(06-04) 12:34 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court refused today to put its ruling allowing same-sex marriages on hold until the issue goes before state voters in November, clearing the way for gay and lesbian weddings to begin June 17.
The justices' unanimous vote to deny a stay sought by two conservative organizations will allow thousands of same-sex couples, from California and other states, to marry before the Nov. 4 vote on a state constitutional amendment that would overturn the ruling. If the amendment passes, the court will have to decide whether those marriage are valid.
In a separate vote today, the court denied reconsideration of its 4-3 decision May 15 that struck down the law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. That law was passed by the Legislature in 1977 and reaffirmed by the voters in a 2000 ballot measure.
The vote on the rehearing was also 4-3, with Chief Justice Ronald George, author of last month's ruling, joined by Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and Carlos Moreno in reaffirming the decision. Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan, who dissented from the ruling, voted for reconsideration.
The court's action could affect the November vote. In Massachusetts, the only other state to legalize same-sex marriages, opinion polls showed public acceptance of those marriages increasing over time as the previously prohibited unions became more commonplace.
"People will see their friends, neighbors and co-workers engaging in this very cherished ritual, and I believe it will continue to push the California voting public in the direction of assuring that the Constitution does not treat people differently," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented same-sex couples who file suit challenging the marriage law.
Mathew Staver, legal director of Liberty Counsel and lawyer for the Campaign for California Families, who argued in support of the ban on same-sex marriage, said the court's action today "reveals the political agenda of a handful of judges."
"I don't believe at the end of the day the people will allow four judges to rewrite marriage," Staver said. "If any same-sex marriage licenses are issued before November, the passage of the constitutional amendment will make them invalid and invisible."
Some legal analysts have maintained, however, that couples who marry in reliance on the court's decision will obtain rights that the voters cannot revoke.
Read more:
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
AJC.com: Says Nunn: It might be time to take another look at ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’
Tuesday, June 3, 2008, 02:28 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, who helped push through the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that established the terms under which gays and lesbians could serve in the U.S. military, said Tuesday that it’s time to review the policy.
“I think [when] 15 years go by on any personnel policy, it’s appropriate to take another look at it — see how it’s working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military. Start with a Pentagon study,” Nunn said.
The former chairman of the Senate Armed Services wouldn’t say whether he personally supported putting an end to the policy.
Nunn’s comments followed a seminar in Atlanta on national service, after which reporters also asked him about the chances that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama might choose him as his running mate.
Nunn, who retired from the U.S. Senate in 1996, gave the same answer he had last month. “I think it’s highly improbable that I would be invited to be on the ticket, and I think it’s also highly improbable that I would be going back into government,” he said.
During the seminar on national service, Nunn made several references to Charles Moskos, a military sociologist who has advocated a return to military service for young people. Moskos, who died of cancer on Saturday, also participated in the formulation of the 1993 policy.
Read more:
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Former Georgia senator Sam Nunn, who helped push through the 1993 “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that established the terms under which gays and lesbians could serve in the U.S. military, said Tuesday that it’s time to review the policy.
“I think [when] 15 years go by on any personnel policy, it’s appropriate to take another look at it — see how it’s working, ask the hard questions, hear from the military. Start with a Pentagon study,” Nunn said.
The former chairman of the Senate Armed Services wouldn’t say whether he personally supported putting an end to the policy.
Nunn’s comments followed a seminar in Atlanta on national service, after which reporters also asked him about the chances that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama might choose him as his running mate.
Nunn, who retired from the U.S. Senate in 1996, gave the same answer he had last month. “I think it’s highly improbable that I would be invited to be on the ticket, and I think it’s also highly improbable that I would be going back into government,” he said.
During the seminar on national service, Nunn made several references to Charles Moskos, a military sociologist who has advocated a return to military service for young people. Moskos, who died of cancer on Saturday, also participated in the formulation of the 1993 policy.
Read more:
Bloomberg.com: Gay-Marriage Opponents Divorced From Reality:
Albert R. Hunt
Commentary by Albert R. Hunt
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Desperate times, it is said, call for drastic measures.
In the U.S., the Republican Party is certainly desperate; it's in fundamentally worse shape in 2008 than in any election since Watergate. It's not surprising, therefore, that some conservatives want to capitalize on the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage to galvanize voters in the national elections.
The court decision will deliver a generation of children ``straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community,'' warns James Dobson, the Christian evangelical leader. Dobson is calling on citizens in California and elsewhere to mount a protest.
That dog, as they say in the American South, won't hunt this time. The gay-marriage issue, seized on by President George W. Bush's former political guru, Karl Rove, may have been moderately helpful to Republicans in 2004; it won't distract voters from other concerns -- like the economy, health care and the war in Iraq -- in 2008.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain seems to have little interest in trying to take advantage of the ruling; he opposes gay marriage, yet has no inclination to demagogue the issue and knows this is a big-stakes, big-issues election, not one to focus on peripheral matters.
He also knows it's a long-term loser for Republicans. One reason the party's fundamentals are so bad in this election is the huge shift of younger people -- those between 18 and 29 -- from being swing voters to overwhelmingly Democratic; they're also turning out to vote in higher numbers. They are driven by concern about the economy and the war, as well as by revulsion over what they see as Republican intolerance.
Changing Public Opinion
National surveys by groups such as the Pew Research Center indicate that a growing number of voters support gay marriage. A Field Poll last week showed that California voters, by a margin of 51 percent to 42 percent, favor it, while 68 percent of young people feel that way.
Unlike in 2004, the issue can't be easily painted in partisan strokes. California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes any effort to overturn the 4-3 decision of the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court, which consists of only one Democrat.
Eroding Argument
And the arguments against gay marriage are eroding. While critics say it destroys the institution of marriage, there's no evidence of that. Massachusetts sanctioned gay marriages four years ago, and there have been no reported incidents of straight couples splitting because of it; indeed, the initial furor has died down as people realize this doesn't threaten anyone.
Far more insidious is the 50 percent divorce rate in the U.S. and that a third of all children are born to a single mother; that's three times the rate of four decades ago.
Read more:
Commentary by Albert R. Hunt
June 2 (Bloomberg) -- Desperate times, it is said, call for drastic measures.
In the U.S., the Republican Party is certainly desperate; it's in fundamentally worse shape in 2008 than in any election since Watergate. It's not surprising, therefore, that some conservatives want to capitalize on the recent ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning a ban on gay marriage to galvanize voters in the national elections.
The court decision will deliver a generation of children ``straight into the arms of the homosexual activist community,'' warns James Dobson, the Christian evangelical leader. Dobson is calling on citizens in California and elsewhere to mount a protest.
That dog, as they say in the American South, won't hunt this time. The gay-marriage issue, seized on by President George W. Bush's former political guru, Karl Rove, may have been moderately helpful to Republicans in 2004; it won't distract voters from other concerns -- like the economy, health care and the war in Iraq -- in 2008.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain seems to have little interest in trying to take advantage of the ruling; he opposes gay marriage, yet has no inclination to demagogue the issue and knows this is a big-stakes, big-issues election, not one to focus on peripheral matters.
He also knows it's a long-term loser for Republicans. One reason the party's fundamentals are so bad in this election is the huge shift of younger people -- those between 18 and 29 -- from being swing voters to overwhelmingly Democratic; they're also turning out to vote in higher numbers. They are driven by concern about the economy and the war, as well as by revulsion over what they see as Republican intolerance.
Changing Public Opinion
National surveys by groups such as the Pew Research Center indicate that a growing number of voters support gay marriage. A Field Poll last week showed that California voters, by a margin of 51 percent to 42 percent, favor it, while 68 percent of young people feel that way.
Unlike in 2004, the issue can't be easily painted in partisan strokes. California's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, opposes any effort to overturn the 4-3 decision of the Republican-dominated state Supreme Court, which consists of only one Democrat.
Eroding Argument
And the arguments against gay marriage are eroding. While critics say it destroys the institution of marriage, there's no evidence of that. Massachusetts sanctioned gay marriages four years ago, and there have been no reported incidents of straight couples splitting because of it; indeed, the initial furor has died down as people realize this doesn't threaten anyone.
Far more insidious is the 50 percent divorce rate in the U.S. and that a third of all children are born to a single mother; that's three times the rate of four decades ago.
Read more:
Page One Q: McCain supporters cheer anti-gay message
Appearing at a campaign rally in Tennessee, John McCain was met with sustained cheers after stating that he believes "in the sanctity and unique status of marriage between man and woman."
As the cheers began, McCain added "That's what I believe, that's what I support, and that's what I will fight for."
During the ongoing cheers, McCain thanked the audience twice for their response.
In 2004, during the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment, McCain told CNN that "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans, it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
McCain split with his party and voted against the amendment in both 2004 and 2006.
Although often reported as supporting civil unions as an alternative to marriage, Mccain has supported state constitutional amendments banning both marriage equality and civil unions.
See video:
As the cheers began, McCain added "That's what I believe, that's what I support, and that's what I will fight for."
During the ongoing cheers, McCain thanked the audience twice for their response.
In 2004, during the debate over the Federal Marriage Amendment, McCain told CNN that "The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans, it usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."
McCain split with his party and voted against the amendment in both 2004 and 2006.
Although often reported as supporting civil unions as an alternative to marriage, Mccain has supported state constitutional amendments banning both marriage equality and civil unions.
See video:
Monday, June 2, 2008
Deb Price: Pro-privacy court ruling keeps giving for gays
Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court did something that's hard for anyone: It admitted it had been wrong.
That remarkable admission -- offered 17 years after the colossal legal error -- came in a case challenging whether Texas could punish those of us who're gay for having consensual sex in the privacy of our own home.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in striking down all remaining state anti-sodomy laws, explained that the rights of liberty and privacy were at stake--and that they extend to gay Americans.
The gay men Texas had wrongly prosecuted "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote, and "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Eloquently, Kennedy concluded that the authors of the Constitution's grand but intentionally vague promises "knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Now, looking back at gays' breathtaking legal, political and cultural progress during the past five years, it's clear that a huge amount of the credit belongs to the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
We can see it cited by federal and state judges in rulings respecting gays as parents, soldiers and couples wanting to marry. We can see its influence in state legislatures' leaps forward. And we can feel the respectful tone it set in the most basic human contacts -- the neighborly wave or helping hand.
Most immediately, the decision erased the aura of criminality that surrounded gays even in states without sodomy laws.
Today, more heterosexuals than ever before understand gay people have a right to full, rich private lives and that, as Kennedy gently instructed, to see gay relationships just in terms of sex is demeaning, "just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.... When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring."
Expanding the reach of this golden ruling is the joyful task ahead for this and future generations of Americans.
Reach Deb Price at (202) 662-8736 or dprice@detnews.com.
More Deb Price:
That remarkable admission -- offered 17 years after the colossal legal error -- came in a case challenging whether Texas could punish those of us who're gay for having consensual sex in the privacy of our own home.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in striking down all remaining state anti-sodomy laws, explained that the rights of liberty and privacy were at stake--and that they extend to gay Americans.
The gay men Texas had wrongly prosecuted "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote, and "the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."
Eloquently, Kennedy concluded that the authors of the Constitution's grand but intentionally vague promises "knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."
Now, looking back at gays' breathtaking legal, political and cultural progress during the past five years, it's clear that a huge amount of the credit belongs to the Lawrence v. Texas decision.
We can see it cited by federal and state judges in rulings respecting gays as parents, soldiers and couples wanting to marry. We can see its influence in state legislatures' leaps forward. And we can feel the respectful tone it set in the most basic human contacts -- the neighborly wave or helping hand.
Most immediately, the decision erased the aura of criminality that surrounded gays even in states without sodomy laws.
Today, more heterosexuals than ever before understand gay people have a right to full, rich private lives and that, as Kennedy gently instructed, to see gay relationships just in terms of sex is demeaning, "just as it would demean a married couple were it to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual intercourse.... When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring."
Expanding the reach of this golden ruling is the joyful task ahead for this and future generations of Americans.
Reach Deb Price at (202) 662-8736 or dprice@detnews.com.
More Deb Price:
Gotham Gazette: Protecting Incarcerated Gay and Lesbian Youth
Young New Yorkers who are defined by themselves or others as LGBTQ - lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning their identity - are often at risk for mental, emotional and physical harm in school, at home, and in social and employment situations. They may experience discrimination, harassment, bullying and violence because of their sexuality, sexual preference and personal style. The risks these teens face in state-run residences, including correctional facilities, can be particularly daunting and dangerous.
Now the New York State Office of Children and Family Services has amended its policies to add gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation to the characteristics protected from discrimination i.e., race, creed, color, age, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, mental or physical disability. The policy is designed to protect youth from discrimination or mistreatment in all residential settings, including jails, prisons and juvenile detention centers.
"All adolescents experience developmental and social challenges," the policy statement said. "However, LGBTQ youth frequently face additional pressures based on their gender identity or sexual orientation."
As a result, the policy states, "The majority of LGBTQ youth report alcohol and drug use as common mechanisms for coping with feelings of severe isolation," additional and typical risks, which presumably must now be addressed."
What the Policy Does:
Read more:
Now the New York State Office of Children and Family Services has amended its policies to add gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation to the characteristics protected from discrimination i.e., race, creed, color, age, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, mental or physical disability. The policy is designed to protect youth from discrimination or mistreatment in all residential settings, including jails, prisons and juvenile detention centers.
"All adolescents experience developmental and social challenges," the policy statement said. "However, LGBTQ youth frequently face additional pressures based on their gender identity or sexual orientation."
As a result, the policy states, "The majority of LGBTQ youth report alcohol and drug use as common mechanisms for coping with feelings of severe isolation," additional and typical risks, which presumably must now be addressed."
What the Policy Does:
Read more:
Los Angeles Times: Gay marriage may be a gift to California's economy
Business is up for hotels, bakers and photographers as same-sex couples prepare to wed.
By Alana Semuels, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 2, 2008
Forget economic stimulus checks. Same-sex marriages may give California just the financial boost it needs.Wedding planners, bakers and hotels began booking more business almost immediately after the state Supreme Court's May 15 decision overturning a ban on gay marriage. Citing pent-up demand, one UCLA study projects that same-sex unions could provide a $370-million shot in the arm to the state economy over the next three years.
"Being in West Hollywood, we've been inundated," said Tom Rosa, owner of the Cake and Art bakery on Santa Monica Boulevard. "After the ruling, the phone really picked up."Rosa said couples who had waited for decades to legally marry were splurging on 5-foot-tall confections shaped like carousels and cakes featuring handcrafted birds of paradise.
Mike Standifer and Marc Hammer were already planning a commitment ceremony for October, but when the court ruling came out, they decided to throw an even bigger bash and get married.They plan on spending about $25,000, which includes renovations on their Hollywood home so they can have the party in their backyard. The new price tag includes rings, their suits and those of their wedding party, and the cost of flying in Standifer's priest from Tennessee -- all costs they wouldn't have incurred if they were just having a party.
"The wedding dynamic in the last two weeks changed everything," Standifer said. The wedding businesses he's worked with so far seem thrilled. "I think it's because the economy's not so great, but the vendors have been treating us like royalty," he said.
By some estimates, weddings and commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples generate $1 billion a year in revenue.PlanetOut, a media and entertainment company that conducts surveys about gay and lesbian consumers, says gay consumers earn 20% more than their straight counterparts, on average, and spend about 10% more on nuptials.
Read more:
By Alana Semuels, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 2, 2008
Forget economic stimulus checks. Same-sex marriages may give California just the financial boost it needs.Wedding planners, bakers and hotels began booking more business almost immediately after the state Supreme Court's May 15 decision overturning a ban on gay marriage. Citing pent-up demand, one UCLA study projects that same-sex unions could provide a $370-million shot in the arm to the state economy over the next three years.
"Being in West Hollywood, we've been inundated," said Tom Rosa, owner of the Cake and Art bakery on Santa Monica Boulevard. "After the ruling, the phone really picked up."Rosa said couples who had waited for decades to legally marry were splurging on 5-foot-tall confections shaped like carousels and cakes featuring handcrafted birds of paradise.
Mike Standifer and Marc Hammer were already planning a commitment ceremony for October, but when the court ruling came out, they decided to throw an even bigger bash and get married.They plan on spending about $25,000, which includes renovations on their Hollywood home so they can have the party in their backyard. The new price tag includes rings, their suits and those of their wedding party, and the cost of flying in Standifer's priest from Tennessee -- all costs they wouldn't have incurred if they were just having a party.
"The wedding dynamic in the last two weeks changed everything," Standifer said. The wedding businesses he's worked with so far seem thrilled. "I think it's because the economy's not so great, but the vendors have been treating us like royalty," he said.
By some estimates, weddings and commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples generate $1 billion a year in revenue.PlanetOut, a media and entertainment company that conducts surveys about gay and lesbian consumers, says gay consumers earn 20% more than their straight counterparts, on average, and spend about 10% more on nuptials.
Read more:
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Leonard Pitts, April 27, 2008: Reject intolerance cloaked in faith
James Lawson is out of step with modern Christianity.
Take gay marriage. Speaking in support of a proposed state constitutional ban on same sex unions, one Rev. Hayes Wicker of First Baptist Church in Naples, Fla., was recently quoted by The Naples Daily News as saying, ``This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery.''
As asinine as that remark is, it is perfectly in step with much of modern Christianity, which has spent years demonizing gay men and lesbians. And then there's Rev. Lawson, who is scheduled to speak this weekend at the 10th anniversary conference of Soulforce, a group that fights church-based homophobia. Few things could be more out of step.
Lawson, you may know, is an icon of the civil rights movement; it was he who invited Martin Luther King Jr. to Memphis to support the striking sanitation workers. He sees his longtime involvement with Soulforce as part of the same struggle. ''The human rights issue is not a single issue,'' he told me recently. ``It is about all human kind. And all human kind has been endowed with certain inalienable rights.''
My interview with Lawson was set before Wicker's remark, but I leapt at the chance to ask him about it. ''Obviously,'' said Lawson, ``he does not know anything about the 250 years of slavery or the 143 years since slavery as the nation has largely failed to deal with the issue of slavery and its consequences. . . . And he knows even less about the gospel of Jesus. . . . Jesus broke all the social etiquette in terms of relating to people and bringing people into relationship with himself. He acknowledged no barriers or human divisions . . . no category of sinners from who he would isolate himself.''
Sadly, Wicker's brand of intolerance cloaked in faith has lately made inroads in black America. King's daughter, Bernice, has marched against gay rights. Others have peevishly rejected the idea that there are parallels between the black struggle and the gay one.
`We ought to know better'
Lawson finds the antipathy appalling. ``To unite with white Christian fundamentalism like Pat Robertson is an absolute disgrace. For black people to pretend that kind of Christian fundamentalism, which justified slavery and justifies racism, is a colleague in anything is to be blind to the realities that we're facing. We who have suffered and do suffer should be the most sensitive to the suffering of others. We don't want this undeserved suffering put on us, and we should therefore, clearly, not participate in putting such suffering on others. We ought to know better.''
Lawson knows his brand of Christianity is not the kind that nowadays dominates political discourse. Does it trouble him to be out of step?
''No. A part of the religion of Jesus is to be on the right side of history and the right side of God, especially when others are on the wrong side.'' Those who preach intolerance ``are the ones out of step. You have to be patient, and they'll catch up. Many of the black pastors were outraged when King, in '67, declared against the Vietnam war. Well, now, great numbers of the clergy are aware that war is a violation of the gospel of Jesus, and they are opposed to the Iraq war. They caught up.''
Some did, at least. Ours is still an era wherein war, hatred and intolerance often wear a clerical collar. As Lawson puts it, ``Much of Christianity in the United States has been more influenced by violence and sexism and racism and greed than by the teachings of Jesus.''
If that seems a radical thing to say, well, Lawson has no apologies. ''I am a follower of Jesus.'' he explains. ``That's what I've called myself for decades. And that is a radical faith that refuses to define any human being or group of human beings as being outside God's grace.''
James Lawson is out of step with modern Christianity.
Thank God someone is.
More Leonard Pitts
Take gay marriage. Speaking in support of a proposed state constitutional ban on same sex unions, one Rev. Hayes Wicker of First Baptist Church in Naples, Fla., was recently quoted by The Naples Daily News as saying, ``This is a tremendous social crisis, greater even than the issue of slavery.''
As asinine as that remark is, it is perfectly in step with much of modern Christianity, which has spent years demonizing gay men and lesbians. And then there's Rev. Lawson, who is scheduled to speak this weekend at the 10th anniversary conference of Soulforce, a group that fights church-based homophobia. Few things could be more out of step.
Lawson, you may know, is an icon of the civil rights movement; it was he who invited Martin Luther King Jr. to Memphis to support the striking sanitation workers. He sees his longtime involvement with Soulforce as part of the same struggle. ''The human rights issue is not a single issue,'' he told me recently. ``It is about all human kind. And all human kind has been endowed with certain inalienable rights.''
My interview with Lawson was set before Wicker's remark, but I leapt at the chance to ask him about it. ''Obviously,'' said Lawson, ``he does not know anything about the 250 years of slavery or the 143 years since slavery as the nation has largely failed to deal with the issue of slavery and its consequences. . . . And he knows even less about the gospel of Jesus. . . . Jesus broke all the social etiquette in terms of relating to people and bringing people into relationship with himself. He acknowledged no barriers or human divisions . . . no category of sinners from who he would isolate himself.''
Sadly, Wicker's brand of intolerance cloaked in faith has lately made inroads in black America. King's daughter, Bernice, has marched against gay rights. Others have peevishly rejected the idea that there are parallels between the black struggle and the gay one.
`We ought to know better'
Lawson finds the antipathy appalling. ``To unite with white Christian fundamentalism like Pat Robertson is an absolute disgrace. For black people to pretend that kind of Christian fundamentalism, which justified slavery and justifies racism, is a colleague in anything is to be blind to the realities that we're facing. We who have suffered and do suffer should be the most sensitive to the suffering of others. We don't want this undeserved suffering put on us, and we should therefore, clearly, not participate in putting such suffering on others. We ought to know better.''
Lawson knows his brand of Christianity is not the kind that nowadays dominates political discourse. Does it trouble him to be out of step?
''No. A part of the religion of Jesus is to be on the right side of history and the right side of God, especially when others are on the wrong side.'' Those who preach intolerance ``are the ones out of step. You have to be patient, and they'll catch up. Many of the black pastors were outraged when King, in '67, declared against the Vietnam war. Well, now, great numbers of the clergy are aware that war is a violation of the gospel of Jesus, and they are opposed to the Iraq war. They caught up.''
Some did, at least. Ours is still an era wherein war, hatred and intolerance often wear a clerical collar. As Lawson puts it, ``Much of Christianity in the United States has been more influenced by violence and sexism and racism and greed than by the teachings of Jesus.''
If that seems a radical thing to say, well, Lawson has no apologies. ''I am a follower of Jesus.'' he explains. ``That's what I've called myself for decades. And that is a radical faith that refuses to define any human being or group of human beings as being outside God's grace.''
James Lawson is out of step with modern Christianity.
Thank God someone is.
More Leonard Pitts
Deb Price: California Supreme Court adjusts people's vision on gay rights
When I took the eye exam for my driver's license as a teenager, I first tried without my glasses.
"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.
I slipped on my glasses. And, presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there; I just couldn't recognize them.
When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.
Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948 when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.
California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But, unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry there.
The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every 8 Americans -- is gigantic.
As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"
The landmark ruling by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.
All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
But Schwarzenegger and Pelosi will help protect this advance, which Chief Justice George noted flows from recognition that the right to marry the person of one's choice is a "basic civil right (guaranteed) to all Californians."
So, his court isn't creating a new right. It's just saying the state mustn't block gay couples from exercising the right to marry -- just as it mustn't block interracial couples: "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
Read more:
"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.
I slipped on my glasses. And, presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there; I just couldn't recognize them.
When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.
Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948 when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.
California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But, unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry there.
The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every 8 Americans -- is gigantic.
As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"
The landmark ruling by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.
All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
But Schwarzenegger and Pelosi will help protect this advance, which Chief Justice George noted flows from recognition that the right to marry the person of one's choice is a "basic civil right (guaranteed) to all Californians."
So, his court isn't creating a new right. It's just saying the state mustn't block gay couples from exercising the right to marry -- just as it mustn't block interracial couples: "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
Read more:
Equality South Dakota PAC Press Release:
EqSD PAC Endorses South Dakota Primary Candidates
SD LGBT Community and Its Friends Becoming More Politically Active
For the first time in South Dakota electoral history, a state LGBT group has given political action money to state legislative candidates.Equality South Dakota PAC (EqSD PAC) has recently provided over $5,000 in funding to both Republican and Democratic candidates involved in the June 3, 2008 South Dakota primary. Full details of all candidates provided funding can be found after May 23, 2008 on the South Dakota Secretary of State's website in the EqSD PAC's pre-primary contribution report.
"Besides EqSD PAC seeking candidates to endorse, candidates came to us wanting our endorsement and financial support," said Todd Epp, a straight lawyer from Harrisburg, SD and chair of EqSD PAC. "The fact that candidates were excited about our support and that almost all of the primary surveys were so positive about LGBT issues is exciting."
Among those EqSD PAC has provided funding to in June primary races:
* Elaine Elliott, Democrat, House District 2, Aberdeen.
* Darrell Solberg, Democrat, House District 11, Sioux Falls.
* Martha Vanderlinde, Democrat, House District 15, Sioux Falls.
* Caitlin Collier, Democrat, House District 17, Vermillion.
* Larry Lucas, Democrat, House District 26A, Mission.
* Kevin Killer, Democrat, House District 27, Pine Ridge.
* Jeff Nelson, Democrat, House District 33, Rapid City.
Following the primary election, EqSD PAC will endorse and provide funds to selected legislative candidates in the November general election who it believes have progressive views on LGBT issues. General election candidates have until June 10 to return their surveys to EqSD PAC.
All legislative candidates were sent a survey on critical LGBT issues. The survey included questions on 1) would they support adding "LGBT" to existing state law prohibiting employment discrimination; 2) whether the candidates would support anti-bullying state legislation; and 3) whether the candidates supported allowing domestic partner hospital visitation rights.
The survey is posted on the EqSD PAC web site (pac.eqsd.org). The candidates also provided biographical information and how they believed their campaigns can win.
"In addition to money, we hope to deliver volunteers, campaign support and ultimately enough votes to make the difference," said PAC board member Karen Mudd, a lesbian in Sioux Falls. "Please get involved to help elect these candidates."
EqSD PAC is the political action committee for Equality South Dakota (EqSD), a South Dakota non-profit corporation. EqSD PAC is a voluntary, non-profit, unincorporated association operating as a separate, segregated organization of EqSD.
ADDITIONAL QUOTES FROM THE S.D. LGBT COMMUNITY AND ITS FRIENDS ABOUT THE ENDORSEMENTS:
Don Frankenfeld, Rapid City--"Equality is a bipartisan issue. I'm glad that both Republicans and Democrats participated in our survey, and I'm proud that Equality South Dakota PAC is supporting highly qualified candidates from both parties," said Don Frankenfeld, a Republican former legislator and member of the EqSD PAC board of directors.
Lawrence Novotny, Brookings--"More and more South Dakotans want to see positive change in support of LGBT equality and know they need to actively work for and support legislative candidates with integrity who are willing to take a stand," EqSD PAC treasurer Lawrence Novotny of Brookings said. "That is why EqSD PAC was created," he added.
Curtis Price, Rapid City--"I'm very proud to be associated with an organization that is already changing the dialogue by supporting candidates that believe in fairness and respect for all South Dakotans and their families," Curtis Price, EqSD secretary from Rapid City said. "Fairness is a South Dakota value," he added. EqSD is a sister organization to EqSD PAC.
David Fischer, Aberdeen--"In 2008, on November's election night, I believe the dark clouds over America that have dumped an acid rain of social division to nourish the pockets and power of dishonest political addicts will dissipate. An eagle of truth and justice will soar again as citizens are led by people who know the value of individual fairness and equality. If this funding feeds this symbol of freedom, scatter it with the wind." said David D. Fischer, gay nurse anesthetist from Aberdeen, SD and Secretary of EqSD.
Paid for and authorized by EqSD PAC, 610 S. Grand Ave., Harrisburg, SD 57032, Lawrence Novotny, Treasurer.
SD LGBT Community and Its Friends Becoming More Politically Active
For the first time in South Dakota electoral history, a state LGBT group has given political action money to state legislative candidates.Equality South Dakota PAC (EqSD PAC) has recently provided over $5,000 in funding to both Republican and Democratic candidates involved in the June 3, 2008 South Dakota primary. Full details of all candidates provided funding can be found after May 23, 2008 on the South Dakota Secretary of State's website in the EqSD PAC's pre-primary contribution report.
"Besides EqSD PAC seeking candidates to endorse, candidates came to us wanting our endorsement and financial support," said Todd Epp, a straight lawyer from Harrisburg, SD and chair of EqSD PAC. "The fact that candidates were excited about our support and that almost all of the primary surveys were so positive about LGBT issues is exciting."
Among those EqSD PAC has provided funding to in June primary races:
* Elaine Elliott, Democrat, House District 2, Aberdeen.
* Darrell Solberg, Democrat, House District 11, Sioux Falls.
* Martha Vanderlinde, Democrat, House District 15, Sioux Falls.
* Caitlin Collier, Democrat, House District 17, Vermillion.
* Larry Lucas, Democrat, House District 26A, Mission.
* Kevin Killer, Democrat, House District 27, Pine Ridge.
* Jeff Nelson, Democrat, House District 33, Rapid City.
Following the primary election, EqSD PAC will endorse and provide funds to selected legislative candidates in the November general election who it believes have progressive views on LGBT issues. General election candidates have until June 10 to return their surveys to EqSD PAC.
All legislative candidates were sent a survey on critical LGBT issues. The survey included questions on 1) would they support adding "LGBT" to existing state law prohibiting employment discrimination; 2) whether the candidates would support anti-bullying state legislation; and 3) whether the candidates supported allowing domestic partner hospital visitation rights.
The survey is posted on the EqSD PAC web site (pac.eqsd.org). The candidates also provided biographical information and how they believed their campaigns can win.
"In addition to money, we hope to deliver volunteers, campaign support and ultimately enough votes to make the difference," said PAC board member Karen Mudd, a lesbian in Sioux Falls. "Please get involved to help elect these candidates."
EqSD PAC is the political action committee for Equality South Dakota (EqSD), a South Dakota non-profit corporation. EqSD PAC is a voluntary, non-profit, unincorporated association operating as a separate, segregated organization of EqSD.
ADDITIONAL QUOTES FROM THE S.D. LGBT COMMUNITY AND ITS FRIENDS ABOUT THE ENDORSEMENTS:
Don Frankenfeld, Rapid City--"Equality is a bipartisan issue. I'm glad that both Republicans and Democrats participated in our survey, and I'm proud that Equality South Dakota PAC is supporting highly qualified candidates from both parties," said Don Frankenfeld, a Republican former legislator and member of the EqSD PAC board of directors.
Lawrence Novotny, Brookings--"More and more South Dakotans want to see positive change in support of LGBT equality and know they need to actively work for and support legislative candidates with integrity who are willing to take a stand," EqSD PAC treasurer Lawrence Novotny of Brookings said. "That is why EqSD PAC was created," he added.
Curtis Price, Rapid City--"I'm very proud to be associated with an organization that is already changing the dialogue by supporting candidates that believe in fairness and respect for all South Dakotans and their families," Curtis Price, EqSD secretary from Rapid City said. "Fairness is a South Dakota value," he added. EqSD is a sister organization to EqSD PAC.
David Fischer, Aberdeen--"In 2008, on November's election night, I believe the dark clouds over America that have dumped an acid rain of social division to nourish the pockets and power of dishonest political addicts will dissipate. An eagle of truth and justice will soar again as citizens are led by people who know the value of individual fairness and equality. If this funding feeds this symbol of freedom, scatter it with the wind." said David D. Fischer, gay nurse anesthetist from Aberdeen, SD and Secretary of EqSD.
Paid for and authorized by EqSD PAC, 610 S. Grand Ave., Harrisburg, SD 57032, Lawrence Novotny, Treasurer.
Rapid City Journal: Obituary; Garold O. Kingsbury
RAPID CITY - Garold O. Kingsbury, 88, passed away on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at Rapid City Regional Hospital. He was born on Sept. 25, 1919, to Orel and Gladys Kingsbury in Letcher. He grew up working the family farm and graduated from Letcher High School.
Garold moved to Rapid City in 1948, and began a new career in NAPA sales with Puritan Supply Company. He continued selling NAPA products extensively in western South Dakota for over 35 years.
On Sept. 2, 1950, Garold Kingsbury and Marion Robbennolt were wed in Rapid City beginning their 55-year marriage. As their family grew, they decided to build their new home in the developing West Chicago neighborhood of Rapid City. The new house involved the entire family in painting, carpentry and landscaping.
After Garold and Marion retired, they enjoyed traveling across the country and often visited friends and relatives. For several years they wintered in Apache Junction, AZ, with friends.
Garold was an avid hunter, fisherman and enjoyed camping with his family each summer in the Black Hills. Garold was a life member of the Elks Club and the Morning Optimist Club. He spent the last two winters with his son and his daughter's family in Hawaii, where he enjoyed year-round gardening, whale watching, ocean fishing, beach combing and warm weather. His trusty dachshund puppy named Hapuna constantly accompanied him.
He is survived by his daughter, Cindy Sakai and her husband, John of Hawi, Hawaii; his son Craig Kingsbury and his life partner, Vernon Paulson of Hawi and Rapid City; his sister Donna Fogelberg of Merced, Calif.; and numerous nephews, nieces and cousins in South Dakota, California, and Minnesota. His wife Marion preceded him in death.
Visitation will be from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, June 1, at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home. Services will be at 10 a.m. Monday, June 2, at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home, with the Rev. Phyllis Boernke officiating. Internment follows at the Mountain View Cemetery.
A memorial has been established in Garold's name. Friends may sign his online guest register and leave condolence wishes at www.osheim schmidt.com. Published in the Rapid City Journal on 5/31/2008.
Guest Book
Garold moved to Rapid City in 1948, and began a new career in NAPA sales with Puritan Supply Company. He continued selling NAPA products extensively in western South Dakota for over 35 years.
On Sept. 2, 1950, Garold Kingsbury and Marion Robbennolt were wed in Rapid City beginning their 55-year marriage. As their family grew, they decided to build their new home in the developing West Chicago neighborhood of Rapid City. The new house involved the entire family in painting, carpentry and landscaping.
After Garold and Marion retired, they enjoyed traveling across the country and often visited friends and relatives. For several years they wintered in Apache Junction, AZ, with friends.
Garold was an avid hunter, fisherman and enjoyed camping with his family each summer in the Black Hills. Garold was a life member of the Elks Club and the Morning Optimist Club. He spent the last two winters with his son and his daughter's family in Hawaii, where he enjoyed year-round gardening, whale watching, ocean fishing, beach combing and warm weather. His trusty dachshund puppy named Hapuna constantly accompanied him.
He is survived by his daughter, Cindy Sakai and her husband, John of Hawi, Hawaii; his son Craig Kingsbury and his life partner, Vernon Paulson of Hawi and Rapid City; his sister Donna Fogelberg of Merced, Calif.; and numerous nephews, nieces and cousins in South Dakota, California, and Minnesota. His wife Marion preceded him in death.
Visitation will be from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Sunday, June 1, at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home. Services will be at 10 a.m. Monday, June 2, at Osheim & Schmidt Funeral Home, with the Rev. Phyllis Boernke officiating. Internment follows at the Mountain View Cemetery.
A memorial has been established in Garold's name. Friends may sign his online guest register and leave condolence wishes at www.osheim schmidt.com. Published in the Rapid City Journal on 5/31/2008.
Guest Book
Rapid City Journal: S.D. among 10 states urging Calif. court to delay marriage ruling
SAN FRANCISCO--The attorneys general of 10 states have joined conservative legal groups in urging the California Supreme Court to delay finalizing its ruling to legalize same-sex marriage.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed late Thursday, they said they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriages of gay residents who wed in California.The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. Except for Florida and New Hampshire, all of them have constitutional provisions banning gay marriage.
The attorneys general asked the court to stay its May 15 ruling until after the November election, when California's voters likely will decide whether to adopt a similar amendment, which would overturn the court's decision. The court's decisions normally take effect after 30 days.
What happens in California is being watched carefully elsewhere because unlike Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where same-sex couples can now marry, California does not have a residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license.
"We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such 'marriage tourism' will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts," Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff wrote in the brief submitted on behalf of the 10 states.
Read more and Rapid Reply
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed late Thursday, they said they have an interest in the case because they would have to determine if their states would recognize the marriages of gay residents who wed in California.The states involved are Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah. Except for Florida and New Hampshire, all of them have constitutional provisions banning gay marriage.
The attorneys general asked the court to stay its May 15 ruling until after the November election, when California's voters likely will decide whether to adopt a similar amendment, which would overturn the court's decision. The court's decisions normally take effect after 30 days.
What happens in California is being watched carefully elsewhere because unlike Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where same-sex couples can now marry, California does not have a residency requirement for obtaining a marriage license.
"We reasonably believe an inevitable result of such 'marriage tourism' will be a steep increase in litigation of the recognition issue in our courts," Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff wrote in the brief submitted on behalf of the 10 states.
Read more and Rapid Reply
Friday, May 30, 2008
Bay Area Reporter: Hate crimes against LGBTs increase in 2007
Hate crimes against LGBTs in San Francisco increased by 7 percent last year, according to an analysis conducted by national anti-violence groups.
Nationwide, increases in violence were not all attributable to increased reporting. Michigan saw a stunning 207 percent increase in the number of hate crimes against LGBTs committed in 2007. NCAVP attributes this dramatic upsurge in hate crimes to a three-year-long campaign by the attorney general's office to end domestic partner benefits.
"In Michigan and elsewhere in the U.S., these highly visible attacks on LGBT communities reinforce the idea that it is acceptable to target LGBT persons with violence," the report states. "There is frequently a corresponding surge in anti-LGBT incidents of violence and crime as these campaigns play out in communities and in the national and local media."
Hate crimes increased 24 percent nationally. Bias-motivated murders doubled between 2006 (10) and 2007 (21). Rapes committed as hate crimes increased by 61 percent nationwide.
Hate crimes in the Midwest increased significantly. In addition to the Michigan increase, Minnesota saw a jump of 135 percent, while Kansas City saw an increase of 142 percent, according to the report.
Reported hate crimes dropped in New York City (14 percent decrease) and Colorado (27 percent decrease), the report stated.
Read more:
Nationwide, increases in violence were not all attributable to increased reporting. Michigan saw a stunning 207 percent increase in the number of hate crimes against LGBTs committed in 2007. NCAVP attributes this dramatic upsurge in hate crimes to a three-year-long campaign by the attorney general's office to end domestic partner benefits.
"In Michigan and elsewhere in the U.S., these highly visible attacks on LGBT communities reinforce the idea that it is acceptable to target LGBT persons with violence," the report states. "There is frequently a corresponding surge in anti-LGBT incidents of violence and crime as these campaigns play out in communities and in the national and local media."
Hate crimes increased 24 percent nationally. Bias-motivated murders doubled between 2006 (10) and 2007 (21). Rapes committed as hate crimes increased by 61 percent nationwide.
Hate crimes in the Midwest increased significantly. In addition to the Michigan increase, Minnesota saw a jump of 135 percent, while Kansas City saw an increase of 142 percent, according to the report.
Reported hate crimes dropped in New York City (14 percent decrease) and Colorado (27 percent decrease), the report stated.
Read more:
Colorado Springs; The Gazette: Ritter signs bill giving gays equal access to accommodations
Gov. Bill Ritter on Thursday signed a bill that makes it illegal in Colorado to discriminate against gays, bisexuals and transgendered people when buying a home, renting an apartment or using public accommodations.
"The governor felt that this bill, SB200, was about fairness and treating people equally," said Evan Dreyer, spokesman for the governor's office. "It essentially updates anti-discrimination laws that in some cases have not been updated for 50 years." Bruce DeBoskey, regional director of Denver's Anti-Defamation League, a civil rights organization, said the law is a step forward for Coloradans.
"No one should be denied housing or public accommodations solely because of his or her sexual preference," DeBoskey said. One aspect of the law enables transgenders - those who were born one gender but identify with the other - to use public restrooms in which they feel most comfortable.
Beginning May 21, Focus on the Family and Colorado Family Action began sponsoring radio advertisements on four radio stations in Colorado Springs and Denver denouncing the bill. The ads warned that cross-dressing predators could endanger children by using restrooms designated for the opposite sex.
Focus founder James Dobson said Thursday: "Who would believe that the Colorado state Legislature and its governor would have made it legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker room facilities without notice or explanation? "Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."
DeBoskey denounced Dobson's view. "It is unfortunate that they feel they have to exaggerate the dangers and play on people's fears," DeBoskey said. "This law is about fairness and justice for all people living in this state."
Read more:
"The governor felt that this bill, SB200, was about fairness and treating people equally," said Evan Dreyer, spokesman for the governor's office. "It essentially updates anti-discrimination laws that in some cases have not been updated for 50 years." Bruce DeBoskey, regional director of Denver's Anti-Defamation League, a civil rights organization, said the law is a step forward for Coloradans.
"No one should be denied housing or public accommodations solely because of his or her sexual preference," DeBoskey said. One aspect of the law enables transgenders - those who were born one gender but identify with the other - to use public restrooms in which they feel most comfortable.
Beginning May 21, Focus on the Family and Colorado Family Action began sponsoring radio advertisements on four radio stations in Colorado Springs and Denver denouncing the bill. The ads warned that cross-dressing predators could endanger children by using restrooms designated for the opposite sex.
Focus founder James Dobson said Thursday: "Who would believe that the Colorado state Legislature and its governor would have made it legal for men to enter and use women's restrooms and locker room facilities without notice or explanation? "Henceforth, every woman and little girl will have to fear that a predator, bisexual, cross-dresser or even a homosexual or heterosexual male might walk in and relieve himself in their presence."
DeBoskey denounced Dobson's view. "It is unfortunate that they feel they have to exaggerate the dangers and play on people's fears," DeBoskey said. "This law is about fairness and justice for all people living in this state."
Read more:
Washington Blade: Activists alarmed over APA
Head of psychiatry panel favors ‘change’ therapy for some trans teens
LOU CHIBBARO JR Friday, May 30, 2008
Transgender activists have raised strong objections to a decision by the American Psychiatric Association to name a prominent Canadian child psychologist as head of a committee that will recommend changes in diagnosing persons with an ailment defined by the group as gender identity disorder.
In a flurry of blog postings and an online petition, trans activists and some gay rights supporters have called for the removal of University of Toronto psychiatry professor Kenneth J. Zucker as chair of the psychiatrist association’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group on grounds that Zucker supports therapy to discourage transgender children and adolescents from changing their biological gender.
The Work Group is charged, among other things, with making recommendations for changes in how transgender persons are classified under the APA’s internationally recognized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is being revised for publication in 2012.
“We believe being transgender is just as innate as being gay or lesbian,” said transgender advocate and blogger Mercedes Allen of Alberta, Canada.“Our concern is that Zucker favors a form of reparative therapy for trans youth that amounts to the suppression of their true gender identity,” said Allen. In a telephone interview Tuesday, Allen said Zucker’s treatment philosophy for trans youth appears to yield to societal norms about gender conformity rather than acting in the best interest of the transgender child or adolescent.
But a prominent gay psychiatrist and former chair of the APA’s gay advisory committee, Dr. Jack Drescher, said the fears by trans activists are unfounded and that Zucker, while favoring possible therapy for some trans teens, supports gender reassignment therapy in most cases — for both youth and adults.
Drescher said he was especially concerned about claims by some trans bloggers that Zucker and at least one other member of the APA’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group would push for reinstating homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder under the APA’s revised diagnostic manual in 2012.
Read more:
LOU CHIBBARO JR Friday, May 30, 2008
Transgender activists have raised strong objections to a decision by the American Psychiatric Association to name a prominent Canadian child psychologist as head of a committee that will recommend changes in diagnosing persons with an ailment defined by the group as gender identity disorder.
In a flurry of blog postings and an online petition, trans activists and some gay rights supporters have called for the removal of University of Toronto psychiatry professor Kenneth J. Zucker as chair of the psychiatrist association’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group on grounds that Zucker supports therapy to discourage transgender children and adolescents from changing their biological gender.
The Work Group is charged, among other things, with making recommendations for changes in how transgender persons are classified under the APA’s internationally recognized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is being revised for publication in 2012.
“We believe being transgender is just as innate as being gay or lesbian,” said transgender advocate and blogger Mercedes Allen of Alberta, Canada.“Our concern is that Zucker favors a form of reparative therapy for trans youth that amounts to the suppression of their true gender identity,” said Allen. In a telephone interview Tuesday, Allen said Zucker’s treatment philosophy for trans youth appears to yield to societal norms about gender conformity rather than acting in the best interest of the transgender child or adolescent.
But a prominent gay psychiatrist and former chair of the APA’s gay advisory committee, Dr. Jack Drescher, said the fears by trans activists are unfounded and that Zucker, while favoring possible therapy for some trans teens, supports gender reassignment therapy in most cases — for both youth and adults.
Drescher said he was especially concerned about claims by some trans bloggers that Zucker and at least one other member of the APA’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group would push for reinstating homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder under the APA’s revised diagnostic manual in 2012.
Read more:
CBS News: New York Governor Faces Gay Marriage Fight
Conservatives Vow To Counter Paterson's Memo Ordering State To Recognize Gay Marriages
(CBS/AP) Religious and social conservatives vowed Thursday to fight the governor's directive requiring state agencies to recognize gay marriages performed legally elsewhere, saying it flouts traditional values and is a big step toward legalizing same-sex unions in New York.
"The definition of marriage predates recorded history," said New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes. "No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose."
Gov. David Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property. He cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state is legal. The ruling overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage. At a Manhattan news conference on Thursday, Paterson, a Roman Catholic, defended the directive, saying failure to issue it would have left the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived gay couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states.
Read more:
(CBS/AP) Religious and social conservatives vowed Thursday to fight the governor's directive requiring state agencies to recognize gay marriages performed legally elsewhere, saying it flouts traditional values and is a big step toward legalizing same-sex unions in New York.
"The definition of marriage predates recorded history," said New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes. "No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose."
Gov. David Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property. He cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state is legal. The ruling overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage. At a Manhattan news conference on Thursday, Paterson, a Roman Catholic, defended the directive, saying failure to issue it would have left the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived gay couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states.
Read more:
Thursday, May 29, 2008
CNN.com: New York to recognize gay marriages
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.
Read more:
The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.
Read more:
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Our Community Has Suffered a Loss
I just received a phone call from Vernon Paulson to tell me that his partner Craig Kingsbury's father, Garold, passed away today at noon here in Rapid City. Vernon says that Craig will be flying back from Hawaii in the next couple of days. Oshiem Funeral Home in Rapid City will be handling the arrangements and the funeral will be on Monday or Tuesday at the Unity Church in Piedmont.
I'll report more details as I receive them.
I think I speak for the entire community in expressing our condolences to Craig and Vernon and all of Craig's family. They have all been an important and valuable part of this community. They have our deepest symapthy and regards.
I'll report more details as I receive them.
I think I speak for the entire community in expressing our condolences to Craig and Vernon and all of Craig's family. They have all been an important and valuable part of this community. They have our deepest symapthy and regards.
SLDN;Frontlines: MEMORIAL DAY -- Remembering Alan Rogers
Memorial Day is a special time for Americans who have lost loved ones to the service of our country. The families and friends of the more than 4,000 American service members killed in Iraq since 2003 share a special bond rooted equally in grief and pride, emotions we will share as we mark Memorial Day once again this year.
This Memorial Day is particularly salient for me this year as I remember the life of my friend and colleague, Major Alan Rogers. As many people now know, Alan was killed in Iraq by an IED on January 27, 2008. According to his commander, he shielded two others from the blast, who likely would have been killed were it not for Alan’s bravery. Alan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on March 14th, 2008, in the presence of more than two hundred grieving but proud friends, fellow soldiers, and family members.
I knew Alan through my work here at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and through our mutual activism in the DC Chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights. He was a student at Georgetown University, pursuing a master’s degree through a prestigious Army fellowship program, when I first met him.
Because of my familiarity with the legal ins and outs of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill that would repeal that law, Alan interviewed me for his final paper for school. I used to chide him for being so “out” to so many people, and worried that some day the fact that he was gay would get back to the military and spell the end of his career. I worried that his choice of topic for his final paper might raise eyebrows, and cause him to be discovered. But he seemed fearless, confident that he’d make it through his career without his sexual orientation getting in the way. In the end, I guess he was right.
When I first learned of Alan’s death through an email I received at work from a mutual friend, I was stunned. I walked dazed into the office of a good friend and colleague and cried bitterly. I cried because none of us would ever see Alan’s beautiful smile again, except in photographs and in our minds’ eyes. I cried because it was unbearable to think of this beautiful and gentle person being ripped apart by an IED in a foreign land. I cried because Alan was so good. He was one of the kindest, most generous, thoughtful, genuinely good people I have ever known. And he was gone, and nothing would ever change that.
Read more:
This Memorial Day is particularly salient for me this year as I remember the life of my friend and colleague, Major Alan Rogers. As many people now know, Alan was killed in Iraq by an IED on January 27, 2008. According to his commander, he shielded two others from the blast, who likely would have been killed were it not for Alan’s bravery. Alan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on March 14th, 2008, in the presence of more than two hundred grieving but proud friends, fellow soldiers, and family members.
I knew Alan through my work here at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and through our mutual activism in the DC Chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights. He was a student at Georgetown University, pursuing a master’s degree through a prestigious Army fellowship program, when I first met him.
Because of my familiarity with the legal ins and outs of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill that would repeal that law, Alan interviewed me for his final paper for school. I used to chide him for being so “out” to so many people, and worried that some day the fact that he was gay would get back to the military and spell the end of his career. I worried that his choice of topic for his final paper might raise eyebrows, and cause him to be discovered. But he seemed fearless, confident that he’d make it through his career without his sexual orientation getting in the way. In the end, I guess he was right.
When I first learned of Alan’s death through an email I received at work from a mutual friend, I was stunned. I walked dazed into the office of a good friend and colleague and cried bitterly. I cried because none of us would ever see Alan’s beautiful smile again, except in photographs and in our minds’ eyes. I cried because it was unbearable to think of this beautiful and gentle person being ripped apart by an IED in a foreign land. I cried because Alan was so good. He was one of the kindest, most generous, thoughtful, genuinely good people I have ever known. And he was gone, and nothing would ever change that.
Read more:
Wayne Besen: I'm Having Nunn Of It
When former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) endorsed Barack Obama in April and announced he would serve as a national security advisor, pundits naturally began speculating on his vice presidential prospects. The argument in favor of Nunn is that he is a former Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which would help negate one of the McCain campaign's largest advantages.Nunn's position is strengthened because he appears to be on the same rhetorical page as Obama. Last year, for example, he helped lead a bipartisan conference at the University of Oklahoma with the goal of ending political squabbling in Washington. In April, the conservative southern Democrat articulated his reasons for backing Obama:
"Demonizing the opposition, oversimplifying the issues, and dumbing down the political debate prevent our country from coming together to make tough decisions and tackle our biggest challenges," said Nunn.This statement was curious, considering Nunn's crass conduct during the fierce 1993 "gays in the military" battle. Instead of leading in a contemplative manner, Nunn exploited his position of power to cheapen the national dialogue and dumb down the debate - the opposite of what he now says he stands for. This "statesman" brazenly exploited every last negative anti-gay stereotype for political gain and temporarily derailed Bill Clinton's nascent presidency in the process. Nunn's grandstanding was an unforgivable act of bigotry and betrayal and helped set back the GLBT movement for years.
Read more:
"Demonizing the opposition, oversimplifying the issues, and dumbing down the political debate prevent our country from coming together to make tough decisions and tackle our biggest challenges," said Nunn.This statement was curious, considering Nunn's crass conduct during the fierce 1993 "gays in the military" battle. Instead of leading in a contemplative manner, Nunn exploited his position of power to cheapen the national dialogue and dumb down the debate - the opposite of what he now says he stands for. This "statesman" brazenly exploited every last negative anti-gay stereotype for political gain and temporarily derailed Bill Clinton's nascent presidency in the process. Nunn's grandstanding was an unforgivable act of bigotry and betrayal and helped set back the GLBT movement for years.
Read more:
Sacbee.com: Field Poll: Majority of Californians now support gay marriage
Signaling a generational shift in attitudes, a new Field Poll on Tuesday said California voters now support legal marriage between same-sex couples and oppose a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
By 51 to 42 percent, state voters believe gay couples have the right to marry, according to a May 17-26 poll of 1,052 registered voters.
However, the same poll revealed a California electorate that remains sharply divided over gay marriage – split by age, political affiliation, religion and the regions where they live.
The poll was taken after the May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a state ban on same-sex marriages. The results marked the first time in more than 30 years of state polling that a majority of Field Poll respondents favored making gay marriage legal.
In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, a statute declaring that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.
The state Supreme Court ruling overturned Proposition 22. Opponents of gay marriage have circulated an initiative likely to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage – negating the court decision.
Based on the Field Poll, the ultimate outcome of the gay marriage issue in California could hinge on the age of the electorate.
Reflecting stark differences in generational attitudes, 68 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years old said they favored allowing same-sex couples to marry. Fifty-eight percent of voters 30 to 39 and 51 percent of voters 40-49 favored gay marriage. That compared with 47 percent of voters 50-64 and 36 percent of those over 65 who supported the idea.
"As young people are replacing older people, voters are more supportive," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll. "The trend line itself is historic. The lines are crossing. This is a major sociological event in California."
Read more:
By 51 to 42 percent, state voters believe gay couples have the right to marry, according to a May 17-26 poll of 1,052 registered voters.
However, the same poll revealed a California electorate that remains sharply divided over gay marriage – split by age, political affiliation, religion and the regions where they live.
The poll was taken after the May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a state ban on same-sex marriages. The results marked the first time in more than 30 years of state polling that a majority of Field Poll respondents favored making gay marriage legal.
In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, a statute declaring that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.
The state Supreme Court ruling overturned Proposition 22. Opponents of gay marriage have circulated an initiative likely to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage – negating the court decision.
Based on the Field Poll, the ultimate outcome of the gay marriage issue in California could hinge on the age of the electorate.
Reflecting stark differences in generational attitudes, 68 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years old said they favored allowing same-sex couples to marry. Fifty-eight percent of voters 30 to 39 and 51 percent of voters 40-49 favored gay marriage. That compared with 47 percent of voters 50-64 and 36 percent of those over 65 who supported the idea.
"As young people are replacing older people, voters are more supportive," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll. "The trend line itself is historic. The lines are crossing. This is a major sociological event in California."
Read more:
Monday, May 19, 2008
Hog House Blog: Equality SD endorses candidates
By Denise Ross
Welcome back, Hoghouse readers. Sorry things went radio silent for much of last week. I got sucked into another project - the documentary - which is nearing completion at long, long last.
I return bearing gifts.
First is the list of legislative candidates endorsed by Equality South Dakota, the relatively new LGBT advocacy group. Later today, there will be video of an interview with the Democratic campaign manager from Mississippi who won the special congressional election last week. (I swear it’s true.)
OK, so Equality South Dakota endorsed seven Democrats. Here’s the list. (Read the full press release by clicking “CLICK HERE to read more” below.
Elaine Elliott, House District 2, Aberdeen. Candidate Elliott is in a three-way primary against longtime legislator Paul Dennert and candidate John Graham for two spots on the general election ballot.
Darrell Solberg, House District 11, Sioux Falls. Candidate Solberg faces fellow candidates Don Rose and Shawn Anderson in a three-way primary for two ballot spots.
Martha Vanderlinde, House District 15, Sioux Falls. Candidate Vanderlinde faces fellow candidates John Madigan and Patrick Kirschman in a three-way primary for two ballot spots.
Caitlin Collier, House District 17, Vermillion. Candidate Collier faces former legislator John Reedy, incumbent Eldon Nygaard and candidate Thomas Jones in a four-way primary for two ballot spots.
Larry Lucas, House District 26A, Mission. Incumbent Lucas faces candidates Calvin Jones and Paul Joseph in a three-way primary for one spot on the ballot.
Kevin Killer, House District 27, Pine Ridge. Killer faces fellow candidates Robert Fogg, Joseph White Bear Claws and Ed Iron Cloud III in a four-way race for two ballot spots.
Jeff Nelsen, House District 33, Rapid City. Candidate Nelsen faces fellow candidate Kimberly Henderson and perennial candidate Gary Loudner in a three-way race for two ballot spots.
Read more:
Welcome back, Hoghouse readers. Sorry things went radio silent for much of last week. I got sucked into another project - the documentary - which is nearing completion at long, long last.
I return bearing gifts.
First is the list of legislative candidates endorsed by Equality South Dakota, the relatively new LGBT advocacy group. Later today, there will be video of an interview with the Democratic campaign manager from Mississippi who won the special congressional election last week. (I swear it’s true.)
OK, so Equality South Dakota endorsed seven Democrats. Here’s the list. (Read the full press release by clicking “CLICK HERE to read more” below.
Elaine Elliott, House District 2, Aberdeen. Candidate Elliott is in a three-way primary against longtime legislator Paul Dennert and candidate John Graham for two spots on the general election ballot.
Darrell Solberg, House District 11, Sioux Falls. Candidate Solberg faces fellow candidates Don Rose and Shawn Anderson in a three-way primary for two ballot spots.
Martha Vanderlinde, House District 15, Sioux Falls. Candidate Vanderlinde faces fellow candidates John Madigan and Patrick Kirschman in a three-way primary for two ballot spots.
Caitlin Collier, House District 17, Vermillion. Candidate Collier faces former legislator John Reedy, incumbent Eldon Nygaard and candidate Thomas Jones in a four-way primary for two ballot spots.
Larry Lucas, House District 26A, Mission. Incumbent Lucas faces candidates Calvin Jones and Paul Joseph in a three-way primary for one spot on the ballot.
Kevin Killer, House District 27, Pine Ridge. Killer faces fellow candidates Robert Fogg, Joseph White Bear Claws and Ed Iron Cloud III in a four-way race for two ballot spots.
Jeff Nelsen, House District 33, Rapid City. Candidate Nelsen faces fellow candidate Kimberly Henderson and perennial candidate Gary Loudner in a three-way race for two ballot spots.
Read more:
Deb Price: California Supreme Court adjusts people's vision on gay rights
When I took the eye exam for my driver's license as a teenager, I first tried without my glasses.
"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.
I slipped on my glasses. And, presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there; I just couldn't recognize them.
When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.
Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948 when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.
California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But, unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry there.
The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every 8 Americans -- is gigantic.
As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"
The landmark ruling by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.
All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Read more:
"Nice rows of blurry black lines, right?" I joked.
I slipped on my glasses. And, presto, crisp, distinct letters appeared before my eyes. The letters, of course, had always been there; I just couldn't recognize them.
When the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals, it essentially said that one job of courts is to adjust the vision of people who simply haven't been able to see the injustice right in front of them.
Chief Justice Ronald George, a Republican appointee who wrote the 121-page majority opinion, said the nation's evolution in views and policies toward racial minorities and women teaches "that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask an unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The 4-3 ruling -- the same split as in 1948 when California's top court became the first to strike down a ban on marriage between people of different races -- means gay couples can marry in California in about 30 days.
California follows Massachusetts, where more than 10,000 gay couples have married since 2004. But, unlike in Massachusetts, gay couples from any state will be able to marry there.
The breakthrough in the trendsetting Golden State -- home to one of every 8 Americans -- is gigantic.
As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who triggered the court case in 2003 by allowing his city to issue licenses to gay couples, joyfully put it after the ruling, "As California goes, so goes the nation!"
The landmark ruling by the nation's most influential state court was immediately embraced by two California heavyweights: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat with the power to block any federal marriage amendment.
All is not sunny in California, though. Voters will likely have to decide on a state amendment aimed at once again restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples.
Read more:
Commentary on Marriage Equality Victory in California
In These Times
California Rules!
A Defeat for Right-Wing Activism On and Off the Bench
By Hans Johnson
Refusing to be boxed in by election-year timidity or political threats from the religious right, a majority of the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that same-sex couples have an equal right to civil marriage in the state. The judgment stands on a sturdy foundation of precedents involving equal protection of the law. Its reasoning and force rebut a far-right charge that has cowed other courts despite being perfectly backward.
In a ruling that the state will not appeal, California’s highest court ordered officials to begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples June 15. The clarity of the ruling is a reminder that people outside the ranks of a social movement can sometimes best articulate its progress.
“In contrast to earlier times,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald George, “our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
Sixty years ago, against a steep and contrary bent of public opinion, the same court upheld the right of a Mexican American woman, Andrea Perez, to marry her African-American sweetheart, Sylvester Davis, in Los Angeles. It took two decades for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally follow California’s lead and nix all such bans on interracial marriages.
In the current marriage case, Carlos Moreno, the court’s sole Latino justice, and two others joined the ruling by George, an appointee of former Republican governor Pete Wilson. George became the court’s chief justice the very month (May 1996) that fellow Californian Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, confounded religious conservatives by striking down an antigay amendment to the Colorado constitution. The measure aimed to obliterate and forever outlaw any protection in any area of life against antigay bias, no matter how severe. Kennedy countered with simple declarative grace that even a majority of voters cannot make gay people “strangers to the law.”
Seven years later, in 2003, Kennedy infuriated the far right again with his ruling against a Texas sodomy statute so prone to abuse that police could wield it to barge into the homes and bedrooms and arrest unsuspecting adults. Today, at its fifth anniversary, the Lawrence standard nullifying all state sodomy laws and extending privacy continues to gain traction in politics and case law in part because of its author’s conservative credentials.
Even the farthest right-wing fringe refrains from demonizing Kennedy due to his status as a swing vote on the Supreme Court. Instead, like prison wardens mocked by defiance of a noncompliant inmate, they direct their rage at justice David Souter, the moderate appointee of Bush 41, and the aged but unflagging jurist John Paul Stevens, a Ford appointee whose demise some on the right actually pray for.
Read more:
The Huffington Post
Bowing to Fear, candidates ignore historic nature of CA decision
Lane Hudson
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a historic ruling that overturned a law denying gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage. For millions of people like me, it was a moving moment - a moment where we were recognized as being equal in every way in the eyes of the law. A moment that we aspire to see become reality in every corner of America.
Hillary Clinton had this to say about this incredibly important ruling:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
Barack Obama had this to say:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
Seventy-five words and fifty-four words, respectively, about a 172 page ruling that time will surely find to be the definitive ruling on marriage equality. This ruling will be cited in every marriage case that will be argued in the future. The thoughtful, well-written decision provides the pathway to ending one of the last vestiges of civil discrimination in America. Yet, our presidential candidates couldn't even muster the effort to acknowledge its importance. Disappointing would be a mild word to describe my feelings about them on this issue.
In 1948, California became the first State in America to overturn a ban on interracial marriage. In its decision on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court cited its own words from that 1948 decision. This New York Times piece, titled 'Same-sex marriage, racial justice find common ground' shows the parallels drawn between the two issues by the Court itself:
Not long into the oral argument before the California Supreme Court in March over whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, Chief Justice Ronald M. George showed his hand.
Three times he quoted from the court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.
"The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.
Without doubt, this is the next step in America's journey to live up to the founding principle that all men are created equal. After the Perez decision in 1948, it took the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 to overturn the remaining unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage. Even then, public support for interracial marriage was incredibly low.
Today, America is closely divided on the issue. But we know where this is headed. It is in keeping with the tradition and history of America. After all, our nation has a history of making people equal.
Read more:
California Rules!
A Defeat for Right-Wing Activism On and Off the Bench
By Hans Johnson
Refusing to be boxed in by election-year timidity or political threats from the religious right, a majority of the California Supreme Court ruled May 15 that same-sex couples have an equal right to civil marriage in the state. The judgment stands on a sturdy foundation of precedents involving equal protection of the law. Its reasoning and force rebut a far-right charge that has cowed other courts despite being perfectly backward.
In a ruling that the state will not appeal, California’s highest court ordered officials to begin granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples June 15. The clarity of the ruling is a reminder that people outside the ranks of a social movement can sometimes best articulate its progress.
“In contrast to earlier times,” wrote Chief Justice Ronald George, “our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation.”
Sixty years ago, against a steep and contrary bent of public opinion, the same court upheld the right of a Mexican American woman, Andrea Perez, to marry her African-American sweetheart, Sylvester Davis, in Los Angeles. It took two decades for the U.S. Supreme Court to finally follow California’s lead and nix all such bans on interracial marriages.
In the current marriage case, Carlos Moreno, the court’s sole Latino justice, and two others joined the ruling by George, an appointee of former Republican governor Pete Wilson. George became the court’s chief justice the very month (May 1996) that fellow Californian Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, confounded religious conservatives by striking down an antigay amendment to the Colorado constitution. The measure aimed to obliterate and forever outlaw any protection in any area of life against antigay bias, no matter how severe. Kennedy countered with simple declarative grace that even a majority of voters cannot make gay people “strangers to the law.”
Seven years later, in 2003, Kennedy infuriated the far right again with his ruling against a Texas sodomy statute so prone to abuse that police could wield it to barge into the homes and bedrooms and arrest unsuspecting adults. Today, at its fifth anniversary, the Lawrence standard nullifying all state sodomy laws and extending privacy continues to gain traction in politics and case law in part because of its author’s conservative credentials.
Even the farthest right-wing fringe refrains from demonizing Kennedy due to his status as a swing vote on the Supreme Court. Instead, like prison wardens mocked by defiance of a noncompliant inmate, they direct their rage at justice David Souter, the moderate appointee of Bush 41, and the aged but unflagging jurist John Paul Stevens, a Ford appointee whose demise some on the right actually pray for.
Read more:
The Huffington Post
Bowing to Fear, candidates ignore historic nature of CA decision
Lane Hudson
On Thursday, the California Supreme Court issued a historic ruling that overturned a law denying gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage. For millions of people like me, it was a moving moment - a moment where we were recognized as being equal in every way in the eyes of the law. A moment that we aspire to see become reality in every corner of America.
Hillary Clinton had this to say about this incredibly important ruling:
"Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states."
Barack Obama had this to say:
"Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage."
Seventy-five words and fifty-four words, respectively, about a 172 page ruling that time will surely find to be the definitive ruling on marriage equality. This ruling will be cited in every marriage case that will be argued in the future. The thoughtful, well-written decision provides the pathway to ending one of the last vestiges of civil discrimination in America. Yet, our presidential candidates couldn't even muster the effort to acknowledge its importance. Disappointing would be a mild word to describe my feelings about them on this issue.
In 1948, California became the first State in America to overturn a ban on interracial marriage. In its decision on Tuesday, the California Supreme Court cited its own words from that 1948 decision. This New York Times piece, titled 'Same-sex marriage, racial justice find common ground' shows the parallels drawn between the two issues by the Court itself:
Not long into the oral argument before the California Supreme Court in March over whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry, Chief Justice Ronald M. George showed his hand.
Three times he quoted from the court's 1948 decision in Perez v. Sharp that struck down a state ban on interracial marriage, a high point in the history of a prestigious and influential court.
"The essence of the right to marry is freedom to join in marriage with the person of one's choice," Chief Justice George said, quoting Perez.
Without doubt, this is the next step in America's journey to live up to the founding principle that all men are created equal. After the Perez decision in 1948, it took the U.S. Supreme Court until 1967 to overturn the remaining unconstitutional laws banning interracial marriage. Even then, public support for interracial marriage was incredibly low.
Today, America is closely divided on the issue. But we know where this is headed. It is in keeping with the tradition and history of America. After all, our nation has a history of making people equal.
Read more:
Sunday, May 18, 2008
The Titusville Herald: ACLU claims students' right to free speech violated
The American Civil Liberties Union has accused Oil City Area School District of violating students' right to free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and has threatened legal action if the district doesn't provide written assurance that such a violation will not happen again.
In a letter addressed to Joseph L. Carrico, district superintendent, and Scott Stahl, Oil City Senior High School principal, the ACLU states that several students were sent home on April 25 for refusing to remove or cover up their “Day of Silence” shirts and other students were told to remove Day of Silence stickers.
The Day of Silence is a day to protest the bullying and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and their supporters.
The ACLU letter, which was signed by ACLU staff attorney Sara J. Rose and legal director Witold Walczak, states that the school justified its ban on the Day of Silence T-shirts by pointing to its policy prohibiting homemade T-shirts. However, the ACLU did not find any such policy in the student handbook, stated the letter, adding that if such a policy did exist it would be unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits students from wearing homemade shirts with expressive messages.
The student handbook prohibits “visibly altered clothing,” but does not define the term, the ACLU wrote.
The letter also stated that the ACLU has learned that students have previously been permitted to wear homemade shirts bearing other school messages.
Read more:
In a letter addressed to Joseph L. Carrico, district superintendent, and Scott Stahl, Oil City Senior High School principal, the ACLU states that several students were sent home on April 25 for refusing to remove or cover up their “Day of Silence” shirts and other students were told to remove Day of Silence stickers.
The Day of Silence is a day to protest the bullying and harassment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and their supporters.
The ACLU letter, which was signed by ACLU staff attorney Sara J. Rose and legal director Witold Walczak, states that the school justified its ban on the Day of Silence T-shirts by pointing to its policy prohibiting homemade T-shirts. However, the ACLU did not find any such policy in the student handbook, stated the letter, adding that if such a policy did exist it would be unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits students from wearing homemade shirts with expressive messages.
The student handbook prohibits “visibly altered clothing,” but does not define the term, the ACLU wrote.
The letter also stated that the ACLU has learned that students have previously been permitted to wear homemade shirts bearing other school messages.
Read more:
Classic Ann Landers: May 18
Dear Ann Landers:
My husband has been clinically depressed for most of his adult life. A while back, "Herman" began seeing a female therapist who focused on my husband's early years to see whether something in his childhood might be the cause of his depression. His therapist discovered that during adolescence, Herman had been a cross-dresser.
He apparently had worn women's clothing in his early teens but repressed it as an adult. Now Herman wants my permission to express this part of his personality around the house. He says he would not go out in public.
This disgusts me, Ann. The thought of my husband in makeup, wig and high heels makes my skin crawl. His therapist told me I need to be more tolerant. She doesn't seem to think his behavior is abnormal or sick.
Herman is artistic and sensitive, a gourmet cook and an avid sportsman. More importantly, he is a terrific father to our two sons. I used to think he was the most masculine man alive. Now I don't see how I ever can look at him the same way or stop wondering whether he is gay. I don't want to break up our marriage, but if anyone found out about the makeup, wigs and high heels, I would be devastated. I need your advice. — N. Carolina
Dear N. Carolina: You need to have a better understanding of your husband's cross-dressing. Herman is a transvestite. Some transvestites are gay, but many are not. They get their thrills from dressing up in women's clothing, but that's as far as it goes. Please go to the public library and read up on the subject. The more you know the less you will fear it.
ANN LANDERS (R)
My husband has been clinically depressed for most of his adult life. A while back, "Herman" began seeing a female therapist who focused on my husband's early years to see whether something in his childhood might be the cause of his depression. His therapist discovered that during adolescence, Herman had been a cross-dresser.
He apparently had worn women's clothing in his early teens but repressed it as an adult. Now Herman wants my permission to express this part of his personality around the house. He says he would not go out in public.
This disgusts me, Ann. The thought of my husband in makeup, wig and high heels makes my skin crawl. His therapist told me I need to be more tolerant. She doesn't seem to think his behavior is abnormal or sick.
Herman is artistic and sensitive, a gourmet cook and an avid sportsman. More importantly, he is a terrific father to our two sons. I used to think he was the most masculine man alive. Now I don't see how I ever can look at him the same way or stop wondering whether he is gay. I don't want to break up our marriage, but if anyone found out about the makeup, wigs and high heels, I would be devastated. I need your advice. — N. Carolina
Dear N. Carolina: You need to have a better understanding of your husband's cross-dressing. Herman is a transvestite. Some transvestites are gay, but many are not. They get their thrills from dressing up in women's clothing, but that's as far as it goes. Please go to the public library and read up on the subject. The more you know the less you will fear it.
ANN LANDERS (R)
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The Bilerico Project:California Supreme Court OKs Marriage for Gays - But It Ain't Over Yet
Filed by: Karen Ocamb
May 15, 2008 7:00 PM
That joyful noise you hear rumbling across America is the sound of equality applauding: today the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lesbian and gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The decision could be overturned, however, if a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage makes it onto the November ballot, as expected, and is passed by voters.
The right-wing reaction to the court's ruling from Karen England, executive director for the antigay Capitol Resource Institute, is typical. She said in a statement issued via email:
Read more
LINK to ACLU on Marriage decision
Youtube on celebration
May 15, 2008 7:00 PM
That joyful noise you hear rumbling across America is the sound of equality applauding: today the California Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that lesbian and gay couples have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals.
The decision could be overturned, however, if a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage makes it onto the November ballot, as expected, and is passed by voters.
The right-wing reaction to the court's ruling from Karen England, executive director for the antigay Capitol Resource Institute, is typical. She said in a statement issued via email:
Read more
LINK to ACLU on Marriage decision
Youtube on celebration
Wayne Besen: TWO Ecstatic Over Historic California Marriage Ruling
Ruling Undermines ‘Ex-Gay’ Propaganda And Lets Potential Recruits See The Truth About Same-Sex Relationships
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org expressed jubilation over the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. The momentous 4-3 ruling is one of the biggest victories in the GLBT equality movement’s history. It also undermines “ex-gay” propaganda that demeans gay relationships to recruit new members.
“We are thrilled to be a part of history and experience a monumental victory for marriage equality,” said Wayne Besen, TruthWinsOut.org’s Executive Director. “The court made a bold decision and confirmed that all relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal in California.”
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” the court said in a majority decision. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
The California court also said that the right to marry in the state’s constitution “guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship.”
“This ruling is a devastating blow to ‘ex-gay’ cults, because it undermines their propaganda, which claims that same-sex relationships don’t work,” said TWO’s Besen. “The images of happy couples marrying undercut their efforts to recruit vulnerable people.”
The ruling will take effect and marriages will begin in 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement that said he will “respect the court’s decision and will “uphold its ruling.” He also said that he “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
TruthWinsOut
NEW YORK – TruthWinsOut.org expressed jubilation over the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a ban on same-sex marriage. The momentous 4-3 ruling is one of the biggest victories in the GLBT equality movement’s history. It also undermines “ex-gay” propaganda that demeans gay relationships to recruit new members.
“We are thrilled to be a part of history and experience a monumental victory for marriage equality,” said Wayne Besen, TruthWinsOut.org’s Executive Director. “The court made a bold decision and confirmed that all relationships, regardless of sexual orientation, are equal in California.”
“Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest,” the court said in a majority decision. “Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are unconstitutional.”
The California court also said that the right to marry in the state’s constitution “guarantees same-sex couples the same substantive constitutional rights as opposite-sex couples to choose one’s life partner and enter with that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship.”
“This ruling is a devastating blow to ‘ex-gay’ cults, because it undermines their propaganda, which claims that same-sex relationships don’t work,” said TWO’s Besen. “The images of happy couples marrying undercut their efforts to recruit vulnerable people.”
The ruling will take effect and marriages will begin in 30 days. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a statement that said he will “respect the court’s decision and will “uphold its ruling.” He also said that he “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”
TruthWinsOut
Going a little slow at The Center West
Things may be moving a little slower at The Center West for awhile. I just got out of the hospital having gone in with some chest pains and other problems. They sent me home. But, still haven't really figured out what is wrong.
I'll try to keep up as best I can. But, I hope everyone can be a little patient. Good things still happening.
The Old Man
(Mike)
I'll try to keep up as best I can. But, I hope everyone can be a little patient. Good things still happening.
The Old Man
(Mike)
Brookings: Male kiss receives raves at SDSU
by Lawrence Novotny
Everyone is familiar with Charlie Brown and his gang. This cast of lovable characters was made popular by Charles Schultz in his comic strip Peanuts and the TV Christmas show. There is now a new version -- a theatre play written by gay playwright Bert V. Royal called Dog Sees God: Confessions of a Teenage Blockhead. This play was performed as part of South Dakota State University's Experimental Theatre on April 27-29.
Royal's play which debuted in 2004 is an "unauthorized parody" of the Peanuts gang. Royal has changed the names of the characters probably to prevent copyright infringement.
In Dog Sees God the gang are now high school teenagers trying to be cool (peppering their language with 4-letter words). C.B. (Charlie Brown) is in mourning since his dog became rabid and was euthanized. C.B. is now asking his friends if there is life after death but his friends are to occupied with there own issues.
C.B.'s sister (Sally) is bouncing from pagan to Goth. The philosopher turned Buddhist Van (Linus) has replaced his security blanket (he smoked it) with pot. Van's sister (Lucy) is still practicing psychoanalysis but in a new location. Marcy (Marcie) and Tricia (Peppermint Patty) are now slutty cheerleaders who spike their lunch milk cartons with booze. Matt (the former dirt bag Pig-Pen) is a germ-phobic neat-freak homophobe who is obsessed with sex.
The play begins on a humorous note but becomes serious when the piano playing Beethoven (Schroeder) appears. The sexually questioning Beethoven is completely ostracized by the rest of the gang because he was raped by his dad. The play ends with the gang trying to rationalize Beethoven's suicide after he was gay bashed.
The highlight of the play was the male-male kiss which was very well received by a full audience in the 200-seat studio theatre.
One of the actors said afterwards they were a little apprehensive at first because they did not know how the audience would respond. On opening night several people walked out. On the third and final night, the actors had to hold the lip-lock for at least a minute while the audience cheered them on!
SDSU Experimental Theatre and the actors are to be complemented for taking on the timely and controversial topics of bullying, gay bashing, seeking one's identity, suicide, drugs, and child abuse. The audience left with much to ponder. Thanks, SDSU theatre gang for a performance very well done.
Everyone is familiar with Charlie Brown and his gang. This cast of lovable characters was made popular by Charles Schultz in his comic strip Peanuts and the TV Christmas show. There is now a new version -- a theatre play written by gay playwright Bert V. Royal called Dog Sees God: Confessions of a Teenage Blockhead. This play was performed as part of South Dakota State University's Experimental Theatre on April 27-29.
Royal's play which debuted in 2004 is an "unauthorized parody" of the Peanuts gang. Royal has changed the names of the characters probably to prevent copyright infringement.
In Dog Sees God the gang are now high school teenagers trying to be cool (peppering their language with 4-letter words). C.B. (Charlie Brown) is in mourning since his dog became rabid and was euthanized. C.B. is now asking his friends if there is life after death but his friends are to occupied with there own issues.
C.B.'s sister (Sally) is bouncing from pagan to Goth. The philosopher turned Buddhist Van (Linus) has replaced his security blanket (he smoked it) with pot. Van's sister (Lucy) is still practicing psychoanalysis but in a new location. Marcy (Marcie) and Tricia (Peppermint Patty) are now slutty cheerleaders who spike their lunch milk cartons with booze. Matt (the former dirt bag Pig-Pen) is a germ-phobic neat-freak homophobe who is obsessed with sex.
The play begins on a humorous note but becomes serious when the piano playing Beethoven (Schroeder) appears. The sexually questioning Beethoven is completely ostracized by the rest of the gang because he was raped by his dad. The play ends with the gang trying to rationalize Beethoven's suicide after he was gay bashed.
The highlight of the play was the male-male kiss which was very well received by a full audience in the 200-seat studio theatre.
One of the actors said afterwards they were a little apprehensive at first because they did not know how the audience would respond. On opening night several people walked out. On the third and final night, the actors had to hold the lip-lock for at least a minute while the audience cheered them on!
SDSU Experimental Theatre and the actors are to be complemented for taking on the timely and controversial topics of bullying, gay bashing, seeking one's identity, suicide, drugs, and child abuse. The audience left with much to ponder. Thanks, SDSU theatre gang for a performance very well done.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
SoDAkNorml.org: Meade County sentencing hearing illuminates absurdity of the law
Bob Newland
South Dakota’s marijuana laws put Meade County Judge Jerome Eckrich in an untenable position during a sentencing hearing last Monday (April 28). He managed to handle it in a compassionate, though still unjust, manner.
The defendant, Tom Faltynowicz, a rancher in southern Meade County, had been arrested in October for growing marijuana, having been turned in by his daughter after an altercation. Faltynowicz uses the herb to manage the nausea and loss of appetite caused by the chemical cocktail he is prescribed for AIDS.
In a plea agreement negotiated between Faltynowicz’s lawyer, Joe Ellingson, and Meade Co. State’s Attorney Jesse Sondreal, Tom pled guilty in January to the lowest-grade felony possession of marijuana, for which the maximum sentence is two years in the penitentiary and a fine of $4000.00. He was in court to be sentenced.
Faltynowicz’s doctor, Doug Traub, of Rapid City is an internal medicine specialist who’s been in the business for over 30 years. He appeared telephonically to testify for Tom. He said that he’d treated Tom for over ten years and that during that time Tom’s health had improved somewhat, rather than having declined as might be expected of an AIDS patient with the “indicators” Tom’s blood exhibited in 1998.
Maintaining a healthy diet is a principal problem among patients who must take certain medicines loaded with toxic chemicals, such as AIDS sufferers and those undergoing chemo-therapy for cancer, Traub explained. “I prescribed Marinol (synthesized THC, the main psychoactive in marijuana) for appetitie stimulation. We also discussed smoked marijuana, which many patients find more effective, with less negative side-effects than Marinol. I was aware that Tom was using marijuana for his wasting syndrome.”
“Tom has plainly benefited from using marijuana.” Dr. Traub said this in a courtroom in South Dakota, under oath. South Dakota law proclaims that marijuana has “no accepted medical use in the United States.”
Judge Eckrich asked, “Is smoking marijuana clinically necessary for Mr. Faltynowicz?” "Yes," Traub replied.
“Is there a mechanism by which we can differentiate, in a urinalysis, as to whether a person is smoking marijuana or using Marinol?” The quandary Eckrich was addressing with this question is that Marinol use is banned by South Dakota probation departments, because its indicators in urine are the same as those for smoked marijuana. "None that I know of," Traub answered.
Marinol is legal for doctors to prescribe and for patients, at least those not in jail or on probation, to use. Doctors may recommend marijuana use, but they are barred from actually delivering it to a patient or writing a prescription for it.
Ellingson began to make an argument clearly based on the intra-contradictory nature of the situation, but was cut off by Eckrich. “I’m not going to legalize medical marijuana out of this courtroom today.” He then sentenced Faltynowicz to eight months in the penitentiary, suspended except for seven days to be served in the Meade Co. jail during the next 90 days; a fine of $400.00; supervised probation for a year, during which he was not to possess or use illegal drugs; and subjection to arbitrary search at any time. Generally, a probation violation results in institution of the primary sentence.
“Does that mean I can’t use Marinol?” Tom asked. “That’s not what I said,” Eckrich answered, “I said no illegal drugs.” The probation department officer in the courtroom took note.
What Eckrich had done was legalize the use of marijuana for this particular convicted and to-be probation-supervised criminal, as long as he didn’t get caught with it.
Earlier, during Dr. Traub’s testimony, defense attorney Ellingson asked if his advocacy for therapeutic marijuana was professionally difficult. “Socially maybe,” Traub replied, “but as physicians, we use the tools available.”
So do cops and lawyers and judges. Every person in the legal system who touched this case acted as if they did not believe that marijuana has “no accepted medical use.” The result was a farce played out with a pawn whose life hung, and still hangs, in the balance.
Knowing that a man with a fatal disease used a commonly available herb to sustain his life, cops, lawyers and a judge arrested him, charged him with a crime, prosecuted the crime, and sentenced him for the crime of possessing the herb and using it to sustain his life. Granted, the result was one that Tom can survive, with luck.
He’s still stuck with the same problem he’s had since first being diagnosed with AIDS twenty years ago; an essential element in his therapy is illegal to obtain, have or use. He will use it. What will happen if he slips up or has a little bad luck, and gets caught with the one medicine he can’t have under the terms of his probation?
Will Judge Eckrich then put him in prison for eight months, where the state will have to bear the weight of his $4000 per month legal medicine bill while denying him the medicine that balances the toxic drugs with beneficial appetite stimulation? Dr. Traub said in court that there was no chance that the prison system could deal with Tom’s condition.
Would a probation violation then amount to a short “life in prison” sentence?
The So. Dak. legislature needs to deal with the patently absurd characterization of marijuana, in law, that it has “no accepted medical use.” Until it does, we will have to continue to watch farcical contortions like these--that illuminate the absurdity of the law--played out in court. It is unconscionably cruel to deny an effective remedy to sick, disabled and dying people.
SoDakNorml
South Dakota’s marijuana laws put Meade County Judge Jerome Eckrich in an untenable position during a sentencing hearing last Monday (April 28). He managed to handle it in a compassionate, though still unjust, manner.
The defendant, Tom Faltynowicz, a rancher in southern Meade County, had been arrested in October for growing marijuana, having been turned in by his daughter after an altercation. Faltynowicz uses the herb to manage the nausea and loss of appetite caused by the chemical cocktail he is prescribed for AIDS.
In a plea agreement negotiated between Faltynowicz’s lawyer, Joe Ellingson, and Meade Co. State’s Attorney Jesse Sondreal, Tom pled guilty in January to the lowest-grade felony possession of marijuana, for which the maximum sentence is two years in the penitentiary and a fine of $4000.00. He was in court to be sentenced.
Faltynowicz’s doctor, Doug Traub, of Rapid City is an internal medicine specialist who’s been in the business for over 30 years. He appeared telephonically to testify for Tom. He said that he’d treated Tom for over ten years and that during that time Tom’s health had improved somewhat, rather than having declined as might be expected of an AIDS patient with the “indicators” Tom’s blood exhibited in 1998.
Maintaining a healthy diet is a principal problem among patients who must take certain medicines loaded with toxic chemicals, such as AIDS sufferers and those undergoing chemo-therapy for cancer, Traub explained. “I prescribed Marinol (synthesized THC, the main psychoactive in marijuana) for appetitie stimulation. We also discussed smoked marijuana, which many patients find more effective, with less negative side-effects than Marinol. I was aware that Tom was using marijuana for his wasting syndrome.”
“Tom has plainly benefited from using marijuana.” Dr. Traub said this in a courtroom in South Dakota, under oath. South Dakota law proclaims that marijuana has “no accepted medical use in the United States.”
Judge Eckrich asked, “Is smoking marijuana clinically necessary for Mr. Faltynowicz?” "Yes," Traub replied.
“Is there a mechanism by which we can differentiate, in a urinalysis, as to whether a person is smoking marijuana or using Marinol?” The quandary Eckrich was addressing with this question is that Marinol use is banned by South Dakota probation departments, because its indicators in urine are the same as those for smoked marijuana. "None that I know of," Traub answered.
Marinol is legal for doctors to prescribe and for patients, at least those not in jail or on probation, to use. Doctors may recommend marijuana use, but they are barred from actually delivering it to a patient or writing a prescription for it.
Ellingson began to make an argument clearly based on the intra-contradictory nature of the situation, but was cut off by Eckrich. “I’m not going to legalize medical marijuana out of this courtroom today.” He then sentenced Faltynowicz to eight months in the penitentiary, suspended except for seven days to be served in the Meade Co. jail during the next 90 days; a fine of $400.00; supervised probation for a year, during which he was not to possess or use illegal drugs; and subjection to arbitrary search at any time. Generally, a probation violation results in institution of the primary sentence.
“Does that mean I can’t use Marinol?” Tom asked. “That’s not what I said,” Eckrich answered, “I said no illegal drugs.” The probation department officer in the courtroom took note.
What Eckrich had done was legalize the use of marijuana for this particular convicted and to-be probation-supervised criminal, as long as he didn’t get caught with it.
Earlier, during Dr. Traub’s testimony, defense attorney Ellingson asked if his advocacy for therapeutic marijuana was professionally difficult. “Socially maybe,” Traub replied, “but as physicians, we use the tools available.”
So do cops and lawyers and judges. Every person in the legal system who touched this case acted as if they did not believe that marijuana has “no accepted medical use.” The result was a farce played out with a pawn whose life hung, and still hangs, in the balance.
Knowing that a man with a fatal disease used a commonly available herb to sustain his life, cops, lawyers and a judge arrested him, charged him with a crime, prosecuted the crime, and sentenced him for the crime of possessing the herb and using it to sustain his life. Granted, the result was one that Tom can survive, with luck.
He’s still stuck with the same problem he’s had since first being diagnosed with AIDS twenty years ago; an essential element in his therapy is illegal to obtain, have or use. He will use it. What will happen if he slips up or has a little bad luck, and gets caught with the one medicine he can’t have under the terms of his probation?
Will Judge Eckrich then put him in prison for eight months, where the state will have to bear the weight of his $4000 per month legal medicine bill while denying him the medicine that balances the toxic drugs with beneficial appetite stimulation? Dr. Traub said in court that there was no chance that the prison system could deal with Tom’s condition.
Would a probation violation then amount to a short “life in prison” sentence?
The So. Dak. legislature needs to deal with the patently absurd characterization of marijuana, in law, that it has “no accepted medical use.” Until it does, we will have to continue to watch farcical contortions like these--that illuminate the absurdity of the law--played out in court. It is unconscionably cruel to deny an effective remedy to sick, disabled and dying people.
SoDakNorml
365Gay: Md. Gov. Signs Inclusive Bully Law
(Annapolis, Maryland) Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has signed into law one of the nation's most sweeping laws against bullying, aimed at protecting all students, including those who are LGBT.
The new law requires state and county school boards to develop policies that ban bullying. It mandates counseling to offered to both the victim and the bully. And it extends not only to school property but also electronic devices, including cell phones, computers or pagers.
The law makes Maryland just the 11th state to protect students from bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation and only the seventh to protect students on the basis of gender identity or expression.
"This is a historic day for Maryland students,” said Kevin Jennings, the Executive Director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
"Feeling safe in school is directly related to academic achievement and student success. This law is an important step in reducing bullying, improving school climate and making school better for all Maryland students.”
A GLSEN survey released in 2005 found that bullying and verbal harassment is a national problem across the country.
The National School Climate Survey found that three-quarters of students surveyed across America said that over the past year they heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten reported hearing "that's so gay" or "you're so gay" - meaning stupid or worthless - frequently or often.
Over a third of students said they experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and more than a quarter on the basis of their gender expression.
Nearly one-in-five students reported they had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.
Read more
The new law requires state and county school boards to develop policies that ban bullying. It mandates counseling to offered to both the victim and the bully. And it extends not only to school property but also electronic devices, including cell phones, computers or pagers.
The law makes Maryland just the 11th state to protect students from bullying and harassment based on sexual orientation and only the seventh to protect students on the basis of gender identity or expression.
"This is a historic day for Maryland students,” said Kevin Jennings, the Executive Director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
"Feeling safe in school is directly related to academic achievement and student success. This law is an important step in reducing bullying, improving school climate and making school better for all Maryland students.”
A GLSEN survey released in 2005 found that bullying and verbal harassment is a national problem across the country.
The National School Climate Survey found that three-quarters of students surveyed across America said that over the past year they heard derogatory remarks such as "faggot" or "dyke" frequently or often at school, and nearly nine out of ten reported hearing "that's so gay" or "you're so gay" - meaning stupid or worthless - frequently or often.
Over a third of students said they experienced physical harassment at school on the basis of sexual orientation and more than a quarter on the basis of their gender expression.
Nearly one-in-five students reported they had been physically assaulted because of their sexual orientation and over a tenth because of their gender expression.
Read more
From the "Got to be Kidding" Dept: Page One: State House candidate: Separate bathrooms for gay kids
A Republican seeking a state House seat in the land of Larry Craig advocates segregation based on sexual orientation.
Retired Idahoan Walt Bayes, 70, says in campaign literature that it is "absolutely wrong to force any student to share the same bathrooms and showers with homosexual teachers or students."
"I don't really have an answer for it," the Wilder resident told the Idaho Press-Tribune Saturday, "but we're going to have to do something if there's going to be a considerable number of our people who are going to [be gay]."
It would have been "an absolute catastrophe," Bayes said, if he were allowed to shower with girls when he was 18 years old, which is the rationale he uses to advocate such a "separation."
Bayes' political experience consists of a run for State Senate in 2004 and a run for Governor in 2006, which he kicked off with a hunger strike, holding out for almost two months until a state passed a law to challenge Roe v. Wade; South Dakota did so. According to the Gem State Voter Guide, Bayes opposes stem cell research and anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation and gender expression. He supports challenging evolution teachings in public schools and posting the Ten Commandments on public property.
A short video of Walt Bayes, outlining his campaign platform, is available to view at the Idaho Statesman.
Page One:
Retired Idahoan Walt Bayes, 70, says in campaign literature that it is "absolutely wrong to force any student to share the same bathrooms and showers with homosexual teachers or students."
"I don't really have an answer for it," the Wilder resident told the Idaho Press-Tribune Saturday, "but we're going to have to do something if there's going to be a considerable number of our people who are going to [be gay]."
It would have been "an absolute catastrophe," Bayes said, if he were allowed to shower with girls when he was 18 years old, which is the rationale he uses to advocate such a "separation."
Bayes' political experience consists of a run for State Senate in 2004 and a run for Governor in 2006, which he kicked off with a hunger strike, holding out for almost two months until a state passed a law to challenge Roe v. Wade; South Dakota did so. According to the Gem State Voter Guide, Bayes opposes stem cell research and anti-discrimination law based on sexual orientation and gender expression. He supports challenging evolution teachings in public schools and posting the Ten Commandments on public property.
A short video of Walt Bayes, outlining his campaign platform, is available to view at the Idaho Statesman.
Page One:
PageOneQ: Right-wing lawyers: HRC anti-bullying program indoctrinating kids
Representatives of a conservative legal organization contend that a program aiming to foster a healthy learning environment is actually a Trojan horse for the "homosexual agenda."
"The Human Rights Campaign can say what they want, but the program speaks for itself," said Alliance Defense Fund legal counsel Austin Nimocks on Tuesday, "and it's designed to get kids to believe that their sex is not a biological fact, but an inconvenience that's changeable based on how they feel."
"You have the largest homosexual advocacy group in the country now attacking one of the largest public school districts in the country in order to affect the most children that they can with one blow," Nimocks continued.
The Alliance Defense Fund has written a letter of "warning" to Minneapolis school officials about the perceived insidiousness of HRC's "Welcoming Schools" guide.
"As you are aware," the letter opens, "your schools have been targeted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as one of their pilots for instituting its 'Welcoming Schools' project. HRC defines itself as the 'largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization.' In other words, HRC represents only 4.1% of those adults (not children) in America who define themselves as either gay or lesbian. We respectfully request that this memorandum be considered on behalf of the remaining 95.9% of the population, including all children."
The letter goes on to say that HRC's program introduces controversial subject matter on gender identity and "unproven scientific theory that runs counter to American cultural and scholastic interests" to students. Nimocks and colleague Brian Raum also compare the fostering of free gender variance and expression among the "afflicted" to denying a schizophrenic access to medications.
Compiled in response to concerns from parents and teachers, "Welcoming Schools," currently being tested in three school districts including Minneapolis, offers guidelines to parents, guardians, teachers and administrators on promoting an inclusive and welcoming elementary school environment for all students, regardless of their gender expression or family configuration.
Read more:
"The Human Rights Campaign can say what they want, but the program speaks for itself," said Alliance Defense Fund legal counsel Austin Nimocks on Tuesday, "and it's designed to get kids to believe that their sex is not a biological fact, but an inconvenience that's changeable based on how they feel."
"You have the largest homosexual advocacy group in the country now attacking one of the largest public school districts in the country in order to affect the most children that they can with one blow," Nimocks continued.
The Alliance Defense Fund has written a letter of "warning" to Minneapolis school officials about the perceived insidiousness of HRC's "Welcoming Schools" guide.
"As you are aware," the letter opens, "your schools have been targeted by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as one of their pilots for instituting its 'Welcoming Schools' project. HRC defines itself as the 'largest national gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights organization.' In other words, HRC represents only 4.1% of those adults (not children) in America who define themselves as either gay or lesbian. We respectfully request that this memorandum be considered on behalf of the remaining 95.9% of the population, including all children."
The letter goes on to say that HRC's program introduces controversial subject matter on gender identity and "unproven scientific theory that runs counter to American cultural and scholastic interests" to students. Nimocks and colleague Brian Raum also compare the fostering of free gender variance and expression among the "afflicted" to denying a schizophrenic access to medications.
Compiled in response to concerns from parents and teachers, "Welcoming Schools," currently being tested in three school districts including Minneapolis, offers guidelines to parents, guardians, teachers and administrators on promoting an inclusive and welcoming elementary school environment for all students, regardless of their gender expression or family configuration.
Read more:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
