12.30.06
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 11:25 am by pikapp44
A Democratic congressman from Massachusetts said on Wednesday that he will reintroduce a bill to repeal the military’s ban on openly gay soldiers. Rep. Marty Meehan said that 112 members of Congress from both parties have signed on to cosponsor the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would end the armed services’ “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
“I’ll be working tirelessly to bring new members of both parties onboard our campaign to lift the ban,” Meehan said in an end-of-the-year letter to constituents released by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which advocates for gays in the military. “I will also be asking for the first congressional hearings on gays in the military since 1993. I know that when my colleagues see and understand the evidence against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” they will be motivated to join me in the fight for repeal.”
A recent Zogby International poll showed that about three fourths of all members of the military who are serving in Iraq or recently returned home say they don’t care if someone in their unit is gay. And if gays were allowed to serve openly, the respondents said, it would have had no effect on their decision to enlist.
Since the ban on gays serving openly was implemented a decade ago, more than 11,000 men and women have been dismissed under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” according to the Government Accountability Office. A study conducted last year for the SLDN showed that the U.S. military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if gays and lesbians in the military were able to be open about their sexual orientation.
“We cannot afford to keep losing the talent and contribution of patriotic gay Americans who want to serve,” Meehan wrote. “Our military success depends on having the best and brightest Americans in our armed forces. The best and brightest includes lesbian and gay Americans too.”
Permalink
12.27.06
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 6:15 pm by pikapp44
Massachusetts’s highest court on Wednesday said it had no authority to force lawmakers to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage, angry that lawmakers failed to act on the proposed amendment in November, had sued, asking the court to clarify whether the state’s constitution required lawmakers to vote.
In its ruling the supreme judicial court wrote, “Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the legislature’s indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties.” The same court had ruled in 2003 that the state constitution guaranteed gays the right to marry.
Opponents of same-sex marriage had collected 170,000 signatures to place an amendment on the 2008 ballot that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but their effort still needed the support of a quarter of the legislature. Lawmakers in November voted to recess rather than vote on the question.
Same-sex marriage opponents, including Gov. Mitt Romney, filed suit, arguing that the people’s will was being thwarted and that lawmakers were violating their right to petition for a constitutional amendment. The court said that drafters of the state provision that allows for citizen petitions “did not intend a simple majority of the joint session to have the power effectively to block progress of an initiative.”
Permalink
12.22.06
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 2:20 pm by pikapp44
Pope Benedict XVI touched on many of the themes close to his heart, including celibacy in the priesthood, dialogue between religions, and his opposition to legal rights for gay and unmarried couples in a year-end speech Friday in Vatican City.
Permalink
12.21.06
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 5:30 pm by pikapp44
New Jersey’s governor signed legislation Thursday giving gay couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage allowed under state law—but not the title. When the law goes into effect February 19, New Jersey will become the third state offering civil unions to gay couples and the fifth allowing gay couples some version of marriage.
Connecticut and Vermont also offer civil unions for gay couples, while Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry, and California has domestic partnerships that bring full marriage rights under state law. Hawaii and Maine also offer some form of legal recognition to gay couples.
”We must recognize that many gay and lesbian couples in New Jersey are in committed relationships and deserve the same benefits and rights as every other family in this state,” Gov. Jon S. Corzine said in signing the legislation.
The legislature passed the civil unions bill on December 14 in response to a state supreme court order that gay couples be granted the same rights as married couples. The court in October gave lawmakers six months to act but left it to them to decide whether to call the unions ”marriage” or something else.
Gay couples welcomed the civil unions law, but some argued that not calling the relationship ”marriage” created a different, inferior institution. The civil unions law grants gay couples adoption, inheritance, hospital visitation, and medical decision-making rights as well as the right not to testify against a partner in state court.
They won’t, however, be entitled to the same benefits as married couples in the eyes of the federal government because of 1996 law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay partners won’t be able to collect deceased partners’ Social Security benefits, for example, said family lawyer Felice T. Londa, who represents many same-sex couples.
Donna Harrison of Asbury Park, who has been with her partner, Kathy Ragauckas, for nine years, isn’t exactly celebrating the bill signing, though she said she and Ragauckas will probably get a civil union certificate. ”Although I think they provide some benefit, it is a different treatment of human beings,” she said.
The gay rights group Garden State Equality has promised to push lawmakers to change the terminology to ”marriage.” Others are considering lawsuits to force full recognition of same-sex marriage. The New Jersey bill creates a commission that will regularly review the law and recommend possible changes.
Corzine, a Democrat, said that seems a reasonable approach, but he said calling the arrangement a civil union rather than marriage is preferable. ”For most people marriage has a religious connotation, and for many there is a view that that term is not consistent with the teachings of their religious belief,” the governor said. ”So there is not democratic support in the broader society for that label, even though there is strong support for equal protection under the law.”
Social conservative groups and lawmakers opposed the measure, reasoning it brings gay relationships too close to marriage, but it easily passed the legislature. Some have vowed to push to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but Democrats who control the legislature said such proposals won’t be heard.
The three-day waiting period required by the law is the same as with marriage licenses. Licenses will be valid for 30 days, and ceremonies can be officiated by anyone who performs weddings, including clergy and mayors. As with marriages, civil unions will have to be witnessed by one additional adult.
Permalink
12.20.06
Posted in Advocate Articles at 1:03 pm by pikapp44
Hoffman, a former Wall Street attorney, gave up a lucrative practice in 2002 to head the Mayor’s Alliance, a coalition of over 100 no-kill shelters and rescue groups, including Forte’s Animal Haven. Hoffman and Sullivan wrote a letter to the newly elected Bloomberg administration in 2001 outlining opportunities to improve New York City’s policies toward animals. That led to the formation of the Mayor’s Alliance and, in December 2002, a landmark agreement to create a no-kill city by 2008. “The idea was to bring together the many rescue groups in the city that were doing good work but were struggling,” says Sullivan, 56, whose girlfriend, Robin Bernstein, rescued their pit bull Rose from almost certain death after the dog was found abandoned and tied to a tree in Washington, D.C.—the District’s humane society classifies pit bulls as “problem” animals and routinely destroys them, according to a 2005 report by the George Washington University Law School.
In the four years since the Mayor’s Alliance was formed, with the help of a $15.5 million grant from the pet rescue foundation Maddie’s Fund, New York City has seen a 25% decrease in euthanasia, a dramatic increase in adoptions, and an increase in funding for its shelters, some of which compete with pet stores by offering trendy services for pampered pets while showcasing hundreds of adoptable animals.
At press time Animal Haven was slated to open New York’s largest retail adoption center on December 12. In addition to grooming, training, and accoutrements for pets, the 7,000-square-foot storefront located in SoHo will also showcase hundreds of adoptable animals. “We get upset that people buy animals from pet stores. So why aren’t we competing with them?” says Forte, who shuttles between homes in Manhattan and upstate New York with his partner, Ben Geboe, and their four rescue animals: three dogs and one cat.
Palenzuela, who is pushing for no-kill shelters in Los Angeles, encourages gays and lesbians to create pet trusts with their partner as a trustee, to ensure their animals don’t wind up being euthanized in a shelter. Laws in 35 states—including New York and California—and the District of Columbia allow owners to establish trusts for their pets, though the degree of enforceability varies from state to state. “Too often, people rely on a verbal promise,” says Rob Blizard, director of donor marketing and outreach for the Humane Society of the United States. In case of death or disability, Blizard says an enforceable trust gives the court the right to monitor the process and ensure that the money is being spent for the animal’s care.
Caring for unwanted animals is a great way to make things better for everyone, Hoffman says. “The better we treat our animals, the more humane and caring society we are.”
Permalink
12.14.06
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 3:43 pm by pikapp44
Under pressure from New Jersey’s highest court to offer marriage or its equivalent to gay couples, the Legislature voted Thursday to make New Jersey the third state to allow civil unions.
Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine said he would sign the measure, which would extend to same-sex couples all the rights and privileges available under state law to married people. The bill passed the Assembly 56-19 and the Senate 23-12.
Massachusetts is the only state to allow gay marriage. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, and California has domestic partnerships that work similarly.
Among the benefits gay couples would get under New Jersey’s civil unions bill are adoption rights, hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights.
Gay rights advocates welcomed the bill as a step forward but said they would continue to push for the right to marry.
The bill was drafted in response to a landmark New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in October that required the state to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to gay couples within 180 days. The court, in its 4-3 ruling, left it up to the Legislature to decide whether to call such unions “marriages” or something else.
Gay rights groups have argued that not calling the arrangement “marriage” creates a different, and inferior, institution. Some conservatives argued against civil unions altogether, and Republican Sen. Robert Singer said Thursday he wanted to add a provision to the bill defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Steven Goldstein, director of the gay rights advocacy organization Garden State Equality, said he expects gay couples to be able to get married in New Jersey within two years.
Permalink
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Portal at 12:47 pm by pikapp44
An article on AfterElton.com by Brian Juergens prompted an NBC publicist to notify readers that Zach, Thomas Dekker’s character on the NBC show Heroes, is not gay. The article theorizes that either Dekker’s management or NBC itself pulled the plug on any story lines that would involve addressing Zach’s sexual orientation.
The network has come under fire for portraying the character as a gay teen in a small town, specifically on his MySpace Web page where he declares his sexual orientation as “not sure.”
Zach is the sidekick to Texas high school cheerleader Claire Bennet, played by Hayden Panettiere. He seems relatively unphased by his peers’ gay-baiting but never admits to being gay or straight.
The show’s creator, Tom Kring, responded in an e-mail to the claims, saying that he regrets that the character seemed to be gay because he is not.
“We apologize for misleading the audience and wish that we could have handled things better on our end,” Kring wrote. “But making a TV show is often a very imprecise business. As you stated, Heroes is a big sprawling drama, and there is no reason to believe that a gay character will not be represented on our show in the future. It is my hope that if we do, we do it with honesty and dignity. That will certainly be our attempt.”
Permalink
12.13.06
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 2:40 pm by pikapp44
Conservatives concerned about inconsistencies in Republican Mitt Romney’s record on same-sex marriage and abortion said the Massachusetts governor has some explaining to do. For now, at least, the potential presidential candidate is not talking.
The governor’s office issued a brief statement last weekend amid reports of a 1994 letter in which Romney, then a U.S. Senate candidate, pledged to be a more effective champion for gay causes than his opponent, liberal Democrat Edward M. Kennedy. Last week’s statement said the governor has been a “champion of traditional marriage.”
At a gathering of San Diego County, Calif., Republicans on Monday night, Romney brushed aside a question from the Associated Press. “Thanks, I have other people to talk to right now,” he said.
An adviser to Romney’s political action committee, Barbara Comstock, issued a statement Tuesday night saying the governor defends traditional marriage and opposes “unjust discrimination against anyone” but does not see a need for new or special legislation. Romney also agrees with President Bush’s decision to maintain the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” regarding gay service personnel, she said.
Such responses may not satisfy conservatives, who hold critical sway in the primaries and could opt for other possible candidates with strong records on social issues such as Kansas senator Sam Brownback and Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Several conservative leaders are seeking answers from Romney.
“I am concerned, and I do think he needs to explain this,” said Paul Weyrich, chief executive officer of the Free Congress Foundation. “Because he either is or isn’t in favor of the homosexual agenda, and we need to know before we would get involved in his candidacy.”
Richard Land, a top member of the Southern Baptist Convention, was among a group of evangelicals who met with Romney at his home in October. Land said Tuesday, “Christians believe in conversion, and so they’re open to listen, but when a candidate 12 years ago says he is more of a champion on these issues than Ted Kennedy, that needs to be explained.”
Tom Minnery, spokesman for Focus on the Family, the Colorado-based evangelical organization, said homosexuality is an emotional issue. “You’ve got to be committed to your position for it or against it or you’ll be swayed, so he’s got a lot of explaining to do,” Minnery said of the governor.
Romney has repeatedly stated his opposition to same-sex marriage, but in the 1994 letter sent in the final weeks of his failed Senate campaign against Kennedy he cited his sensitivity to the concerns of Log Cabin Republicans, the gay Republican group. “As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gays and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent,” Romney wrote.
During that same campaign, Romney also stated his personal opposition to abortion but said he would not seek to change state abortion laws. As proof, he cited his mother’s own 1970 candidacy for the U.S. Senate as an abortion rights supporter.
During Romney’s 2002 gubernatorial campaign, supporters distributed fliers at a gay pride parade in Boston extending the candidate’s well wishes.
Weyrich said other conservatives had complained that Romney did not do enough this year to force the Massachusetts legislature into voting on a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Massachusetts is now the only U.S. state allowing same-sex marriage.
Despite the governor’s protests, the Democratic majorities in the Massachusetts house and senate used a parliamentary tactic to recess rather than vote. Romney has now joined a group asking the supreme judicial court, the same group of jurists who in November 2003 made Massachusetts the first state to allow same-sex marriage, to force a vote or else order the question onto the state’s 2008 ballot.
Prior to Romney’s appearance in San Diego on Monday, members of the conservative community circulated e-mails criticizing the governor for being a RINO: Republican In Name Only.
Permalink
12.12.06
Posted in Gay Rights at 3:48 pm by pikapp44
Barack Obama, the lanky and charismatic U.S. senator from Illinois, is a national, if not global, phenomenon. He is being touted as the miracle elixir for a nation divided along the fault lines of race, religion, and class.
And also a nation divided along the battle lines of Red State versus Blue State.
Obama delivered a visionary keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, when he stated, “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America. There’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America. There’s the United States of America…. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states,” made him America’s great hope for a better future.
As a supposedly bipartisan politician who understands and reconciles opposing views, and a non-doctrinal Christian whose personal identity and life journey shaped his lens to include those on the margins, why then, I ask, is this presidential hopeful not united with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer voters on the issue of marriage equality?
“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,” Obama wrote in his recent memoir, The Audacity of Hope.
But Obama’s audacity is not only his unwillingness to support the issue, but also his misunderstanding and misuse of the term “gay marriage.” The terminology “gay marriage” not only stigmatizes and stymies our efforts for marriage equality, but it also suggests that LGBT people’s marriages are or would be wholly different from those of heterosexuals, thus altering its landscape, if not annihilating the institution of marriage entirely.
But Obama’s remarks in a recent interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press spoke somewhat encouragingly about granting LGBTQ couples not marriage equality but certainly civil union rights.
However, having lived outside of America during its turbulent decades of the Jim Crow era and legal segregation, Obama may not know on a visceral and lived experienced level what those decades had been like for African-Americans.
But he ought to know, as a civil rights attorney, that granting LGBTQ Americans only the right to civil unions violates our full constitutional right as well as reinstitutionalizes the 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson. As a result of that decision, the “separate but equal” doctrine became the rule of law until it was struck down in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.
However, Obama doesn’t understand that regardless of one’s gender expression or sexual orientation, we want equal status to be institutionalized within our marriages as well.
Although not a cradle Christian, Christianity became Obama’s newfound religious identity late in his life. And his affinity to conservative Christian beliefs not only informs his decision on the issue of marriage equality, but it also solidifies his decision about us in a community of believers like himself.
“I must admit that I may have been inflected with society’s prejudices and predilections and attribute them to God, ” Obama writes in his book. “My work with pastors and lay people deepened my resolve to lead a public life. … I had no community or shared traditions in which to ground my most deeply held beliefs. The Christians with whom I worked recognized themselves in me; they saw that I knew their Book and shared their values and sang their songs.”
Religion has become a peculiar institution in the theater of American politics. Although its Latin root, religio, means to bind, it has served as a legitimate power in binding people’s shared hatred in both red states and blue states, both intentionally and unintentionally.
Obama’s The Audacity of Hope is not a must-read for LGBT voters because he fails to fully comprehend or sincerely commit to the issue of social justice for all Americans. He does not tackle head-on how the religious rhetoric of this political era has played an audacious role in discrimination against LGBT people, leaving us with little to no hope, his rhetoric included.
“In years hence, I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history. I don’t believe such doubts make me a bad Christian, ” Obama writes.
As LGBT voters, our job is neither to judge nor vote for Obama on whether he is a good Christian. It is, however, for us to judge and vote on whether he is a good statesman.
If he should run for president, he wouldn’t get my vote. By the Reverend Irene Monroe
Permalink
12.11.06
Posted in Advocate Articles at 6:41 pm by pikapp44
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s beliefs on gay issues are under scrutiny after the re-emergence of a letter he wrote during his 1994 run for U.S. Senate in which he promised a gay Republicans group he would be a stronger advocate for gays than Sen. Edward Kennedy.
Permalink
« Previous entries