Editorial
Palm Beach Post
Having helped to make sure that marriage in this state is off-limits to gays and lesbians, the Florida Family Policy Council wants to set marriage standards for everybody else in Florida.Tuesday, February 24, 2009
New GOP chairman: "No, no, no" to civil unions
 | New GOP chairman: "No, no, no" to civil unions Despite some well-publicized calls for a more inclusive GOP, newly installed Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele rejected the possibility of any kind of legally recognized civil union for gays and lesbians. Appearing on Mike Gallagher's radio show, Steele responded to a question on civil unions by saying, "No, no no. What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?" ThinkProgress.org (2/23) |
Monday, February 23, 2009
Dustin Black's powerful and poignant Oscar acceptance speech
| ||||||
Sean Penn Wins Oscar for "Milk" Acceptance Speech
| ||||||
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Oscar Winner Gives Shout Out to LGBT Youth
"Oh my God, this was not an easy film to make. I have to thank all the
real life people who shared their stories with me... When I was 13
years old my beautiful mother and father moved me from a conservative
Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California and I heard the story
of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope, hope to live my life, gave me the
hope to live my life openly as who I am. And maybe even I can fall in
love and get married. I want to thank my Mom who always loved me for
who I am even when there was pressure not to. If Harvey had been alive
today, I think he'd want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out
there that have been told that they are less than by their churches,
their government or their families that they are beautiful, wonderful
creatures of value and no matter what anyone tells you, God does love
you and that very soon I promise you, you will have equal rights,
federally, across this great nation of ours"
real life people who shared their stories with me... When I was 13
years old my beautiful mother and father moved me from a conservative
Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California and I heard the story
of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope, hope to live my life, gave me the
hope to live my life openly as who I am. And maybe even I can fall in
love and get married. I want to thank my Mom who always loved me for
who I am even when there was pressure not to. If Harvey had been alive
today, I think he'd want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out
there that have been told that they are less than by their churches,
their government or their families that they are beautiful, wonderful
creatures of value and no matter what anyone tells you, God does love
you and that very soon I promise you, you will have equal rights,
federally, across this great nation of ours"
Dustin Lance Black wins for MILK
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Batwoman: 30 Years Postmortem and Better than Ever
by Lisa Moody
Batwoman's back! Although I remember her as Batgirl, she is resurrected from her 1979 grave as Batwoman and she's smokin'! And, she's a lesbian! Now, before my fellow lesbians get their boxers in a wad over the fact that she's a lipstick lesbian, take a deep breath and repeat after me...We have a superhero! OK, one created precisely for the male-dominated comic audience to drool over and fantasize about, but who cares? Batwoman's a hottie that everyone can enjoy.
We now have a superhero role model to proclaim loudly that women, and lesbians in particular, can be strong, smart, agile and athletic, and do great things for the community, the nation, and the planet. And they can be sexy and curvaceous. You'll note she's a real woman—a solid five feet, ten inches who is ample and round. She's not a flimsy, heroin-chic skinny. This girl's got girth.
The creators are saying that her gayness will simply be a fact of life. From what I've read, her sexual orientation won't be exploited or made into a mockery or, excuse the obvious, a cartoon character. Her lesbianism simply is. This is a huge step forward and I believe a sign of the current times. In my day…did I really say that? In my day, lesbian role models were…um…they were…well, where were they? They didn't exist. And when movies finally featured openly lesbian characters, they were their lesbianism instead of just being people. Plus, they were usually dysfunctional, totally screwed up dyke-drama queens, or they were straight women who were portrayed as confused and experimenting and "went back to" their men with an overriding undercurrent of apology.
In my day…God help me again…we marched in Washington DC, we asked but didn't tell, we were voted-against in attaining equal rights to straight people…oh, that still is my day. We had to stand out in order to try to fit in, if that makes sense. From what I've witnessed recently in younger lesbians (20-somethings), they aren't so much their lesbianism. It is one aspect of who they are, but it doesn't singularly define them. I like that.
Not long ago, I was part of a panel discussion following a Clip film festival movie and I had the audacity to say I look forward to the day when we don't need gay films, meaning, when we are simply an accepted part of society. So accepted, that we are integrated as part of the whole. I used the example of Whitney Houston and Kevin Costner in The Bodyguard. Long after I saw the movie, it hit me that they had an interracial relationship and never once in the entire movie were either of their races mentioned. It simply was, and as a viewer, we accepted that without question. That's what I strive for in our filmmaking future. When I said this at the Clip discussion, I heard lots of gasps. I think I actually got booed, although that may have been in my imagination. But the audience was older—like, my age—and we fought hard for our recognition and perhaps we're not ready to let go of our standout position, unlike our successors.
So the resurrected Batwoman may be our bridge, from "my day" to tomorrow. A superhero that sets a high standard for all humans. Who happens to be gay. I can see the future much closer than I ever imagined. The next Black President will simply be the next President. The next lesbian superhero will simply be a superhero. In the meantime, we'll claim Batwoman just as she is: One of our own.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Missing Link
Gay and Transgender Issues in the Workplace
It Takes One to Know One
By Brian McNaught
In my youth, if someone called you a "homo" or a "moron," the reply was usually, "It takes one to know one," meaning "You'd have to be a homo to recognize another homo." It was an inane comment but it usually shut them up more effectively than "So is your mother."
Today, that same phrase – "It takes one to know one" - has a completely different and much richer meaning for me.
Alan Goldstein was the Jewish boy who lived behind me growing up in Flint, Michigan. He was my best friend for many years. It was through the time I spent with Alan and his family that I initially learned about Jewish celebrations such as Hanukkah, and also about the sting of anti-Semitism which I saw in Alan's face when another Christian eight-year-old in the neighborhood called him a "kike." …
(To finish reading this offering, please go to http://www.glbtatwork.blog.com.)
Nadine Smith
Executive Director
Equality Florida
PO Box 13184,
St. Petersburg FL 33733
Ph: 813-870-3735
Fax: 727-499-6925
Visit www.eqfl.org and become a member today!
!
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Women say mall cops arrested them for kissing
Women say S.A. mall cops arrested them for kissing
Feb. 3, 2009
SAN ANTONIO - Jessica Garcia intends to prove in court that security officers at Rolling Oaks Mall unfairly targeted her and her girlfriend when they were arrested in December on trespassing and other charges.
Garcia said the officers - a Bexar County sheriff's deputy and an employee from a private security company - began harassing them Dec. 26 because her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek while sitting inside the mall on a bench.
Mall officials said the women, both 22, were acting inappropriately and were told to leave because they were not complying with the shopping center's code of conduct.
Danielle Pardue, the mall's marketing director, denies the women's claims of discrimination and said security officers would evict anyone found kissing in the mall, regardless of sexual orientation.
"If our security officer feels that is disruptive to our shoppers and our business, then they have that authority to make that determination," she said. "It's their responsibility to make sure our shopping place is an enjoyable shopping place for everyone to be."
Pardue also stressed that contrary to what the women claim, they weren't arrested because they were kissing, but because they re-entered the mall after being told to leave.
But Garcia feels otherwise.
She was scheduled to appear in court today, but her lawyer had to postpone the date for later this month.
Garcia said the officers intentionally harassed the couple, accusing them of kissing and having "swapped spit."
Garcia said the officers - a Bexar County sheriff's deputy and an employee from a private security company - began harassing them Dec. 26 because her girlfriend gave her a kiss on the cheek while sitting inside the mall on a bench.
Mall officials said the women, both 22, were acting inappropriately and were told to leave because they were not complying with the shopping center's code of conduct.
Danielle Pardue, the mall's marketing director, denies the women's claims of discrimination and said security officers would evict anyone found kissing in the mall, regardless of sexual orientation.
"If our security officer feels that is disruptive to our shoppers and our business, then they have that authority to make that determination," she said. "It's their responsibility to make sure our shopping place is an enjoyable shopping place for everyone to be."
Pardue also stressed that contrary to what the women claim, they weren't arrested because they were kissing, but because they re-entered the mall after being told to leave.
But Garcia feels otherwise.
She was scheduled to appear in court today, but her lawyer had to postpone the date for later this month.
Garcia said the officers intentionally harassed the couple, accusing them of kissing and having "swapped spit."
Monday, January 12, 2009
Voting for the freedom to marry does not hurt politicians, new study confirms
A new study by Freedom to Marry released today shows that voting for the freedom to marry and against anti-gay/anti-marriage measures does not cost politicians reelection: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/press_center/new_study_shows_pro-marriage_legislators_win.php
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The Best Interests of the Child: New York Times Editorial
January 6, 2009
W.H., an infant, was reportedly removed from her parents by Arkansas's Department of Human Services after she was taken to a hospital with injuries that strongly suggested abuse. Fortunately for W.H., her grandmother, a registered nurse, was eager to take her in. But there was a hitch. Her grandmother lives with another woman, and a ballot initiative recently passed in Arkansas makes it illegal for gay and unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt or become foster parents. Arkansas courts should strike down this offensive new law.
Arkansas has a long tradition of allowing child welfare professionals to decide who should become a foster or adoptive parent. Anti-gay forces, however, have campaigned to disqualify gay people. In 2006, the Arkansas Supreme Court struck down a regulation barring gay people from becoming foster parents.
Last year anti-gay activists promoted Act 1, a ballot referendum that broadened the ban to include unmarried heterosexual couples. In November, it passed with about 57 percent of the vote. The A.C.L.U. of Arkansas is challenging the new law, on behalf of a group of would-be parents and children, contending that it discriminates against gay and unmarried straight couples and that it makes it impossible to place children in the best homes.
The new law is undeniably discriminatory. Under Arkansas law, people convicted of major crimes, including contributing to the delinquency of a minor, remain eligible to adopt children or become foster parents. Single people who have no partner — or who have a large number of casual sex partners — are also eligible. Anyone who is in a committed relationship, gay or straight, but is not married is automatically barred.
The new law also interferes with the Department of Human Services' ability to do its job of making individualized assessments of prospective parents and placing children in the homes that are best able to meet their needs. As the W.H. case suggests, an unmarried couple could be the most qualified parents. And because of the shortage of foster parents, the ban is very likely to make children wait substantially longer for a loving home.
Arkansas's new law was a victory for the forces of bigotry and a major setback for the guiding principle of the law in adoption and foster care: the best interests of the child.
Smith to discuss ‘What’s Next For Equal Rights After Amendment 2?’
http://www.island-reporter.com/breaking_news/articles.asp?articleID=5551
Smith to discuss 'What's Next For Equal Rights After Amendment 2?'
The Democratic Club of the Islands is featuring Nadine Smith, Executive Director of Equality America, to speak to all interested islanders on Thursday, January 15 at 7 p.m. at the Sanibel Public Library, 770 Dunlop Road.
Previously, Smith was director of The Human Rights Task Force of Florida. She joined the organization in 1993 after serving as one of four national co-chairs on the 1993 march on Washington, D.C. and taking part in the historic, first-ever meeting between LGBT leaders and a sitting U.S. President (Bill Clinton) in the White House.
Smith has led advocacy efforts in Florida at the state level at a time of unprecedented attacks on the gay and lesbian community, serving as Equality Florida's lead lobbyist, heading efforts to stop discriminatory legislation and ballot measures and to overturn Florida's ban on adoption by gay and lesbian parents.
Her experience in community organizing, social change and politics includes her service as campaign manager for Citizens for a Fair Tampa, a successful effort to prevent repeal of that city's human rights ordinance, and her own campaign in 1991 for Tampa City Council. An award-winning journalist, Smith has written syndicated columns for general audience publications.
Democratic Club of the Islands members are also urged to attend this meeting to hear exciting news about the restructuring of the club and to learn new opportunities for activism in the Obama era. Call Brian Anderson at 472-2206 for more information.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
[Undo 2] Bob Barr: No Defending the Defense of Marriage Act
From the Los Angeles Times Opinion No Defending the Defense of Marriage Act The author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act now thinks it's time for his law to get the boot -- but for political reasons, not in support of gays. By Bob Barr January 5, 2009 Excerpt 1 |
In 1996, as a freshman member of the House of Representatives, I wrote the Defense of Marriage Act, better known by its shorthand acronym, DOMA, than its legal title. The law has been a flash-point for those arguing for or against same-sex marriage ever since President Clinton signed it into law. Even President-elect Barack Obama has grappled with its language, meaning and impact. I can sympathize with the incoming commander in chief. And, after long and careful consideration, I have come to agree with him that the law should be repealed. The left now decries DOMA as the barrier to federal recognition and benefits for married gay couples. At the other end of the political spectrum, however, DOMA has been lambasted for subverting the political momentum for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In truth, the language of the legislation -- like that of most federal laws -- was a compromise. DOMA was indeed designed to thwart the then-nascent move in a few state courts and legislatures to afford partial or full recognition to same-sex couples. The Hawaii court case Baehr vs. Lewin, still active while DOMA was being considered by Congress in mid-1996, provided the immediate impetus. |
In effect, DOMA's language reflects one-way federalism: It protects only those states that don't want to accept a same-sex marriage granted by another state. Moreover, the heterosexual definition of marriage for purposes of federal laws -- including, immigration, Social Security survivor rights and veteran's benefits -- has become a de facto club used to limit, if not thwart, the ability of a state to choose to recognize same-sex unions. Even more so now than in 1996, I believe we need to reduce federal power over the lives of the citizenry and over the prerogatives of the states. It truly is time to get the federal government out of the marriage business. In law and policy, such decisions should be left to the people themselves. In 2006, when then-Sen. Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, he said, "Decisions about marriage should be left to the states." He was right then; and as I have come to realize, he is right now in concluding that DOMA has to go. If one truly believes in federalism and the primacy of state government over the federal, DOMA is simply incompatible with those notions. Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the Libertarian Party's 2008 nominee for president. |
--
Posted By Nadine to Undo 2 at 1/06/2009 12:52:00 PM
Saturday, December 20, 2008
It is important to say these things out loud.
President-elect Barack Obama believes "marriage is between a man and a woman".
Barack Obama does not think gay couples' relationships are worthy of the same stature as his and Michelle's.
He does not believe that gay couples deserve the precise same legal recognition or status that his marriage confers to him and his wife.
He believes we should have a different, inherently lesser, legal framework to protect each other and our children.
It is important to say these things out loud.
President-elect Obama enters the White House with a record of support and a better platform on issues of LGBT equality than any other president this country has known.
He opposed amending state constitutions to single out gay couples to ban them from marriage. He supports federally recognized Civil Unions. He oppose federal legislation and constitutional measures that ban marriage recognition for gay couples.
He supports the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, will push the Hate Crimes bill and supports an inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination law.
By all accounts he has a laudable record of pushing for equal rights and we must work with his administration relentlessly to manifest these promises.
But he also believes there is a quality to heterosexual relationships that make them worthy of a higher status by society under the law.
Barack Obama believes "marriage is between a man and a woman".
He says gay couples can have civil unions, domestic partnership, some other, different, diminished copy of an arrangement.
It is important that we not pretend we don't already know this.
I am awed by Barack Obama. His words inspire me. His intellect comforts me. His grassroots campaign was a beautiful, diverse and powerful thing to behold.
After years of a Bush/Cheney cynicism, war, arrogance and incompetence I wept tears of joy for Barack Obama's election. For the historic shift and transformational meaning that a Black president heralds for our country, I beamed with pride. Change is coming and I am hopeful.
But when it comes to the issue of marriage, Barack Obama is wrong.
I have criticized the selection of Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration.
Warren compares gay relationships with incest and pedophilia and runs a psychologically reckless, "ex-gay" ministry out of his mega-church.
His presence on the dias should be challenged vigorously.
But I will not lie to myself. I will not make Warren the proxy for the unspoken disappointment and anger at Barack Obama for his more nuanced insult to gay couples when he says "marriage is between a man and a woman". We must be prepared to help President Obama lead and we must be willing to tell the truth when he is wrong.
When it comes to the issue of marriage Barack Obama is wrong.
Gay people deserve equal protection under the law. Our families deserve precisely the same benefits, protection and legal recognition as straight couples receive.
It is important to say these things out loud.
John Ridley: The U.S. Goes Global With its Anti-Gayness
John Ridley: The U.S. Goes Global With its Anti-Gayness
Funny thing about this great land of ours. She's got no problem fighting for what's right (Civil War), but she doesn't always make the simple stand for righteousness (Civil Rights movement).
This past Thursday the United Nations, which excels at issuing proclamations, circulated one that is as marginally effectual as it is symbolically strong. It was just a little ole declaration seeking universal decriminalization of homosexuality.
Wasn't saying Gays could get married.
Wasn't saying Gays could show up at your house and read your kids Heather Has Two Mommies.
It was just saying, you know: "Hey, Iran, when you're done with that show trial, could you possibly not hang those two guys who engaged in a love whose name you dare not speak."
And if you think I'm being hyperbolic, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay notes that ten countries still have laws making homosexual activity punishable by death.
But the U.S. did not sign the declaration.
READ MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/the-us-goes-global-with-i_b_152489.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)