* March 2000 * * Volume 10 *
Inside This Months Newsletter
Prop 22
Written By: Luv2much
On March 7th, Californians will be casting their vote on many issues but one hits closer to home then the others. It is Prop 22 which is a provision to add to the family code "that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".
The first thing that comes to mind is why is this on the ballot? Isn't Same-Sex marriage already banned in California? Writers of prop 22 say that this provision is needed so that judges in other states that perform same-sex marriages can not make us accept something we don't want. Is this a case of who has more power and control?
The second argument for prop 22 is to "protect marriage". Marriage is "the love shared between two people in which they devote their lives to each other" correct? What are they protecting that you and I can not protect? If they are truly going to protect marriage then how come there are statistics on divorce, adultery and spousal abuse?
Then you have the all mighty 3rd argument which is same-sex relationships are a sin according to the church. Yet the fact that members of the church are sinners in their own right. The statistics on members of the church being arrested on molestation , kiddyporn or other charges are on the rise. As we speak members of the church are trying to cover up an aids epidemic involving members of the church. Makes me wonder who is calling the kettle black?
As with all types of relationships weather straight, gay or lesbian there will be one night stands and one that are short. Then there are the ones that last forever till one passes on. Remember this part of the vows, "till death do us part" and "in good times and in bad"? If people are so worried about protecting marriage then how come the church are leaving this part of the vows out of the services more and more?
Prop 22 brings up far more questions then answers. Does this mean that we must also provide a provision to be added to the Common-law marriage? What about adding "must be born a man or a woman" to cover those who are transgender and decide to have surgery? What provision are we going to add to marriages performed out of the country? Where do we draw the line?
This is why we need to vote NO on Prop 22!!
Shut In
Written By: Bestwolf
On March 15th, at 2:30 in the afternoon, I will have been shut in for six months. .Before that fateful afternoon on September, I was usual 24 years old, (just turned 57), full of energy, able to run up three flights of stairs without fainting, carry 80 pound boxes of beef, and drive like the devil was after me with no problem. But, That all ended at 2:30 in the afternoon, when an irresponsible, uninsured, day dreaming male driver crashed into the back of my car while I was stopped in traffic at a red light. For the next 5 hours of that day, I neither knew what was going on around me nor did I care. All I knew was pain. At 9 p.m. that night I knew nothing was broken. Just to turn in bed was complete agony, so much that I refused to move at all. When someone would try to cheer me up and I would laugh, that was painful too.
Two days later, my bestfriend came to the hospital when the released me to bring me home, and for the first time in my life, I knew terror. She was driving under the speed limit, but it was to fast for me. I could not see what was behind us that was frightening too. When we got home, it was all I could do to get up the five stairs on my porch and get in the house.
For a week I spent most of my time in bed or on my couch only moving when the physical therapist came to the house. My girlfriend would call on the phone and I would tell her to put the phone down we I needed to change position because of the involuntary moans that emitted from me.
For the last six months I have spent my time in physical therapy, swimming and in front of the computer. Now you may ask why am I telling you all this, for sympathy? NOT!! I am telling you this because no matter how well things are going for you at this moment in time, they do not always stay that way. In a fraction of a second, blink of an eye, your life can change.
In 1991, last century, I was worth over a million dollars. Then the real estate program crashed and there went all my life’s work. But, I had my health. Then my ex and her family burned me out of the only house I had left. But, I still had my health. As long as I had my health, I could do anything!!!
Then because of this accident, I lost my legs and my way of getting around quickly. Oh the legs are still attached but they are practically useless. There goes my health? Guess again!! I still have my voice, I still have my brain and I still have my health. Sometimes I get discouraged, but I am the luckiest person I know. I have my friends to encourage me, I still have the ability to build home for my sister’s, and build a home I will.
Why is My Sisters House so important you ask. Think about it if you will. If you are any where near my age, you grew up and matured in a world that was constantly beating you down. You were not even considered worth the space you took. If you were out at the club enjoying yourself, you had to be ready at a moments notice to change partners with any gay male in the place should the cops arrive. And if you were arrested, you had better have three articles of female attire on your body. You could be locked up for a period of twenty years if you were found or suspected of being a lesbian or gay. The cops could enter your house or apartment without a search warrant and you had better be sleeping in twin beds or alone because you would be hauled off to jail.
These are the kind of people that we are sentenced to spend the rest of our lives with if we do not have a My Sisters House.
Why would you want to have My Sisters House? Well, I for one do not have 50K needed to get me into a mobile home community in Florida or Arizona where I would only have to find complete care facility to care for me should I become in need of one. At My Sisters House, I would be assured that I would be taken care of to my last breath. Hopefully, I would even be able to be buried there next to my partner without blood families interference.
Why should you become a member? Without the help of the lesbian community, this project is too big for one person to handle alone financially. Your support, through memberships, guarantees that there will be physical homes in your area in the near future. Do not wait till the day before you need My Sisters House to decide for membership, we may not be there for you. Of course, if you have 50K or 75K needed to enter another community, please do not let us stop you.
Paramount needs to say no to Dr.Laura
SEATTLE, Wash., Feb. 26 / -- Bill Bradley joined the growing fray over controversial talk show host Laura Schlessinger today. Bradley, appearing on a gay radio program, said Schlessinger's anti-gay statements ``makes me sick to my stomach.'' Bradley also said Paramount should drop its plans to offer ``Dr. Laura'' on TV this fall.
Schlessinger has called homosexuality ``deviant,'' referred to gays and lesbians as ``biological errors,'' and has suggested that most gay men are predatory on young boys. Bradley called Schlessinger's anti-gay rhetoric ``a kind of homophobic extreme that indicates not only unfairness, but a kind of deep-seeded, border on hatred, and a total misunderstanding of what it means to be gay and lesbian.''
Bradley made his comments as the critical gay voting block prepares to choose between the former senator and Vice President Al Gore in a slew of primaries. Especially in California on March 7, Bradley's comments about ``Dr. Laura'' may connect with both gay and lesbian voters, and with those in Los Angeles' entertainment industry concerned about the growing controversy.
In recent weeks, the controversy over ``Dr. Laura'' has seen one major gay group plead with Paramount to control the host's anti-gay rhetoric, another group initiate a tough effort to blast Paramount for its decision, and led religious activists to run anti-``Dr. Laura'' ads in California newspapers.
Bradley's comments were quickly echoed by a top television producer. David Lee, executive producer of the hit show ``Frasier,'' appeared on GAYBC immediately following Bradley. Lee agreed that Paramount should drop plans for ``Dr. Laura,'' and suggested that anti-gay rhetoric was more readily tolerated by some at Paramount than other forms of intolerance.
McCain For CA Marriage Limit
Republican Presidential hopeful Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on February 24 came out in support of a California ballot initiative to deny legal recognition to same-gender marriages another state may someday perform. Bush has taken no position on Proposition 22, although like all the Presidential hopefuls he opposes legal gay and lesbian marriages. Both Democratic hopefuls, Vice President Al Gore and former U.S. Senator from New Jersey Bill Bradley, have repeatedly spoken out against Proposition 22.
McCain opened a press conference just minutes later, he said, "I understood the question to be as to whether I would vote to legalize gay marriage. I would not and I would vote for Proposition 22," adding that, "this is consistent with my position in opposition to same-sex marriage." He admitted that, "I'm not familiar with as many of the propositions here in California as perhaps I should be. ... I will be well-versed in all of those propositions as we go through the campaign." He noted that in 1996 in the Senate he had voted in favor of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act," as indeed all but 14 Senators did. That measure, signed into law by President Bill Clinton (D), granted states the authority to deny recognition to another state's same-gender marriages, and also prohibited the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships in any way.
San Diego's Republican Mayor Susan Golding was appearing with McCain, not only endorsing him but specifically calling on Republican women to vote for him. However Golding -- and the San Diego City Council and all of San Diego's mayoral hopefuls -- has taken a stand opposing Proposition 22.
McCain also said in Sacramento that he would never allow public funding for some art, referring specifically to the late gay world-renowned photographer Robert Mapplethorpe. McCain said, "You can call it artistic license. I call it smut and filth."
Adoption Ban Advances
Mississippi House subcommittee has approved a bill that would not only prevent same-gender couples from adopting children, it would also deny recognition of such adoptions from another state.
The Mississippi legislature is considering a bill to prohibit something which may never have occurred there -- adoptions by same-gender couples. The bill goes even further, to deny legal recognition to adoptions gay and lesbian couples performed in other states. State Representative Bobby Howell's (R-Kilmichael) HB 49 was approved unanimously on February 22 by a four-member subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee and is scheduled to be taken up by the full committee on February 29; its chances of enactment are seen as strong. Currently only Florida bans gay and lesbian adoptions by law, although a measure against adoptions by unmarried couples is now moving quickly through the Utah legislature.
Reminder: Write to your Congressman and others in your state, when there are issues that affect you. Let them know how you feel. The more the receive is always better!!
MI Rights Repealed
Twenty-eight percent of registered voters in Ferndale, Michigan (a northern suburb of Detroit, population 25,000) turned out February 22 to repeal a civil rights law including sexual orientation as a protected category by 51.2% - 48.8% (2,406 - 2,289, a 117-vote margin) in unofficial returns. In September the City Council had approved by 4 - 1 the measure applying a civil fine of up to $500 for discrimination in employment, housing, public services and public accommodations based on a long list of categories: age, color, familial status, gender, height, marital status, national origin, physical or mental disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, weight. Of all those, only sexual orientation was controversial in the repeal campaign led by former Mayor Robert Paczkowski and supported by the American Family Association. Meanwhile, voters in Holland, Michigan soundly defeated an AFA-sponsored measure to require filtering software on the local library's computers, in a referendum believed to be the first of its kind in the nation. Gay Ferndale City Councilmember Craig Covey (elected in November, after the ordinance had been approved) was disappointed yet philosophical about the narrow defeat of the civil rights measure, noting how much closer it was than a similar vote in 1991. At that time, the ballot initiative would have made discrimination against gays and lesbians a misdemeanor, and it was defeated by a landslide 63%. Covey looked ahead to trying again in perhaps two years. Joann Wilcox, co-chair of Keep Our Human Rights (KOHR), the community organization formed originally to lobby for the Council's passage of the civil rights law and continued to defend it in the referendum, noted that the process had served to begin a dialog on the issue.
Despite the struggles in Ferndale and elsewhere, two other Michigan towns have moved this year against anti-gay discrimination. On January 24, the city of Grand Ledge voted 4 - 3 to add "sexual orientation" to a new anti-discrimination policy. On February 7, the Traverse City Commission adopted by 6 - 1 a non-binding Non-Discrimination Resolution including sexual orientation. Both moves are being challenged. Other Michigan municipalities with policies or ordinances protecting gays and lesbians are Ann Arbor, Birmingham, Detroit, the Village of Douglas, East Lansing, Flint, Grand Rapids, Oak Park, Saginaw, and Ypsilanti.
CO House OKs Anti-Marriage Bill
The Colorado House of Representatives voted 36 - 29 on February 22 to give its final approval to a bill to deny legal recognition to same-gender marriages another state may someday perform; supporters of the measure gained a few yeas overnight to cushion the one-vote margin that won it preliminary approval February 21. Marriages performed within Colorado are already restricted to heterosexual couples. Since the Colorado Senate had already passed a similar measure (SB 45) and Governor Bill Owens (R) has promised to sign, it appears that after several failed attempts the bill will finally become law.
It took some tricky parliamentary maneuvering to bring the bill to the floor for the preliminary vote. The House Judiciary Committee has been a stumbling block for the bill in the past, so Representative Mark Paschall (R-Arvada) sidestepped it. He transformed his HB 1249, originally designed to recognize non-economic elements of prenuptial agreements, into a bill to restrict legal recognition to marriages "between one man and one woman." Claiming that his goal was "to make sure the tradition of supporting marriage between one man and one woman is supported," Paschall claimed to be concerned not only by possible same-gender marriages but also by "polygamous" and "polyamorous" relationships -- "two couples that share each other openly in a physical and sexual relationship." The content of the debate was sufficiently sexual to discomfort Representatives aware of the presence of some five dozen school children spending the Presidents' Day holiday at the Legislature, including one Representative whose own daughters were among them.
Representative Tom Plant (D-Nederland), speaking for many other House Democrats, said, "If you have a relationship based on love, I don't think you should ban it, you should embrace it." Taking issue with Paschall's characterization of both versions of his bill as "strengthening marriage," Plant said, "I'm not sure that by limiting the marriage relationship that we're necessarily strengthening it." Taking at face value Paschall's remarks about possible multiple-partner marriages, Plant attempted an amendment to define marriage as "between two individuals," but it failed on a voice vote. Representative Gloria Leyba (D-Denver), a champion of equal rights for gays and lesbians, also attempted an amendment which failed.
Other Democrats called for the bill to be sent to the House Judiciary Committee for hearings (where moderate Republican allies helped to kill it last year), and in fact the House originally agreed to that with a standing vote, but when Paschall later called for a formal roll call, enough votes changed to pass his measure.
Another effort to deflect the HB 1249 to the House Judiciary Committee was defeated during the debate preceding the final vote; House Majority Leader Doug Dean (R-Colorado Springs) denounced the move as "an obvious, transparent attempt to kill the bill." Supporters went on to blame the Vermont Supreme Court decision calling for equal rights for gay and lesbian couples for making the measure necessary. However Representative Dan Grossman (D-Denver) charged that, "The bill is nothing more than something based on fear and I think it is an irrational fear. ... What horrible thing would happen to us? It's gratuitous and mean-spirited." Representative Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) countered that, "It's based on the accumulated wisdom and experience of cultures for 7,000 years. ... We always have recognized as self-evident that marriage is a joining of opposite members of the human species."
Although the anti-gay Colorado for Family Values and Focus on the Family were pleased by the advance of the limit on marriage bills, gay and lesbian activists told the "Rocky Mountain News" that Colorado has come a long way since it was nicknamed "the hate state" after the 1992 passage of the statewide ballot initiative Amendment 2 (a measure to prohibit local ordinances recognizing gays, lesbians or bisexuals as a minority group, which was eventually struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1996). They point, for instance, at the substantial number of people who testified in committee hearings against the marriage ban, including politicians and clergy.
Canada DP Passes 2nd Reading
The Canadian Parliament on February 21 approved by an overwhelming 160 - 61 the Government's omnibus measure to amend 68 federal statutes to give same-gender couples legal status equal to that of unmarried heterosexual couples. The vote on its second reading sends C-23 on to the Commons Justice Committee for hearings. Clearly opposition from the Reform Party and from more than a dozen dissidents among the ruling Liberal Party will not be enough to stop the bill inspired by the Canadian Supreme Court's May 1999 ruling in "M v. H." The Government's bill has landslide public support, according to a 1998 survey commissioned by the Ministry of Justice.
The national gay and lesbian group EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) was particularly pleased by the Government's commitment as evidenced by the fact that Prime Minister Jean Chretien did not allow the Liberals to vote their consciences, although on February 15 Chretien invited the Liberal dissidents to absent themselves or abstain. However, EGALE also issued an urgent call to lobby lawmakers in support of the bill, based on reports that calls opposing it are so far running far ahead.
The poll surveyed 500 Canadians through January 26; results have a margin of error of 4.5%.
Editors note: EGALE particularly recommends calls and letters to Chretien and to Minister of Justice Anne McLellan, as well as Members of Parliament who can be located at http://www.parl.gc.ca/36/sm-mpcur-e.htm. They also have called for contacting Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Elinor Caplan to commit to equal recognition in immigration regulations of binational same-gender couples, who may not have been able to live together to qualify as common-law partners.
No Gay St. Pat's March in NYC
Irish lesbians & gays are barred by a court ruling from taking 5th Avenue a step ahead of the famous New York parade that won't let them join.
Back in 1991 and 1992, the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization's (IGLO) battle was to participate in New York City's Saint Patrick's Day Parade, but after a federal judge in 1993 gave parade organizers a court order to exclude ILGO, the battle shifted to being able to hold their own march in protest. New York City has consistently denied them the chance to do that immediately before the nation's biggest Saint Patrick's Day event on its Fifth Avenue route, and on February 17 a federal jury decided for the city. The city has indicated it would consider allowing ILGO to hold its march on Saint Patrick's Day at a different site.
ILGO had first filed its current complaint in 1996, but it was heard only over the last three weeks. The group charged that the city infringed on its freedom of expression by rejecting its request to precede the big parade with a march of about 2,000 people, which happened in 1996, 1997 and 1998. "This case is about pride, a parade, politics and pretext," as ILGO counsel Steven Rawlings characterized the case in his opening statement; he asked the jury to help the group "get its voice back." Rawlings described the city rejecting ILGO's request by means of a "backroom political process."
City attorney Virginia Waters denied that it was about "politics or pretext," asserting that, "It's about an unreasonable group that wants perfection ... sort of like a child that wants what it wants when it wants it," and citing alternatives the city had offered that ILGO had refused. She contended the group is still looking for a way to join the parade, comparing them to "uninvited guests at a party." She said the city's rejection of ILGO's permit requests was not based on the group's viewpoint, but on a general policy against having two groups at the same place on the same day, justified by potential problems with traffic.
The big parade's organizers, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, were also represented in court on the side of the city, asserting their right to exclude ILGO. When the U.S. Supreme Court considered the parallel situation of Irish gays and lesbians seeking to march as a unit in Boston's Saint Patrick's Day parade, it ruled unanimously that the parade was a private event whose organizers' First Amendment rights allowed them to exclude any group they believed did not match their message. The Hibernians told the court that their standards for participation had always barred any group taking a position contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church, as well as any use of the parade for "confrontation
IL Gender Violence Bill Advances
Women and l/g/b/t's who are victims of treats or violence would be empowered to sue their attackers under a 1st-of-its-kind bill in progress in Illinois' House.
Illinois' first-of-its-kind Gender Violence Act narrowly cleared its initial hurdle on February 16, as the state House Judiciary Committee voted 6 - 5 to send it on to the full House. Drafted by the state Commission on the Status Women and patterned after the federal Violence Against Women Act, it is specifically designed to empower victims to sue their attackers for threats or violence motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or "actual, perceived or attributed sex or gender role conformity or nonconformity." That includes victims of gay-bashings and transgender-bashings as well as battered wives and women victims of male sexual assaults.
The Gender Violence Act has the whole-hearted support of Republican Governor George Ryan, who said in his State of the State address earlier this month that it would "open the doors to justice for women who have been beaten or sexually assaulted and to provide opportunities to seek justice for those whose lives are damaged or destroyed by violence because of their sexual orientation." According to the Commission on the Status of Women, whose members the governor appoints, Ryan specifically urged the inclusion of lesbians, gays and transgenders. He held a special news conference to present the bill on February 7, saying, "Our sisters, wives and daughters as well as our brothers, sons and friends deserve the right to their day in court if they are brutally victimized or threatened." He said,." He said, "With the Gender Violence Act in place, Illinois would become a true pioneer, a state with an anti-violence law that empowers victims." Ryan went on to explain, "This law would simply create a way for victims of brutal crimes and frightening threats to have the ability to strike back at batterers and abusers by going after their checkbook -- to make them pay money damages for their acts of violence or threats."
Opponent Representative John Turner (R-Atlanta) complained to the Judiciary Committee, "They already have rights not only in criminal court, but in civil court to sue." In fact, Illinois already has a Hate Crimes Law to apply harsher penalties to those convicted of bias-motivated crimes, and it's also possible for victims to file civil lawsuits against their attackers under general statutes. But according to one Gender Violence Act sponsor, Representative Sara Feigenholtz (D-Chicago), even though women and gays are among the most frequently victimized groups, they have not fared well with those civil suits historically. "The common law doesn't work for women or gays or lesbians," she said. Feigenholtz introduced the bill in the House on February 4. Senator Lisa Madigan (D-Chicago) is the lead sponsor in the Senate.
The statewide gay and lesbian lobby group Equality Illinois is targeting the Gender Violence Act right behind HB 474, a bill to add "sexual orientation" as a protected category under the Illinois Human Rights Act. The group will be holding its annual Equality/Lobby Day at the Statehouse on March 23. Patricia Logue, supervising attorney of the Chicago office of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, said the Gender Violence Act "creates one more set of disincentives" to homophobic bias crimes and "is a logical next step for our state."
All rights reserved © 2000
