Gay Writers from 365Gay.com
The Promise of Protection
by David M. Smith, Vice President of Policy and Strategy, Human Rights Campaign
Senate Republicans reintroduced a constitutional amendment in January that would deny marriage to same-sex couples, as well as threaten to deny us hundreds of benefits already offered by red and blue states across the country. This just so happened to coincide with the first full week of the President's second term.
It's a second term that many in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and our allies rightfully see as a major challenge to our rights. We are in one of the most difficult political environments in recent history. There's no doubt that the November elections brought us new - and old - hurdles. This amendment is one of them.
But we won't defeat the new amendment or win equality if we're constantly on the defense. The GLBT community is in great need of moreprotections and equal access to exercise our responsibilities, and at the Human Rights Campaign, we're going on the offense to match the needs of today.
Our lives are spent in our homes, in our workplaces and in our communities. Unfortunately, the majority of GLBT people have minimal protections in all areas.
As the 109th Congress begins and our opponents take steps toward discrimination, the Human Rights Campaign is forging ahead with a fresh approach to federal advocacy. Working with our allies on Capitol Hill, HRC is drafting three broad legislative packages that would provide the community with substantial security.
A new home life legislative package would focus on protecting our families' financial and long-term security. HRC is continuing our hard push for marriage equality, and working with Congress on these benefits issues will help elected officials understand in a very hands-on way the 1,100+ rights and responsibilities we're denied under federal law without marriage.
Working with allies in the House and Senate, we intend to introduce a package that would repeal the ban on the provision of federal benefits to married same-sex couples. It would also include equality in Social Security survivor benefits and would ensure that same-sex couples can make medical decisions on each other's behalf. It would give equal benefits to veterans so that they are not punished a second time in the area of benefits if discharged under the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. It would extend to same-sex couples spousal privilege in courts. It would deal with the inequities same-sex couples face in estate tax, bankruptcy protection and Medicaid "spend down," which ensures that Medicaid recipients and their families don't have to sell their family home to care for a sick loved one. Lastly, it would expand immigration rights so that binational same-sex couples aren't torn apart. As we have in the past, we remain committed to pushing for these bills as separate measures, along with our allies who have taken leadership on these issues.
Another package centers on workplace equity. For years, HRC has been advocating for equal protections and benefits for people based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. Corporate America heard our call, and hundreds of Fortune 500 companies have answered with new protections and rights. So, too, have hundreds of hundreds of smaller businesses around the country.
Still, the majority of GLBT Americans go into work in the morning with absolutely no assurance that they won't be fired from that job for no other reason than who they are. And many more are denied equal benefits and fairness in taxation, in large part because the federal government does not provide equity to GLBT Americans in workplace law.
The workplace package will include equal opportunity law prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and expression as well as sexual orientation. It would provide equal compensation in terms of spousal benefits. It would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act and COBRA coverage, which allows an employee to continue health coverage for spouses and children upon the loss of a job. It would ensure equity in taxation of health care, flexible spending accounts and retirement plans. We also need to address the legal discrimination that exists in the military on the basis of sexual orientation, and allow many soldiers now serving in silence and fear to serve openly and honestly in the military. In short, it would aim to ensure a wide range of protections are provided to GLBT Americans in workplaces.
The third package would focus on the health and safety of GLBT Americans in our communities. From hate crimes law to assisting anti-violence projects and protecting youth against bullying in their schools, GLBT Americans deserve to know that our nation will not tolerate harassment and violence directed at them. In this package, we plan to address those issues as well as the need for Medicaid preservation, early treatment for HIV care, the reauthorization of the Ryan White CARE Act and prevention policies that are based on science not ideology.
Given that legislation is always a work in progress, we as a community must remain flexible but firm in our goals to achieve equality in these specific areas. Since November, we've been discussing these packages with community leaders and activists. None of us want to use the challenges we face in Washington as an excuse to be passive. Regardless of the climate, when we are without equality we must fight. In their rhetoric, our opponents claim that opposition to marriage equality isn't about discrimination. It's time to give them a chance to prove it.
There's no doubt that the community has its challenges in Washington, and indeed, in states and localities across the country. But we're up to the task. We'll be talking about the big picture in a very loud way with Congress and to the American people and we'll be boiling it down to the finer points so nothing can be ignored. This means seizing the opportunity when it presents itself.
In his inaugural address, President Bush said, "Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities." We're choosing our freedom and we're going to defend it. Our new approach holds him and America to the promise of protection.
David M. Smith is the Human Rights Camapign's Vice President of Policy and Strategy
©365Gay.com 2005
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Horoscope Front Page: "Today's Date: Feb. 15
Aquarius 1/20 - 2/18
You should be feeling a rush of imaginative visions, which you may want to put to work preparing your home for some welcome visitors. You could decide to pick up a few potted plants and floral bouquets to bring a bit of nature inside your home. Children and pets can add a homey atmosphere. You could even ferret out some inexpensive antique art objects. Have fun decorating, dear Aquarius, and enjoy your evening!"
Aquarius 1/20 - 2/18
You should be feeling a rush of imaginative visions, which you may want to put to work preparing your home for some welcome visitors. You could decide to pick up a few potted plants and floral bouquets to bring a bit of nature inside your home. Children and pets can add a homey atmosphere. You could even ferret out some inexpensive antique art objects. Have fun decorating, dear Aquarius, and enjoy your evening!"
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
2004 Membership Conference Archived Webcast: "
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Rev. Cecil Williams and couples discuss
same-sex marriage.
Gay Writers from 365Gay.com: "
The Wockner Wire
by Rex Wockner
Dubya'd again, twice
You probably heard that George W. Bush told The New York Times on Jan. 29, "Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Trouble is, studies haven't.
More than 25 studies have compared the social, academic, mental and emotional lives of kids raised by married hetero parents with those of kids raised by gay couples and found a grand, whopping result of ... no difference.
On the other hand, kids raised by single parents or by unmarried heterosexual parents living together do sometimes score lower on social scientists' tally sheets.
"There is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children," New York University professor Judith Stacey confirmed in an interview with the Times.
One of the newest studies, published in the journal Child Development in December, looked at 44 randomly selected adolescents being raised by lesbian moms.
Researchers from the universities of Virginia and Arizona found not only that the kids are as normal as any other kids but that they are "more involved at school, in clubs, [and in] after-school activities."
"I have no idea what that means, but we sure didn't expect it," University of Virginia researcher Charlotte Patterson told the Times.
Why does George W. Bush have so much trouble telling the truth and why aren't more Americans distressed by this? If you want to find a weapon of mass destruction, look no further than Dubya's growing arsenal of antigay bombs -- another of which was launched during the State of the Union address Feb. 2.
After talking about his plan to decimate Social Security, Bush offered this transition:
"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them. Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
Let's dissect that. Gay marriage undermines a free society. Gays are a threat to family and faith. Gays are irresponsible and immoral. Same-sex marriage destroys families, children and society.
These are all lies, of course. He couldn't prove any one of those slanderous accusations if his life depended on it.
There are days when I wonder if I will be able to stay sane these next four years. Not only is this truth-challenged primate our president, but 51 percent of the voters I walk by on the street reelected him. I just can't come to peace with that. Three months later I still hurt, and I still cringe when I see his smirk on television.
At least I still have freedom of speech, I think ... for the moment anyway. Being able to dis him in the media helps, a little. Australians must have free speech too. Dig this excerpt from Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton's Jan. 21 column:
"George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804. The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing. Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal."
That's the same kind of angst George W. Bush begets inside of me. Can I -- can you? -- survive 1,442 more days it? And what if the Democrats screw up again in 2008 and we get another four years of essentially the same?
Maybe I need to be medicated. Maybe I need to quit reading and watching news. Maybe I need to gather up my savings and move abroad. I don't know, but 1,442 more days of this is something I can't get a grip on. How are you coping?
Hollywood, baby
Overcome with a distinct feeling that I've walked down every street in San Diego at least once, I've run away to Los Angeles for a couple of weeks. Today's column comes from my friend David's pad in the Hollywood Hills.
I used to dislike L.A. but then I figured out what I was doing wrong: I was driving about in my car on freeways, zipping from here to there and being bummed about traffic and general sprawledness.
The secret is to plant yourself in one neighborhood and limit your adventures to that and adjoining hoods. Besides, like in most cities, only a few neighborhoods are truly interesting. It's always nice to realize you misjudged a city and that it has charms you overlooked -- oh, wow, there's Julia Roberts eating a salad at an outside table at Chin Chin on Sunset.
I'd hate to be famous. You'd never really get to eat a salad in peace again, would you. Let alone find love without wondering if it was you or YOU they were attracted to.
In closing, we ponder these questions:
* Why isn't the Hollywood sign lit up at night anymore?
* Is any hamburger really worth $12.50?
* Could torching SUVs be considered a just war?
* Will Arnold Schwarzenegger be our next president? (If we have to have another Republican, do let it be Arnold. A nice guy. Sincere. Funny. And he doesn't hate homos.)
* And, that was really Julia Roberts, right? She looked so normal.
Zak attack
I ordered a beer at The Faultline Friday night from a very handsome, tall, muscular, furry, hunky, deep-voiced bartender.
Later I was told he was porn star "Zak Spears."
Later I googled him and learned he's single and no one ever asks him out.
I read some stuff he'd written and it was interesting and intelligent.
Someone needs to have the cojones to ask Khris out on a date. If you're not going to do it, I will.
©365Gay.com 2005
E-mail Rex Wockner
More About Rex Wockner: http://members.aol.com/wockner/
"
The Wockner Wire
by Rex Wockner
Dubya'd again, twice
You probably heard that George W. Bush told The New York Times on Jan. 29, "Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Trouble is, studies haven't.
More than 25 studies have compared the social, academic, mental and emotional lives of kids raised by married hetero parents with those of kids raised by gay couples and found a grand, whopping result of ... no difference.
On the other hand, kids raised by single parents or by unmarried heterosexual parents living together do sometimes score lower on social scientists' tally sheets.
"There is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children," New York University professor Judith Stacey confirmed in an interview with the Times.
One of the newest studies, published in the journal Child Development in December, looked at 44 randomly selected adolescents being raised by lesbian moms.
Researchers from the universities of Virginia and Arizona found not only that the kids are as normal as any other kids but that they are "more involved at school, in clubs, [and in] after-school activities."
"I have no idea what that means, but we sure didn't expect it," University of Virginia researcher Charlotte Patterson told the Times.
Why does George W. Bush have so much trouble telling the truth and why aren't more Americans distressed by this? If you want to find a weapon of mass destruction, look no further than Dubya's growing arsenal of antigay bombs -- another of which was launched during the State of the Union address Feb. 2.
After talking about his plan to decimate Social Security, Bush offered this transition:
"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them. Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by activist judges. For the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage."
Let's dissect that. Gay marriage undermines a free society. Gays are a threat to family and faith. Gays are irresponsible and immoral. Same-sex marriage destroys families, children and society.
These are all lies, of course. He couldn't prove any one of those slanderous accusations if his life depended on it.
There are days when I wonder if I will be able to stay sane these next four years. Not only is this truth-challenged primate our president, but 51 percent of the voters I walk by on the street reelected him. I just can't come to peace with that. Three months later I still hurt, and I still cringe when I see his smirk on television.
At least I still have freedom of speech, I think ... for the moment anyway. Being able to dis him in the media helps, a little. Australians must have free speech too. Dig this excerpt from Sydney Morning Herald columnist Mike Carlton's Jan. 21 column:
"George Bush's second inaugural extravaganza was every bit as repugnant as I had expected, a vulgar orgy of triumphalism probably unmatched since Napoleon crowned himself emperor of the French in Notre Dame in 1804. The little Corsican corporal had a few decent victories to his escutcheon. Lodi, Marengo, that sort of thing. Not so this strutting Texan mountebank, with his chimpanzee smirk and his born-again banalities delivered in that constipated syntax that sounds the way cold cheeseburgers look, and his grinning plastic wife, and his scheming junta of neo-con spivs, shamans, flatterers and armchair warmongers, and his sinuous evasions and his brazen lies, and his sleight of hand theft from the American poor, and his rape of the environment, and his lethal conviction that the world must submit to his Pax Americana or be bombed into charcoal."
That's the same kind of angst George W. Bush begets inside of me. Can I -- can you? -- survive 1,442 more days it? And what if the Democrats screw up again in 2008 and we get another four years of essentially the same?
Maybe I need to be medicated. Maybe I need to quit reading and watching news. Maybe I need to gather up my savings and move abroad. I don't know, but 1,442 more days of this is something I can't get a grip on. How are you coping?
Hollywood, baby
Overcome with a distinct feeling that I've walked down every street in San Diego at least once, I've run away to Los Angeles for a couple of weeks. Today's column comes from my friend David's pad in the Hollywood Hills.
I used to dislike L.A. but then I figured out what I was doing wrong: I was driving about in my car on freeways, zipping from here to there and being bummed about traffic and general sprawledness.
The secret is to plant yourself in one neighborhood and limit your adventures to that and adjoining hoods. Besides, like in most cities, only a few neighborhoods are truly interesting. It's always nice to realize you misjudged a city and that it has charms you overlooked -- oh, wow, there's Julia Roberts eating a salad at an outside table at Chin Chin on Sunset.
I'd hate to be famous. You'd never really get to eat a salad in peace again, would you. Let alone find love without wondering if it was you or YOU they were attracted to.
In closing, we ponder these questions:
* Why isn't the Hollywood sign lit up at night anymore?
* Is any hamburger really worth $12.50?
* Could torching SUVs be considered a just war?
* Will Arnold Schwarzenegger be our next president? (If we have to have another Republican, do let it be Arnold. A nice guy. Sincere. Funny. And he doesn't hate homos.)
* And, that was really Julia Roberts, right? She looked so normal.
Zak attack
I ordered a beer at The Faultline Friday night from a very handsome, tall, muscular, furry, hunky, deep-voiced bartender.
Later I was told he was porn star "Zak Spears."
Later I googled him and learned he's single and no one ever asks him out.
I read some stuff he'd written and it was interesting and intelligent.
Someone needs to have the cojones to ask Khris out on a date. If you're not going to do it, I will.
©365Gay.com 2005
E-mail Rex Wockner
More About Rex Wockner: http://members.aol.com/wockner/
"
Monday, February 07, 2005
Friday, February 04, 2005
Print ThisGo BackGo to CBSNews.com Home
Same-Sex Marriage Ban Nixed
NEW YORK, Feb. 4, 2005
A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.
Gay rights activists hailed the ruling as a historic victory that "delivers the state Constitution's promise of equality to all New Yorkers."
"The court recognized that unless gay people can marry, they are not being treated equally under the law," said Susan Sommer, a Lambda Legal Defense Fund lawyer who presented the case for five couples who brought the lawsuit. "Same-sex couples need the protections and security marriage provides, and this ruling says they're entitled to get them the same way straight couples do."
State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled that the New York City clerk could not deny a license to any couple solely on the ground that the two are of the same sex.
The city Law Department issued a statement saying only, "We are reviewing the decision thoroughly and considering our options."
"Knowing the reaction her ruling would receive, the judge ordered it stayed for 30 days to allow the state attorney general to appeal, which he almost certainly will do," reports CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen. "That appeal could take months or even years, so the ruling really is in limbo until the appeals are exhausted."
Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain, one of the couples in the case, said they were thrilled by the ruling and believed it would offer their family increased legal protection. They have been together 23 years and have a 15-year-old daughter.
"We're just overjoyed," said Shain. "We didn't think it would ever happen.
Kennedy said she wants to marry Shain as soon as possible. "I can't wait," she said. "We went to buy a (marriage) license in March 2004 and couldn't get it. That's what started this whole thing."
The judge noted that one plaintiff, Curtis Woolbright, is the son of an interracial couple who moved to California in 1966 to marry. She said California then was the only state whose courts had ruled that interracial marriage prohibitions were unconstitutional.
The ruling came two days after a judge reinstated criminal charges against New Paltz Village Mayor Jason West who got in trouble for marrying a series of same-sex couples last year.
The resurrection of that case came on the same day that lawmakers in at least three states took up constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. Kansas lawmakers placed a ban on the April 5 ballot, while similar constitutional changes failed in Idaho and passed a House committee in South Dakota.
The rush to write same-sex marriage bans into state constitutions is part of a heated debate that West helped ignite last February when he married about two dozen same-sex couples. West, 27, was quickly hit with 24 misdemeanor counts.
But the charges were later dismissed by a town court judge who said there were constitutional problems in banning same-sex marriages.
Ulster County Court Judge J. Michael Bruhn brought back the charges Wednesday, saying public officials cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. He said the case was not about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, but whether West lived up to his oath of office to uphold the law.
The case will now go to trial, barring a settlement or a successful appeal by West's lawyers.
Attorney Joshua Rosenkranz said no decision had been made yet on whether to appeal, but added that "I know that Jason West is chomping at the bit to face a jury of his peers."
West faces fines and up to a year in jail if convicted on the misdemeanor counts of solemnizing marriages without a license.
West has maintained he was upholding the couples' constitutional rights — and thus his oath of office — by allowing them to wed.
"If I told those the gay couples, 'No, I can't marry you because you're gay,' I'd be violating the state constitution and I'd be violating my oath of office," West said.
© MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
• Feedback • Terms of Service • Privacy Statement
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
New Scientist Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith - Books: "Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith"
Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith
* 29 January 2005
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Book Details
* Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution
* by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith
* W. W. Norton
* $27.95
* ISBN 0393059928
More Space Stories
* Solar super-sail could reach Mars in a month
* Titan is 'shockingly Earth-like'Premium
* Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith
* The Sun: A biography
* One hour on Titan, forever bathed in glory
More Stories
* Explore: space
SCIENTISTS should always be asking questions, and modern astronomy has some real head-scratchers. Why did the universe start 14 billion years ago? And why did the big bang make it expand so quickly afterwards? Why is the universe full of matter, not antimatter? Why does the universal "stuff" divide up into ordinary matter (4 per cent), dark matter (23 per cent) and dark energy (73 per cent)? Why did galaxies, stars and planets form? Why were so few metals produced? Why did life begin? Why are we here on Earth endeavouring to understand our place in the cosmos?
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith dip into astronomy, physics, geology, biology and chemistry with a racy and non-mathematical style. They encourage us to search for answers that could overturn much of what we think we already know. The task is daunting, but the excitement glows from every page.
From issue 2484 of New Scientist magazine, 29 January 2005, page 51
Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith
* 29 January 2005
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
Book Details
* Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution
* by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith
* W. W. Norton
* $27.95
* ISBN 0393059928
More Space Stories
* Solar super-sail could reach Mars in a month
* Titan is 'shockingly Earth-like'Premium
* Origins: Fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution by Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith
* The Sun: A biography
* One hour on Titan, forever bathed in glory
More Stories
* Explore: space
SCIENTISTS should always be asking questions, and modern astronomy has some real head-scratchers. Why did the universe start 14 billion years ago? And why did the big bang make it expand so quickly afterwards? Why is the universe full of matter, not antimatter? Why does the universal "stuff" divide up into ordinary matter (4 per cent), dark matter (23 per cent) and dark energy (73 per cent)? Why did galaxies, stars and planets form? Why were so few metals produced? Why did life begin? Why are we here on Earth endeavouring to understand our place in the cosmos?
Neil deGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith dip into astronomy, physics, geology, biology and chemistry with a racy and non-mathematical style. They encourage us to search for answers that could overturn much of what we think we already know. The task is daunting, but the excitement glows from every page.
From issue 2484 of New Scientist magazine, 29 January 2005, page 51