New Decade, New Evolutions

I was heartened by Obama's seeming change of heart when he eluded to potential future support for marriage equality by saying his views were "evolving." First of all, evolution is a good thing. It involves changes that help one survive. If Obama is making the political calculation that support for full equality for LGBT Americans in what some consider the final frontier for that equality -equal marriage rights - is good for his political career and survival, that is an excellent sign. We are approaching a tipping point where the gradual consensus of political opinion is shifting. Rather than being out in front of that wave, Obama has been more cautious, so I take his change of heart as a bellwether indicator that the nation is beginning to realize some very old wisdom. That is, we need to judge people by the content of their character rather than any superficial qualities like their age, race, religion, political or sexual orientation. Clearly, Obama has the feel-good wind at his back for the long-awaited repeal of DADT. And that decision came in part from the report that said most service people do not have an issue with serving with gay colleagues. Thank you, Millenials. Your righteous indifference to this issue -that being gay says nothing about one's ability to serve and also to marry or do anything else for that matter -will eventually win the day.

It feels so good to know discrimination is on it's way out of the military... And that it will eventually find it's way out of our civil marital laws. May the Prop 8 case be tossed out for lack of standing... As it cannot be true that people are harmed in any way when more loving couples are allowed to marry.

May this next decade bring us more equality, more respect and more dignity as we all as human beings continue to evolve in our understanding of each other. Thank you, Obama, for your willingness to evolve. May the nation continue to evolve with us.

[Note: Written on an airline on an iPad with WiFi and major turbulence. Let me add one more New Year's wish... Let this plane fly smoothly and land us all safely!]

DADT: Do A Dance Tonight!

Sometimes we do the right thing and...sometimes the US Senate does too. Today was one of those days, and I am honored to be just a little bit more equal today. I am proud of all the Senators who voted for this, including Senator Burr of NC who turned himself around after some persuasion with facts and the recent military report. This is a milestone day not just for LGBT people but for this country in affirming the principle of equal opportunity. Let DADT fade into the past and become known as an acronym for other things..like Do A Dance Tonight! This is how many of us will be celebrating...

There's No Standing on the Side of Hate

As a Unitarian Universalist, I'm supportive of our campaign called "Standing on the Side of Love." When it comes to issues like marriage equality for all couples, to me it means that we inform our thoughts and actions from a place of love, compassion and understanding of people we may not initially understand. Of course, the use of the term "side" suggests that there is another, opposite way, which is the side of hate, fear, and a lack of willingness to even try to understand who gay people are, why we are gay, and our simple desire to be treated as the equal and deserving people we are. Take for instance those who seek to take away the right of same-sex couples to marry, as is the case with proponents of Prop 8 in my childhood home state of California. We might say that they are standing on the side of H8.

As a lover of words and puns, I can't resist another twist on the word "standing." In addition to taking a stand, "standing" is a legal word which means a person has a genuine or legitimate interest in doing something-- like say appealing a court case. Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution's definition of standing is that the appellates must have, as an attorney-on-the-side-of-love David Boies states, a "personal, concrete, particularized injury." How could anyone's marriage to anyone else possibly injure any other couple or group? I would love to see someone try to prove that in a court of law! In my opinion, the most likely and beautiful outcome of the case is that they throw the case out because H8 proponents have no standing. Their hate alone gives them no standing. If this happens, Judge Walkers' unconstitutional ruling will stand, allowing gay couples to marry again in CA.

Check out the NCLR's legal analysis here and more on standing here...
if you can possibly stand it!

Oh No, Iowa...Don't Follow California

Sadly, the voters in Iowa have not voted to retain the three justices that supported the 2009 gay marriage decision. Ironically, the newly elected Governor, Terry Branstad, appointed two of them in 1983 and 1993 during his previous terms as Governor, but he appears to be swayed by the people's vote in not wanting former Governor Chet Culver to make the new appointments - which he has the authority to do. May Governor Culver exercise his right to not be bullied or intimidated by out-of-state religious interests.

See this:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/1001/NEWS/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices

http://iowaindependent.com/tag/terry-branstad

http://iowaindependent.com/46959/judicial-retention-vote-sets-stage-for-push-to-overturn-gay-marriage

It seems to me that many voters don't understand that the judiary do not just exist because they look good in robes. They are a part of the checks and balances of government, and it is their job to independently review the constitutional merits of laws without regard to the popular vote. So many people seem to think these justices "overstepped their bounds" when they are merely doing their jobs.

Sigh. The fight to overturn the decision in Iowa has just began. And just like in California, there may have been significant funding from religious groups across the country.

Obama, Awkwardly, Does His Own Video

Days after Hillary stepped forward with her moving It Gets Better video, Obama did his own. I hope he was planning to do this anyway, but if not, I'm glad Hillary had the moral courage to do this first and hopefully inspire Obama to do the same. The timing is both good and bad. It's good in that it's toward the beginning of a YouTube campaign which has gone viral, and Hillary and Obama's contributions have taken it mainstream so that others may watch the many moving videos on it.

It's bad timing because some of Obama's words and messages to teens could be lost in his actions just days earlier, in which his administration fought a federal judge's ruling against DADT, a policy which Obama has said he would like to be appealed. He just wants it to be done very slowly, just by Congress and after the studies have been done by the military. Sometimes the time to act is now, however. DADT should have been dead long ago. Let it die.

Gay people deserve the same rights as anyone else. This was true yesterday, it's true today and it's true tomorrow. No more stalling and excuses. It is time.

Hillary Stands Firmly On Our Side, Unlike....Her Boss

Today we see two stark differences. First, we see President Obama asking for a reversal of Judge Phillips' order to stop DADT. By contrast, we see Secretary of State Hillary Clinton releasing this thoughtful anti-bullying video message to gay teens. She is truly and courageously leading, and making clear to LGBT people that they are worthy and that in HER department and in the future, they can be open and valued for who they are.

It just has to make you wonder.... would SHE have fought against DADT? I don't think so.



Thanks, Hillary. We always had faith that your promises would be backed up by your actions.
The same cannot be said, unfortunately, about your former opponent and current boss.

Obama could have done a video like this. He could have said that things really changed for African Americans and that things will also change for LGBT people. He could have let the judge's ruling stand instead of fighting so actively (and destructively) against it.

In this article, we learn that Obama's administration says it would be "enormously disruptive" to make this change now? REALLY, Obama? Is that more disruptive than releasing HUNDREDS of servicepeople (428 in 2009 alone) who are loyally serving their countries? Imagine the disruption that a discharge can cause not just for that person but their unit and the morale in that unit -- knowing their colleague was dismissed because the country for whom they are fighting will not fight for them.

At least Hillary is fighting for us, doing what she can. Thanks again, Hillary. You are a true leader.

Local Activist Gets Discriminated Against, Fights Back and Wins!

It's not every day that an act of discrimination gets called out and turned around so quickly. Caitlin Breedlove (left) and her girlfriend were recently asked to leave the Cameron Village shopping center in downtown Raleigh by a security guard for what he called "inappropriate behavior" -- which was showing a minor amount of affection - one arm around the other and a simple peck on the cheek. The couple had just enjoyed lunch on Wednesday, October 13th. Ms. Breedlove stated the security guard told the them that they were being inappropriate and that "nobody wants to see that here ...."

One could say that the security guard picked on the wrong person, as Caitlin Breedlove is a community activist for gay rights and the rights of others who face discrimination. She rallied her troops to call and email Cameron Village, who then apologized in writing, suspended the guard and plan to give sensitivity training to all of their security guards.

Yesterday, a crowd of 100 gathered at the shopping area to generate awareness about what happened and similar acts of discrimination and to promote tolerance -- especially on the heels of so many unfortunate suicides of young gay people who have heard too many hateful messages like the kind the security guard said. Local resident Tracy Hollister said, “These two women were doing nothing wrong.” She continued, “There should be a lot more kisses in this society than violence.”

A shout out to Caitlin Breedlove and those inspired to action by her courage -- and a victory for common sense, humanity, and tolerance.

Is DADT Finally Dead?

After US District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that DADT must be immediately lifted, it was sad to hear Defense Secretary Robert Gates indicating that the White House is weighing their options to appeal. Unbelievable! Gates states that Judge Phillips ruling would have "enormous consequenses" for the men & women of the miltary and that permitting gay and lesbian troops to serve openly and honestly would require a lot of careful preparatin and "training." Oh, please! Being gay is normal, natural and NO BIG DEAL. How can a little non-job-related knowledge about a fellow serviceman or servicewoman (that you probably already knew) really impact you?

I'm trying to imagine how long the training course could possibly be and what they would say. I'm thinking something like these sentences and a hearty hierarchical command to behave nicely would do the trick: "As you know, those who serve in the military have different races, genders and sexual orientations, and as Americans it is our duty to judge people by their characters and not by any other criteria. Now that some of us can be honest about who we are, I ask that everyone maintain their professionalism and respect and continue to serve the military honorably and nobly."

Seriously -- what are they afraid of, other than fear itself --in the form of homophobia?

And the Federal government should not be sending a message to the general public that it's okay to discrimate or that policies should be based on fears and personal prejudices. This only validates the hostile attitude some have toward gay people.

It's time for an outdated policy to die a peaceful death. Let it rest in peace.

And Obama, you don't have to appeal this thing. Show us some moral courage and a little backbone. You've said you want this appealed. You've said it's wrong. You've said it's time for it to end. So let it end. Don't confuse everyone by saying one thing and doing another. Be the change you said you wanted to see in the world.

Mormans Put Gays Behind the 8 Ball

We all heard in the news about how actively the Mormans in Utah were funnelling money to the Yes on Hate/8 campaign our in California. The movie "8: The Morman Proposition" -- http://www.mormonproposition.com/-- reveals that they were even more actively involved than we thought, and for even longer than the Californa campaign in 2008. They starting their plots and plans to "protect the sanctity of marriage" with surveys and front groups in Hawaii in the mid-1990's and they are continuing their fight behind the scenes through other front groups, most notably the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) now. (Remember that silly parodied ad on "A Storm in Coming"? That was classic NOM.)

Watch this movie to see how destructive a hierarchical, authoritarian-based religious group can be in coercing its members to act and give and in how little they even try to understand a minority group that they see as an interruption and threat to their religious views of the world and authority.

What's more, they are involved in an active coverup of the extent of their financial involvement, which included professional web sites (see http://www.preservingmarriage.org/), video ads, yard signs, call centers and more which must have totaled millions and millions, yet they are only claiming $2,000 or so and $20K in legal service donations.

Why the coverup and front groups? Beacause what they are doing is illegal. Federal law prohibits involvement in political campaigns and substantial lobbying. See this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_(American_organizations)

But if all these allegations and all this evidence is true re the Mormans and Prop 8, then this is a blatant violation of the federal law prohibiting involvement in any political campaign and substantial lobbying. Watch more here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWCum9yQhTg&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/14/12346/2328/470/683973

And now HRC is calling on NOM to explain why its Ruth Institute is actively supporting a gubernatorial candidate in California -- Carly Fionina.

http://www.hrc.org/14962.htm

Is there no end in sight to the Morman's illegal and offensive intrusion into politics and the private lives of gays and lesbians? Who will stop them? Is the IRS strong enough? Is any Federal agency strong enough these days?

Another Unconstitutional Law Bites the Dust... or Begins to Die

How is it that California judges whose names start with V are SO reasonable? Judge Virginia joins Judge Vaughn in striking down another anti-gay discriminatory law that those in the political sphere (ahem, Obama) did not have the backbone to take on.

Read on.

Don't ask don't tell?

I don't think so -- not anymore. Seems the government will have to stop doing that. The judge said so.

Tracy

Court of Law Ain't No Court of Mere Opinion!

I'm having fun with this piece of news, as reported in the Christian Science Monitor. In fact, I am laughing out loud. The private citizens who supported Prop 8 are having a hard time demonstrating their legal standing to appeal Judge Vaughn Walker's August 2010 ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Walker said that to have standing that they must have a direct, personal injury that is "concrete and particularized" rather than say, merely imagined and theoretical. Further, Walker said, they would have to demonstrate that they would be harmed by the resumption of same-sex marriage in the state.

Walker wrote that the proponents of Prop 8 replied to his statements about standing by saying that they have an interest in defending Prop 8, but that they failed to articulate even one specific harm they may suffer! But in truth, how could they?

While many have made the ridiculous claim that somehow allowing same-sex couples to marry will do damage to the institution of marriage, it apparently does not do enough actual damage to anyone in that "institution" to warrant "a direct, personal injury."

Will any chance of a potential appeal die for lack of standing? Or, will someone or some group brave enough to endure public ridicule step forward to manufacture a case of how someone else's ability to marry actually hurts them?

Ah, it seems that the standards of rational argument are very low in the court of public opinion, where anyone can vote any way for any reason or no reason at all. In a court, you have to have actual evidence and persuasive arguments based on fact, not prejudice. No wonder the Prop 8 supporters did not want the Ninth Circuit court case televised -- then their arguments would be revealed for all to see as what they were -- mere personal moral judgments with no factual basis.

Principle of Equality Validated: Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Gay and lesbian couples in California are no longer behind the ominous Prop 8 ball. Thankfully, a Federal District Judge (Vaughn Walker) found no rational basis for California to have an interest in discriminating against gay and lesbian couples.

This is good, since discrimination is simply rational. Kudos to Schwarzenegger who stuck his neck out to support this decision. See more in this BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10875094

The battle will go on... however. While logic, reason and rationality are on the side of justice and equality, we'll see if the US Supreme Court will have the courage to step out a bit ahead of most states in supporting this decision. If not, we go behind years. If so, we advance hugely, perhaps faster than many people's comfort levels. Eventually, we all knew this would be decided in the US Supreme Court. The question is if it's the right time to do so.

Gaga: This One is for the Gays!

According to bisexual star Lady Gaga her new video Alejandro is a "celebration of my love and appreciation for the gay community, my admiration of their bravery, their love for one another, and their courage in relationships," according to her June 1 interview with CNN's Larry King. We love ya Gaga!!!

Time to Act

Call your Senator, showing your support for repealing DADT. It passed the House of Representatives on Thursday, May 27th.

Let us be grateful McCain did not become our President, as his behavior on DADT is worthy of a dishonorable discharge.

Honesty is the Best Policy: Time to Kill DADT

Looks like there are enough votes to repeal the discriminatory, lie-inducing policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's an outdated law who time has come to go. Though some people say it needs to be studied more, I think "more studies" can just be a form of delay.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said yesterday that he would expect service members to question any policy that unfairly forces troops to lie.

"Few things are more important to an organization than people who have the moral courage to question the direction in which the organization is headed and then the strength of character to support whatever final decisions are made."

The House is expected to vote as early today on a proposal by Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Penn., an Iraq War veteran, that would repeal the 1993 "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law.

Also the Senate Armed Services Committee was expected to take up an identical measure, proposed by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

Sad Update From Malawi

Lovers Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza have been sentenced to 14 years prison with hard labor, after being convicted of "unnatural acts and gross indecency." In a statement, the SA Municipal Workers' Union said: "Homosexuality exists in all of our societies. It is a reality, however difficult it is for some to accept this simple fact. Incarcerating innocent couples who just happen to be of the same sex serves no purpose other than to feed the cancer of discrimination".
It's a sad day in Africa, for both equal rights and the battle to combat HIV. Gay sex remains illegal in 37 countries in Africa and is widely vilified.

Straight Couples Want Civil Partnerships

The number of straight French couples opting for civil partnerships or PaCS (pacte civil de solidarite) or "civil pacts of solidarity" has grown, and the number of marriages has shrunk to the point that there are now two couples entering into a PaCS for every three getting married. In fact, 95% of couples taking up the PaCS in 2009 were heterosexual! PaCS are a sort of marriage-lite, with all the tax benefits, but are much easier to disolve & do not include options like adoption or fertility treatment.

Some in the U.S. have argued that we should all just have civil unions and do away with marriage -- but marriage is too engrained in our collective national life dreams. In France, however, civil unions for all is not too far from the emerging reality.

And this demand for what gays have is not unique to France. Get this: a straight Austrian couple are now fighting a legal battle for the option of entering into registered partnership. Helga Ratzenboeck and Martin Seydl say they don't want a traditional marriage and insist that the law should be blind to gender and sexuality. And this: British couple Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle said they want to challenge "discriminatory" UK laws which restrict civil partnerships to same-sex couples as they feel "alienated from the patriarchal traditions of marriage". Emily Thornberry, UK Member of Parliament, said: "They have not been to see me yet but I do support them fully. I can see no reason why they can't have a civil partnership and gay people can't get married in the same way. The first opportunity I have I will be raising this in Parliament."

Straight couples fighting for equal rights, or entering into arrangements made for gay couples, can only help the cause for equality. Soon enough societies will realize that the only thing equal is true equal rights for all.

Pucker Up!

May 17, 2010 is the Great Global Kiss-In, in honor of the International Day Against Homophobia & Transphobia. Anyone who believes in love and equality can join in. If you do not live near an actual live event, video your kiss & submit it!

A Bush For Equality!

Now this is refreshing...

Really, It's Time to Abolish Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Klinger from M*A*S*H would have been so proud. Looks like US troops would have no problem serving with gay comrades. This looks like a rehearsal for a pride show!

And Now for Some News "Relative" to Same-Gender Marriage

...relative, that is, as in relatives like cousins. Instead of looking at the world of states which do and do not allow for marriage between same-gender couples, lets look at how states handle the often-controversial issue of whether cousins should be allowed to marry. Credit goes to Mac McClelland of Mother Jones, who put together this map:

There are four categories of states:

1) Cannot do it here, period (in white in map) -- 15
2) Cannot do it here, but okay if you do it elsewhere (in brown on map) -- 9
3) Can do it here, but with limitations like only if you don't reproduce -- 5
4) Can do it here (red) -- 21

As with gay marriage, you have the states that will allow it and the states that will not. But unlike gay marriage, you don't have any states that allow for gay marriage with caveats --like it's okay if you do it, but only if you do not adopt children. Or only if ... you name it.

Where it gets really interesting is the states that say, "No, we don't allow it, but will recognize it if other states do it." There is something to be said for this: it's as if the states are saying they respect the decisions of other states. On the other hand, it calls into question how firmly those states really don't think first cousins should be married. It's a bit loosy-goosy. Interestingly, there are some places (DC is one, before they decided to do it themselves and New York, Rhode Island and Maryland are others) that said "we'll recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere."

Since you can marry in Massachusetts without residency, there are now essentially eight states (IA, NH, CT, MA, and VT as well as NY, RI and MD) and the District of Columbia where a gay person can live and have their state recognize their marriage.

Add to this three other categories, as reported by the Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures:
Civil unions (state spousal rights):NJ
Domestic partnerships (nearly all state spousal rights):CA, OR, NV & WA
Domestic partnerships (some state spousal rights):HI, MN and WI

Loosy-goosy or willy nilly, state by state --and marriage, civil unions or domestic partnerships -- the map of gay rights for partners and spouses is expanding.

Nepal's Mount Everest Tops Latest List of Gay Marriage Destinations

Wonders never cease to amaze. Even if they are man-made wonders that focus on natural wonders.

Gay marriage is just about to reach new heights.

Nepal's leadership sees the financial benefits of being the only Asian country and only place on the entire continent to allow gay marriage: they are promoting Mt Everest as a place for gay marriage. Why? It's all about boosting tourism. They hope to attract one million tourists in 2010 - double that of 2009.

Amazingly, homosexual activity was criminal as recently as 2007, but a Supreme Court ruling in 2008 changed that and a gay marriage law is working its way through Parliament.

Perhaps they have seen the economic benefits that other countries (South Africa, countries in Europe), formerly California and now Massachusetts in the U.S. have realized from allowing gay marriages among people from other places.

Whatever their rationale, they know the country can reshape its image and attract attention by making this bold move.

Go Nepal! Onward and upward!

Gay Divorce - A Major Problem for Exes

Sabina Daly & Angelique Naylor were joined in matrimony in Massachusetts in 2004. All was wedded bliss until it was not - an all too familiar sad story across America. The couple, who have one child, agreed to separated in 2007.

Naylor filed for divorce in Texas. A judge in Austin granted the divorce, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is appealing the decision and that of two men from Dallas, stating protecting the "traditional definition of marriage" means doing the same for divorce. Abbott argues that the state cannot dissolve a marriage it does not recognize.

Now, it seems that Texas' solution to the impossibility of gay divorce is an annulment of the marriage, or considering it invalid in the first place.

"We didn't ask for a marriage; we simply asked for the courtesy of divorce," said Naylor, who just wants to get on with her life.

Funny thing, this case, and the one with a man named JB who seeks to divorce his former spouse. On the one hand, the couples are asking for a non-marriage... something the traditional marriage folks should be okay with and does not ostensibly violate TX' prohibition of same-sex marriage. On the other, perhaps Abbott and others recognize that they cannot have their wedding cake and eat it too -- and are at least being consistent: no recogition of marriage or divorce. By doing this, they make gay couples doubly unhappy -- by not allowing them to express their happiness through the bonds of marriage and by not letting them express their unhappiness once the love between the two has gone away.

Interestingly, as judges such as District Court Judge Tena Callahan take up cases like that of JB, they can also consider constitutional issues, such as whether Texas' constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman violates the U.S. constitution and its promise to provide all citizens the equal protection of the law.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a gay divorce case might have the power to grant gay marriage rights?

Kudos to Gov. Bob!

Today, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell directed state agencies not to discriminate against gay people in employment practices, essentially overriding the attorney general's recent advice to public colleges. In a letter last week, Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli's told public colleges they cannot prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation without specific authorization from the General Assembly. Cuccinelli advised public colleges to rescind or change any anti-discrimination policies protecting gays. How nice of him.

Gov. McDonnell wrote, "Discrimination based on factors such as one's sexual orientation or parental status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution."

Cuccinelli supporters are claiming bias against him, because he is catholic. Oh, please!

Wedding Bells in D.C.

Today, the District of Columbia became the sixth place in the country permitting same-sex unions. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts,Vermont and New Hampshire also offer equal rights, allowing same-sex couples marriage licenses. Approximately 150 couples were eligible to collect their marriage licenses today after applying last Wednesday, the first day the licenses were made available.

Congrats to all the newlyweds of D.C.

Another Real Dumb Blonde

So if Carrie Prejean, former Miss California, views on gay marriage made you vomit then the current Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley recent comments may send you over the edge. This is what Ms Ashley said on Fox News:

"The Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman. In Leviticus it says, 'If man lies with mankind as he would lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death and their blood shall be upon them.' The Bible is pretty black and white..."

"I feel like God himself created mankind and he loves everyone, and he has the best for everyone. If he says that having sex with someone of your same gender is going to bring death upon you, that's a pretty stern warning, and he knows more than we do about life."

Hope she does not choke next time she wearing a dress of mixed fibers while enjoying a meal at Red Lobster. Cause as she pointed out, it's all pretty black and white in Leviticus.

Time to Kill DADT

This morning a Senate Panel heard from Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, who disagrees with an immediate moratorium on firings of gay military personal. Gen. Casey is concerned with the affect on the force's ability to fight. I'm smelling some prejudice here. Maybe Gen. Casey would like a little longer to hold through "witch hunt" to purge the gays from the forces? Army Secretary John McHugh, a former congressional Republican, agreed with Gen. Casey. Wonder if they both have considered that the US Military's strongest partner in Iraq and Afghanistan, Great Britain, has allowed gays to openly serve starting in 2000 - which has obviously not affected its ability to fight.

Come on President Obama, these guys work for you - it's time to end discrimination in the US Armed Forces.

Gay Rights Basic Requirement to Join EU

On Feb 10, the European Parliament reaffirmed that candidate countries wishing to join the European Union will need laws in place that adequately protect its gay citizens from discrimination and bigotry. The European Parliament considers non-discrimination protections are “non-negotiable” for EU member states.

It would seem the US record on human rights, would not qualify them for EU membership.

Putting It In Perspective

While those of us in the LGBT community in the U.S. continue to fight for equality, let us not forget the plight of our fellow gays in less tolerant nations. For example, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza celebrated their engagement on Malawi, even making the news as "gay lovebirds." Unfortunately, their joy was short lived as two days later they were arrested for "unnatural acts and gross indecency," denied bail and have been in prison since December 28, 2009. In Malawi, homosexuality carries a prison sentence of 5-14 years.

And who is blamed for this "outbreak" of gayness that has riveted the nation? It's those western foreigners, who have infected Malawi with "Sexual Satanism" -- according to Rev. Kawalala of the Word Alive Ministry and a member (of all things) of Malawi's Human Rights Commission!

..and what about us?

Today a group of 60 senators and representatives, led by Tammy Baldwin D-Wisc, have signed a letter to President Obama and Congress urging to end discrimination against LGBT immigrant families. Well that is very nice, but what about ending the discrimination against LGBT US citizens and legal residents? Surely the very discrimination against immigrant LGBT families, would not be an issue if we had marriage equality.

Pause for Prop 8

Although testimony concluded Jan 27, 2010 in the first stage of the federal trial over the fate of California's Prop 8, this has not stopped the gossip and spin. Now major news outlets and the right-wing are pushing the story that federal judge Walker is gay. The San Francisco Chronicle's Phillip Matier & Andrew Ross said Judge Vaughn Walker's sexual preference was the "biggest open secret" in the landmark trial. Walker - nominated to the court by President Bush I - has decided not to comment.

"There is nothing about Walker as a judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being an interesting factor, will in any way bias his view," stated Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Right now it's difficult to gauge how much truth there is to Walker's outing. We should note that he did not choose the case; it was assigned to him.