In an appearance on CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight, Texas mega church pastor Joel Osteen shared his view on same-sex marriage, and said the scripture relating to gays will not change.

“It would be against my faith to marry two gay people,” said Osteen, noting that, of the many marriages mentioned in the Bible, none were same-sex.

Yet, Osteen and his wife did later say they would have no problem attending a same-sex wedding, if the gay or lesbian couple happened to be friends of theirs.

In other religion news…. Zeus has ordered all Immortals to stay out of the fighting at Troy.

Town Hall, Wrentham, Mass.

The town of Wrentham, Massachusetts, must have an overabundance of police officers. The Board of Selectmen are considering a bill to outlaw dating and sex in their own homes by persons who are going through a divorce. Until the divorce is final, no dates, no sex. No shit.

Selectman Robert Leclair, who allegedly went through a very bitter divorce, says the bill is meant to prevent domestic violence and shield children. Specifically, the bill says that divorcing parents would be prevented from “conducting a dating or sexual relationship within the home.” Enforcing this law would involve a few methods. The children would have to report their parent, the non-resident about-to-be-ex-spouse would have to report his/her suspicions about the parent or the police department would have to keep track of all pending divorces in the town and conduct surprise raids in the evening.

The domestic violence that the bill would prevent is presumably the non-resident about-to-be-ex-spouse trying to beat the hell out of the resident parent for having the effrontery to want to get on with his or her life or attacking the date for trespassing on what the unhappy parent considers his/her property. This bill diminishes the seriousness of domestic violence and places the blame on the person who would be the victim. It says, if you didn’t, date your rejected partner wouldn’t want to beat your brains out or knee-cap your date. Critics of the bill say it takes away a person’s rights. That’s the least of it. It is a huge insult to the victims of domestic violence because it says “you caused it.”

They are also considering a law to override the state’s alimony laws, ending lifetime alimony and capping the amount one spouse is ordered to pay to the other.

That must have been one hell of a divorce that Leclair went through. In addition to sponsoring these bills, he is the former president of Fathers United For Equal Justice, which disbanded in the 1990′s. The group was focused on what they perceived were laws that favored women in the divorce process. Before the Wrentham Board of Selectmen vote on this bill, they should demand the details of Leclair’s divorce – did he spy on his ex-wife, did he stalk her, did he threaten her with violence, did she have a restraining order taken out against him, did he get hit with lifetime alimony? The citizens of Wrentham should be asking if their city is being used to punish Leclair’s ex-wife by proxy.

Then, they should find out what it takes to rid themselves of this man. The law is not the place for settling private scores or take revenge on a whole segment of society for a personal failure.

Related articles

• Don’t Try This At Home: New Law Would Bar Sex in Home Between Couples Awaiting Divorce (jonathanturley.org)
• A Step in the Right Direction! (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Proposed law seeks to ban sex for divorcing couples (rt.com)
• Oregon House passes bill outlawing purposely false child abuse claims (psychologytoday.com)
• New Law: No Sex Until Divorce (frstephensmuts.wordpress.com)

Image by richiesoft via Flickr

03/29/2011- by Natasia Langfelder

Welcome back to Lez Ask the Femme, you’re one stop shop for queer loooooove advice. This week, we explore the problem of having a girlfriend who just isn’t into bisexuals.

Dear Femme,

I hope you can help because I’m at the end of my rope with my girlfriend. We have been together for 7 months and she is always picking at me for being bisexual. She says mean things like “I bet you think he’s hot,” whenever a reasonably attractive man walks by. I haven’t even been with a man in years and I’ve never cheated on her! We can’t even watch Grey’s Anatomy together because she say’s that I will go and sleep with a man and get pregnant and make her raise the baby!

When I tell her that she’s bothering me, she says that my being bisexual bothers her, so we are even.  I don’t get it because she knew I was bisexual when we met. If she hated the idea of it so much then why did she even ask me out? What the heck am I supposed to do?

-Bi-furcated

Hi Bi,

Wow. Your girlfriend sounds like a real peach.  If I was you, I would probably ditch her for someone who is less bi-phobic. More and more women are labeling themselves as sexually fluid, so it isn’t too hard to find someone who is more understanding of the nuances of your sexuality.

But, if you want to save this relationship and it sounds like you do, you need to understand that she is very insecure and that’s where this mean spiritedness is coming from. Maybe she didn’t realize just how jealous and insecure she would get when you two first started dating and now that things are serious, she’s terrified of losing you.

You need to sit her down and tell her you want to talk about the bi issue seriously, without the childish “we are even” argument. Seriously, that makes no sense! Tell her what you told me, that she knew who you were when you met her and that as your partner, you want her to accept all your parts. Tell her you know that being with a bisexual can be scary, because it seems like bisexuals have more opportunities to cheat or could have a slight gender preference. Ease her fears by telling her you don’t prefer one sex over the other and that you would never cheat on a romantic partner, especially not her. Add that her bi-phobia is pushing you away and making you feel rejected and unhappy. Those feelings are more likely to make you end the relationship than a hot guy walking down the street, so you need her to stop rejecting one of your core traits.

Good luck, Bi! Let me know what happens.

Have a question for me? Email askafemme@yahoo.com   

Related articles

• Lez Ask the Femme Vlog: Help! My Girlfriend is a Sports Freak! (lezgetreal.com)
• Lez Ask the Femme: Why are Women Using Me for Sex? (lezgetreal.com)
• Lez Ask the Femme: What Should I Get My Crush For Her Birthday? (lezgetreal.com)

Is He?

3/30/2011 – by Cynthia S. Wright

Nothing strikes fear in a straight woman’s heart more than pondering whether your man may have his eye on another. Particularly, if the ‘other’ person happens to be of the male persuasion. Well, fret no more ladies, there is a new book in town brought to you by Tonja Ayers, the author who wrote “A Ho Needs 2 Stay in a Ho’s Place” – a handbook for the ‘other’ woman (other being the ones who like to get it in with married or otherwise taken men) with a topic like that, surely her new book won’t disappoint. Published by Emperial Publishing, “Is Your Man Gay?” tackles one of the most controversial issues in the black female community – down low black men. If you ever suspect that your man might be creeping, better yet and if you suspect that his other boo might be a man – than this book may just be for you!

Ayers combines a user-friendly handbook layout along with interesting, common sense advice that will enable the reader to tackle this situation head on and deal with the repercussions while coming out stronger in the end. “I can’t tell you how many women are suffering in silence…and if this book makes a difference even for one of them, I have accomplished my goal,” she says. Even though Ayers admits that she is not a psychiatrist or therapist, she counters by saying she has plenty of real life experience pertaining to this topic.

The author follows up by saying she doesn’t have anything against gay men, her issue is with the liars that enter into relationships when they know they aren’t fully invested. So down low men, your days are numbered – so come clean while you still can. The book is available on her website at: http://www.isheorishenot.com/.

Now that I’ve officially committed to being single, something horrible has happened: I’ve realized single people go on dates. Like, first dates.

I was kind of hoping we could jump right into the third? Or just cut straight to the sex, minus the date part? Oh, that’s right, I’m a lesbian, not a gay dude. (Sorry boys, I know I’m stereotyping.) Pretty sure there’s a reason why we don’t have Grindr for women. Most women want to be wined and dined before getting into anything physical. At least if they’re not meeting for the first time in a bar and drunkenly getting it on in the bathroom, that is.

(On a side note, gross! Public restrooms? I’m not by any means pleading innocent to this type of encounter, but I’m hoping to someday grow out of that phase.)

Back to my point. People date for different reasons. For those chicks that want to remain single, first dates determine whether there is enough chemistry to even pursue wild-oat sowing. For those looking for relationships, first dates are a chance to get a glimpse of her personality, get to know her likes and dislikes.

I haven’t figured out exactly why I’m dating yet. Being a serial monogamist and having singledom (singlehood?) forced upon me, I’m dating because, for some mysterious reason, I feel I HAVE to. Am I looking for a relationship? I don’t know. Do I need to know the answer to this before I jump into the dating pool? Are girls expecting me to know? Well, too late, I’ve already had…um…three dates. In seven months. I’m clearly on a roll.

I don’t know; I figure if I’m asked, I’ll just say that I’m not looking for anything serious and let nature take its course. Does it make me a player/slut/whore to want to sleep with someone even if I don’t want a relationship with them? I haven’t figured out how this crap works yet!

Would this mean I don’t have values? I like to think that I do. Sex means something different to everyone, right?

All I know is that since my last relationship ended, my friends have been encouraging me to “play the field.” Even my life coach said I had to “try on more shoes.” Damn. More first dates. I hate ‘em.

Why?

First thing I’ve noticed. The girls all expect me to pick the place. Is this because I look like the guy? I thought we had transcended gender stereotypes/roles. I personally find it sexy if SHE picks the place. Maybe this is because I’m a girl myself. (I know, amazing, isn’t it?) But I like to think it’s because I like a girl who knows what she wants and is confident enough to make decisions. Besides, I’d rather be the boss in other areas of.. ahem. Anyway.

Also, I know the rule is supposed to be ‘whoever asks, pays’. I like this rule. I usually ask. And sometimes even when I’m asked, I offer to pay. (If the date is good. If it isn’t…sorry, lady, I’m excusing myself when the bill comes. Kidding! Maybe.) What about those cases when it isn’t clear cut who was the asker/askee? Everyone I’ve brought this up to has said “Split it,” but… now I’m putting myself into that gender stereotype… Isn’t that… awkward? Let me answer that. Yes. And since that lovely experience, I’ve paid. But, how to get around this in the future?

Finally, how do you decide when the date is over? One of my dates was for a football game. Excellent! Game over! Go home! And wasn’t that the LONGEST second half I’ve ever had to sit through? And I even LIKE football! Lunch dates are fine. Especially during the work week. Hour’s up, and done! But what about dinner dates? Ok, we’re done eating. Guess we’ll sit and talk for…awhile. Heh. That was actually a good date. Soooo… do I invite her home? I chickened out.

As with any activity, practice makes perfect, and I’ve not had much practice. Obviously, the more shoes I try on, the better they’ll start fitting, right? At least I should start to get a feel for what kind of shoe I like? Sometimes the ones that look the best in the store hurt like hell when you get them on.. Oooh, I could go on all day with this analogy! I’m cutting myself off… and headed back to Foot Locker. Ha!

What are your first date tips? Warnings? Horror/success stories? Share below. Contact Riley Dylan at RDylan1980@gmail.com

Okay. This one falls under the heading of truly dumb reasons to deny gays the right to marry….. it would deny them the right to procreate. Apparently, perpetual Presidential candidate Alan Keyes believes that there is only one way to create a baby, and that involves intercourse between a male and female.

Writing in WingNutDaily, Keyes postulates that “Government doesn’t endow people with the ability to procreate the species. The Creator takes care of that. Like all unalienable rights, those associated with the natural family exist in consequence of this endowment. A couple that cannot, by nature, procreate has no claim to those rights. Nor can government grant them a semblance of it without impairing the claims of one or both of the parents biologically implicated in the physical conception of the child. The DOMA simply makes more explicit the government’s obligation to secure the Creator-endowed unalienable rights of the natural family. This obligation precludes government from fabricating other rights that impair them. In this respect, granting homosexuals the right to marry is like granting plantation owners the right to own slaves.”

Mr. Keyes, would you like to explain to Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban that they do not have the right to be married because Ms. Kidman has, in numerous attempts, only brought one pregnancy to term and they chose to use artificial means to bring a second child into their lives? How about other couples, straight couples, who cannot conceive, other women who cannot carry a pregnancy to term, men and women who have some medical condition that renders them sterile. Do you want to deny them the right to marry?

Or maybe, like Tom Cruise, you think men should be able get rid of any wife who can’t produce a child and then make sure the next one can before he marries her.

Keyes’ statement is the kind of jackass remark one can expect as long as liberals refuse to take on the right wing on the Constitutional grounds of freedom FROM state-imposed religion. Our government does not have an obligation to impose the tenets of any religion. Rather, it has an obligation to protect us from laws that impose religious laws over secular ones. In Keyes’ mind, the state should be demanding fertility testing before it issues a marriage license because procreation is God’s only reason for sanctioning marriage. A marriage license is a state-issued contract, not a religious one. The religious ceremony and the presence of clergy are not necessary to the validation of that contract. As long as someone authorized by the state – a justice of the peace, a judge, a municipal clerk – can validate a marriage license, can conduct a commitment ceremony in accordance with state law, marriage is a civil and secular matter, not a religious one.

The one question no one seems willing to ask is this: why are the lawyers who argue same-sex marriage and abortion cases so unwilling to argue them under the First Amendment? Aren’t these cases more important than Nativity scenes in public parks or Bible readings in schools? What are they afraid of, that God will strike them dead for demanding that our nation live up to the principles set out in our Constitution?

Related articles

• After Obama announcement, conservatives vow to make gay marriage a 2012 election issue (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Keyes Lectures Palin on the Evils of The Gay [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• Most Irish Favor Gay Marriage (advocate.com)
• Gay marriage policy change: Question and answers (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• N.Y. Court Rules for Gay Spouse in Inheritance Case (advocate.com)

Melanie Nathan- 02-19-2011

Across the country, gay couples and their allies stepped up to marriage counters around the country to ask for licenses. Some were turned away, some were arrested, and all will be back every year until we all have the freedom to marry.

Thank you Matt Baume for this extraordinary montage depicting Valentine’s day equality action and civil disobedience around the U.S.A and the rest of the World.

There is simply no reason fathomable that should preclude same-sex couples from the basic right to marry and share in the laws applicable to married couples of the opposite sex.

and behind the scenes

Hey Riley,

I’ve been flirting back and forth with a girl from my basketball team. Its in really early stages right now, but I can tell she’s into me and she’s hot and we get along great. Problem is she lives with her girlfriend. I’m single. I really like her though! Is this something that I should just leave alone? I’m not sure what her intentions are with flirting with me like if she wants to leave her girlfriend or just play around. What should I do?? I don’t want to be a homewrecker but she started the flirting! Should I even care? Is it my problem or is it ok to go for it?

Full Court Press in Dayton, OH

Listen up, Dayton.

Slooooooow dowwwnnn, tiger. Let me start with your last question. Is this your problem? Short answer: Yes, it is. Why? Because you have to make some decisions. To continue flirting or to stop. If you’re asking me permission to go for it, then I’m thinking you aren’t wanting to stop. I completely understand, to be honest. Everyone wants what they can’t have. You do: she’s in a relationship and is supposed to be off-limits. She does: she’s in a relationship and is supposed to HAVE limits. I also think its true that it’s impossible to steal someone out of a relationship that isn’t already broken, so the label “home-wrecker” might not apply. That doesn’t mean that it is your job to help break it the rest of the way.

Facts first. She’s in a serious relationship with someone else. They live together. She is sending signals that things aren’t right at home and is testing the waters by flirting with you. There is obvious mutual chemistry between the two of you.

Points to consider: Do you want to date this girl, as in long-term? Or do you just want to sleep with her? Is it worth the drama in either case?

What would happen if you quit flirting? I think if you tried this, you might see how seriously she was pursuing you. She could begin flirting with someone else, work on her relationship with her girlfriend, or maybe pursue you even more. If she were to continue to chase you, this would give you a reason to have a convo with her and bring everything out in to the open. If she is really interested, why not a clean break from her girlfriend? If she stops pursuing you, then it was totally not worth it.

Lately I’ve been finding that in the lesbian scene there seems to be a general lack of respect for one another’s relationships. Everyone flirts with each other; everyone has slept with each other. There are few boundaries. It can be fun; it can be exciting. It’s naughty. But it gets old. And it gets stressful. You have to decide what kind of life you want for yourself, Dayton, OH. I’m one of the least judgmental people you could meet, but will tell you that instant gratification will often lead to a whole lot of unnecessary drama. Put the brakes on and the ball back in her court.

Let me know how it turns out!

- Riley

Have a question for Riley? Email rdylan1980@gmail.com

Related articles

• Lez Ask the Boi: Should I Date a Bisexual? (lezgetreal.com)
• Lez Ask The Boi: I Embarrass My Girlfriend (lezgetreal.com)
• Lez Ask the Boi and the Femme: How Do I Fix Lesbian Bed Death? (lezgetreal.com)

09/20/2010- by Riley Dylan

Related articles by Zemanta

• Interview With Director Christine Chew (lezgetreal.com)
• Interview with Robin Dalea of “The Real Girl’s Guide to Everything Else” (lezgetreal.com)

An Article today at Press -Citizen Website discusses the Study on Iowa Same-sex marriage since it was legalized 18 months ago. Divorce is down and marriage is up.

“Although social conservatives in the 2010 election campaign depict gay marriage as a threat to married life as we know it, Iowa’s 18-month experience with the newly legalized institution has revealed striking similarities to traditional marriage and no discernible harm to it, according to an IowaWatch study.

Moreover, marriage statistics show that female couples made up nearly two-thirds of the same-sex marriages in Iowa in the year after the state Supreme Court ruled it legal in April 2009.

Although experts say a single year does not constitute a trend, they say the disparity is consistent with the traditional way Americans raise children and establish their gender roles early in life. The disparity also reflects similar trends in other states where same-sex marriages are allowed. See the article here… “

Although I am critical of the focus of this particular piece I am posting it because of some interesting assertions that may provide opportunity for quote or comment.

Melanie Nathan

Related articles by Zemanta

• Same-sex marriages help Iowa reverse downward trend (topix.net)
• 400 Same-Sex Marriages in Mexico City in Six Months (towleroad.com)
• Divorce Down, Marriage Up In Iowa After Marriage Equality Ruling (lezgetreal.com)
• The National Review On Marriage (joemygod.blogspot.com)

Film Showing and Reception Set for Sept. 14, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO-  Twenty-five years after its premier, the groundbreaking documentary “Choosing Children”—the first film to explore and chronicle the journey taken by lesbians and gay men to become parents after they came out—will return to the silver screen at the Herbst Theater on Sept. 14 to celebrate its 25^th anniversary.

The landmark film, produced by two Bay Area filmmakers, Academy Award winner Debra Chasnoff and Kim Klausner, was released in 1985, introducing viewers to the first generation of lesbians and gay men who chose to become parents after coming out, and contributed to an expanded definition of family that has since opened the doors for millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to become parents. “Before the early 1980s, it was just assumed that if you came out, you gave up the chance and the right to be a parent,” says Chasnoff. “But a small number of brave lesbians and gay men began to challenge that belief. With “Choosing Children” we wanted to share their stories with the world and inspire others that they, too, could redefine family for themselves.”

Chasnoff and Klausner conducted a nationwide search for lesbian-headed families that were navigating what was then a very new legal, political, and social terrain. Ultimately, they found six families who reflected some of the racial and ethnic diversity of our vibrant communities, and who had “chosen children” in different ways. Their stories provide an intimate look at the challenges and joys faced by this early generation of lesbian and gay parents in their quests to build their families—stories that are still fascinating and relevant today.

“Without the pioneering generation that we were able to capture in “Choosing Children,” none of us would have the rights or opportunities for creating families that we have today,” Klausner says. “It is almost beyond comprehension how much the political and social landscape has changed since we made the film.”

The film poignantly captures some of the important history that has contributed to today’s LGBT family rights victories, including the recent Proposition 8 decision by Judge Vaughn Walker here in California. It is partly why so many community groups are cosponsoring this evening celebration for LGBT families, our allies, prospective parents and others.

One of the arenas where the most significant advances have been made is the legal system.

“The legal advances we have made for our families are nothing short of breathtaking,” says National Center for Lesbian Rights Executive Director Kate Kendell. “These gains are largely due to this early generation of lesbians and gay parents, who charted a previously unseen path in order to become parents and raise children, becoming role models for LGBT people everywhere.”

Many Bay Area organizations are joining together for this community-wide screening and celebration to mark the 25th anniversary of Choosing Children, celebrate all the wonderful children LGBT people are now parenting, and raise funds to permanently preserve this historical gem on DVD. The restored 35 mm film print, courtesy of the OUTFEST Legacy Project and the UCLA Film Archive, was a huge hit at last summer’s Los Angeles Lesbian and Gay Film Festival.

If you’ve never seen Choosing Children, here’s your chance to soak up a delightful piece of our cultural history. If you are planning on having children, you will be inspired by the courageous pioneers in the film who figured out how to bring kids into their lives, co-parent with a same-sex partner, and handle concerns from relatives and schools. If you saw the film “back in the day,” this will be a trip down memory lane (including a rarely heard song by Holly Near) and a special moment to marvel at how much progress we’ve made.

The 25^th Anniversary Screening and Reception includes a viewing, and remarks by Chasnoff, Klausner, and the Honorable Donna Hitchens, founder of the National Center for Lesbian Rights who is featured in the film, and dessert reception The event is presented by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Groundspark, COLAGE, Frameline, Equality California, Our Family Coalition, and PFLAG to celebrate the advances our movement has made in family law and society, and to raise funds to permanently preserve this historical film on DVD.

TICKET and EVENT INFORMATION

“Choosing Children” 25^th Anniversary Screening and Reception

What: “Choosing Children” 25^th anniversary celebration to raise funds to permanently preserve this historical film on DVD
When: 6:30 p.m. on September 14, 2010 (Program begins at 7 p.m.)
Where: Herbst Theater, 401 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA
Cost: $25 (regular admission); $10 (student admission)

Learn more and order tickets

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Contacting My Sperm Donor – I Am A Kid who is All Right! (lezgetreal.com)

You can find out where your nearest gathering location is and more information on how you can participate by visiting www.equalrightsfoundation.org.

About the Author: Julie Phineas is a work at home mom of 2 who lives in Southern California. You can find out more about her by visiting her website at www.juliephineas.com.

(Washington, DC) – Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL-4), Chairman of Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, held a press conference today with dozens of other Members of Congress to recognize the milestone of 100 co-sponsors for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act (CIR-ASAP/H.R. 4321). The bill is sponsored by Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX) and co-sponsored primarily by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, Progressive Caucus, and Congressional Hispanic Caucus. More information on the bill is available here.

Some of the Members of Congress who attended the press conference: Joe Baca (CA), Judy Chu (CA), Yvette Clarke (NY), Joseph Crowley (NY), Charles Gonzalez (TX), Gene Greene (TX), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Mike Honda (CA), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Barbara Lee (CA), Grace Napolitano (CA), Solomon Ortiz (TX), Jared Polis (CO), Gregorio Sablan (D-Northern Marianas), Jan Schakowsky (IL), Jose Serrano (NY), Nydia Velázquez (NY), Anthony Weiner (NY), and Lynn Woolsey (CA)

The following is the opening statement delivered by Rep. Gutierrez:

We have reached the milestone of 100 co-sponsors for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America Security and Prosperity bill – a bill I helped put together with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and which has been embraced and supported by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. We will hear from the leaders of each of these caucuses today, as well as a number of other Members who are not only committed to reform themselves, but are helping us reach out to other Members and build support.

We know the legislative clock is ticking. We know people are getting deported at the highest rate in modern history. We know that the inter-related problems of illegal immigration, clogged and unattainable legal immigration, border security, deportation, detention, and a two-tiered labor market that hurts all workers will not solve themselves.

We know that the Arizona law — which, unless something happens, will go into effect in about one month — is a call to action. It is a cry of frustration. It is not a rejection of comprehensive immigration reform but an alarm bell that the American people are angry, they want solutions, and they want a rational legal immigration system that secures the border and gets all immigrants into the system and playing by the rules.

This next month will be critical. After the August recess, we all know the chances of major action dwindle and that if the Arizona law is allowed to go into effect, it will cause massive disruptions and set a dangerous precedent. As American leaders, we must show the way to fix an American problem: our broken immigration system.

The American people want action, and they want law and order restored to the immigration system. My fellow Democrats, we support the policy the American people actually want; the policy the American people see as pragmatic, and the policy they see as the law and order approach to the immigration issue. Now we must be brave enough to fight for it. Where Republicans see voter frustration and want to exploit it, we should be smart enough to respond to voter frustration by solving the problem that actually frustrates them.

Americans know that trying to drive out 12 million immigrants is not going to happen. And most immigrants are not leaving on their own, no matter how tough we make it. We simply cannot expect to get rid of a population about the size of Ohio (or their 4 million U.S. citizen children). They will not magically disappear. So an immigration policy based on a fantasy no longer flies with the American people. It has no credibility. The American people want a different, more realistic solution.

We need a rational solution. We need a practical solution. We need a fair solution. That solution, CIR ASAP, is on the table and it should not languish there while the American people demand action.

AND NOT a SINGLE WORD about Binational and UAFA -We are yet to see more than just a Promise…. (hmmm)

Are you being politically expedient again Rep Gutierrez?  Lezgetreal has contacted the Congressman’s Press office for comments on his flip flop, – and its been almost a month since we received a communication citing we would get a response. I am still waiting for it.

BY THE WAY – UAFA as a stand alone has more than 100 Co Sponsors!!!   Where is the LGBT Caucus?  Where is Immigration Equality?

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama backs senators’ immigration overhaul outline (sfgate.com)
• Immigration reform advocates rally at Cuellar office (mysanantonio.com)
• Immigration reform advocates rally at Cuellar office (mysanantonio.com)
• Obama backs senators’ immigration overhaul outline (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Obama Backs Senators’ Immigration Overhaul Outline (abcnews.go.com)

Calling for a New Direction: Marrying DREAM ACT to UAFA

Grassroot sloggers amount to a handful, a small dedicated group that has done an enormous amount of work with no resources at hand.  This group of people, some under the Out4Immigration banner and others, unpaid independent activists, have fought hard for the ideal of one basic right – EQUALITY – and in this instance equality under the immigration law.

Gays and Lesbian spouses/partners in the USA cannot sponsor foreign born partners for immigration to the USA, commensurate with that very right, freely exercised, by different-gender couples.

Contextually, this fight has been going on for well over a decade and has a history of Bills introduced, none of which garnished as much traction as the Bill introduced by Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York,  last year, The Uniting AMERICAN Families Act. (UAFA)

While on the path to sponsorship and at a time where there were already over 100 co sponsors of the House Bill as well as a significant number of Senators in support, a case occurred in Pacifica, California that brought media and mainstream attention to the issue and the severity of its inequities.

Senator Dianne Feinstein’s introduction of Private Bill #867 into Congress, in support of Shirley Tan’s plight, spurred great LGBT ally Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) into action and the first ever Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA was held on on June 3^rd 2009.  This together with a ‘friendly’ and ‘ LGBT rights promising President’,  Democratic majority in Congress opened the door for the real possibility of greater sponsorship for UAFA and immigration equality for LGBT permanent partners. (Shirley Tan’s moving testimony at the SJC can be seen and heard here.)

However at that June 03, critical  juncture – instead of seizing the opportunity, a small organization known as Immigration Equality, purporting ownership tantamount to domain in this arena of  LGBT equality rights, decided with a lobby to some democratic members of Congress, that UAFA could never get the traction it needed as a stand-alone bill in Congress and figured that we would be better off by tying UAFA into Comprehensive Immigration reform, which they asserted was imminent as far back as June of last year.

The more they advocated and the more they pushed for LGBT inclusion in CIR, the more bullets they put in the toe of UAFA as stand alone legislation.   This has been covered extensively in my bi-national column here on the LGR site.

Organizations were led by Immigration Equality ORG to believe they had the goods to deliver; and in their advocacy they changed strategy, seeking UAFA’s inclusion in immigration reform, while failing  to do any real due diligence, other than to canvass a few representatives in Congress and the Senate.

They also scoped and spoke to a few Latino organizations for support, but failed to take real stock of the impossible task ahead.  Soon everyone was equating OUR stand alone ‘equality bill’ with the BIG comprehensive Immigration reform picture.

They sauntered through the Health Care debacle, watching the Democrats fall like flies to political fear, costing the American people ‘The Public Option, ‘ and not for one minute did this self appointed threesome of strategists pay attention to how this would impact immigration reform in the future.

Health Care resulted in Immigration Reform, and not its new hopeful appendage, UAFA, taking a backseat, only to show up now in a much more aggressive anti immigration climate, to wit – Arizona!

Did the genius of Immigration Equality anticipate this?   Probably not and they should have known better.   But when things happen that one does not anticipate, it is an opportunity for leadership to get out the strategy thermometer and check the temperature.  What are the facts behind this story?  Accountability and transparency apparently not in the  Immigration Equality Lexicon.

Failure in transparency and unwillingness to involve more than a handful,  in a decision so momentous, sets Immigration equality up now for having to take responsibility especially having claimed full ownership to the so-called strategy.  At the very least,they ought to seek  external advice from the community, especially the bi-national community, which happens to be the true owners of the rights at stake.  Perhaps Rachel Tiven could have placed a call to Kate Kendell at  NCLR and to others,  and called for a collection of brains to re assess the picture.

So now in the midst of hailing Congressman Gutierrez for finally coming on board and Senators Schumer, Reid et al for the  (mere) framework for Comprehensive immigration reform, and a whole year later – we have indeed put UAFA to bed. Why? Because if we try and advocate for a stand alone UAFA, any representative who is not asleep at the wheel – will simply tell us to wait.  Guess what? Another year will go by and the balance in Congress will change and we will be back to square one, while continuing  to foster the banishment of our LGBT married and partnered bi-national citizens and residents, some  into exile, detention, and unnecessary risky asylum proceedings. Even Shirley Tan remains at great risk!

Yesterday I received information from an activist whom some of you may know as TIFF; and he says “I’m just back from “jail for CIR,” but the talk is edging toward stand alone bills for Ag-Jobs and the Dream Act given the Republicans flat out opposition to anything Obama wants to do.  This means we might consider focusing more on UAFA as a stand-alone again as well.”

Hallelujah! A year later someone else is speaking ‘my speak;’ and endorsing the fact that Immigration Equality is no longer qualified to own immigration equality!  They have led us on a wild goose chase, all the while collecting the good will and good money of desperate bi-nationals.  G-d I hope I am proved wrong; or alternatively they had better wake up and take the fork in the road.

Tiff goes on to say “But generally, whether we go UAFA alone, or in CIR – we still have major opposition from Evangelicals and USCCB that is going unaddressed.   I think this is a huge hole in our advocacy.”

I agree but all the more reason to jump start UAFA NOW while we have the chance at shooting for the friendly numbers in Congress.  Do not tell me we have no traction!  We have not tried. For as long as we have sailed the river of CIR- we have allowed UAFA to submerge.  No matter what anyone tells you, advocating for UAFA as a stand alone is vastly different from what Immigration Equality has poured its resources into.

Maybe if the Dream Act, Ag and UAFA – were put into an omnibus – and not set up with the ’12 million biometric pay fines amnesty and fix the border controversy,’ we would get Congress to open their hearts!

Quite frankly when it come to equality related Immigration Bills, the evangelicals are welcome to risk putting their Church communities on the line in a climate that favors equity for gays and lesbians and those who abhor what the Dream Act will remedy, will eventually fall to conscience or take their front row seats in their self preserved Hell.

Recently Tiff put out a letter addressed to the USCCB telling them to STOP their advocacy against our community.   ” Some feel,”  says Tiff,  “that we should be quiet and not rock the boat since we have made gains in terms of being included in various frameworks (which is a great gain, but far from a win.)”

I wonder if he is referring to Immigration Equality here? I chose not to ask.

This articles shows that this struggle is FAR from over, and that the Evangelicals and others will regroup and come back.  http://www.congress.org/news/2010/05/26/rift_grows_between_immigration_allies

The hole that Tiff speaks of is  our failure as a movement to directly engage the opposition.   Most of the work on the religious front is focused on developing support among the more welcoming faiths.

It is here that I must add my agreement by way of example.  I would submit to Tiff that it is more than not engaging our opposition, it is a flagrant refusal to engage our opposition when we have the opportunity.  Example in point – After Shirley Tan gave testimony at the June 2009 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for UAFA, I left the hearing Room together with Shirl, Jay and then 12 year old twins; we were excited to go door to door in the Dirksen Building to Advocate for UAFA.   (The IE switch to CIR advocacy was to start the very next day, when HONDA introduced related legislation.)

We asked the staff (no names mentioned,) from Immigration Equality, for a list of representatives and senators we should go and visit to introduce Shirl, the family and to tell the story.  The momentum was significant.  We had all afternoon and would have seen anyone.

However we were explicitly told by the IE staffer NOT to waste our time going to visit with Republicans.  Naive at the time, I was surprised, because I always believe that even if a person overtly opposes my viewpoint, I have a duty to provide the education in the hope that it could nestle somewhere in the opposition’s subconscious, waiting for that rainy day of reckoning.

Tiff goes on to say, yesterday “that as with any campaign, if we ignore the opposition, they are left unfettered to do their undermining.  I really recommend that we concentrate more effort on opposing the USCCB and Evangelicals for UAFA and for our broader movement.  I think it’s silly to think that if we are quiet – they will let this happen.”

Yes, I agree TIFF is correct.  However we would need to be looking at UAFA as a stand alone and/or include he Dream Act. That would be the best way. To marry the two.

We could move quickly from framework to BILL, and call it Remedial or Equality Immigration Reform – and amnesty and Biometrics and Borders could fall into CIR as a separate piece of legislation; the division is an excellent plan, because the Equality Immigration reform is in essence remedying an inequity to basic existing rights-  to existing policy and law.

Whereas Biometrics and Amnesty entertains the conference  of a new privilege to undocumented immigrants. The reason to keep border security with this second Bill – would be to encourage Republican votes and same would remain a response to Arizona’s encroachment on Federal law.

Please keep your eyes open for a follow up Article on how we can engage our opposition and how we should push for UAFA as a stand alone, with the possibility of Including DREAM ACT.

By Melanie Nathan
Nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• White House Calls for Immigration Reform Dsicussion with Senators Schumer & Graham (lezgetreal.com)
• Congressman Nadler talks UAFA Strategy with Bi-National Activists seeking Immigration Equality (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (lezgetreal.com)
• Understanding the Flip Flop – Congressman Gutierrez and UAFA in Immigration Reform (lezgetreal.com)
• Out4Immigration Relentless in Pursuit of UAFA – Updates (lezgetreal.com)
• Immigration Reform Framework -Inclusion of Permanent Partners Angers Hispanic Groups (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Immigration Reform Proposal – Mentions Intent to Include Permanant Partners (lezgetreal.com)

Karel – well known out gay radio personality/host and pro equality proponent blasted the fact that Larry King gets to marry so often and to divorce so often. Karel went on to say that Gay people have  no marital rights under the federal law in the USA.  He makes the point that protecting the sanctity of marriage (for straights people,) an unsubstantiated argument against gay marriage, is impacted by people being allowed to divorce especially as often as the likes of Larry King.

While Karel’s thesis is to restrict divorce, mine is to ban divorce.  His idea is based on the fact that people get to divorce too many times and that surely impacts the so called sanctity of marriage.  However my argument speaks to the fact that same-sex marriage is outlawed under federal law based purely on the mindset and argument that same-sex couples will disturb the sanctity of marriage.

What could be worse to the sanctity of marriage than the couple, who exercised their  legal right to marry, signed the legal contract and even made a religious vow to stay together until ‘death do us part,’ terminating the marriage?   What could be more rift causing, family breaking, troublesome than that?

I guess what to those proponents it is worse if same gender couples marry and stay together until “death do them part!”

So gays and lesbians are denied their inherent right, to marry; and specifically discriminated against by virtue of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) for an absolutely fallacious reason – while the real cause of harm to marriage is a day to day occurrence for many different people and for some a regular occurrence every few years or so.   True Larry King is indeed an old bloke – 80 plus… I do not know so that gives him a marriage every ten years since the day he was born! See my November, 2009 Article  BAN DIVORCE …

Karel’s show: ‘if you want to hear the comments including the authors go to the podcast at www.radiokrl.com or iTunes

Hear and SEE Karel On Green960 KKGN San Francisco, KRXA 540 Monterey, KUDO Anchorage, KYNS San Luis Obispo, iTunes, More To Follow 3pm to 6pm M-F Live!

Thanks to Karel for correcting me – 8th divorce and 7th wife. Even bigger chutzpah he got to marry one twice!

Melanie Nathan

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

@oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles by Zemanta

• Larry King: Divorce #8, Bye Shawn Southwick! (justjared.buzznet.com)
• Larry King DIVORCE: King, Shawn Southwick Breaking Up (huffingtonpost.com)

It’s starting to get a little bit bizarre. I have checked the weather forecast in Hell and apparently it’s a tad chilly. Republicans all over the place are coming out in favour of gay marriage. It doesn’t sound right, but there it is. Can opened, worms everywhere. Awesome, gay-rights-supporting worms.

I mean, a while back, Dick Cheney answered a question about marriage equality by saying, “freedom means freedom for everyone.” But he has a gay daughter, and you can expect someone to gain some perspective from that.

And then there is Meghan McCain. While not overly popular with the Repulican old guard, she’s a poster girl for the new wave of younger, more secular Republicans and she is vehemently pro-gay rights. And yesterday, her mother, Cindy McCain, came out as a supporter of marriage equality as well.

Margaret Hoover, Fox News Contributor, also wrote a blog post in favour of same-sex marraige rights. She writes,

“I’m joining this effort as a representative of a new generation of Republicans whose conservatism consistently emphasizes individual freedom and recognizes the constitutional right of all Americans to marry.”

We also have Ted Olson on our side. As Rachel Maddow reported just the other day, the high profile conservative lawyer has decided to fight to defeat California’s Proposition 8.

Rachel Maddow on Ted Olson’s fight for marriage equality (MSNBC video)

So, can we expect to see some Democrats supporting marriage equality? Obama? Hello? Can you hear us?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cindy McCain For Marriage Equality (joemygod.blogspot.com)

The three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals looks like they will reverse Judge Walker’s orders that the Prop 8 campaign hand over internal communications to the Olson/Boies team who is challenging the discriminatory initiative in federal court.

Judges Kim Wardlaw, Raymond Fisher and Marsha Berzon, who were all appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton, said proponents “have made a strong showing that they are likely to succeed” in their Tuesday arguments that their private communications were protected under the First Amendment. The judges said they will issue a ruling soon, but in the meantime, have stayed Walker’s order. See full order posted in full below.

The ACLU, in a unusual move, issued an amicus brief, siding with the Prop 8 proponents despite the fact that they campaigned against the initiative.

You can read more at www.unitethefight.org.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Prop 8 Campaign Appeal Order to Disclose Campaign’s Discriminatory Intent (lezgetreal.com)

 The people of New York State are not against Gay marriage, yet its representatives are; how does one explain such a phenomenon?  The deliberate duplicity of the eight democrats who voted ‘no’ was characterized by Senator Tom Duane as pure betrayal – and the infringing eight are:-

1. Joseph Addabbo (D) (518) 455-2322; 
2. Darrel Aubertine (D) (518) 455-2761;
3. Ruben Diaz (D) (518) 455-2511; 
4. Shirley Huntley (D) (518) 455-3531;
5. Carl Kruger (D) (518) 455-2460; 
6. Hiram Monserrate (D) (518) 455-2529;
7. George Onorato (D) (518) 455-3486; 
8. William Stachowski (D) (518)-455-2426.

CNN reports that the Marist College poll released the same day as Senate vote finds that a majority of New Yorkers support marriage equality at 51-42%.   It is quite ironic that their representatives left their spines at home the day of the vote. They chose to vote NO contrary to their supposed democratic ideals, regardless of fairness for their constituents, and in defiance of colleagues. What can they be afraid of if they are not fearful of re-election? Their ‘no’ votes will not please constituents, given the polls. Could it be a concomitant of their respective personal beliefs – anti-gay; anti-equality; church bonded, some bog donor dangling some big carrot?  I suggest that all the 51 % pro same-sex marriage supporters censure this disdainful crew, through the withdrawal of all support, to the point of bye-bye political careers.  Instead of assisting to make history in the interests of equality this group of schmendricks are now ensconced in the RAINBOW HALL OF SHAME.

 Anger aside, what is truly most hurtful to me is my own ebbing trust; a tide that is pulling me farther and farther out to sea and with every “NO you cannot,” my wedding cake icing, “Yes We Can” flails in its hopeless glaze, as my excruciating retort from the failure of the Democratic Party to hone a faithful and authentic crew, edges to that part of the ocean that slips beyond the horizon. 

 In viewing the roll, every single Republican voted NO – not one of them out of their usual and profoundly effective lock step. Reminiscent of Rex Harrison during ‘My Fair Lady’, “Why can’t the English learn to speak-” ‘why can’t the democrats learn to vote?” This malfunction is the Democratic Achilles heel and New York State is a tip of the iceberg.  If only the democrats could vote in sync each and every time maybe something will change here in ‘Retro-land.’

 Where is our Martin Luther King, to lead us through the streets of this unconscious wasteland; – where the GOOD are few, the BAD are many and the GUTlLESS prevail.

 P.S. Call the Gutless Crew and let them know what you think of their vote.

 (*showing a contemptible lack of boldness and resolve)

Authored by Melanie Nathan- (citizen,  mother, wife,  daughter, queer, a  niece, cousin,  Aunt, Sister, friend,  wise-fool, volunteer, in the box, out the box, – still planet earth, comparative privilege, ever-grateful, trying to feel pain, measured guilt,  abhorred by injustice, glass half full half the time, too well-read and out-traveled; lived in Africa, live in USA, mediator, advocate, activist, idealist, dreamer, doer, done! nathan@privatecourts.com ; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com

 From the Mediation desk of Melanie Nathan:

 Since the recession and housing bust, there has been an increasing amount of homes either about to be foreclosed or upside down. Often both or one party may still be feeding community or post separation income into  an unviable  property.    These situations may be remedied by short sales, loan modification, divorce settlements providing inter spousal transfers and indemnifications for debt assumed, or simply by walking away.

This difficult situation adds to the stress of divorce, especially if the parties are not in tandem as to the fate of the property.   Some may want to hold on to the property in the hope of a future upside,  and whomever remains on must be prepared to take responsibility for their share of the holding costs, such as mortgage payments, property tax, maintenance costs and insurance.  If one party decides to hold on, there is no likelihood of the other receiving any cash settlement  for an upside down property, regardless of what went into the property or the dream of a future upside.   

 I have had cases where one spouse holds the property, like the sword of Damocles, over the head of the other, asserting they will be stuck with poor credit, unable to find rental accommodation, in legal trouble, creating fear resulting in the threatened party holding on for longer than necessary.   

 This is where a neutral mediator and/or advice of a consulting attorney is imperative.  The neutral can help the party step out of the dream into reality.  The neutral provides a safe and peaceful environment for joint exploration of the remedies and can facilitate a productive discussion, helping the parties crunch numbers,  call in other  professionals such as CPA or Mortgage expert to assist with the analysis.  

Fear, misunderstanding  and false senses of security ought not stand in the way of moving forward. It is important to pursue the evolving legal remedies.   These cases need to be mediated rather than litigated. Positioning and pos toward resolving all the issues. Using separate attorneys can be counter- productive and may result in wasted precious time, while throwing good after bad. A party can always have a separate consulting attorney on the side.  

 With all this in mind I was delighted to come across an article by Kenneth R. Harney, November 29, 2009, in the LA times: “Professor advises underwater homeowners to walk away from mortgages; Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law school professor, says that it’s in the homeowners’ best financial interest to stiff their lenders and that it’s not immoral to do so.” … read on…   ( A MUST READ!)

“Go ahead. Break the chains. Stop paying on your mortgage if you owe more than the house is worth. And most important: Don’t feel guilty about it. Don’t think you’re doing something morally wrong.

That’s the incendiary core message of a new academic paper by Brent T. White, a University of Arizona law school professor, titled “Underwater and Not Walking Away: Shame, Fear and the Social Management of the Housing Crisis.”

White contends that far more of the estimated 15 million U.S. homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages should stiff their lenders and take a hike.”  

 This Article, a breathe of fair air, served to endorse my sentiment which I have not hesitated to express in mediation. These are unusual times.  Although the facts of each case may seem similar, they all have a distinctive circumstance and the facts must be explored in detail before a strategy is employed. The one piece of generic advice that I can impart is that one spouse should not be held hostage by the other to a hope or dream about the  future of the property, or to any obligation.  Divorce provides a unique opportunity to walk away from the property and leave it in the hands of the Party who does not want to give it up.  The mediator can help draft documents to reflect such an undertaking by one, documenting the discussion that led to the decision.      The change in spousal relationship can have an impact on negotiations with mortgage lenders and indemnities can be established between spouses for an element of protection if the lender pursues the non-owner spouse in the future.  Also of course a plan can be made for both to walk away. 

 Save your money,  and muster up six months of rent instead of paying it into the property. If you have bad credit and need to rent a property you can offer a few months of advance rental.  However BUYER BEWARE – when you pay rental ahead- be sure that the home you are renting is not about to be foreclosed upon as you may find yourself the victim of the Landlord’s inability to pay his/her mortgage.  

 I believe that walking away from an expensive dream opens the door for an inexpensive reality and good nights of sleep. 

MELANIE NATHAN 
nathan@privatecourts.com
www.privatecourts.com
www.divorcemediators.us

 Time.com reports a bombshell and a big kick in the side for the Obama Administration.  A little hole in DOMA which may lead to a blow out for the iniquitous law:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeal issued an unusual and exceedingly profound challenge to the power of the Executive Branch, by doing something not even the most sweeping state-court constitutional decisions on gay marriage have been  able to do: put the issue of equal treatment for gays to President Barack Obama in a way he will find hard to ignore.  

 ”The Office of Personnel Management shall cease at once its interference with the jurisdiction of this tribunal. “  He gave the Obama Administration 30 days to permit Karen Golinski, a lawyer employed by the Ninth Circuit, to include the woman she married under California law last year on her family health-insurance plan. “Some branch must have the final say on a law’s meaning. At least as to laws governing judicial employees, that is entirely our duty and our province. We would not be a co-equal branch of government otherwise.”

Will President Obama defend the actions of the FEDS and refer to the Defense of Marriage Act, a policy that Obama has consistently said that he is against (even though the Obama Administration has defended the law on several occasions since his taking office), and run the risk of Judge Kuzinski taking further legal action?  Or, will they concede that the Office of Personnel Management overstepped its bounds by interfering with the judicial branch, and flirt with conceding too that DOMA itself is overreaching and infringes not just on this one Court’s ability to make rulings independently, but a state’s right to autonomy, and, as part of that, its right to define marriage by its own constitution as expressly stated as part of the Defense of Marriage Act?

The unusual order is only incidentally about gay rights — the judge sidestepped the constitutional question about gays entirely — and is instead a fiery defense of the rights of the judiciary to manage its own employees. But if the Administration chooses to fight the order, it will have to tread carefully to avoid looking to gay-rights advocates like it is waging war in defense of a statute — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — that candidate Obama had said should be overturned.

“Kozinski’s order comes at an interesting time in the Ninth Circuit. It was matched last week by an order by a fellow judge on the appeals court, who ruled that Brad Levenson, a public defender working for the federal courts, was entitled to back pay to cover costs associated with buying separate insurance policies he purchased for Tony Sears, whom he married under California law before last year’s Prop 8 made gay marriage illegal there. That state constitutional amendment will itself be on trial beginning in January, when a U.S. district judge in San Francisco will hold the first federal jury trial on whether the U.S. Constitution requires that gay couples be given the opportunity to be married. As chief judge of the circuit, Kozinski will then almost certainly hear the Prop 8 case when it goes on appeal.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1942791-1,00.html#ixzz0Y76ZmcT3

So I say if you believe you are entitled Fill in that Form and help put another nail in the coffin signaling the DEMISE OF DOMA.  By the way keep your eye on this one.

Blogged by Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com

 • Among lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons, the health of bisexual and transgender people is somewhat worse than their heterosexual and non-transgender counterparts, respectively.

• The health of lesbian, gay, people is comparable to that of heterosexual respondents. However, lesbians were less likely to have routine pap tests compared with their heterosexual female counterparts.

• Transgender persons had worse outcomes with respect to self‐reported health, disability status, depression, anxiety, suicide ideation, and lifetime violence victimization.

• Bisexual respondents how worse outcomes with respect to self‐reported health, disability status, suicide ideation, as well as lower rates of mammography for bisexual women compared with their heterosexual female counterparts.

• Legally married same‐sex couples were more likely to obtain health insurance through their spouse’s employer than non‐legally same sex couples.

 This research validates the research on other minority populations that associates stigma and other social determinants with poor health outcomes.  The health disparities faced by minority groups are all too common. Increasingly, there are more theories regarding the factors that lead to health disparities. Research increasingly points to a range of social inequities including income, access to health care or insurance, and housing as factors that impact everyone regardless of race, sexual orientation or gender. However, there are theories specific to minority groups that add additional factors based on minority status.

 Recent changes, including marriage equality, may be helping to reduce disparities for lesbians and gay men, possibly by providing greater access to health insurance.  However, transgender persons still face major barriers with respect to employment nondiscrimination, public accommodations and general social acceptance. This report finds transgender persons reporting the highest level of health disparities.  See http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/commissioner/lgbt_health_report.pdf

One big hit is when it comes to  Gay Men and Women with Diabetes  -    Could the medical community be overlooking 2.5 million people who have diabetes?  Currently, 23.6 million children and adults in the United States, or 7.8 percent of the population, have diabetes. Although an estimated 17.9 million of them have been diagnosed, 5.7 million (nearly one quarter) are unaware that they have the disease.  If lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people comprise 10 percent of the U.S. population, then 10 percent of people with diabetes are part of the LGBT community-about 2.5 million people.  (Another reason to participate in the 2010 census.)

Lack of equality has always been a problem as we all know, but when it comes to specific stories we realize just how hard we must fight, because our lack of rights  detrimentaly impact  every aspect of our lives.  When Jim went to a local emergency room  for kidney stones, he experienced an episode of hypoglycemia. While he was trying to get a nurse’s attention to explain what was happening, his blood sugar sank to a dangerous 19 mg/dL and he began to have a seizure. The emergency staff rushed to raise his blood sugar and admit him to the intensive care unit, but no one bothered to tell his spouse, John, who was scared and confused.   Yet another example of the loneliness of marriage for a gay couple in the US.

“ Diabetes is a stress in any relationship and  when you combine that with the added stresses of life as a lesbian or a gay man-whether you are open about it or not-there is a great need for LGBT people with diabetes and the partners who support them to receive services and information geared to their unique needs, “  Said John from DANG Foundation.   

With the help available in the myriad of articles and unique content provided by  pre-eminent sites like the Diabetes Health Website,  and an increased awareness of one’s right to fight…. my message is fight for your rights and fight for your health…and fight for your health so you can fight for your rights.

Blog by Melanie Nathan

T, stranded in Europe says  ”Some may get nervous writing letters; no worries, the letter is done for you.  Simply create a log in name and “click” — BOOM!, those e-mail letters are sent.  Some of you may be nervous about exposing yourself by writing — but all you need to is make up a log in name. …  I understand your desire for anonymity, but PLEASE make up a ghost pen name if you must and send the letters.  Some of you may not like what is written — want to compose your own note?  Just “overwrite” the existing text with your own .”

I believe short representations of the most poignant aspects of our personal stories are most effective. Our Reps want to hear our stories even more than they want to hear from organizations. Therein lies the power of your correspondence. However be sure to include the main talking points which are very clear from the links.
 
Momentum is building for our issue;  our time must be now or as Senator Gillibrand mentioned recently it may be too late.  Senator Arlen Specter just signed on as a cosponsor of Uniting American Families Act and I have no doubt it  was our letters and blogging that got us there.    More and more press attention is being devoted to this issue.  Now is not the time to be timid or afraid.  Be bold!  Demand what is rightfully ours — demand the right (not chance, not privilege) to be with your one true love.  Demand it for your friends and for your fellow borthers and sisters.  We must all work as hard now as ever, even harder.  Quoting the grassroots campaign of Out 4 Immigration which has a goal to obtain goal  1000 signatures –   

T says. – “when I sent mine, I was Number 130.  A friend and ally SF had 130+ people at the rally she organized last week in Florida. She stood in the daylight and asked for change.  Surely we all can sit in the comfort of our own homes, in our pajamas and point and click for change, right?
 
T says – I give you equal parts inspiration and determination, seasoned with a dash of chiding.  C’mon, everyone — my partner “M” and I NEED you.  We all need each other.  Please help us.  Please help yourselves.  If we do the work, we will reap the rewards…”
 
 If you haven’t done so already, please go to the change.org page and send the e-mails to Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Lofgren as well. NOW please whether you are impacted directly or not.

We are asking that we be included in Comprehensive immigration reform through the Uniting American Families. If you want to read my testimony provided to the Immigration Commission in San Francisco it can be found at www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress on the UAFA page.
 

BLOG by Melanie Nathan, nathan@privatecourts.com  www.privatecourts.com
Picture 1: Taken by Melanie Nathan at SF Pride 2009- Includes Shirley Tan, Jay Mercado and Twins,
Together with Lt. Dan C hoi.   Pictire 2: The Tan-Mercado family with Melanie in DC for Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing 2009

The 4,700-word statement, yet another reproach for the LGBT communities, named the Manhattan Declaration,  asserted: “[W]e will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” the statement says, “nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God‘s.”

 ”If you look at the Manhattan Declaration, we are clear that we see a genuine increase in the threat, especially on the sanctity of life front,” said Robert George, a Roman Catholic and a professor at Princeton University. “That’s the result of the federal government having an administration that is deeply committed to legal abortion and [government funding] and a majority in both houses of Congress that share that commitment…. We could have said many of the things that we are saying today a year ago, but some of the things we are saying today have an urgency to them as a result of the [Obama administration].”

 This declaration was drafted in last summer and was worked upon for several months before it was declared on Friday by the leaders of Conservative Christian communities.

The Conservative Christian communities in this declaration are implored to disagree with all rules and regulations that   accept any ideals against Christian doctrines, marriages in same sex and abortion. The leaders of Christianity supporting the declaration stated, “They are motivated and come from the deepest resources of our faith.” They also added that they could have made the declaration earlier but they consider this declaration to be more relevant for the present and future. According to the advocates of this declaration, ‘historic understanding of marriage’, ‘religious liberty’ and ’sanctity of life’ are the major highlights of this declaration.    

Yet, in snide hypocrisy these so called Leaders of Catholic, Evangelical and Orthodox groups were present during the declaration and made it clear that the declaration does not have any political interest.

 So yes, those of a faith that declares its hate – you may – but do not take the majority of Americans for fools, for we believe that you are in truth endeavoring to impact politically. I trust that the majority of true Christians will declare opposition to this statement that purports to speak for all of faith- because it is simply not so for those who subscribe to G-d as a loving G-d.

 Let us not forget the way the various Churches and doctrines have been used to pronounce upon policy through the world over many an era; in modern times we can look to the abhorrent example of Apartheid.  Born from Calvinism in Europe and transported to South Africa via the arrival of Jan Van Riebeck in 1652 on the Shores of the Cape, developed a group who considered themselves a nation of people, the Afrikaner, a white minority in Southern Africa.  They used gunpowder and bible under the Dutch Reform Church’s teachings to ensure that black people were ruled undeserving of equality, that black Africans had an inferior place, one of servitude in a society of religious fervor. In 1949 Apartheid was born, a direct concomitant of these interpretations of the Bible and that birth was engendered in the form of LAW, yes legislation that declared racial prejudice legal, but also institutionalized the required compliance with its discriminatory codes.

 By: Melanie Nathan,
www.nathan@privatecourts.com 
www.visualcv.com/melnathan 
Note Photo: Consist of Archbishop Wuerl/

Updated – Donald William Wuerl (born November 12, 1940) is an American prelate of the Roman Catholic Church. He is the sixth and current Archbishop of Washington, having previously served as Bishop of Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006.  Evangelicals like Chuck Colson, Roman Catholics like Archbishop Donald Wuerl, and the other religious leaders who signed the “Manhattan Declaration” don’t seem to understand that justifying discrimination in the name of religious freedom is dangerous to society.

UPDATED: By now we have all heard about the Manhattan Declaration put out by various religious right figures and groups urging, among other things, non-cooperation with laws that in any way recognize same sex couples. It has been condemned in many circles and for good reason.  Wayne Besen of Truthwinsout.org said the following: “This is a disturbing call for anarchy from a group of radical clerics and activists who believe they don’t have play by the same rules as other taxpaying Americans.”  And according to the blog Instaputz, there is another reason to not only oppose this document but also raise the alarm about it.   Some of the names those signing the declaration aren’t a surprise. They are the usual folks who oppose lgbt equality – Tony Perkins, James Dobson, Maggie Gallagher, Gary Bauer, etc.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Manhattan Declaration – Go Sign it! (liveactivecultures.net)

Today the news was immense when Senator Arlen Specter sign his support to the Bill.  In June this year  the Senator attended and spoke at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, in support of equality in immigration. Now he has put his pen to his word and for that we are grateful.  There is no doubt that the Senator’s Democratic rival, Rep.  Joe Sestak, who is challenging Senator Specter for his seat next year, will sign on as co-sponsor as well. However this will probably necessitate  a campaign promise in the meantime.

From my perspective ANY candidate that signs on to UAFA would earn my vote. That is why Barbara Boxer must beat controversial HP spoiler, Carli Fiorina, the Republican contender for the Senator’s California seat.

In addition I believe that the grass roots effort with our4immigration at the helm of a letter writing campaign seems to be paying off. Activists have put in a tremendous amount of hard work and have strategized to target new representatives each and every week.  The new additions in supporting UAFA include:- Senator Ted Kaufman; Congresswoman Donna Edwards signed on as a co-sponsor
of the Reuniting Families Act (H.R. 2709) which includes UAFA which means she would probably also vote for it as stand-alone legislation.

If you are willing to help this critical legislation passed – please help.  Unfortunately UAFA is not first and foremost on the plat of our activists – it has taken last place to HATE crimes Bill, ENDNA and DADT and worse yet it remains on the back burner for those who believe it will be included in Comprehensive Immigration Reform.   

Here is where we need your help:-

Please take a minute to call or fax Senator Carper’s (202) 224-2441office today and tell them you’d like him to support The Uniting American Families Act (S.424) and support it’s inclusion in comprehensive immigration reform, and please share this with anyone you think might be willing to help.  And also the following  who had signed on to the

All five of the following  members of Congress were past co-sponsors of UAFA, and have still not signed on. We need their support once again, and please remind them that they were past co-sponsors when you e-mail them.  Tell them why The Uniting American Families Act matters to your family, if you are impacted and if not simply tell then you want to know if they will support it now.

Congressman Rob Andrews (D-NJ-1) Staffer to contact: Mr. Stephen Hunter, Immigration Aide
Stephen.hunter@mail.house.gov;  Phone: (202) 225-6501; Fax: (202) 225-6583; 

Congress Rep  Kathy Castor (D-FL-11) Phone: (202) 225-3376 Fax: (202) 225-5652

Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC-6)  Staffer to contact: Mr. Danny Cromer, Immigration & LGBT Aide
danny.cromer@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-3315 Fax: (202) 225-2313

Congressman Al Green (D-TX-9)  Staffer to contact: Ms. Susie Saavedra, LGBT Aide
Susie.saavedra@mail.house.gov  Staffer to contact: Ms. Renee Mayo, Immigration Aide
renee.mayo@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-7508 Fax: (202) 225-2947

Congressman Dennis Moore (D-KS-3)  Staffer to contact: Ms. Sarah Lochner, LGBT Aide
sarah.lochner@mail.house.gov  Phone: (202) 225-2865; Fax: (202) 225-2807

 Thanks for your help as always.

Blogged by Melanie Nathan/ Picture of out4Immigration’s tireless footsoldiers.
www.privatecourts.com
www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com
www.visualcv.com/melnathan

Contact: nathan@privatecourts.com

Ms Prejean recently counter sued the Miss California USA organization on grounds of wrongful termination after they sued her for breach of contract and the cost of her augmentation. This suit came after attempts to sabotage Ms Prejean’s celebrity by the public revelation of her rather racy pictures in a variety of magazines. The suit came to an end when a sex tape involving Ms Prejean surfaced and was aired in court. The revelation has already lost Ms Prejean a major speaking engagement for an anti-marriage equality group in New Jersey. It may, in the end, result in her losing most of her moral issues support.

As was mentioned by one supporter of David Letterman, the reason why he has managed to withstand the recent controversy over his affair with a member of his staff is because he never pretended to be incredibly moral or anything more than human. Ms Prejean’s decision to try to capitalize on her disastrous run for Miss America ultimately set her up for this fall.

Last night, Kieth Olbermann of MSNBC’s Countdown did a pretty good job of explaining the whole mess.

Edit: Corrected the organization. As a note to readers, I do, upon occasion, make mistakes. A simple polite note of correction is welcome. Insulting me in any way in order to either a) insinuate that I am stupid, b) ill informed, c) not doing research, or d) wrong because of a factual mistake is a guaranteed one way trip to the ‘delete’ bin. I welcome constructive debate, but direct attacks upon me in order to disprove my points are not welcome.

LGBT activists are in high gear tonight, issuing a “Red Alert” to all who favor marriage equality, asking them to step up participation in the campaign for No on 1 in Maine.

From Jesse Connolly, NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign manager:

I wasn’t going to come to you to ask for money again. We’ve asked so much, and you’ve dug deep and really come through.

Honestly, I wouldn’t take my time away from managing our Get Out The Vote operation to send this email if it wasn’t really important.

But we just heard that Yes on 1 is increasing their TV ad buy by $25,000 today.

$25,000 buys a lot of TV ads in Maine.

With the money we have now, we simply can’t counter their arguments on TV.

You and I have both invested a lot in this campaign. I won’t– I can’t– let them win this because we couldn’t come up with the last $25,000 in the final 36 hours.

We can’t let Yes on 1 win the airtime war with their misleading, and factually inaccurate ads.

We can’t let Yes on 1 lie to Maine voters about schools and teachers and children and same-sex couples in Maine.

We need to stand up and match every one of their lies with an ad of our own, that explains that marriage equality won’t do anything to families but protect all of them.

And I need you to help. Can you come through one last time and give $20 to help us finish this campaign with a win?

Those who are interested in making a donation to the No on 1 campaign for marriage equality in Maine can do so HERE.

You can also find out other ways to help in this last push for marriage equality in Maine by visiting www.unitethefight.org.

Julie Phineas is a work at home mom of 2 who lives in Southern California. You can find out more about her online by visiting her website at www.juliephineas.com.

The latest TV ad from the Yes on 1 campaign argues that same-sex marriage will be taught in school. If you were a child with same-sex parents, how would you feel watching this ad? How would you feel if your parents couldn’t marry? How would you feel if you were treated less than others? Wouldn’t you think we are all the same? So why then couldn’t your parents get married? Is that fair?

No, it’s not.

Vote No on 1.

-Sean Chapin

by   Melanie Nathan:  
Some organizations focus on fundraising and remain furtive in their strategy, citing “we know best” while purporting to advance the cause of binationals in their self appointed autocracy.  However  Out4Immigration remains consistent in its plan – a transparent one- and as always makes  public and involves the public. 

 The group is now in the 34th week of its letter writing campaign and is responsible for much of the traction of UAFA  gaining support on the Hill.  What is noteworthy is the fact that out4Immigration works steadily and consistently to put people on the ground.

We can never underestimate the value of LGBT personal stories. We must introduce ourselves, one by one to Congress. The few organizations are indeed just that,  too few on the Hill, and they do not have the power of the personal story. Congress wants to hear from us. They would rather hear from us than lobbyists and groups. The power of each and every story is as unique as a fingerprint and as relevant as our family entitlements.  This is a skill so beautifully honed by Out4I and passed on to all willing to take the plunge.

Week 34 -” Please sign on to sponsor Uniting American Families Act“   A letter campaign to Congress. If you are in a binational relationship you have not yet done enough unless you write to at least ten congressional representatives, including your own.  Even if your own rep already co-sponsors the legislation, we should all question their leadership on moving it forward. 

 Amos Lim says:-”  Out4Immigration –  is an all grassroots organization and our letter writing campaign is now in its 34th  week.  We have had successes in our campaign by getting more cosponsors on board.  We are also constantly adapting the campaign from feed-back that we received from our members and from our allies. There are people who are interested in doing more than just simple cut and paste and after some discussion, we are incorporating those request into our letter writing campaign. Out4 I provides guidance and options for your own advocacy either on your own behalf or as someone who abhors the fact that so many American are subject to this horrendous inequity that separates our couples.” There are three options in using the names and addresses of the Congressional targets O4I provide:  (1) Send an Out4Immigration form letter.. go to http://out4Immigration.com to join as a member. It is free. (2) Write your own letter telling your personal story (3) Send each representative a self-made booklet that tells your story, shows pictures of your family, includes letters from your employer or others in the community identifying their support for you and the UAFA.  Again, you should send this an individual, although you can use news clippings and links to organizations that advocate for same-sexbinational couples like O4I,  Marriage Equality.

See the OUT4I toolkit: http://tinyurl.com/o4i-toolkit1 for more ideas. Whichever option you choose (and please, choose at least one!) Amos Lim says “know that you are making a difference — and please don’t give up!”

Please join out4Immigration in its quest to help our gay and lesbian families in exile, in hiding or living in uncertainty. we should not have to choose between our heart or home.  Also remember we are all one heart beat away from falling in love with a foreigner.  I encourage all readers to visit Out$Immigration website to see what they are up to.  They ask for nothing except your personal advocacy. It is the least we can all do.

Blogged by, MELANIE NATHAN, C  of Private Courts, Inc. “ Consulting, mediation & private advocacy ; motivated by injustice, I blog about family law/mediation, politics, news and LGBT equality and anything that tickles my fancy.  Otherwise blogging as O-blog-dee-o-blog-da. Websites and blogs include: http://www.privatecourts.com; http://www.divorcemediators.us; www.oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com. CONTACT:- nathan@privatecourts.com

Every day LGBT people face inequalities that just don’t make sense, from small acts of discrimination to ones with tragic consequences. The hard reality is that you find out what rights you have when you need them the most. For many of us, that means that we have to ask ourselves, am I protected? Unfortunately, we have a long ways to go, and each and every one of us must do our part. Visit http://amiprotected.org.

Charlene Strong lost her partner Kate Fleming after a tragic flooding incident in Seattle in late 2006, and was nearly barred from seeing Fleming in her last moments of life. Strongs heart-wrenching testimony about the hospital ordeal helped prompt Washington State to pass domestic partnership protections for same-sex couples. The award-winning feature documentary “for my wife” chronicles Strongs journey through tragedy to activism.

Equal Rights Washington Education Fund is responsible for this ad. http://amiprotected.org

Marc Solomon, Equality California’s Marriage Director, sat down in exclusive interview with Phillip Minton of UniteTheFight.org and discussed today’s announcement and the release of  “Winning Marriage Equality Back in California: Analysis and Plan“,  EQCA’s ‘pro-2012 road map’.

“I don’t view this as the end of discussion and conversation,” Marc said about the announcement right off the bat. “We promised the LGBT community that we would let them know what we think the wisest course of action is. It’s our responsibility. That’s why we put something out today. But we’re not saying that it’s our way or the highway. We certainly can’t force anyone to adopt our position.”

“We hope people read [the analysis] and use interactive sites like Unite the Fight and others to discuss it,” he said. “I encourage everyone to read it and think about it.”

We encourage everyone interested in the Prop. 8 in 2010 vs. Prop. 8 in 2012 debate to read the the entire interview, where Minton and Solomon get into a deep discussion about what it means:

EQCA’s Marc Solomon Talks About Juggling Plans for 2012 While Working With 2010 Supporters

Solomon finished the interview by saying;

“One thing I would ask people to do is give a good, close read to what we’ve put out there,” he said, referring to their “Analysis and Plan” for 2012. “And if they have questions, send them to me and let’s discuss them.”

Equality California will continue soliciting feedback from community members and will hold a virtual town hall via livestream moderated by Bay Area Reporter Editor Cynthia Laird on Thursday, August 13, from 5 to 7 p.m. PDT. To join the town hall, visit www.livestream.com/equalitycalifornia at that time.

Conservative groups are, of course, correct that this does undermine the intent of Prop 8, which is to keep gays, lesbians and transpeople second class citizens and to deny them both legal and social rights. However, this law does uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and the Full Faith and Credit Clause there in. Conservative groups are, of course, welcome to create another proposition in order to overturn this law and add a provision to the California State Constitution which would put an end to recognition of out of state marriages, and that would then trigger a lawsuit which could very easily threaten to eliminate the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Conservative groups are, of course, busy quibbling about how this goes against the will of the people. However, no matter what the will of the people might be, the very fact that it takes a law to have a valid contract from one state recognized by another state is unconstitutional.

Senator Leno is fairly certain that this bill will pass. Currently Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, Iowa and New Hampshire have legal same-sex marriages.

From Democracy Now:

“In Washington, D.C. a city council ordinance recognizing same-sex marriages has gone into effect. The council approved the bill in May. It doesn’t legalize same-sex marriage but recognizes those performed in other states. Council members say they plan to introduce another resolution that would allow same-sex marriages in the district.”

There are 41 bills left to vote on, including a bill that was proposed earlier in this session to legalize same-sex marriage. The governor has said that he will be putting neutral topics on the floor and emergency bills to vote.

This extra time in session can cost the taxpayers of New York up to two million tax dollars.

Governor Paterson is hoping to push through the most pertinent bills right now. However, same-sex marriage rights are not included as emergency legislation. Governor Paterson is known for backing up same-sex marriage and being an advocate for LGBT rights. Some were astounded to hear the same-sex marriage bill will not be placed on the floor in these next few days for a vote, including myself. If equality for all, truly ridding our government of discrimination, is not emergency legislation, then I need someone to explain to me what is.

Governor Paterson said he hopes to pass the same-sex marriage bill in the coming weeks.

Yet, it will not be a part of the special session if one is needed on Tuesday. The governor is taking heat for this decision from many supporters of the bill and LGBT community itself, but his main focus seems to be making sure the GOP and democrat senators are able to make a decision. They are not required to vote on the bills presented, but they will be required to show up. I think it should be required that everyone be treated the same.

Mary Catherine Benge is a writing student from Austin, Texas. You can find out more about her by finding her on facebook.

“It is important to afford same-sex couples the ability to obtain the comprehensive set of rights and responsibilities available to opposite-sex couples. The Assembly has passed the Governor’s Program Bill,” said New York State Bar Association President Michael E. Getnick of Utica, and he called upon the New York Senate to take action on this matter.

The delegates also said that New York’s Domestic Relations law should also be changed to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

Theatrics in the New York State Senate over the pass two weeks however have made it unlikely the same-sex marriage bill will get a vote.

Here’s a partial transcript of Eichelberger’s remarks. Times are approximate.

You can listen to the whole debate at: http://www.whyy.org/91FM/radiotimes.html
21:15
Leach: How would he [Eichelberger] want to encourage stability in gay couples?
Eichelberger: I wouldn’t. I mean they can practice whatever sexual activity they like to practice, but there’s no reason to give them special consideration. We don’t give them special consideration in Pennsylvania for any reason. Why in the world would we allow them to marry?
22:05
Leach: How would he want to encourage stability in gay couples?
Eichelberger: There is no reason to encourage that type of behavior in Pennsylvania.
24:20
Eichelberger: That comes back to the definition of family and that’s where we differ. We can call all kinds of things families. I mean, we can say a 3 party marriage is a family, or 7 or 8 people or marrying younger and younger children these days .
25:00
Host: Are you saying that by their very nature homosexual relationships are dysfunctional?
Eichelberger: [Pause] Ummmm. I guess I would say that. I would say that.
38:50
Eichelberger: This changes the definition of marriage, allowing same-sex, and then like I said, 5-10 years from now it’ll be polygamy, marrying younger people, it’ll be whatever…It won’t be a 6 year old, it’ll be a 15 year old, then it’ll be a 14 year old, then it’ll be a 13 year old.
49:40
Leach: Should our only policy towards [same-sex] couples be one of punishment, to somehow prove that they’ve done something wrong?
Eichelberger: They’re not being punished. We’re allowing them to exist, and do what every American can do. We’re just not rewarding them with any special designation.

Sadly, that’s pretty consistent with the rhetoric embodied in the Department of Justice briefing issued by the Obama Administration on the defense of DOMA. It is an interesting week when Arlen Specter publicly supports the repeal of DADT (but doesn’t offer to sponsor the bill) and Obama links gay marriages to incest and pedophilia.
Back to Pennsylvania. This is the rhetoric we can expect over the foreseeable future. What you, dear readers, need to consider is that this is the mentality facing HB 300 which would amend the Human Relations Act to include protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression.

An elected official saying we have the privilege of existing? Existing? Are you kidding me? This is what passes for civil discourse in our society among those elected to lead us. The flip side of the coin is that “we” would have the ability to deny us the right to exist, isn’t it? That’s horrifying. It is one thing to disapprove of my identity or believe it is a choice, but quite another thing to suggest that I am permitted to exist in spite of my identity. Should I be grateful to Senator Eichelberger for not condoning someone taking away my existence?

Think about this. Seriously. You are allowed to exist. Your daughter, son, sibling or dear friends are allowed to exist. That’s where we are right now in this debate.

You can take action with a message to Senator Eichelberger via Keystone Equality.

I think you need to do more. You need to call YOUR Senator today or Monday and raise the roof over this outrageous comment. Here’s the link to find your Senator. I called Senator Fontana and demanded he address this with Senator Eichelbeger and the Republican and Senate leadership. No way is this okay. I do not exist at the whim of Pennsylvania’s Republicans or the hatemongerers masking as the ardent defenders of marriage.

How far will you let elected officials go before you get involved? Incest? Pedophilia? Your existence?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Pa. Senator calls for Gay Marriage Ban (lezgetreal.com)
• Are You Ready For The Fight For Gay Marriage In PA? (philebrity.com)
• Obama to assign benefits to federal gay couples: AP (ctv.ca)

When it comes to funding, one has to wonder if part of the problem is that the current head of the Democratic Party hails from one of the most homophobic and restrictive on gay rights states in the union- Virginia. What is more, even Governor Tim Kane is only part time when it comes to running the Democratic Party right now.

Money from the LGBTI community, also known as Pink Money, has been disproportionately heading towards the DNC over the years. Indeed, Governor Howard Dean of Vermont launched his 2004 Presidential bid using a substantial amount of money from the gays, lesbians and transpeople in the country. Indeed, the amount of money that the LGBTI community funneled into the Obama campaign likely tipped the scales in his battle to get the nomination. Yet, now, everything will be seen through the lens of this particular brief, and in light of President Obama’s lack of action on issues that many gays, lesbians and transpeople find important. For those who often state that President Obama has a lot to deal with right now, they forget that DOMA adds to the cost of living for gays and lesbians. They forget that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell often means finding oneself out of a job in a weak economy.

Somewhere lost in the noise is the fact that these issues effect the economy. Many gays and lesbians pay far more for health care than they can necessarily afford simply because of DOMA. For many transpeople, the costs of transitioning are so great that they are unable to do it at more than a snail’s pace, often risking their own lives in order to transition without the massive expense of the medical bills. Somewhere, lost in the Administration, is that gays, lesbians and transpeople have a greater interest in the reforms that President Obama proposed than the average person because we hurt so much from the discrimination that exists. It is time that President Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid realize that those Christian Conservatives out there are not going to follow along if we delay rights for the LGBTI community and it is time that they stand up to those groups. Any and all religious organization, church, or group that donates to any political cause should have their tax free status revoked. If they have the money to fund advertisements, they have money to pay taxes. If they allow petitions to be signed in their churches, then they should pay the same taxes as I would if I allowed others to sign petitions in my house or place of business. It is time to put this intrusion of religion into politics to bed and tell these groups that they have the money to spare since they are wasting it not feeding, clothing and helping the needy at a time when charitable donations are on the decline.

Stampp Corbin, President Obama’s Co-Chair for LGBT Issues during the campaign, will not be attending the fund raiser on the 25th of June either. He stated emphatically “You really are talking out of both sides of your mouth and my community knows it.” Mr. Corbin will be joining a long list of people who will not be attending the fund raiser including Peter Shumlin, who is expected to run for Governor of Vermont, Andy Towle (Towle Road), David Mixner and Pam Spaulding. The National Stonewall Democrats join the Human Rights Campaign in pulling support from this fund raiser.

This is according to Jeff Flint. In California, Mr. Flint helped to organize the Proposition 8 anti-marriage equality movement. Of course, he is also wrong on this issue since most polling show that Maine citizens are either evenly split on this issue or slightly favor same-sex marriage. Schubert Flint, the group which Mr. Flint is part of, will not be sending personnel to Maine, but will provide a certain amount of logistical support from California. Literally, this will be a Prop 8 style battle of smear tactics which will only serve to reinforce the move to legalize marriage rights through the legislatures and courts instead of allowing these issues to go before the voters simply because people will want to avoid the cesspit of slime, filth and muck that the Prop 8 purveyors will be peddling in the pose of defending the sanctity of marriage. After all, it is preferable to allow and forgive a man like Senator John Ensign of Nevada for violating not only his marriage vows, but that of his mistress, and for violating the law by buying her off than it is to allow two people of the same-sex to get married. Of course, in the eyes of God (or any host of deities), these individuals are already getting married. This is, after all, not a fight about the sanctity of marriage, but the sanctity of hate. These are people who still want to have the right to hate gays, lesbians and transpeople. Of course, there are people who will now point out that this is not about hating the person, but rather the behavior. According to Leviticus, it is wrong to eat shellfish; for a woman to go out without a head scarf; and to eat any animal that has a cloven hoof such as pig.

Of course, much of this is being funded by the religious quarters. They should have their tax exempt status removed. If they have the money to squander on ad campaigns to remove rights from people, or to advertise in general, then they have the money to pay taxes. The Catholic Church is violating the law by allowing for signatures to be gathered at their churches in order to overturn the law which granted marriage equality to Maine’s citizens. Those actions may actually endanger the signature drive when they are turned in. If they were deemed to be gathered illegally, then the whole petition may be thrown out.

Maine Freedom To Marry has hired their own people to push back against a Prop 8 style campaign and are organized for such a battle. Jesse Connolly will be taking a leave of absence as the Chief of Staff for Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree’s office to run the push back against this Prop 8 style campaign. In 2005, he successfully lead the Maine Won’t Discriminate campaign to keep Maine’s gay rights laws intact.

Maine has a voter veto system. If the anti-marriage equality groups can gather almost sixty thousand signatures to put the measure on the ballot by September (three months from now) then the measure will be voted on in 2010. A similar attempt was made after civil unions were passed in Maine, and that was unsuccessful.

Last week after Republicans gained control of the New York senate last week when two Democratic senators switched parties in an effort to unseat Democratic Senate leader Thomas Smith… the fate of same-sex marriage legislation approved by the New York State assembly last month became questionable.

Then one of the coups Democratic defectors opposite defected… leaving the New York Senate paralyzed and started speculation that Republicans looking to regain control of the Senate will use the bill as a bargaining chip to get other Democrats defect back to them so they can force their version of a state budget through the Senate.

And now, the National Organization for Marriage announced that they have set up a Political Action Committee for New York, and are asking for contributions so they can use the money punish any Republican who vote for the Marriage Equality Bill.

If the bill passes through the Senate, New York Governor David Paterson, a Democrat, has already expressed his willingness to sign the bill to make New York the seventh state to recognize gay marriage, but presently the whole legislative process in the Empire State is shut down…

Germanys Iron Chancellor, Otto Von Bismarck, once said, “The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they’ll sleep at night.”…. Bismarck must have been a prophet as well as a politician

President Obama, at 5:45pm, signed a memorandum which is not an executive order. This memorandum is directed towards the Office of Personnel Management, and it is intended to extend what benefits can be legally given to same-sex couples as constrained by the Defense of Marriage Act. This memorandum does direct Secretary Hilary Clinton to do the same thing as Director John Berry of the OPM, Secretary Clinton already issued a similar order earlier in the year. The request also goes out to all other department heads to determine which of their benefits can be legally extended to domestic partners.

President Obama did call upon Congress to repeal DOMA stating that it is discriminatory and interferes with State’s Rights. He did, however, issue his regrets that he could not extend all benefits to domestic partners of gays and lesbians in the country.

President Obama also endorsed the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. This act would extend domestic partner benefits to all employees of the Federal Government. It should be noted that this legislation may have a similar effect as all other Civil Service bills and only cover employees of the Legislative and Executive Branch. The Judicial Branch does not recognize all civil service laws.

Many feel that President Obama has been forced into some defensive action to prevent his base of support from totally splintering. While it is true that either Congress or the Courts must overturn DOMA and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, it has not seemed like the Executive Branch has been entirely willing to work towards that end either. Senator Obama while running for President stated repeatedly his support for gay, lesbian and transgender rights, many have grown frustrated with his lack of vocal support since then. The briefing filed in order to attempt to end Smelt v. United States was a tipping point in this case even though the cases cited in that brief may have been something of a smokescreen. It is possible that the lawyer involved in defending the government may have been attempting to get those problematic and vile cases deemed irrelevant to lawsuits involving anything going up against DOMA. Still, that brief only let loose a flood of growing frustration which the President is having to now deal with.

After today’s signing ceremony in the Oval Office Congresswoman Baldwin said, “President Obama’s orders today will make a real difference in people’s lives. Domestic partners, parents, and their children will now receive a number of meaningful benefits currently granted other federal employees.

LGBT Americans yearn for full equality. After last week’s U.S. Department of Justice filing seeking to dismiss a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), many in the LGBT community, myself included, were profoundly disappointed. After that disappointment, I was heartened to hear the President make a strong case today for the repeal of DOMA.

It was also gratifying to hear the President proudly announce his support for my Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009. I look forward to working with him and House and Senate leaders as we work toward passage of this legislation that will extend to the same-sex partners of Federal employees all of the benefits currently enjoyed by the opposite-sex spouses of Federal employees.

President Obama said today that his Memorandum is just a start. I agree that it is an important step in the quest for full equality for LGBT Americans. I welcome the challenge and the President’s support.”

This is a small step. It is an important one. However, this is not the end of this.

“Last week the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of DOMA. I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration. I still take President Obama at his word that he is committed to the repeal of DOMA. I also recognize that he cannot do it alone. Congress has the responsibility on its shoulders to pass legislation that would give the opportunity to the President to keep his word and ensure that all married people, including those in same-sex marriages, enjoy the same rights under federal law.”

It is not just the growing flack concerning the wording in the Department of Justice’s brief asking for the dismissal of Smelt v. United States, a defense that made Rush Limbaugh go blue in the face out of joy in trying to explain to us ‘boys, girls, and confused’ that Obama was on our side. A defense that may have been little more than a great big snafu (please refer to the enlistedman’s definition of that word), and little more than a cut and paste job by a hold over from the Bush Administration. It is the growing frustration in the administration that the President has not been pushing for an end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell despite stating that he wants to put it to an end. There is a strong feeling that the pressure is building.

What makes it worse is that this particular briefing comes at a time when we are learning that hate crimes against gays, lesbians and transpeople are on the rise. They are at their highest since 1999 in terms of murders, and it is clear that this is getting worse. This kind of briefing simply just adds to the fire rather than damping it down.

But will this be enough to quiet the growing descent in the Democratic base? Unfortunately, it more than likely will not be. While this grants those benefits to the federal employees, it would be far better to simply push for an end to DOMA so that this executive order, which incidentally does go against DOMA, would not be necessary. It is like taking a thimble and hoping that much water will be enough to stop the leak. It is time for President Barack Obama to take bold action and ask Congress to pass the Military Readiness Enhancement Act and to repeal DOMA or at least not defend DOMA in the courts.

It is a small step. It is a welcome step, but it is not likely to appease those who are growing frustrated with not only the President, but Congress as well.

For those who do not know, the DOJ used cases involving child marriages and language invoking incest to ask for the suit Smelt v. US to be dismissed. DOMA is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the United States Constitution.

California’s Prop 8 has had a mixture of effects for the LGBTI community. To begin with, it has certainly energized and unified us. Secondly, it has brought the issue of marriage rights to the forefront and made it much harder for people to push to have the issue of marriage rights brought to the voters because of the nasty way the campaign was fought.

The fate of same-sex marriage in New York is questionable if Espada and his Republican allies bring the bill to the floor. While State Senator Thomas Duane believes that there are enough votes for it to pass, former Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith was less than certain. This lead to his unwillingness to bring the legislation forward. Espada is for marriage equality, Monseratte is against it, and a number of State Senators are on the fence about this issue. New Yorkers are mostly in favor of the move directly to marriage equality. Should New York legalize marriage rights for all of its citizens, it will join Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine in doing so through the legislative process, and Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts who legalized it through the judicial process.

The Republicans in New York may be more than willing to bring this bill to the floor in order to ensure that it is a failure even though their leader has made it clear that he does not plan to demand a particular direction on the vote from his party membership. Most of the opposition to marriage equality comes from the Republicans, and the Democrats are split on the issue.

Great news from Knights Out:

“ACTION ALERT!

Shortly after this parliamentary coup occurred, Senator Espada was installed as the Senate President which makes him the acting Lt. Governor of New York. According to NY1, Espada is in favor of the marriage equality bill, but Monserrate is undecided.

The courts have been asked to rule on the legality of this parliamentary coup since it occurred after adjournment and not before. The other problem is that neither Espada nor Monserrate have changed parties. Instead, they are still Democrats, but voted with the Republicans to replace Malcolm Smith with Dean Skelos. Senator Skelos has stated that he intends to vote against marriage equality in New York, but that he will demand that the Republicans in the Senate vote with him. What is unclear is whether or not Skelos, as Majority Leader in the Senate, would be willing to even let the bill come to the floor.

According to HRC Field Director Marty Rouse, this puts the New York legislature completely in flux. Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell appears to be optimistic that this bill will pass. Most polls show that New Yorkers are in support of marriage equality currently. These polls show a great deal of support in Upstate New York, which is typically more conservative than the area around New York City.

How this plays out will depend a lot on the courts. What this may end up doing is just disrupting the New York legislature and ultimately revert control back to the Democrats who will undoubtably end up putting both Espada and Monseratte on the lowest level committees available to them.

http://wcbstv.com/local/senate.gop.albany.2.1037014.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/06/assemblyman_daniel_odonnell_i.html

The following is an email notification from the court:

STRAUSS v. HORTON
Case: S168047, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD): 2009-06-05
Event Description: Rehearing petition filed

We don’t have many details on this… but here’s the whole docket as of today…

We received this after close of business at the court, so we could not follow up to see exactly just what this all means , but we did give the local news station here in the Bay Area, KRON 4, a call and asked if they were also covering this story.

They said hadn’t heard about this development yet, but were, needless to say, going to be looking into this story now as well, so we’re hoping to see some news coverage on this from them soon.

There’s not really much hope the Justices will agree to a rehearing, but I guess you got to try.

Stay tuned for updates as we get them.

The Supreme Court took into account a recent ruling out of San Francisco which allowed a lawsuit filed by Major Margaret Witt to go forward. Her lawsuit is still pending, and all that their ruling did was allow the lawsuit to go forward under the direction that the government had to prove how Major Witt’s sexuality was disruptive to the cohesion of her unit.

The US Supreme Court, in making its decision, deferred to the Congressional findings concerning unit cohesion. Those findings were not based upon any accurate data, and are over a decade old now.

Congress is working on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, but there is no concrete determination on when that will be passed. President Obama has stated that he does not have the authority to put an end to discharges under DADT, but others have disagreed with that. It may be that he is reluctant to end the polity by executive fiat. During the campaign, President Obama promised to repeal DADT, and many LGBTI groups are growing impatient concerning the long delay.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31168203/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/supreme-court-rejects-cha_n_212534.html