"They want to be visible; they want to be accepted as normal people living a lifestyle that should be accepted as normal. That's the problem. If they weren't pushing so hard to be out and accepted, I don't think anybody would care," the senator [William "Pete" Knight, R-Palmdale] told The [L.A.] Times in a 1999 interview.

And Pete Knight's son was just married to his ten-year partner, in SF. What a great Dad Pete Knight must be!

Nat

Even when we win -- and we will -- the forces of evil will continue to struggle. So it's a never-ending battle. wink

The vote so far has been procedural, to finalize the wording of the "compromise" amendment: "Civil unions for same sex couples are established hereunder and shall provide entirely the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that are afforded to couples married under Massachusetts law. All laws applicable to marriage shall also apply to civil unions."

Now the amendment itself will be voted on -- after plenty more speechifying, no doubt...

Edited to add: The vote has now been postponed until March 29.

[ March 11, 2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

What Gamecock wrote at the foot of the last page. Separate but equal is a folly; history has taught us that very clearly. The moderate right and left might want us to be bought off with it, but that would be disastrous. Cavaet: unless civil unions are exactly the same, all 1,049 laws, including ALL federal laws, then I don't care. But nothing I've read indicates that the compromises offered will be like that.

Pete Knight, short version: If you queers would just shut up and be invisible, we won't hate you. Deal?

Here's Joe Lazzaro and David Knight (l-r), helping to end Western Civilization as we know it:


[ March 11, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Great photo, Jim Allen, though it's kind of big. Anyways, just so we, and W's right-wing supporters don't forget where he stands on the issue, he reaffirmed his position just yesterday:

NY Times: Bush assures evangelicals of his commitment to ban gay marriage

Interesting commentary from a religious scholar familiar with Baylor, who suggests that "If the Bush campaign is searching for the 4 million evangelical voters who stayed home during the 2000 election, they should know that the editorial board of the Baylor Lariat, which voted 5 to 2 to support gay marriage, is not unrepresentative of the views of younger evangelicals.

"These students are more likely to place some distance between their religious beliefs and their political views than their parents and grandparents did. The editor of the Lariat explained that the board's decision was based on legal grounds not moral ones. Putting it more bluntly, one young man at the evangelical Wheaton College told me, 'Christianity should never be reduced to politics.'"

Marilyn Musgrave is a real piece of shi... work, hunh? The LA Times published this Musgrave profile, Leading Foe of Gay Marriage Shows Mettle. (Mettle? How about spunk? Does the little lady show some spunk with her mettle? )

I loved Barney Frank's take on her, "There are some who think that homosexuality is immoral and evil — I think that's where she's at politically," in reply to which she accused him of "arrogance and lack of respect for others." (Funny, that's precisely the description that occurred to me as I watched Musgrave rudely interrupt, bait and snarl at Gavin Newsom on Larry King Live. She's got the disdainful, judgemental right-wing-zealot scowl down to a T.) Of course, a few paragraphs earlier in the Times article, the homophobic zealot Robert H. Knight comments about Musgrave, "You either think homosexuality is wrong or you don't." And you either base your political "career" on bigotry, sanctimony and hypocrisy, or you're not Marilyn Musgrave.

Who's running against her this year? We may need to make a little contribution to her opponent...

[ March 15, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: redsoxbreath ]

Speaking of Colorado, since Benedict Arnold, I mean, Ben Nighthorse Campbell has announced he's stepping down, the Democrats could pick up another Senate seat. (What are Udall's chances?) Let's make it a 2-for-1--get Muskrat, I mean Musgrave, out too!

I would like to nominate Denver Fan for US House of Representative. He lives in the Muskrat district, and I think he could put her in her place! Do I have a 2nd?

On Wednesday the Kansas State Senate will vote on changing the constitution for the state to ban same-sex marriage. It passed the House a couple of weeks ago, by a vote or two, to meet the 66% needed. Hopefully 2/3 of the Senate will not pass it as well. If it does it will be on the November ballot, where only 50% will be needed to make the amendment. I individually e-mailed all 40 senators earlier tonight. I don't know if it will help, but I made the effort to make my views known.

Even if it is a single issue, the organizing principle of the LCR is that they are gay Republicans. Not just Republicans, but GAY Republicans. For a group like LCR there should be no secondary issue that allows them to be distracted from the core principle of their organization, equality of gay people.

Here in Tennessee, Republican "lawmakers" have introduced a proposal to ban civil unions. It's supposed to go before a Senate subcommittee. I've already emailed my House representative, and I'll email the state senator for my district in a few minutes.

God. For every step forward, it seems we get knocked back about five. Never once have I heard a coherent argument against gay marriage or civil unions. This Clem(becile) says that the state's not trying to regulate behavior?? Refusing to recognize civil unions or gay marriage as well as denying the rights and privileges that pertain to those forms of union DOES regulate behavior. It regulates the behavior of companies that may feel that they don't have to honor domestic partnerships. It regulates the behavior of companies that may feel that Tennessee is too conservative a state in which to locate--thus, TN loses out on jobs.

Ok, I'm off the soapbox..and on to email the state senator as well as the head of the Domestic Relations subcommittee.

[quote]I individually e-mailed all 40 senators earlier tonight. I don't know if it will help, but I made the effort to make my views known.QUOTE]

Out of the 40 e-mails I sent, I have received 2 responses. One was just saying that he wished he could respond to each e-mail personally, but had received 152 e-mails on the same-sex issue. He did not say how he was going to vote.

The other reply was from Senator Downey. She writes,
[QUOTE]Thanks for your input.

We do have a law in the Kansas statutes that defines marriage as only
between a man and a woman. The Federal Defense of Marriage Act
specifically provides that Kansas cannot be required under the full
faith and credit clause of the Federal Constitution to recognize gay
marriages allowed elsewhere when such marriages are contrary to public
policy expressed in Kansas law.

I did vote for the current law but it seems that with the appearance of
this new effort, supporters are most interested in election-year
politics.

Senator Christine Downey[/quote]Neither one of these are my Senator, but some seem to know that it is proper to respond.

This is just a damn shame...

Pro-family group mired in divorce

A pre-nup! eek! I'm glad they didn't expect it to work out from the very beginning. Sanctity indeed!

[MIB] Oh the Hypocrisy! [MIB]

It's only a matter of time before the anti-gay marriage legislation fails too:

I got a two-page letter from Senator Warner yesterday, in response to my email to him asking him to oppose the constitutional amendment. Of course it was a form letter that he is sending everyone who emailed him on the subject, but at least he responded. He said about 250 times (ok 3 times but it seemed like more) that he thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman. However, he went on to say that the Constitution should be amended only for very limited and important purposes, that DOMA should take care of this, and he will weigh carefully the matter before deciding. In other words, he left the door cracked to vote against it. And he closed with "but marriage should be only between a man and a woman."

I love this state, we have a new bill before the governor. "Last week, the Virginia General Assembly passed the “Marriage Affirmation Act” introduced by Delegate Bob Marshall (R-Manassas). If this bill becomes law, it will prohibit Virginia from recognizing civil unions, domestic partnership contracts or partnership agreements that “bestows any of the benefits of marriage”.

This bill might prohibit many of the few protections that gay and lesbian couples currently have, from voiding medical directives and stripping hospital visitation rights to prohibiting private domestic partner health insurance benefits for those companies currently able to provide them. In fact, since it so broadly written, it could have hundreds, if not thousands, of unintended consequences and would likely face endless rounds of litigation on both sides of the debate at great cost to the Commonwealth."

This is really really scary, I hope that the Dem governor in our state will veto it, and am writing him to express my views.

And now I read on 365gay.com that GLBT Federal workers have lost job protection.

Which means that any red-necked Republican boss, who doesn't like "fags" working for him, or her, can fire them. No recompense, no recourse.

This is like it's back in the 1950's.

And with the broad based legislation being passed prohibiting any form of protections in a lot of states, it scares me that intolerance, and violence will start.

But oh no........... MIB has said in the past that since I'm Canadian, I don't know what I'm talking about. maybe so, BUT!!

I don't want to sound like a pessimist, but I have this feeling in the pit of my stomache.

Things are gonna get a HELL of a lot worse before they get better.

I think the average American will need to SEE the intolerance, bigotry, prejudice and violence that we face, in order to turn away from it.

It hope it doesn't come to that, but I'm no longer sure.

The "Gay Target" just gets bigger and bigger with the campaign in full swing.

Wedge issue with gusto!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid...ign_2&printer=1


"He (Rove) also said the gay marriage issue is beginning to help Bush, because polls are starting to shift in Bush's direction, with more people opposed to same-sex unions. But Rove implored the activists to add their voices to Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to ensure that Bush is not perceived as standing alone on the issue."

Yet another proud day for Log Cabin, "inclusion wins."

If I'm not mistaken, there is still an Executive Order issued by Clinton that protects federal workers (like me) from discrimination based on sexual orientation. If the President decides to revoke that, I'm going to become very scared. I've already quit going to the meetings of the gay group here at work.

In that case, the terrorists have won.

From that article:

"Rove headlines one of the last announced Bush-Cheney fund-raisers, an event in Alexandria, Va., on Thursday."

I'll fire up my police scanners to see where all the action is.

[ March 18, 2004, 07:55 AM: Message edited by: twin58 ]

A friend who works for the Texas Department of Health told me the department's non-discrimination clause is going to be dropped when the agency merges with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission later this year. We can thank the Republican-appointed Transition Legislative Oversight Committee that was created during the last Legislative session for this decision. What true patriots we have in Texas.

Spring's just around the corner up here in Canada. And up here, they can't drop it.

It's in our bill of rights.

Actually, this was the case as late as the 1990s! Yes, Clinton did sign an executive order. W can always lift it if he chooses. And don't forget that in most U.S.--the vast majority--homosexuals or people even suspected of being homosexual have NO statewide civil protections. Only most of the New England states, the mid-Atlantic states, several upper midwestern states, California and Hawaii offer these protections.

So a boss at a private company in Missouri (outside of the major cities) can say, "I hate fags," fire a homosexual, and s/he may have no statewide, and certainly no federal recompense if no other type of discrimination (race, age, religion, disibility, etc.) can be proved.

I was denied pay raises, a promotion and was probably laid off at a long-time job because my boss was a born-again and "disapproved of my lifestyle". I had no direct proof, just the word of my co-workers, so I didn't press it with HR; I wasn't up for a fight anyways, as I figured they'd drag the fact that I was a slut in the early 90's in to it just to prove their case!

It's scary how precarious GLBT's position legally in this country is.

Terrific column from the L.A. Times today (free online registration required) referring to gay Republican councilman David Catania along with the many gay Republicans who have been spurred to action by W's endorsement of the FMA....the article talks about how "money has been pouring in to gay rights groups in record amounts" and specifically mentions that the Log Cabin Republicans are "getting hundreds of thousands of dollars a week in donations", the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund "reports a 200% increase in contributions to gay and lesbian candidates" and the Human Rights Campaign "has already raised more than $143 Million of its target of $170 Million."

In addition, the Washington Blade has a column discussing the ads that the LCR debuted in 7 swing states this week attacking both W and Cheney....this "marks the first time that LCR has aired television ads in its 27 year history" and what was particularly noteworthy was Executive Director Patrick Guerrero acknowledging that "the LCR board is considering breaking with another of its traditions by recommending a candidate outside its party for President"....I especially loved Guerrero's statment in which he said, "if this party wants to listen to Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, I would remind them that all three are failed presidential candidates. I don't understand why Karl Rove would take counsel from three failed presidential candidates."

~Joe

(Edited to correct URL link to L.A. Times column)

[ March 18, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

The ad that Gamecock mentioned is here on this page of the LCR site but I don't know how long it's going to be there. I can't watch it now--damn work computer--but I'll watch it tonight.

EDIT: I just watched it. At one point it says "States can choose for themselves/Federal Law protects them from what other states decide". I don't think this is exactly true--wasn't the Vermont civil-unions thing so hotly contested because of the full faith and credit clause: Otherwise, it's a good ad, though if you blink, you'll miss the pictures of the two guys and the two women in it; if you miss that, it's hard to tell what the commercial is about.

[ March 18, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

I don't mind that the ad doesn't highlight gay couples embracing and all that. Sometimes a soft sell works better, and this may work better in this circumstance.

I see Bush's flip-flop on this issue ('00 Candidate Bush {"a state issue"} v. '04 Candidate Bush {"defender of marriage"}) as less problematic since he has no vested interest in gay equality, and it's probably just a case of his true feelings on gay equality emerging. But I see Cheney's flip-flop as more treacherous. Why? Because Cheney decided to symbolically throw his own daughter to the lions in order to pander to the hate-mongers in his support base.

The TV stations in DC run the ad at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. every night just before the network nightly news.

I agree. My only complaint about the ad is that it might be almost *too* subtle; most people aren't going to have any idea of who the LCR are or what they're about. I like the idea of using Cheney's words against him.

[ March 19, 2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Which station(s)?

Try WJLA, channel 7 in DC, at about 6:28 p.m. ABC's Peter Jennings comes on two minutes later.

The CBS network news starts at 6:30 on WUSA, channel 9, so the ad probably runs at the same time as on channel 7. The NBC network news starts at 7:00 p.m. on WRC, channel 4. I haven't any idea if the ad runs on channel 5, the Fox affiliate.

Jim Allen: the full, faith and credit clause doesn't apply to marriage. The good people of Rhea County, Tennessee are safe from decisions made by crazy activist judges in MA, CA and elsewhere.

More from that New York Times article here.

TF, thanks for that link.

The language in the FMA is going to be changed. Changes in FMA: The removal of the "legal incidents" language probably means that this is going to pass.

[ March 23, 2004, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

If this amendment passes, it will be a sad day in America's history. The US has always been a haven for those who were persecuted in other countries, and the fact that this amendment was even PROPOSED in the US makes me sick. Not only should the Constituion never be amended for social reasons (did we not learn our lesson from Prohibition?), but also there is no reason for the amendment. Even if the religious right hates gay marriage to the core, can't they get it into their thick skulls that it's already banned by the national DOMA and many states' DOMAs?

The sheer fact that this amendment was proposed should make every American sick. The government has no right to tell me who I can marry, and plus, if (when?) I marry a guy, it's not like the rest of the marriages in my family are going to collapse.

I'm just so frustrated and upset by this amendment. To me, it is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, and not just because I'm gay.


OK I feel much better now!

Jim:

Excuse the stupid question, but if the amendment does pass, what are the options after that? Does one have to wait for people to change their mind?

Also, if the congress and the Senate pass a law, can the Supreme Court not declare it unconstitutional before 75% of the states legislators pass it, thereby making it null?

I don't understand that part of American Politics.

Thanks

lksimcoe

No, the Supreme Court cannot rule that a proposed Amendment is unconstitutional. Once this passes both houses of Congress, the matter moves to the states and a required number of states must ratify it for it to become an amendment.

Once added to the Constitution, the only way to undo it is to pass a new amendment specifically striking down the first. That's what happened with Prohibition. For anyone who thinks that any ratified FMA will simply go away, keep in mind that it took a dozen years to repeal Prohibition and everyone wanted legal alcohol. If the FMA passes, you can pretty much guarantee that it'll be on the books long after we are all put in a pine box.

From this week's Onion:

Bush Urges Iraqis To Pass Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

BAGHDAD—In a private meeting with Mohammed Bahr al-Ulloum, President Bush urged the Iraqi Governing Council president to amend the recently ratified Iraqi constitution to protect the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. "The Iraqi constitution, signed just a few short weeks ago, will usher in a new era of democratic freedom in Iraq," Bush said. "But there are some unlawful and unholy acts that the constitution's original drafters could not have possibly intended to protect." Bush then told al-Ulloum he must act quickly and decisively to preserve his country's most sacred tradition.

There was a rally at the State Capitol in Saint Paul. Here is a letter written by a mother and father from the Star Tribune.

The amendment to the Kansas Constitution was voted on yesterday and FAILED !! It was not supposed to be voted on until next week, but the State Senate brought it up yesterday. Some say they will try to bring it up again before this session ends.

Wichita Eagle

Kansas City Star

I was shocked - in a good way - that the amendment failed in the KS senate! Since the senate is mostly Republican, it appears that we do have some Republicans in our state who understand fairness and equality.

It was a Republican senator who lives very near me in Leawood (A KC 'burb) who was instrumental in killing the proposed amendment. Yet there are others who fail to understand that our U.S. Constitution was amended with a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Discrimination and Religious Bigotry:

"Sen. Bob Lyon, R-Winchester, countered that same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue, but a moral one based upon biblical truth. 'As legislators we have a responsibility to distinguish and discriminate when there are moral issues at hand,' he said. 'I happen to believe that marriage is a divinely ordained institution that is clearly revealed to us.'"

Idiot.

Well, there is a bit of a trend going our way. This past week, five state legislatures failed to approve proposed marriage amendments: Kansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa and Minnesota.

Originally posted:

Well, the religious "wrong" are at it and trying to get the State Senate to bring this back up again. One of the tv stations is doing a poll asking "Should state lawmakers try to bring back a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage during this legislative session?" It looks like you can vote NO more than once if you get out of the website and go back in. Your help is appreciated!!!

PLEASE VOTE NO

Former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, the leading supporter of DOMA 8 years ago, formally testified this week AGAINST the FMA....as a growing number of conservatives are now publicly acknowledging that support for the amendment appears to fall far short of the two-thirds needed in BOTH houses of Congress, my primary concern has begun to focus on recent speculation that the wording of the proposed amendment will be changed to "explicitly permit states to recognize civil unions"....while the latter alternative may be viewed by some as being a "step forward" over what we now have, it STILL writes discrimination into the constitution and deprives us of any chance we have to gain FULL EQUALITY -- at least until such time as the amendment (assuming it ever goes into effect) is repealed, as was the case with prohibition 14 years after its initial passage two generations ago.

[ April 01, 2004, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

I received this in an email and thought it was funny:

Subject: The Sanctity of Marriage

*Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy
Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.
*Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through
the long recovery from his war wounds.
*Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer
*Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced
*Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas -divorced
*Gov. John Engler of Michigan -divorced
*Gov. Pete Wilson of California -divorced
*George Will -divorced
*Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
*Rush limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and
four divorces between them.
*Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married
three times. Barr had the audacity to author and push the "Defense of
Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob
Barr...WHICH marriage are you defending?!?
*Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York -divorced
*Sen. John Warner of Virginia - once married to Liz Taylor.
*Gov. George Allen of Virginia -divorced
*Henry Kissinger -divorced
*Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
*Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
*Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
*Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote
Speaker - divorced

Don't let homosexuals destroy marriage! That's the job of Christian Republicans!

I've seen that before. Newt Gingrich has been through not just one, but two, divorces. As for VA Senator George Allen, I'm not sure the claim that he has been divorced is accurate. The last time I saw this message, I tried Googling for confirmation. I found nothing. I haven't taken the time to call his office.

The latest Advocate

Matt Daniels

I am SO PROUD of my state of Kansas!!! For the second and last time in this legislative session, an attempt to pass a state marriage amendment has failed! Several weeks ago it failed in the Senate, and this time it failed in the House.

Had it passed, the amendment would have gone to the voters in November. As my representative pointed out, it was a blatant attempt to get out the conservative vote for the general election.

Sanity prevails!

Unfortunately, in my home state of Oklahoma, insanity won out as the House of Reps voted 92-4 -- 92-4!!! -- to put the issue on a statewide ballot in November.