lay the groundwork for acceptance of gay parents.

He pointed to a section where children are asked who is in a family, and if they say "a mommy," "a daddy," "a sister" or "a brother," the teacher is prodded to "ask further questions of the class."

"We feel that this is part of an attempt to include same-sex couples in the institution of marriage and the family," he said.

Rodgers, who joined ADL officials and others at an event launching the video at Public School 87 on Manhattan's Upper West Side, said the project is not about sexual orientation.

"We're not talking about sex at all," he said. "This is for young children."

Christopher Cerf, the author and children's TV producer who is another of the video's creators, said he was "amazed" by the criticism.

"At first I thought this was so ridiculous that it's funny," he said.

First-graders at P.S. 87 sang along with the catchy disco classic as the video was screened Thursday. It features characters from popular children's TV shows including "Sesame Street," "Blue's Clues," "Dora the Explorer" and "Winnie the Pooh," with cameos by Bill Cosby, Diana Ross and Whoopi Goldberg.

Afterward, children were asked to share artwork they had made about their families and to say what family means to them.

Answers included "Family means to me that when you want to do something you can sometimes do it with your family, and they'll take you and you'll have fun" and "It means that when I'm mad they let me be mad."

Source: AP

Rumors has been floating around that a ruling would be coming this week - most say late in the week like either today or tomorrow. Chances are that will not happen, but it does look like it will be ruled on in the very near future sources tell us. Possibly this next week.

The Oregon Supreme Court heard the case of Li V. State of Oregon on December 15th, 2004, filed in March by Basic Rights Oregon, the ACLU and nine plaintiff couples seeking marriage equality for same-sex couples.

Let's hope for the best. In the wake of state after state creating more and more harmful DOMA's, this could be a true testament to the belief in fairness and equality that we have come to expect from The State of Oregon.

Ok - so it's a true fact in life that there are thousands of incredible families that have same-sex parents. It's no trend, although as it becomes more and more accepted there will be more and more. So what gives? Why does the right wing feel that they need to hide this?

From Boston:
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-4th, will film an ad defending same-sex parenting in response to the flap over a PBS children's program denounced by the Bush administration for showing kids with lesbian mothers.
The gay-rights group Family Pride Coalition asked the Newton Democrat to appear in the public service announcement after Bush Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings warned PBS in January not to show an episode of "Postcards from Buster."
PBS decided not to distribute the episode in which an animated rabbit visits Vermont to learn about making maple syrup with real children, two of whose parents are lesbians.

But WGBH in Boston, which produces the show, made the episode available to other stations.
"She didn't think children should know there are such things as lesbians in the world, and when you have the administration at that point, it's appropriate to say I think that's not a good way to bring up kids," Frank said.
Frank will film the ad Monday.
Actor B.D. Wong and Karen Pike, one of the mothers from the episode, will also appear in it.
The PSA will appear on a variety of Web sites later this month and will be provided to television outlets. Since it is not a paid ad, the stations must choose to run it.

On Tuesday the House voted on the ban - passing easily. Today the Seante voted and also passed it without a single objection. It will now go to the voters of Alabama and we all know where it will end up - in the constitution.

A year after a wave of gay marriages swept America, the Alabama Legislature approved a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages in the state and refuse to recognize those from other states.

The Senate voted 30-0 to give final approval to the proposed constitutional amendment, which the House passed on Tuesday. The measure still must be approved by Alabama voters at the next election; which currently would be the party primary election scheduled for June 2006.

Gay weddings became a national issue last year, starting Feb. 12 in San Francisco when Mayor Gavin Newsom open the city's wedding registry to gays couples. Gay weddings jumped to Oregon in March, then New Mexico and New Paltz, N.Y., before a court ruling in May cleared the way for thousands of gay marriages in Massachusetts.

A backlash followed with voters in 11 states approving constitutional amendments in November to ban gay marriages. Voters in two other states, Missouri and Louisiana, barred gay marriages earlier in 2004.

Sen. Hinton Mitchem, D-Albertville, had been trying for four years to pass the ban. He said the gay weddings last year heightened public interest and helped get his proposal passed.

"It's not good for our children to see," he said.

Howard Bayless, chairman of the board of the gay rights group Equality Alabama, accused the Legislature of "meddling into the lives of families. The government is deciding what our families are and what families are made of and to me that's unconscionable."

Rumor is that the couple mentioned below will be donating a portion of the $25 million (if won) to gay rights groups who fight discrimination and homophobia. That's almost like having this right wing organization in the pocket of the Bush administration paying out what could be millions to gay rights groups. It all makes me smile - smile big.

[Updated at bottom - Judge bans group's use of gay pair photo]

‘USA NEXT’ SUED FOR $25 MILLION: Portland Couple Used in Homophobic Anti-AARP Ad Files Federal Lawsuit.

WASHINGTON, DC A $25 million lawsuit was filed today against right-wing front group USA Next and political consulting firm Mark Montini International for stealing an Oregon couple’s wedding photo and using it without permission in a high-profile gay-bashing ad designed to drum up support for social security privatization.

Following an admission of photo theft by the creator, advertiser and publisher of the ad, the couple whose image was stolen - Rick Raymen and Steve Hansen of Portland, Oregon - today filed a four-count lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC. The suit alleges that the use of the couple’s image without permission constituted an invasion of privacy, was libelous, violated their right of publicity and constituted an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In one version of the USA Next ad disseminated widely on the Internet in February, and aired repeatedly by television news programs and newspapers nationwide, the couple’s image, superimposed with a green checkmark, is side-by-side a picture of a US soldier with a red “X” across it. Below the photos is the phrase “The REAL AARP Agenda.”

A copy of the ad can be viewed online here: http://images.mydd.com/images/admin/antiaarpgop3

“Our privacy and personal integrity were violated when our wedding photo was stolen and used to portray us as treasonous, unpatriotic, and a threat to American troops,” Rick Raymen said. “We have been harassed and humiliated by this hateful ad campaign and by the bigotry and anger it has generated against us nationwide.”

“Our lawsuit is intended to make USA Next and Mark Montini pay for the harm they have caused and to send a message to them that they cannot recklessly play with peoples’ reputations and make them targets of hate, as they have done with us,” Raymen said. “When we get our judgment, we intend to donate to those who fight the kind of hate and homophobia that USA Next and Montini have demonstrated.”

Christopher Wolf, counsel for the Oregon couple, and a partner in the Proskauer Rose law firm, explained the basis of today’s lawsuit in the complaint filed with the court. “When they created and published the advertisement, defendants knew or should have known that the publication of the plaintiffs’ image would subject them to an invasion of privacy and ridicule,” Wolf wrote in the complaint. “As a result of the publication of the advertisement, plaintiffs have suffered embarrassment, extreme emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. In addition, as a result of the libelous statement communicated by the advertisement about plaintiffs, their reputations as patriotic American citizens has been severely damaged.”

“Our lawsuit seeks to hold the defendants accountable for taking two private citizens and maliciously making them targets for homophobic bigots,” Wolf said today. “Our clients did not volunteer to be models in a right-wing hate campaign. There are serious legal consequences for deploying them against their will.”

Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, Wolf filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against USA Next and its ad agency to get them to stop using the photo. The motion also seeks the return of all pictures containing the couple’s image and an accounting of all places where the photos have been used or sent, in light of the refusal of USA Next to retract or apologize for its ad.

The dispute leading to the lawsuit began a few weeks ago when Raymen and Hansen noticed their wedding photo published on the conservative America Spectator Web site as part of a homophobic USA Next ad meant to slur AARP. Not having given their permission for use of the photo, Raymen and Hansen contacted the copyright holder, the Portland Tribune, and the paper quickly confirmed that it had not sold the photo to anyone and that the image had likely been stolen from its Web site.

In the meantime, the intentionally controversial ad quickly achieved USA Next’s goal of being viral marketed for free to millions of viewers on the Internet, on network television, and in major news publications across the country.

On behalf of Raymen and Hansen, attorney Christopher Wolf wrote USA Next chairman and CEO Charles Jarvis on February 28, 2005, demanding that USA Next immediately stop using photos of the couple and that it publicly apologize for the ongoing harm it is causing.

While refusing to respond to the letter, USA Next repeatedly told the media that it had lawfully purchased the photo and that Raymen and Hansen were being “silly.” In fact, USA Next and its surrogates were surreptitiously trying to buy the photo at the same time they were assuring the media that it had already been purchased.

Raymen and Hansen have yet to receive an apology from USA Next.

[Update]

A federal judge on Thursday prohibited a conservative group supporting President Bush's Social Security plan from using a photo of a gay couple in its online ads attacking AARP.

USA Next had posted the ad for a week in mid-February on the Web site of The American Spectator. The ad portrayed AARP, the seniors lobby leading the opposition to Bush's plan, as opposed to U.S. soldiers and supportive of gay marriage.

U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton issued a temporary restraining order forbidding use of the photograph by USA Next.

The Portland, Ore., couple, Richard Raymen and Steven Hansen, filed suit against USA Next on Wednesday, saying they hadn't consented "to serve as models for a homophobic and mean-spirited campaign for a political group with whose views they strongly disagree."

The Internet ad showed a photo of a soldier with a red X over him and, next to it, a photo of two tuxedoed men kissing, with a green check mark over them. The photo was taken by the Portland Tribune on March 3, 2004, the day Multnomah County began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"We took the banner ad down before we even learned that these gentlemen claimed that their picture had been misused. We have not used their picture since then. We do not intend to do so," USA Next Chairman Charlie Jarvis said after the judge's ruling.

(Washington) The Human Rights Campaign has appointed a longtime Democratic political activist as its new president.

HRC, the nation's largest LGBT civil rights organization, Wednesday named Joe Solmonese to the post vacated last year by former Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques.

Solmonese comes to HRC from his post as chief executive officer of EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committee.

He has been at EMILY's List for the last twelve years serving in several key capacities from deputy political director, to chief of staff and the CEO position he's occupied for the past two-and-a-half years.

A native of Massachusetts, the out Solmonese is 40 and lives in Washington, DC. He is a graduate of Boston University and has a bachelor of science in communications.

"Joe has an unrivaled track record at the nation's foremost progressive electoral powerhouse," said Vic Basile, co-chair of the HRC Foundation Board. "We are confident that he will appeal to Americans across the political and ideological spectrum."

He will officially take over at HRC on April 11. Solmonese said one of his first acts will be a tour of the country to "meet with the American people, GLBT community members and leaders at town hall meetings and other events in the workplace, communities of color and in communities of faith."

"We must tell the stories of our lives and the struggles we face to our straight friends, co-workers and family members," Solmonese said in a statement

"Increasing our presence and visibility across America will be a top priority of my tenure."

The appointment won praise from the nation's most visible gay Member of Congress.

"I am very happy that Joe will be the next President of HRC," said Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) "By his talent, commitment and experience, he is ideally suited to help lead the fight for the central American value of equal rights under the law."

Even gay Republicans were satisfied.

"Joe has an impressive record as an effective fundraiser, proven manager and smart political leader," said Patrick Guerriero, President, Log Cabin Republicans.

"As HRC's new President, Joe will be a strong and passionate voice in our fight for equality for LGBT Americans. Joe has my personal and organizational support as we work together to develop a smart and ambitious bipartisan strategy to realize full equality for all Americans in the years ahead," Guerriero said.

Jacques resigned as HRC President in November, three weeks after the general election. Her tenure at the organization was marked by friction with the Board.

(Montgomery, Alabama) A proposed amendment to the Alabama constitution banning same-sex marriage and civil unions is likely to appear on the 2006 primary ballot.

The House approved a Senate version of the bill on Tuesday adding the civil unions ban. It now goes back to the Senate for final ratification - likely to occur on Thursday.

The House voted 85 - 7 on the measure with little debate. The sponsor of the House version, Rep. Yusuf Salamm (D-Selma), said that no "civilized society" has every accepted same-sex marriage.

"The Legislature has a right to promote the general welfare of this state and, to be quite frank, we should be leery of any social experiment that does not have any precedent whatsoever in human history," he said.

Alabama law already prohibits same-sex marriages. But lawmakers in favor of the amendment said they wanted a constitutional ban to prevent courts from striking down the state law.

Rep. Alvin Holmes (D-Montgomery) argued that even though the measure was sponsored by a fellow Democrat it was little more than an effort to help Republicans win elections in 2006.

"This bill has nothing to do with ethical, moral or religious issues. It has to do with the governor's race in Alabama," Holmes said.

Another member asked about the amendment's impact on the transgendered.

"What happens if John becomes Joan through this kind of surgery they do and marries Sarah — are we dealing with same-sex marriage or not?" asked Rep. Demetrius Newton (D-Birmingham).

OLYMPIA, WA — The campaign for gay rights trained its hopes for marriage equality on nine men and women inside the Temple of Justice yesterday.

Attorneys for 19 lesbian and gay couples, their expectations high, made their case for state-sanctioned civil marriage before the Washington Supreme Court as the state, King County and a group of intervenors argued that the traditional look of marriage should not change.

The celebrated occasion became a spectacle on the Capitol campus as thousands of demonstrators, the majority of them religious opponents of same-sex marriage, filled the air with chants and gospel music. Gay-marriage advocates also turned out, forming a human chain to give some of the plaintiff couples access to the courtroom and later applauding as they left.

David Shull, a pastor at University Congregational United Church of Christ in Seattle, and his partner, Peter Ilgenfritz, are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. He called the event "totally awesome and humbling at the same time. The possibility of gays and lesbians finally being able to marry is so right."

The few couples who were able to squeeze into the courtroom listened with rapt attention as the justices pelted questions at the attorneys — questions that offered a glimpse at the scope and complexity of the issues they are grappling with.

The legal and social impact of the high court's ruling, which could come by fall, will reach far beyond this state.

A victory by the couples would make Washington the second state, after Massachusetts, to legalize marriage for gays and lesbians and the first to give out-of-state same-sex couples that right.

DOMA being challenged

At issue is the state's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed overwhelmingly by the Washington Legislature in 1998 to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

"This is an important case that speaks to the type of community that we are," Paul Lawrence, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, told the justices.

"Will we be a community that protects individual rights ... and treats all its citizens with respect, or one that sanctions discrimination and embraces prejudice? We're asking this court to adopt a vision of our community as one of fairness by striking down DOMA."

But attorney Steve O'Ban, representing the intervenors, a group of legislators and religious leaders, told the justices that no court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. "And we have made the determination that the optimal environment for raising a child is in a household headed by a man and a woman."

The 19 couples are part of two lawsuits — Andersen v. King County and State of Washington v. Castle — filed a year ago. In August, King County Superior Court Judge William Downing and later Thurston County Superior Court Judge Richard Hicks ruled in favor of the couples, striking down the DOMA statute as unconstitutional.

The state and county appealed in both cases, setting the stage for the consolidated case to reach the high court on a fast track.

State Sen. Val Stevens, R-Arlington, a sponsor of the original DOMA and one of the intervenors in the case, said that if the law is not upheld, "We will see the diminishing of a tradition that you and I hold dear, and that is unacceptable."

Rep. Gigi Talcott, R-Tacoma, said early yesterday that she and other DOMA supporters were optimistic that the court would uphold the law, but also were prepared to take the issue to voters in the form of a constitutional amendment. Two resolutions to make that possible have been introduced in the state Senate, although in a Democrat-controlled Legislature they may be unlikely to pass.

Those who gathered outside the Capitol yesterday to protest gay marriage numbered 5,000 to 7,000, according to police estimates. The rally drew entire families and others who waved signs such as: "One man, one woman: you do the math." A prayer corner was set up so participants could look at photos of the nine justices and pray for them as they heard the case.

Pastor Joe Fuiten, president of Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government, told the crowd that "marriage is like Noah's Ark: Sometimes it may stink, but it's the best thing to stay afloat.

"All kids deserve a mom and a dad, and we need a policy that makes it so," he said.

The couples who sued the state and the county built their case around the premise that marriage is a fundamental right.

They argued that by denying gays that right, DOMA violates the state constitution's privileges-and-immunities clause, which requires that any privileges granted by the state to one group of citizens must be offered to all.

In defending DOMA, the state must convince the justices that the statute can pass the so-called "rational review" test, by showing that it serves a legitimate state purpose.

William Collins, the senior assistant attorney general who argued for the state, told the justices that rational basis stems from the fact that "only sexual relations between a man and a woman can create children — planned or unplanned."

Justice Tom Chambers pointed out that assisted-fertility techniques have allowed gays to have children.

Collins said, "It's not irrational for the state to encourage sexual relations to occur in the context of marriage. A vast majority of children come into the world the old-fashioned way. That's the rational basis."

The justices raised questions about defining gays as a suspect class, a legal designation that confers minoritylike status on certain groups based on characteristics such as race or gender.

They also asked attorneys from both sides about the application in this case of the state Equal Rights Amendment, passed in 1972, which says in part that "Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex."

Attorney Patricia Novotny said each individual has a right to be treated equally regardless of gender.

Darren Carnell, an attorney representing King County, said the state's Equal Rights Amendment does not confer the right to gay marriage.

Novotny, an attorney with the Northwest Women's Law Center, which along with Lambda Legal sued King County on the couples' behalf, noted that the court has previously identified what makes a marriage, looking at marriagelike relationships such as cohabitation and pooling resources and support.

"Never has it looked at whether there are children involved," she said.

Justice Barbara Madsen suggested that DOMA doesn't define marriage as much as it outlines the qualifications for marriage.

But Novotny said: "We're left with a scheme that favors one set of children not because of the way they were brought into the world but by the identity of the parents."

Justice Susan Owens pointed out that the plaintiffs reject calling what they seek anything other than marriage, yet "they are all civil unions," she said.

Novotny said the court faces a single question: Is DOMA constitutional or not?

Sounding a theme familiar to civil rights, Novotny argued: "Separate is not equal."

When will we stop being used as political tools for the rightwing?

Legislation aimed at preventing same-sex marriage in New Mexico cleared the Senate Wednesday.

The upper house voted 25 - 12, moving the measure to the House.

The so-called defense of marriage act would define marriage in New Mexico as the union of one man and one woman.

Democrats argued that such a definition is discriminatory.

“If we choose to vote for this bill today, we choose to give up our freedoms. Not because there’s a valid reason to do it, but because we believe in our fears, not in our hopes,” Democrat Cisco McSorley, “ told Senators before the vote.

Sen. Phil Griego in an impassioned speech told fellow senators about his late brother Billy. Griego said that Billy and his partner, Jim were part of every family get-together and celebration.

"I would rather have seen Billy and Jim raise 10 kids than some heterosexual couples," Griego said.

"We have a measure here today that will define a certain group of New Mexicans, cut them out and separate them. . . . That's not right," Griego said.

But Republicans were adamant that the legislation was needed to protect traditional marriage.

“Defining marriage for many of us is relatively easy when you view marriage, the central social institution of our society, as an evolution of the natural order,” said Republican Mark Boitano.

Governor Bill Richardson says that he would sign a bill defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, but only if it had a civil union component that would protect same-sex couples.

Legislation that would permit civil unions remains tied in a Senate committee.