Woman Binding Sheaves by Van Gogh (wikipedia.org)

Let us be honest here. The drive behind homophobia and transphobia is really about gender constructs and gender rigidity when it comes to others. It is a belief that men are Y and women are X and any deviation from that is horrifying. In the end, the Women’s Rights Movement is about that very fact. Gender is not as firmly set as many people want it to be, but then again, they are a Procrustean bed upon which society is either stretched or mutilated in order to fit, and any one who is not strong enough to survive that is considered to be worthless.

The Rainbow Sash Movement has a few points to make about the issue of women and the Catholic Church:

The Rainbow Sash Movement(RSM) believes the time has come for the Women’s Movement and the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender rights movements to recognize that women’s rights are Gay Rights and Gay Rights are women’s rights. “All human beings are born free and equal, in dignity and rights, it does not matter what country we live in, who our leaders are or even who we are. Because we are human we, therefore, have rights.  And because we have rights governments are bound to protect them.” Hillary Clinton [as] she gave an amazing, powerful, inspired speech at the United Nations in honor of International Human Rights Day.

In that speech she was talking about lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons. But clearly it applies to all human beings, including women. And if only President Obama and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius would take those words to heart and understand that a woman’s fundamental right to birth control is a human right. They need to recognize it. They don’t give it to women, women have it. They need to recognize it.

The RSM recognizes the sin of sexism and homophobia that runs rampant in the Roman Catholic Church it is time to publicly challenge our Catholic Bishops when they spout lies about both women and GLBT people.

We are concerned that the Obama’s administration fails to embrace this simple fact that all human beings have rights. His hesitancy to move beyond his evolving position on Gay Marriage and the issue of women’s health care only underlies his reelection politics over his ethical standards.

Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius in an unprecedented move has overruled a scientific evidenced-based decision of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. The FDA’s decision that Plan B, a particular kind of emergency contraception is safe and effective for all women, no matter what their age and should be available over the counter. That is scientific and evidenced-based decision and Sebelius overruled it purely on political grounds. The Rainbow Sash Movement believes this decision goes against not only women’s constitutional rights but also their human rights. To attack the rights of teenage girls to have access to medications that will be lifesaving is just as bad to encourage gay/lesbian suicide rates by silence. Young teenage girls have rights that must also be protected.

The Rainbow Sash Movement believes that the Hyde Amendment should be overturned by banning Medicare coverage of abortion you put the lives of poor women at risk.

For too long the Rainbow Sash Movement has been silent on this issue. Our tone and lack of attention has sometimes alienated our sisters and for that we seek forgiveness. Our new year’s resolution is that we will stand for the human dignity of all people regardless of gender or sexual orientation both inside and outside of the Church.

We particularly challenge our Theologians, and Catholic Media both progressive and conservative to stop their biased based justification for the status quo of sexism, and become the voices of challenge.

We support the efforts of the National Organization of Women and call on our Catholic Bishops in the spirit of the Gospels to Challenge both their homophobia and sexism. We especially want teenage girls to know it will get better.

By RSM:

The Rainbow Sash Movement finds the ongoing debate concerning gay marriage in both Scotland and the UK as a teaching moment for Catholic Bishops of both countries and indeed for the United States. This is a case study of the clueless leading the mindless among the Catholic Hierarchy. The bishops have become a model for hypocrites, and homophobes when it comes to the issue of fear based moralizing on the issue of Gay Marriage.

Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster in a sly move is being accused of defying Vatican guidelines on homosexual civil partnerships. In response, he says he is simply trying to defend the “profound human good” of traditional marriage. So while the bishops of England and Wales “respect the existence of same-sex partnerships in law,” he said, “the point we are at now is to say that they are not the same as marriage.” Well at least the Archbishop agrees with many gay and lesbian activists that separate but not equal mentality does not work.

In Scotland Cardinal Keith O’Brien has denounced same-sex ‘marriage’ as a ‘grotesque subversion’ that, if legalized, would ‘shame Scotland in the eyes of the world.’ Speaking outside the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday, ahead of the closure of the Scottish Government’s consultation on Gay Marriage into the issue next week, the president of the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland warned that if the Scottish Government legalized same-sex ‘marriage’ they would have ‘forfeited the trust’ of the nation.

Cardinal O’Brien’s warning to politicians was supported by Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow in his St Andrew’s Day homily. Like their their brother Bishops in the United States poll after poll shows these men do not represent the “Sense of the Faithful”.

Internationally this is recognized as part of the Vatican shell game. The Bishops are trying to redefine Gay Marriage as being about sex, and not love. We see this shell game being echoed in the United States by such Church luminaries as Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, and the newly elected President of the US Council of Catholic Bishops (aka as the US Council of Catholic Homophobic Bishops) is our own in house homophobe jolly old Archbishop Dolan of New York. Both lack the skill level to engage in a public debate about Gay Marriage that is based on reason and not fundamentalism. Dolan’s incompetent leadership is seen as one the reasons why Gay Marriage passed in New York.

Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul, Minnesota has a long track record of crudeness when it comes to reasonableness. Niensted like Dolan lacks the vision to understand that equality is not at odds with natural law.

Nienstedt first landed on the Rainbow Sash Movement’s radar screen in 2006, while serving as the Bishop of New Ulm, he wrote a column in his diocesan newspaper urging his flock not to attend the movie “Brokeback Mountain.” Nienstedt wrote of the movie, “The story is about two lonely cowboys herding sheep up on a mountain range. One night after a drinking binge, one man makes a pass at the other and within seconds the latter mounts the former in an act of wanton anal sex.” This is indicative of the sexual gutter our Bishops roam in. His anti-gay marriage ballot initiative to be held next year will only deepen the divide the Catholic Community on this issue.

The Bishop Conferences of all three western countries are increasingly becoming dismissed by the Catholic Laity as irrelevant. They are seen as out of touch with the world around them from the issues of abortion/birth control, through HIV/AIDS condom use to Gay Marriage through the issue of women’s equality and by extension the implication to the poor among us.

Increasingly they want to curse the darkness and not light a candle. They seem to be more comfortable with a fundamentalist mentality that feels more at home with Islamic extremist than reasoned based democracy. Overwhelmingly they appear to lack intellectually competency to engage in reason based debate. Rather they promote their agenda by fear based moralizing which is more comfortable in a radicalized theocracy than it is in a wholesome democracy. Seemingly their moralizing applies to everyone else, but not to them when it comes to the clergy sexual abuse scandal.

Image by lez get real via Flickr

5/21/11 – Jennifer Morgan       Could it be possible that legalization of gay marriage is just around the corner? Many are asking themselves that question as new Gallup polling results on the topic of legalizing gay marriage were released on Friday.

Despite what you might think, the number of Americans that support gay marriage has steadily increased over the past 3 years. In 2008 and 2009 when ask, “do you think marriages between same sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?” only 40% answered with, should be valid. However, in the results for the 2011 poll, released on Friday, today 53% of Americans answer that same questions with, should be valid, showing an increase in support of 13%. The Gallup poll goes on to say “clear majorities of both democrats and independents now support gay marriage, 69% and 59% respectively, contrasted with 28% of conservatives.”

When we look at American society today, we can easily find examples of this added measure of support for gay and lesbian’s rights. The announcement that the government will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act, the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the social media director for NOM, the National Organization on Marriage publically switching sides and coming out in support of gay marriage and as of March of last year gay marriage became legal in Washington DC, our nations Capital. We are making visible progress in the fight for equality.

Evan Wolfson, founder of the group Freedom to Marry, has been quoted as saying, “this growth in support in nearly every segment of the public, including people formerly opposed, shows that elected officials and judges who end the cruel exclusion from marriage are on the right side of history and delivering not just what loving and committed couples and their families need, but what the majority of Americans want.” Wolfson is right, the five states plus the District of Columbia that currently allow same sex marriage are not just giving the LGBT community what they need but they are listening to the growing majority of Americans that say they want equality in marriage rights. The fight for equality may be slow, but it’s also steady.

NCLR, EQCA, and Lambda Legal File Amicus Brief in California Supreme Court in Proposition 8 Challenge – Groups Argue that Proposition 8 Sponsors Do Not Speak for the State.  The National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality California, and Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the court brief with the California Supreme Court arguing that the proponents of Proposition 8 have no power to override the decision of elected state officials about whether to appeal a federal court decision that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. The brief explains that initiative proponents are unelected and have no right to act as representatives of the state. It also explains that regardless of how the California Supreme Court rules, the supporters of Proposition 8 have no “standing” to pursue an appeal in federal court because they are not harmed by allowing same-sex couples to marry and because their interests were limited to having the measure put to a vote.

“California law does not permit the unelected proponents of a constitutional initiative to step into the state’s shoes when elected officials appropriately decide not to appeal a decision striking down an unconstitutional measure,” said Equality California Interim Executive Director Jim Carroll. “We are hopeful that the appeal will soon be dismissed, restoring marriage equality as soon as possible, and that same-sex couples and their families will once again be able to enjoy equality and dignity under the law.”

NCLR legal director Shannon Minter explained, “Under the California Constitution, the state Attorney General must decide whether to appeal a federal court holding that a state law is unconstitutional, based on her conclusions about whether an appeal would be in the state’s interest. Nothing in California law gives unelected initiative sponsors the power to make that decision on behalf of the entire state.”

“There is nothing in California’s Constitution or statutes that provides proponents of initiatives any rights to defend those measures if they pass and are later challenged in court,” said Jon Davidson, Legal Director of Lambda Legal. “At best, initiative proponents are like legislators who sponsor a bill, whom courts have repeatedly said are not entitled to appear in cases to defend the constitutionality of laws they drafted. To allow the proponents of Proposition 8 to represent the state would usurp the role of the attorney general, who is sworn to uphold the rights of all Californians, not just the 20 percent of state residents who voted in favor the initiative.”

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Prop 8 was unconstitutional in August 2010, and the sponsors of Prop 8 sought to appeal that judgment to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On January 4, 2011, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court for guidance on whether the sponsors of Prop 8 have legal standing to pursue the appeal under California law. The California Supreme Court said that it would consider the question on an expedited basis with oral arguments to be held as early as September.

Mel Nathan: I feel harassed- How about you?

Are you e as frustrated as I am with all the Court Actions being shoved at us by the Right wing Bigots who think we are NOT entitled to our Constitutional rights and equal treatment under the civil laws of the USA ?   Please consider sending a few dollars to each of these groups as a sign of appreciation for there deliberate and consistent action on behalf of  EQUALITY.

###
The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.NCLRights.org

Equality California (EQCA) is the largest statewide lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights advocacy organization in California. Over the past decade, Equality California has strategically moved California from a state with extremely limited legal protections for LGBT individuals to a state with some of the most comprehensive civil rights protections in the nation. Equality California has passed more than 70 pieces of legislation and continues to advance equality through legislative advocacy, electoral work, public education and community empowerment. www.EQCA.org

Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work. www.LambdaLegal.org

2011-05-02 EQCA, NCLR, Lambda Legal, Amicus Brief, California Supreme Court, Perry Case

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

President Obama rocked San Francisco and is on his way to Las Vegas. After Black Eyed Peas and an evening that that for $25.00 topped the one for $38,000 – (not that I was at both – but can only imagine!)  the President took the stage around 9 p.m., delivering a rousing speech, and a crowd asserting support : “I love you Obama,” and “I love you back,” by the President.

This all after an  historic meeting and Town Hall at the FaceBook headquarters, where the President joked at having been the cause of Mark Zuckerberg dressed in tie…. the President went into San Francisco to his speech at the Masonic Center, Nob Hill, having completed his $38,500 per person event in Pacific Heights,

President Obama was much fun and inspiring :”I have 19 million friends, which is just a half-million behind Sponge Bob,” Obama said. “That’s something to aspire to.”

Clearly unhappy with the Washington DC  milieu : “In Washington, the conversation is just different than the conversation you hear around the kitchen table or the water cooler,” Obama told the crowd. “I don’t want a campaign heard by pundits and cable channels.” The President does want to speak to the people – and he wants the people to support his billion dollar campaign.

My plan as an LGBT writer is to endorse the President to the fullest extent (I may not have but for the repeal of DADT)  and to ask the President to apply himself first and foremost to helping binational same-sex couples remain in the USA together via a special visa program pending the repeal of DOMA – to immediately STOP deportations of LGBT spouses and fiance’s.

We MUST support President OBAMA and also work to get progressive Democrats elected in every realm possible….

I am Angry beyond measure at the insanity of the Republican party  -  and the people in this country who voted TEA PARTY (Although the latter will see the demise of the Republicans as we knew them!) The only possible excuse (if that be one at all) is that Boehner and his gang of obstructionists are suffering PTS at the shock of the election of an African American President. Still!   Example – 1. Insanity?  Boehner wants to use DOJ money to Defend the constitutional rights of same-sex couples in the DOMA cases that the Obama administration has refused to defend.  He wants to spend tax payer money out of the DOJ on  a quest to prevent a LOVING event, that will provide civil rights.   AND to add insult to injury he want to take money from  the Justice for victims of serious crime such as rape and murder!

During December 2010 I was approached by the Bay Area Reporter for my annual predictions and I said President Obama will change his mind on Gay marriage.  I truly believe he is headed in that direction.  When we see our men and women serving openly in the military without equal rights want to live in shared quarters or bring spouses home from foreign countries, in parity with heterosexual servicemenbers, there will be very little choice but to make the change of mind…. it simply must happen.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

Thank you think Progress for putting this together. How does excluding Gays help protect marriage? Watch Maggie Gallagher incur the wrath of Congressman Jerold Nadler. Watch Rep. Conyers. Watch the Republicans and their anti-gay hate and ignorance!  Do you think the President’s actions on Defense of Marriage Act are appropriate?

Okay its hard to watch – for me it is – because I want to jump into that screen and grab those idiots by their respective collars and shake some reality into them.  Come and have dinner with me and my children Maggie and then tell me I am not good enough to share your my civil right – just because of your RELIGIOUS beliefs?   It is sickening that the America of Toady would even give this pure hate fear and ignorance its draconian drum roll!

An Aside – Maggie is not wearing her wedding band.

We asked her why not and you can see her answer on our post at…….. http://lezgetreal.com/2011/04/national-organiztion-for-marriage-nom-is-maggie-gallagher-divorced/ where Maggie herself showed up to comment!

VIDEO CREDIT to “Think Progress”

“Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill In response to gay bashing incident -” In my youth it was White gangs attacking Blacks. The Civil Rights issues change but the ignorance just seems to continue on. I think it would help if the preachers would just teach LOVE and stop with the homosexual bashing. God DOES NOT hate gays. THERE IS NOTHING AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE!”

Melanie says: “Maggie your religion is your religion – but you are using it to preach hate  – cause and effect-  of your beliefs being slammed at our nation – and I believe you did use the words “I believe”  -  That gay kid who got beat up yesterday, my friend who has to exile the USA to be with her wiife, and the mother of the child who committed suicide last month do not give a rats piece of turd about your beliefs.  We are on Earth! Come down to Earth! The shaming of LGBT people and inciting of hate all in the name of your beliefs are counter productive to a free and democratic society where church and state have no relationship other than to co-exist in harmony. You Maggie Gallagher are in flagrant breach of that harmony.  Now lay off my life and beliefs and I will get out out of your face.

Or have the courage to debate me……I challenge Maggie to a debate on SWIRL RADIO!  She responded to me via e-mail and now I have challenged her via email too…..

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

The Local grass-roots activist group Canvass For A Cause (CFAC) have been talking to customers outside Target stores in California; noting that the corporation had been making large political donations to anti-gay candidates and conservative organizations who do not support LGBT equality. Target sued to get rid of the activists and Target lost!

However the case has taken TARGET one step deeper into the abyss of LGBT of anger  -   Court documents submitted by TARGET state specifically that Target fears that the activities of the group outside their stores would lead customers to think that they DO support same-sex marriage and LGBT equality.    If ever there was a bigger insult to American values, freedoms, and rights – it is this statement.

During the hearing last month, the judge asked Target’s attorneys why Target’s court documents did not offer concrete evidence to back their allegations that CFAC volunteers were harassing customers and driving away business. Watson said after the hearing that all his volunteers are trained on how to properly speak with customers outside stores such as Target, Ralphs and Vons.

Superior Court Judge Jeffrey B. Barton released his ruled denying Target’s motion for an injunction to stop CFAC from petitioning customers.

During the hearing on March 25, CFAC contended that its right to free speech was being challenged by the lawsuit, while Target claimed the grass-roots group’s tactics were harming its business.

Tres Watson, executive director of CFAC, said he was thrilled with the ruling.

“This was not just a victory for the LGBT community,” Watson said, “but a victory for everybody who supports the fundamental American values to free speech.” (SDLGLN)

Judge Barton said Target and its powerful law firm of Morrison & Foerster, which has offices globally, failed to show sufficient evidence that the big-box retailer’s business was suffering as a result of the petitioners.

“This million-dollar law firm overreached in this case,” Watson said. “They got beat by a lawyer fresh out of law school and a volunteer lawyer.”
Canvass For A Cause team members were out today at Target stores in Mission Valley in San Diego and in Encinitas. “We are celebrating our freedom of speech rights today,” Watson said. (SDLGLN)

At that hearing, Target’s high-powered attorneys tried to persuade the judge to rule on their behalf because they had won 121 cases in Superior Court to stop groups from talking to customers outside their stores in California.

While one hopes Target had been impacted by their anti-gay actions,the Judge wanted evidence and there was no evidence that the store sales had been impacted by the activists’ presence.

Because the group CFAC supports gay marriage, among other issues, one of Target’s court documents complains that the corporation fears its customers will think Target supports same-sex marriage as a result of  the activists;’ presence and talking to customers.

Last month, Lady Gaga abruptly ended a deal with Target over its lack of support for gay rights and issues.

Suspect Tiven and Congressman Nadler -Think IE had some Lobby going here?

So Guess who is asking for more support for the same thing they screwed bi-nationals over and  over again previously?  Yes, It is Immigration Equality. They need your grassroots effort and/or money so you can get screwed yet again  – so they can mess with  our UAFA again and again and again – The question is this time do they plan on advocating for it or advocating for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the past modus operandi; the latter previously touted as the only way to achieve these rights.   But it did not work and now what crazy path will they explore with your hearts risking your soul mates?  Do they plan on placing UAFA and Binationals, same-sex green cards ahead of the DREAM ACT this time – because the latter may happen to include some gays and lesbians?

Julie Kruse, Policy Director has put out a call for you to tell your stories and to support UAFA!   Time warp 2009! Julie what have we been doing for ten years?

Buyer beware- what is wrong with this picture?

Kruse”s letter states “In just a few weeks, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) will reintroduce the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA) — a critically important bill that would provide much-needed relief to LGBT families facing separation and exile under our discriminatory immigration laws. Will you help us build the support we need to ensure UAFA’s reintroduction is a success?”

AND WHY I ASK?

She continues ” As you know, UAFA would allow lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans to sponsor our foreign-born partners and children for residency in the United States. UAFA’s passage would immediately help all families with foreign-born partners. For families whose relationships aren’t recognized by state or local law – and for families currently living in exile — UAFA offers the only permanent solution for remaining together. ”

I have a feeling this jargon was copied from an email back in 2009 – c heck it OUT!  That said – when I was in DC with Shirley Tan, the lesbian mom saved from deportation under Private Bill #867, by Senator Feinstein two things did not occurred:-

1. Julie Kruse told us not to waste our time telling Republicans in Congress Shirley’s story – BUT now the Republicans have a majority and so should we still keep our stories from them Julie Kruse?

2. I informed Rachel Tiven and Julie Kruse in June 2009, after speaking with the Senator’s senior legislative staffer,  that the only way to get Senator Feinstein to sponsor and push  UAFA would have been for IE to acknowledge that the UAFA does not provide enough defining language demanding a CONTRACTUAL NEXUS between partners; and that mere evidence would not be enough to satisfy the Senator.   Understanding law the way I do the Senator’s requirement made complete sense to me.  But Immigration equality representatives fobbed me off.

a.  UAFA Language must change to  define Permanent Partner as someone who can prove a contractual nexus, via a DP or marriage document from a Jurisdiction or a written contract defining the relationship – beyond mere evidence of joint check accounts and rental agreements.   The impediment to UAFA has always been – not fear of fraud- per se- but rather the lack of provable contractual relationship or connection.  Roomates can share a bill but cannot a contract defining their relationship.

The language can and must work around this.  Immigration Equality basically told me I was wasting my time because and I quote “Senator Feinstein does not care about the  LGBT community.”  That was a horrible myth perpetuated by another organization which I care not to name as well as by Immigration equality.

b.  Senator Feinstein absolutely cares about gays  (LGBTI) and when I repeated that comment to a staffer in the Senators office two years ago, I was told it would break the Senator’s heart because she did care so much.  I believed that Senator Feinstein does care and did then and I deplore the fact that Immigration Equality failed to truly engage her office to provide the legislative solution for her sponsorship.

So much energy spent on fighting for so called immigration reform when all we wanted is equality.

c. Senator Feinstein is correct to go full out for the Repeal of DOMA at this point.  To split our advocacy once a repeal is on the table for DOMA is pure waste of of unity and advocacy time.    At this point IE should be asking for special visas and Private Bills to prevent deportations of a class to be named – pending the repeal of DOMA.   Instead they are trying to roll back the clock and hedge UAFA’s enactment  against DOMA’s repeal.

Yes Tell your stories and tell your representatives why you want your Federal benefits such as immigration. Tell them your stories.   But how can we do it in the name of UAFA which Immigration Equality may again hi-jack for their own invisible purposes.  Do it in the name of DOMA repeal.

Kruse  states then in her e-mail bvlast Help us honor those families by ensuring we have a strong coalition of lawmakers supporting UAFA in the new Congress.”  Yes, Julie Kruse, Rachel Tiven and Steve Ralls – et al – how are you going to regenerate support for UAFA in a Republican Congress when you failed in a Democratic one and took all binationals for the biggest ride of their life…. down CIR road to nowhere.   Do you plan on touting UAFA and switching to Comprehensive immigration Reform YET AGAIN?

How many times you take our community for suckers.

The Letter goes on to say: – “Ask your lawmaker to cosponsor UAFA, and add your personal story to your letter. Your story is the best, and most powerful, way to let Congress know how critical passage of UAFA is for our families.”

In case you were unaware OUT4IMMIGRATION has been doing just that since long before you let go of your grassroots respect and telling actual stories for UAFA.  But now its time to tell them our stories for the repeal of DOMA which will give same-sex spouses the same rights as gay spouses.

“We finished the last Congress with record support for UAFA.”   say Kruse with ultimate chutzpah – then why did you bandwagon and scurry after Immigration Reform and failed alliances?

“Help us begin this Congress by setting a new record again. With your help, we can take action to ensure LGBT families won’t be torn apart by unfair immigration laws.”    Does that sound familiar – like a pre immigration reform rewind?  A most disingenuous statement – do not expect support – we the grassroots are better off without your strategy mess ups and your inability to take responsibility – what you need to do is to be transparent.   This letter is another example of such lack of transparency , ignorance and the presumption that we are all a bunch of idiots.

UNLESS Immigration Equality shows the truth – and  tells same-sex couples what their FULL strategy and plan is – they have no place asking for Bi-national f support because same-sex couples who have been waiting for years and who you turn away when in need, do not trust Immigration Equality any longer.

What is Immigration Equality’s plan in the broad scheme of things? How is it addressing the repeal of the Defense of marriage Act  DOMA now that has strong support and has been introduced already – is UAFA a bey hedged against the repeal of DOMA and if it is what guarantee do we have that Immigration equality will not hijack the legislation yet again?

Will Immigration equality  chase the DREAM again or work for UAFA fully – or  CHASE comprehensive immigration reform with our UAFA stories and pleas for help.

Julie Kruse , If we want UAFA will you offer CIR  – again?    No one should follow this group without a fully transparent plan of intent and one that they honor.  No one should follow this group until they provide a financial disclosure of how money was spent over the past few years and how they plan to budget and allocate resources at this time.

Immigration equality-  the big glaring lie – is the offer that UAFA will provide a quick remedy. No it will not. It is simply not possible.   The only quick remedy will be a executive order by the President or some creative form of  Sunset Special Binat -VISA or Protocol to provide for the immediate relief suffered by our binational / same-sex couples – limited to those who are married – because marriage is now a relatively easy option, according to State and Foreign Laws.

Grassroots I ask you – are you going to allow your selves to be used again – like lambs to the slaughter ?

-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-

NOTE:-  An Aside: Who can depend on IE: If you have stories to tell please e-mail me – at nathan@privatecourts.com:

I recently sent an asylum seeker to Immigration equality who is within the small window of opportunity with a winning Asylum case.  They were excited to receive the case, my source informs me.   I then went to South Africa for a month and just arrived back – only to hear that the young person who is in great physical danger if returned home, is still waiting for a post interview call back.  She is panic stricken and under time constraints for filing.  It is a simple case to file and all they need is to find her an attorney to fill out the forms.

————————————————————————————–

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

————————————————————————-

For quite some time I have been writing about creative alternatives – I would like to see the organizations getting your money doing some of the creative out od the box work!!!!

Here is the Body of my Past work on this subject

http://lezgetreal.com/page/2/?s=Binational

http://lezgetreal.com/2010/12/same-sex-green-cards-the-case-for-a-presidential-executive-order-2011/

REPEAT  -  I WROTE THIS BACK IN DECEMBER,……   WRITTEN BEFORE INTRODUCTION OF REPEAL OF DOMA

Melanie Nathan, Dec 30, 2010. At the federal level of government in the United States, laws are made almost exclusively by legislation. Legislation originates as an Act of Congress passed by the Congress of the United States; such acts were either signed into law by the President or passed by Congress after a presidential veto.

Legislation is not the only source of regulations which have the force of law. There is also judge-made common law and constitutional law. The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

When it comes to immigration matters, the standing law is that covered by the Immigration and Naturalization Act of the USA.  This law cannot be changed, without the involvement of Congress through an amendment process.  However I believe that when it comes to the regulations to effect the intent behind the law or something that unexpectedly and detrimentally impacts the law, the President of the USA can provide an executive order to adjust the circumstances, so impacted.

I do not believe that it was ever the intention of the Defense of Marriage Act to deny the de facto relationships of same-sex couples. I believe President Clinton who signed it into law would attest that it was never his intention to cause American citizens and Residents in same-sex relationships to have to exile the USA to pursue their Constitutional right to happiness. However Americans in the USA, in same sex relationships are denied the possibility to sponsor a partner for a green card.

Accordingly I believe that President Obama has the power to effect an Executive Order on behalf of same-sex couples who are specifically excluded by DOMA, from participating in the US Immigration laws.   This  quest would specifically denote a right by way of process to an American (citizen or resident) and not a right to an immigrant; the right of the American to Petition for a same-sex partner to reside in the USA, that is currently excluded via laws that simply fail to include the de facto situation, thereby causing extreme  hardship to American Families.

I do not believe the Immigration law needs to change for this to happen in the short term; I do not believe that this reflects in any way shape or form on the marriage equality debate.  It does not seek to change DOMA and nor does it impact the Immigration Act as we know it, at all.

There have been many early executive orders during all Presidencies;  the State Department began numbering executive orders in the early 20th century, starting retroactively from President Abraham Lincoln’s Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862. An executive order is an order issued by the President, the head of the executive branch of the federal government, generally to staff of the executive branch and not to the citizens of the country. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifically reserves all federal legislative authority to Congress, not the president.

However here what would occur would be the President ordering the inclusion of same-sex partners under existing law, based on the de facto existence of relationships, the anomaly caused by State law that endorse such relationships, while the Federal government fails to secure the right of the American to remain at home in a relationship of their choice.

Examples of prior Immigration related executive orders -

• Employment of aliens under Federal contracts: EO 12989
• Grenada; revocation of naturalization exemptions: EO 12913
• Persian Gulf conflict participants; expedited naturalization: EO 12939

The Case for an executive order is easily made:

Urgent Need; Immediate Harm;

Without the passage of a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act the exclusionary legislation that caused the harm, or the passage of the Uniting American Families Act, (UAFA) the pending Legislation – which would fix the problem, there is little else that can happen to right this immeasurable harm in the near future.

Same-sex couples have been watching the introduction of legislation come and go for the best part of 15 years to no avail

Americans are living in exile to be with partners – separated from extended families, children etc.  Some are getting ready to leave the USA as I write this; some partners have not seen each other in years- partners are deported, living  jobless in hiding; the expense to maintain an international relationship is prohibitive and I can go on….

The Dream Act failed – Do you think Republicans will give a damn about gay and lesbian couples?

Now that DADT is repealed Military also need to a mechanism to bring home foreign born partners after serving abroad.

Now I have never written an Executive Order or anything similar before and so please do not take this as my expectation of what one would really look like or entail. In fact I may even be coming at it from the wrong angle – there may be a more direct way to do it than to Order a Special Board charged with a duty as I have done below.   I thought of doig it that way so that the ORDER would not be a blanket order, but would have built in measure for responsible actions, where evidence and contractual nexus helm the process.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

PREAMBLE:- Same Sex couples are a de facto part of American Society. The Defense of Marriage Act. specifically excludes Same-Sex partners from being included under the Immigration & Naturalization Act of 1952.

Some de facto same-sex relationships impacted by the Law include children who suffer hardship if parents are forced to separate or leave the United States;

No US citizen should be forced into exile or to leave their homes, careers and countries to be able to pursue a relationship with a same-sex partner;

The intention of the Defense of Marriage Act was define marriage as between a man and a woman only. In No way does this order derogate from that concept nor does it attempt to re-define marriage;

Predicated on the fact that DOMA was never intended to divide unmarried couples (who did not have the legal option to marry in accordance with the Federal definition established by DOMA)  and families or prevent them from living together.

It remains the policy of this Administration to enforce the immigration laws to the fullest extent, for all cases that do not conform to this Order;  including the detection and deportation of undocumented aliens.

IT IS ORDERED:-

I. Establishment of Emergency Board, to be led by personnel appointed by the President of the USA and office of the Department of Homeland Security for the purposes outlined as follows:-

I. Investigating the separation of same-sex partners whose relationships are excluded from immigration rights and privileges under the Immigration and Nationality Act of  1952 as amended ; with the specific purpose of providing remedies and urgent relief to specific couples and through general regulations and remedies for couples at large:-

a. To establish a Special Visa Program (similar to Fiancé Visa/ R1 Visa) to facilitate the reunification of same-sex partners in relationships where a contractual nexus can be proved within six months of entry by foreign partner into USA; and to to provide a path to citizenship upon conditions to be determined.

b. To provide a mechanism for the adjustment of Status for same-sex foreign partners who are currently in the USA undocumented, whose Visa has expired, who enter into same-sex relationships while in the USA, including those in Asylum or deportation proceedings, or under ten year re-entry ban, where other is a US Citizen or Legal US Resident, who can prove a contractual nexus;

c. To define contractual nexus (I have prepared my own)

d. To define and detail evidence required to prove contractual nexus:- (I have prepared a list)

II. Circumstances to Investigate:

• circumstances of American citizens forced leave the USA to be in relationship
• and live with a foreign born partner, where there is proof of contractual nexus;
• to review immigration cases of foreign same-sex partner, where other is a US
  Citizen or  legal US Resident,  who can prove a contractual nexus;
• to review deportation cases involving foreign same-sex partner, where other is a
  US Citizen or Legal US Resident,  who can prove a contractual nexus;
• to review asylum cases foreign same-sex partner, where other is a US Citizen and
  Resident,  who can prove a contractual nexus;
• to review Visa Applications

III Moratorium:

Immediate moratorium on all deportations involving foreign same-sex partner, where other is a US Citizen or Legal US Resident, who can prove a contractual nexus;  to include a retroactive waiver of 10 year ban on re-entry to USA.

The Power shall be vested in the Board and All Regulations stemming therefrom shall be subject to the oversight of a duly appointed Staffer and ratification by the President of the USA.

—————————————————————————————————————-

CONCLUSION:

Maybe this is a pipe dream and I have written about this over a year ago – I hope to join with other advocates in the New Year to push for a creative remedy for the unconscionable and reprehensible inequity to same-sex couples and their families, immediate and extended.  This international community cannot wait any longer – not even for what it will take to repeal DOMA, Enact UAFA.  This is not an immigration reform issue – it is an immigration equality – as in parity- issue. Hence the bi-national same sex community which advocates, waits and prays for remedies should not be expected to wait any longer while an anti-immigrant weighted Congress plodders along with Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

A note from J. Bachelor  3/31/2011 : I had passed this on to others in the past, but the person to target is Obama and here is why:

A new strategy for helping out immigrants is outlined in a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) memo from last year. In that memo, staff members for USCIS catalogued the various options that are open to the President.

“USCIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements,” the memo reads.

The text of the memo asserts that USCIS’s discretionary power to use deferred action is unlimited. In order to suppress opposition to the flexing of this muscle, the USCIS staffers who wrote the memo suggest that deferred action be used to exempt “particular groups” from being subject to removal proceedings. In this memo, they explicitly admit that “deferred action” — or using prosecutorial discretion not to deport someone — would be “a non-legislative version of ‘amnesty.’”

Fox News notes that deferred action is a “suspension of deportation hearings for illegal aliens. With “deferred action,” illegals are allowed to apply for employment authorization cards,” (http://nation.foxnews.com/amnesty/2010/06/23/obama-granting-amnesty-executive-order).

The President has the power to sign an executive order to exempt “particular groups”, such as gay binational couples who are married, from being deported. This would not make them legal, but would allow them to remain in the country with their significant others.
- http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html

Melanie Nathan, February 24-2011

In September 2009, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY),  together with Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO), along with Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) and Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA),  introduced the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives.

This legislation would have repealed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 law which discriminates against lawfully married same-sex couples.

Back in 2009, the Congressman noted that the 13-year-old DOMA  “singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.”

At the time many activists were angered by the fact that some key democratic members of the House, sych as Rep. BarenyFrank,  had refused to sign on as a co-sponsor to the repeal legislation. At the time I was informed by a  Rep. Frank senior staffer, that the Congressman would not sign as he believed DADT and ENDA should be the focus and pass first, before DOMA’s repeal would be viable.

Since 2009, we have indeed accomplished the repeal of DADT, but not ENDA; we have a new Congress and now we no longer have a Democratic majority Congress.

Today, after the DOJ announced it will no longer defend DOMA, and after Senator Feinstein announced her commitment to sponsor a Senate repeal Bill,  I asked a spokesperson for Congressman Nadler whether we could expect the reintroduction of the 2009 Respect for Marriage Act, into the House of Representatives; and was happy to hear that it is in the works, and that the Congressman is  building co-sponsors and momentum now.

It is my hope that Rep Barney Frank will jump on board, if he has not done so already; and I also hope that some Republicans, will stand for equality and take the brave step to do the right thing.  The only way I believe this can happen is if the constituents defy traditional Gay Inc Style advocacy of “ignore the ‘enemy’ its a waste of time…” and bombard their representatives with their personal and family stories, imploring them to support the Repeal of DOMA.

The introduction on the Repeal is critical even in not so friendly a Congress, because it does open the hallway of the office buildings in D.C. and in local districts for constituents to show up and tell their Congress members “I have a story – this is my life- these are my kids- this is our plea for equality…” So let the dialogue begin.  You have to all show up because your Representative – whether gay friendly or not, had no idea you are out there until you shout out – “I am here and I am equal.”

The Respect for Marriage Act, as previously introduced, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.

The Act as it was then introduced- would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized.  While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.

The Respect for Marriage Act did not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex.  It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple’s marriage for purposes of state law.

Nadler noted when introducing the Repeal back in 2009 that “Supporters of DOMA argued in 1996 that the law is necessary to promote family structures that are best for children, but every credible medical, social science and child welfare organization has concluded that same-sex couples are equal parents.  Married gay and lesbian couples pay taxes, serve their communities and raise children like other couples.  Their contributions and needs are no different from those of their neighbors.  The Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that couples who assume the serious legal duties of marriage are treated fairly under federal law.”

The 2009 introduction statement further pointed out “The introduction of the Respect for Marriage Act responds directly to a call from President Obama for Congressional action on the issue.  As the President recently confirmed:  “I stand by my long-standing commitment to work with Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.  It’s discriminatory, it interferes with States’ rights, and it’s time we overturned it.”

“The full repeal of DOMA is long overdue,” said Rep. Nadler.  “When DOMA was passed in 1996, its full harm may not have been apparent to all Members of Congress because same-sex couples were not yet able to marry.  It was a so-called ‘defense’ against a hypothetical harm.  This made it easy for our opponents to demonize gay and lesbian families.  Now, in 2009, we have tens of thousands of married same-sex couples in this country, living openly, raising families and paying taxes in states that have granted them the right to marry, and it has become abundantly clear that, while the sky has not fallen on the institution of marriage, as DOMA supporters had claimed, DOMA is causing these couples concrete and lasting harm.  Discrimination against committed couples and stable families is terrible federal policy.  But, with a President who is committed to repealing DOMA and a broad, diverse coalition of Americans on our side, we now have a real opportunity to remove from the books this obnoxious and ugly law.”

Back in 2009 -“We must work to promote fairness, tolerance and justice for all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation,” said Rep. Velazquez.  “The Respect for Marriage Act will help to ensure that the rights provided to married couples are extended across state lines and without prejudice.”   “The so called Defense of Marriage Act is discriminatory and unfair and denies fundamental civil liberties to countless families across America,” said Rep. Lee.  “Gay, lesbian and transgendered Americans deserve nothing less that equal protection under the law.”

“It is long past time for DOMA to go.  When DOMA passed in 1996 it was a gratuitous slap in the face.  But now, 13 years later, there are thousands of married same-sex couples who are hurt by this law.  We’ve come a long way in 13 years and the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding that some married couples are worthy of federal respect and others are not.  Married same-sex couples pay federal taxes just like everyone else and have a right to the same important benefits and protections as everyone else,” said Kevin Cathcart, Executive Director at Lambda Legal.

It is indeed time and we must urge our representatives to support Rep. Nadler’s legislation now.  We must urge and push Republicans to note who their constituents are  and do parents of Gays and Lesbians and allies and couples themselves must descend on D.C. and home offices – make an appointment to see your Representative and tell them that the time is NOW!!

With that, I would like to thank Rep. Nadler for his unwavering support of Equality via UAFA  (green cards for same-sex couples) and Repeal of DOMA (marriage for same-sex couples.)

I would also like to restart the discussion about the impetus of the introduction of DOMA Repeal Legislation as a basis to thwart deportation of same-sex foreign partners who are married to USA Citizens or residents, via a moratorium.  It is simply unconscionable to deport spouses of Americans or expect the exile of an American married to a same-gender foreign spouse – while the Obama administration in essence now stands against DOMA’s defense, thereby noting its unconstitutionality.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
Facebook Melanie
twitter @oblogdeeoblogda

Related articles

• The Impact of the DOJ DOMA Decision on the Prop 8 Trial (lezgetreal.com)
• Statement of Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin on DOJ Not Defending the Defense of Marriage Act (lezgetreal.com)
• Edie Windsor, Litigant in DOMA Case Sees Promise in Obama Administration’s Decision (lezgetreal.com)
• Senator GILLIBRAND The Time for Congress to Repeal DOMA is Now (lezgetreal.com)
• DOJ Halts Defending DOMA (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan – Feb 15, 2011

Pennsylvania Representative Mark Cohen has announced that he will introduce a bill to legalize civil union throughout the state of Pennsylvania.  Cohen , a Democrat  held a press conference in Harrisburg this week to discuss the legislatiion together with more than 40 co-sponsors of the initiative.

“Support for civil unions today does not preclude support for marriage equality now or in the future,” Cohen said at the news conference. “The issue as I see it is whether we can grant meaningful rights and recognitions in the GLBT community within a reasonable period of time.”

The proposal – H.B. 708 – would allow same-sex couples to enjoy civil unions throughout the Commonwealth. The same state laws that apply to heterosexual married couples would also apply to gays and lesbians. Cohen described the civil unions as a compromise between marriage equality and banning marriage for gay couples completely through a constitutional amendment. He also affirmed that the bill would not require any religious institutions or clergy persons to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

“I believe that there is a reasonable chance that, with a strong organizational effort, we can enact civil union legislation by the end of 2012,” said Cohen. “Doing so would require the support of the vast majority in the House and Senate, and the backing of a substantial number of Republicans in each chamber.

About 60 percent of Pennsylvanians support civil unions.

Editors/ LezGetReal Feb 13-2011.

SAN  FRANCISCO -Join Marriage Equality USA, Get Equal, California Faith for Equality and others as we engage in the annual national marriage counter action! Join and support same-sex couples asking for marriage licenses to render visible the government’s discriminatory law and to share our stories!

Join us on the steps of San Francisco City Hall at 11 a.m. on Valentine’s Day, Monday, February 14, 2011 to hear from the East Bay Gay Men’s Chorus and… speakers and then join us at the marriage counter. This is one of many events being held across the nation to “Request Marriage”.

Thank you for your willingness to take personal action in support of marriage equality for same-sex couples. You are joining an annual Marriage Equality USA (www.marriageequality.org) tradition which “marries” Valentine’s Day’s focus on love and commitment with February’s Freedom to Marry month activities intended to raise awareness and educate the public on the importance of securing marriage equality for same-sex couples and their families.  This year we are partnering with GET EQUAL (www.getequal.org), California Faith for Equality, Coalition of Welcoming Congregations and other grassroots leaders around the country.

EAST LOS ANGELES – Join us for a Valentine’s Day celebration of LGBT love/action to call attention to the way the law doesn’t treat all love fairly.

On Valentine’s Day, February 14th, at 11:30am we’ll convene at the East Los Angeles wedding license counter (near the intersection of the 710 and 60 freeways). LGBTQ couples will ask for a marriage license and, when turned away, will have the opportunity to commit to one another in front of clergy or lay leaders. We’ll ask them to tell their stories of love and commitment to the press to help us make the case for marriage equality.

If you or a couple you know is already married, that’s a great story, too!

This action is co-sponsored by Marriage Equality USA, CA Faith for Equality, GetEqual, Latino Equality Alliance, API Equality, Stonewall Democratic Club of LA, The Center Long Beach, Love Honor Cherish, and potentially Honor Pac, Gloria Molina’s office, Jordan Rustin Coalition, and more.

For More Events

http://www.purpleunions.com/mn/gay-marriage-events-list.html

Related articles

• Valentine’s Day, Same-Sex Couples Re-Engage in National Marriage Counter Actions (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan – January 27, 2011: On Valentine’s Day, February 14, same-sex couples will once again request marriage licenses at their local County Clerk’s offices in cities all over the country. These actions will not only draw attention to the lack of marriage equality between heterosexual and LGBT Americans, but it will also raise awareness about the harms and the impact that the inability to marry causes on LGBT families.

“Since 2001, Marriage Equality USA chapters have engaged in annual marriage counter actions to render visible the discrimination that is enforced every day and to highlight the need to overturn discriminatory laws. It is an affront to our basic dignity as fellow human beings when same-sex couples are turned away from the marriage counter, but it gives us the opportunity to tell our stories and show that we live in every community and want to honor and protect our families like everyone else,” said Molly McKay, Marriage Equality USA Media Director.

“Whether we are married, domestic partners, in a civil union, or legal strangers under our particular state’s law, all same-sex couples are denied the 1,138 federal rights of marriage,” said Robin McGehee, Director of GetEQUAL. “GetEQUAL is joining Marriage Equality USA to urge President Obama, Congress ,and all states with discriminatory laws on their books to stand for justice and equality for all people, as the Constitution requires, and work together to uphold the American tradition of fairness and equality by ending marriage discrimination.”

NOTE: From Melanie of LGR   – LezGetReal will be there with cameras and I will be looking for couples to interview.  So please contact me in advance if you plan on going… nathan@privatecourts.com

For a complete list of Valentine’s Day actions go to www.requestmarriage.com.

Founded in 2000, Marriage Equality USA is a national grassroots organization whose mission is to secure legally-recognized civil marriage equality for all, at the federal and state level, without regard to gender identity or sexual orientation. For more information go to www.marriageequality.org.

GetEQUAL is a national, direct action lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization. Emphasizing direct action and people power, the mission of GetEQUAL is to empower the LGBT community and its allies to take action to demand full legal and social equality, and to hold accountable those who stand in the way. For more information on GetEQUAL, please visit: http://www.getequal.org. You can follow GetEQUAL on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/getequal, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/GetEQUAL, or on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/getequal

HomeNewsNational

National

Police mounts hunt for killers of Ugandan gay rights activist

Share Bookmark Print Email

Email this article to a friend Friend’s Email Address
Your Email
Message
Submit Cancel

Rating

By Andrew Bagala  (email the author)

Your Email
Message
Send Cancel

Posted Thursday, January 27 2011 at 14:55

Police’s Scene of Crime officers have ringed off the house in which a gay activist, David Kato was murdered yesterday.

Mr David Kisule Kato, 46, died after he was hit on the head by unknown assailants at his home in Mukono District on Wednesday. He died on his way to Mulago Hospital.

Detectives and scene of crime officers spent the day picking fingerprints on the furniture and interviewing neighbours of Kato.

Police said his attackers hit him with a hammer on the head at around noon on Wednesday before locking him in the house.

Deputy Police Spokesman Vincent Ssekate said they are taking the case seriously but asked the public to who have any information that may lead to the arrest of the suspects to contact them.

“Since the act happened during day, there may be people who say the suspects entering the house. They should come and give us information,” he said.

Kato was listed among the 100 people suspected to be homosexuals in the country by the local tabloid Rolling Stone.

Asked whether they were taking it as an attack on minorities in the country, he said it is too early to reach that conclusion.

Residents told police that they saw a man who entered Kato’s house but he moved out dressed in victim’s shoes and a jacket that cover part of his face.

Their suspicion rose later, they told the police, and went to check on him in his house but found the door locked.

“They forced their way in and found Kato lying unconscious,” he said.

He later died as he was being transported to Mulago Hospital.

Melanie Nathan- Jan 21-2011 – CA REP. CEDILLO INTRODUCES CALIFORNIA DREAM ACT  WITH COALITION OF BUSINESS, EDUCATION AND LABOR LEADERS

The proposed law would grant qualifying undocumented college students access to financial aid from the University of California, California State University and Community Colleges. Assemblymember Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), will be introducing the California DREAM Act in the California State Assembly.

The California DREAM Act, first introduced by Cedillo in 2006, will be introduced in two bills.  The first bill would allow students that meet the in-state tuition requirements to apply for and receive specified financial aid administered by California’s public colleges and universities.  The types of aid these students would be eligible for include: Board of Governors (BOG) Fee Waiver and Institutional Student Aid:  Student aid program administered by the attending college or university (i.e. State University Grant, UC Grant).  The second bill would allow students that meet the in-state tuition requirements to apply for and receive Cal Grants by California’s public colleges and universities.

Given this level of creativity in the California Legislature – perhaps LGBT groups and pro-LGBT legislators would be willing to keep an eye on how this idea could be used  for legislation to help gays and lesbians in bi-national same-sex relationships, who are subjected to exorbitant student fees if one has International student status; whereas if the federal law did not discriminate against same-sex marriages, they would not have such high fees.

The law in California prescribes that gays and lesbian couples must be treated equally under CA law if married legally (during prop 8 window of opportunity) and also if married in a jurisdiction outside of California at any time.  But that is State specific to California.  The same-sex couples in California who are involved in binational relationships – with a foreign partner who happens to be in the USA on a student visa, would be better off if their partners were admitted into the USA pursuant to a green card petition.  However same-sex partners are denied this right under the Immigration law because DOMA designates that on a Federal level marriage can only be between a man and a woman.  Heterosexual married couples in California do not need to have student visas to study in the USA; clearly they are best served by green cards and can convert from student visas if that is how they first enter the Country.  The  benefit of the green card gives the foreigner residency status for all financially beneficial purposes under the State law.

The Cedillo CA Dream Act – would include qualified  “undocumented” students who come out of a US high school, and are here in the USA through no fault of their own (so to speak.)   However when a foreign partner or spouse from a same-sex relationship arrives in the USA on an international student visa (often the only means to enter the country) such foreigner is not undocumented and will not qualify for student financial benefits, even if married to a US citizen, not under this new proposed CA DREAM ACT nor any existing law.

If this law is  approved, California would be the third state to offer financial aid to undocumented students after Texas and New Mexico. [ha - the Texas you righties love to drool over - Z.] Gay rights are not covered  under the proposed legislation as it stands and advocates should be lobbying for parity, for same-sex equality, when it comes to paying tuition fees in the State of California.

WHAT: Assembly member Gilbert Cedillo announces the introduction of the California Dream Act with a coalition of business, education and labor leaders including Kelly Candaele, Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees, Javier Nuñez, President, Executive Board, Laborers International Union, Local 300, Kent Wong, Director, UCLA Labor Center, National Council of La Raza, Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Counsel, MALDEF, Angelica Salas, Executive Director, CHIRLA, LA Dream Team and NAKASEC (National Korean American Service & Education Consortium), Korean Resource Center, Marvin Andrade, Executive Director, CARECEN, Evan Bacalao, Sr. Director of Civic Engagement, NALEO and David Huerta, Regional Vice President, SEIU United Service Workers West.

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles

• Judge Says CalPERS DOMA Suit Can Proceed (lezgetreal.com)
• Green Cards for Same-sex Couples – Lowest Priority by LGBT ORG and Congress (lezgetreal.com)
• My “Sophie’s Choice” and other “Give A Damn” Same-Sex Immigration Stories (lezgetreal.com)

Please join us for the January 17 edition of Standing on Ceremony, The Gay Marriage Plays, featuring performances by Amy Brenneman, Julie Hagerty, Richard Kind, Kathy Najimy, Steven Weber, Bradely Whitford and Amy Yasbeck!

Each showing benefits Equality California and AFER. Future dates are: January 24 & 31, 2011, and February 7, 2011.

Visit www.standingonceremony.net to purchase your tickets now.
———————————————————————————-

Sir Elton will perform a concert on January 19 at the Beverly Hills estate of Ron Burkle.

“We are deeply honored to have the support of Sir Elton John,” Chad Griffin, board president of AFER, said in a statement. “The American Foundation for Equal Rights stands for the enduring principle that all Americans are created equal, and believes that ending state-sanctioned discrimination is a critical step we must take toward ending the hate crimes and suicides that continue to claim the lives of young Americans.”

———————————————————————————

During the year 2008, the ‘Yes on 8 Campaign’ made over $200,000 in expenditures to the Law Offices of want to be California Legislator, and author of  Proposition 8, Andrew Pugno;  he made hundreds of thousands of dollars taking away same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry and then he spent a lot of it on trying to get elected to the California State Legislature for the 5^th District.

Pugno has apparently “loaned” his Campaign Committee Account an equivalent amount of money, $200,000, is desperately attempting to continue in his endeavors to purchase the seat which has a declared winner, Democrat Richard Pan with a 49% to 46% lead.

The Sacramento Bee, reports that Pan has declared victory. Absentee ballots remain to be counted in the generally Republican district; so it may still change despite the declaration by Pan.

In Karen Ocamb’s report - in LGBT POV,  “Pan, a pediatrician and UC Davis medical school professor, had backing from the California Democratic Party, labor and hundreds of volunteers – many of whom were LGBT from Equality California and Stonewall. He said voters had a “clear choice:” “You had someone who has made a career out of dividing people and advocating a divisive issue, and I have a record of bringing people together to solve problems and addressing issues based in our communities.”

The Bees reports that the “Republican Party reported roughly $800,000 in campaign contributions and television ads. Gay marriage opponents also aired television ads in the district blasting Pan.” Pugno wouldn’t give his hometown newspaper a comment on the election results.

It is astounding what politicians are able to get away with and how the deprivation of constitutional  people’s rights serve the careers of hate-mongers.

Melanie Nathan Nov 03, 2010.

Sharon Ferguson, 52, and Franka Strietzel, 49, unsuccessfully applied for a civil marriage license yesterday in a direct challenge to the UK’s legal ban on same-sex weddings.  According to the UK Press,  “the couple, together for two years, plan to take legal action to overturn the ban, claiming it is a breach of the Human Rights Act.”

Three other gay couples will follow suit between now and the end of the year, and four heterosexual couples plan to apply for civil partnerships which were granted in 2004 to give same sex couples legal rights comparable to straight married couples.

Equality campaigners argue both options should be open to everyone regardless of their sexuality with gay people being able to marry, and heterosexual couples able to sign the civil partnership register. Although “disappointed” at yesterday’s decision, the Rev Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, said: “We are in this campaign for the long haul. We are confident that the courts will eventually rule in our favour.

“Although I fully appreciate the benefits of civil partnerships, I don’t feel they are appropriate for us. Later this year we plan to bring a joint legal action with seven other gay and straight couples in a bid to overturn the twin bans on gay marriages and heterosexual civil partnerships.”

“Our aim is to secure equality in civil marriage and civil partnership law,” he said. “We want both systems open to all couples, gay and straight. Denying couples the right to civil marriage and civil partnership on the basis of their sexual orientation is wrong.”

Related articles

• Campaigners launch civil partnership challenge (independent.co.uk)
• Lesbian couple vow to take battle for same-sex marriage to court (telegraph.co.uk)
• Lesbian Couple’s Marriage Bid Denied in London (pinkbananaworld.com)

Barbara, Kamala & Jerry vs. Carly, Cooley & Meg -

In this State of California close races are being fought and the next two weeks could feasibly determine the future of Gay Marriage, here in California and in the USA. From local to National, California is on the hook and the Gay community MUST show up to Vote. Never before has so much been at stake as never before has there been as much hate, hypocrisy and lying!  Meg, Carly, and Cooley- have come out attacking gays and immigrants, tossing millions of dollars into their narcissistic attempts at persuasion.

Imagine a California led by two women  (local and national) who hate women who love women!  They know they are not qualified for the jobs, intellectually challenged with no experience when it comes to government, thinking we are stupid enough to fall for  “lets run California like a business,” routine again!  Both took, took and took and notwithstanding their purported business acumen lost sight of the people – the employees- the people, mere dispensable plebeians to them. What do we think will be different when empowered with an entire State and the lives of us marginalized lesbians!

In addition  California’s gay voters are being urged to choose Democratic attorney general candidate Kamala Harris if they hope to do away with Proposition 8. Kamala is a faithful and consistent supporter of LGBT rights and equality. As the current San Francisco DA she is a person who has walked her talk, shown up to San Francisco Pride, year after year – attended equality events and been unwavering in her commitment against hate crimes. Harris has promised if elected not to defend Prop 8 should it make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court — federal judge Vaughn Walker ruled Prop. 8 unconstitutional in August, and antigay groups are currently attempting to appeal his decision. Harris’s opponent, Los Angeles city attorney Steve Cooley, has vowed to do fight to ban Gay marriage in California.

Then there is Meg Whitman, the Republican candidate who says she will oppose gay marriage while the Democrat Jerry Brown also supports LGBT equality, unconditionally.

Gavin Newsom, running for Lieutenant Governor, needs no introduction to same0sex marriage as he remains the hero of the fight to win the right here in San Francisco, California and way beyond.

And last but not least for Senate – anti-gay Carly Fiorina – must be defeated by Senator Barbara Boxer, a true ally to our community.

Related articles

• Pro Same-Sex Marriage Proponents File Counter Brief In Prop 8 ‘s 9th Circuit Appeal (lezgetreal.com)
• Gay marriage debate persists in some Nov. 2 races (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Anti-Gay Donor Writes Check to Meg Whitman (lezgetreal.com)
• GOP Candidate For CA Attorney General: I Will Defend Prop 8 In Court (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Geoff Kors: This November, You Can Make History for Marriage Equality (huffingtonpost.com)

Melanie Nathan – 10-20-10-

Speaks to oust NY State  Senators who refuse to vote for Gay marriage in NY Senate.

New York – Actor Alec Baldwin may not be gay, but he wants to at least have the option to marry Jesse Tyler Ferguson, who stars on the ABC sitcom “Modern Family.”

Baldwin cut an ad for Fight Back NY, an advocacy group and political action committee that campaigns for Senate candidates who approve of same-sex marriage. Baldwin, who has lent his voice to a variety of liberal causes over the years, jokes in the video that his only hindrance to getting married to Ferguson are a group of state lawmakers opposed to same-sex marriage.

In this case, the group is targeting Sen. Frank Padavan, R-Queens.

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts

Related articles

• Alec Baldwin for Fight Back New York (advocate.com)
• Alec Baldwin Defends Gay Marriage For Fight Back NY (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)

Melanie Nathan -10-05-10;

A New Jersey based Jewish newspaper won’t publish wedding or engagement announcements from same-gender couples any longer after receiving complaints, according to a statement from the editor on the newspaper’s website.

The following are excerpts of the message posted by the Jewish Standard editor, Rebecca Kaplan Boroson: “We set off a firestorm last week by publishing a same-gender couple’s announcement of their intent to marry. Given the tenor of the times, we did not expect the volume of comments we have received, many of them against our decision to run the announcement, but many supportive as well.

A group of rabbis has reached out to us and conveyed the deep sensitivities within the traditional/Orthodox community to this issue. Our subsequent discussions with representatives from that community have made us aware that publication of the announcement caused pain and consternation, and we apologize for any pain we may have caused. The Jewish Standard has always striven to draw the community together, rather than drive its many segments apart. We have decided, therefore, since this is such a divisive issue, not to run such announcements in the future.”

Message from Melanie Nathan to this Newspaper:

Clearly your newspaper does not support all Jews, like me and my wife who were married in a Reform Congregation. My orthodox family came to the wedding and no one got hurt!

I Imagine your Newspaper fails to support Reform Judaism as you have clearly made a choice. That said recently a large group of Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish Educators came out in favor of full acceptance of gays and lesbians in their Orthodox congregations and by their families. What gives the view of a select group credence over a view of another select group.

It is an absolute outrage that you think pulling the ads/announcements solves the problem. The only way to solve the problem is not to publish any if you fear offending some! To speak to the “tone” is to denounce the current tone shows your lack of support for equality, because you have given in to one side.

This is an outrage and I truly hope you are sued. You owe the gay community a BIG apology. The firestorm has just began. What a bunch of cowards. Torah teaches us to stand up for what is right and you have failed miserably; even Israel has managed to adapt to the what is right. How can you begin to suggest this draws the community together?

Even if you are a religious publication – you have crossed the line, merely in your statement!”

UPDATED: Here are some comments from the NJ Paper itself -  -

This editorial decision is insulting to those who were overjoyed by the celebration of a beautiful life-cycle event.  A non-ideological newspaper should report, not place value decisions on events in the Jewish community.  Moreover, the desire to please those who have experienced “pain and consternation” causes even greater pain for those who are gay and their friends and family.  It hurts much more to know that we are not welcome in the Northern Jersey Jewish community by the standards of this paper.

Leah posted 04 Oct 2010 at 04:27 PM

How disappointing for this publication, one where I always felt at home reading about this accepting Jewish faith. You have lost a faithful reader in me and believer that Jews are some of the most compassionate people on Earth, especially because of our past plight. To say the least, I am extremely saddened, disapointed and disheartened by my own people and our religious and supposed moral leaders.

posted 04 Oct 2010 at 04:36 PM

Wow

This is just plain disappointing. A paper that claims to represent the Jewish community bowing down to the pressure of one group, while spitting in the face of the other. This is not how to resolve conflicts and will only further suppress dialogue on this issue if we cant even read about it in our daily newspaper.

Hopefully these days will be behind us soon…..

t posted 04 Oct 2010 at 05:20 PM

you should be ashamed of yourselves, cow towing to a bunch of BIGOTS. I will indeed encourage people to take a pass on this publication, because Bigots suck and that is what this mag has reduced itself to-a bigoted disgusting Piece fo garbage.

posted 04 Oct 2010 at 05:31 PM

How does it draw the community together to exclude the marriages of many members from public acknowledgment? I wholeheartedly agree with  mmmmmm

If the paper doesn’t count gay and lesbian Jews as members, so be it. But don’t pretend hat this solution is uncontroversial, or does not cause pain. You’ve just chosen the prejudices and discomfort of one segment of the community over the simchas of another.

posted 04 Oct 2010 at 05:34 PM

I am dismayed that a newspaper which seeks to be a voice for the ENTIRE Jewish community in Northern New Jersey, not just for “a group of rabbis within the traditional/Orthodox community,” would make such an unjust editorial decision. I was initially quite proud that The Jewish Standard was among the first Jewish newspapers in the country to publish a simcha announcement for a same-sex couple. Presenting an inclusive portrait of Jewish community in which we affirm the humanity and dignity of every Jew embodies the Jewish value of b’tzelem elohim, the notion that people are created in the divine image of God. What a shame that gay and lesbian Jews will open up the pages of The Jewish Standard and be told that there is no place for them here. How terribly painful to send a message to those who are leading meaningful Jewish lives that their love is not worthy of communal recognition. These messages are hurtful, mean-spirited, and very un-Jewish. I would hope that a Jewish paper would know that the Jewish community is, and always has been, strengthened by its diversity.

=posted 04 Oct 2010 at 05:36 PM

Some “traditional/Orthodox” Jews experienced “pain and consternation” in reading a wedding announcement of a couple who just happened to be of the same sex? These people had no connection with the couple whatsoever and their marriage had no effect on them or their lives whatsoever. Given that absolute lack of any meaningful connection between these readers and the couple, it is disingenuous to claim they felt “pain” as seeing the wedding announcement. Rather, the proper word in this case is “hatred.” They did not like the idea of a gay couple’s celebration of their commitment and religious identity being equated to their own, and reacted with rage.

And now the Jewish Standard has decided that the hated-fueled rage of some “traditional/Orthodox” readers is more important that the REAL “pain and consternation” felt by gay and lesbian Jews, theri families, and friends at the Jewish Standard’s decision that their life-cycle events are not valuable or meaningful enough to report in the community newspaper.

This decision makes sense, in crass and venal sense: the “traditional/Orthodox” community is large and spends a lot of money that the Jewish Standard’s circulation and advertisers care about a great deal. It’s just sad that the rage of bigots and filthy lucre count for more than the lives and loves of other human beings.

Anonymous posted 04 Oct 2010 at 05:47 PM

This apology is disgusting and abhorrent. In light of the recently publicized suicides of gay youth, how dare a Jewish newspaper apologize for publishing a same-sex marriage announcement? Whoever decided that was ok can add that to their list of things to do teshuvah for next year. This kind of absurd public apology is shameful, embarrassing, and dangerous. You are basically telling every young gay person who might happen upon this apology that, oops, we shouldn’t have shown support for gay people, because it offends some ignorant, insensitive members of our community. I’m shocked and horrified by this. And P.S.—there are segments of the Orthodox community that are coming around on this issue, so let’s not assume all Orthodox people think it’s ok to implicitly gay-bash. It’s also very un-Jewish.

Unreal posted 04 Oct 2010 at 05:59 PM

Hmm… you can publish treyf restaurant ads but not an announcement of two people joining their lives together? Sounds fishy to me.

n posted 04 Oct 2010 at 06:13 PM

From your own “About Us” page:

“The Jewish Standard is not affiliated with any program, organization, movement, or point of view, but is dedicated to giving expression to all phases of Jewish life. “
…except for the lives of homosexuals.

Your actions sicken me. Take your mission seriously or take your lofty statements of principles down, you filthy hypocrites.

yankl posted 04 Oct 2010 at 06:30 PM

Shame on your excuse for a newspaper.  How can you bring a community together by refusing to print marriage announcements from people within the community?  You can’t be a community newspaper if you refuse to carry notices from your own community.  You caused pain and consternation for the Orthodox Jews?  What about the pain you’re causing gay Jews and their friends and families?  You want to be divisive?  Congratulations,  by caving into religious extremism you’ve managed to highlight divisions within the community and widen them.  Did you notice that your two grooms are Orthodox Jews and were both leaders of Jewish student organizations? What about their Orthodox families?  Do they not get considered into your worries about consternation and pain?

און פאַר די גאָר פרומע װאָס האָבן געסטראַשעט די צײטונג: שװײג אײערע פּיסקעלעך. אַרבעט אױף אײערע אײגענע פּראָבלעמען פאַר דעם װאָס איר מאַכט מער צרות פאַר דער רעשט פון אונדז. אױב איר װילט אַװעקטרײבן אַלע האָמאָסעקסואַליסטן פון אידישקײט, הײב אָן מיט אײערע אײגענע געמײנדע װײל איר װײסט גאַנץ גוט װיפל געפינען זיך צװישן עץ
!

posted 04 Oct 2010 at 06:44 PM

What kind of newspaper are you?  Have you no backbone? You are a newspaper, first and foremost.  It is because of ridiculous “sensitivity” reactions like this that force young, bright children to jump off of bridges.  What’s next, no more NY Times because they publish gay wedding announcements?  No inter-racial wedding announcements because someone might get upset?  Since when does one group of readers determine what all readers get to read?  If it upsets the reader, DON’T READ IT.

B. Whine posted 04 Oct 2010 at 06:51 PM

Flag Comment

Thank you for making me feel like a valid and respected member of the Jewish community. Not.

Bert posted 04 Oct 2010 at 06:54 PM

Flag Comment

Are you serious? I guess you are. How disappointing. And stupid.

Lev Raphael posted 04 Oct 2010 at 06:56 PM

What a craven and ridiculous decision! How on earth can someone else’s simcha cause anyone pain and consternation?  If it does, that person needs therapy, not to throw his or her weight around and bully a newspaper into bigotry.

posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:01 PM

As a reader of the Jewish Standard and as someone who is engaged to be married, I am outraged by your discriminatory and biased decision not to publish life-cycle announcements from same sex couples. SHAME ON YOU!

To all regular readers out there and anyone else reading this, you must let the newspaper hear your outrage too.

Wayne posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:01 PM

Absolutely despicable decision, and the most craven form of journalism. I assume the Standard will also stop running articles about women who work outside the home, wear immodest clothing, or sing in the presence of men, since those people might behave in way that offends the delicate sensitivities of a few readers? Photos of men and women who are not related will now be segregated by gender, lest readers get the idea that sometimes men and women socialize without being married or related?  I assume *all* mention of Conservative and Reform (and don’t even mention secular) Jews will also simply be stricken, since what they call Judaism might not measure up to the standards of the strictest traditionalists, and should therefore simply be ignored, as if it didn’t exist? And anything at all—anything—that the most observant Jew doesn’t like, you will simply excise from your pages and pretend that by doing so, the real world has ceased to operate? When you cave in to the most restrictive among us, you alienate everyone else—and pushing certain people back into invisibility in order to avoid being “divisive” is, in itself, a horribly divisive stand. Shame.

Mark Kane posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:04 PM

I just wanted to thank you for letting me know I am not welcome in your community.

I’m not quite sure what constitutes “pain & consternation” caused by announcement of a couple’s pledge of love and devotion, but it doesn’t compare one bit to the pain you have caused all LGBT Jewish women and men by caving to in fear and bigotry.

If you are striving so hard to draw the community together, you’ve done a great disservice to the former members you’ve thrown under the bus.

Shame on you.

jt posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:05 PM

I suspect that some gay people, and even some of their friends and family members, feel pain from so many instititutions of our society not recognizing their lifelong committment in marriage.

Debbie Appel posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:07 PM

The logic of this statement is baffling. The Jewish Standard is “striving to bring the community together” by marginalizing LGBT Jews. What about the “pain and consternation”of that group of Jews who are being told by this statement that their celebrations are not worth celebrating.

Nancy 04 Oct 2010 at 07:12 PM

I feel the decision to run the original announcement was correct. I am saddened that a fraction of our Jewish Community may have felt hurt by your decision to announce a simcha. Our halakhic tradition demands that we treat all members of our community with love amd respect. The Jewish People have been victim to fear and bigotry throughout our long, rich cultural history, it is shocking and sickening to me that a Jewish newspaper serving members of our Jewish Community would condone this bigoted behavior and allow fears based on prejudice determine their policies. I am shocked and disappointed. We can do better.

SH  posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:18 PM

As a supporter and active Jewish citizen in Bergen County, I would like to state that while I understand the opinion of the traditional/Orthodox community and the pressures they often place on media outlets and the private sector, it is disappointing to find the Jewish Standard to have chosen to only speak to that community and change their policies of inclusion of all sectors of the Jewish community in northern NJ due to pressures. Perhaps it is that the Jewish Standard does not believe the secular Jewish community will make as much of a scene about this issue, but in light of the media coverage in NJ due to Tyler Clementi’s passing and bias crime that took place at Rutgers University, home to many secular Jews from northern NJ, I would have expected a VERY different decision by such a well-renowned publication. I am asking you to please change your decision, and understand that you are a publication for the ENTIRE Jewish community, no matter what pressures are put on you for social reasons. Thank you for understanding and I hope to hear that you reverse your decision and return to being the Jewish publication you have been for many years.

T posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:22 PM

t

It’s a simcha! Simchas don’t cause pain and consternation, at least not in my book. A gigantic mazal tov and kol hakavod to the happy, beautiful, and inspirational couple. We love you!

Joshua posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:27 PM

I write today to sincerely protest your exclusion of same-sex wedding announcements from your newspaper.

I sympathize with your conflicted decision making process, given the diversity of your readership, whose varying values are not only important but also are part and parcel of the very make-up of the communities you service.  Indeed, I applaud your sensitivity to the feelings of your readers.

However, your aim to be sensitive to one faction of the Jewish community has left another to suffer.  While I understand the publishing of a gay wedding may be upsetting to some, these readers are not being asked to attend or to approve.  To protest the publishing of such an announcement has more to do with accepting such people as existing in the world than accepting them as part of one’s community.

I find it tragically ironic that the stated motives for your decision hinge on community members’ pain, but you have effected quite a hurtful act in its own right, causing real pain to those who know now for sure that they will not be accepted (not approved of, merely acknowledged) in the Jewish community – at least the one you represent.  You are hardly “drawing the community together” in this move; you are merely choosing which group is worth listening to, which group is expendable.

I find your decision objectionable and offensive.  In two weeks, I will rejoice at the holy khasunah of my friends, whose wedding announcement was elided.  Our community will be strong and loving, as we welcome them with open arms.

Jonah Rank posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:31 PM

To whom this may concern,

I find this news disturbing, especially in light of the number of suicides by homosexuals that occurred in the USA over the course of the past month.

Why should the public announcement of a homosexual couple be more abhorrent to an Orthodox Jew than the announcement of a Simchat Torah celebration for young Jews where Jews must pay for entry or where musical instruments are used, or the announcement of services at a synagogue where non-Kosher food may be served at communal celebrations, or the announcement of the installation of a new female clergy person? And furthermore, why should an Orthodox Jew’s discomfort with announcing a life cycle event of two people unknown to him or her allow the publication, read also by non-Orthodox Jews, convince a community not to publish announcements that will upset several Orthodox Jews who clearly are at odds with recent attempts from the Orthodox Jewish community to reach out to and to welcome gay Jews?

Regardless of Jewish law’s ramifications surrounding a homosexual union, I am willing to suggest that it just might be a Chillul Hashem—a desecration of the God name—when a free publication that writes for and about Jewish causes sinks to the level of engaging in the shaming of an entire percentile of the Jewish population by refusing to acknowledge their lives, their lifestyles, their life cycles, and their existence.

We should not read about a gay union just as much as we should not read about Jews who belong to egalitarian synagogues, Jews who do not keep kosher, and Jews who do not engage in the core Mitzvah of “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18).

Sincerely,

Jonah
Rabbinical Student, Jewish Theological Seminary 2015

Goldberg posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:42 PM

Under New Jersey law, same-sex couples can enter a civil union, which grants them all the legal rights and obligations of marriage at the state level.  It is shameful that this newspaper would seek to accomodate a vocal minority of readers whose values run counter to the majority of Jewish denominations (and the majority of Jews in the US) as well as to discriminate against same-sex couples whose unions are legally sanctioned in the State of New Jersey.

Hershl posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:45 PM

Your newspaper has set a new low for American Jewish journalism.

While I am happy to learn that you want to be sensitive to those in your community who are bigoted and exclusionist,  I wonder whether you even care about the rest of us, the majority, who welcome the announcement of love and commitment between two members of the Jewish community?

You are making news in ways that you might never have anticipated.

http://jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/nj-jewish-paper-bows-to-bigots/

RT posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:46 PM

Every day people reach out to me to tell me about the pain and consternation homophobia causes lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.  Maybe you should apologize for writing this offensive apology.

Jesse posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:48 PM

Backpedalling on this issue will only exacerbate the problem. Bowing to the pressure of religious fundamentalists alienates those in the Jewish community who view marriage rights as a civil rights issue. This editorial is an insult and pretending that it will somehow reduce divisiveness is a foolish delusion.

Penny posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:52 PM

By apologizing to the homophobic and ignorant you are spreading hate. What if the New York Times apologized to the KKK and all of it’s readers for publishing a jewish marriage taking place and promised never to do it again so as not to ‘cause pain and consternation’ to the good white Christian men of the KKK.

You’ve just told every single person who loves another person of the same sex that they are wrong and that the world doesn’t want to know that they exist. But why stop there? We can’t have this group of Rabbis feel bad. Maybe we should round up all the gay’s and put them somewhere that they can’t be seen at all. Maybe a camp somewhere.

Garcia posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:55 PM

Doesn’t this decision betray your mission statement?:

“TO PROVIDE a forum for members of the community.

The Jewish Standard is not affiliated with any program, organization, movement, or point of view, but is dedicated to giving expression to all phases of Jewish life.

The Jewish Standard is independent; it is committed to Jewish continuity and to Israel and America’s well-being.”

Meir posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:56 PM

I echo Matthew ’s succinctly expressed opinion regarding the Standard’s unfortunate reversal of a brave and well-reasoned decision to print the Smolen/Rosen wedding announcement. I grew up in Bergen County, and my own adolescence and coming-out process as a gay man would have been unimaginably easier had I seen such examples of same-sex love and commitment in the local Jewish newspaper. I urge the Standard not to give in to “the pain and consternation” of one segment of the community at the risk of causing even more pain to another segment. In any case, calling these two groups “separate” is foolish, for by now we know very well that there are gay and lesbian people within the Orthodox community as well—some of whom may have been delighted to see this wedding announcement printed in the Standard, despite the protestations of the Orthodox leadership.

BS posted 04 Oct 2010 at 07:56 PM

Great, so a bunch of religious fundamentalists pressured a newspaper into discriminating against gays.  Do you guys have an Afghani edition by the way

Solomon posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:01 PM

I am appalled that The Jewish Standard would cave in the face of prejudiced bullying. I understand that same-sex partnership is seen as a “hot-button issue” especially within religious communities, but to say that a simple and unadorned announcement of the joyous union of two children of Israel causes “pain” to those who would rather have these two young men live out their lives alone or in unhappy and unhealthy heterosexual marriages is completely backwards. What is painful is that such couples who want nothing more than to live happy and observant Jewish lives with a loving and supportive partner continue to have to hide from and within our communities for fear of setting off a “firestorm” merely by existing as they are.

We as a people have to stop giving in to the right wing Orthodox just because they threaten and throw tantrums when the rest of us do not conform to their vision of how Judaism should look, and dare to have our own ideas about what we value as Jews and as ethical human beings in a confusing world. The more we give in, the more this minority gains the control to dictate where and how the rest of us worship. who is and is not allowed to live and celebrate lifecycle events in Israel, right down to who is and is not Jewish. I personally am not willing to quietly sit by while that happens.

Michael posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:02 PM

Flag Comment

I read items in newspapers all the time that cause me “pain and consternation.”  My solution?  Turn the page!

Jewish same-sex weddings aren’t going to stop just because you now refuse to announce them.  Your decision is short-sighted, discriminatory, and ultimately, cowardly.  Score one for intolerance, zero for journalistic independence.  For shame!

A.R. posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:08 PM

It’s such a shame that this publication has gone from joining members of their community in celebrating their joyous occasions to pandering to a crowd of isolated, insular, intolerant, and selfish fanatics.  This move has shown that certain sectors of the community are more valued than others.  I personally find this decision sad, frustrating, and painful.

Rabbi Wendy Ungar posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:16 PM

Since The Standard has decided that it is only for “certain” Jews, I hope that everyone else chooses to no longer patronize your newspaper.

Bradley posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:17 PM

Does the Jewish Standard publish announcements of interfaith marriages or is the Jewish paper of Northern New Jersey unwelcoming to those couples as well?  More importantly, how does Rebecca have time to even write this when she should be home having kids and baking challah?

Tammy posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:17 PM

I’m saddened to read such news that you will no longer run ‘such’ announcements. I am proud and happy to know many a gay couple and my life will continue to be so much more enlightening and gratifying with them in my life and with your publication out of it.

Bob posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:17 PM

Your editorial is shameful. These narrowminded rabbis are causing serious “pain and consternation” to gay and lesbian Jews and to lots of other Jews who care deeply about their gay friends and family members. Why do the loudest bigots get to dictate the standards of a newspaper?

James mace posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:20 PM

Maybe you shouldn’t post ANY life-cycle events.  That wouldn’t work, would it?  This pressured discrimination comes from a minority that has made it their personal mission to disconnect more than 80% of all Jews who do not subscribe to their way.  I will no longer read your post.

John posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:23 PM

Striving to bring a community together by treating a segment of the community as lepers—exiling them to the outskirts of the city, and declaring them as unclean.  Good luck.

It wasn’t your publication of the announcement that is driving the community apart, it is those who are complaining that they are being forced to look upon the unclean, and your bowing to their wishes to treat the unclean as if they don’t exist, that is driving the community apart.

Yaakov   posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:28 PM

I hope that the editorial staff decides to reverse their decision. As an observant Jew, I am always overjoyed to hear of the simcha of any two people uniting in love.

Please reverse your decision and continue to run same-sex announcements!

Mickey posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:31 PM

If you don’t like same-sex weddings, I have three words for you:  DON’T HAVE ONE!

Rabbi David Greenstein posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:32 PM

t

The decision of The Jewish Standard to refrain from publishing announcements of sam-sex marriages in the Jewish community is shameful. It perpetuates the stigmatization of members of our community, with all the known results of emotional and real physical harm this causes.
It does so in order to placate another segment of the community that claims that it feels consternation to read about such events. But the assymetry of the claims of these two groups is blatant. No reputable newspaper tries to limit its coverage to stories that make everyone happy. Indeed, we all know that many things happen in the Jewish community that cause consternation to other groups. Such discomfort is the necessary corollary of living in a pluralistic world. Frankly, reading that some Orthodox rabbis objected to the marriage announcement causes great consternation to me – a rabbi who is overjoyed that the marriage took place. Would you consider not reporting their objection so as not to cause me, and the many, many other committed Jews who feel as I do, terrible consternation?
On the other hand, the erasure from its pages of the life-cycle events of one group of Jews supports the perpetuation of real-life suffering and misery and – read the recent newspapers – even death.
Until such time that the The Jewish Standard decides to become the official newspaper of only a certain segment of the Jewish community it is obligated to report the events in the entire community fairly and inclusively.

shira posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:52 PM

As Jews, we have always been commited to advocating for human rights, and giving respect to all.  The Standard should represent all aspects of the Jewish world, and give the same opportunities for all Jewish couples who want to announce the joy of their upcoming marraiges. I am ashamed that the Standard (which is supposed to represent all viewpoints), would take this backwards step.  Human beings are being hurt here.  I respect Orthodox Jews for living in the manner that is appropriate for them, and that respect should be given to all in the Jewish community.

M posted 04 Oct 2010 at 08:59 PM

As a friend to the couple, a queer ally, and a committed Jew, I am insulted and disgusted by this decision. The decision of these two young men to commit to each other and to build a Jewish family is one worth celebrating, and I am disturbed that you would bow to the opinions of small minded bigots who cannot see its value. If we are truly to grow and thrive in this country, it behooves us to move with the winds of history, which are blowing increasingly towards tolerance.

Sid Kivanoski posted 04 Oct 2010 at 09:09 PM

Flag Comment

So you are simply valueing the “deep sensitivities” of some Jews over others. Not a very ethical decision, is it?

Sennesh posted 04 Oct 2010 at 09:25 PM

Have you not read or heard about all the teen suicides these past few weeks? They were all the result of bullying, and being made to feel that they were lesser humans because of their sexual orientation.  A person’s sexual orientation is a gift from G-d, not some perverse medical condition.  The true mitzvah would be to continue to announce these wonderful life cycle events until they ceased to seem “wrong” to some members of the community. They are the ones that need education and to find their truly loving hearts.

LR posted 04 Oct 2010 at 09:43 PM

What a shande. By allowing this segment of your readership the power to prevent you from reporting that these events occur, you’ve left behind your journalistic role and moved into acting as an apparatus of social ostracism. It’s so incredibly disingenuous to say that you’re making this decision to allow for greater unity when in fact your decision means the wholesale exclusion of LGBT Jews. This action can only be construed as “drawing the community together” if you believe that LGBT Jews don’t belong in the first place; that “some [Jews] are more equal than others.” Shame on you. Such behavior does not deserve the name of “The Jewish Standard.”

joan posted 04 Oct 2010 at 09:44 PM

It caused people pain? I feel pain every time I see an ad for a non-kosher restaurant in your publication because it means that Jews are going to eat non-kosher. I also feel pain everytime you advertise an event on shabbat because it means that Jews might not observe shabbat. Will you take note of my pain and refrain from advertising anything that violates halachic Judaism?

Sam posted 04 Oct 2010 at 09:49 PM

I feel so horrible for the “pain and consternation” experienced by members of the Haredi community.  How about the “pain and consternation” experienced by traditional LGBT Jews who feel invisible and alienated on a daily basis!?

I think you need to change the name of your newspaper to “The Jewish Double Standard”…

Feldman posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:00 PM

This is in direct contradiction to your mission statement, in which you say that you are not affiliated with any movement or point of view and that you are dedicated to giving expression to all phases of Jewish life. You have betrayed your own standards, let alone the trust of those non-traditional Jews who were also your readers, and you should be ashamed.

What is divisive? Refusing to acknowledge the joyous life-cycle events of non-traditional Jews, simply because traditional Jews don’t want to see or hear anything about them.

What are you communicating about the sensitivities and suffering of Jews? The sensitivities and suffering of traditional Jews, though such announcements affect them only indirectly, are more important than the sensitivities and suffering of traditionally marginalized Jews who may be driven away from the Jewish community entirely from such treatment.

Why is the pain of traditional Jews who are simply seeing an engagement announcement of which they disapprove valued above the pain of those who want to share their joy with those in their community who may wish to celebrate with them? If your management and/or editorial staff are not biased, then, at the very least, you’ve kowtowed to those who are.

You are not “drawing the community together.”

You’re silencing those who are different and making them feel less welcome.

Rabbi Bernard Spielman posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:18 PM

Dear Jewish Standard,
Conservative and Reform Jews recognize that gay individuals are also “created in the image of God”. They also have feelings and needs like the rest of us. They and their families actually experience pain inflicted upon them by such opinions and editorial policies as yours when you deny their humanity in the same way that the Germans did when they put them in concentration camps. In the State of Israel gay parades are permitted.but you would deny them even a joyful announcement in your paper. Please reconsider.
Rabbi Bernard Spielman.

Juliet Barr posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:20 PM

To the editors of the Jewish Standard:

As a long time subscriber of the Jewish Standard, I was deeply saddened to read your apology to printing an announcement of engagement in a recent issue.

How disappointing it is for me to know that I can not announce my own family’s simchas without knowing that I may face censorship by your newspaper—this causes me “great pain and consternation.”

Knowing that we are all created “B’Tzelem Elohim,”  in G-d’s image, and that in every community we pray for and strive for Shalom… peace and completeness, I cannot believe you have allowed a group of our own people to marginalize another group of our own people.

I hope you will reconsider your decision and perhaps consult with other members of our community who would share a clearer perspective on our wonderful, multi-faceted religion.

Kerry Chaplin posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:29 PM

And yet you choose to cut off those Jews who celebrate same-sex relationships. I don’t just mean Jews IN same-sex relationships, but all those who celebrate them.

If we look at CA, 83% of Jews voted against Prop 8, meaning 83% of Jews were committed
if not to acceptance of marriage for gay and lesbian people, at least to tolerance.
I believe through this decision you are hurting more people by insulting the Judaism of these 83%. The 27% may be more vocal, but the “Standard” of the Jewish community is clearly with the 83%.

Jewish law itself teaches us to go with the majority in almost all cases.

By going with the minority, and refusing to publish these celebrations, I believe you are
doing something very UN-Jewish both for traditional and ethical reasons.

Rachel Jane posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:32 PM

I am deeply upset at your decision to not include simachs like the one you so admirably posted last week. I am confused as to how this publication thought that it would bring together the Jewish community rather than push it away when they were so deeply influenced by one sect of Judaism, that being Orthodox. What the Jewish standard failed to consider, is the accepting and supportive views of homosexuality that many Reformed, Reconstructionist and Conservative Jews support. This decision only promotes one theory of thought while neglecting THREE others. In an age where there is an epidemic of gay teens committing suicide (including ones in places where the Jewish Standard is delivered, like Ridgewood NJ), this publication has a social responsibility to help people who feel ostracized and unaccepted rather than push them away. However, the views that created your decision are not ones that I am proud to promote as a Jew. This decision will not ‘bring the community together’ as it is intended. I am hurt and ashamed by your actions and I feel that you as a publication should reconsider your decision and speak with all of the Reformed, Reconstructionist, Conservative, and GLBT Jews who may think differently on this matter.

Ronstrom posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:34 PM

It is such an incredible insult to think a newspaper would censor itself based on pressure from certain homophobic members of the community. I hope this reaction to such censorship, and to the recent suicides of gay children due to isolation, harrassment, abuse, and social shunning will make you reconsider your misguided, shortsighted decision.

SM posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:39 PM

How sad that you caved to those who are intolerant.  You are now causing “pain and consternation” to the rest of us in the Jewish community who do not want to believe that our religion is hateful and bigoted.  Shame on you.

—————————————————-

Dear Editor,

Your decision to discontinue the publishing of same-sex engagements/marriage is both cowardly and unimpressive. The so called ‘pain’ of those opposed is a mask to encourage and promote sinas chinam. The pain of all Jewish LGBT people and friends/family is greater than you give credit for. To be shunned and hidden, to feel invisible and inferior is a far greater pain than the ‘pain’ of bigots.

Maybe you’re afraid that you will lose majority of your readers, but what ever happened to integrity? What ever happened to doing the right thing despite what people will think? To being stronger than the weak and narrow-minded. To promote tolerance and love. To be a leader instead of being a victim to your ‘numbers’.

It’s such a shame that people who are in the position to take a stand and have their voices heard choose to silence themselves and others hiding behind excuses that ooze fear and weakness.

I hope you will soon see what a big mistake and misjudgment this is on your part.

Gene posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:44 PM

“The Jewish Standard has always striven to draw the community together, rather than drive its many segments apart. We have decided, therefore, since this is such a divisive issue, not to run such announcements in the future.”

This is not the reason why announcements of same-sex marriages are not to be published.  The decision not to publish these announcements in the future drives away a segment of the community, excluding a group in favor of pacifying the complaints of another.

“we did not expect the volume of comments we have received, many of them against our decision to run the announcement, but many supportive as well.”

There are members of the community who support the publication of this announcement as well as those who do not.  It is possible that those who are in support of same-sex marriage are more willing to remain quiet and not complain than those who do not.  That, however, is no reason to assume that by refusing to publish future announcements you will not be dividing the community.

The announcement made some people happy while others were upset.  To not publish these announcements in the future says that those who were supportive of this couple’s intent to marry are, at best, less important members of the community you wish to draw together more tightly.  The decision to not print future announcements divides the community just as clearly as did publishing it in the first place.  If your intent was to draw the community together, you failed, and must for the sake of the community try again.

Hershl posted 04 Oct 2010 at 10:46 PM

I never knew that the NJ Jewish Standard existed until you distinguished yourself by banning gay and lesbian civil union announcements.

Good for you. Now you are famous around the world, thanks to the net, as the number one Jewish organ for hate and intolerance in New Jersey.

Clever marketing ploy. Now all the bigots will subscribe.

http://jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/nj-jewish-paper-bows-to-bigots/

Alexis posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:04 PM

One step forward, two steps back. Shame on you.

Lori posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:14 PM

Dear Friends,

If you did not expect the volume of comments you received on this issue, you are woefully out of tough with the true tenor of the times. I am sorry to hear that you have elected not to run such announcements in the future. It is an indicator that you have no intention of drawing the community together, but fully intend to pander to voices of bigotry and prejudice. I am saddened by your decision.

Melissa posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:17 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Meltzer’s comment above.  My Jewish upbringing taught me to be inclusive and not just tolerant but celebratory of differences.  This statement is outrageous and shameful as a reflection on the Jewish community.

Alan posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:22 PM

Your decision is reprehensible.  It is said that when there are two Jews there are three opiniions. I didn’t know that the opinion of one group would discount the feelings and opinions of another within the Jewish community.  You state “The Jewish Standard has always striven to draw the community together, rather than drive its many segments apart.”  Your decision not to run announcements of this sort will be divisive to the community as a whole while solidifying one right wing view.

Rachel posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:26 PM

As a former Teaneck resident I was delighted to see how progressive and open-minded the Standard had suddenly become by announcing a gay marriage.  I am deeply disappointed by their retraction.  It greatly devalues my estimation of the paper.  I certainly would never consider placing an announcement in it from now on!

Rachel posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:33 PM

I do not think I can adequately express how disgusted I am by this decision.  As one of the most oppressed groups in history—a group targeted over and over by violence, excluded, scape goated, hated—one would think the Jewish people would have developed an acute empathy for those who continue to suffer at the hand of small mindedness.  And I think, for the most part, one would be correct.  But not in this case.  This is a cowardly pathetic, backwards, and hypocritical step for a group of Jews to take.  The world has continually sought to marginalize the Jews for no reason other than fear.  So now a group of Jews has the gall to do the same?

You claim you are striving to draw the community together.  So you make the deliberate choice to exclude active members of your community because of their sexual orientation, their genetic makeup. What an excellent exhibit of togetherness. An excellent example for the rest of this hateful, prejudiced world.

Eli Kaplan posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:39 PM

It happened just a few days ago, in this newspaper’s home state:  A boy jumped off a bridge into the Hudson because society made it clear to him that being gay is too far out of the norm for him to be treated with respect.

Can such an event not teach us that the least we can do is welcome gay individuals as part of our community?

Are we as Jews going to set such an example to the world – cutting people out of our circle?

Is that our new standard?

Alexandr posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:42 PM

You have chosen to make this a divisive issue and you have chosen your side.  Gay teens around the country are being bullied to death and you have chosen to embrace homophobia.  All gays will always be welcome in my home.  The Jewish Standard…not so much.

Pollak posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:46 PM

Flag Comment

Your reaction to the Orthodox cries of hurt feelings seems typical to me. We all back down to them as if they hear God better than the rest of us poor Jews. I don’t buy it and gay Jews certainly don’t either. You shouldn’t report news of the community as if the gays don’t exist. We can’t all live in a bubble world like the Orthodox. It’s a big world out there and gays are not shadow people and they can hear God as well as the Orthodox. So you should hear the gays and let them speak in your paper too. Unless, that is, there is more you don’t say—perhaps the people complaining are threatening nonsupport of your paper? If so then say so and be honest. Money is always at the root of most injustice it seems.

LL posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:49 PM

The headlines are full of the numerous lgbtq youth who have committed suicide in the past few weeks, and we wonder why. Could it be because the public institutions of our society, faith and community – like The Standard – choose to send a message over and over that it is acceptable to affirm discrimination? As a member of the Jewish community, I don’t know how you can call yourself Jews – and embrace the tenants of tikkun olum- and yet make a decision like this. You are worried about “the pain” you have caused a group of orthodox rabbis by sharing a happy announcement of a marriage. The Standard should consider the pain of people who are living as second class citizens in this country…something that Jews have unfortunately experienced and should be fighting against.  It is time for us all to acknowledge the responsibility we share in these tragic and preventable deaths.

Bati posted 04 Oct 2010 at 11:59 PM

Flag Comment

For the Jewish Standard to support the shaming of gay Jews is a shonda. How cowardly to knuckle under to pressure from one segment of the Jewish community. What is that segment afraid of—that their children will see what is already commonplace in this country; that is, that people who identify as the same gender can marry and/or have a formalized partnership? Wouldn’t it be better for those who object to these announcements to let their children ask them questions than to have same-sex partnership be something they can’t talk to their parents about? From whom, then, will they learn about it? In addition, with the current crop of gay teen suicides in the news, don’t you understand that shame can be fatal? Some percentage of Jewish people are gay. That’s the reality. It’s time to accept it, and our gay brothers and sisters, and move on. Remember ahavat Israel, people?

Rachelle posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:11 AM

I would ask that the editors reconsider their decision.  Would you stop posting announcements about events on Friday nights and Saturdays just because they did not comply with Orthodox practices on Shabbat?  The truth is that the stance against gay marriage is a fundamentalist opinion.  Your decision to publicly refuse to publish gay marriage announcements is far more alienating to mainstream and secular Jews.  I live in Los Angeles.  I learned of this horrible decision on facebook.  It was forwarded to me by another Jew who lives in California.  Your decision will continue to have negative reverberations even if you decide to make a “separate but equal” accommodation.

Terri posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:13 AM

As a Jewish woman, Jewish educator and a mom of kids straight and gay, I am disappointed that this publication would purport to represent Jewish values while disenfranchising a significant portion of Klal Yisrael. Shame on you.

Ray posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:18 AM

Can it be that the editor is apologizing for letting people know that two members of the community love each other and want to share the simcha of their plan to wed?  The editorial apology completely ignores the pain caused by deliberately throwing LGBT people under the bus in some quest for community harmony.

If the new litmus test is whether traditional or Orthodox leaders experience “pain and consternation” from an announcement, then the Standard needs to make some other changes, too.  First, amend the statement of purpose, which currently says, “The Jewish Standard is not affiliated with any . . . movement, or point of view, but is dedicated to giving expression to all phases of Jewish life.”  Simply add: “except gay people’s Jewish lives, which do not count.”  Second, ask for Orthodox permission before publishing other parts of the Standard, too.  Does the ordination of women rabbis alienate traditional leaders?  Then just stop telling your readers that it happens!

Or try another approach:  Publish the happy announcements (and the objections from people who are afraid of, or pained by, others’ joy).  Or at least apologize to the people whose lives are actually affected by your decision, rather than to bystanders who were not invited to the wedding.

Elaine posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:23 AM

I am very sorry to hear that you have reversed your original decision.  In doing so, you have chosen to hurt those who are often marginalized and most need our support.  Jews of all peoples should understand that, regardless of their personal views.

A Disappointed Jew posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:27 AM

The way to move towards inclusion and pluralism is not to sweep bigotry and hate under the table.  This is a despicable decision on the part of the editorial staff.  Cloaking hate in the speech of pluralism is absolutely unacceptable and a complete farse.  Let’s call a spade a spade.  This is straight up bigotry.  If these Orthodox Rabbis actually want pluralism, they’ll put on their big boy pants and turn the other cheek.  Or, if they want Jewish continuity, as they say they do, they’ll wake up and smell the roses and include gay Jews in their communities.  Welcome to the 21st century!

Carl  posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:35 AM

I find your paper’s stance to be unprincipled.  If the wedding that you are asked to announce is a legal union in your state, then it is discriminatory to refuse to publish a notice—even if the basis of the discrimination is religious faith.  In this case, there are rabbis on both sides.  Your decision to refrain from publicizing gay Jewish unions is taking sides in a Jewish cultural conflict.  I urge you to reconsider it.

Zachary posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:39 AM

Dear Ms. Boroson,
I’m sure you’ve received a flood of emails following your editorial earlier today, and I do hope that you’ll take the time to read mine as well.  As a young, recently out Jew, I consider myself lucky to have been raised in a familial and Jewish community where a “gentleman’s agreement” to keep my sexuality private seemed destined for the history books, not the newspapers.  Imagine my disappointment to find that the Jewish Standard was kow-towing to a minority of the Jewish community behind the polite semantics of wishing not to appear divisive.
To me (and many others, I’m sure), the Jewish community has always been one that works to include and care for all of its members.  As one kehillah, we applaud our philanthropists and shun only our most sinister evil-doers; after all, “a Jew is a Jew.”  Yet you have determined, through rescinding the marriage advertisement, which Jewish voices fit within the cannon of Judaism, and which ones shall be cast out.  How can you, as the authority for a newspaper that claims to unite diverse branches of Judaism, make such a judgment call?
I have never been faced with a choice between my religion and my sexuality.  Perhaps I have lived a charmed life where Jewish avenues in which I participate either avoid making judgment calls, or make ones that specifically make me feel more welcome.  But as a Jew who aspires to marry Jewish, raise Jewish children in a Jewish home and synagogue, and works full time for the Jewish movement, you have offered me little hope.  I sincerely wish that this is not indicative of all multi-denominational organizations out there, and that, as you hope, this will be an issue that can unite Jews one day soon, and not divide them.

Sincerely yours,

Zachary Barr

Rabbi Sue Fendrick posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:48 AM

This decision is beyond baffling and is causing “pain and consternation” among concerned Jews around the world!

The Jewish Standard is not a partisan political or ideological organ for one segment of the Jewish community. In a time of high rates of intermarriage, and enduring homophobia, two Jews of the same sex want to commit their lives to each other, in a way sanctioned by all but the Orthodox segments of the Jewish community? How can the Jewish newspaper of record *not* publish such an announcement?

It is ironic that you use the word “pain” twice in your short retraction, given how deeply painful it is to GLBT Jews, their friends and families and people who care about them, that their lives are not visible in our communities and publications. It is just that invisibility and lack of validation—a sense that there is no future for them—that leads young gays and lesbians to attempt or commit suicide. Make no mistake about it—THIS is causing pain.

How this decision will avoid confronting a divisive issue is beyond me. Both the content and process of the decision are deeply embarrassing. Jewish same-sex weddings and unions are happening. To exclude those announcements is to say that the paper is controlled by Orthodox concerns. Once the standard is “must not cause pain and consternation to the Orthodox rabbinate”, you will quickly find yourself with a very different paper.

I urge you to reconsider your position.

Geoffrey posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:49 AM

Dear Editorial Staff.
As you have heard in other comments: Reportage is Reportage. To announce a same sex union/marriage is not an opinion. One can not disclaim a fact. If it is raining, and the rain offends someone, would you put a disclaimer on your weather report? I suggest in the future that you print what is reportable, and let the “offended parties” look to themselves.

Yossi Horowitz posted 05 Oct 2010 at 12:55 AM

Flag Comment

The decision not to run such announcements in the future will serve to divide the community just as much as the decision to continue to run them would have. Speaking as an Orthodox Jew myself, I am very perturbed to hear about your caving to bigotry in the name of my sub-culture.
Your editorial staff should be making decisions that they themselves believe are ethical, rather than relying on the ethics of their readership.

Rebecca posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:14 AM

Your disregard of the pain and consternation of the LGBTQ community and their supporters is a SIN. Your thoughtlessness in the matter is making a larger breach in the community— GLBTQ Jews benefit so much more from seeing themselves accepted than the ultraOrthodox “suffer” from seeing a marriage announcement. Your decision to no longer announce gay weddings, which mirrors actions of so many bigots out there, demeans members of the community who need our support more than ever. Your mission statement says that you are “dedicated to giving expression to all phases of Jewish life”— clearly only when it doesn’t insult the extremists! You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Harry posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:20 AM

t

The upcoming marriage of Justin Rosin and Avi Smolen is unquestionably “news of Jewish interest” that deserves to be printed in your pages. The decision to suppress marriage announcements of same-sex Jewish couples is a morally inadequate one. If the Jewish Standard is, as it claims to be, a publication that represents the Jewish voice of Northern New Jersey, its decision to silence its members does injury to that voice and to the publication’s reputation.

The suppression of this news distorts the reality of the contemporary Jewish world. Non-recognition of homosexual members of our congregations, counselors at our Jewish summer camps, and pupils at our Jewish day schools does not protect Jewish values; it impoverishes Jewish discourse. If Judaism is to survive in America as a serious system of ethical thought, it must engage critically with the cultural and technological changes which define our reality.

The Jewish Standard should print announcements like this one for a compelling moral reason. By silencing the announcement of the marriages of gay Jews, we prevent gay Jews from appearing in public. By silencing the voices of gay Jewish adults, we put young Jews who are developing their sexual identities at risk by depriving them of role models. Demonstrating their life-long commitment to Jewish life, service, and learning, Avi and Justin are certainly such role models.

The Jewish Standard’s editorial explaining its decision demonstrated that the opinions of some Orthodox members of the community about homosexuality compelled its decision to exclude homosexual members of the community from the public forum. By submitting to the “sensitivities” of the Orthodox establishment, the Jewish Standard deprives developing Jewish young people from envisioning happy Jewish lives in a way consistent with their sexual orientations. I fervently hope that the Jewish Standard will reverse its decision to perpetuates the exclusion of some members of the Jewish community. This act of exclusion has truly caused pain.

Mazal tov to Justin and Avi.

Hershl Goodman posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:29 AM

Before this stunning display of bigotry I had never heard of the NJ Jewish Standard even though I grew up in NJ.

Now I hope that I never hear of it again.

http://jewishdailyreport.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/nj-jewish-paper-bows-to-bigots/

Alex posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:29 AM

Shame on you.  Seeing things you disagree with in the paper is not “pain and suffering.”  By that logic, I’m sure whites in Selma felt a good deal of “pain and suffering” when they were forced to watch black people eat at their lunch counters, too.

Adam posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:47 AM

Flag Comment

Dear Jewish Daily Standard,

You’re stupid.

With the love that dare not speak its name (and is agenda-ed to destroy the world!),
Adam

John Murphy posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:54 AM

I am so disappointed to here you have decided to continue to make gay people invisible again.  How appalling and said for you and your readers.  One day you will look back on this and be shamed by being on the wrong side of this issue!

Aaron S posted 05 Oct 2010 at 01:55 AM

I am a member of the orthodox community, but I must say that those Rabbis DO NOT represent me. This is a horrible decision by the editors of this newspaper, and I hope they decide to reverse it. Our Jewish community will always have its disagreements and differences, but we cannot allow the preferences of some to override those of others. There is enough room in our Jewish tent for a whole world of diversity, and it’s horribly upsetting to see a newspaper that claims to represent the community decide that it is their policy to do the opposite.

I’m not sure if I can expect there to be any change, but I can say that until further notice, I have no plans to read this newspaper ever again, and would gladly support a competitor that would take its place.

Anonymous, because you’ll call me a bigot too posted 05 Oct 2010 at 02:00 AM

I support your decision to abstain from publishing such announcements in the future.

Publishing announcements of this nature are akin to publishing statements about Jews proudly eating pork or watching Saturday morning cartoons. While we know that Jews break Jewish law, it is not the business of a Jewish newspaper to proclaim it from the rooftops.

I applaud your newspaper not bending to pressure from the left wing of Judaism that is more sensitive to being politically correct than to being halachic Jews.

That being said, you need to be consistent. You can’t publish events held on Shabbos or Yom Tov and run ads from non-Kosher restaurants and expect that people won’t throw that in your face at the selective adherence to Jewish law.

Ken posted 05 Oct 2010 at 02:25 AM

You are a Northern New Jersey paper. A Rutgers student jumped off the George Washington Bridge in pain last week and you are apologizing to the Orthodox for any pain you might have caused by allowing a gay couple to announce its simcha? Are you mad????? What pain? Did it hurt their poor Orthodox eyeballs to see gay people failing to have anonymous gay sex in the back of a gay movie theater like good little sinners? What was it about this couple’s happiness that was so painful to the Orthodox? What next? Will it hurt the poor Orthodox people to see a wedding between a Cohen and a divorcee? A Lubavitch and a Satmar? A wedding officiated by a Reform rabbi? One with inadequately kosher food? One involving a non-Orthodox convert? You so worried about causing the Orthodox pain, don’t announce simchas at all.

I just can’t get over it. The very week a gay student in your own backyard kills himself in pain you apologize to the Orthodox for allowing some gay people a moment’s respite from pain. Sick, twisted and shameful. I urge you to retract this ugly decision immediately.

laura posted 05 Oct 2010 at 02:32 AM

The Jewish people have had a long, proud legacy of both existing on the margins of society and of defending those people who occupy the margins along with us.

Refusing to publish queer marriage announcements in this publication is a travesty, a betrayal of our commitment to social justice and tikkun olam, and ultimately, an act of cowardice.

It is times like these that I remember it is more important for certain members of my community to exclude people like me in order to close ranks; I’m sorry that’s the case, because every time you make this decision you will deprive the Jewish community of some of its most observant, committed, lively, engaged, and passionate members.

Mark posted 05 Oct 2010 at 02:36 AM

Your wrong-headed apology reminded me of our Seder plate, which for many years has included an orange next to the shank bone and bitter herbs. Someone reads a short paragraph about prejudice against gay people, then urges everyone to eat a slice of orange and “spit out the seeds of homophobia.”

What’s significant is that this custom wasn’t started by a gay person, but by an older straight couple. It has now been passed on to their many children and grandchildren. Perhaps you and your rabbis with “deep sensitivities” should consider an addition to your Passover rituals next year.

Richard posted 05 Oct 2010 at 02:47 AM

So you will not again announce the impending nuptials of two Jews of the same sex because I, another Jew, might not approve?  Will you also not announce the election of Jews to public office unless I supported them?  Do you ignore the conviction of that goniff Bernie Madoff because it’s a shanda and the goyim might possibly read of it in your paper?  The logic here is nebulous.  The spinelessness is apparent.

Erez posted 05 Oct 2010 at 02:47 AM

t

This statement is an embarrassment to Jews everywhere. The complete lack of sensitivity demonstrated less than a week after a gay teen committed suicide in NJ over bullying and harassment is utterly repulsive.

Ben posted 05 Oct 2010 at 03:04 AM

To the editor:

You’ve done a great job publicizing your periodical. You see, before today, I had never read the New Jersey Jewish Standard. Your new editorial policy has been “going viral” today among some of the Jewish students here on campus, and it would have gotten quite a laugh for backwardness if it weren’t about such a serious issue.

I’m a Jewish—and gay—college student, and I’m writing to express my disappointment in your new editorial policy of excluding same-sex wedding announcements.

Simply “not [running] such announcements in the future” does not make the issue less divisive or make the problem go away. It only further alienates gay community members—especially youth. An epidemic of gay youth suicides such as the one our country is experiencing this fall (including the latest in New Jersey) is a tragedy, but not an accident. By including same-sex couples in your announcements, you would show gay youth that they can be Jewish; you would not be complicit in their oppression.

If Jews in New Jersey are getting married, then you should print their announcements. It’s that simple. Unless, of course, you trying to say that same-sex couples aren’t sufficiently Jewish.

I know there are people out there who hold such a view, and I respect that they may still be good people and good Jews. However, that doesn’t mean I would want to read their newsletter. Rest assured that this is both the first and the last time I read your publication—until the policy is reversed.

I trust that your board can find a way to tactfully include same-sex couples equally in the Jewish community.

With great respect but also with great disappointment,
Ben

Melinda Koster posted 05 Oct 2010 at 03:11 AM

Flag Comment

In your mission statement, you proclaim that your aim is to “provide the Jewish communities of Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, and Rockland counties with an indispensable newspaper that will present local, national, and world news of Jewish interest.” Yet today’s statement cheapens these goals. In announcing your decision to refrain from publicizing same-sex wedding announcements, your paper marginalizes members of YOUR community who already experience “pain and consternation.” I hope that your paper reverses its policy and decides to celebrate inclusiveness over bigotry. Until then, you are accomplishing exactly what you claim to fear—you are driving your many segments apart!

I am a young Jewish professional, and this is my first encounter with your publication. I am deeply offended by this apologetic editorial. The traditional/Orthodox community needs to learn that their sensibilities are no more godly than anyone else. Your words have unleashed a rotten stench.

Jeremy posted 05 Oct 2010 at 03:21 AM

I just want to make it known that I, and many others, find this decision discriminatory and offensive.

—————————————-

I rest My Case!!!

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Teaneck-based Jewish newspaper will no longer publish same-sex wedding announcements (nj.com)

Senator Diane Savino -Lest we forget?

San Francisco:- A dear friend* in New York sent me this Video today. I had not seen it before.  It has over 400,000 hits, since  it was placed on YouTube in December of 2009.  I am in Love – well in the political sense.  This is no mere ally; in my humble opinion we have a champion.  I wanted to know why is she buried in the New York Senate?  Well taking a look at her stellar record it is no burial – she is an extraordinary asset to the well being of the State.

This piece as a reminder, lest we forget. Senator Diane Savino, (D-North Shore/Brooklyn) .

I would like to hear Senator Savino speak about marriage equality at a lot more venues – like around the entire United States of America.  IF anyone wants to send her an invitation – you have my blessing.

Oh yes and don’t forget to invite me – I will be willing to carry the bags.

As we recall and reported here on Lezgtreal last December,  those  NY State Senator -Democrats who chose not to vote yes for New York Marriage Equality, were seen by LGBT Community as cowardly traitors.

When asked “What Next”  in The New York Magazine Article by Tim Murphy, Savina said: “I don’t know. There’s no fallback on it right now, so those of us who are supporters, we have to regroup now. What do we do next? Do we wait until we have different members in the body, try to pass a different piece of legislation? Look at maybe the possibility of a voter referendum?”

The entire debate can be seen here:- http://www.nysenate.gov/initiative/marriage-equality

THE VOTE:-

S66003 Votes

Same As: A40003 Votes

—————————————————————————————-

Posted by Thomas K. Duane on Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009: “Today’s vote against Marriage Equality makes me very angry.  Promises made were not honored.  The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community, and all fair minded New Yorkers, have been betrayed.  I am enraged, deeply disappointed and profoundly saddened by the vote today.

In 2006, when the New York State Court of Appeals shamefully decided that same-gender couples did not have equal protection under the law in relation to marriage, I predicted that passing legislation to right this wrong in the State Senate would be a profound personal and sadly political battle.

I have been proven right.

Yet there is an irony in today’s vote.  Five years ago no one would have predicted that a vote would even be possible in the Senate.  Today, on the floor of the Senate, we had an open and honest debate about the indignity of denying marriage equality to thousands of New York’s LGBT citizens. We heard stories of family members and friends who have suffered merely because they are gay.  Only one Senator who opposed marriage equality spoke on behalf of that position.  Yes, the vote was a terrible defeat. But there was an honest debate with one side, sadly not the winning side, overwhelmingly represented – the side that represented justice and equality.

Now that this discussion has started in the Senate, it cannot be stopped. We will see marriage equality pass in New York.  Though sadly not today, marriage equality will pass in the near future:  openly, strongly and with bi-partisan support.

I want to applaud those friends and advocates in the LGBT community who insisted on a vote, regardless of the outcome. This was very brave and it was the right thing to do.  I was honored to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate, for an up or down vote, with their encouragement and support.

Today also brought home the fact that the State Senate must maintain a Democratic majority– and in even greater numbers.  It was only under Democratic leadership that this vote was possible. We must also have a Governor willing to sign marriage equality into law.

Most importantly I am grateful to all my Democratic colleagues who spoke so eloquently in favor of marriage equality and all those who voted in the affirmative.  And I also believe in redemption, even for State Senators who need that chance.

I am confident that we will win the fight for marriage equality in New York State.”

by Melanie Nathan -nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Empire State Pride Agenda Releases Second Round of Endorsements (lezgetreal.com)
• NY State Sen. Ruben Diaz Welcomes Attacks From LGBT Advocates (lezgetreal.com)
• Fight Back NY opens State Senator Ruben Diaz’s Closet (towleroad.com)
• NYPD Still Looking For Staten Island Gay Basher (lezgetreal.com)
• Assault Victims Won’t Back Down (advocate.com)
• Niagara Falls for Marriage Equality? (hrcbackstory.org)
• 9 Candidates Who Are Key to Marriage Equality in NY (hrcbackstory.org)

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)

Suddenly Laura Bush loves Gay marriage, Elizabeth Haselhof has tea with Melissa  and now supports same-sex marriage – then Rekers gets caught with rentboy  and the right wing is exposed for its ex-gay fraud- and now we have the RNC remnant from the Bush Era, the actual architect of the anti-gay Republican hate campaign, co- creator of the  wedge issue that targeted a minority community, used gays and lesbians as battle bullets,  coming out as a homosexual?

My G-d what is the world coming to? I ask!

Ken Mehlman, who headed the Republican National Committee between 2005 and 2007, has come out in an interview with the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder: Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview stating that he had grappled with this side of himself for over 43 years.

He agreed to answer a reporter’s questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would be asked about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California’s ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8.

What a mindless mongrel if I may. You mean to tell me that this man was not having sex or fantasies of sex with men for the best part of those 43 years?  Who was he fantasizing about not being able to marry? George W. Bush?  Was there ever a rentboy between 2005 and 2007?  Come out Come out wherever you are? Was there a suspicious mama?  A phony fiance?

Is this guy short of money? Does he want to sell a book; I for one am not buying! Sorry Mehlman but you hurt my feelings, not to mention the harm to the LGBT community; and it will take a lot more than you “being happier” for me to get over it.

More and more years of Bush and his taking down of this country – and you did it in the name of us Queers?

Known as the Great Conciliator and a reputation for being most forgiving, I cannot wrap myself around your dishonorable conduct.  Now that I find out he is Jewish too – I ask the big question. Oy Vey Why?

You knew exactly what you were doing and how it impacted millions of lives.  You took an entire minority on the ride of its life, sacrificing your brethren like lambs to the slaughter.

“Here take this one’s rights while I continue to indulge in my CON-fusion!”

What makes it all so much worse for me is that like me, Ken Mehlman is Jewish.  While I can understand the pressures of a nice Jewish existence – including the expectations of his Momma Judith and Pappa Arthur, Ken Mehlman has not lived my ideal of what it means to be a good Jew- close to the Torah and its expectations of social justice – and WHAT ABOUT the mitzvoth!

He has not only betrayed the LGBT community but fueling the all white gay hating Christian existence certainly could not have served his Bar-mitvah covenant.

Go here to see Ken Mehlman on Charlie Rose – do not forget to throw up as in vomit. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/155

MelanieNathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Maggie Gallagher On Ken Mehlman (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman Comes Out Of The Closet (lezgetreal.com)
• Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman Confirms in Interview: I’m Gay (towleroad.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Melanie Nathan; August 27, 2010

On August 13 a Gay couple filed a Federal lawsuit in Wyoming alleging they had been refused a marriage license three times.

However this week upon investigation LezGetReal delved further into the background of the Plaintiffs and noted that Gerald David Shupe-Roderick has been in trouble with the law; conducted prior  jailhouse lawyer self representing lawsuits and was arrested by police in May of this year on allegations of document fraud.

When asked, the County Clerk Debbye Balcaen Lathrop said she never met with Shupe-Roderick or Dupree on the issue and could find no one in her office who knows anything about denying a marriage license to the men.  ”We’re totally in the dark about this,” Balcaen Lathrop said, adding she didn’t know how her office would respond if it received such an application. It hasn’t happened in the nearly 16 years she’s been in office, she said.

In the meantime  in an interview with FresnoBee Shupe-Roderick  stated “I’ve tried to kind of not rock the boat, so to speak, but there comes a time in everyone’s life when there are things that are wrong and you have a moral duty to stand up and you have to advocate for what’s right,” Shupe-Roderick said Tuesday. “I think Ryan and I agree that this is something that is wrong, and it’s something that needs to be changed.” (To FresnoBee)

Implicit in this statement is that this Plaintiff is a first time Plaintiff – as if he has never stood up for his rights before. The facts denote the contrary.

By Melanie Nathan.
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Wyoming:- Marriage Equality Probably Does Not Need A Jailhouse Lawyer (lezgetreal.com)
• Gay Couple Challenges Wyoming’s Marriage Law (towleroad.com)
• Exclusive First Interview -Wyoming Gay Couple File Federal Lawsuit (lezgetreal.com)

Governor Frudenthal of Wyoming

A Wyoming gay couple is asking a federal judge to stop that state from enforcing any laws that prevent gays and lesbians from access to civil marriage.

David Shupe-Roderick and Ryan W. Dupree of Cheyenne have filed a federal lawsuit, on their own, and without legal representation; challenging a Wyoming law that defines marriage as existing only between a man and a woman.

In their suit they say the Laramie County Clerk’s Office refused to issue them a marriage license and as result violated the couples rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Editors at Lezgetreal have read the brief  filed by the Plaintiffs, who are self representing, and believe that this case could be treading on difficult water without the help of professional representation.

David was born and raised in Wyoming and told me that “this has been a long time coming for Wyoming. We had approached private lawyers who are unable to help us. There seems to be a lot of fear in Wyoming because this is the place where a very bad hate crime occurred. This is where Mathew Shepard was murdered. We believe we need to do this especially in his memory.”

We have already received hate mail when local groups found out what were doing.  We fear for our physical safety and although my boss at the fast food restaurant where I am assistant manager thinks we are so brave, he also thinks we are stupid – because our safety is at risk. Ryan and I have been together for over a year. We want to get married. We do not want special treatment; we want our State to treat us the same way as other”

A group  Wyoming Focus Group sent a hate letter to the Wyoming Press.  Lezgetreal has obtained a copy of the letter. It says, that the lawsuit seeks to “molest the sanctity of marriage in Wyoming.”  David notes that this was the more pleasant part of the letter.

The Wyoming law defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, and the couple has asked U.S. District Judge Alan B. Johnson to overturn the law.

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg declined comment Tuesday, saying he hadn’t reviewed the lawsuit yet.

Wyoming pdf of complaint re marriage David & Ryan

Melanie Nathan Added:
IMPORTANT UPDATE; See
Wyoming:- Marriage Equality Probably Does Not Need A Jailhouse Lawyer (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Gay Couple Challenges Wyoming’s Marriage Law (towleroad.com)
• Wyoming:- Marriage Equality Probably Does Not Need A Jailhouse Lawyer (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan – August 17, 2010

Last week, Glenn Beck made news when he said that he didn’t think issues like abortion or gay marriage were all that important and didn’t pose a threat to the nation.

Now, while Lezgetreal honors him with its annual Schmuck Generosa award,  Glenn Beck presents a threat to the social order.

The very thread that weaves the core of conservative existence these, the wedge – the social issues; the excuse to keep worlds apart- to maintain control via schism and fear. Now the very godfather of all fear and grime takes it all away in one tearful swoop- abra cadabera shim shala bim! Done!

Conservative groups scream foul foul -’ give it back give it back – the fear the fear we need the fear!’   Danger   godfather Beck “upsets God’s order”:

Joseph Farah, who  questioned Barack Obama’s status as a natural born citizen of the United States and consequently, his eligiblity to serve as U.S. President, stating, “It’ll plague Obama throughout his presidency, argues - “Beck doesn’t care about one of the most blatant and despicable examples of judicial tyranny in the history of our country. He doesn’t care about the institution of marriage and its 5,000-year history. He doesn’t care that the Bible says God created marriage way back in Genesis and that Jesus affirmed that. He doesn’t care that the family is the building block of a society and that smarter men have explained how you simply can’t have freedom and self-governance without it. He also doesn’t seem to care about what might become of children adopted into such unions. That, my friends, is the perfect illustration of what’s wrong with the materialist worldview – whether it is held by a raving Marxist or a conservative entertainer.”

So Now the fun begins  – Glen Beck has joined the immoral Order of  the Gay Agenda.  May the chips fall where they fall!

Mel Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Glenn Beck Digs Gay Marriage? (gayrights.change.org)
• Glenn Beck Makes The Case For Same-Sex Marriage Through Thomas Jefferson (mediaite.com)
• Glenn Beck, and More Americans, Support Gay Marriage (sfist.com)

Melanie Nathan: August 16, 2010.

But we want marriage now – in terms of our current constitutional right.

Ninth Circuit has granted the stay yes we are angry BUT the good new it expedites the appeal and the entire process…

“Filed order (EDWARD LEAVY, MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS and SIDNEY R. THOMAS) Appellants’ motion for a stay of the district court’s order of August 4, 2010 pending appeal is GRANTED.

The court sua sponte orders that this appeal be expedited pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 2. The provisions of Ninth Circuit Rule 31-2.2(a) (pertaining to grants of time extensions) shall not apply to this appeal.

This appeal shall be calendared during the week of December 6, 2010, at The James R. Browning Courthouse in San Francisco, California. The previously established briefing schedule is vacated. The opening brief is now due September 17, 2010. The answering brief is due October 18, 2010. The reply brief is due November 1, 2010. In addition to any issues appellants wish to raise on appeal, appellants are directed to include in their opening brief a discussion of why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing. See Arizonans For Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). IT IS SO ORDERED. [7441574] (JS)“

The Ninth Circuit has asked for opening briefs by September 17th and that parties must discuss why the appeal should not be dismissed due to lack of standing.  Also, the schedule for the briefs are similar to what Plaintiff attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies requested.  And oral arguments should begin by the end of this year.

So it’s not what we wanted, at this time, and yes we were headed for the aisle on Wednesday; but at least we will be closer to getting the journey’s conclusion.  I for one  believe in the unconstitutionality of the Prop 8 Vote, just as as Judge Walker ruled in his Judgment which overturned the the 2 % of Californians who were swayed by Gay Hate dollars – (and Only at that moment in TIME-) that Gays and lesbians should be denied their rights.

The stunning legal team  for the equal right to marry include the  brilliant lawyers of the City & County of San Francisco.  We have a fact-based district trial court decision that overwhelmingly explains why Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.  And we know that are winning.  Actually may I opine – we have won – they just have us on hold; pending appeal.  (URGH – it really should be the other way around. Are they afraid of another 18,000 of us? What harm have we done.  Probably lower divorce rate than our heterosexual counterparts.)

The  good news in California is we are now on the Fast track; NCLR’s Shannon Minter: The delay is very hard on couples, but the case now positioned about as strongly as it possibly could be for our side.”

What the hell can they come up with to change this – because if the do it would open the door to a State proposition vote where I bet a lot more than 2% of Californians would love to Vote against the right to bear arms – I mean after all – look at all those automatic weapons out there – they are killing our kids – what could be more harmful than that?

“I am extremely disappointed that couples will have to wait even longer to get married. It’s unfair and unfortunate. But I am confident that we will restore the right to marry once and for all,” says Geoff Kors of EQCA (Equality California)  who does well to express his disappointment that marriages are on hold at this time.

I cannot accept that  same-sex marriages would be stayed during the period of time where a Court of such esteem has held it unconstitutional.   It should be the other way around. We should be allowed to marry pending a different outcome, from a non-expedited process!!

Kors explains, “This means that, regrettably, same-sex couples will have wait longer to get married and are still being denied their fundamental right to do so.

This is not the end – far from it. The appeals process still needs to play out, and the court is expediting the process. The case is expected to be heard in December.

We need to work together to do what it takes to ensure a favorable outcome.
Here’s what you can do:

Email the Governor and Attorney General and urge them to stand strong against the attacks they are receiving from anti-LGBT groups.

Make a donation to elect a governor and attorney general who will refuse to defend Prop. 8 in court.

Volunteer in your area. We are building on the majority support we have, which is so critical to winning marriage back, either in the court or at the ballot box.

Imagine if President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Team Democrat would come out now and have the courage to repeal The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)  that restricts marriage between one man and one women, on a Federal level.

It would be an imperative correction of a bad bad mistake, at this point.  Senator Feinstein of California had the courage to VOTE no on DOMA.  Congressman Barney Frank believes DADT and ENDA should be repealed before he signs on to Congressman Jerold Nadler’s  House repeal Bill – The Respect for Marriage ACT.

Wake up and shake things up AMERICA – Now is the time.  No DOMA and we can sponsor our bi-national spouses for immigration; we can stop the exile of our citizens and The FEDS will show the STATES that it can get rid of legislated inequality via repeal legislation.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts

Related articles by Zemanta

• BREAKING: Ninth Circuit Court Grants Stay Of Prop 8 Overturn Pending Appeal (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Federal Appeals Court Grants Stay of Prop 8 Decision (towleroad.com)
• Ninth Circuit Issues Interim Stay in SSM Case (volokh.com)
• Ninth Circuit: Marriages on Hold (advocate.com)
• Judge Walker’s ruling today: NCLR Explains Same-Sex Couples in California May Not be Able to Marry On AUg 18 (lezgetreal.com)
• Prop 8 Plaintiffs File Motion With Ninth Circuit, Jerry Brown Once Again Pushes For Same-Sex Marriages To Resume (towleroad.com)
• Prop 8: Will the Real Appellants Please Stand Up (towleroad.com)
• Video: LGBT Clergy Protest against NOM in Clayton, MO (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan 08-11-10

I’m Getting Married in the morning..ding dong the bells are gonna chime…tra lalala

No law may violate the U.S. Constitution. Our nation’s Founders established the courts to protect every American’s constitutional rights against discriminatory laws.

Breaking News: Today Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, has ruled in a  136 page landmark decision, Perry v. Schwarzenegger effectively overturns Proposition 8.

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2010/08/eek-the-prop8-decision-is-here.html

This is a major Victory for same-sex marriage around the entire United States.  It may take the issue to the Supreme Court signaled by preemptive challenges already filed by anti gay marriage  proponents yesterday.

When Proposition 8 passed in 2008, the voters usurped an inherent right to equal treatment under the civil law, from same-sex couples. The LGBT community in California was astounded, shell shocked. The loss to the Gay community was profound and in essence sparked a still developing equality movement.

By the time vote day dawned, the sickening reality hit across California, and the USA that this State, progressive and innovative, had lost to a YES vote against civil rights, purchased by religious groups from outside California.  The LGBT advocates and equality, No on 8 soldiers had simply left it too late to out-gun the likes of the Evangelicals,  Latter Day Saints, and other anti-gay money that poured into California’s “Yes on 8” ads.

Prop. 8 unconstitutionally stripped away the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.

An unprecedented federal court challenge was filed in May 2009, by unlikely team and pro equal treatment advocates, Theodore Olson with Co-counsel David Boies, who had previously faced-off in Bush v. Gore, to fight this highly publicized trial in January 2010 with argument presented June 16,  representing the two same-sex  couples , Kris and Sandy, Jeff and Paul, seeking their equal right to marry; and today  Perry v. Schwarzenegger,  speaks not only to California, but to all of the USA, to President Obama and Congress and to the rest of the World.

The fundamental constitutional right to marry which had been taken away from the plaintiffs, and tens of thousands of similarly situated Californians, has been restored.

The State of California  had rewritten its constitution in order to place gays and lesbians into a special disfavored category where the most intimate personal relationships are not valid, not recognized and second rate,  through the flick of pens by ill informed and misled voters.

“There is not a compelling governmental interest to put  the plaintiffs in a class like this and take away what the  Supreme Court has called a fundamental right, a right of  liberty, privacy, association, intimacy and autonomy, said Olsen in closing argument.

The  Full text of the JUDGMENT  can be found at

The Question is will the Mayor immediately  re-open licenses for same-sex couples in San Francisco and what path will other Counties take, as clearly this case heads for The Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda
FaceBook:

Related articles by Zemanta

• California Judge Sets Date June 16 For PROP 8 Closing Argument (lezgetreal.com)
• California gears up for ruling on same-sex marriage (cnn.com)
• Prop 8 Closing Arguments Not to be Televised (lezgetreal.com)
• BREAKING -Prop 8 Hate Want to Dissolve the 18,000 California marriages (lezgetreal.com)

Melanie Nathan – 7-30-2010 -Today may be a good day to do just that!  On Friday, July 30, 1993, peace and civil rights activist David Mixner, who had done more than any other gay person to help elect President Clinton, was arrested in front of the White House along with 26 others, including NOW President Patricia Ireland and gay activists Diane Abbitt, Mel White, and Roberta Bennett, protesting the conversion of the ban against gays in the military into DADT after months of being assured by administration shills such as George Stephanopoulos that the ban would be lifted.

Well, then came DOMA – and where are we now?

17 years later – LGBT rights indeed entered the back door,  – well hallelujah!  However did we forget to open the front?  LGBT rights are domained out at a price -highest price has been at cost to our LGBT CIVIL RIGHTS movement.  The lack-lustre approach to a requisite benchmark – a Universal GOAL.

LGBT rights now  morphed into a  cottage industry, celebrating fundraisers as if victory, as we continue to push along -chug-chug- for piecemeal legislation.

Support for LGBT rights as a Civil Rights Issue has been laid on the table for us, by the Mr. Julian Bond of the NAACP.  The Civil Rights pursuit – means an amendment to The 1964 Civil Rights Act, where we ask for inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity.  Its purely a non-discrimination clause.

While of course gay marriage will follow, and DOMA’s lack of constitutional validity will be more pure than it is now, it indeed takes the issues out of the rights.  In other words, Gay Marriage will no longer be an issue.  The closest we have seen to this idea is the recent promotion of the grass root generated American Equality Bill,  which seeks to Amend to effect such.

I would prefer to see simple language in the Civil Rights Act – similar to that in the South African Constitution. Plain and simple – the right thing to do.

When the Prop 8 judgment comes down soon and it is my feeling that it will favor NO on 8.  That in itself will speak to us as a minority, and albeit State and local, it sets a tone.  A minority lacking rights – we must be included in the Civil Rights Act.  This is different to the  quest for an Equal Protection Amendment, which is justified too for other reasons – because I personally do not view women as a minority.

After sexual orientation et al, finds its fair space in The Civil Rights Act, all will follow organically be it through legislation, the Courts, or even an omnibus such as the American Equality Bill.

Can it be done – well that is up to us. Its not up for critics to weigh up and down.  It IS the front door. Short of the front door, we are bait for marginalization.  It is a benchmark and critical to a unified movement.   trying to estimate its chances at success is completely irrelevant and harms the opportunity for a Dr. MLKesque  Civil Rights approach.

Is setting a benchmark a dramatic leap.  Well, yes and no.  Yes if you think its not possible to attain and no if you believe that man made it to the moon!

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• New Poll Favors Gay Equality – A Case for An Amendment to the Civil Rights Act. (lezgetreal.com)
• The New LGBT Civil Rights Movement is Taking to the Streets (lezgetreal.com)
• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• The Democrats Ask, Let Us Tell Them- Amend The Civil Rights Act of 1964 To Protect The LGBTIQ Community Too! (lezgetreal.com)
• LGBTQI Activists Up the Ante – Equality means Amend (lezgetreal.com)
• Breaking First Release -THE AMERICAN EQUALITY BILL (lezgetreal.com)

With thanks to Miss New York Claire Buffie!

Guess what – you can be a beauty Queen and you can be Pro-LGBT rights. Yes You Can!  Move over anti-  Carrie Prejean is OUT , and the newest Miss New York, Claire Buffie is IN,  (well lezzies you may prefer it the other way around or ? Oh whatever! )

This is the first Miss America contestant, ever, to use LGBT rights as her contestant platform.

Her platform is “Straight for Equality: Let’s Talk”

Ms. Buffie tells The Advocate “that it’s really important to promote equality for all people, ‘all’ being the main word. As a straight ally, I think it’s so necessary to have that straight allies’ support for the LGBT community.”

Bringing equality to such a high profile platform is a courageous indictment of the hostility many straight people feel toward gay people, reminiscent of the Earlier Civil Rights Movement of the 60’s.  Twenty -50 years from now, if you are not carrying a banner “Straights for LGBT Right” you and your children will be ashamed.   If my Parents would not have carried their Pro Black Civil Rights Banner – today I would be ashamed.

So – That Said Thank you from Lez Get Real  and the pits of discriminatory hell to Claire Buffie – AND if you need any education as to what our movement in fact needs- have your peeps call us (Nathan@privatecourts.com) and we will tell you all about the new  GAY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT  – The American Equality Bill and Uniting Amrican Families Act.  It is not about gay marriage it is about Absolute and unequivocal  Equality.

Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Beauty Queen to Believe In (advocate.com)
• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• Launching of The American Equality Bill a ” Amending the Civil Rights Act (topix.net)
• The New LGBT Civil Rights Movement is Taking to the Streets (lezgetreal.com)
• NEW YORK: Finally We Get A Beauty Queen That We Can All Love (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• Carrie Prejean Marries at Hotel that Paid Megabucks for Prop 8 (lezgetreal.com)
• Gayle King Speaks Out for Marriage Equality (queersunited.blogspot.com)

Today Argentina celebrates a Human Rights and Dignity Victory.  To my way of thinking this beats first place at the World Cup Soccer.

Paula Brooks, of Lez Get Real posted the good news:

“After a 14-hour debate that lasted well into the early morning hours, the senate of Argentina has voted 33-27 to pass a bill that gives same-sex couples equal marriage rights and will make Argentina the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage.

The bill, that has already passed the lower chamber of Congress despite a concerted campaign by the Roman Catholic Church and evangelical groups, will also grant same-sex couples the right to adopt children.

Debate on the bill began in early afternoon on Wednesday and spilled into the early hours of Thursday as several hundred same-sex marriage supporters also stood vigil awaiting the vote.”

Now we get to to witness History made!

Oh No! Oh No - Argentina is a Go!

Related articles by Zemanta

• We Cheer for You Argentina! Argentina Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage (lezgetreal.com)
• Gay Marriage Now Legal in Argentina (lesbianlife.about.com)
• Argentina legalizes gay marriage in historic vote (miamiherald.typepad.com)
• Argentina Allows Same-Sex Couples To Marry! (perezhilton.com)
• Marriage Equality in Argentina (hrcbackstory.org)

By  Melanie Nathan  7-8-10

Today, U.S. District Court Judge Joseph L. Tauro ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional with respect to claims brought by seven married same-sex couples and three widowers from Massachusetts. Under the ruling, the plaintiffs are entitled to the same federal spousal benefits and protections as every other married couple.

Finally  a huge victory for marriage equality when a federal judge in Boston ruled today in two separate cases that a critical portion of the federal Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

U.S. district judge Joseph Tauro , US District Court Massachusetts ruled that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it passed DOMA and took from the states decisions concerning which couples can be considered married.

The second case,  Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the ruling was DOMA violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case was brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), the group that won the landmark gay marriage decision in 2003 before the Massachusetts Supreme Court. GLAD represents eight married couples and three widowers in the suit, says The Advocate today.

Proposition 8 is currently pending a San Francisco  decision, which could come down at any time, relates to State  laws barring marriage rights for same-sex couples.  However in this instance in  GLAD’s lawsuit was a precise attack on DOMA, targeting just one section of the law — Section 3 — that limits the definition of marriage, for all federal purposes, to one man and one woman.

A Highlight The Argument:

GLAD attorney Mary Bonauto told Tauro that DOMA constitutes a “classic equal protection” violation, by taking one class of married people in Massachusetts and dividing it into two. One class gets federal benefits, the other does not.  Just as the federal government cannot take the word “person” and say it means only Caucasians or only women, said Bonauto, it should not be able to take the word “marriage” and say it means only heterosexual couples.

Bonauto said the government has no reason to withhold the more than 1,000 federal benefits of marriage from same-sex couples, and noted that a House Judiciary Committee report “explicitly stated the purpose of DOMA was to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.”

The ruling stems from the lawsuit Gill et al v. Office of Personnel Management et al, filed by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) in March 2009.

“Today the Court simply affirmed that our country won’t tolerate second-class marriages,” said Mary Bonauto, GLAD’s Civil Rights Project Director, who argued the case. “I’m pleased that Judge Tauro recognized that married same-sex couples and surviving spouses have been seriously harmed by DOMA and that the plaintiffs deserve the same opportunities to care and provide for each other and for their children that other families enjoy. This ruling will make a real difference for countless families in Massachusetts.”

“I am thrilled that my family will now be treated in the same way as those of my married co-workers at the post office,” said Nancy Gill, who is a plaintiff with her spouse, Marcelle Letourneau. “Marcelle and I married out of love and commitment to each other first and foremost, but federal recognition of our marriage means that we’ll have equal access to important protections for our two children and for ourselves.”

Gill is a 22-year employee of the U.S. Postal Service who cannot cover Letourneau on her family health and vision insurance plans, forcing the couple to pay extra to insure Letourneau. Marcelle is also ineligible to receive the federal health benefit given to surviving spouses or to access Nancy’s pension should Nancy predecease her.

The next step in the case is for the federal government to decide whether it will appeal Judge Tauro’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. That decision should come within the next 60 days.

Congress passed DOMA in 1996. Section 3 of the law states that only a marriage between one man and one woman will be recognized for federal purposes. The Obama Administration called the law discriminatory, even while defending it in court.

GLAD filed the Gill case on the grounds that DOMA Section 3 violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection as applied to federal income tax, Social Security, federal employees and retirees and the issuance of passports. The passport issue was resolved in 2009 when the State Department changed its policy.

Co-counsel in the Gill case included attorneys from the firms Foley Hoag LLP, Sullivan & Worcester LLP, Jenner & Block LLP, and Kator, Parks & Weiser, PLLC. Details about the case, the plaintiffs, and the attorneys representing them can be found at http://www.glad.org/doma.

Excerpt from the Judgment

“Equal Protection of the Laws “[T]he Constitution ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’”(   Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 623 (1996) (quoting Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537,)  559 (1896) (Harlan, J. dissenting)).     It is with this fundamental principle in mind that equal protection jurisprudence takes on “governmental classifications that ‘affect some groups of citizens differently than others.’”84 And it is because of this “commitment to the law’s neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake”85 that legislative provisions which arbitrarily or irrationally create discrete classes cannot withstand constitutional……  Read Judge Tauro’s ruling: http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/2010-07-08-gill-district-court-decision.pdf.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England’s leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Win/Win: DOMA Found Unconstitutional In District Court (towleroad.com)
• BREAKING: Federal Court Rules Defense Of Marriage Act To Be Unconstitutional!!! (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• DOMA Section 3 Ruled Unconstitutional (advocate.com)

Melanie Nathan- "Finally a Benchmark"

This is a critical approach to win Equality. Equality cannot come to fruition without the Benchmark – something specific that carries forth a universal message.  Now that we have the wording and the Goal- we need the BILL.

Who ever says this is “Pie in the Sky or Bold” (Bilerco) – is marginalizing our entitlement and our rights.  To my way of thinking anyone who suggest we keep the backdoor approach as our only approach does not have our absolute interests at heart.  Selfless advocacy means going for the only benchmark that will bring full equality, and if we are going to have a movement then we need to have the movement regardless of how many votes we may or may not get in Congress.  They need to know that we are not fighting for legislation; we are fighting for our lives and to live our lives, happily,  like other Americans, and that means equally.    I for one, have a right to enter through the front door -  and that is why I have touted this plan for all this time.

Bold? No way – that is an insult! Its what our factual existence demands!

“At the same time, the piecemeal approach seems to have been a disaster. For example, ENDA was first proposed in 1996, and it is still languishing fourteen years later. Representative Jackie Speier last week said it would take another five years.” (Bilerco)  But that was the back door now we want the front door!

When I spoke to the Congresswoman back in 2009 about the Civil Rights Amendment approach, she agreed that would be the best approach to our Federal rights.

I spoke up in many an articles, speeches, meetings, phone conferences – but everyone seemed to have their head in the next fundraiser or the next “call to action.”  I have to say you are all still doing the same thing until you subscribe to this benchmark legislative amendment.

Thank goodness people are frustrated and angry enough to realize that this is an imperative stance that may turn out to be our only chance. Whether it becomes law or opens our eyes to what ought to become law – we have to do this.

Some may suggest that the African American Community may be concerned about ownership of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and such amendment may be offensive to the struggle – but this is a completely unfounded concern given the NAACP leadership and testimony provided by Julian Bond in the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 03, 2009, at the UAFA hearing where he specifically stated that Gay(LGBT) rights is a civil rights issue.

Quite simply, the AEB amends ALL Existing Civil Rights Laws, starting with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity”.

This ends discrimination in vast areas of life: employment, housing, credit, public places and facilities, and all programs operating with federal funding. It covers school discrimination and bullying, adoption, and all federal health programs.

The AEB would INCLUDE US EQUALLY in the Federal Non-Discrimination “GROUP POLICY” that now covers “race, color, sex, religion, and national origin”.

In whole, the passage of the AEB will make Non-Discrimination against us The OFFICIAL US Governmental Policy.

Working to file and pass the AEB will stimulate real conversation about our suffering under discrimination. This process will prepare us all for the Prop. 8 and DOMA cases already on their way to the Supreme Court.

LONG OVER DUE

Of course, Sexual Orientation – should have been included in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act first passed.

A gay black hero, Bayard Rustin (http://bit.ly/AEBrustin) was the chief organizer of the 1963 March on Washington at which MLK gave his Dream Speech, which helped secure the ’64 Act.

Then, we were shoved aside because of societal homophobia.

Now OUR TIME HAS COME. We have already won the de FACTO fight – the factual existence – we have won visibility – the fact that we are out and open, the fact that we have created controversy, the fact that we have children – the fact that we are shaking up DADT, the fact that Annette Benning is playing a lesbian – and many more such victories – now it has come time for De Jure – The Legal Victory!  It can Only be be done one WAY  and that is  this  CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Now we need your support Grassroots Join us. More to come…

Civil Rights Act LBJ

FIVE Action Steps needed:

1. Sign Petition

2.  Join Face Book Page

3. Take Pledge  – http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gaycivilrights/

4. Write your representatives in House and Senate – via hand written  faxed letters, as well as the usual e-mails.

5. GO VIRAL anyway you know how!!!

DO IT NOW!

by Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• The American Equality Bill: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Senators Franken And Gilibrand Introduce Bill To Protect LGBT Youth From Bullying (lezgetreal.com)
• LGBTQI Activists Up the Ante – Equality means Amend (lezgetreal.com)
• New Poll Favors Gay Equality – A Case for An Amendment to the Civil Rights Act. (lezgetreal.com)
• The Launch of Hope – Finally Grassroots Find Feet – THE American Equality Bill (lezgetreal.com)
• The American Equality Bill: An Idea Whose Time Has Come? (bilerico.com)
• The Democrats Ask, Let Us Tell Them- Amend The Civil Rights Act of 1964 To Protect The LGBTIQ Community Too! (lezgetreal.com)
• 4-10-2010 -THE LGBTQI PINK PRINT – A Liberation Plan for the USA (oblogdeeoblogda.wordpress.com)

Start a Petition »

6-17-10  Melanie Nathan

Yesterday we heard compelling closing arguments in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal challenge to Proposition 8.

Perhaps as a tainted law trained lesbian and married as such during the pre-prop 8 opportunity – to me this is a no-brainer.

The right to marriage for all couples regardless of gender,with civil laws that apply as a result of such status,  already established by the California Court as inherent in its equal applicability and yet voted away by a small majority of Californians, swayed by ads funded with the dollars of zealots and bigots- MUST be restored to all couples regardless of gender mix.

Excerpt from Transcript (Against Prop 8))

Here is the closing argument and official transcript of this momentous and historic trial.

Perry v Schwarzenegger -Vol-13-6-16-10

THE OFFICIAL CLOSING ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPT http://www.scribd.com/doc/33166731/Perry-v-Schwarzenegger-Vol-13-6-16-10

San Francisco- Today my Israeli born wife and my American Citizen little daughter are on a plane for Israel.  Together with my 13 year old, who just celebrated her bat mitzvah, we are a Jewish family, steeped in Shtetl, pogroms past, holocaust, shul and tradition.

During California’s window of opportunity our Rabbi, Stacy Friedman at Marin County’s Rodef Sholom married us, and it was a joyous event.   We had so many people from so many faiths and denominations there to share in the happy day.  It included Christians, Orthodox Jews,  even some Chabad friends.

Recently in my activism together with Todd Fernandez, I  authored a Petition calling on the Catholic Bishops ( USCCB ) and the Christian Evangelicals ( NAE ) to cease and desist in their active lobby against the gay community.  Dumbfounded by the Chutzpah that they can interfere in the civil life of any American citizen or resident.

No religious argument about anything at all, no matter where it comes from should impact our civil rights under the law.  Bottom line – With great respect -BUTT out!

“Rabbis Itchel Krasnjansky and Peter Schaktman hail from different branches of Judaism and hold starkly contrasting views on whether same-sex couples should be permitted to form civil unions in Hawaii. What they have in common is the ear of Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, from Hawaii, who has until June 21 to announce whether she may veto the only pending civil unions legislation in the nation.”  (Associated Press Reports.)

Lingle, also Jewish,  in the final months of her second and last term, faces a momentous decision that carries political and legal implications. For the rabbis, with whom the governor has consulted on the issue, her choice is about much more.

While Rabbi Schaktman, who leads the Reform Temple Emanu-El, insists, like my Rabbi Friedman, Judaism teaches that all people regardless of sexual orientation are and should be treated as “children of God,” and thus should not face discrimination.”

Krasnjansky, who heads the Orthodox community group Chabad of Hawaii, said the Torah teaches that homosexuality, and by extension same-sex marriage, “is not something that should be condoned or should be legalized,” he said.

With respect Rabbi – what business does Torah have with US civil law?  Would you deny my children the same rights as other American Children?  I do not think that is what you mean to do Rabbi as it is not the way of the Torah to hurt innocent victims and with your interference that is what you are doing – you are hurting my and many other Jewish and none Jewish children.

Rabbi, even Israel’s Knesset has passed law which allows Gay marriage. Nothing Chabad can say or do would stop the rights bestowed by civil law on Israeli gay people. Not even Torah Rabbi!  So like I said to the Bishops and the Evangelicals if you are going to hurt an entire minority community, PLEASE cease and desist – BUTT out!

The Bill would allow same sex and different sex couples a Domestic Partnership conferring legal rights and obligations, as if marries.

This ought not be a question about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. How much louder can I shout – BUTT OUT!

As far as the Governor is concerned, from one Jew to another, ‘Governor Lingle, you know the difference between right and wrong; the fact that government cannot establish a religion, not one from another or any for that matter (First Amendment.)  You should not be taking any advisory in the name of G-d or any religious figure/ deity.   As a Jew you should know you must not put Republican lockstep ahead of the people you represent – you have your conscience and hopefully you will do the right thing.  Our children are depending on you.

This is a Call to all Rabbis in the USA – Make one call – Urge your fellow Rabbis to support Equality Unconditionally and to keep religion out of Government.  Calling all Jewish  Congregants in Hawaii – find your Jewish heart and call upon your Rabbis to refrain from oppressing the civil rights of citizens and people who live in the USA.

Photo -Copyright 2008-2010- Lezgetreal Melanie Nathan©
& Dorit Israel, Wedding 7/27/2008
Rabbi Stacey Friedman

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com
@oblogdeeoblogda
Friend me on FaceBook

http://lezgetreal.com/2010/06/activists-call-halt-the-harm-june-9th-anti-uafa-lobby-by-catholic-bishops-evangelicals/

Related articles by Zemanta

• Outing My Father (lezgetreal.com)
• Urgent Plea to President Obama – Repeal DOMA NOW….. (lezgetreal.com)
• Hawaii legislature passes civil unions (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Hate-Broker William B. May – Plays Jurist with Judge Walker’s NEW Prop 8 Questions (lezgetreal.com)
• Rabbi Who Outed Helen Thomas is ‘Liberal’ Who Agreed w/ Her on Iraq War, ‘Reevaluating’ His Views (newsbusters.org)

Hey, Carly, what have you done with the Sheep?

6-6-2010 Melanie Nathan.

The National Organization for Marriage, with President Pretty Boy Brian S. Brown at the helm, is again actively advocating against LGBT legislation, behind the guise of supporting anti-gay candidates, in apparent compliance with this notice on their website:

“Contributions or gifts to the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)(4) organization with QNC status, are not tax-deductible.

The National Organization for Marriage does not accept contributions from business corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors;

however, it may accept contributions from federally registered political action committees. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. – No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.”

Anyone thought of checking the legitimacy out against this stated purpose?

Dear Friends of Marriage,  (me: Hey we are friends of marriage too!)

Three polls in the past week show pro-gay marriage RINO Republican Tom Campbell’s support has plummeted. His money has dried up and his campaign is in freefall.

What a difference a week makes!

Just a few weeks ago, pro-gay marriage Tom Campbell was leading Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore—some polls said by as much as ten points or more. Now, he’s suddenly twenty points behind Carly Fiorina in the race that will determine which Republican has a chance to unseat California’s Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Tom Campbell’s collapse in public opinion is no accident.

NOM’s “Two Peas in a Pod” television ad established that Campbell and Boxer are well, two peas in the same liberal pod. His poll numbers slipped. But television in Califorinia is hugely expensive (especially once Meg Whitman started buying up all the air time), so we followed up with a frugal and effective second punch: phone calls to 600,000 likely primary voters, telling them that Tom Campbell is a pro-gay marriage RINO. We think NOM’s effort had such a big impact in part because it coincided with efforts of prolife groups to make sure voters know Campbell’s record on other social conservative issues like abortion.

Democracy only works when voters hear the truth. All over the country NOM’s Marriage Truth Squad breaks through the lies and the obfuscations, to make sure the public hears the truth about marriage.

And when the truth comes out, marriage wins!

Help us continue to shake up the judges, the politicians, and change the course of
American history. This is the year when everything could change, and you can make it happen! Just $25 will allow us to reach more than 1000 Americans in key places across the country, telling them the truth the mainstream media won’t!

Pray for us and pray for victory for marriage!  Happy Memorial Day, and thanks to all our veterans!

Faithfully,

ANY GAYDAR

Pretty Boy Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
20 Nassau Street, Suite 242
Princeton, NJ 08542
bbrown@nationformarriage.org

With the primaries upon us, the Right Wing anti-gay lobby is pushing hard for anti-choice and anti-gay candidates. In an earlier article Lezgetreal gave a shout-out to Carly Fiorina in the hope that she would beat Tom Campbell in the primary.

Reasoning – I have faith that Californians would not vote out Senator Barbara Boxer, the democratic incumbent and one of the LGBT community’s best friends,  for a CEO- mess-up who is anti-choice and anti-gay marriage.

NOM and other organizations who pay big money in the hope they can effect election of anti-choice and anti-gay legislators, may just find that they have shot themselves in the toe with the millions of dollars that have been poured into the Fiorina Campaign.

Here is their website solicitation of support where they slam Campbell, asserting their overt wedge on the issues they think could win them the seat.  Note Campbell and Fiorina are BOTH republicans.

READ MORE on Lezgetreal’s view of Carly Fiorina at -http://lezgetreal.com/2010/05/anti-choice-sba-list-pumps-215k-into-fiorina-for-primary/

Related articles by Zemanta

• Mona Gable: Why Carly Fiorina is Not Cool for California (huffingtonpost.com)
• Gay Marriage To Become GOP Focus In CA Senate Race (huffingtonpost.com)
• NOM’s ‘Supporting Gay Marriage Is a Scarlet Letter’ Campaign Marches on in California (queerty.com)
• Fiorina asserts front-runner status in Senate race (sfgate.com)
• Sarah Palin Endorses Carly Fiorina in California Senate race (huffingtonpost.com)
• CA-Sen: Is Carlyfornia Dreaming? (dailykos.com)

Accommodating the royal book tour,  Larry King Live last night, interviewed Laura Bush about her book Spoken From the Heart. Asking about gay marriage, we may find a closet democrat outed by her perspective…. or are the Republicans about to helm Same-Sex Marriage equality.  Remember it was a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) who we can thank for the last nail in the coffin of marriage equality.

Laura Bush:”I think that there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage traditionally as between a man and a woman — but also know that, when couples are committed to each other and love each other they ought to have, I think, the same sort of rights that everyone has.
Larry King: “So would that be an area where you disagree?”
Laura Bush: “I guess that would be an area where we disagree. I understand totally what George thinks about marriage being between a man and a woman, and it’s a real, um, really, reversal of that to accept gay marriage … ”
Larry King: “But you do?”
Laura Bush: “But I think we could, yeah. I think it’s a generational thing that will slowly … ”
Larry King: “But it’s coming?”
Laura Bush: “But it will come.”

The ladies on the View, today discussed  the Laura Bush interview with King. Elizabeth Hasselhoff who recently spent an evening visiting with and discussing same-sex marriage on a very personal level with  Lesbian pop icon Melissa Etheridge,  suggested that everyone should engage in discussions with people whom same-sex marriage directly impacts to truly understand the issues before speaking against gay and lesbian marriage.    Talking about a subject with no real insight, says Whoopi Goldberg, is not the way to go.

Maybe Laura Bush will open some hearts and minds; I have always believed that the best asset to equality would be voices not our own. The voices that can step out of old religious moulds and truly embrace equality in marriage from its civil perspective are the one’s that will make a difference and ought ti be honed by our activist community.

Hasselhoff is an open Republican – sometimes I wonder if Laura is a closet Democrat.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

5-12-10   Melanie Nathan

This morning, the Washington Post released the results of a long-anticipated poll identifying Marylanders’ views on marriage equality and out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition.

According to the Post, 48% of registered voters support marriage equality for the LGBT community with 43% in opposition to equal marriage protections.

Even more encouraging is the fact that 55% of registered voters support the Attorney General’s opinion on out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition, with only 38% opposing out-of-state recognition.

These numbers confirm what we have known for a while. With hard work and your support we are making a difference in the fight for marriage equality in the Free State of Maryland.

But we still face an uphill battle as long as anti-equality lawmakers like Delegates Emmett Burns and Don Dwyer stand in our way.

The Washington Post article included a quote from Delegate Burns, the lead sponsor of one of the many attacks on equality during this past legislative session.

“The public is not changing – politicians are changing. They get elected and push the gay-lesbian agenda. They are ruthless in aggressively fashioning it as a form of discrimination, and that’s simply not accurate.”

“Our lives are not an agenda. We are simply asking for equal treatment under the law. We need your help to stand up to opponents like Delegate Burns and continue to push for fairness!  The findings of this poll are a huge, public step forward for equality in Maryland.” said Morgan Meneses-Sheets,  Executive Director, in a letter requesting support for Equality Maryland.

By Melanie Nathan
nathan@privatecourts.com

4-20-2010 -By Melanie Nathan

Nepal is set to become the first Asian nation to allow same-sex marriages.

The country, which as recently as 2007 classified homosexuality as a crime, is even promoting gay weddings on Mount Everest in a bid to become the continent’s premier gay tourism destination.

The government hopes its plans will help attract one million tourists next year, more than double the number that travelled to Nepal in 2009.

Sharat Singh Bhandari, Nepal’s tourism minister, also hopes to hold elephant safaris for homosexual honeymooners. “We’re completely changing this country,” he told The Times “It’s a newborn republic – and we want to showcase this change. We also want to re-establish tourism as a major industry.”

Full Story from Mail Online

4-14-2010 – Melanie Nathan

There is a man who has been living as resident in China, who is planning to return to Maine to run for Governor.

Now while there are many who may opine – “a nice man, a family man, great family values, loves people, a main of faith, we must alert those who may inadvertently sign the petition of 4,000 signatures that he will need out of Maine to get on the Ballot.

So if you have an old granny or a young brother – living in Maine – warn them; the disciples may pounce with smiles and pens: “This is for Mike, sign hear!”

Michael Heath, former executive director of the Christian Civic League of Maine, where he twice led people’s veto efforts to overturn gay-rights laws,  has registered with the state ethics commission as a gubernatorial candidate.

Nice Mike Heath hates gays; falling well within the notorious cohort of  those who surreptitiously disguise their life’s mission behind a Church or the word Family and then suddenly creep around a corner with a huge big metaphorical red, white and black flag screaming, “beware the fags are going to overrun our Institution of Marriage – I am here to save you.”

Heath’s Hallo is the local