Gay Rights Watch

The former Chief Operating Officer for Log Cabin Republicans is suing the organization claiming he was fired for blowing the whistle on questionable spending and for libel.

In a suit filed in Superior Court for the District of Columbia, Dwight Lodge alleges wrongful termination, negligent supervision and defamation.

The suit claims that Lodge joined LCR in January 2004 where he streamlined the organization, helped develop online fundraising, and oversaw the running of the gay GOP group.

But, in October, the suit says, Lodge became concerned about "improper and well-documented business and financial practices of LCR/LEF’s Executive Director, Patrick Guerriero."

Lodge alleges that among the problems he uncovered were the "misuse of restricted funds, reclassification of funds and creation of false reports to obtain matching funds, and the reclassification of funds to hide losses incurred by certain programs for the purpose of misleading the board."

The court papers claim that when Lodge presented his concerns to Guerriero (pictured) last November, "Guerriero cavalierly and inexplicably dismissed Mr. Lodge’s concerns. Within three weeks, Mr. Guerriero began disseminating defamatory rumors of Mr. Lodge’s purported 'drug use'".

On December 22, Lodge says, he was fired.

The suit says that Lodge has "suffered, and continues to suffer, severe pain and suffering and extreme mental anguish and emotional distress," and that he "has suffered and will continue to suffer a loss of earnings and other employment benefits and job opportunities."

The suit seeks $5 million for each of the three allegations plus legal fees.

Log Cabin said it would fight the suit.

"Dwight Lodge was dismissed for good cause," LCR lawyer Craig Engle said.

"The board of Log Cabin has complete confidence in Patrick Guerriero and his stewardship of the organization," Engle said from New Orleans where LCR is holding its annual convention.

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