BREAKING NEWS
June 3, 2009
Traditionally conservative New Hampshire today became the sixth state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, after a bill was enacted by both the state House and Senate and then signed by Governor John Lynch.
“Today, we’re standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law,” Lynch said before signing the bill at about 5:20 p.m.
Lynch said it was a New Hampshire tradition “to come down on the side of individual liberties and protections, and that tradition continues today.”
In early May, Lynch reiterated his position that civil unions were best for the state. But two weeks later, he said his thinking had changed. He said society’s views on civil rights have “constantly evolved and expanded” throughout our history. “That is what I believe we must do today.”
Lynch said at the bill signing ceremony that he hoped that despite passionate debate about the issue, citizens would respect each other as they had after the civil union law was passed.
“It is my hope and my belief that New Hampshire will once again come together to embrace tolerance and respect and to stand against discrimination,” he said.
Gay marriage is now legal in Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts — all of the new England states, except for Rhode Island. Gay marriage is also legal in Iowa.
Bill O’ Reilly on Gay Rights
May 15, 2009
An interesting article and view point from Bill O’Reilly’s side of things. I have to say he actually makes a lot of sense, especially the part about those that despise gays like the Religious Nut Jobs, he says, who cares. Ignore it and move on, there’s no point in trying to convince someone like that they’ll just throw some Revelations 666 in your face. Agree to disagree. He says if Same Sex Marriage is everywhere, fine, great, if it happens, he’s not going to try and stop it and says marry whoever you want, but enough of the war between both sides. Focus on other things now.
The conservative, argumentative host of Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor favors gay rights laws and gay adoption but does wish that gays would shut up already. [Reposted from the September 17, 2002 issue of The Advocate.]
Bill O’Reilly is a brash, aggressive man who, at 6 foot 4, towers over everyone around him and exudes the no-nonsense working-class Irish Catholic background he proudly claims as a native of Levittown, N.Y. The nuns at his school had O’Reilly pegged as a handful at an early age. So it’s hardly surprising when the 52-year-old host of Fox News’s The O’Reilly Factor tells The Advocate, “I’ve never, ever, in my life been hit on by another guy. Ever. I don’t give out that aura.”
Any sensible person would wait for him to make the first move. But the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association took the initiative and asked O’Reilly out for their annual convention, and he said yes. He’ll appear by satellite at the group’s mid-September gathering in Philadelphia. Sure, he’s debating whether there’s a liberal bias in the media. But still, Bill O’Reilly? At a gay convention? After all, he continues to insist, “I’ve never understood why anyone, why any American, would want to tell the world what their sexual preference is. It’s no one’s business but yours.”
During an extensive interview at his rather messy Fox News office in New York — “It’s always like this,” he explains — O’Reilly talks about almost every gay issue under the sun, from the gay pride parade (“It’s offensive, it’s foolish, it’s counterproductive, and it backlashes against you”) to gay adoption (he supports it and did a terrific interview with Rosie O’Donnell, but adds, “I’m not looking out for the gays here; I’ve got to tell you the truth. I’m looking out for the kids”).
O’Reilly’s show reaches some 20 million viewers a week, and his books are megasellers. He is the de facto face of hard-line conservatism, the way Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell once were. But O’Reilly is more of an iconoclast than you might imagine. He opposes the death penalty, admires Susan Sarandon, doesn’t think much of Jesse Helms, and supports the decriminalization (but not legalization) of marijuana. He also states flatly that gays and lesbians deserve the same rights in the workplace as everyone else and shouldn’t be fired because of who they are. He thinks gay-inclusive antidiscrimination laws should be enacted in every state and opposes the repeal effort against such an ordinance that’s on the ballot September 10 in Florida’s Miami-Dade County.
And he wouldn’t mind in the least if someone thought he was gay.
“If people want to think I’m gay, fine,” he says. “In fact, I wish I were gay. I’d get a lot more free meals, OK? Somebody take me out to the movies once in a while. I’m sure in my career — because I didn’t get married until very late in life — that people said I was gay. I’m sure they did. I never heard it. But I’m sure it was said once in a while. I wasn’t going to say, ‘No, I’m not gay.’ I don’t care what they say about me. I couldn’t care less. Because that was empowering those people. I learned that very early in life.”
To Read More:
Shanna Moakler – The True Miss Californian
May 14, 2009
Let’s focus on the positive for a change, enough of this Carrie Prejean character, how about a former Miss USA who is actually making an attempt at uniting people together. And never mind that she’s far more smokin’ hot, and far more superior when it comes to human activism that “the other one” that the media have now made ridiculously famous. Time to turn the tables and focus on the true Californian.
Shanna Moakler, mostly known for her marriage to Travis Barker of the Blink-182 fame, is also a former Miss USA, not a Miss California, and is also the director on the Miss California pageant and a member of the panel of judges on the latest national edition, which ended in the Miss California controversy because of diverging opinions on marriage. After speaking up against Carrie Prejean and amidst intensifying backlash, Moakler is again making a stand by participating in the NO H8 campaign.
Just a week after posing for a pro-gay marriage PSA, Moakler spent part of today shooting print and television spots for a new campaign, which she says was inspired by the Miss California controversy.
The campaign is, according to Us Magazine, aimed at slamming Proposition 8 and eliminating discrimination on the grounds of orientation, which is precisely what Prejean did on the Miss USA finale, it is being said. Because Moakler has already spoken her mind about Miss California’s answer regarding marriage, it is believed the campaign is her way of showing the younger beauty queen just how wrong she was when she said that only a man and a woman should be free to legally wed. The fact that two other former California beauty queens are also featured in the new ads only comes to reinforce this.
“It’s called ‘I Believe,’” Moakler explained to me earlier today. “It’s a campaign trying to show the diversity of California and really spreading equality. The Miss California Organization’s slogan is ‘The Beauty of California,’ and that represents everything. That’s what we try to celebrate in our organization.”
Last Friday, Moakler unveiled a PSA for NOH8, which features her and two other former pageant title-holders with duct tape over their mouths as a symbol of pro-gay voices not being heard.
The latest endeavor, produced by the Miss California Organization (Moakler is its executive director), includes about a dozen Miss Universes and Miss USAs.
”I’m really proud and excited about it,” Moakler said. “I think it’s really important that people understand that though Carrie Prejean is allowed to have her opinions, they don’t necessarily coincide with the Miss California Organization.”
And get this—”I Believe” wasn’t the only PSA Moakler shot today. I actually caught up with her while she was filming E!’s very own “Drive Safe” campaign promoting responsible drinking.
Now that’s what I call a positive image for Miss California. Way to go Shanna.
Senator Chris Buttars Forced to Resign for inciting HATE
February 24, 2009
A picture of what most Republicans, Conservatives and Yes on 8 supporters look like now or will look like when they get older, sexy huh:
Welcome to The Senate Site
Friday, February 20, 2009For the RecordBy Chris Buttars
State Senator, District 10 I was disappointed to learn of the Utah State Senate’s censure on Feb. 20, 2009. However, this action will not discourage me from defending marriage from an increasingly vocal and radical segment of the homosexual community. In recent years, registering opposition to the homosexual agenda has become almost impossible. Political correctness has replaced open and energetic debate. Those who dare to disagree with the homosexual agenda are labeled “haters,” and “bigots,” and are censured by their peers. The media contributes to the problem. Increasingly, individuals with conservative beliefs are targeted by a left-leaning media that uses their position of public trust as a bully pulpit. This pattern of intimidation suppresses free speech. For the record, I do not agree with the censure I see it as an attempt to shy away from controversy. In particular, I disagree with my removal as Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, since my work there is entirely unrelated to my opposition to the homosexual agenda. Still, I’m a grown man and I can take my knocks. When it comes right down to it, I would rather be censured for doing what I think is right, than be honored by my colleagues for bowing to the pressure of a special interest group that has been allowed to act with impunity. Thanks to the many citizens who have written and called to express their support. Please know that I’ll live through this to fight another day. In years to come, we’ll all look back at this point in history and see it as a crossroads. I have no intention of resigning.” Previously:
Buttars also came under fire after earlier this month speaking on the floor about a school-funding bill. “This baby is black,” he said according to the Salt Lake City Tribune. “It’s a dark, ugly thing.” The local NAACP demanded that he resign, calling his words “despicable.”
|
POLL SHOWS MAJORITIES OF U.S. ADULTS FAVOR LEGAL PROTECTIONS FOR GAY AND TRANSGENDER AMERICANS
December 3, 2008
Pulse of Equality Survey, Conducted by Harris Interactive, Reports that 75% Favor Either Marriage or Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships for Gay and Lesbian Couples
 |
New York, December 3, 2008 – A new survey conducted by Harris Interactive in the wake of the passage of and protests against California’s Proposition 8 reveals that majorities of Americans favor a broad range of policies and legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people.
The Pulse of Equality survey, commissioned by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), shows that majorities of Americans favor either marriage or civil unions/domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, as well as gay- and transgender-inclusive hate-crimes laws and non-discrimination laws, and allowing openly gay service members to serve in the armed forces, while a majority opposes laws that would ban adoption by qualified gay and lesbian couples.
According to the Pulse of Equality telephone survey among 2,008 U.S. adults ages 18 and older, conducted from Nov. 13-17, 2008, Americans support key policy proposals that affect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Among them:
- Three-quarters of U.S. adults (75%) favor either marriage or domestic partnerships/civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Only about two in 10 (22%) say gay and lesbian couples should have no legal recognition. (Gay and lesbian couples are able to marry in two states, and comprehensive civil union or domestic partnership laws exist in only five others and the District of Columbia.)
- U.S. adults are now about evenly divided on whether they support allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry (47% favor to 49% oppose).
- Almost two-thirds (64%) of U.S. adults favor allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces. (The current “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law bans military service by openly gay personnel.)
- About six in 10 (63%) U.S. adults favor expanding hate crime laws to cover gay and transgender people. (Hate crimes laws cover gay and transgender people in 11 states and the District of Columbia, and an additional – 20 states’ laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.)
- A slight majority of U.S. adults (51%) favor protecting gay and transgender people under existing laws that prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations. (Existing non-discrimination laws cover gay and transgender people in only 12 states and the District of Columbia, and eight other states’ laws cover sexual orientation but not gender identity.)
- Nearly seven out of 10 U.S. adults (69%) oppose laws that would ban qualified gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. (In several states, gay and lesbian couples are banned from adopting.)
“In the Pulse of Equality survey, we observed a positive relationship between knowing a gay or transgender person and one’s attitudes toward them and the policy issues that affect their lives,” said Laura Light, Vice President of Public Relations Research for Harris Interactive. “Based on other surveys we have conducted on attitudes toward LGBT people and issues, the results of this survey suggest that public sentiment in the U.S. is trending toward greater acceptance of gay- and transgender-related policy issues.”
Across the LGBT-related policy proposals, there were statistically significant differences in support with respect to age, gender, race/ethnicity and religion. People under 65, and especially those 18-34, were more supportive than people over 65. Women were generally more supportive than men, with women age 18-34 often being more supportive than other segments. Hispanics were more supportive than Whites and African-Americans in showing strong support for allowing openly gay military personnel to serve in the armed forces. African Americans were more strongly supportive than Whites and Hispanics of expanding existing hate crimes laws to cover gay and transgender people. Mainline Christians (a category that includes, among other denominations, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians) and Catholics were more supportive than Evangelical Christians, and Mainline Christians were often among the more supportive segments on a variety of issues.
The survey also revealed that there has been greater acceptance of gay and lesbian Americans over the last five years. Approximately two in 10 Americans (19%) reported that their feelings toward gay and lesbian people have become more favorable over the past five years, with contributing factors including: knowing someone who is gay or lesbian (79%), the fact that laws have been passed that protect gay and lesbian people (50%), opinions of family or friends (45%) and religious leaders (21%), news coverage of gay and lesbian issues (41%), and seeing gay or lesbian characters on television (34%) and in movies (29%). Nearly three out of four Americans (73%) personally know or work with a gay or transgender person, and half of those who know or work with someone who is gay or transgender know five or more gay or transgender people.
“The visibility of the past several years, and the intense conversations of the past few weeks, seem to have galvanized a majority of Americans’ support of equality for gay and transgender Americans,” said GLAAD President Neil G. Giuliano. “While this expression of support is encouraging, particularly after the setbacks we experienced on Election Day, it’s not something we can rest on. There is a lot of work to be done. We must all do what we can to sustain and expand this emerging wave of grassroots activism so that it leads to laws and policies that extend full equality under the law to all Americans – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight.”
Giuliano suggested that one of the crucial issues facing LGBT people is that many Americans aren’t aware of the injustices that they face.
“Majorities of Americans clearly favor equality for gay and transgender people,” Giuliano added, “but we’ve seen that too many still mistakenly believe that the intolerance and injustices we face are things of the past. So it’s more vital than ever that we tell our stories, illustrate the injustices we face, and remind people of the common ground we share.”
About the Survey
GLAAD commissioned Harris Interactive to conduct a nationally representative survey among U.S. adults over the age of 18. The objective of the study was to understand public opinion on LGBT people and LGBT-related policy issues. The total sample includes 2,008 U.S. adults ages 18+, surveyed from November 13 to November 17, 2008. Interviewing was conducted by telephone using random digit dialing (RDD). Results were weighted as needed using age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, number in household, and household income to be representative of the U.S. population of adults age 18 and over.
About GLAAD
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of people and events in the media as a means of eliminating homophobia and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. For more information, please visit www.glaad.org.
About Harris Interactive®
Harris Interactive is a global leader in custom market research. With a long and rich history in multimodal research, powered by our science and technology, we assist clients in achieving business results. Harris Interactive serves clients globally through our North American, European and Asian offices and a network of independent market research firms. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.
###
Yes on 8 Supporters Get Slap On the Hand
December 3, 2008
Resolution Opposing Prop. 8 Introduced in California Legislature
It looks like all those Yes on 8 supporters are on their way to finally getting that hard slap in the face they all deserve. Justice is on it’s way and is going to be served, because any kind of hate is intolerable, and voting to take rights away from a group of American Citizens is not only disgusting, but it’s inexcusable in the eyes of the law.
Members of California’s senate and assembly introduced a resolution on Tuesday, opposing the passage of Proposition 8. With the resolution, sponsors Sen. Mark Leno and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, both San Francisco Democrats, suggest that Proposition 8 represents an improper revision of the state constitution. They maintain that both houses of the California legislature must approve any proposed revision to the constitution by a two-thirds vote before it can even go on the ballot, which was not the case with Prop. 8.
The California supreme court is slated to hear arguments for and against the proposition in March 2009. Legal and civil cases and suits have been filed with the Supreme Court on November 5 and since challenging the validity of the marriage ban. The suit was filed even before Equality California, the official group that organized to defeat Prop. 8, had conceded defeat.
The court has repealed only two ballot measures in its history, a 1966 law that would have allowed racial discrimination in housing, and an anti-immigration proposition passed in 1994, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The resolution is a public decree, showing that the state legislature takes an official stance on an issue, and not actual legislation. While the document has no law-binding power, it is likely to be directed to the supreme court as it make its decision next spring. This is only the beginning in a long line of justice serving retaliation against the Yes on 8 supporters to put an end on hate.
Defending Traditional and Biblical Marriage
December 2, 2008
Defending Biblical Marriage
Since certain politicians are working diligently to prevent marriage between two people of the same sex, I believe we should draft a Constitutional Amendment codifying all marriages entirely on biblical principles. After all, God would not want us to “pick and choose” which of the Scriptures we elevate to civil law and which we choose to ignore. Below is a draft of such an amendment, I hope this helps to clarify the finer details of the Government’s righteous struggle against the infidels and heathens among us.
Draft of a Constitutional Amendment to Defend Biblical Marriage:
* Marriage in the United States of America shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)
* Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
* A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
* Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30, 2Cor 6:14)
* Since marriage is for life, neither the US Constitution nor any state law shall permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9-12)
* If a married man dies without children, his brother must marry the widow. If the brother refuses to marry the widow, or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
* In lieu of marriage (if there are no acceptable men to be found), a woman shall get her father drunk and have sex with him. (Gen 19:31-36)
After reading this, ask yourself one question: “Are you sure you want to defend the traditional biblical definition of marriage?”
Catholic leaflet’s support for gays
December 1, 2008
|
|
|
Florida Court Strikes Down Gay Adoption Ban!
November 25, 2008
In the Wake of the horrible Proposition Hate, I mean Proposition 8 passing, courts across the country begin striking back against the people of this country who are on a rampage to take rights away from individuals who are more capable then them to be in relationships and to adopt. We begin seeing the first of a long line of goodness coming down from the United States Courts, beginning with the State of Florida. What a beautiful surprise this was.
Florida Trial Court Opens Way For Lesbians And Gay Men To Adopt
Court strikes down ban, ruling Two Foster Children Can Be Adopted by Gay Foster Parent
|
November 25, 2008 |
|
MIAMI – A Florida circuit court today struck down a Florida law that bars lesbians and gay men from adopting. The court granted adoptions to a gay man, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, who has been raising two foster children since 2004.
“Our family just got a lot more to be thankful for this Thanksgiving,” said Martin Gill, a North Miami resident who is raising two brothers, four and eight, with his partner. “We are extremely relieved that the court has recognized that it is wrong to deny our boys the legal protections and security that only come with adoption.”
The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection guarantees of the state constitution because it singles out for different treatment gay people and the children they raise for no rational reason. The court also found that the ban denies children the right to permanency provided by federal and state law under the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.
“While the decision will be welcome news to many lesbian and gay Floridians, the children in Florida foster care are the real winners today,” said Leslie Cooper, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project and a member of the legal team that tried the case. “The court put the interest of the children first, recognizing that the gay ban served no legitimate purpose and only made it more difficult for the state to find homes for the many children in foster care.”
The court’s decision comes after a four-day trial in October where the court heard from experts on children’s health and development and listened to the justifications offered by the state for the ban. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the false assumptions and stereotypes about gay people presented by the state, holding that many “reports and studies find that there are no differences in the parenting of homosexuals or the adjustment of their children. These conclusions have been accepted, adopted and ratified by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatry Association, the American Pediatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Child Welfare League of America and the National Association of Social Workers. As a result, based on the robust nature of the evidence available in the field, this Court is satisfied that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption.”
The court also rejected claims by the state that children do better when raised in homes with a mother and a father and that children raised by gay parents face social stigma. The court found, “. . . the professionals and the major associations now agree there is well established and accepted consensus in the field that there is no optimal gender combination of parents.”
“Judge Lederman made clear today that it violates every rule of decency and fairness to threaten to tear a four-year-old boy from the only home he has ever known, and to send him to strangers who don’t even know him simply because his beloved Papi is gay,” said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the LGBT Project of the ACLU of Florida and one of the attorneys who tried the case.
Martin Gill and his partner of more than eight years became foster parents to the two boys on December 11, 2004. The couple, who had been parents to seven other foster children over the years, was initially told that the placement would be temporary, but a plan to place the children with their grandmother fell through. Both boys had significant health problems when they arrived in the home. The older boy, who was four at the time, was withdrawn and didn’t speak. Today both boys are healthy, have lots of friends and are doing well in school. The older boy started out behind educationally and had to repeat the first grade, but with the couple’s help, he has progressed significantly.
The Florida law barring lesbians and gay men from adopting is the most expansive anti-gay parenting law in the country. It was passed in 1977 in response to an anti-gay crusade led by former Miss America and Florida orange juice spokesperson Anita Bryant.
In addition to Cooper and Rosenwald, Gill is represented by James Esseks, Litigation Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project and Shelbi Day, a Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Florida. The children are represented by Hilarie Bass and Ricardo Gonzalez of Greenberg Traurig, and Charles Auslander, an attorney and former District Administrator for Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF).
For additional information about the case, including a video and podcast of Martin Gill talking about his experiences as a foster parent as well as a copy of today’s decision and a copy of the trial transcript, visit www.aclu.org/gill.
##
California Senator Dianne Feinstein supports Gay Rights
November 25, 2008
California Senator Dianne Feinstein has long been a supporter of gay rights. In an interview for NBC Nightly News with Maureen Dowd she talks about her decision to speak out against Prop. 8 in California and her evolving views on same-sex marriage.
“I think as more and more people have gay friends, gay associations, see gay heroism, that their views change,” Feinstein said. “I think people are beginning to look at it differently, I know it’s happened for me.
“I started out not supporting it. The longer I’ve lived, the more I’ve seen the happiness of people, the stability that these commitments bring to a life. Many adopted children who would have ended up in foster care now have good solid homes and are brought up learning the difference between right and wrong. It’s a very positive thing.”
Feinstein had previously said that while she would not endorse a statewide ban on same-sex marriage, she supported civil unions over “redefining” marriage.
