Church and civil rights groups try to influence lawmakers, Coors Seeks To Head Off Gay Boycott, Lynne Cheney talks to Wolf Blitzer

1. NEW YORK TIMES Urged by Right, Bush Takes on Gay Marriages
2. CNN Lynne Cheney talks to Wolf Blitzer about same-sex marriage without ever mentioning her daughter
3. NEWS 8 AUSTIN (Texas) Church and civil rights groups try to influence lawmakers on gay marriage
4. 365GAY.COM Coors Seeks To Head Off Gay Boycott
4. WASHINGTON POST Commentary by Nathaniel Frank on the irony of the military kicking out queers while instituting the next thing to a draft

New York Times, July 12, 2004
229 W. 43rd Street, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax: 212-556-3622 ) (E-Mail: letters@nytimes.com )
( http://www.nytimes.com )
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12REPU.html
Urged by Right, Bush Takes on Gay Marriages
By Adam Nagourney and David D. Kirkpatrick
WASHINGTON – Two weeks before the Democratic convention and under pressure from conservatives, President Bush is escalating his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, moving the issue to the forefront of the campaign and underscoring what his aides said was a critical difference between the president and Senator John Kerry.
Mr. Bush championed the amendment in his radio address this weekend as fellow Republicans in the Senate said they would seek to force a vote on it on Wednesday. Mr. Kerry and Senator John Edwards, the likely Democratic nominees for president and vice president, responded by saying they would come to Washington to vote against the amendment, even though it appears unlikely their votes will be needed to defeat it.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards say that they oppose gay marriage but that the matter should be left to the states. In opposing the president, aides said, they will argue that Mr. Bush is trying to subvert the Constitution for political ends.
Mr. Bush's renewed advocacy of the amendment – also voiced in a campaign appearance on Friday – came as the White House appeared to be struggling to reconcile conflicting pressure from conservatives eager for Mr. Bush to champion the ban and some Republicans concerned that the issue could alienate undecided moderate voters.
In interviews, conservative leaders said they had complained to the White House that the campaign was blocking opponents of gay marriage from prime-time speaking slots at the Republican National Convention.
"The Republicans have got some explaining to do," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian lobbying group, noting that several of the speakers at the convention have come out against the amendment. "Social conservatives are not happy."
Mr. Bush's conservative base clearly supports the amendment, but polls have shown that while a majority of undecided voters oppose gay marriage, a majority of them also do not support amending the Constitution to ban it.
Some analysts suggested that might account for the tentativeness with which the White House has approached this issue this year, as it seeks to turn out the evangelical voters that Mr. Rove has described as critical to Mr. Bush's re-election without alienating the undecided voters who are the central focus of both campaigns.
"Our analysis of the swing voters show[s] that they are concerned about Iraq and about the economy, and I don't think they are likely to be swayed, or have strong feelings about a constitutional amendment" said Andrew Kohut, director of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "If anything, they may see it as putting the emphasis on the wrong place when the country has other problems."
As recently as the spring, Democrats and Republicans predicted that the subject was so sensitive that both candidates would avoid engaging it at all costs. Since announcing his support for an amendment in late February, Mr. Bush has raised it from time to time over the past six months but for the most part has not promoted his view on the issue.
First in a campaign appearance on Friday and in his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush urged the Senate to pass the amendment, describing "the union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution."
Mr. Bush's remarks on gay marriage came as his campaign began an effort to portray Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards as being out of step with voters on values. Mr. Bush's advisers said that the timing of this phase of the Bush campaign and the vote in the Senate was coincidental, and was not designed to force Mr. Edwards and Mr. Kerry to cast a vote that they might have wanted to avoid.
Still, several Bush aides said they welcomed the image of Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards walking onto the Senate floor to vote against the amendment. They predicted that Mr. Kerry would have a hard time convincing the public that he opposed gay marriage, and that his vote was simply a matter of protecting the Constitution.
"The political side of the gay marriage conversation is once again, John Kerry says something and his words are just empty," said Nicolle Devenish, the communications director for Mr. Bush's re-election campaign. "He says he thinks marriage is between men and woman [sic], but he has never backed a policy to make that so. He has never once supported a policy to make it law."
Ms. Devenish noted that Mr. Kerry had voted in the Senate against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which President Clinton signed. The act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman and allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states. Mr. Kerry's aides said the fact that Mr. Bush felt compelled to raise the issue the summer before the election would be viewed by voters as an entirely political gesture.
"There's a difference between being against gay marriage and being for a federal constitutional amendment on the issue," said Stephanie Cutter, Mr. Kerry's communications director. "I think most people are going to see that as absolutely over the line and egregious. You don't amend the Constitution to roll back rights."
Mr. Bush's associates said the campaign – remembering the damage Mr. Bush's father suffered in 1992 after a convention that featured speakers denouncing gay rights and abortions rights – was concerned about letting Mr. Bush become to closely identified with this effort, or as coming across as harsh on the issue.
Indeed, in his radio address, Mr. Bush framed his call for a constitutional amendment as being in response to a decision by a state court in Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry's home state, that forced the state legislature to recognize same-sex marriages. And Mr. Bush's advisers, in discussing the president's remarks, said the president was seeking to come across as opposing gay marriage, but not come across as anti-gay.
Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster, said there was a danger to advocating the amendment "if you are perceived as overreaching," but he argued that Mr. Bush had not done that.
"I always got the sense that he felt like he was being put in the position of having to do this because people were aggressively trying to push gay marriage, and this was a last resort rather than a first choice," Mr. Goeas said.
In truth, some conservative leaders have been urging the president for months to speak out more forcefully on the subject of same-sex marriage, warning that his time was running out.
"Bush may think he's being high-minded by not citing gay marriage and other social and cultural issues," Fred Barnes wrote in an editorial in the Weekly Standard dated May 10. "But he's not, and the longer he waits to talk about them, the more he risks looking desperate or cynical when he finally does."


CNN, July 11, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/11/le.00.html
CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer (excerpt)
Interview with Lynne Cheney
BLITZER: We only have a few seconds left, but I want to get both of you on the record.
There's going to be a effort, beginning tomorrow, Senator Feinstein, to get a constitutional amendment passed in the U.S. Senate that would ban same-sex marriage.
I assume you're going to vote against that.
FEINSTEIN: I'm going to vote against it.
I mean, I find it really intolerable that it's coming up now. Everyone knows that it doesn't have the votes to be placed before the American people. It's there only to create, I think, a major conflict.
BLITZER: Do you support same-sex marriage?
FEINSTEIN: I don't support same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The people of my state voted on this on a ballot in the year 2000 and sustained that. Once you have a ballot measure like that, I'm clearly here to carry out the intentions of a majority of the state.
And I also believe, and Supreme Court decisions buttress this belief, family law has always been the prerogative of the states, not of the federal government.
BLITZER: Let me let Senator Snowe weigh in.
How will you vote, Senator Snowe?
SNOWE: Well, I don't support a constitutional amendment at this time. We have the Defense of Marriage Act in place. It hasn't been challenged. No suits have been filed in court. And I oppose same-sex marriage and I believe that marriage should be defined as a marriage between man and woman. But I don't think that a constitutional amendment is necessary.
Senator Snowe, thanks very much for joining us.
Senator Feinstein, thanks to you, as well.
FEINSTEIN: You're very welcome.
SNOWE: Thank you. . . .
BLITZER: Welcome back to "LATE EDITION."
We're continuing our conversation with Lynne Cheney. She is the wife, of course, of the vice president, Dick Cheney.
Mrs. Cheney, the White house, the Republicans now pushing an amendment in the U.S. Senate, debate starting tomorrow, that would have a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. I want you to listen to what your husband said four years ago on this sensitive subject.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD B. CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one he's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Now, I interviewed the vice president a few months ago, and he revised his position to say he supports the president when it comes to this issue. As the vice president he has no choice: He has to support the president.
But is this a good idea for a constitutional amendment to come forward that would ban same-sex marriage?
CHENEY: Well, I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good. And first of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states.
Of course, what's happened is we're in a situation now where the ability of the states to do that has been called into some question by the actions of the court in Massachusetts.
BLITZER: So you heard Olympia Snowe and Dianne Feinstein say it is a bad idea, even though they both said it's not a good idea to have same-sex marriage, to codify it into law, it's a bad idea to have a constitutional amendment, that's the nuance right there. That's the difference between the Kerry-Edwards position and the Bush-Cheney position.
CHENEY: I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact.
BLITZER: Well, and maybe I'm missing something.
CHENEY: No, I've answered the question twice, Wolf.
BLITZER: So your position is basically...
CHENEY: It's a good point for discussion.
BLITZER: Just leave it alone, and...
CHENEY: You bet. You bet.
BLITZER: ... and move on. This is obviously...
CHENEY: Thank you, Wolf.
BLITZER: ... a sensitive subject that all of us appreciate, you know, your position on this matter.


News 8 Austin (Texas), July 11, 2004
http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/?ArID=112758&SecID=2
Church and civil rights groups try to influence lawmakers on gay marriage
By James Keith
Members of Great Hills Baptist Church leave services with a renewed heart and a new voter registration card.
"It is immensely important. I feel that it's a duty as an American to vote where we have an obligation to do it," church member Cannon Manatt said.
The church is helping members register to vote. It's part of a nationwide effort to give Christians a political voice. Thousands of churches including Great Hills are drumming up support for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
"It really has nothing to do with what people are doing in their bedrooms. What it does is define marriage as something between a man and woman for life," Pastor Emeritus Harold O'Chester said.
Getting Christians to speak out on the issue may be difficult. Sixty-eight percent of Americans classify themselves as Christians, but only half voted in the last general election.
"They have a responsibility. I just want them to go vote this November," O'Chester said.
The Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas is also targeting voters. The group is against the amendment. Members said it mistreats homosexual couples.
"They can't make medical decisions for their partner in the event one of them is incapacitated. And these are the sort of family protection gay and lesbian couples have to do without because they are denied marriage," Colin Cunliff, with LGRL, said.
LGRL plans to go door to door with its message. The group will also register voters.
"We want to reach the people who already support us, so we can get them to contact their legislators. We also want to reach the people who are undecided about the issue," Cunliff said.
Churches and gay rights groups are determined to be heard in Washington and they're counting on it one voter at a time.
Church groups are declaring Monday "Call your Senators Day." They've also compiled a petition of support with almost 2 million signatures.
The LGRL of Texas plans to continue going door to door with its own message. That'll continue through the summer.


365Gay.com, July 12, 2004
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/071204coors.htm
Coors Seeks To Head Off Gay Boycott
by Steph Smith, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Chicago Bureau
Chicago, Illinois – Faced with a threatened boycott by gay consumers Coors Brewing Company is launching a major ad offensive to further distanced itself from Pete Coors, the company's Chairman, who is on a leave of absence to run for the US Senate on the Republican ticket from Colorado.
Pete Coors said he supports amending the US Constitution to prevent gays from marrying, and has been consistently using the issue to garner support among Colorado conservatives.
But the company which bears his family name, and to which he would return if he is unsuccessful in his bid for the Senate, says it does not support the amendment.
Coors Brewing is launching a million dollar ad campaign this month in the gay press touting its LGBT civil rights efforts.
"We want to make our position perfectly clear," Coors CEO Leo Kiely says in the ad. "We do not support discrimination against the GLBT community – via legislation or otherwise."
In bold type the ad says "We do not support amending the Constitution."
The full page ads go on to outline the company's progress at being gay inclusive since 1978 when the company was faced with its first boycott after supporting efforts in San Francisco to deny gays civil rights. San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk launched the boycott of Coors products that spread across the country.
Ironically, it was Pete Coors who ended the company's involvement in anti-gay political efforts.
The ads say that the company "made history in 1995 when Coors became the first major brewery in America to offer same-sex health benefits."
They also note that this year the company received a perfect score from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index.
A group of bar owners in Chicago is calling for a boycott of Coors products over Pete Coors stand on the gay marriage amendment.


Washington Post, July 12, 2004
1150 15th Street NW, Washington, DC, 20071
(E-Mail: letterstoed@washpost.com )( http://washingtonpost.com )
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43461-2004Jul11.html
Revolving Door for Troops
By Nathaniel Frank
In a move some are calling a "backdoor draft," the Pentagon has announced it will issue mandatory recalls to more than 5,600 Army troops for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. The use of these soldiers from the Individual Ready Reserve is the latest step military leaders are taking to maintain adequate troop strength for our continuing battles in the Middle East. Thousands of service members have had their tours of duty extended beyond the terms of their contracts. "Stop-loss" orders were issued to delay scheduled discharges. And Congress recently approved increasing the size of the Army by 20,000 recruits.
As military and political leaders struggle to address critical troop shortages in the Middle East, they should consider the results of a data analysis just released by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Our report, which analyzed data obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center through a Freedom of Information Act request, revealed that the military is losing mission-critical combat and support specialists because of the ban on openly gay soldiers. What is particularly troubling about the results is that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which requires the discharge of known gays and lesbians, is ousting troops in the very same occupational specialties as service members who are being involuntarily recalled from civilian life.
The Pentagon's recalls are targeting specialists with needed skills in intelligence, engineering, medicine, administration, transportation, security, and other key support and logistical areas. Under the gay ban, the military has expelled thousands of just such troops: 268 in intelligence, 57 in combat engineering, 331 in medical treatment, 255 in administration, 292 in transportation, 232 in military police and security, and 420 in supply and logistics since 1998. It also booted 88 language specialists (many of them Arabic-language translators and interrogators); 49 nuclear, biological and chemical warfare experts; 52 missile guidance and control operators; and 150 rocket, missile and other artillery specialists.
In certain badly needed specialties, the military could have avoided involuntary recalls altogether if it had not expelled competent gay troops in those fields: It is recalling 72 soldiers in communication and navigation but expelled 115 gay troops in that category; 33 in operational intelligence but expelled 50 gays; 33 in combat operations control but expelled 106. In total, while the Army is set to recall 5,674 troops from the Individual Ready Reserve, 6,273 troops have been discharged for being gay, lesbian or bisexual since 1998. The discharges continue, at the rate of two to three per day, despite alarming reports that the military is stretched dangerously thin and is overtaxing its current forces.
The forced extension of military service comes at great cost to America's troops and its mission. We now depend heavily on reservists and National Guard troops, who have less training, higher stress levels and lower morale. Members of the Individual Ready Reserve are even less prepared and less cohesive, because they have not been training with a unit while out of the service. The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in short, puts discrimination against competent soldiers above the combat readiness of the entire force.
Early in the current conflict, the Pentagon issued stop-loss orders to maintain troop strength as the nation went to war. But so determined was the military to spare its ranks the mark of homosexuality that the order explicitly excepted gay discharges from the stop-loss, allowing their expulsions to continue. Yet actual gay discharge figures, which have skyrocketed under "don't ask, don't tell," have sagged during the war itself, as they have in every war since World War II. Why? Because commanders in the field – focused on winning the battles at hand – have clearly turned a blind eye to the policy. They know what nearly every expert now admits: that when unit cohesion matters most, sexual orientation is the furthest thing from anyone's mind.
It's time to call on Congress, which wrote the current gay ban into law, to put national security before discrimination against patriotic gay Americans ready to serve their country.
• The writer is a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara and is writing a book on "don't ask, don't tell."

The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage, 'Wedge issue' isn't grabbing conservatives, Senate vote on constitutional amendment set for Wednesday; ban doomed?

Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Monday, July 12, 2004



Washington -- Despite a ferocious campaign by gay activists and religious conservatives alike -- from Midwestern ad blitzes accusing Republican senators of being anti-family to "outings" of allegedly lesbian and gay members of Congress and their staffs -- the same-sex marriage debate is hardly proving the election-year culture war widely forecast just a few months ago.

As the Senate moves toward a Wednesday procedural vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, even its sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., conceded he would at best eke out a bare majority, far short of the 67 votes needed to get the proposed amendment out of the Senate and short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

"I think the relentless flow of homosexual propaganda in television and movies has taken a toll, so that people feel even defending marriage is an act of intolerance," said Robert Knight, director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, in explaining the lack of enthusiasm for the amendment the group supports.

"It's dead as a doornail," declared Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "The Federal Marriage Amendment has just not caught fire with the right. There's no other way to explain it."

GOP efforts to make same-sex marriage a "wedge issue" to split off Catholic, African American, Hispanic and other Democratic voters may yet prove pivotal in a tight presidential election.

But so far, voter concerns over the war in Iraq and the economy have swamped the marriage question, even among many religious conservatives.

Although groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family have strived mightily to generate enthusiasm, the issue has not yet caught fire in the pews.

"I don't think pastors by and large have seen this as enough of a threat to speak out forcefully and frequently on the issue so that many Christians are not fully aware of this titanic struggle underway," Knight said. "They're sort of just going about their business, assuming that nothing this radical could really happen, that it must just be some thing that happens in zany places like Massachusetts or San Francisco."

Moreover, while polls indicate continuing antipathy toward lesbians and gays marrying, attitudes about amending the Constitution to ban it are far more ambivalent.

"People were talking about the issue's potential because of the possibility of energizing the base," said Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute who just finished an in-depth study of national polling on the issue. "But the American people just don't seem to want to go along."

Bowman said national polls are stable at 50 to 52 percent in favor of an amendment, despite the start of the nation's first court-sanctioned same-sex marriages in Massachusetts on May 17. "It's very clear that people would prefer" that the issue be left to the states, Bowman said. Polling also shows the marriage amendment coming in near the bottom of other national concerns, she said.

A bare majority is not enough to amend the Constitution, which requires two-thirds approval by the House of Representatives and the Senate and three- quarters of the states.

President Bush in his Saturday radio address broke his notable silence on the issue since declaring his support for a constitutional amendment in late February.

Bush, in his nationwide address, said the amendment is needed "to protect the most fundamental institution of civilization, and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined" by activist courts.

"A great deal is at stake in this matter," Bush said. "The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and the law can teach respect or disrespect for that institution."

The White House has been under intense pressure by its religious conservative base to come out strongly for the amendment. Now that Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has been named as Democrat John Kerry's vice presidential pick, political analysts see greater pressure on Bush to hold the Southern states where the marriage issue looms largest.

But despite the occasional high-profile boost, Bush has so far not taken marriage out on the campaign trail.

"The president is not out there talking about this to unemployed workers in Ohio or soccer moms in Florida, because this issue isn't playing with those people," said Chris Barron, political director of the gay Log Cabin Republicans.

The Massachusetts marriages simply failed to crystallize opposition, Barron said. "The plague befalling the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the end of marriage as we know it and the decline of the family never happened," Barron said. "So there was never his groundswell of outrage."

That is not for want of trying. For months, pro- and anti-amendment camps have worked feverishly to stir up their members, warning of impending doom -- the doom of same-sex marriage for the right, or for gay activists, the doom of a constitutional amendment to ban it.

Each group has its war rooms, fund-raising pleas and advertising and e- mail campaigns. Focus on the Family ran half-page newspaper advertisements in Ohio with a picture of a freckled, frowning boy and the question, "Why Don't Senators DeWine and Voinovich Believe Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father?" The ad has run in several states whose Republican senators are critical of the amendment.

Log Cabin struck back with ads showing Vice President Dick Cheney saying in the 2000 campaign that marriage should be left to the states.

A Web site called DearMary.com runs a faux milk-carton advertisement with a picture of Cheney's openly lesbian daughter, Mary, asking "Have you seen me?" The advertisement notes that Mary Cheney is working for her father's campaign now and remains silent on the amendment.

Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife, said Sunday the issue of same- sex marriage should be left up to the states.

John Aravosis, a Washington D.C., activist, began a campaign to "out" allegedly closeted members of Congress and their staffs before next week's Senate vote.

But beyond the activists, few others seem to be paying attention. Vote counts by Focus on the Family show just 33 senators in favor of the amendment, including only one Democrat, Georgia's Sen. Zell Miller, and declared opposition from five Republicans, with several more undecided.

The question is why the Senate Republican leaders are pushing a vote on a measure doomed to fail, against the advice even of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, who urged two weeks ago that a vote be postponed until it had some assurance of passage.

Democrats and gay activists routinely accuse Republicans of timing the debate for two weeks before the Democratic national convention to embarrass Kerry, a senator from Massachusetts who has said he disapproves of same-sex marriage but opposes a federal constitutional amendment (though he supported a same-sex marriage ban to his own state's constitution).

Republicans counter that the Massachusetts marriages set the timing and that the accusations about playing politics would come up whenever the ban is debated.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a leading amendment backer, said supporters simply want to put members on the record on an issue they see of overriding public importance -- whether traditional marriage between a man and a woman will be preserved in the United States.

"The reality is that most people are just now coming to grips with the fact that they're going to have to go on public record on this issue," Cornyn said. "Are you in favor of traditional marriage or are you opposed? Even in the Republican Conference, some who have come to this issue reluctantly are thinking how they're going to cast their votes next Wednesday."

John Green, director of the Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron and a student of the religious right, noted that it takes enormous effort to mobilize voters -- even when they feel strongly about something -- and organizers need something tangible for the cause.

"There is certainly very strong opposition to same-sex marriage among conservative Christians, whether you're talking about evangelicals or conservative Catholics," Green said, "but to turn that opposition into action, you have to have a vehicle."

Movement leaders chose the constitutional amendment as that vehicle, he said, but "this vehicle has some problems with it."

Among these are the high failure rate of constitutional amendments and a widely shared discomfort with altering the Constitution.

Many religious conservatives see the Constitution as "endowed with divine Providence," Green said. "They see the hand of God in the Constitution, so they are somewhat reluctant to amend it."

The Senate vote is likely to have little effect, analysts said, on the makeup of the body, where only incumbents Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, are in serious danger of losing their seats. Daschle's opponent, former Republican Rep. Jim Thune, has indicated he will use Daschle's position against him.

For the presidential contest, opposition to the constitutional amendment might still turn some voters, but analysts predicted that given its failure to pique wide interest, the Bush campaign will probably eschew television and newspaper advertising in favor of individually targeted direct mail, telephone and e-mail campaigns.

Both parties also are likely to use the issue to raise money and turnout and recruit volunteers among their respective bases, analysts said, but so far it has failed as a wedge issue.

"It hasn't happened yet, that's all we know," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

"I'd be cautious saying that it absolutely won't happen, because my guess is most of this will be targeted for October, particularly the last week or two, right into election day," Sabato said. "It'll be late, and it'll be designed to tip the remaining undecideds or flip weak supporters of the other candidate."

E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/07/12/MNGOR7K5HU1.DTL

The tradition of freedom, Proposed ban does not belong in either federal or state constitution, Lynne Cheney Speaks!

1. SANTA CRUZ SENTINEL County residents weigh in on constitutional ban on gay-marriage
2. THE STATE (South Carolina) Where members of the South Carolina Congressional delegation stand on the Stupid Marriage Limitation Amendment
3. SALT LAKE TRIBUNE Amy Isaacs of Americans for Democratic Action: The tradition of freedom
4. NEW YORK POST Page Six: New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to headline the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund’s fifth annual Hamptons fund-raiser
5. ASSOCIATED PRESS Lynne Cheney takes the same position on same-sex marriage that Dick used to take before he jumped on Dubya's Iraq-amnesia crusade
6. DETROIT FREE PRESS Marriage editorial: Proposed ban does not belong in either federal or state constitution
7. ASSOCIATED PRESS Libel suit that emerged from gay adoption case rejected on appeal

Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 11, 2004
P. O. Box 638, Santa Cruz, CA, 95060
(Fax: 408-423-1154 ) ( http://www.santacruzsentinel.com )
(Online Mailer: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/news/edit/form.htm )
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2004/July/11/local/stories/04local.htm
County residents weigh in on constitutional ban on gay-marriage
By Shanna McCord, Sentinel Staff Writer
SANTA CRUZ — With Congress considering an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman, Bob Correa and his partner Denny Carroll keep their fingers crossed that the proposal fails.
"It’s really scary," Correa, executive director of the Diversity Center in Santa Cruz, said about the Federal Marriage Amendment scheduled for a Senate vote on Thursday.
A constitutional amendment would put a squeeze on the gay marriage debate, which was propelled in February when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom set off a frenzy of opinion by thwarting state law and allowing same-sex marriages carte blanche.
Since then gays and conservatives have volleyed between what they see as a matter of equal rights and preserving traditional marriage, which Correa says are one and the same.
"People get married because they’re in love," he said. "The premise of becoming wed is a public presentation of your love for that other person."
In Santa Cruz, where the gay lifestyle is widely accepted, a celebration was held in May to honor and recognize same-sex relationships – and support San Francisco’s brief run of gay marriages.
Aiding the amendment’s passage is the Web site www.nogaymarriage.com, which urges people to sign a petition favoring the amendment because "activist liberal judges are intent on destroying the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman."
Dan White, minister of the Cornerstone United Pentecostal Church in Watsonville, said homosexuality is learned and he blames society for fueling such lifestyles. Supporting a provincial definition of marriage, he says, would be one way of bringing back what nature intended.
"The gay lifestyle doesn’t happen, it has to be taught," White said. "I don’t believe it was ever meant to be acceptable."
Tim Morgan, a Santa Cruz Republican set to be a delegate at the party’s national convention in New York in September, said passing a constitutional amendment is crucial to protecting the rights of individual states.
"The way the Constitution reads now, same-sex marriages recognized in Massachusetts have to be recognized in California," Morgan said. "Unfortunately, that’s why an amendment is necessary."
Correa and Carroll, who celebrated 20 years of domestic partnership in April with a 9-day vacation in Hawaii, said defeating the amendment proposal will help safeguard their joint assets. The two live like a married couple with one checking account, joint ownership of stocks and a house in the Seabright neighborhood.
"I’m optimistic it’s not going to pass, it’s hard to believe that it could," Correa said. "If it does, it really sets us back 50 or more years just like that."
• Contact Shanna McCord at smccord@santacruzsentinel.com.


The State, July 11, 2004
Box 1333, Columbia, SC, 29202
(Fax: 803-771-8639 ) (E-Mail: stateeditor@thestate.com )
( http://www.thestate.com )
Capitol Report, "Eye on Washington"
Voting On Gay Marriage
Republican leaders in Congress know they don't have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. They need two-thirds of both the House and the Senate.
But their game plan is for the Senate to vote as early as this week, and the House, within the next few months.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., says the GOP is forcing the vote to make Democrats stake out their views on a controversial issue before their national convention in Boston at the end of the month.
Here is where the S.C. delegation stands on the question:
U.S. Sen. Fritz Hollings, D, does not support gay marriage but doesn't back changing the Constitution.
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R, supports the ban.
U.S. Rep. Henry Brown, R-Hanahan, supports the ban.
U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-Springdale, supports the ban.
U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-Westminster, supports the ban.
U.S. Rep. Jim DeMint, R-Greenville, supports the ban.
Rep. John Spratt, D-York – "I am seriously considering the constitutional amendments now being proposed, but I am still hopeful that state courts and state legislatures will stand by the traditional definition of marriage and make an amendment to the Constitution unnecessary."
Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-Columbia, opposes the ban.


Salt Lake Tribune, July 11, 2004
P. O. Box 867, Salt Lake City, UT, 84110
(Fax: 801-257-8950) (E-Mail: letters@sltrib.com )
( http://www.sltrib.com )
The tradition of freedom
By Amy Isaacs
WASHINGTON – The self-proclaimed "uniter" and his congressional cohorts are doing it again: dividing the country in time for the fall election season.
The issue this time is gay marriage. The proposed Federal Marriage Amendment is a willful attempt to play politics with the U.S. Constitution. The amendment would invoke a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, thus inserting bigotry into history's most inclusive and democratic document.
President Bush said: "Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all."
A ban on same-sex marriage fails miserably in serving the common welfare. It simply creates a subclass of individuals. Not only are same-sex couples denied the right to marry, thousands of benefits that other couples enjoy, ranging from pensions, health insurance and hospital visitation to inheritance, are not available to same-sex couples.
The intent of our Constitution has been to protect and expand the rights and protections of individuals. This proposed amendment seeks to limit and restrict individual liberty by discrimination.
The Federal Marriage Amendment is an unnecessary and counterproductive approach to the debate on same-sex marriage. Most important, it is inconsistent with the history and tradition of our Constitution.
Marriage is a union of two people and traditionally has involved a man and woman. Opponents of same-sex marriage often cite tradition as a reason to ban same-sex marriage. However, traditions change and tradition is not an adequate rationale for preserving bigotry and injustice.
Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
The Federal Marriage Amendment does not represent "the progress of the human mind" but rather the fear and hatred of progress so prevalent in those who would have us mirror our "barbarous ancestors."
Chief Justice Earl Warren, in delivering an opinion declaring Virginia's "tradition" of banning interracial marriage unconstitutional, said, "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." The statement is equally valid for heterosexual and homosexual couples alike.
Even Vice President Dick Cheney feels this sort of discrimination is bad. "The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. . . . I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area," Cheney said during the 2000 election campaign.
"Traditions" evolve or dissolve; however, there is certainly one tradition we should embrace: the American tradition of equality and progress.
America should follow the tradition of progress by allowing gay couples the same rights and protections as others. America should follow the tradition of protecting rights and promoting equality rather than that of discrimination.
• Amy F. Isaacs is the national director of Americans for Democratic Action, http://www.adaction.org, the nation's oldest liberal political association. Readers may write to her at ADA, 1625 K St. NW, Suite 210, Washington, D.C. 20006.


New York Post, July 11, 2004
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax: 212-930-8546 ) (E-Mail: letters@nypost.com )
( http://www.nypost.com )
http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm
Page Six: Spitzer For Gays
The big headliner at the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund’s fifth annual Hamptons fund-raiser on July 18 – following in the footsteps of Democratic daughter Chrissy Gephardt last year – is State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. This is Spitzer’s first big swing on the national gay political scene. All money raised at the soiree at the East Hampton spread of Dr. Mathew Lefkowicz and Kyle Dupre benefits the Victory Fund, which prepares openly gay candidates for political office. The host committee and attendees for the clambake include teachers’ union president Randi Weingarten, DNC Treasurer Andy Tobias, p.r. honcho Scott Widmeyer (who co-chairs the Fund), top John Kerry gay fund-raiser Tom Daley, lobbyist Tonio Burgos and tech-CEO social activist David Bohnett.


Associated Press, July 11, 2004
Lynne, Dick Cheney Differ on Gay Marriage
By Will Lester
WASHINGTON (AP) – Lynne Cheney, the vice president's wife and mother of a lesbian, said Sunday that states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships.
That stand puts her at odds with the vice president on the need for the constitutional amendment now under debate in the Senate that effectively would ban gay marriage.
“I think that the constitutional amendment discussion will give us an opportunity to look for ways to discuss ways in which we can keep the authority of the states intact,” Cheney told CNN's “Late Edition.”
The Senate began debate Friday on an amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Supporters acknowledge the proposal is endorsed by only about half the Senate, well short of the two-thirds needed to approve a change in the Constitution. Still, a vote would put lawmakers on the spot in an election year as they seek to balance backing traditional marriage and gay rights.
The Cheneys' daughter, Mary, is director of vice presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign and helped the GOP recruit gay voters during the 2002 midterm elections.
She has been less visible this year while traveling with the vice president or working at campaign headquarters in Arlington, Va. As the election nears, she will play a more public role, campaign aides say.
President Bush said in his weekly radio address Saturday that legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization. A constitutional amendment is needed to protect marriage, he said.
During the 2000 campaign, vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney took the position states should decide legal issues about personal relationships and that people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing.
When Massachusetts' high court rules last year that gay couples are entitled to wed, the issue became a very hot political topic. Republicans hope it will take votes away from the Democratic presidential ticket.
Both Bush and Cheney have voiced their support this year for the proposed constitutional amendment. Their Democratic rivals, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose the amendment.
The Democrats also oppose gay marriage, but defend a gay couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage.
Asked Sunday about her husband's stand on gay marriage in 2004, Lynne Cheney said, “I thought that the formulation he used in 2000 was very good.
“First of all, to be clear that people should be free to enter into their relationships that they choose. And, secondly, to recognize what's historically been the situation, that when it comes to conferring legal status on relationships, that is a matter left to the states,” she said.
Lynne Cheney said the situation in 2004 is somewhat different from the one four years ago because of the Massachusetts court ruling and its effect on states.
Asked again about the difference between the Democrats and the Bush administration on the amendment, Cheney reaffirmed her preference for local solutions.
The vice president's press office had no immediate comment Sunday.


Detroit Free Press, July 11, 2004
321 W. Lafayette Blvd., Detroit, MI, 48231
(Fax: 313-222-6774 ) (E-Mail: letters@freepress.com )
( http://www.freep.com )
http://www.freep.com/voices/editorials/egay11_20040711.htm
Editorial: Gay Marriage
Proposed ban does not belong in either federal or state constitution
The Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate has decided that nothing facing the nation is more important this week than staging a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Even its backers concede the Federal Marriage Amendment is very unlikely to draw the 67 votes needed to send it to the House, where another two-thirds majority would be needed to send it on to the states for three-quarters of them to ratify.
So why bring it up?
Because it's an election year and Republicans want to force Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential candidate, to put a vote on the record. Since Kerry named fellow Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as his running mate, he'll be on the spot, too. GOP strategists are also hoping to use the vote as an issue against other Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
President George W. Bush supports the amendment, to the delight of his conservative GOP base. Never mind that it's not the sort of thing that belongs in the Constitution, that it would enshrine discrimination, that it takes away states' rights, that it's essentially redundant to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or any other valid reason for voting no.
Kerry, Edwards and Daschle are among lawmakers who have said they are not in favor of gay marriages but will not support this amendment. Still, they can expect their votes against it to be none-too-subtly used on the campaign trail as an endorsement of homosexual coupling, which the GOP hopes will have political consequences. That's why Republicans are bringing it up. It's an extremely divisive social issue, a potential "hot button."
"The amendment is being pursued for shortsighted partisan purposes," declares Dennis Archer, the former Detroit mayor who is now president of the American Bar Association, "but it will have a longstanding, dangerous impact on the basic federalist structure of our government, which enables our states to serve at the vanguard of social change."
While the ABA has taken no stand on gay marriages, the nation's largest organization of lawyers is "staunchly opposed to the proposed federal amendment because it tramples on the traditional authority of each state to establish its own laws governing civil marriage," Archer says.
Supporters of the amendment say liberal judges in places such as Massachusetts, by decreeing that people of the same sex should not be denied the rights and benefits afforded through marriage, are threatening a bedrock institution of our society. Fact is, many heterosexuals, including more than a few in political Washington, have been taking this institution pretty lightly for years. Seen the latest Newsweek cover story about infidelity?
Michigan is not going to avoid this debate or the nasty politics surrounding it. Although the state House in March voted down a proposed amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, the issue was kept alive through a petition drive. Supporters turned in more than enough signatures and should learn soon whether the amendment has been validated for the November ballot.
The same objections to the federal proposal apply here. Michigan is already among 38 states with a Defense of Marriage statute, based on the federal law, that prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
But the ballot proposal goes even further, with language that could be interpreted to ban civil unions and same-sex benefits as well as marriage for gay or lesbian couples. That would affect benefits now extended by more than 2,000 corporations, including the Big Three automakers and the state's largest universities. Knight Ridder, parent company of the Free Press, also extends such benefits.
Banning them in the state Constitution would send a decidedly unfriendly message to the young and tolerant "creative class" that Michigan hopes to attract more of if it can ever turn its urban centers into "cool cities."
This state amendment is unnecessary, discriminatory, divisive and distracting from far more important matters facing the state.
In a CBS/New York Times national survey in May, a resounding 70 percent of voters said they did not want the gay marriage issue to be a part of this year's election campaigns. So the strategy of conservative Republicans to shove it before the voters this fall in one way or another may backfire.
In any case, these federal and state proposals are bad ideas that don't belong in anybody's constitution.


Associated Press, July 11, 2004
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/9131999.htm
Libel suit that emerged from gay adoption case rejected on appeal
SAN DIEGO – A state appeals court has rejected a libel lawsuit that spun off from the widely-publicized case of two lesbians who sought to adopt each other's children.
The 4th District Court of Appeals in San Diego ruled that since one of the women invited publicity for the relationship, she was a public figure who needed to meet a higher standard to prove she was libeled.
The court ruled that the woman, Annette Friskopp, would be unlikely to meet that higher standard in her claim against her former partner. The appeals court ruling was published, which means it can be cited as precedent in future libel cases.
In a 2001 letter to Gay and Lesbian Times, Sharon Silverstein, wrote that Friskopp, her former partner, was "a convicted perpetrator of domestic violence against me."
Friskopp sued Silverstein the following year, claiming the statement was false and libelous.
In a 30-page opinion issued June 28, Justice Cynthia Aaron concluded that Friskopp was a limited purpose public figure. As a public figure, Friskopp would have to show Silverstein acted with actual malice when she wrote the letter.
Aaron wrote that Friskopp would be unlikely to prove that. While Friskopp had not been convicted of domestic violence in criminal court, a family court found that Friskopp had been abusive to Silverstein, according to the ruling.
The ruling broadens the reach of a 1992 law designed to protect free speech, said Silverstein's lawyer, Guylyn Cummins.
Silverstein and Friskopp met in 1989 at Harvard Business School and moved to San Diego the following year. In 1992, the couple had a public commitment ceremony and sent announcements to the San Diego Jewish Press. They published a book together and appeared on ABC's 1996 TV program on gay marriage.
Silverstein had a son through artificial insemination in 1996. Friskopp won approval from a county judge for a so-called second-parent adoption, in which a biological parent's unmarried partner gains parental rights.
Silverstein gave birth to another child in 1999 and Friskopp petitioned for adoption. While the second petition was pending, the couple split up, accusing each other of violence. Silverstein sought to withdraw her consent for the adoption as it was pending.
A trial judge said Silverstein had waited too long to withdraw the adoption consent. But an appeals court said there was no law that even allowed the adoption. Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled in Friskopp's favor.

Gays Undermining America Bush Says

by Paul Johnson
365Gay.com Newscenter
Washington Bureau Chief

Posted: July 10, 2004 4:35 pm ET

(Washington) In his second onslaught on gays and lesbians in two days President Bush used his Saturday radio address to put pressure on Congress to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families," Bush said. "And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure."

“If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened.”

The address brought an immediate response from the Human Rights Campaign, the largest LGBT civil rights group in the country.

"Just days after his administration announced new terrorist threats, President Bush took to the airwaves to promote a discriminatory amendment ranking dead last on the American people's priority list," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques in a statement.

"President Bush and his Congressional allies should focus on the priorities of the American people, not the agenda of their extremist base."

Friday the Senate began debate on the proposed amendment. (story) Most political observers believe the measure has little chance of passage, but it has energized Bush's support among conservative Christians.

Christian fundamentalists have declared Sunday "Protect Marriage Day".

Jerry Falwell, Gary Bauer, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and others are calling for preachers to use Sunday to preach support for the amendment.

A live program, "Battle For Marriage," has also been scheduled to be aired Sunday evening on various Christian television networks.

"The Federal Marriage Amendment is discriminatory, unnecessary and it undermines our Constitution," said Jacques.

"President Bush and his extremist allies are trying to distract the American people from the serious challenges facing America. The American people will see through these cynical politics."

©365Gay.com 2004

TN Gay activist says she did not seek spotlight

By BRAD SCHRADE
The Tennessean Staff Writer


The first sign of trouble came for Maria Salas with a phone call at her law office.

A friend was on the line with news. Controversy was brewing over Salas' reappointment to the Metro Human Relations Commission — the volunteer board that promotes diversity and investigates discrimination.

''Other than speaking at bankruptcy lawyer conferences, this is the most attention I've gotten,'' Salas said. ''I don't mind being the spokesperson if I feel like somebody needs to do it. I'm really not comfortable drawing attention to myself. I've been personally overwhelmed by the support I've received by friends, colleagues, neighbors.''

Salas, 41, has become an unsuspecting lightning rod as her confirmation process has turned into the latest flare-up in the city's gay-rights debate. The controversy sidetracked a vote Tuesday, pushing her confirmation to July 20.

Metro Councilman Michael Kerstetter, who opposes Salas' reappointment, requested the deferral. He said his opposition is not based on Salas' being a lesbian, but on rudeness and a lawsuit threat he said she made, but she denies, during last year's debate on gay-rights legislation.

Salas said she never really sought to be an activist. It just sort of happened gradually, as she became more independent professionally and more comfortable with being open about who she is.

She said a big step was moving to a small law practice, where she is a partner.

Salas first got involved in the local activism about eight years ago, when she started attending the Human Rights Campaign dinners. The group is the largest gay and lesbian political organization in the country, Salas said.

Salas in the past year has become a more well-known voice in the local gay and lesbian community. First was last year's debate concerning Metro's non-discrimination ordinance, then her appointment in June 2003 to the Human Relations Commission.

Salas is one of approximately 40 members of the national board of directors for the Human Rights Campaign. Salas said she got involved initially because she had friends in the group.

''It's similar to the way people get involved in a lot of different groups,'' Salas said of her activism. ''You either know somebody involved or you have a passion for the work. In my case it's both.''

Salas moved from Chattanooga in 1981 to attend Middle Tennessee State University, on a basketball scholarship. After graduation and working in administration at Cumberland University and Austin Peay State University, she enrolled at Nashville School of Law.

She received the Nashville Bar Association's pro bono award for service in 2001 for donating legal service to people who can't afford a lawyer. She is a member of the bar's board of directors.

''She's very professional,'' said Councilwoman Amanda McClendon, an attorney. ''She's a very well-respected attorney and very well thought of and very well-liked.''

McClendon, chairwoman of the council's Personnel Committee, reviews all people Mayor Bill Purcell nominates to boards and commissions. She said Salas' attendance record at the Human Relations Commission has been spotless since she was confirmed in June 2003.

McClendon said she believes the gay-rights issue has unfortunately become jumbled into the debate over Salas, but she is optimistic Salas will be reconfirmed July 20.

''It's my hope she would be reappointed because she's a real asset,'' said McClendon, who voted against last year's gay-rights measure, saying at the time that she voted her constituents' wishes.

If not, Salas said, other interests can absorb her energies. She volunteers at First Unity Church and is a vice president of the Belmont-Hillsboro Neighborhood Association. She lives in Belmont with her partner, Suzanne Michelle, an attorney.

''I want to serve on the commission,'' Salas said. ''It's important work for this city. But I'm blessed. I have so many other interests. I have my neighborhood association interests. I have a profession. I have the Human Rights Campaign work. But I do want to serve. I think it's such an honor to be asked by the mayor to serve the city.''

COMMISSION'S MISSION

The Human Relations Commission's mission as it was enacted by the Metro Council under the city's code ''is to protect and promote the personal dignity of all people by protecting and promoting their safety, health, security, peace, and general welfare. The commission will endeavor to carry out this mission both proactively and reactively.''

What they're saying

The Metro Council on Tuesday deferred for two weeks the reappointment of Maria Salas, who is a lesbian activist, to the Metro Human Relations Commission. Three other commissioners were reappointed. Here's what the other three said about whether they thought the opposition had to do with her positions on gay rights or her sexual orientation:

The Rev. Sonnye Dixon, commissioner and president, Nashville NAACP branch: ''I hope not. Mark Lopez is gay. They didn't target him. I don't know why they have targeted Maria. I hope one of the things they don't do is start delving into the sexual orientation of commission members before they appoint them. So there's a part of me that hopes it's something else.''

Mark Lopez, a gay activist on the commission: ''What I believe has happened is some people have talked to (Councilman Michael Kerstetter) who are opposed to gay and lesbian equality and they want to have her off because she is so outspoken. If that is not the case and there truly was a misunderstanding, then sitting down and talking and mediation should clear up the misunderstanding.''

Hershell Warren, chairman of the commission: ''I don't know. I can't speak to folks' motivation or what the reasons may be. I do believe there may have been a misunderstanding between Maria Salas and a councilperson. I would like to see if that misunderstanding can be resolved.''

Brad Schrade can be reached at 259-8086 or bschrade@tennessean.com.

Anti gay cruise rally set for Sunday, Bush Seeks Amendment Against Gay Marriage, Rift over same-sex ceremonies frays Colorado Episcopal diocese

1. NASSAU GUARDIAN (Bahamas) Anti gay cruise rally set for Sunday
2. SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Foes of gay marriage ban gather names
3. ASSOCIATED PRESS Saturday Radio Address Blah-Blah: Bush Seeks Amendment Against Gay Marriage
4. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS (Denver) Rift over same-sex ceremonies frays Colorado Episcopal diocese; Clergy exchange volleys as church weighs gay rights
5. SCRIPPS HOWARD NEWS SERVICE Deroy Murdock: Stop licensing marriage

Nassau Guardian, July 10, 2004
#4 Carter Street, Oakes Field, P.O.Box N-3011, Nassau, N.P. Bahamas
(Fax: 242-328-8943) ( http://www.thenassauguardian.com )
http://www.thenassauguardian.com/national_local/281240357393787.php
Anti gay cruise rally set for Sunday
By LaKeisha McSweeney, Guardian Staff Reporter
With the first "family value" gay cruise scheduled to dock in Bahamian waters on July 16, a band of protesters are anticipating to again have numbers that will make politicians realise that citizens value morality over revenue.
"We have to determine what it is that we want," said Pastor Mario Moxey, chairman of The Save The Bahamas Campaign, Wednesday during a press conference at The Bahamas Harvest Church, Prince Charles Drive where he announced a massive rally against gay cruises for Sunday in Rawson Square.
"Are we going to go after a morally sound nation or are we going to go after our livestock? he asked. "Are we going to think our pocketbooks or are we going to think moral decency?
Pastor Moxey added that the numbers at the upcoming rally, the first of numerous scheduled in the coming weeks, would also force politicians to end their silence on homosexual cruises and same sex marriages.
"The government listens again to numbers," said Pastor Moxey.
He said, "When we protested in 1998 it was the numbers that triggered the government to speak out on the issue. The influence comes through the mobilization of people. Government listens to numbers and to them it's just a number game. They are all politicians seeking to be re-elected."
The mid-July cruise is being heavily promoted by comedienne and former talk show host Rosie O' Donnell who reportedly announced that she and her life partner, Kelli O'Donnell would bring along their four children.
The vessel, a part of the Norweigan Cruise Line, hopes to attract some 2,200 gay and lesbian parents, children and their relatives on the voyage from New York with ports of call to Florida and The Bahamas.
He said the homosexual agenda seeks to redefine family values and cited workshops on the five-day cruise addressing gay adoption, artificial insemination, and surrogacy, as examples of this.
He said conditioning takes place when you expose a nation to a particular lifestyle "and this is why we have to make sure that we protect the morality of our nation."
Pastor Moxey said the country is engrossed in a spiritual warfare with the morality of the nation at stake. He said while homosexuality was not a communicable disease "homosexuality carries with it, spirits of immorality."
He said child molestation and other acts of immorality were on the rise "and we as a nation of people must be very, very, discerning about these things and take the proper steps to preserve what we consider The Bahamas, a Christian nation."
Further, Pastor Moxey charged that the gay and lesbian community with their exclusive vacations epitomizes discrimination.
He said embracing homosexual tourists creates a chasm between the heterosexual families looking for wholesome family destinations.
One example of this, he said was that of Walt Disney which he claimed has become tarnished and has lost its family support with its introduction over the last few years of a "Gay Day".
He said campaign organizers have absolutely nothing against homosexual tourists nor are they interested in screening tourists on their sexual preference but "what we're simply stating is that when a group that represents a moral behaviour that is deviant from the norms of our society, we have to ring the bell, we have to ring the bell, we have to say hold up," he said.
Pastor Vaughn Miller, Vice Chairperson said if the cruise is not opposed it will result in tragedy to the nation "morally, socially and even otherwise."
"The homosexual agenda is inclusive of firstly one of tolerance, secondly acceptance and thirdly participation," he said.
He appealed to Bahamians and all residents "who want The Bahamas to remain a decent and morally sound place to be, to come out and support us."
With regard to violence erupting at the protests, Pastor Moxey was adamant that organizers did not promote violence. He said their protests in 1998 were not plagued with violence even when confronted with open displays of affection by homosexual passengers off the Olivia cruise ship "and I don't foresee violence occurring."
Representatives from Rainbow Alliance of The Bahamas, a gay and lesbian advocacy group was also in attendance at the press conference.


Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 10, 2004
101 Elliot Avenue W, Seattle, WA, 98119
(Fax: 206-448-8184 ) (E-Mail: editpage@seattle-pi.com )
( http://www.seattle-pi.com )
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/181619_gayamend10.html
Foes of gay marriage ban gather names
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Staff
As Congress prepares to deliberate next week on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, gay rights activists here will deliver 3,000 signatures opposing such a measure to U.S. Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.
Three groups – DontAmend, Equal Rights Washington and Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington – have spent the last two weeks gathering signatures. On Monday they plan to present them at Seattle's Henry M. Jackson Federal Building.
"Both senators have indicated that they're going to vote against this amendment," said Bill Dubay, of DontAmend. "I hope this shows them that there are thousands of people around this state who are opposed to writing discrimination into the Constitution."
The proposed amendment would define marriage specifically as "the union of a man and a woman," a measure that proponents believe is the only way to keep judges from forcing states to recognize gay marriages. Yesterday, an appellate court in Oregon ruled that the state must recognize 3,000 such marriages performed there.
James Dobson, the family-values conservative who visited Seattle in May, urged listeners of his nationally syndicated radio program to tell senators to support the amendment.
But many scholars and lawmakers believe that the measure, which must be approved by a two-thirds majority in Congress and then ratified by at least 34 states, has little chance of moving beyond the Senate this year.


Associated Press, July 10, 2004
Bush Seeks Amendment Against Gay Marriage
By Pete Yost
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Bush says legalizing gay marriage would redefine the most fundamental institution of civilization and that a constitutional amendment is needed to protect it.
A few activist judges and local officials have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage, Bush said Saturday in his weekly radio address.
Leading the chorus of support for an amendment, Bush said, “If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract, and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost and the institution is weakened.”
His remarks follow the opening of Senate debate Friday on a constitutional amendment effectively banning gay marriage.
Reflecting the election-year sensitivity of the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said Republicans are using the constitutional amendment as a bulletin board for campaign sloganeering.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, accused Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of holding inconsistent positions.
Kerry and running mate Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, but support civil unions.
Bush singled out Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court, which called marriage an evolving paradigm. “That sends a message to the next generation that marriage has no enduring meaning, and that ages of moral teaching and human experience have nothing to teach us about this institution,” he said.
The president urged the House and Senate to send to the states for ratification an amendment that defines marriage in the United States as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
Senate Democrats signaled they will not throw barriers in front of the resolution, paving the way for a vote on the amendment as early as next Wednesday.
A constitutional amendment should never be undertaken lightly, Bush said, “yet to defend marriage, our nation has no other choice.”
The vote puts some Democrats and Republicans in a difficult position. One senator acknowledged the political risk in trying to walk a line supporting both traditional marriage and gay rights.
“I intend to be your champion on many issues in the future, if you want me,” Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., said in remarks directed at gay and lesbian voters. Smith is a leader in efforts to make attacks against homosexuals a federal hate crime.


Rocky Mountain News, July 10, 2004
400 W. ColFax Ave., Denver, CO, 80204
(Fax: 303-892-2568 ) (E-Mail: letters@rockymountainnews.com )
( http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn )
http://insidedenver.com/drmn/religion/article/0,1299,DRMN_61_3026086,00.html
Rift over same-sex ceremonies frays Colorado Episcopal diocese
Clergy exchange volleys as church weighs gay rights
By Jean Torkelson, Rocky Mountain News
A private same-sex ceremony in April between two Episcopalian women has escalated into charges of deception, "secret protocols" - and even a taunt of perjury against a retired Colorado bishop.
"Jerry Winterrowd knew such covert blessings were being done," says the diocese's most outspoken leader of the traditional wing, the Rev. Don Armstrong.
He argues that Winterrowd, who retired in January, paved the way for today's disputes by secretly laying down guidelines for same-sex blessings 10 years ago – but testified otherwise during a 1999 lawsuit brought by a lesbian youth minister.
"That's a bald-faced lie," Winterrowd retorts. "If Mr. Armstrong feels that way, he ought to make a presentment (church complaint) against me."
Such is the rift between two men who once played tennis and enjoyed dinner together with their wives.
The rift in the Episcopal Church USA – and the Colorado diocese – illustrates how American society is being riven by the movement to widen marriage to include same-sex unions.
This weekend marks a nationwide campaign to urge church members to support the federal marriage amendment, which defines marriage as solely a union between a man and a woman. It's scheduled for a Senate vote next week.
Last summer, the gay rights issue made history in the Episcopal Church USA when the church officially approved an openly gay bishop and the right of each diocese to develop so-called same-sex blessings – essentially, a ritual presided over by a priest and the closest thing to an official church marriage for gay couples.
In Colorado, both Winterrowd and his successor, Rob O'Neill, favor the idea. But to placate conservatives, the newly appointed O'Neill promised in January he would not authorize same-sex blessings until a task force study was finished.
The study just ended, O'Neill said this week. He declined to give details, but said the findings don't call for same-sex blessings right now.
In the interim, the traditionalists hoped O'Neill would "repent" altogether from his gay rights stand, which they believe is a fundamental break with historic Christianity. They have founded the Anglican Communion Institute, an international body that has submitted a 50-page document to the London-based worldwide Anglican Communion, appealing for sanctions against the pro-gay American church leadership.
In Colorado, conservatives claim to have the behind-the-scenes support of about 40 clergy in 30 parishes – about a quarter of the total number. Armstrong, a member of the Standing Committee, a diocesan advisory board, projects a $500,000 budget deficit because parishes are withholding funds from O'Neill's control, though the bishop disputes that figure.
And now, the fragile goodwill on both sides is fraying in earnest. The present tear traces back to April 24, when, at Good Shepherd Episcopal Church in Centennial, assistant rector Bonnie Spencer "made promises and exchanged rings" with lay leader Catherine Anderson, the widow of an Episcopal priest. They say there was no blessing by a priest.
The ceremony had been forbidden by O'Neill. Because of "the current climate," he says, he categorically turned down several requests for same-sex ceremonies, including even low-key prayer gatherings.
So, when Spencer went ahead with her ceremony anyway, conservatives were outraged that O'Neill responded with only a light rebuke – 6-week paid leave – which Spencer and Anderson could have used for a vacation.
The two women declined to be interviewed. Spencer is expected to resume her parish duties later this month.
O'Neill and the affronted traditionalists met in June to hash things out. At that meeting, O'Neill confirmed what conservatives found startling: that the diocese had "at least 11 same-sex blessings performed," according to a private process Winterrowd set up in 1994.
O'Neill denies the process amounted to "secret protocols," though he concedes "some variations" existed in the ceremonies that could be misconstrued as outright same-sex blessings.
Winterrowd bristles at the notion he did anything wrong, saying what he allowed was gay couples "to improvise and write their own prayers" – clearly the right of any Episcopalian under church law, he says. However, he says, he added a crucial caveat: "Under no circumstances may a priest bless that relationship."
Winterrowd's policy became important to a 1998 lawsuit brought by Boulder youth minister Lee Ann Bryce, who charged she had been wrongfully fired for participating in a same-sex ceremony with her partner at St. Aidan's parish in Boulder.
In a deposition, Winterrowd's testimony helped the diocese win. He said Bryce's firing was valid because "it was against the practice of the church for someone who had participated in a public blessing of same-sex union to be a minister of the church."
Winterrowd insists his testimony is consistent with his approval of improvised prayers, but Armstrong jeers, "He's parsing words."
Is there any chance, as conservatives hope, that O'Neill will reconsider his gay rights stand?
"I don't know how to answer that," O'Neill replies. "I believe, in the life of our church, there is room for those who hold different perspectives to live together with integrity and goodwill."
Winterrowd, too, is solidifying his gay rights beliefs. He's bitter and regretful now about the vote he cast with the Anglican majority at the 1998 worldwide Lambeth Conference, which asserted that homosexuality is contrary to scripture.
Today, Winterrowd calls that vote "a very ugly moment in the long and glorious history of the Anglican church."
What happens now?
"If there's no discipline, the communion (the Episcopal church) will probably fall apart," predicts Armstrong.
One thing he and O'Neill agree on: The crisis may require an outside body to step in and settle the issue.
But who?
Says the bishop: "The issue Don is raising is, what is the authority of the worldwide Anglican Communion over individual provinces (such as the U.S.)? That question hasn't been answered yet."
• torkelsonj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5055


Scripps Howard News Service, July 10, 2004
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_3025193,00.html
Stop licensing marriage
By Deroy Murdock, Scripps Howard News Service
NEW YORK – The U.S. Senate anticipates a mid-July vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment. This measure legally would define each marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Something so intimate is none of the government's business.
Senators are involved because officials in Massachusetts, San Francisco, the greater Portland, Ore., area and elsewhere have granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That's exactly where the trouble begins. If states and cities did not require couples to beg bureaucrats for permission to wed, politicians would not decide this issue.
One could assert that marriage licenses are appropriate to government, since couples affect third parties (primarily their own children). The state, this argument goes, essentially protects children and the public from the havoc that unlicensed couples could wreak. And yet numerous family affairs exist in which people may operate without government's green light, even when they influence third parties, for good or ill. To wit:
• No one needs a government license to reproduce. One of the most profound things two humans can do is bring children onto this planet. Most parents are loving and caring. Others are not. In 2002, the federal Administration for Children and Families estimates, 896,000 boys and girls suffered neglect or abuse, 1,400 of them fatally. Among the perpetrators of these deaths, 79 percent were the victims' parents.
Meanwhile, some 90 percent of children attend K-12 government schools, while 6.7 million college undergraduates received federal financial aid in 2000. Babies cost America's taxpayers who underwrite education from the sandbox to the seminar room. Thus, some parents beat their progeny and bill their neighbors without government approval. How can this be?
• There are no licenses for baptisms, first communions, bar mitzvahs or even participation in unusual cults (such as deadly "rebirthing" ceremonies) that have been known to warp kids' minds – or worse.
• Licenses are not required for parents to serve their offspring junk food, even though 15.3 percent of 6-11-year-olds are obese, the American Obesity Association reports. Parents also need no government permits to smoke around their kids, despite tobacco's health hazards.
• An estimated 2.1 million seniors endure physical mistreatment, financial exploitation and otherwise are abused annually. Two-thirds of their tormentors are relatives, including adult children. Most, but not all, grown kids treat live-in parents with love, valor and compassion. Despite these risks, moms and dads move into their adult kids' homes without applying for government licenses. How safe is that?
Why on Earth are Americans free to conceive children, feed them as they please, involve them in exotic religious rites and tend to elderly parents, even though these activities sometimes go tragically awry? Why not license such behavior?
On second thought, these are just four more of life's spheres that government should avoid. Marriage is another.
If two adults want to wed, let them. If they find a cleric to grace their nuptials, hallelujah – although signing a contract should suffice. Clergy and laity should decide who may and may not marry in America's religious institutions.
As for child-rearing, same-sex-marriage opponents should explain why couples who fail or refuse to reproduce or adopt may enjoy matrimonial benefits. If "the core purpose of marriage is to bind children to their mothers and fathers," as Stanley Kurtz argued July 1 on National Review Online, marriage licenses should expire after, say, five years if husbands and wives neither bear nor adopt children.
Consider also the slammed door that repels gay couples who seek marriage licenses vs. the fast lane that greets straights.
"Virtually any different-sex couple can walk in and get a marriage license," says Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry (freedomtomarry.org). "Deadbeat dads, people on their eighth marriage, convicted felons, people in prison, even people in prison for killing their wives can get marriage licenses. But committed same-sex couples cannot. I can sum this up in one word: Britney."
Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. Tell your senators not to molest the Constitution. To secure equal justice under law, the public rights and responsibilities that pertain to husbands and wives also should adhere to same-sex spouses. Government should license drivers, not couples. Marriage belongs precisely where we find wedding rings: In private hands.
• New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service.

Senate debates same-sex marriage, Gay couple's split months after vows adds fuel to debate, Metro issue stirs statewide TN gay-rights group & more new

1. SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE U.S. Senate debates same-sex marriage
2. SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS Gay couple's split months after vows adds fuel to debate; Breakup tangled in legal ambiguity
3. NEW YORK POST Bush Kicks Mass. Over Gay Marriage (Do not blame Fenceberry for that bad pun.)
4. BATON ROUGE ADVOCATE Ministers, family groups rally for gay marriage ban
5. ASSOCIATED PRESS New York: More Gay Couples Plan To Wed In New Paltz
6. THE TENNESSEAN Metro issue stirs statewide gay-rights group
7. KOTA-TV (South Dakota) Sen. Thune says "yes" to banning gay marriages; Not all agree
8. ASSOCIATED PRESS New Jersey Same-Sex Couples Are Eager to Registe
9. BOSTON GLOBE Senate opens gay marriage debate; Heated partisan battle expected
10. MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE Opinion: It's time the media stop reporting on athletes' sexual orientation
11. NEW YORK TIMES Senate Democrats Offer Early Vote on Gay Marriage
12. MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE Three letters rebut Kathleen Parker's insulting column
13. ASSOCIATED PRESS Florida: Ad urges senators to ban gay marriage; Senate hopeful pressures Democrats with radio spot

San Francisco Chronicle, July 10, 2004
901 Mission St., San Francisco, CA, 94103
(Fax: 415-896-1107 ) (E-Mail: letters@sfchronicle.com )
( http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle )
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/10/MNG0G7JFV11.DTL
Senate debates same-sex marriage
But report on Iraq, CIA takes center stage
Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Washington – Conservative activists piled a pyramid of boxes in a park outside the Senate Friday morning – with California at its apex – containing what they said were 1.4 million signatures representing a collective public outpouring in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
But inside the Capitol, what was billed as a landmark debate over the future of American society and culture got off to a desultory start.
A handful of Republican supporters warned that the courts would doom traditional marriage unless the Constitution was amended to save it, but the hot emotions of the day ran distinctly toward a Senate Intelligence Committee report blaming the CIA for misleading reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The Senate is scheduled to vote Wednesday to break a filibuster against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would ban any state from conferring marriage rights on gays and lesbians or any relationship other than that between one man and one woman.
President Bush used his radio address today to try to generate more momentum for the amendment to ban same-sex marriage, which even its supporters expect to fail.
"Senators are considering a constitutional amendment to protect the most fundamental institution of civilization and to prevent it from being fundamentally redefined," Bush said, referring to a Massachusetts high court order to allow same-sex marriages beginning May 17 and San Francisco's decision this past February to issue same-sex marriage licenses, which are now under court scrutiny.
"When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution – the only law a court cannot overturn," Bush said.
Proponents are hoping the presidential bully pulpit will help boost support for the amendment, which its sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., says is about 50 votes. That is far short of the two-thirds, or 67, needed to amend the Constitution and considerably short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster and allow the amendment to receive an up-or-down vote.
But both sides are lobbying fiercely to get their vote – opposed or in favor – above 50, which they could declare a moral victory and a reflection of majority will.
Gay rights activists said they would count the amendment's failure to get even simple majority as an extraordinary victory.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., scheduled the vote despite wide acknowledgement the amendment is doomed, arguing that a decision last fall by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court requiring that state to allow gays and lesbians to marry forced a Senate response.
Proponents of the constitutional ban contend the courts will inevitably sanction same-sex marriage nationwide, thwarting state legislatures and the Congress and overturning the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The federal law allows states to not recognize same-sex marriages in other states and prohibits federal marriage benefits for same-sex couples.
"It has become clear that the issue is a national issue, and it requires a national solution," Frist said. "Thus this debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate."
Democrats argue the debate is deliberately timed for two weeks before the Democratic National Convention in Boston to embarrass their presidential candidate John Kerry, who does not support same-sex marriage but opposes a federal constitutional ban.
"This debate is not about preserving the sanctity of marriage," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. "It's about preserving our Republican White House and Senate."
A vote count by the conservative group Focus on the Family lists 33 senators as supporting the amendment, including one Democrat, Georgia's Zell Miller.
Five Republicans and 40 Democrats are counted as opposed, and 22 as undecided, including a number of Republicans, such as Sens. John Warner of Virginia, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Tex., said the act of voting and putting senators on record could generate more support later, as has happened in many state legislatures that have voted on similar constitutional amendments.
"When there's been a vote on this issue, and then the people's representatives have gone back home and heard from their constituents, when the issue is raised again, more people vote in favor of traditional marriage," Cornyn said.
"I think that that's certainly likely to happen here as this issue gets more publicity. Even in the event we fail ... that certainly is not the end of it. This issue could be raised again and again. ... It takes months and sometimes years to pass."
While many if not most senators are on record as opposing same-sex marriage, the idea of amending the Constitution to stop it has divided Republicans, many of whom believe marriage is a quintessential state domain.
California's Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein oppose the amendment.
Feinstein issued a statement saying family law "has always been a right and responsibility of the states. A constitutional amendment is neither appropriate nor necessary." Feinstein also said she found it "very troubling" that GOP leaders were debating the amendment "when there are so many more urgent issues facing the Senate," including new terrorist threats.
To charges that the Senate should not be addressing the amendment, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, turned to the stack of petitions and said, "One look behind me should dispel those baseless claims."
• E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at clochhead@sfchronicle.com.

Associated Press, July 10, 2004
N.J. Same-Sex Couples Eager to Register
By Krista Larson
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) – Same-sex couples across the state are excited about registering their relationships with municipal officials on the first day allowed under New Jersey's new domestic partnership law.
Among those headed to a statewide celebration Saturday in Maplewood – with paperwork in tow – are Joan Hervey, 49, and Linda Geczi, 45, who have lived together for two years.
“Participating in something that historic on the first day is huge,” said Hervey. “For Linda and I, it's a very personal thing. For New Jersey and for gay people in New Jersey, it's a big step, a big milestone toward full relationship equality.”
The domestic partnership law, passed in January, grants some legal rights to registered couples, including the ability to make medical decisions for each other.
It allows partners to have some joint rights in filing state taxes, to be exempt from state inheritance taxes in the case of a partner's death and to extend the benefits given to state employees to cover domestic partners.
The law also covers unmarried heterosexual couples ages 62 and older. It does not legalize gay marriage and offers far fewer rights than those given to heterosexual married couples.
Couples must bring government-issued identification and show proof of shared financial assets to a municipal registrar's office. There is no waiting period.
“While we recognize this is not a marriage and does not come near to providing the protections of marriage, it's a step,” said the Rev. Bob Kriesat, who planned to be at the Maplewood celebration with Edward Mather, his partner of 35 years.
Maplewood was one of several municipalities with large gay populations that planned to open offices this weekend; most other towns didn't plan to start registering couples until Monday.
The South Orange clerk's office was opening at 12:01 a.m. Saturday to register couples.
“We know it's an important event and something crucial in the history of the country and we wanted to add our blessings to it,” said South Orange Mayor William Calabrese.
New Jersey is the fifth state in the nation to officially recognize same-sex coupling. In April, Maine's governor signed a bill creating domestic partnerships there.
Domestic partner benefits have been granted in California and Hawaii. Vermont has approved civil unions and Massachusetts recently legalized same-sex marriage.
Catholic and conservative groups have raised objections to the New Jersey law, but so far no lawsuits have been filed to block it, said Patrick DeAlmeida, a deputy state Attorney General.


Boston Globe, July 10, 2004
Box 2378, Boston, MA, 02107
(Fax: 617-929-2098 ) (E-Mail: letter@globe.com )
( http://www.boston.com/globe )
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/10/senate_opens_gay_marriage_debate/
Senate opens gay marriage debate
Heated partisan battle expected
By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON – The US Senate opened debate yesterday on a constitutional ban on gay marriage that is not expected to pass, but its consideration will give a public platform to cultural conservatives to rail against same-sex marriage and the Democratic presidential ticket.
Neither supporters nor foes expect the proposed amendment to the US Constitution to garner the 67 votes needed for approval. Most supporters also acknowledge that they lack the 60 votes necessary to stop a threatened filibuster and initiate a floor vote. Democrats accused Republicans of using the Senate for political purposes by forcing Senators John F. Kerry and John Edwards to vote on the divisive issue or face criticism for missing a roll call.
Kerry and Edwards plan to return from campaigning to vote on the final passage of the gay marriage amendment, but it is unlikely the Senate will get that far.
“Again, the Republicans have been playing politics on the floor of the US Senate," said Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. “Rather than addressing more pressing issues, like homeland security or strengthening the middle class, they are driving wedge issues that will further divide the nation."
Kerry and Edwards have said that they oppose gay marriage but also oppose a constitutional amendment to ban it, maintaining the issue should be left to the states.
President Bush plans to use his radio address today to discuss gay marriage. A presidential spokesman, Scott McClellan, said Bush would talk about “protecting the sanctity of marriage." Bush has endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Formal consideration of the proposed amendment is scheduled to begin Monday, but senators used the informal “morning business" period yesterday to warm up their arguments, with supporters saying the amendment was needed to preserve the institution of marriage.
“Gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose. But I'm sorry, they do not have the right to redefine marriage," said Senator Orrin Hatch, a Republican of Utah who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, urged “civility" in a debate that is likely to be heated and charged with campaign politics. Supporters of the measure emphasized that their positions are profamily instead of antigay.
“This is not about phobias. This is not about a desire to hurt anyone. This is an important discussion we ought to have about the institution of the American family and the institution of traditional marriage," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.
The amendment would define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, language supporters say would not prohibit states from allowing civil unions, as Vermont does. But opponents say the effect of the language is more sweeping. An analysis released yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union said such an official definition of marriage could preclude states from extending benefits to domestic partners, for example.
“I think what they're trying to do is say that they have something that has flexibility enough that it leaves it to the states. I don't buy that," said Ron Schlittler, acting executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.
A vote is expected on the amendment Wednesday. Approving a constitutional amendment requires passage by two-thirds of the House and Senate, as well as three-fourths of state legislatures. Advocates say they do not think they have enough support to force a final vote in the Senate, and also say they lack the necessary support in the House, which is expected to take up its own version of the legislation later this year.
The Senate did not follow standard legislative procedure in bringing its version to the floor. The Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on the amendment but never voted on it. Opponents said they would have prevailed.
The full Judiciary Committee did not take a vote, either.
Democrats say the Republican leadership forced the issue onto the floor without going through proper committee channels to put the Democrats on the spot before the Democratic National Convention, which begins July 26 in Boston.


Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 10, 2004
425 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis, MN, 55408
(Fax: 612-673-4359 ) (E-Mail: opinion@startribune.com )
( http://www.startribune.com )
http://www.startribune.com/stories/562/4868934.html
'Just who I am': It's time the media stop reporting on athletes' sexual orientation
Jason Gabbert
While visiting New York City on July 4, I checked the Star Tribune's Web site and read Pam Schmid's story about Minnesota Lynx center Michele Van Gorp's admitted homosexuality. Later that day, I was surprised to see one of the heralded news tickers in Times Square trumpeting the story.
Van Gorp's revelation came as no suprise to Lynx players, staff or fans, who had seen Van Gorp and her civil union spouse, Kyleen, in public for years. Now, because Van Gorp admitted the relationship to Lavender magazine, it is suddenly national news?
If the media felt this story was so newsworthy, why didn't they go after Van Gorp long ago, sneaking photographs of the two women together and pressuring them to answer questions about their relationship?
Simple. Van Gorp's sexuality isn't really news. Like she said, "It's no big deal, it's just who I am." What makes this news is the fact that Van Gorp acknowledged her sexuality to the media. Apparently her sexual orientation isn't important, but her courage to admit it is.
Homosexuals comprise a segment of society. It is a given, then, that a segment of athletes in high school, college and professional sports are going to fall into that demographic. It's a part of life, day in and day out. And it is irrelevant.
When New York Mets star Mike Piazza was "accused" of being gay a few years ago, it was not fans, teammates or opponents who did so. It was the media that drove the issue, so much to the point that Piazza actually had to call a press conference to confirm his heterosexuality. Piazza's revelation that he is straight had no more relevance than Van Gorp's admission that she is gay.
The media seem to believe that these issues are big news. They expect huge fallout, controversy and gnashing of teeth whenever a player discloses his or her homosexuality. And by seeking such a specific reaction, unfortunately they just might get it.
It took society a while to realize that a person's skin color when playing sports is irrelevant, though years ago it was a story the media latched onto like a hungry dog to a dinner bone. Likewise, it will take a while to accept the same about homosexuals.
There has been no backlash or outrage over Van Gorp's comments. Nobody made prank phone calls or picketed the Lynx offices. The world did not end. In fact, the next day was mild and sunny.
If Van Gorp stinks up the Target Center with her actions on the court, I want to hear about it. However, her personal life, like anyone's, is her business, not mine or anyone else's. Let's keep it that way.
• Jason Gabbert, Apple Valley, is an Internet marketer.


New York Times, July 10, 2004
229 W. 43rd Street, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax: 212-556-3622 ) (E-Mail: letters@nytimes.com )
( http://www.nytimes.com )
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/10/politics/10amend.html
Senate Democrats Offer Early Vote on Gay Marriage
By Carl Hulse
WASHINGTON – Senate Republicans began arguing their case on Friday for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage as Democrats signaled that they were willing to drop procedural hurdles and allow a vote on the proposal next week.
At the same time, President Bush restated his backing for the politically charged amendment, telling a crowd in Pennsylvania that the issue of gay marriage should be settled through ratification of a constitutional amendment rather than left up to the courts.
"What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do," Mr. Bush said. "This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage."
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic whip, said Democrats would not mount a filibuster against moving to a final vote on the amendment as long as Republicans agreed not to offer changes to the proposal.
"We are ready to rock and roll on the debate on this issue," Mr. Reid said.
If Republicans accept the Democratic approach, the Senate would face a vote as early as Wednesday on the amendment.
Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said he would review the Democratic approach with his colleagues. But Mr. Frist indicated he supported the idea of debating the issue for two more days and concluding with an up-or-down vote, saying that process would produce a result "clear to the American people."
The exchange illustrated the careful maneuvering taking place over the amendment, which is being heavily lobbied by activists on both sides and remains short of the 67 votes needed to pass.
Senate Democrats said they calculated that more Republicans would join them on a vote against the proposal itself rather than a procedural fight where Republicans opposed to the amendment might side with their leadership. But some Republicans might still prefer to force a procedural vote, which could allow them to try to paint Democrats as obstructionists while decreasing the margin of defeat.
As the Senate began consideration of the amendment, Republicans portrayed it as a necessary remedy to judicial decisions that are undermining American family structure.
"Traditional marriage is under assault," said Senator Wayne Allard, Republican of Colorado and author of the amendment, which he said "defines marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years in hundreds of cultures around the world."
Mr. Allard's proposed amendment states in part that "marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."
Supporters say it would not prohibit same-sex civil unions allowed by state law.
The political elements of the debate quickly surfaced on Friday as Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, criticized Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for president, for his views on the subject. Mr. Hatch noted that Mr. Kerry previously opposed a law defining marriage as being between a man and a woman on the grounds that such a law was not needed.
"Eight years later, a bare majority of John Kerry's own State Supreme Court has brought marriage, same-sex marriage, to the state and to the citizens of Massachusetts," said Mr. Hatch, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. "What is his position now?"
Mr. Kerry and his running mate, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, say they oppose same-sex marriage but also oppose the constitutional amendment on the grounds that marriage is a state issue.
Only one Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, joined in the debate on Friday, accusing Republicans of promoting a divisive issue during an election year rather than concentrating on more important topics.
"Political expedience, whatever it takes, seems to be the leadership's guidepost, not the pressing needs of the country," Mr. Leahy said.


Minneapolis Star Tribune, July 10, 2004
425 Portland Avenue, Minneapolis, MN, 55408
(Fax: 612-673-4359 ) (E-Mail: opinion@startribune.com )
( http://www.startribune.com )
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-0407100188jul10,1,3960933.story
Letter: Good fathers
This is regarding columnist Kathleen Parker's "How same-sex marriage contributes to the disposal of fatherhood" (Commentary, July 7). This column was nothing short of ridiculous. Gay marriage and the disposal of fatherhood have nothing to do with one another.
It seems as though she is implying that those gay men who choose to marry their gay male lovers are shrinking the pool of available heterosexual fathers. Nothing could be more wrong.
Gay men who choose to adopt children are likely much more fit to raise children than the enormous numbers of heterosexual men who get their wives or girlfriends pregnant.
Many heterosexual men who have children are not fit to be fathers; they are alcoholic, emotionally void and damaged by their own unfit fathers.
And yet the presence of this type of man in a child's life is supposed to be preferable to the presence of having two loving, fully functional, able homosexual parents?
– Sara D. Hauber, Chicago

Letter: Blaming gays
Excuse me, but Kathleen Parker failed to note that most same sex-marriages do not involve reproduction. Not all same-sex marriages will include parenthood. Not all heterosexual marriages will provide a continuing father for the child. The lack of action by fathers to protect their rights is due to the lack of interest and action by fathers. Don't blame that on gay or lesbian people.
– Carl R. Ek, Oak Park

Letter: Gay parents
I am a 21-year-old gay male who hopes one day to have a family. I found Kathleen Parker's column deeply disturbing on several levels.
Stating that same-sex parenthood, like single parenthood, could be a "predictor for children at higher risk for teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, academic underachievement, drug use and juvenile delinquency" is wrong. She is comparing apples to oranges. In same-sex homes children still have the benefit of having two loving parents, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation. Instead of asserting that it is some sort of mystical male/female dynamic that causes children of two heterosexual parents to be better off statistically than children of single parents (and, through her logic, same-sex parents), maybe she could consider that, among other factors, single mothers tend to be of lower incomes, or that the trauma of an ugly divorce has caused the child to act out.
It is also apparent that Parker has not conducted any research for her article and is, rather, just rattling off yet another reason to deny homosexuals their right to marry the people they love.
Same-sex marriage does not contribute to the disposal of fatherhood. The marriage of a homosexual couple, as with a heterosexual couple, does not mean that they will even have children; rather it is two people expressing their love in a civil contract.
Even if a same-sex couple decides to have a child, there is no mystical male/female dynamic that will not be present in that child's life. Children of two loving parents, no matter the sexual orientation, are a privileged group; and, according to research, children of same-sex couples fare just as well as those of heterosexual couples.
– Peter Haligas, Chicago


Associated Press, July 10, 2004
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/democrat/news/local/9121813.htm
Ad urges senators to ban gay marriage
Senate hopeful pressures Democrats with radio spot
By Tim Reynolds, The Associated Press
MIAMI – Republican Senate candidate Mel Martinez unveiled a radio campaign ad Friday urging the state's two sitting Democrat senators, Bill Nelson and Bob Graham, to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
The ad opened on the same day Senate Republicans began debate on the issue.
Martinez, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary, says in the ad that "the very institution of marriage is under attack," and he seeks the Senate seat being vacated through Graham's retirement to continue what he called a fight for values.
"If you believe, like I do, that marriage should be between one man and one woman, please join me in calling on Florida's U.S. Senators to support this historic legislation," Martinez said in the spot, which is running in the Tampa-St. Petersburg, Pensacola, Jacksonville, Naples-Fort-Myers and Orlando markets.
The radio ad is the first mass-media spot purchased by the Martinez campaign. The ad is to run into next week, said Martinez campaign spokeswoman Melissa Shuffield.
Graham has been on record for several months saying he opposes the constitutional amendment and feels the issue should be left to states to decide, a stance that mirrors the ones Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and his vice-presidential running mate John Edwards have on the topic.
Kerry and Edwards have both said they will vote against the proposed constitutional amendment, which the Senate may vote on as early as next week.
As many as two-thirds of all voters in the South oppose same-sex marriages. Some Democrats suggest the proposal is nothing more than an election-year ploy by Republicans.
"We always appreciate hearing from Florida constituents, but Mr. Martinez is very late to this issue and is clearly trying to exploit it for his purposes in the primary," said Graham spokesman Paul Anderson.
Nelson said Friday he will not support the constitutional amendment, even though he opposes gay marriage.
"I cannot support this change in the U.S. Constitution, because it does more than ban gay marriage," he said. "The wording could limit civil rights ... for a whole class of people. And throughout our history, the Constitution (has) always guaranteed civil rights, not taken them away."
Other Republicans running for Graham's seat include House Speaker Johnnie Byrd, Miami lawyer Larry Klayman, Coral Gables businessman Doug Gallagher and Vero Beach businesswoman Karen Saull.

San Jose Mercury News, July 10, 2004
750 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, CA, 95190
(Fax: 408-271-3792 ) (E-Mail: letters@sjmercury.com )
( http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews )
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/9124101.htm
Gay couple's split months after vows adds fuel to debate
Breakup tangled in legal ambiguity
By Tracey Kaplan, Mercury News
They've lasted considerably longer than the 55 hours pop diva Britney Spears managed to stay married, but a same-sex couple who tied the knot in San Francisco three months ago already are seeking to dissolve their union.
The couple's breakup after more than 10 years together puts the spotlight for the first time on the flip side of same-sex marriage: divorce.
“I would love to think that gay people will do a better job with marriage than heterosexuals,” said Frederick Hertz, an Oakland-based attorney and co-author of “A Legal Guide for Gay and Lesbian Couples” who represents one member of the couple. “But chances are they'll make as many mistakes as straight couples.”
Opponents of gay marriage Friday seized on the breakup as a sign that same-sex marriage was doomed, while gay-rights activists pointed out that about half of all heterosexual marriages also eventually fail. The breakup also highlights a tricky legal situation that all 3,955 same-sex couples who got married in San Francisco will face in the event they decide to sever ties or one person dies.
Hertz said the couple in question, whom he declined to identify for privacy reasons, own property together and aren't sure how to divide their assets. For married couples, the law is clear. But the rules and guidelines are far more vague and complex for non-married partners.
Hertz said the couple probably will have to wait to proceed until the California Supreme Court rules on the validity of the marriages, which may happen by the end of August. If the marriages are upheld, then the couple intends to file for divorce. Otherwise, they'll try to work out a legal settlement.
The breakup also has political repercussions because it's the first to surface since the gay-rights movement took pains to celebrate the stability and social value of same-sex relationships during San Francisco's 29-day marriage spree.
“It's not surprising that these unnatural arrangements don't last,” said Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California Families, a statewide organization that has sued to stop gay marriage in California. “Despite popular belief, the real goal of homosexual relationships isn't commitment; it's self-gratification and sexual pleasure.”
But gay-rights activists and marriage experts warned that conclusions should not be drawn from one case since thousands of other same-sex marriages performed in San Francisco remain intact. And in Massachusetts, no gay couples have filed for divorce since mid-May, when the state became the first in the nation to legalize same-sex marriages.
In Vermont, the only state in the nation that allows same-sex civil unions, less than 1 percent (38 couples out of 6,945) have dissolved the bond in the past four years. However, many of the unions involve out-of-state couples who would have to move to the state for up to a year to dissolve their unions.
“As a political development, this is not a helpful thing,” said Thom Lynch, executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Center. “But why should we be held to a higher standard than straight couples?”
Although the divorce rate among heterosexuals is high, only 1 percent of divorces take place in the first year, said Andrew Cherlin, a sociology professor who specializes in marriage at Johns Hopkins University. About half of couples split up in the sixth or seventh year, he said.
Another marriage expert said some same-sex couples in San Francisco may have been swept away by the euphoria of the moment.
“It certainly isn't surprising that some couples made a hasty decision or rushed to take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity without thinking this through,” said Stephanie Coontz, the national co-chair for the Council on Contemporary Families, a non-profit organization of family researchers, and a professor at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.
Hertz said some couples who hurried to get married in San Francisco are now seeking post-nuptial agreements to clarify issues such as the division of property and custody of children in the event the marriage fails or one of the partners dies. In January, a new state law for registered domestic partners will establish community property standards and dissolution rules similar to those available under marriage.
“Marriage is the one contract people not only don't sign, but that they're not even given a copy of,” aside from a simple certificate, Hertz quipped. “And in this case, until the legal issues are resolved, these couples will face enormous legal uncertainties.”
• Contact Tracey Kaplan at tkaplan@mercurynews.com or (408) 278-3482.


New York Post, July 10, 2004
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax: 212-930-8546 ) (E-Mail: letters@nypost.com )
( http://www.nypost.com )
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/26943.htm
Bush Kicks Mass. Over Gay Marriage
By Deborah Orin
On a rural bus tour, President Bush yesterday pointed to Democratic challenger John Kerry's home state of Massachusetts to explain why he backs a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
"This is too important a decision to have defined by four judges in a state, say, like Massachusetts. And therefore, I believe the people ought to be encouraged to participate," Bush said in Kutztown, Pa.
But he broke with those who say homosexuality is a sin, saying: "What they do in the privacy of their house, consenting adults should be able to do. This is America. It's a free society. But it doesn't mean we have to redefine traditional marriage."
Both Sen. Kerry (Mass.) and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), say they oppose gay marriage but will vote against the amendment because they feel it defaces the Constitution.
Bush also said, "My greatest fear is we're going to get attacked again" by terrorists, but he declined an invitation to talk about whether he fears for America's safety if Kerry wins the White House.
New college grad Jenna Bush, one of the president's twin daughters, was by his side in funky hipster pants making her debut stop on the campaign trail on the same day that Kerry's attractive daughters were on morning TV shows.
"She's already given me good advice. She said, "Dad, change your shirt,'" Bush told the Kutztown crowd.
Jenna, a University of Texas grad, and her twin sister, Barbara, a Yale grad like her dad, are both working at his campaign headquarters. This is the first time that either twin went out to stump and shake hands.
First Lady Laura Bush yesterday said Barbara may campaign with her next week, adding: "They're sort of nervously out there. They wrote an introduction for their dad but they didn't think they could give it yet. So they're just on the bus tour."
A Time magazine poll out yesterday gave Kerry a lead over Bush by 49 to 45 percent.


The Advocate, July 10, 2004
525 Lafayette St., Baton Rouge, LA, 70821
(Fax: 504-388-0371 ) (E-Mail: bbankston@theadvocate.com )
( http://www.theadvocate.com )
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/070904/new_samesexrally001.shtml
Ministers, family groups rally for gay marriage ban
By Brett Troxler, btroxler@wbrz.com, 2theadvocate.com staff
From a report by WBRZ's Marvin McGraw
The issue of same-sex marriages is set to go on the ballot in September, but on Friday a coalition of ministers and family groups from around Louisiana began their campaign to get voter's support.
If voted in, the measure on the ballot would lock a prohibition on gay marriages into the state constitution. Ministers at the rally said that is what the people of Louisiana want, but those opposed to the measure claim the issue is divisive.
"What we're talking about here is amending the constitution to make it legal to discriminate against a group of the population," said Cami Miller of Equality Louisiana.
The proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit state officials and the courts from recognizing a same-sex marriage, civil union or domestic partnership performed in Louisiana or any other state.
"Those who choose a nontraditional life style can do so, but they do not posses the right to morally, legally or ethically redefine marriage for the rest of us," said Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum.
Supporters say the amendment is important in the wake of the recent same-sex unions in California, Massachusetts and other places.
"There are those who believe that marriage needs to be redefined," said Rev. Ken Ellis of the Bethany World Prayer Center. "Marriage does not need to be redefined. God has already defined marriage between one man and one woman, committed to each other."
But Miller, who co-chairs the group called Equality Louisiana, said the proposed amendment is redundant because there are already laws on the books prohibiting gay marriage.
Voters go to the polls on the matter Sept. 18.
• As reported July 9 on WBRZ's 5 & 6 p.m. telecasts. If you have information or comments related to this story, e-mail them to news@wbrz.com.


Associated Press, July 10, 2004
http://www.wnbc.com/news/3515034/detail.html
More Gay Couples Plan To Wed In New Paltz
State Health Dept.: Same-Sex Marriage Is Illegal
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. – Another 17 same-sex couples plan to wed Saturday in the Hudson Valley, joined by a heterosexual couple to show support.
The village of New Paltz has become a focal point in efforts to legalize same-sex marriages in New York. Mayor Jason West presided over the first same-sex marriages in the state in February. Since then, dozens of couples exchanged marriage vows at public ceremonies.
The state Health Department has told municipal clerks not to give same-sex couples marriage licenses, saying it is illegal under state law. Court cases are pending over the constitutionality of that order.
None of the couples at Saturday's ceremonies will have licenses, according to the wedding's host, the New Paltz Equality Initiative.


The Tennessean, July 10, 2004
1100 Broadway, Nashville, TN, 37203
(Fax: 615-726-8928 ) (E-Mail: letters@tennessean.com )
( http://www.tennessean.com )
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/07/54129440.shtml?Element_ID=54129440
Metro issue stirs statewide gay-rights group
By Anita Wadhwani, Staff Writer
A new gay and lesbian group formed to fight for gay rights in the state legislature is instead turning its attention to a local fight brewing at the Metro Council.
Several dozen members of the new Tennessee Equality Project will meet next week to discuss the stalled reappointment of gay rights supporter Maria Salas to the Metro Human Relations Commission, the city agency charged with overseeing civil rights complaints.
Salas' appointment was deferred at the Metro Council meeting Tuesday on a vote of 27-10. The vote came amid speculation that some council members objected to her outspoken support for a Metro ordinance – since defeated – that would have guaranteed certain employment rights to gay and lesbian Metro employees.
Councilman Mike Kerstetter, who asked for the deferral, said the vote had nothing to do with gay rights.
“I'm saddened that it's gone down this road,” he said yesterday. “It has to do with character and credibility.”
Kerstetter, who described himself as a gay rights supporter, said he was referring to Salas' “disrespect towards the council with her comments” after the vote on last year's gay rights measure.
Tuesday, the new gay and lesbian group was to meet to draw up a charter and make strategy plans for next season's state legislature.
Instead, members headed to the council meeting after they were tipped off that Salas might not be voted in.
Wednesday, the group will again focus its attention on coming up with a strategy to support Salas before getting back to creating the new organization, organizer Randy Cox said.
The group will be a political voice of gays and lesbians in the state, and several existing gay and lesbian organizations are behind it, including Pride, which organizes the biggest gay and lesbian gathering in the state; the Tennessee Vals, a transgendered group; the gay and lesbian political group Stonewall Democrats; and the local chapter of the Human Rights Coalition, a national gay and lesbian advocacy organization.
In the meantime, Cox said, his group has alerted several hundred would-be members on an e-mail list to contact Metro council members to urge them to support Salas' reappointment to the Human Relations Commission.
• Anita Wadhwani can be reached at 259-8821 or at awadhwani@tennessean.com.


KOTA-TV (South Dakota), July 9, 2004
http://www.kotatv.com/localnews/story.asp?ID=19287
Thune says "yes" to banning gay marriages: Not all agree
Bill Sutton
Some say it's unnatural, others say it's immoral, but all Michael Fish knows is that he is in love.
Fish has been with his partner for eleven years now.
While Fish does not have any plans to marry, he can’t understand why people get so upset about those who do.
“Is it going to affect the crime rate, is it going to affect economics, is it going to affect insurance? … There is nothing bad in same sex unions,” explains Fish.
But after a May Massachusetts court ruling sent thousands of same sex-couples to the altar, opponents say the integrity of heterosexual marriage needs to be protected.
“The only certain way of putting to rest all of these legal decisions, all of these activists judges that are making decisions on these issues…is to put it into the constitution,” says Republican U.S. Senate candidate John Thune.
“Love is love…this whole amendment is completely unnecessary. It has nothing to do with running the country,” says Fish.
The federal marriage amendment is scheduled for debate in the U.S. Senate starting next week.
Fish hopes senators will quickly shoot the amendment down, because he says he tired of being treated like an outsider.
“It’s frustrating being talked about like you are a second-class citizen. … I thought we were all trying to become one,” says Fish.
John Thune's opponent, current Senator Tom Daschle, also says marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
But he says the matter doesn't require a constitutional amendment.

Bush pushes same-sex marriage ban, In radio address, president touts constitutional amendment

But what else can he do after the Senate intelligence report?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A day after Congress began debating a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and woman, President Bush took to the airwaves Saturday to promote the issue.

Opponents of the legislation accuse Republicans of forcing the issue to the Senate floor to fire up religious conservatives in support of Bush before the November election.

During his weekly broadcast address, Bush blamed "a few activist judges and local officials who have taken it on themselves to change the meaning of marriage" for pushing the matter to the forefront.

"In Massachusetts, four judges on the state's highest court have ordered the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender," the president said, referring to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in 2003 that denial of marriage rights to gays and lesbians violated their civil rights.

"In San Francisco, city officials issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code."

Bush said that "marriage is the basis of an orderly society, and the defining promise of a life."

He did not use the words "gay" or "lesbian" in his address.

"If courts create their own arbitrary definition of marriage as a mere legal contract and cut marriage off from its cultural, religious and natural roots, then the meaning of marriage is lost, and the institution is weakened," he said.

"For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families.

"And because families pass along values and shape character, traditional marriage is also critical to the health of society. Our policies should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them. And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure."

Bush urged civility in the debate, saying that "all people deserve to have their voices heard."

Several local governments have passed legislation allowing same gender marriages, and lawsuits may be forcing several states to do the same, as happened in Massachusetts.

In 1996, responding to a Hawaii Supreme Court ruling that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage for the purpose of federal law.

But Bush said that act was not enough to counteract judges insisting "on imposing their arbitrary will on the people."

The president said such an amendment should be passed because it is "the only law a court cannot overturn."


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/10/bush.radio

Senate showdown over same-sex marriage, Parents partner with daughter in opening lesbian bar, New TV crime series into gay territory & Pulpit Pols

1. WSTM-TV (New York) Anti-gay sign resurrected at Mexico church (the town in New York, not the country)
2. NEW ZEALAND HERALD Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary has sent a letter to constituents explaining his decision not to vote on the Civil Union Bill
3. NEW ZEALAND HERALD Christian political party to push hets-only "marriage culture"
4. THE DAILY IOWEGIAN (Centerville, Iowa) Parents partner with daughter in opening lesbian bar
5. WORKING FOR CHANGE Bill Berkowitz: Senate showdown over same-sex marriage: Religious right mobilizes massive lobbying effort for federal marriage-limitation amendment
6. STAMFORD ADVOCATE (Connecticut) Churches take a stand against a wave of vandalism that has targeted churches advocating for a federal marriage amendment
7. KENTUCKY POST Independence man who was seriously injured while helping a victim of gay-bashing has a long road ahead to recovery
8. 365GAY.COM Gay Democrats Denounce 'Homophobic' GOP Attack On Edwards
9. 365GAY.COM Human Rights Campaign launches a multi-media ad campaign to defeat the "Federal Marriage Amendment"
10. VIET NAM NEWS New TV crime series enters gay territory
11. NEW YORK POST Harvey Milk High School student files a $4 million suit against the city, claiming she was wrongly arrested last year in a melee outside the nation's first gay high school
12. SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER Letter: Amendment necessary to "protect the family"
13. DENVER POST Pulpit Politics: Colorado clergy on opposing sides of the gay-marriage debate will implore their flocks this weekend to contact their U.S. senators as a vote looms on a constitutional amendment that would "define" marriage as between one man and one woman

WSTM-TV (New York), July 9, 2004
http://www.wstm.com/Global/story.asp?S=2020247&nav=2aKDOdXw
Anti-gay sign resurrected at Mexico church
Edited by Dave Pieklik
A sign at a Mexico church is getting new life, but the same reaction.
The sign, which reads "Gay is not ok," was put back in front of the Lighthouse Mexico Church of God after being vandalized last week. Pastor Ronald Russell says he put it up to warn people that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.
"We still care. Someone doesn't want the gay community to know that this is an abomination, they don't want the scriptures out there. They painted over the scriptures last time, but we got to get the message out to them," Russell said.
The sign and its message continue to stir up controversy throughout Mexico. On one side stands Russell and his supporters. He says homosexuality is a sin that will keep people from going to heaven, and says the Bible backs up his claim. He says it's his duty to warn people.
"The scriptures are very plain, if a man lies with a man as with a woman, it's an abomination. And in 'Revelations,' it's very plain that the abominable will not walk in the light of heaven," he said.
James Watts, an associate professor of religion at Syracuse University, says while the Bible does say homosexual acts are wrong and condemns sinners, there is no verse that connects the two, or says anything about sexual orientation. The current debate, he says, is one part of a long ethical debate.
"It starts two to 3,000 years ago but it has been developed through many other considerations that have come into play since then, including, in this case, sexual orientation," Watts said.
Russell says he knows as long as the sign stands, it will generate debate. But he says he remains undeterred by vandals.
"We care enough to put it out there, and we care enough to take the heat," he said.
On the other side, folks like Donald Blackfox say they find the sign offensive and intolerant.
"I think it's garbage, I think the fellow that put it up is trying to build himself up," he said.
But Jeffrey Myers says he supports the sign.
"I support the sign because it's biblically correct. There's no hate involved, it's just standing on 'We love you, we care enough to let you know gay is not ok,'" said Myers.
The original sign had only been up two days before being painted over. Russell says the feedback he's getting is mostly positive, but he expects the sign could also be a target again.
"Probably, if I have to put up another sign, it's going to say 'You've been warned. Our hands are free of your blood,'" he said.


New Zealand Herald, 9 July 2004
PO Box 32, Auckland, New Zealand
(Fax: +64-9-373-6421 ) (E-Mail: letters@herald.co.nz )
( http://www.nzherald.co.nz )
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3577373
Muslim MP explains his no-vote to community
Muslim MP Ashraf Choudhary has sent a letter to constituents explaining his decision not to vote on the Civil Union Bill and his abstention last year on the Prostitution Reform Bill.
The Palmerston North-based Labour list MP said yesterday it was one of many he had written since he entered Parliament in 2002 and was given the job of representing ethnic minorities by Prime Minister Helen Clark.
"It's just a way of keeping in touch with them," he said.
Dr Choudhary said he had no problem with being the country's first Muslim MP, despite criticism from members of the Muslim community over his stances on prostitution and civil unions.
He said "more enlightened" Muslims – those who had either been born in New Zealand or who had lived here a long time – supported his views.
But there were others who needed "educating" in the New Zealand way of life and looking at issues.
In his letter, Dr Choudhary says he has received "lots of support" after he did not vote on the first reading of the Civil Union Bill, which has been sent to a select committee for public consultation.
He also says he is aware he represents a constituency that has "rather a conservative/traditional view of life".
Dr Choudhary has previously explained that while he believes in protecting the rights of minority groups, he must consider the attitude of the Muslim community.


New Zealand Herald, 5 July 2004
PO Box 32, Auckland, New Zealand
(Fax: +64-9-373-6421 ) (E-Mail: letters@herald.co.nz )
( http://www.nzherald.co.nz )
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3576472
Christian political party to push marriage culture
By Kevin Taylor, Political Reporter
The Christian political party Destiny New Zealand laid out its family and marriage-friendly policies at its annual conference in Auckland.
Not among the policies but under consideration is making homosexual acts illegal again, says leader Richard Lewis.
A spin-off of Pastor Brian Tamaki's Destiny Church, the party also intends getting behind Mr Tamaki's plan for a rally outside Parliament on August 23 against Government moves such as the Civil Union Bill.
The bill seeks to establish civil unions for same-sex and de facto couples as an alternative to marriage.
Mr Tamaki said he wanted other churches to unite in opposition to the Government and "make a stand for family values, the institution of marriage and the wellbeing of children".
Mr Lewis said moral issues would be at the forefront of the next election.
Restoring a "marriage culture" would include uncosted financial incentives every five years for being married, financial support for married first-home buyers and more financial support for full-time mothers. Other policies introduced on Saturday included:
* Taking the drinking age back to 20 and repealing the Prostitution Reform Act.
* Imposing more stringent censorship laws against violent and sexually explicit material in all mediums.
* Requiring beneficiaries to work 30 hours a week in return for the benefit, and reviewing invalid and sickness beneficiary cases to determine their justification.
* Strengthening ties with traditional allies such as the United States and Australia.
* Holding referendums on letting nuclear-propelled ships back into New Zealand ports, and on nuclear power plants.
Mr Lewis, a former policeman, said candidates had already been chosen for six of the Maori seats at the next election.


The Daily Iowegian, June 28, 2004
Centerville, Iowa
(Fax 641-856-8118) (E-Mail: iowegian.editorial@sirisonline.com )
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12124825&BRD=1284&PAG=461&dept_id=179799&rfi=8
Parents partner with daughter in opening lesbian bar
By Dan Ehl, Managing Editor
Jim and Diane Senior expect to take some heat from members of the community – maybe even from their own neighbors or acquaintances – but supporting and being proud of their gay daughter Ann is more important.
Maybe the loss of their son in an auto accident makes them aware even more of how precious children are, no matter what their ages, and the importance of sharing that.
And maybe if the couple did not have a lesbian daughter, the Seniors themselves might retain prejudices in regard to homosexuals. But they've recently gotten educated very quickly on the subject – Jim is now a co-owner with his daughter of a lesbian bar in Des Moines called Diesel.
The name is derived from a slang term, diesel dyke, which originally was used as a derogatory term for a masculine lesbian. More recently it is being used by lesbians as a term of pride to mean a strong, independent person.
Jim says the bar ownership came about when a lesbian hangout in Des Moines called Dolly's closed, leaving gay women no place to congregate. Ann has worked as a cook in restaurants. She decided she'd like to try running a bar and approached her father.
Jim said the proposition made sense and he didn't care if he got rich, but just broke even in his daughter's venture. They looked at several bars for sale and picked one that had catered to straight young men.
Seating 185, it has 3,700 square feet on the main floor and 2,000 square feet of office space on the second floor.
Ann was surprised when another renter in the building protested about the type of bar clientele. The complainer was black. Jim said his daughter expected other groups that face prejudices to have been more sympathetic.
Diane says they weren't real surprised when their daughter "came out" when she was 19 or 20. She said she finds it difficult to believe when parents say they had no clue to their child's sexual proclivity as they grew up.
Jim disputes those who claim being gay is a choice, saying it is an attribute that a person is born with.
He admits that after first learning that Ann was gay, interchanges with his daughter didn't always go smoothly.
"There was some trouble, I didn't communicate well," he said – to which Diane laughed and added that her husband still needed a translator.
"But I haven't backed down from it," said Jim. "I've heard comments about gays in general, some not nice. 'Well, my daugther is gay and that is not how it is,' is what I tell them."
Jim gets upset when he sees a person labeled gay as if that describes the whole person.
"There are 10,000 things about a person. Being gay is just one of those things. There are also 9,999 other things," he said.
These are things he continues to learn, Jim noted, especially when he visits the bar and meets the other patrons – not all of whom are gay. A main lesson has been that if there is a "gay agenda," he concluded, it is that they just want to be treated and have the same rights as their straight counterparts.


Working For Change, July 9, 2004
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17257
Senate showdown over same-sex marriage
Religious right mobilizing massive lobbying effort for federal marriage amendment
Bill Berkowitz
(This column is dedicated to my wife Gale Bataille and my daughter Leah, both of whom are celebrating their birthdays today. It is also dedicated to all those gays and lesbians who were married during the past year and to those who are looking to do so.)
If Karl Rove, the president’s chief advisor, and Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, hadn’t been searching for the mother of all wedge issues to galvanize their right wing base; if the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hadn’t ruled that the state’s constitution should apply to all of its citizens; if Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a relatively unknown Republican congresswoman from Colorado, hadn’t gotten the ball rolling in Congress; if Texas’ sodomy law hadn’t been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court; if newly elected Mayor Gavin Newsom hadn’t opened San Francisco City Hall to thousands; and if the president hadn’t endorsed it, it is unlikely the U.S. Senate would be on the brink of making history.
But all these things have happened, mostly during the past year. And now, sometime during the week of July 12, the Senate will be voting on a Federal Marriage Amendment – a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Perhaps the key event in getting the Senate to take up the issue occurred in late February, when America’s “war president” came out of the war-room closet just long enough to endorse a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. This was the imprimatur that GOP leaders and religious right organizations needed to take the gloves off: "The President was right on target when he said activist courts have left the American people no other recourse,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Washington, DC lobbying group, the Family Research Council. The American Center for Law and Justice, a right wing legal outfit founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson, issued a statement saying that Bush’s endorsement "serves as a critical catalyst to energize and organize those who will work diligently to ensure that marriage remains an institution between one man and one woman."
While the decision of the Massachusetts Court, and the photos – circulated world-wide – of thousands lining up outside City Hall in San Francisco to receive marriage licenses may have aggravated some people, that irritation didn’t swell into a national call to action as many on the right had predicted. And while polls showed that most Americans opposed gay couples getting hitched, the issue didn’t gain much traction, even after the president’s endorsement. For most Americans, it appeared that amending the constitution was not an issue to be taken lightly.
The mounting casualties in Iraq and so-called handover of sovereignty, along with Michael Moore’s award-winning film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” have dominated recent headlines and most Americans still aren’t paying much attention to same-sex marriage. The upcoming Senate vote, however, will provide an ideal opportunity for the religious right to turn up the heat on Senators of both parties, as well as activate President Bush’s right wing base.
As of this writing, sometime during the week of July 12, the Senate will vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The Senate vote “is really a discussion about ‘cloture’ –- the process by which the Senate puts a time limit on filibuster, thereby allowing a bill to be voted on,” conservative columnist Kathleen Parker recently wrote. If 60 senators vote for cloture, the Federal Marriage Amendment will go to the floor for a full vote.
While many observers believe, and a survey by the conservative weekly, Human Events, appeared to confirm, so far there aren’t enough votes to pass the amendment. But the scheduling of the vote is also a way for Republican Party leaders to play gotcha with the Democrats, forcing them to go on the record in time for the fall campaign.
Although the amendment’s language has yet to be finalized, its chief Senate sponsor, Sen. Wayne Allard (R.-Col.), has proposed the following: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any state, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”
Religious right’s plan of attack
On Sunday, June 11 – a day that’s being called "PROTECT MARRIAGE SUNDAY" – Christian pastors all across the country will take time out from their weekly sermons to advise parishioners to phone, fax and e-mail their two Senators, urging them to vote for the FMA, the June 28, edition of the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Falwell Confidential reported.
That same day, a coalition of religious right organizations, led by the Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention, are sponsoring “Battle for Marriage,” a nationwide satellite television simulcast “to encourage Christians and the Church to make their voice heard.”
The June 11 live satellite television program is the second in a series: In May, 700 churches were plugged in and more than 200,000 people were reached – helping the FRC to facilitate 40,000 emails to Capitol Hill,” the organization claims on its web site.
In his online newsletter, the Rev. Jerry Falwell urged Christians “to join together in a mass effort to protect traditional marriage.” The Rev. said he was “asking all pastors to lift up the God-ordained institution of marriage in their sermons on July 11, and to make clear the serious pitfalls which same-sex ‘marriage,’ polygamy and other diverse family forms present. In addition, Sunday School teachers are encouraged to discuss marriage from a biblical perspective, and also to discuss the threat of same-sex ‘marriage.’"
"I want to help rally the troops in the cause to protect traditional marriage from arrogant judges and pompous politicians who seek to circumvent the will of the people in order to enact their ambiguous views on marriage – namely by authorizing same-sex ‘marriages,’" the Rev. Falwell wrote.
The Rev. Donald Wildmon, the founder and chairman of the American Family Association, is also ratcheting up the rhetoric: In a recent AFA ActionAlert, Wildmon wrote: “The moral fate of our nation is in the hands of those of us – you and me – who believe that marriage is sacred, and should be between one man and one woman only. Our actions now will determine the kind of society our children and grandchildren grow up in later."
According to Wildmon, the AFA has already collected 1.5 million signatures at its No Gay Marriage website and will be hauling them to Washington on July 12.
Pressuring Senators
Paul Weyrich, widely acknowledged as the Godfather of the religious right, says that there hasn’t been enough pressure brought to bear on those Senators that remain uncommitted. According to Weyrich, the head of the Washington, DC-based Free Congress Foundation, there have been “too few calls, too few letters and too few faxes are coming into the offices of members of the United States Senate urging them to stand firm in defense of marriage between a man and a woman. That's why too many of the senators who should now be strong supporters of the Federal Marriage Amendment are still in the 'uncommitted' column."
Human Events’ late-June survey found that 29 Senators had committed to voting for the amendment while 18 indicated they would vote against it. Eight Senators were undecided, and 45 Senators didn’t respond to the group’s phone calls. (According to CBN.com, no vote on the FMA is scheduled in the House of Representatives “for the foreseeable future.”)
In an Alert dated June 28, the FRC published a list of 24 Senators it deems as the “highest priority” to contact, meaning those Senators whose vote could be influenced by public pressure. The list includes Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski* and Ted Stevens, Arkansas’ Blanche Lincoln* and Mark Pryor, Colorado’s Ben Campbell, Indiana’s Evan Bayh* and Richard Lugar, Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu, Nebraska’s Chuck Hagel, New Hampshire’s Judd Gregg* and John Sununu, Maine’s Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, North Dakota’s Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan*, Ohio’s Mike DeWine and George Voinovich*, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter*, Rhode Island’s Lincoln Chafee, South Dakota’s Tom Daschle* and Tim Johnson, South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Washington’s Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray* (those Senators with an asterisk by their names are up for re-election).
If the FMA doesn’t pass, some version of it is likely to be included in the GOP’s platform. In September 2003, when Ed Gillespie, the RNC’s national chair, was staking out the territory around the issue he claimed that gay activists were the true bigots and were trying to foist their lifestyles on people opposed to them.
"Tolerance is no longer defined as my accepting people for who they are," Gillespie told the Washington Times. "I think when people say, 'Well, no, that's not enough that you accept me for who I am, you have to agree with – and condone – my choice,' that to me is religious bigotry, and I believe that is intolerant. I think they are the ones who are crossing the line here."
[Fenceberry reader Bill Berkowitz is online at wkbbronx@aol.com ]

Stamford Advocate, July 8, 2004
Box 9307, Stamford, CT, 06904-9307
(Fax: 203-964-2345 ) ( http://www.stamfordadvocate.com )
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-banner4jul08,0,6845738.story?coll=stam-news-local-headlines
Churches take stand on banner vandalism
By E.B. Solomont, Special Correspondent
Connecticut clergy are saying enough is enough to a wave of vandalism that has targeted churches advocating for a federal marriage amendment.
A cross-section of religious leaders will convene at the state Capitol today to denounce nearly a half-dozen incidents from Darien to South Windsor. The meeting also will kick off a weekend where clergy are encouraged to rally parishioners to their cause.
Since May, banners saying "Defend Marriage Now," have hung on some 40 churches statewide, but complainants say nearly a half-dozen of them have been stolen or defaced.
"Almost immediately we had reports of banners being stolen," said Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, the advocacy group that distributed the banners. "I think it's pretty clear that people wanted to intimidate those who want to protect marriage."
The banners, part of a campaign launched by the Family Institute, represent an effort by those opposing same-sex marriage to lobby for support of a federal marriage amendment. The proposed amendment would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman only.
The destruction of the banners has spotlighted the debate in Fairfield County on the issue of same-sex marriage.
According to Brown, six churches have been targeted in the past few months, including Calvary Baptist Church in Darien and St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Darien, among others in Stamford, Wallingford and South Windsor.
At least one incident – at the Immaculate Conception Church in Norfolk – so far has been investigated by Connecticut State Police.
That banner was defaced twice, the last time resulting in a hole in the banner that changed the message from "Defend Marriage Now" to "Marriage Now."
"Religious liberty has been infringed," Brown said. "To say the two things" – vandalism and religious intolerance – "aren't connected is ridiculous," he added.
State Trooper Roger Beaupre said investigators believe the incidents to be political in nature. "Because there's not one specific church or denomination that are displaying these banners, it's more of an issue addressing same-sex marriage," he said.
But so far, police have no suspects, witnesses or leads, leading them to suspend the case.
For its part, Love Makes a Family of Connecticut, an organization pitted against the Family Institute in the debate over same-sex marriage, condemns the banner defamation.
"We are strong supporters of freedom of speech," said Carol Buckheit, a community organizer and educator for the group. But, she added, "The federal marriage amendment is unconstitutional, discriminatory and anti-family."
As proponents of the federal amendment gather at the Capitol today, Buckheit said her group also would be advocating their side of the debate by contacting their representatives in Congress.
"We think that all couples, including same-sex couples, deserve equal protection under the law," she said.
On Sunday, religious leaders will address their parishioners as part of Defend Marriage Day, also orchestrated by the Family Institute in an attempt to have parishioners lobby their legislative leaders.
Today's gathering and the weekend address come in advance of a pivotal Senate vote on the federal marriage amendment slated for July 15.
"We tend to interpret the Bible literally and therefore we do not believe that same-sex relationships are appropriate or in any way even helpful to the individual or to society," said the Rev. Dr. Tony Gibson of Calgary Baptist Church, where a "Defend Marriage Now" banner was displayed prominently and later stolen.
Gibson said he received e-mails accusing him of hate mongering and homophobia. "We are not homophobic and don't believe in any way that violence should be committed against people because of their sexual behavior," he said.
"But we don't believe that the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate same-sex relationships."
Other religious leaders echoed those sentiments.
"Some took it to mean we are against gays," said the Rev. John Ahern of the Immaculate Conception Church in Norfolk, where a banner was ripped. "We are not against gays."
But Ahern is against gay marriage – and will leave his church's tattered banner up as a testament to that.
"It is a statement that is still defending marriage," he said.
Still, Norfolk's zoning officers might make Ahern take his banner down for a different reason.
"They said it was not in compliance with Norfolk's zoning laws," Ahern said. "It's remaining up until I hear otherwise."


Kentucky Post, July 8, 2004
421 Madison Avenue, Covington, KY, 41011
(Fax: 606-291-2525 ) (E-Mail: kyedits@cincypost.com )
( http://www.kypost.com )
http://www.kypost.com/2004/07/08/bar070804.html
Good Samaritan still on the mend
By Kevin Eigelbach, Post staff reporter
The Independence man seriously injured while helping a victim of gay-bashing has a long road ahead to recovery, his friends say.
Matthew Ashcraft, 19, came home from University Hospital on June 28, two days after he was hit on the head with a baseball bat outside Woolly's on Monmouth.
But he might headed back to the hospital because he can't keep any food down and still suffers migraine headaches, said a friend from Alexandria, Brian, who declined to give his last name.
Ashcraft suffered serious damage to his left ear, Brian said, and will probably need several surgeries to repair shattered bones. A police report said Ashcraft's injuries included a fractured skull, cranial bleeding and a blood clot on his brain.
Doctors have estimated his chances for full recovery at 50 percent, Brian said, but any recovery will take three to six months.
"He's a very, very sweet guy," Brian said. "All he wants is for people to realize that violence is not the answer."
His friends were expecting Ashcraft to attend a benefit at the bar late Wednesday night, but didn't know how long he would be able to stay.
Another friend, Danny, who lives in Deer Park, Ohio, said he organized the benefit – a drag show and auction – to help cover Ashcraft's medical expenses, because the teen has no medical insurance.
"He's our hero," Danny said. "He went beyond the call of duty to help a person out when he really didn't have to."
The three men were on their way into Woolly's just before 11 p.m. on June 26 when they came upon two men taunting Leon Hughes, who was walking the bar's dog. "They said, 'Come here, faggot! Why don't you and your little faggot dog come here?'" Hughes said.
Ashcraft is not gay, Brian said, but feels very protective of Brian and other gay men. Brian said he begged Ashcraft not to get involved, just to call the police, but Ashcraft replied that he knew if he didn't, Hughes would get beaten up. Ashcraft stepped in, and the fight moved across the street, where he was hit with a baseball bat.
The sound of the blow sounded like someone had shattered a beer bottle on the ground, Danny said. It has caused him nightmares for several days, he added.
"I felt devastated," Brian said. "I was shaking real bad. I almost passed out."
Woolly's was having its first big drag show that night, said Bill Harvey, who is better known to some by his drag name, Flora de Ville. He said he rushed outside, still in costume, when he heard that something had happened.
"I am tired of people bashing gay people," Harvey said. "This is 2004. We don't have to be, 'You're gay, you're straight.'"
The bar owner, Rick Petri, said he doesn't understand why such things happen. "It's retarded," he said.
The sign on his bar reads, "This bar caters to all clientele, gay or straight. If this offends you, please don't enter."


365Gay.com, July 7, 2004
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/070704gayDems.htm
Gay Democrats Denounce 'Homophobic' GOP Attack On Edwards
by Paul Johnson, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Washington Bureau Chief
Washington – Republicans have wasted no time in attacking Democratic Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards for his support of gay issues.
Claiming that John Edwards "doesn't share the priorities of American families," the GOP is distributing a 23-page document that attacks Edwards' support for LGBT employment protections, the hate crimes bill, and for endorsing state-issued civil unions for same-sex couples.
The document called Who Is John Edwards uses Edwards voting record and statements the North Carolina senator has made on the issues. While all of the material is public record the way it has been put together under the suggestion he would harm traditional families has infuriated National Stonewall Democrats.
"Republicans insist on running a negative campaign that is dripping in pessimism and that is barren of vision," Dave Noble, NSD Executive Director said in a statement.
"It is time for our community to hold the Republican National Committee accountable for its continuous attacks on our families."
When asked about the RNC piece, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called the attacks "perfectly legitimate" and "perfectly reasonable."
"It's perfectly legitimate to talk about the issues and the differences on those issues, as well as to discuss the record," McClellan said. "There are individuals in this race who have records, and those records are a reflection of how they would lead in office."
The 23 page document was sent by the Republican National Committee to reporters at major newspapers across the country shortly after Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate.
"It is not perfectly reasonable to attack Democrats for upholding middle-class values," said Noble. "The majority of Americans support employment protections and equal enforcement of hate crimes laws, and it is the Bush campaign that is demonstrating how hateful and out of touch it truly is."


365Gay.com, July 7, 2004
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/070704amendSpots.htm
Gay Rights Group Begins Massive Ad Campaign To Defeat Marriage Amendment
by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Washington Bureau
Washington – A multi-media ad campaign was launched today to defeat the Federal Marriage Amendment. A vote on the FMA is expected next week in the U.S. Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has announced his intention to bring up the Federal Marriage Amendment for a vote during the week of July 12th.
The ad campaign, sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, will continue through next week's debate and vote, urging leaders not to write discrimination into the U.S. Constitution.
"The Federal Marriage Amendment is unnecessary, discriminatory and undermines the Constitution," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.
"We are delivering this message directly to our elected leaders and encouraging the millions of fair-minded Americans who oppose this amendment to contact their senators today.
A television ad called "Preserve and Protect" uses archival footage of presidents taking their inaugural oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton are all shown.
The ad asks viewers to tell President Bush to preserve the Constitution, not undermine it.
The spots will run in the Washington, D.C. market July 7 through July 13 on FOX News Channel and CNN.
A second television ad – "Priorities" – will run next week in targeted states reminding viewers that the Senate should be focusing on issues like the deficit, job loss, health care and terrorism.
Online ads urging the Senate to stop wasting time on the FMA will appear in the websites of New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post, as well as regional newspaper sites in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oregon and California, and in LGBT websites including 365Gay.com. The ads can be viewed at the HRC website.


Viet Nam News, July 7, 2004
http://vietnamnews.vnagency.com.vn/2004-07/07/Stories/21.htm
New TV crime series enters gay territory
A novel about the lives of gay men set in Viet Nam that has taken readers by surprise has now been made into a TV series.
Mot The Gioi Khong Co Dan Ba (A World Without Women) by former crime journalist Bui Anh Tan, which won first prize in the For The Nation’s Peace and Security writing competition 2002, is being presented in a 10-episode format, as part of the Viet Nam Television’s Crime Police series.
"It is a famous crime novel, which has gained readers’ attention for exploring this sensitive theme," screenwriter Thuy Linh, who adapted the novel for screen, explained.
"Moreover, mass media has mentioned much about the world of gay people but there have not been any films made about it."
Directed by Vu Minh Tri, Mot The Gioi Khong Co Dan Ba focuses on the lives of different gay and straight men.
The mysterious death of Bang, a famous scientist, means Trung, a policeman, has to go undercover as a gay man to enter the world of crime.
Along with his colleagues, Trung finds himself trying to solve a case in an unfamiliar environment ‘without women’.
He encounters Hoang, a gay man, who he gets along with so much Trung sometimes becomes confused and wonders if he might in fact be gay too.
"Generally, the novel’s plot remains but it is difficult to show some scenes on screen," said writer Bui Anh Tan.
He further explains if the novel revealed more about the lives of gay people using the narrative of a criminal case, then the film focuses more on the criminal aspect.
However, some shocking scenes will be limited due to the sensitive theme, according to screenwriter Thuy Linh.
Gay people in the film are also diversified – some people wear make-up in a feminine manner, while others look more masculine but are only interested in men.
"Like Hoang’s character, it took me a long time to find a proper actor," said director Vu Minh Tri explaining how difficult it was to cast the film.
"I talked with some fashion models but they were all reluctant after several phone calls. Finally, I chose Dao Van Bich, recently graduated from the acting school of Television Film Studio. And I am happy with my decision."
To take the role, Bich had to spend a lot of time integrating and mixing within the world of gay people at bars or discotheques.
"It’s an interesting but difficult role," Bich said. "And I don’t care much about what other people think of me. Moreover, it’s good to know about other worlds, which exist right next to us."
Other actors in the film are fashion model Minh Tiep, Duc Hiep and Phan Anh.
Mot The Gioi Khong Co Dan Ba will be shown on Viet Nam Television this month.
– VNS


New York Post, July 8, 2004
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax: 212-930-8546 ) (E-Mail: letters@nypost.com )
( http://www.nypost.com )
http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/24677.htm
Gay Teen Sues City For $4m Over Bust Ordeal
By Heidi Singer
A Harvey Milk HS student has filed a $4 million suit against the city, claiming she was wrongly arrested last year in a melee outside the nation's first gay high school.
Erica Simon, 18, says cops arrested her for no reason when she tried to file charges against her attacker – cuffing her to a door for 22 hours without food, water or access to a phone.
She claims cops treated her cruelly because she's gay.
"I felt like they treated me like I was dog doo-doo," the Coney Island native said of her reason for filing the federal suit.
Last October, after a flurry of publicity about the establishment of gay high school Harvey Milk, students said Vernon Jones, 23, began taunting a group of the school's students outside a nearby Starbucks. "He was like faggots should die. F- - - faggots," said Simon.
The kids threw insults back at him but, according to prosecutors, things got ugly when Jones pulled out a screwdriver.
Simon said she was standing nearby, but not part of the group, and remained standing while the other kids ran away.
So, she said, Jones threw her against a window. She fought back. That's when about 15 kids returned and beat and cut Jones, she said.
A furious Simon told cops she wanted to file charges against Jones, so a cop took her to the 9th Precinct station house, where she filled out a complaint – and then arrested her for gang assault and menacing.
Prosecutors refused to charge Simon.


Seattle Post-Intelligencer, July 8, 2004
101 Elliot Avenue W, Seattle, WA, 98119
(Fax: 206-448-8184 ) (E-Mail: editpage@seattle-pi.com )
( http://www.seattle-pi.com )
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/181144_ltrs8.html
Letter: Amendment necessary to protect the family
Washington Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray object to a federal marriage amendment, agreeing with Marianne Means' Sunday column. Means uses derogatory terms refering to the FMA but writes, "Polls show a majority of voters disapprove of legalizing gay couples."
So why are our representatives not representing us?
Marriage has been understood for millennia as the union between one man and one woman. The structure of civilization is based upon the heterosexual family perpetuating the race and nurturing the young.
What is at stake is the fundamental definition of marriage. Same-sex couples cannot reproduce offspring, or provide the heterosexual diversity needed for the best nurturing of children.
If same-sex couples join in some kind of union, in no way should that be called, or even likened, to marriage. This is not an equal rights issue.
A federal marriage amendment is required because rogue judges have usurped the sole right of Congress to make laws and are attempting to impose same-sex "marriages" on the populous without their consent.
– Richard Kern, Redmond


Denver Post, July 9, 2004
1560 Broadway, Denver, CO, 80202
(Fax: 303-820-1369 ) (E-Mail: openforum@denverpost.com )
( http://www.denverpost.com )
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E25130%257E,00.html?search=true
Gay marriage to take center stage on pulpit
By Eric Gorski, Denver Post Staff Writer
Colorado clergy on opposing sides of the gay-marriage debate will implore their flocks this weekend to contact their U.S. senators as a vote looms on a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Several national evangelical Christian groups have labeled Sunday "Marriage Protection Sunday" and are urging pastors to discuss marriage and the amendment from the pulpit.
"I don't see this as being political" said the Rev. Gary Hines of North Huron Christian Center in Thornton, who will preach on the issue. "I see it as a moral issue we need to stand up for as people who embrace the Judeo-Christian value system on which this country is based."
The Federal Marriage Amendment, proposed by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., is set for a vote in the Senate on Thursday in a showdown that could hold widespread ramifications in this fall's campaign.
James Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, said Thursday that to "work feverishly" for the amendment is the first objective of his new political advocacy group, Focus on the Family Action.
"A virtual meltdown of the culture is underway, and a considered response is overdue," Dobson wrote in the organization's first newsletter.
However, the Rev. Ted Haggard, senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, said galvanizing the faithful has proved difficult.
"The man on the street is not mobilized," Haggard said. "I don't think this issue has really come home to people yet. Average people just assume it's not going to affect them."
Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput also has vocally supported the marriage amendment. He appeared at a marriage rally outside the Capitol, twice wrote on the subject in his archdiocesan column and took part in a summit of religious leaders convened by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
In his June 23 column, Chaput urged parishioners to contact their senators in support of the amendment.
More liberal religious groups, which generally have a harder time mobilizing on political issues, also have sought a strong voice on the marriage debate.
The Interfaith Alliance of Colorado has taken a stand against the amendment, and the Rocky Mountain Conference of the United Church of Christ recently approved a resolution opposing the amendment.
"The Constitution is a document that guarantees rights," said the Rev. Phil Campbell, founder of Colorado Clergy for Equality in Marriage, which began a year ago in part to oppose the amendment. "It does not take them away. This amendment violates that spirit."
Campbell said he likely will call on his congregants to tell Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, R-Colo., of their opposition. The state's other senator, Republican Wayne Allard, is a co-sponsor of the legislation.
• Eric Gorski may be reached at egorski@denverpost.com or 303-820-1698.

Gay Marriage Update

SENATE Opens Debate on Same-Sex Marriage
Reuters reports the GOP "lacked votes on Friday as they began debate in the US Senate on a proposed constitutional amendment backed by the White House to ban same-sex marriage." Also report from NewsMax.com. And the Seattle Post Intelligencer, argues "Senate Republicans are working to ensure that Kerry and Edwards cast votes that could alienate voters in the Bible Belt, Florida Panhandle and other Southern bastions. The legislation: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages."


STAY Denied On Oregon Same-Sex Marriage Registration
Meanwhile on the other coast, KOMO reports that "Oregon may soon be forced to officially recognize the more than 3,000 same sex marriage licenses issued this spring in Multnomah County."

Policy on gays seen hurting military, what about gay divorce, Separating civil from sacred marriage, The Lure of the Affluent Gay Tourist & more news

1. BOSTON GLOBE Policy on gays seen hurting military; Others with same skills are recalled
2. ASSOCIATED PRESS Gay-Marriage Debate Fuels Showtime Drama
3. ASSOCIATED PRESS Gay Marriage on House Agenda Pre-Election
4. KNIGHT RIDDER TRIBUNE First comes love, then gay marriage – but what about divorce?
5. GOVERNING The Lure of the Affluent Gay Tourist
6. ASSOCIATED PRESS New Jersey to Register Gay Couples in New Law
7. ASSOCIATED PRESS Senate Stirs Debate on Gay Marriage Ban
8. ASSOCIATED PRESS Newsview: Democrats Could Lose Southern Votes (over marriage issue)
9. THE TENNESSEAN Council battle expected over gay rights advocate
10. KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS Bill Tammeus: Separating civil from sacred marriage

Boston Globe, July 9, 2004
Box 2378, Boston, MA, 02107
(Fax: 617-929-2098 ) (E-Mail: letter@globe.com )
( http://www.boston.com/globe )
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/07/09/policy_on_gays_seen_hurting_military/
Policy on gays seen hurting military
Others with same skills are recalled
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON – New military statistics show that many soldiers with the same skills as former service members the Pentagon is now recalling to active duty in the war on terror have been discharged from the military over the last five years under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibits gays from serving openly.
The military data show that in some areas where there are critical shortfalls, such as intelligence, military police, and infantry skills, the Clinton-era policy that allows the dismissal of gays whose sexual orientation is disclosed has deprived the military of some of the same skills it is now seeking by returning members of the Individual Ready Reserve to service.
Critics said that the figures proved the decade-old policy has undermined military readiness and hurt national security at a time when the Pentagon is struggling to meet requirements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other battlegrounds in the war on terrorism.
"It's tragic that at a time when the Army is desperate for skilled soldiers, an outdated and discriminatory policy is forcing the discharge of hundreds of specialists," US Representative Marty Meehan, a Lowell, Mass., Democrat and longtime critic of the policy barring gays from serving openly in the military, said yesterday. "Twenty-six foreign militaries have lifted antigay bans. It is time for the Bush administration to fully integrate the military."
According to the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California-Santa Barbara, nearly 10,000 individuals have been discharged since 1994 under the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. Some were trained in increasingly important specialties such as nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare, or were infantry soldiers, intelligence analysts, and foreign translators, according to statistics.
"The military is discharging military-critical talent at the time of a great shortage in precisely the occupational job specialties that they are now recalling involuntarily," said Aaron Belkin, head of the University of California center. "We fired more people than we are recalling."
Now, in a controversial decision that some have called a "back-door draft," the Pentagon has called up more than 5,600 specially trained members of the Individual Ready Reserve, which totals about 118,000 former soldiers who are required to keep in touch with the military for up to four years after leaving service but do not participate in regular training. Officials say that thousands more could be called up in the coming months.
A Pentagon spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Krenke, said the Pentagon could not immediately comment on the soldiers who have been discharged. Many of them, however, have the same skills as the soldiers now being called back, according to the statistics obtained by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in Washington through the Freedom of Information Act. In some cases the military has discharged well over 10 times as many specialists as it is now bringing back to active duty.
For example, the Pentagon has discharged 340 infantry soldiers in the last five years for being gay, but is now calling up 21 from the Ready Reserve with the same skills. The Army previously discharged 15 foreign language interrogators under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and now says it is short three of them for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Eighty-eight linguists have been discharged in the last five years, including seven who spoke Arabic.
At the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, Calif., the primary linguistics training school, 73 language specialists alone were discharged for homosexuality between 1998 and 2003.
"These men and women bring unique expertise to critically needed areas of the military," said Meehan, whose staff compiled much of the data.
"For our government to turn them away is senseless and counterproductive," he said. "All federal personnel outside of the military are allowed to be openly gay, including CIA agents. We are fighting a war against terror that will continue for years, yet well-trained, willing volunteers are turned away from service for entirely irrelevant reasons."
The Army discharged 50 people trained as intelligence operatives, but now needs 33, according to the military statistics.
In the area of law enforcement, including military police and prison guards, 163 specially trained soldiers have been discharged since 1998; 70 MPs have been fired in the last two years alone. Yet 72 are now desperately needed and being involuntarily returned to duty from the ranks of the Ready Reserve.
"Those numbers are very direct and irrefutable evidence that the gay ban is a policy of discrimination that hurts military readiness," said Steve Ralls, director of communications for the Service Members' Legal Defense Network, which represents gay and lesbian soldiers.
• Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.

Associated Press, July 7, 2004
Gay Marriage on House Agenda Pre-Election
By Mary Dalrymple
WASHINGTON (AP) – House Republican leaders who were once unenthusiastic about President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment against recognizing gay marriages now say they plan to bring the idea to a vote just before next November's election.
Senate Republicans want to force votes on the amendment in the next two weeks, just before Democrats convene to nominate Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry as their candidate to unseat Bush.
Also in July, the House plans to debate a measure that would give state courts rather than certain federal ones jurisdiction of gay marriage cases.
“We feel like marriage is under attack. Marriage is a spiritual bond between one man and one woman,” House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Wednesday.
“I came to realize, in the end, we're going to have to do a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage.”
He said House GOP leaders expect to debate the constitutional amendment in September.
The Senate has scheduled time in the next two weeks for debate on its own proposed amendment, though sponsors acknowledge the difficulty of getting the two-thirds majority needed for approval.
President Bush announced his support for an amendment in February.
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, has begun a television and Internet advertising campaign aimed at defeating the congressional efforts.
The amendment “is unnecessary, discriminatory and undermines the Constitution,” said the group's president, Cheryl Jacques.
Kerry and his vice presidential candidate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, oppose same-sex marriage but support civil unions. Neither would support a constitutional amendment.
Amendments to the Constitution require approval by two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
The bill dealing with jurisdiction of court cases would leave decisions about legalizing gay marriage in state courts and prevent federal judges from hearing cases that challenge the Defense of Marriage Act. It defines marriage in federal law as the union between a man and a woman.
Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., has written legislation to remove marriage from certain federal courts.
In a May statement explaining the bill, he said, “Simply put, if federal courts don't have jurisdiction over marriage issues, they can't hear them. And if they can't hear cases regarding marriage policy, they can't redefine this sacred institution and establish a national precedent for homosexual marriage.”
Associated Press, July 7, 2004
Gay-Marriage Debate Fuels Showtime Drama
By Lynn Elber
LOS ANGELES (AP) – While the issue of gay marriage has received its share of television news and talk show time, it has been largely absent from TV series – until now. Showtime's “Queer as Folk” charges into the debate in the season's last two episodes, in which partners Michael and Ben (Hal Sparks and Robert Gant) ponder marriage and decide it's right for them.
But their joyful, legal Canadian wedding founders on the U.S. prohibition against same-sex unions.
The scene in Sunday's episode (10 p.m. EDT) in which Ben proposes is superficially mundane, with familiar words of commitment and a ring. Whether the gesture is seen as promising or unsettling is up to the viewer; those involved in the show hope it's the former.
“Michael Novotny, you are the man I've been looking for all my life,” college professor Ben Bruckner says. “I'm so very blessed to have found you. Which is why I am asking you to do me the honor of accepting my hand in marriage.”
Michael, a comic book creator who's usually an optimist, is unsettled and shares his feelings with a friend, Brian (Gale Harold).
“It wasn't a story I told myself, the way straight kids did,” Michael says. “That one day I'd meet that special person, and we'd fall in love and have a big wedding. For me, it was never real.”
When cynical Brian derides the idea of homosexuals needing marriage or society's blessing, Michael protests: “It's also our God-given right to have everything straight people have. Because we're as much human beings as they are.”
“You're a writer. Rewrite the story,” Brian replies.
Series producers Ron Cowen and Daniel Lipman are eager to do some revision of their own on attitudes toward gay marriage in America, especially as the stakes rise with proposal of a constitutional ban.
They created the story for this Sunday's episode (along with Shawn Postoff, who wrote the teleplay) and wrote the July 18 finale in which Michael poignantly questions whether his Canadian marriage, discounted back home in Pittsburgh, meant anything.
Stephen Macias, national entertainment media director for the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, GLAAD, previewed the episodes.
“I thought they dealt with the issue very well, in a way that people watching the show can relate to, straight or gay,” said Macias. “'Queer as Folk' has always been groundbreaking and they continue in that tradition.”
Michael's entrenched view of marriage as unattainable reflects real-life gay attitudes, Lipman said. But that's changing with explosive developments such as the Massachusetts court ruling allowing same-sex marriage.
“All of a sudden someone says, 'Yes, this could be part of your history.' ... It really is a profound thing for gay people,” Lipman said.
Added Cowen: “All these very large social, political, religious issues ultimately boil down to the lives of two people who want to get married. I just can't get it into my head that two people wanting to get married, two people wanting to say 'I do,' could threaten a country.”
Cowen and Lipman, longtime personal and professional partners, have challenged society's attitudes before, most notably in the breakthrough 1985 TV film “An Early Frost,” about AIDS.
The creative freedom that the pair have on pay-cable channel Showtime to write about homosexuality and hot-button issues such as gay marriage was nonexistent then.
Instead, they had to pick their way through broadcast network apprehension and timidity in writing the movie, which starred Aidan Quinn as a young man who discloses his illness and homosexuality to family and friends.
NBC “had us do about 14 drafts of that script. It took about a year and a half before it finally made it on the air, and no one thought it would,” Cowen said, who credits the network for airing it.
He easily summoned memories about script negotiations with NBC's standards and practices department that reveal just how much television, if not always attitudes, have changed.
In one scene, Quinn's character brought his boyfriend home to meet his grandmother, played by veteran actress Sylvia Sidney. “I like your friend,” the grandmom was to say.
“The network said the line was out,” Cowen recounted. “We said, 'What in the world is wrong with that?”' NBC's response: “She's the matriarch of the family and what she's saying condones homosexuality.”
Objections were raised to another scene in which Sidney's character was to give her grandson a kiss; the network feared it would encourage behavior that could spread AIDS.
“So we called the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and they said it's extremely important that people see that kiss because AIDS is not transmittable that way,” Cowen said.
Sidney herself weighed in. “I kiss the kid or I walk,” she told the network. Under the weight of medical evidence, NBC acquiesced.
Oddly, the network was unconcerned about an AIDS-stricken character, very flamboyant and prone to outrageous statements. Asked why, network officials offered an outrageous statement of their own, Cowen said: “They said, 'It's OK for him because he dies.”'
Even with caution and not dramatic eloquence as the guiding principle, the pair managed to write an affecting, important film. Although a show on a cable channel doesn't draw the audience of one on a network, Cowen and Lipman believe “Queer as Folk” can influence the debate.
GLAAD's Macias notes that a network series prepared to address the subject of gay marriage, ABC's Boston-set sitcom “It's All Relative,” was canceled. It's unlikely the issue will be part of another broadcast show: None deal regularly with a same-sex couple's relationship, he said.
• On the Net: http:www//sho.com

Knight Ridder Tribune, July 7, 2004
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/9097262.htm
First comes love, then gay marriage – but what about divorce?
By Stevenson Swanson, Chicago Tribune
NEW YORK (KRT) – First comes love, then comes marriage.
Then comes divorce.
With the first legalized same-sex marriages barely 1 month old, pondering gay divorce might seem premature. But according to attorneys and legal experts, it's already here. Gay and lesbian couples have been struggling with the legal fallout of breaking up for years.
Without state recognition of their relationships, partners who are splitting up can find themselves cast adrift by the courts, with few provisions for equitable division of property, parental visitation rights or child support. If anything, the advent of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts last month could bring clarity to a process that has been evolving unevenly from state to state.
"I think one of the important benefits of marriage, ironically, is divorce," said Mark Legere, a New York attorney with 10 years of experience in the field of gay breakups. "All of the collective wisdom that has been built up in divorce law of how to end a relationship will come into play. It makes all of the issues that much easier and cleaner."
Court hearings to resolve property and visitation conflicts for homosexual couples are relatively new. Two decades ago, courts would not hear such cases, even if a couple had a cohabitation agreement.
"Family courts wouldn't touch these cases with a barge pole," said Jo Ann Citron, a Boston attorney who is compiling stories of same-sex breakups for a book she has titled "The Gay Divorcee." "I think what really made a difference with the courts was the lesbian baby boom of the 1990s."
With sperm donors and artificial insemination, more lesbians in long-term relationships started having children. And, as happens with heterosexual couples, some of those relationships later ended, leaving emotionally wrenching custody or visitation disputes to be resolved.
"There have been some heartbreaking cases where women who were not the biological mother but who helped to raise the kid are left totally out in the cold after a breakup," said Arthur Leonard, a New York Law School professor who tracks court cases involving same-sex couples. "They have no rights to visit the kids."
That was the upshot of a 1999 ruling by the Illinois Appellate Court, which rejected a petition by a lesbian who wanted the right to see the biological child of her former partner. The court said the state law that spells out such rights did not include partners in a same-sex relationship.
In recent years a new form of adoption has gained acceptance in many states, including Illinois, as a way to protect the rights of the non-biological parent in a gay couple. Called "second-parent adoption," that legal device allows a man or woman to adopt a child without forcing the biological parent to relinquish parental rights, as happens in a standard adoption.
But even without a second-parent adoption, some state courts increasingly are applying the principles of divorce law to visitation disputes when same-sex couples split.
In a closely watched case in April, Maine's Supreme Judicial Court said a woman who had broken up with her partner was the de facto parent of that partner's 9-year-old boy. Even though she had not adopted the boy, she deserved all the rights and responsibilities of motherhood, the court ruled, citing the "best interest of the child" standard used in divorce cases.
"The best interest of the child is the same whether it's a heterosexual or a homosexual situation," said Citron, the Boston attorney.
The other major area of uncertainty in a same-sex breakup involves the division of property. If assets are not held in the name of both parties, the lower-income partner stands to lose.
"The family law system is, for the most part, a shifting of wealth from the higher-asset to the lower-asset person," said Frederick Hertz, an Oakland attorney and the author of "A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples." In gay relationships, in contrast, "the economically disadvantaged partner has suffered the most from the inability to marry."
In a recent case, the ex-partner of one of Hertz's lesbian clients refused to include her stock options as part of the couple's joint assets. They reached a settlement, but Hertz's client would have received more from a divorce court, he said.
Starting next year, however, registered domestic partners in California will come under the state's family law. Property and debt questions will be handled as if the couple were married, and to end a domestic partnership, a same-sex couple will have to go to court for a formal dissolution.
That already is the case in Vermont, where same-sex civil unions have been legal for almost four years.
So far, 38 civil unions have been dissolved out of a total of 6,905, according to Richard McCoy of the Vermont Department of Health. But that low number is misleading because only 14 percent of all couples joined in civil unions were Vermont residents. The majority of civil unions involved out-of-state couples who traveled to Vermont.
The state has no residency requirement to form a civil union, but to dissolve a union at least one partner must have lived in Vermont for a year.
Several non-Vermont couples joined in civil unions there have raised new legal issues in their home states by applying to courts for divorces. Last year, a Texas judge granted two men a divorce to end their civil union, but then set aside his decree when the Texas attorney general said there could be no divorce because under Texas law the men were not married.
In a similar case in Iowa, a judge late last year granted a divorce to two women who had been joined in a Vermont civil union. The judge argued that he should be able to end a union that is legal in another state, but a group of conservative legislators has asked the state Supreme Court to overturn the judge's decree.
Like Texas, Iowa has a "defense of marriage" law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Hertz, the Oakland attorney, said he has two same-sex divorce cases that face uncertain outcomes. One involves two men who married in San Francisco this year in one of the more than 4,000 gay weddings that took place after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom told city officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
The California Supreme Court, which ordered a halt to the weddings in March, will decide whether those marriages are valid.
Hertz's second gay divorce case involves a California couple who were married in Canada, where some provinces began offering same-sex marriage last year. Hertz hopes to work out a property settlement between the two men so that all a judge need do is sign a divorce decree.
But such thorny legal situations are likely to become more common as couples married in Massachusetts move elsewhere and then break up.
"We're setting ourselves up for a very interesting few decades of litigation," said New York Law School's Leonard.


Governing, July 7, 2004
1100 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 1300, Washington, DC 20036
(Fax: 202-862-0032) (E-mail: mailbox@governing.com )
( http://www.governing.com )
http://www.governing.com/notebook/today.htm
The Lure of the Affluent Gay Tourist
Running Up the Rainbow Flag
Philadelphia is used to making history (first capital of the United States, host of numerous political conventions, setting for one awful “Rocky” movie after another), and it’s still at it.
Philly is the first major U.S. city to use taxpayer money to market itself to gay tourists.
In one TV commercial that’s playing on cable channels along the East Coast, a gentleman of the late 1700s writes his lover, “Journey to Philadelphia, where we will be at liberty to meet this Monday at Independence Hall as the clock strikes 6.” Later, he’s seen strolling the cobblestone streets, women flirting with him – until a man slips beside him and they walk on together. “Come to Philadelphia,” the commercial concludes. “Get your history straight and your nightlife gay.”
What’s this all about? Money. Gay tourists travel widely, spend freely ($54 billion a year, by some estimates) and, not surprisingly, prefer places that make them feel welcome. Philly wants to be on that list.
“[We] found out that aside from typically gay places, like Provincetown [Mass.] and Palm Springs [Calif.], no big destination was making a large push,” the head of the gay initiative in Philadelphia explained. “We wanted to be the first.”
But is Philadelphia really gay-friendly? Locals say yes and point to a gay-oriented section of downtown. They also note how quickly businesses have rallied behind the effort to attract more gay visitors. Said one tourism official, “We offered sensitivity training if businesses wanted it, but so many have been cooperative, it has been a pleasure doing it.”
The only other major city in North America competing actively for gay tourists is Montreal, where a tourism official said it wasn’t hard to figure out the gay market. “Gay people, like everybody else, don’t want to be looked at like they are from outer space,” he said. “If you can push them to gay-friendly places, they will appreciate it and come back again and again.”
But they also like visiting new places, and that’s where Philadelphia hopes to make an impression.
“I think the gay community is tired of being herded to places like Provincetown and Key West and wants to go to places like Philadelphia, if they can be shown they will be welcome,” said a researcher who monitors marketing in the gay community. Admittedly, he added, this is being done for business reasons. “But [gays] had money before, too, and now, at least in Philadelphia, they know the local people there are welcoming them to spend it comfortably.”


Associated Press, July 9, 2004
N.J. to Register Gay Couples in New Law
By Kathy Hennessy
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) – When the South Orange clerk's office opens at 12:01 a.m. Saturday to register couples under the state's new domestic partner law, Marty Finkle and Mike Plake plan to be first in line.
The law, signed by Gov. James E. McGreevey in January, allows gay partners to make medical decisions for each other and file joint state tax returns. It does not, however, legalize gay marriage and offers far fewer rights than those given to heterosexual married couples.
“This is the next step on our way to full recognition of marriage rights,” said Finkle, who helped fight for the legislation.
New Jersey is the fifth state in the nation to officially recognize same-sex couples. Domestic partner benefits have been granted in California and Hawaii. Vermont has approved civil unions and Massachusetts recently legalized same-sex marriage.
While most towns won't start signing up couples for the benefits until Monday, some municipalities with large gay populations, such as South Orange and Maplewood, will open offices this weekend.
“We know it's an important event and something crucial in the history of the country and we wanted to add our blessings to it,” said South Orange Mayor William Calabrese.
The Rev. Bob Kriesat and Edward Mather plan to drive to Maplewood from their Morris Township home on Saturday morning to register. The two men have been in a relationship for 35 years and see the law, which also covers unmarried heterosexual couples over age 62, as an important milestone.
“While we recognize this is not a marriage and does not come near to providing the protections of marriage, it's a step,” said Kriest, a pastor at Gloria Dei Lutheran Church in Chatham.
In Maplewood, a ceremony marking the new law will be at 10 a.m. Saturday outside the town hall. The clerk's offices will be open afterward to begin registering couples.
Maplewood also is planning a daylong celebration at Memorial Park with live music, food vendors and an unofficial group registration ceremony.
Catholic and conservative groups have raised objections to the law, but so far no lawsuits have been filed to block it, said Patrick DeAlmeida, a deputy state attorney general.
The forms and certificates are similar to those used for marriage licenses. But, unlike a marriage license, New Jersey residents can apply for a partnership in any municipality, not just the town in which the couple live.
To sign up, couples need government-issued identification and proof of shared financial assets. There is no waiting period.


Associated Press, July 8, 2004
Senate Stirs Debate on Gay Marriage Ban
By Mary Dalrymple
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Senate wades into an election-year debate Friday over whether to write into the Constitution that “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”
Its strongest proponents say a constitutional amendment is the only way to prevent federal courts from hearing cases that challenge a federal law disallowing same-sex unions. With such an amendment, they say, a court wouldn't be able to rule that gay marriage is legal.
“Some would define this as the ultimate culture battle,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.
Many Democrats say the debate is a political diversion orchestrated for the weeks running up to the presidential nominating conventions.
“It's all about politics, folks. Let's face it,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. “We're going to go on to gay marriage before the Democratic convention so some people can cast a vote that might hurt them in their election. Shame on us.”
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged senators to begin informal debate on the legislation Friday, and said debate would continue Monday and Tuesday with a goal of voting Wednesday.
Senators fighting for the constitutional amendment would have to secure a two-thirds vote – 67 of the Senate's 100 members – to approve it. Some supporters questioned Thursday whether they had even the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
“We're going to have to see how that vote comes out,” said Sen. Wayne Allard, the Colorado Republican who drafted the proposed amendment.
The Senate's GOP leaders brought a prominent black conservative, Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, to discuss constitutional and cultural aspects of the issue with Republican senators.
Blackwell said he also delivered a political message: “You're not at risk of political defeat if you hold your ground.”
Several Republican senators have said they're wary of amending the Constitution, the nation's two-centuries-old founding document, before exhausting all other avenues.
And some senators, Republican and Democratic, simply oppose the idea.
“Nuts,” said Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. “To be seen as the party that's coming between two people that love each other doing what they want to do ... to me that's going to be seen as a liability, politically.”


Associated Press, July 9, 2004
Newsview: Dems. Could Lose Southern Votes
By Lolita C. Baldor
WASHINGTON (AP) – Here's a political reality check – Southern-style. When John Kerry chose John Edwards to be his running mate, Democrats predicted that the presence of the North Carolina senator on the ticket would increase its appeal in the Republican South.
In the coming days, though, Senate Republicans are working to ensure that Kerry and Edwards cast votes that could alienate voters in the Bible Belt, Florida Panhandle and other Southern bastions. The legislation: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages.
No other social issue carves a wider divide between the North and the South than gay marriage. Not abortion. Not gun control. In the South, where as many as two-thirds oppose same-sex marriages, voters say they are far less willing to back a candidate that feels differently.
The Democratic ticket's Southern bounce could hit a speed bump.
Gay marriage, says Merle Black, a professor at Emory University in Atlanta, “goes to the heart of (Southern voters') cultural beliefs. They really believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.”
While Kerry and Edwards oppose gay marriage, they argue that it is an issue that should be left to the states to decide. Both senators say they would vote no on the proposed constitutional amendment.
“It will give the Republicans ammunition against Edwards across the South. And they would use that in their advertising closer to the election,” Black said.
The Senate vote would come just days before the Democratic National Convention in Boston July 26-29 when Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, and Edwards are nominated by their party. Supporters of the gay marriage amendment acknowledge it is doomed to fail, and the Kerry campaign sees the timing of the vote as pure politics.
“Americans see through phony efforts to shred the Constitution of the United States for political purposes,” Kerry spokesman David Wade said Thursday. “That's not conservative, that's purely divisive.”
In the 2000 election, Bush is big across the South, but the Kerry campaign hopes that Edwards will help them secure North Carolina and make inroads elsewhere.
The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Kerry slightly strengthened his support in the South with the addition of Edwards.
But polling done in February and March by the Pew Research Center suggests that Southerners, more than folks in any other region, will consider the gay marriage issue in the voting booth.
According to the Pew poll, 68 percent of Southerners oppose gay marriage and nearly 40 percent said they wouldn't cast a ballot for a candidate who votes otherwise. By comparison, 48 percent of those polled in the Northeast oppose gay marriage, and just 26 percent said they wouldn't vote for someone who disagrees.
“The huge question is, can Kerry and Edwards successfully separate their position on gay marriage from their position on a constitutional amendment,” said Pew Research Director Michael Dimock.
Kerry and Edwards, who have missed many Senate votes while campaigning the last year, could be absent for the gay marriage amendment, but that would not go over well with gay activists, who raised $1.8 million for the campaign in a single night.
“There is a tremendous sense of urgency that Bush be driven from office,” said New York gay activist Ethan Geto, calling the gay marriage issue “the greatest political motivation ever.”
But Matt Daniels, who helped draft the amendment and is president of the Alliance for Marriage said, “Any politician that stands in the way of protecting marriage, does so at their peril.”
Providing a bit of cover for Kerry and Edwards is that some conservative Republicans – including former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr – oppose the amendment saying they don't want the constitution littered with directives that should be left to the states. Others say it shouldn't be used as a tool for discrimination.
And some activists argue that the issue really won't sway votes, with a good portion of the electorate having decided on their candidate or influenced by other matters.
“People vote on broader issues like the economy or the war” in Iraq, said Jeff Soref, a Democratic National Committee member and major fund-raiser in the gay community. “I think that people for whom this is an important issue made up their minds a long time ago.”
Even Family Research Council president Tony Perkins, a vocal proponent of the constitutional amendment, said gay marriage should be a factor in the presidential race, but it may be overshadowed by issues such as the war, the economy and terrorism.
• Editor's Note: Lolita C. Baldor covers the Massachusetts congressional delegation and has reported on the gay marriage issue.


The Tennessean, July 6, 2004
1100 Broadway, Nashville, TN, 37203
(Fax: 615-726-8928 ) (E-Mail: letters@tennessean.com )
( http://www.tennessean.com )
http://www.tennessean.com/government/archives/04/07/53772477.shtml?Element_ID=53772477
Council battle expected over gay rights advocate
By Brad Schrade, Staff Writer
Lingering bitterness from a gay rights bill last year could emerge at tonight's Metro Council meeting, where members are expected to fight over the reappointment of a gay rights supporter to a city commission.
Maria Salas faces opposition to her reappointment to the Metro Human Relations Commission, which deals with discrimination complaints. Mayor Bill Purcell is supporting her reappointment.
Councilman Michael Kerstetter has been calling council members to voice his opposition, according to Councilmen Jason Alexander and David Briley. Kerstetter said Salas was rude to him after a final vote on a gay rights ordinance last year, Alexander said.
Attempts to reach Kerstetter last night were unsuccessful.
Salas said she has never been rude to Kerstetter and that she thought the real concern was her support of the gay rights issue. Kerstetter opposed the bill.
The ordinance, which was defeated, would have provided job discrimination protection to Metro employees who are homosexual.
The commission over the past 18 months has become a perceived battleground for the gay rights issue that divided the Metro Council last year. Some members of the commission were active supporters of the ordinance.
Alexander, who said yesterday that he had been contacted by Kerstetter, expressed concern that there isn't enough countywide representation on Metro boards and commissions. Salas, a local attorney, serves on two Metro bodies, the Human Relations Commission and the Procurement Standards Board.
Alexander said last night that he planned to oppose Salas because of her dual service, but that could change by tonight's vote, which he thinks will be tight.
“I'm going to give her a call (today), and I may change my mind after talking to her,” he said.
Alexander said Salas' strong support of the gay rights ordinance could cause some council members to oppose her reappointment. He said the current council, which took office last fall, had a conservative bent. Some members even ran on their opposition to the gay rights issue, he said.
“This council has a lot of concern on that one issue,” he said. “This council, the way I know it, may not vote for her on that one issue alone.”
Salas, 41, who is a lesbian, said she hoped to be appointed and would be willing to leave the procurement board if dual service were an issue.
Salas said she had heard that some advocates for the gay and lesbian community were planning to attend tonight's meeting to show support.
Asked about the significance if the council were to reject her, she said, “I think it would show there's some prejudice and discrimination toward some residents of the county, judging them on something other than job performance, which is how I should be judged for my work on the commission.”
The council in February rejected former Councilwoman Eileen Beehan, who co-sponsored the anti-discrimination bill last year, when Purcell nominated her to serve on the Metro Traffic and Parking Commission. The mayor's nominations are routinely approved unanimously. Such bruising treatment of a former council member showed the raw nerves that remain from last year's gay rights battle.
Deputy Mayor Bill Phillips said yesterday that he was unaware of any specific campaign against Salas, but that Purcell believed she had been a dedicated member of the commission since joining last year.
Phillips said the mayor's office had not counted votes in support of Salas. Some council members believe the vote could be close. Salas needs 21 votes on the 40-member body to be approved to the volunteer board.
“I, too, have heard innuendos, but no specifics,” he said. “The mayor reviews each one of these appointments carefully and believes she deserves reappointment.”
Salas is one of four members of the Human Relations Commission up for reappointment tonight. Also on the agenda are Sonnye Dixon, Hershell Warren and Mark Lopez. Lopez also was a strong supporter of the gay rights bill last year. There is no talk of opposing his reappointment.
Lopez said he thought the council was targeting Salas and not him because it would be too blatant to go after two supporters of the non-discrimination ordinance. And, he said, Salas has been more active on gay rights issues in Metro and at the state level.
Lopez, who is gay, said he hoped the appointments would be deferred for two weeks if Salas' service becomes an issue.
“Let's mediate this issue, which is what you do when people disagree,” he said.
In other business . . .
• Brad Schrade can be reached at 259-8086 or bschrade@tennessean.com.

Knight Ridder Newspapers, July 6, 2004
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/9088374.htm
Separating civil from sacred marriage
By Bill Tammeus, Knight Ridder Newspapers
(KRT) – The incandescent heat generated by the debate over same-sex marriage has begun to produce a little light here and there.
The best idea I've heard so far is for everyone to take a deep breath. Then we'd all do well to take some time to understand the historical development of marriage as well as the difference between civil and sacred, or sacramental, marriage. Although both types of marriage usually get conflated in one ceremony witnessed and approved by a religious community, they really are different.
Civil marriage is what happens when the government grants a couple a license to be joined legally, thereby obtaining the rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of matrimony. Sacred marriage is what happens when a religious community blesses a couple's union.
So the question is whether government should – for reasons of equal protection of the law – grant civil marriage licenses to same-sex as well as heterosexual couples. Even if the state were to do that, it would not obligate religious communities to bless gay unions. It simply would extend the law's benefits to all couples, much as laws outlawing discrimination extend protection to all races – at least officially.
I'm increasingly persuaded that civil marriage for all couples who want it is not only a good idea but perhaps even legally inevitable. Justice Antonin Scalia, widely acknowledged as one of the most conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court, seems to agree with me about inevitability, though he doesn't like it much.
Last year, the Supreme Court, in a Texas case, struck down the sodomy laws still in effect in 13 states. When those laws were on the books, opponents of same-sex marriage could logically argue that it made no sense to give legal approval to a marriage if the partners then could be arrested for sexual acts they might be expected to commit within that relationship.
Scalia dissented from the Texas decision, but as he did so, he acknowledged that no obvious legal barrier now remains to same-sex unions: "If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' ... what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples?"
I had a chance to think anew about all this recently when Otis Charles, former Episcopal bishop of Utah and, until recently, assistant bishop of California, spoke at a forum at an Episcopal church in Kansas City. Charles and his domestic partner, Felipe Paris, participated in a public commitment ceremony in April at an Episcopal church in San Francisco, after which the bishop fired Charles. The ceremony was meant to be private, but the San Francisco Chronicle learned and wrote about it afterward – with the eventual cooperation of Charles and Paris.
"Marriage itself," Charles said, "is a civil institution. Marriage in the church is a religious act, but they've been joined together. Marriage is a civil right, and what the church does is another matter."
Although Charles has been reluctant to use the term marriage to describe the ceremony that joined him and Paris, "Felipe and I know we're married."
Charles says he's aware of at least one Episcopal church in California in which the priest refuses to perform wedding ceremonies until couples have been married by a civil magistrate. But for many reasons, Charles and others aren't yet pushing the public to think of civil and religious marriage as separate. One is fear that it might create a second-class matrimony for gay and lesbian couples.
"If it were possible to say that we will have only civil unions (for all couples)," Charles says, "then that would be fine." But, of course, many couples – for excellent reasons – also will want sacred marriage.
Some opponents of same-sex marriage say it would undermine the institution, as if marriage always and everywhere has been just one thing. But, in fact, in different cultures and times, marriage has taken many forms. (The May 31 issue of The New Yorker contains a good summary of this fascinating history.) Even appeal to a "biblical" idea about marriage finds itself on shaky ground, too, because of the several versions of marriage sanctioned at various times in biblical history.
It simply will not be possible to arrive at a quick solution that will satisfy everyone. But perhaps it will help to talk about the difference between civil and sacred marriage and to wonder aloud whether we want elected officials making laws that affect the latter, which should be the responsibility only of faith communities.
• Bill Tammeus is a columnist for The Kansas City Star. Readers may write to him at: The Kansas City Star, 1729 Grand Blvd., Kansas City, Mo. 64108-1413. Or e-mail him at tammeus@kcstar.com.

---

Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

URGENT ACTION ALERT! STAND UP AND SPEAK OUT NOW! PLEASE CIRCULATE!

The religious right is using the issue of equal civil marriage rights to commit spiritual violence against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) individuals, couples, and families.



Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and other religious/political organizations are calling for pastors to participate in “Protect Marriage Sunday” on July 11, and urging their supporters to make repeated phone calls to Senators to ask them to vote in favor of the proposed anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment.



This amendment would write discrimination into the US Constitution against GLBT couples and families, based on one narrow ‘religious’ definition of marriage and family by defining marriage as only between “one man and one woman” – thus denying the 1000 + federal rights of civil marriage to GLBT people.



IT IS CRUCIAL FOR PEOPLE OF FAITH TO STAND UP AND SPEAK OUT!



Senators are hearing from the religious right in record numbers: They need to hear from us, too!



Soulforce is committed to ending spiritual violence and protecting and promoting civil rights for GLBT people. We ask you, as people of faith, to do the same!



WHAT YOU CAN DO:



1) Take a stand in church: If your church or pastor participates in “Protect Marriage Sunday”, we ask that you stand in the pew in silent protest, with a message, sign, or button that says, “I oppose the FMA.” See http://www.soulforce.org/pressreleases/pr062904fma.shtml for more information.



2) Call BOTH of your Senators, every day this week and next week until the vote (which is scheduled for the week of July 12) Call the toll free number at 1-877-762-8762. Ask for your Senator by name and when the office answers, tell the staff person your name and address, that you are a person of faith, and you are calling to tell the Senator to OPPOSE the FMA and any attempt to write discrimination into the US Constitution. If the switchboard is busy, keep calling!



3) Circulate this email, and tell your family, friends, and co-workers to contact their Senators as well!



4) In addition to calling your Senators, please stand in solidarity with the GLBT community and show your opposition to the FMA by flying a rainbow flag from your home, place one in your window, or put a bumper sticker on your car. You can download a flag at http://www.saveroe.com/flags/index.php





For talking points, sample letters, and more information on the FMA or equal civil marriage rights, go to www.soulforce.org/main/marriage.shtml



PLEASE DO THIS TODAY! STAND UP ON SUNDAY! KEEP TALKING TO FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! URGE YOUR SENATORS TO VOTE NO!



Thank you for helping to stop spiritual violence and end discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individuals, couples, and families.



Laura Montgomery Rutt

Director of Communications



Karen Weldin

Director of Operations





You can donate online at www.soulforce.org/main/join.shtml . Every dollar helps!



Soulforce is a national interfaith movement committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teachings against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. We teach and employ the nonviolent principles of Gandhi and King to the liberation of sexual and gender minorities.

--------------------------------------
To Unsubscribe, please click here.

Two decades after death, Bangor's a better place

Protland, ME Press HeraldBANGOR — Twenty years after the killing of a gay man shocked the city, gays and lesbians feel safer in Bangor. Some say the tragedy began the changing of attitudes toward homosexuals. Back then, huge steps toward gay rights were taking place in places like San Francisco, but homosexuals in Bangor were in the shadows with little to protect them from discrimination and physical attacks.

Today, homosexuals acknowledge that much has changed since July 7, 1984, when Charles O. Howard was chased down, beaten and tossed into the Kenduskeag Stream.

"I think I'm safe 99 percent of the time," said Dan Williams, a gay man who lives in Bangor. But he remains cautious, despite all of the changes. "Do I still look for an escape route when I'm about to walk through a group of people on the sidewalk? Of course."

Howard, a flamboyant gay man who wore makeup and carried a purse, had recently moved to Bangor from Portsmouth, N.H. He died after the three teens chased him and a companion in downtown Bangor.

Howard tripped on a curb, and the three boys, James Baines, 15, Shawn Mabry, 16, and Daniel Ness, 17, threw him off a bridge. Charged with murder, they eventually pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to the Maine Youth Center.

The legacy of the murder that created headlines across the country remains to this day. The city now has an anti-discrimination ordinance. The police department has a hate-crimes officer. The state has a hate-crimes law. There's even a monument to Howard on the bridge from which he was thrown into the water.

Bangor is a tolerant city, but young gay, lesbian, transsexual and transgendered youth still have a multitude of battles to fight, said Jamie Rogers, community education coordinator at Eastern Maine AIDS Network.

Church Leaders Fly To Washington To Oppose Same-Sex Marriage

WOKR NEWS

(Rochester, NY/Washington, DC) 07/08/04 --Some pastors and church leaders from the Rochester area are flying to Washington, DC Thursday morning to try to change the minds of the US Senators from New York in voting against the "Federal Marriage Amendment."

They want US Senators Chuck Schumer (D) and Hillary Clinton Schumer (D) to support the amendment which says the union called "marriage" can only be between a man and a woman. Both senators have publicly stated they will vote against it.

Rev. C.M. Touchstone of Glad Tidings Church said, "We pray for Senator Clinton and Senator Schumer and we know that their position is a political decision. It's politically correct now to be for gay and lesbian marriages."

Chuck Bowen of The Gay Alliance says the amendment should not be made law.

"What they're trying to do for the first time in American history, is to deny the rights and equality for a certain segment of our population and for every senator who votes in favor to us, it sends a bad message to all lesbian, gay, and transgender people in this country," he said.

A vote on the amendment is scheduled for next week

HRC EXPECTS SENATE TO BEGIN DEBATE TOMORROW ON DISCRIMINATORY AMENDMENT

"Spending time on a discriminatory amendment instead of pressing issues
like homeland security is shameful," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON - The Human Rights Campaign expects debate on the
discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment to begin tomorrow, with a vote
expected by the middle or end of next week. HRC's marriage war room is
moving to an office on Capitol Hill, implementing the final stages of
our work to protect the Constitution in the U.S. Senate.

"Spending time on a discriminatory amendment instead of pressing issues
like homeland security is shameful," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.
"The American people want Congress focused on issues that would help
Americans, not undermining the Constitution. All fair-minded voters
should call their Senators' offices and tell them to get back to
business."

The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender political organization with members throughout the
country. It effectively lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and
educates the public to ensure that LGBT Americans can be open, honest
and safe at home, at work and in the community.

Same Sex Marriage Beats Challenge

CBS News.Com

A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected an attempt by conservative groups and state lawmakers to stop same sex marriage in Massachusetts.

The Florida-based Liberty Counsel, which launched the lawsuit, said it would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs had argued that Massachusetts' high court usurped the power of the Legislature — and thereby violated the U.S. Constitution — when it ruled last year that same sex couples are entitled to wed.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed Tuesday, and said the appropriate way to contest the state court ruling is by amending the Massachusetts Constitution — a long process already under way.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Largess, the vice president of the Catholic Action League, and 11 state lawmakers.

The federal appeals court had rejected an earlier request by the groups to stop the first marriage licenses from being issued to same sex couples in May.

Tuesday's ruling was the latest in a series of defeats for conservative groups in both state and federal courts.

The appeals court said the November 2003 same sex marriage ruling by Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court did not violate a clause in the U.S. Constitution that calls for a republican form of government in each state.

The only way a state could run afoul of the clause would be to establish a monarchy or take other action that clearly deviated from the republican form of government, the appeals court said.

Senate to Vote Next Week on Federal Marriage Amendment

The Senate is expected to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment next
week. If enacted, this amendment would be the first time in American
history the U.S. Constitution was amended to discriminate against a
group of Americans. Learn what you can do to make sure the
discriminatory Federal Marriage Amendment is defeated.
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/fpaD3FF1UjY4/

Bookmark the HRC Marriage Center and check back frequently. This is the
best place to follow the latest developments on marriage rights for
same-sex couples in Congress and around the nation.
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/f7aD3FF1UjYX/

= What Else is New from HRC for Families?

Read about your state's laws on marriage and relationship recognition
and keep an eye on the many attempts to amend state constitutions to
prohibit the performance and/or recognition of marriage between same-sex
couples. http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/fdaD3FF1UjYB/

A Spanish-language version of Answers to Questions About Marriage
Equality is now available. Download a copy of Preguntas y Respuestas
Sobre el Derecho al Matrimonio to share with your family and friends.
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/r7aD3FF1UjYe/

Interested in adoption? HRC offers the most comprehensive, step-by-step
advice anywhere.
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/rdaD3FF1UjY3/

= We'd Like to Hear from You:

Have you been denied protections or benefits, such as access to a
hospital room, health insurance, parenting privileges, or Social
Security survivor benefits? Or felt the loss of the more intangible
aspects of marriage? Share your story
http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/ct/rpaD3FF1UjYd/

----

Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Same-sex marriage opponents attack gay parenting

By James Sinks

The Bulletin

Lawyers and activists who want to ban same-sex marriage in Oregon say their campaign is focusing on just that singular goal: Editing the state constitution to explicitly say that marriage can occur only between one man and one woman.

"We have been very, very careful to ensure that it is only about defining marriage and clarifying the intent in the constitution," said Tim Nashif, political director for the Defense of Marriage Coalition.

A measure that appears headed for the November ballot would nullify thousands of marriage licenses handed out this spring by Multnomah County to same-sex couples. A judge halted the practice, saying the county was violating state law.

"All we're doing right now is trying to preserve the status quo," Nashif said.

Yet as same-sex marriage opponents gear up for what is expected to be a bruising campaign, they're talking about more than the ability of gay couples to marry.

They've expanded the debate to include children — and whether it's appropriate for same-sex couples to be parents.

Those remarks are sending a shudder through gay and lesbian parents and gay-rights activists.

The source of the angst is part of a press release issued by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which says: "Endless studies demonstrate the benefits to children of being raised with both a mother and father. A redefinition of marriage (to include same-sex unions) would permanently deny some children this proven advantage."

The coalition cites several studies, but authors of some of that research say their findings are being taken out of context or that little solid data exists on the impact of gay parenting.

"That is not a legitimate use of our work," said Michael Gottfredson, a criminology professor and associate chancellor at the University of California at Irvine who cowrote a 1990 book on crime trends.

That research says children with a loving parent are less likely to commit crimes, but makes no distinction about the sexual orientation of the parent, he said.

David Popenoe, a sociology professor and co-director of the National Marriage Project and Rutgers University, said nobody knows yet how children fare with same-sex parents.

However, it would be a reasonable hypothesis to say they would do no worse than with opposite-sex stepparents, he said.

His study did not mention same-sex parents, he said.

Several studies offered by Oregon gay marriage critics compare children in single-parent households versus those in two-parent households.

However, one citation is an article that explicitly opposes gay marriage by Glenn T. Stanton, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, a religious Colorado nonprofit that offers on its Web site "debate-tested sound bites" for criticizing same sex unions.

"Our concern is for the well-being of children," he said.

Stanton said research about the impact to children in gay households is inconclusive, but studies show children do better in school and socially when raised by a mother and father. Gay households are either motherless or fatherless, he said.

"It's not an absolute correlation, but we know what happens when you raise kids without fathers."

While the measure that appears headed for the November ballot doesn't speak directly to parenting rights, the child-related remarks have set gay and lesbian couples on edge.

Cat Finney of Bend, who has been in a relationship with her lesbian partner for 14 years and was among those who stood in line for licenses in Multnomah County, strongly disagrees with any assertion her children are at a disadvantage.

"I, of course, see no way that heterosexuality is a prerequisite to having happy and healthy children," she said.

She worries the statement could be an indication that the coalition behind the measure may also be setting sights on unraveling parenting rights of gays.

"I would not be surprised if folks behind this effort extended the breadth of their work to start defining families and limiting parenthood to heterosexual couples," Finney said.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Medical Association have gone on the record in support of gay parents and their right to adopt.

Kelly Clark, the attorney for the coalition, said there is no goal to reverse that ability in Oregon. He knows of no rights that gays and lesbians would lose if voters pass the initiative, he said.

Still, on both sides of the measure, activists say it could have wider implications because a revised Constitution would force a reexamination of more than 300 statutes that refer to marriage.

"If statutes or local government ordinances extend benefits to people because they are married, then yes, they would have to be limited to men and women," Clark said.

He said the statement about children is not part of the scope of the campaign because the measure does not impact parenting.

"It's fair to say, technically, that statement in and of itself reaches too far," he said.

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, said her organization is conducting a legal analysis to make sure.

"The truth is we don't know the answer yet," she said.

At a minimum, the success or failure of the measure at the ballot box is certain to be touted as a referendum on public opinion — and will help spur legislation or possibly additional ballot measures.

For instance, a defeat in November would almost certainly usher a political push for state-recognized gay marriages or civil unions.

In addition, campaign spokesman Nashif fears state-sanctioned same-sex unions also could yield bolder steps by gay-rights activists, such as demanding that schools teach that gay sex is normal in sex education curriculum.

On the flip side, a successful ballot measure will send a signal to legislators that Oregonians support additional steps to strengthen traditional families, he said.

"It could be a catalyst and a statement that Oregonians would make that we think traditional marriage is the way to go and it should be strengthened and encouraged," he said.

State Rep. Linda Flores, R-Clackamas, a campaign leader, said there have been background discussions about children thriving in homes with "traditional man and woman relationships."

"But that isn't the thrust of what we're dealing with," she said. "That's not the focus."

If it passes, however, legislators in 2005 will need to carefully consider the state's statute books to ensure laws conform, she said.

The state Election Division is verifying signatures to confirm that the measure qualifies, but it seems a foregone conclusion.

Petitioners turned in more than 244,000 signatures, and only 100,840 of them need to be valid to put a proposed constitutional change on the ballot.

Those signatures came from every county in the state, including 8,694 from Deschutes County, according to the coalition.

The Bulletin is published daily in Bend, Oregon by Western Communications, Inc.

GLBT News Update

1. THE KANSAS CITY CHANNEL Group Questions Churches' Efforts After Gay Marriage Vote; Electioneering Could Result In Loss Of Tax-Exempt Status
2. ARLINGTON CONNECTION (Virginia) 1,000 Rally for Gay Rights: Supporters protest new law they say is discriminatory
3. DENVER POST Colorado Curmudgeon Al Knight lashes out at our families again: The evolution of parenting
4. QUAD-CITY TIMES (Iowa/Illinois) Protection for gays lacks votes in Bettendorf
5. BOSTON GLOBE Romney administration denies the reason child services chief was suddenly fired has anything to do with her impending marriage to her female partner (Uh-huh.)
6. ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION Over-the-top paranoia from Shaunti Feldhahn: Wage war on gay threat to marriage
7. BELFAST TELEGRAPH (Northern Ireland) Research helps mums of gay sons
8. ORLANDO SENTINEL Polk County's community of gay seniors grows silently
9. BISMARCK TRIBUNE (North Dakota) Groups urge 'no' to marriage-limitation petitions


The Kansas City Channel, July 6, 2004
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/politics/3498975/detail.html
Group Questions Churches' Efforts After Gay Marriage Vote
Electioneering Could Result In Loss Of Tax-Exempt Status
KANSAS CITY, Mo. – Some area ministers, upset after Kansas legislators turned down a proposed ban on gay marriages in the state constitution, are pushing for change in Topeka.
Many churches say they are trying to educate their congregations about how legislators voted on the issue. But some critics say the tacit effort to vote those politicians out of office is pushing the line between church and state.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Phill Kline announced he will host a seminar next week to educate ministers about the legal limits for not-for-profit organizations when it comes to politics.
IRS rules stipulate that not-for-profits cannot endorse individual candidates. Violation of the rules could result in a loss of tax-exempt status.
The Rev. Jerry Johnston, of First Family Church in Overland Park, said his church will speak out about the Legislature's failure to pass a gay marriage ban, but the church won't cross the legal line.
"(Legislators) need to be accountable for that, and certainly ministers need to be cognizant of who did what so they can invoke positive change," Johnston said. "We're not going to tell (churchgoers) who to vote for; we're going to encourage them to know the issues."
A slideshow delivered to churchgoers at First Family Church showed legislators' votes on two issues – gay marriage and abortion. Johnston said his church is not breaking any rules by giving members the information.
"There is no violation in teaching men and women moral issues that they would obviously exercise when they vote," he said.
But Caroline McKnight, with the Mainstream Coalition, said what Johnston and other ministers are trying to do is obvious. While voting records are public, McKnight said that by singling out two issues only, the church is blatantly telling parishioners how to vote.
"What I think they're doing is skirting very close to the line. Of course, those voting records are public record," McKnight said. "And even though we haven't told you precisely what to do with that information, it's pretty transparent what the effort is about."
Mainstream Coalition is a church-and-state watchdog group that endorses political candidates.
Johnston said his church's attorneys and accountants know where the line is, and First Family doesn't plan to cross it.


Arlington Connection, July 6, 2004
7913 Westpark Drive, McLean, Va. 22102
(Fax: 703-917-0991) (E-Mail: Arlington@connectionnewspapers.com )
( http://www.connectionnewspapers.com )
http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?article=37475&paper=60&cat=104
1,000 Rally for Gay Rights
Supporters protest new law they say is discriminatory.
By David Harrison
Before Dallas Miller moved to Fairfax City from South Carolina to live with his partner, he was more concerned about discrimination against gay men in the District – where he works as a psychologist and actor – than in Virginia.
But he found he had more to fear in Virginia.
"I was dismayed once I realized," he said.
Three years later, Miller still lives in Fairfax and is active in efforts to resist legislation designed to make Virginia less gay-friendly. Last Wednesday, he joined about 1,000 other demonstrators for an afternoon rally outside the Fairfax County Government Center protesting the implementation of a new law forbidding same-sex couples to enter into contractual agreements.
The new law is "of dubious constitutionality and morally bankrupt," said Del. Brian Moran (D-46), speaking for Northern Virginia lawmakers who opposed the law and joined him on the stage.
"I am tired of having my equal rights diminished as being special rights. I am tired of ignorant legislators and spineless legislators passing bad laws that drive my friends to other states," said Jay Fisette, Arlington County Board Member and one of the state's only openly gay elected officials.
"I am tired of this president telling me that my 21-year relationship is a threat to his marriage," he added. "We're all tired. But more than tired, I'm angry."
When the legislation was drafted, gay and lesbian couples were lining up outside the San Francisco court house for marriage licenses and a Massachusetts court ordered that state to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The legislation's sponsor, Del. Robert Marshall (R-13) did not return calls for this story. In a news release, he said this year's bill, House Bill 751, was intended to cement Virginia's opposition to same-sex marriage and was modeled on a 1997 law that banned recognition of such marriages from other states.
"We passed an almost identical law to HB 751 in 1997 banning recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriage," Marshall wrote.
Same-sex marriages are illegal in Virginia and state law does not allow local jurisdictions' human rights ordinances to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation. Gay rights activists say that the latest bill goes even further in sweeping away legal protections gays and lesbians currently enjoy because it prohibits same-sex partners from entering into certain contracts. For instance, partners cannot legally adopt each other's children. The new law may block partners from inheriting each other's property or making medical decisions on each other's behalf, say activists. And the law is broad enough that it might also affect two people who are not domestic partners from entering into some routine contracts.
Gov. Mark Warner (D) said the language in the bill was too broad and sought to amend it, but his amendments were overturned by the General Assembly and the bill passed by a 69 to 30 margin in the House and a 27 to 12 margin in the Senate.
The gay rights group Equality Virginia is considering filling a lawsuit to halt the law's implementation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.
Marshall disagreed. "Equality Virginia and the Log Cabin Republicans are cynically manipulating some Virginia citizens into thinking this law will take away individual rights they now enjoy so that can scare homosexual Virginians into giving money for a phony law suit," he wrote in his release.
The law has prompted some gay Virginians to consider leaving the state. At the rally, Rev. Michael McGee of the Arlington Unitarian Universalist Church talked about his neighbors, a gay couple who may be moving away.
"How can we expect people like Steve and Scott to tolerate living in such an oppressive environment?" he said. "I've got to say this is heartbreaking and this is happening to people all over Virginia."
But many at the rally said they thought that leaving the state would be an abdication.
Donna Voigt, a lifelong resident of Virginia, said she was "ashamed of this state" but that she and her partner of 17 years would not move from their Falls Church home.
"We've talked about it but quite honestly that doesn't solve the problem," she said.
Jo Hamilton, her partner, said: "If everybody just left nothing would change."
Moving to another state would be a victory for those who are trying to discriminate, said Candy Cox, a board member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told.
"The idea is to make us disappear," she said. "If we defeat all of the people who voted for this legislation and we defeat them because they voted for it, this state will change," she said.


Denver Post, July 7, 2004
1560 Broadway, Denver, CO, 80202
(Fax: 303-820-1369 ) (E-Mail: openforum@denverpost.com )
( http://www.denverpost.com )
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~148~2256223,00.html
The evolution of parenting
By Al Knight
There are two starkly different ways to view last week's Colorado Court of Appeals decision in the "two mommies" case. One is believable; one is not.
The first way to see the decision is as a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have been seeking ways to marry, to divorce and to adopt and raise children.
The July 1 decision, which upheld the rights of a former lesbian partner and non-parent to a 50-50 parenting arrangement with the child's adoptive mother, is certainly being hailed as a victory for gay rights by gay and lesbian groups. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which filed a friend of the court brief in the case, heralded the decision as one that gave a "lesbian co-parent" the right to seek custody of a child.
The second, and much less believable, way to view the court's decision is the one suggested by the court itself.
The three-judge panel insists throughout its 50-page decision that the case has nothing whatsoever to do with lesbianism or gay rights. It insists it is simply interpreting a state statute that prescribes when a non-parent may seek the custody or visitation with a child. It says the case before it merely illustrates "the evolving nature of parenthood."
A reading of the decision makes it clear that the court wants to hurry along the evolution at a pace arguably much faster than the one chosen by the Colorado General Assembly.
State law, it should be remembered, prohibits gay marriage, forbids second-parent adoptions, and specifically prevents adoption by gay or lesbian couples.
Colorado law also contains a specific provision that parties such as foster parents or grandparents can only assert parental rights when they have had physical custody of the child for more than six months and the parents have been absent.
So how, then, did the court find a basis for upholding a 50-50 parenting arrangement (a scheme denied to countless biological fathers) for a former lesbian partner who was not a legal parent?
The answer is found in three parts. The court first minimized, if not ignored, a recent U.S. Supreme Court case (the Troxel decision) that specifically held that fit parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children and that these rights are superior to those of others.
Secondly, the court relied on expansive language in a 1995 Colorado Supreme Court case, where the facts were entirely different. In that earlier case, the court awarded custody to a non-parent – but the biological mother had been absent since the child's birth. In the "two mommies" case, the legal mother, who had never abandoned her parental responsibilities, simply wanted to limit visitation by her former partner.
Finally, the court interpreted a single sentence in the statutes to mean that any person – a friend, a babysitter, a relative, a stepparent, anyone – who had cared for a child for more than six months could file a claim for parenting time. The court went on to say that these claims could be filed under Colorado law even though the biological and legal parent was never physically absent during the six-month waiting period.
The impact of this interpretation is breathtaking. It suggests that the legislature intended to invite the courts to resolve an untold number of potential disputes between boyfriends and girlfriends, between stepparents and biological parents and between relatives who may share some parenting chores.
The court, meanwhile, assures the public that appropriate judicial standards will be enforced so the rights of fit parents aren't violated.
While it is hard to argue that surrogate moms and sperm banks haven't altered the nature of parenthood, even biology has its limits.
There is nothing in the legislative record to suggest that the General Assembly wanted to give the courts authority to willy-nilly toss aside the right of a fit parent to direct the upbringing of his or her child as it has done in this case.
If the court's misreading of the law is as serious as it seems, the legislature need not wait for the inevitable appeal to the state's Supreme Court. It should correct the Court of Appeals at the first opportunity.
• Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mind-spring.com) ) is a former member of the Denver Post editorial-page staff.


Quad-City Times, July 7, 2004
500 E. 3rd St., Davenport, Iowa, 52801
(Fax: 319-383-2370 ) (E-Mail: opinions@qctimes.com )
( http://www.qctimes.com )
http://www.qctimes.com/internal.php?story_id=1030636&l=1&t=Bettendorf+News&c=29,1030636
Protection for gays lack votes
By Tory Brecht
Walking out of the most recent Bettendorf Human Rights Commission meeting, Brad Daehn fought back tears of frustration.
The lone openly gay member of the commission, he was at the losing end of a 3-2 vote on a measure to add sexual orientation to the list of protected categories in the city’s civil rights ordinance.
“I was surprised,” he said of the June 25 vote. “After the meeting, I kind of felt like I was being put back into second-class citizenhood. This means I would not be allowed to file a complaint if I’m discriminated against for being gay and denied a house or a job.”
The commission members who voted “no” said they did so not because they feel that discrimination against homosexuals should be permitted but because they do not want Bettendorf’s civil rights ordinance to go further than the State of Iowa’s.
The state does not include gays and lesbians in its anti-discrimination laws, but a number of cities, including Davenport, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids and Ames, do.
Bettendorf Human Rights Commission Chairman Mike Senneff noted that the city’s civil rights ordinance had not been updated since its creation in 1968. Earlier this spring, the commission – which is not yet 2 years old – updated the code to meet state and federal standards and garnered approval from the City Council. Going beyond the state law at this time worried Senneff and other members, he said.
“On this particular issue, I’m not comfortable in letting the City of Bettendorf get ahead of the state,” he said. “I do think it will be an issue at some point at the state level. I also think it also will be revisited by Bettendorf at some time.”
The Rev. Richard Pokora, a commission member who is pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church, agreed.
“I felt we should let the state, which has a higher awareness of the implications of this, sort through the issues first. Then we should follow what the state does,” he said. “I think we would have been shooting from the hip rather than giving the issue the full consideration it needs.”
Pokora also said he is not convinced there is a need to add sexual orientation to the protected list.
“I have never heard anyone say to me that they have been discriminated against because they are gay,” he added. “I don’t believe in creating a law if there is not demonstrable need.”
That statement came as a shock to Daehn. He said he hid his sexual orientation for the nine years he was a math and science teacher at Bettendorf High School for fear of being ridiculed. He added that he has been verbally harassed several times while walking on the bike path in Bettendorf.
“It’s pretty obvious to me that had I walked into my job interview for Bettendorf High School in 1989 as an openly gay male, I most likely wouldn’t have gotten the job,” he said. “I think this is a matter of people not wanting to take a stand. It’s not a foreign issue in the Quad-Cities: Davenport has it, Moline has it, John Deere has it. It just seems to me that if Bettendorf is supposed to be seen as a progressive community, it should be there.”
The other commissioner to vote yes, Bob Nakamaru, said not including sexual orientation in the civil rights ordinance is divisive.
“If Bettendorf wants to function as a united community, all the citizens need to be treated as though they all have equal rights,” he said. “We’re not talking about gay marriage here, we’re talking about jobs, housing, public accommodations. This is limited to the basic rights afforded to Americans.”
A sociology instructor at Black Hawk College in Moline, Nakamaru said the experience of his Japanese-American parents after America entered World War II reminds him how dangerous it is to let rights slip away.
“My mother was put in an interment camp in Poston, Ariz., and graduated behind barbed wire,” he said. “My father was taken out of high school and sent to Manzanar. Both of them were born in America.”
Commission member Lorraine Hartman, a pastor at Asbury Methodist Church, said that even though she voted against including sexual orientation in the ordinance, she thinks it probably will be added in the future.
“It’s not that we’re opposed to these rights, it’s that we’re not sure what the implications might be,” she said. “Nothing we voted down was a permanent exclusion. Even though I don’t agree with that lifestyle, I certainly think everyone has the right to equal accommodation, housing and employment.”
Daehn vowed to continue bringing the issue before the commission, which meets monthly. He is trying to gather allies to the cause.
“There’s no doubt I’ll bring it up again,” he said. “I’m hopeful members of the gay and lesbian community, and others, will let the commission know it is an issue and that people are being discriminated against.”
• Tory Brecht can be contacted at (563) 383-2329 or tbrecht@qctimes.com.

Boston Globe, July 7, 2004
Box 2378, Boston, MA, 02107
(Fax: 617-929-2098 ) (E-Mail: letter@globe.com )
( http://www.boston.com/globe )
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/07/child_services_chief_is_fired_after_refusing_to_step_down/
Child services chief is fired after refusing to step down
Romney aide defends change in leadership
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney's health and human services chief fired the longtime head of the state's Office of Child Care Services yesterday, saying she was not the right person to help launch a new child-care agency.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Ronald Preston said yesterday that Ardith Wieworka was ''a very credible commissioner over the Office of Child Care Services, but this is a very different assignment." Preston asked Wieworka on Friday to resign, offering her another job overseeing licensing for Health and Human Services. But Wieworka, who has headed the child-care office since it was created in 1997, refused on Monday.
The new Office of Early Education and Care will take on functions currently performed by the Office of Child Care Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Public Health, and may result in the dissolution of the child-care office. The new department is supposed to open next July.
Wieworka said she considered the licensing job Preston offered her a prelude to being forced out for good, and insisted she was the best person to manage the shift to a new agency. She denied having designs on the top job in the new department.
''I've been a successful commissioner under four governors. [Preston] has indicated no job performance issue whatsoever. A reasonable person would say, 'Then what is the reason you're getting rid of her?'" Wieworka said yesterday afternoon, hours after she hurriedly departed her downtown office without packing up her belongings. ''It's an inexplicable position to take, and it doesn't seem well-reasoned."
Wieworka has suggested that her dismissal is related to her intention to marry her same-sex partner. But Romney and Preston strenuously rejected that idea, noting that several high-ranking administration officials are gay. Romney and Preston didn't mention names, but several high-ranking officials are openly gay, including Transportation Secretary Daniel A. Grabauskas.
Romney said ''her sexual orientation was something I read about this morning." For his part, Preston said he was ''personally hurt" by the allegation, and that Wieworka's sexual orientation ''absolutely did not factor into any of this at all."
''It is an outrageous allegation with no foundation whatsoever," Preston said.
The Office of Child Care Services, established by Governor William Weld in 1997, licenses the 2,200 child-care facilities and 11,000 home-based day-care centers in Massachusetts, which serve about 250,000 children. In addition to regulating and policing those centers, the agency hands out child-care subsidies for low-income families. It has an annual budget of about $360 million.
The new department, which was pushed hard by House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, will place a greater emphasis on academics and focus on improving the training and pay of child-care workers. Over the next decade, annual spending on early childhood education and care is expected to rise above $1 billion.
Numerous child-care advocates have rallied to Wieworka's defense. William Eddy, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of Day Care Agencies, said Preston has shown little interest in child-care issues, and complained that he has not met with the secretary since Romney took office 18 months ago.
He also suggested that Wieworka was being punished for the establishment of the new agency, which was not favored by the administration.
''For the issues we care about – higher standards, a better-compensated and better-trained workforce, and universal access to preschool for all children in the Commonwealth – she has been one of the few champions in the administration," Eddy said.
• Scott Greenberger can be reached at greenberger@globe.com.


Atlanta Journal-Constitution, July 7, 2004
72 Marietta Street NW, Atlanta, GA, 30303
(Fax: 404-526-5746 ) (E-Mail: journal@ajc.com )
( http://www.accessatlanta.com )
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0704/07shaunti.html
Wage war on gay threat to marriage
By Shaunti Feldhahn
The importance of next week's Senate vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment – the proposal that we amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman – is difficult to overstate.
It may not seem like such a big thing – just one vote in one chamber about one important initiative among many – but the key pivot points of history often don't loom particularly large at the time. Sun Tzu observed that wars are actually quietly won or lost in the temples of leadership before the battle is joined.
And although you can't see the battle to protect marriage as you can a military war, its cultural ramifications may be just as radical. In his new book, "Marriage Under Fire," James Dobson notes that, "This struggle is not being fought with guns and bombs, but with ideas, with creative uses of the law . . . It is a battle for the very soul of the nation."
Many of us feel discomfort at confronting this issue. I sure don't like writing about it. Shouldn't we live and let live? But as Dobson points out, history demonstrates that initial appeasement just worsens the eventual ramifications.
When the countries of pre-World War II Europe noticed Adolf Hitler's emerging aggression, they said, "It's not my business." But, as we now know, it was their business. How much sorrow might have been prevented had they recognized that burying their head in the sand wouldn't help?
Today, we are facing a Pandora-like threat that – once allowed to escape – can never be put back in the box. With activist judges rewriting the will of the people, it's only a matter of time before gay marriages are declared legal nationwide. And then what are we going to do to restore the will of the people – void marriages that have been solidified during those years? Rip apart families who have built their lives around their legal union? It is one thing to fight out the cultural decision now and prevent gay marriages. It is quite another to rescind that right once granted.
If we are going to confront this cultural decision, we need to do it now. That's why, on July 12, the Senate leadership will bypass the usual lengthy committee process and ask for a vote on whether to begin the process of amending the Constitution. A Senate source recently told me that no one in leadership really wants to tackle this issue: It's too politically costly, too divisive. But because of judicial excess, "We can't not act," he said. "Our hand is being forced."
It is important to note that the danger to marriage comes not from gay individuals (as opposed to gay activists), who just want what they see as a civil right. Rather, it comes from not protecting a definition of marriage that has served as the foundation of society for millennia. In areas of Norway allowing de facto gay marriage, the regular institution has inevitably lost its meaning, so most children live in an unmarried home. And since the average gay marriage among men in Scandinavia lasts 1.5 years, most of their children will experience a broken home many times over.
As I have noted before, nearly all social problems – from poverty to crime to drug use – are caused by family breakdown. As much as we want to be compassionate, and live and let live, we simply cannot afford appeasement. Redefining marriage would not just legalize alternative marriages, but would negatively impact the traditional ones that are the backbone of our society.
• Shaunti Feldhahn of Norcross is the author of several books. Her column appears Wednesdays.


Belfast Telegraph, 7 July 2004
124-144 Royal Avenue, Belfast BT1 1EB Northern Ireland
(E-Mail: editor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk )( http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk )
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northwest_weekly/story.jsp?story=538918
Research helps mums of gay sons
Cathy Falconer's 'listening ear' led her into an interest in guidance counselling today as she caps a journey through study and personal experience by receiving an MSc in Guidance and Counselling from the University of Ulster.
Cathy touched a chord in the community in April when she released details of her research project which said that Northern Ireland needs structured support services for mothers who are trying to cope with the sudden knowledge that a son is gay.
"I was very surprised and really gratified by the tremendous interest out there in the media which I think was of help to many parents," said Cathy.
Guildhall Press, the Derry publishing company, is to publish her research dissertation in the autumn in a re-drafted reader-friendly version which Cathy hopes will make it a useful information resource to parents, families and schools.
She decided to survey a group of mothers for her project, as a result of her own experience in coming to terms with her son's gay disclosure and encountering a lack of advice facilities for parents.


Orlando Sentinel, July 7, 2004
633 N. Orange Ave., Orlando, FL, 32801
(Fax: 407-420-5286 ) (E-Mail: insight@orlandosentinel.com )
( http://www.orlandosentinel.com )
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/southwest/orl-locseniorgays07070704jul07,1,3832351.story?coll=orl-news-headlines
Polk County's community of gay seniors grows silently
By Christopher Sherman, Sentinel Staff Writer
LAKELAND – Tom "Scotty" Buchanan's phone rings off the hook with calls related to the various AIDS-awareness and gay-advocacy groups he works with. He's a walking directory of support services in Polk County for those ostracized because of illness or sexual orientation. He's also 72 and a proud grandfather.
Polk County has one of the highest concentrations of same-sex senior couples in the country, according to a report by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, a gay-rights organization based in Washington, D.C. But unlike Buchanan, who lost his partner nine years ago to AIDS, most prefer to keep their sexual orientation to themselves.
Although it's growing rapidly, Polk County is still largely a rural county where openly gay people of Buchanan's generation are a rarity. Buchanan said gays his age in Polk have spent years blending into straight society and sometimes when they see him coming in a public place they run the other way so as not to be associated with him.
"Polk County is so far behind in the fight for gay rights," Buchanan said, which is why many are surprised to hear Polk ranks seventh nationally behind gay havens such as San Francisco, Manhattan and Broward County.
Buchanan knows something about that fight. In June 1969 he served as a pallbearer at Judy Garland's funeral in New York City, and afterward he and others went to the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village to "drown our sorrows." Garland was an icon for gays, said Buchanan, who ran a bar that was a favorite of Broadway stars. A confrontation with police outside the Stonewall that day led to days of rioting now recognized as the birth of the gay-rights movement.
But the struggle for gay rights is not a fight most people enjoying their retirement are willing to take up.
The Rev. Karen Ducham of the Rainbow Promise Metropolitan Community Church, which serves many in Polk's gay community, said she sees her congregation swell with the migration of northern snowbirds in the winter, but knows gay seniors are a difficult demographic to rally.
"They're out there, but they come from another generation," said Ducham, 55. "It's hard to get them into a group of any kind."
Ducham recalled a senior who came to her church once and found it to be friendly but said she and her partner were so established in straight society that they didn't feel comfortable with the openly gay congregation.
When told Polk ranks highly for its concentration of same-sex senior couples, those familiar with Polk's gay community are hard-pressed to think of any reason the county particularly appeals to gay seniors.
Mike Hamic, of Exit Realty of Lakeland, was surprised to hear Polk made the list and questioned whether the same-sex couples were necessarily gay.
"You will see quite a few people of the same sex who live together just to make it affordable," Hamic said. In places such as Fort Lauderdale, entire retirement communities are being built for gays and selling fast, he said, but not in Polk.
The data used for the report came from the 2000 U.S. census, but there is no box to check sexual orientation, so analysts working on the report looked for cases where the person filling out the census form identified an adult of the same sex as the "husband/wife" or "unmarried partner."
More than likely, gay seniors end up in Polk for the same reasons as other people – affordable living, warm weather and the location between Orlando and Tampa.
"It depends on your age," said Robbie Groskopf, 48, of Lakeland. "When you get to our age we're not out running the clubs." He said he doesn't see gays older than 65 except on occasion at the church or at dinner in a home. "It's a more intimate socialization."
Groskopf's partner, 51-year-old Richard Thomas of Lakeland, said, "They're people you don't see out anywhere else. As you get older you settle down."
Gay-rights advocates are trying to draw attention to the numbers of gay seniors to highlight the legal disadvantage they face most intensely later in life because their relationships lack the legal status of marriage.
Even if a gay couple has been in a relationship for 40 years, when one person dies, the survivor does not have access to Social Security survivor benefits. If a partner leaves a 401(k) or Individual Retirement Account, the survivor is heavily taxed. Married survivors can inherit these tax-free. Also, the surviving partner in a gay relationship faces the estate tax if inheriting a home, even it was jointly owned – something married spouses are exempt from.
"Since the [gay] marriage issue has surfaced, we're hearing from a lot more senior couples," said Lisa Bennett, director of the Foundation's FamilyNet Project. "They know how important it becomes at the end of life."
Buchanan could have lost his home if not for planning before his partner, Roy Garard, died. Though Buchanan was the one who cared for Garard during his illness and Garard's children did not attend the funeral, their lawyer sent a letter to Buchanan asking for the deed to the home he and Garard shared to settle the estate. Fortunately, the deed was only in Buchanan's name.
The importance of these issues is not lost on Buchanan. He has devoted his life to many of them, but he wants more support.
"I don't expect them to march down the street," just get involved, he said.
"I'm finished – my days of being a trailblazer are over," Buchanan said.
• Christopher Sherman can be reached at csherman@orlandosentinel.com or 863-422-3395.


Bismarck Tribune, July 7, 2004
P. O. Box 5516, Bismarck, ND, 58506
(Fax: 701- 223-2063) ( http://www.bismarcktribune.com )
(Online Mailer: http://www.bismarcktribune.com/forms/letters.php )
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2004/07/07/news/local/nws02.txt
Groups urge 'no' to petitions
By Natalie Storey, Bismarck Tribune
Like many teenagers in North Dakota, Sara Berger has a mom who is a good cook. She says dinners are fairly typical at her house, with one notable difference – her other mom does the dishes.
Berger is a pretty 16-year-old who is a good student at Mandan High School. She has a boyfriend, friends, a job and two lesbian moms who she likes to play rummy with. She says she's living proof that children of same-sex unions can turn out just as normal as children with heterosexual parents.
"People in favor of the marriage amendment often argue that it is in "children's best interests" to have both a mom and a dad, and that if the marriage amendment wasn't passed, it would jeopardize children and the sanctity of marriage," Berger said. "I'm here to say that it wouldn't."
Berger, along with a half-dozen others, spoke out Tuesday against the proposal to place an amendment to the North Dakota constitution on the ballot that would define marriage in the state as between a man and a woman, exclusively.
A coalition of gay, lesbian, bisexual and human rights advocacy groups announced the "Decline to Sign" campaign Tuesday, urging "fair-minded" North Dakotans to refuse to sign petitions circulating in the state that would place the amendment on the November ballot.
But the director of the North Dakota Family Alliance said Tuesday that the group fully expects to collect the 25,688 signatures it needs to place the amendment on the ballot before the Aug. 3 deadline. Christina Kindel said the issue should appear on the ballot so North Dakotans can decide for themselves how marriage should be defined in the state.
"It is not unfair to say that the people of North Dakota should have the right to vote on something as fundamental as marriage," she said. "Democratic process should decide the definition of marriage. Who could have a problem with North Dakotans simply having the right to vote on this issue?"
She also said same-sex unions rob children like Berger of a chance to have a father.
"We do not claim that two homosexual moms can't be very loving, but we don't have any social research that shows us yet that kids need two loving moms," she said. "We have a lot of social research that shows that kids do need one mom and one dad."
Berger said that in her case that simply wasn't true. Her moms are great parents, she said.
"I think heterosexual parents can be great," she said. "But I wouldn't ask for a different family, for heterosexual parents, any day."
Organizers of the "Decline to Sign" campaign say the proposed amendment is discriminatory.
"The U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of our 50 states are meant to protect rights and especially not to deny rights to a minority simply because the majority may believe it is justified in doing so," said Robert Uebel, chairman of Equality North Dakota. "Make no mistake about it, we are being asked to legitimize discrimination under the guise of 'protecting' marriage and children."
In the North Dakota constitution, marriage is already defined as a union between a man and a woman. But Kindel said the proposed amendment is needed to make sure it stays that way, so gay-rights activists don't influence a Massachusetts-like situation in North Dakota, where judges reinterpret the law to allow same-sex marriages.
"All homosexuals have all the basic civil rights, our campaign is simply to make it so that marriage remains between one man and one woman as our state constitution already upholds," she said.
Activists say they wish the North Dakota constitution could be changed all together, but for now they are concentrating their efforts on making sure the proposed amendment doesn't make it on the ballot.
"Of course we would like to see, ultimately, same-sex marriage legalized across the whole country," Uebel said.
Right now, however, activists say they are up against an atmosphere of fear and bigotry in the state. Gov. John Hoeven has publicly stated his support of the federal marriage limit, and others who might otherwise be in support of the alliance's cause are afraid to speak out, they say.
"Let's face it: We are a hot potato in North Dakota politics," Uebel said. He read a statement in support of the alliance from state Rep. Mary Ekstrom, a Democrat from District 11 in Fargo. But he said no other politicians had publicly offered support for the cause yet.
Being ridiculed for supporting gay rights is something Berger, unlike lawmakers, said she doesn't really have a choice about. She's "out of the closet" about her moms. Whispered comments like, "I told you she was a lesbian" and the popular put-down, "That's so gay" are snippets she often hears at school.
"Everybody automatically assumes that just because my moms are gay, I'm gay," she said. "There's all this whispering, 'I told you she was gay.' But I'm not. That has to come from somewhere. Hate is learned, people aren't born with it."
• Reach Natalie Storey at 355-8842.

---

Vist us often at http://gay_blog.blogspot.com.

Or use RSS to add our news to your site from http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/rss/gay_blog.xml.

Same-Sex Marriage, Glory Holes & Leathermen Make It To Dictionary

by Jan Prout
365Gay.com Newscenter
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/070704dictionary.htm
Toronto Bureau

(Toronto, Ontario) As gays and lesbians gain new rights dictionaries are struggling to keep up with changing definitions. The newly published second edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary includes a revised definition of the word "marriage" to reflect the existence of same-sex marriage in Canada since June 2003.

The new definition is "the legal or religious union of two people" and makes no mention of "a man and a woman".

"An up-to-date accurate dictionary reflects what words mean," says Katherine Barber, Editor-in-Chief of the dictionary, "and when court rulings in 2003 allowed for same-sex marriage, the traditional sense of the word immediately changed."

Barber has received some criticism for the decision, but stands steadfastly by it. "It is a matter or lexicographical principle," she says. "We would simply be incorrect if we continued to define marriage as being solely between a man and a woman; that is no longer the case in Canada."

The importance of the GLBT community is also reflected in other new additions to the dictionary, the first edition of which was published in 1998. The term "GLBT" itself is new, as is "lesbigay". "Transgender(ed)", which was considered for the first edition, became much more commonly used in the last seven years, and thus made the cut for the second edition. A new meaning was added to the word "pride" to cross-refer specifically to "gay pride", which is also a new entry. The significance of the rainbow symbol is also recognized with an entry for "rainbow flag".

"In addition to our revised definition of marriage, there is a particularly Canadian aspect to our coverage of gay and lesbian vocabulary in that we include the term "two-spirited", used to mean gay or lesbian in the Canadian Aboriginal community," says Barber. She first noticed this word on a City of Toronto bus shelter advertisement promoting tolerance, and on further research decided it deserved to be in the dictionary.

Other gay-related terms in the Second Edition of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary include bareback, bi-curious, civil union, co-parenting, cruisy, gaydar, glory hole, leatherman, lipstick lesbian, and pink triangle.

©365Gay.com 2004

GLBT News Update

1. REUTERS Persecution of gays is rising around the world
2. ARIZONA REPUBLIC The Valley's cashing in on gay wedding boom
3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS (Denver) Girding the gay vote: Collaborative effort under way to elect friendly candidates
4. NEWSDAY Same-Sex Marriage: The lesser-heard opposition movement (the ones who call themselves our friends while believing they're inherently superior to us)

Reuters, 5 July, 2004
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=541751§ion=news
Gay persecution seen rising around the world
By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) – Gay Pride marches are mainstream in some countries and gay politicians, actors and pop stars are out and proud – but homophobia is growing across the world with increasing numbers of countries making it punishable by death.
A new book published by human rights group Amnesty International says despite widespread acceptance of gays and lesbians in some countries, violent persecution of homosexuals is on the rise and has reached "epidemic" levels in others.
"Lesbian and gay people who form or join organisations, be they political or social, are being violently persecuted in many parts of the world where before they might have been unnoticed," writes the book's British author Vanessa Baird.
She singles out Uganda, Zimbabwe, Jamaica, El Salvador and Latin America in particular, where she says "the targeting and killing of transgender people has become an epidemic on streets."
The book, "Sex, Love and Homophobia," offers an overview of the experiences of gay, lesbian and transgender people around the world and gives a snapshot of their status in various societies today.
One British gay man interviewed describes how he was subjected to "aversion therapy" as a teenager in the 1960s because his mother could not accept her son was gay.
"I was locked up alone in a mental institution for 72 hours with supposedly gay pornography and given drugs to make me vomit and become incontinent," he said. "They said the next part of the treatment was to apply electrodes to my genitals. After three days I begged to be let out."
In the United States, Baird notes an increasing polarisation of attitudes. "While San Francisco boasts the largest openly gay community of any city in the world, anti-homosexual movements in Kansas, Ohio and Colorado advocate as a 'Christian duty' the rejection, and in some cases even killing, of gay people."
"And this is not all just a small group of nutters in the mid-West," she told Reuters. "This kind of evangelism is growing, and unfortunately a substantial part of it is homophobic and says homosexuality is a sin or a disease."
Baird's book also focuses on countries where homosexuality is punishable by death – Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Mauritania, Sudan, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and northern provinces of Nigeria.
Baird quotes Iran's 1991 Islamic penal law, which states "sodomy is a crime" and "punishment is death if the participants are adults, of sound mind and consenting."
South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu uses a foreword to the book to condemn homophobia as "every bit as unjust as that crime against humanity, apartheid."
"I could not have fought against the discrimination of apartheid and not also fight against the discrimination homosexuals endure," he wrote.
South Africa became the first country in the world in 1996 to include a clause in its constitution to guarantee freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.


Arizona Republic, July 5, 2004
Box 1950, Phoenix, AZ, 85001
(Fax: 602-271-8933 ) (E-Mail: opinions@arizonarepublic.com )
( http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic )
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0705gayweddings05.html
The Valley's cashing in on gay wedding boom
Megan Finnerty, The Arizona Republic
While America debates the merit of same-sex marriages, those in the wedding industry are giving gay couples the right to rose boutonnieres at Community Florist, elegant receptions at the Wyndham Buttes Resort, and double-bride cake toppers at Unique on Central.
Across the Valley, bakeries to resorts court engaged gay couples, hoping to attract some of what Forbes magazine projects to be a $16.8 billion annual business.
In the past year, gay wedding expos drew couples in New York City, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., and wedding-related businesses from Portland, Ore., to Boston see increased revenue from same-sex marriages.
The number of Valley wedding businesses marketing themselves to gay couples is still relatively small, in part because gay marriages still are not recognized by the state. But many business people and members of the gay community say the potential for growth in the gay wedding market is considerable, whether the unions become legal or not.
"As it becomes less of an oddity, as people do more elaborate ceremonies and spend more money, the demand for these services will increase," said Jim McAvoy, manager of Calamus Resort, a gay-friendly hotel in Phoenix. "Things are changing quickly, and Phoenix is open to it."
Two years ago, Tempe's Wyndham Buttes Resort, part of the national Wyndham Hotels & Resorts chain, began courting gay and lesbian wedding, honeymoon and vacation business by advertising in Echo and other local gay publications. They offered diversity training for managers, says Wendy Ferrill, the resort's area director of sales and marketing.
"The biggest issue with the gay and lesbian market was that when two men walk into a hotel, and the agent assumes that they want two double beds," she said. "We need to be sensitive to that."
At Community Florist, co-owner Shelli Walker says about half of her wedding business is for gay unions, and at the Phoenix gift shop Unique on Central, owner Doug Klinge has increased his wedding-related stock, such as his-and-his groom soaps, hers-and-hers cake toppers and gay-union greeting cards.
"Ten years ago, you couldn't find a greeting card that said congratulations for a gay wedding; now I get tons of samples every week from greeting card companies who are banking on gay weddings becoming more popular," Klinge said.
At Echo, advertising revenue is up as law firms target couples wanting to make their living arrangements as legal as possible. And at Calamus Resort, McAvoy says he gets about three calls a week about holding a commitment ceremony or reception at the hotel, where 20 percent of guests are wedding-related.
The Greater Phoenix Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce sees gay unions as a new area of revenue for businesses. The group is targeting gay vacationers with a new pamphlet detailing gay-friendly resorts, restaurants, bars and shops, as well as general attractions throughout the state.
Kelli Houston and Orgena Rose of Phoenix have found businesses to be accommodating for their Oct. 23 wedding.
Houston, 33, owns Vision Consulting, and Rose, 37, is music director at Gentle Shepherd Metropolitan Community Church.
"We haven't had any problems planning this wedding at all," said Houston, who admits to being addicted to the Learning Channel's A Wedding Story.
Initially, the couple used Echo, the Source and other gay-friendly publications to help plan, but they ended up using many different companies.
"I got my dress at A Dream Wedding 4 Less, and it's everything I'd asked for; every detail is the way I've pictured for my dream wedding," said Rose, who bought a princess-style white gown. "I always wanted it to be a big beautiful day, but after I came out, I put all that away. Marriage and family was just out of the question.
"That started changing when I started going to church and saw people having holy unions and families, and it opened up the whole world to me."
While a same-sex wedding is non-traditional, many elements of Houston and Rose's ceremony will be.
Houston will rent a tuxedo from Gingiss Formalwear, and their colors will be burgundy and ivory. The women, who will change their last names to Rose-Houston, will get married at Gentle Shepherd and will have a reception at the Hyatt Regency Phoenix.
The two said they see huge potential for growth in Phoenix's gay wedding market as social awareness and acceptance for gay weddings grow.
"Within the community, more people are getting into committed relationships," Houston said. "More people are nesting and moving in with each other and adopting, growing up, and unions are a part of all that."
• Reach the reporter at megan.finnerty@arizonarepublic.com.


Rocky Mountain News, July 5, 2004
400 W. ColFax Ave., Denver, CO, 80204
(Fax: 303-892-2568 ) (E-Mail: letters@rockymountainnews.com )
( http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn )
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_3012858,00.html
Girding the gay vote
Collaborative effort under way to elect friendly candidates
By Javier Erik Olvera, Rocky Mountain News
One of the most intense campaigns ever to entice gay rights supporters to vote in the November election is under way in Colorado.
The goal: to galvanize enough voters to defeat candidates who don't support gay issues such as anti-discrimination laws and same-sex marriage.
If such candidates are elected, campaign organizers fear they will stand in the way of the gay rights movement as it gains momentum and mainstream support.
"We can't afford to lose," said Ted Trimpa, a local attorney and gay rights lobbyist.
The effort involves gay and gay friendly organizations working independently but collaboratively through the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado.
Volunteers are hitting the streets, taking a simple message to family, friends and strangers: "Vote like your civil rights depend on it."
They're posting campaign fliers in gay bars, coffee shops, lounges and restaurants urging people to back gay-friendly candidates. Voter registration tables are being set up at popular gay night spots.
"The community is waking up to the fact that we have opportunities now that we didn't have before and we can't afford to squander them," said Mike Brewer, with the community center.
A related campaign, called TurnOut, has been organized by the Denver-based Gill Foundation, which funds GLBT organizations, among others.
It has set up a Web site detailing laws considered to be discriminatory against gays and urging participation in the political process.
The TurnOut campaign also features a voter mobilization toolkit that will be sent to more than 250 organizations around the country.
Television spots will begin today. Print advertisements will follow.
The efforts come at a time of heightened attention to gay issues that hasn't existed in Colorado since Amendment 2.
The 1992 voter-approved constitutional amendment prohibited laws aimed at protecting gays against discrimination. It was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996.
The catalyst this time is the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex couples from marrying. It is sponsored in the House by U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and in the U.S. Senate by Wayne Allard. Both are Colorado Republicans.
Suddenly, the issue that few people had ever talked about has become central to many political campaigns. Several candidates, including Republican U.S. Senate contenders Bob Schaffer and Pete Coors, have said they, too, back the amendment.
Gay activists and supporters are lashing back, saying they won't settle for anything less than same-sex marriage rights comparable to those afforded heterosexual couples and that it's time to politically "go after people who go after us," said Trimpa.
They're backing candidates like Democrat Stan Matsunaka, who is challenging Musgrave's bid for re-election and who does not support her proposed amendment.
Among gays, the issues have blurred political lines, with some Republicans backing Democratic candidates who share their views, said Joe Barrows, a national board member of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay political group.
George Stillings, president of the state's Log Cabin Republicans, said that more young people are joining the gay GOP group.
The majority of its 240 or so members are in their 20s and got involved to have an impact on an election that will directly affect their lives, he said.
Group members recently decided they could make a bigger impact by talking one-on-one to individuals as a way to personalize the issues, he said.
But the biggest challenge for gay activists is getting their straight allies – generally voters under 35 years old – to the polls.
That's where activists hope projects like TurnOut can help by taking gay rights issues directly into voters' homes.
Today, TurnOut will launch a TV ad campaign in Denver with personal accounts of workplace discrimination because of sexual orientation.
Program manager Andrea Hart believes the spots deliver a powerful message that "nondiscrimination protections don't exist for many" gays.
Additionally, Tim Gill – a philanthropist and Gill Foundation founder – is trying to reach people through a Web site, www.connexion.org.
He knew politics alone wouldn't draw much interest, so he created a social Web site where members have their own pages and can invite their friends to join. More than 29,000 people belong to the free site.
While members use the site as a social networking tool, Gill uses it to spread the message about gay-related political issues and the need to vote.
"If you don't participate in the political process . . . then you don't have a voice in what happens," he said.
Organizers are hopeful their campaigns will sway some of the 56 percent of Colorado voters who don't support gay issues. The figure is from a recent study by pollster Floyd Ciruli.
Opponents, on the other hand, are also active. Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family has taken the lead in the fight against same-sex marriage, educating people about the tradition of marriage and the need to preserve it.
Focus does not endorse individual candidates, but does provide people with incumbents' voting history and track record, said spokeswoman Carrie Gordon Earl.
Brewer knows the gay rights supporters have only four months left before the election. But he's optimistic the efforts will pay off in November.
"The time is finally right to move forward on these issues," he said.

SIDEBAR: Same-sex marriage – a divisive issue
• For same-sex marriage: Denver-based Gill Foundation has launched the Turnout campaign, www.turnout.org, urging supporters to get out and vote.
• Candidates: Democratic candidate for the U.S. House, Stan Matsunaka, above, opposes a proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages. Matsunaka is challenging Rep. Marilyn Musgrave.
• Against same-sex marriage: Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, www.family.org, is educating people about the need to preserve the institution of marriage.
• Candidates: Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Sen. Wayne Allard are the driving forces behind the proposed amendment.
• olveraj@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5113


Newsday, July 5, 2004
235 Pinelawn, Melville, NY, 11747-4250
(Fax: 516-843-2986 ) (E-Mail: letters@newsday.com )
( http://www.newsday.com )
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgay043881964jul05,0,5783398.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines
Same-Sex Marriage: The lesser-heard opposition movement
By Hugo Kugiya, Staff Writer
Elizabeth Marquardt is 33, married for eight years, a mother of two young children, an author and researcher on the topic of divorce and family.
She lives in Lake Forest, a suburb of Chicago, where her husband teaches at a local college. Otherwise, she said, they would be "living in the city like all the other very cool people." She studied international relations at the University of Chicago. She is a registered Democrat, listens to folk music and pledges money to her local public radio station.
She is also, much to the surprise and dismay of her liberal friends and colleagues, opposed to same-sex marriage, even though her best friend is gay.
"It's affected our friendship," Marquardt said sadly. "The cultural debate is so narrowly framed right now. If you're an open, loving person, you're for gay marriage, and if you're a nasty right-wing Christian, you're against it. The idea that there can be any other debate has been almost entirely ignored."
Marquardt said her argument has nothing to do with homosexuality itself. Instead, she said, gay marriage brings up the same concern as divorce and single parenthood: That all potentially compromise the emotional health of children by aspiring to something less than what she considers the gold standard, a family led by a man and woman, married to each other. Broken and imperfect families are realities of life, but only gay marriage involves changing the fundamental definition of marriage, she said.
"I'm not willing to say right now," she said, "that the rights of adults to do what they want trump the question of how this will affect children."
The views of people like Marquardt, a child of divorce herself, have been largely overlooked, even as national polls indicate that Americans oppose gay marriage by about 2-to-1. A poll of about 1,500 people taken last year by the Pew Research Center found 59 percent oppose legalizing gay marriage. While the Pew poll suggests that those against gay marriage tend to be older, less educated, highly religious and from the South or rural America, the research also suggests many opponents are none of those things.
"I know quite a few liberals who are cringing a little bit about gay marriage," said Diane Sollee, a family and marriage therapist and founder of the marriage Web site SmartMarriages.com. "They're people concerned about children, and they're just not comfortable and they're not sure why. It's kind of like this natural-order thing, the idea that it takes a man and woman to make a baby."
The liberal, or secular, case against gay marriage is not as easily articulated as the theological argument. The arguments are generally not rooted in an objection to homosexuality but instead in the belief that only traditional marriage provides certain benefits for children. Many moderate opponents have, for years, bemoaned the rising divorce rates, the broken homes, the children born out of wedlock. Many see gay marriage as a compromise to a family ideal they have been working to promote.
"Those who cared about marriage were missing in action on this debate," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, a marriage think tank in Washington, D.C. "There is something important about husbands and wives, mothers and fathers."
Marquardt supports gay adoption and legal protections for gay couples and parents. But she stops short along with a great many Americans when it comes to granting wholesale the rights of marriage to gay couples.
"It's one thing to accept all kinds of families as you find them," Marquardt said. "But when you talk about larger policy goals, and changing the norm, that's not acceptable."
It appears many others feel the same way. Last week, 244,587 Oregon residents signed a petition to put a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage up to a vote in November. The number of signatures was the most submitted for an initiative in state history.
Legislatures in six other states – Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma and Utah – have placed similar amendments on the November ballot. Petition drives like the one in Oregon are under way in Arkansas, Michigan, Ohio and Montana.
"We believe marriage is about family, too," said Corri Planck, with the Family Pride Coalition, a national advocacy group for gay and lesbian families. "It seems both sides are saying the same thing. We just have some different ideas of what constitutes a family."
Social scientists generally agree that the family structure best suited to raise the healthiest children is one led by a married mother and father, a position that is difficult to assert without appearing anti-gay, some said.
Gay rights advocates point to research that shows gay parents raise healthy and happy children. But some scientists and scholars say those studies are too new to be conclusive. Samples are small, do not take into account all variables, and have been studied over a short period of time, they say.
Bill Doherty, a professor in the Department of Family Social Science at the University of Minnesota, said that "kids in same-sex households will probably look like kids in stepfamilies. They're not quite as well off, but they're not terrible. And we don't ban stepfamilies."
Although not opposed to same-sex marriage, Doherty is concerned about the rush to institute it. He proposed that legislatures, not courts, decide the issue because it is as much a cultural issue as one of civil rights, he said.
"If the courts get too far ahead of the emerging cultural consensus," Doherty said, "you get a huge backlash like we're having now and even progressive states will pass constitutional amendments, and that puts the cause back much further."
Planck, of Family Pride, explained the potential backlash this way: "Marriage is steeped in tradition. When we create real and lasting change, it's always difficult for some to move along with that change."
Whether that change will come will depend not on the political left or right but from the vast middle, people like Gallagher, of the marriage think tank. An unwed mother for 10 years, she is now married with two children and is a syndicated columnist as well as co-author of "The Case for Marriage."
"To say that marriage can be unisex is to disrupt people's sense of what's important about bringing a man and woman together," said Gallagher, who lives in Westchester County. "It feeds into the discomfort people have about gay marriage. We're dealing with very deep archetypes and substructures. It points back to the idea that children need a mother and father."

GLBT News Update

1. SOUTH FLORIDA SUN-SENTINEL Gays are focus of effort to cut crime
2. AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN (Texas) Groups clash at Capitol over gay marriage; Independence Day event orderly but impassioned
3. ASSOCIATED PRESS Michigan: Supporters of a ban on gay marriage submitted nearly 500,000 signatures Monday in an effort to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot
4. ASSOCIATED PRESS Florida: Lawyers hope to push for repeal of ban on gay adoptions
5. SALEM STATESMAN JOURNAL (Oregon) Letter: Gay marriages better than dysfunctional ones
6. CANTON REPOSITORY (Ohio) Marriage editorial: Majority still opposed
7. THE HILL (Washington, DC) Despite an intense lobbying effort in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, several senators locked in close reelection contests say they have yet to feel pressure from constituents to support the amendment

South Florida Sun-Sentinel, July 5, 2004
200 E. Las Olas, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 33301
(Fax: 954-356-4624 ) (E-Mail: letters@sun-sentinel.com )
( http://www.sun-sentinel.com )
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-pgay05jul05,0,5995101.story?coll=sfla-news-palm
Gays focus of effort to cut crime
By Nancy L. Othón, Staff Writer
Asked to provide the gay community with ways to stay safe, police in Lake Worth and West Palm Beach have offered to conduct seminars and do safety surveys at gay bars in an effort to ensure people aren't targeted as they leave entertainment establishments.
Police said they also will try to get the word out that they are willing to investigate anonymous complaints.
Members of Palm Beach County's gay community and police met recently to discuss safety issues and violence against gays at the request of Compass, the county's gay and lesbian community and social service center, and the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.
Several incidents earlier this year, including one April 24 in which a gay man was robbed by someone he met at a bar in Lake Worth, prompted leaders in the gay community to request the meeting.
Police say there hasn't been a spike in crime against gays, but those victims don't always report crimes if family members and friends don't know about their sexual orientation, said Jamie Foreman, president of the Palm Beach County Human Rights Council.
"There are a lot of barriers in the community with people not reporting it," Foreman said. "People might not be out."
Members of the gay community are often chosen as victims because many opt not to call police, Foreman said.
"I think the modus operandi is they target communities that are somewhat helpless, including communities of color," he said.
West Palm Beach police Assistant Chief Guillermo Perez said his department would accept anonymous complaints.
"We try to get the word out that they can always make a report anonymously," Perez said. "So if there is a problem with gay bashing or any type of hate crime, we can track it. If they don't want to report it with their name, they can at least tell us what happened."
The Human Rights Council plans on updating its Web site to include a link to let people anonymously report crimes.
"We might be able to identify a certain suspect if they give us specific information," said Lake Worth police Lt. David Moss, who attended the meeting, which was about five weeks ago.
Foreman said he has heard about several incidents in which gay people have been harassed as they leave gay clubs in Lake Worth and West Palm Beach.
West Palm Beach police increased patrols at gay bars in response to concerns from the Human Rights Council, Perez said. Police also are waiting for a list of bar owners who would be willing to have police assess the properties to ensure the areas are well lighted and don't provide an invitation to crime, Perez said.
"We're trying to reach out to the community and help out the best way we can," he said.
Moss said he also suggested a crime prevention section be added to the Compass and Human Rights Council Web sites that would include tips on personal safety.
• Nancy L. Othón can be reached at nothon@sun-sentinel.com or 561-243-6633.


Austin American-Statesman, July 5, 2004
Box 670, Austin, TX, 78767
(Fax: 512-912-5927) (E-Mail: letters@statesman.com )
( http://www.statesman.com )
http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/monday/metro_state_048edff25302022b001c.html
Groups clash at Capitol over gay marriage
Independence Day event orderly but impassioned
By Anita Powell, American-Statesman Staff
While nearly 100,000 Austinites flocked to Zilker Park for this year's Independence Day festivities, about 400 others thronged the empty Texas Capitol to toss a hot issue on the grill: gay marriage.
In sweltering late-afternoon heat, about 150 supporters of gay marriage and about 250 people on the other side of the issue participated in an impassioned but orderly event that featured singing, speeches and a spontaneous union of the factions for a group prayer on the Capitol steps.
"The issue is, we will be codifying into law what God himself has called an abomination," said keynote speaker Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based lobbying group that sponsored the Christian-centered event with Austin-based TakeUp.org.
Representing the opposition were the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas and Soulforce Austin, both gay rights groups.
Randall Ellis, executive director of the lobby group, said he felt it was his patriotic duty to represent gay rights.
"I would much rather be home with my mother and father," he said. "But I feel very strongly that I had to be here."
Austin resident Doug McArthur, 59, came with his wife, Joan, to support their daughter, who is gay.
"We have a 33-year-old boy and a 29-year-old girl," said Joan McArthur, 57. "And both of them should be able to marry their girlfriends if they want to."
Bryan Sturdivant, 46, brought his wife and daughter, but to support the opposite view. The family attends the Church at Canyon Creek, a Baptist congregation in North Austin that brought a group to the event.
"I believe God created us as man and woman, and that's the way it should be," he said. "America was founded on God. And we've got to get back to him."
Some Christians in the crowd did not agree with that message, however.
"I believe that God created all people and that everyone is equal in his eyes," said Kristen Thomas, 20, who is Catholic. "Jesus loved tax collectors, he loved prostitutes; why wouldn't he have loved gays?"
Megan Steves, 26, and Naomi Douglas, 28, stood with their arms around each other's shoulders on the Capitol steps. Steves held a sign in support of gay marriage that read, "I can't."
"Independence Day doesn't mean anything when people aren't able to make their own decisions," Steves said. "They did this with blacks. And they're doing this with gays."
But Julius Buckner, 50, who said he opposes gay marriage, blanched at the comparison to the civil rights movement.
"It's not the same," said Buckner, who is black. "They still have the right to do what they want to."
An unexpected moment of solidarity occurred at the end, when the Rev. Michael Hatcher, pastor of Lighthouse Community Church in Fort Worth, invited the protesters to join him onstage in prayer.
"Let freedom ring in your heart," he prayed, stricken with emotion, surrounded by a throng of activists, arms linked, hands clasped, intermingled and indistinguishable.
"I saw it as an opportunity to spread love," he said of his call to prayer. "For me not to call my enemies to come and reconcile would be the wrong thing for me to do."
• apowell@statesman.com; 246-0030


Associated Press, July 5, 2004
Mich. Gay Marriage Opponents Eye Ballot
By Tim Martin
LANSING, Mich. (AP) – Supporters of a ban on gay marriage submitted nearly 500,000 signatures Monday in an effort to get a proposed constitutional amendment on the November ballot.
If adopted, the amendment would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Gay marriage is banned in Michigan, but opponents want stronger language to protect against potential future judicial decisions or legislative initiatives.
The group, Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, had submitted more than 475,000 signatures to state election officials. If 317,757 of the signatures are valid, the issue could be on the Nov. 2 ballot.
“The people responded,” said Marlene Elwell, the group's president. “They're tired of politicians and activist judges making changes without having a voice. This gives them a voice.”
Representatives of a group opposed to the initiative, Coalition for a Fair Michigan, said Monday they would consider legal action to try and keep the proposal off the ballot.
Opponents said the measure would end domestic partner benefits at public institutions such as the city of Ann Arbor, the University of Michigan and Michigan State University.
Symbolic weddings were performed in Ferndale and Lansing in June after the nation's first legal gay weddings were performed in Massachusetts in May.


Associated Press, July 5, 2004
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9084695.htm
Lawyers hope to push for repeal of ban on gay adoptions
Jackie Hallifax, Associated Press
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Family law attorneys want to get rid of Florida's ban on gay adoptions.
By unanimous vote, the executive council of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar has decided to push for a repeal.
"Fundamental fairness demands that healthy parents should be allowed to adopt regardless," said Evan Marks, a Miami attorney who became chairman of the section last month.
Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether single or as a couple.
The law, which was passed in 1977, has survived three state court challenges. Most recently, a Miami federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by four gay men seeking to adopt their foster children and in January the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the men.
The federal appeals court said the issue was one that should be decided in the Legislature.
Two years ago, nearly two dozen state lawmakers filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal lawsuit, defending the right of the Legislature to ban gay adoptions in order to "further the public moral sense." A bill filed in the state Senate this spring to repeal the ban went nowhere.
And Mathew Staver, president of the conservative civil liberties legal group Liberty Counsel, said last week he would "vigorously oppose repealing the law."
Staver said it's irrefutable that children do best when they are raised by a mother and father.
"We should not experiment with the future of children by creating a policy that undermines children being raised by a mom and dad," he said.
Staver also said several states have banned adoptions by gays. A handful of others have allowed them but most are silent on the issue, he said.
Two states – Mississippi and Utah – prohibit only gay couples from adopting. Alabama's Supreme Court recently ruled against gay adoptions.
In Florida, before the Family Law Section can press lawmakers to repeal the ban on gay adoptions it needs approval from the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar.
Membership in the Bar is a requirement to practice law in the state. So the key issue the 52-member Board of Governors will consider later this summer is whether allowing the Family Law Section to push for repeal of the ban is divisive in the legal community.
About 4,200 lawyers belong to the section, which is governed by an executive counsel of about three dozen attorneys.
Just five months ago, the executive counsel voted 17-7 against repealing the ban based on the argument that pushing for a repeal would be divisive.
"I thought that was absolutely ridiculous," Marks said.
When he became chair of the section in June, he brought the issue up again.
"It's one of those cutting edge issues in family law and it was one of those things that needed to be addressed," Marks said.
He told the section that the theme of his one-year term would be "fundamental fairness for Florida families."
A dozen mainstream groups, such as the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association and the American Psychiatric Association have all come out in support of allowing gay people to adopt.
"Once these groups got on board it had a snowball effect," Marks said.
The Florida Bar Board of Governors rejected the idea of pushing for repeal in 1991, deciding it would be too divisive an issue in the legal community. But Marks said he's optimistic that the board would approve the position now.
"Fortunately people have become more enlightened," he said.
But the fate of the idea in the Legislature – "that is a different story," he said.
Orlando attorney Richard West, a former chairman of the Family Law section, also thinks it will be an uphill battle to repeal the ban.
"We have grave reservations that it will ever get through that far but we feel it is important to try," West said.
Jack Levine, a longtime child advocate, said it's discriminatory to say gay parents cannot be good parents.
"The reality is that we have no evidence to show, either scientific or sociological ... that gay couples cannot be positive parents," Levine said. "We actually have a lot of evidence to show that heterosexuality does not make for, by definition, good parenting."
• On The Net: The Florida Bar: http://www.flabar.org/


The Statesman Journal, July 5, 2004
Box 13009, Salem, OR, 97309-1015
(Fax: 503-399-6706) (E-Mail: letters@statesmanjournal.com )
( http://news.statesmanjournal.com )
Letter: Gay marriages better than dysfunctional ones
Why are we aghast at the idea of two people wanting a commitment to one another for life just because they are of the same sex? We deny two people who love and cherish one another, who support each other, are kind to each other, the opportunity to follow through on what most traditional marriages cannot – forever.
Being of the same sex does not “ruin marriage.” What ruins marriage is the indiscriminate unions of couples on a whim. When these unions fall apart because they can’t agree on the type of furniture to buy or what color to paint the bedroom, marriage becomes the first victim.
You’re worried about sending your child to their friend’s house because they have two mommies or two daddies, and you’re not sure what they’ll be exposed to. Yet every day in America, children are introduced to drugs and killed by guns residing in the homes of straight families. I ask you: Which is worse?
If you don’t agree with gay marriages, don’t participate. Perhaps you’d feel more comfortable attending the wedding of uneducated pregnant meth-heads. There appears to be a waiting list for those.
– Anna Kindred, Salem


Canton Repository, July 5, 2004
500 S. Market Ave., Canton, OH, 44702
(Fax: 330-454-5745 ) ( http://www.cantonrep.com/main.htm )
(Online Mailer: http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?external=forms/letter_editor.php )
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?Category=3&ID=170514&r=0
Editorial: Majority still opposed
This is a conservative community. It was not surprising to see that 70 percent of Stark Countians oppose gay marriage, according to the Rep Poll conducted in late June. The compromise alternative, some sort of civil union that would confer some legal rights and responsibilities on gay couples, is opposed nearly as vigorously. Sixty percent say no to civil union.
The decision by two state universities to begin offering insurance benefits to same-sex domestic partners of employees may not win a round of applause in Stark County. Ohio and Miami universities have decided to offer the benefits, and Cleveland State University will follow suit because it promised unionized employees to do so if any other public university blazed the trail.
The political majority that turns social policy into Ohio law has an opinion on this that is closer to the minds of most Stark Countians. The education leaders responsible for attracting top talent in teaching and research to our state universities would tell you a different story. At least one state higher-education leader has told us that Ohio’s political hostility to recognizing gay families discourages some leading academics from considering a move to Ohio.
It does not follow that the universities’ extension of benefits to gay partners of employees must translate into newly legislated rights for such families, but clearly Ohio is feeling the effects of this social transformation.


The Hill, July 6, 2004
733 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 1140, Washington, D.C.
(Fax: 202-628-8503) (E-Mail: aleisele@thehill.com )
( http://www.thehill.com )
http://www.thehill.com/news/070604/gayunion.aspx
No gay-union outcry, senators say
By Lauren Shepherd
Despite an intense lobbying effort last week by advocates of a constitutional ban on gay marriage, several senators locked in close reelection contests say they have yet to feel pressure from constituents to support the amendment.
Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) – one of 24 “high priority” senators targeted for a pressure campaign by a coalition of conservative groups – spent the July 4 weekend campaigning across South Dakota.
But although the coalition sent out updates on where Daschle and other senators it considers to be on the fence on the issue would be appearing, Daschle campaign spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said gay marriage was not on the minds of the crowds.
The constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman “didn’t come up once,” Pfeiffer said. “We’ve heard from almost no one.”
As of Friday, Daschle’s Washington office also had not fielded phone calls on the proposed amendment, Daschle spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said.
The amendment is scheduled to come before the Senate next Monday. Although the amendment is likely to fail, supporters hope that the vote will give constituents an accurate picture of where each senator stands on an issue that has energized both conservative and gay activists while making headlines around the country.
Daschle, who is running against former Rep. John Thune (R), is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the Senate. Thune lost by only 524 votes when he ran against Sen. Tim Johnson (D) two years ago.
Pfeiffer said he had “no doubt” that Thune would use Daschle’s vote on the amendment in his campaign but said he believed voters will be more focused on “pocketbook issues.” Daschle has said he opposes gay marriage but would not support a constitutional amendment.
Pfeiffer added that conservative groups are targeting South Dakota “because they want to influence an election in November rather than a Senate vote in July.”
Other than Daschle, the conservative coalition – headed by the Family Research Council – is urging activists and constituents to contact several other senators up for reelection in potentially close contests, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).
Tom McClusky, director of government affairs for the Family Research Council, acknowledged that the lobbying effort was an attempt to influence the election, even if just to let voters know where each senator stands on the issue.
With a vote on the books well before November, McClusky said, the amendment debate could have an impact, particularly, in close races – a consideration when the group determined which senators to target.
“In the tight races, sometimes it breaks down to a single issue,” he said.
McClusky said he believes 40 senators already are “guaranteed” to vote for cloture.
Even if the bill ultimately does not pass, he said, convincing at least 20 additional senators to vote for cloture next week is “something we’d like to see.”
McClusky said the group put together the list of targeted senators by reviewing any public comment made by a senator about gay marriage. The group then noted the demographics of those states to see which senators were “basically gettable.”
The list also reflects the areas where there are strong or large local conservative family groups that can lobby on a grassroots level, he said.
McClusky added that he has told all local lobbying organizations to fax, e-mail and call the Washington offices and campaign offices of each of the 24 senators on the high-priority list.
Specter campaign spokesman Chris Nicholas said that the campaign office has not received calls about the amendment but that the senator’s Washington office may have heard from constituents or activists. That office was closed yesterday.
“It is certainly an issue of interest to some people out there,” Nicholas said. But, he added, “you hear about a ton of issues out there.”
Nicholas said Specter is against same-sex marriage but is not sure if a constitutional amendment is the best solution.
“He takes every bill one at a time,” Nicholas said.
Murkowski, who is headed for an Aug. 24 primary against a more conservative opponent, state Sen. Mike Miller, spent much of the recess defending her position on gay marriage after her opponent criticized her for not being clear enough about where she stands.
Murkowski has said that she would back a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman but that she wants to see the final wording on the amendment before supporting it.
Also last week, a conservative group, Focus on the Family Action, placed ads in several Alaska newspapers showing a sad boy and the question “Why Doesn’t Senator Murkowski Believe Every Child Needs a Mother and a Father?”
Similar ads have run in South Dakota and other targeted states in the past week.

GLBT News Update

1. REUTERS London gay parade draws thousands
2. THE NATION (Thailand) Gay activists form political movement, plan talks with governor hopefuls
3. THE OBSERVER (London) If you're sad to be grey: A B&B's ban on gay couples is worse than homophobic – it's dull
4. BIRMINGHAM EVENING MAIL (England) I'm mincing my words! A Methodist minister was baffled as to why his new website was prompting moral outrage in America
5. ASHBURTON GUARDIAN (New Zealand) Despite having a lesbian sister-in-law, MP Brian Connell stands by his comments saying the Civil Union Bill is unnecessary and would contribute to the breakdown of society
6. FIJI TIMES Rights to sexual minorities
7. METRO PULSE (Knoxville, Tennessee) Identity Crisis: Politicians tried to define Rhea County by banning gays, but their definition didn’t match reality

Metro Pulse, May 20, 2004
505 Market St., Level 300, Knoxville, TN 37902
(Fax: 865-522-2955) (E-Mail: editor@metropulse.com )
( http://www.metropulse.com )
http://www.metropulse.com/dir_zine/dir_2004/1421/t_cover.html
Identity Crisis
Politicians tried to define Rhea County by banning gays, but their definition didn’t match reality
by Joe Tarr
Anna Massey and Chris Denton sit at a picnic bench at Rhea County’s Cedar Point Park, munching sandwiches of white bread and processed cold cuts. A high school junior and freshman, respectively, the two just got back from a food run for one of the organizer’s of the county’s first Gay Day.
On the stage underneath the park’s picnic shelter, two hairy men in dresses sing songs and juggle. For today at least, surrounded by a few hundred gay men and lesbians, the two high schoolers are not part of the minority. They’re also probably not who the county commission had in mind when they passed a muddled resolution in March criminalizing homosexuals.
Massey and Denton have been trying to organize a gay and lesbian student group at Rhea County High, with some resistance from the school board.
Denton told a few people he was gay about a year ago. “I was just tired of being someone I wasn’t. I sort of threw up my hands and told a couple of people. It got back to my grandfather and he made me come out of the closet to my family. He’s very judgmental and he hates faggots,” says Denton, who adds that his grandfather hasn’t disowned him, he just doesn’t like to talk about it. “He loves me still.”
Massey came out about two years ago, at the end of her freshman year. Her friends have been supportive, while others have ignored her orientation or been hostile to her. “I’m probably one of the most openly gay students at my high school. I still get called faggot. I look past it,” she says. “My dad ignores the whole idea. He still says, ‘When are you going to bring home a nice boy who will work on the car?’ My mom is getting better. She wants to be involved in my life.”
The leader of the church youth group Massey is active in, well, he doesn’t like it much either, but doesn’t criticize, she says. “He said, ‘You know it’s wrong but I’m not going to judge you.’”
Does Massey believe being gay is wrong? “I believe it is wrong but God created everybody to be who they are so why would he create gay people but say it’s wrong?” she says.
Such are the negotiations of being gay in rural Rhea County. The place has been defined by a lot of people in a lot of different ways in the past few months. The conflict in Rhea County and in the United States over gay rights is so tricky because it has to do with how people define themselves, their families, their communities and their values. Stereotypes of Rhea abound – the righteous Christian community taking a stand against hedonistic liberal culture, the racist redneck hick town clinging to the past, and everything in-between – but none of these portrayals hold up to scrutiny.
Most locals just wish the media and the gay rights groups and Christian soldiers would leave them alone. That’s unlikely. Rhea County and all of its citizens have become symbols to the media, politicians and the liberal and religious activists in the struggle over gay rights.
On March 16, the Rhea County Commission was wrapping up its monthly meeting, having just voted to remove televisions from all county offices. Then commissioner J.C. Fugate asked for the floor and started talking about the gay marriage issue. “I’d like to make a motion that those kind of people cannot live in Rhea County or abide in Rhea county. If they’re caught in Rhea County living together as such, that they be tried for crimes against nature,” he said at the meeting, according to a recording on the Internet.
Several people in the audience applauded, while commissioners laughed. The minutes of the meeting read, “Motion was made by Commissioner Fugate which was duly seconded by Commissioner Raper that pertaining to homosexual marriages that is going on across our country, that those kinds of people can not live in Rhea County or abide in Rhea County, if they are caught in Rhea County living together as such, that they be tried for crimes against nature. That county attorney, Gary Fritts, prepare a resolution and submit to our senator and representative and see if they will prepare a bill for that to go in the criminal code and word it the way it should be worded and bring the resolution back to the next commission meeting.”
The commissioners now claim they thought they were voting for something else – a defense critics say shows they’re incompetent at best, or that they’re lying, at worst.
Commissioner Tom Davis – who is a PR spokesman for Bryan College, the fundamentalist school founded in honor of William Jennings Bryan after the 1925 Scopes Trial in Dayton, the county seat – is one of the few commissioners who has spoken publicly since the March meeting.
“Nobody is going to argue the fact that those were the words that came out of Mr. Fugate’s mouth and as soon as he said it, ‘I thought, oh, boy, we’re in trouble.’”
Davis says the discussion that followed Fugate’s motion led him to believe they were voting on something else. “I thought we were calling for a proper resolution. That doesn’t help a whole lot, does it? I thought we were asking the county attorney to sift through all that happened in the last 3-1/2 minutes and bring us something we could vote on.
“On March 16, we were right in the middle of San Francisco, Oregon, Chicago talking about issuing marriage licenses to gay couples contrary to state law. What I was looking for, what I think we should have made clear, is we would have been directing our county clerk not to break state law.
“What I don’t understand is how anybody can think a county commission would do something so blatantly that was so patently crazy. If we really indeed said homosexuals cannot live in Rhea County – that’s off the charts. That’s nuts. In this country we don’t tell people you can’t live here. The Supreme Court took care of that a long time ago,” he adds.
Nevertheless, none of the commissioners defended civil rights at the meeting or said gay people were welcome in Rhea County.
Ironically, Davis feels just as attacked as some homosexuals have. “It’s been disappointing because of the viciousness of the response. There’s a certain amount of that directed to both sides. On the one side, you have people telling us what incompetents and idiots we are. On the other hand, you’ve got people screaming at those people,” he says.
County Mayor Billy Ray Patton, who doesn’t vote on commission resolutions, says he was confused about the proposal. “I really couldn’t say what the motion was about because there was so much commotion. If I’d been voting on it, I’d have voted ‘no.’ The meeting just got out of hand,” he says.
The commission rescinded the incendiary resolution two days later, but the news had spread around the world. Much was made of the fact that Dayton was also the location of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial.
“It’s already tarnished the county’s image,” Patton says of the anti-gay resolution. “For the first three or four days, we probably received 1,000 phone calls here.... This is not what Rhea County is all about. Rhea County is not a hateful county, by no means.”
Doug Landreth logged onto his computer one morning in Navarre, Fla., a small community near Fort Walton Beach. He was startled by something about Rhea County that he found on Advocate.com. Landreth grew up in Rhea County, and most of his family still lives there.
“I was like, ‘Oh, my God.’ I knew the climate surrounding Rhea County, but the fact that they would take it to such an extreme I found very hostile. I became physically ill.”
Landreth knew at a very young age that he was gay. When he went to college, he slowly began the process of coming out. When he was 30, he told his parents. “I never felt there’d be any personal shame. I went to counseling to learn how to deal with it if I was disowned by my family. I didn’t want to do anything to my family to cause them problems. It wasn’t until I was partnered and bought a home and my parents were coming down for a visit that I came out. I didn’t have the strength for myself but I didn’t want to put my partner in a separate bedroom and pretend.”
Now 40 years old, Landreth works as a media director for a Metropolitan Community Church (a Christian church with a special outreach to the gay and transgender people) and is a founder of CoastalPRIDE of Northwest Florida. With a thick goatee and a muscular build, Landreth doesn’t look like he’s easily pushed around. His hometown government’s action upset him, but he resolved to fight it. In a letter sent to every commissioner, he promised to move back and sue the county if it didn’t rescind the action.
His public action in his hometown stirred up new tension with his family. His father – fine with his son being out-of-the-closet a day’s drive away – wasn’t cool with it at home, Landreth says. “He said I don’t live here and this is their backyard. He said, ‘You need to make a choice, your family or this gay shit.’ I told him, ‘No, you have to decide.’”
He and his partner stayed at a hotel last weekend during Gay Day. “The ball’s in his court,” Landreth says. “He’s the one that’s got to come to terms with the fact that I have to be true to myself.”
Human rights and gay activists around the country started hearing about the Rhea County debacle and it wasn’t long before they started connecting with locals and planning the first annual Rhea County Gay Day.
A week after the commission meeting, plans were announced for a gay pride day in Dayton.
Plenty of locals – straight and gay – were outraged too. Ilaeka Villa, who has lived in Spring City for four years (and whose family has lived there for 30) called for their resignation and started a recall petition (which is non-binding).
Kristi Bacon, a lesbian who had moved to Rhea County six months prior, got involved in organizing the festival. Until May 8, no one really knew what to expect. There were rumors that Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell would show up.
There was also fear that gay bashers would violently strike back.
Brad Putt, who opened Main Stage Music, a guitar and music shop across the street from the courthouse last summer, says he heard a rumor that there was a party in Pikeville to raise money for some kids who were planning to hit the Gay Day with paintguns. “The fundraiser was to pay for their bail. They researched what the bail would be,” he says. “When I heard that – that’s just so wrong.”
Michael Lowe is nervous. So is Paul Balo. And Rick Sawyer. And Kip Williams. And Jeff Berke. And a few others.
It’s four days before the big Gay Day in Rhea County and Equality Knoxville has organized a meeting at the Bean Tree and Coffee House to talk about non-violent protest and how they’ll handle themselves in the presumably hostile territory.
They pass a picture of a truck with large sign on the back that reads “Homosexuals and Lesbians are called Dogs in the Bible.” One of them took the picture on the highway in East Tennessee. They mention the UT student who was beaten coming home from the Carousel Club one night in March.
“I’m seriously worried about getting assaulted or killed myself this weekend,” confesses Berke, who is new to activism. Nightmare scenarios play out in their heads.
“You go to the bathroom, three or four guys come in after you and bash your head against the wall and leave you to bleed to death. Nobody sees anything,” Lowe says.
“At best there could be a counter-protest on the horizon like storm clouds and a picnic for the rest of us,” Lowe says. “Then there’s the thought that people could get hurt or you go to your car and it’s been keyed or you have two flat tires.”
June Griffin, a zealous fundamentalist Christian who lives in Rhea County, causes them concern. She’s been a vocal antagonist to many leftist protest groups. Her group, Citizen-Soldiers for the Atomic Bomb, sent a press release out about the anti-nuclear group Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, that read “we pray for their untimely deaths.”
Williams has had interactions with her through his anti-nuclear activism and he urges the others not to confront her. “There’s this gross sort of hatred that I don’t understand that’s going to be represented at this action that I don’t know how it is going to work itself out. That concerns me because nobody needs to be hurt,” says Williams, who keeps his hair cut in a short mohawk.
“Having interacted with [Griffin] I have the deepest sense of compassion and sadness for her. I don’t understand how anybody can be that hateful. But you’re still dealing with a human being. She may not treat you like one,” he adds.
Their fear is palpable. They talk about sticking together in pairs, about trusting the police, not showing any nudity and being conservative in showing public affection. No alcohol is allowed. And no swimming, someone says.
“We can’t pollute their water,” Williams jokes.
Dayton doesn’t appear to rank all that high on the hick-scale. On the outskirts of town, there’s a typical sprawling strip of fast-food restaurants, gas stations and a Wal-Mart. Several antique shops and homegrown restaurants clutter the main drag downtown, where there’s a quaint folksiness that would appeal to tourists and yuppies from the big city.
Walk into Putt’s music shop across the street from the historic courthouse and you might hear the Sex Pistols, Radiohead, Esquivel or The Darkness playing on the stereo and kids from the local rock bands drop by. When people were holding protest and apocalyptic signs across the street, Putt stood outside his shop with one that read “Buy A Guitar.”
Everyone is sick of the media, and it’s hard to find someone who hasn’t been interviewed a couple of times. CNN, the L.A. Times, and several foreign journalists have all been here. Bacon was trailed for a few days by a Seattle journalist. Putt’s been interviewed four or five times. “They want me to say something mean,” he says of reporters.
A few journalists have also visited the Eagle Nest Barbershop across from the courthouse. On Tuesday after the Gay Day, the barber snips away an older man’s hair, while another waits his turn with his wife. A piece of wood with the name “Bobby Beard” carved into it sits on the mirror. “I don’t know where he’s at. I was waiting here for a haircut myself,” the barber jokes, never saying whether he’s Beard.
A reporter’s questions are met with evident mistrust and caution, but they’re answered politely, bemusedly. “I think the county commission made a mistake, I really do,” the barber says. When asked if he’ll vote for them again in 2006, he says, “Awww, c’mon? Are you going to vote for Bush? All you news guys are all liberals.”
“I didn’t attend no rally,” the barber says with a laugh. The man in the chair frowns and keeps his eyes closed, as the electric clipper buzzes up and down his neck, but he sporadically chimes in.
The barber doesn’t agree with what the commission did, but says it’s been blown out of proportion. Most of the people at Saturday’s rally were out-of-towners, he says.
Massey and Denton show that there certainly are gays here. She and her friends are trying to start Legends of the Fall, a group where gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and straight students could go to talk about sexuality, orientation and other issues.
“What we’re trying to do is organize a safe place for gay and straight students to meet if they have questions,” she says. “We have to go through the process of getting school board approval, which probably won’t happen.
“The school board isn’t very helpful. They’re not looking at it the way we see it. They don’t have to go through the harassment we go through at football games and stuff,” Massey says. “The teachers see the harassment, but they don’t do anything about it. I’m hoping [the school board] will allow it because it’ll change the school for the better.”
Some Christians are very threatened by the increasingly vocal gay rights movement and the push for same-sex marriages. The day before Gay Day, the Rev. Franklin Raddish of Capitol Hill Independent Baptist Ministries staged a protest against gay rights at the Rhea County Courthouse. About 30 people reportedly showed up for it.
From Raddish’s viewpoint, homosexuality is a cultish lifestyle that is unnatural. The political activism is not about civil rights or equality, Raddish says, but about something else – recruitment.
“[Homosexuals] want to represent themselves as good neighbors, dress themselves up and say, ‘don’t worry, we’re just your neighbor next door.’ These people aren’t the good neighbor next door, they’re out to target young children. They must recruit their heritage,” he says.
“No one is born a homosexual,” he says. “As many of them will die from AIDS, the only way they can keep their numbers is to recruit. Pedophiles and men dressing like ladies, their objective is recruitment of children.”
Raddish advocates a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, and he’d also like to see states’ anti-sodomy laws upheld. He applauded the county commission’s resolution. “I think what the county commission was trying to say is ‘Yes, you can live here, but you cannot practice the lifestyle of sodomy...because it’s against God, nature and humanity.’”
“When we elect our leaders we expect them to provide a clean environment and even set up some moral standards. If they don’t, the group that comes in sets the moral standards. One way or the other, it gets set,” he says.
Plenty of Christians hold less extreme views, and some are supportive. A church youth group, while not taking any stance on the issue, passes out free water to everyone at Gay Day.
Several students from Bryan College – which held graduation that day walked through – and talked to the Gay Day celebrants. One strikes up an hour-long discussion with Williams about philosophy, worldviews, and their interpretation of Pauline Gospels.
The Bryan College student doesn’t proselytize, but tries to understand Williams’ viewpoint and express his own.
Williams says he rejects the battle and war like analogies that many in Western culture use in defining their spiritual paths. The Bryan College student says he believes any spiritual message must be presented in loving ways. But he says that he believes Satan and evil exist in the world and they must be countered.
“If you believe that I’m on the wrong path and you don’t warn me, you’re not a loving person,” Williams says.
When they part, the two hug and wish each other well.
Jeff Berke knows well the arguments and rhetoric of the fundamentalist Christians. For years, he was one, as he repressed every sexual urge in his body.
He grew up in the Cleveland, Ohio, suburb of Mentor, and remembers the first time he was aware of the word homosexual. He was about 15 and his older brother said, “Oh, homosexual is something terrible.” It didn’t really register at the time, but a few months later, when a friend called him gay, Berke says, “At that point, I thought my life had ended.”
“I was isolated with this horrible, shameful secret. In my mind, the secret was gay,” he says.
He was a good student, a good kid, but he dreaded school. “I was pushed around, I was mocked. A locker mate slammed my head against the locker a few times... I was a little wallflower of a kid. I was petrified to go to school. I realized a few years ago I was shut down, I would not confront anybody.”
As he grew older, he mostly kept to himself. “The more I tried to repress my feelings the stronger they became. I did not have any friends. I would not let myself get close to anyone,” he says.
When he was 27, he worked next to someone who was a devout Christian. She lent him a prophecy book. “The book seemed like it had all the answers. Everything was so clear. I decided to give my life to Jesus, who I still believe is the Christ. At first, it was really wonderful.”
In church, however, he heard caustic, harsh things about gays.
In 1984, he moved to Raleigh, N.C., where he immediately joined a Southern Baptist Church. After a while there, he confided to the pastor that he had feelings for men.
“He picked up on the fact that I could not receive anything. I had never asked for help. I was this rock, this frozen rock,” Berke says. The pastor referred him to a Christian counselor who got him into a Homosexual Anonymous group. Similar to Alcoholics Anonymous, it is a 12-step program that claimed to be able to cure homosexuals of their “disease.” The man leading the group had been “straight” for five years and was now married. “The group became my life. I thought, ‘This is it. There’s hope. I can turn my life around.’”
The group – usually about five to 10 people – was mostly made up of men. He was in his 30s, but Berke had yet to have any sexual experiences aside from masturbation. He was startled by the behavior of others in the group. “There were people in this group going to bookstores and picking up men,” he says. “I was a little frustrated. It seemed to me like everybody in the group was being promiscuous.”
In 1986, the group’s leader was caught in a scandal. He had been asking men in private therapy sessions to undress for him and getting off on it. “I really felt betrayed,” he says.
After that things got particularly bad for him. He was having constant panic attacks – 10 or more a day – and was struggling to cope with day-to-day life. In 1987, he went to see a secular counselor.
Leaning on his cane in Cedar Point Park, he marvels at the person he was then. Smiling slightly to think about the first interview with three psychologists, he says, “I remember the look on their faces was like, ‘What rock did he crawl out of?’”
His mental state then was extremely agitated. “I was ready to explode. I was just so angry. My reactions were either very submissive or very aggressive.”
As his therapy progressed, he finally revealed his secret to one of the counselors. “I said in my nice, shy way, ‘I think there’s a possibility I might be a homosexual.’ Right away, I was ready to jump under the table because I thought he was going to explode. He said, ‘Is that something you might want to explore?’ I thought, ‘No one’s ever put it to me that way before.’”
Soon after that he started attending an MCC church, where he made a few friends. It took years, but he slowly started leading a more normal life, making friends, dating, coming out to his family, getting involved in the community. Which is what led him, despite his fear, to come to the Gay Day. “I don’t want to be a doormat any more. I don’t want to go back in the closet. I need to be seen. I’m pretty much a normal person.”
As we talk, a pastor from the MCC church in Chattanooga gives a short sermon on love, responsibility, and judgment. The talk drones on as people continue chattering, and Berke’s mind drifts too.
“I’ve kind of learned to turn it off. After I got out of the church, I was really anti-God,” he says. “I’m more open now. I’ve gotten over the hate God stuff. I’ve got so many doubts, why should I hate something I’m not sure of?”
After a while, the pastor leads the audience in singing “Amazing Grace.” Not many chime in, but Berke does. “I think I can do this. Singing is OK to me,” he says.
Berke still gets pangs of residual guilt from his years as a fundamentalist. “I felt attracted to someone today, and I felt the old finger wagging, ‘No, no, no – you can look but don’t touch,’” he says.
“I believe fundamentalism – whether Christian or Islamic or any religion – they’re all very cultish. A lot of people in these churches are very sweet, but I believe a lot of them are like me with horrible secrets they’re hiding behind.”
Despite the humorous – and threatening – possibilities of having a large gay pride festival in the belly of the Bible Belt, the event itself is a little boring. Neither Ellen nor Rosie show up. Neither do any kids brandishing paintball guns. The water bordering the park is closed to boats, and no cars are allowed to drive through the park during the event. Picket signs are prohibited, out of fear they might be used as weapons.
With volunteer police coming from all over East Tennessee, there are about 150 to 165 officers on hand, says Rocky Potter, a Rhea County Sheriff investigator. A couple of Christian protesters are charged with disorderly conduct outside the park. And one of the bands is charged with possession of marijuana, Potter says.
The crowds never reach the 3,000 to 5,000 organizers predicted. But over the day, they count 893 people coming into the park, not including vendors, organizers or police.
Marcus Ellsworth, a student at UT Chattanooga, who helped coordinate the event’s entertainment, is thrilled with the turnout.
“I know for a fact that a lot of people from the gay community didn’t come out,” says Ellsworth. “The main reason they didn’t come out was because of fear. But I think this shows we can do this kind of thing anywhere.”
There aren’t many flamboyant people among those that do show up. There aren’t any drag queens. Some same-sex couples hold hands, kiss and hug, but there aren’t any heavy makeout sessions. There are several information booths, a few vendors, and a dunking booth. Mostly it’s people laying on blankets, drinking water and munching on snacks.
The impression from many townies is that all the people at the event aren’t from Rhea County. Lisa Nichole Keylon, a straight woman who lived in Rhea County for a spell, but now lives in Chattanooga, helped organize it. She says she was outside the park earlier in the day when some people she knows asked, “What do they look like?” Keylon responded that they were 10 feet tall and purple. “It’s like they think we bused in a bunch of liberals, and this has nothing to do with the people who live here,” she says. “I still have family here and I visit a lot. I can’t put it into words but you cross the Rhea County line and it’s like you went back in time.”
There are many out-of-towners here, but also plenty of locals. As the day winds down and most of the people have left, an exhausted Berke waits to get on the bus that will take him back to Knoxville. He’s ready to go to sleep, but looking around the park, he’s struck by how beautiful it is and how tame the event was.
“It was just people getting together. Did we prove our point? I don’t know. I’m going to have to reflect on that,” he says.
But the day meant a lot to Denton. He was at school when he first heard about the Rhea County Commission’s resolution. “I started making copies of the newspaper clips and passing them out. It made me so mad,” he says.
“Look at it now,” he adds. “Look what all their efforts went to.”

Reuters, 3 July 2004
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=540998§ion=news
London gay parade draws thousands
LONDON (Reuters) – Thousands of people have taken to the streets for the annual glitter-filled Pride Parade in London.
Floats, bands and dancers in a dazzling array of colours made their way through central London on Saturday toward Trafalgar Square where a rally was held, featuring speeches from Mayor Ken Livingstone and Lord Waheed Alli, the first openly gay peer.
Police estimated up to 10,000 people took part in Saturday's event, which is thought to be Europe's biggest gay festival.
The Gay Police Association and the London fire brigade were amongst the 30 floats that weaved through the city as scantily clad marchers sporting leather, feathers and sequins celebrated one of the day's major themes – equality under the law for gay couples.
Participants also hailed the event as the first time it has been recognised as a parade rather than a demonstration.
The party was to continue Saturday night in Finsbury Park with a music festival featuring 45 artists, including Jamelia and Sugababes.


The Nation, July 4, 2004
44 Moo 10 Bang Na-Trat KM 4.5, Bang Na district, Bangkok 10260 Thailand
(Fax 66-2-317-2071) ( http://nationmultimedia.com )
http://nationmultimedia.com/page.news.php3?clid=5&id=116628&usrsess=1
Gay activists form political movement, plan talks with governor hopefuls
Thanyaporn Kunakornpaiboonsiri, The Nation
The Homosexual Political Group of Thailand (HPGT), the first political movement for Thai gays and lesbians, will hold a series of meetings with gubernatorial contenders, asking them to make space for homosexual issues in their campaigns.
The first of these meetings will be tomorrow, with massage-parlour tycoon Chuwit Kamolvisit, followed by a session with Democratic candidate Apirak Kosayodhin on Wednesday.
The HPGT was officially formed last week and includes many homosexual networks such as the Lesla group, the Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand, the Sapaan group, Bangkok Rainbow and the Bangkok Gay Festival. The movement aims to improve homosexual rights in society and develop into a voice for homosexuals in the political arena.
After Natee Teerarojjanapongs announced his entry into the Senate race, many homosexual organisations banded together to support and further the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transvestite political movement.
"This is not a political party. We are first of all creating a solid voting base," said Munthana Adisayathepkul, founder of the lesbian Lesla group and a key member of HPGT. She added that the Bangkok gubernatorial election would be the first test of HPGT's influence.
"I believe we could count on 300,000 votes nationwide under our network," said Munthana. She added that the movement's political objectives included normalising the status of homosexuals by distributing factual information about the community to society.
"If we have our people in any political positions, they can be our spokespersons and give expert and accurate information to the media and the public," said Munthana.
Natee said he wanted gubernatorial candidates to add homosexual issues to their policy platforms. He said he accepted that not every candidate would have comprehensive knowledge of gays and lesbians and that the public received a negative image of homosexuals from the media.
"We should take this chance to inform them," said Natee. The Senate hopeful wants Bangkok's next governor to put homosexual representatives on governor-appointed teams, particularly those that deal with homosexual-related issues. He also wants the incoming governor to set up a library that will educate the public on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transvestite topics.
Chantalak Raksayoo of the Sapaan Group said the new homosexual political movement was not just about fielding homosexual candidates in elections but also supporting candidates and political parties with homosexual-friendly policies. She admitted that the ultimate political goal of the HPGT was legal marriage certificates for homosexual couples.
"But that's really a long-term objective, because there are a lot of Acts that still discriminate against the fundamental rights of homosexual people," she said.
Kamolset Kanggerprar, secretary-general of the Rainbow Sky Association of Thailand, said that given the widespread public misapprehension he would support any candidate who understood homosexual people.
Pakorn Pimton, president and organiser of the Bangkok Gay Festival, wants to see a Gay Association of Thailand set up that will give the public information about homosexuals and HIV/Aids protection. He also wants gay studies added to school curricula.
But first he wants the next Bangkok governor to cooperate with the next Bangkok Gay Festival.
"The Bangkok Gay Festival is one of the world's three best gay festivals, but it's never received any recognition from either the authorities or the Tourist Authority of Thailand, even though it generates huge income and draws many tourists every year," said Pakorn.


The Observer, July 4, 2004
119 Farringdon Rd., London EC1 3ER
(Fax: 0171 713 4250) (E-Mail: letters@observer.co.uk )
( http://www.observer.co.uk )
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1253587,00.html
If you're sad to be grey
A B&B's ban on gay couples is worse than homophobic – it's dull
Ruaridh Nicoll, The Observer, ruaridhnicol@hotmail.com
It's hard to imagine that anybody in Scotland would benefit more from a visit by Channel 4's Queer Eye for the Straight Guy than Tom Forrest of Kinlochewe. It's not so much his bigotry that the makeover show would have to deal with – that would just be embarrassing – but rather the state of the double bedroom in his Highland guesthouse, Cromasaig.
This room, which last week rose to fame for the nota bene that graces Forrest's website, 'We will only allow heterosexual couples and singles to occupy our double bedded rooms', seems to lack what might be called style. It appears to be the sort of place you'd groan about having to spend a cheap night's sleep in after climbing a mountain.
For it was sex that Mr Forrest was trying to avoid when he declined the room to Stephen Nock and his boyfriend, two hillwalkers from London. 'We do not have a problem with your personal sexual deviation, that is up to you,' Forrest wrote. 'You are welcome to our twin room if you wish, but we will not condone your perversion.'
Sink below the absurdity, and Forrest's is a tricky philosophical position. Heterosexual couples and singles are fine, he says, but not gay men nor, we have to assume, lesbian women. Presumably this means that Forrest does 'condone' certain activities, say some expressive onanism, or those acts heterosexual couples get up to when Alex Comfort appears and things get a little experimental.
One wonders why Mr Forrest would want to take such an interest in all this. More importantly, if he does condone such activities, I hope the sheets he provides aren't nylon.
At the moment, most people in Kinlochewe are laughing.
The small Wester Ross village lies at the head of Loch Maree, with the rising ground of Slioch on one side, and Ben Eighe on the other. It offers the northern route into Torridon, one of the most beautiful places on earth, but the hospitality has always been a bit weird.
I recall watching the landlady of the Kinlochewe Hotel pick at her bare toes before serving somebody their dinner. Thankfully, the hotel has now changed hands.
All of this doesn't really do our reputation for 'Highland hospitality' any good. Perhaps Mr Nock just happened upon Cromasaig and was outraged, but I suspect he saw the website and decided something needed to be done. That is fair enough; the world needs to be changed. Travelling to B&Bs must be a toe-curling experience for gay couples. I have a friend who masochistically goes on tours of islands with his boyfriend and says he is often greeted by landladies with 'the wrath of God' in their eyes. Another friend says that while he thinks Forrest's attitude inexcusable, he chooses to stay in hotels because he believes there is a need for some sensitivity, especially if the B&B owners are elderly. After all, it is only a few years since poor old Basil Fawlty was having to run purity patrols just to keep an unmarried couple apart.
Of course, what Mr Nock should have done was behave like any normal Scot and buy Scotland the Best, Peter Irvine's bible on travelling in this country. Among its 320 pages are three that deal with 'Gay Scotland the Best'. Characteristically, Irvine covers this with as much panache as he brings to the best walks, castles, beaches or dinners.
So had he chosen to, Mr Nock could have swung past Edinburgh with its wide variety of overtly gay places (Glasgow, shamefully, is less well endowed) and visited the Claremont, 'a cheery wee bar' which Scotland the Best says has its own crowd and occasional fetish nights, before adding, 'Bulkies and Furries have nights too'. Unfortunately, there is no reference to 'furries' in my dictionary, so I don't know whether Mr Forrest would approve of them or not.
Once outside the main cities, such places grow scarce, but we shouldn't take that to mean the hills are homophobic. Irvine's book is dedicated to all that is best in Scotland, and any whisper of unpleasant attitudes, whether they be aimed at colour, creed, age, or sexual orientation, would have, I suspect, made it thinner. For this is the true absurdity of Forrest's carrying a torch for Scotland the Worst.
No hotelier with even a degree of self-awareness would write what Forrest did on his website. Where would society be if hotels started to set standards of moral behaviour on their guests?
Hotels are a joy because they take us away from the moral restraints of home. Hollywood would crash to the ground if couples couldn't commit adultery in motel rooms. The music industry would be ruined if stars couldn't have drug-fuelled orgies in rented accommodation. Just imagine what life would be like if hotel rooms were truly a home away from home, rather than canvasses on which we can paint our fantasies? What's more, they can even be places where we want to collapse after climbing a mountain, too content and too exhausted for rum, sodomy or the lash.
Forrest is lucky most of his neighbours are more tolerant than he is, and that he doesn't get run out of the village for being an idiot. It isn't so much his Neanderthal attitudes that offend, rather his failed sense of hospitality. Why run a guest house if not to see the whole wide and rich pageantry of life pass through your doors?


The Evening Mail, 23 June 2004
PO Box 78, Weaman Street, Birmingham, B4 6AY England
(Fax: 0121 233 0271) ( http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningmail )
http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningmail/news/page.cfm?objectid=14359309&method=full&siteid=50002
I'm mincing my words!
By Dale Williams, Evening Mail
A Methodist minister was baffled as to why his new website was prompting moral outrage in America – until he realized he was plugging faggots.
David Hallam, of Smethwick, launched the site to commemorate the life and work of Great Barr's Francis Asbury, who left the Black Country in 1771 to establish the Methodist Church in America.
Asbury's childhood home in Great Barr is a magnet for American tourists and David hopes www.francisasbury.org will be useful for schools, historians, Methodists and visitors locally and from the USA.
But David bit off more than he could chew when, as part of various links about what the Black Country is well known for, he mentioned the Black Country Good Faggot Guide.
David, a keen writer and historian, said: "To me a faggot is a type of meatball. I honestly had no idea that in America it's slang for something completely different."
In the US, a "faggot" is a derogatory term for a gay man.
"My site was attracting some unusual adverts and adverse comments," David added.
"I asked a friend to look at the site to see if they could spot the problem and they saw it straight away.
"I looked it up in the dictionary – and then took the word off!"
David said the site included features on Asbury's early life and a guide with maps of local landmarks associated with him – his birthplace in Walcot Drive, Hamstead, the Old Forge in the Sandwell Valley, St Mary's Church, Handsworth, St Margaret's Church, Great Barr, All Saints, West Bromwich, and High Bullen, Wednesbury.
David is a Methodist local preacher in the West Birmingham and Oldbury Circuit and a former member of the European Parliament.


Ashburton Guardian, 4 July 2004
199-205 Burnett Street, PO Box 77, Ashburton, New Zealand
(Fax: 03 308 9855) (E-Mail: enquiries@theguardian.co.nz )
( http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz )
http://www.ashburtonguardian.co.nz/index.asp?articleid=3279
Gay families ‘unnatural’
By André Rickerby
Despite having a lesbian sister-in-law, Rakaia MP Brian Connell stands by the comments he made last week on the Civil Union Bill.
Mr Connell said the bill was unnecessary and would contribute to the breakdown of society, particularly the family unit.
The father of two said the family was important for bringing up children, and raising them in a homosexual environment was not natural.
“Let’s be clear – this bill is a calculated and carefully-promoted strategy to undermine the role of marriage and families as the cornerstone of New Zealand society,” Mr Connell said.
The bill will establish a civil union as an alternative to marriage, conferring the same legal provisions and open to same-sex and heterosexual couples. Mr Connell said making the comments was not easy considering his sister-in-law, Erin Kennedy, was a lesbian.
“I have no antipathy toward gays at all,” Mr Connell said. However, he did not believe bringing children up in a gay relationship was a healthy way to do things.
Ms Kennedy is rearing three children. One is her biological son and the other two are the sons of a former partner. While he admits to getting on with well with Ms Kennedy, Mr Connell said the pair, like any family, had disagreements.
Whether it was over business or homosexual relationships, Mr Connell said the couple would always be “mates” and have a staunch relationship.
“We’ll disagree on things, but then just get on with life.” Mr Connell said he and his wife Simone had known plenty of gay people since their university days. While he had received some flak on his stance, people tended to understand that was what he believed in. “It’s just my point of view. Everyone is entitled to a point of view,” Mr Connell said.


Fiji Times, July 2, 2004
177 Victoria Parade, Suva, Fiji
(Fax.: +679-30-1521) (E-Mail: timesnews@fijitimes.com.fj )
( http://www.fijivillage.com )
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=4579
Rights to sexual minorities
Mary Johns
Dike, gay, lesbian, pancake, poofter, qauri are common terms we hear.
These terms or labels are used to differentiate sexual minorities in the country.
Section 38 of the 1997 Constitution states that: "Every person has the right to equality before the law."
A personal [?] must not be unfairly discriminated against, directly or indirectly, on the ground of his of her actual or supposed personal characteristics or circumstance, including race, ethnic origin, colour, place of origin, gender, sexual orientation, birth, primary language, economic status, age or disability ..."
This has not stopped members of the public from being prejudiced against sexual minorities.
It is nothing unusual to hear discriminatory remarks, in fact, many homosexual people adapt to such remarks.
According to the Women's Action for Change sexual minorities project 2002 survey law, tradition and religion play a significant role in the propagation of homophobic attitudes in Fiji.
The survey goes on to say that initially Fiji was one of only two countries in the world to constitutionally protect the rights of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and trans-gender (GLBTs) citizens.
A pamphlet by the project highlighted that homophobia was the unreasonable fear and hatred of those who sexually desire those of the same sex, or those who are perceived to love and desire those of the same sex.
Many of us would rather turn a blind a eye and pretend that GLTBs do not exist in communities but if you dug deep into your family history, it is likely that you could find such a person who is or was related to you.
We think of homosexual acts as unchristian and sometimes we despise them but do we realise that it is just as unchristian to judge?
It is high time we faced it – there are GLBTs in our community and each time we call them names, harass them or be violent toward them, we discriminate against them but more importantly we abuse their rights as human beings.
On Monday, five youths will represent Fiji at the week-long OXFAM International Youth Parliament in Sydney.
One of them is 21-year-old Maximillian Tagivetaua, a second-year student of Applied Psychology at the University of the South Pacific.
He will represent WAC at the IYP.
Max said his action was for the rights of sexual minorities.
And no, Max is far from a homosexual.
He is a heterosexual who believes that he has what it takes to help GLBTs.
"A lot of these people need help," he said.
"They face sexual, physical, verbal abuse and a lot of discrimination.
"They do not choose to be gay; it's a psychological thing."
Max said he heard about the interview to represent WAC from a friend and decided to attend.
"I went for an interview with Penny Moore and I had a lot of ideas.
"Also, I have to do 40 hours of practical for the second semester and I decided to do it now.
"I am offering my counselling skills where I can."
WAC creative director Penny Moore said they were pleased to have someone such as Max step up and take the challenge.
"He will be taking information on sexual minorities there (IYP) and he will also bring information that could be of help back home," she said.
"It's important that we give a voice to sexual minorities and give the small people a place in society.
"When Max comes back we would like him to do other things for us such as his education, which could be useful to us."
Max said GLBTs should be treated as individuals.
"People are discriminated against because of their sexuality and this should not be the case," he said.
"Every gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-gender (GLBT) deserve to be treated as human beings.
"GLBTs are no less human beings than you and me heterosexual people.
"If we feel and believe that how they live their life is morally wrong, let's leave it to God, our Creator to be the judge of that."
Max said the role of families was important in helping GLBTs feel that they were an important part of society.
"The best we can do is to treat them with dignity and respect as we do heterosexuals," he said.
"I am advocating their rights as human beings, the need to be accepted unconditionally by their families, friends and society at large, regardless of their sexuality.
"If families reject and disown their children because of their sexuality and because of the stigma attached to the type of lifestyle they live, who will these people turn to?
"It is at times like this that families have to pull together to love and understand what a loved one is going through in terms of their sexuality."
Max said rejection could have a devastating effect on GLBTs.
"Some of the consequences of being rejected include turning to prostitution for survival, theft and sometimes murder for survival, the high risk of HIV/AIDS, abuse of drugs and alcohol and the list goes on," he said.
"The consequence does not only impact the discriminated person's life but the whole of society, including the economy.
"Families, in particular parents, have to pay more attention to their children, understand them and listen to them more carefully.
"Parents have to prepare themselves to accept the sexuality of their children."
Max said there were hate crimes committed against GLBTs.
"In many countries around the world, GLBTs, who are regarded as sexual minorities, are tortured and even beaten to death," he said.
"I don't think anyone has a God-given right to take the life of another human being because of their lifestyle.
"A good example that made headlines around the world in 1998 was the murder of 21-year-old Matthew Shepard, an American.
"He was lured by two men from a Wyoming bar, driven to a remote spot outside town, robbed, beaten and left for dead. He died five days later.
"That is one of the thousands of incidents of hate crimes against GLBTs."
Max said homophobia had a direct effect on GLBTs.
"There is the case of homophobia, which usually has a devastating effect on the lives of GLBTs who suffer discrimination and abuse in their families, at work or in other social spheres," he said.
"When we start to understand these matters, hopefully, we will be able to accept a GLBT as a human being like you and me.
"We need to be grateful to the WAC sexual minorities project for continuing the good work to promote awareness of the need to accept GLBTs in our society," he said.

Leading the Charge: HRC head Cheryl Jacques talks about defeating anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment and electing John Kerry

METRO WEEKLY (Washington DC glbt) Leading the Charge: HRC head Cheryl Jacques talks about defeating anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment and electing John Kerry


Metro Weekly (glbt), July 1, 2004
1012 14th St. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005
(E-Mail: editor@metroweekly.net ) ( http://www.metroweekly.net )
http://www.metroweekly.com/feature/?ak=1123
Leading the Charge
HRC head Cheryl Jacques talks about defeating anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment and electing John Kerry
Interview by Sean Bugg
Cheryl Jacques had a tough act to follow when she arrived in D.C. last January to take the helm of the Human Rights Campaign. The nation's largest gay and lesbian civil rights organization had just moved into its new building under the leadership of Elizabeth Birch, who had presided over nine years of rapid growth, both in size and influence.
"I have the incredible good fortune of being able to step up onto the shoulders of a giant," says Jacques, freshly returned from a round of lobbying and testifying on Capitol Hill against the Federal Marriage Amendment. "Elizabeth Birch built this incredible organization and gave it the power and the clout it has to get things done. And I get to help it soar to new heights."
It's certainly the time when those new heights need to be reached. The 42-year-old former Massachusetts state senator and district attorney came to HRC at the time when everything seemed to be happening at once: sodomy rulings from the Supreme Court, legalized marriages around the corner in Massachusetts, and a presidential commitment to amending the Constitution to forever ban marriage for GLBT Americans.
Although she's established a homestead in Silver Spring with her partner, Jenn Chrisler, and their tow-headed twin two-year-olds Timmy and Tommy, Jacques – pronounced "Jakes" – still considers Massachusetts her home state, and the family splits its time between the two locations.
In between juggling conference call scheduling, imminent flight departures, and a check-in with the HRC Marriage War Room, Jacques outlined her vision for the civil rights group's goal of defeating the marriage amendment and the president who supports it.
METRO WEEKLY: We've seen initial waves of GLBT couples taking part in the historic moments of marriage. But as marriage becomes more of an integral part of society, do you think most gay and lesbian couples will opt to get married?
CHERYL JACQUES: A poll of our community that HRC did a few months ago reflected that over eighty percent of our community does want the right to get married. It's no surprise that the overwhelming majority of our community wants the same rights as other Americans. Over time, I think that this will play out the same way it plays out with any American, straight or gay. Some people want to get married, some folks want to wait and see. There is no right or wrong answer. How wonderful that we will get to a point in this country – and I do believe we will get there – where GLBT folks can make that decision like any other couple who is in love.
MW: Are you planning on getting married in Massachusetts?
JACQUES: I'll give you the same answer I give everybody: Jenn and I feel very privileged that we can have that personal conversation. My goal as head of the Human Rights Campaign is that every gay American in this country can have the exact same conversation. It's their choice whether or not they want to get married. We feel very honored that we can in fact have that conversation.
MW: So no engagement to announce or anything like that?
JACQUES: We're having that very personal conversation.
MW: The Washington Post recently ran an article in which anti-gay religious conservatives expressed some concern that the marriage issue wasn't giving them the kind of political traction they expected. Do you think that's the case, based on what we've seen in Massachusetts?
JACQUES: I'm actually not at all surprised by that. Frankly, the only thing I'm probably surprised by is how quickly I think the country is going to get comfortable with marriage in Massachusetts and marriage in general for the gay community. It's going to move very quickly, and I think Massachusetts is evidence of that. Certainly in the state of Massachusetts it is no big deal. The sky hasn't fallen, the sun has come up, life has gone on. Most folks are fundamentally fair-minded and good-hearted and they don't begrudge people happiness. They see two loving, committed people who want to be married, they see them raising children more often than not, and they say, "Well, good for them." We also saw that in San Francisco with straight folks showing up to applaud gay couples getting married. The learning curve is going to happen very quickly, and the country is going to see that this isn't something to be afraid of.
MW: Even if that learning curve happens quickly, how long do you think it will be to turn back the state-level DOMAs and constitutional amendments that have passed in so many states?
JACQUES: That's a longer battle. We will move quickly in the court of public opinion. Almost half the country supports civil unions and the concept of legal recognition and protection for our families. That was not the case just a few years ago when Vermont passed civil unions. So the country is growing and moving quickly. In legislatures and courts things are moving slower, and although we've had the most progress in courts, they move slowly by their very nature. And we're having slow progress in changing the infrastructure in the state and federal governments.
We're in a very unique moment in time where public opinion is shifting faster than the elected officials who normally help drive public opinion. I think they will catch up, though. Elected officials who cast votes for the Federal Marriage Amendment are going to find themselves on the wrong side of history very quickly. They're going to be regretting that vote and distancing themselves from it for the rest of their careers. Right now the vote may feel safe because the country is opposed to gay marriage, but the numbers are turning very quickly. I make this argument to a lot of elected officials: the next voting block coming up – today's young people – is overwhelmingly in support of equal treatment for GLBT folks in the workplace and the community. Elected officials will be explaining that vote for many years to come, not just this one moment in time.
MW: Did hate crimes legislation pass the Senate recently in part to provide political cover for members who want to vote for the FMA but have something on their record that provided some level of "tolerance."
JACQUES: As the head of the nation's largest gay rights organization I would have and will disabuse any elected official of the notion that there is some way to mitigate writing discrimination into the Constitution or to inoculate yourself from the worst vote of our lifetime. We've been very clear that we have drawn a line in the sand when it comes to the question of the FMA: Anyone who votes for the FMA is no friend of the gay community, and will not be supported by the gay community. There may be other issues where we can say, "You win some, you lose some," but not this one. There is no equivocating on writing discrimination into our most precious document.
MW: Has the strategy of FMA proponents to push through with votes on it during this election cycle caused an even higher level of concern?
JACQUES: [The Senate vote] is scheduled for the week of July 12. HRC has been hoping for the best and preparing for the worst when it comes to the Federal Marriage Amendment. When the President had his press conference earlier this year announcing that he would use the powers of his office to help pass this constitutional amendment, I put together a marriage team, which literally is a marriage war room. It's run by one of the best in the business, [former Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) head] Hilary Rosen, who's just a superstar strategist, lobbyist and team builder. That team has been working seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day to build a proactive strategy, react rapidly to new developments, and get ready to defeat this vote in the U.S. Senate. And we are ready for it. We will defeat this vote. We are not overconfident, but we are confident that our hard work and what we have put in place is going to hold and that we are going to defeat this vote.
MW: Given that the mechanisms of the constitutional amendment process are stacked against any amendment passing, what would have to happen for the Federal Marriage Amendment to pass?
JACQUES: Our forefathers did set the hurdles high to change the United States Constitution and God bless them. They didn't want this precious document used in a knee-jerk manner. Having said that, I think it is a complete mistake to underestimate that this could ever happen. I have heard some folks say, "Oh, this can't happen, the hurdle's too high." That is completely the wrong attitude. If we did nothing it could pass the Senate. If we did nothing it could pass the House. If it passed the House and Senate and went to the states, it would take thirty-eight states to ratify the constitutional amendment. Thirty-nine states have passed defense of marriage acts. I believe if it ever got out of the congress, the potential for it to spread like wildfire would be there. So many states are pushing ballot initiatives, the appetite is there to support these kinds of measures. I'm really grateful that we took it very seriously. Our goal is nipping it in the bud.
MW: In your efforts, you've used the words of people like Bob Barr, who introduced the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but oppose the FMA because they oppose altering the Constitution. Does that kind of alliance cause any problems for you when working with some of the more liberal elements of your support base? Barr and a number of other conservative FMA opponents are not well-loved by a lot of people in the gay community.
JACQUES: Nor should they be, given their record.
MW: So is it political necessity or political hypocrisy to pull those people into your efforts?
JACQUES: I've been really proud of our community in understanding that we are under the threat of a lifetime. If the Constitution is changed, then every arena where we're making progress – from the courts to corporate America – is shut down. I believe our community really gets it and their attitude, like HRC's, is win at all costs. Win however you can win. And if that means having Bob Barr speak to a conservative member of Congress and say true conservatives are conservative with the Constitution, and that gets that member to vote against the FMA, then that's a home run. That doesn't mean for a second that we are lauding Bob Barr. He is no hero of the gay community. But under the definition of politics makes strange bedfellows, this is a classic example. I am more than happy to have a Bob Barr talking to other conservatives in order to secure their vote against discrimination in the Constitution.
MW: With the rapid victories and changes in the past year, from sodomy to marriage rights, how much has HRC's focus changed? Has the FMA fight taken significant resources from other fights?
JACQUES: It's a balanced approach. We do think that stopping the constitutional amendment is the most important priority short term. But it's part of a multi-pronged fight: stopping the FMA; working with state groups to stop the attack on state constitutions in battleground states such as Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania; and working to elect and protect fair-minded leaders at all levels of government. And we're working to elect a fair-minded president, and that person is John Kerry, who the Human Rights Campaign has endorsed.
MW: Have you seen a fundraising increase as a result of FMA?
JACQUES: We've seen the community really step up – and our straight allies as well – to this very dangerous moment in time and be willing to put their money where their mouth is. And also there's time. Some people can't write checks but they're giving extraordinary amounts of time, whether it's helping out as a volunteer, lobbying the Hill or staffing a pride booth. And we're as grateful for time as we are for money.
Having said that, I don't think people understand the dynamics of the financial fight. Pro-GLBT groups are outspent about five-to-one by the anti-GLBT forces. Last year the anti-GLBT forces spent about 250 million dollars telling America we're bad people, we don't deserve to be in committed relationships, we don't deserve to have children, we don't deserve to be in the classroom. The pro-GLBT forces spent about fifty million dollars, and HRC accounts for about half of that so we're clearly the strongest and loudest voice in the room. We take that responsibility very seriously, but all of us are being outspent five-to-one. So when it comes to money I can see we're not going to out-raise the other side. But that's okay, because we're not going to win this on money, we're going to win it on merit. But we do need enough money to be in the ring. It's a David and Goliath fight. And the community has been very generous and understanding.
MW: Given how close the last election was and how we seem to think that this next election is also probably going to be very close...
JACQUES: Nobody can ever say again that their vote doesn't count.
MW: If you're looking at two energized political bases, and the idea is that you have to target and attract those middle-ground voters to your side to gain a majority, what are the basic ways you're trying to target them?
JACQUES: HRC is putting more resources and time into this area than ever before. We're using the state of the art techniques, polling, focus groups, door-to-door canvassing, to identify over three hundred thousand new GLBT voters, and to bring 1.5 million GLBT voters and their allies to the polls in November. This election could turn on a few hundred thousand votes, so we're going to make sure that the GLBT community and their progressive allies are out in force and hope that that can make the difference. We're confident that it can.
MW: What are the main reasons that HRC has decided to endorse John Kerry?
JACQUES: First of all, John Kerry is the strongest person nominated for president that our community has ever had the opportunity to endorse – he's got the best record ever. He has not just talked the talk of equality and fairness for all, but he's walked the walk for over twenty years. As a freshman U.S. senator he filed an equal rights bill for the gay community, and that was the mid-eighties when arguably it was a lot harder to be for gay rights than it is today.
He testified before the Senate Armed Services committee against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and gave eloquent testimony about gay and lesbian men and women serving heroically and patriotically for their country. That's a president who would have the credibility to talk to the American people and say "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has failed and we need our GLBT men and women in uniform to be allowed to serve. He was one of a handful of senators who voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. He's strongly opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment. That's a man who should be the next president of this country.
He will be a president who has an open mind, an open heart, an open door. And we'll be able to talk to him. For example, I wish he supported gay marriage. He doesn't. But you can sit and have the conversation with John Kerry. When he was saying that he supported civil unions as opposed to marriage rights, he didn't understand that civil unions don't trigger any of the over 1,000 federal benefits and protections that marriage triggers. When it was explained to him and his staff by HRC, he said that he would support a federal bill that puts in place the 1,000 plus benefits and protections. So he keeps trying to get gay couples equal treatment under the law, and that's an extraordinary difference from the current officeholder.
MW: Isn't that sort of legalistic, backdoor support for gay marriage if you support giving all the rights but not giving the name? Is the general feeling at HRC that Kerry supports gay marriage but won't says so because it would hurt him in the election?
JACQUES: I won't speak for him because I actually don't know. I know what I've heard him say. I'm disappointed that he doesn't support gay marriage. I'm disappointed that he came out for the Massachusetts compromise amendment for civil unions, and we've said that very publicly. I continue to want to work with someone we can educate and enlighten on our issues. It's important to note that John Kerry is where most of America is. He is struggling to understand gay marriage. He doesn't want to discriminate. That's where most of the country is. Frankly, that's where most of our allies are. But those are all people we can work with and continue to talk to and educate. I think they'll get there, as I believe John Kerry will.
MW: You came out around the time of the 2000 Millennium March, right?
JACQUES: HRC was the catalyst – they were the match that lit the fuse that set off the confidence in me to do all that.
MW: You would have been around 37 or 38-years-old at the time. Do you feel that you've missed anything that would have been relevant or important for this job in terms of living an openly gay life? Have you been at a disadvantage because of those experiences you might not have had because you came out much later in life than a lot of people?
JACQUES: No, I don't think it's impacted my job or my role here. Personally, I'm sad that I missed good years of my life when I wished I had been open – that I had the life I have now rather than the life I had then. On a personal front, I'm sad about the timetable, but on a professional front no, I don't think it has impacted one way or the other. In fact, I think it actually helps me understand an important principle – that coming out is a personal journey and we have to respect everybody's journey and how they get there. And I see HRC's role as being the welcoming hand that greets them and helps them get there by offering them the tools, the support and the structure they need to join this incredible community.
MW: What was the biggest thing that kept you in the closet?
JACQUES: Fear. I greatly, greatly underestimated the goodness of people. I'm saddened by the people who go their entire lives never finding out what I found out – that by and large people are very fair-minded and good-hearted and we shouldn't underestimate that. That's why I'm so optimistic about the future and how this next chapter in the book of civil rights will turn out. That's why I think people like George Bush have completely played their hand wrong, because they are appealing to the worst in people. There's so much good in people, and they're underestimating that.
For more information about the programs, projects and policies of the Human Rights Campaign visit www.hrc.org.

FW: [Task Force Press] Local Activists Defeat Effort to Overturn New Mexico Gay Rights Law -- National Score is Nine Wins, Nine Losses

Washington, D.C. July 2 - Yesterday, opponents of a 2003 New Mexico law protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals from discrimination announced they had given up trying to place a referendum on the November ballot to overturn that law. A well-organized statewide campaign by New Mexico LGBT activists is credited with defeating this anti-gay attack. As a result, New Mexico became the first state this year to thwart efforts to put an anti-gay measure on the November ballot by voter initiative.


"Thanks to the extraordinary work of Basic Rights New Mexico, the people of New Mexico will not have to endure the ugly and divisive anti-gay onslaught facing so many other states this election cycle," said Matt Foreman, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We are proud and honored to have worked with so many LGBT New Mexicans in this winning effort."

"This is a great day not only for LGBT people in New Mexico, but for all of the people of the state," said Linda Siegle, Campaign Committee Member for Basic Rights New Mexico. "It's wonderful to live in a state where people simply refused to support taking away basic protections from a minority."

Last April, New Mexico became the 14th state to extend non-discrimination protections to gay people and the third state to also cover transgender people. Immediately after the measure was signed into law by Gov. Bill Richardson (D), conservative groups announced they would seek to overturn the law by ballot initiative. To get the repeal on the ballot in November 2004, they needed to gather approximately 50,000 valid signatures by today, July 2.

To counter the repeal effort, New Mexico LGBT leaders formed Basic Rights New Mexico. Last July, the Task Force helped launch their campaign by conducting an intensive training for dozens of local activists. As part of training, the Task Force pledged to match dollar-for-dollar any money the participants raised during the session. In less than two hours time, they raised $46,140, which was matched with an additional $46,140 from the Task Force. As a result, the campaign was launched with nearly $100,000 in the bank.

The staff of Basic Rights New Mexico led the campaign, with Board President Rachel Rosen, board members Todd McElroy and Jim Sutton, and field campaign leaders George Bach, Kelli Burkinshaw, Matthew Copus and Havens Leavitt at the forefront. Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Coalition for Equality in New Mexico also provided invaluable assistance. Over the past year, Basic Rights New Mexico has raised over $170,000 and organized volunteers to campaign with thousands of voters face-to-face across New Mexico about the referendum threat. Through this work, Basic Rights New Mexico built an unprecedented base of over 10,000 identified pro-LGBT voters and volunteers across the state who had pledged to vote against the referendum.

Task Force Organizing & Training staff also traveled extensively to New Mexico between September through January to work side-by-side with local leaders in recruiting and training volunteers for campaigning about the referendum. In February, Dan Hawes, the Task Force Organizing & Training Project Director, took a leave of absence to serve as Campaign Manager for Basic Rights New Mexico. He has now returned to work at the Task Force.

"Today's victory demonstrates the power of what a strong, well-organized campaign that starts early can accomplish," said Hawes. "Action by action, as the opposition saw hundreds of volunteers campaign with voters, the New Mexico LGBT community and its allies made it clear they were ready to stand their ground and win. Strong organizing made it tougher for the opposition to sell their anti-gay bigotry in New Mexico."

With today's news, New Mexico became the first state this year to thwart signature-gathering efforts to put an anti-gay measure on the November ballot. Earlier this week, anti-gay forces in Oregon garnered more than 244,000 signatures for an anti-marriage constitutional amendment, assuring that the measure will qualify for the ballot. In addition, the state legislatures in seven other states -- Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Utah -- have approved putting anti-marriage state constitutional amendments on the ballot. Determined signature gathering efforts to place an anti-marriage state constitutional amendment on the November ballot are also underway in Ohio and Michigan.

More information and resources on the struggle for equal marriage rights can be found in the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Marriage Information Resource Center at http://www.TheTaskForce.org/marriagecenter

***************************************************************
Founded in 1973, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force was the first national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights and advocacy organization and remains the movement's leading voice for freedom, justice, and equality. We work to build the grassroots political strength of our community by training state and local activists and leaders and organizing broad-based campaigns to defeat anti-LGBT referenda and advance pro-LGBT legislation. Our Policy Institute, the community's premiere think tank, provides research and policy analysis to support the struggle for complete equality. As part of a broader social justice movement, we work to create a world that respects and makes visible the diversity of human expression and identity where all people may fully participate in society. Headquartered in Washington, DC, we also have offices in New York City, Los Angeles, and Cambridge. For more information on the Task Force, log on to http://www.TheTaskForce.org


If you are a registered Web user: To CHANGE your subscription address or UNSUBSCRIBE:
Visit http://www.TheTaskForce.org/support/login.cfm -- after logging in, select "Change your NGLTF Web User Information" to change your EMAIL address; select "Get Email" to UNSUBSCRIBE. If you are not a registered Web user, send your request to listmgr@ngltf.org. We know in these fast-paced LGBT-rights times you may receive multiple mailings from the Task Force in the same week. We thank you in advance for your understanding.

GLBT News Update

1. EDITOR & PUBLISHER Gay Journalists and Marriage: Newsrooms must always be mindful of conflicts of interest, but deciding when a reporter is too close to a story isn't always easy.
2. WASHINGTON BLADE (glbt) Outing rumor sparks Hill panic; Closeted staffers are scrambling in wake of activist campaign
3. 365GAY.COM Poll: Canadians Overwhelmingly Support Gay Marriage
4. KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS Ruling in Chile forces gay parents to choose between the closet and their parenting rights
5. DENVER POST Editorial: Military policy on gays is folly
6. ASSOCIATED PRESS Presbyterian conservatives say gay ordination could splinter church
7. WASHINGTON BLADE (glbt) Gay ambassador Michael Guest assailed by Romanian newspaper
8. BBC NEWS Teenage 'gay-bashing' killers jailed
9. GAY.COM UK Guidelines call for financial protests over gay clergy
10. NEW KERALA (India) Activists demand gay rights, law repeal
11. GAY.COM UK Dutch EU Presidency should look at gay issues, says European group
12. ALAMEDA TIMES-STAR (California) Opinion: Araujo case puts 'gay panic' alibi on trial – again

Editor & Publisher, July 1, 2004
11 West 19th Street, New York, NY 10011-4234
(Fax: 212-929-1894) ( http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/index.jsp )
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000561225
Gay Journalists and Marriage
Newsrooms must always be mindful of conflicts of interest, but deciding when a reporter is too close to a story isn't always easy.
By Carl Sullivan
It's an old but perennial question: Can gay journalists cover gay issues? Should black reporters write about civil rights? May a practicing Christian fairly report on Mel Gibson's "Christ" movie?
The short answer to all these questions: it depends.
It's been over three months since the San Francisco Chronicle controversially removed two lesbian journalists from the same-sex marriage beat, but the decision was still a hot topic at this past weekend's National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) convention in Brooklyn, N.Y.
After covering the first lesbian couple to get married at San Francisco City Hall in February, Chronicle reporter Rachel Gordon and photographer Liz Mangelsdorf, who have been partners for over four years, "owned" the remarkable news story for about a month. But when Chronicle editors discovered that the two women were married on March 9, they were taken off the story. The decision split the Chronicle newsroom and sparked outside protests.
One thing's for certain: the Chronicle won't be the last newspaper to deal with this issue. Court cases involving marriage rights for gay men and lesbians are likely to meander through the legal system for years, filling endless inches of news columns. Roberta A. Kaplan, an attorney involved with a same-sex marriage suit against the state of New York, points out that it took 17 years for suits against interracial-marriage bans to work their way up to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, more and more journalists will march down the wedding aisle with their same-sex partners. Some gay and lesbian reporters have already done so in Massachusetts (the only state to currently recognize these marriages). Can these reporters write about gay marriage? Other gay issues?
The Chronicle says gay and lesbian reporters may cover gay issues, but that Gordon and Mangelsdorf crossed a line. "The issues were attributes versus actions," said Chronicle Associate Managing Editor Kenn Altine, a gay man who defended the newspaper's decision during a panel discussion Saturday at the NLGJA meeting. He said the women were lesbians and journalists – attributes. "That was not a problem," Altine said.
But the women chose to get married when the state of California and the rest of the country considered such marriages illegal, he said. "That was an action," Altine explained. "That was a decision that put them in the story."
In an e-mail interview this week, Gordon said she understands why the editors made the choice that they made, although she still disagrees with it. "We were entering into uncharted territory," she said. "All Liz and I asked for was for the editors to keep an open mind and to listen to a differing perspective on the issue of conflict/potential conflict in this case. I am not confident they have. And that's too bad. Perhaps in time they will – not necessarily change their minds, but at least respect the differences of opinion, which have been emerging. One can find a journalism ethics expert who says the decision was a bad one and one who says it was a sound one."
Indeed, the nearly 700 attendees at the NLGJA convention seemed to be divided over the question. Personally, I think the Chronicle editors made the appropriate decision, but at the same time, my heart aches for these two women. Such an intimate and personal decision as choosing a life partner shouldn't affect your job or be fodder for public debate – in an ideal world, at least. Unfortunately for gay people, the personal so often is political. Had I been in Gordon and Mangeldorf's shoes, I'd like to think I would have waited until the day when a gay couple getting a marriage license was no longer a news story. But making an abstract decision based on a hypothetical question isn't the same as making a real-life choice about love.
There's a lot of gray area here. Kelly McBride, an ethics faculty member at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla., suggests that newsrooms spend more time talking about potential conflicts of interest. In a recent column, she wrote, "We rarely talk about this, except to say: Don't take gifts, don't join controversial groups, and don't put political signs in your yard." But beyond that, there isn't often a lot of guidance.
Stephen G. Reed, deputy editor of the New York Times Regional Newspaper Group, said his company's policy states that journalists may participate in activities that define their community, so long as those events aren't political. So a gay employee would be allowed to march in a Gay Pride parade, but not under the banner of a political or activist group. The difficulty here is deciding what's political. Some newspaper readers no doubt would consider the mere act of participating in a gay pride celebration as explicitly political.
Some might even see membership in NLGJA as political. To my mind, NLGJA membership is analogous to involvement with minority journalism groups such as the National Association of Black Journalists. NLGJA and NABJ aren't media watchdogs like the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) or the NAACP. The journalism groups work to promote diversity in employment, to provide professional development for their members, and to work quietly from within newsrooms to ensure fair and accurate coverage. This is all for the betterment of their members and the media industry as a whole. But I recognize that others won't share this assessment.
And forget about drawing analogies. "You wouldn't believe the number of analogies we've run through," the Chronicle's Altine said. If Hispanic reporters can cover immigration, why can't gay reporters cover marriage? Can a woman who's had an abortion write about this polarizing topic?
Belva Davis, the first African-American TV reporter on the West Coast, sees clear parallels between her experiences and those of gay reporters. "If Jesse Jackson and Rosa Parks made life easier for me, should I not have been allowed to report on them?" she asked during the NLGJA panel.
Altine responded that black reporters should of course be allowed to cover civil rights leaders. The line would only be crossed when that black reporter decided to join Rosa Parks and take part in a protest.
As McBride wrote: "All conflicts are not created equal. There is no arbitrary test by which a conflict can be judged to determine if it rises to the level that precludes a journalist from covering particular stories. Instead, what becomes important is the process by which conflicts – all conflicts – are examined in newsrooms."
Altine says newspapers need to have general policies about conflicts of interest and then work out the specifics as they come up, recognizing that no two scenarios will be exactly alike. It's a messy business, but one that newsrooms need to take seriously, for the sake of both readers and their journalists – of all colors, creeds and stripes.
• Carl Sullivan (csullivan@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P Online and a member of NLGJA.


Washington Blade (glbt), July 2, 2004
1408 U Street, NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20009
(E-Mail: forum@washblade.com ) ( http://www.washblade.com )
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2004/7-2/news/national/outing.cfm
Outing rumor sparks Hill panic
Closeted staffers scrambling in wake of activist campaign
By Adrian Brune
Their center of operations occupies not one, but two top-floor apartments located directly across from each other in a nondescript Adams Morgan high-rise, where the two friends and activists have both lived for years.
Their information comes to them via a network of insiders, mostly planted at various gay and lesbian bars across the District. And their modus operandi for fighting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage consists of well-placed phone calls to closeted congressional aides who work for members supportive of the amendment, declaring their intent to publicly reveal the aides’ sexual orientation.
From that high-rise, with a view of the nation’s epicenter of public policy, the ongoing outing campaign loosely headed by gay activists Michael Rogers and John Aravosis evoked panic and precaution behind the Capitol’s closed doors last week, signifying the resurrected, yet still controversial, tactic’s scope and impact.
The reactions on the Hill came in various formats: e-mails from staffers of prominent gay advocacy groups to anonymous lists of Hill employees warning them of impending outings; admonitions against the practice in public forums and on television; and meetings between Senate chiefs of staff and aides that reaffirmed office nondiscrimination or zero-tolerance policies.
The responses Rogers said he received ranged from “donations to death threats,” but both he and Aravosis said they are undeterred in their pursuit to expose what they call the duplicity of policymakers pushing for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
“In the words of Harvey Milk, ‘Let the bullet that pierces my brain blow open every closet door,’” Rogers said. “We are engaging in an activist campaign that educates people; it makes them aware of the hypocrisy of America’s right wing.
“This is not about kids who are folding the mail or answering the phones because their parents suggested they come work for the government. This is about highly visible people – press secretaries, legislative directors, chiefs of staff – people who influence leaders and put a face to their policies.”
News about the activists’ outing efforts, which they said has grown from six to 13 offices in less than 10 days, began to spread through downtown Washington by word of mouth early in the week of June 21, sources from several gay advocacy groups said, landing in Capitol office buildings shortly thereafter.
An e-mail memorandum sent by Human Rights Campaign lobbyist Matthew McTighe to a group of gay government professionals warned that the Washington Blade planned on publishing a story listing the names of closeted congressional staffers.
“We’re hearing that the Blade may run a story tomorrow listing the names of gay staff members from the White House or who work for members who support the FMA,” McTighe wrote. “We’re doing everything we can to stop it from happening, but frankly there’s only so much an organization like HRC can do to stop the Blade or any other activists from doing this.
“At the very least we’re trying to find out more information so we can give warning to anyone who might be affected. In the meantime, I at least wanted to give everyone a heads up that this may be happening so you can do anything you think you have to do in advance.”
A spokesperson for HRC said McTighe obtained his information from Hill aides who reportedly received phone calls from an activist impersonating a Blade reporter, asking questions about the personal lives of aides and alleging that he or she was outing people in an article.
Rogers insisted that he had never impersonated a Blade reporter in his outing campaign.
“I am a strong believer in an independent media and would never misrepresent myself as a member of [the Blade] or any other publication,” Rogers wrote in an e-mail. “As you know, our campaign focuses on informing people of the truth, not covering up who we are and lying.”
Outing mania
The political newspaper the Hill also contributed to the pandemonium among the inner circle of gay congressional aides by publishing an article on June 24 headlined, “If you’re gay, you’re out!”
Local TV news programs also pounced on the outing rumors, with CBS affiliate WUSA and Fox station WTTG airing stories on the subject last week.
Newsweek’s Washington bureau contacted the Blade about the rumor but did not publish an article on the subject.
“We received a significant number of phone calls reporting that the Blade was publishing this article,” said HRC spokesperson, Steven Fisher. “Our staffer [McTighe] sent off an e-mail to some of the people on his contact list that this may be happening, and that we were looking into it and trying to block it.”
HRC President Cheryl Jacques also confirmed at a luncheon sponsored by two gay congressional associations that she, too, had heard a rumor about a pending article in the Blade outing gay Hill staffers.
In fact, HRC never contacted the Blade to verify the existence of an outing story or ask that it not be published, according to Blade editors.
“I can confirm that at no time has the Blade staff discussed, assigned or worked on an article that would ‘out’ gay congressional staffers,” said Chris Crain, the Blade’s executive editor, who also outlined the circumstances under which the paper might consider such a story.
“Public officials and public figures are routinely asked on the record by the Blade to identify their sexual orientation, and their response is published, even if the response is to refuse to answer the question,” he said. “The Blade would investigate the veracity of such a response only under unique circumstances in which the story subject’s sexual orientation would present issues of hypocrisy that are highly newsworthy.”
Responding to the rumor, some aides fearful of losing their jobs contacted other Hill staffers, such as Lynden Armstrong, a founder of the Gay, Lesbian & Allies Senate Staff Caucus, to ask for resources to prepare for their outing.
Many chiefs of staff among the handful of senators and representatives who have signed sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies held office-wide meetings to notify employees of that policy.
Dole reassures staff
Several senators whose offices do not have nondiscrimination policies also met with staffers to express their general tolerance of gay employees, HRC said.
Among those was Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.), according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Dole opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment; her office did not respond to Blade interview requests.
But the offices of members of Congress with strong records opposing gay rights subtly re-enforced their objections to having openly gay employees, leaving them “very nervous about [the outing],” according to Armstrong.
“I emphasized to friends and colleagues who called me that I didn’t think they should panic and pre-empt the outing by outing themselves,” Armstrong said. “All of this was still a ways from landing in the lap of a member who has no connections in the gay community or thinks that he or she doesn’t have any connections in the gay community.”
The Washington Blade hit newsstands June 25 without an article outing congressional staffers. But in Adams Morgan, the actual outing campaign continues.
Rogers said the activists, now up to a loose contingent of 15, have decided to take a different course in their outing endeavor.
Rogers said he first ascertains whether members of Congress who back the FMA also have an active anti-gay agenda. If so, Rogers will not reveal a gay aide’s sexual orientation to the office. If not, Rogers said he will go through with the outing – a tactic opposed by the HRC and most other gay advocacy groups.
“I think that outing an individual is only appropriate when that individual is in a position to make law or policy and makes anti-gay policy. It’s totally inappropriate in any other situation,” said Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force.
“But the Federal Marriage Amendment is not going anywhere. So to resort to this kind of behavior for a piece of legislation that’s not going anywhere is troublesome.”
Earlier this month, Rogers focused his efforts on the office of Rep. Charlie Stenholm (D-Texas), a conservative Democrat and FMA supporter who formerly employed a lesbian on his press staff.
Rogers said he called Stenholm’s office and outed the woman, who was no longer working for the congressman at the time. Stenholm’s office responded by filing a harassment report with the Capitol Police.
The Capitol Police would not release the contents of that report citing a code of confidentiality to protect members’ security.
Undaunted, Rogers said he continues to contact several offices each week. According to Rogers, a senior legislative aide in the office of Congressman Max Burns (R-Ga.), a FMA proponent, is the latest person to come out prompted by Rogers’ overt persuasion.
Across the hall, John Aravosis continues to call for the names of more gay and lesbian staffers through his Web site. For now, the activists said they aren’t planning on abandoning what they have called the most effective way of furthering gay rights.
“We have accepted for far too long fellow gays who work for horribly anti-gay politicians and thus help those politicians bash our community,” Aravosis said.
“It’s time we stopped tolerating this situation as normal. These people need, at the very least, to be confronted over their hypocrisy, and when we see them in public we ought to tell them we don’t approve.”
• Adrian Brune can be reached at abrune@washblade.com.


365Gay.com, July 1, 2004
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/07/070104canWed.htm
Poll: Canadians Overwhelmingly Support Gay Marriage
by Jack Siu, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Toronto Bureau
Toronto, Ontario – A new survey shows that support for same-sex marriage continues to grow in Canada and for the first time an overwhelming majority supports the idea.
The poll, for Research and Information on Canada and Environics showed that 57% of Canadians favor equal marriage rights for gays and lesbians, 38% are opposed.
A September 2003 Environics poll showed that Canadians were equally divided on the issue with 48% in favor of equal marriage and 47% opposed.
The new survey was conducted last weekend, just before Canadians went to the polls to elect a new national government.
The Campaign was marked by opposing platforms on same-sex marriage. The Conservative Party attempted to use it as a wedge issue by suggesting that if elected it would use an opt out clause in the Constitution to override court decisions approving gay marriage.
The governing Liberals attacked the Tory position calling the party extremist and ran ads denouncing what they called an attack on the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canada's version of the Bill of Rights.
Courts in Canada's three largest provinces last year threw out the federal ban on same-sex marriage.
Going into the election the Conservatives were ahead in the polls, but after playing the marriage card the party's support fell, allowing the Liberals to return to power, but with a minority government.
The election has produced a minority Liberal government.
“This survey shows that Canadians understand that equal marriage is a civil rights issue,” said Laurie Arron, Political Coordinator for Canadians for Equal Marriage.
“The election appears to have had a profound impact on Canadians’ appreciation for the Charter. Through the election, Canadians thought long and hard about what the Charter means and have a renewed understanding of the importance of protecting everyone’s Charter rights. They have come to understand what the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. often said, that ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’.”

Knight Ridder Newspapers, July 1, 2004
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/9058910.htm
Ruling in Chile forces gay parents to choose between the closet, parenting rights
By Kevin G. Hall, Knight Ridder Newspapers
SANTIAGO, Chile (KRT) – Judge Karen Atala had the love of her three daughters and commanded the respect of Chilean lawyers arguing cases in her courtroom. Now, all across the deeply conservative Andean nation, she's known simply as "the lesbian judge."
Atala became an unwitting public figure and international gay-rights symbol when Chile's Supreme Court, in a controversial 3-2 decision May 31, overruled two lower courts and awarded custody of her children to her ex-husband, Jaime Lopez.
The small-town judge wasn't an alcoholic, promiscuous or a negligent mother – reasons Chilean courts usually place children in the custody of their fathers. Atala's "grave" mothering mistake was admitting she's a lesbian who took a partner.
In South America's most conservative nation, the court ruling sought to bolster the Roman Catholic Church's definition of traditional families. Monsignor Cristian Contreras, an auxiliary bishop in Santiago, praised the "commonsense" approach of the judges.
Gay rights groups have been galvanized by the decision, and Chile is seeing a debate like the one under way in the United States over state-sanctioned marriage and the inheritance rights of same-sex couples. How it plays out in Chile might affect gay rights throughout Latin America.
Three judges on the Chilean high court ruled that Atala, 39, "imposed her own interests, deferring those of her children" by living with art historian Emma de Ramon, the daughter of a famed Chilean historian. The court's majority said Atala's girls would suffer discrimination and isolation for having a lesbian mother.
Atala had taken the kids to family therapy, anticipating the need for counseling to deal with the complex change in family structure. The two judges who voted in favor of Atala blasted the decision as discriminatory.
"This is a ruling based on a public morals standard that contradicts essential elements of democratic society," Juan Pablo Olmedo, Atala's attorney, said in an interview.
Atala, who lived in the central town of Villarrica, didn't disclose her sexuality openly and belonged to no gay rights groups. The limelight was thrust on her when her former husband – who originally accepted her being lesbian when they split in February 2002 – sued for custody. By that time, Atala and de Ramon were living together in Villarrica. They've since moved to Los Andes, an hour from Santiago and 500 miles from Atala's children.
"It fell on us, and the violence that they have brought with all of this," de Ramon, 44, said in an interview.
Atala, a federally appointed local judge, is on a voluntary leave of absence and isn't granting interviews. De Ramon said her partner was seeking treatment for a deep depression that followed the loss of her daughters. Atala's girls – aged 9, 5 and 4 – now are living with Lopez. Lopez, a lawyer, has since had his new girlfriend move in.
Lopez's attorney didn't respond to requests for an interview. In an interview with Chile's El Sabado magazine, Lopez said he didn't think an "alternative" family was good for his daughters.
"Nobody asked them whether they wanted to be 'alternative' girls. I don't want my kids to be the rallying flag or icons for the homosexual movement," Lopez said. Atala, he said, could be a lesbian in private, just not in the context of being a mother.
The ruling struck widespread fear into Chile's sizable gay population.
"We are very afraid," said Alejandra Arevana, whose lesbian partner has children. The Supreme Court's ruling, she said, tells lesbians "you cannot be one publicly, say you are or live with your partner if you have kids."
Arevana said she knew of five cases in which lesbian mothers lied in court to avoid the decision Atala was handed. As a judge, Arevana reasoned, Atala could hardly lie to the court.
Soledad Larrain, a family therapist in Santiago and a pioneer in Chilean women's-rights issues, said the country's lesbian mothers were forced to choose between sexuality and motherhood rights.
"Many lesbians who live with their children are now afraid to go public," she said.
Chileans appear divided on the ruling. An opinion poll published June 7 in the daily newspaper La Tercera said 46 percent opposed the court ruling and 50 percent supported it.
The support for Atala was surprising for a country generally guided by strong Catholic values and the legacy of right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, who ruled from 1973 to 1990. Many of today's highest judges came up through the regime, and Pinochet left Chile with a constitution that even today remains difficult to amend.
Conservative Chile didn't have a divorce law on the books until just this year, and there's still no legal recognition of common-law marriages, meaning that opposite-sex partners who share a life without getting married have no inheritance rights. The court decision virtually ensures that same-sex couples will demand a seat at the table when Chile tries to legally recognize what U.S. courts define as common-law marriage.
"We are still in diapers when it comes to civil recognition of gay marriages," said Marco Ruiz, who heads the United Sexual Minorities Movement in Santiago. Gay rights groups also want clearer legal and constitutional prohibitions on discrimination due to homosexuality, he said, and tougher criminal penalties for gay bashing.
As in many Latin countries, social life in Chile is more liberal than its laws. Santiago, the biggest city, offers dozens of gay and lesbian bars, and their patrons aren't shy about their sexuality.
"I have a hard time figuring out what made people shift. I think globalization is part of it – that elsewhere in the developed world it is 'normal' to be gay," said Tim Frasca, a gay journalist from Galion, Ohio, who settled in Chile 21 years ago. "You now have a sort of pre-1960s level of well-meaning tolerance – which is not the same thing as rights."
Chilean families, he said, tolerate gays and lesbians providing "they don't lose respect," a euphemism for public displays of homosexuality.
• Knight Ridder special correspondent Martin Noboa contributed to this report.


Denver Post, July 1, 2004
1560 Broadway, Denver, CO, 80202
(Fax: 303-820-1369 ) (E-Mail: openforum@denverpost.com )
( http://www.denverpost.com )
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2244906,00.html
Editorial: Military policy on gays is folly
Here is a tale of two numbers that we hope will serve as food for thought for Congress and the Pentagon.
Number of discharged soldiers in the U.S. Army's Individual Ready Reserve who may be recalled for active service in Iraq: 5,600.
Number of otherwise qualified men and women discharged from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines between 1998 and 2003 because they were openly homosexual: 6,273.
Question: At a time when the U.S. armed forces can't maintain satisfactory strength levels without calling up reservists, National Guard units and discharged veterans who have already completed their tours of active duty, isn't it time to admit that the "Don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy doesn't make sense?
The policy was signed into law in 1993 by former President Bill Clinton as a compromise with Congress, which opposed Clinton's original plan to completely repeal the ban on gays in the military. It is at best an awkward compromise between provisions of the existing Uniform Code of Military Justice, which decrees that homosexuality is incompatible with military service, and the reality that gays have served quietly and well in America's armed forces since the days of the Minutemen.
The policy prohibits openly gay men, lesbians and bisexuals from serving but also enjoins military officials from aggressively asking about sexual orientation or pursuing investigations of soldiers suspected of being homosexuals. Any service member who openly reveals his or her homosexuality is discharged from service.
For the most part, the military has kept its part of the bargain by not aggressively trying to root out gays from the ranks. But increasingly, homosexuals are choosing to "tell," either to make a political statement demanding equal treatment or simply because they want to get out of the service. The problem isn't just that the military is losing badly needed manpower in wartime, but that it usually loses such soldiers after they have been trained, often to fill critically needed specialties.
Discharged gay and lesbian personnel include specialists trained in foreign languages and interrogation, code analysis, combat operations, counter-intelligence, special forces and other specialties critically needed in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
The notion that homosexuals can't serve effectively in the military simply doesn't square in modern practice. Three American allies with troops alongside our own in Iraq (Britain, Australia and the Netherlands) allow gays to serve on an equal basis with heterosexuals. Israel has long allowed – indeed, required – gays to serve in its armed forces.
Because the untenable "Don't ask, don't tell" policy was written into law by Congress, it can't be abolished by the Pentagon or the Bush administration alone. But we urge Congress to repeal the ban on gays who are openly serving their country.
At a time when America can't meet its military needs without imposing extraordinary obligations on existing and former service members, it makes no sense to expel thousands of trained personnel who are ready and willing to serve.


Associated Press, July 2, 2004
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2004/07/02/conservatives_say_gay_ordination_could_splinter_church/
Conservatives say gay ordination could splinter church
By Justin Bergman, Associated Press Writer
RICHMOND, Va. – Conservatives in the Presbyterian Church warned that a vote in favor of gay ordination at the denomination's national assembly this week could cause the largest schism in the church since the Civil War.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) legislative assembly is scheduled to vote Friday on a measure that would allow individual presbyteries to dismiss an interpretation of church law that forbids gay clergy and lay officers.
"It will in effect allow portions of the Church that are not happy with the Constitution to ignore it," said Keith Hill, leader of a group called Presbyterians for Renewal, which opposes gay ordination.
If that happens, opponents say, a growing network of 1,300 congregations representing 450,000 Presbyterians within the church is poised to break away. The network, called the Confessing Church Movement, holds as a central doctrine the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
The struggle in the Presbyterian Church could mirror what has happened in the Episcopal Church since the election of its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire last year. Conservatives within that church warned of a schism as Anglican congregations around the world threatened to break ties with the American church.
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has split a number of times, but there hasn't been a major break since the beginning of the Civil War when Northern and Southern churches split over slavery.
Some church leaders on Thursday played down the possibility of a split.
"We have a long history of very significant disagreements ... and we always get back together again," said Gary Demarest, a retired pastor from Pasadena, Calif., who heads a task force studying gay issues in the church.
However, others expressed skepticism that the rift can be healed.
"A number of ministers say this is the make-or-break point," said Parker Williamson, a former minister from Lenoir, N.C., who now heads a conservative lay committee within the church.
As evidence, he pointed to the sharp drop in Presbyterian numbers in recent years. Active membership has dropped from 4.2 million in 1983 to 2.4 million today. The church's loss of 46,658 members from 2002 to 2003 was the largest single-year drop since the denomination was formed.
Demarest countered that recent losses are due mainly to attrition and the church's inability to reach out to young people.
• On the Net: Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.): http://www.pcusa.org/


Washington Blade (glbt), July 2, 2004
1408 U Street, NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20009
(E-Mail: forum@washblade.com ) ( http://www.washblade.com )
http://www.washblade.com/2004/7-2/news/worldnews/ambassador.cfm
Gay ambassador assailed by Romanian newspaper
State Department, Romanian president praise Michael Guest
By Lou Chibbaro Jr.
The State Department and the president of Romania have issued strong statements of support for the gay U.S. ambassador to Romania, Michael Guest, following a yearlong onslaught of articles in an English language newspaper in Bucharest accusing Guest of corruption and mismanagement.
A State Department spokesperson this week strongly denied a report in the newspaper, Bucharest Business Week, that the White House had “recalled” Guest from his ambassador’s post because of alleged improprieties.
The spokesperson, Margo Squire, said Guest completed a three-year assignment as Romanian ambassador and would be returning to Washington in July to begin a new assignment in the U.S. Foreign Service, where he has served with “distinction” for more than 20 years.
She said his three-year term had been set at the time Guest was named to his ambassador’s job by President Bush in 2001 and that the newspaper articles had played “absolutely no role” in the timing of his departure.
“Mr. Guest has done an excellent job as U.S. ambassador in Romania,” Squire said. “He has served our country well.”
The Romanian Embassy in Washington announced on June 24 that Romanian President Ion Iliescu awarded Guest that nation’s “Order for Faithful Service in the Rank of Grand Cross.” In a statement, the embassy said Iliescu presented the award to Guest at a June 23 ceremony in Bucharest in appreciation for “high professionalism, dedication to his mission … and for his personal contribution to the strengthening of the Romanian-American partnership.”
Guest, a career Foreign Service officer, became the nation’s second openly gay ambassador. President Clinton appointed San Francisco business executive, philanthropist and gay activist James Hormel as the first openly gay ambassador. Hormel served as ambassador to Luxembourg.
Among the allegations made by Bucharest Business Week is that the U.S. embassy in Bucharest, under Guest’s leadership, appointed a convicted pedophile to an embassy-sponsored board that selects Romanian students for U.S. Fulbright scholarships.
The embassy said it removed the appointee, U.S. citizen and historian Kurt Treptow, from the board after learning about his conviction in a Romanian court for allegedly engaging in sex with juveniles and videotaping the encounters. Neither the newspaper nor the embassy disclosed whether the juveniles were males or females.
The newspaper charged that the embassy failed to adequately vet Treptow before making the appointment. It also charged that Guest and other embassy officials gave Treptow favorable treatment in the selection process over other candidates for the Fulbright board, in part, to provide cover for Treptow alleged work as a CIA agent.
Squire called the newspaper’s claim that Guest gave Treptow favorable treatment “preposterous.” But State Department policy prevents comments on matters relating to the CIA or U.S. intelligence activities, she said.
Guest could not be reached by press time for comment.
Bucharest Business Week is published by AmeriCelt Publishing SRL, described on its Web site as the Bucharest branch of Romanian Ventures Inc., the “only wholly American-owned news media company in Romania.” The Web site says the English-language weekly newspaper specializes in business coverage, including news about American and European companies doing business in Romania.
Corina Mica, the paper’s editorial director and the author of most of the articles about Guest, did not respond to an e-mail by press time.
'Poor leadership'
In addition to the allegations about Guest’s role in Treptow's appointment, newspaper articles accused Guest of “poor leadership” in presiding over an embassy that the paper says is plagued by “mismanagement.” Several of the articles accuse embassy officials, including Guest, of engaging in “influence-peddling” in the appointment of outsiders to embassy posts.
One article accuses the embassy of assisting U.S. citizens in obtaining legal assistance in Romania to adopt children in what it calls a multi-million dollar adoption effort in which U.S.-owned adoption agencies allegedly charge $10,000 or more to facilitate adoptions for Americans.
Another article accuses Guest of offending both Romanian leaders and U.S. business executives seeking to arrange business deals in Romania by over stressing reports of corruption within Romania’s government and private corporations.
Squire called all of the allegations untrue.
None of the articles currently posted on the newspaper’s Web site reference Guest’s sexual orientation.
But Tom Coleman, acting president of Gays & Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, a recognized employee group at the State Department, said a source at the U.S. embassy in Romania told him most embassy officials believe the newspaper’s criticism of Guest is motivated by anti-gay prejudice.
Coleman said his source at the embassy told him that the newspaper began publishing articles attacking Guest and the embassy after the embassy chose not to hire one of the paper’s top officials as executive director for the Fulbright Scholarship operation at the embassy.
A source familiar with the State Department, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the account by Coleman. The source said that Sean Hillen, whom the newspaper site identifies as the paper’s editor and general manager, applied for the job of executive director of the Fulbright Commission, an embassy-appointed post in Bucharest. The source said Hillen served on the Fulbright board at the time he applied for the job, and embassy officials did not believe it was appropriate for a board member to assume the post of executive director.
“He appears to have waged a vendetta against Michael Guest ever since he was turned down for that job,” the source said.
Attempts to reach Hillen by e-mail for comment were unsuccessful.
Charles Gati, a European studies professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, and a recognized expert on Romania, said Guest was received well by most of Romania’s political leaders and news media.
The one exception, Gati said, has been an extremist faction known as the Greater Romania Party, which is “very anti-American” as well as anti-Semitic. Gati said he is certain the party is also hostile toward gays.
He said the party attacked Guest in its publications, in part, over of Guest’s and U.S. officials’ calls for Romania to address the problem of widespread corruption in government and private industry. Gati noted that the European Union has threatened to delay Romania’s admission into the union if it fails to take steps to address the corruption.
Squire, the State Department spokesperson, said the newspaper’s claim that Guest offended Romanians by talking about corruption was off base, saying Guest was following official U.S. policy on the issue.
• Lou Chibbaro can be reached at lchibbaro@washblade.com.

BBC News, 1 July 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3856839.stm
Teenage 'gay-bashing' killers jailed
Two teenagers who deliberately set out to target a member of the gay community have been sentenced for murder.
Ian Flanagan, 30, was battered with a wheel brace and stabbed with a kitchen knife in the grounds of Barnett's Demesne on 7 September 2002.
During the trial, the killers alleged he propositioned them.
The body of the civil servant, who was originally from Keady, was found at playing fields in the Malone area of Belfast.
Raymond Taylor was sentenced to 13 years and 16-year-old Trevor Peel, also known as Newton, was given 14 years.
On Thursday, Belfast Crown Court judge Mr Justice Coghlin lifted restrictions on identifying Peel, from Bests Hill Court in the city.
He said there was a "strong public interest in open justice" and a "potential deterrent effect" for others in doing so.
The judge told the pair that as they were both so young "I consider myself bound to adopt 12 years the starting point".
However, he warned them that had they been adults "these minimum terms would have been significantly higher".
The murder of Mr Flanagan "degenerated from despicable in its inception into becoming atrocious in its consummation", said the judge.
"I have no doubt that you both set out to deliberately target a member of the gay community, confident in the belief that the social vulnerability of your victim would enable you to carry out your 'queer bashing' expedition without any real risk of your activities being br