(Ponce De Leon, Florida) After a two-day trial in which a Florida high school principal testified that he believed clothing, buttons or stickers featuring rainbows would make students automatically picture gay people having sex, a federal judge today ruled that the school violated the First Amendment rights of students.
Heather Gillman, a 16-year-old junior at Ponce de Leon High School, sued the school with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union after she was told she could not wear buttons, stickers or clo0thing that supported LGBT civil rights.
After she received the warning the ACLU last November sent a letter to the school board’s attorney on behalf of Gillman, asking for clarification as to whether a variety of symbols and slogans, such as the rainbow flag or “I support my gay friends,” would be allowed at the school.
The school district replied that it would not allow any expressions of support for gay rights at all because such speech would "likely be disruptive."
The district then said that such symbols and slogans were signs that students were part of a "secret/illegal organization."
Judge Richard Smoak of the United States District Court issued an order Tuesday that forces the school to stop its censorship of students who want to express their support for gay people. The judge also warned the district not to retaliate against students over the lawsuit.
"Standing up to my school was really hard to do, but I’m so happy that I did because the First Amendment is a big deal to everyone," said Gillman in a statement.
During the trial, which was held in Panama City yesterday and today, Ponce de Leon High School’s principal David Davis admitted under oath that he had banned students from wearing any clothing or symbols supporting equal rights for gay people.
Read more:
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
The Star Press: Ball State student says attack was hate crime
MUNCIE -- A gay Ball State University student said he and his friends were attacked in The Village early Friday morning because of their sexuality.
I consider it a hate crime," said the student, Kyle Flood.
Flood, 21, Indianapolis, suffered a swollen eye, cuts and bruises and a scratched cornea that required treatment at Ball Memorial Hospital.
No arrests had been made as of Monday.
Ball State University Police Chief Gene Burton said attacks on gay students were rare.
"Let me put it this way, I've seen it before," Burton said. "But I could not tell you the last time."
News of the attack had started to spread among students as of Monday, according to Travis Schilla, president of Spectrum, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.
Students should not panic, Schilla said, but be reminded to be aware of their surroundings and travel to and from bars and social events in groups.
"Ball State is a really a safe campus and the administration has taken this seriously," Schilla said. "Everyone is taking this seriously. It's been really good to see that people care."
Crimes based on sexual orientation represented 15.3 percent of all hate crimes reported in FBI hate crime statistics in 2006, according to Mark Potok, director of The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, a hate crime monitoring group.
Read more:
I consider it a hate crime," said the student, Kyle Flood.
Flood, 21, Indianapolis, suffered a swollen eye, cuts and bruises and a scratched cornea that required treatment at Ball Memorial Hospital.
No arrests had been made as of Monday.
Ball State University Police Chief Gene Burton said attacks on gay students were rare.
"Let me put it this way, I've seen it before," Burton said. "But I could not tell you the last time."
News of the attack had started to spread among students as of Monday, according to Travis Schilla, president of Spectrum, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students.
Students should not panic, Schilla said, but be reminded to be aware of their surroundings and travel to and from bars and social events in groups.
"Ball State is a really a safe campus and the administration has taken this seriously," Schilla said. "Everyone is taking this seriously. It's been really good to see that people care."
Crimes based on sexual orientation represented 15.3 percent of all hate crimes reported in FBI hate crime statistics in 2006, according to Mark Potok, director of The Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, a hate crime monitoring group.
Read more:
PFLAG National Blog: PFLAG Moms & Dads on ‘Brothers & Sisters’
On Sunday night, ABC’s hit drama Brothers & Sisters took one big step into history with network television’s first same-sex wedding between two series regulars.
Sunday’s episode - which included one character’s lament that not all parents can be as accepting as PFLAG parents - may be the most talked about GLBT television moment since Ellen DeGeneres came out in primetime. And this morning, The Daily Herald talks to PFLAG members in the Chicago area about their reactions to the Brothers & Sisters vows.
“It was amazing, because 11 years ago, people gathered in their room to watch ‘Ellen,’ and all she did was accidentally turn around and say, ‘I’m gay’ in front of a microphone,” Barbara Schon-Lundberg, editor of the suburban newsletter for PFLAG, tells columnist Burt Constable. “And now, they were kissing and there wasn’t an uproar. … They had a wedding, and it was so beautiful. There were so many things that just touched my heart.”
“From the time Ellen came out, as far as what goes on TV now, it’s certainly lightened up a lot,” PFLAG leader (and mom) Shelley Carlson adds.
“When we watched Ellen, it (homosexuality) was really the main issue on the show,” says Dennis Blaha, a PFLAG dad who was living in Elk Grove Village then. “This (’Brothers & Sisters’) was like, ‘oh yeah, these two guys are getting married.’ … The other thing I liked is that it was two guys who were in love. It wasn’t about sex.”
Read more:
Sunday’s episode - which included one character’s lament that not all parents can be as accepting as PFLAG parents - may be the most talked about GLBT television moment since Ellen DeGeneres came out in primetime. And this morning, The Daily Herald talks to PFLAG members in the Chicago area about their reactions to the Brothers & Sisters vows.
“It was amazing, because 11 years ago, people gathered in their room to watch ‘Ellen,’ and all she did was accidentally turn around and say, ‘I’m gay’ in front of a microphone,” Barbara Schon-Lundberg, editor of the suburban newsletter for PFLAG, tells columnist Burt Constable. “And now, they were kissing and there wasn’t an uproar. … They had a wedding, and it was so beautiful. There were so many things that just touched my heart.”
“From the time Ellen came out, as far as what goes on TV now, it’s certainly lightened up a lot,” PFLAG leader (and mom) Shelley Carlson adds.
“When we watched Ellen, it (homosexuality) was really the main issue on the show,” says Dennis Blaha, a PFLAG dad who was living in Elk Grove Village then. “This (’Brothers & Sisters’) was like, ‘oh yeah, these two guys are getting married.’ … The other thing I liked is that it was two guys who were in love. It wasn’t about sex.”
Read more:
Monday, May 12, 2008
Washington Blade; The moral compass of Mildred Loving
Civil rights pioneer embraced cause of same-sex marriage
IT IS A rare privilege to meet a person whose life has had a profound effect on the shaping of history. Last May, our organization's founder, Mitchell Gold, along with myself and another colleague, were offered that opportunity as we spent a warm and breezy afternoon with Mildred Loving.
Our visit preceded a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. Faith in America sponsored the event and organized it along with Freedom to Marry and numerous other civil rights advocacy groups.
As a young black and Native American woman, Mildred married Richard Loving, a white man, in the District of Columbia because interracial marriage was illegal in their native Virginia. The couple returned to Virginia and was arrested in the middle of the night for cohabitation as a married couple.In January 1959, they were convicted and given a sentence of one year in prison, but the judge suspended the sentence upon condition that they leave the state and never return together for 25 years. Several years later, the Lovings sued Virginia to overturn their conviction. After losing the case on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, the couple appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard oral arguments in 1967.
On June 12 of that year, the Supreme Court ruled that not only did Virginia's miscegenation law violate the Lovings' right to equality protected by the Equal Protection Clause, it also violated their fundamental right to marry as protected by the Due Process Clause. The resulting decision of Loving vs. Virginia struck down the laws of Virginia and 15 other states that banned interracial marriage.
Since the founding of the American colonies and the first importation of Africans as indentured servants and slaves, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal in America. Maryland instituted the first criminal law to that effect in 1664. They were among some of the oldest laws in America.
DURING LAST YEAR’S celebration of the decision in Washington, Faith in America drew attention to words written by a Virginia appeals court judge in the case in 1965: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red and he placed them on separate continents."
Our intent in drawing attention to that statement was to show how religion-based bigotry was once used as a moral and religious stamp of approval in preventing Mildred and Richard from uniting their lives in marriage. We also intended to show that rejection, aspersion and discrimination receives the same religious and moral stamp of approval in America today as it relates to not only gays and lesbians having the right to marry and other rights but also to their very being.
During our visit with Mildred on that warm afternoon in rural Virginia last May, we asked her how she reacted 40 years ago when she read the words of that judge. I recall noticing a worn Bible resting near her that afternoon as she responded.
Read more:
IT IS A rare privilege to meet a person whose life has had a profound effect on the shaping of history. Last May, our organization's founder, Mitchell Gold, along with myself and another colleague, were offered that opportunity as we spent a warm and breezy afternoon with Mildred Loving.
Our visit preceded a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia. Faith in America sponsored the event and organized it along with Freedom to Marry and numerous other civil rights advocacy groups.
As a young black and Native American woman, Mildred married Richard Loving, a white man, in the District of Columbia because interracial marriage was illegal in their native Virginia. The couple returned to Virginia and was arrested in the middle of the night for cohabitation as a married couple.In January 1959, they were convicted and given a sentence of one year in prison, but the judge suspended the sentence upon condition that they leave the state and never return together for 25 years. Several years later, the Lovings sued Virginia to overturn their conviction. After losing the case on appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, the couple appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which heard oral arguments in 1967.
On June 12 of that year, the Supreme Court ruled that not only did Virginia's miscegenation law violate the Lovings' right to equality protected by the Equal Protection Clause, it also violated their fundamental right to marry as protected by the Due Process Clause. The resulting decision of Loving vs. Virginia struck down the laws of Virginia and 15 other states that banned interracial marriage.
Since the founding of the American colonies and the first importation of Africans as indentured servants and slaves, marriage between blacks and whites was illegal in America. Maryland instituted the first criminal law to that effect in 1664. They were among some of the oldest laws in America.
DURING LAST YEAR’S celebration of the decision in Washington, Faith in America drew attention to words written by a Virginia appeals court judge in the case in 1965: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red and he placed them on separate continents."
Our intent in drawing attention to that statement was to show how religion-based bigotry was once used as a moral and religious stamp of approval in preventing Mildred and Richard from uniting their lives in marriage. We also intended to show that rejection, aspersion and discrimination receives the same religious and moral stamp of approval in America today as it relates to not only gays and lesbians having the right to marry and other rights but also to their very being.
During our visit with Mildred on that warm afternoon in rural Virginia last May, we asked her how she reacted 40 years ago when she read the words of that judge. I recall noticing a worn Bible resting near her that afternoon as she responded.
Read more:
State News: Benefits banned (More proof of negative effects of gay marriage ban)
Although Penny Gardner has been with her partner for 11 years, they still don’t depend on each other when it comes to their health. As a visiting professor in Women, Gender and Social Justice, Gardner isn’t enrolled for health benefits due to her fixed term on campus. But a Michigan Supreme Court ruling has made benefits inaccessible by prohibiting public universities from offering them to partners of gay employees.
“If we were married, we wouldn’t have to jump through all of the hoops,” she said.
Because Gardner and her partner don’t have joint finances, they are ineligible under MSU’s revised health benefits plan.
Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling states that the 2004 ban on gay marriage also prevents state universities from offering health coverage for partners of gay workers.
“It’s deeply disturbing and disappointing, in a broader context of the many ways the campus commitment to rights has been challenged by state legislation,” said Brent Bilodeau, director of the Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender Resource Center.
“What’s most disturbing about the value it shows of LBGT families. It gives the signal that LBGT families are not supported in this state.”
As of October 2007, the university had 54 employees who had a partner enrolled for benefits. Comparatively, there are 7,471 married spouses who are enrolled for benefits.
The university began offering health benefits to same-sex partners of MSU employees in 1997.
In 2004, state voters approved an amendment to the constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, banning gay marriage in state.
After the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the current plan unconstitutional, the university shifted its health benefits policy in July 2007, to a program that does not specifically cover domestic partners.
The new program made benefits available to Other Eligible Individuals that met certain criteria, including joint residency and finances.
Those changes make the recent ruling largely irrelevant to MSU’s benefits plan, said Grant Littke, president of MSU’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Faculty, Staff and Graduate Student Association.
Gardner said the benefits offered by the university are good, but not enough.
Read more;
“If we were married, we wouldn’t have to jump through all of the hoops,” she said.
Because Gardner and her partner don’t have joint finances, they are ineligible under MSU’s revised health benefits plan.
Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling states that the 2004 ban on gay marriage also prevents state universities from offering health coverage for partners of gay workers.
“It’s deeply disturbing and disappointing, in a broader context of the many ways the campus commitment to rights has been challenged by state legislation,” said Brent Bilodeau, director of the Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender Resource Center.
“What’s most disturbing about the value it shows of LBGT families. It gives the signal that LBGT families are not supported in this state.”
As of October 2007, the university had 54 employees who had a partner enrolled for benefits. Comparatively, there are 7,471 married spouses who are enrolled for benefits.
The university began offering health benefits to same-sex partners of MSU employees in 1997.
In 2004, state voters approved an amendment to the constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, banning gay marriage in state.
After the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the current plan unconstitutional, the university shifted its health benefits policy in July 2007, to a program that does not specifically cover domestic partners.
The new program made benefits available to Other Eligible Individuals that met certain criteria, including joint residency and finances.
Those changes make the recent ruling largely irrelevant to MSU’s benefits plan, said Grant Littke, president of MSU’s Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Faculty, Staff and Graduate Student Association.
Gardner said the benefits offered by the university are good, but not enough.
Read more;
Victory Fund News: Austin Texas; Randi Shade unseats incumbent
Victory Fund-endorsed candidate Randi Shade won a seat on the Austin City Council on Saturday, soundly defeating incumbent Jennifer Kim with 64 percent of the vote to Kim's 27 percent. A third candidate, Ken Weiss, earned nine percent.
First-time candidate Shade, an 18-year resident of Austin, will be the city council's first openly gay member.
"I'm thrilled," Shade told the Austin American-Statesman. "I knew it would be an uphill battle to run against an incumbent. But we built a broad coalition of support, and I think people are ready for a change."
The campaign between Shade and Kim became increasingly heated in the weeks leading up to the election, with both candidates launching strong offensives. The American-Statesman reports that Shade accused Kim of being ineffective and inaccessible. She also criticized the incumbent for spending money on things like velvet Christmas stockings and for sending misleading automated calls.
"The attacks that the incumbent made against me were surprising, disappointing and in most instances based on fiction," Shade said.
First-time candidate Shade, an 18-year resident of Austin, will be the city council's first openly gay member.
"I'm thrilled," Shade told the Austin American-Statesman. "I knew it would be an uphill battle to run against an incumbent. But we built a broad coalition of support, and I think people are ready for a change."
The campaign between Shade and Kim became increasingly heated in the weeks leading up to the election, with both candidates launching strong offensives. The American-Statesman reports that Shade accused Kim of being ineffective and inaccessible. She also criticized the incumbent for spending money on things like velvet Christmas stockings and for sending misleading automated calls.
"The attacks that the incumbent made against me were surprising, disappointing and in most instances based on fiction," Shade said.
Box Turtle Bulletin: Former Ex-Gay Spokesperson: “I Was Disowned”
Noé Gutierrez has experienced quite a few twists and turns in his young life. He originally appeared in the gay-affirming video “It’s Elementary,” which teaches school children the importance of respecting diversity. Later, he entered the ex-gay movement and was featured in Dr. Warren Throckmorton’s 2004 video “I Do Exist.” In early 2007, he issued a statement regretting that his story became a part of the “divisive message of the ex-gay movement.” Now he talks about how quickly the ex-gay movement has disowned him, an experience that has an eerily familiar ring among other ex-gay survivors I’ve talked to.
In a long but fascinating statement posted on his web site last month, Gutierrez describes his first-hand account of his involvement in the ex-gay movement. He recounts that while the ex-gay movement preaches about love and compassion toward the ex-gay movement, he found little evidence of it:
"Forgiveness and reconciliation were a promise held at the far end of a road filled with sacrifice, self-discipline, and a commitment to never practice anything related to homosexuality. The amount of mental/emotional stress these ministries place on their members is insurmountable. Everyone seemed to manage the stress through various coping strategies. The most successful coping strategy seemed to be for someone to remain immersed in ex-gay ideology. You could accomplish this by becoming a member of a weekly support group or joining a ministry team as a volunteer or staff. The more active you were in a ministry the less likely you were to doubt your ability to achieve change. In short, you would have to eat, live and breathe ex-gay ministry."
Read more
In a long but fascinating statement posted on his web site last month, Gutierrez describes his first-hand account of his involvement in the ex-gay movement. He recounts that while the ex-gay movement preaches about love and compassion toward the ex-gay movement, he found little evidence of it:
"Forgiveness and reconciliation were a promise held at the far end of a road filled with sacrifice, self-discipline, and a commitment to never practice anything related to homosexuality. The amount of mental/emotional stress these ministries place on their members is insurmountable. Everyone seemed to manage the stress through various coping strategies. The most successful coping strategy seemed to be for someone to remain immersed in ex-gay ideology. You could accomplish this by becoming a member of a weekly support group or joining a ministry team as a volunteer or staff. The more active you were in a ministry the less likely you were to doubt your ability to achieve change. In short, you would have to eat, live and breathe ex-gay ministry."
Read more
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
