Gay News

[rifle]

You may be right tighty, but my fear is this - they won't prioritize. While we're focusing on health care there will be a dozen "8"'s and Maines and Wisconsins and every state that passed legislation will be struggling against a tidal wave of petition drives to repeal, to put things on ballots, to overwhelm, to elect, to make the battles we're fighting now bigger than ever. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think we can afford not to keep fighting on all fronts. They're so much better at whipping up a frenzy because they've got pulpits and radio and television and an audience of followers taught to fear for their very souls. We might end up winning health care (which would be wonderful) and losing everything else for another decade or two or three (which could be tragic).

But here's my worst fear - in fact I've had nightmares about it. This new rabble rousing tactic from the right becomes so prevalent that the nation is thrown into an uproar and we lose the next election - and end up losing any chance of regaining the supreme court for the next twenty years or so -

Did anyone ever read Gore Vidal's "Myron"? It was a sequel to "Myra Breckenridge." And it came out right after the supreme court's decision to make censorship a local issue. Vidal realized that because of his book's language, it would wind up only being sold in California and New York, so he took the galleys and marked out every dirty word in the book and substituted the name of supreme court justice. It was the last time I laughed at any thing about the court. "My Rhenquist is bigger than your Rhenquist." "Berger you!" "Kiss my Blackmum!" It should have been a classic.

Oh, well, I'm probably wrong and I should leave it to you younger folks. One thing I will warn you about, Joe Klein is wrong. As a life long democrat, I can assure you the core of the Republican Party is still out there and when the time comes it will stand up and be counted. Right now they're just too embarrassed to speak up because of all the attention the press is giving to Limbaugh and friends. I think the next GOP Convention will be a blood bath worthy of the Democrats in Chicago, but what comes out of it will not include Limbaugh or Palin or Dobson or Robertson or Bush.

Have I ever been wrong before? Oh, yes, I picked "Brokeback Mountain" for the Oscar and I bought tickets to "Goodtime Charley" on Broadway (the musical based on the life of Joan of Arc) and I once tried vegemite and I once owned an RCA Video Disc player and I volunteered to babysit my three year old grandson for two weeks while his parents went on vacation because "how much trouble can a three year old be?" Oh, yes, and since our youngest son, the only one still at home, had a cold last winter, I agreed to help my husband pull a calf. The other 3,452 times I've been wrong involved willfull stupidity, daunting arrogance, general malaise, and careless choices.

 

[Jayman01]

since i'm back.....i'd like to see people focusing on healthcare reform right now. real people need to get out there and make themselves heard....over power the insane ramblings of the religious consertive right wing. the government isn't going to make this happen unless those in favor of reform start mobilize. then after everyone in the USA has healthcare available, us fags can get married......

The health care issue is a very good one. I do wish that there were more affordable plans out there for people with preexisting conditions.

I think that we may be moving way too fast with the Gay marriage issue too. I am very impressed with what has been accomplished to date. We just need to find a way around the religious conservative right trying to find a way to derail our forward momentum. We really need to avoid a Supreme Court rulling until everything is in line to gaurantee us a successful outcome. In this case the moral majority still think that being gay is wrong let alone gay marriage. The important thing to do is work on each state individually and make every effort to amend the constitution before any issues come to the Supreme Court.

 

[Jayman01]

You may be right tighty, but my fear is this - they won't prioritize. While we're focusing on health care there will be a dozen "8"'s and Maines and Wisconsins and every state that passed legislation will be struggling against a tidal wave of petition drives to repeal, to put things on ballots, to overwhelm, to elect, to make the battles we're fighting now bigger than ever. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I don't think we can afford not to keep fighting on all fronts. They're so much better at whipping up a frenzy because they've got pulpits and radio and television and an audience of followers taught to fear for their very souls. We might end up winning health care (which would be wonderful) and losing everything else for another decade or two or three (which could be tragic).

But here's my worst fear - in fact I've had nightmares about it. This new rabble rousing tactic from the right becomes so prevalent that the nation is thrown into an uproar and we lose the next election - and end up losing any chance of regaining the supreme court for the next twenty years or so -

Did anyone ever read Gore Vidal's "Myron"? It was a sequel to "Myra Breckenridge." And it came out right after the supreme court's decision to make censorship a local issue. Vidal realized that because of his book's language, it would wind up only being sold in California and New York, so he took the galleys and marked out every dirty word in the book and substituted the name of supreme court justice. It was the last time I laughed at any thing about the court. "My Rhenquist is bigger than your Rhenquist." "Berger you!" "Kiss my Blackmum!" It should have been a classic.

Oh, well, I'm probably wrong and I should leave it to you younger folks. One thing I will warn you about, Joe Klein is wrong. As a life long democrat, I can assure you the core of the Republican Party is still out there and when the time comes it will stand up and be counted. Right now they're just too embarrassed to speak up because of all the attention the press is giving to Limbaugh and friends. I think the next GOP Convention will be a blood bath worthy of the Democrats in Chicago, but what comes out of it will not include Limbaugh or Palin or Dobson or Robertson or Bush.

Have I ever been wrong before? Oh, yes, I picked "Brokeback Mountain" for the Oscar and I bought tickets to "Goodtime Charley" on Broadway (the musical based on the life of Joan of Arc) and I once tried vegemite and I once owned an RCA Video Disc player and I volunteered to babysit my three year old grandson for two weeks while his parents went on vacation because "how much trouble can a three year old be?" Oh, yes, and since our youngest son, the only one still at home, had a cold last winter, I agreed to help my husband pull a calf. The other 3,452 times I've been wrong involved willfull stupidity, daunting arrogance, general malaise, and careless choices.

Welcome back Rifel. Great points. Thank you...

 

[tightywhitieboy]

rifle, it is a bit too soon to worry about the next election. in fact, if all of us on the left really start to speak up and throw our support towards healthcare reform, and it happens, i don't see how the right could possibly win next time around. once universal healthcare is in place there will be SO many happy people who finally don't have to worry when they get sick. There will be benefits to those who currently have health and insurance and of course to those who don't. and once the progressive steam engine gets rolling, other things will fall into place a bit easier, like gay marriage. but right now healthcare is in crisis mode and really needs to be our priority.

 

[rifle]

I truly and sincerely hope and pray you're right. I won't trouble you anymore with the ramblings of an overly cautious old would-be pragmatist, but watch out for those who use this issue to open rifts, pour salt on wounds, drive wedges into coalitions and leave such fear and distrust of the end product that, no matter how good it is, no one wants to claim it for a long time. On the other hand, if you're right - it could mean the silencing of Rush Limbaugh and I would dance naked coast to coast to achieve that. (Of course, the sight of me dancing naked could silence just about anything - even our dog turns away in shame!) It's been great fun discussing this with you, TWB, thanks for listening.

 

[slimvintage]

rifle, it is a bit too soon to worry about the next election. in fact, if all of us on the left really start to speak up and throw our support towards healthcare reform, and it happens, i don't see how the right could possibly win next time around. once universal healthcare is in place there will be SO many happy people who finally don't have to worry when they get sick. There will be benefits to those who currently have health and insurance and of course to those who don't. and once the progressive steam engine gets rolling, other things will fall into place a bit easier, like gay marriage. but right now healthcare is in crisis mode and really needs to be our priority.

We've got satellite TV from the US, and part of the package is FOX. Faux News would have you believe that Obama is on Martha's Vineyard barely able to move, feebly licking his very serious wounds and trying to decide what to do in September, after having taken a drubbing from righteous, patriotic, concerned, redblooded Americans who abhor his attempt to socialize the country's healthcare system. And that poll numbers show Independents dropping their support in their thousands every hour. And that Democratic politicians, fearful of being beaten in the midterms, are hiding from their constituents during the break, and are only to be seen peeping out for a moment from behind lace curtains at their front windows before fading softly back into the shadows.

The sneery, vitriolic, bombastic and lying American right might actually succeed in destroying the only hope the US has had in years to turn into a civilized country. It absolutely boggles the ole mind.


.

 

[rifle]

Judge Dismisses DOMA Case Which Inspired Offensive DOJ Brief

A judge has dismissed a federal case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act brought by Orange County couple Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, the AP reports:

"U.S. District Judge David O. Carter ruled the case - the first of several pending challenges to the federal Defense of Marriage Act - must be refiled in federal court. Carter said the suit had been improperly filed in state court before it was transferred to his jurisdiction. As a result, the judge said, he would not entertain arguments on its merits, at least not yet. 'There is no point for us to go down the line of decision-making and waste time,' he said during the hearing in Santa Ana. The case, brought on behalf of a gay Southern California couple, argues that the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, violates the U.S. Constitution by discriminating against gay men and lesbians."

In June, the Department of Justice filed a brief asking the Court to dismiss the case, saying the case did not address the right of gay couples to marry but rather questioned if their marriage must be recognized nationwide by states that have not approved gay marriage. However, language in the brief was widely criticized for going too far, and inspired a boycott of an LGBT Democratic fundraiser.

Now, the case has been dismissed, it appears, on a technicality.

 

[rifle]

Salt Lake City To Consider Gay Protections Bill

By On Top Magazine Staff Published: August 24, 2009
Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker has proposed a nondiscrimination bill that includes gay protections.

Becker, a Democrat, began circulating a public discussion draft of the proposal on July 21. The mayor is expected to introduce a final bill to the City Council in mid-September.

The current language of the bill would ban discrimination based on race, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity (trangender protections) in the areas of employment, public accommodations and housing. Religious organizations and state agencies would be exempt from the law.

Becker, 57, has asked for public comments on the draft bill, which he says will be taken into consideration before drafting the final ordinance.

A July discrimination report by the 8-member Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission is being given credit as the catalyst for the proposed measure. The commission found that discrimination remains a problem in the city.

 

[rifle]

Another Baptist Preacher

Baptist Preacher to Congregation: 'When I go to Bed at Night Pray for Barack Obama to Die and Go to Hell'
Here's one more hate group hiding behind a cross. Via Good as You comes this clip of homophobic Pastor Steven Anderson giving his sermon at Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. Says Anderson: "When I go to bed at night Steven L. Anderson will pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq9G44tomKY

 

[tampa24]

The health care issue is a very good one. I do wish that there were more affordable plans out there for people with preexisting conditions.

I think that we may be moving way too fast with the Gay marriage issue too. I am very impressed with what has been accomplished to date. We just need to find a way around the religious conservative right trying to find a way to derail our forward momentum. We really need to avoid a Supreme Court rulling until everything is in line to gaurantee us a successful outcome. In this case the moral majority still think that being gay is wrong let alone gay marriage. The important thing to do is work on each state individually and make every effort to amend the constitution before any issues come to the Supreme Court.

You're quite right Jayman about the Supreme Court. If we push a case with very wide ranging implications before the Supreme Court and it goes against us... It would set us back DECADES. We do have to be cautious. But that doesn't mean complacent.

 

[Jayman01]

You're quite right Jayman about the Supreme Court. If we push a case with very wide ranging implications before the Supreme Court and it goes against us... It would set us back DECADES. We do have to be cautious. But that doesn't mean complacent.

How about it!!!

 

[tightywhitieboy]

I truly and sincerely hope and pray you're right. I won't trouble you anymore with the ramblings of an overly cautious old would-be pragmatist, but watch out for those who use this issue to open rifts, pour salt on wounds, drive wedges into coalitions and leave such fear and distrust of the end product that, no matter how good it is, no one wants to claim it for a long time. On the other hand, if you're right - it could mean the silencing of Rush Limbaugh and I would dance naked coast to coast to achieve that. (Of course, the sight of me dancing naked could silence just about anything - even our dog turns away in shame!) It's been great fun discussing this with you, TWB, thanks for listening.

Nothing with will silence Rush. Unfortunate, but true. Free speech is one of our biggies here in the USA!

 

[Jayman01]

California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

California gay marriage ban overturned
By Jim Christie, Reuters
55 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a California ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional, handing a key victory to gay rights advocates in a politically charged decision almost certain to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker also ordered the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, immediately lifted to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry while the case moves to a higher court.

Prop 8 supporters had sought to keep the measure in place pending the outcome of their appeal.

But Vaughn said the lawsuit challenging Prop 8 "demonstrated by overwhelming evidence" that it violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license," Walker wrote in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion.

Outside the federal courthouse in San Francisco, a cheer went up among a group of about 70 same-sex marriage supporters carrying small U.S. flags, as a large rainbow-striped flag -- the symbol of the gay rights movement -- waved overhead.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has said he personally supports gay marriage but would abide by the will of voters and the courts, said the decision "affirms the full protections and safeguards I believe everyone deserves."

The highly anticipated ruling marked a major turning point in a social debate that has sharply divided the American public and its political establishment.

Gay rights advocates and civil libertarians have cast the legal battle as a fight for equal rights, while opponents, including many religious conservatives, see same-sex marriage as a threat to the traditional family.

Both sides have said an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was certain regardless of the outcome on Wednesday. The case could then go to the Supreme Court, provided the high court's justices opted to hear it.

"I'm thrilled," gay marriage supporter Steven Ray Davis said at the courthouse. "We still have a long way to go."

The case against California's Prop 8, a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November 2008 defining marriage as between a man and a woman, marks the first challenge in federal court to a state law barring same-sex matrimony.

Thirty-nine U.S. states have laws explicitly prohibiting gay marriage -- 30 adopted in their constitutions. Five states and the District of Columbia recognize gay marriage -- Iowa, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts.

Early last month, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a 1996 federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages, even in states where it is allowed, was unconstitutional.

The federal government has 60 days to decide whether to appeal that ruling.

The two lead attorneys in the California case are Ted Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in the landmark Supreme Court case that decided the outcome of the disputed 2000 U.S. presidential election and put George W. Bush in the White House.

Some gay rights advocates were initially hesitant to bring a federal challenge to Prop 8, fearing an eventual loss before the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.

(Editing by Steve Gorman and Cynthia Osterman)

(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2010. Check for restrictions at: http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

 

[mikeyank]

Thank you Jayman for updating this thread with new information, and also for the nostalgia of a thread having posts by both "tightywhiteyboy", and "rifle" posting as "rifle".

 

[tampa24]

You're so right Mike. And Kham was a sweety too. And Markymark...what more can you say?

Thank you Jayman for all that info. It warms my heart to hear that gay marriage is one again legal in California. Even IF it proves to be short lived again.

 

[Jayman01]

A Military Downgrading of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON — Two distinct messages could be heard after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced new measures on Thursday to make it more difficult for the military to discharge openly gay men and lesbians.

Political activists who support President Obama’s call for Congress to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy heard of the interim steps and offered full support — even though they criticized the administration as having taken too long.

Military personnel, in particular members of the officer corps, heard that they face reprimand or worse if they go outside the official Pentagon review of “don’t ask, don’t tell” to publicly advocate maintaining the policy.

Both Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, criticized a three-star general in command of Army forces in the Pacific for urging those who support the ban to write their elected officials and lobby their unit’s leaders.

“If those of us who are in favor of retaining the current policy do not speak up, there is no chance to retain the current policy,” the commander, Lt. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, wrote in a letter published March 8 in Stars and Stripes.

Mr. Gates made his frustration clear. “I think that for an active-duty officer to comment on an issue like this is inappropriate,” he said at a news conference.

Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen have said that all service members who wish to express an opinion on the ban will have an opportunity through channels during the Pentagon review. Admiral Mullen said he had spoken with the Army chief of staff about General Mixon’s letter.

The developments that played out at the Pentagon, across the military and among gay rights groups served as more evidence of the deep disagreements over the current policy, adopted in 1993, which allows gay men and lesbians to serve in the military if they keep their sexual orientation a secret. Only Congress can repeal the law, a step Mr. Obama is urging.

The Pentagon study, expected by the end of the year, will assess the views of service members, families and other relevant groups on how lifting the ban should be carried out. Mr. Gates said the study was not to determine whether to repeal the law, only how best to institute any repeal voted by Congress. “Doing it hastily is very risky,” Mr. Gates said.

The four armed services chiefs — representing the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force — have testified that they remain concerned about moving too swiftly to lift the ban, saying it could make it harder for their forces to do their jobs while fighting two wars.

The interim measures take effect immediately, Mr. Gates said, and will ensure that the current policy is carried out in “a fairer and more appropriate manner,” and in a way based on “common sense and common decency.”

The new rules require that only an officer with the rank of at least a one-star general or admiral can initiate a fact-finding inquiry or other proceeding, or order any discharge under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The guidelines raise the standard for evidence, an effort to prevent “malicious outing” by a third party or a jilted partner. Information provided by a third party must be given under oath.

Also prohibited would be information provided to lawyers, clergy members or psychotherapists, as well as to doctors involved in the person’s medical treatment or gathered in a security clearance investigation, in accordance with current policies.

“This looks like a good step forward on the administration’s promise to end discrimination against gays in the military,” said Richard Socarides, a lawyer who served as the Clinton administration’s special assistant for gay rights issues. “My only question is, What took them so long?”

Any open cases now must be reviewed under the new guidelines. Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department general counsel, told reporters that 428 service members were separated from duty last year under the law. He declined to predict how many cases under review might be thrown out under the new guidelines.

Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, an advocacy organization, said, “The regulatory changes announced today are another major step forward in making the 1993 ban less draconian.” The repeal of the ban, he said, appears “inevitable.”

I am not sure how I missed this important piece of information back in May. Oh, well it is here now. I think this is pretty promising.

 

[tampa24]

Thank you Jayman for putting this on the board for us. While it doesn't look like we will see a repeal of DADT this year or next...It is nice to know that pragmatic and cooler heads seem to be prevailing within the DOD and the rest of the military at large in regards to the enforcement of the ban.

 

[Jayman01]

The whole issue on this really is a three fold process. The first process that has come to the forefront is that the US federal courts have been ruling for the most part that the witch hunts are unconstitutional. To my knowledge this has been enough to scare the military not to pursuit the policy to the US supreme court. If they rule the policy as discriminatory or unconstitutional then they open the door for everything to change in the US military as well as the private and public sectors of the country.

Obamah does have the power as Commander and Chief to lift the ban entirely.

Unfortunately, congress is responsible for writing the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Currently, the UCMJ forbids any active member of the US military to engage in homosexual practices of any kind while serving the US military. Anal sex is also considered sodomy and it is a punishable offense regardless of consent.

So, I think that the new policies are an excellent step forward too. Considering that this whole issues true fate is at the hands of our three party system of government. The cool thing here is that I am pretty certain that congress is not powerful enough to stop the Executive branch or the Judicial branch of government on this issue. So, I think it will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

 

[joninliverton]

A view from the outside.

'Tis a strange thing that whilst Obama is rightly trying to repel the DADT and as is stated in Jays excellent post, he has the authority to do, AND YET apparently he DOES NOT have the authority to force individual states to accept gay civil marriages. Then of course you have your God fearing church goers who probably treat gays like the KKK treated blacks not so long ago.

 

[Jayman01]

Senate to Vote on repeal od Don't ask Don't Tell

By ANNE FLAHERTY
WASHINGTON - Congress is close to ending the ban on gays serving openly in the military, with the with the Senate ready for a landmark vote that could deliver a major victory to the gay community, liberals and President Barack Obama.

Senators planned a procedural vote Saturday on a bill ending the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as lawmakers held an unusual weekend session in their race to finish the year's legislative business.

If at least 60 senators vote to advance the bill as expected, the repeal could win final passage by late afternoon. Republicans opposed to changing the law could demand extended debate although early indications were that they might not bother.

The House passed the repeal earlier in the week by a 250-174 vote.

With opposition from Republicans weakening, passage would mark a triumph for Obama, who made repeal of the 7-year-old law a campaign promise in 2008. It also would be a victory for congressional Democrats who have struggled in the final hours of the lame-duck session to overcome Republican objections, and for gay rights groups who said Saturday's vote was their best shot at changing the law because a new GOP-dominated Congress will take control in January.

Advocates pledged to leave nothing to chance and stepped up lobbying efforts in the hours before the vote, including a silent protest in the visitor seats overlooking the Senate floor.

"We simply cannot let the clock run out and lose this historic opportunity," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Repeal would mean that for the first time in U.S. history, gays would be openly accepted by the military and could acknowledge their sexual orientation without fear of being kicked out. More than 13,500 service members have been dismissed under the 1993 law.

Under the bill, the president and his top military advisers - the defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - are required to certify to Congress that lifting the ban won't hurt troops' ability to fight. After that, 60 days must pass before any changes go into effect.

A small but vocal group of Republicans led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona said the law shouldn't be changed during wartime.

"We send these young people into combat," said McCain. "We think they're mature enough to fight and die. I think they're mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness."

The Democratic push for repeal was strengthened by the release of a major Pentagon study that concluded gays could serve openly without affecting combat effectiveness. The assessment found that two-thirds of troops predicted little impact if the law is repealed.

The study was strongly backed by the Pentagon's top leadership, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

McCain has dismissed the study as flawed and cites concern among troops assigned to the front lines. Some personnel predicted openly gay troops would cause problems. Most of them were in combat arms units such as infantry and special operations.

The chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps warned Congress that repeal could pose serious problems if the law is overturned when troops are still fighting in Afghanistan.

Gen. James Amos, the head of the Marine Corps, has become the most outspoken opponent and claims letting gay troops serve openly could cost lives.

Gates and Mullen say this fear is overblown. They note the Pentagon's finding that 92 percent of troops who believe they have served with a gay person saw no impact on their units' morale or effectiveness.

The bill appeared all but dead earlier this month when Senate Republicans voted for a second time this year to block the measure. The language was tucked into a broader defense policy bill that many GOP senators said required more debate than Democrats would allow. They also objected to taking up any legislation before addressing tax cuts and government spending.

Senate Democrats addressed many of the procedural objections, including completing the tax-cut legislation. They also stripped the repeal provision from the defense policy bill.

---


This is awesome. Let's pray this goes through the Senate. It will go a long way toward Gay Rights all together.