Gay Rights Watch

Just think if a tsunami like the one that occurred back in December, 2004 happened once every 18 days. Imagine if 217,000 people died a death more painful and agonizing than that of the victims of the tsunami. What would we do about it? Would the money pour in as much as it did during/after the tsunami disaster?

I came across this startling fact today. We all knew it was bad... but this is truly disheartening.

Additional Facts (Source: avert.org)

• Total number of AIDS deaths between 1981 and the end of 2003: 20 million.
• Number of children orphaned by AIDS living in Sub-Saharan Africa at the end of 2003: 12 million.
• By December 2004 women accounted for 47% of all people living with HIV worldwide, and for 57% in sub-Saharan Africa.
• In 2003, young people (15-24 years old) accounted for half of all new HIV infections worldwide, more than 6,000 became infected with HIV every day.
• An estimated five million people in low and middle income countries do not have the AIDS drugs which could save their lives.
  

To learn more about organizations fighting this Worldwide epidemic visit these links below:

amfAR
Global AIDS Alliance
African Action

For a large list of reputable national and worldwide organizations please visit click here.

G.O.P. Consultant Weds His Male Partner

Arthur J. Finkelstein, a prominent Republican consultant who has directed a series of hard-edged political campaigns to elect conservatives in the United States and Israel over the last 25 years, said Friday that he had married his male partner in a civil ceremony at his home in Massachusetts.

Mr. Finkelstein, 59, who has made a practice of defeating Democrats by trying to demonize them as liberal, said in a brief interview that he had married his partner of 40 years to ensure that the couple had the same benefits available to married heterosexual couples.

"I believe that visitation rights, health care benefits and other human relationship contracts that are taken for granted by all married people should be available to partners," he said.

He declined further comment on the wedding, which was in December.

Some of Mr. Finkelstein's associates said they were startled to learn that this prominent American conservative had married a man, given his history with the party, especially at a time when many Republican leaders, including President Bush, have campaigned against same-sex marriage and proposed amending the Constitution to ban it. Mr. Finkelstein has been allied over the years with Republicans who have fiercely opposed gay rights measures, including former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and has been the subject of attacks by gay rights activists who have accused him of hypocrisy. He was identified as gay in a Boston Magazine article in 1996.

One of Mr. Finkelstein's associates, who declined to speak on the record, citing Mr. Finkelstein's desire for privacy, said Mr. Finkelstein did not view his marriage as a political statement and had specifically decided to have a civil ceremony rather than a religious one. This associate argued that over the past 20 years, Mr. Finkelstein had identified himself as a libertarian and an opponent of big government, distancing himself from social conservatives as they have gained political muscle and dominance in the party.

Mr. Finkelstein's associates declined to provide his spouse's name. He was married at his home by a gay state official, whose name and office were not released. The ceremony was attended by relatives of both men, a few friends and a state legislator, an attendee said.

None of Mr. Finkelstein's better-known political clients, among them Gov. George E. Pataki of New York and former Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato of New York, attended, that person said. Several of Mr. Finkelstein's long-term political associates said that he had not told them about the wedding, and that they had learned about it from a reporter.

The wedding was disclosed by an associate of Mr. Finkelstein's, and he confirmed it in the interview.

Mr. Finkelstein has frequently come under criticism by gay rights groups for representing politicians who have been ardent foes of gay rights. He helped create the template for a line of attack he repeatedly invoked against Democrats, including Mario M. Cuomo of New York, describing them as liberal.

In Israel, Mr. Finkelstein used similar attacks against the Labor Party as an adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and as a consultant to the winning and losing campaigns of Benjamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister.

Mr. Finkelstein has regularly described himself as a libertarian who supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights while opposing big government. In an interview with Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, after the American elections last year, he criticized the Republican Party as growing too close to evangelical Christians, warning it could cause long-term damage to the party.

Details of Mr. Finkelstein's relationship have appeared in regular news accounts over the years, as they did in the Boston Magazine article, which reported that Mr. Finkelstein lived with his partner and two children in Ipswich, Mass.

Still, some conservative friends said Mr. Finkelstein's marriage would roil conservatives and highlight divisions among them over the importance of social issues to their movement.

"In recent years, Arthur hasn't pretended to be a social conservative," said one longtime conservative associate, who cited Mr. Finkelstein's aversion to publicity in declining to be identified. "But this is the same man who was the architect of Jesse Helms's political rise."

Everyone needs a little enlightenment. If you've been looking for a good read here are some of my recommendations.

Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage
by Davina Kotulski
Click Here for More Info >

From the cover of Newsweek, to the Rose Garden at the White House, the long simmering issue of gay marriage has erupted into full boil. While countries such as Canada and Belgium have recently legalized gay marriage, the US seems steadfastly locked in the past. Change, Davina Kotulski argues, will only come through organized activism, but the importance of legalized gay marriage remains unclear to many in the GLBT community. There are no less than 1049 federal rights granted to hetero-sexuals that remain out of reach to gays and lesbians as long as they don't have the right to marry. This quick and simple read outlines the rights, benefits and protections afforded through marriage, exploring the negative effects of not having these rights through case examples of real couples who have experienced hardships and composite vignettes illustrating how couples can be hurt by lacking access to these protections. Through learning of the great disparity between how same-sex couples are treated compared to heterosexual couples, and of the membership privileges society affords married couples readers of this book will begin to see new possibilities in their lives, and be inspired to join the growing freedom to marry movement.
Click Here for More Info >

Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America
by Jonathan Rauch
Click Here for More Info >

A leading Washington journalist argues that gay marriage is the best way to preserve and protect society's most essential institution

Two people meet and fall in love. They get married, they become upstanding members of their community, they care for each other when one falls ill, they grow old together. What's wrong with this picture? Nothing, says Jonathan Rauch, and that's the point. If the two people are of the same sex, why should this chain of events be any less desirable? Marriage is more than a bond between individuals; it also links them to the community at large. Excluding some people from the prospect of marriage not only is harmful to them, but is also corrosive of the institution itself.

The controversy over gay marriage has reached a critical point in American political life as liberals and conservatives have begun to mobilize around this issue, pro and con. But no one has come forward with a compelling, comprehensive, and readable case for gay marriage-until now.

Jonathan Rauch, one of our most original and incisive social commentators, has written a clear and honest manifesto explaining why gay marriage is important-even crucial-to the health of marriage in America today. Rauch grounds his argument in commonsense, mainstream values and confronting the social conservatives on their own turf. Gay marriage, he shows, is a "win-win-win" for strengthening the bonds that tie us together and for remaining true to our national heritage of fairness and humaneness toward all.
Click Here for More Info >

Why Marriage?: The History Shaping Today's Debate Over Gay Equality
by George Chauncey
Click Here for More Info >

Angry debate over gay marriage is sweeping the country, threatening to divide the nation like no other issue since the Vietnam War. Why has marriage suddenly emerged as the most explosive issue in the gay struggle for equality? At times it seems to have come out of nowhere-but in fact it has a history.

Drawing upon the unparalleled historical knowledge that established him as the principal author of the influential Historians' Amicus Brief filed in the landmark Supreme Court sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas, George Chauncey shows how the demand for the freedom to marry emerged from a decades-long struggle. He reminds us of the pervasive discrimination faced by lesbians and gay men only a few decades ago, when the federal government fired thousands of gay employees and restaurants were shut down for serving homosexuals. And he shows how the continuing discrimination faced by gay families-in insurance, pensions, and child custody struggles-led them to campaign for the protections of marriage.

Chauncey gives us the history of the shifting attitudes of heterosexual Americans toward gays, from the dramatic growth in acceptance to the many campaigns against gay rights that form the background to today's demand for a constitutional amendment. He also connects religious opposition to interracial marriage and desegregation just fifty years ago with opposition to same-sex marriage today. Chauncey illuminates what's at stake for both sides, making this an essential book for gay and straight readers alike.

Click Here for More Info >

Adults in New York are split over applying the concept of wedlock to gay and lesbian couples, according to a poll by Global Strategy Group for Empire State Pride Agenda. 40% of respondents support allowing same-sex couples to marry, while 41 per cent disagree.

During the January 2004 State of the Union address, United States president George W. Bush said, "Activist judges (...) have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."

In 2004, marriage certificates were issued to same-sex couples by local governments in the states of California, Oregon, New Mexico and New York. Last May, the state of Massachusetts allowed gay and lesbian partners to apply for marriage licenses, the first state-sanctioned homosexual weddings in the U.S.

Civil unions—currently available only in the state of Vermont—give same-sex partners the same legal rights of married couples such as inheritance, insurance and hospital visiting privileges. 72 per cent of respondents in New York support this concept, while 25 per cent disagree.

A California law grants domestic partners the same legal rights of married couples, with the exception of filing joint income tax returns. Connecticut legislators are currently reviewing a bill that would provide many of the same rights of married couples to gay and lesbian partners.

Polling Data

Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to marry, giving them the same legal rights are other married couples?

Strongly support 22%
Somewhat support 18%
Somewhat oppose 10%
Strongly oppose 31%
Undecided 7%

Do you support or oppose allowing same-sex couples to form civil unions or domestic partnerships that are not marriages but would give similar legal protections in such areas as inheritance, taxes, health insurance and hospital visits?

Strongly support 45%
Somewhat support 27%
Somewhat oppose 5%
Strongly oppose 20%
Undecided 3%

Source: Global Strategy Group / Empire State Pride Agenda
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 600 New York adults, conducted in March 2005. Margin of error is 4 per cent.

A year ago, a judge gave legislators 90 days from the start of the 2005 session to adopt a civil-unions law, or Multnomah County would be allowed to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

That deadline is Saturday, but the state Department of Justice says it is not enforceable.

Further, Multnomah County officials say they have made no plans to resume issuing marriage certificates to same-sex couples after Saturday's deadline passes.

The issue arises from Multnomah County's issuance of marriage licenses to nearly 3,000 gay and lesbian couples in March 2004 before Circuit Judge Frank Bearden put a stop to the practice.

In his ruling, Bearden set the 90-day deadline for the 2005 Legislature to fix the problem by adopting a civil unions law.

However, in November, Oregon voters amended the state constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Kevin Neely of the Oregon Department of Justice said the November vote had the effect of nullifying the judge's 90-day order.

"Judge Bearden's order is, if not moot, then certainly unenforceable, based on the constitutional measure," Neely said in an interview Thursday with the Statesman Journal newspaper.

The Oregon Supreme Court, meanwhile, is expected to rule soon on a challenge of the state's marriage law.

The legal limbo has kept Senate Democrats from pushing bills that create civil unions and advance gay rights.

"We didn't want to move forward on the civil-union issue until a Supreme Court ruling," said Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland. "And we were working on the assumption that it would be before the 90-day window closed."

With no word from the Supreme Court, Brown is finishing a civil-unions bill that she plans to introduce next week.

Republican leaders in the House also are waiting for the Supreme Court's decision, said Chuck Deister, spokesman for House Speaker Karen Minnis.

"It's presumptuous until we hear from the court," he said.

Many others are also waiting for word, including officials in Multnomah County who granted licenses to 3,022 same-sex couples last year.

The county isn't planning any action before the Supreme Court's ruling, said Bob Gravely, spokesman for Multnomah County Board Chairwoman Diane Linn.

However, he wasn't sure what officials will do if same-sex couples appear Monday to apply for licenses.

"I'm pretty confident in saying that we have not planned for that," Gravely said.

Portland attorney Kelly Clark, who is representing the sponsors of the constitutional gay marriage ban in the case before the Supreme Court, said he thinks the court will issue its ruling soon.

"I would be stunned if Multnomah County concluded that under these circumstances, anything should happen," Clark said.

The state's leading gay rights group, Basic Rights Oregon, was hoping for a ruling before the 90-day deadline, and isn't sure what the deadline's passing means, spokeswoman Rebekah Kassell said.

"This is already a muddy legal situation, and this certainly adds to that," Kassell said.

Information from: Statesman Journal, http://www.statesmanjournal.com

The new Quinnipiac University Poll released Thursday found a huge generational divide on the gay marriage issue with senior citizens playing a critical role in opposition to the concept.

According to the latest Quinnipiac Poll, state voters support same-sex civil union legislation by a 56-37 percent margin. However, those surveyed also oppose legalization of gay marriage, 53-42 percent and a key factor in that opposition appears to be age.

Nearly 80 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds in Connecticut think same sex couples should have the right to marry, while 76 percent of voters over age 65 who were surveyed oppose the idea, the poll found.

Douglas Schwartz, director of the polling operation, said the strong opinions of this state’s large elderly population on the issue are enough to tip the balance against same-sex marriage.

If the opinions of voters 65 and older are removed from the equation, that "eliminates the majority against gay marriage," Schwartz said. Among 18- to 64-year-olds, opinions about allowing people of the same sex to marry are almost equally divided, with 48 percent in favor and 46 percent opposed.

The poll conducted from March 29 to April 4 surveyed 1,541 Connecticut registered voters and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percent.

The poll was released the day after the state Senate overwhelmingly approved a same-sex civil union bill. The state House could vote on the measure as early next week and supporters of the legislation are confidently predicting victory.

However, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, said again Thursday that she wants to see marriage defined in the civil union bill as only being between one man and one woman, a proposal Senate lawmakers rejected as unnecessary since such a definition is already in Connecticut law.

Critics of the legislation are counting on that concern as their best hope for defeating the bill.

"I do not know what bill ..the legislature will send me when all is said and done," Rell said when asked if she would veto a civil union bill that didn’t include the marriage definition she wants.

State House Minority Leader Robert M. Ward, R-North Branford, said he believes the civil union bill would win House approval with a marriage definition attached. "Without that amendment, I think it’s too close to call," said Ward, who added that he personally is supporting addition of a marriage definition but is "leaning toward supporting it either way."

State House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, had hoped that Rell would make her position on a veto clearer to help undecided lawmakers make up their minds.

"A majority of my Democrats support the bill," said Amann, who is personally against same-sex civil unions. "But it’s those guys who are sitting on the fence out there saying, ‘Why do I want to put a (yes vote) up there if she’s going to veto it. I’d be safer voting (no).’ "

Amann said he still hopes to have a House vote on the issue by Wednesday but that a technical referral to another legislative committee could delay action by a week.

"Connecticut voters are more liberal than the rest of the nation on the issues of same-sex civil unions and gay marriage," Schwartz said.

Talk of same-sex unions has skirted the public arena at the Capitol for 89 days.

That may quickly change.

Nearly a year ago, a judge in Portland gave lawmakers 90 days from the start of the session to adopt a civil-unions law or Multnomah County would be allowed to resume issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

However, in November, voters amended the Oregon Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Does the deadline matter?

The Oregon Department of Justice says no. Spokesman Kevin Neely said it was nullified with the November vote.

"Judge (Frank) Bearden's order is, if not moot, then certainly unenforceable, based on the constitutional measure," he said.

Yet no request has been made to delay or "stay" Bearden's deadline while the Oregon Supreme Court considers a challenge of the state's marriage law.

The legal limbo has kept Senate Democrats from pushing bills that create civil unions and advance gay rights.

"We didn't want to move forward on the civil-union issue until a Supreme Court ruling," said Sen. Kate Brown, a Portland Democrat and the majority leader. "And we were working on the assumption that it would be before the 90-day window closed."

With no word from the Supreme Court, Brown is finishing a civil-unions bill that she plans to introduce next week.

Republican leaders in the House are waiting for the court's decision, spokesman Charles Deister said.

"It's presumptuous until we hear from the court," he said.

Many others also are waiting for word, including officials in Multnomah County who granted licenses to 3,022 same-sex couples last March.

The county isn't planning any action before the ruling, said Bob Gravely, spokesman for Multnomah County Board Chairwoman Diane Linn.

However, he wasn't sure what officials will do if same-sex couples appear Monday to apply for licenses.

"I'm pretty confident in saying that we have not planned for that," Gravely said.

Portland attorney Kelly Clark is representing the Defense of Marriage Coalition in the case before the Supreme Court. The coalition opposes same-sex marriage.

Clark said he knew of no request to "stay" Bearden's order until the Oregon Supreme Court rules. Clark also expected the ruling within days or weeks.

"I would be stunned if Multnomah County concluded that under these circumstances, anything should happen," Clark said.

Basic Rights Oregon was hoping for a ruling before the deadline, spokeswoman Rebekah Kassell said. With no word from the court this week, the gay-rights group isn't sure what the deadline's arrival means.

"This is already a muddy legal situation, and this certainly adds to that," Kassell said. "Regardless of the (Supreme Court) ruling, we do want the Legislature to act as quickly as possible."

That action may not be all they hope for. Senate Democrats are mixed about whether to go all out for civil unions or advance less-ambitious anti-discrimination bills that may have longer political legs.

Sen. Rick Metsger, D-Welches, says he has found six Republicans committed to voting for his gay-rights bill. He needs three, plus all 28 Democrats, to pass it.

A bill in the House written by Basic Rights Oregon covers sexual orientation and gender identity in 17 more areas than Metsger's bill. It is rumored that Metsger has some issue with the trans community and is trying to get his bill in front of the other in hopes that conservatives may go for his instead.

Ideally, Metsger said, both gay and the transgendered communities would be covered in the same anti-discrimination laws as other minorities. Politically, the less-aggressive bill has a better chance in the Republican-controlled House, he said.

"It's the art of what's right and the art of what's doable," he said. "This is both right and doable."

Other Democrats, such as Portland Sen. Avel Gordly, want to hear all the ideas in hearings before deciding what is palatable.

Sen. Charlie Ringo, D-Beaverton, said he supports civil unions but wouldn't pass up the chance to add gender identity to laws prohibiting discrimination.

"I would support what is a strong step in the right direction," he said, "even it if is not as strong as others would like."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has ordered city agencies to recognize same-sex marriages from other states or countries in a policy shift meant to deflect anger over his refusal to issue gay marriage licenses.

The implications of Bloomberg's new policy aren't entirely clear, but include rights not covered by the city's existing domestic partnership law, including empowering gay and lesbian spouses to make medical decisions in city hospitals, officials said.

It will also allow same-sex spouses to collect "good Samaritan" rewards if a spouse is killed and confers worker's compensation death benefits to partners.

"I am pleased to confirm for you that it is the policy of the City of New York to recognize equally all marriages and civil unions lawfully entered into by other jurisdictions," wrote City Hall counsel Anthony Crowell in an April 6 letter to the Empire State Pride Agenda.

Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and Canada all issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Bloomberg has said he personally backs such marriages but will oppose legalizing them in the city until the courts have ruled decisively.

"We have no problem if people decide to go to those places" for the purpose of having the marriages recognized in New York, a city official said on condition of anonymity.

The new policy decision was an attempt to reach a compromise on the issue while gay marriage cases wend their way through the courts, the official said.

Alan Van Cappelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, said the mayor's decision was the result of his organization's pressure and puts the city in line with Buffalo, Rochester and several other cities that have adopted similar policies.

"We applaud the mayor for taking a step in the right direction," he said. "We've criticized him when he's done things we think are wrong and we're applauding him when he's done the right thing."

All four of Bloomberg's potential Democratic opponents support gay and lesbian marriages.

The state Senate on Wednesday approved a bill that would make Connecticut the first state, absent court pressure, to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples.

Senators voted 27-9 in favor of the legislation, which proponents say will likely clear the House of Representatives, possibly as early as next week. Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell has not taken a stand on the bill, but has said she supports the concept of civil unions.

"I believe that our most precious and important job is to make sure the rights of all our citizens are protected where they exist and expanded where they don't exist," said Democratic Sen. Mary Ann Handley, who is part of a group of legislators who plan to press for gay marriage in Connecticut.

An effort failed to amend the bill to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Rell said she would prefer the marriage definition was in the legislation, but would not say she would veto the bill if it weren't.

"We stand today before a portal to history," said Democratic Sen. Andrew McDonald, one of a handful of openly gay lawmakers. "I ask you to pass through it."

Republican Sen. John Kissel predicted lawmakers will be debating gay marriage next session. "It's hard to believe that the train, as it rolls down the tracks, is going to stop at this station," said Kissel, who voted against the bill.

The vote came a day after Kansas became the 18th state to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Thirteen other states passed such prohibitions last year, while Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee plan elections next year on constitutional bans.

Gay rights proponents originally hoped to pass a bill similar to the Massachusetts law that allows same-sex couples to marry. But legislative leaders determined there was more political support this session for Vermont-style civil unions, which extend the same rights and privileges of marriage, but without the marriage license. In Vermont, civil unions were approved after a lawsuit by same-sex couples.

According to the 2000 census, there are 7,400 same-sex couples in Connecticut.

Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family and an advocate for same-sex marriage, said though she wished the vote would have resolved the issue of gay marriage, she was pleased with the outcome.

"I'm very proud to live in Connecticut today," she said.

Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, called the vote "a slap in the face of democracy." (for some reason I thought the legislature was a part of our democracy? Am I wrong?)

"This is same-sex marriage by a different name," he said.

As other states pass constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, Connecticut lawmakers are moving closer toward voluntarily allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter state-recognized civil unions.

The Democrat-controlled Senate is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would make Connecticut the first state to recognize civil between same-sex couples without needing intervention from the courts to do so.

"Our responsibility as a state is to have laws that ensure the well-being of each of our citizens," said Rev. Davida Foy Crabtree, conference minister for Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ. She hopes the state will eventually allow same-sex marriage.

Proponents said Tuesday they have enough votes to pass the civil unions bill. They also believe they have enough support in the House, also controlled by Democrats.

But opponents, including the Catholic Church, believe there is still time to scuttle the bill or possibly amend it with language defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. And if the bill passes both chambers, opponents vowed to pressure Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell to veto the legislation.

"The legislators have not yet heard from the people. They're not listening," said Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. He and other opponents claim there is little to no difference between civil unions and same-sex marriage, and that most polls show that the majority of Americans oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

"Connecticut, we're the ones that are doing something far, far different than the rest of the United States," he said. "The momentum is going in the other direction."

Voters in Kansas went to the polls Tuesday to decide whether to approve a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. If approved, Kansas would become the 18th state with such a prohibition in its constitution; 13 others approved bans just last year. Alabama, South Dakota and Tennessee plan elections next year on constitutional bans, and proposals are pending in 13 other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Vermont is the only state that recognizes civil unions, while Massachusetts allows same-sex couples to marry.

Rell has said she supports the concept of civil unions. However, she has not taken a stand on the bill, which extends all rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples but without an actual marriage license.

Rell also wants the bill to include language that defines "marriage" in Connecticut as the legal union between one man and one woman, as husband and wife.

Betty Gallo, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut, said she doesn't believe there is enough support in the House or Senate to amend the bill with such language. Also, she questions why lawmakers would take such a step.

"It is not a mystery in this state as to who can and cannot marry," Gallo said.

Civil union opponents are also expected Wednesday to try and amend the bill with language requiring a nonbinding public referendum on the issue. Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca, R-Woodbury, said there are no plans to push for an amendment to Connecticut's constitution because the process could take several years.

HRC released this statement last night regarding the hateful amendment passed by voters.

‘The harm done to thousands of Kansas families is incalculable,’ said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

The Human Rights Campaign today condemned the passage of a state constitutional amendment in Kansas that defines marriage as solely between a man and a woman — denying same-sex couples the rights and protections of marriage and possibly even civil unions and other protections. Kansas now becomes the 17th state to explicitly amend its state constitution to ban marriage rights for same-sex couples.

“The harm done to thousands of Kansas families is incalculable,” said HRC President Joe Solmonese. “As voters come to understand the real consequences of this amendment, we hope they understand how wrong this amendment is.”

Of the 11 states that passed constitutional marriage amendments last November, three of them — Michigan, Utah and Ohio — are facing complicated issues ranging from whether or not the amendments strip away a state’s ability to grant domestic partner benefits to employees, or if the state can even intervene in domestic violence disputes between unmarried couples.

“These amendments are bad news for everyone, not just same-sex couples,” said Solmonese. “In some cases, they have even inhibited a state’s ability to fight domestic violence between straight, unmarried couples.”

Exit polls last November showed that roughly 60 percent of the voters support marriage, civil unions or some other form of relationship protections. In 2004, 13 state constitutional amendments were passed into law, while 15 other measures were defeated.

“The assistance from HRC was vital to the long-term efforts of Kansans for Fairness as well as this short term fight,” said Braidy O’Neal, the campaign manager for Kansans for Fairness. “While we may have lost at the ballot box today, HRC has helped us win at the water coolers, the church pews and in our neighborhoods.”

“While this is a sad day for Americans who value equal rights, we know that in the long run, the people of this nation always side with fairness, and there will come a day when all the families and couples of this nation are treated equally,” said Solmonese.

The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.

I should know - I am the youth. I posted about this topic before but now there are new details I came across. Here we go.

Are you sane? Get ready to repeat the phrase "are you fucking kidding me?" about 20 times.

(Attention span deficiency? Particularly aggravating bits are bolded, for your pleasure.)

March 31, 2005

Secretary Michael O. Leavitt
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

We the undersigned are writing to express our deep concern with the Department of Health and Human Services' recently launched website: www.4parents.gov. While all of us agree that parents should ideally be the primary sexuality educators of their children, it is incumbent upon all of us to make sure that parents receive the most accurate information and resources they need to achieve this difficult task. Unfortunately, 4parents.gov fails to meet these goals and instead, relies on fear to motivate and contains many errors and biases that undermine its intent of encouraging parent-child communication around sex and sexuality. 4parents.gov presents biased and inaccurate information as fact and does not address the needs of many youth, including sexually active youth, youth who have been or are being sexually abused, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth.

Specifically, the website dictates values to parents rather then helping them to incorporate their own values into discussions regarding sex and sexuality. For example, while discussing what parents can do if their child has become sexually active, parents are told how to convince their teens to stop having sex by telling their children that they are "worth it." No resources or suggestions are given if a parent does not convince their teen to stop being sexually active, implying that these youth are not "worth it."

Additionally, the website contains inaccurate information regarding the effectiveness of condoms and the ability of youth to properly use condoms and other forms of contraception. While www.4parents.gov states that it is easier to prevent a teen's first sexual experience rather then to increase contraceptive use, research has shown that programs that include both messages actually effectively do both. According to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, condom usage among sexually active teens has gone up almost twenty percent in the past two decades (from 46 percent to 63 percent). Messages to teens should encourage them to delay sexual activity and, when sexually active, to use condoms and other forms of contraception.

4parents.gov also contains a distressing lack of information for parents of sexually abused and assaulted youth. While it is commendable that the website includes some of the signs of sexual abuse in youth, it lists only one resource for parents and this resource does not focus specifically on sexual abuse, but rather on all forms of child abuse.

The website also fails to address the unique needs of parents with LGBTQ children. Whenever 4parents.gov discusses LGBTQ youth, it uses outdated and alienating language and ideas. For example, in the section of the website where sexual orientation is mentioned, it repeatedly uses the terms "alternative lifestyle" and "homosexuality." This language assumes that being lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) is a choice and also reduces LGB people to the mere equivalent of their sexual activity. The website also fails to include any information about transgender youth. Additionally, referrals for further information for LGBTQ youth and their parents is conspicuously absent.

The website also contains language that is clearly anti-choice in nature. For example, 4parents.gov states that "abortion complications" are one of the major reasons for infertility. In reality, less than 1 percent of woman receiving an abortion have a major complication and there is no evidence of infertility issues resulting from abortion among woman who have had the overwhelming majority of abortions. Further, the website omits the more likely causes of infertility, such as blocked fallopian tubes. In other examples:

In its definition of menstruation, the website states that "If the egg is fertilized, this lining will nourish and protect the unborn child." "Unborn child" is not medically correct language; embryo or fetus would be accurate.

The website defines abortion as "ending a pregnancy before a live birth occurs by removing the fetus or unborn baby from the uterus." Again, there is an agenda inherent in the language used.

In its definition of uterus, the glossary section states "It is also called a 'womb.'" Womb has a religious, not medical, context.
Also troubling is that only one non-governmental organization is credited as having worked with HHS to create 4parents.gov: the National Physicians Center for Family Resources (NPC). The NPC represents views that are far outside the values of mainstream Americans and the public health community. NPC has ties to right wing religious organizations, like the California Family Council, Alabama Family Alliance, and Focus on the Family and boasts of alliances with fringe medical associations and doctors such as the Alabama Physician Resource Council, the Physicians Consortium and Dr. Laura Schlesinger. Additionally, the NPC has repeatedly asserted a specious connection between abortion and increased breast cancer and has advocated for non-science-based interventions like abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. By creating the website with only one organization—and one organization that has questionable credentials in this area—HHS has dangerously narrowed the information included on 4parents.gov and in turn, shortchanged the very parents the site is meant to serve.

We respectfully request that the 4parents.gov website be immediately taken down and subject to a formal review of its content and techniques for communication and behavioral learning. This review should be done by a broadly accepted panel of experts in parent/child communication with well established credentials in this area.

We look forward to a response and to working with you further on creating a website that truly meets the needs of all parents and is based on the best available research.

Sincerely,

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS)

National Organization for Women

Cc:
Dr. Alma Golden, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs
Wade Horn, PhD, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families
Michael J. O'Grady, PhD, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Cristina Beato, M.D., Acting Assistant Secretary for Health

People can sure say some stupid shit. In this case, Rep Warren Chisum (R-Pampa, Texas) as the sponsor of a new amendment to the Texas State Constitution. The amendment, as originally worded would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but it has been expended to block civil unions as well. It also bars ANY legal situations "similar to marriage" which could void or prevent child custody contracts, living wills, rights of attorney, and other contracts gay and lesbian couples use to protect their rights. Are you fucking kidding me? Pardon my foul mouth, but you people like this are the scum of the earth.

But, despite the prohibitions in the proposed amendment, its sponsor, Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa), denied it was discriminatory.

"You can't find anyone in this amendment that's discriminated against," Chisum said. "Homosexuals coming up and saying, 'We're married, too.' That's what this protects [married couples] against."

How is banning gay couples from being parents, creating documents that cost thousands (but would come with marriage) to have lawyers put together as it is, banning marriage and banning anything that even resembles marrriage, ie civil unions. Not discriminatory, eh?

A sad day for Kansas as they become the 18th state in the U.S. to pass a hateful and discriminatory anti-gay amendments to their state constitution. For some reason I thought the constitution was meant to protect human rights - not create unequal treatment. I must have misunderstood. Absolute bullshit.

Kansas voters Tuesday accepted a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The measure passed by a better than 2 - 1 margin.

The vote was the first since 11 states adopted similar amendments in last November's general election.

The amendment defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It also declares that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage. That clause in the amendment effectively prevents the state from allowing civil unions or offering benefits to same-se couples.

Kansas law already defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman but supporters of the amendment argued it could be overturned in court.

"Putting the rights of a minority up for a popular vote is immoral," matt foreman, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force told 365Gay.com.

Gays and lesbians and other critics say the amendment will go far beyond protecting the traditional definition of marriage. They argue it will affect powers of attorney, co-adoption legal agreements and prevent companies providing health benefits to employees' unmarried partners.

Voting was steady throughout the state. The turnout was lower than for a general election but considerably higher than expected for an election that mostly chooses city councils and local school boards.

In Topeka, voter Wesley Ryder emerging from a polling station said he never thought he'd see the day when the definition of marriage was up for debate. Ryder says he voted for the amendment because it was the right thing to do.

But Amy Eisele of Kansas City, Kansas, voted against it. Eisele says government should stay out of marriage.

In Lawrence, retiree Geneva Pohl also voted against the amendment.

"I just don't think it is wise to pass an amendment to discriminate," the 81-year-old said.

Meanwhile, Tiffany Muller, an openly gay Topeka City Council member, lost her bid to retain her seat. Muller, a 27-year-old freelance grants writer, was appointed to fill a vacancy last year. The seat was won by Richard Harmon, a 48-year-old attorney.

In the March primary Muller beat Jael Phelps, a granddaughter of anti-gay pastor Fred Phelps, to face Harmon in today's vote. (story)

The California chapter of the NAACP has endorsed a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state, marking the first time an arm of the venerable civil rights group has lent its political clout to the issue that has divided the black community.

Members of the California State Conference of the NAACP narrowly voted at their convention last fall to support the pending "Religious Freedom and California Civil Marriage Protection Act," but the group did not make its position public until this week, in advance of the bill's first legislative hearing.

"In a place like California, you can not possibly work for rights if you don't work for gay rights," said Alice A. Huffman, California NAACP president. "You either believe in the rights of everyone or you are in the wrong business."

Spearheaded by Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the measure would amend a 1977 California statute that defines marriage as "a personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and woman" to read "between two persons."

It is scheduled to be heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 26.

Although other minority organizations have endorsed AB 19, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the NAACP's backing is particularly valuable for gay rights activists. They have faced criticism in some quarters for calling the marriage cause a modern civil rights struggle, as well as opposition from some black clergy who regard homosexuality as a sin.

"To have the largest civil rights group in the nation take this important and historic stand is significant in the struggle to achieve full equality for the lesbian and gay community," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of Equality California, a gay rights lobbying group. "We are humbled and gratified."

The national NAACP has not taken a position on gay marriage, although its chairman, Julian Bond, has gone on record as a supporter. NAACP spokesman John White said no other state or local chapters besides California's have come out in support of same-sex marriage.

Huffman, who serves on the NAACP's national board of directors, said that when the issue came before several hundred California members at their October convention, it prompted a lively discussion. In the end, a resolution endorsing marriage rights for same-sex couples and opposing efforts to amend the U.S Constitution to ban gay marriage passed by a slim majority, she said.

"This issue is really an issue that is not clearly understood by many segments of my community, especially the fundamentalists," said Huffman, adding that despite lingering opposition among some NAACP members, the organization would testify for Leno's bill and lobby lawmakers, if necessary.

A similar bill Leno introduced last year passed the Judiciary Committee, but Leno withdrew it once it became clear it lacked the necessary votes to make it off the Assembly floor.

Meanwhile, two other California lawmakers have introduced constitutional amendments that would elevate the state's existing definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman from statute to the constitution. Those bills are scheduled to be heard by Assembly and Senate committees on April 19, and would need to be passed by two-thirds of lawmakers to be submitted to voters.

Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church is accusing conservative elements within the worldwide Anglican faith of twisting his words to imply he said Jesus was gay.

Robinson took part in a February 13 forum on sexual issues at Christ Church in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. In his remarks Robinson said that Jesus was an unmarried, "non-traditional man", "traveled with a bunch of men" and enjoyed an especially close relationship with one of his disciples.

The forum and Robinson's remarks went generally unnoticed until Sunday when the conservative British paper The Independent accused the bishop of "suggesting that Jesus might have been homosexual."

The article was published in the aftermath of the death of Pope John Paul II and was seized upon up by conservatives within the Anglican Church who are waging a war against Robinson and gays in the Church.

"It is appalling deconstructionism from the liberal lobby which will spin even the remotest thing to turn it into a hint that Biblical figures are gay," fumed David Virtue, a conservative Anglican commentator.

"It is so utterly preposterous to imply that Jesus' relationship with John was homoerotic, but twisting the truth is the only way these people can get scriptural justification for their lifestyles. Can you imagine Calvin, Luther or Erasmus saying something like this? It is a wonder that thunder and lightning bolts don't strike Bishop Robinson down."

Robinson Tuesday denied that his remarks were meant to be interpreted as suggesting that Jesus might be gay and says that he is receiving a flood of hate messages.

“I can assure you with absolute certainty that was not my implication, and certainly not anything I ever said,” Bishop V. Gene Robinson told the New Hampshire Union Leader. “I am furious for my remarks to be interpreted in a way as to mean something I never said.”

In a recording of the speech, Robinson told the audience, “Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values and so on,” Robinson said in a recording from the forum, “this man that we follow ... was single as far as we know; who traveled with a bunch of men, although there were lots of women around; who had a disciple who was known as ‘the one whom Jesus loved’; who said my family is not my mother and father, my family are those who do the will of God — none of us like those harsh words. That’s who Jesus is, that’s who he was, at least in his earthly life.”

Later in the speech, Robinson said: “Those who would posit the nuclear family as the be-all and end-all of God’s creation probably don’t find that much in the Gospels to support that. On the other hand, I happen to think the traditional family is a wonderful thing. I’m a product of it. I dearly love my family, and I love my own family, with my own two kids. It just looks a little non-traditional. But this Jesus, when you ask who is Jesus, he was not terribly mainstream, was he?”

Robinson tells the Union Leader that pointing out that Jesus was not married with children “is a long way from saying Jesus is gay, or saying that he had sex with anyone, male or female.”

California's sweeping domestic partner law was upheld today by a panel of judges on the state Appeals Court.

Two conservative groups opposing the law, which went into effect in January, sought to have it declared unconstitutional because it gave same-sex couples the most of the rights of marriage.

The appeals court said, "Contrary to petitioners' suggestion, the Legislature has not created a 'marriage' by another name or granted domestic partners a status equivalent to married spouses.''

Two weeks ago, during arguments in the case, Robert H. Tyler, a lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund argued that the law violated Proposition 22 which effectively bans same-sex marriage.

"There is a patent on marriage," Tyler told the 3rd District Court of Appeal, adding that the "patent" is held by opposite sex couples.

Today's ruling was hailed by gay rights advocates.

"Today's ruling is another victory for the tens of thousands of lesbian and gay couples in California who now have the assurance their families will have the protections provided by this widely supported law,'' said Courtney Joslin, a lawyer for Equality California.

The domestic partner law was passed by the Legislature in 2003 and signed into law by then-Gov. Gray Davis. It went into effect January 1 this year.

The law’s protections for families headed by same-sex couples include: community property, mutual responsibility for debt, parenting rights including obligations for custody and support, and the ability to claim a partner’s body after death.

The law does not allow for joint filing for state taxes and certain other protections under state law. It also does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy.

Meanwhile, a parallel case that involves the right of same-sex couples in California to marry is heading slowly to the State Supreme Court. Last month a San San Francisco judge ruled that state laws preventing gay marriage are illegal.

The domestic partner ruling today was lauded by the National Center for Lesbian Rights which is representing same-sex couples in the marriage case.

"This is a resounding victory for fairness and equality,” said Kate Kendell , Executive Director of NCLR.

“Domestic partnership is not marriage, and the Court soundly rejected the tortured efforts of extreme rightwing groups to distort the language of Proposition 22 and to strike down validly enacted legislation protecting lesbian and gay people and their families. The voters in this state overwhelmingly support providing equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples. The notion that AB 205 violates the will of the people in this State is absurd, and the Court of Appeal rightly rejected it."

On the weekend, a rally in Bakersfield to promote amending the California constitution to bar same-sex marriage fizzled out with gay marriage supporters outnumbering demonstrators two to one.

The rally had been called by Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, as part of his "Traditional Family Values" campaign. But, as he tried to address supporters he was drowned out by about 50 gay activists with bullhorns.

-365gay.com reports

The time has come and Kansas is up against a constitutional amendment to write discimination into their state consitution. If passed, Kansas will become the 18th state in the union to take a step backwards as far as the civil rights of it's people are concerned.

After living through Oregon's Measure 36, I can imagine what they are going through. Their chances, which are worse than ours were, are not good. Out of the 13 states to pass such amendments last November, Oregon was the closest to not passing it. To all who care about the progress of civil rights and equal rights in this country and around the world - take a moment to think about these drastic steps the christian right groups are taking to push such hateful and discriminatory laws.

Please visit www.kanasansforfairness.org for more information on the organization leading the fight against it.

Ok so a little off topic. Some may call me a [rent] junkie - other's a theater fag. Whatever you want to call me is fine. RENT the musical is now in production to become a movie. The announcement was made back in November, but the streets of San Francisco are being transformed into the Big Apple. Most of the original cast will be in the movie - here are more details and images from the SF Chronicle.



With trash in gutters, graffiti on walls and extras in punk chic, San Francisco dresses up as New York for the filming of 'Rent'

New Year's Eve revelers in party hats and unisex ensembles, heavy on black leather and fanciful feather boas, amble across Sixth Street between Mission and Market. Arm in arm and obviously intoxicated, they merrily step in a mix of snow and confetti. The ball in Times Square is about to drop, and they're heading to watch it on an array of TV screens in the window of an electronics store called the Wiz. Parked by the shop is a black Ford convertible with a New York license plate. On closer examination, a nearby Mercedes, Porsche and Ford Thunderbird also boast Big Apple plates. Even fishier, the cars are all models from the early 1980s.

A passer-by might think he or she had entered the Twilight Zone late Thursday night when this scene was re-enacted. But it was only a movie set.

The stars of "Rent," including Rosario Dawson and Adam Pascal, along with a couple hundred local extras, rode herd over the last genuinely seedy streets of San Francisco for three days. Director Chris Columbus oversaw the mayhem in his usual low-key manner. When someone from the crew brought over a plastic bag filled with noisemakers for his approval, he distributed them to the extras himself.

Casually attired in khakis and an open blue-and-white checkered shirt over a T-shirt emblazoned with 1983 -- the year "Rent" is set -- he looked almost as young as when he shot "Mrs. Doubtfire" and "Nine Months" around here more than a decade ago. A pair of glasses seemed to be his only concession to age.

Columbus, who lives in San Francisco and has an office in North Beach, is the city's biggest advocate for bringing more filming to town. "When I came back from making 'Harry Potter' in London, I was shocked at the lack of film production here," he said.

"Rent" is an adaptation of the hit Broadway musical (itself loosely based on "La Boheme") about struggling young artists in New York's East Village. Because of its East Coast locale, it didn't seem an obvious fit for San Francisco. But Columbus made it work by utilizing soundstages at Treasure Island for interior scenes and dressing up Sixth and Jessie streets to look like Lower Manhattan.

Twenty truckloads of garbage were heaped onto Jessie to give it a grittier look, adding new meaning to the expression about bringing coals to Newcastle. Teamsters spent months accumulating this so-called clean rubbish from Dumpsters and garbage cans outside garment stores. Additional graffiti was painted on a brick wall papered with ads for bogus New York clubs such as the "Hate Shop," which invited people to "bring hate" to a featured event. Right before Thursday's shoot, a set decorator sprayed tempera onto a "No Parking" pole to give it a rustier appearance.

The Wiz, with its bright yellow sign proclaiming "Nobody Beats the Wiz," didn't exist until a film crew created it a few days ago. There was a new awning on Tony's Barbershop advertising "unisex cuts," which aren't quite the rage now that they were in the '80s.

To get ready for their close-ups, other stores underwent name changes so their California locations wouldn't be obvious. Sonoma Liquors became Lach's Market, and Pacific Loan morphed into Alphabet pawnshop. Louis Cruz, who works at Pacific Loan, doesn't mind the Hollywood invasion, calling it "something different." But the store has lost business because of it. Longtime customers are accustomed to pulling up in front of the store with wares to hock. The absence of parking and the presence of police and other security are keeping them away.

Residents of the area seemed pretty blase about the flurry of activity. "I live in a movie, so why should I care," said a homeless woman seeking shelter in a doughnut shop. The one advantage, she added, was that the police were too busy to harass people like her.

A production assistant on "Rent" appeared eager to step into the void. When a local who looked pretty out of it stopped to watch the big party scene, the assistant shooed him away, saying, "I told you not to hang out here," then offering him a cigarette or a dollar to leave.

Club Six underwent the biggest metamorphosis, turning into the Cat Scratch Club, which, in the script, has a raunchy clientele attracted to the idea of S&M, if not the actual acts. On Wednesday, extras waiting for the club scene to be shot lined up wearing an array of bizarre outfits, which most had assembled themselves. Showing off a bracelet embedded with ominous-looking spikes, Ezra Firestone, an 18-year-old from Walnut Creek, said he got it from a friend who had come of age in the '80s. "She has a whole box of bondage stuff.'' Rachel Rotten and Missie Mae dug out miniskirts and fishnet hose they'd worn in other, um, movies. "These are our porn names," said Rotten to clear up any confusion.

Soon the gang was ushered inside Club Six, whose lounge area had been converted into a dimly lit nightclub with a stage built just for the movie. They were handed fake bottles of beer and real cigarettes to smoke while watching Pascal, reprising the part of Roger he did on Broadway, perform onstage. Columbus, who had a couple of his red-haired daughters in tow, instructed everyone to dance in time to the music and to look as if they were having a good time.

Afterward, the extras were rewarded for their outburst of energy by a dinner break. They walked a block to the defunct Old Mint, brought back to life as a combination cafeteria for the cast and place where they got their makeup and hair done.

Meanwhile, the wardrobe department appropriated the alley behind the Mint. The stars' costumes hung outdoors on a clothes rack, each in its own plastic bag, fancy treatment for such funky getups. Dawson, in the starring role of Mimi, an HIV-infected heroin addict, was due to put on one of these outfits the next day for her big scene in an alley, where she attempts to score some drugs.

By coincidence, that same day, "Sin City," in which she plays the leader of a gang of prostitutes, opened at the Metreon a few blocks away.

A cleanup crew would soon descend on Sixth Street to remove all remnants of "Rent." The stores got their names back, and Club Six reopened as a hip, definitely 21st century club. The garbage will not be going to waste. It is being hauled back to the warehouse on Treasure Island where it had been stored. In two weeks, it will be trucked over to a deserted railway station in Oakland, which will be turned into a homeless encampment for another scene in "Rent" -- through the same movie magic that transformed Sixth Street.

This from Maine, where the debate over civil rights is getting heated. When you read this you should be able to easily see the relation to these other so called "Chirstian" groups, like that of the ones involved in passing measure 36 last year. Ech hem. Tim Nashif. Kelly Clark etc.

It is time that Michael Heath and the Christian Civic League of Maine live up to their organization's name and stop using their professed Christianity as a weapon of hate.=

The opinions I write here are informed by my lifetime of study and experience in the evangelical Christian church. The son of a minister, I graduated from both a private Baptist high school and a major evangelical Bible university in preparation for seminary and full-time ministry.

My formal education (in addition to over 20 years of Sunday School and Bible Study) includes extensive training in church history and theology.

There is no contradiction between Christian beliefs and supporting basic civil rights for all Mainers. Since the early 1990s, however, Heath has positioned himself and the Christian Civic League as the primary opponents to civil rights for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender citizens in our state.

He has also threatened certain local companies with retaliation for supporting a recent awards banquet for Equality Maine, a gay and lesbian advocacy organization.

Continuing to oppose the expansion of civil rights for all Mainers is, at best, hypocritical for Heath and his organization. At worst, it is contradictory to the scripture by which he claims to live, the best traditions of charity that live through the history of the Christian church and even perhaps the very tenets of Christian orthodoxy itself.

I applaud Gov. Baldacci for signing "An Act to Extend Civil Rights to All People Regardless of Sexual Orientation." Now that it has passed, this bill will protect the civil rights of all Maine citizens by adding "sexual orientation" to the other classes currently protected by the Maine Human Rights Act.

It will make it illegal for anyone to be denied a job, housing or credit because they are gay or lesbian. The law already protects against discrimination for issues of race, age, sex, marital status, physical and mental disability, skin color, religion, ancestry or national origin.

Michael Heath and the Christian Civic League are already on record in opposition to this bill. But, as the question of civil rights for gays and lesbians in the state of Maine once again becomes a prominent public issue, he and the Christian Civic League have an opportunity to re-evaluate their current position on civil rights for all Maine citizens.

Doing so would place them on the right side of history and in the righteous tradition of people of faith who have fought to expand, rather than to restrict, the rights that each person deserves to have.

This tradition includes Mother Theresa, who spent a lifetime caring for the poor and the dying on the streets of Calcutta, India. And it includes the Rev. Martin Luther King, who led the early struggle for black civil rights in this country, resulting in the federal Voting Rights Act guaranteeing all Americans the right to vote.

The dreams that these two professing, practicing Christians had of justice and equality for all still inspire the continuing struggle for universal social justice in our world today. Both of these Christians saw the world as it was but gave their lives to change it for the benefit of all humanity.

Unfortunately, we are all aware of so-called "Christians" throughout time who have worked to restrict and prohibit the progress of human rights in the world, also in the name of their God and their church. Recent historical examples of this include opponents to the black civil rights movement in our country.

Christians today have many examples like these in the recent past to help them decide on which side of history they ultimately wish to be remembered.

True Christians are commanded to ". . . love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your mind . . . (and) love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:37-39)."

It is the civic responsibility of all Mainers to look out for one another regardless of lifestyle or orientation. Without public repentance by Heath and his organization for their intolerance and hypocrisy, the rest of us will have good reason to doubt that the name "Christian Civic League of Maine" means anything at all.

“Springfield: a place where everyone can marry—even dudes.” A topic so popular lately that even Patty Bouvier had to get in on the action, gay marriage has become one of the most controversial issues in today’s media and political agenda.

With the debate reaching the Washington State Supreme Court on March 8, thousands of American citizens’ rights will either be compromised or upheld, based on the verdict determined in a few months. With the main arguments centered on the Defense of Marriage Act and a simple 34-word phrase in the state constitution (Article 1, Section 12) that declares that no law will ever be approved which limits the equal rights of citizens, hundreds of Americans have their hopes set on legalizing gay marriage—including me.

With the Defense of Marriage Act passed in September 1996 under the Clinton administration, not only did marriage become clearly defined as a union between a man and a woman, but states were also given the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages certified in other states as well. In this most recent case where 19 couples are suing Washington State to have the act reversed, arguments focus on the notion that it violates the state constitution, that it clearly represents prejudices towards homosexuals, and that it violates the basic rights and freedoms of individuals. As Patricia Novotny (one of many attorneys representing the couples) argues, “We are here to ask merely that Washington fulfill the promise of liberty and equality for all of its citizens.”

Attorney Bill Collins of the state attorney general’s office disagrees, dismissing the idea that gays have the same rights as everyone else to marry. And according to him, “Whether there is a fundamental right depends on the history and customs of the culture.” Rather than focusing on concrete constitutional rights and freedoms, the entire foundation of his argument rests on the social context of the issue and his own ignorant opinions. It is clearly stated in the Washington State constitution that “no law shall be passed granting to any citizen ... privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens.” So why are they even trying to dispute a statement asserting that all citizens have equal rights? Just because someone does not agree with a person’s decision does not give them the right to ignore or disregard the law and force their own judgments on others. You can argue that by legalizing gay marriage the rights of heterosexuals are being compromised, but how so? Their rights aren’t being violated; their opinions are being challenged of course, but how are their rights being limited? Legalizing gay marriage does not deny heterosexuals any of their civil liberties or privileges. The only thing it would be “violating” would be their beliefs, which might not be that bad of a thing. Maybe what people need to open up their minds is a little confrontation.

When Bush called for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in 2004, he argued that “marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.” Yet he fails to mention that the “all” he speaks of are only those who agree with him. By saying that it will weaken the “good” influence of society, he also implies that homosexuality is negative, harmful and damaging to society.

What he does not realize or even consider is that the people he’s condemning are good people, that they are humans like you and me who just want to have their rights recognized and who just want to fall in love. With phrases like “let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency” and “attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country,” Bush clearly exposes his own prejudices by referring to homosexuals as a whole as not decent, not kind, not good, and as serious offenders of society. His entire argument is contradictory; declaring that America is a “free society” and that “our government should respect every person” and that “the voice of the people must be heard,” Bush means only “the people” who agree with him and are on his side, which sounds all too familiar considering we are still killing thousands of Iraqi civilians and are on the verge of targeting Iran—but that’s a different story.

Collins also focuses on the idea that only heterosexual marriages provide children with the “optimal” environment to bring up children. OK. Why would it be an optimal environment? Because if there is a child involved in a gay marriage, homosexuality might actually be seen in a positive light? Because that child would be brought up more open-minded, less ignorant and judgmental? Yes, what a dreadful world this would become if ignorance is reduced!

According to the Seattle Times, attorneys defending the marriage law also argue that “the state has a rational reason for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, because the state has an interest in regulating relationships that produce children.” So, does that mean heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids should be, what, sentenced to a life time of Chinese water torture by the state?

Concerning the issue of religion, as Valerie Tibbett, one of 11 couples who fought the state with the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington in 2004, states, “We hope to have an end to religious values overriding civil liberties. When one group uses its numbers and religious dogma to take rights away from the rest of us, it’s not the right thing.”

As Alison Campbell, a supporter of legalizing gay marriage noted, “I support gay marriage for several reasons. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. I don’t think the institution of marriage, which I see as a religious ideal, should be put upon everyone in the country. I was raised Catholic and I believe the strongest messages in the Bible are tolerance, acceptance and compassion, not judgment.”

Besides, if people are so homophobic and concerned about the “serious consequences” of legalizing gay marriage, they might as well introduce a case against the 10 male homosexual penguins at the Bremerhaven Zoo. I wouldn’t be surprised.

This is a very good op-ed piece I came across. It is written by Karen Hsieh.

Opponents of gay marriage are pitting themselves against gay and lesbian activists as Kansas voters prepare to decide Tuesday whether to become the 18th state to add a ban to the state constitution.

Those who support the gay marriage ban have financial support from a national group and help from Sen. Sam Brownback. They argue an amendment is necessary to prevent a court in Kansas from invalidating state law. While no direct legal challenges are pending, they point to rulings in Massachusetts and California in favor of gay marriage as evidence that something similar could happen in Kansas.

But gays and lesbians and other critics worry the proposed amendment would go far beyond protecting the traditional definition of marriage. They argue it would affect companies providing health benefits to employees' unmarried partners and create other problems.

The amendment would add a new section to the constitution reaffirming Kansas' longstanding policy of recognizing only marriages between one man and one woman. It also would declare that only such unions are entitled to the "rights and incidents" of marriage.

Supporters are a little nervous about turnout, and Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh has declined to predict how many Kansans will go to the polls. Without the amendment on the ballot, participation would be light, with only municipal elections and scattered local questions.

If voters approve the proposition, Kansas will become the 18th state to add a gay marriage ban to its constitution. Thirteen, including neighboring Missouri and Oklahoma, did so last year; Nebraska enacted its constitutional ban in 2000.

"We're all concerned because of the historically low voter turnout in spring elections," said the Rev. Dennis Slavens, senior pastor at the Antioch Church in Overland Park. "We do think it will pass."

Among the amendment's critics are Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who has noted the traditional definition of marriage has been part of Kansas law since 1867.

"She believes it's unnecessary," said spokeswoman Nicole Corcoran. "She'll be voting 'no'"

But supporters contend that besides preventing a judge from overturning an existing state statue banning gay marriage, an amendment to the state constitution would boost a campaign for a federal marriage amendment.

The Knights of Columbus, the nation's largest lay organization for Roman Catholics, contributed $100,000 to the campaign for the amendment. Brownback recorded messages for three radio commercials.

"For social reasons and social policy, it's incredibly important," Brownback said. "Children flourish best in a stable marital relationship between a man and a woman."

But critics are trying to persuade Kansans that the amendment is so broad that it could hurt gays and lesbians and their families - and unmarried heterosexual couples as well.

They argue hospitals could use the amendment as an excuse to deny people the right to see or make decisions for partners, that gays' and lesbians' adoptions of children could be in danger or that legal documents designed to ensure a partner's inheritance could be voided.

They also argue the proposal sends a troubling message.

"For all time, I'm garbage, and I don't have the right to be with the person I love," said Diane Silver, a 52-year-old Lawrence writer and editor who serves as a spokeswoman for an anti-amendment group, Kansans for Fairness. "It's an attempt to make our lives harder. This is about hurting people."

Slavens said opponents are wrong about both the amendment's scope and purpose.

"We just want to protect what has been tried and tested," he said. "It really needs to happen because of the disintegrating morality in America."

Julian Bond, the board chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, sees gay rights as civil rights.

"But a better way to put it is I support civil rights for everyone," he said during an interview in Richmond last night before Equality Virginia, a leading gay-rights group in the state, presented him the Equality Commonwealth Award, its top honor.

Some people, Bond said, are "hostile to the very fact of homosexuality. . . . They think it's something you decide to do or not. But that's not true."

One's sexuality is "immutable," he said.

Asked if the NAACP supports gay rights, Bond said, "We supported a gay-rights march in 1993. Granted, that was some years ago, but our board passed a resolution in February in support of civil rights for all people."

Bond said America's civil-rights movement is older than the marches, sit-ins and other activism of the 1960s. "It started in 1619 when the first African-Americans came to Virginia. But I joined the movement in 1960, when I was a college student."

While a student at Morehouse College in Atlanta, Bond was a founder of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and a leader of protests and voter-registration campaigns across the South.

Asked the status of civil rights today, Bond said, "The legal battles have largely been won but are still under attack. If you look at school integration, for example, it's been 51 years since the Supreme Court said segregated schools were illegal. But we know that within blocks of where we are, there are segregated schools."

Bond, 65, and his wife now live in Washington, and he is a professor of modern American history at the University of Virginia. After last night's interview in the Marriott Hotel downtown, they walked across Fifth Street to the Greater Richmond Convention Center for Equality Virginia's second-annual Commonwealth Dinner.

In prepared remarks for the several hundred people at the dinner, Bond said, "At the NAACP, we were proud to have opposed the federal marriage amendment and its wrong-headed state versions, and we oppose efforts to write bigotry into Virginia's constitution, too.

"I always thought Virginia was for lovers, not against them."