LGCM warns of "coup" over gay clergy

Gay.com UK, 30 April 2004


Ben Townley, Gay.com UK

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) has warned that the Anglican Church is suffering from a "power vacuum" that could result in it splitting over the issue of gay clergy.

Speaking as a new challenge to the appointment of gay canon Dr Jeffrey John as Dean of St Albans was launched by evangelical clergy, LGCM's Revd Richard Kirker warned that the Church is on the brink of a "coup" that could see liberal members excluded in favour of the more right wing believers.

He warned that because Anglican Mainstream have demanded to see the Prime Minister, the question of where the power lies in the Church of England must be raised.

"Those who have gathered together under the banner of Anglican Mainstream have tasted blood, and they want more," he said today.

"In demanding to see and question the Prime Minister about this appointment, they are asserting their new found authority as the leadership of the Church of England. We are all left wondering: Who is there to challenge them?"

Dr John was appointed as dean last week. He had previously been chosen as the bishop of Reading, but was forced to step down last year when conservative clergy mounted a campaign against him. They claimed his sexuality meant he should not be allowed to hold such an important position in the Church.

However, while the Church decides on its bishops, the appointment of deans is down to Downing Street, leading many to suggest that the new job is a subtle attempt by the government to modernise the Church.

But Kirker warns that the financial constraints on the Church redress the power balance, and Dr John may be forced out of the job once again.

"The bishops are nearly all captive to the financial threats from their rich conservative parishes who have declared their intention "to break the Church of England" unless it comes to heel on the issue of homosexuality," he said.

"Is it true that only a handful of parishes in each diocese need to pull their funding to bring the ecclesiastical machine to a shuddering halt?

"There is a power vacuum. The Church of England is ripe for a coup."

Yale Puts Focus On Its Gay Past, Exhibit Highlights Personalities, Changing Terminology, Courses

Hartford Courant, April 30, 2004

By Kim Martineau, Courant Staff Writer
John Sterling never called himself gay. But the lifelong bachelor and lawyer for the Rockefellers did have a name for the lifestyle he fervently embraced: a "blessed state of singleness."
When he died in 1918, Sterling endowed a shrine for learning at his alma mater, Yale University – a great cathedral-like library. Privately, Sterling also endowed a monument to the unmarried. In his will, he invited his sister and lifelong partner, William Bloss, to share his mausoleum – but only if they remained single.
The untold biography of John Sterling, a distinguished 1864 alumnus, is revealed in an intriguing exhibit now on display – of all places – at the Sterling Memorial Library.
"The Pink and the Blue: Lesbian and Gay Life at Yale and Connecticut: 1642-2004" marks the first time that an institution of Yale's caliber has opened the door on its gay past. Here, under the leaded-glass windows of the Gothic library, inside the carved cabinets, is a yellowed photograph of young Sterling studying in a paisley-printed robe, as his roommate gazes longingly across the table. An excerpt from Sterling's diary trails off just as a romantic theme emerges: "today I slept with Jim Mitchell an ..."
The exhibit has generated little controversy since its opening in February, to the surprise of its organizers. It has even been praised. "I am an aunt of a lesbian and have friends who are gay," one woman wrote in the visitor's book. "This exhibit gives me hope for the future of people I love."
The show profiles dozens of people, spanning more than 300 years. It starts with William Plaine, executed in New Haven in 1646 for sodomy and "corrupting a great part of the youth of Guilford by masturbations." It ends with Larry Kramer, playwright and AIDS activist, who fought for years to endow a gay and lesbian studies program at Yale. The program, launched in 2002, sponsors the exhibit.
Amid the diary entries and personal photographs lurk nuggets of illicit detail. Cole Porter, a 1913 graduate, who wrote hundreds of songs at Yale, including "Queen of the Yale Dramat," later expressed concern he might be viewed as "an old queen" because of his past exploits, according to a biographer quoted in the exhibit.
Alan Hart, who earned a public health degree from Yale and directed Connecticut's tuberculosis program for nearly two decades, spent the early part of his life as a woman named Alberta.
Though many who appear in the exhibit gave permission, others are long dead, and their hidden biographies had to be carefully unearthed. A Yale archivist provided the tip about Sterling, whose diaries and other personal documents were left to Yale.
"You can't look for explicit reference or the terms gay or lesbian," says Jonathan D. Katz, a Yale professor who heads the Larry Kramer Initiative. "You have to be alive to all sorts of possible ways of expressing things."
Jonathan Ned Katz, an authority on gay history, curated the show. A graphic designer and Yale graduate designed the blue wallpaper, with its pink ivy motif, which hangs behind the relics – illustrating the entwining of Old Blue and its gay past.
On display is an original 1970 invitation to the "Homosexuality Discussion Group," a fledgling support group, and a Tiffany pin that students of the first gay seminar gave their professor. The silver pin, the size of a paperweight, reads: "Gay is a valid alternative."
The show celebrates several milestones – and setbacks. The poet J.D. McClatchy taught the first gay course in Yale College in 1978, "Homosexuality and Literature," but changed the title to "The Literature of Ambivalence" two weeks into it. His students were worried about the course name showing up on their transcripts.
The Yale Alumni Magazine published its first gay ad in 1984, but letters of outrage filled the next three issues. By the late '80s, Yale had became known as the "gay Ivy," in part because of a 1987 Wall Street Journal article. Yale President Benno Schmidt tried to comfort a worried fund-raiser in a letter also on view. "If I thought there were any truth to the article, I would be concerned, too," he wrote.
The show charts a shifting terminology. Before "homosexual" or "gay" was coined, words like "smashing" and "buggery" dotted the vernacular.
The exhibit never explicitly outs Sterling in the library he built. But an early biographer of Sterling's is quoted as describing "an understanding" that held Sterling and his lifelong partner, William Bloss, together.
"I'd like to think he'd recognize the social distance a place like Yale has traversed," says Katz of Sterling, "and think it an absolutely apt tribute."
The exhibit can be viewed at Sterling Memorial Library Memorabilia Room until May 14. It can also be viewed online at: www.yale.edu/lesbiangay.

Alliance of Baptists affirms same-sex 'marriage'

FIRST-PERSON: Alliance of Baptists affirms same-sex 'marriage'
By R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Apr 30, 2004



LOUISVILLE, Ky. (BP)--Supporters of same-sex "marriage" have been aided in their quest to normalize homosexuality by a constellation of liberal religious groups -- including some of the historic Christian denominations. These groups now serve as theological enablers for the homosexual movement's rejection of Christian morality.

The latest group to join this parade is the Alliance of Baptists, a denomination that consists of 115 congregations, united mainly by the fact that they are no longer part of the Southern Baptist Convention. The Alliance was born out of the Southern Baptist Convention's controversy of the 1980s, and it first functioned as a protest movement against the conservative leadership of the SBC. Since its establishment in 1987, the Alliance has gone on to establish itself firmly on the left wing of American Protestant liberalism.

Meeting recently in Dayton, Ohio, for its 2004 convocation, the Alliance of Baptists adopted a "Statement on Same Sex Marriage," that demands legalization and full support for homosexual "marriage" across the United States. It puts the Alliance boldly on the same-sex "marriage" bandwagon.

The Alliance statement begins by decrying "the politicization of same-sex marriage in the current presidential contest and other races for public office." What can this mean? There are no non-political approaches to this issue, for both sides are arguing over law and public policy. Any demand that same-sex "marriage" be legalized must take the form of a political argument. The law, after all, is a political instrument. Thus, when the Alliance of Baptists criticizes the "politicization" of the same sex "marriage" debate, it insinuates that its own activity is above politics while those who oppose same sex "marriage" must lower themselves for engagement at the political level. This is not a promising start.

The statement goes on to put the group in solid opposition to any constitutional amendment banning homosexual "marriage." "We specifically reject the proposed amendments to the constitution of the United States and state constitutions that would enshrine discrimination against sexual minorities and define marriage in such a way as to deny same-sex couples a legal framework in which to provide for one another and those entrusted to their care."

The Alliance directed its most critical words at Christian denominations that oppose same-sex "marriage." "As Christians and as Baptists, we particularly lament the denigration of our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender sisters and brothers in this debate by those who claim to speak for God." Placing the group on the other end of the spectrum, the statement affirmed that the Alliance of Baptists "supports the rights of all citizens to full marriage equality, and we affirm anew that the Alliance will 'create places of refuge and renewal for those ignored by the church'."

Stan Hastey, the Alliance's Executive Director, has written that the Alliance was birthed "in the white-heat controversy of the fundamentalist uprising that resulted in the capture of the Southern Baptist Convention." Originally organized as the "Southern Baptist Alliance," the group changed its name in 1992 to "The Alliance of Baptists." As Hastey indicates, this was a way of "signaling formal distancing of itself from the Southern Baptist Convention." In reality, the group was already light years removed from the SBC on both moral and theological issues. The name change was an honest reflection of reality -- the Alliance and the SBC stand on opposing sides of the great theological divide.

Moving steadily leftward, the Alliance joined the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the year 2000, and formed a partnership with the United Church of Christ in 2002. In joining with the UCC, the Alliance formally attached itself to a denomination that was already well-known for its acceptance of homosexuality. The UCC allows congregations to celebrate same-sex unions and to ordain homosexual ministers. Earlier this year, the Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns Council of the United Church of Christ issued a statement demanding not only the full legalization of same-sex "marriages" but the church's affirmation that "any conversation about marriage needs to de-centralize marriage as the only expression of covenant and commitment between people." Just in case their point might be missed, the group went on to insist: "Any conversation about marriage must take seriously the reality that, given that ... many LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] and heterosexual folks have made conscious choices to covenant with one another in ways other than marriage. And these covenants should also be honored and celebrated." This is not only a call for the legalization of same-sex "marriages," but a call for the virtual abolition of marriage itself.

The Alliance's move toward the full acceptance of homosexuality has been apparent for some time. In 1995 the group adopted a report on human sexuality entitled, "A Clear Voice." The voice was indeed clear, and the point of the report was obvious -- the group was calling for the full normalization and acceptance of all homosexual relationships. The Alliance's original covenant began with a call for its members to claim "the freedom of the individual, led by God's Spirit within the family of faith, to read and interpret the Scriptures, relying on the historical understanding by the church and on the best methods of modern biblical study." That wording was carefully crafted to allow the group and its members to deny the authority and truthfulness of difficult biblical texts dealing with issues like sexuality, while claiming to be "led by God's Spirit" and relying on historical interpretation and the "best methods" of modern biblical scholarship.

The escape hatch in their statement was in full operation as the 1995 report on human sexuality began by asking, "whether the Bible actually addresses the issue of sexual orientation as we understand it today." And, "whether there is an unambiguous sexual norm in Scripture." By the time the group's official report concluded, they had answered both of these questions with a resounding, "No."

In "Discerning God's Will in Biblical Interpretation," an appendix attached to the report, the Alliance claimed that "Baptists assume that moral decisions about sexual expression or any other issue must be rooted in Scripture." Claiming to interpret the Scripture through tradition, reason and experience while also taking full account of the historical context of the biblical text, the group claimed a right to re-interpret biblical texts that condemn homosexuality by claiming the higher "light of the revelation of God given in Jesus Christ." As an example of their approach to the Bible, the group's report asserted that "interpreters may ask whether the affirmation of heterosexual relations in the creation stories of Genesis 1 and 2 is intended also to prohibit all same-sex relations or whether the silence on same-sex relations is merely a descriptive reflection of a world where heterosexual marriage relations were so much the norm that alternatives were not mentioned." The report went on to provide another example: "Again, interpreters may reasonably ask whether our attitude toward Old Testament condemnations of same-sex acts is affected by the priority of love in Jesus' teachings and his acceptance of women, prostitutes, tax-collectors and other theretofore considered as second-class citizens or sinful outcasts."

In other words, this group can find an interpretive loophole in order to get around any of the several biblical texts that so clearly condemn homosexual activity in every form. If Genesis 2 is just a "descriptive reflection" of heterosexuality as a norm, it tells us nothing authoritative about humanity at all. In the end, the group's "attitude" toward the biblical condemnation of homosexuality is mere dismissal.

Even in 1995, the issue of homosexual marriage was on the horizon. The group affirmed, "That genital sex, for both heterosexual and same-sex oriented persons, is most responsibly expressed when it occurs in the context of caring, loving, committed, covenant relationships between monogamous adults." Furthermore, the Alliance invited its member congregations "to lift up the ideal of covenant -- that is challenging persons, whether heterosexual or same-sex oriented, to express sexual intimacy within the covenant context of a committed, monogamous relationship. One example of that support could be a ritual, a covenant-making between the couple, the couple and God, and the couple and the Christian community."

In the end, the Alliance of Baptist's statement endorsing same-sex "marriage" comes as no surprise. This is the logical extension of the group's denial of biblical inerrancy and its subversion of biblical authority. Nevertheless, the Alliance of Baptists should be recognized for its candor and honesty on this issue, for many other denominations and religious bodies are doing their best to hide their real convictions on the question. Virtually all of the mainline Protestant denominations have been engaged in a debate over the issue of homosexuality that has lasted at least three decades. In most of these churches, the liberal leadership wants to affirm homosexuality and same-sex "marriage" while more conservative members at the grassroots resist -- and they are the ones paying the bills.

There is no refuge on the issue of same-sex "marriage," however. The questions will eventually be answered. Churches will either endorse same-sex "marriage," or they will not. Congregations will perform same-sex "marriages," or they will not. Denominations and religious institutions will recognize same-sex partnerships, or they will not. There is no middle ground, no place of compromise, and eventually no place to hide.
--30--
R. Albert Mohler Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.

Would gay marriage add to Social Security woes? Program wouldn't be hurt; small minority lacks gender-pay gap

Dallas Morning News, April 29, 2004
Box 655237, Dallas, TX, 75265
(Fax: 972-263-0456 ) (E-Mail: letterstoeditor@dallasnews.com )
( http://www.dallasnews.com )
By Scott Burns, The Dallas Morning News
Question: Am I right in thinking that under Social Security a surviving spouse can collect benefits based on his or her earnings record or that of the deceased spouse? Much of what homosexuals say they want to accomplish by getting "married" can be accomplished by contract or other paper work, but not the realization of Social Security survivor benefits.
Because Social Security is a federal program, state legislation authorizing such marriage would not necessarily confer this particular benefit. I have not seen any discussions on the question, but assuming the spousal benefit is conferred on homosexual couples, wouldn't this put the system in even worse financial condition than it is already?
– C.R., Dallas

Answer: In Social Security, the surviving spouse gets the greater of the two benefits. If one spouse has $1,400 in monthly benefits and the other has $800 in benefits, the spouse with $800 in benefits will have a benefits increase to $1,400 upon the death of the spouse with higher benefits. On the other hand, the $1,400-benefit spouse will see no change in benefits after the death of the $800-benefit spouse. In both cases, the total benefits collected will decline.
In this example, for instance, a couple collecting $2,200 in monthly benefits would see a household reduction to $1,400. That's a reduction of 36 percent. The decline in benefits may be greater than the decline in household expenses.
As I understand it, many in the gay community are satisfied with the broad application of domestic partner provisions that extend access to health insurance. This is a more pressing concern than Social Security benefits.
Allowing gay couples to have the same Social Security options at the death of a spouse as conventional couples would not weaken the system materially. You can understand this by considering the demographics and income relationships.
First, gay couples are (relatively) small in number. Second, since both parties are of the same gender, earnings differences rooted in gender have no bearing. The reason conventional marriages have major differences in Social Security benefits is that traditional family patterns often result in one spouse earning much less than the other. While this pattern exists in gay couples as well as straight couples, it is less pronounced. As a result, the difference in individual benefits in gay couples would probably be smaller than the difference in traditional couples.

Candada: Battle lines drawn over gay marriage, Opponents, supporters launch campaigns

Toronto Globe & Mail, April 29, 2004


By Kim Lunman and Gloria Galloway
OTTAWA and TORONTO – The federal government's controversial bill to legalize gay marriage will be the target of a fierce campaign between the religious right and gay-rights groups during the forthcoming election.
The public-relations blitz over same-sex marriage started in earnest yesterday with news conferences on both sides of the debate.
On Parliament Hill, Canadians for Equal Marriage unveiled their plans for a national campaign to support MPs who back the legislation while publicly targeting those who are against the bill.
In Vancouver, the not-for-profit organization Focus on the Family offered up what it called former homosexuals for interviews in its ongoing lobby to uphold traditional marriage and defeat Canadian MPs who support the legislation.
"There's no question this is a David and Goliath campaign," Alex Munter, co-chairman of Canadians for Equal Marriage, told reporters as the group launched its cross-country on-line campaign featuring ballot boxes marked with two choices: opponent of equality and supporter of equality.
The coalition, including the gay-rights group EGALE Canada, the Canadian Psychological Association, the United Church of Canada, Canadian Labour Congress and Canadian Federation of Students, says its opponents in the fight to win public opinion for the bill are planning to spend $1.5-million in advertising during the election campaign.
But Derek Rogusky, vice-president of family policy for Focus on the Family Canada, said his group has nowhere near $1-million for campaign advertising and denies allegations it is being backed by U.S. funds.
"We're a charitable organization that works very hard at strengthening families, strengthening marriages, the parenting relations, the spousal relationship, that type of thing."
Same-sex marriage is a potential wedge issue in the federal election, expected to be called any day now.
The bill has deeply divided the Liberal caucus with nearly a third of government MPs previously saying they would not support the legislation. The bill, which is before the Supreme Court for constitutional review, will not come before the House of Commons for a vote until after the election.
At the crux of the court reference is whether the bill would be in keeping with guarantees under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and whether religious institutions could be exempt from performing wedding ceremonies if doing so would violate their beliefs.
It also asks whether the traditional definition of marriage could be retained.
Conservative Party Leader Stephen Harper said yesterday the bill will be a key issue during the campaign.
"The difference in our positions are clear," he said.
"The position of the party is that this issue should be subject to a free vote in the House and, if elected Prime Minister, we will withdraw the Supreme Court reference and instead settle this issue in Parliament."
He said, however, that "there are other issues that are higher on the public agenda."
The debate concerning same-sex marriage legislation was rekindled yesterday as the Senate voted 59 to 11 in favour of another controversial bill to include homosexuals in Canada's hate-crime laws by 59 to 11.
"It's a very historic day," said NDP MP Libby Davies, who is a lesbian.
"It's also a very important victory for gays and lesbians to now know that they have this basic protection in the law."
Some critics of the bill – including religious groups – argued it would allow special treatment for homosexuals and could allow the Bible to be branded hate literature.
It will amend the Criminal Code to add the term sexual orientation to identifiable groups "distinguished by colour, race, religion, and ethnic origin," in hate-propaganda sections
In one of the nation's most hotly contested ridings, same-sex marriage supporters taped a banner to the campaign office of Toronto-Danforth Liberal MP Dennis Mills yesterday urging voters to defeat candidates such as him who oppose legalized gay marriages.

Romney asks other states' input on marriage law

Boston Globe, April 30, 2004

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
The attorneys general of Connecticut and Rhode Island yesterday began reviewing their laws to determine if they will honor the marriages of same-sex couples who tie the knot in Massachusetts next month, after Governor Mitt Romney notified the state leaders that he will bar out-of-staters from marrying here unless given an explicit OK.
Romney's letter, which described his interpretation of a 1913 Massachusetts law that forbids couples to marry here if the union would be "void" in their home state, demanded "an authoritative statement to the contrary from either you or your representative" before he would license out-of-state gay couples.
"It is our view that same-sex marriage is not permitted under the laws of any other state in the nation, including yours," said the letter, which Romney's office mailed out to all other governors and attorneys general in the nation. "Unless we receive an authoritative statement to the contrary from either you or your representative, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will not issue a Massachusetts marriage license to same-sex couples from your state."
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, whose state is one of 11 lacking a Defense Of Marriage Act, or DOMA, said he will render a decision by May 17, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's landmark ruling goes into effect.
Michael Healey, spokesman for Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, said lawyers in the office were preparing a legal response to the issue.
A spokesman for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who had previously issued a press release saying that "same-sex marriages . . . lawfully entered in other jurisdictions outside the state should be recognized in New York," yesterday declined to comment, saying Spitzer wanted to review the letter first.
Lawmakers in the New Hampshire House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill yesterday to block recognition of gay marriages performed in other jurisdictions, a direct response to the Nov. 18 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling legalizing same-gender nuptials. The New Hampshire Senate had already passed a version of the bill and Governor Craig Benson expects to sign the measure before May 17.
In some other states, Romney's letter met a cooler response.
The press secretary for Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell, Kate Philips, said he will not respond because he does not believe Romney has the authority to ask other states to offer legal opinions on how marriage policy is carried out in Massachusetts. Paul Nixon, spokesman for New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid, said she would not respond because the office only has the statutory authority to give legal opinions sought by New Mexico officials.
"Our office is not aware of any officials from New Mexico to issue an opinion in regard to the situation in Massachusetts. When that happens, we'll respond accordingly," Nixon said.
Currently, 39 states have either a statute or a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but 19 of those do not explicitly say that a marriage contracted elsewhere would be "void."
In response to the SJC ruling, some states have introduced new legislation to explicitly block the recognition of same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
? Yvonne Abraham of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

First, Treat No Homos - A new Hypocritic Oath? Should a physician be allowed to turn you away if you're gay?

Village Voice
by Richard Goldstein
April 29th, 2004 4:30 PM

Should a physician be allowed to turn you away if you're gay? Sounds like a no-brainer—but not if you live in Michigan.

Michigan's House of Representatives passed a bill last week that permits doctors and other health care providers to walk away from a procedure, treatment, or prescription that violates their religious beliefs. The Conscientious Objector Policy Act, which was pushed by the state's Catholic Conference—and opposed by Michigan's Medical Society—clearly applies to abortions and morning-after pills. But its broad wording could cover other medical situations, such as stem-cell research. The bill bar physicians from denying patients access to contraception, and it forbids discrimination against groups mentioned in the state civil rights law.

Guess which group is excluded from that statute?

"I believe there's a loophole big enough to drive a Mack truck through," said Chris Kolb, Michigan's only openly gay representative. Supporters of the bill are quick to deny this contention—but also loath to add sexual orientation to the bill's protected categories. "I don't think this legislation is the way to address that," Scott Hummel, a Republican lawmaker, told CNN. The Michigan statehouse is dominated by Republicans, which is why Kolb thinks the bill will pass the state senate as well. But the governor, Jennifer Granholm, is a Democrat. She's regarded as gay friendly, but Kolb says he can't be sure she will veto the legislation. Granholm's office released a statement declaring the bill "too broad" as it stands, but adding, "We are sympathetic to this issue and will work with the legislature to develop a version . . . that we all support."

Perhaps the most disturbing news of all was a Detroit News poll asking whether the bill should become law even though "some fear this means gays and lesbians could be refused treatment." Over 53 percent of respondents replied in the affirmative.

Laws exempting doctors from performing abortions exist in some 40 states, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. But these more sweeping statutes are a frightening new weapon for fundamentalists. In Illinois, the Health Care Right of Conscience Act prohibits discrimination not against patients but against doctors who refuse to offer a broad range of treatments for religious reasons. In neighboring Wisconsin, the governor vetoed a bill on April 21 that would have protected physicians who fail to advise patients of their treatment options, provide a referral, or render care if a life is at risk. Even the instructions in a living will could have been ignored if they violated a doctor's beliefs.

A right-of-conscience statute in Mississippi has the unexpected distinction of protecting patients from discrimination because of their sexual orientation. That's more than you can say for Michigan. And the issue is far from academic. During the early years of AIDS, polls showed that a majority of doctors didn't want to treat gay men. Things have changed for the better—or have they?

Homosexual themes unaltered in student play - language censored but gay theme remains

By Ryan M. Melton
Daily Staff Writer

A play involving homosexual themes and expletive language will go on in a modified form, after negotiations settled concerns between students and the administration of Ames High School.

"Pillow Talk," a play written by Peter Tolan, was selected as a one-act play directed by Ames High senior William Woods, 17. It will be performed along with several other one-act plays.

The play revolves around a field trip two heterosexual male characters go on that results in the two having to share one bed. While laying in the bed, the two characters discuss homosexuality, before hugging and going to sleep.

Carol Kenealy, spokeswoman for the Ames Community School District, said the play will be allowed to take place May 11, 13 and 14, with the questionable language excised from the performance. However, she said any scenes involving homosexual themes were not modified.

"The play will go on. The students acted very responsibly and worked well under the guidance of the administration to change the language of the play for family audiences," Kenealy said.

The negotiations took place after the play was temporarily put on hold due to concerns raised by the school's administration over the content of the play.

Kenealy said the changes to the language of the play were allowed after permission was granted by the play's publisher.

Ames High student David Prater, 17, who acts in the play alongside fellow Ames High students Evan Hudson, 15, and Woods, would only say the relationship between the administration and the students involved with the play is a positive one, and referred all other questions to Ames High Principal Michael McGrory.

"The administration asked that both the directors and the actors involved refer all reporter's questions to Michael McGrory," Prater said.

Prater said he wouldn't say the administration's request was connected to whether the play would be allowed to go on.

McGrory could not be reached for comment.

Ray Richardson, superintendent of the Ames Community School District, said the decision to allow the play to go on without the expletive language was made about a week ago.

"The reality of the point I tried to make is that sometimes we can't say things the way we want to. We said that you can convey what you want to convey without being crude," Richardson said. "It's been a good learning process for the students. The negotiations went well. My goal is that people come out to see it and that folks have a good time."

Dollywood’s request angers gay organizers - ''People feel like there's a lot of hatred against the(GLBT) community in Tenn"

By ANITA WADHWANI
Staff Writer

The Dollywood theme park has asked a gay and lesbian group to immediately stop advertising ''Gay Day at Dollywood'' for an upcoming event that attracted about 1,000 gays and lesbians, mainly from Tennessee, last year.

The Dollywood attorney's letter, paraphrased and forwarded by activists to fellow gays and lesbians via e-mail around the state and nationwide, has sparked anger.

''What are we supposed to say, 'I'm going to the theme park run by the woman with the big breasts?' '' asked Belle Meade resident Michael Romanello, 56. Romanello says he sent out about 200 e-mails to friends on the East Coast yesterday urging them to head to Pigeon Forge for the May 22 event in a gesture of defiance.

Dollywood spokesman Pete Owens said the park was not trying to stop anyone from attending. He said the request was a standard one sent out to anyone in regard to trademark violations. Similar requests have gone out to about two dozen groups, such as tour operators and hotels, who have used the Dollywood name or logo without permission, he said.

The event's Web site, www.gaydaydw.com, advertised the Gay Day at Dollywood event until yesterday, when the home page was replaced with a page renaming the event ''Gay Day 2004,'' without the trademark violations alleged by Dollywood. The site had featured the Dollywood butterfly logo and a cartoon likeness of amusement park founder Dolly Parton.

''All we've asked them to do is remove the (Dollywood trademark logo) from their Web site, and they did,'' Owens said. ''We appreciate that.''

Knoxville-based gay, lesbian and transgender group Tri-Cities Pride began the event last year. This year, Executive Director Ryan Salyer said, he expects 5,000 attendees and has already heard from people in New York, Philadelphia and elsewhere who plan to attend the all-day Saturday gathering.

''We just want to go to the park and just have a fun day to be had by all.''

The event has been publicized via the group's Web site, as well as on the sites of other gay and lesbian groups in neighboring states.

Dollywood lawyers have had a continuing ''focus on the Internet in earnest over the last several years'' to monitor possible trademark infringements, Owens said.

Owens said the park continued to welcome anyone who wants to attend. ''Everyone is welcome to Dollywood.''

Salyer says he and other gays and lesbians think that Dollywood's action, on the heels of other controversies involving them, sends the opposite message.

''People feel like there's a lot of hatred against the (gay and lesbian) community in Tennessee.''

Salyer said his group would continue to visit Dollywood. It also plans to send a group to Rhea County on May 8 for a planned gay and lesbian event that comes in response to the county's recent effort to ban gays and lesbians from living in the county.

New Hampshire's House voted Thursday to block recognition of gay marriages

CONCORD, N.H. -- After an emotional and often personal debate, New Hampshire's House voted Thursday to block recognition of gay marriages.


Senators Tell Their Personal Stories


The key 213-140 vote for the change comes in response to a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision giving gay couples the right to marry there starting May 17. Many lawmakers fear New Hampshire would be forced to honor those marriages.

The bill now goes back to the Senate for review. The Senate passed a similar version of the bill last month.

The House version also would establish a committee to look at what laws would need to be changed to make civil unions legal in the state. An attempt to change the bill strictly to a study failed by a vote of 210-143.

Opponents tried in vain for more than three hours to persuade the House to kill the gay marriage bill.

"This bill is both unnecessary and hurtful," said Rep. Jack Pratt, D-Walpole.

Epsom Republican Tony Soltani disagreed.

"This bill is not hateful, hurtful or malicious, nor is it discriminatory, but it is necessary," he said.

Soltani insisted that state law allows "anyone to marry anyone and anything and move here and claim the rights of marriage."

"We would not be forced to recognize gay marriages contracted outside this state," added Dover Republican Phyllis Woods.

Manchester Democrat Ray Buckley, who is gay, chided his colleagues for treating gays as second-class citizens. Buckley pointed out that convicted murderers in state prison can marry, as can rapists, child molesters, adulterers and child killers.

"The scum of the earth can marry in New Hampshire just as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex," Buckley said.

Sandown Democrat Corey Corbin, also gay, compared the bill to Nazi Germany's prohibition against Jews marrying non-Jews that was enacted in 1935.

Corbin said he served eight years in the military to defend America's freedoms, yet the bill treats him as less valuable than heterosexuals.

"I'm about to be told by you I'm not entitled to those very freedoms I volunteered to protect," said Corbin.

Corbin also chastised an unidentified lawmaker who said homosexuality is "all about sex." Choking back tears, Corbin said his partner of eight years stood by him out of love and respect when Corbin found out he was HIV-positive.

"He hugged me and told me everything would be fine," said Corbin, who challenged any representative who votes for the bill to "look me in the eye and tell me my life, my eight years in the armed services, my time in this body means nothing."

But the majority said the law is necessary to give the Legislature time to consider civil unions for gay couples before lawsuits push the issue into the courts.

The Senate's version of the bill banned recognition of same-sex unions and defined marriage as being between one man and one woman. An attempt in the House to add the language back into the bill failed by a vote of 294-57.

The House replaced that wording with a ban on recognizing any relationship that would not be legal under New Hampshire law. Same-sex marriages are already prohibited in the state.

House Judiciary Committee had considered, but rejected a plan to have the law expire in two years to force the Legislature to revisit the issue of gay marriage.

'If your child comes to you and tells you this...'

By Ellen Warren
Tribune senior correspondent

April 28, 2004

Deborah Mell was still in elementary school, 6th or 7th grade, when she began making bicycle trips to a neighborhood on Chicago's North Side where she could get a gay newspaper.

At the newsstand, trying not to look like she was staring, she'd watch the openly homosexual men and women going about their everyday lives in the city's gay and lesbian enclave around Clark and Broadway.

"I was just curious," she says of those furtive trips to the area that has come to be known as Boys Town. But she also went there "just to feel comfortable."

As for the gay paper, "I would read it right there . . . toss it away, go home and pretend that I was straight."

In the coming years, and unbeknown to Deb Mell, her father started to suspect that the second of his three children was a lesbian. He had wanted to talk to her about it at the time, but didn't -- a decision he continues to profoundly regret, two decades later.

The dad in this case is Ald. Richard Mell, the tough and mouthy boss of the 33rd Ward. Based on Mell's take-no-prisoners persona, you might suspect that father and daughter were hurtling toward an explosion, the kind that rips families apart forever.

There was none of that. Quite the opposite.

Mell and his wife, Marge, their other children, Rich and Patti, and Patti's husband, who happens to be Gov. Rod Blagojevich, all have lovingly accepted Deb Mell's homosexuality for years, but without fanfare.

Now, over the past few months, father and daughter have joined together very publicly to put a human face on family relationships where one member is homosexual.

This ad hoc effort began with a Valentine's Day demonstration, where Mell joined his daughter at a rally in support of gay marriage at the Near North mansion of Roman Catholic Cardinal Francis George.

"That was a great day," Deb Mell, 35, says now, "It was kind of our coming out party."

Then came Deb's unplanned, much-publicized arrest at a Loop gay marriage demonstration last month. (She is scheduled to face the charge in court Wednesday.) At the rally after the arrest, Mell spoke into a bouquet of TV microphones in support of his daughter and her cause -- and the Mells became the poster people for efforts to legalize gay marriage in Illinois.

Ald. Richard Mell's City Hall office is enormous, befitting a baron of the City Council. In this setting, there's a serious disconnect to hear him talking not about rezoning or liquor licenses, but of love, sex, desire.

Mell, 65, is holding forth on these most intimate of subjects with his customary, unvarnished vocabulary.

On legalizing gay marriage: "Jesus Christ. I mean, give me a break! I mean what is the big thing here? I mean, is this going to be Sodom and Gomorrah? Jesus Christ. Half the marriages end up in divorce right now. Half the . . . people who are beating the hell out of their wives are good heterosexual married people. I mean give me a break!"

He's just warming up.

On parents who won't accept the homosexuality of their children: "I'd like to slap the bastards. I'd like to give 'em a slap. Pleeese. Come on! If your child comes to you and tells you this and you really have a problem with it and it becomes a real issue, you really don't deserve to call yourself a parent. "

Mell says his "main reason" for his new activism is to show that a gay child or sibling or relative "does not affect a loving family whatsoever."

Actually, the main reason, the only reason, is because his cherished daughter asked him to.

"One of the reasons I think I'm becoming more vocal on this issue is because I'm thinking anytime that Deborah and I are together it puts a face to this. That some kids who are out there, maybe struggling [will see] here's the alderman's daughter, the governor's sister-in-law and look at the relation they have."

"This is her decision -- what I do. I play the support role," he says.

Just last week, Deb got a preliminary call from NBC's "Dateline." "We're going national," Mell bellows. Next up? "The Deb and Dick Show," he jokes. "Dick and His Dyke-y daughter," Deborah, beaming, corrects her dad. Their relationship is earthy and easy.

Deborah Mell remembers as a kid walking down Michigan Avenue and thinking that passersby could tell she was a lesbian. "They hate me," she thought.

As candid as her well-known father, though not as profane, Deb Mell is drinking coffee, smoking a filtered Camel, fiddling with her bangs that need trimming, and talking about growing up gay.

A crew supervisor for a huge Chicago landscaping company, Mell looks like anybody's pretty daughter, aunt, wife wearing blue jeans that are baggy now, thanks to a gym regime that has helped her drop 23 pounds. This conversation is at a Formica table at The Melrose, a restaurant on Broadway, only a few blocks from the newsstand where the St. John Berchmans grade schooler first secretly read the gay paper.

"You know, its hard not to feel like a freak sometimes," she says.

In her early high school years at the all-girls St. Scholastica, Ald. Mell says, "She would have bouts of anger. She'd fly off the handle for certain things and I told her mother, `She's struggling with something.' . . . I said, `I think Debbie possibly is a lesbian.' So, I asked her mother, `You know, I want to talk to her about this' and her mother said, `No, no, maybe you shouldn't.' . . . She wanted Deborah to come to us. She thought if Deborah is [lesbian] she will tell us."

`I was dating women when I was in high school" -- three of them, all students with Deb at St. Scholastica. She assumes the key reason her father thought she was gay was because he found her making out with a girlfriend in the Mells' basement.

Ald. Mell doesn't remember it that way. "I didn't know they were making out. There were two of them downstairs watching television. I didn't put two and two together."

Some four years later there was this life-altering scene in that same basement TV room at the Mell house:

"It was between my freshman and sophomore year in college and I was upset over this girl." Crying, "I went down to the basement . . . to get away from everybody," Deborah Mell says.

"My mom came down and she just asked me outright. She said, `What is this about?' and I said, `You don't want to know,' and she said, `Is this about your sexuality?' and I said, "Yeah. Sort of. I guess. It's about a girl that I'm dating.'"

She says she doesn't recall her mother's precise, accepting words but she does remember that Marge Mell called to her older daughter, Patti, and her son, Rich, who were upstairs, asking them to join Deb and her mom in the basement.

Rich, 33, says, "It was such a serious [tone of voice] I thought something terrible had happened. . . . Gram was dead or something."

When Marge Mell told her other children that their sister is gay, Deb recalls, "My sister goes, `no big deal'" and her brother jokes, "As long as you don't hit on my girlfriends."

Says Deb Mell, "As far as coming out stories I think that was a pretty easy one."

The only person missing in the tale is Richard Mell himself. He heard about Deb's coming out from his wife, over the phone, while he was out of town. When her father returned home two days later, Deb vividly remembers, "I met him at the front door, he gave me a big hug and he said, `I knew about you a long time ago. It doesn't make any difference.'"

Richard Mell is not a man given to introspection or bouts of second-guessing, but when it comes to Deb and her gayness he accuses himself of missteps.

"The thing that bothers me the worst, the hardest part, is her thinking people hated her. I wasn't there for her," he says, his voice getting heavy, emotional. "No child should have to feel that way."

Besides not drawing his daughter out about her sexuality when he first suspected she was gay, "I made that stupid-ass vote that I regretted." It was July 29, 1986, the day before Deborah Mell's 18th birthday -- a year before she came out to her family -- when Richard Mell voted against a City Council gay-rights ordinance.

The proposal, to extend civil rights protections to homosexuals in housing, employment and public accommodations, lost 30-to-18. "I never looked at it as a gay issue. I looked at it as something that [Mayor] Harold Washington probably wanted to push. If Harold was for it, we were against it."

"I didn't realize . . . what it was about until the end when they [proponents in the audience] started singing `We Shall Overcome' and I said, `What did we just do here?'" Turning to Ald. Patrick O'Connor (40th), he said, "This is the worst vote I ever made in my life and I will never make that vote again."

Two and a half years later, more than a year after Deb Mell told her family she was gay, the "human rights" ordinance came before the City Council again. Mell was not at the Dec. 21, 1988, meeting and did not vote on the measure -- the culmination of a 15-year battle for gay rights. With the outcome in doubt, and after several days of lobbying by chief proponent Mayor Eugene Sawyer, it passed 28-17.

Mell was surprised when told that records show he was not at the meeting when the measure, which he supported, was approved. Asked why he wasn't there, Mell said, "I have no clue" but speculated he was already in Florida for the Christmas holidays.

A few years after graduating from Iowa's Cornell College, in the early 1990s, Deb Mell moved to California and lived for nearly a decade in San Francisco -- a city then and now at the forefront of gay and lesbian acceptance.

She attended culinary school there, lived in the Castro neighborhood -- the gay quarter -- and worked as a pastry chef at Masa's, one of the city's finest restaurants.

"I regret that Deb had to move to San Francisco to feel more comfortable with herself," the alderman says.

"There are seven basic desires . . . and one of them is to love and be loved, and when you have to almost be ashamed to hold someone's hand that you love," Ald.Mell says, trailing off.

Says his daughter, "I remember feeling afraid to live in Chicago and how unfair it was that I needed to go 2,000 miles away from my family, friends and hometown to feel comfortable."

"I always knew I needed to return to Chicago and become comfortable in my home town. . . . I want no one to feel they need to leave the people they love to be able to live their lives."

Four years ago, yearning for the familiar comfort of family, Deb moved back to Chicago, living for the first time here as "an out gay person -- on my own, working, living in my own place" in the 44th Ward, Boys Town, represented by Tom Tunney, the only openly gay member of the City Council.

Deborah Mell is just beginning to get used to her role as a well-connected political activist -- a role, after all, that is only a few months old. "Try to look as mainstream as possible. No short haircut, stuff like that," she says, only half kidding.

She can't point to any single trigger for her new activism and her gradual willingness to use her father and her governor brother-in-law to gain attention for the fight for gay marriage rights. For sure it was not immediate self-interest, since she currently is not dating anyone.

Both the alderman and the governor have tried to remedy that. Ald. Mell says, "I keep trying to fix her up all the time." And at an Equality Illinois dinner -- where Deborah Mell was seated between Mayor Daley and Illinois Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan -- Blagojevich pointed out from the speaker's podium that his sister-in-law is single, in her 30s, rides a motorcycle and has a tattoo. "I did my part," Blagojevich says wryly.

Deb got a standing ovation.

Incidentally, finding it "boring" to ride in the Midwestern flatlands, she later sold the motorcycle, a classic 1975 750cc Honda. The tattoo is a gold and orange male lion (she's a Leo) on her upper right arm.

As much as anything, Deborah Mell's activism was stirred by a lesbian cancer event she attended at South Shore Country Club earlier this year as the guest of her boss, Christy Webber, who runs a large city landscape business that bears her name and is active in the gay and lesbian community.

As Deb, Christy and her partner, Jennifer Rule, were leaving the fundraiser, Mell took a flier announcing the Valentine's Day gay marriage demonstration at the cardinal's house and thought "that's awesome."

She made her own fliers, posted them in her neighborhood and called her father -- knowing he's a magnet for media attention -- and asked if he would come with her to the event, her first protest. He almost didn't make it. Initially, he said he couldn't be there because he would be in Florida, fishing off Sanibel Island. But, when his plans changed, he said sure, he'd be there.

What prompted her to take this first public political stand -- a contrast with Vice President Dick Cheney's openly gay daughter, Mary, a close adviser to her father, who backs President Bush's call for a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage?

"I don't know," she says now, though surely the Feb. 4 Massachusetts court decision supporting same-sex marriage rights and the ensuing decision by San Francisco officials to issue marriage licenses to gay couples had a mobilizing effect.

The day after the event at the cardinal's house, HBO premiered its women's suffrage movie, "Iron Jawed Angels," which sort of flipped a switch for her. "It made me realize that one person can make a difference," she says.

Jazzed by the publicity for the cause generated by the Mells at the cardinal's house, Deb Mell showed up for a gay marriage demonstration at the "Today" show broadcasting from NBC's new Chicago storefront studio. Mell held a hand-printed sign, "Katie!! Will You Marry Me?" Katie Couric "looked right at me and smiled," Mell says.

A week later came Mell's biggest media hit when she was the only person arrested at a pro-gay marriage demonstration, charged with misdemeanor battery in a minor scuffle with a plainclothes female police officer. Mell says it was an accident as she ran into the street in an act of civil disobedience.

Ald. Mell, learning of his daughter's arrest, appeared at the rally after she had been taken to the police station. The video clip that ran repeatedly on television that night shows Mell, locks of silver hair blowing in the breeze, declaring, "I love my daughter, OK? My daughter believes fervently in a cause and she stands up for the cause and I will support anybody that does that."

In jail, one hand manacled to the wall and unaware of her father's appearance at the rally, dining on a police-issued baloney sandwich, Deb Mell says she was "hysterical" and especially worried what the alderman's reaction would be. "He's a parent. He's my father. I got arrested," she explains.

When she sees him at the police station, "He's got his arms out . . . and he grabs me and I'm crying and I think he's crying a little bit" -- he confirms that he was -- "and he keeps telling me, `You're a good daughter.'"

It was, she says, "A huge relief. Huge."

Ald. Mell bailed her out. "I told her, `You better not skip or I'll lose my $100.'" Since then, Mell has received many supportive letters and e-mails (and one piece of electronic hate mail). "I thought you were the perfect father in showing your support and stating your love for her," wrote Deb's St. Scholastica Spanish teacher.

Cook County Public Guardian Patrick Murphy, not a particular friend or fan of the alderman, praised Deb and Richard Mell in a letter that concluded, "The next generation will wonder what all the fuss was about. And two generations from now, they will be condemning the cruel discrimination directed at people because of a genetic predisposition." Of that letter, Ald. Mell says, "I had goose bumps."

Even the governor has been supportive of Deb Mell's activism, although he disagrees with her position. Despite Deb's lobbying, the governor hasn't budged from his view that marriage should be only "between a man and a woman" as specified by Illinois law. Ald. Mell has predicted that when opinion polls turn, so also will his son-in-law and other politicians opposed to same-sex marriage.

"I have more respect and admiration for her today than before she got involved in this issue because she's shown a willingness to put herself out on the line and fight for a cause she believes in," says Blagojevich. If Deb chose one day to get married in Canada, where same-sex marriage is legal, Blagojevich says, "I'm there, definitely. Excited." And he'll bring a gift -- "A good one!"

The governor supports domestic partnerships that offer some, but not all, the rights of marriage but he is non-committal on Vermont-style civil unions.

"Aunt Debbie" is the godmother of the Blagojevichs' two little daughters, Amy and Annie, and a frequent presence in their Chicago home.

Maine Gov. Baldacci signs bill creating domestic partnerships

AUGUSTA, Maine — As he signed a bill Wednesday creating domestic partnerships in Maine, Gov. John Baldacci said the state is demonstrating its commitment to civil rights by enacting a priority for gay-rights activists.

The new law, which takes effect 90 days after the signing, extends domestic partnership rights to heterosexual or gay adults who live together under long-term arrangements. It also gives domestic partners the same inheritance rights as a spouse when a married partner dies without a will.

"From the beginning, this has been about fairness and justice for what are today's families here in Maine, and giving them the same protections that certain married couples have already," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Ben Dudley, D-Portland.

The measure was a priority of the Maine Lesbian Gay Political Alliance, said the group's Betsy Smith, who also attended a bill-signing ceremony in the governor's office.

Some of Maine's families are gay and lesbian couples, and currently they don't have the same kinds of rights as those other families have, said Smith.

"This legislation is about people who die without a will," she added.

The new law will allow domestic partners to register with the state as such. Registered couples' partnerships could not be terminated without the consent of both parties.

They will also have priority for appointment as personal representatives, guardians or conservators for an estate or custodian of the remains of a deceased partner.

Congratulating the bill's advocates and sponsors, Baldacci said the bill shows "our state is a state that recognizes the importance of individual rights and civil rights for all citizens."

The gay-lesbian alliance lined up behind the bill after withdrawing a bill earlier that would extend civil rights to homosexuals under the Maine Human Rights Act.

Christian Civic League of Maine executive director Michael Heath said the bill will work to "destroy the family," which should consist of a mother and father who are committed for a lifetime.

California Supreme Court to hear San Francisco gay marriage case May 25

(04-28) 16:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The California Supreme Court plans to hear oral arguments May 25 on whether San Francisco's mayor had the authority to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

The seven-member court said Wednesday it would devote two hours to the arguments. Under court rules, the justices then must rule within 90 days.

The cases brought by Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the conservative Alliance Defense Fund focus almost exclusively on whether Mayor Gavin Newsom could issue same-sex marriage licenses by unilaterally declaring that such marriages should be lawful.

California law defines marriage as a union between a man and woman.

The high court stopped gay marriages at San Francisco's City Hall last month after 4,000 gays were wed, pending the outcome of the legal challenges.

Lockyer and the conservative group said upholding Newsom's actions would allow other government officials to subvert other laws.

The justices this month asked the parties whether they should nullify the roughly 4,000 marriages if they side against Newsom.

Lockyer has taken no position on gay marriage, but told the justices the marriages should be invalidated because Newsom overstepped his authority.

The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund agreed with Lockyer, but also disapproves of gay marriage.

For his part, Newsom said his interpretation of the California Constitution demanded that he issue the licenses.

Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea Affecting Gay Men

Drkoop.com


Powerful antibiotics called fluoroquinolones should no longer be used as a primary treatment for gonorrhea among gay and bisexual men, since the sexually transmitted disease has become increasingly resistant to the drugs, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced Thursday.

The affected class of drugs includes Cipro (cirprofloxacin) and Levaquin (levofloxacin). A CDC study in 23 American cities found that the percentage of resistant gonorrhea cases among gay and bisexual men nearly tripled between 2002 and 2003, from 1.8 percent to 4.9 percent.

Similar findings had been reported after regional studies centered in Massachusetts and New York, the agency said.

The CDC recommended that primary treatment options for gay and bisexual men now include the antibiotics ceftriaxone and spectinomycin. Given the low occurrence of drug-resistant gonorrhea among heterosexual men and women, the agency said it recommended no change in treatment options for these groups.

-----

Syphilis Awareness Video Launched to Help Curb Rising Incidence Rates in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa

OTTAWA – A new animated video called ‘Syphilis is Back’ has been released as part of an overall campaign to raise awareness of the need for increased vigilance when it comes to practicing safer sex. The video can be viewed online at , and it will also be distributed in all three cities through public health departments and venues such as information fairs, as well as in local saunas and bathhouses.


The campaign is in response to the rising number of new cases of syphilis in major cities across Canada, North America and Europe since 2001, particularly among gay and bisexual men. The campaign aims to highlight the fact that sexually active gay and bisexual men should include regular testing for syphilis as part of their sexual health routine.

“This is an exciting new community-based approach to the war on syphilis,” said Bruce Bursey, President of Pink Triangle Services (PTS), one of the lead agencies spearheading the campaign.
“All aspects of the campaign, including the video Public Service Announcement, feature culturally appropriate messaging developed in a unique collaboration with public health officials and representatives of the gay community in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa,” he said.

Produced with support from Health Canada, and the cities of Ottawa and Montreal, the video represents the combined efforts of the many players in the public health communities of all three cities, including the AIDS Committees of Toronto and Ottawa, Sero Zero, and the Cities of Montreal and Ottawa.

The video first aired as part of the Making Scenes Film Festival in Ottawa last fall, and it will air to a national audience from May to September on PrideVision TV. Print versions of the campaign messages in the style of a comic book strip will also appear in key publications popular with gay communities.

Syphilis is easily cured and the test is free. So there is no reason not to get tested. Regular testing will keep transmission low, reducing the risk for everyone. For more information on testing call the Healthy Sexuality Information Line: 563-2437.

- 30 -


For more information, please view the attached backgrounder or contact:
Maura Volante at Pink Triangle Services, 563-7201
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2004.08.03

INFECTIOUS SYPHILIS ON THE RISE IN OTTAWA

The Facts:

Since January of 2001, we have seen a constant increase in the number of infectious syphilis cases in the City of Ottawa. A total of six cases occurred in 2001, 16 in 2002 and 25 in 2003. Most of the cases detected in the region have occurred in men who have had sexual contact with another man. The increase in infectious syphilis occurring in Ottawa is similar to a trend of increasing rates being seen over many parts of Canada, the United States and Europe.

What is Syphilis:

Syphilis is a bacterial infection and is easily transmitted by oral, vaginal, penile or anal sexual contact. The infection is initially marked by the appearance of a highly contagious and painless ulcer called a chancre at the site of entry, usually the penis, mouth or rectum. If not treated, infectious skin rashes, wart-like growths on the genitals or lesions in the mouth may appear. Rashes and lesions go away on their own, but the person is still infected and can pass the infection on to others for up to two years. For this reason, infection can spread undetected in the population.

If syphilis is not detected and treated, the infected individual may go on to develop severe heart and brain infections many years later.

The Three Stages of Syphilis:

In Stage One, a painless sore may appear at the site where the bacteria that causes syphilis first enters the body. This appears usually nine to 90 days after sexual contact with an infected person. These sores often go unnoticed, and will disappear on their own if not treated, but the infection is still active.

In Stage Two, a few months later, an infected person may have flu-like symptoms. Sometimes a rash appears on the palms of the hands and the soles of the feet, or over the whole body. Symptoms may go away, but the infection remains.

Stage Three is the final stage. If not treated, syphilis can:
ß attack the brain and heart leading to loss of hearing and sight, stroke, paralysis and death.
ß affect one’s immune function.
ß increase the risk of getting HIV.
ß be passed from an infected mother to her baby.

Who Should Get Tested for Syphilis:

Risk of infection is greatest for those who are sexually active. The majority of cases detected in Ottawa currently have been diagnosed in men who have had sexual contact with other men.

Test for Syphilis:

A blood test can effectively diagnose syphilis. A screening test called VDRL is used to screen individuals at risk. When the screening test is positive, a confirmatory test called MHA-TP, FTA-ABS is also done. The test should be repeated on a routine basis every three to six months for those who continue to be at risk.

Anyone who thinks they may have been exposed to syphilis, should request VDRL and MHA-TP, FTA-ABS to ensure the earliest possible diagnosis.

Treatment of Syphilis:

Once diagnosed, syphilis is treated and cured with antibiotics.
Contact: AIDS-Sexual Health Info Line 563-2437

Gay bishop proves it's never too late to fall in love; With grandson in attendance, 78-year-old cleric marries same-sex partner

Rona Marech, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, April 29, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle


The ceremony lasted two hours and 45 minutes. When it concluded, Otis Charles, the world's first openly gay Christian bishop, also became the world's first bishop to wed his same-sex partner in church.

Charles, an Episcopal bishop, married Felipe Sanchez Paris before several hundred people at St. Gregory's of Nyssa Episcopal Church in San Francisco over the weekend. The bishop says he was guided by his belief that all human beings are called upon to live as fully as they can.

That same precept guided him in 1993 when, at age 67, he announced he was gay.

"The single most powerful possibility for raising people's awareness and consciousness would be when in the church relationships are being blessed," said Charles, who turned 78 on his wedding day. "When people see that two human beings want to commit their lives together and are able to do that and have the desire to do that with the blessing of God.

"My 8-year-old grandson was there, and I think of what the world will be like when young people see two people can make a deep commitment to each other, and it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with love."

A grand total of four different clergy helped officiate the wedding, which began with drumming and ended when Charles and Paris were lifted in chairs and carried outside. The ceremony included singing, dancing and opportunities for the guests and the betrothed to give impromptu speeches. Three of the couple's nine grown children participated in the wedding, welcoming the new spouse into the family by placing a lei around his neck.

David Perry, one of the best men, read from the poem "The Truelove" by David Whyte.

"If you wanted to drown you could," he read. "But you don't."

"I could barely get through it," Perry said. "This man had lived his life in fear of drowning and now he said, 'I'm tired of drowning.' "

Charles, who served as bishop of Utah for 15 years and then president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass., was married for 42 years and has five children. He told his wife he was gay in 1976, but he didn't come out publicly until he retired 11 years ago.

For years, Charles said, he told himself it would be too hard on the diocese, on his family, on his wife. But then keeping his secret became unbearably oppressive.

"I was ashamed of myself for remaining silent when the church was involved in an acrimonious debate about the whole question of gay people in the life of the church. I couldn't live with that any longer," he said. "I came to realize that I was only going to wither and die and it would be a destructive relationship for my wife and myself."

In a letter to fellow bishops, Charles wrote, "I will not remain silent, invisible, unknown."

The Episcopal Church continues to be highly divided over the issue of gay priests and same-sex marriage. Last year, in a hotly debated election, Gene Robinson, an openly gay priest, became bishop of New Hampshire. The church had long held that it was possible to ordain gay priests, as long as they were celibate, but Robinson's election created a furor because he has a longtime partner. Robinson and Charles are the only two openly gay bishops to this day.

The question of whether to bless same-sex unions has also caused some internal strife: Though such unions aren't officially encouraged, the church has acknowledged that in some dioceses, officiating such ceremonies is common practice.

Charles and his wife ended their marriage soon after his public announcement. Nearly 70 and unsure "how to be gay," Charles moved to San Francisco. For the first year, he lived among Episcopal Franciscans and began to build a new life.

"What was nurturing was just simple things," he said. "Walking down the street seeing a rainbow flag or two men holding hands."

He directed a gay ministry. He went dancing. He had openly gay friends.

"At whatever age you come out, you have to live through whatever you've missed," he said. "Even though you're 67, you have to go through a process I associate with adolescence. Hopefully, you do it with a little more maturity and grace."

Two years ago, after some relationship fits and starts, he met Paris, 62, a retired professor and political organizer with four ex-wives and four children.

And the white-haired bishop fell in love.

"As people get older, they turn into two kinds. Some become thinner and wispier, and the lifeblood has gone out of them because they have regrets and there are some things you can't do anymore," said the Rev. Leng Lim, a friend who's also an Episcopalian priest. "Or there are people who become really alive to the moment, to the vulnerability that is there, to the love. Because they've worked through their own stuff. And Otis belongs to that second group. "

Several days after marrying, the couple took turns recounting the details of their wedding. True to form, Charles shed his bishop-like pensiveness and hopped out of his chair to sing and demonstrate a dance.

"See what I mean by energy?" said Paris, who has a habit of pausing mid- sentence to smile.

Charles is rarely at a loss for words, but reflecting on what had passed he said, "I don't think I can describe it, but I do feel different."

He touched his chest and stared at Paris for a long time.

"So," he said softly.

E-mail Rona Marech at rmarech@sfchronicle.com

MA Clerks have tradition of ignoring marriage eligibility rules

BOSTON City and town clerks in Massachusetts, who soon will face the prospect of dealing with same-sex couples asking for a marriage license, have a track record of ignoring marriage-eligibility regulations, according to state records.

Department of Public Health documents provided to The Boston Globe show that the state repeatedly instructed the clerks to facilitate marriages, rather than enforce laws that might prohibit them, such as the residency requirement. Some of the documents, the Globe reported on Wednesday, explicitly instruct clerks not to check on marriage applicants' legal status and residency.

"The oath they take after filling out their intentions affirms that the information they've provided is true to the best of their knowledge," says a 1995 Health Department memo outlining general policies and procedures for granting marriage licenses across the state. "Otherwise, they will have committed perjury. However, it is not the clerk's job to prevent them from committing perjury. Your job is to assist them in getting married."

Elsewhere, the document reads: "A clerk CANNOT AND MUST NOT question the citizenship or legal status of a marriage applicant," "DO NOT ROUTINELY ASK FOR BIRTH RECORDS OR OTHER PROOF OF AGE," and "DO NOT, HOWEVER, ASK FOR PROOF OF DIVORCE."

A former Health Department registrar said the state was seeking to impose a uniform policy, and did not want the clerks to be required to store and maintain a high volume of the paperwork required to prove couples were eligible for marriage licenses.

But the release of the documents comes as Gov. Mitt Romney seeks to use the residency requirement to block marriages by out-of-state gay couples. The Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the state must begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couple on May 17.

Romney and state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly say a 1913 law prohibits Massachusetts from performing marriages that would be void in other states. Romney has reinstated the requirement that city and town clerks ask for proof of residency from marriage-license applicants.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, said the governor cannot choose which laws to enforce or ignore.

"I can't speak to what previous administrations have done or said, but I can tell you the (SJC) decision changed everything," Fehrnstrom said. "It changed the definition of marriage, it changed the way the new marriage forms look and it changed the way city and town clerks will carry out the requirements of the law. We intend to enforce the law."

Romney has asked the high court for a stay of gay marriages, and the state Legislature recently approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which would simultaneously legalize civil unions if approved by voters in November 2006.

MAINE TAKES STEP TOWARD EQUALITY WITH DOMESTIC PARTNER BILL

"The people of Maine are a step closer to full equality," said HRC
President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON - The Maine Legislature took a step toward equality Tuesday
by passing a domestic partnership registry bill. The measure (LD 1579)
provides inheritance rights, next-of-kin status, victim's compensation,
and guardian and conservator rights to domestic partners. Gov. John
Baldacci is expected to sign the measure shortly.

"The people of Maine are a step closer to full equality," said Human
Rights Campaign President Cheryl Jacques. "More than 6,000 Mainers now
have access to important legal protections in the event that their
same-sex partner dies. While states like Virginia and Oklahoma recently
passed anti-family bills, Maine is moving forward toward giving every
family equal rights and responsibilities."

This measure passed the House on April 12 with an 84 to 58 vote and the
Senate on April 27, with an 18 to 14 vote. If the governor signs the
bill, Maine will become the fifth state to pass statewide laws that
provide rights to unmarried couples (for a map, visit:
www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagem
ent/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16305).

"The Senate's enactment vote on this bill reaffirms what we believe is
the responsibility of our elected officials in Augusta - to ensure that
ALL Maine citizens are treated fairly and equally under the law," said
Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine (formerly Maine
Lesbian Gay Political Alliance).

HRC supported Equality Maine extensively to secure this victory,
including: help on drafting the measure and its amendments, legislative
analysis, e-mail Action Alerts to supporters in Maine, advice on
political strategy, lobby trainings and $15,500 in Equality Fund grants
during the last four years.

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.

Kansas Lawmakers Reopen Same-Sex Marriage Debate, Gay Marriage Supporter: 'Taliban Would Be Proud' Of Move

TheKansasCityChannel.com

TOPEKA, Kan. -- Legislative leaders resurrected a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution on Wednesday that would ban gay marriage and prevent the state from granting any other legal recognition to same-sex couples.

Support Gay Marriage Ban In Kansas? Do you support an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would ban same-sex marriage? Thanks for taking part in our informal survey. Check back later for updated results. Yes No I'm not sure Those leaders took the unusual step of appointing negotiators from each chamber to draft a final version of the proposed amendment, even though the Senate rejected a version a month ago. Typically, negotiations occur only after both chambers have passed different versions of the same legislation.

"I think the marriage amendment is going to find new life," said Sen. Derek Schmidt, R-Independence, one of the negotiators appointed Wednesday.

In early March, the House adopted a proposed constitutional amendment both banning gay marriage and preventing the state from granting legal recognition -- or even granting benefits normally associated with marriage -- to same-sex couples.

Senators rewrote that proposal so that it simply banned gay marriage and did not mention civil unions or other rights associated with marriage. Senators who supported the House proposal balked, saying the rewritten measure was too weak, and it failed.

Since then, ministers and other supporters of the House proposal have been hoping public pressure will persuade senators to adopt the House's language.

"It's an effort to bring various groups together," Senate President Dave Kerr, R-Hutchinson, said after appointing its chamber's negotiators. "We'll see whether it works or not."

The legislative leaders' plan centers on a minor resolution asking Congress to rewrite federal voter registration laws, which has passed both chambers in different versions. Negotiators are supposed to take that resolution, strip it of its contents and insert the proposed amendment on marriage.

If the negotiators can reach a compromise, their proposal will go to both chamber for an up-or-down vote, with no opportunity to propose changes.

"We'd like to give the Senate a chance to redeem themselves," said Rep. Bill Mason, R-El Dorado, the House's chief negotiator, a supporter of banning gay marriage and civil unions. "They missed an opportunity to do great things for the state."

But Sen. David Adkins, the only member of his chamber to publicly declare his support for gay marriage, decried the attempt to revive a proposed amendment. He said the effort was to "create a group of second-class citizens, without hearings, in the most despicable and antidemocratic way possible."

"The Taliban would be proud of these procedures," said Adkins, R-Leawood.

Asked about the procedure planned, Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, the lead negotiator for his chamber, said: "It's in accordance with the rules."

Kansas already has a law that says the state will recognize only marriages between one man and one woman. The proposed amendment is a response to a November decision by Massachusetts' highest court, declaring it unconstitutional in that state to prohibit gay marriage.

Massachusetts did not have a "defense of marriage law" like Kansas, but proponents of the amendment to the Kansas Constitution contend it will prevent state courts from striking down the Kansas statute. Also, they say the amendment would support long-cherished values and families.

Some critics -- such as Adkins -- have said the proposal would write discrimination in to the state constitution. Others, including some senators, have said going beyond a simple ban on gay marriage invites a legal challenge in federal court.

Schmidt predicted the negotiators will draft a proposal close to the House's version because senators have yet to take a recorded vote on a measure that includes both a gay marriage ban and prohibition on civil unions.

"There have been loud demands to vote on the House language," Schmidt said.

But Sen. Greta Goodwin, D-Winfield, another negotiator said, "I don't know what direction we're going to go."

The gay marriage ban is HCR 5033. The new vehicle for the measure is HCR 5005.

Romney Won't Let Gay Outsiders Wed in Massachusetts

By PAM BELLUCK

OSTON, April 24 — Same-sex couples who live outside Massachusetts will not be able to marry in Massachusetts when gay marriage becomes legal here next month, Gov. Mitt Romney said.

"Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage," Mr. Romney said in an interview on Friday. "We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation."

The governor's decision could mean disappointment for thousands of couples from all over the country who had planned to marry when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage.

Mr. Romney said he was basing his decision on a 48-word law, adopted in 1913, which says that the state cannot marry an out-of-state couple if their marriage would be "void" in their home state. He says he plans to enforce his interpretation of the law by rewriting the application forms necessary for a marriage license, requiring evidence, for example, of where a couple lives or plans to live.

For weeks, gay marriage advocates and opponents have sparred over the meaning of the 1913 law, the number of states it applied to and whether town clerks should be required to enforce it when same-sex marriages begin in Massachusetts on May 17.

In the interview, Mr. Romney, a Republican, indicated that he was interpreting the law to have the broadest possible reach, extending even to states that do not have statutes explicitly banning same-sex marriage.

"Our current laws, as they exist, limit same-sex marriage to people from jurisdictions where such marriage would be legal," Mr. Romney said. "And our understanding is that same-sex marriage is only legal in Massachusetts. And therefore, by definition, only people who reside in Massachusetts or intend to reside in Massachusetts would be able to be married under this provision."

Mr. Romney said that in a few days he would send letters to the governors and attorneys general of every state to "indicate to them that it's our understanding that same-sex marriage is prohibited in their state, but if that's wrong, please inform us."

If a governor or attorney general informs him that same-sex couples can marry in that state, Mr. Romney said, then "we can inform our clerks that they may proceed with marrying individuals from their state."

It seems unlikely that any state would be able to say that at the moment. Thirty-nine states have passed so-called defense-of-marriage acts, which stipulate that marriage is between a man and a woman. Three other states — Maryland, New Hampshire and Wyoming — have laws precluding same-sex marriage. And seven states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, make no specific reference to same-sex couples in their laws.

Gay rights advocates, including Mary Bonauto, the lawyer who in November persuaded Massachusetts' highest court to legalize gay marriage, said that the 1913 law, which was created in part to prohibit interracial marriage, was archaic and discriminatory.

"From our perspective, Massachusetts has no legal justification at all for catering to discriminatory laws of other states, particularly where it has itself already declared that barring same-sex marriages is unconstitutional," Ms. Bonauto said. "It is clear that this law has been all but a dead letter. It's rooted in discriminatory impulses and is now being dusted off for further discrimination against gay people."

Ms. Bonauto said that at most, the law would prevent the marriage of couples from the roughly 20 states where laws specifically say that a same-sex marriage would be "void." She said it would not, for example, apply to states like Alabama or Michigan, where the law says a same-sex marriage is "invalid," or Illinois, where the law says same-sex marriages are "prohibited."

"I really think the governor's painting with far too broad a brush in his interpretation," Ms. Bonauto said. "In any law the precise language used matters a great deal."

Three state legislators, Democrats from liberal Massachusetts communities, sponsored a bill this week to repeal the law, saying it was discriminatory and was superseded by the Supreme Judicial Court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. But Mr. Romney, in the interview, pointed to a footnote affirming the 1913 law that was included in the opinion of one of the four justices who voted to establish gay marriage.

To enforce his legal counsel's interpretation of the law, Mr. Romney's administration has come up with new state forms that couples will have to fill out to get a marriage license. The new application, which replaces "bride" and "groom" with "Party A" and "Party B," asks questions not on the current form.

It asks, for example, whether those applying to marry were previously joined in a civil union or domestic partnership, and if so, whether those unions were dissolved. Mr. Romney said his legal team was still researching whether a couple could marry if one partner was joined in a civil union with someone else.

To deal with out-of-state couples, the application asks for "evidence of where a person resides and intends to continue to reside," and says such evidence can include a utility bill, an automobile registration or real estate documents. The application also warns out-of-state couples that if they do not actually intend to move to Massachusetts, their marriage "shall be null and void."

Town and city clerks will be in charge of deciding which evidence to accept and must sign the application, indicating they are "satisfied with the documentary evidence presented."

Mr. Romney acknowledged that such a system might lead some clerks to accept false evidence or to not require evidence, granting a marriage license to couples with no intention of moving here.

At least one town clerk, David Rushford of Worcester, said earlier this month that he would defy rules that asked him to demand evidence of intent to move to Massachusetts. "I wouldn't even ask them," Mr. Rushford said. "I don't feel we should be challenging people on whether they intend to become Massachusetts residents or not."

Mr. Romney said he expected the clerks to "make a good-faith effort to follow the law," and if they did not, the state might discipline them or even take steps to remove them from their jobs.

Ms. Bonauto questioned whether the governor was legally able to require proof of residency, which is not required on the current marriage license application.

Mr. Romney said he was not trying to be discriminatory. "I'm doing my best to follow" a law that was not created with same-sex marriage in mind, he said.

He said his main motivation was to protect a same-sex couple's children if the couple separated and "one or the other of them would stand up and say, `Hey, I don't owe you any alimony, I don't owe this child any child support because the marriage was null and void to begin with.' "

He said that in training sessions next month, the clerks would be told that "if they don't make a good-faith effort to follow the law, the people who are punished by that are not the governor, not the opponents of same-sex marriage, but rather the children born to those unions or adopted to those unions."

Ms. Bonauto said Mr. Romney's decision "makes litigation inevitable. It forces a crisis for other people that will have to be responded to."

Two out-of-state couples interviewed, one from New Jersey and one from Michigan, said they would try to marry in Massachusetts anyway.

Alison Greene, 43, and her partner of 14 years, Carmen Roundtree, 45, who live in Maplewood, N.J., said they planned to try for a license in Massachusetts a few days after May 17 and would join a lawsuit challenging the 1913 law if necessary.

"In my opinion it's just wrong, and I would attempt to defy that," Ms. Roundtree said.

Lucy Mercier, 41, and her partner of 12 years, Linda Campbell, 55, who live in Flint, Mich., said they would seriously consider claiming that they plan to move to Massachusetts when they apply for a marriage license.

"We're going to Massachusetts anyway," Ms. Mercier said, when asked about the 1913 law. "We're going to go anyway and present ourselves at the city clerk's office."

Political analysts have said that Mr. Romney, elected in a state with nearly three registered Democrats for every registered Republican, often seems to be trying to appeal to two different audiences. There is the home front, where his approach and style are generally those of a political moderate. And there is the national stage, where Mr. Romney, a former head of the Olympic organizing committee who is often mentioned as a potential national candidate, seems to emphasize a more conservative side.

Mr. Romney's approach to gay marriage would seem to fit right into that framework. His stance that no out-of-state residents can marry in Massachusetts should appeal to conservatives outside his state. But some of the mechanics — for example, that town clerks have discretion about determining residency and residential intent — help him avoid appearing polarizing or dogmatic in his home state, where most people would probably not like to see town clerks punished for letting out-of-state same-sex couples marry.

But while Mr. Romney opposes gay marriage and civil unions, he has repeatedly said he will enforce state law and has rejected unlawful tactics to stall or impede same-sex marriage. He said clerks would also face discipline if they refused to issue marriage licenses to in-state same-sex couples.

Mr. Romney has been trying to find a way to delay the start date for gay marriage, arguing that the marriages should not begin until voters have a chance to approve a constitutional amendment banning them in November 2006 at the earliest. After the Legislature gave preliminary approval to the amendment last month, Mr. Romney asked the Legislature to give him emergency authority to ask the state court to stay gay marriages for two and a half years. But with time running out, the Democratic-controlled Legislature has shown little interest in giving Mr. Romney that authority. And even if it did, the court is unlikely to order a stay, legal experts say.

Gay refugee claimants seeking haven in Canada

By MARINA JIMENEZ
From Saturday's Globe and Mail


Canada is seeing a surge in the number of refugee claimants who say they are homosexuals and will be persecuted if they are returned to their homelands.

In the past three years, nearly 2,500 people from 75 different countries have sought asylum on the basis of sexual orientation, according to information released under the Access to Information Act.

It is not known how many have been allowed to stay in Canada; the Immigration and Refugee Board does not track acceptance rates by case type.

The surge in applications is being driven both by bogus claims and a growing view of Canada as a haven for persecuted homosexuals, refugee experts say.

The largest number came from Mexico, with 602, and Costa Rica, with 276 — both democracies with thriving homosexual communities, annual Gay Pride Day parades and websites offering everything from gay weddings to gay tour operators.

Many claimants also come from Muslim countries, where homosexuality is outlawed, while a small number hail from Ireland, Britain, the United States and even the Netherlands, one of the few countries to legalize gay marriage.

Although claims on the basis of sexual orientation have been permitted since 1994 when the Supreme Court of Canada broadened the definition of social group to include homosexuals, immigration lawyers say they have seen a surge of cases of this nature in the past three years.

"People who come from relatively peaceful countries tend to grasp at straws in terms of advancing refugee claims," said Max Berger, a Toronto immigration lawyer who has represented dozens of Pakistani gay claims in the past year.

"With gay cases, it is harder to disprove. If you are making political or religious claims, you need corroborating documents from a mosque or political party. But with gay cases, they rely more on oral testimony. It is easier to advance a bogus case."

For a case to succeed, the person must first convince an IRB panel they are homosexual, and then prove they will face persecution in their homeland as a result.

Armando Ramos, spokesman for the Mexican consul in Toronto, says he has met many Mexican men who told him they lied about their sexual orientation to make refugee claims in Canada. "They are clearly taking advantage of the system, and giving Mexico a bad name," he said.

"I met with the Homosexual Latin American Association of Toronto and they are very upset about the poseurs and say immigration officials won't believe the real gays who need protection."

The IRB received so many cases from self-professed Costa Rican homosexuals, it issued jurisprudential guidelines last year, concluding that homosexuals do not face persecution in Costa Rica. The overall acceptance rate for Costa Rica's 1,833 claimants last year was just 2 per cent.

The country is now the fifth-largest refugee source country, behind Pakistan, with 4,257 claims in 2003; Mexico, with 2,560; Colombia with 2,131; and China with 1,840. The over all acceptance rate for Mexicans was 27 per cent.

Of the 602 Mexican claims made between January, 2000, and December, 2003, on the basis of sexual orientation, 71 were accepted, 67 were rejected, 415 await hearings and 50 were abandoned or withdrawn.

Michael Battista, a gay immigration lawyer, says many of the gay Mexicans he has represented are HIV-positive and have trouble getting jobs and medical care back home. "These cases tend to have a higher acceptance rate," he said.

El-Farouk Khaki, a Toronto immigration lawyer who also has a large gay Mexican clientele, says many have been granted asylum. A 2003 report by the Washington-based World Policy Institute notes that despite human-rights codes outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, abuse of gays by local officials does exist in some parts of Mexico.

Other countries with a high number of claims on the basis of sexual orientation include Pakistan, with 126 claims in the past three years, Nigeria with 152 and Hungary with 94. In Nigeria, homosexual acts are illegal and in Pakistan, those caught engaging in "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" may be stoned to death.

Mr. Berger says about half the gay Pakistani claimants he has represented in the past year have been successful. One recent client, Iftikhar Ahmad Shahbaz, fled Pakistan after a fundamental religious group called the Sipah-e-Sahaba beat him several times, destroyed his business and looted his cash box.

"I fear for my life in Pakistan where I cannot safely live as a homosexual male," said Mr. Shahbaz, 26, a shop owner who awaits a hearing.

Robert Moorhouse, who has represented more than 60 gay refugee claimants over the years, says the area is a very complex one. "I used to call it Gay 101. Immigration and Refugee Board members ask claimants what day the Gay Pride parade was on, where the gay bars in Toronto are located and whether they were in a relationship," Mr. Moorhouse said. "But what does that prove? Members have to have gaydar [gay radar], and rely on their gut instinct. But it is also a subjective area."

Mr. Ramos acknowledged that Latin machismo as well as the conservative influence of the Roman Catholic Church are still pervasive in Mexico, but said homosexuals are not systematically persecuted. The beach resort of Cancun offers an annual gay festival, while a host of guidebooks offer detailed listings of gay-friendly bars and baths.

Charles Hawkins, the IRB spokesman, notes that credibility is a key issue in refugee cases, and that IRB members do not prejudge claims based on country of origin or case type.

MA Gov. Romney chides Legislature on gay marriage

Boston Globe, April 24, 2004


By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff
Governor Mitt Romney suggested yesterday that the Legislature's proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is merely a facade, because lawmakers refuse to allow him to go before the state's high court and seek a stay of the landmark Nov. 18 ruling that legalized same-sex matrimony.
Although lawmakers passed the amendment last month, it must be passed again in the next legislative session and win approval at the ballot box in the November 2006 general election before it can become law.
That means that gay marriage will be legal in this state for at least the next 2 1/2 years.
"I'm wondering whether the first step they took, which was to pass an amendment, was a facade or was it a real effort to limit marriage to a relationship between man and a woman," Romney said. "If it is a real effort with real intent, then the Legislature will give me the occasion to reach the Supreme Court and ask for a stay. Otherwise, we will have same-sex marriage in Massachusetts without a decision of the people."
Romney ratcheted up his rhetoric a day after the Senate, under the leadership of President Robert E. Travaglini, refused to consider an emergency bill the governor filed earlier this month seeking special power to go before the Supreme Judicial Court to seek a stay of its ruling before it goes into effect on May 17.
When Romney filed his bill, the House speaker, Thomas M. Finneran, pledged to hold a hearing on the bill and invited Romney to testify on the measure.
Romney singled out the Senate yesterday in his attack on the Legislature: "I again call on both branches of the Legislature, in particular, the Senate. I believe the House is moving on that front."
Yesterday, a spokeswoman for Travaglini, Ann Dufresne, said the Senate has no intention of looking back, despite Romney's attempt to portray the Senate as insincere in its effort to outlaw gay marriage.
"We moved on to the budget," Dufresne said. "We have had four days of intense debate at the constitutional convention, and we have turned our full focus onto other, more pressing matters."
Romney, a Republican and an ardent opponent of same-sex marriage, filed his bill after Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly, a Democrat, refused to appoint a special attorney general to ask the SJC to stay its ruling.
Earlier this week, the Catholic Action League, which opposes gay marriage, attempted to step in where Romney couldn't, petitioning the court to stay its ruling.
Reilly filed an opposition brief yesterday that called the Action League's petition "an impermissible collateral attack by a nonparty without standing" in the gay marriage case that led to the court's historic ruling, Goodridge v. Department of Public Health.
"There is no jurisdictional or procedural basis for such an attack stated in the petition, nor is any basis apparent," the brief said.
Romney sought yesterday to distance himself from the Catholic Action League's maneuver, however, saying he believed that his own strategy was the only reasonable way to block gay marriages from taking place on May 17.
"Other citizens are certainly entitled to pursue those avenues which they feel they want, but I'm not involved in any way with those other efforts," Romney said.
While Romney was quick to file emergency legislation seeking authority to go before the SJC, he has declined to take a position on whether to rescind a controversial 1913 state law that blocks out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be disallowed in their home state.
The law has set off debate recently, because Romney has indicated it would prohibit most out-of-state gay couples from being eligible to marry here. In addition, the law is controversial, because it is rooted in part in efforts to protect historical bans on interracial marriages.
A small group of Democratic House members has filed a bill to abolish the law.
In its 1912 report urging passage of the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws said: "If several states could be induced to adopt the same prohibitions, whether as to marriage with a paramour, or marriage between a white and a negro . . . then of course by adopting this proposed act uniformity could be attained."
It goes on to state, "As to marriages against the public policy of any state, e.g., . . . between a white and a colored person," the act will "give full effect to the prohibitory laws of each state."
Asked if he were reconsidering his determination to uphold the law, given the revelations that the statute was passed in part to uphold a ban on interracial marriage, Romney reiterated his intention to "fulfill the law as it exists" when May 17 rolls around. "In our system, the law is not a choice which a governor makes as to which law to follow and which not," Romney said. "My job is to execute the laws."

The gay wild kingdom: Yes, some animals are homosexual

Toronto Globe & Mail, April 24, 2004

The gay wild kingdom: Yes, some animals are homosexual, and studies of rams and zebra finches suggest that sexual orientation is established very early in development.
By Paul Taylor
Rams, with their big horns and head-butting behaviour, have long been considered a potent symbol of masculine virility. And if you happen to be a sheep rancher, you want your rams to do their stuff when it's breeding season, or else you're not going to have any baby lambs in the spring.
But ranchers have occasionally found that their prized rams just didn't perform. So, for more than a decade, scientists at a remote sheep experiment station in Dubois, Idaho, have been trying to figure out why some rams are "duds."
At first, the researchers examined sperm counts and hormone levels, but they found nothing unusual. However, when they applied a little animal psychology, they concluded the non-performing rams were, to put it in human terms, gay.
"You can have the best sperm in the world, but if you are not interested in inseminating females, it is not going to get delivered," said Anne Perkins, who worked at the sheep station in the early 1990s. She found that 8 to 10 per cent of the rams would shun willing females and try to mount other males.
The gay rams aren't alone. "There is homosexual behaviour throughout the animal kingdom, documented all over the place," ranging from lesbian macaque monkeys in the forests of Japan to gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York, noted Prof. Perkins, who is now chairwoman of the psychology department at Carroll College in Montana.
As animal researchers delve deeper into the gay wild kingdom, their findings are bound to spill into the emotionally charged debate about what drives human sexuality.
And the sheep at the experiment station in Idaho are continuing to provide evidence that sexual preference is biologically determined, possibly before birth.
By studying brain samples from the sheep, researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland recently discovered distinct difference in the brains of "gay" and "straight" sheep.
In particular, they found that a densely packed cluster of cells in a region of the hypothalamus that plays a role in sexual behaviour was "significantly larger" in rams that preferred females compared with the male-oriented rams.
More than a decade ago, Simon LeVay, a neuroscientist based in San Francisco, made headlines when he published a study that purported to show differences in the hypothalamus region of the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men.
Skeptics initially challenged Prof. LeVay's work. They noted that some of the brain samples had come from men who had died of AIDS and they suggested that the disease, or other factors, might have been responsible for the brain differences.
Now, the study of disease-free sheep brains appears to lend credence to Prof. LeVay's finding in humans. "Our research, for that reason, is important," said Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology at Oregon Health & Science University.
Indeed, his study of sheep brains has provided even more clues about sexual orientation. The brains of homosexual rams contained less aromatase than the brains of the heterosexual ones. Aromatase is an enzyme required for testosterone to work – and testosterone plays a critical role in male sexual arousal.
Prof. Roselli thinks that the brain differences in the sheep, and possibly in humans, arise during fetal development. Various studies indicated that the testes of the male fetus release testosterone at a critical period of brain development when sexual preference is being established.
"The testosterone exposure helps to maintain more cells in the area [governing sexual preference], so that later in life they can function in their adult capacity," Prof. Roselli said.
But in rams that prefer other males, this hormonal exposure was somehow disrupted and "they were incompletely masculinized," he speculates.
Some researchers have been able to change the sexual orientation of animals by altering the hormonal milieu during fetal growth. Elizabeth Adkins-Regan, a professor of psychology and neurobiology at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y, has focused her attention on the sexual development of zebra finches.
She has injected certain hormones into incubating eggs and produced female zebra finches that preferred other females. The females even grew "substantial quantities" of testicular tissue.
But Prof. Adkins-Regan didn't have to go so far as to inject hormones into incubating eggs to shake up the normal sexual order of things. Just removing all the adult males from the nesting colony did the trick. She noted that zebra finches tend to form lasting pair bonds with both males and females, sharing nearly equally in parental care, including the incubation and feeding of the chicks.
When Prof. Adkins-Regan removed all the adult male finches after the chicks were hatched, the birds grew up without a defined sexual preference. "They were content with either sex as a partner. So social experience is playing a role," she noted.
Can the social lessons gleaned from the study of zebra finches be applied to humans? In other words, could raising children in the absence of male or female role models shape their sexual preferences? Prof. Adkins-Regan doubts it, simply because zebra finches and humans are very different creatures. "The zebra finch is a species in which the birds pair for life," she noted. The same can't be said for humans. "We don't have any deep evolutionary history of having pair bonds."
What all the new research does suggest is that sexual orientation is established very early in development – and, once it is established, it is set for life. "I don't think you could find a scientist who would say it's a learned behaviour – we are so past that," Prof. Perkins said.
The hot new fields of research involve factors that might influence the developing fetus – including genetics, diet, chemical exposures and even maternal stress during pregnancy.
Yet researchers readily admit they have a hard time figuring out how homosexual behaviour fits into the classic Darwinian theory of evolution. "It's difficult for some people to accept that animals would have sex with the same sex, if it doesn't result in procreation," because the behaviour essentially represents an evolutionary dead end, Prof. Perkins said.
And it raises the possibility that animals might be doing it just because it feels good.
Paul Vasey, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, has been trying to solve the riddle by studying Japanese macaques.
Virtually all the females of this primate species are bisexual, regularly switching between male and female sexual partners.
He speculates that way back in the evolutionary history of the species, the females learned to mount the males in order to attract or maintain their attention.
The females will still hop on top of the males, often stimulating themselves by rubbing their clitoris with their tails or against the backs of the males, Prof. Vasey said. More often than not, the male will then swivel around and mount the female.
But even if it doesn't, "the female is still capable of deriving immediate sexual gratification from the mounting," Prof. Vasey said. "And if you can mount a male, you can mount a female just as easily."
Sometimes the females may prefer each other sexually because the males are being overly aggressive or uncooperative.
Prof. Vasey said the female-male mounting practice could be considered an adaptive behavioural trait for increasing access to the dominant males. And the female-female mounting practice is simply a "functionless byproduct of an adaptation."
"The Japanese macaques represent one possible evolutionary pathway by which homosexuality can occur, but I am sure that there are multiple ways that it might evolve," he added.
Prof. Vasey has just completed a study on the brains of Japanese macaques to see if they contain structural differences similar to those found in the brains of homosexual sheep and humans. It turns out that they don't, but Prof. Vasey is not really surprised. His study examined the brains of females, while the other studies investigated male brains.
Prof. Vasey and the other researchers caution that there are limits to how much we can learn about ourselves by studying the animal world. After all, human relationships involve love, trust, commitment and shared values.
But when it comes to pure raw sex, the basic biological process of "what turns you on is probably very similar to what turns on rats and sheep," Dr. Perkins said.
• Paul Taylor is a Globe and Mail assistant national editor, responsible for health and science coverage.

Campaign begins against gay dean: Blair accused of trying 'to move church in more liberal direction'

The Guardian, April 24, 2004


Stephen Bates, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Conservative evangelicals yesterday demanded a meeting with the prime minister to protest against his appointment of the gay canon Jeffrey John as dean of St Albans Cathedral.
Tony Blair, who this week faced more oblique criticism from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over the handling of the war in Iraq, also had ultimate responsibility for the choice of Dr John, currently the canon theologian of Southwark Cathedral in London.
The decision followed consultation with Christopher Herbert, the Bishop of St Albans, who warmly welcomed Monday's announcement by Downing Street.
Although it does not explicitly call for the appointment to be rescinded, a letter from the evangelicals criticised the involvement of the prime minister's office "in the apparent attempts to move the church in a more liberal direction".
It called for a leak inquiry to establish why two national newspapers, including the Guardian, learned of the appointment three days early, on Friday last week.
The group – Anglican Mainstream, founded last year in the wake of the attempt to make Dr John the suffragan bishop of Reading – had earlier in the week offered to pray for him in his new post. But attitudes against the appointment appear to be hardening.
Anglican Mainstream called on its followers to write to the Queen, the prime minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of St Albans and diocesan bishops, and the media – although apparently only the Times and the BBC – to complain about alleged attempts "to influence debate within the Church of England and society generally about human sexuality".
The group, which succeeded last year in orchestrating a campaign which forced Dr Williams to put pressure on Dr John to stand down from the bishopric, is mainly composed of conservative evangelicals.
The aborted attempt to make Dr John a bishop last year was one of a number of clashes over homosexuality which have precipitated a crisis in the worldwide Anglican communion. In the US, the election of a gay canon, Gene Robinson, as diocesan bishop of New Hampshire, caused further convulsions.
A commission, headed by Robin Eames, the Irish primate, is attempting to formulate a compromise on the issue of church discipline, to keep the 77 million-strong communion together.
Some evangelical clergy from the St Albans diocese are planning to meet next week to discuss Dr John's new appointment.
His appointment has received the endorsement of Richard Inwood, the diocese's evangelical Suffragan Bishop of Bedford. It was welcomed by Bishop Herbert as "right and good" and has also been privately endorsed by other senior bishops to whom the Guardian has spoken.
What appears to have provoked the evangelicals' reaction was Dr John's statement at a press conference in the cathedral on Monday that he hoped the church, as well as the state, would one day be able to recognise faithful partnerships between same-sex couples and that he did not mind if they were called marriages.
Dr John, who has had a long-celibate relationship with another London clergyman for more than 27 years, also insisted that he would uphold church teaching and would not conduct any services to bless same-sex partnerships.
Dr Philip Giddings, a politics lecturer at Reading University, senior member of the church's general synod, and convenor of Anglican Mainstream, said: "It [has] become clear that Dr John would continue to advocate the position he has consistently held in his published writings about human sexuality, a position which is contrary to the teaching of holy scripture and to the agreed policy of the House of Bishops, the general synod ... and the 1998 Lambeth conference."
In a statement to supporters, the group claimed it was involved in "a spiritual battle" and added: "If we are silent the cause of biblical orthodoxy in the church may go by default."

Lawyer: Courts would oppose ban on St. Tammany Parish gay group

COVINGTON, La. (AP) – Opponents of a gay-themed high school club in St. Tammany Parish collected 1,300 signatures to shut it down, but a school board lawyer said courts would probably block the attempt.
Lawyer Harry Pastuzek said similar groups have been victorious in six of seven federal cases. "I'm here to tell you (the case) is of no value to this board," Pastuzek said.
But opponents of Fontainebleau High School's Gay/Straight Alliance said the board should not be afraid of groups – such as the American Civil Liberties Union – that have defended the club.
"Let's show the nation we're not fearful of the ACLU but we are fearful of our Lord," resident Gloria Ronkasky told the board.
Patrick Rico, a parent of a Fontainebleau student, presented the petition to the board on Thursday.
The board's human resources committee took no action on the issue Thursday. Members received a draft of a districtwide policy that would regulate clubs at the school system's seven high schools.
The issue will likely again come to the forefront at the next school board committee meeting May 6 when the new policy, which relies heavily on the Equal Access Act passed by Congress in 1984, will be discussed.
"All of us in the school system are struggling with this," superintendent Gayle Sloan said.
Sloan said high school principals want more guidance from the board on how to oversee the formation of clubs in their schools.
She added: "If we passed this we would have every club reapply based on the new policies and procedures."
The school system allowed formation of the Gay/Straight Alliance earlier this year after it met the criteria set at the school.
Parents and other residents opposed to the gay club quickly called for its dissolution. Board members asked the system in March to report back to them on every high school club in the parish.

The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage: City's lawyers answer court, State argues S.F. should refund marriage-license fees

San Francisco Chronicle, April 23, 2004

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
The state Supreme Court should leave intact the marriages of 4,000 same-sex couples even if it rules that Mayor Gavin Newsom exceeded his authority by approving their marriage licenses, the city of San Francisco has told the court.
In response to a question posed by the justices last week, city lawyers said Wednesday that declaring the City Hall weddings invalid would be premature while the state's marriage law was under legal attack; would be unfair to the couples, who aren't parties to the case; and would be "a green light for discrimination.''
But Attorney General Bill Lockyer's office and an organization opposing same-sex marriage said the court should not recognize marriages performed in violation of state law.
"The same-sex certificates and licenses issued by (the city) are invalid because only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California,'' the state's lawyers told the court. They said the city should be ordered to refund the $82 license fees.
The Alliance Defense Fund, representing opponents of same-sex marriage, opposed a refund and said the couples were on notice that the licenses were legally dubious. Attorney Robert Tyler cited the warning added by the city to each license application that "marriage of lesbian and gay couples may not be recognized as valid by any jurisdiction other than San Francisco."
The latest round of written arguments came as the court prepared for a hearing in either late May or early June on the legality of Newsom's unprecedented order, which made San Francisco a magnet for gay and lesbian couples from around the nation.
After a month, the court halted the weddings March 11 and said it would decide whether the mayor and the city had violated a state constitutional provision requiring agencies to follow California laws until a state appellate court declares a law unconstitutional.
The city argues that the restriction applies only to state agencies and not to local governments or their elected leaders. City Attorney Dennis Herrera and six couples have filed separate Superior Court lawsuits challenging California's ban on same-sex marriage.
The court's query last week about the validity of the weddings already performed raised the issue of a private citizen's right to rely on the government's actions, even if they prove to be unauthorized.
In a case similar to San Francisco's, an Oregon judge halted same-sex marriages in Multnomah County on Tuesday but ordered the state to validate the county's marriages of 3,000 gay and lesbian couples.
San Francisco's lawyers urged the court to put off a ruling on the validity of the City Hall marriages until the constitutionality of the state marriage law is determined.
"For those couples who have married, even while the validity of their marriages is uncertain ... they have both assumed obligations to each other and the state and third parties and invoked potentially important rights,'' such as inheritance, community property and child custody, Chief Deputy City Attorney Therese Stewart told the court.
Nullifying those marriages at this point would deprive couples of rights they may never regain, Stewart said, and would also send a signal to anti-gay forces "that the bonds between and among same-gender couples and their families are unnatural and unworthy, and that lesbians and gay men are evil and, ultimately, subhuman.''
Lockyer disavowed any such bias, saying in his court filing that "the couples who exchanged vows in the San Francisco ceremonies likely have strong, committed and loving relationships worthy of the state's recognition and respect.'' But the marriages are a legal nullity, he said, and the court should invalidate them to avoid confusion among employers, government agencies and the couples themselves.
• E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com

City panel faces cases alleging anti-gay bias, Complaints lodged against Druid Hills Golf Club, AJC, Blake's

Southern Voice (glbt), April 23, 2004


By Ryan Lee
As officials from Druid Hills Golf Club prepare to enter into mediation with two gay members over a discrimination complaint, a former employee has alleged that his sexual orientation contributed to his dismissal from the golf club last month.
The city of Atlanta's Human Relations Commission ruled in January that the golf club discriminated against gay members Lee Kyser and Randy New by not granting to their domestic partners the same benefits given to members' spouses.
The commission sent its findings to Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, who is responsible for issuing sanctions – from a written reprimand to revocation of business and liquor licenses – to companies that violate the city's non-discrimination ordinance. Franklin instead recommended the two parties enter into mediation.
The mediation process has not yet started.
Kyser said she and New "hope to do it as soon as possible so we can move on," but Druid Hills General Manager Randy Delaney said he didn't "sense any urgency on anyone's part."
The club is facing another allegation of anti-gay discrimination. Mitchell Anderson, 40, said he was fired from his job as a server at the club on March 17, the same day he said he complained to the assistant general manager that his co-workers were harassing him based on his sexual orientation. Anderson is gay.
"When you walk into that country club, you go back decades in time," Mitchell said. "I was constantly the target of their hostility and harassment."
But the club said Anderson's allegations were false. Anderson was fired after he "was caught red-handed stealing shrimp" out of the golf club's kitchen, Delaney said.
Soon after being hired in April 2003, Anderson said his co-workers began calling him "faggot," "booty boy" and "queen."
"One of the executive chefs thought it was OK for him to make jokes about my sexuality, and because he did it, it was basically OK for his staff to do it," Anderson said.
When Anderson told the chef's superior about the treatment, Anderson said the superior began treating him in a condescending manner.
After another co-worker allegedly called Anderson a "faggot" in February, Anderson said he complained to the club's assistant general manager, Julie Bottigilieri, who responded by reprimanding both employees.
Unsatisfied with Bottigilieri's actions, Anderson said he filed a written complaint with the golf club's human resources department on March 8.
On March 17, Anderson said he and another employee accused of stealing shrimp were fired.
Anderson denied taking the food, and said the woman who took the shrimp home had permission to do so from her supervisor.
Delaney agreed that Anderson didn't steal any food, but said he had knowledge of food being taken improperly.
Delaney said he is confident the golf club can show that Anderson's termination was legitimate.
Anderson said he filed a complaint with the commission on Wednesday. The panel, which does not routinely make complaints public, could not be reached for comment late Wednesday.
AJC, Blake's draw complaints
The Human Relations Commission is already considering other cases concerning allegations of anti-gay behavior.
Former Atlanta resident David Greer filed a complaint against the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on March 11, alleging the newspaper discriminated against him by refusing to publish his San Francisco-sanctioned marriage under a "Weddings" banner.
The AJC did not return a phone call seeking comment.
Wellington Rivera, a City Hall employee who works with the Human Relations Commission, said he is reviewing Greer's complaint to see if it falls under the commission's guidelines.
Investigators are currently reviewing complaints brought by Azalee Headspeth and Chriss Thomas, who said they were fired from their jobs because they are lesbian partners, and by three employees who said they were fired from the gay bar Blake's because of their age.
The investigations should be complete by the commission's May 11 meeting.

Tragedy changes mom's life: Speaker urges churches to abandon anti-gay stands

Chicago Tribune, April 23, 2004


By Sean D. Hamill, Special to the Tribune
In the years since Mary Lou Wallner's lesbian daughter committed suicide, believing her mother would always see her sexuality as sinful, Wallner has dedicated her life to changing people's views.
Speaking at churches and other gatherings across the country, she seeks to persuade Christians to stop considering homosexuals as sinners.
She has no illusions that her role will sway wide swaths of public opinion. And she doesn't want to get into debates with those who disagree – not when they send her hate mail, not when they confront her, not when a pastor cuts her off during a speech at a church.
"You're not going to change people by debating them," said Wallner, 59, a former Wheaton resident who's coming back to the Chicago area next week for three speaking engagements.
Instead, she's content to focus on individuals.
"I think God changes people. I don't change people. I just tell my story," she said.
Even those who oppose Wallner's position concede that her story is a powerful one.
Raised outside of St. Louis as a fundamentalist Christian, Wallner, a registered nurse, in turn raised her eldest daughter, Anna, in a strict, Christian home that taught, among other beliefs, that being gay was a sin.
So it was more than a shock in 1988, when Anna, then 20, wrote her mother a letter to announce that she was a lesbian.
"I responded very poorly," Wallner said. "I was very frustrated because I had been taught all my life that [homosexuality] had been a big, bad sin.
"So I sent her a letter that told her I would always love her, but I hated this."
Over the next nine years, mother and daughter struggled to reach an uneasy truce over the issue, with Wallner holding to her "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach.
Their relationship deteriorated in 1996 as Anna, a social worker who had graduated summa cum laude as an undergraduate, was beset by depression.
Anna eventually sent her mother a letter announcing that she wanted nothing to do with her because "I had done colossal damage to her soul with my 'shaming words,'" Wallner recalled.
Six months later, in February 1997, Anna committed suicide at age 29, leaving no note.
'It was a journey'
Wallner couldn't help but blame herself, and she began to re-evaluate her position on homosexuality. "It was not an immediate thing," she said. "It was a journey."
She began to read about the issue voraciously, including going back over the Bible to review what it said about being gay, as well as talking with friends and church leaders.
Over the next two years, "I came to understand that what we had been taught and what we had believed was not true," she said.
In 1999, Rev. Mel White, an evangelical pastor who is gay and has been trying to get Rev. Jerry Falwell to tone down his view of homosexuality, invited Wallner to speak at a joint meeting between 200 of his supporters and 200 of Falwell's.
Despite butterflies, Wallner delivered a well-received speech and began what is increasingly becoming a second career. She has completed a book, "The Slow Miracle of Transformation," and formed with her husband a not-for-profit group, TEACH Ministries, an acronym for To Educate About the Consequences of Homophobia.
Since that first speech, she has spoken to 30 churches, clubs and conferences, earning a reputation as a passionate speaker.
Not that every speech has been well received.
Three years ago, while giving a speech at a Baptist church in Aurora, Wallner was cut off halfway into it by the pastor, who told her she had one minute to wrap it up. When she finished, the congregation sat stone-faced and no one clapped, she said.
"My throat immediately went dry. I wanted to fall into a hole," she recalled.
But those have been rare moments – a fact that Wallner accepts, even if it means she's often "preaching to the choir."
"It's one of our goals to reach some of those not in 'the choir,'" said Wallner, who now lives in Cabot, Ark., a Little Rock suburb. "But there are always people in the congregations we talk to who can benefit from my story."
Visits to churches, school set
Rev. Larry Pickens' First United Methodist Church in Elgin invited Wallner to speak Thursday for just that reason. Wallner also will appear May 2 at Universalist Unitarian Church in Joliet and May 3 at Naperville North High School, where she will talk to the Gay/Straight Alliance Club.
"This story of how Mary Lou struggled with her own issues, and how it caused her to rethink her position – I know there are a lot of families with similar stories," Pickens said.
Pickens' denomination is among those debating the issue of homosexuality – amid a nationwide cultural and legal debate over gay marriage.
This year a United Methodist jury acquitted an openly lesbian pastor in Washington state of violating church law, but the denomination is expected to begin a heated debate over the issue at its national conference beginning next week in Pittsburgh.
The United Methodists' debate is part of a "snowballing" effect for the issue of homosexuality in the church, said Suzanne Holland, chair of the religion department at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash.
And Wallner is part of "a cultural shift going on," Holland said. "One of the ways you can tell it's a cultural shift is that it's not organized. Different groups are bringing it up themselves. It's very organic and happening from the ground up."
Presbyterians, Catholics and, perhaps most famously of late, Episcopalians have all been debating the issue. The Episcopal Church is still struggling with the fallout from the appointment of an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire last year.
Wallner said she doesn't try to gauge whether she has played a role in the larger debates.
"We have surrogate kids all over the country whose parents have rejected them," she said. "We get tons of e-mails and calls. And we've said that even if one life is saved, it's been worth it."

Episcopalians establish breakaway church

By Mike Recht, Associated Press Writer
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) – Amid the anger over the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, a group dissatisfied with the direction of the church has formed a new parish in New Hampshire.
About 40 people have been meeting since the beginning of the year at the Durham Evangelical Church in Durham. They have established the Anglican Church of The Resurrection, spokesman Richard Ellwood of Merrimack said Thursday.
The group originally met as the Seacoast Missionary Fellowship and is affiliated with the new Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. The national network, organized by conservative Episcopal clergy, sprang up in response to the election of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who is openly gay.
"We are purposely not a part of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire because we stand in opposition to how the national Episcopal Church has split away from scripture," Ellwood said in a statement.
In a statement from the New Hampshire Diocese, Robinson said he welcomes any church, of whatever denomination, that seeks to help "people experience the saving grace of Jesus Christ."
"While the new Church of the Resurrection has no relationship to the Diocese of New Hampshire, we wish them well and will hold them in our prayers as they seek to do God's will."
Later, by telephone, Ellwood said, "this is not really about Gene Robinson, whether he's gay or not gay. We think the issue here is far greater than whether Gene Robinson is bishop.
"He is only one example of the direction of the national church. I think perhaps this would have happened even if they had picked a non-gay bishop. (He) was sort of the flash point."
Robinson's selection last year as bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese caused an uproar in many parishes around the country that said the church was acting in violation of scripture.
Ellwood said a parish in Versailles, Ky., was the first to break away from the national Episcopal church and establish a new church under the network, and he expected many more.
"I guess it's a movement. There's definitely a ground swell," he said.
"There will be many, many churches of the resurrection, not by that name, but by intentions," he said.
Without naming them, he said several other parishes in New Hampshire are considering such a move. Both the Church of the Redeemer in Rochester, and St. Mark's in Ashland have taken steps to affiliate with the new conservative network of churches and parishes as have parishes in other parts of the country.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the International Anglican Church of which the American Episcopal Church is a part, appointed a panel last year to look into ways to resolve the problems.
"We still consider ourselves a part of the national Episcopal Church. We're not trying to split the church in any way. We're trying to cure it from within," Ellwood said.
"We consider ourselves Episcopalians; even more we consider ourselves Anglicans. The Anglican Communion generally throughout the world tends to be more traditional and Bible-based, he said.
"At this point, there is no relationship between the new parish and the diocese. We are a separate entity."
Ellwood said the new church would be looking for a permanent home and a permanent full- or part-time minister. He said priests from as far away as the Midwest have expressed an interest. Right now, priests in the region have volunteered to come in on Saturdays to conduct services.

Noted Children's Dr. Speaks Out On Anti-Gay Amendment

365Gay.com, April 22, 2004
by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Washington Bureau
Washington, D.C. – A prominent pediatrician Thursday told the House Judiciary Committee that a proposed amendment to the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage would endanger children.
"Will the proposed amendment support the welfare of all families and all American children, including those hundreds of thousands of children whose parents are gay or lesbian?" asked Dr. Jill Joseph, a pediatrician at Children's National Medical Center.
"With all due respect, for me as a pediatrician, the answer is clear. The Federal Marriage Amendment will only hurt the well-being of children in this country."
The committee is considering a bill introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO), which and would define marriage as the union between a man and a woman and would deny the "legal incidents" of marriage to any unmarried couple.
In her written testimony, Dr. Joseph cited Census data that reports over 600,000 same-sex unmarried partner households with approximately one-quarter of them raising children. Estimates from other sources, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, estimate as many as 1-9 million children in the United States are being raised by same sex couples.
"Whatever you may think about gay and lesbian relationships, this Congress must deal with the reality of American families, all families," said Dr. Joseph.
In addition to her work at Children's National Medical Center Dr Joseph is Professor of Pediatrics and of Epidemiology/Bio statistics George Washington University.
At the previous House hearing, the panel had heard from four prominent conservatives, three of whom expressed reservations about the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Former member of Congress Bob Barr (R-GA), the author of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which allows individual states to not recognize same-sex marriages performed by other states, said that, "Part of federalism means that states have the right to make bad decisions – even on the issue of who can get married in the state."

Family Values: Randall Terry Fights Gay Unions. His Son No Longer Will.

Washington Post, April 22, 2004

By Michael Powell, Washington Post Staff Writer
CHARLOTTE – Jamiel Terry grew up a child of movement royalty.

His father, Randall Terry, was a wavy-haired charismatic possessed of a mellifluous voice and proudly extreme politics, a Christian warrior from Upstate New York who founded Operation Rescue, appeared regularly on national television and denounced murderous abortionists and demonic homosexual sodomites.

Randall Terry adopted Jamiel, and Jamiel became his adoring son. He rose to his father's defense during an unsuccessful congressional race. And he joined his dad in taking up the rhetorical sword to fight against homosexual civil unions in Vermont in 2000.

Theirs was a righteous narrative of father and son. Until Jamiel decided to write a new chapter.

"It's hard to point to one moment when you begin to come out to yourself," Jamiel begins his essay in the May issue of Out magazine, which appears on newsstands this week, "but if I had to, I'd go back to a night seven years ago when I was 17 . . . in my old bedroom at my parents' house . . . where my friend 'Johnny' and I had just finished fooling around."

This was the moment, Jamiel wrote, when he realized he was gay.

Jamiel, 24, has close-cropped hair, mocha coloring and a stud under his lower lip. He's handsome and articulate, with the preternatural ease in the spotlight found in celebrity children. He lounges in a white leather chair in a friend's house in suburban Charlotte and talks of his decision to bear public witness to his sexuality.

He wrote his article, he says, to help children of Christian fundamentalists deal with their own sexuality. Maybe he also wrote to help his father understand him. Or maybe he wrote to make him understand something else.

A few years back, Randall Terry divorced his wife, Cindy – who once said her husband was touched by the divine – and married a much younger woman. (Terry's ex barely speaks to him anymore.) Their four children say they still love their father but the relationship has frayed. Terry recently barred one of his adopted teenage daughters from his house after she got pregnant out of wedlock for the second time. Another adopted daughter also became pregnant as a teenager and later converted to Islam, a religion Terry has described as composed of "murderers" and "terrorists." (The couple's lone biological child, a daughter, is in college.)

The night before Jamiel's interview with The Washington Post, Randall Terry drove seven hours from his Florida home to visit Jamiel in Charlotte. Theirs was not a pleasant talk. Why, Randall demanded, didn't you tell me you were thinking of writing this and committing an act of betrayal? I could have helped you with a Christian cure for homosexuality.

Jamiel hikes his eyebrows as he recalls the conversation. "I told him: 'Dad, how was I supposed to tell you? Look at who you are.'"

'My Prodigal Son'
You pick up the telephone and there's Randall Terry, as folksy and pained as could be.

"I'm distressed, man," he says. "This is absolutely the most gut-wrenching thing I've ever gone through. Man, I'm grieving."

You're a father, he says to the reporter. You know my pain. I tried, Randall says, to talk my son out of going public, but Jamiel paid me no heed. I tried to explain the ramifications, but Jamiel turned a deaf ear.

So Randall, 45, did what made sense to him as a father, not to mention to a man who harbors hopes of regaining a leadership role in the Christian evangelical and antiabortion movement. (The pastor of his previous church – the Landmark Church of Binghamton, N.Y. – unceremoniously tossed him out when he divorced his wife.) Before Jamiel's article could appear, Randall wrote his own, and titled it "My Prodigal Son, the Homosexual."

He posted this essay on several Web sites, including his own, RandallTerry.com. He wrote of his love for Jamiel and his son's gifts – his keen mind, singing voice and cooking skill. But Randall cautions that one must understand this about his son: The Terrys rescued Jamiel from a very dark home. Jamiel was born in jail, a victim of "crimes and treacheries" too terrible to spell out (if not too terrible for a father to hint at). Jamiel is a liar who's led a double life.

"My son's life," Randall wrote, "is a shambles."

As open letters go from father to son, it's quite extraordinary. Did Randall wrestle with doubt before putting such an unsparing document on Web sites and later publishing a version of it in the Washington Times?

"It about tore my heart out to write that column, but Jamiel prostituted my name," Randall says. "The truth is that Jamiel is not trustworthy. The truth is that his life is one long deception. May God have mercy. May Christ have mercy."

Family Affair
Families surely are a most inscrutable product of God's hand. Who should know this better than Randall Terry?

Randall came rambling out of the capacious lands of northern New York. His grandmother was a civil rights activist, his aunts were strong feminists – one would later serve as spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Rochester. Randall, as this aunt once noted with intentional irony, was raised at the knees of feminists.

Randall, though, was sweetly oblivious. He played a mean guitar and piano, and smoked bodacious amounts of herb. He was going to be a rock-and-roll star. A bright kid, he dropped out of high school a few months short of graduation, stuck out a thumb and disappeared into the West.

A few months and boatloads of dope and magic mushrooms later, he washed ashore in Galveston, Tex. He had his epiphany in a diner and that was that. Randall Terry never had much trouble divining God's will after that – the transmissions were crystal clear.

Terry returned to Rochester and began talking of God and hellfire, and selling used cars. Once he fell to his knees by the side of a highway and beseeched the Lord to forgive his sins. He enrolled in a Bible school, where he met his wife, Cindy. They talked of serving as missionaries in Central America. But "God interrupted" and delivered unto Terry a vision of a battle plan to fight abortion.

Terry read civil rights tracts, including Coretta Scott King's memoir, and slowly hatched a plan. In 1986 he founded Operation Rescue. This would become a significant moment in the history of the Christian right, the first time an evangelical general would wield the tools of civil disobedience in the service of the antiabortion cause.

In 1988, Terry and his legions started standing in front of local abortion clinics, screaming and pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They tossed their bodies against car doors to keep abortion patients from getting out. They waved crucifixes and screamed "Mommy, Mommy" at the women. When Terry commanded, hundreds went jellyfish-limp and blockaded the "death clinics."

In 1989, a "Holy Week of Rescue" shut down a family planning clinic in Los Angeles. More than 40,000 people were arrested in these demonstrations over four years. Subtlety wasn't Terry's thing – he described Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, as a "whore" and an "adulteress" and arranged to have a dead fetus presented to Bill Clinton at the 1992 Democratic National Convention. (He also opposed birth control and divorce – "Families," he wrote in his 1995 book "The Judgment of God," "are destroyed as a father vents his mid life crisis by abandoning his wife for a 'younger, prettier model.'")

A few years earlier came a day that looms large in the Legend of Randall Terry. Terry had stopped a troubled young woman outside an abortion clinic and persuaded her to bring her pregnancy to term. The baby, Tila, was born in 1985.

"After I saved Tila's life, we helped her mother out with baby furniture and clothes," Terry recalls. "We became more and more involved with her family. The children stayed with us for summers, holidays, weekends."

In 1987, Randall and Cindy agreed to take in Tila and her older brother, Jamiel, then 8, and his older sister, Ebony, as foster children. In 1994, they formally adopted Tila and Jamiel. The children are biracial. Their biological mother, who was white, has since died.

Randall circulated a résumé at the time that described his family. "Children: One by birth and three black foster children."

Terry's fame arced high during this time, his days and nights a blur of airports and appearances on "Crossfire" and "Nightline." ("Did you see my sound bites?" he'd inquire when reporters called for interviews in the late 1980s.)

The family lived in a Victorian home set in the rolling farmland outside Binghamton in south central New York. Randall was the outsize patriarch, his energy inexhaustible, his laughter infectious, his control considerable. He read everything, sang like an angel and played that piano. At night, he'd tuck in the children and pray with them.

"I idolized my dad. He's a very magnetic person and my best friend," Jamiel says. "He was running a major national organization, we'd have all sorts of guests – Jerry Falwell came by.

"Our life was never boring."
Randall takes pride in saying he shielded his family from the media spotlight. But the membrane between public and private life can be porous for a movement man. When Randall ran for Congress in 1998 and faced charges of racism, Jamiel stepped forward. Identifying himself as a person of color, Jamiel demanded that his father's opponent apologize.

It's hard to know after talking with Jamiel and his sisters how much of their narrative is reality and how much desire. They insist their childhood was happy even as they say their parents' unyielding moral code allowed for few adolescent stumbles. They were to study the Bible and live its word. They were schooled at home and in fundamentalist schools. R-rated movies were out. So was divorce and any talk of sexuality.

"My parents were very strict and sheltering," recalls Tila, a startling 18-year-old beauty who is unmarried and now pregnant for the second time. "They were very loving but we never talked about anything."

Ebony, now 28, left home when she was 16 and became pregnant soon after. "When you get out of a family with very strict rules, you are exposed to so much," she says. "You discover how easy it is to make the wrong choice."

When his parents divorced, Randall refused to let his children speak with their grandfather for three years. At 16, Jamiel was a summer intern with the American Center for Law and Justice, founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson. Afterward, Jamiel announced that he wanted to become a chef.

His father was not amused.

"He told me I could leave his house at that very moment," Jamiel recalls. "He wanted me to be a lawyer, a judge, in the movement. He told me he'd cut me off cold if I became a chef."

Awakening
At the time, Jamiel was beginning to wrestle with a far greater inner conflict – his own sexuality. Asked if he tried to broach this subject with his parents, Jamiel returns a look that suggests you're on crack. As he noted in Out magazine: "When you grow up in a house where to be the thing you are is an abominable sin, you tend to try and shed those behaviors."

He practiced deepening his voice. He avoided anything hinting of the effeminate. And he dated girls even as he fooled around with male friends in his bedroom. "It was so secret and so hidden, I don't think I even felt the weight of it," Jamiel says.

Sometimes he'd sneak into his father's library late at night and look at his collection of books on gays and gay life (Terry maintained the collection so he could speak with authority on such questions).

"I looked at the pictures of shirtless men," Jamiel wrote. "I even picked up some useful knowledge about safe sex from these volumes."

An air of cognitive dissonance attends to this voyage of discovery, to his navigation between nights of desire and days of self-loathing. A 20-year-old Jamiel did a stint with the short-lived Steve Forbes for President 2000 campaign. Later he repaired to Vermont to help his father campaign against gay civil unions.

It was an awkward reunion. Randall Terry recently had separated from Cindy and taken up with a young former housekeeper and aide. He was shunned by many friends and activists in the antiabortion movement. Randall moved for a while to Nashville and tried his hand at country music. (He recently cut a second album with Ronnie Milsap's band. "It's to die for, man," Randall says.)

"My father kept saying, 'It's no one's business that I got divorced,'" Jamiel recalls. "I'd tell him: 'Dad, you sent out 100,000 Christmas cards with pictures of our perfect Christian family. You led Christian workshops on being a good husband. That's why people are disappointed.'"

Randall conceded that Jamiel had a point.

Now Randall plunged into his second act, as an anti-gay-rights crusader, heading an organization called Loyal Opposition.

"The Bible," Randall notes, "doesn't condemn divorce, but it does condemn homosexuality."

He opened an office in Montpelier, within sight of Vermont's gold-domed Capitol building. One day he walked outside the capitol during a legislative vote and shook his head as though to dislodge images too horrible for words.

"It's hideous in there, man," he told reporters. "It's unbelievable. It's demonic."

Jamiel felt a little queasy about the whole undertaking. But that didn't stop him from staying on in Vermont. Jamiel isn't particularly good at articulating, what, precisely he was thinking.

"I felt very hypocritical," he acknowledges. "I would get these angry phone calls from gays and I wanted to say: 'I know, I know, I'm gay, too!'"

Soon Jamiel quit and headed south. Many months later, he told his family that he was gay. His mother thought he was having a nervous breakdown. His father offered to send Jamiel away for a three-month Christian cure. Jamiel declined the offer.

"I'm going to be at your funeral," Randall told his son. "You'll be dead by 40."

These were months of deep struggle, a time during which Jamiel thought more than once of suicide. Eventually, he came to a point of calm and thought of writing about his struggle. After a fashion, he sees himself acting on his father's teachings.

"We were taught that if you saw pain in the world, you should speak out," he says. "I knew that because of my name I could get published and help young men and women who are gay and struggling because of their religious upbringing.

"I was raised in a family where it's immoral to see a problem and remain silent."

Randall's Lament
"The only reason you want to talk with me is because his last name is Terry. He's playing you and he's prostituting my name."

So the father talks about the son whom he raised to adulthood. In a long phone conversation, Randall Terry says his son is lost, a drug user and a liar who has written bad checks. Randall says Out magazine paid Jamiel $5,000 to write the article and become its "homosexual poster boy." Randall says the magazine's editors "put words in my son's mouth."

(For the record, Jamiel and the editors of Out say much of this is wrong. Jamiel says he sought out the magazine because he felt an obligation to help those struggling with their own sexual identity. He was paid roughly $2,500. While his account was edited, Jamiel claims ownership of the words.)

In Randall's view, most – no, make that all – of Jamiel's problems arise from his formative years in his biological mom's home.

"Tragically," Randall writes in his online essay, "by the time we got him as a foster child, he had already learned a lifestyle of deceit. . . . My hope was that providing a loving safe home, his life would be spared. . . . Unfortunately, my hopes and prayers were not realized."

Randall, by turns, is voluble and pained at what he says is a media intrusion into his privacy and that of his family. Then he puts his mother – Jamiel's grandmother – on the phone to talk about Jamiel's problems. Then Randall gets back on the phone and demands to know: Did Jamiel tell you what his biological mother did for a living?

The reporter replies that Jamiel and Tila describe their biological mother as more child than adult, a thoroughly lost woman of the street.

Randall exhales into the phone, disgusted. "Dealing with Jamiel is like dealing with his biological mother – you never know when he's playing you," he says. "I will tell you for sure: Jamiel's mother was a prostitute."

"God rest her soul," he adds.

Brick by brick, Randall dismantles the House of Terry. He says Jamiel has been bounced from three colleges and tries to suck up to wealthy family friends. Randall had to bar Tila from his house because, he says, "to quote an AA phrase, her life just became more and more unmanageable."

As for Ebony, she left home as a teenager and became pregnant. But their relationship is good. At least, he says, she's honest.

By the way, Terry adds, you do know that I never officially adopted her?

Since leaving the Terry home, Ebony has become a Muslim, a conversion she attributes – for better and worse – to her upbringing.

"We learned that, nine times out of 10, if someone is being persecuted for their religion, there's probably some truth to the religion," Ebony says. "And the Christian community is supposed to stand for forgiveness and charity, but my experience hasn't been entirely positive."

The irony is that Jamiel's essay is quite a tender piece. He describes a loving childhood, writes of his love for his father, and concludes with a vision of future reconciliation. Even Randall, who will be in Washington this Sunday protesting a massive abortion rights rally, acknowledges the essay could have been worse.

"Overall, the article isn't unfair to me," he says. "But that isn't the issue. He prostituted my name."

Hours later, Jamiel is told of his father's counterattack. He sighs. Jamiel acknowledges he's had a troubled time these past few years, with a drunken-driving conviction and some bad checks.

"Dad doesn't mess around with Tomahawks, he sends in the nuclear warheads," Jamiel says. "My father's first and foremost aim is to protect himself. He talks about how I prostitute the family's name, but he's used the fact that he saved my sister from abortion and rescued me from hardship in his speeches and interviews. What's the difference?"

Jamiel pauses and adds: "My father talks about how deceitful I am. But I was 11, 12, 13, 14. How was I supposed to make sense, in a family that didn't talk about it, of what I was feeling? How am I deceitful?"

"I still fight the thought that I'm committing a mortal sin." There's a moment of silence and Jamiel continues. "God knows my heart. Randall Terry doesn't know my heart."

Cirque du Soleil settles for $600,000 with HIV-positive gymnast

(04-22) 12:02 PDT SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Cirque du Soleil agreed Thursday to pay $600,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by an HIV-positive gymnast who was fired by the Canadian circus company last year.

Matthew Cusick, 32, of Maryland was fired because the company, which is known for its daring aerial acts, said he posed a health risk to other performers.

"They said I was a hazard not just to other performers, but to the crew and possibly the audience," Cusick said Thursday in a telephone interview. "I think the settlement sends a message to other employers if you discriminate against people there's going to be a price to pay."

Cusick was a "catcher" in the Russian High Bar act and an acrobat in the Chinese tall pole act. He voluntarily disclosed his health status and spent four months training with the group. He was fired just days before he was to join the "Mystere" show in Las Vegas.

Cusick filed a complaint last July under the Americans With Disabilities Act, which includes protections for people with HIV.

Six months later, just hours after federal labor investigators found "reasonable cause" to believe the Montreal-based circus engaged in job discrimination, Cirque du Soleil offered to reinstate Cusick.

Cusick refused.

"I thought a lot about it because a dream is very hard to walk away from," Cusick said. "I can't go back and work for a company that stood so strongly against me."

Cirque du Soleil spokeswoman Renee-Claude Menard said Thursday the company regretted firing Cusick and said it made the decision out of ignorance.

"We didn't have all the knowledge on what HIV is and how it's transmitted," Menard said. "We were very genuine in saying that we wanted him back. He could've done so much to raise awareness."

Instead, months of negotiations with Cirque du Soleil through the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission resulted in Thursday's settlement, which is the largest EEOC settlement for an HIV complaint, according to the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which represented Cusick.

"This kind of discrimination tears people's dreams and careers apart," Cusick said. "While other people in all sorts of professions will still face HIV discrimination, after today they have a powerful tool with the settlement we reached."

Under the terms of the settlement, Cirque du Soleil also agreed to provide annual mandatory anti-discrimination training for its employees worldwide and to adopt a zero-tolerance discrimination policy. It also will leave its records open to the EEOC for two years to ensure it follows the requirements of the agreement, Lambda Legal said.

A Cincinnati lawyer has begun an initative to seek a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage or anything resembling it

Gay People's Chronicle, April 23, 2004

Petitions seek Ohio marriage amendment
by Anthony Glassman
Columbus – A Cincinnati attorney has taken the first step towards amending the Ohio constitution to bar same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships.
David R. Langdon filed a petition initiative April 20 with Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro to amend the state constitution. If Petro approves the amendment and its summary, Langdon and the people he represents can begin gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot.
The proposed amendment reads:
"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
Langdon refused to say who he is representing, or if it is anyone other than himself.
"Not at liberty to say at this point," he said.
The attorney often works with the anti-gay Citizens for Community Values, whose offices are at the same suburban Cincinnati address as his. With an Arizona anti-marriage group, he is also representing a Cleveland Heights council member in a suit against that city's domestic partner registry, passed by voters last November.
The "political subdivision" language would void the registry and city worker partner benefits.
"It is a gun aimed right at the Cleveland Heights domestic partner ordinance," said attorney Tim Downing, president of Ohioans for Growth and Equality, a pro-gay civil rights organization. "If this becomes law, there is no way Cleveland Heights can continue to have the registry."
Both Downing and David Caldwell, a leader of the group that campaigned for the registry, also believe that the proposed amendment is an attempt to mobilize religious right voters to get George W. Bush re-elected.
"They're scapegoating the gay and lesbian community and our families and our lives to get this done," Downing said.
"This is an attempt to win the presidency for George W. Bush by drawing Ohio evangelicals to the polls," Caldwell concurred. "Gay people's lives shouldn't be used for partisan politics."
The summary, which will appear at the top of the petitions if Petro approves it, reads, "The amendment denies the validity and prohibits the legal recognition as marriage in Ohio of same-sex relationships and relationships comprised of three or more persons, and forbids according non-marital relationships a legal status intended to approximate marriage in certain respects."
The language about "three or more persons" is believed to be a red herring, put in simply to get a casual observer to sign the petition.
There is no official deadline for the attorney general to reach a decision on the language.
"I'm aware that in another matter, the attorney general took some time," Langdon said, referring to an initiative petition to repeal the state sales tax. That measure was returned as invalid to organizers, who were forced to resubmit it with altered wording.
Langdon's submission to Petro contained petitions with the signatures of 218 people, all in the Columbus area. Signatures of at least 100 electors are required to move the matter forward.
Petition circulators included Linda Harvey of the anti-gay Columbus group Mission America and Barry Sheets, head of the American Family Association of Ohio who is also Citizens for Community Values' Columbus coordinator.
If approved by the attorney general, the petitions would then need 322,900 signatures of registered voters by August 4 to be on the November ballot.
Langdon believes that supporters can get the required number of signatures in 3½ months.
"Certainly, there's no question that it's enough time to get the signatures," he said. "What hasn't been decided at this time is whether it will be pursued for 2004 or 2005."
As for why he was filing the petition, Langdon pointed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ruled in November that marriage rights must be extended to same-sex couples.
"The Supreme Judicial Court has gone haywire," Langdon said, accusing them of attempting to redefine marriage. "We want to take that ability away from the Ohio Supreme Court."
"From my perspective, we have a runaway judiciary in a number of states," he continued.
Langdon pointed to marriage as a cornerstone of society and as the basis for the continuation of society.
When asked why he didn't introduce an amendment outlawing divorce or requiring opposite-sex couples to have at least two children, he replied, "There are certainly a lot of changes that can be made to the constitution."
A number of organizations around the state are ready to campaign against the amendment while it's still in the petition stages.
Caldwell noted, "We certainly are well organized in the Cleveland metropolitan area, and there is a well-organized group of people in the Cincinnati metropolitan area."
He said that he was certain both his group and Citizens to Restore Fairness, the Cincinnati organization pushing for the repeal of the city's anti-gay Article 12 charter amendment, would be happy to lend their expertise to groups in other parts of the state to organize against Langdon's measure.
Downing, whose group will be testifying in the state legislature next week for State Sen. Dan Brady's (D-Cleveland) bill barring employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, said that OGE and the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization supporting equal rights for LGBT people, would fight the amendment all the way.
"I'd like to send a message to those in our community that say that national organizations like HRC don't send money back to the community," Downing said. "In the last six months, HRC has given $50,000 here in Ohio for OGE and [Brady's] Employment Non-Discrimination Act. HRC is on the ground here and they're walking the walk and talking the talk."
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is also aiding local organizations. They are working with the Cleveland Heights registry backers and CRF in Cincinnati, and will most likely be assisting in the campaign against the proposed amendment.
.

Panel OKs gay wed ban: Measure would amend state constitution to prohibit same-sex nuptials

Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 22, 2004

By Tom Humphrey, tomhumphrey3@aol.com
NASHVILLE – A proposal to amend Tennessee's constitution to prohibit gay marriage cleared a major hurdle Wednesday after a round of bipartisan negotiations.

The gay marriage measure by Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, was one of two proposed amendments to the state constitution approved in the House Budget Subcommittee, traditionally the deathbed for controversial proposals and known as "the black hole committee."

The other proposal is sponsored by House Democratic Caucus Chairman Randy Rinks and is designed to make it easier for city and county governments to consolidate.

Dunn's success stood as a striking contrast to defeat in Democrat-dominated House subcommittees of a proposed constitutional amendment on abortion and a bill to outlaw civil unions in Tennessee.

"I've tried to work with everybody. I've tried to make this bipartisan, so we don't have a circus here like they've had in some other states (on gay marriage issues)," said Dunn, who has been negotiating for weeks with House leaders.

The Dunn resolution was routed to the budget panel because constitutional amendments require about $20,000 in state spending to cover costs of formal publication and notices. Any measure that costs state money must clear the panel.

Most bills spending money – unless part of Gov. Phil Bredesen's budget – are held in the subcommittee until after the budget is passed, usually in the last day of a legislative session.

Dunn's proposal had been placed "behind the budget" earlier. That was reversed Wenesday with House Finance Committee Chairman Tommy Head, D-Clarksville, announcing that Secretary of State Riley Darnell had found enough already-budgeted money to cover publication costs of two constitutional amendments.

It was agreed, Head said, that the Rinks and Dunn proposals would be allowed to proceed. Because of the rules for approving constitional amendment proposals, delaying the proposals would effectively kill them.

A proposed constitutional amendment must be formally read on the floor of both the House on three separate days before a vote, then also read on the floor of the Senate on three separate days before a vote.

"We've got a time factor here," Head told the subcommittee in supporting passage of Dunn's proposal.

"Anytime you can escape the black hole, it's a good thing," said Dunn afterwards, noting that the subcommittee in the past has killed many of his bills.

Other Republicans have blamed the House Democratic leadership for blocking proposals dealing with abortion and civil unions between same-sex couples. Asked why Democrat leaders had apparently taken a different stance on his proposal, Dunn replied:

"I think they're recognizing a good resolution that they'd like to be associated with."

The Legislature enacted a "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA) in 1996 – similar to a federal law by the same name – that limits marriage to a union of one man and one woman. Dunn contends that putting such language into the state constitution makes a stronger legal statement.

Some Democrats still express misgivings about the proposal. House Majority Leader Kim McMillan, D-Clarksville, said she voted for DOMA, but "I am still struggling with whether we need to put that in our constitution."

Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Tennessee, criticized the approval of Dunn's proposal.

"It's interesting to me that money is available to write discrimination into our constitution, but there is not enough money to provide education and health care to folks in Tennessee," Weinberg said.

"Marriage is about commitment, love, sharing and compromise and it's a private, personal choice that should not be denied a couple just because they are the same sex."

Rinks proposal would change a provision in the state constitution dealing with the procedure for combining city and county governments into a "metropolitan" government.

Currently, voters within the city limits of an impacted city must approve consolidation by a majority vote and voters outside the city but within the impacted county must also approve by a majority vote. Knox County, Knoxville and Farragut have rejected consolidation in the past – as have voters in several other counties – because one group of voters rejected the idea.

Rinks's proposal would provide that the overall vote of cities and counties combined would prevail, rather than requiring approval of voters in each entity.

Currently, only three counties – Davidson, Moore and Trousdale – have consolidated governments, which Rinks said promote efficiency. He said several other counties would likely approve consolidation with a combined vote.
• Tom Humphrey may be reached at 615-242-7782.

CT: Leaders and members of the Latino community are calling for the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

(Hartford-WTNH, Apr. 22, 2004 5:12 PM) _ Leaders and members of the Latino community are calling for the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

by News Channel 8's Tricia Taskey
Same sex marriage is an issue that stirs a lot of emotions on both sides. Today the push for the right to marry is coming from the Latino community. We talked to one couple who've been waiting for that right for years.

Bessy Reyna and Susan Holmes have been a couple for 30-years. They're hoping some day Connecticut will allow them to be married.

"It's a validation that we're not able to have that heterosexual people have," Holmes said.

They say a marriage certificate is more important than people realize. Because they don't have the same rights they worry what would happen if one or both of them are ever hurt or in an accident.

"We are at the mercy of people in the hospital to let us see each other," Reyna said. "It's the little things people don't think about that are daily concerns for gay people."

Thursday dozens of Latino community leaders spoke out in support of same sex marriage.

"It is our right and responsibility to obtain what is available to heterosexual couples by way of marriage," said Evelyn Mantilla.

But Brian Brown says, "to radically redefine marriage like this would be catastrophic."

Brown, with the Family Institute of Connecticut, says no matter what community is rallying for same sex marriage it's not the right thing for the country and it's children.

"If you look at any poll, Gallup, the Hispanic community is opposed to same-sex marriage. Hispanic and African American communities have the highest opposition rate. Around 75-percent," Brown said.

Bessy Reyna says she and her partner and all same-sex Latino couples deserve the right to marry. "My question is how long before people realize we won't lessen the value of heterosexual marriage."

There is no same-sex marriage bill before the House or the Senate for this session, but Latino leaders speaking out today say they will push to get one there next session.

LEGISLATORS PASS DISCRIMINATORY AMENDMENT TO OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

"Oklahoma legislators are trying to use the state constitution to
discriminate against thousands of its families," said HRC President
Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON - The Oklahoma House passed an amendment today to the state
constitution that would deny marriage, civil unions and domestic
partnerships to same-sex couples, sending it to the ballot this
November. Nine similar anti-marriage measures - including six
constitutional amendments - died in the Legislature earlier this month.
However, this amendment was added to another bill, dodging the regular
legislative process.

"Oklahoma legislators are trying to use the state constitution as a
weapon against thousands of its citizens," said HRC President Cheryl
Jacques. "According to the Census, more than 5,700 same-sex couples and
their families live in Oklahoma. The Constitution should protect them
just as it protects their neighbors."

The amendment was offered by Sen. James Williamson, R-Tulsa. The Senate
passed it April 15 by a 38 to 7 vote. It passed today in the House by a
94 to 4 vote.

"It is a sad day for Oklahoma when our Legislature votes to mandate
discrimination in our state constitution," said Kevin Smith, lobbyist
for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma.

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.

City says gays have rights to stay married, Lawyer argues couples deserve due process

By Lyle Denniston, Boston Globe Correspondent | April 22, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The City of San Francisco argued yesterday that same-sex couples who already have been married have a limited constitutional right to stay married that cannot be nullified without giving them a chance to defend that right.

Making legal arguments that could be applied in the future in other states, like Massachusetts which is scheduled to permit gay marriages next month, City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera told the California Supreme Court that a couple, once married, has a ''property right" in that relationship.

That right, he argued, carries with it a guarantee of due process before a gay marriage can be ended by a court. The state, he said, must ''afford notice and an opportunity to be heard" in the same way that an opposite-sex couple would be allowed to defend their right to stay married.

If the state Supreme Court wiped out the more than 4,000 same-sex marriages that have already been performed, under licenses granted by San Francisco's city clerk on Mayor Gavin Newsom's orders, that would be ''a green light for discrimination" against gay and lesbian couples across the state, Herrera contended.

The issue of the continuing validity of gay marriages, once performed, could arise in Massachusetts after such marriages are entered, beginning May 17. Should the Legislature and the state's voters adopt a constitutional amendment to outlaw such marriages, the fate of those already married would become a legal issue, as it now is in California.

The State of California was expected to argue, in a brief due last night, that the state's highest court should undo the same-sex marriages already performed, because state law bans such marriages and thus San Francisco had no legal authority to authorize them with licenses.

That same argument was made yesterday in a brief by the Alliance Defense Fund, a coalition of challengers to gay marriage in the state. If the state court were to leave those marriages intact, the Fund said, that ''would have the deleterious effect of encouraging local officials to disregard the law wherever a local official's view conflicts with long-established state law."

The ban on gay marriages under current California law is facing a challenge in a state trial court in San Francisco, but that issue has not yet reached the state's highest court. Instead, the high court is now reviewing only whether the city had the authority to give licenses to gays couples.

The Supreme Court asked lawyers involved in the dispute to give it advice on whether the court should nullify the marriages performed if it ultimately finds San Francisco's licenses were invalid.

City Attorney Herrera said the state court could not do that unless married gay couples themselves asked it to undo their marriages. There are none in the two cases now pending in the state Supreme Court. The state attorney general has no legal authority to seek an end to an existing marriage, the city lawyer said.

Herrera also urged the Supreme Court not to nullify any gay marriages until after the constitutionality of the state ban is finally settled -- something that may not occur for another year or more.



© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

MI House votes to protect conscience rights in health care - could refuse care because they don't approve of homosexuality

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The state House has voted to protect health care workers and insurers from being fired or sued for refusing to perform a procedure, fill a prescription or cover treatment for something they object to for moral, ethical or religious reasons.

The law would apply to doctors or nurses who decline to perform or assist with abortions and to pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for morning-after pills.

The Republican-controlled House overwhelmingly approved the four-bill package as dozens of Catholics looked on from the balcony.

The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol. The Catholic Church opposes abortion and birth control.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The main bill in the package would create the Conscientious Objector Policy Act. It would allow health care providers to assert an objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a procedure with which they do not agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

The House voted 69-35 to approve the bill. It mostly was along party lines with Republicans voting for it and Democrats against it.

However, a handful of Democrats voted for it, including Steve Bieda of Warren, Rich Brown of Bessemer, John Gleason of Flushing, Bill O'Neil of Allen Park, Joe Rivet of Bay City, Michael Sak of Grand Rapids, Dale Sheltrown of West Branch, Doug Spade of Adrian and Lisa Wojno of Warren. Republican Rep. John Stewart of Plymouth joined Democrats in voting against the bill.

The other three bills, which were approved by similar margins, would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

The bill does not allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control.

Democratic Rep. Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing failed to win enough support for an amendment to the main bill that would have prohibited health care professionals from refusing to provide emergency contraception. It failed on a 34-68 vote.

Rep. Jack Minore, D-Flint, said the bill would prevent patients' health care needs from being considered before anything else.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," he said before voting against the bill.

Republican Rep. Randy Richardville of Monroe, who introduced the main bill of the package, said the legislation is intended to protect religious, moral and ethical freedoms of health care providers.

"Nothing in this bill, not a thing, denies a patient from receiving medical care," he said. "This simply means a medical professional cannot violate their religious obligations."

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

Other opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Democratic Rep. Chris Kolb of Ann Arbor, the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it does not ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

___

The conscientious objector bills are House Bill 5006 and 5276-78.

___

On the Net:

Michigan Legislature: http://www.michiganlegislature.org

Showdown over same-sex marriage: Opponent may attend forum for Unitarians

By Phil Santoro, Globe Staff | April 22, 2004

Area residents are bracing for a showdown between supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage if and when they meet up at a Unitarian church in Wakefield Sunday.

Two of the most vocal leaders of the fight against a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage will update the congregation of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Wakefield at 6 p.m. Sunday. They are state Representative Michael Festa of Melrose, one of the legislators leading the fight against the amendment, and Whitinsville teacher Gary Chalmers, one of the seven plaintiffs in the landmark state Supreme Judicial Court ruling last November to allow same-sex marriages in Massachusetts as of May 17.

Opponents led by the Rev. Michael Carl, pastor of the Greenwood Union Church in Wakefield and president of the Heritage Alliance, a group against same-sex marriage, are expected to show up and express their views on the controversial subject. Carl, who has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriages, said he is unsure whether he will attend. "If I went, I certainly wouldn't be preaching to the choir. I would expect that most of these people have already made their minds up on this issue and one thing I've learned is that when people have strong feelings about something like this, it's very difficult to change their minds," he said.

While there are some 70 congregants of the Unitarian Universalist Church, officials are expecting a crowd of about 200, including Carl, according to church member Elizabeth Lowry.

''Oh, he'll show," Lowry predicted of Carl, a Texas native who lives in Lynn. ''He's fire-and-brimstone, very vocal on the subject and he's not shy about expressing them. He has before and I expect he will again."

The Rev. Edmund Robinson, minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church, who has been an outspoken supporter of gay marriages, said he asked Festa and Chalmers to ''update the congregation and the community" on the issue, which is expected to be debated again in the 2005-06 legislative session and possibly go to a voter referendum in November 2006.

Robinson said he did not invite Carl to Sunday's meeting, though he said it is open to the public and ''he is welcome to attend and certainly will be given an opportunity to speak." Robinson said if Carl does attend and speak, the two ministers could continue the debate they engaged in last month on Wakefield Community Access Television, the local cable channel. Festa was asked to moderate that debate but, soon after it began, found himself siding with Robinson against Carl.

Festa, who was one of the legislators working to defeat the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages and establish civil unions, said he is prepared to debate Carl again.

''I'm prepared for a good old-fashioned debate," Festa said. ''I sincerely believe that education is the key to winning support for gay marriages. We've already had some great debate in the Legislature and, as members got more educated about the implications of the amendment, we did much better." Though the Legislature passed the amendment last month on a 105-92 vote, Festa said support for gay marriage grew from 63 to 92 votes as the legislative debate continued.

A Boston Globe poll in February found that 53 percent of Massachusetts residents opposed gay marriage and 60 percent supported civil unions. In addition, 71 percent of respondents said they wanted voters -- not the courts or the Legislature -- to define marriage.

Festa, a former Middlesex County prosecutor who has served in the House of Representatives since 1999, said he would fight against a statewide referendum on gay marriage.

''A ballot is not the way we should decide an issue that affects a minority population," Festa said. ''The majority shouldn't be deciding for the minority. That's why we have laws and that's why we have legislatures."

Last month Carl filed a citizens petition that would ask state voters in 2008 to ban gay marriages and civil unions. His Heritage Alliance organization recruits political candidates to run against politicians who support gay marriage.

VIRGINIA LAWMAKERS PASS ONE OF NATION'S MOST DISCRIMINATORY LAWS

"Denying Virginia families' vital rights and benefits is discriminatory
and anti-family," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON - Virginia's General Assembly yesterday passed into law one
the most discriminatory and restrictive anti-family and anti-marriage
bills in the country. The law not only prohibits the state from
recognizing civil unions, but it also outlaws "any partnership contract
or other arrangements that purport to provide the benefits of marriage."

"Denying Virginia families' vital rights and benefits is discriminatory
and anti-family," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques. "It will strip away
important rights and responsibilities such as proper care for children
when a parent dies."

"The lawmakers have codified second-class citizen status for hundreds of
thousands of Virginians," said Dyana Mason, executive director of the
statewide gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender group Equality
Virginia. "We are not only disappointed, but we are outraged that
short-sighted Virginia extremists succeeded in condoning
discrimination."

On April 16, 2004, Gov. Mark Warner amended the so-called "Marriage
Affirmation Act" by removing the "partnership contracts and other
arrangements" language. However, the Assembly rejected those changes and
voted to pass the original version of the bill, sponsored by Del. Robert
Marshall, R-Manassas. Both chambers passed the measure by more than a
two-thirds vote - disallowing a veto by the governor. The measure will
become law July 1, 2004.

Gov. Warner told the Associated Press April 16 that the measure attempts
to "violate contracts between individuals, whether they are gay or
straight." He added: "The ramifications of this could be enormous in
terms of their ability to break apart business partnerships. It would
move Virginia so far out of the mainstream that that's not where I think
we ought to be."

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.

Chuck, Hillary Regret …: Senators Schumer and Clinton still don't support same-sex marriage

New York Observer, April 26, 2004

Chuck, Hillary Regret …
by Ben Smith
Allen Roskoff caught U.S. Senator Charles Schumer last month at the intersection of power politics and gay iconography: a Chelsea showing of Lord of the Rings.
Mr. Roskoff, a scruffy, intense gay-rights activist, met the Senator on the popcorn line. "How come I don’t hear your voice in favor of same-sex marriage?" he asked.
"You’re the only one asking me to do that," Mr. Schumer told him.
That may have been true once – back in 1971, say, when Mr. Roskoff and other gay activists occupied the City Clerk’s office to demand marriage licenses. But gay marriage isn’t just a gadfly’s preoccupation anymore. Since a Massachusetts court mandated same-sex marriage in the Bay State last June, the ground has shifted violently under the feet of New York’s Senators and other liberal Democrats around the country.
These politicians have supported civil unions, voted to end workplace discrimination against gays, earned 100 percent ratings from the main gay lobby group, Human Rights Campaign – and suddenly it’s not enough. Nor are their promises to vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment. In the brave new politics of gay rights, "full equality" – meaning marriage – is the bottom line.
"Last year, the whole community was gaga over what a wonderful guy Howard Dean was because he signed the civil-unions bill," recalled West Side Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who supports same-sex marriage. "But that was nine months ago. Now that’s not enough. What was a radical notion a year ago is now the default position." So Mr. Schumer and Senator Hillary Clinton – who have said they oppose same-sex marriage – are facing a mounting revolt from their gay constituents. There’s a move afoot to boot the Senators from this year’s "Heritage of Pride" parade down Fifth Avenue, a parade organizer confirmed. "There’s widespread disgust with them at the grassroots level," said a leading gay Democrat. Even the Empire State Pride Agenda, the state’s traditionally cautious gay lobbying group, is willing to publicly criticize the state’s top Democrats.
"I’m disappointed that [the Senators] don’t understand why marriage is so important to us," said the group’s executive director, Alan Van Capelle. "Civil unions are separate but equal, and history tells us that ‘separate but equal’ is rarely equal."
He added: "That said, I’m happy to report we have two Senators who are firmly against the constitutional amendment, and who have been relatively good advocates for our community."
This is just the quiet before the storm for an issue that’s ready to explode into New York politics. Some observers expect it to be a nightmare for Democrats looking to stake out moderate turf, and Republicans are licking their chops. The signs are there: the mayor of New Paltz marrying same-sex couples, a gay Assembly member suing for the right to marry, weddings on the steps of City Hall as a nonplused Mayor Bloomberg wanders past. In Albany, one pending bill in the State Legislature would legalize same-sex marriage; another would take marriage out of the government’s hands altogether. And a State Senator from Queens, Serphin Maltese, has introduced a state version of the federal Defense of Marriage Act intended to block gay marriages.
But Mr. Maltese’s bill, like the others, has languished. So beginning next month, same-sex marriage is likely to be a reality in New York. That’s when neighboring Massachusetts starts issuing licenses and New York newlyweds return to see whether the state honors their unions.
"It’s going to pop when folks come back from Massachusetts – married," said Brad Hoylman, the president of the Gay and Lesbian Independent Democrats, a political club.
Mr. Schumer isn’t just hearing about marriage from movie-line hecklers like Mr. Roskoff, who pronounced the Senator’s protestations that he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment "ridiculous." Last fall, at a discreet fund-raiser at Gramercy Tavern, major gay campaign donors to Mr. Schumer pressed the Senator to support same-sex marriage. People who were there said that Mr. Schumer responded by saying that he was "evolving" on the issue. Gay supporters have been leaning for weeks on New York’s two Senators at least to put out a statement of their positions on a variety of gay-rights issues. And after taking calls from The Observer about their positions on gay rights, the Senators rushed out a joint letter stating their support for civil unions and anti-discrimination laws, and their opposition to a state ban on gay marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment. Everything, in fact, but support for using the word "marriage."
But while those positions were considered strongly pro-gay stances a year ago, they’re not anymore. "There has been an incredible shift within the community on this issue," said the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Matt Foreman. "Our elected officials, who have always been behind on marriage, are even further behind."
To make matters a bit more difficult for Mr. Schumer and Ms. Clinton, that doesn’t apply to all elected officials. Last year, the state Democratic Party adopted a platform plank to support same-sex marriage. Only two other Democrats hold statewide office: Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. Both support same-sex marriage.
"Spitzer and Hevesi have really raised the bar on same-sex marriage," said Mr. Hoylman.
For Mr. Schumer, it’s shades of 1996. That’s when the then-Congressman voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. (Ms. Clinton, who wasn’t in Congress at the time, later said she supported it. Her husband signed the bill.) The act’s best-known provision protects a state from having to recognize same-sex marriage regulations from another state, but its second provision preemptively cut gays out of federal marriage benefits, like tax breaks and Social Security survivor payments. That same year, Senator John Kerry was one of just 14 Senators to vote against the bill, a move that has helped pacify gay groups unhappy with his tortured stand on gay marriage today.
Mr. Schumer’s vote, however, was greeted with outrage from gay activists, who promptly picketed his Prospect Park West apartment building in Brooklyn, "screaming right in his face," as one protester, Andy Humm, recalled. One of Mr. Schumer’s opponents in the 1998 Democratic Senate primary, Mark Green, tried to use the vote against him, but it didn’t stick.
After his Defense of Marriage vote, Mr. Schumer backtracked frantically. In an unusual letter to the Empire Pride Agenda in 1998, Mr. Schumer described the bill he’d just voted for as "a gratuitous attack upon decent people for purely political gain." Then he pledged never to "support a Senate leadership which thought scheduling a DOMA vote was a good idea." But he didn’t say he’d changed his mind on voting for the legislation itself. In a statement to another gay group, he said he supported federal recognition of state same-sex marriage laws – something he’d just voted against.
Buttonholed by The Observer after a recent television appearance, Mr. Schumer didn’t seem eager to discuss the details of his stance on gay issues. "I’ve always been a very strong supporter of gay rights," he said, striding down a long hall. Has he reconsidered the section of DOMA that denies gay couples federal benefits? "The bottom line is, I’ve always been for civil unions, period," he said, fumbling with an exit door and finally escaping.
Mr. Schumer’s spokesman, Stu Loeser, later said that Mr. Schumer never supported the section of the 1996 bill that bars federal benefits for gay couples, and cited his "strong record of support" for gay and lesbian rights. Ms. Clinton’s spokeswoman, Nina Blackwell, said, "Senator Clinton believes people in committed relationships should have all of the rights and recognition they seek through civil unions and domestic partnerships."
So far, the two Senators’ stance seems to match up pretty well with public opinion.
Eye on Polls
While the Senators may not be in line with some of their gay and lesbian constituents, they are following local polls, which show a majority of New Yorkers in favor of civil unions. Support for marriage seems to depend on how you ask the question: A Quinnipiac University poll released in April found 55 percent of state residents opposed, while a Pride Agenda poll found a slim plurality of 47 percent in favor of marriage rights. The electoral test may come in 2006, when Mr. Schumer could face off against Mr. Spitzer – a supporter of full marriage rights – in a gubernatorial primary. Some strategists dismiss it as a non-issue, more likely to help Mr. Schumer in a general election than to hurt him in a primary. But some openly gay officials already say they’d side with Mr. Spitzer in a face-off because of his stance on marriage.
"It’s an issue of equality," said Phil Reed, a City Council member from East Harlem. "Most of us really like Chuck, but Eliot Spitzer has stepped up and said he is going to respect me as a human being in equal measure to heterosexual people. It would be hard for me not to support him."
Other Democrats are less concerned about the Senators’ stance. "The most important thing now is to fight against any blatant discrimination, such as the Federal Marriage Amendment," said Emily Giske, vice chair of the state Democratic Party. Some openly gay and lesbian elected officials, like State Senator Tom Duane and City Councilwoman Christine Quinn, concurred.
But the farther you get away from the organized Democratic Party, the sharper the anger is at the two Senators.
"They come to our dinners, they stand with us, march with us, but when it comes to marriage, where are they? They’re gone," said Brendan Fay, the organizer of a gay-friendly St. Patrick’s Day parade in Queens. "It’s appalling."
The oddity is just how short the step from "appalling" to avant-garde really is: one word. The Senators, like Mr. Kerry, support civil unions, domestic partnerships – marriage by any other name. To some of their peers, it’s a distinction without a difference.
"I suspect that people in the gay community will understand the nuance of the difference between civil unions and marriage a lot more than most other people," Mr. Nadler said. "If you’re supporting civil unions, unless you think you’re going to really explain the difference, you might as well support gay marriage."
You may reach Ben Smith via email at: bensmith@observer.com.

Theater Review: A pop opera presents the basics of a gay coming-out story

Philadelphia Inquirer, April 21, 2004



By David Patrick Stearns, Inquirer Music Critic
The theater is intriguingly located upstairs in the abandoned Night Court building, known to generations of drunken sailors – and, more recently, to theatergoers as the birthplace of the innovative hit Urinetown. The elevator is broken, another sign that the cutting edge must be near.
Once you're in the packed-to-the-rafters American Theater for Actors, a new pop opera titled Bare, about burgeoning sexuality in a Catholic prep school, is about to unfold. A success in Los Angeles, it's enjoying extraordinary buzz in the gay press, with an up-to-the-minute production number depicting a fantastical gay wedding ceremony.
But the show isn't extraordinary. It's earnest and highly accomplished musical theater that codifies gay mythology at the breathless pace of MTV. Only occasionally does it break into moments of originality, both introspective (with excellent musical soliloquies) and fabulous (as in a Blessed Virgin Mary apparition who turns out to be a brassy, sassy African American woman weary of 2,000 years of being addressed as "Hail Mary").
Elsewhere, only the gay marriage issue and party-drug references tell you this wasn't written 25 years ago. Is this a problem? Maybe not. Bare is just what it wants and needs to be, which says much about how theater functions with special-interest constituents.
The plot is a gay coming-out story, not essentially distinctive from any other, but one that begins with "happily ever after." In what must be the ultimate gay fantasy, the class bookworm is extravagantly romanced by the closeted, charismatic captain of the basketball team.
Yet this society of parent-free latchkey children embodies the old "trickle-down" theory of inherited bigotry. Enemies are everywhere. The music explores numerous shades of emotion, but the story is black-and-white, and no, we're not saved from treacly elements of teen love or sub-Oprah homilies when suicide becomes the only option for a gay man being entrapped in a heterosexual marriage.
The cast works wonders with the material, especially John Hill, the closeted athlete, whose precision of physical stance reveals the constant mediation between his inner and outer self. But that's partly thanks to the piece's dramatic sense and desire to communicate.
The not-yet-30 composer Damon Intrabartolo claims the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Nine Inch Nails among his influences, but the score poses no problems to those whose rock-music experience doesn't extend beyond Jesus Christ Superstar. Librettist-lyricist Jon Hartmere Jr. isn't out to rile the church, depicting it as a source of solace as well as guilt.
Clearly, the creators are so message-conscious that they will resort to familiar riffs or cliches as needed to put it across. As with any civil-rights movement, there can be breathtaking changes on a macro level with the same old stuff remaining on a micro level. Confusion over sexual identity remains a factor in teen suicide. This oft-told story, it would seem, still needs to be told in every generation, as if for the first time. For those who have heard it all before, there's always Rufus Wainwright.
• Contact music critic David Patrick Stearns at 215-854-4907 or dstearns@phillynews.com.

CA Assembly panel OKs bill to grant full rights to gay couples, but it is unlikely to become law.

Los Angeles Times, April 21, 2004


Legislators Support Same-Sex Marriage

By Robert Salladay, Times Staff Writer
SACRAMENTO – A California Assembly panel endorsed legalizing gay and lesbian marriages Tuesday, marking the first time that any legislative body in the U.S. has supported such marriages with a formal vote.
The Assembly Judiciary Committee approved a bill to grant full marriage rights to same sex-couples after a 90-minute hearing that included a gay couple with fidgety children, lesbians who had met on a blind date in 1973, social conservatives and a mother who had driven two hours with her family to condemn the action.
Although the bill is considered unlikely to advance and is expected to die this year, the committee vote marked a significant moment in the debate over homosexual marriage and made a statement about how far public opinion had moved.
"What we are looking at today is a union of two individuals," said Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), author of the measure, "whether for a lifetime or not, whether to procreate or not, to share the joys, the challenges, the ups and downs and exhilarations of life together."
A similar gay marriage bill was introduced in the California Legislature 13 years ago but died in the Assembly Judiciary Committee without receiving a single vote, and advocating civil unions and domestic partnerships was considered politically untenable only a few years ago.
But recent legal cases pending in the California and Massachusetts courts, a wave of gay and lesbian marriages in San Francisco and Oregon and the possibility of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages have given the issue national attention.
The leaders of California's Assembly were under public pressure to support Leno's bill and willing to give him a single public hearing. But in an election year, with focus on the state budget crisis, the bill is expected to die in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
As with almost every discussion in the Legislature over gays and lesbians, the hearing Tuesday took on moral tones amid a wide-ranging debate regarding equal protection under the law, the history of marriage, the Proposition 22 marriage initiative in 2000 and the bitter debate in 1948 over legalizing interracial marriages.
Families speaking against the Leno bill crossed paths in a crowded hearing room with gay and lesbian couples and their families.
About 50 people briefly approached the podium to declare support for the bill, while about a dozen spoke against it.
Kim Skeen, a 38-year-old mother from rural Calaveras County, said she had driven two hours with her children – Ashley, Bethany, Nathan, Emily and Wesley, ages 2 to 16 – to speak against the bill.
"I'm Emily and I vote no," said the 6-year-old as she stood before the imposing Judiciary Committee dais.
"My name is Ashley Skeen, and I beg you, please, vote no," said her 16-year-old sister.
"I got all my children up at 5, and we came," Kim Skeen said, "because I feel that the sanctity of marriage should be preserved between a man and a woman and I feel very strongly that if this passes there is just no limit to what our country will do. The moral decline is so great, it's going to affect my children, my grandchildren."
Throughout the debate, the loud voice of 2-year-old Kenyon Symons-Rogers reverberated through the large hearing room. His adoptive parents, documentary filmmaker Johnny Symons and Berkeley public health expert William Rogers, struggled to control him as they spoke in favor of the measure.
"We appear to be an American family," Rogers said. "We have been together for 11 years. We have a house together. We have two children who we adopted through the California foster care system. And we even drive a minivan. But we're not treated as a family because we are not married."
Several couples said they had been moved by the vote, but had felt even more emotion after being married in San Francisco, when Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered gender-neutral licenses to be issued.
The state Supreme Court ordered a halt to the marriages March 11, after more than 4,000 couples had been married in nearly a month. The validity of those marriages is to be decided in the courts.
Leno said he had officiated at more than 100 marriages in San Francisco, including one for Ellen Pontac and Shelly Bailes, both 62, who first met in 1973 in Long Island.
"We have always felt like second-class citizens," Bailes said. "We have four kids and no one would rent to us because we were two women. We have felt discrimination for a very long time."
The measure considered Tuesday, AB 1967, passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee in an 8-3 vote, with every Democrat on the panel supporting it and every Republican voting against it. Five members of the committee co-wrote the measure.
"With one ordinary committee vote, California sent an extraordinary message across the nation that only marriage provides full rights, responsibilities and benefits for same-sex couples and their families," said Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign, based in Washington, D.C.
Tuesday's hearing, however, is likely to end the bulk of the debate on gay marriage legislation in California this year, barring any dramatic court decisions or a shift in thinking among Democratic leaders of the Assembly or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The governor has not taken a position on the bill and does not comment on pending legislation, an aide said. In his brief political career, Schwarzenegger has offered contradictory statements on the subject.
When asked in August whether he supported gay marriage, Schwarzenegger made a comic flub and said: "No, I do not. Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."
Recent statements are more vague. He told Jay Leno that he would be "fine" with gay and lesbian marriages if "the people" or a court decided they were valid. Later, on "Meet the Press," he declined to say whether he would veto Leno's bill if it came to his desk.
Opponents of the bill said state voters had spoken in 2000 when they approved Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. They said Leno should instead offer another ballot initiative to legalize gay marriage instead of legislation that could overturn the will of California voters.
"Clearly, this is an attempt to invalidate that," said Assemblyman Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach), who voted against the bill. "I would submit to you that you are going about it the wrong way…. Go put this on the ballot." California is one of five states that have approved ballot initiatives to enshrine heterosexual marriage in state law. Thirty-three other states have laws on the books passed by legislatures banning same-sex marriage.
Leno's measure would amend California law to define marriage as between "two persons." The state first added gender-specific language to the law in 1977, followed by Prop. 22 in 2000.
Leno, and Shannon Minter, an attorney with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said Proposition 22 concerned only the threat that out-of-state marriages would be forced upon California. Therefore, they said, the Legislature could amend the California family law without interfering with the proposition.
Social conservatives who are fighting the measure said the 2000 initiative does not allow for any amendments, except by voters. They also see a moral foundation for heterosexual marriage.
"You need a sperm and an egg for the miracle of procreation. You need a man and a woman for marriage," said Randy Thomasson, founder and executive director of Campaign for California Families. "This bill is illegitimate, it is unconstitutional and it is immoral. This bill in essence is corrupt government at its worst. If you pass this bill, you will be adding your name to something that is corrupt."
Leno said he had been moved to introduce the bill after reading a November decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which ruled that a "marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason."
"Where do we turn for help to find the answers to these questions?" Leno said. "Clearly we are not a theocracy; we don't turn to the holy books, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran. We turn to our own holy books of our democracy, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."

Michigan Perspectives: Black, Christian and gay: Detroiters Michael Belcher and Walter Houston fight religious bias as well as legal hurdles

Detroit Free Press, April 18, 2004

By Joe Guy Collier, Free Press Staff Writer
Michael Belcher and Walter Houston stand in the cold outside the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center in downtown Detroit. Surrounded by strangers, they're in the midst of a gay marriage rally.
For months, Belcher, 33, and Houston, 43, have watched similar rallies on TV. They've seen the crowds of mostly white men and women holding picket signs, shouting for equal rights, lining up for marriage licenses.
That's fine for San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, they say.
But this is Detroit – a city that's more than 80 percent African American, heavily soaked in a Christian tradition and chilly toward the gay community.
"We're gay and we're black and we're Christian," Houston says, back at the couple's first-floor flat in northwest Detroit. "God wants us to do this. This is something we prayed for." The couple couldn't let white activists fight alone.
"God bless them," Houston says. "I'm glad they're there. But they cannot represent our community."
In the gay marriage struggle, Belcher and Houston represent a segment rarely seen in the national debate, but one that is important, especially in Detroit.
Last year, the couple exchanged vows in a commitment ceremony in a small church in Ferndale. They're hopeful that their ceremony will be fortified by a marriage license. But Belcher and Houston have more to overcome than legal hurdles; they're also fighting culture. They are a minority within a minority.
The African-American community and Christian churches they grew up in don't accept them because they're gay, they say. And because of their race, they don't always feel comfortable in the gay community.
Coming out as gay or lesbian can be especially difficult for African Americans, says Beverly Greene, a psychologist at St. John's University in New York who specializes in counseling gays and lesbians of color.
"More is at stake," she says. "They don't have as many places to go in the gay and lesbian community." Black gays and lesbians often depend more heavily on their community than white people do, says Greene. And the mainstream African-American church has traditionally been a safe harbor, a key social institution, not just a place of worship.
But to many Christians, both black and white, Belcher and Houston's love for each other is at odds with their faith.
It's Sunday morning in Ferndale. Twenty-five people sit quietly in the basement of the George Fadiga Community Pride Building on Livernois, just a few blocks north of Eight Mile Road. The building's basement is a meeting place for the New Covenant Assembly of Justified Believers.
An overhead projector is turned on, throwing song verses on the wall. Belcher, with his tall, bulky frame, steps to the podium to lead the group in a series of praise songs.
The congregation quickly works into a musical frenzy – drums beating, tambourines clanging, maracas shaking, hands raised, feet stomping, eyes closed. The sounds reverberate off the wood-paneled walls, mingling together, building in volume.
"Hallelujah, thank the Lord. Hallelujah. Hallelujah," Belcher shouts, lifting his voice above the rest. "Despite what it looks like . . . Hallelujah . . . There's victory in the name of Jesus."
This Sunday morning service isn't much different from the ones Belcher attended growing up in Detroit. But at this makeshift church, almost all of the members are gay. Belcher and Houston have been coming here since September 2001. A few months before, they met on the Internet. They had an instant connection, were both looking for something lasting.
Houston liked Belcher because of his gentle nature. Belcher is 6-foot-4, but he's soft-spoken. In a room of people, he'll sit back and pick his spots to speak.
Belcher liked Houston because he was confident. A former restaurant manager, Houston greets people with a constant smile. He isn't afraid to take charge.
They both grew up on the east side near King High School. Both were raised by single mothers.
Belcher was the oldest of five children. His mom, who has since died of breast cancer, was a meter reader and bill collector for the Michigan Consolidated Gas Company. His family lived in a brick townhouse not far from the riverfront.
Houston, the oldest of eight children, grew up a few blocks away. He barely recognizes his old neighborhood. His childhood home, a faded yellow, wood-frame house, still stands, but several of the houses around it have been torn down.
Many of the lots are vacant or filled with abandoned homes and businesses. Some are marked with big dots, a sign of the nearby Heidelberg Project, a controversial art movement designed to return color and energy to a rundown neighborhood.
Houston's mother waited tables, cleaned hotel rooms, worked at a dry cleaners, whatever odd jobs she could find to make money. Houston got a job as a part-time janitor when he was 14.
Belcher and Houston say they both knew they were gay by their teenage years but didn't come out until they were adults. In their neighborhood, being gay was associated with being weak and effeminate.
Houston says he didn't fit in with people who were openly gay. He liked sports. He liked hanging out with straight guys.
"There were openly gay people in my high school, but they were ostracized, they were harassed," Houston says.
Of the two men, Belcher was more conflicted about being gay.
His religious background caused him to struggle with his feelings. Belcher spent much of his free time in church. He sang in a gospel choir.
After high school, Belcher went to William Tyndale College, a local Bible college. He graduated in 1997 with a degree in music and youth ministry.
In the churches he attended, being gay was considered a sin. When he was 19 or 20 years old, Belcher remembers a fiery sermon about Sodom and Gomorrah. The pastor said homosexuality brought destruction on those cities.
"The more he talked about it, the worse I felt," Belcher says.
In his late 20s, Belcher left the mainstream church. He decided he couldn't be gay and attend a church that said homosexuality was a sin. He prayed. He studied the Bible. He came to the conclusion that there is nothing sinful about being gay.
The Bible verses used to condemn gays were mistranslated or misinterpreted by the mainstream church, he says.
He was comforted by verses such as Acts 13:39, "all who believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."
"I couldn't move forward until I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt what I was talking about," Belcher says.
Most mainline churches, black or white, continue to condemn homosexuality. The Bible is clear, says Bishop Charles H. Ellis III, senior pastor of Greater Grace Temple, an 8,000-member church on Seven Mile Road in Detroit.
"Our stance is that it's sin," Ellis says, pointing to scripture in the book of Romans (1:27) that says men should not burn in lust toward men. "It is an abomination to God," he says.
The church should not treat gays with hate, says Ellis. Homosexuals – like all sinners – are welcome as long as they're trying to overcome their sin, he says.
"Never did you see Jesus turn down anybody," Ellis says. "But never did you see him tell people, 'All right, go in the same condition you came.'"
Unlike Belcher, Houston didn't grow up going to church on a regular basis, but he too struggled with his homosexuality. In high school and into early adulthood, he dated women and tried to convince himself that he was bisexual.
He married a woman at 22.
The couple had a daughter, but the marriage ended in divorce five years later. Houston is on good terms with his daughter, who's 20 years old. He seldom speaks to his ex-wife.
Even after the divorce, Houston continued to date both men and women. He gradually realized he was more comfortable dating men. He didn't feel the same attraction to women that he did to men.
"I knew I couldn't be in a relationship with a woman," he says.
For almost three years, Belcher and Houston have shared a two-bedroom flat just north of Palmer Park. Belcher is the road manager for a jazz band and music minister for New Covenant.
Houston, who has spent his career working in restaurants, is trying to start his own restaurant and caters events as a side business.
At first, Belcher was nervous about moving in with Houston. He told his family he and Houston were roommates. A year and half ago, Belcher started telling his family he was gay.
"That's when I knew he was the one," Houston says. "I knew that he loved me enough that he would come out to his family, even though things would be negative." In December 2002, in the open testimony portion of their church service, Houston proposed to Belcher. They exchanged vows in August. It was one of the happiest days of their lives, and it rattled most of their family members.
Belcher expected that.
His relatives told him he was going against the Bible and God's intentions for men and women. When Belcher visited an uncle, he noticed that his uncle put anointing oil on his hand before extending it for a handshake. The oil is used by some evangelical Christians to ward off evil spirits.
Belcher invited only four family members to the wedding.
"I had just come out," Belcher says. "I tried to be understanding of where people were coming from.
Houston, who had been openly gay for 15 years, sent invitations to 30 family members.
But on the day of the wedding, only five of them showed up. His mother, Mary Levingston, and youngest sister, Joyce, attended.
Joyce says she wanted to support her brother. She was the only sibling to go to the wedding. As the oldest child, Houston helped raise the family. He cooked their meals, bought them dresses for prom night.
Her brother's wedding was beautiful, Joyce says. She's been to weddings where couples get married because their families pressure them.
Belcher and Houston exchanged vows because they wanted to, she says. "There was love – true love."
Levingston, who has remarried since raising her children, says she knew from a young age that Houston was gay. When he came out as an adult, she was relieved.
"You can't go through life hiding," she says. "That's not good."
Levingston says she knows what people in the churches think. She occasionally goes to a Baptist church service. She hears the pastors call homosexuality a sin. Being gay isn't the sin, judging people is the sin, she says.
"I believe in God," Levingston says. "I love God. But no matter what they say in church, it's not going to separate me from my family."
Fitting in has been tough for Belcher and Houston. They have confronted both racism and misunderstanding.
Before meeting Belcher, Houston dated both white and black men.
His former white lovers had a poor image of black men from Detroit. They seemed surprised that he was well-spoken, had a good job and didn't do drugs, he says.
" . . . If you grew up being taught that's the way it is and you don't try to go outside of the box, that's all you know," he says.
Until a few months ago, the couple was content to live in their own world, attending the small gay church, hanging out with their handful of gay black friends.
But in October, the partner of one of their friends died. The couple had been together for 10 years. The family of the dead man, though, took all the possessions, ignoring the surviving partner.
That's when Belcher and Houston decided gay marriage was their issue. This wasn't just something happening someplace else.
"It was a revelation for me to see that," Houston says. "I cannot stand back and let someone come in and say I don't exist."
A few months after their friend's passing, Belcher and Houston were in downtown Detroit at the gay marriage rally. They were determined to make sure the crowd included a black Christian couple.
Detroit residents need to see faces of gays and lesbians who live in Detroit – not just Ferndale, Royal Oak or other suburbs, Houston says.
A few days after the rally, Belcher and Houston received a call from a friend who knew Belcher before he came out. The friend saw pictures of the couple on television and in the newspaper. He wanted to know why Belcher was going public.
Houston took the call. He answered the questions.
"I said, 'He's still in church; he's still a Christian. What he's not doing is holding his head down in shame anymore,'" Houston says.
Since the rally, Belcher and Houston have spoken at the Ruth Ellis Center, a Detroit community center for gay and lesbian teens. Their church also is planning a gay Christian conference in June.
The Sunday service at the Ferndale community center is coming to an end. The praise and worship has gone on for almost three hours.
Karl Jackson, the church's pastor, is bringing the sermon to a close. He has preached fervently about the healing power of God – quoting scripture from the books of Jeremiah, Luke, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, II Chronicles and Proverbs.
"Are you hearing what I'm saying?" Jackson asks.
The congregation responds.
"That's right."
"All right now."
"Tell it, pastor."
After the sermon, Jackson invites the congregation, row-by-row, to come to the front. Belcher and Houston are part of the last group. Jackson places his hands on Houston's shoulders.
"I thank you Lord for my strong brother," Jackson says. "Satan, you're shaking in your boots. You know this is a warrior for God in the name of Jesus."
Houston slides to the side. Belcher moves in front.
"Thank you for my singer," Jackson says with his hands on Belcher's shoulders. "Sing the word, my brother. Sing the word, my brother. The word, the word, the word. Sing about the word. Sing about the healing and watch the healing happen that you never thought would be."
The congregation returns to their seats. Belcher and Houston take communion and then leave the small sanctuary.
They know outside they may not be accepted. But the wood-paneled sanctuary of this community center is safe, it's where they exchanged commitment vows, where their relationship as a couple is recognized and respected.
Houston, though, says his commitment to Belcher will become a legal marriage.
God, he says, accepts them. The government will, too.
"My faith in Jesus tells me this is a sanctioned marriage."
• Contact Joe Guy Collier at 313-222-6512 or collier@freepress.com.

Transsexuals a new test of marriage: The gay-marriage debate may cast doubt on validity of unions involving people who change gender

San Jose Mercury News, April 20, 2004


By Yomi S. Wronge, Mercury News
Depending on how you see things, Fran Bennett and Erika Taylor are a heterosexual or lesbian couple.
Either way, under California law, they're married.
That's because the couple tied the knot before Bennett, once a popular Bay Area disc jockey known as “Weird Old Uncle Frank,” had what is commonly called a sex change.
Their marriage – and possibly thousands like it involving transsexual women and men across the Bay Area and country – is already testing the boundaries of marriage as the nation wrangles over the rights of same-sex couples to wed.
Many transsexual couples have until now fallen under the mainstream radar as they've continued to marry, or remain married despite having changed genders. And now they're worried the contentious debate over same-sex marriage will cast an unwelcome spotlight on their largely quiet existence.
“If the Orwellian religious right has their way, they could pull the plug on all of us,” said Bennett, 50, a San Jose resident who made national headlines in 2002 when she announced her transition from male to female.
Threats from religious conservatives, as well as President Bush's push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, make couples like Bennett and Taylor uneasy.
“I am concerned that if there's a federal change defining marriage only between a man and woman, and I no longer qualify as a man, then could they try to dissolve my marriage?” said Fairfax resident Dani-Marie Kleist, 54, a transsexual woman who married as a man 12 years ago.
Transsexuals – people who have an innate sense they were born the wrong sex – have a legal right in California to change their gender on various forms of identification. Those who elect to have sex-reassignment surgery can also apply for a new birth certificate that reflects their corrected sex. There are an estimated 35,000 to 60,000 transsexuals living in California.
Able to marry
Transsexuals have long been able to marry in California and many other states under a variety of circumstances, including marriages entered into before a person makes the transition to the opposite gender, and those that would be considered heterosexual after a person changes gender.
“It's a precious right that we already have,” said Shannon Minter, a transsexual man and legal director at the National Center for Lesbian Rights, one of three organizations that filed a lawsuit in March for six same-sex couples arguing that denying them the right to marry violates California's constitution.
While Minter believes marriages like Bennett and Taylor's can't be undone, she said they underscore the arbitrariness of using gender as a basis to restrict marriage.
If these marriages are called into question, some wonder whether the larger gay and lesbian community will fight equally as hard for the rights of transsexuals to marry.
“I'm scared this will divide the LGBT community as opposed to bring it together,” Taylor, 36, said of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
The major groups advocating for same-sex marriages, meanwhile, say it's all one battle.
“When we look at transgenders, we see that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has all kinds of unintended consequences,” said Jim De La Hunt, policy director for Marriage Equality California, a non-profit, grass-roots group advocating for the freedom of all people to marry.
Transgender is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity differs from their anatomical sex. The term includes cross-dressers, people whose sexual organs are ambiguous at birth and transsexuals.
Some political analysts believe it benefits gay and lesbian groups to avoid talking about this little-known community in the context of same-sex marriage.
“Middle America is having a hard enough time with just plain old vanilla gay marriage,” said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.
Quiet strategies
Opponents striving to ban gay marriage are already quietly planning ways to head off transgender people before they reach the altar.
“Transgender marriage isn't marriage. It's an invention, a violation of a universal social principal law of a male and a female,” said the Rev. Lou Sheldon, leader of the Traditional Values Coalition.
Sheldon calls transgender marriage “the next wave” in the battle to protect traditional marriage ideals.
That sentiment doesn't surprise Gwendolyn and Bonnie Smith of Antioch, a legally married lesbian couple who have lived in peaceful domesticity for more than a decade, but now fear backlash given the current political climate.
“I'm scared that, somehow, they'll come up with a way to reverse 12 years of my life,” said Bonnie Smith, 35, who married Gwen Smith before Gwen made the transition from a man to a woman.
She cited recent family court decisions regarding transgender marriages, including one involving attorney Mathew Staver, whose Liberty Counsel is representing the conservative Campaign for California Families in suits filed to outlaw gay unions.
Staver is appealing a Florida court decision to grant child custody to a transsexual man in a divorce case.
Similar divorce issues have been argued in U.S. courts only six times. Those in New Jersey and Florida have upheld the validity of such marriages; Kansas, Texas, New York and Ohio courts have declared them invalid, Staver said.
“I think the whole gay marriage debate, although it may not always be phrased this way, is a debate about gender,” he said.

---

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

Tasteless or Tone-Deaf? "Gay or Asian?" parody in Details magazine generate heat - any lilght?

Poynter.org, April 2, 2004


By Thomas T. Huang
Open the April issue of Details magazine to page 52, and you'll find a parody titled "Gay or Asian?" A young Asian guy strikes a pose in his white V-neck T-shirt, Dolce & Gabbana suede jacket, $400 Evisu jeans, and metallic sneakers. He has strapped a Louis Vuitton bag across his shoulder and set a pair of Dior sunglasses atop his spiky hair. (Here's the page in question, from AsianMediaWatchdog.com.)

The writer, Whitney McNally, proposes how to tell the difference between gays and Asians – though, since the guy is clearly Asian, the question really is: "Gay Asian or Straight Asian?"

What follows is for mature audiences only:
"One cruises for chicken; the other takes it General Tso-style," McNally writes. "Whether you're into shrimp balls, or shaved balls, entering the dragon requires imperial tastes. So choke up on your chopsticks, and make sure your labels are showing. Study hard, Grasshopper: A sharp eye will always take home the plumpest eel."

In a letter to the magazine's editor, the Asian American Journalists Association condemned the article for "its reduction of two minority groups to grab bags of demeaning stereotypes." The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said: "As Details gets to know the diversity of both LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] and API [Asian Pacific Islander] people, this piece loses its truth – and thereby its humor value."

Now, I could say that "Gay or Asian?" is a racist and homophobic piece of garbage in a lame men's magazine, and leave it at that.

But no matter how offensive the article is, it's also a useful study in stereotypes. It sheds light on why we as journalists need to be vigilant not only in eliminating stereotypes from our coverage, but also in pointing them out when they arise in popular culture.

The "Gay or Asian?" piece is one in a series. The magazine has also compared and contrasted gays with Brits, Democratic frontrunners, Jesus, preppies, and magicians.

The April parody lists stereotypical attributes of the Asian male: sunglasses that amplify "inscrutable affect," "delicate features refreshed by a cup of hot tea," a jacket that "keeps the last samurai warm," a T-shirt that "showcases sashimi-smooth chest," and "lady-boy fingers ... perfect for both waxing on and waxing off." At the same time, the piece barrages us with sexual innuendo that pokes fun at gays.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that Details' editors are not unenlightened Neanderthals. I have a couple of theories about why they would find the stereotypes in "Gay or Asian?" acceptable.

• The Cool Minority Theory. It's cool to be gay – consider the popularity of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy," "Will and Grace," and all those metrosexuals in your office. It's cool to be Asian – Chow-Yun Fat, Jet Li, Lucy Liu, Jackie Chan, Margaret Cho, and Yao Ming are fast becoming pop culture icons. So if these minority groups are hip, beautiful, and popular, why can't Details, which seeks to be the arbiter of cool, make fun of their quirks?

• The Model Minority Theory. Gays and Asians are perceived as doing well in American society. By and large, they're well-educated. They work hard. They make money. It's not like Details is kicking people when they're down, right?

• The Trophy Asian Boyfriend Theory. A few years ago, Esther Pan of Newsweek wrote a story suggesting that Asian men had become a hot commodity on the dating scene. Asian men, after all, are smart, genuine, respectful, studious, and hardworking, the article posited. "It's almost like Asian boyfriends are the fashion accessory of the moment," one woman joked. Well, if we embrace those "positive" stereotypes, Details' editors could argue, what's the harm in pointing out Asian men's delicate features and smooth chests?

• The William Hung Theory. America has embraced William Hung, a college student who went on "American Idol" and mangled Ricky Martin's "She Bangs." We love Hung because he's a sweet kid who took his best shot at stardom. But I think many of us were also laughing at him, because of the negative Asian stereotypes he represented: a nerd with buck teeth who speaks in accented English. Certainly, there's a whiff of "let's make fun of the foreigner" here. What kind of message does that send would-be parodists? Perhaps that Asians are fair game for ridicule. (For more insight, read Jimi Izrael.)

• The Social Commentary Theory. The usual defense of parodies such as "Gay or Asian?" is that they are so over the top, it should be clear that the writer and editors don't buy into the stereotypes, but instead are producing social commentary. It's a stretch, but maybe the editors are showing the interplay between racial and sexual stereotypes. Or maybe they're showing how a homophobic society constantly looks for clues, no matter how absurd, of gayness in a person. But that's assuming way too much intelligence on their part.

What should we as journalists take away from all of this?

• Applying a "cool minority" or "model minority" label to a group is not doing that group any favors. In fact, it makes that group exotic and unknowable, and pits it against other minority groups. And it certainly doesn't give others the license to publish offensive stereotypes about that group.

• Be aware that even positive stereotypes ("Asians are hard working, gays are creative") can be harmful, because they allow us to think of and treat minority groups as cardboard characters rather than complicated human beings.

• Watch out for the xenophobia underlying the clichés we sometimes use when covering Asians and Hispanics. The Details piece refers to "General Tso," "grasshopper," "chopsticks," "samurai," "sashimi," "koto," "Kendo stick," "bonsai," "Pink Lady." These terms make the Asian dude a foreign Other, even though he's probably all-American.

• Social commentary about racial and sexual stereotypes is important. We need to talk about these ideas and not be afraid of them. But that commentary – serious or funny – needs to come from experience, knowledge, and pain. All of which were sorely lacking in the Details piece.

Massachusetts' Highest Court Is Asked to Delay Gay Marriage

By PAM BELLUCK

OSTON, April 20 — Seeking to keep same-sex marriages from taking place as scheduled on May 17, the head of a conservative Roman Catholic group filed a petition on Tuesday asking the state's highest court to keep gay marriages from occurring for at least two and a half years.

The petition, filed by C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, asks the Supreme Judicial Court to delay same-sex marriages until a constitutional amendment banning them could be voted on statewide, in November 2006 at the earliest. Lawmakers gave preliminary approval to the measure last month.

"I'm asking the court to allow the democratic process to run its course," said Mr. Doyle, who contends that as "a voter and a citizen," he would be adversely affected if same-sex marriages were already occurring before he had a chance to vote on the amendment.

"It would also place an onerous burden on proponents of traditional marriage" in their fight to pass the amendment, Mr. Doyle said, because they "would be in the invidious position of rolling back gay rights."

Legal experts have said the court is unlikely to grant such a stay, and several raised doubts on Tuesday about Mr. Doyle's standing to seek one.

Mr. Doyle, whose group filed a lawsuit that in 1999 succeeded in reversing a decision by the City of Boston to grant domestic partner benefits, filed Tuesday's petition after it appeared that Gov. Mitt Romney would be unable to ask the court for a similar stay of gay marriages. A governor must be represented in such a case by the attorney general, but Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly refused to represent Mr. Romney in the case.

Oregon judge upholds rights for gay couples

By Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent | April 21, 2004

WASHINGTON — A state judge in Oregon yesterday ordered the Legislature to establish civil unions for same-sex couples or open marriage to them.

In an opinion that probably will send the issue on to the Oregon Supreme Court, Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank L. Bearden in Portland ruled that same-sex couples in the state have a right to the same benefits as married couples. He told the Legislature to decide within the first 90 days of its next session, which could begin in June, to find a way to accomplish that equality.

The judge declined to rule on an argument by gay couples and the state’s attorney general, Hardy Myers, that same-sex marriage is already a right under the Oregon Constitution. Instead, he said he was adopting the model set by Vermont five years ago, declaring a right to equal benefits and then leaving the method up to state lawmakers. In Vermont, the result was the creation of civil unions.

The judge said Oregon’s Constitution is closer to Vermont’s than to Massachusetts’. In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry and that civil unions would not satisfy that right.

Bearden also ordered officials in Multnomah County, the only Oregon county that has issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples, to stop doing so, but only to allow time for his ruling to be appealed.

He did so, the judge said in a letter to lawyers in the case, to allow a higher court ‘‘to affirm the proper course of action to take.’’ Since March 3, more than 3,000 same-sex couples have been married in the Portland-area county.

Meanwhile, in California, a committee of the state General Assembly approved a bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state — apparently the first time a state legislative committee has endorsed such a measure. The bill’s sponsor, Mark Leno of San Francisco, predicted it would eventually be passed by the Legislature. Later today, the California attorney general and the city attorney of San Francisco are to file new legal briefs in the state Supreme Court, giving their views on whether some 4,000 marriages already performed in that state are legally valid.

In the Oregon decision, Bearden wrote: ‘‘It is incumbent on the Legislature to evaluate the substantive rights afforded to married couples and to provide similar access to same-sex domestic partners.’’ The judge said he was ruling only on the equal right to benefits, leaving it to state lawmakers to take the next step. That approach, he said, is ‘‘a sound remedy’’ and ‘‘the only realistic way to get the public at large squarely into the process.’’

Oregon officials and foes of gay marriage could take the case either to a midlevel appeals court or on to the state Supreme Court.

The case has been on a fast track since it was filed four weeks ago, and is more likely to move rapidly to the highest state court. Since the issue only involves questions of state law, the state Supreme Court would have the final word.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of nine same-sex couples, hailed the ruling as historic. ‘‘This is huge,’’ said ACLU attorney Ken Choe, who was involved in the case.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a group opposed to gay marriage, said, ‘‘this will not be the end of the road’’ no matter what happens in Oregon, because opponents are seeking a US constitutional amendment to ban all such marriages.

The Oregon attorney general’s office said in a statement that the new ruling is ‘‘a big step in what will be a bit longer process.’’ The goal from the beginning, the statement said, was to get the issue to the state Supreme Court.

Oregon marriage law does not flatly ban same-sex marriages, but it has long been interpreted to mean just that. It uses male and female language to describe who is eligible to marry, and Bearden said yesterday that the intention was clear.

He then examined the exclusion of same-sex couples from more than 500 benefits that go with marriage, and found that a denial of equal access violates a provision of the state constitution that guarantees legal equality to all classes. That provision, he noted, has been interpreted as protecting against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The judge also found that the differing treatment of same-sex couples in marital benefits is a form of gender discrimination under the state constitution.

Turning to a remedy, Bearden examined both what has been done in Massachusetts and in Vermont. He said he would follow Vermont by delaying his ruling until the Legislature could act, giving the public ‘‘time for dialog [sic] and debate.’’

He conceded that neither his ruling, nor a final decision by the state Supreme Court, ‘‘will quell the controversy and debate, nor should it. It is for the Legislature to address the issue of compliance with the Oregon Constitution.’’

Bearden also ordered state offi- cials to officially register with state offices the same-sex marriages that have been performed in the county, an official record-keeping procedure that would not necessarily confer any rights.

That part of the ruling, however, will not take effect until 30 days after the judge’s decision becomes final, which will not happen until at least April 26. Moreover, higher state courts could delay the ruling while they review the whole issue. Bearden said state law makes clear that all marriages must be recorded.

‘‘The state is ordered to record those marriages within 30 days of the judgment entered in this case,’’ his order said.

Tutu 'prefers' to bless gay unions

Vancouver, British Columbia - Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu spoke of equality for gays and lesbians, but stopped short of endorsing same-sex marriage.

At an honorary degree ceremony held in one of Vancouver's oldest churches, the Nobel laureate told the crowd on Tuesday that God draws in all races and groups, including "gay, lesbian, so-called straight".

Asked outside the church on his position on same-sex marriage, Tutu, an Anglican, said he "would prefer we didn't call it marriage".

"It just causes a lot of hassles. If you say you are blessing a union, I would prefer that. You just raise unnecessary hassles."

Courts in three Canadian provinces - Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, which contain about 70 percent of Canada's 32 million people - have approved gay marriage. The federal government is preparing legislation to allow it across the country, likely next year.

The issue of same-sex blessings has split the local Anglican diocese in the Vancouver area and sparked an international religious debate.

The bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, accepted a diocese vote in 2002 to allow its churches to bless same-sex unions. The move prompted some conservative parishes to ask for a bishop other than Ingham to oversee their congregations.

Four top Anglican leaders from Africa and Asia have lent their support to the conservatives.

Outside the church on Tuesday, Ingham said Tutu is "very familiar with the situation here and he has expressed his support to me on a number of occasions".

The Anglicans also have been split over the approval by the United States branch, the Episcopal Church, of an openly homosexual bishop, V Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Tutu is in Vancouver this week for a series of events with fellow Nobel Peace Prize winners Shirin Ebadi and the Dalai Lama.

The exiled Tibetan Buddhist monk will carry on to Ottawa later in the week, where he will meet Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

The Dalai Lama has already met privately with British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell and the monk was feted Monday night at a musical tribute by celebrity fan Goldie Hawn. - Sapa-AP

Meth abuse elevates HIV crisis for gays

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 17, 2004
72 Marietta Street NW, Atlanta, GA, 30303

By Cameron McWhirter, Jill Young Miller, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
When Patrick Smith started using methamphetamine, he quickly found that sex and the potent drug – which gay men call Tina or Crystal – became hopelessly connected.
Whenever he had sex, he wanted meth. Whenever he was high on meth, he wanted sex.
A methamphetamine user since he was 16, Smith spent years having anonymous, unprotected sex while high. He took the drug whenever he could. He hooked up with male partners – he has no idea how many – at large dance parties and at all-night sex clubs.
Smith ran out of money and prostituted himself. He was hospitalized about six times after overdosing on combinations of drugs. Meth was always in the mix.
One morning about two years ago, Smith woke up in his living room after a meth binge. His head was gashed and bleeding. Shattered glass lay everywhere.
"My head had crashed through a glass table, and I didn't remember any of it," said Smith, 24.
He checked into a yearlong drug rehab program. After medical tests, counselors told him he had contracted HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. He believes he contracted the disease while having sex with strangers while on meth.
According to a new study of gay men in San Francisco by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, men who used meth were twice as likely to have unprotected sex as those who did not. Another study, by the San Francisco Department of Public Health, found that men who used meth were more than three times as likely to be HIV-positive.
Gay health organizations in San Francisco and New York have launched public awareness campaigns warning about meth use and HIV transmission through risky sexual behavior.
Smith is one of a growing number of young gay men in Atlanta who believe they contracted HIV after meth abuse and risky sex. But in metro Atlanta, which has the largest concentration of gays in the Deep South, AIDS groups have not yet started meth-specific education campaigns. The problem, however, has become a crisis, say some therapists and medical experts who treat gay men.
"They are taking outrageous risks," said John Ballew, an Atlanta therapist who says two-thirds of his clients are gay men. "It has really become associated with the fast-lane night life among certain gay men. My professional take on it is, the problem is just as bad as [in] New York or San Francisco or Los Angeles."
Meth use among gay men in Atlanta is "really, really insidious," said Michael Dubin, a counselor whose clients are all gay men. "From what I am hearing from friends and from clients, it is a lot more extensive than any of us would like to think, especially in the club scene. And it leads to people throwing caution to the wind – when they know better."
Dr. Sanjay Sharma, a psychiatrist at Grady Health System's infectious disease program, said the drug's use among gay men has become a serious health concern. "A lot of these substances, crystal meth in particular, are associated with euphoria and hypersexuality," he said. "And along with that, increased sexual risk-taking behaviors, and then an overall impaired judgment. That's not a good combination of effects."
Many gay men have never tried methamphetamine. Some have only experimented briefly with the drug. But a minority of gay men habitually abuse the drug during sexual encounters with multiple partners. For these men, meth use has become part of sex.
Meth, a psychostimulant that excites pleasure centers in the brain, makes users feel euphoric for hours. The drug impairs judgment, lowers inhibitions, keeps people awake for days, and can increase sexual arousal.
"They go from feeling like wallflowers to feeling like supermen," Ballew said. "Safer sex messages are just forgotten."
Many men have told Ballew the drug is rampant in their social circle. "This drug has become almost normalized in the community," he said. "It's hard to see how it could become more of a problem."
Decades of drug abuse
Methamphetamine has been abused in the United States for decades, especially on the West Coast. The drug can be snorted, injected, swallowed and smoked, and some gay men insert it anally.
The meth crisis among gay men is occurring in tandem with a dramatic surge in meth use by heterosexuals, especially in rural areas across Georgia and the nation. The potent, cheap drug is the leading illegally manufactured drug in the nation, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Meth abuse among urban, rural and suburban heterosexuals has increased crime and caused enormous health and social problems. But the drug use among heterosexuals has not been as associated with risky sexual behavior as it is among young gay men living in cities like Atlanta.
Smith said he had sworn off meth and other illegal drugs since he fell through the table. But he said the allure of the drug was powerful.
"It gives people a way to have sex for hours and hours and hours," said Smith, who grew up in Marietta and now lives in Decatur. "It's the greatest euphoria you can ever feel."
'Party and play'
Meth is so linked with this subculture of gay men engaging in anonymous sex with strangers that men advertise either that they have the drug or want it during sex in personal ads and on the Internet. Their notices carry the phrase "PnP" for "party and play," a euphemism for crystal methamphetamine and sex.
"People will have what they call Tina sex parties," said Danny Sprouse, coordinator of HIV prevention and mental health services for gay and bisexual men at Positive Impact Inc., an Atlanta nonprofit that counsels people with HIV. "They may set up some rules at the beginning to say, 'You can only have safe sex.' So they'll have a lot of condoms available."
Or they may have Tina parties where condoms aren't even allowed, Sprouse said, "where they say, 'We're only going to have unsafe sex.'"
Even at condoms-only Tina parties, men don't always use protection as the drug kicks in and the night wears on, he said.
John, a 36-year-old gay man who lives in Midtown, said he wished he had never touched the stuff.
"On Tina, you make bad judgments about safe sex, about your life, about just about everything," he said.
John asked that his last name not be published. He has known since 1997 he is HIV-positive. He used meth for more than 18 months until he quit, with great difficulty, this Jan. 1, he said.
While on methamphetamine, he frequented all-night Atlanta sex clubs and often had anonymous, unprotected sex with men who also were high on the drug, he said.
"I think there's a possibility that I may have infected someone. I couldn't tell you who," John said. "And I have the feeling that the people that I did have unprotected sex with had already had unprotected sex with other people, so there's no way for them to know if it would have been me or someone else."
Clubs encourage safety
All-male clubs in Atlanta, such as the bathhouse Flex, generally have policies banning drugs on the premises, distribute free condoms, and encourage their patrons to use protection.
At Flex, if a customer is discovered using or selling drugs, "we revoke their membership and immediately dismiss them from the property," said Charles Fleck, who lives in Miami and owns a chain of male bathhouses including Flex.
Gay men are much more likely to associate meth with sex, though prolonged abuse of the drug has been known to affect a man's ability to maintain an erection, according to Michael Siever, founder and director of the San Francisco-based Stonewall Project, which counsels gay and bisexual men about the risks of abusing methamphetamine.
Immune system hurt
Researchers have found that meth abuse also wears on the immune system, making it more dangerous for men with HIV.
Some researchers have said the drug also adversely interacts with HIV medications.
Meth use and attendant HIV transmission has become such a concern in New York City that Gay Men's Health Crisis, one of the nation's largest gay AIDS/HIV groups, has launched a major education campaign there. The organization is putting up billboards, sending out mailings, sponsoring workshops and dispatching counselors into the community to talk about meth abuse and HIV.
"We want to cut the chain link between using crystal, impaired judgment, risky sex and HIV transmission," said Eric Altman, a GMHC associate director.
While no such methamphetamine education program is under way in Atlanta, AID Atlanta has launched a program that includes passing out condoms at gay clubs.
"I'm not telling them what to do as far as how many sex partners they have," said Michael Clifford, an HIV prevention specialist with AID Atlanta who visits the clubs. "What I am telling them – or asking them to consider and think about – is the way that they practice their sex, to protect themselves."
'Just one weekend'
Sprouse said several of his clients at Positive Impact believed they contracted HIV by having unsafe sex while they were high on meth.
One client was diagnosed with the virus after only one weekend of meth use and sex, he said. The man, whom Sprouse described as shy, churchgoing and in his mid-20s, told him he had had "very limited" sexual experience and had practiced only safe sex before that weekend.
"Some friends of his introduced him to Tina on a Thursday evening," Sprouse said. "He started using Tina that night and stopped on Monday morning. . . . He lost count over the weekend when he hit having sex with 12 men."
About a month later, the man "developed a flulike syndrome, went and got tested, and was HIV-positive," Sprouse said. "He came in clearly overwhelmed. In his mind he was thinking this was just one weekend. One weekend, and it has impacted him for the rest of his life."
By the end of last year, John, the HIV-positive man in Midtown, was using meth every day, a habit that cost him about $250 a week, and he had quit his job.
He also had stopped taking his HIV medications.
"I was like, 'I'm just going to let it take me down. I'm just going to keep doing it until it kills me.'"
He also was imagining voices. "They would repeat everything I thought. They would make fun of me."
One night at home, enraged at the voices in his head, John took a black marker and wrote – over and over – on a white leather chair, "They stole your mind."
He keeps the chair in his bedroom as a personal warning: Stay away from Tina.
• Staff writer David Wahlberg contributed to this article.

CLEVELAND SCENE Nipple-Free Zone: A man's bare chest is too racy for Walgreens; most photo developers allow store personnel to censor photos

http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2004-04-14/news.html/1/index.html
[*** A photo at that URL shows Johnson, Laws, Ammell, and Ward 18 council member and former Cleveland council president Jay Westbrook, but only Ammell is identified. ***]
Nipple-Free Zone
A man's bare chest is too racy for Walgreens.
By Aina Hunter, aina.hunter@clevescene.com
When Calvin Johnson photographed merrymakers at a Fourth of July party hosted by gay activist-businessman-philanthropist Gregg Ammell and his partner, David Laws, Johnson had no idea it would be the last of the couple's fabulous parties.
Weeks later, Ammell suffered a fatal heart attack, leaving his old friends with nothing but good memories.
After the funeral, Johnson picked up the film he'd dropped off at a Lakewood Walgreens. Ammell's large back yard was full of sun that sweltering afternoon. In the midst of the party, he stepped onto the veranda to make a toast, wearing nothing but shorts and a nipple piercing. He seemed healthy and happy – Johnson wanted to remember him that way. Thankfully, he had photographed the moment.
But when he retrieved his pictures, the photo wasn't there. Nor were any of his negatives, he says.
Johnson, 69, knew the picture had turned out, since the rest of the roll looked fine. But he was too consumed with grief to dwell on the mystery, so he put it out of his mind.
Six months later, he was talking with friends about the Super Bowl and Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." He wondered aloud why everyone was so offended by what was, in the end, just a nipple. Then it occurred to him: Someone at Walgreens may have been offended by Ammell's pierced chest.
When he returned to the store, Doug Griffin, assistant manager of the Detroit Avenue Walgreens, told him about a "law" that says film developers are under no obligation to print photos they deem offensive. "If someone does not approve of the subject matter," Griffin later scribbled in a note to Johnson, "each employee has the right as they see fit."
In fact, no such law exists, but this would be an accurate summary of Walgreens' corporate policy.
Thanks to pressure from conservative groups like the American Family Association, Walgreens has flip-flopped on its photo policy for the past two years. According to AFA chief counsel Stephen Crampton, Walgreens used to develop all film dropped off at its in-store labs. Nudity and sex between consulting adults were considered free expression.
The liberal attitude annoyed the AFA, so the group ventured to Deerfield, Illinois, in February 2003 to meet with Walgreens executives on behalf of an employee who supposedly had been fired for refusing to develop pictures of naked people. Walgreens told them they were mistaken. The employee was laid off because the store had simply overhired; it would not be changing its photo policy.
AFA chairman Don Wildmon responded with a letter and telephone campaign against Walgreens. The company was also attacked in an anonymous article titled "Walgreens Offers One-Hour Porn Photo Developing," which was posted on AFAjournal.org – immodestly billed as "America's largest pro-family action site."
"Walgreens says it will continue the practice of developing pictures depicting nudity and sexual acts, including bestiality, in one-hour photo store labs," the article said. It went on to denounce the company for creating a hostile work environment for people opposed to "pornographic pictures."
Walgreens caved.
Company spokeswoman Carol Hively refuses to discuss AFA's influence on the chain. But Walgreens' policy definitely changed. Deciding what's obscene and what isn't is now left to the person operating the photo-finishing equipment. If a worker is offended by a negative, the photo need not be developed – meaning something as commonplace as a shirtless man with a piercing could be ruled perverse.
The AFA is still not happy, though. It would rather see Walgreens adopt a policy more akin to Wal-Mart's.
There's no ambiguity at the big-box behemoth. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Dinett Thompson says that instead of submitting a customer's negatives to the subjective judgment of employees, its photo-processing policy is sweeping: no nudity, nowhere, nohow.
Meijer takes a more extreme stance: It actually rats its customers out. Managers at the Michigan-based chain, which has 30 stores in Ohio, are under instructions to call the police if they come across "any photographs containing nudity."
Even a new bride, naked in the garden? Scene asked spokesman John Zimmerman.
"Calling the police," he replies.
A pair of kids in the bathtub, making shampoo horns with their hair?
"No, not that. Well . . ." He pauses. "Well, yes. If any genitalia is visible, then yes, we would have to call the police."
CVS, Eckerds, and Rite-Aid have ambiguous policies that mirror Walgreens' – decisions are left to employees. Which means that if you're shooting photos at the beach this summer, whether they get printed or not is strictly the luck of the draw.
Johnson doesn't understand how anyone could be offended by his photo of Ammell. He doesn't even care, really. He just knows that he lost a friend, and now his best photograph is only in his head.

California Superintendent of Public Instruction caves in to "Christian beliefs" of three members of Westminster board, allows them to bypass mandated

LOS ANGELES TIMES California Superintendent of Public Instruction caves in to "Christian beliefs" of three members of Westminster board, allows them to bypass mandated change in policy that would protect transgender students



School's No-Bias Wording Gets OK
State's acceptance of Westminster board's antidiscrimination rule defuses funding crisis.
By Joel Rubin, Times Staff Writer
California's schools chief on Monday reluctantly accepted Westminster School District's novel approach to an antidiscrimination law – a decision that grants a dramatic victory to three beleaguered trustees and removes, for now, the threat of lost funding.
The three, who form a majority on the Westminster board, have cited their Christian beliefs in insisting that the district not adopt word-for-word a state policy that allows students and staff members to define their own gender.
Westminster is the only one of California's 1,056 school districts that has refused to adopt the language, and faced the loss of $8 million in annual state and federal funding. The stance, which angered many parents and teachers, led to a recall campaign and proposed legislation that would allow the state to take over the district.
California Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell announced Monday that the modified policy the board adopted last week technically complies with state law that protects gays, as well as transsexuals and others who do not conform to traditional gender roles.
But in a stern letter to the district's five trustees, O'Connell said he did not trust that the board's majority intended to adhere to the law and promised to scrutinize the district for possible violations.
"I want to again express my disappointment that those who took an oath to educate children would abuse their elected positions and attempt to flout the law," O'Connell wrote. "This sets a destructive example for our children and is contrary to the democratic values of our society. Our children deserve better."
But trustee Judy Ahrens, who led the board's resistance to the state law, said students were the winners.
"This is a victory for the kids. Anything else would have been dangerous for them," Ahrens said. "I've been through so much, so much. Finally, something right has been done in Sacramento."
For months, she and fellow trustees Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock rejected the wording of the state law that allows students and teachers to define their own gender when making a discrimination complaint. The three said the law was immoral and would allow transsexuals to promote alternative lifestyles in the classroom.
Last week, as a state deadline expired, the divided board voted to revise the district's policy for handling discrimination complaints as O'Connell's office had demanded. But in rewriting the policy, they rejected the idea that someone can define their own gender when making a complaint.
Instead, the trustees approved a policy that defines a person's gender as their biological sex or, in the case of discrimination, what it was perceived to be by an alleged discriminator.
The three trustees' stance has pitted them against other board members, teachers and parents who have accused them of jeopardizing district funding, while following personal beliefs instead of state law.
Louise MacIntyre, president for the district PTA, said O'Connell's decision would not alter plans to recall Ahrens and Marquez-Woodcock. Rutkowski, whose term expires in November, is not targeted.
"I'm relieved that there will not be any financial impact, but these women have gotten by on a technicality," she said. "For the past two months they have held our 10,000 kids hostage. Their agenda is obviously not in the best interest of the children."
Similarly, state Sen. Joseph Dunn (D-Santa Ana) said he would continue to pursue a bill that would allow the state to take control of any school district that failed to comply with state law.
"In no way am I going to terminate my plans for legislation," Dunn said. "If there is ever a future claim of discrimination, this board will never act in compliance with the law."
In an interview Monday, O'Connell also was skeptical that the Westminster board majority would follow the law: "They are on my permanent watch list. I have many friends in the district and will keep an ear close to the ground.
"They are complying with the law; however, their prior rhetoric and action is unacceptable. I will never condone any discrimination against anyone."
In his letter, O'Connell also ordered the district to inform its parents, employees and students of the changes to the gender policy. Trish Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the district, said administrators were discussing how best to notify the community.
Mark Bucher, the lawyer hastily hired by the board this month to represent the district, dismissed O'Connell's promise to keep close watch on Westminster. Bucher said Monday's decision not only vindicates the three trustees, but calls into question the state's gender definitions.
"Mr. O'Connell's decision proves that the three trustees were right from the beginning," Bucher said. "He can dance around it all he wants … but our definition follows the letter of the law. He is inviting someone to challenge the state law, and I think someone will."
But education officials and antidiscrimination activists contend the law is solid.
The only question, they said, is whether Westminster will follow it.
"The bottom line is that the test will come when we see how the district handles a real-life case," said Jennifer Pizer, senior attorney for Lambda Legal, a national nonprofit legal advocacy group for gays, lesbians and transsexuals.
"What we've seen is a quibble about technical drafting … but their intention is clear. They plan to deny protection from discrimination to a class of students."
Ahrens said the district would follow the law – though she declined to say how the district would respond to a complaint by a transsexual or anyone else who believed they were discriminated against because they do not fulfill traditional gender roles.
"We're going to treat everyone decently," Ahrens said. "People are allowed to do whatever they want on their own time, but on the job, if you fall out of line, then that's a problem."

Foes of gay marriage try long shot, Bill seeks to remove four of SJC's justices

By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | April 20, 2004

Twenty-eight days before the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage goes into effect, diehard opponents will turn today to a radical, long-shot strategy: a bill to remove the four justices who penned the historic ruling.

The lone sponsor of the measure -- Representative Emile J. Goguen, Democrat of Fitchburg -- said he sees the "bill of address" as a tool to pressure members of the court to reconsider their landmark 4-3 decision or risk losing their judgeships.

"I'm going to be in tomorrow to file the bill," said Goguen, 70, who strongly opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions. "I'm going solo for now, but I will circulate it to all the legislators."

Goguen, who voted against a proposed constitutional amendment last month that would ban gay marriage but establish civil unions, said he agreed in the past week to sponsor the measure, after he was approached by members of the Article 8 Alliance, a new organization opposing same-sex marriage.

While he acknowledged that the bill's fate is uncertain at best, Goguen said he hoped the measure would pressure the court to reconsider its ruling or simply nullify it.

"It's not an easy thing to do, but I've never walked away from a challenge," he said.

The filing of the bill marks the most unusual expression yet of outrage with the SJC's ruling, which was derided as judicial activism by conservatives nationwide, including President Bush. Proponents of expanded rights for same-sex couples hailed the decision as the equivalent of other watershed decisions made during the civil rights movement.

The four justices who agreed on Nov. 18 that it is unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from the rights and benefits of civil marriage are: Margaret H. Marshall, John M. Greaney, Roderick L. Ireland, and Judith A. Cowin. The four ruled that the state constitution forbids excluding a same-sex couples from civil marriages on the basis of sexual orientation. Opponents had argued that marriage is the central pillar of the child-rearing family and that the framers of the constitution never envisioned any other definition of marriage.

Brian Camenker, Article 8's coordinator, said he senses much sympathy for the bill of address in the Legislature, where he has approached about 40 lawmakers seeking sponsors since February. However, Camenker said, virtually all lawmakers he and his allies met with were reluctant to push the measure until April 27, when the vast majority of lawmakers learn if they will be opposed in the fall elections.

Camenker, whose group formed in February, declined to provide names of sympathetic lawmakers. "A lot of them are afraid of being bashed in the newspapers, but when you close the door with these guys, they're very angry with what's been happening," he said.

Representative J. James Marzilli Jr., an Arlington Democrat who supports same-sex marriage, said he views the bill of address as a "purely political" strategy with "absolutely no hope of passage." "I'm not entirely surprised by the filing of the bill, but I think the fact that a majority of the SJC was in agreement on this was a clear indication that this is a political question and has nothing to do with the fitness of the justices to serve on the Supreme Court," Marzilli said. "I think this is just another game of politics being played, and there's no doubt this will be rejected by my colleagues."

While rarely exercised, the power to remove sitting judges is outlined in the state's 224-year-old constitution, which states that "the governor, with consent of the council, may remove [judges] upon the address of both houses of the legislature."

According to Camenker, who has researched bills of address, lawmakers have successfully removed judges six times since 1787, most recently in 1973, when the Legislature, governor, and governor's council voted to remove Dorchester Municipal Court Judge Jerome P. Troy. However, Troy was first disbarred and removed by the SJC.

Attempts to bring down SJC justices have been rare. The last time lawmakers successfully removed an SJC judge was 1803, Camenker said. The only other attempt made by the Legislature was in 1922, and it failed.

Richard C. Van Nostrand, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said that the bill of address route has been invoked rarely for a reason.

"We don't want to go down a path that would cause judges to fear removal from their position for making unpopular decisions," Nostrand said.

Goguen said the stakes in the case of gay marriage are so high that they should override such concerns.

Arline Isaacson, cochairwoman of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, dismissed the bill as "absolute insanity."

"I can understand if our opponents don't like the decision, but our opponents have no rational basis for removing any of these judges," Isaacson said. "They were clearly doing their job and, quite frankly, doing it well. Their job, after all, is to determine what's constitutional or not. Our opponents are acting like sore losers."

Neither House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran nor Senate President Robert E. Travaglini could be reached yesterday. But neither legislative leader has been enthusiastic about using the bill of address. Each has been aware for months that Camenker's group was seeking support for its bill, but neither showed interest in it. The two have said their attention has moved from gay marriage to passing a budget.

Governor Mitt Romney, who filed a bill last week seeking special authority to ask the SJC to stay its ruling, has refused to meet with Camenker's group. At a recent press conference, Romney said he does not support the measure. Romney also told reporters that if his own bill failed to win passage in the Legislature, then gay marriages would become legal on May 17.

Camenker, however, is not deterred.

"I believe this will work," he said. "There has to be a check and balance to an illegitimate ruling, and this is it."

Globe correspondent Matthew Rodriguez contributed to this report.

Oregon judge orders halt to gay weddings, but gives legal recognition to same-sex marriages

A judge told Multnomah County to stop issuing gay marriage licenses Tuesday, but he handed gay couples a historic victory by ordering Oregon to recognize the 3,000 licenses already granted in the county.

The decision by Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden marked the first time in the nation that a judge has recognized gay marriage. An immediate appeal of the ruling was expected.

"These are the first legally recognized gay marriages in the country," said Dave Fidanque, the ACLU executive director in Oregon. "In no other same-sex marriages that have taken place has there been a court order saying the state must recognize them. That's what's truly historic about this opinion."

The county began allowing gay marriage on March 3, making it the only place in the nation where gays could get married. The county has issued 3,022 marriage licenses to gay couples since then.

Bearden told the county to cease issuing same-sex licenses until the Oregon Legislature has a chance to fashion a new law, perhaps allowing Vermont-style civil unions.

He gave the Oregon Legislature 90 days from the start of its next session to come up with the new law. If that doesn't happen, Multnomah County can resume issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

Legislators could convene in Salem as early as June, for a session that was intended to focus on tax reform.

The action effectively ends gay marriage nationally, at least until May 17, when Massachusetts is slated to begin allowing gay marriage following a high court ruling there.

The decision came in a lawsuit that has consolidated all the arguments over same-sex unions in hopes of a quick ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court.

Kevin Neely, a spokesman for the Oregon attorney general's office, called Bearden's decision "a big step in what will be a bit longer process."

"Our goal from the beginning was to get a ruling from the Supreme Court, but this initial ruling does provide at least some clarity and a framework for moving to that next step," Neely said. "The real key here is to give the Legislature an opportunity to craft a law that the courts will deem constitutionally sound."

A half-hour after the ruling, Katharine Sprecher and Nitzye Gonzalez sobbed in the corner of the county clerk's office, wiping each others' tears away.

They had filled out a marriage application, gotten married at the Metropolitan Community Church and returned to the county Tuesday with the paperwork to make it all official. But their return was just moments too late.

"I was a little shell-shocked, I was expecting this day to turn out very different," said Sprecher. "I didn't realize there was going to be a ruling today. I thought we had until Thursday."

JUDGE STRIKES DOWN OREGON LAW THAT BLOCKED MARRIAGES OF SAME-SEX COUPLES

"Judge Bearden recognized that Oregon can't differentiate between
opposite-sex and same-sex couples when doling out the rights of
marriage," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques.

WASHINGTON - A state judge today struck down an Oregon law that blocked
same-sex couples from marrying and ordered the state to recognize the
3,000 marriages of same-sex couples that have already taken place in
Oregon. Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden also issued a
90-day stay on marriages of same-sex couples until the Legislature could
decide how to treat the couples in the future - by extending marriage or
adopting a system like Vermont's civil unions.

"Judge Bearden recognized that Oregon can't differentiate between
opposite-sex and same-sex couples when doling out the rights of
marriage," said HRC President Cheryl Jacques. "To do otherwise would be
fundamentally wrong."

The decision came in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties
Union on behalf of nine same-sex couples and Basic Rights Oregon. The
case is expected to be appealed.

"This is a truly historic day for all of the lesbian and gay people of
Oregon, but especially for the 3,000 couples who have already married
here," said Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon.
"While you already know in your hearts that you are married, an Oregon
court has just taken a giant step toward making sure the state treats
your marriage just like all other marriages."

"We hope the appeals court recognizes that marriages, and only
marriages, provide true equality for same-sex couples," added Jacques.
"Vermont's civil unions were a great step forward, but they provide only
a limited portion of rights. We are hopeful that Oregon will give
same-sex couples equal access to marriage - and all the rights it
bestows."

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.

Gay TV Series Breaks Taboos in Vietnam

HANOI (Reuters) - An award-winning book that broke taboos in Vietnam with its central theme of homosexuality has been turned into a TV series, but the plot still suggests being gay is a disorder.
The 10-part series, to be aired in June, is based on the book "A world without women" by former crime reporter Bui Anh Tan. The whodunit is set in the underground world of gay men in Vietnam and won a writing prize in 2002.

"The series' main theme is homosexuality is a disorder," Nguyen Minh Tiep, who plays the main character, told Reuters on Tuesday.

"It also tries to send a message the gay world is not all bad. There are good people who deserve our understanding."

The plot centers on a police investigation into a gang of serial gay rapists and lawmen who go undercover and eventually befriend some gay men to help them solve the crimes.

Tiep, who plays a policeman, pretends to be gay and befriends another gay man who helps him with the case.

While homosexuality is not specifically banned in Vietnam, it is socially taboo in the Communist country.

Assembly committee approves proposal for same-sex marriage

ANNA OBERTHUR
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO - An Assembly committee Tuesday approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in California, although the bill's sponsor said such a "milestone event" didn't change what will be a difficult fight to pass it in the full Legislature.

Assemblyman Mark Leno, a San Francisco Democrat and the bill's author, said it was the first time a legislative body has voted to support gay marriage.

"I saw in the eight aye votes a great pride in the fact that people were standing up for civil rights - not special privileges, but civil rights," Leno said.

The proposal, which would amend the state family code to define marriage as between "two persons" instead of between and man and a woman, was passed by the Assembly Judiciary Committee by an 8-3 vote after more than an hour of debate.

Opponents of the bill said it would contradict the will of the voters, who passed Proposition 22 in 2000, defining marriage a union between a man and a woman.

"This is something that should be decided in the courts before it ever comes here," said Assemblywoman Pat Bates, R-Laguna Niguel, who voted no. "I think it trivializes the will of the people."

But supporters said the Legislature was within its rights to act on such a bill before the courts decide.

"I think it is important to note that we as the Legislature have the ability to make the laws, and in fact I do believe that it is definitely within our jurisdiction to define what is marriage," said Assemblywoman Ellen Corbett, a Democrat from San Leandro and the committee chairwoman.

The bill now heads to the appropriations committee where it will be put in a suspension file while its cost to the general fund is determined, Leno said.

ON THE NET

Read the bill AB1967 at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/

By Robert M. Rees
In 1996, Hawai‘i was a gender-politics pioneer when Circuit Judge Kevin S.C. Chang ruled that the state has no compelling reason to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Today, gay and lesbian Americans from Portland, Oregon, to New Paltz, New York, are rushing to test existing laws that limit marriage to a man and a woman.
In San Francisco, Macy’s ran out of wedding rings last month when city officials defied California’s Proposition 22 (“Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”), which voters passed only four years ago.
Meanwhile Hawai‘i, the first state – even before Vermont and Massachusetts – to pave the way for same-sex marriage, is now one of 38 states that limits marriage to a man and a woman.
“Hawai‘i,” comments Robin Nussbaum, the coordinator of the Gay Liberation Program of the American Friends Service Committee in Hawai‘i, “has somehow lost its way.”
What went wrong?
The short answer is that Hawai‘i developed a case of wedding jitters. After its own courts ruled in 1993 and 1996 that the state lacks the compelling rationale necessary to restrict marriage to a man and a woman, Hawai‘i succumbed to its populist tendency to amend its Bill of Rights. The people bolted from the altar of same-sex marriage by adding Section 23 – “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite sex couples” – to Article I of its Constitution.
The amendment’s passage in the general election of 1998 was an embarrassing moment for the Aloha State. Even more embarrassing is that six years later, Hawai‘i still hasn’t complied with the constitutional mandate of its own Bill of Rights that same sex couples are entitled, even if not to the label of marriage, to at least the reciprocal benefits – family health plans, retirement programs, insurance coverage – granted by the state to opposite-sex couples.
The engagement
The odyssey of same-sex marriage in Hawai‘i began when Ninia Baehr and Genora Dancel, young and in love, decided to tie the knot. They applied for marriage licenses from Hawai‘i on Dec. 17, 1990, along with two other couples, Tammy Rodrigues and Antoinette Pregil, and Pat Lagon and Joseph Melillo. The Department of Health refused to issue the licenses on the grounds that marriage is only for a man and a woman. The disappointed couples consulted with one of Hawai‘i’s leading civil rights attorneys, Dan Foley – now a highly respected judge on Hawai‘i’s Intermediate Court of Appeals – and he filed a lawsuit on their behalf. Circuit Court Judge Robert Klein, later to serve on Hawai‘i’s highest court where he wrote some sterling defenses of civil liberties, ruled that marriage is not a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples. Foley appealed.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court declined to adopt Foley’s primary argument that marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right embedded in the right to privacy. In fact, the court found that the “traditions and collective conscience” of Hawai‘i mitigate that argument. (In a later decision of 1998, Alaska’s High Court dismissed the premise of this logic and wrote, “The relevant question is not whether same-sex marriage is so rooted in our traditions that it is a fundamental right, but whether the freedom to choose one’s own life partners is so rooted in our traditions.”)
However, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court, in an opinion by Judge Steven Levinson, did rule in its decision of 1993 that Article I, Section 5 of Hawai‘i’s Constitution – no person shall be denied equal protection of the laws because of race, religion, sex or ancestry – means that the state cannot refuse a marriage license because of the genders of the applicants unless there is a compelling and legitimate state interest in doing so. Discrimination based on the sex of an individual, ruled the court, falls into a suspect category that is subject to “strict scrutiny.” Hawai‘i’s Supreme Court remanded the case back to Circuit Court and Judge Chang for a determination of whether the state does in fact have the compelling interest required when the Equal Protection Clause of Hawai‘i’s Bill of Rights is offended.
Joining Foley as co-counsel in 1993 was Evan Wolfson, now executive director of Freedom to Marry, a social-justice nonprofit based in New York. Wolfson had already filed an amicus brief with the Hawai‘i Supreme Court on behalf of Lambda, the national organization devoted to gay and lesbian rights, and viewed Hawai‘i as the shape of things to come.
Meanwhile, the 1993 decision by Hawai‘i’s highest court generated a backlash of enormous proportions. Thirty states passed legislation to disavow gay nuptials performed in other states. The U.S. Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, an as-of-yet-untested declaration that full faith and credit between the states need not include the recognition of same-sex marriages.
It wasn’t just legislatures in other states that panicked. In 1994, with wedding bells apparently about to ring for Ninia Baehr and Genora Dancel, the Hawai‘i State Legislature pushed through a bill defining marriage as limited to opposite-sex couples. The same legislative session also created the Commission on Sexual-Orientation and the Law, a task force gerrymandered to oppose same-sex marriage. It was disbanded when civil libertarians objected to the mandated inclusion of representatives from the Catholic Diocese and the Church of Latter-Day Saints. A federal court agreed that the composition violated separation of church and state.
The following year, a new and more fairly constituted commission recommended that Hawai‘i allow same-sex marriage and the reciprocal benefits and responsibilities that go with taking the plunge. As a fallback, the commission suggested that at a minimum Hawai‘i should allow same-gender couples to opt for the rights that accompany marriage. The report was chilling to the opponents of same-sex marriage because it demonstrated that when reasonable people discuss the issue, it’s almost a no-brainer. The minority report elevated the stature of the majority view by resorting to low-level arguments that the state ought not “encourage and endorse” homosexuality, that same-sex marriage would “inordinately elevate sexual appetites” to the status of rights and that same-sex marriage would undermine traditional marriage.
Same-sex marriage seemed almost a certainty when the commission’s report of 1995 conjoined with Chang’s better-late-than-never ruling of Dec. 3, 1996, that Hawai‘i has no compelling interest in denying a marriage license to same-sex couples. Following a two-week trial, Chang wrote, “The sex-based classification, on its face and as applied, is unconstitutional and in violation of the equal protection clause of Article I, section 5 of the Hawai‘i Constitution.” Chang enjoined the state from denying applications for marriage licenses solely because of the genders of the applicants.
Normally in a civil rights case where a court has found a violation of civil liberties, by definition an irreparable harm, there will be no stay granted while the government appeals. However, Chang inexplicably granted a stay while the state appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied Foley’s and Wolfson’s motions that it vacate the stay order and that it expedite the case. At the time, nobody realized that the Supreme Court was about to go underground for three full years. The suddenly impotent Supreme Court fiddled while lovers yearned.
The honeymoon is over
With the Supreme Court in hiding, the two major protagonists, Baehr and Dancel, left Hawai‘i for Baltimore. Today, no longer a couple, they reside in New York where Baehr works in public service and Dancel in TV production. While they headed out of Hawai‘i, hate money was coming in. As Wolfson points out, “The right wing poured massive resources into Hawai‘i.”
Opponents of the bill included the Mormon Church, the Christian Coalition, the Family Forum and guitar-strumming Mike Gabbard’s Alliance for Traditional Marriage, made up of Hare Krishna-style followers. The groups took the opportunity to warn the rest of the state how sinful same-sex marriage is. Gabbard, who later tried to stop Foley’s appointment to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, was especially vehement in his vilification of homosexuals.
Hawai‘i’s Legislature caved. In 1997, it passed a bill placing a portion of Hawai‘i’s Bill of Rights on the general election ballot. The amendment authorized the Legislature to do what it had already done in 1994, define marriage as between a man and a woman.
The proposed amendment precipitated a bitter battle. Gabbard was rarely seen without his Exhibit A, a book about same-sex parents written for the children of same-sex parents. Gabbard and others also took the view that the institution of marriage would be damaged by the mere existence of same-sex marriage. This prompted some wags, noting the Census Bureau’s estimate that half of today’s marriages will end in divorce, to propose a constitutional amendment banning divorce.
Also weighing in as part of the effort to stop same-sex marriage was Hawai‘i’s tourist industry. The Hawai‘i Visitors and Convention Bureau, having just launched a new advertising campaign based on Hawai‘i’s aloha and diversity – “We are Hawai‘i” – nevertheless warned us about too much diversity. The head of the HVCB, Dieter Huckestein, presented a letter from a woman in Texas: “Fifty of my family members were planning a vacation in Hawai‘i. We have halted our plans until we see that you vote against the recognition of homosexual marriages.” Case closed, according to the HVCB.
In 1995, the Southern California Law Review published “Competitive Federalism and the Legislative Incentives to Recognize Same-Sex Marriage” by Jennifer Brown. The article concluded that whichever state was first to recognize same-sex marriage would reap tremendous benefits from tourism. (This turned out to be prescient. Recently, for example, Oregon’s Multnomah County bolstered its tourism by offering “Get Hitched” hotel rates to same-sex couples. Even New Jersey’s Asbury Park rejuvenated its fading charm by offering, in defiance of the state’s attorney general, same-sex marriage.)
At the end of the debate, Hawai‘i residents voted to curtail and narrow liberty. The final tally from the 1998 election was overwhelming: 285,000 to pass the amendment and 127,000 opposed. Gabbard said to his devotees via fax, “The people of Hawai‘i have said clearly … we do not appreciate you trying to force us to give approval to [homosexual relationships] when we don’t agree with them, for moral or spiritual reasons.”
Reflecting on the outcome, Dancel said, “Yes, I wish that Hawai‘i went ahead and led this country toward the legalization of same-sex marriage. Hawai‘i has been accepting of all its people and cultures, and I still believe that only good can come of it. It really was a shame.”
A marriage by any other name isn’t a marriage
When the Hawai‘i State Legislature passed the constitutional amendment to be put on the general election ballot, the legislators felt badly enough to also pass what is now the Reciprocal Beneficiaries Law, Act 383. The law allows any two single adults to have access to about 60 different spousal rights on the state level. In contrast, marriage in Hawai‘i provides spousal access to 160 rights on the state level and to 1,049 federally regulated rights. As a result of its limited scope and demeaning spirit, a State Auditor’s Report of 1999 found that only 435 couples had even bothered to file their reciprocal beneficiary relationships with the Health Department.
Further weakening Act 383, as both Skip Burns of the Civil Liberties-Civil Rights Movement and Nussbaum of the Gay Liberation Program of the American Friends Service Committee explain, some of the limited reciprocal benefits granted have already sunseted.
By 1999, the real hope for equal protection for same-sex couples in Hawai‘i was with the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s still pending decision in Baehr v. Lewin. However, on Dec. 9, 1999, the Court reversed Chang’s decision and held that Section 23 of the Hawai‘i Constitution, “by taking the statute out of the ambit of the equal protection clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution,” validated the existing law.
There remained a chance if not for same-sex marriage then for reciprocal benefits and civil unions. In concurring with the majority, Justice Mario Ramil encouraged his colleagues on the Hawai‘i Supreme Court to reverse Baehr v. Lewin in its entirety. The majority saw no reason to follow this advice, and this apparently means that it is still the law of our state that same-sex couples cannot be denied the reciprocal benefits provided by the government for opposite-sex couples.
Said Foley at the time, “My reading of the ruling is that except for a marriage license, it is still unconstitutional in Hawai‘i to deny a right or a benefit to a same-sex couple if mixed-sex couples receive those rights or benefits.”
The New York Times, in an editorial of Dec. 20, 1999, expressed regret about the Hawai‘i Supreme Court’s ruling and noted, “Unfortunately, the court did not elaborate on its reasoning.” Presciently, the Times concluded, “Important civil rights battles are rarely won in the first round.”
On that same day, Dec. 20, the Vermont High Court, under the Common Benefits clause of the Vermont constitution, weighed in to say what Hawai‘i’s Supreme Court should have said: “To extend equal rights to homosexual couples who seek nothing more nor less than equal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity.” The Vermont High Court instructed the Vermont Legislature, whether they called it marriage or civil unions, to include same-sex couples within its spousal beneficiary laws. The legislature chose a civil unions law.
Last year, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts recognized that words mean something and took a step beyond Vermont. It ruled that civil unions aren’t enough and that gay couples have a right to marry. Asked by the incredulous legislature of Massachusetts to clarify its ruling, the court on Feb. 4, 2004, ruled that civil unions as a euphemism for marriage only maintain and foster a stigma of exclusion. Said the court, “The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.”
Editorialized Lawyers Weekly USA, “The fat lady has sung, and she’s singing the wedding march.”
President Bush, in reaction to all this, announced he found the developments deeply troubling. On Feb. 24, speaking from the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Bush asked for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would limit marriage to opposite-sex couples. In a later speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, Bush said, “I will defend the sanctity of marriage against activist courts and local officials who want to redefine marriage.”
At a hearing of March 22 before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the point person leading the charge for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage, told the committee, “The American people are sophisticated enough to know the accusation of discrimination is false.”
There were others haunted by the specter of same-sex marriage. Following the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state egislature convened as a constitutional convention. After weeks of wrangling – complete with screams of “Jesus Christ” and “Equal Rights” from a raucous gallery – it passed what is known as “The Leadership Compromise,” a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage but create same-sex civil unions.
Wolfson points out that Hawai‘i’s Constitution is easy to amend, but that an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution will require another vote of the state legislature next year. Even if passed by the people, the amendment can’t take effect until 2006. In the meantime, same-sex marriage goes into effect in Massachusetts on May 17. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney plans to ask the court to delay the effect of its ruling with a stay, but observers believe the court is unlikely to go along with a plan to deny Equal Protection under the existing state constitution.
President Bush may be right that the only way to stop same-sex marriage is with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions, like state laws, cannot conflict with the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court, in overturning an amendment to the Colorado state constitution barring legislation designed to protect homosexual relationships, ruled in Romer v. Evans that under the U.S. Constitution even the people cannot pass state constitutional amendments with no rational and legitimate interest and motivated instead by animus and a desire to harm a politically unpopular group. In Lawrence v. Texas, overturning the Texas sodomy law, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion stressed that moral disapproval of homosexuals cannot be a legitimate state interest.
Meanwhile, the battle is being fought on a state-by-state level. Attorney General Eliot Spitzer of New York, perhaps the nation’s most respected attorney general, has only just released an analysis of gay marriage written by the Solicitor General of New York. The report notes that the New York Domestic Relations Law was not intended to authorize same-sex marriage but concludes, “The exclusion of same-sex couples from eligibility for marriage…presents serious constitutional concerns.” The report goes on to announce that New York will recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The Hawaiian wedding blues
With the rest of the country in a wedding march toward equal protection, Hawai‘i is singing the Hawaiian Wedding Blues. The civil unions bill (HB 1024) introduced this year, couldn’t get past the Judiciary Committee where on Feb. 19 it was deferred. Michael Golojuch, Jr., a civil-rights activist and member of PFLAG (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) says, “This legislative session proved that we cannot rely on the Legislature for equality. We are going to have to look to the courts for equal rights.”
To make it easier for the state and clearer to the public, many in the gay community propose that marriage be confined to religion and that Hawai‘i eschew the name from its official lexicon while providing licenses for civil unions on a non-discriminatory basis. Says Burns of the Civil Liberties-Civil Rights Movement, “We wish the state would make everything civil unions and treat everyone the same.”
Meanwhile, Hawai‘i is about to go through yet another electoral battle of biblical proportions centered on the notion that society ought not provide equal protection to gays and lesbians. Mike Gabbard is reportedly planning a run this November for the Congressional seat held by Ed Case. Often mistaken for a right-wing Christian conservative, Gabbard is apparently aligned with the Science of Identity Foundation that worships the Hindu god Lord Krishna. The term Hara Krishna refers to a mantra.
Using his own well-traveled mantra, Gabbard has called for Case to support Bush’s marriage amendment. As a state representative, Case voted against the state constitutional amendment designed to bar same-sex marriages in 1997. He remains true to his principles: “I oppose the proposed constitutional amendment [because] a) we shouldn’t amend our federal constitution to deny rights and b) we shouldn’t federalize the definition of marriage.”
With all the populist rhetoric about saving traditional marriage that is sure to be launched by Gabbard, the religious right and others, it seems the only reasonable recourse for gays and lesbians in Hawai‘i will be the courts. After all, ever since Baehr v. Lewin in 1993, the state has been in willful violation of the Equal Protection Clause of its own Bill of Rights. It’s time for Hawai‘i to catch up.

Romney Makes a Move in Gay-Marriage Battle; Mass. Governor Requests Power to Seek a Court Stay

By Jonathan Finer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, April 16, 2004; Page A03


BOSTON, April 15 -- Gov. Mitt Romney (R) filed a legislative proposal Thursday that would allow him to petition the state's highest court to stay its landmark ruling authorizing same-sex marriage before it takes effect next month.

The governor, who favors amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, said the state legislature's preliminary endorsement of such a measure last month means the court should allow the amendment process to run its course.

The amendment must still pass in the next legislative session and in a statewide referendum that could be held no earlier than November 2006.

Romney's bill, which opponents deem politically motivated and unlikely to pass, would allow him to appoint a special counsel who would argue before the court on his behalf and would, the governor said, "protect the integrity of the constitutional process."

Romney had previously asked state Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly (D) to petition the court for a stay, but Reilly rejected the request in late March, saying it had "no legal basis."

Romney said at the time that he was researching other means of delaying the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses. He indicated that the Thursday proposal is his final recourse. "This is the sole legitimate way to preserve the right of the citizens to make this choice," he said.

The state Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled that same-sex marriages must be licensed starting May 17.

Romney's announcement was swiftly condemned by some legal experts and legislative leaders, as well as by proponents of same-sex marriage.

"It is an incursion on the power of the attorney general; it is very bad policy and a terrible precedent," said James E. Tierney, a former Democratic attorney general of Maine, who heads Columbia Law School's Attorney General Program.

"The governor has gone beyond what his role and authority as chief executive officer of the commonwealth is . . . to accommodate a political agenda," Senate President Robert E. Travaglini (D) said.

Travaglini sponsored the amendment approved by the legislature last month that would ban same-sex marriage but make Massachusetts the first state to enshrine civil unions for same-sex couples in its constitution. Vermont, which permits civil unions, authorized them by statute.

Romney's bill, Travaglini said, has little or no chance of passing the Senate, considered the more liberal of the state legislature's two chambers.

"This is a last-ditch and hopeless effort by the governor to single-handedly change the law and deny rights to gay and lesbian couples in the commonwealth," Mary Bonauto, a lawyer with the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who argued the marriage case before the state's high court, said in a statement.

But opponents of gay marriage said they will encourage lawmakers to support the governor's efforts.

"We applaud the governor for this stand and are hopeful the legislature will act quickly to grant what is a reasonable request," said Ron Crews, a former Georgia state legislator who heads the Massachusetts Family Institute, which has lobbied heavily for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Romney said his special counsel would be former SJC justice Joseph R. Nolan, who said in a separate letter to lawmakers that the court has "compelling reasons" to issue a stay. Nolan told reporters in January that he considered same-sex marriage "an abomination."

It is not clear when Romney's proposal, which was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, will be acted upon. The state legislature rarely conducts formal business during the springtime school vacation week, which will begin on Monday, an aide to House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D) said. The following week, the legislature is scheduled to take up the state's budget and other matters.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, said that unless the bill is passed by May 17, it would likely become moot.

Romney also announced on Thursday that town clerks would be notified about information sessions on instructions on how to proceed with gay marriage should the stay request fail.

Reilly has said that town clerks should be given a list of states that ban same-sex marriage, and that couples from those states should not be permitted to marry here. He noted that a 1913 statute says couples ineligible to marry in their home states cannot marry in Massachusetts. Thirty-eight states have laws against same-sex marriage.



© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Unable to Marry, Unable to Stay: Exposing the Plight Of Gay Binationals

Washington Post, April 13, 2004

By Evelyn Nieves, Washington Post Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO – Leslie Bulbuk and Marta Donayre fell hard for each other, the way people do when they meet "the One." Within months, they knew that if they could, they would get married, file joint income taxes, name the other as next of kin.
But the couple had a problem beyond being lesbians in a country where same-gender marriages are not legal. Donayre, a public relations executive, was here from Brazil on a work visa. Then she was laid off – jeopardizing her status in this country.
Had Bulbuk and Donayre been a heterosexual couple facing the same dilemma, they could have easily resolved it: The federal government allows a permanent U.S. resident in a committed heterosexual relationship with someone from another country to marry that person and sponsor his or her residency. In 2002, the latest year for which figures are available, nearly 300,000 immigrants who entered the United States were foreign brides or grooms.
But unlike immigration authorities in 16 other countries – including, most recently, Brazil – the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services does not grant gay couples the same immigration benefits available to heterosexuals.
Although Massachusetts will begin granting marriage licenses to gay couples next month, binational same-sex couples who flock to the state to marry will face the same problem they do now with immigration authorities. The federal government regulates immigration, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Bulbuk and Donayre were facing hard choices. Once Donayre's visa expired, they could commute between countries, leave the United States or live together here illegally. "Marta called me up and said, 'You'd better find yourself a new, American girlfriend,'" Bulbuk recalled.
Instead, after nearly two years of legal limbo in which they began the process of moving to Canada, Bulbuk and Donayre found another way out. Donayre was able to prove she fled Brazil because of persecution based on her sexual orientation, and she was granted asylum.
But they are among the rare couples whose stories have a happy ending. The dilemma of gay binational couples has received scant attention compared with that of gay couples who simply want to marry, but the issue is neither new nor small. Although no one is sure just how many couples face this problem, the files of organizations that track gay binational couples, such as Immigration Equality in New York and the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights, are full of cases in which couples are forced to leave the country or separate.
Bulbuk and Donayre founded Love Sees No Borders (www.loveseesnoborders.org) in 2001 to raise awareness of gay binational couples. They note on their Web site that their group is not a political organization. "We do not mobilize people into activism nor do we collect funds for such efforts in the United States," the site says.
But they see new hope for their cause in the move among many politicians, including Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), to support civil unions that would bestow federal benefits to gay couples.
In February 2000, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) introduced the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, which would grant gay couples the same right as heterosexual couples to sponsor the residency of their permanent partners. The impetus for the bill, which has 120 co-sponsors and is seeking more, was "simply the need to right a cruel law that keeps loving, committed partners apart," Nadler said in a recent interview.
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) introduced a companion bill last year. But neither bill, which conservative foes view as a step toward legalizing gay marriage, has been granted a vote.
"It's a very simple bill which adds the words 'permanent partner' to the immigration law on spouses," Nadler said. "But the Republicans won't hear of it. There's no doubt if we had a Democratic House, we'd get a vote on it."
Nadler's bill has been vociferously opposed by conservative religious organizations such as the Traditional Values Coalition, which considers the bill a backdoor way to legalize gay marriage, and the Culture and Family Institute, which has said it would make the United States a magnet for gays.
The bill has also been criticized by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based group that opposes illegal immigration. That group argues that the bill would worsen marriage fraud, already a popular shortcut for illegal immigrants to gain permanent status in this country.
Bulbuk, 41, a senior field representative for California state Assemblywoman Sally Lieber (D), and Donayre, 34, who has been working for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, say they know of scores of couples who have left this country to be together. They know of others in which foreign partners were refused a visa into this country because immigration officials suspected they were coming here to be with a partner.
Bulbuk said she and Donayre are not surprised that the immigration problems of gay binational couples are little known – especially, she said, when most Americans are unaware that the federal government, as recently as 1990, routinely denied gay people entry into this country.
"But the more people are aware of this issue," Bulbuk said, "the more who say this is a human rights issue that would give couples in love the opportunity to be together."

State High Court Seeks Briefs on Validity of Gay Marriages, San Francisco's lawyers are asked whether more than 4,000 unions should be nullified if th

Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2004



By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Supreme Court is considering whether to nullify more than 4,000 marriage licenses that San Francisco granted to gay couples earlier this year.

In an order issued Wednesday, the state high court asked lawyers for the city, the state and anti-gay marriage groups to present written arguments on whether the court should declare the marriages valid or void if it rules that San Francisco exceeded its authority in marrying same-sex couples.

The court is expected to decide within the next few months whether San Francisco flouted state law when it began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples Feb. 12. The city stopped granting the licenses March 11 in response to a court order.

Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered the gender-neutral licenses because he said the state Constitution's equal protection clause supercedes state laws that define marriage as heterosexual.

Legal analysts said Wednesday's order indicates that the court is likely to rule against San Francisco.

"If they were upholding the marriages, this question wouldn't arise, so it suggests that they are not going to uphold them," said UC Berkeley emeritus law professor Stephen Barnett.

University of Santa Clara law professor Gerald F. Uelmen agreed. The order suggests the city is going to lose the case, and the court may not want to leave "in limbo" the status of the licenses already granted, he said.

The court issued its one-page order after meeting in closed session during its weekly conference. The order asks for briefs on whether the court should determine the validity of the marriages and whether San Francisco should be ordered to refund license fees should the court decide the marriages are invalid.

The order said the court had received comments on the status of the marriages from those who have intervened in the case and wanted to give the primary litigants a chance to weigh in.

San Francisco City Atty. Dennis Herrera said the order gave no indication of how the court was leaning. "We are convinced that marriage licenses issued to same-sex partners here in San Francisco are valid, and will remain legally valid, even if the court decides against on the question of mayoral authority," he said.

Therese M. Stewart, chief deputy city attorney, said San Francisco did not address the question of validity because the city does not want the court to rule on that issue until the constitutionality of the state's marriage laws is resolved.

That constitutional question is now being heard in San Francisco Superior Court and will probably not reach the state high court until next year. The state Supreme Court declined to rule directly on the marriage laws until lower courts reviewed them.

"I think our silence speaks volumes," Stewart said. "Leave it alone."

She said it would be unfair to rescind the marriage licenses of gay couples while the legality of the state's marriage laws remains unresolved.

"People would prefer uncertainty to certain inequality," Stewart said.

Benjamin Bull, chief counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes the marriages, said he was heartened by the order.

"Obviously the court is troubled by thousands of potentially counterfeit marriage licenses floating around and the impact they will have on other states and in California," he said.

Bull surmised that the court has decided that the city acted illegally, and the justices "are basically in cleanup mode now."

"They stopped the spillage," Bull said. "Now they are trying figure out what to do with the mud that has already hit the concrete."

A spokeswoman for state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer, whose office has challenged the marriages, declined to comment on the order except to say the state will respond as requested.

Army clears record of Muslim chaplain it once suspected of spying

MIAMI (AP) -- A Muslim Army chaplain who had been embroiled in an espionage probe was given a clean slate after a general overturned an adultery and pornography reprimand, the one remaining blemish on his record after the dismissal of criminal charges.

Capt. James Yee had been the target of an investigation of suspected espionage at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba, where the military is holding suspected Islamic terrorists.

But Yee was ultimately prosecuted on far less serious charges, which were thrown out last month.

Yee went on to contest the reprimand, and Gen. James T. Hill, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, ruled in his favor Wednesday. Hill decided that the punishment will not go on Yee's military record.

"While I believe that Chaplain Yee's misconduct was wrong, I do not believe, given the extreme notoriety of his case in the news media, that further stigmatizing Chaplain Yee would serve a just and fair purpose," Hill said.

Yee's attorney called the dismissal a "bittersweet victory."

"It wouldn't have killed them to admit a mistake," Eugene Fidell said. "Chaplain Yee spent 76 days in pretrial confinement for no good reason. The Army has to be big enough to admit a mistake. In that regard, today was disappointing."

Although the charges against Yee have been dismissed, Fidell said the case isn't over, suggesting his client may take legal action against the government.

Authorities had said Yee, 35, was carrying classified information when he was arrested September 10, 2003, and had taken secret materials to a housing unit at the prison while serving as chaplain. Yee's attorney argued that the information wasn't classified.

The government failed to build a capital espionage case against him. He was eventually charged with mishandling classified material, failing to obey an order, making a false official statement, adultery and conduct unbecoming an officer. He could have faced 14 years if convicted.

But Army officials dismissed all criminal charges last month, saying national security concerns prevented them from seeking a court-martial in open court.

Yee was then found guilty of the non-criminal violations of adultery and downloading porn onto his Army computer.

Yee, of Chinese descent, converted to Islam from Christianity in 1991 after his military studies at West Point. He left the Army for Syria where he received religious training. He rejoined the U.S. military soon after.

Yee has returned to his home base of Fort Lewis, Washington, and resumed his duties as chaplain.

Mapping The Gay Hood

365Gay.com, April 12, 2004


by Doreen Brandt, 365Gay.com Newscenter, Washington Bureau
Washington, D.C. – How does your city rank in the gay hierarchy? It's no surprise that San Francisco is at the top of the list. West Hollywood and New York City up there too. So is Provincetown. Those are givens. All are high profile gay meccas. But, what about the rest of the country?
That's what Urban Institute demographer Gary Gates and researcher Jason Ost set out to determine. Mining data from the 2000 Census they've developed the first Gay and Lesbian Atlas.
The census did not ask specifically about sexuality, so it does not have information on the total gay community, but it did enquire about same-sex households, and that has provided Gates and Ost with a wealth of information.
"For years we've been saying that counting matters in debates about lesbian and gay issues. Now Gary Gates and Jason Ost have used the biggest and best dataset available on same-sex couples to show why in this remarkable book," says M. V. Lee Badgett, author of Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men.
"In addition to being incredibly useful for researchers, policymakers, businesspeople, and activists, The Gay and Lesbian Atlas has some fun surprises tucked inside its rankings that will challenge many stereotypes."
Among those surprises: Vermont leads all states in the concentration of gay and lesbian couples. California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon rank second through fifth. Desert southwest states like New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona also appear in the top ten.
Among large metropolitan areas, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, Fort Lauderdale, and Austin rank highest in the concentration of same-sex couples. Smaller metropolitan areas of note include Portland, Maine; Asheville, North Carolina; Bloomington, Indiana; and Iowa City, Iowa.
The Cape Cod tourist destination of Provincetown claims the title of "gayest" town in America and also has the neighborhood with the country's highest concentration of same-sex couples. Neighborhoods in the California cities of San Francisco, Guerneville, and West Hollywood, along with areas in Fort Lauderdale, New York, Boston, and Houston, also rank among the top-ten neighborhoods.
While San Francisco; Fort Lauderdale; Santa Rosa, California; Seattle; and New York top the list of metropolitan areas in the concentration of gay male couples, the leading areas for lesbian couples are Santa Rosa; Santa Cruz, California; Santa Fe; San Francisco; and Oakland.
Gay and lesbian couples appear to be "urban pioneers," willing to live in and possibly transform distressed urban areas. They are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to live in racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods that have more college-educated residents, older housing stock, and both higher crime rates and higher property values.
Same-sex couples with children often live in states and large metropolitan areas not known for large gay and lesbian communities. Mississippi, South Dakota, Alaska, South Carolina, and Louisiana are where same-sex couples are most likely raising children.
The South dominates the rankings of states by the concentration of African-American same-sex couples among all households and among other gay and lesbian couples. Texas's metropolitan areas (with their large Hispanic communities) feature prominently in similar rankings by the concentration of Hispanic gay or lesbian couples.
For each of the 50 states The Gay and Lesbian Atlas presents a two-page spread with colorful maps and charts showing the geographic distribution of same-sex couples and highlighting their demographic characteristics, including age, race and ethnicity, and the proportion raising children.
Twenty-five cities are also profiled with similar maps and charts – the 20 cities with the highest number of same-sex couples along with five cities chosen for geographic diversity or to acknowledge a particularly high concentration of gay and lesbian couples (Orlando; New Orleans; Nashville; Kansas City, Kansas/Missouri; and Albuquerque).
Published by the Urban Institute Press it will be available to the public on May 3.

Doctor, Doctor: How Coming Out Can Affect Your Healthcare

Take Charge of Your Health by Talking to Your Doctor

By Sean Bugg

Among the uncomfortable experiences that are part and parcel of life is that first visit to a new doctor. There you sit in a chilly examination room on a paper-covered table waiting to tell a stranger about problems you may be having with your health. Problems that may involve something you consider extremely personal.

Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people all have issues unique to their lives that can shape both the health issues they face and the type of health care they receive. Being able to talk openly with a primary care physician or any other medical-service provider is an important aspect of healthcare that can at times be difficult, even for people who may consider themselves out in most other parts of their lives.

While studies on the experiences of coming out to doctors are limited, groups that provide health and support services to the GLBT community say that it can be difficult for many people simply because of the fear they may have about the consequences.

"It's a vulnerable position," says D. Magrini, coordinator of health education for the Lesbian Services Program of Whitman-Walker Clinic. "You're in a room in something resembling a paper gown. The doctor is dressed and you're not -- it's hard to talk about difficult subjects in that position."

Not feeling free to discuss your sexual orientation and sexual activity can have a real impact on your health, whether it results in a feeling of mistrust or in a doctor missing a diagnosis because she doesn't have all the relevant information about a patient.

Magrini says assumptions about women and their behaviors can present themselves early in a visit.

"I've found that one of the first questions that any woman is asked is, ‘What kind of birth control are you on?'" she says. "That's already going to set me on edge."

Those sorts of assumptions set the stage for what is considered "normal" in that situation, and can make it hard for a lesbian to get past that discomfort and talk about what issues may be happening with their own health and behaviors.

Magrini has provided many cultural competency trainings for medical providers to help them be "better able to respond in a sensitive manner and include the chosen family of a person in their treatment and care." She stresses that while some health risks may be higher for some lesbians -- there has been some indication, for example, that lesbians may be at increased risk for breast cancer -- those risks are also associated with some heterosexual women, including those who choose to have children later in life. The issues are more about establishing an environment where you can communicate effectively with your doctor.

Cheryl Pearson-Fields, deputy director of the Mautner Project for Lesbians with Cancer, has also worked to improve communication between lesbians and their healthcare providers through the "Removing the Barriers" program, which trains providers on how to provide culturally competent care to lesbians.

She also says that available research shows that lesbians who are out to their doctors reap a number of benefits.

"They are more adherent to screening recommendations and are more satisfied with their health care encounters," she says. "It facilitates better communication with physicians, makes them feel more comfortable, because they don't have to hide part of their lives."

Pearson-Fields also notes that the open communication benefits "both sides of the equation."

"Providers are able to make recommendations and communicate from a position of knowledge. They know risk factors and aspects of a patient's life because their patient is comfortable talking about their real risk factors."

Gay men share many of the same concerns about coming out to their doctor, and can also share many of the same benefits.

"One of the most important [benefits] is screening and preventive measures for STDs [sexually transmitted diseases]," says Dr. Philippe Chiliade, medical director of Whitman-Walker Clinic. He particularly cites the available vaccinations for hepatitis A and B, which sexually active gay men are at high-risk of contracting and which can have devastating health consequences. A gay man who can discuss his sexual activity openly with his doctor will be much more likely to receive a recommendation for those vaccinations.

Understanding the sexual health issues of gay men and having knowledge of a patient's sexual activity can positively impact a patient's health and treatment, Chiliade says. For example, a physician who does not know that his patient is gay may not see the signs of oral or rectal gonorrhea, which can be transmitted through receptive oral and anal sex.

But even though the benefits can be so significant, some gay men still have problems coming out to their doctors or, if they're out, discussing specific aspects of their sexual lives that may be relevant to their healthcare.

"It's fear of being judged by their provider," says Chiliade. "It's still socially difficult."

Communication can also be impaired by how a doctor reacts to the information a gay patient gives, he says. If a patient perceives that the "provider was uncomfortable, it would be difficult for someone to come back and talk clearly about their sexual orientation."

The ways in which healthcare providers use language is one of the most significant barriers for transgender persons accessing healthcare, says Earline Budd, executive director of Transgender Health Empowerment.

"It's the sensitivity in terms of language and pronouns," she says. For example, a woman indicates on initial forms that her biological gender is male, although she identifies and passes as female, and then a nurse or provider insists on referring to her as "sir."

"What they ultimately do is get up and leave," says Budd. "That stigma and insensitivity is the biggest barrier to health care."

Budd's group has found, through focus groups and other work, that transgender persons with access to healthcare don't necessarily have a problem finding a provider, but often have problems with insensitivity with the provider they do have.


"Most providers are open to having training on transgender issues," she says. "They're calling and asking ‘Can you help us understand and provide services?'"

Budd cautions that there is no quick fix for these sorts of problems, because some people's beliefs won't allow them to come around and provide services sensitive to transgender needs.

"But we are better off today than we were years ago," she says. "We've made some big steps, but we still have a ways to go."

One of the biggest advantages for GLBT people living in the Washington area is the large number of gay and gay-friendly physicians and healthcare providers working in D.C. and the surrounding suburbs.

"There are a lot of providers who are gay friendly and gay themselves," says Chiliade, who notes that you don't necessarily need to find a gay provider, but one who is comfortable dealing with GLBT issues.

If you're new to the area, or new to the process of finding a personal physician, there a number of steps you can take to find a doctor who can address your health issues competently and sensitively.

"Talk to people and friends," says Pearson-Fields. "Find out who has had previous experience coming out to a provider. Look for clues in a doctor's office."

Depending on the experiences of friends and acquaintances is a good way to find providers. "One of the best things folks can do is go to their social network and ask," says Magrini.

Many providers also advertise in community publications and resources. Mautner Project and Whitman-Walker both provide referral lists for people interested in finding a provider, and they both want to hear about positive experiences GLBT people have with providers.

"If you know of any good docs, let us know," says Magrini.

Finally, what do you do if you realize that your doctor is not comfortable with GLBT health issues or is in some way biased against gays and lesbians?

"People have to remain safe," says Pearson-Fields. "Sitting naked in a doctor's office is a vulnerable experience. If you feel it's not going to be a positive encounter, don't come out if you don't have options."

She cautions that a patient should assess the situation and act accordingly. "I don't think anyone will say that patients should always come out to their provider no matter what," she says, although it's definitely a good idea. Chiliade says that if you realize your doctor isn't comfortable dealing with these issues, you should take advantage of the breadth of doctors available in the area and switch providers.

"They won't receive the best care if they're not being treated well," he says.

Remember, it's your health that's the primary concern.

"It's like any consumer issue," says Magrini. "The doctor is being paid for services. People will take their cars to folks that treat them better than their doctor treats them. Don't subject yourself to treatment that's not to your liking."

Whitman-Walker Clinic
www.wwc.org


Lesbian Services Program
202-797-3580
lsp@wwc.org


Gay Men's Health and Wellness Clinic
202-745-6125
www.wwc.org


Mautner Project for
Lesbians with Cancer
202-332-5536
www.mautnerproject.org


Transgender Health Empowerment
202-546-4043


The Gay and Lesbian
Medical Association maintains a nationwide database of gay-friendly service
providers, available at www.glma.org.

Both sides file briefs in Oregon gay marriage suit

PORTLAND -- Supporters and opponents of gay marriage filed briefs yesterday for a lawsuit expected to decide the issue for the only major U.S. community still granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The documents cited experts on human sexuality and explored the intentions of Oregon's pioneer founders in making their cases.

Oral arguments are scheduled for tomorrow, and a judge is expected to rule by the end of the month on whether Multnomah County commissioners acted lawfully when they decided March 3 to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

"If the court finds the law unconstitutional, the judge only has two options," said David Fidanque, Oregon director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "To order the county not to issue licenses to anybody, or to continue what it is doing now."

The once frantic run on Multnomah County's marriage counter has tapered off since early March, when hundreds of gay couples showed up each day. Yet licenses are still handed out. By last week, the county had issued more than 2,900 such licenses.

The state registrar, however, refuses to record the marriages, providing the basis for the lawsuit.

Multnomah County joined the ACLU and gay couples in supporting gay marriage, while a coalition of Christian pastors and conservative leaders are supporting the state attorney general.

Mass. Governor Asks for Special Counsel to Stop Gay Marriages

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney said Thursday he will seek emergency legislation aimed at forestalling gay marriages, which are scheduled to become legal in Massachusetts on May 17.

The legislation would allow Romney to appoint a special counsel who would ask the state's highest court to delay its ruling on gay marriage. The governor said it would allow him "to protect the integrity of the constitutional process."

Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly last month rejected the Republican governor's request to seek a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court until November 2006, when voters may have a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and legalizing civil unions.

The man Romney hopes to tap as special prosecutor is retired state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, who has called the court's November ruling legalizing gay marriage an "abomination."

The attorney general, as the state's chief legal officer, determines legal policy for the commonwealth.

"This would be an unprecedented intrusion on the attorney general's authority," said attorney Robert Sherman, who served as counsel to former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger.

Any legislation to stop gay marriage would likely face an uphill battle in the state Senate, where 22 of the 40 members last month voted against the constitutional amendment. It passed anyway because there were enough votes among House members.

Even Senate President Robert Travaglini, who supported that amendment, has said there is little appetite in the chamber to block gay marriages on May 17.

Thai transsexual boxer happy with film about her life

SINGAPORE April 14 - A film about a real-life champion Thai kick boxer who hung up his gloves to undergo a sex change operation has meant more than just box office receipts to its subject - it's given her peace of mind.

Former prize fighter Parinya Charoenphol said at a news conference in Singapore Wednesday that the recent Thai release of ``Beautiful Boxer,'' a dramatic film about her life as a transvestite and transsexual, has helped people understand the tough choices she has made in her life.

``After the movie came out, it seemed like people could now understand the reasons why I made certain decisions,'' Parinya said through a Thai translator, referring to the sex change operation she underwent in 1999.

``They have given me a lot of encouragement,'' said the soft-spoken model-actress decked out in a white satin blouse, floral skirt and sharp-toed boots.

Parinya also said her parents told her after they had seen the movie that they felt very proud of her.

``My mother was crying in the cinema,'' Parinya added with a demure giggle, saying that her family of five had always enjoyed a close relationship.

Parinya took up kickboxing at age 12 to earn money to support his poor farmer parents in the northern Chiang Mai province. After winning several local bouts, he began appearing in the ring wearing lipstick and makeup and often kissing opponents on the cheek.

His highly skilled classical style soon won him fans, fights, fame - and controversy. He achieved 22 wins and 18 knockouts in six years, but some accused him of tarnishing the masculine image of Thai kickboxing, an ancient and revered sport.

Parinya said that he began taking hormone pills as the woman inside him struggled to emerge, but with falling testosterone levels, he lost crucial fights and suffered professionally.

``I miss boxing, but it would be very difficult because I can't do it anymore,'' Parinya said.

Women are not allowed in professional boxing rings in Thailand.

Now, however, Parinya is basking in the limelight of show business. Following the film's release in Thailand, she was offered several acting roles and has accepted parts in four Thai television soap operas and an action movie.

``Beautiful Boxer'' opens in Singapore on April 29. - AP

CA Supreme Court to decide if gay marriages valid

Harriet Chiang
Thursday, April 15, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


URL:



The California Supreme Court indicated Wednesday that it would decide not only whether San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had exceeded his authority by allowing same-sex marriages but also on the validity of the 4,037 gay and lesbian unions that took place at the San Francisco City Hall.

In an order issued Wednesday, the high court said it would hold a hearing either at the end of May or in June on whether Newsom had the right to defy state laws banning gay marriages because he believes they are unconstitutional. The court is expected to issue a decision within 90 days after the arguments.

The court agreed to take up the issue on March 11 and ordered San Francisco officials to stop issuing more marriage licenses.

In Wednesday's order, the court ordered the lawyers representing the state, San Francisco city officials and three San Francisco residents to submit arguments on whether the court should rule on the validity of the existing same-sex marriages. If the court were to find that Newsom exceeded his authority, the justices asked in their order, "would the marriages that have been performed and registered nonetheless be valid, would the marriages be voidable, or would the marriages be void?''

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

THE BATTLE OVER SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Newsom faces wrath of God, fundamentalist leaders say

Don Lattin, Chronicle Religion Writer
Thursday, April 15, 2004
©2004 San Francisco Chronicle | Feedback | FAQ


Dozens of fundamentalist preachers from across California came to San Francisco City Hall on Wednesday and told Mayor Gavin Newsom to repent or face the wrath of God.

Repentance would involve a reversal and renunciation of same-sex marriage, something the mayor says he will not do.

The Rev. David Innes, pastor of Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco, led a delegation of conservative evangelical leaders who met with Newsom and handed the mayor a letter signed by 200 pastors.

By issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, the pastors said, the mayor has violated state laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

"More serious," their letter states, "is your brazen defiance of God's holy immutable law.''

After the meeting, Newsom gathered for another meeting with his department heads. "My friends of the church were just lecturing me,'' the mayor quipped.

As Newsom went on with his day, more than 100 evangelicals stood on the City Hall steps and unfurled a banner that proclaimed, "We All Agree -- Marriage = 1 Man and 1 Woman.''

Many of them yelled "Amen!" when Innes called on the mayor to repent.

Another speaker, the Rev. Chuck McIlhenny, the pastor of the First Orthodox Presbyterian Church in San Francisco, said government-sanctioned same- sex marriages are what happens "when the wicked seize a city.'' McIlhenny is one of the preachers who has filed a lawsuit seeking to halt the marriages.

"Anyone who speaks out against homosexuality is discriminated against. Churches are firebombed. It happens in San Francisco,'' said McIlhenny, who has battled the local gay rights movement for more than two decades.

The Rev. Arthur McKay, president of the San Francisco Baptist Ministers Conference, said he and other African American church leaders resent it when comparisons are made between the same-sex marriage crusade and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

"They (gay rights leaders) have hijacked the civil rights train,'' McKay told the crowd. "This is not a civil rights issue. It's a moral issue.''

Many of the protesters outside City Hall were Asian American Christians, including the Rev. Thomas Wang of the Bay Area Chinese Ministerial Prayer Fellowship.

"Even the great majority of nonchurched Asians, Afro Americans and Hispanics are for traditional marriage and are offended that radical gay rights activists have hijacked the civil rights movement,'' Wang said.

Darlene Chiu, a spokeswoman for the mayor, said Newsom was not converted by his evangelical visitation.

"The mayor believes marriage is between two people who love each other,'' Chiu said.

Earlier this year, Newsom allowed his staff to issue 4,037 marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

City Hall workers have suspended the practice pending a court ruling on the legality of Newsom's action.

But in the end, the pastors say, the real judge will be God in heaven.

"We pray for the mayor every day,'' said the Rev. Bud Silva, pastor of the Fundamental Baptist Church of Santa Maria.

Chronicle staff writer Ilene Lelchuk contributed to this report.E-mail Don Lattin at dlattin@sfchronicle.com.

©2004 San Francisco Chronicle

CA School Gender Bias Fight Taken to the Brink

Los Angeles Times, April 13, 2004



By Kimi Yoshino, Times Staff Writer
A board majority in a small Orange County school district on Monday risked millions of dollars in funding and a possible state takeover by voting to hold firm to its view that a California antidiscrimination policy violates Christian principles.
In a series of votes over recent months, the three-trustee majority on the five-member board has made the Westminster School District the only one of 1,056 in California to resist a state law that lets students and staff define their own gender. Such a policy, the trustees say, could lead to promotion of a transsexual agenda in the classroom, cross-dressing on campus and boys and girls mixing in school bathrooms.
The stand has prompted state Superintendent for Public Instruction Jack O'Connell to threaten withdrawal of $7.8 million in annual funding if the district failed to comply with the law by midnight Monday. It also has prompted state Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana) to propose a state takeover of the district and angry parents to launch recalls against two of the three trustees whose terms do not expire this year.
The result is the latest skirmish in the nation's culture wars – a battle between local and higher authorities not unlike that waged by the mayor of San Francisco over gay marriage.
In this case, however, the three trustees are fighting considerable community opposition. Even parents in traditionally conservative Orange County who are sympathetic to the trustees' concerns question their willingness to place school funding at risk.
"My kids are going to suffer because of the three village idiots," said parent Louise Morley before Monday's vote. "You can't bring religious beliefs into public education."
And Westminster Mayor Margie L. Rice, a self-described born-again Christian, said she would be willing to help change the state law – but until it is changed, she told trustees, "Your responsibility now is to obey the law."
In an emergency meeting Monday before a standing-room-only crowd of more than 200, the board's three defiant trustees voted for a revised policy that grants some of the state's demands but draws the line at letting students define their gender.
The state is reviewing the district's revised policy, but O'Connell, the state schools chief, issued a statement late Monday saying he is not impressed. "Every child in this state deserves unequivocal protection from discrimination," he wrote. "I am disappointed that in 2004 this fundamental civil right is being debated."
'Price on Morality'
The three trustees, led by board member Judy Ahrens, have described their position as a stand against moral erosion. "According to the people who are angry at us, there is a price on morality," Ahrens said in March. "I say: 'Our kids are not for sale.'"
Neither Ahrens, who campaigned for office on a platform that included opposition to the state's antidiscrimination wording, nor the other two trustees in the majority said anything during Monday's meeting to explain their position. Police escorted them out of the district office to their cars after the meeting and they all refused to comment to reporters.
Board President James Reed, who has opposed the majority's stance, said he was frustrated. "I would rather have the state dissolve the board authority and go from there," Reed said. "I worry about what other laws these board members may be willing to break."
Once a bedroom community for predominantly white aerospace and industrial workers, Westminster has more than tripled in population, to more than 88,000, since its incorporation in 1957. Its demographics have also dramatically shifted: Nearly 40% of residents are of Asian descent, with the city's Little Saigon district boasting the largest concentration of Vietnamese in the United States. Politically, it remains conservative, with a plurality of voters registered Republican.
The district, with 17 schools, serves 10,000 students in kindergarten through eighth grade.
Westminster has had its share of decisive moments, when residents have had to decide whether to accept change or draw the line. In 1946, for example, the Mendez family won a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ended the Westminster School District's policy of sending whites and Latinos to separate high schools.
The case resulted in a court order that desegregated all schools in Orange County, which in turn energized a statewide movement and led to the eventual prohibition of segregation in California.
On Monday, parent Coni Kohan reminded trustees of that court decision. "Once again, it's us versus the world," she said. "And I think we're wrong."
In 1999, the City Council barred display of the flag of the former nation of South Vietnam on city light poles, angering many in the city's burgeoning population of Vietnamese emigres.
Unlike previous controversies, however, this question has not divided the community but drawn it together. Few residents have appeared at school board meetings to back the three-trustee majority, while as many as 900 at a time have turned up in opposition.
'Power of Community'
"I give you credit for uniting this community, because together this community will fight discrimination," district PTA President Louise MacIntyre told the board before Monday's vote. "Never underestimate the power of community."
The saga began in January, when district administrators informed trustees that district policy for handling discrimination complaints was not in compliance with state regulations. Under a 2000 state antidiscrimination law, all school districts' discrimination complaint procedures must reflect the state's definition of "gender" as a person's actual sex or "perceived" sex. Westminster's policy mentioned gender, but didn't define it, a position maintained until Monday.
In February, officials from the California Department of Education told the board to make several changes, including adoption of the state's gender definition, or face loss of some state and federal funding. O'Connell wrote to the board this month, promising to "move with all deliberate speed if you challenge my authority."
Adding further urgency to the debate, Bank of America in March announced that it would halt a $16-million loan until it could evaluate how the board's stance could affect the district's financial security.
After the board majority reiterated its stance April 1, Dunn said he would sponsor emergency legislation to allow a state takeover of the district. Moral debates, he said, should not come at the expense of educating children.
By this time, parents had launched a recall drive against two of the three trustees. Recall proponents hope to put their measures on the ballot for November, when the third trustee will have to seek reelection to remain on the board.
Over the weekend, hoping to satisfy the state while sticking to their principles, the three trustees – Ahrens, Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez-Woodcock – called a special meeting for Monday, the state deadline for compliance.
After nearly an hour of comments from residents nearly unanimous against the majority's stance, the board voted along the same lines – 3 to 2 – to adopt a policy that satisfies some of the state requirements. But it also borrowed language from the state penal code to define gender in terms of how a victim is perceived by the person accused of discrimination; the policy explicitly does not allow students or staff to define their own gender.
At Uncle Pete's Cafe, a Westminster institution, patrons criticized the trustees for continuing to resist state law.
"It's outrageous. What happened to 'the republic for which it stands?' No one individual can stop our whole premise of how we live," said Roy Olsen, 67, who has grandchildren in Westminster schools.
"It's using the Constitution against us," he said. "That's state-run extortion, isn't it?"
But Mark Ahrens, son of the board majority's leader, said his mother has received support from many who are not willing to take a public stand.
"We believe there's a silent majority," he said. "Teachers know her as a loving person and many support her, but can't say it publicly."
• Times staff writers Kevin Pang and Claire Luna contributed to this report.

School tolerance plan stirs row: Ontario community sharply divided over sexual-orientation education

The Globe & Mail, April 14, 2004


By Alanna Mitchell
A school-board plan to make schools safer for gay students in London, Ont., has become so emotionally charged that trustees met last night amid increased security and protests to begin debating it.
The community surrounding London is sharply divided over policies two years in the making that would allow schools to provide a range of ways of teaching students about sexual orientation and help them find library material and emotional support.
On one side are those who argue that it is the board's obligation to reflect the full diversity of Canadian society in their classrooms and on the other are those concerned that educating students about homosexuality would amount to promoting it or deeming it "normal."
International parenting expert Barbara Coloroso has become mired in the debate.
Mrs. Coloroso was aghast to find her name and work directly linked to the side she does not support: a parents' group opposed to the school board's plan. Her name and quotes from her work were used as the title page on a publication and CD distributed to the trustees and a handful of members of the community.
In fact, she strongly supports the school board's plan to make sure that gay students feel safe at school, she said in an interview yesterday. She plans to sue the parents' group, STOP, which stands for Simple Truths Our Priority.
"When we teach that kids who are gay are less than we are, we are setting up a climate for them to be targeted," Mrs. Coloroso said, adding: "I don't consider a person who is gay or bisexual or transsexual to be abnormal. That's my own educated opinion."
Not only that, but the information in the STOP publication was, in her view "hate material" and "misinformation," she said.
"It is intolerance, bigotry and hatred cloaked in the garb of religion."
A great deal of the information was taken selectively from U.S. websites, she said, and resembled material used in a campaign by some religious factions in the United States to prevent information about homosexuality from being taught in schools.
She said she believes the parents who are promoting this point of view are mistaken and misled, although she said it's clear that they care for their children.
Kimberley Cartwright, a spokeswoman for STOP, said the group had not heard from Mrs. Coloroso, author of a range of best-sellers on raising children, and that she was surprised by "the big hoopla."
"We wouldn't mind speaking with her," she said. "All this . . . is our concerns as parents. I don't see how she can argue with some of the stuff that's in there."
Mrs. Cartwright said the group gathered 2,500 signatures to protest against what the group contends is the fact that parents were not involved enough in making the recommendations. She said the recommendations are too vague and it's not clear what they will lead to.
She made it clear, however, that STOP has "never been against gay safety," and wants the bullying of gay students to end.
Brittany Ireland, 17, said she had to switch high schools because she was being so forcefully harassed after she came out as gay. She is one of the students whose protests two years ago against the lack of safety prompted the board's new plan.
She said the bullying started with verbal abuse and escalated to taunts that she would end up in hell. Teachers would say they couldn't address the harassment and would ignore and sometimes promote it, she said.
"We're trying to be treated as equals," she said. "The fact that the suicide rate is so high among gay students is probably mainly because of what's going on at school. I don't think the school board should let it carry on."
Her mother, Laura Ireland, finds herself torn on the issue. She has lived through the pain of seeing her own daughter harassed for being gay, but she doesn't want schools to teach the view that homosexuality is "normal."
Peggy Sattler, a Thames Valley trustee, said anti-hate workers who have spoken to board members have explained to them that "homosexuals are the last group of people left that it's socially acceptable to hate. We're really experiencing that here in Thames Valley."

If you have been a Boston lawyer for a 1/2-dozen years or more, you have helped finance the screwiest fringe of the movement to stop gay marriage

Boston Globe, April 14, 2004
View from the fringe
By Steve Bailey, Globe Columnist
Attention attorneys: If you have been a lawyer in this town for a half-dozen years or more, you have helped finance the screwiest fringe of the movement to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts. You still may be giving; it is hard to say.
More than 20 years ago, J. Edward Pawlick, a lawyer, started Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on his kitchen table. What began on a shoestring has grown into a money machine, with weekly newspapers in eight states and a biweekly national newspaper, Lawyers Weekly USA. The papers have become the bible of the industry with their dry but meticulous summations of the week's court rulings opinions.
But in the past six years, since selling Lawyers Weekly Inc. to his daughter, Pawlick has become a fiery apostle for conservative causes. In self-published books, private mailings, and a website (www.massnews.com), Pawlick has abandoned the just-the-facts approach of Lawyers Weekly for crusading against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 – it is bad for everyone in America, particularly minorities, he says – and his current campaign to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. He is a man fond of conspiracy theories, and he has a mean streak to boot.
Take Pawlick's new book, "Libel by New York Times: Gay Marriage Didn't Just Happen in Massachusetts, It Was Engineered by the New York Times." The 356-page book is a laughable account of how Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr., chairman of the New York Times Co., supposedly used his flagship newspaper, the Times, and The Boston Globe to get Margaret Marshall, married to retired Times columnist Anthony Lewis, appointed chief justice of the state Supreme Judicial Court and get gay marriage approved in Massachusetts and nationwide. As someone who takes home a Times Co. paycheck every week, I'm hoping for a mention as one of Pinch's Pawns in a subsequent edition. Yesterday MassNews was already warning that I was "digging dirt" on Pawlick.
No need; his book speaks for itself.
Here is what Pawlick has to say about gays: "It is not a lifestyle that most of them enjoy. That is why their culture is so heavily into drugs and alcohol. But homosexuals earnestly believe they are stuck with it; they were 'born that way.'"
On Marshall, he says: "She's probably having a good time down at Times Square, laughing with Pinch and her husband, Anthony Lewis, about what they have accomplished here in Massachusetts. They may even be discussing how they're going to have her appointed to the US Supreme Court."
Both Sulzberger and Marshall declined to comment on the book.
Pawlick, now in his 70s, spent more than $200,000 in the past two years to finance Massachusetts Citizens for Marriage, which his wife, Sally, heads. The group sued the Times Co. for libel (thus the name of the book), and lost. Three articles were from the Globe and one from the Times. He has financed a campaign to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot blocking gay marriage. And he covered the airwaves with radio ads.
"Nothing personal with you," he told me. "I don't trust The Boston Globe." And he hung up.
Yesterday, even his daughter was distancing herself from dad. "Neither I nor Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly endorse the opinions expressed by Ed Pawlick in his book or on his website. Further, Ed Pawlick has no ownership interest in or influence over Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly," Susan P. Hall, Lawyers Weekly's chairman, said in a statement. But Lawyers Weekly would not say whether dad still receives income from the company as a consequence of the sale. "Lawyers Weekly is a private, closely held business. We don't comment on finances," chief executive Jeffrey A. Baskies said.
Reasonable people can disagree on what marriage is or is not. But leaders like Ed Pawlick, we can do without.
• Steve Bailey is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at bailey@globe.com or at 617-929-2902.

An Elastic Institution: Gay matrimony may reflect the natural evolution of marriage, which is diverse across cultures and changing in our own history.

Washington Post, April 14, 2004


By John Borneman and Laurie Kain Hart
Since its origins in the late 19th century, anthropology – more than any other field of knowledge – has made the understanding of marriage across human societies one of its central tasks. Today the question arises: Can a scientific understanding inform current debates about the meaning of marriage? Would homosexual marriage destroy the principle of marriage as a social institution?
In the 1860s New York lawyer and anthropologist Louis Henry Morgan attempted a systematic cross-cultural study of the institution of marriage. Morgan's data were imperfect, but he was able to demonstrate that the record of human societies showed a startling diversity of socially approved forms of marriage. All societies had some form of regularized partnership, but no single standard human form could be identified. Generally, even within a society, there was a certain elasticity of marriage forms.
The most famous of these unions were the ones most foreign to Western Victorian society: marriage between a woman and several men; marriage between a man and several women; forms of "visiting" marriage, whereby a man might visit his wife but not live with her. As anthropologists assembled more reliable data, they found it difficult to produce a definition of human marriage that would hold true for all its socially legitimate forms.
Marriage generally functioned to provide a "legitimate" identity to children – a kind of "last name." Yet, the structure of these arrangements was extraordinarily diverse: Biological paternity was not universally the basis of identity – as, indeed, it is not in the case of adoption in America. In many cases, the biological father (the Latin term is genitor) was distinct from the legal father (pater) produced by the marriage contract and ceremony. Alternatively, it could be the mother's family and not the father that bestowed identity on a child.
As for sex, rarely if ever has marriage been able to restrict its varied practice to the relation of man and wife. In most cases, anthropologists agreed, what counted was that some socially approved form of marriage provided a secure place for the child in the social order.
But marriage has not been solely about children. In most societies known to us, everyone marries; it is an expected rite of passage and part of the normal life course of all adults. Only in post-classical Western societies do we find high numbers of unmarried people. Unlike other peoples, we consider marriage – however desirable or undesirable – optional.
Claude Levi-Strauss, the father of French structural anthropology, argued that it is only the "division of labor between the sexes that makes marriage indispensable." It follows that if men and women are granted equal access to jobs of similar worth – as is often the case today – the meaning of marriage will change.
The cult of romantic love in a companionate marriage is a recent innovation in the history of marriage. While romantic passion has existed in all societies, only in a few has this unstable emotion been elaborated and intensified culturally and considered the basis for the social institution of marriage. Indeed, marriage has traditionally been more concerned with – and successful in – regulating property relations and determining lineage or inheritance rights than with confining passion and sexual behavior.
Marriage, in other words, is not only diverse across cultures but also dynamic and changing in America's own history. We live in a pluralist society, where marriage is not the only form of union or of mutual care in our society. When individuals and groups can, under certain conditions, choose their patterns of self-expression – their intimacy, child-care arrangements, sexual practices, place of residence, partnership forms – there will be increased variability. The meaning of marriage – and the value of marriage – changes when it becomes one of several options in a society of self-determining individuals.
This said, it is not the case that "anything goes." Every society favors forms of union that conform to its ethical standards and its needs.
Our society no longer approves of treating women as incompetent minors and the wards of their husbands within the structure of a patriarchal union. We do not approve, generally, of plural marriages – the basis of our disapproval being that they abrogate the rights of women and especially of young girls. We no longer generally feel that the sole function of women in society is to produce children and serve men as domestic labor. In other words, when we censure certain types of marriage, the basis on which we do so is our defense of individual human rights. This is our ethical standard.
Marriage is, then, foundational because it provides a recognized form of identity and security for children in society. Its function is not universally to produce children but to provide legitimate forms for their care. And marriage's primary accomplishment is not to regulate sex (as a quick glance at American society would tell us). The institution survives despite infidelity, and sex does not by itself create marriage.
In addition, it is a system of exchange whereby families "give up" their own offspring to make new alliances with others, and to enter into broad networks of relationships, including and especially with one's "enemies." Without such arrangements, we would have a world of isolated, incestuous, biological clans – and endemic warfare.
What, then, about restriction of the legal bond of marriage to a man and a woman? Does marriage have to be heterosexual? The human record tells us otherwise. While the model of marriage is arguably heterosexual, the practice of marriage is not. In a broad spectrum of societies in Africa, for example, when a woman's husband dies, she may take on his legal role in the family, and acquire a legal "wife" to help manage the domestic establishment. This role of wife is above all social, and not contingent on her sexual relations. These societies, which practice heterosexuality, take this woman-woman marriage as commonsensical; they recognize that above all marriage functions socially to extend and stabilize the network of care.
As for marriage as a legal institution, the ethnographic record makes clear that law expresses the dominant ethics of the group. Our history reflects the evolution of our values, and we as Americans are most proud of our deepening tradition of civil rights. To deny marriage to same-sex couples, as President Bush proposes, expresses a rejection of this civil rights tradition and a regression to a politics of exclusion.
• John Borneman is a professor of anthropology at Princeton University. Laurie Kain Hart is chair of the anthropology department at Haverford College.

Gay Brown student criticizes handling of altercation: Isaac Rodriguez says he was the victim of homophobia; university says there are two sides

Providence Journal, April 13, 2004


Isaac Rodriguez, who faces a disciplinary hearing board next week, says he was the victim of homophobia; a university spokesman says there are two versions of the event.
By Jennifer D. Jordan, Journal Staff Writer
PROVIDENCE – A gay Brown University student is facing possible expulsion after he was involved in an altercation with a group of straight students two months ago.
Isaac Rodriguez, 23, a senior, will face a six-member disciplinary hearing board next week on charges he acted in a way that could "result in or can be reasonably expected to result in physical harm to a person or persons," according to Brown's standards of student conduct. Possible sanctions range from a reprimand or probation to suspension or expulsion.
Rodriguez says he was a victim of homophobia and deserves support from Brown, not punishment. He and junior Joel Madrid, 22, who witnessed the altercation but is not facing disciplinary action, say they are angry and disillusioned with the way Brown administrators and campus police have handled the incident. They, together with a student group called Action for Safety, are calling for Brown to change its policies regarding hate crimes.
"They're trying to charge me with assault and I was just trying to defend myself," Rodriguez said. "Brown should revise its policy for bias-related incidents, because right now, one is nonexistent."
According to Brown police reports, a confrontation began at about 2:30 a.m. Feb. 14, when a small group of straight students began making antigay remarks in front of a late-night food vending truck on the Brown campus.
Rodriguez told the students he understood Spanish, the language in which they were speaking, that he was gay and their comments offended him. From there, things escalated into a physical altercation, with pushing and punching.
Rodriguez told the police he was pushed first; one of the two straight students directly involved in the incident first said Rodriguez pushed him, but later said he pushed Rodriguez first. Both straight students are also facing disciplinary hearings.
No one was seriously injured in the fracas, which was the third antigay incident reported on the Brown campus since last September, said Mark Nickel, Brown's spokesman.
The inconsistencies between the narratives of the two groups of students prompted disciplinary hearings against Rodriguez and the two straight students by the Office of Student Life.
Nickel said it was against Brown policy to discuss any ongoing disciplinary matters, but said "there are two different versions of events."
The university sent out a campus-wide e-mail on Feb. 18, and referred to the incident, mentioning "homophobic remarks" but it didn't mention any physical fighting or classify the incident as one of bias or discrimination. Instead, the e-mail said that Brown "has a special obligation to protect free speech," as well as "provide an environment free from harassment."
• Staff writer Jennifer D. Jordan can be reached at 277-7254 or at jjordan@projo.com

Senate Rejects Gay Nominee For State School Board, Lawmakers Vote 24-22 To Reject Wilson Nomination

TheIowaChannel.com

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowa lawmakers are blocking the nomination of a gay-rights activist to the state school board.

The Senate voted Tuesday 24-22 to reject Jonathan Wilson's nomination. He needed 36 votes, or two-thirds of the chamber, to be confirmed.

Tuesday's vote came after nearly two days of fiery debate on the Senate floor.

Some Republicans say they feared Wilson, a Des Moines lawyer, would try to promote a gay agenda.

"His openness in being part of and promoting a gay agenda -- both locally and nationally -- are obvious, and in my opinion, that disqualifies him," Sen. Kenneth Veenstra, R-Orange City, said.


Other Republicans questioned Wilson's qualifications and whether he could move Iowa's educational system forward.

"I don't think we're doing anything wrong here. I think a lot of people are off on tangent that's not the issue," Senate Majority Leader Stewart Iverson, R-Dows, said.

'Motivated By Bigotry'
Wilson's supporters said opponents don't like him because he's gay.

"This is an issue motivated by bigotry, hatred, it is clearly discriminatory," Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, said.

"Gay people in Iowa today are little better off than blacks in Alabama in 1963," Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, said.

Wilson had served for 12 years on the Des Moines school board but was defeated after he came out of the closet in 1995.

For his part, Wilson calls the decision a sad day for Iowa.

Democrats agree, with Senate Minority Leader Mike Gronstal saying Republicans have pandered to a hateful minority and "discouraged our young people from making Iowa their home, and sent a negative message about Iowa to the rest of nation."

"The message you are sending to them is 'Leave our state. There is no place in our government or society for you to contribute,'" Gronstal said.

Not Personal
Wilson told KCCI he is disappointed, but he isn't taking the vote personally.

"I have a very strong stomach and very thick skin, part of which was developed over many years serving on a local school board. Anyone who has done that knows that you deal with irrationality a lot," Wilson said.

He said his rejection comes down to a difference in religious philosophy between Republican legislators and himself.

Vilsack Disappointed
Gov. Tom Vilsack, who nominated Wilson, said he was disappointed in the vote.

"It was pure and simple a vote because Mr. Wilson happens to be openly gay, and that is an unfortunate message that our Senate sent today," Vilsack said.

Same-sex marriage mag to launch

by by Matthew Flamm

Congress and the courts may still be making up their minds about gay marriage, but entrepreneurs are already seizing an opportunity: Rainbow Weddings, a magazine for same sex couples planning to tie the knot, will launch in December, its founder and CEO, Michael Weiskopf, has announced.

With articles on wedding planning, honeymoon destinations and adoptions, the magazine expects to attract advertisers interested in targeting the affluent gay and lesbian market.

Mr. Weiskopf, who has founded a number of magazines over the years, including Dance Spirit and European Dance News, says that legislation barring same-sex marriage will not derail the new title.

"This publication goes beyond the institution or franchise of marriage," he says. "It's going to deal with the whole issue of coupled life and the special needs that alternative couples have."

Rainbow Weddings, which will be independently published in New York, will distribute 100,000 copies of its first issue nationally. Mr. Weiskopf says an editor will be named in the next two weeks.
Copyright 2004, Crain Communications, Inc

Zanzibar outlaws homosexual acts, Zanzibar's parliament has passed a bill that outlaws homosexuality and lesbianism.

The bill imposes stiff penalties which include up to 25 years imprisonment for those in gay relationships.
The overwhelmingly Muslim Indian Ocean island is a key tourist destination on the East African coast.

The attorney-general said they were determined to prevent Zanzibari culture from being corrupted. The president is expected to approve the bill into law.


Rare union
Correspondents say the number of homosexuals and lesbians is on the rise in the Indian Ocean island.

The penalty for those in lesbian relationships will be a seven-year jail term.

A penalty of life imprisonment will be imposed on anyone found guilty of sodomising a minor.

The bill was supported by both the ruling Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM) and the Civic United Front (CUF) - a rare occasion of political unity.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/3625269.stm

Strong Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage, But Those Who Approve Have Increased Substantially

ROCHESTER, N.Y., April 14 /PRNewswire/ -- Eight years ago, The Harris Poll found that very large 5-to-1 majorities opposed same-sex marriage. Now, a new Harris Poll finds that many more people approve of them, although those who disapprove still outnumber those who approve by 2-to-1. When it comes to a choice between allowing same-sex marriages, civil unions or neither, the public divides very approximately into thirds, with 35% saying "neither," 31% favoring civil unions and 27% favoring marriage.

These are some of the results of a survey by Harris Interactive® conducted among 3,698 U.S. adults surveyed online between March 18 and 29, 2004.

Some of the key findings in this research are:

* A 50% to 27% plurality disapproves of same-sex marriage between two
women. However, this is substantially less than the 55% to 16%
majority who felt this way in 2000 and the even larger 63% to 11%
majority in 1996.

* An almost identical 51% to 26% majority disapproves of same-sex
marriage between two men. Again, this is a big change from the 57% to
15% majority who felt this way in 2000 and the 64% to 10% majority who
held this opinion in 1996.

* Unsurprisingly the attitudes of people who themselves are gay, lesbian
or bisexual are very different. Seventy-one percent of them (compared
to only 24% of heterosexuals) think that same-sex couples should be
allowed to marry, as opposed to having only a civil union or neither
of these.

* Those who favor allowing same-sex marriage increases somewhat when
people are asked how they would feel if their own sons or daughters
were gay or lesbian. Under these circumstances 36% would want their
child to be allowed to have a same-sex marriage, compared to 48% who
would not.

* In response to another question, 41% of adults agree that "not allowing
same-sex couples to marry goes against a fundamental American right
that all people should be treated equally," while 47% disagree.


In reviewing these data, one is tempted to write that "if these trends continue, then in five or ten years time, we may have a majority who support same-sex marriages." However, there is no strong reason to believe that this trend will continue. Attitudes to same-sex marriage will surely change in response to events and media coverage of this issue.

Who should decide?

The public is split down the middle as to whether decisions about same-sex marriage should be determined by the federal government (40%) or by the states (41%). Most people (65%), but by no means everybody, understand that currently state governments determine the legality of same-sex marriage.

TABLE 1
APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF SINGLE-SEX MARRIAGES
"How do you feel about so-called same-sex marriages, between two men or two
women? Specifically, would you say you approve or disapprove or don't feel
strongly about the issue?"
Base: All Adults

Approve Disapprove Don't Don't
Feel Know/
Strongly Refused
Same-sex marriages
between two women 2004 % 27 50 19 4
2000 % 16 55 26 2
1996 % 11 63 25 2
Same-sex marriages
between two men 2004 % 26 51 18 4
2000 % 15 57 24 4
1996 % 10 64 24 2


NOTE: In the 1996 and 2000 surveys, the words "single sex" were used. In this new survey this was changed to "same-sex."

Percentages may not add up exactly due to rounding.

TABLE 2
MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNION OR NEITHER?
"Do you think that same-sex couples should be...?"
Base: All Adults

Sexual Orientation
Total GLBT Heterosexual
% % %
Allowed to marry 27 71 24
Allowed to have civil unions with
all the same rights of a married
couple but not call it marriage 31 25 32
Neither of these 35 4 37
Not sure 7 1 7

Note: Percentages may not add up exactly due to rounding.


TABLE 3
AGREE/DISAGREE WITH TWO STATEMENTS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
"Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements."
Base: All Adults
Agree Disagree Don't
Know/
Refused
If my son or daughter were gay
or lesbian, I would want him
or her to be able to legally
marry his or her same-sex
partner % 36 48 16
Not allowing same-sex couples
to marry goes against a
fundamental American right
that all people should be
treated equally % 41 47 12



TABLE 4
WHO DECIDES: STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
"Do you know if laws related to the governing of marriage are customarily
determined by state governments or the federal government?"
Base: All Adults
Total
%
State government 65
Federal government 10
Not sure 26

Note: Percentages may not add up exactly due to rounding.


TABLE 5
WHO SHOULD DECIDE? STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
"Do you think laws related to same-sex marriage or civil unions should be
determined by the federal government or state laws?"
Base: All Adults
Total
%
It should be determined by the federal government 40
It should be determined by state laws 41
Not sure 19



Methodology

The Harris Poll® was conducted online within the United States between March 18 and 29, 2004 among a nationwide cross section of 3,698 adults (18+) of whom 231 self-identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender (GLBT). Figures for age, sex, race, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. "Propensity score" weighting was also used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online.

In theory, with probability samples of this size, one could say with 95 percent certainty that the results have a statistical precision of plus or minus 2 percentage points of what they would be if the entire adult population had been polled with complete accuracy. Statistical precision of the GLBT sample is plus or minus 7 percentage points. Unfortunately, there are several other possible sources of error in all polls or surveys that are probably more serious than theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include refusals to be interviewed (non-response), question wording and question order, and weighting. It is impossible to quantify the errors that may result from these factors. This online sample is not a probability sample.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

About Harris Interactive®

Harris Interactive (www.harrisinteractive.com) is a worldwide market research and consulting firm best known for The Harris Poll®, and for pioneering the Internet method to conduct scientifically accurate market research. Headquartered in Rochester, New York, Harris Interactive combines proprietary methodologies and technology with expertise in predictive, custom and strategic research. The Company conducts international research from its U.S. offices and through wholly owned subsidiaries -- London-based HI Europe (www.hieurope.com), Paris-based Novatris and Tokyo-based Harris Interactive Japan -- as well as through the Harris Interactive Global Network of independent market- and opinion-research firms. EOE M/F/D/V

To become a member of the Harris Poll Online(SM) and be invited to participate in future online surveys, visit www.harrispollonline.com.

Pa. high court hears arguments on city same-sex partner benefits

Philadelphia Inquirer, April 13, 2004

By Michael Currie Schaffer, Inquirer Staff Writer
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that challenges a key city gay-rights ordinance.
William T. Devlin, an evangelical Christian activist who runs the Urban Family Council, sued the city over a 1998 bill that grants benefits to registered "life partners" of public employees and also exempts such couples from discrimination and from paying property-transfer tax on sales to their partners.
Upheld by Common Pleas Court in 2000, Philadelphia's law was struck down by Commonwealth Court in 2002. The state Supreme Court agreed late last fall to hear the city's appeal.
Devlin's attorney, Dennis M. Abrams, argued that the city had overstepped its legal authority in creating life-partnership status.
"The City of Philadelphia, I submit, doesn't have the right to do that," Abrams said.
Abrams maintained that only the state had the right to define marriage. He said that because the benefits provided by Philadelphia's law depend on a couple's having registered as life-partners, the benefits are improper.
Barbara Mather, who represented Philadelphia, said the benefits were not part of an effort to replicate marriage. She noted that many non-married categories of people are eligible for the law's benefits.
"We are not talking about equating marriage to life partnership," said Mather, a former Philadelphia City Solicitor now at the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLP. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights served as a co-counsel with the city.
Mather noted that Philadelphia's ordinance provided none of the rights and responsibilities provided by legally sanctioned marriage. She said benefits for same-sex partners were provided by many employers simply as a way to attract qualified applicants.
But Abrams said the public act of registering as life-partners, required by the law, was distinct from an employee benefit that ends when an employee leaves work.
"What you're really doing here is giving people who can't get married the legitimacy of a marital-like relationship," he said. "The city can't do that."
If that were indeed the case, Mather argued, there would have been a much bigger reaction to the five-year-old law.
"When San Francisco offered gay marriage, there were long lines of couples lining up to receive it," she said. "There were no similar lines in Philadelphia."
This morning's arguments drew a large crowd to the City Hall courtroom used by the Supreme Court when it sits in Philadelphia.
But the litigants and the justices stayed away from the most politically-charged aspects of the contentious social issue, instead hewing close to the legal arguments of the case, which turns on whether Philadelphia's law usurps state authority to define marriage.
Nonetheless, several justices, citing the likelihood of future cases, asked broader-ranging questions on subjects such as whether the benefits should rightly be extended to unmarried opposite-sex couples.
Before the hearing, Devlin led a prayer vigil outside Mayor Street's office two floors below the courtroom. At the vigil, prayers were offered for marriage, against abortion, and for the protection of American soldiers in Iraq.
Devlin said that if the court validated Philadelphia's law, he was prepared to take an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The decision is in the hands of the Lord," Devlin said. "We're prepared for the long haul."
A Supreme Court case could prove politically loaded, in part becuase Justice Antonin Scalia spoke at a $150 a plate benefit for Devlin's group last year.
Scalia has drawn criticism for allegedly being too close to some people and groups with cases before the court, such as Vice President Cheney, with whom he went on a hunting trip last year. In a lenghty memo released to the press, Scalia said the outing had no impact on his impartiality.
• Contact staff writer Michael Currie Schaffer at 215-854-4565 or mcschaffer@phillynews.com.

Many evangelicals oppose U.S. ban on gay marriage, Poll shows about half prefer that state laws address the issue

Baltimore Sun


By Frank Langfitt
Sun Staff

April 14, 2004

WASHINGTON - As President Bush reaches out to his conservative Christian base by supporting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a poll released yesterday shows that more than half of the nation's white evangelicals oppose such a measure.

According to the survey, 52 percent would prefer to rely on state laws to prevent gays from marrying rather than altering the U.S. Constitution. In addition, only 48 percent of white evangelicals said a candidate's support for gay marriage would disqualify him from receiving their votes.

The findings, in one of the most comprehensive polls of evangelicals in years, don't rule out the issue of gay marriage as a potent tool to get out the conservative Christian vote for Bush in November.

But they suggest that white evangelicals, a key constituency that overwhelmingly opposes same-sex marriage, are more complex and share more mainstream positions than some political analysts believe.

"Their concerns are multidimensional," said Anna Greenberg, vice president of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Inc. in Washington, which conducted the poll for Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, a PBS television show, and U.S. News & World Report. "Evangelicals are just not that different than the rest of America."

The survey of 1,610 respondents was done between March 16 and April 4. It has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. The survey will be highlighted in a four-part series, "America's Evangelicals," whose weekly segments will be broadcast on PBS stations beginning this weekend.

Maryland Public Television will air the program at 7:30 a.m. Sunday.

Political analysts and scholars are especially interested in evangelicals because they're deeply engaged in their communities and make up the core of the president's electoral support. In 2000, evangelicals accounted for 35 to 40 percent of Bush's votes and are to the GOP what African-Americans have traditionally been to the Democrats.

After the 2000 race, Karl Rove, Bush's chief political strategist, said 4 million religious conservatives had failed to go to the polls and pledged that the administration would rally them in 2004. In potential swing states, such as West Virginia, gay marriage is one of the top issues Bush operatives are raising in hopes of energizing evangelicals.

Their opposition to an amendment banning gay marriage surprised analysts, who said it demonstrated that so-called moral issues do not necessarily trump all others among religious conservatives.

John Green, a professor of political science at the University of Akron and a leading authority on evangelicals, attributed their opposition to a strong belief in federalism and a reluctance - shared with many Americans - to tamper with the Constitution.

The poll also found that only 36 percent of white evangelicals listed moral values as a top concern - surprisingly low, given the role that religion is thought to play in shaping their political beliefs and priorities.

About a quarter of white evangelicals identified the economy as a top concern, compared with 31 percent in the general population.

The survey defined evangelicals roughly as whites over 18 who described themselves as "born-again," fundamentalist, evangelical, charismatic or pentacostal. The definition did not include Roman Catholics, Orthodox or Mormons.

Under the survey's definition, pollsters estimate that 23 percent of U.S. adults - or about 50 million people - are evangelical. Although individual beliefs vary, most evangelicals view the Bible as the inerrant word of God and regard spreading the faith as a core mission in their lives.

The poll also revealed that the popular image of evangelicals lags well behind the demographic reality. Three decades ago, evangelicals were markedly poorer, less educated and more likely to live in the rural South than the general population. Today, according to the poll, their education level has improved, they're spread more broadly around the country, and they're more integrated into the professions.

For example, 31 percent of white evangelicals live in the deep South, compared with 28 percent of the general population. About 22 percent of evangelicals hold four-year college degrees, compared with 27 percent nationwide.

Green attributed the discrepancy between image and reality to a lack of understanding by national opinion makers and poor public relations by evangelical leaders.

In stating a preference for president, nearly 70 percent of white evangelicals said they had "warm" feelings about Bush, while only 23 percent felt the same way about Sen. John Kerry, the expected Democratic nominee.
Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun

Day of Silence angers parents: Los Osos students support gay peers while parents argue it is OK to verbally abuse gay students

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin


By CONOR FRIEDERSDORF
STAFF WRITER


Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - When the morning bell rings at Los Osos High School Friday, about fifty students plan to take a day-long vow of silence to encourage tolerance for their gay and lesbian classmates.

"It's a statement that every kid, regardless of their orientation, has a right to go to school in safety," said English teacher Brian Jeffrey, who advises the student club sponsoring the event.

But Sue Plummer, a parent at Los Osos, doesn't see it that way.

"It's gay day," she said. "It's not about tolerance for anything but sexual preference. And I don't think it's right."

At a school where a gay-straight student alliance meets as a campus club, numerous openly gay students walk the halls, and anti-gay slurs are common insults, Day of Silence has quickly become a flash point for parents who believe that homosexuality isn't an appropriate topic to address at a public school.

Though long observed at high schools and colleges throughout the United States - including numerous high schools in the Inland Valley - many parents at Los Osos hadn't heard about the day until this month. News filtered home in The Grizzly Gazette, the campus newspaper, which noted that "students can choose to stay silent ... representing the silence that many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people feel they must keep to be accepted by their peers."

Other parents heard off-hand comments from their children about "gay day," a term that organizers object to, but some students nevertheless favor.

After parents called one another about the event, and it became the topic of a Sunday sermon at Hillside Community Church, Principal Joseph Kolmel and Jeffrey began fielding the first of more than a dozen angry calls.

Some parents threatened to keep their kids home from school.

"I think sex should be left at the doorstep of the school," Robin Reed said. "We don't want the school getting money for our kids that day, so we'll keep them home."

Kolmel believes parents wouldn't be as upset if they understood Day of Silence isn't a gay pride day.

"This isn't a "gay day,' or even a part of the curriculum, but a day to recognize that some students have had to remain silent about their lifestyle due to social stigma," Kolmel said. "A group of students wanted to recognize that, and I have an obligation to protect their first amendment right to do so."

Teachers have been instructed not to use class time to discuss the Day of Silence, according to Kolmel.

"As far as I'm concerned it's business as usual," he said.

Those words reassured some parents, who didn't mind a day advocating tolerance toward gays.

But other parents maintain that you can't talk about homosexuality in schools without talking about sex.

"I wish they'd just keep quiet about it like heterosexuals keep quiet about their private lives," Maria Sahagun said. "School isn't a place for sexuality."

Said Reed: "When we went to school, no one knew what you were."

Jeffrey, however, believes that sexuality is an unavoidable aspect of adolescent life, since students holding hands by their locker, taping a boyfriend's photo to a locker door, or gossiping about their latest crush naturally reveal their sexual preference.

"If I see a couple, gay or straight, kissing at school, I tell them to stop because public displays of affection aren't appropriate here," Jeffrey said. "But every time you have a school dance you're supporting an orientation."

The need for a day to encourage tolerance for gay and lesbian students is underscored by statistics that show the frequency with which they are targeted for violence or harassment, and the uncommonly high suicide rate among students who are gay or believe they might be, he said.

Jeffrey has had a gay student who attempted suicide, and others whose grades have suffered as they clashed with parents about their orientation. When he taught at Rancho Cucamonga High School, a student outed himself to his class before a school dance, which he wanted to take his boyfriend to.

"We expected him to be harassed, but he wasn't, and later that year they elected him to the prom court," Jeffrey said. "It's like night and day when these kids don't have to be afraid to reveal who they are."

Another parent, Debbie Crow, says she understands gay kids are picked on by peers, and hopes the day will decrease that behavior, but still plans to keep her daughter home, and worries that the day will be counterproductive.

"My sister's gay, my daughter is a figure skater, I don't think homosexuality is a big deal," she said. "But they need to let parents know about this, and I'm afraid it will cause some kids to be mean to one another."

It's a fear that Jeffrey shares - after students wore "Heterosexual Pride" t-shirts one year, another student made a shirt that said "Heterosexual Pride Klan," which many took as a reference to the Klu Klux Klan.

But the day must go on, Jeffrey said.

"These kids have the right to do this under the law," he said. "And I'd support them even if they didn't."

Conor Friedersdorf can be reached by phone at conor.friedersdorf@dailybulletin.com , or by phone at (909) 483-9347.

Valuing A Caring Family: Children Of Gay Parents Say They Do Just Fine, And Studies Support Them

Hartford Courant, April 13, 2004


By Kathleen Megan, Courant Staff Writer
When Maya Levine-Ritterman was a very small – and very verbal – girl, she would tell almost anyone who'd listen about her two mommies.
She would be sitting in the cart at the Stop & Shop and tell the cashier, "This is my Mommy Barb, but I have another mommy at home with my brother, who is taking a nap."
That was when she was 3. Now she is 8-and-three-quarters, and she has learned to be a bit choosier about whom she tells about her mothers, Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman, and her brother, Joshua.
"I don't tell right away," says Maya, who has two thick, long braids, a hamster named Misty and a love for Harry Potter. "I wait to see how we are getting along."
Maya, who lives in a brick ranch house in a residential section of New Haven, has learned that while she loves her family and sees lots of advantages to having two mommies, there are those who think it's not "normal" to have gay parents. There are kids who will say – she