03.13.07
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 8:58 am by pikapp44
Senior aides to the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday that Marine Gen. Peter Pace won’t apologize for calling homosexuality immoral — an opinion that gay advocacy groups deplored.
In a newspaper interview Monday, Pace had likened homosexual acts to adultery and said the military should not condone it by allowing gays to serve openly in the armed forces.
“General Pace’s comments are outrageous, insensitive and disrespectful to the 65,000 lesbian and gay troops now serving in our armed forces,” the advocacy group Servicemembers Legal Defense Network said in a statement on its Web site.
The group has represented some of the thousands dismissed from the military for their sexual orientation.
Pace’s senior staff members said Tuesday that the general was expressing his personal opinion and had no intention of apologizing. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not allowed to speak on the record.
Rep. Martin Meehan, who has introduced legislation to repeal the current policy, criticized Pace’s comments.
“General Pace’s statements aren’t in line with either the majority of the public or the military,” said the Massachusetts Democrat. “He needs to recognize that support for overturning (the policy) is strong and growing” and that the military is “turning away good troops to enforce a costly policy of discrimination.”
In an interview Monday with the Chicago Tribune, Pace was asked about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve if they keep their sexual orientation private and don’t engage in homosexual acts.
Pace said he supports the policy, which became law in 1994 and prohibits commanders from asking about a person’s sexual orientation.
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace was quoted as saying in the newspaper interview. “I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way.”
Pace, a 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.
“As an individual, I would not want (acceptance of gay behavior) to be our policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that if we were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with somebody else’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior,” he said.
The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.
Louis Vizcaino, spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said Pace’s comments were “insulting and offensive to the men and women … who are serving in the military honorably.”
“Right now there are men and women that are in the battle lines, that are in the trenches, they’re serving their country,” Vizcaino said. “Their sexual orientation has nothing to do with their capability to serve in the U.S. military.”
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” was passed by Congress in 1993 after a firestorm of debate in which advocates argued that allowing homosexuals to serve openly would hurt troop morale and recruitment and undermine the cohesion of combat units.
John Shalikashvili, the retired Army general who was Joint Chiefs chairman when the policy was adopted, said in January that he has changed his mind on the issue since meeting with gay servicemen.
“These conversations showed me just how much the military has changed, and that gays and lesbians can be accepted by their peers,” Shalikashvili wrote in a newspaper opinion piece.
Permalink
03.12.07
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 9:14 pm by pikapp44
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday he considers homosexuality to be immoral and the military should not condone it by allowing gay personnel to serve openly, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Marine Gen. Peter Pace likened homosexuality to adultery, which he said was also immoral, the newspaper reported on its Web site.
“I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way,” Pace told the newspaper in a wide-ranging interview.
Pace 1967 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, said he based his views on his upbringing.
He said he supports the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” in which gay men and women are allowed in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private. The policy, signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, prohibits commanders from asking about a person’s sexual orientation.
“I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts,” Pace said.
The newspaper said Pace did not address concerns raised by a 2005 government audit that showed some 10,000 troops, including more than 50 specialists in Arabic, have been discharged because of the policy.
With Democrats in charge of Congress, Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., has introduced legislation to reverse the military’s ban on openly serving homosexuals.
___
Permalink
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 3:51 pm by pikapp44
Same-sex partners and other unmarried couples would be able to adopt children together under a bill being considered by Colorado lawmakers.
The measure is sponsored by Democrats Alice Madden of Boulder, who is house majority leader, and Sen. Jennifer Veiga of Denver.
Under current Colorado law, individual gay parents may adopt but not same-sex couples. Married couples are allowed to adopt each other’s children from previous relationships under stepparent adoption, said Pat Steadman, a lobbyist for Equal Rights Colorado, which is backing the bill.
The group promotes the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.
Gay parents would have been allowed to adopt as couples under Referendum I, which voters rejected last fall. The measure also would have allowed gay couples to file as domestic partners with the state.
The new bill would allow gay couples and any other two people who aren’t married to adopt. For example, Steadman said, a grandparent who is raising a child may want another adult who is helping with the child’s upbringing to also be named as a legal parent to take over in case the grandparent dies.
Steadman said most gay couples who would take advantage of the bill, if it passes, are already raising a child together, but only one is legally recognized as the parent, with legal rights to take the child to the doctor and consent to medical treatment.
If both partners are allowed to adopt a child, Steadman said, the child could qualify for health and life insurance from either partner if one dies.
“After all, two parents are better than one,” he said.
Permalink
03.08.07
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 4:18 pm by pikapp44
The current federal hate-crimes law, enacted nearly 40 years ago, covers only bias attacks based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion. In the case of a hate crime based on sexual orientation or gender identity, our government’s hands are tied: It doesn’t have the authority to go after perpetrators of anti-LGBT violent crime. It’s time to update the law to protect everyone.
We know that some people in the community are skeptical about fighting for a hate-crimes law. We’re sympathetic and understand that after so many years of pushing for this law, they want to move on to other issues like marriage and repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Gaining civil rights, however, is a step-by-step process.
First, the federal government gains the authority to prosecute anti-LGBT hate crimes. No matter how awful the crime, nor how compelling the evidence, the federal government simply cannot act without this law.
Second, this legislation will put crucial federal resources at the disposal of state and local agencies and equip local law enforcement officers with the tools they need to seek justice. There have been numerous hate-crimes cases where local jurisdictions simply lacked the full resources to prosecute the guilty. As an example, when Matthew (Judy’s son) was murdered in Laramie, Wyo., in 1998, the town had to scramble financially to handle the investigation, prosecution, and security required. The case ended up costing this small locality of roughly 28,000 people about $150,000, and the county sheriff’s department was ultimately forced to furlough five deputies to save money. The police department also incurred about $25,000 in overtime costs. Federal assistance would have been a huge help.
This year represents the best opportunity we have ever had to address anti-LGBT violence. A strong, bipartisan group of senators and representatives is going to fight hard for us, but we must do our part too. We must mobilize and lobby all of our senators and representatives. Please call, write, or schedule a visit with your elected officials as soon as possible. We must sway undecided politicians, rally our allies, and combat the right wing’s misinformation campaign.
Permalink
Posted in Advocate Articles, Gay Rights at 2:22 pm by pikapp44
The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to suspend a dress code at a suburban San Diego high school that was challenged by a student who wore a T-shirt with anti-gay language.
Tyler Chase Harper sued the Poway Unified School District in 2004 to overturn a policy calling for schools to reduce or prevent “hate behavior,” including threats and attacks based on sexual orientation.
Harper had been pulled from class for wearing a T-shirt that read, “Homosexuality is shameful” on the front and, “Be ashamed. Our school has embraced what God has condemned,” on the back.
His lawsuit claimed the policy violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.
In an 8-1 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed with a federal judge that Harper lost his ability to challenge the policy when he graduated last year.
Last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the policy to remain in effect pending the outcome of the lawsuit and sharply criticized the student’s challenge.
The appellate judges said the T-shirt was “injurious to gay and lesbian students and interfered with their right to learn” and that it “collides with the rights of other students in the most fundamental way.” They said Harper was unlikely to prevail on claims that the policy limited free speech, they said.
The Supreme Court ruling Monday also set aside the appellate ruling. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented.
In January, a federal judge in San Diego upheld the school’s policy in a ruling on the broad merits of the case.
U.S. District Judge John Houston considered the matter on behalf of Harper’s sister, Kelsie, who is still a student at the school. The case is now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Jack Sleeth, a school district attorney, said the order had no impact on the case or school policy but would prevent attorneys from citing the appellate court decision in other lawsuits.
The Alliance Defense Fund, which represents Harper, said the order strengthens its case by setting aside an “extremely dangerous” appellate court ruling that allowed the school to “censor the Christian point of view, while permitting students to speak out in support of homosexual behavior.”
Permalink
Next entries »