The Central Front

RCane is Blowhard

2006-01-27T10:03:00.000-08:00

The Central Front has completed its merge with the Blowhard blog. The Central Front will no longer be posting. Check out Blowhard for all the latest.

Gay Texans Support Miers

2005-10-07T13:09:00.000-07:00

From AMERICAblog: "Dallas gay leaders are a-okay with Miers serving on the court" Seems others are hearing some of the same things I did in regards to Harriet Miers. I agree completely that this is the best we could ever hope to do from a Republican President and I am still firmly in her court.

Miers Submitted Report in Favor of Gay Adoption

2005-10-03T13:54:00.000-07:00

Harriet Miers apparently submitted a report to the house delegates for the ABA that said:

"Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. Sections of Family Law and Individual Rights and Responsibilities." [hat tip David Drum]

Just because a lawyer argues on behalf of a client on any issue, does not mean a lawyer personally believes that point of view. John Roberts had in his background as a lawyer work which also was gay supportive. Conservatives used the "not necessarily his opinion" defense to deflect criticism within their ranks. Is it simply coincidence that both of Bush's nominees have seemingly worked in support of gay rights in the past or is it evidence that Bush truly isn't as socially narrow minded as he is often portrayed? Obviously President Bush realizes the impact on the future of this country both of these choices will have for many years to come. He did the FMA "dance" to get elected knowing full well that its chances for going any further than rhetoric were slim. Gay marriage has rarely left his lips since the election except when really pressed on the issue from the far right. I have always thought he was much more a centrist and political opportunist than people gave him credit for. Now that he doesn't have to worry about re-election, maybe he has nominated people that really are what they seem without either side's spin... an intelligent man who believes in equality and a good friend who is from all accounts very bright and at first blush, also seems to favor equal rights for all americans.

Wild about Harriet

2005-10-03T10:26:00.000-07:00

Unlike some of my more knee-jerk bretheren who seemingly expect everything President Bush does to be a sign of the apocolypse, I am quite delighted with the nomination today of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court Justice. True, she has very little paper trail but from the scuttle butt I hear out of north Texas, she seems possibly to be very in the mold of O'Conner, a Justice I admire. I also have to admit to a smile or two at seeing the uber right wing's knickers more than just a little in a twist. A couple of ramblings this morning have centered on the points that she is a 60 year old unmarried woman and a close, personal friend of George W's. These to me, have some interest. A blog I follow closely, Gay Patriot had this to say:

"After all isn’t every strong, single woman with no kids a lesbian?"

He was referring to the left's reaction and estimating that it wouldn't be long until someone made this leap of logic. Lesbian status or no, being 60 years old and never having married does bring up some fascinating questions. What we have before us is either a 60 year old virgin or (at least at some point) a sexually active un-married woman. I couldn't give less than a care about whether or not she is a lesbian although I will admit to a few well placed calls this morning to Dallas A-List sisters who lean rightward asking if anyone had ever seen her say... maybe... at the Moon for a little night out with the girls or at some of the better parties. But, this is a woman who would have spent her twenties in the late 60's early 70's era of free love. While certainly not everyone had the same experiences through that time frame, I find the thought refreshing that she just might not have been as uptight as some of the more conservative of our species would like. And, if she isn't certified nunnery ready, then it will be refreshing to have someone sit on the bench who could possibly understand the complexities faced by today's women in the areas of birth control, responsibility and yes, choice. Also, having supported Lloyd Bentsen at one point in her life with at least her checkbook, says to me that she has possibly experienced the world from different points of view. Others such as Power Line have talked widely about the fact that even though to most people Harriet Mier is an unknown quantity:

"The only positive spin I can think of is this: President Bush knows Miers well"

Some are using this statement to streghthen her conservative creditentials. I too think that the one person who knows exactly what kind of Justice she will be is George W. Bush. I just don't think this makes her as socially conservative as some folks would like. I base this largely upon the fact that I don't think George W. is all that socially conservative. I mean he talks a good soundbite, but then what politician doesn't. I feel most of his more arch conservative utterances are more political expediancy than actual heartfelt belief. Look at his life. He himself has acknowledged that he had a wild youth until his conversion, which I am quite sure, was sincere and hearfelt. However, those "youthful transgressions" he is so quick to talk about, at least in general also give him insite into how the fair bulk of America lives. Most of us aren't red, blue, black or white but live in the lovely world colored some shade of purple and gray. President Bush has acknowledged having gay friends. He has a pretty good record of diverse appointments, though some are a little too hard edge ideologue for my tastes. I think he is much more centrist at heart than either side likes to believe and I truly feel this nominee reflects that centrist philosophy. That my friends, is why I am "wild about Harriet."

Interesting Test I found at GayPatriot.org

2005-10-03T07:13:00.000-07:00

You are a Social Liberal (60% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (41% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

It Was Bound To Happen...

2005-09-01T07:21:00.000-07:00

This is just disgusting.:

"'We must help and pray for those ravaged by this disaster, but let us not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long,' Marcavage said. 'May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God,' Marcavage concluded."

Update...

2005-08-11T11:39:00.000-07:00

I apologize for being away so long from the blogging world. I have been working on the opposition to the marriage amendment in Texas, plus working on finishing up a book. This has kind of eaten my time. Though fear not (or be afraid, very afraid depending on your point of view), The Central Front will be relaunching in September with a new look, new format and hopefully fresh, intriguing and thought provoking postings. See you all soon... R

Betty Naylor, Our Champion

2005-06-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

From The Austin Chronicle:

"Our government is totally participatory. If you don't participate, your opinion means nothing. How many people do you know even know who their representatives are ... or their council members? That's pathetic, in my opinion. If we all knew, then the people, not the elected officials, would run government.' " -- Betty Naylor

This is a great feature story on a true Texas legend. Betty Naylor is a gift to our community. She is an intelligent, deligent advocate. A great lady and a great friend.

Billy Graham On Gay Marriage

2005-06-16T12:15:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"Cautious even in his more active years, Graham now seeks to shun all public controversies - preferring a simple message of love and unity through Jesus Christ. Asked about gay marriage, for instance, Graham replied that "I don't give advice. I'm going to stay off these hot-button issues.'' "

This is from Billy Graham, a minister one can respect. Certainly he has had his moments, for we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But over all, a great religious leader. The sentence below sums it up. Wouldn't it be wonderful if all in the religious community adopted this simple premise.

"I don't throw rocks at anybody,'' he said. "That's not my message. My message is the Gospel of Christ.''

Swaggert Endorses "Gaycide" From The Pulpit

2005-06-16T12:13:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"According to a transcript of the program, Swaggart said: 'I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died.' "

It's nice to see that Jimmy has mellowed in his old age.

Forgive me for my absence...

2005-06-08T14:44:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to put a little post up concerning my absence. I have been busy working on the ground to help stem the tide in Texas regarding the Marriage Amendment. That has kept me hopping with little free time to post. Thanks for all the emails of concern. But I haven't dropped out, simply taking a vacation to use some good old fashioned elbow grease in the fight. Anyone wishing to join in or would like resources they can use visit the Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas' website at http://www.lgrl.org. Some great information is up there. I will be back!

In Support of Civil Unions Part II

2005-04-28T09:11:00.000-07:00

As events in Connecticut unfold, I become more convinced that Civil Unions are a logical, achievable step along the path toward gay marriage. There are some in the struggle who seem determined to continue an all or nothing stance. In my view, this is not the correct position to take. According to the latest Gallup poll concerning gay marriage there is growing opposition to the concept of same-sex relationships being recognized as a "marriage." As I wrote here, only 45% of those surveyed believed that neither gay marriage or civil unions should be recognized. This would appear to show that there is majority support for civil unions since when asked 71% of Republicans and 51% of independents opposed gay marriage. Only 45% of Democrats support gay marriage. Achieving gay marriage through judicial fiat may for the time being institute gay marriage but the reactions to the events in Massachusetts shows us that this methodology only fuels opposition. The results of this have been obvious as more and more states have pending or passed state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. (see full map here) The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA), though talked about prior to the Massachusetts decision, hadn't garnered the traction needed in the majority of citizens to pose much of a threat. Once more and more individuals, whether they be judges, councilmen, mayors, etc. began to institute or impose gay marriage if you will, the backlash began to grow. The FMA is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. This is why the path to gay marriage should not be through the courts. As we have seen, this route only fuels the support necessary to implement a constitutional amendment that would be very difficult to prevent and harder to overturn. The FMA, in it's current form, would not only ban gay marriage but could also strip away rights already in place as we have seen in Ohio, Michigan and other states. As more states act in this manner and more court cases are filed which challenge the constitutionality of current state amendments, the issue will eventually land with the Supreme Court. To many, this makes the case for the FMA. Courts should not be allowed to overturn the will of the people. Some of this is due to an outright hatred of gay Americans but not all. Some accepting and tolerant people oppose this action because of the undemocratic nature of the acts themselves. Gay marriage, in their view is being imposed upon the citizenry. True conservatives can oppose gay marriage based simply on these grounds without being homophobic. True liberals can oppose it based upon the same reasoning. It is time to turn this tide and relinquish the fight for gay "marriage". We must change the debate. As with any civil rights movement, there are discussions going on about the impact to society, the imposition of moral values and the will of the people. I spoke today with John Hanson, the host of In Black America, about the parallels between the civil rights movement and the movement for gay equality. While the two are not necessarily the same, there are commonalities and much can be learned from looking at the history of the civil rights movement in regards to African Americans. In our conversation we spoke about the concept of separate but equal. We both agreed that this is a misnomer because it never is but there is substance to the argument that it might have been and can possibly be a positive step along the path. To quote John, "people's attitudes have to change and when you move too far too fast you can end up moving backward instead of forward." Separate but equal can force people to interact at a level in which they are comfortable at the time. It allows people the room to explore the concepts without having them thrust upon them. It gives people the space to change while making things markably better for those being discriminated against. It should never be the ultimate goal, and I am not suggesting that, but as a first step, it can be an important one. Our focus now as gay Americans should be the realistic approach of civil unions. From polling data this appears to be a battle that can be won and it would be a major step to securing the sanctity and rights of gay relationships. Connecticut passed legislation which was signed into law recognizing civil unions. It is the first state to do so without a mandate to act from the judiciary. Reactions have been mixed but not overwhelmingly negative. GayPatriot reports today:

"... only about 3,000 opponents of the state's civil union law showed up at a protest of this groundbreaking legislation. This a pretty pathetic turnout, especially since many of those there were bused in from out of state. Pat Trick also observed a number of cars parked near the rally with out-of-state license plates. This limited opposition seems to be a sign that a broad consensus of the citizens of the Nutmeg State are comfortable with the actions' of their state's legislature. And a sign perhaps that the Connecticut legislation may be a model for other states. It may not be a perfect, but it's one huge step on the right direction."

In reviewing the Connecticut bill (read the fully copy here), a couple of sections stood out:

Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law, whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage. Sec. 15. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Wherever in the general statutes the terms "spouse", "family", "immediate family", "dependent", "next of kin" or any other term that denotes the spousal relationship are used or defined, a party to a civil union shall be included in such use or definition, and wherever in the general statutes, except sections 7-45 and 17b-137a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, subdivision (4) of section 45a-727a, sections 46b-20 to 46b-34, inclusive, and section 46b-150d of the general statutes, as amended by this act, the term "marriage" is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition. [emphasis added]

This law grants equal status under the law to gay couples entering into a civil union as is granted to a heterosexual couple entering into a marriage. The difference is in a word -- marriage. Reserving the word marriage to mean a heterosexual union between one man and one woman seems to be a small price to pay at this moment to achieve equality under the law. If the Connecticut law were used as a model for other states, there is one passage I would modify:

Sec. 6. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Any person authorized to join persons in a civil union pursuant to section 4 of this act, who fails or refuses for any reason to join persons in a civil union shall not be subject to any fine or other penalty for such failure or refusal."

This would appear to open a loophole in the law. If all persons authorized to join persons in a civil union could refuse to do so without penalty, then no one could enter into a civil union. While this situation is highly unlikely, this language in the law does open the possibility. Civil Unions, such as the above, should be our focus. They appear achievable, palatable to the majority of Americans, and offer us the opportunity to demonstrate our relationships can, under legal recognition, be a positive asset to the fabric of life in this country.

GOP Retreats From Ban on Gay Foster Parents

2005-04-25T14:45:00.000-07:00

From oregonlive.com:

"Leading Republicans in Texas are distancing themselves from a proposal to make the state the only one to prohibit gays and lesbians from being foster parents. It appears the plan will die without becoming law. The Texas House approved the plan last week, despite concerns that as many as 3,000 children could be removed from their homes. But amid a groundswell of anger and criticism, conservatives backed away from the proposal Friday. " [via gayorbit]

It appears this amendment will die a quiet death in committee. Even the sponsor of the amendment is keeping quiet.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Robert Talton, R-Pasadena, who proposed the ban, said he no longer wishes to discuss the issue.

Gay/Lesbian Lobbiest Kept at Bay

2005-04-25T10:09:00.000-07:00

From the Houston Chronicle:

"When Rep. Robert Talton learned that the gay and lesbian lobby was coming his way last month, he had state troopers posted at his office door to keep them from coming in. " [snip] "It's a waste of both of our times," Talton said. "They have their position and I have mine, so I made a decision not to talk to them." [hat tip to Gay News Blog]

It is obviously hard to reason with someone who has taken such a stance. Talton's actions are nothing new for him. Why fight a losing battle. Energies should be focused on lawmakers who can and will at least speak to all citizen's of Texas, not just those with whom one agrees.

In Support of Civil Unions

2005-04-24T19:01:00.000-07:00

A new Gallop Poll released on April 19, 2005 seems to show support for the federal marriage amendment increasing. Support is greatest among Republicans (71%) and those identifying themselves as independents (51%). Only 45% of Democrats surveyed support the amendment. An interesting point is that when broken down over an age demographic the greatest support for gay marriage came from those in the 50-64 age group. Also those possessing post graduate degrees were the only demographic where there was a majority support for same-sex marriage. This survey seems to tell us that there is broad support for the federal marriage amendment. The bright spot in this survey, for those who believe that same-sex relationships are as valid as their heterosexual counterparts, is that when asked about civil unions, only 45% believed neither gay marriage or civil unions should be recognized. In Connecticut, a civil unions bill which granted same-sex couples rights as married individuals, passed both houses of the legislature and was signed into law by the Governor. This is the first time a legislative body has enacted such protection for same-sex couples without being prompted by the judiciary. This is a major step. The race to civil rights is a marathon, not a sprint. Great societal change, without violent force, does not occur overnight. The United States is still grappling today with issues of equality regarding gender and race. There is a difference in achieving equality under the law and acceptance in society. As with any moral belief, morality cannot and should not be legislated. One gains acceptance by winning the hearts and minds of your fellow citizens. To change attitudes, people must become comfortable with ideas. This takes time and visibility. We as gay Americans need to realize this lesson. While separate is certainly never equal, it can be better than nothing at all. There is support for our relationships to be recognized though not with the word marriage attached. Equality under the law, regardless of what it is called, would protect our families and show others that our relationships are valid. If you will pardon the sports metaphor, those in the struggle for gay equality are focusing more on the touchdown than on the plays necessary to move us along the field to victory. Civil Unions are a logical first step and one that would seem to be achievable. This is where our efforts should be focused at this time. We should un-fuel the scare tactics being used as a weapon to pass even harsher restrictions upon gay citizens by embracing and endorsing the concept of same-sex civil unions.

Bacteria Fights HIV

2005-04-24T11:59:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"Scientists have identified good bacteria already living in some humans that target and trap HIV and may protect against infection. They reported their findings at the 2005 American Society for Microbiology Beneficial Microbes Conference, at Lake Tahoe, Nevada." "The major roadblock in the development of this technology is the lack of financial support. Drug companies and venture capitalists are not interested because the beneficiary populations are infants and women in poor countries," says Tao. He is currently seeking sponsorship from charities or philanthropists to develop this technology.

An interesting development.

Republican Makes Party Line Clearly The Issue

2005-04-24T11:06:00.000-07:00

From Lloydletta's Nooz and Comments:

"If his personal preference for the homosexual lifestyle sways his vote incorrectly and against the Republican Party platform, then I would take issue with that and I would think other people on the (county) executive committee might take issue with that and citizens in Crow Wing County and District 12," Lehman said. - Brian D. Lehman, Crow Wing County Republican Party chair

The Republican party a big tent? This seems to make it clear that anyone is welcome as long as you stick to party lines. Forget independent thought or voting one's conscience is you are Republican.

An Activist Judge is One Who Doesn't Agree

2005-04-24T09:41:00.000-07:00

From The New York Times :

"When it comes to judicial activism, conservative judges are no better than liberal ones - and, it must be said, no worse. If conservatives are going to continue their war on the judiciary, though, they should be honest. They do not want to get rid of judicial activists, a standard that would bring down even Justice Scalia. They want to rid the courts of judges who disagree with them."

This says it all.

Non-Republican = Godless

2005-04-24T08:58:00.000-07:00

From The New York Times:

"As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as 'against people of faith' for blocking President Bush's nominees"

Democrats are no longer just the dreaded evil word liberal but now they are against people of faith. It seems some in the Republican party are using God and religion as the new political litmus test and tying it directly into the Republican party. In other words, if you aren't a Republican, then you are Godless. This and other actions are moving the Republican party closer to being the party promoting a theocracy.

Bill Allows Pharmacists to Deny Treatment

2005-04-24T07:44:00.000-07:00

From CNN.com:

"Reports of pharmacists with particular religious and moral beliefs denying prescriptions for birth control have prompted legislation that would ensure all prescriptions are filled. House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday."

This is a frightening piece of legislation. It could have a lasting impact on health care in this country as it would open the door to doctors and pharmacists only treating on providing service to those whom they deemed worthy. Any person whose lifestyle or beliefs were offensive to a health care professional could be denied choking off avenues for treatment.

"Nobody has a right to come between any person and their doctor," Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and co-sponsor, said Thursday. "Today they might not fill prescriptions for birth control pills. Tomorrow it could be painkillers for a cancer patient. Next year it could be medicine that prolongs the life of a person with AIDS or some other terminal disease."

Family Group Warns Against Gay Content

2005-04-14T14:59:00.000-07:00

From Townhall.com:

"Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. 'Most of us have enough to explain to our children nowadays.' Wildmon warned that late-night programming on Here or LOGO could turn pornographic. 'The very nature of homosexuality is based on eroticism and the infatuation with sex,' he said."

Comcast and Cox Communications have signed up to carry the new networks. Contact these companies and let them know you support gay programming. The only way to combat the AFA on this is with a call/write in campaign of our own.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Under Fire

2005-04-14T14:41:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Washington) Seven members of the House Armed Services Committee have called on Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) to hold hearings to review 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. The seven, all Democrats, made the request a month after the introduction in the House of bill to repeal the military's ban and allow service members to serve openly. All seven also are co-sponsors of the repeal proposal."

Don't Ask, Don't Tell has proven to be an unworkable policy. Hopefully this will go away.

Connecticut Civil Rights Bill

2005-04-14T14:28:00.000-07:00

From gay news blog:

"Same sex couples would have the same rights as married couples, but the word marriage would only be used between a man and a woman. If the bill passes it would make history."

Connecticut is set to put in place the first Civil Unions law which, if I understand what I have read correctly, will provide same sex partners with the rights of married couples. I know this isn't what some would want as to not have the word marriage attached, to them, still leaves us as separate. But this seems to have been more palatable to the mainstream and to me seems like a great step in the right direction.

More On The Minnesota State Senator

2005-04-14T11:34:00.000-07:00

From The Raw Story:

"Minnesota Republican state Sen. Michele Bachman moved to bring a measure allowing a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to go to the Senate floor. The move was made despite the fact that measure had not been approved by the appropriate committees. Outside the Capitol, gay and lesbian activists were marching outside the capitol for equal rights. Koering voted no, the lone Republican to do so, and along with opposition from 34 Democrats, the measure failed. The senator said he cried all the way home."

A Father's Vote for Gay Rights

2005-04-14T11:10:00.000-07:00

From washingtonpost.com:

"What Niemann [Doyle L. Niemann D-Prince Gearge's] did was speak out on the House floor in support of the Medical Decision Making Act, one of two gay rights bills passed in the final days of the Maryland General Assembly's 2005 session, which ended late Monday. 'I am casting this vote for my daughter, who I love dearly, who is 25 and is in a committed relationship with another woman,' Niemann said. 'Now, should we deny her the rights that we would expect that I would expect for my wife and I? No. I'm casting my vote for her.' "

This guy should be applauded.

Poll - 44% Say Homosexuality a Sin

2005-04-14T07:51:00.000-07:00

There is still work to be done... From The New York Times:

"We know from the ugly and irrational fury over the gay marriage issue, and the silly 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the armed forces, that there are still tremendous reservoirs of fear and loathing ready to be unloaded on gay men and women who'd like nothing more than to live their lives freely, honestly and openly. Things are not as bad as they were in 1962, but they're not good. Media reports have applauded the tolerance toward gays that has supposedly developed over the past several years, but I think much of that tolerance is wafer-thin. Millions of gay or bisexual Americans still live their lives locked inside the protective cloak of a falsehood - afraid, for very good reasons, to come out. A poll conducted for NBC Universal's USA Network, which will be showing 'Ring of Fire,' found that 44 percent of the respondents believed that 'homosexual behavior is a sin.' A third said society should not accept homosexuality as a way of life, and 14 percent believed gay athletes should not be permitted to play team sports. "

Scalia and Sodomy

2005-04-14T07:47:00.000-07:00

From New York Post Online Edition::

"WHEN U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (above) spoke Tuesday night at NYU's Vanderbilt Hall, 'The room was packed with some 300 students and there were many protesters outside because of Scalia's vitriolic dissent last year in the case that overturned the Texas law against gay sex,' our source reports. 'One gay student asked whether government had any business enacting and enforcing laws against consensual sodomy. Following Scalia's answer, the student asked a follow-up: 'Do you sodomize your wife?' The audience was shocked, especially since Mrs. Scalia [Maureen] was in attendance. The justice replied that the question was unworthy of an answer.' "

Maybe a tasteless question but certainly an interesting one.

New Blog

2005-04-13T22:03:00.000-07:00

I have started a new blog, Equality Matters. It's purpose is to serve as a clearing house for information and resources regarding the Marriage Amendment currently before the Texas State Legislature.

Minnesota State Senator Comes Out, Endorses "Outing"

2005-04-13T20:12:00.000-07:00

From Raw Story:

"A Minnesota state senator who bucked his party in voting against a measure that would have brought a gay marriage amendment to the floor of the legislature has revealed that he is gay, RAW STORY has learned. The senator, Republican Paul Koering, has also endorsed efforts to expose gay politicians who wield their power to oppose gay rights. " "Somebody who is possibly in the closet and uses their bully pulpit or their position to bash gay people or to make gay people’s lives difficult... and are in essence leading a double life — people like that need to be exposed for the hypocrite that they are," Koering says. “And I sometimes find that, I feel that the people that you find who are hollering the loudest and who are putting people down the most are the ones that have the most to hide,” he added. “They’re so uncomfortable in their own skin that they have to tear everybody else down to make themselves feel good.”

Ready for Primetime

2005-04-13T14:06:00.000-07:00

From CNN.com:

"Three new TV networks catering to gay and lesbian viewers are trying to establish themselves, and all say they support one another -- at least publicly."

GayTV! Finally coming to a living room near you.

Texas Gay Marriage Amendment

2005-04-13T10:33:00.000-07:00

From gay news blog:

"A [Texas] House committee early Monday approved a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage, upsetting some members because it was not on the panel's agenda of items to consider. Two San Antonio lawmakers on the committee said the vote caught them by surprise. Neither was present at the early morning hearing when the item was brought up for a vote by the committee chairman, Rep. David Swinford, R-Amarillo. The discussion was limited and the vote perfunctory, with all six Republicans on the panel voting for it and the lone Democrat in attendance, Rep. Jessica Farrar of Houston, voting against."

The fight is on in Texas.

San Francisco Chooses Gay Pride Grand Marshall

2005-04-13T10:28:00.000-07:00

From Out In San Francisco:

"The community has spoken, and in an incredibly close election, chosen celebrity drag queen and former Miss Gay San Francisco and Empress, Donna Sachet as San Francisco LGBT Pride's Community Grand Marshal. Sachet is one of the most recognizable faces in San Francisco -- gay or straight -- and is an avid community fundraiser, event emcee, television hostess and performer. "

First, I must say congratulations to a dear friend Donna Sachet. Second, this is an exceptional choice. It is always hard when narrowing the field of worthy individuals for any honor. Donna is truly the essence of community pride. Donna works tirelessly for the gay community not only in San Francisco but around the US. She truly sees people as individuals and not labels. She has raised thousands of dollars for various charity organizations. A couple of years ago I blasted off an email and asked her to come to Austin to help me with a fundraiser. Her immediate response was, "Count me in." She came on her own time and her own dime to help my community. Donna's altruism is something I truly admire. So again, congrats my friend. It is well deserved.

FMA is Once Again In Play

2005-04-13T10:26:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Washington) The US Senate will begin hearings Wednesday on a new attempt to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to bar same-sex couples from tying the knot." The amendment was introduced in the Senate in January by Colorado Republican Sen. Wayne Allard. It would deny marriage to same-sex couples and deny the ability to provide any protections to same-sex couples, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions.

Republicans have once again brought back the Federal Marriage Amendment. Note the language denying any protections, even domestic partnerships and civil unions. This isn't about protecting marriage. It is about keeping marriage and all it's associated perks the property of once specific class of Americans -- heterosexuals.

Gay Partner Forced to Move Due to Custody Battle

2005-04-13T10:25:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Annapolis, Maryland) A court ruling that forced a gay father's partner to move out of the house where the father is raising his son has harmed the child and should be dissolved, an attorney argued Tuesday."

For those that don't know, my partner of 10+ years has a son from his previous marriage. I feel for the person in the story above because I know what it is like. My partner and I went through a similar situation here in Texas with his ex-wife. Luckily, through excellent legal representation and help from an openly gay state legislator, we were able to prevail. But I remember what it was like having to watch my partner, who is an exceptional father, visit his child only in the presence of a third party. In Texas (this was in the days of 21.06) his being gay made him a criminal so therefore it naturally followed that he must be a danger to his child. Every time I see an article such as this, I am thankful everyday that common sense prevailed and we won our case. Many aren't as lucky which is why we must be vigilant in protecting our rights as Americans.

Republican Lawmaker Determined to Deny Same Sex Couple's Rights

2005-04-13T10:23:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Annapolis, Maryland) A Maryland lawmaker, angry that he was not able to stop passage of a bill that allows same-sex couples to make medical decisions for their partners, has begun a petition to get the issue on the ballot." Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel) has announced plans to trying to repeal the measure through a voter referendum.

It isn't just to protect the definition of marriage as "one man, one woman", it is about keeping gay relationships stripped of any rights whatsoever.

2005-04-12T12:25:00.000-07:00

My Southpark Character I found the link to do this at Lime Shurbet: "South Park Rules"

From the Heartland of America

2005-04-11T10:05:00.000-07:00

From atwoodkansas.com:

"For those of you who think it is a choice, that would mean at one time you had considered becoming a homosexual. It would be nice to hear your story. " [hat tip andrewsullivan.com]

Very interesting posting from the heartland of Kansas where the battle is raging over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Take the time to read this. Coming from a small town myself, I can empathize completely.

Please Forgive The Light Posting

2005-04-11T07:01:00.000-07:00

I wanted to take a moment to apologize for my absence the past few days. Due to the death of a very close friend, posting will be light. Thanks again for dropping by my little space on the web and we will be back up to speed within the next few days.

Open Letter to Mike Rogers & John Aravosis

2005-04-07T13:42:00.001-07:00

From Gay Orbit :

"My reaction to hearing about a closeted gay person writing, or helping to write, anti-gay legislation makes me want to rip them right out of their closets. But I don't take part in it. Here's why:" [hat tip limeschurbet]

While reading LimeSchurbet's site today I ran across this excellent post over at Gay Orbit. It's subject is "outing" and it is worth the read.

NDT on Gay Activism

2005-04-07T12:27:00.000-07:00

From North Dallas Thirty:

"my point in this is that gay activists who wish to deal with constitutional amendments must stick to facts, not overdramatize the issues, not make threats, and understand the motivations people have for advancing every specific word in the amendment. Namecalling and threatening lawsuits don't work -- we've proven that already. Careful, constructive debate and airing of your concerns, backed up with facts, does work. "

Excellent post today from North Dallas Thirty. As some of you know, I am from Austin Texas. It isn't often we in the "hippyland" of Austin agree with our sometimes stiff shirted brethren from the north, but I have to say this is a thoughtful piece. All of us who are involved in activism need to remember that the words and actions we use, do have an effect. Sometimes it takes the outrageous to make the point. Sometimes though it just takes a well said, careful, thought out argument. The key is to know when to use both.

Gay Marriage and the IRS

2005-04-07T12:13:00.000-07:00

From USATODAY.com :

"The best that I can come up with is to put an asterisk next to 'single' and explain the truth, that I am legally married, that I understand that because of federal and state laws my marriage is not recognized, that I consider this to be an unconstitutional deprivation of the equal protection of the laws to which my spouse and I are entitled, that I am filing the return as 'single' under protest, and that I should be given the opportunity to file as 'married,' whichI am. " [hat tip: rawstoryq]

Now that is an interesting idea. Those of us in committed relationships should do the same and put a similar written protest on our tax returns. This most likely would prevent the IRS from processing the returns electronically and someone (an actual person) would have to handle the return and actually read the remark. This could be an interesting form of protest. Now where is my pen....

Baptist Church Could Deny Funds Over Gay Club

2005-04-06T14:45:00.000-07:00

From the Winston-Salem Journal:

"Mars Hill College could lose nearly $1 million in funding if it approves a club for gay, lesbian and transgendered students. The school is one of five North Carolina colleges affiliated with the Baptist State Convention, which provides nearly $1 million annually to cover operating expenses and fund scholarships, said Norman Jameson, the convention's executive leader for public relations and resource development." [hat tip: rawstoryq]

As a Southern Baptist (or at least raised that way), I don't think the church should push a message of exclusion because Christ clearly sought to include all in his grace. However, I also believe that any church has the right to exercise their religion freely. This is a Baptist University and as such the church has a right to fund or withhold funds as they see fit on whatever grounds. I attended a Baptist University and while educationally it was exceptional, on the social front it was slightly behind the times. At the time I attended there were still separate curfew policies for men and women. I often would find myself at odds with the administration on several stances that they took. Certainly I, as a student, a Baptist and an American citizen, had the right to voice my opinion and be openly critical of the church and it's policies. But the church had a right to those policies whether I agreed or not. I had the choice of supporting those policies or not. I chose to leave the church. As repugnant as I found some of the Church's policies, I still defend their right to have them and to exercise them in their own institutions. Freedom of religion gives them this right. Public institutions however should be free from religion.

Conservative Democrats Help Derail Gay Rights Bill

2005-04-06T14:44:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Olympia, Washington) Republicans in the Washington state Senate, aided by two conservative Democrats, have derailed a gay civil rights bill.
Using a procedural vote they will send the legislation to the Senate Judiciary Committee where it is likely to die."

Not all Democrats are pro-gay. Remember to look at the politician and their record, not just the party they affiliate with, when it comes time to vote. Voting straight Republican or straight Democratic tickets can sometimes help put in office someone who advocates anti-gay policies.

Republicans Help Gay Rights Cause

2005-04-06T14:43:00.000-07:00

Right here in my own backyard. Not all Republicans are anti-gay. You have to look at the person, not just the party they affiliate with. From 365Gay.com:

"(Austin, Texas) A Proposed amendment to the Texas constitution to ban same-sex marriage has been stripped of a clause that would also bar civil unions and same-sex benefits. The amendment, as originally worded, would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but it was expanded to block civil unions as well. It also would bar any legal situations 'similar to marriage' which could void or prevent child custody contracts, living wills, rights of attorney, and other contracts gay and lesbian couples use to protect their rights. 'It just goes too far,' said Rep. David Swinford (R-Dumas) head of the House State Affairs Committee said. Swinford said that if the bill were not rewritten House Republicans would block its passage. "

There is still more work to be done. There will be a move to re-instate the language once the bill comes to the floor. I hope these Republicans and all fair minded people regardless of party, stand against this language.

Editorial on Outing

2005-04-05T08:37:00.000-07:00

From Bay Windows:

"But that is how stories outing closeted political figures should be seen. That most journalists and LGBT activists still can't move past the notion of a right to sexual privacy for public figures seeking to regulate the private sexual lives of Americans is testament to the homophobia that still defines our culture."

An interesting article on "outing". [hat tip: rawstoryq]

Award-winning Lesbian Coach Reaches Settlement with Texas High School

2005-04-05T08:27:00.000-07:00

From nclrights.org:

"The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) and attorney Michael Shirk from the National Education Association/Texas State Teacher's Association negotiated a settlement agreement on behalf of Merry Stephens, an award-winning basketball coach at Bloomburg High School in Bloomburg, Texas, who alleged that the school was trying to fire her because of her sexual orientation. "

The story goes on to say...

"In exchange for Coach Stephens' agreement not to pursue further legal action, the district agreed to pay her the full value of her two-year contract. The settlement came days before a scheduled administrative hearing, after School Board President Derous Byers testified under oath in a deposition that the Board's decision to terminate Coach Stephens was based on the personal anti-gay animosity of several school board members. Mr. Byers also testified that several school board members publicly disparaged Coach Stephen because of her sexual orientation, including stating that she "did not deserve to work" in the district because she is a lesbian."

discrimination against GLBT citizens is becoming more blatant. But in a society that is passing laws allowing doctors to refuse service based upon their religious beliefs, how long will it be before public school administrators can hire and fire based upon their religious beliefs? [hat tip: rawstoryq]

Domestic Partnership Law Upheld

2005-04-05T08:13:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"California's sweeping domestic partner law was upheld today by a panel of judges on the state Appeals Court. Two conservative groups opposing the law, which went into effect in January, sought to have it declared unconstitutional because it gave same-sex couples the most of the rights of marriage. "

A good day in court...

Gay Organization Complains about Gay Business

2005-04-05T08:12:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Cape Town, South Africa) An investigation has begun into the operator of two gay guesthouses who allegedly refused to rent rooms to lesbians and heterosexuals. The complaint was lodged by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, a conservative group that attempted to force police to charge drag queens at last September's Pride celebrations." [The Gay and Lesbian Alliance is described as a rightwing Gay organization]

See the related story to this article as well. Seems the same group tried to get drag queens arrested during their gay pride celebration. I posted this to illustrate my point about how some gay people are taking "the mainstreaming" of gays to the extreme. They too would stoop to persecution of their own who don't conform.

LCR and USA Next

2005-04-04T09:04:00.000-07:00

From BlogActive:

"Now this is AMAZING to me. Just weeks after USA Next used -- without authorization -- a wedding photo of two gay men in a homophobic effort against the AARP, guess who co signed a letter with USA Next? Right. Patrick Guerriero, the head of the recently sued-for-15-million Log Cabin Republicans."

The LCR and USA Next? Talk about strange bedfellows. [UPDATE: I wanted to point out in the interest of clarity that this is a letter regarding Social Security reform that the LCR is on record as supporting. There were also several other organizations which signed the letter in question. I know the LCR is supportive of Republican policies but seeing the LCR logo on any letter with USA Next, an organization that has blatantly used homophobia as a political weapon, seems a little odd.]

Guesthouse Closes Rather Than Admit Heterosexuals

2005-04-04T08:57:00.000-07:00

From IOL: South Africa:

"The owner of two men-only guesthouses in Cape Town would rather close them down than admit heterosexuals, women or lesbians." (hat tip to rawstoryq)

Now you just don't see that very often.

And Speaking of Pansexual Vampires...

2005-04-04T08:53:00.000-07:00

From The Advocate.com:

"Elton John and Bernie Taupin's stage musical Lestat, based on the adventures of Anne Rice's pansexual vampire, will open in San Francisco this winter on its way to Broadway, reports Playbill.com. 'Lestat, one of Anne Rice's most celebrated literary characters, is being brought to the stage in the first-ever collaboration of the legendary team of Elton John (music) and Bernie Taupin (lyrics) on a Broadway production,' according to a statement from the Curran Theater, the venue for the San Francisco run."

As a big fan of both Elton John and Ann Rice, it will be interesting to see what this collaboration brings. I may have to make a trip to the motherland to check this out.

Teasing Can Go Too Far

2005-04-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

From Gay News Blog:

"Students said gay kids do indeed get picked on at the school - but insisted it wasn't a big problem because everyone gets mocked for one reason or another."

Maybe these students didn't see this article: From 365Gay.com:

"(Fair Lawn, New Jersey) Police say they have prevented a potential 'massacre at a high school in New Jersey. 16 year old teen is under arrest, possessing a prohibited weapon and making terrorist threats. The teen cannot be named because of his age. The incident began after the boy was suspended from school for carrying a stun gun. Police were notified and discovered a Web site that he had created 'threatening a massacre' at Fair Lawn High School. On the site he listed a group of people he hated, including gays, teachers, obese people and bullies according to police. He also posted quotes of the teens who killed 13 and wounded 21 at Columbine High School in Colorado in 1999. The site has been taken down. "

So called "innocent mocking" can quickly lead to other things. As the "step"parent of a 17 year old, I realize what high school is like and that students develop their pecking orders. Anyone who doesn't fit whatever mold is usually taunted and pretty much with immunity. School administrators and teachers should be mindful of the psychological impact this "simple childish teasing" can do and what it's consequences can be.

HIV Still Serious

2005-04-04T08:44:00.000-07:00

From Gay News Blog:

"Michelangelo Signorile, the host of a gay-themed talk show on Sirius Satellite Radio, takes a less nuanced view: 'If everyone in your group is beautiful, taking steroids, barebacking and H.I.V. positive, having the virus doesn't seem like such a bad thing.'" It is for that reason that Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, believes the disease is due for an image makeover. He cites a hard-to-miss ad in last month's Out magazine that is embedded with a tiny audio chip and features two robust men on a beach. Opening the magazine sets off the trill of a ringing phone and a man's voice essentially saying he is having too much fun to worry about his chronic illness. Mr. Weinstein has asked the ad's sponsor, Bristol-Myers Squibb, to stop using the ad for the drug, Reyataz. A spokeswoman said the company was re-examining its advertising campaigns. "People are in such denial about how serious H.I.V. is," Mr. Weinstein said. "Unfortunately, the best prevention is seeing people die."

I remember when the ads of this manner first came out. It was refreshing to see images of healthy HIV positive men. This article illustrates the time for these images has past. Without the spector of death surrounding HIV infection and AIDS such as there was in the mid-1980's, many have begun to forget "how serious HIV is."

Texas A&M Hosts Same Sex Marriage Debate

2005-04-04T08:38:00.000-07:00

From The Battalion News:

"A debate over the positive and negative effects that legalizing same-sex marriage would have on the institution of marriage and the family was held Thursday at the J. Wayne Stark University Center."

There isn't anything very earth shaking in this article except for the fact that it took place on Texas A&M campus. A&M is not exactly the most liberal of institutions. I remember going to check it out when I was in high school and considering which university to attend. It definitely had a ultra-conservative vibe.

"I think it was a very good debate," he said. "We (usually) don't get to hear both sides in a clear manner. Too often this issue is too emotionally charged to get anything done."

Nice to see this take place.

School Bans All Clubs To Prevent Gay/Straight Alliance

2005-04-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Cleveland, Georgia) White County school administrators are recommending the cutting of all 'noncurricular clubs' at White County High School. The plan, which would go to White County Board of Education as part of other recommended policy changes, follows on the school system's agreement to allow a club for gays students and supportive classmates to form." The American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia had earlier said an agreement had been reached in which school officials will "drop their attempts to stop" the group."

This school would rather ban all clubs than allow a gay/straight student alliance to form. It never ceases to amaze me how far some will go to prevent a positive gay image.

Crystal And The Gay Communtiy

2005-04-04T08:23:00.000-07:00

From 365Gay.com:

"`I'm not anti-partying or anti-sex,'' [Dan Carleson] said. [Carlson is an ex-addict who has become one of New Yorks leading anti-meth campaingers.]`But how can we fight for our rights as a sexual minority if we don't establish what's right and wrong in our community, and look out for each other.' "

There are conflicting ideas within the Gay community in regards to recreational drug use. I certainly don't advocate it nor do I partake myself. But there is an interesting chasm forming.

"There is anger at the opportunity this phenomenon is giving the rest of the world to associate the gay identity with promiscuous sex, with out-of-control behavior,'' [Jean] Malpas said. [Malpas is a gay psychotherapist in New York who has been handling meth-related cases for four years] "We don't need additional opportunities to be perceived negatively."

Many gay persons tend to blame our plight as a cultural minority and the subsequent discrimination we face on members of our own tribe. We often hear how we are our own worst enemies, what with gay pride parades full of drag queens and floats celebrating sex. How can we be expected to be seen as part of mainstream society when we offer images that show we are not? I would offer that we are not like mainstream society and ask why we should be expected to meld into the homogenized mind set simply to live our lives without discrimination? Why must we return to the closet of blending in? We deserve equal treatment not because we have washed away our uniqueness, but because of those differences. Americans should be free from violence, hate and discrimination regardless of any actions that are not illegal nor harming to any other person. In America we should celebrate differences. Drug use among the Gay community is a scourge upon us but we should combat that head on without judgment.

"Experts say many men in this category are experiencing 'safe-sex fatigue'. They are tired of using condoms, believe medication can contain their HIV, and are emboldened by meth to forget their difficulties and engage in unprotected sex. "Meth was the drug that would turn your head off and allow you to have the sex you thought you were missing out on,'' Kathleen Watt said."

West Hollywood Mayor John Duran summed it up best:

"We didn't come through the AIDS epidemic, and the battles over gays in the military and gay marriage, to end up here, a community filled with drug addicts,'' said Duran, who is gay and HIV-positive. "We've fought too long and too hard to let this drug take us down.''

We should remember that drug use is the true enemy and not add to the shame and isolation abusers already feel by attaching the, "your actions are bringing down the entire gay rights movement" philosophy. Read the article. It is something we should be aware of and should be working to eradicate.

Mark Shields On The State of the Democratic Party

2005-04-04T07:28:00.000-07:00

From CNN.com:

"The immediate question is whether Democrats are now able to see themselves for what they are -- an out-of-power, out-of-office minority, for whom honesty and reform are the only realistic policy and the only hope."

Mark Shields writes an excellent piece on the state of the Democratic Party. The Democrats have a window of opportunity. In fact, recent Republican Party actions have thrown that window wide open. But it is a limited window and it will close soon enough. I think Whoopie Goldberg said it best on Real Time. When speaking on the state of the Democratic Party she said, (and I paraphrase) "Not a ball among them." It is time the Democrats stepped up to the plate and started articulating actual party ideals. Just being the "we hate George Bush and Republicans" party will not be enough if they want to truly make a challenge to retake the Senate, House and even the Presidency in 2008. Make hay while the sun shines. It is time to speak up.

Lott Uses Procedure to Block Vote

2005-04-01T09:22:00.000-08:00

From CNN.com:

"A longtime Republican foe of this year's planned closing of military bases is trying to derail the process by blocking Senate confirmation of the head of the commission that helps pick which facilities will be shuttered, congressional aides and lobbyists said Thursday. Two weeks ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved President Bush's nomination of Anthony Principi, Bush's former secretary of veterans affairs, to be chairman of the commission overseeing the process. The full Senate was expected to vote on the nomination last month before lawmakers left for a holiday break.
But Lott has placed a "hold" on the nomination, said aides and lobbyists speaking on condition of anonymity. The procedural move makes it hard for the Senate to vote on it. They say Lott is expected to try to delay the confirmation of the other eight nominees once the Senate Armed Services Committee approves them."

Wouldn't this be using procedural rules to block a vote on Bush nominees? This isn't exactly the same as using a filibuster to prevent judicial nominees from coming to a vote. That takes more than one person. This does, however, illustrate a growing trend. Recent Republican actions seem to be saying, "we like the rules when they get us what we want." If the rules get in the way then they should either be changed or circumvented. Since Lott obviously embraces the concept of using procedural rules to advance his cause by preventing a vote, shouldn't he share his support by asking his brethren in the Senate to leave the rules in place that would allow the same situation?

Protester Goes Too Far

2005-04-01T09:15:00.000-08:00

From CNN.com:

"Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing. 'Stop the bigotry!' the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana."

Dissent is one thing and I am all for freedom of speech. I advocate almost daily for the open exchange of opposing ideas. This, however, is stepping over the line. I don't care which side of any issue someone is on. The right to dissent does not cover physical contact of any kind. Buchanan refused to press assault charges and that, to me, shows he is the bigger person.

Mary Cheney Couldn't Share Her Thoughts While Working On Campaigns

2005-03-31T12:07:00.000-08:00

From CNN.com:

"Matalin, a Republican pundit and strategist, said the book would give Cheney a chance to give her thoughts on the issue -- something she couldn't do while working on the campaigns."

Mary Cheney is writing a memoir with Mary Matalin. Nothing groundbreaking there. But I did find the above quote to be interesting. Matalin, who was a central figure in the Bush/Cheney campaign, said, "something she couldn't do while working on the campaigns." My question would be why couldn't she share her thoughts on issues then and will she be addressing why she couldn't in her book? *UPDATE: One of the above questions has been answered. MTV.com is reporting:

"Republican political strategist Mary Matalin, the head of Simon & Schuster's new conservative publishing subdivision, Threshold, said that Cheney was barred from discussing her personal life while working as a top aide on her father's 2000 and 2004 campaigns, but that the memoir will give her an opportunity to speak her mind." [hat tip:gay_blog.blogspot.com]

So I guess we now know why she couldn't. She was barred from discussing her personal life. Now the $500,000 question is, will Mary Cheney address this in her book and give her opinion on how it felt to be openly gay yet barred from speaking about her life. As many times as those grandchildren were trotted before the cameras, I would bet her heterosexual married sibling didn't receive the same treatment in regards to their personal life.

Ohio Closes Loophole Only For Heterosexuals

2005-03-31T11:56:00.000-08:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Canton, Ohio) A state lawmaker from northeast Ohio says he'll introduce a bill this week to close a perceived loophole in the domestic-violence law created by the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Democratic state Representative William Healy of Canton says his bill would define domestic violence as an act committed when individuals reside together, regardless of marital status."

The article also says:

"However, the change in the law will only affect heterosexuals in non married relationships. The domestic abuse law will not apply to same-sex couples because of the constitutional amendment."

Now wait, wouldn't that be special rights?

GayPatriot Responds to Interview Request

2005-03-31T06:35:00.000-08:00

After my interview with Michael Rogers, I emailed GayPatriot and requested an interview with him on the same subject, offering him space to respond in his own words. I made the request via email because that is the only way I had of contacting GayPatriot as we had exchanged emails earlier. This morning I recieved this response from GayPatriot:

I appreciate the offer....and this is my official response: "On the advice of my legal counsel I cannot comment on the situation until it has been resolved through the proper channels."

I thanked GayPatriot for responding to the email and told him basically that my offer stood. I will be glad to present GayPatriot's side of the story, accurately and in his own words, when he chooses to speak on the record.

Michael Rogers Goes On The Record

2005-03-30T17:46:00.000-08:00

This evening I conducted a telephone interview with Michael Rogers of BlogActive.com. He agreed to an on the record interview regarding the situation between himself and GayPatriot. [writer's note: I refer to GayPatriot by that name because that is the name he wrote under. GayPatriot has since been identified but I chose to use his pen name. UPDATE: What follows is a recounting of that conversation not an actual transcript of the interview.] GayPatriot posted to his site Michael Rogers' picture with the following caption, ""WANTED! Let's do something about these gay terrorists who have infected our community with their hatred and self-loathing bigotry of gay Americans who wish to live their lives in peace." GayPatriot then removed the post and added one informing his readers that he was no longer associated with the GayPatriot site and would no longer be writing as GayPatriot. Later in the day, he posted an entry informing readers that the GayPatriot website did not advocate violence. Since that time the blogosphere has been buzzing with various theories as to what transpired. Presumably GayPatriot released his side of the story through Christian Grantham and we have no reason to doubt Grantham's reporting on this issue. Michael Rogers admits to calling GayPatriot's place of employment on two separate occasions. The purpose of the calls was to speak with GayPatriot directly. In the first call he spoke with the person that answered the phone, a lady, and asked to speak with GayPatriot. According to Rogers, he was not available and he left a message that he would like to speak with him regarding a posting to the GayPatriot website which possibly had legal ramifications. He also said he made it clear that he was not accusing GayPatriot of anything. After a period of time when he had not received a return call from GayPatriot, he called again. When asked directly if he was at any time threatening during these calls, Rogers denied such allegations. He did however say that GayPatriot was the public representative for his firm. As such, Rogers felt he had the right to speak with the shareholders of the company regarding the actions of GayPatriot as those actions could be viewed as detrimental to the company and that he subsequently told GayPatriot this. I asked Rogers if he had seen the posting in question. He stated that he had. He said that he immediately felt as if his life had been threatened. The posting, in his opinion, appeared to be a "hit list." Rogers said he had seen this sort of tactic used before against doctors who perform abortions and felt that someone would take this posting to be a call to do violence against him. He felt threatened. Rogers related that he did speak directly to GayPatriot about the posting and told him of his feelings. At this point he says that GayPatriot began speaking in a loud manner and told Rogers that he was going to kill himself. Rogers said GayPatriot repeated the claim that he was going to kill himself and hung up the phone. Rogers was shaken by their conversation and was going to call the police because he was actually afraid that GayPatriot could possibly follow through. Rogers then said that GayPatriot called him back and told him that he only did that to make a point to Rogers. Rogers has been actively involved in revealing the sexual orientation of several prominent figures. According to Rogers, GayPatriot said he was trying to show Rogers how that felt and asked him how he would feel if someone did actually kill themselves because of something Rogers had said or wrote. Rogers stated in our interview that this was the basic nature of all the telephone conversations he had with GayPatriot. He stated he never asked him to quit writing and he stated for the record that he has no legal actions pending against GayPatriot at this time. Rogers said he has tried to contact GayPatriot's lawyer regarding this subject but has not received a return call. Rogers does stand by his feelings that the "wanted" posting was a call for action. In our interview he said that if someone posted a picture of George Bush with the same wording found with his picture on GayPatriot's site, that they would most likely be investigated. He felt those words were used intentionally and with a reason. However, when asked if GayPatriot should return to writing Rogers says that is "his decision" and that he doesn't really have an opinion either direction. Rogers also pointed out that he had encouraged GayPatriot to start his blog. I asked Rogers about the "outing" of others. Rogers prefers the term "reporting" to "outing". I asked him what the threshold should be for reporting on someone's sexual orientation. Rogers said that to him it was clear; a Senior staffer or any person directly involved with forming public policies or laws that are harmful to gay persons. He says their sexual preference is relevant when a gay person is taking actions against the interest of gay people. Before our interview began I found it interesting that Rogers asked me my age and how long I had been out. I told him I was 42 years old and that I never had really came out as I was never really in the closet. Not so much by choice, but having grown up in rural northeast Texas there really was no way to hide it. He asked me that question because he was trying to gage my experience as a gay man. Rogers comes from a very different time, a time I can also remember. A time when things weren't as good for gay people as they are today. He related working for the Harvey Milk school and seeing kids branded and abused because they were gay. This, he said, is what motivated him to work for gay rights and why he thinks it is shameful that a gay person, closeted or otherwise, would promote and use fear of gay people to gain success. He has seen the results which that fear can produce. Rogers feels if a gay person does these kinds of things then these people should be exposed for the hypocrites they are. When asked, he clearly stated that the party affiliation had no bearing. He would "out" Republicans, Democrats or whoever if they were acting in this manner. He also referred me to a posting on his site which was in reference to a Democrat. He states he would not protect a Democrat simply because they were a Democrat. I also asked Rogers about LimeSchurbet having to change ISPs and what his involvement was with that. LimeSchurbet had basically recreated GayPatriot's earlier posting on his website except he added language advocating non-violent measures. Rogers said that under advice of an attorney he was told to point the posting out to the ISP for the site. This was the only action Rogers said he took. He states that he did not at any time ask the ISP to take down LimeSchurbet's site. That decision he presumes was made by the ISP themselves. Rogers made it clear that he had not asked for any site to be taken down. In closing I asked Rogers what was the one thing he would like people to know about this situation. He said it was that he felt GayPatriot's post was a threat on his life. That he at no time asked GayPatriot to stop writing and that he never requested a site to be taken down. Michael Rogers agreed to an interview at my request and it was on the record. He was not told what the questions would be and he did not shy away from answering any question that I asked. His demeanor during our interview was cordial and polite. Regardless of the question, he never lost his composure. The above does not represent my opinion on this subject. I have written that in other posts. It represents his side of the story and his side alone. I have emailed GayPatriot and asked him for an on record interview regarding this situation. I have tried not to color, shape or editorialize on Michael Rogers' comments and I make no guarantee to their accuracy beyond that they fairly represent what was said during our interview. *UPDATE: Michael Rogers emailed me this morning after reading the above and wanted to make one clarification. He said that GayPatriot's attorney "did pick up the phone on one occasion only to hang up on me within 30seconds or so -- He was rather outraged that I called him, despite that fact that Bruce had given me his phone number and told me to contact him via his attorney."

Joe Solmonese On Outing

2005-03-30T10:11:00.000-08:00

The Hill interviewed Joe Solmonese, the incoming head of the Human Rights Campaign. [hat tip to rawstoryq] From The Hill:

"Q: Newt Gingrich's sister works at HRC. Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Do you think family members can have an impact on policymakers? Do you exploit that? A: The simple answer is: unquestionably. It is at the core of what we need to do. When you know someone, whether it's a co-worker, a family member or a friend, it influences the way you see the world. It is, I believe, the single most important thing in changing the hearts and minds of Americans. Q: What do you think of outing campaigns? A: Different people have different philosophies about this and approach it in different ways. If you're outing someone on the Hill, are you doing it because you're going to change their mind about their vote?... I think that I and the HRC focus on how people vote and what people say. Q: Would you advise people who are waging outing campaigns to stop? A: Well, I haven't really had a long conversation with anyone who's on this, so I can only speak to what I think. Q: Can you say whether the campaigns are good or bad, helpful or unhelpful? A: You ask yourself, good, bad, helpful or unhelpful in doing what? In doing what? I'd be curious to see how they would answer that sentence. Is it in causing someone to lose their job? Is it in changing a vote, changing the direction of Congress? That is the question I would ask. Q: Have you seen votes changed as a result of outing campaigns? A: No, I haven't."

A Republican Weighs In on Religion in Politics

2005-03-30T09:07:00.000-08:00

From the New York Times:

"I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations."

With this concept I would agree. The writer continues:

"The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement. When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another."

This op-ed piece was written by John C. Danforth, a former United States senator from Missouri who resigned in January as United States ambassador to the United Nations. He is also an Episcopal minister. His advice for his party:

"The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots."

Amen.

Lawmaker Faces Choice

2005-03-30T08:52:00.001-08:00

From CNN.com:

"Colorado Gov. Bill Owens could face a tough choice deciding whether to sign a bill requiring hospitals to tell rape victims about emergency contraception. Fellow Republicans say the bill, passed by the Legislature on Tuesday, violates Catholic hospitals' freedom of religion by forcing them to offer information about abortion."

The Catholic Church chooses to be in the health care industry by operating Hospitals. Health care in this country should be based on sound, scientific practices and not religious dogma. If the Catholic Church wants to be in the health care industry, then they should have to abide by all applicable laws, regardless of the impact on their faith. Does it qualify as a violation of freedom of religion when any Church of any religion makes the free choice to enter any industry that is governed by laws? This goes hand in hand with other laws being passed that would allow any health care provider to refuse treatment to someone because to treat that person would violate their religious beliefs. This bill would give a woman who has been raped the information regarding possible treatment that could prevent her from carrying to term an egg that was fertilized as a result of violence. I have largely stayed out of the abortion debate mainly because as a gay man I most likely will never father a child via the conventional method and as a man I will never be in the position of having to carry to term a child from an unwanted pregnancy. In this case, however, it seems somehow wrong to force a woman to carry a child to term that would be a daily reminder of something so heinous as a rape or to prevent her from receiving information which, by her choice, could prevent this simply because she wasn't taken to a secular hospital.

Historical Marker to Gay Activism

2005-03-29T14:58:00.000-08:00

From Philadelphia Gay News:

"In the summer of 1965, a group of about 40 gays and lesbians picketed in Philadelphia to remind Americans that gays did not have equal civil rights. Their stage, in front of Independence Hall, was significant because as the birthplace of the United States, it symbolizes freedom and equality. Now the annual 'reminder' marches held July 4 from 1965 to 1969 will be commemorated by a blue and gold historic marker issued by the state."

This marker will commemorate a major step in the march toward equality. It is nice to see a piece of gay history recognized.

Gay Parent Wins Appeal

2005-03-29T14:49:00.000-08:00

From 365Gay.com:

"(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) A woman should be able to visit her former partner's child, even though the birth mother does not want to her to do so, a Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled."

The story goes on to say:

In the court's ruling, Judge Michael T. Joyce wrote, "Imagine a scenario where the same premise is applied to spouses. It is inconceivable that an embittered spouse who successfully estranges the children from the other spouse, to the point where the other spouse is unknown to the children, should be rewarded by a determination that it shall be in the best interest of the children not to have any relationship at all with the alienated spouse because of the custodial spouse's feelings. The preposterousness of this scenario is equally applicable to the case at bar, despite Appellant's non-traditional status."

This is good news. Several years ago my partner and I were involved in a custody battle over his son in which our gay relationship was the central issue. We were lucky enough to prevail. Many others are not. While I understand this is not exactly the same it does recognize that the "non-traditional" relationship should be treated the same as a "traditional" one. Another small step in the right direction.

Boy Scout Leader Charged With Having Child Pornography

2005-03-29T11:23:00.001-08:00

From MSNBC:

"The national director of programs for the Boy Scouts of America has been charged with receiving and distributing child pornography, the U.S. Attorney's office here told NBC News on Tuesday."

I was a cub scout and a boy scout. I never made Eagle but I earned my share of badges. I was a big supporter of the boy scouts until they made it clear that by virtue of my being a gay man, I would not be welcome. Then there is this breaking story. Forget intelligence, it makes me wonder about the good old common sense of the leaders of this organization. They would ban me but yet they keep this guy around for years. When are people going to learn that even if you purge all the "dangerous" homosexuals from your midst, children will still not be safe because most pedophiles, child molesters, child abusers, etc are heterosexual men.

Extremism Is Cause For Attention

2005-03-29T10:38:00.000-08:00

The New York Times :

"Democratic societies have a hard time dealing with extremists in their midst. The desire to show respect for other people's beliefs all too easily turns into denial: nobody wants to talk about the threat posed by those whose beliefs include contempt for democracy itself."

Paul Krugman wrote the above in his column today making the point that in a democracy extremism can come to power. Extremist usually use the democratic process, even profess to hold it's tenets sacred, until power is obtained. As has been said, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". This scenario has played out in other countries and at other times in history. However, Krugman continues:

"But it's also true of the United States, where dangerous extremists belong to the majority religion and the majority ethnic group, and wield great political influence..."

"Another thing that's going on is the rise of politicians willing to violate the spirit of the law, if not yet the letter, to cater to the religious right. "

Read this op-ed. It contains issues worth contemplating especially in the wake of the Terri Schiavo situation where the religious right made it clear that laws were trumped by what they understand to be God's will. Hopefully Krugman isn't prophetic when he says:

"And the future seems all too likely to bring more intimidation in the name of God and more political intervention that undermines the rule of law."

I have said it before but will say it again, "Freedom of religion means freedom from religion".

Morals and the Judicial Branch

2005-03-29T08:06:00.000-08:00

From CNN.com:

"'Today's ruling further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation,' said Tom Minnery, the group's [Focus on the Family] vice president for government and public policy."

The Colorado Supreme Court in a divided decision has thrown out the death penalty in a case because some of the jurors discussed biblical scripture during sentencing. This decision has several aspects to it worthy of discussion but the above quote in the article startled me. Focus on the Family is what I would consider an ultra-conservative fundamentalist Christian organization. Mr. Minnery in the quote above seems to be suggesting that because the Colorado Supreme Court found issue with religious dogma being considered outside of the facts of the case that this is evidence that the judicial branch is morally bankrupt. Make no mistake. The hard core religious right to whom the Republican party seems to be beholden believe that the only moral compass is found in their narrow religious view. One can only be a moral person if they are born again and subscribe to fundamentalist ideals. This clearly illustrates their contempt for the judicial system. Fundamentalist have no problem with the judicial system until it acts outside what they would consider correct. The Terri Schiavo case is another illustration of their belief that God's law, or at least their view of it, trumps all laws. The Republican majority in Congress is considering ending the tradition of the filibuster so that a handful of right wing judges can be confirmed. The religious right wants the courts stacked toward their interests. It will make the remolding of America so much easier for them.

Mike Roger's Comment on GayPatriot

2005-03-28T12:42:00.000-08:00

I have no way of knowing if this is actually Michael Rogers who was referred to as a gay terrorist by GayPatriot. But this was left in my comment section:

Don't believe everything you read. Just because something appeared on the internet does NOT make it so. Mike Rogers Homepage 03.28.05 - 2:29 pm #

I would agree with that which is why I qualified what I said. I have no idea if the story I linked to is accurate or not. But I stand by what I said. If it is accurate then it is beyond the pale. I tried to backtrack this so I could ask this person: 1. Are you the Michael Rogers referred to in GayPatriots post? 2. What is your side of the story? But I could not find an email address functional for the comment. I also could not find an email address on BlogActive. If this is the real Michael Rogers, please email the answers to these questions to centralfront@gmail.com. I would welcome your side of this story.

Betty DeGeneres Leaves PlanetOut

2005-03-28T11:46:00.001-08:00

Betty DeGeneres writes: From PlanetOut:

"Just a few weeks ago, the idea popped into the back of my mind that it might be time for me to retire. And you know how that goes -- once a germ of an idea creeps in, if the timing is right, the idea just grows and grows until it happens. At least, sometimes it happens like that. This is what has happened for me, and so this is my farewell column. I've been writing this column for six years now. It has been a challenge, an honor and a privilege. I thank you all for the love, trust and faith you've shown me. "

Her bio line reads:

Betty DeGeneres, mother of actress Ellen DeGeneres, is the spokesperson for the HRC Coming Out Project and an active member of PFLAG. She lends her expertise to PlanetOut as an advice columnist on issues of coming out and acceptance. She is the author of "Love, Ellen" and "Just a Mom."

I want to wish Mrs. DeGeneres all the best. I will miss her column as it was heartwarming to read. Her books, writings and appearances have helped countless families come to terms and deal with the issue of a gay family member. All is not lost however, for it seems that she will be working on a new book. Good luck on the new venture. Your regular column will be missed.

Arson Often a Weapon

2005-03-28T11:29:00.000-08:00

The recent fire at a club in Michigan made me think about the following: From religioustolerance.org:

"Since its founding in 1968, more than 20 UFMCC churches have been bombed or arsoned, while many others have been vandalized, desecrated or threatened. Proportionally, no other institution in America has been the recipient of as much arson, bombing, vandalism and desecration motivated by hate crimes as have the churches of UFMCC. An astounding and shocking seven percent of our congregations have been targets of bombing or arson.' "

Gay persons have often been attacked with arson, especially if we dared to form a place where we could actually worship while being openly ourselves.

Ministers Come Out For Rights

2005-03-28T11:22:00.000-08:00

From 365Gay.com:

"'For me, as a Christian, if I am taking the faith seriously, there's only one way I could vote and that's no,' said the Rev. Robert Meneilly, a retired Prairie Village pastor who was among those who signed the letter. 'If we are all made by the same God in the same image, we should all have the same rights.'"

A group of ministers in Kansas have written an open letter to let people know that not all religious minsters, leaders, etc. believe that discrimination should be written into the state's constitution. They clearly state:

In the letter, the ministers say that "it is not the state government's role to codify one religious interpretation of the Bible, or one religion over another in the Kansas Constitution. To the contrary, the great contribution of our constitution is to protect the rights of all faiths."

Not all people of faith are the heartless biggots they are often portrayed to be.

Seperate Not Easily Equal

2005-03-28T11:18:00.000-08:00

From 365Gay.com:

'"The domestic partnership law marks a path toward equal and just treatment for LGBT couples, but the reality is tax inequality and other grey areas exist that would otherwise be eliminated if the LGBT community were afforded the same rights and benefits of marriage," Equality California spokesperson Eddie Gutierrez told 365Gay.com. '

The above article makes the point that progress is being made (at least in California). It also points out the complexity involved when writing a new class of relationship into law. One statement I found refreshing:

“One thing is clear: the government cannot continue to be in the business of discriminating, which is why so many inequalities remain under state and federal law. Fair-minded Americans know that separate institutions, regardless of intent, is seldom if ever equal.”

As regular readers know, I am not a huge proponent or oponent of gay marriage. I don't care about what you call it as long as my rights are recognized. But the stories that are starting to emerge illustrate how hard it will be to enshrine those rights into new legislation.

The partner law does not allow for joint filing for state taxes and certain other protections under state law. It also does not provide access to over 1,000 federal protections that heterosexual married couples enjoy.

Maybe co-opting the word marriage would be the easiest path.

Religious Freedom Means Freedom From Religion

2005-03-28T10:50:00.000-08:00

From ProudParenting.com:

"(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House. The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds. "

The bill mentioned above would allow a health care provider to refuse service based upon religious grounds. I would assume the author's of this bill had the Christian faith in mind when this was written and passed but for those who seemingly are so wary of slippery slopes when it comes to gay marriage, this bill is pratically the luge. Obviously this bill means that a doctor could refuse to treat a gay person because that person's sexual orientation violates the doctor's religious beliefs. But doesn't it go further? Could not a Muslim doctor refuse to treat a person of Jewish heritage (or vice versa) because of their religious beliefs? The question then becomes whose religion and what constitutes a "religion". The fundamentalist Christians (or whoever) are not thinking these laws through. Just like the amendment in Ohio which was written to "protect marriage" which opened a loophole in the law for domestic abusers, these laws are rushed out of legislative bodies. People don't look at them from all sides because they are so focused on their target -- gay Americans. There is a reason the founders of our country believed in separation of church and state. They knew what is was like to be persecuted for their religious beliefs and because of someone else's. While clinging to our own personal faith, we should demand the free exercise of religion in this country and to be free from the imposition of religion.

The Answer to Why GayPatriot Went Silent

2005-03-28T07:47:00.000-08:00

From Outlet Radio Network:

"According to GayPatriot, who is also a client of mine, Michael Rogers called GayPatriot's place of employment on Friday immediately following the post above and spoke to GayPatriot's secretary and boss. GayPatriot had no idea Rogers would go to such measures and shared with me that both he and his secretary were very upset by the calls but that his boss was understanding. Later on that day, Rogers personally called me and recounted much of the same account, adding that he had also called the police and is working with the authorities on the matter. Rogers expressed feeling threatened by the post and compared it to posts by anti-abortionists who posted the names of doctors performing them. "

I received an email this morning from gaypatriot2004 containing a link to the above post. I have written on the departure of GayPatriot from the blogosphere and had wondered out loud if it had to do with a "violence threat" resulting from his gay terrorist post. It seems we were on the right track. Read the whole article that is linked above as it contains details that round out and close the loop on this story. Outing is a very controversial issue within the gay community. There are folks lined up and hard set on each side. I certainly don't believe that every Republican, simply by nature of belonging or aligning with a political party that advocates anti-gay positions, should be outed. (nor Democrat, Libertarian or whatever for that matter) That being said, I do think that any closeted gay person of any stripe who directly influences or shapes public policy and who uses that power to strip away the rights or dignity of gay Americans, loses the right to call foul when their sexual orientation is made public. When the choice is made to draft or support policy detrimental to gay people, the advocate's sexual orientation is relevant to the story. Maybe GayPatriot went too far with the gay terrorist post. But if the link posted above is correct, then Michael Rogers has more than overstepped. The press has power and certainly we in the blogosphere are seeing that the wave of new media is effecting public opinion and policy. With any power comes responsibility. To quote the article above, "Free speech isn't free of consequences." Those of us who chose to enter the fray understand that. However, vindictive attacks made with malice are not free speech nor activism. They do nothing to further the great debate going on in this country. Acts such as these are the work of a bully who has no cogent argument.

Schiavo Case Getting Out of Hand

2005-03-26T09:46:00.000-08:00

From Miami Herald:

"Hours after a judge ordered that Terri Schiavo was not to be removed from her hospice, a team of state agents were en route to seize her and have her feeding tube reinserted -- but they stopped short when local police told them they would enforce the judge's order, The Herald has learned."

From AMERICABlog:

"...ignoring the rule of law, the Supreme Court and the opinion of the vast majority of Americans -- to in effect delcare martial law and seize Terri Schiavo. (Thanks to blogger Andrew A. Gill for the heads-up on this one.) Think about this. Top far-right religious leaders told Jeb Bush he shouldn't be pushed around by some 'piddling judge.' Anne Coulter shouted they should send in the National Guard. Silly talk-radio/Fox News rhetoric? Jeb Bush damn near did it. And if the brave men and women of the local police hadn't decided to uphold the law, Bush would have succeeded."

The above statement from AMERICABLog is slightly misleading. The Herald story cited as his source went on to say:

"It also shows that agencies answering directly to Gov. Jeb Bush had planned to use a wrinkle in Florida law that would have allowed them to legally get around the judge's order. The exception in the law allows public agencies to freeze a judge's order whenever an agency appeals it. "

Jeb Bush and Co. found a "wrinkle" in the law so therefore they were not exactly "ignoring the rule of law." They were, however, going against the grain of legal thought. This does illustrate how far some in the extreme will go to enforce their will on others and I believe that is the greater lesson to this whole fiasco. Some believe that our form of government is under attack from these extremist.

"Participants in the high-stakes test of wills, who spoke with The Herald on the condition of anonymity, said they believed the standoff could ultimatelyhave led to a constitutional crisis and a confrontation between dueling lawmen."

This case unfortunately has now grown beyond the heartbreaking story of Terri Schiavo. It is now moving into the realm of power and who has the right to excercise that power. It calls into question states rights, the principles of federalism and constitutionally mandated separation of powers. No man, be it Governor, President or stranger on the street is above the law and they should not be allowed to operate outside of it. If there were a window of opportunity created by a provision in the law where the agency could have acted, then they were not necessarily violating the law. But it is time cooler heads prevail in this issue. My heart breaks for Terri Schiavo and all those closest to her. Regardless of whether she would have wanted her life continued in this manner, I doubt she would want to be the poster child in this on going struggle.

More on GayPatriot

2005-03-25T13:37:00.000-08:00

From GayPatriot:

"In the interest of constructive political discourse and open and free discussion, GayPatriot.org and those responsible for its content always urge its readers to practice non-violence in their daily lives and political activities. No posting on this site shall be construed as advocating for violence against anyone or any organization."

Seems we might have been on to something when earlier today we pointed out this quote from GayPatriot:

"WANTED! Let's do something about these gay terrorists who have infected our community with their hatred and self-loathing bigotry of gay Americans who wish to live their lives in peace."

I took him to task over using the word terrorist to describe John Aravosis and Michael Rogers. When I read this statement on his blog (which included their pictures), I wondered if a call to "do something about these gay terrorists" might seem to some as a call to do harm against the two pictured men. I certainly don't think that was GayPatriot's intent. But, there are some wack-jobs out there who just might. I think he could have made his point without using the intentionally inflammatory word terrorist. That being said, and it seems this might be close to the point from the above posting on his blog, I don't think this should chase him from the blogosphere. All of us who publically write do have a certain amount of responsibility, but we cannot and should not be taken to task simply because some nutso out there might go off the deep end. That could happen with just about anything written by anyone on any subject. So to GayPatriot I say that if this is the case as to why you stopped writing, then please come back. Your voice in the debate is an important one.

IRS Says "No", Massachusetts says "Yes"

2005-03-25T12:51:00.000-08:00

From PlanetOut:

"Ask the taxmen: Married in Massachusetts"

The Q&A shows how difficult it is in reconciling federal treatment of same-sex couples with states that recognize gay marriage. It has long been the tradition of the federal government to recognize a state's definition. That is until now.

Straight Talk about Gay Rights

2005-03-25T12:47:00.000-08:00

Seems a heterosexual man has written a book in defense of gay rights and in particular gay marriage. From Primezone.com:

"'While other books have been written about this issue, Get Over the Rainbow was written by a heterosexual male who had nothing personal to gain from legal, same sex marriage, other than living in a nation where everyone is treated equally,' writes Redmond. "

This book offers:

"A passionate discussion about equal treatment of gays from a straight perspective, Get Over the Rainbow also offers compelling arguments that cut to the chase and eliminate misconceptions."

HIV Protection an Individual Responsibility

2005-03-25T10:31:00.000-08:00

From gaypeopleschronicle.com:

"Drake was charged under Ohio's controversial 2000 law requiring people who "knowingly" have HIV to disclose their status to their sexual partners "prior to engaging in the sexual conduct."

Interesting article about responsibility and HIV infection though I tend to side with the following:

“The message this sends is that someone else is always responsible for actions,” said Sullivan, “that HIV prevention is everyone else’s responsibility. That burden does not always need to always come down on HIV positive people.”

I think HIV prevention is the responsibility of each individual. We have to take that responsibility because, as this story shows, we can't always depend on someone else. Every person, regardless of what they are or are not told by a potential partner, should take precautions and protect themselves. To act otherwise is, in my opinion, irresponsible.

Same Sex Couples Penalized on Tax Day

2005-03-25T10:27:00.000-08:00

From 365Gay.com:

"As millions of married couples are signing and sending off their tax returns prior to the April 15 tax day deadline a new study shows that same-sex couples face widespread economic disparities and hardships because they are denied equal marriage rights. "

This article illustrates how same-sex couples are treated differently than their opposite-sex counterparts by the IRS. As a gay man in a long term relationship of 10 years, it would be nice if my family got the tax breaks we hear so much about that are supposed to benefit families.

GayPatriot - This Just In

2005-03-25T09:56:00.000-08:00

From GayPatriot:

"For personal and professional reasons that I am unable to fully discuss, I have to stop blogging as GayPatriot effective immediately. This has been a great experience for me and I have learned a lot as well as met a lot of good people (if only through the internet). As of this moment, I am no longer affiliated with this blog and I turn over all control to GayPatriotWest who will keep the fire going. Thank you for letting me come into your homes since last September. It has been an honor."

This morning GayPatriot posted to his blog that John Aravosis and Michael Rogers were gay terrorist (see posting below). Then he suddenly removed that posting and now has posted the above. First, I did think he went too far in his posting comparing outing to terrorism. However, GayPatriot has been an excellent writer and his blog has been thought provoking. I didn't always see eye to eye with him, but I certainly enjoyed reading him. Secondly, I have no idea if the two situations are related or if he suddenly decided to stop. I don't want to add to speculation but it just seems odd that these two events coincided. Whatever the reason, I wish GayPatriot all the best and hopefully he will return. Open, logical discourse on topics is a good thing for American democracy and his voice added to that debate.

Gay Terrorist? I Don't Think So.

2005-03-25T08:06:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: Don't bother going to the link below. GayPatriot took down the post that I was referring to. He had posted pictures of John Aravosis and Michael Rogers and blasted them as gay terrorist. The quote below was from what he wrote below their pictures. Maybe he came to his senses or maybe it was someone else other than GayPatriot blogging on his site. I hope so. I would like for him to post why this was put up in the first place and why it was taken down. From GayPatriot:

"WANTED! Let's do something about these gay terrorists who have infected our community with their hatred and self-loathing bigotry of gay Americans who wish to live their lives in peace."

I am a regular reader of GayPatriot's blog and I find his writing inciteful and thoughtful, even when I don't necessarily agree with his position. However, in reading the article linked above I have one question. Has he lost his damn mind? What I am assuming he is referring to is John Aravosis and Michael Rogers' campaign to out conservative media personalities and Republican officials and office holders as allegedly being gay. While I don't always agree with the outing of any individual, I hardly think these two individuals have infected our (meaning the gay) community "with their hatred and self-loathing bigotry of gay Americans who wish to live their lives in peace." The persons at the center of their outing campaigns have been the ones to help infuse not only the gay community but the country as a whole with hatred and loathing of gay Americans. These are the people who support, defend and even co-ordinate Republican ideology that is aimed at keeping gay Americans defined as second class citizens. It is these people who have created, fanned the flames and used fear of gay Americans as a convenient motivator on their march to power. It is these people who have routinely bashed gay people over the head with their ultra-right wing view that gay people don't deserve what little rights and respect we have gained since Stonewall and certainly shouldn't be entitled to the same rights as hetrosexual Americans. The hypocrisy of a gay person supporting and doing these things to people cut from the same cloth is chilling. And though at the moment life or death doesn't hang in the balance, I would still liken these hypocrits to the handful of Jews who worked with the Nazi party during Germany's darkest days. One definition of terrorism is: "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear." The outing of these people certainly isn't violent nor have John or Michael ever advocated the use of violence against anyone. While the people who are conducting outing campaigns may be using fear of discovery as a weapon against some people who have chosen a public life specifically aimed at molding how life should be in this country, I would argue that, under the same definition GayPatriot is applying to the word terrorist, these public figures are terrorists as well. They certainly have went out of their way to instill fear. I do believe in fighting fire with fire. If someone is going to stand before the public and support ideology that harms gay people then I believe it is certainly within the scope of fair discourse to point out that these people are in fact gay themselves. I don't understand why these office holders and Republican party officials don't stand there and proudly say, "I am a gay person and I don't believe gay people should..." (fill in the blank with whatever right-wing issue against gay people you choose) I don't understand why they aren't openly gay to begin with. Maybe it is because they are afraid of the consequences of being known as gay in the atmosphere of this country they have helped create.

Terri Schiavo and Death

2005-03-25T07:49:00.000-08:00

From Townhall.com:

"I want Terri Schiavo to die because I believe she's earned it."

Conservative writer Neal Boortz with his position on Terri Schiavo. There are so many complicated side issues swirling around this case but to the central issue of why should Terri be allowed to die, I was heartened to read this. My opinion on this is relatively the same.

Government Recognizes Validity of Gay Relationship

2005-03-24T09:50:00.000-08:00

From the Montclair Times:

"A gay Montclair veteran and his partner won their property tax case against the township last week in a Tax Court decision that is believed to be the first of its kind."

One small step....

Flamboyant Gays

2005-03-24T09:49:00.000-08:00

From The Gateway:

"gay men also have to put up with shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy portraying gay males as invariably having comically flamboyant personas. It's as if the media fears that if it doesn't exaggerate traits of homosexuals, we won't be able to recognize them, because we can't immediately observe the difference between them and heteros. "

To "exaggerate" the traits of homosexuals, assumes there are common traits among homosexuals. While it is true that homosexuals do most likely share certain proclivaties, in manerisms, actions, attitudes and opinions, we are as diverse a group as there comes. Not all heterosexual men are crotch scratching, tobacco spitting rednecks. While this group certainly does exist, no one would assume that the depiction of this somehow stereotypes heterosexual men. To see traits as being exaggerated only reinforces the idea of stereotypes -- that all gay men are one way or another.

Special Treatment Should be Given

2005-03-24T09:40:00.000-08:00

From 365Gay.com:

"'This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers,' said Matt Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor."

But is it worse that someone repeatedly assaults someone with whom they have a relationship than it is if someone repeatedly assaults a total stanger? In a similar way, isn't that the same arguement against hate crime legislation? The arguement goes, all crime is based on hate and therefore a hate crime. It should be treated equally regardless of who it is perpetrated against. So why should spouses be a special class and get special treatment?

Out or Not to Out?

2005-03-24T09:30:00.000-08:00

From GayPatriot:

"So it is okay for a member of the Mainstream Media to decide to come out on his own terms, or avoid the subject altogether. But what about the outing witchhunt going on against conservatives (elected and non-elected) by Michael Rogers? What a double standard. One could use the exact same arguments against Anderson Cooper that Rogers has used against Ken Mehlman for example. Neither make public policy, but both can help positively influence it. So why the pass for Anderson but the unhealthy obsession and hate against Mehlman? I have no idea if either of them are gay. But if either of them are, I stand by my belief that both should be allowed to come out on their own terms.... or not come out at all."

I would argue that Ken Mehlman has more chance of influencing public policy and most especially Republican Party Policy. Since anti-gay issues have been a regular part of the Republican Party platform, then whether Ken Mehlman is or is not gay can become of interest. While I certainly support the concept that coming out is a very personal thing and should be a private decision, I think you lose that right when you act as a hypocrit.

Actual Outrage or Political Maneuvering

2005-03-23T13:53:00.000-08:00

From the National Review Online:

"Yet Terri is no criminal, and she's not brain dead. She isn't even in a coma. She suffers from a trauma-induced disability which has left her disabled. While the courts and the pundits seem willing to be led by Michael Schiavo and his attorney George Felos, Terri's story clearly resonates with Americans who hear the details, including many of our politicians and our congressional leadership."

I just have one question. Where were all of you and your "outrage" when President Bush (then Governor of Texas) signed this law?

Section 166.046, Subsection (e): If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient … (hat tip to thinkprogress.org)

This also from Think Progress:

"Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said yesterday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected."

With the above law, the inability to pay for health care can be enough to take the same action that is happening in the Schiavo case even against the will of the family. So again I ask, where was the outrage when this was passed into law? Why were these same people who are so outspoken now silent in regards to George W. Bush when he signed this law into effect? Why isn't my Republican controlled House and Senate here in Texas rushing to repeal this law even as we speak? Maybe it has to do with headlines?

The Separation of Marriage and Parenthood

2005-03-23T13:38:00.000-08:00

From the National Review Online:

"If the gay marriage battle hadn't already done so much to separate the idea of marriage and parenthood, an article like this could never have been written. Once we act as though children are anything other than the central reason for the public interest in marriage, we open the way to exactly what Emens offers."

This is Stanley Kurtz, a long and vocal opponent to gay marriage, writing in regards to polygamy. The exception I take to what he writes above is that heterosexuals themselves damaged the separation of marriage and parenthood long before homosexuals even had the idea that gay marriage might be possible. With divorce rates such as they are and the majority of children growing up in another "family" household other than that of their mother and their father, I think this pretty much put the nail in the coffin in regards to the link between parenthood and marriage. Since a vast number of heterosexual marriages with children end in divorce, I think it is heterosexuals who pioneered this disconnect. Gay marriage aside, if these conservatives are so concerned with protecting marriage and the traditional family unit then why not argue for limitations on divorce? No fault divorce in this country has done more to destroy the traditional family unit than my partner of 10 years and I ever will. And I speak as a product of the new traditional family unit where parents are divorced, remarried and have moved on leaving my family and it's memories in the dust.

What a Difference a Boycott Can Make

2005-03-23T11:21:00.000-08:00

From Seattle Gay News:

"At Tuesday's scheduled hearing in the state Senate on the Anderson-Murray Anti-Discrimination Bill, three representatives from Coors Brewing Company will testify in favor of passing this very long overdue bill: Joe Benda, Regional Account Executive for Coors Brewing Company; Brad Nadal, Seattle Metro Manager for Coors; and Marty Weisbrod, Pacific Northwest GLBT Liaison for Coors. "

The purpose of this bill is to reform state anti-discrimation laws to include sexual orientation. Representatives of the Coors Brewing Company will be testifying in favor of passing this bill. I remember the boycott, which began in 1977, of Coors beer. Cases of it which had already been purchased were piled high against walls in every gay bar I went into. The clubs refused to sell even what they already had in stock. From the discriminatory Coors of then to the gay friendly Coors of today. I guess boycotts and speaking out does make a difference.

USGA Recognizes Transsexual Competitors

2005-03-23T11:20:00.000-08:00

From Gay News at Gay.com:

"The United States Golf Association announced Monday it has adopted a new policy that allows transsexual athletes to compete in USGA golf championships, including the upcoming U.S. Women's Open."

I don't know why I posted this. I really don't have a dog in the transgendered/transsexual fight as I am happy in the body I have. But I do support rights for all and it is always nice seeing someone finally recognized and included. I have several friends who are transsexual and though I don't necessarily understand it myself, I certainly feel they have the right to be who and what they are. Just like the rest of us.

Republicans Are Supposed To Be Conservative... Right?

2005-03-23T10:32:00.000-08:00

From The New York Times:

"The vote by Congress to allow the federal courts to take over the Terri Schiavo case has created distress among some conservatives who say that lawmakers violated a cornerstone of conservative philosophy by intervening in the ruling of a state court."

Republican's are losing their "conservative" credentials.

Andrew Sullivan on Republican Conservatism

2005-03-23T10:29:00.000-08:00

From the Times Online:

"In my view if a Democratic president had Bush's record, the Republican party would have come close to impeaching him for his adventures in big government, fiscal insanity and foreign policy liberalism. But it swallowed its principles and covered up its differences to keep him (and itself) in power."

More from Andrew on how the Republican Party has lost its conservative soul.

Are Republicans Still Conservatives?

2005-03-23T10:28:00.000-08:00

From andrewsullivan.com:

"THE CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP II: It's been a fascinating few days, watching today's Republicans grapple with their own internal contradictions. It's been clear now for a while that the religious right controls the base of the Republican party, and that fiscal left-liberals control its spending policy."

Andrew is one of my favorite writers and reading his blog is actually what inspired me to create The Central Front. He is a conservative, former (or maybe current--not sure on that one) Republican, gay man. I disagree with him on various opinions but I am an avid reader of his work as he always makes me think and consider a subject. His take on how the Republican party is coming out from under the sheep's clothing of the conservative movement is interesting.

For Everything there is a Season

2005-03-23T07:51:00.000-08:00

From CNN.com:

"A lawyer for the parents of the brain-damaged woman said they would continue their fight, The Associated Press reported."

I cannot begin to imagine the pain the parents of Terri Schiavo must be going through. To lose a child is horrendous. To have to make the choice, unbearable. But it is time. For those that argue that only God should make the choice, I offer this. It seems to me he did. If it had not been for extraordinary measures being applied, Terri would now be with her Lord. The Schiavo's have openly stated they are Catholic and Terri has a deep faith. Call on that faith now. As hard as it may be, don't let your child stay trapped in a living pergatory here on earth when all evidence says there is no hope of recovery to a normal life. If a person is of faith then they know there is a better existance waiting. This could possibly be why Terri may have told her husband to not let her linger in what is now her current state. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14

"13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him."

And while we are on the subject. To the media and everyone else, stop demonizing Michael Schiavo who for the past 15 years has watched the person he loves exist in this state. We do not know what is in his heart and we should not judge. He could have divorced Terri years ago and washed his hands of her. This he did not do. According to testimony, he has fought for what he believes his wife would have wanted. Even now he sits at her side. This to me, is not the mark of a cold man without love in his heart. Neither the parents of Terri nor her husband are bad people. They are just dealing with what has to be an excruciatingly painful event the best way they both know how. We, the public, should leave them to what should be a private situation. God's speed Terri and God bless her parents, husband and family members. Remember: 23 Psalm 4

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me."

Heading the Right Direction

2005-03-22T14:44:00.000-08:00

From the Advocate.com:

"The Family Research Council has on its payroll, I'm not kidding, a homosexuality detection expert, whose duties include informing us that words like tolerance and diversity are part of a coded language that is regularly used by the homosexual community as well as alerting families to potential gays in the midst. What a dream job--Gaydar to Go. I picture a Miss Gulch type roaming the aisles of churches and schools, armed with a crooked stick that violently shakes whenever a teenage closet case is near. Maybe Dick Cheney should have hired her years ago. "

When the hard right lay claim to the electoral victories in the last election, they also seemed to relax a bit. Having hid their true selves from the mainstream for years in order to advance to power, now, having grabbed said power, are beginning to finally air every hair brained, half baked idea that they have discretely kept beneath the surface. They feel they have the majority now and therefore nothing to worry about. I have a little more faith in the majority of Americans that they will see this extremism for what it is. The pendulum always swings and it will swing back our direction.