GLBT News

[Patches]

It's an oddly sad, but historical day in Canada. I guess with this proclamation - at least in Ontario, we're just like everyone else. We can get married *AND* divorced. You know, I'm not sure if this qualifies as GLBT news, or should be in the Gay Marriages thread. Think it fits in both.



While sad that the marriage dissolved (from what I've followed in the case, the couple were together 10 years, got married June last and seperated a couple of months later; an oddity in and of itself), what is profound is the wording used by the judge who granted the divorce: " 'The definition of a spouse [man and woman] is unconstitutional, inoperative and of no force and effect,' [Justice] Mesbur said.



I've copied the full article below, as CTV links tend to expire rather quickly.









Ontario judge grants first same-sex divorce

CTV.ca News Staff



In putting an end to one of Canada's first lesbian marriages, an Ontario judge has struck down sections of Canada's Divorce Act.



Justice Ruth Mesbur's ruling came in the case of a couple known in court documents as M.M. and J.H.



They were of the first same-sex couples to tie the knot under Ontario's revised marriage laws. They tied the knot on June 18, 2003 -- the week after the Ontario Court of Appeal legalized same-sex marriage in the province.



In June, they filed for divorce with Ontario Superior Court of Justice, shortly after signing an official separation agreement.



However, the Divorce Act states that only spouses, defined as a man and a woman, can get divorced. That put same-sex couples in the bizarre position of being able to get married but unable to legally split up.



"The definition of a spouse is unconstitutional, inoperative and of no force and effect," Mesbur said.



Lawyer Martha McCarthy, who represented one of the women, said the ruling is historic.



"We believe that this is not just the first gay or lesbian divorce in Canada, but actually the first gay or lesbian divorce in the world," McCarthy said.



When news of the case broke in July, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler agreed with lawyers for the couple that the Divorce Act as it stood was unconstitutional.



The federal government is awaiting an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada on same-sex marriage, before going ahead with changes to laws.



However, courts in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia have already legalized same-sex marriage.

~~~



Peace!!

Patches

Our wedding vows: Life Love Everlasting, Always Intertwining. - Sunday June 27, 2004 :)

[skittles]

I really don't want to post this, but I know that I should. Just because I don't like something (mildly stated) doesn't make it go away or make it any less true. And this is true for more places than just Jamaica..... unfortunately.



BBC News article



Growing up gay in Jamaica



The homophobic lyrics of Jamaican reggae stars have hit the headlines, but what is the reality of being gay in a society where it is illegal to practise your sexuality?



Michael is verbally abused, threatened and spat at every time he leaves his home in Kingston, Jamaica, but the 20-year-old student considers himself lucky.



He has friends who have been beaten and stabbed because they are gay but, as yet, he has not been attacked. He knows it could happen anytime.



"My friends have been chopped up and all of that, you'd think they were a piece of meat in the slaughter house. It is terrible," he says.



Every time he goes out he is called a "battyman" - an abusive term for a gay man - and says the general attitude in Kingston is if you are homosexual you may as well be dead.



Asylum



"There is always someone who says 'battyman, beat him up, chop him up, kill him'. I fret and check if they are coming to get me," he says.



Jamaica has a history of entrenched homophobia and violent attacks on gay men and women.



The situation hit the headlines in the UK earlier this month when two controversial Jamaican reggae acts - Elephant Man and Vybz Kartel - were dropped from the British Music of Black Origin (Mobo) awards for refusing to apologise for homophobic lyrics.



The church is saying homosexuality is wrong and the entertainers are saying 'kill them' - how are we going to be able to live openly as gays in Jamaica?

Michael



The row also resulted in an event, flagged-up as the biggest reggae festival in the UK for almost 20 years, being cancelled earlier this month.



But homophobia in Jamaica goes far beyond songs lyrics, with gay men and women "beaten, cut, burned, raped and shot on account of their sexuality", according to Amnesty International.



It says while no official statistics are available, according to published reports at least 30 gay men are believed to have been murdered in Jamaica since 1997.



And at least five Jamaicans have been granted asylum in the UK in the last two years because their lives had been threatened as a result of their sexual identity.



Prison riot



"We have talked to people who have been forced to leave their communities after being publicly vilified, threatened or attacked on suspicion of being gay. They face homelessness, isolation or worse," says Lesley Warner, Amnesty International UK media director.



The country's law makes any act of physical intimacy between men punishable by jail, with the possibility of 10-years hard labour.



Few people are openly gay as once their sexuality becomes known they are at risk of attack and often have to move.



Reporting abuse and harassment to the police is not an option for many as officers are frequently known to standby or even join in attacks, says Amnesty.



Michael has not told his family, who live in a parish just outside Kingston, that he is gay as he knows he will be ostracised and even beaten.



"My aunt is the co-founder of our local church and it preaches that homosexuality is a sin," he says.



"If my aunt or any member of the church found out about my sexuality they would just tell everyone and I wouldn't be able to come around any more. I would get hurt."



The church has traditionally been a major force in Jamaican society and plays a significant part in people's daily lives. Many preachers use the Bible to support homophobic sentiments.



Activist murdered



Another major influence in people's lives is dancehall music. Its stars, including international artists such as Beenie Man and Buju Banton, are regarded as "teachers" by the young, says Michael.



The music is steeped in homophobia, with lyrics from Buju Banton's Boom Boom Bye Bye, threatening gay men with a "gunshot in ah head" and Beenie Man's stating "I'm a dreaming of a new Jamaica, come to execute all the gays".



The chance of attitudes changing towards the gay community is small, says Michael.



Many gay men and women in Jamaica are too afraid to go to the authorities and seek help

Lesley Warner

Amnesty International



"Everybody just listens to the church and dancehall music. The church is saying homosexuality is wrong and the entertainers are saying 'kill them' - how are we going to be able to live openly as gays in Jamaica?"



Concern among human rights groups has intensified even further following the murder of the country's most prominent gay activist in June this year.



Brian Williamson, 59, was one of the few gay Jamaicans willing to stand up in public and be seen talking about homosexuality as a gay man.



The motive for the murder was officially given as robbery, but the gay rights group he founded, J-Flag, believes the killing was a hate crime.



Free condoms



Campaigners say Jamaica's anti-sodomy law also has wider implications in the fight against HIV and Aids in the country.



In 1997, when prison authorities attempted to distribute condoms to inmates at Kingston's main prison, it led to riots in which 16 allegedly gay men died and 40 more injured, says Amnesty.



J-Flag says the law inhibits people from revealing their sexuality to doctors. As a result they are not getting access to appropriate healthcare.



But despite the difficulties and discrimination Michael faces in Jamaica as a gay man, he loves his country and is not prepared to leave.



"I have to stay and try to build my country into a better place," he says.



Michael talks more about his experiences in Gay in Jamaica, a documentary available on the 1Xtra site (see internet links).



To share your views on this story, go to the 1Xtra site. (end of article)

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.



When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[maudmac]

I remember years ago, when groups like Queer Nation and Lesbian Avengers were around, hearing about the subject matter in the lyrics of a lot of dancehall artists. I guess the world wasn't ready to be outraged back then. I've been following the more recent news about Buju Banton, Beenie Man, and others, and I've long understood Jamaica to be a very homophobic culture, but it still breaks my heart extra badly to read the words of a young man whose life is on the line daily for no other reasons than bigotry. It's beyond unfortunate.



Perhaps now that the world is ready to be outraged, things can change in Jamaica. It's easy to be so optimistic from such a great distance, I know, but I also know very well that sometimes it takes outside pressure to get more people to realize how profoundly wrong they are, especially if they're convinced that their God wants things wrong.

---

when i hear music it makes me dance

[Miss Ediths Bad Kitty]

Stolen from SuicideGirls.com..

Quote:

---

Ikea, sensing a seminal change of the consciousness in American retail, was the first company to televise a commercial showing a gay couple. Shot in 1993, it played in New York City and Washington D.C. once before being pulled from the air because of bomb threats to stores and calls for a boycott.



More than a decade later, Volkswagon will begin print ads that specifically target the homosexual community.



"We've always recognized the gay community as being an important, treasured part of the VW family," said John Gasloli, multicultural marketing leader at Volkswagen of America in Auburn Hills, Mich. "We wanted to take the next step."



VW is following in the footsteps of Subaru and Volvo, both of which have crafted ads targeting gays. This year, gay and lesbian buying power is estimated at about $580 billion, per MarketResearch.com.



"VW has always had a gay following," said Todd Turner, president of consultancy Car Concepts in Thousand Oaks, Calif. "Why they were so late to embrace their own market is beyond me."



While there will be no television advertisements, it is interesting to note that a majority of advertisements that “target the homosexual community” show gay men and not lesbians.



Anybody want to guess why?

---

Edited by: Miss Ediths Bad Kitty at: 9/15/04 9:17 am

[skittles]

from today's Detroit News



Gay adoption limited

Attorney general says Michigan doesn't recognize same-sex marriages



By David Eggert / Associated Press



LANSING — An attorney general’s legal opinion that same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot adopt a child together in Michigan has angered gay rights advocates and others who said Wednesday it disregards children’s best interests.



The opinion, written by Attorney General Mike Cox, said a same-sex marriage performed in another state is invalid in Michigan and therefore precludes that couple from obtaining a joint adoption here.



“It’s an anti-family opinion,” said Beverly Davidson, president of the Coalition for Adoption Rights Equality, which supports same-sex adoptions. “There are a number of children in our state who need permanent homes. Limiting who can adopt them is a disservice.”



While the Republican attorney general’s opinion specifically addressed whether the state can recognize same-sex marriages performed in Massachusetts and whether those couples can adopt children in Michigan, critics worry that it further cripples gays’ rights and their ability to adopt.



The state’s adoption law is ambiguous and appellate courts have not definitively ruled on the issue, they say.



Cox spokesman Randall Thompson disagreed. Cox wrote in his opinion that, while same-sex couples cannot adopt a child in the state, one partner may do so as a single person.



“In terms of the public policy of the state of Michigan, the Legislature has been very clear,” Thompson said.



Critics say only a joint adoption gives both parents equal rights to the child and allows children adopted by gay couples the same financial security and legal rights guaranteed to children of married couples.



Jay Kaplan, a staff attorney for the Michigan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said if one partner in same-sex couple adopts a child, the other partner would have no legal obligation to the adopted child.



“If only one parent can be legally recognized, how is that helping the child?” he said.



State Sen. Bill Hardiman, R-Kentwood, who requested the opinion, said marriage is an institution between one man and one woman and only married couples should be able to adopt.



“It’s not that I’m against gays, but I do support marriage as it has been defined in this country,” Hardiman said.



Judges have divided over the issue.



Washtenaw County judges once allowed gay and lesbian couples to jointly adopt children. But two years ago, Chief Judge Archie Brown banned those adoptions in the courts under his control. Brown said at the time that such adoptions violated state law, which he said allows only individuals and married couples to adopt children. (end of article)

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.



When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[Gatito Grande]

Cox is an *sshole, and his (predictable) opinion is so much b*llshit.



“It’s not that I’m against gays, but I do support marriage as it has been defined in this country,” Hardiman said.



GG Yeah, he's not "against gays," and I'm not a 42 year-old female-bodied queer: 5'5", w/ green eyes, right-handed and a Xena: Warrior Princess fan. {sarcasm mode off} Out

[skittles]

from the NYTimes

Quote:

---

At Country Clubs, Gay Members Want All Privileges for Partners

By MARCIA CHAMBERS

September 21, 2004, NYTimes



One by one, barriers have been falling at the nation's elite country clubs. Many private clubs have dropped rules in recent decades that discriminated against potential members based on their race, religion, ethnicity or gender.



Now challenges are being raised against rules that are another obstacle to full membership rights at golf clubs. The hot topic at many clubs is one few members could have dreamed of talking about a decade ago: should the partners of gay members be given the privileges of family membership and greater access to the golf course?



In San Diego, Birgit Koebke and her partner, Kendall French, filed a lawsuit against Koebke's golf club in state court, contending that it discriminated against them because the club would not give French the access and the privileges granted to the spouses of heterosexual club members. While spouses can play golf free, French is permitted to play only with Koebke and only six times a year, and she must pay a $70 guest fee each time.



The case, the first of its kind in the country, is pending before the California Supreme Court.



In Atlanta, two gay members of a golf club filed complaints with the city's Human Relations Commission, making a similar claim. The commission ruled in their favor in January.



And in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, more than half the state's 160 private golf and country clubs are redefining their policies on marriage, according to Tom Landry, the executive director of the Massachusetts Golf Association.



"If a gay couple is married in Boston or Provincetown or Great Barrington, and they already have been accepted by the club and produce their marriage license, what we are hearing is that they will be able to join as family members," Landry said.



Some Massachusetts clubs, including the Country Club in Brookline, one of the oldest and most exclusive in the nation, say their existing policies put them in compliance. "It has been an evolutionary process, a changed thinking following the way society has evolved,'' said David Chag, the club's general manager and chief operating officer.



"If you are married, you are married. If you are not, then you are in the guest category. Now that the state of Massachusetts is allowing gay marriage, fine. It doesn't matter to us if you are homosexual or heterosexual."



While marriage is the social bedrock on which country club policies have been built, over the last 15 years some clubs have begun to afford companions of heterosexual members who are single, divorced or widowed the same privileges granted spouses of members. The impetus for this change has come principally from older, longtime club members, typically widowers who do not choose to remarry but have a live-in partner.



These privileges can include use of the golf course without paying a guest fee, permission to play on the course without the member being present, independent access to the clubhouse and sometimes the right to inherit a membership if the primary member dies.



But what if the member's significant other is of the same sex?



Because a number of the nation's 4,500 private golf and country clubs have enacted, either formally or informally, some form of privileges for members' partners, these privileges have figured prominently in the legal challenges brought by gay members against their clubs.



Andrew Fortin, an executive with the National Club Association, a trade organization and lobbying group that represents about 1,000 of the nation's most prestigious private clubs, says that if a club adopts a policy for members' partners, it should apply to both same-sex and heterosexual couples.



"The only certainty,'' Fortin said, "is that the issue of significant others is no longer an exercise in accommodating member needs, but rather a complex and legal debate about spousal rights."



Koebke, a marketing executive at a local television station, filed her lawsuit against the 300-member Bernardo Heights Country Club, near San Diego, in 2001. Koebke contended that French, her partner, who is the director of customer care for an automotive group, should receive the same benefits and privileges provided to spouses of club members.



Koebke and French have formalized their relationship in a state that bars marriage between gay people by registering as domestic partners in San Diego and in California. "Under California law, Kendall and I can do just about everything but play golf together at Bernardo Heights Country Club," Koebke said.



The women have been a couple for 12 years and own a home together. But while members' spouses, children and grandchildren are allowed to play golf without charge, French's access is limited.



The club maintains that it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status and that state law and public policy support marriage as being between only a man and a woman. It offered French the opportunity to pay an additional initiation fee and to pay separate monthly dues. She rejected both offers.



In her suit, Koebke argues that the golf club is a public accommodation and thus cannot discriminate between heterosexual and gay members. In many states and cities, public accommodation laws may apply to private clubs if the clubs routinely conduct business with nonmembers, for example, by renting space for meetings or parties.



Koebke lost in state court, then a California appeals court produced a split decision. It ordered the trial court to consider evidence that at one time the partners of unmarried members held full privileges at the club. It also held for Bernardo Heights on the larger issue, saying the club had the right to distinguish between married and unmarried couples.



When the women appealed to the California Supreme Court, all seven justices agreed to take the case.



"The Court of Appeals' decision relegates lesbian and gay couples to second-class status,'' said Jon W. Davidson, a lawyer for Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay civil rights organization, who is representing Koebke and French. "They are subject to financial and dignitary injuries by a broad range of businesses, who can treat them unequally simply by saying that benefits are reserved to those who, unlike them, can get married.''



The two cases in Atlanta, which involve the 1,100-member Druid Hills Golf Club, focus on similar issues.



Lee Kyser, a psychologist and a member of Druid Hills, sought full privileges for her companion, Lawrie E. Demorest, who is a lawyer. Another gay member of the club, Randy New, who is a lawyer, sought privileges for his companion, Russell Tippins, a radiologist. The cases were considered simultaneously by Atlanta's Human Relations Commission.



Both couples are in long-term relationships and are registered as domestic partners under Atlanta law. The women have adopted twins, who are now 3 years old.



"We were invited to join the club with the understanding that the leadership of the club intended to work to change the rules,'' New said. "We are saying to the club, 'Draft another bylaw that gives the same benefits to domestic partners - to us and to straight people who want it, too.' ''



Kyser and New said they had worked quietly to persuade the club to alter its rules, but they failed. They filed a complaint with the city's Human Relations Commission in July 2003. A month later, the club changed its guest policies for unmarried couples by exempting partners from paying a guest fee when attending the club with the member. But the club stopped short of granting other privileges, like permitting the partner to play golf without the member or to invite his or her own guests.



Demorest may not take clients to the club on her own, but a colleague at her Atlanta law firm, whose husband is a member of Druid Hills, does so routinely. Nor can she take her children to the club unless Kyser is with her.



Joe Cahoon, who was then the club's president, told Kyser and New in a letter that "creating an exception to our longstanding policy regarding what constitutes a spouse is not an exception we are either required or willing to make.''



After a hearing in January, Atlanta's Human Relations Commission ruled unanimously against the club. It held that Druid Hills was a public accommodation and not a private club, because it routinely mounts functions for major corporations, small businesses and Emory University, which is nearby.



The commission also found that the club provided privileges to some members, but not to others. To create criteria that can be met by only heterosexual members, the commission said, "is to deny a significant and valuable privilege based on sexual orientation."



In Atlanta, the mayor has final jurisdiction on the commission's rulings. Mayor Shirley Jackson asked the parties to appoint a mediator to resolve the issue.



Linda K. Disantis, the city's chief lawyer, said that discussions were continuing "to determine if there is any common ground" for the couples and the club to resolve the issue.



But Kyser and New said the conversations and the mediation were over. Disantis said the next step would be up to the mayor, who, according to aides, is still mulling it over.

---

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[Talula]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but rather than start a new thread I felt this was appropriate here. It looks right to me.



Here's a link for you to reference in regards to what I'm talking about below. And a link to the actual complete text of the act in question. Here's a link to one of the American Family Association's articles regarding the bill.



Apparently there is a "So-Called Hate Crimes Bill" (that's what the opponents of the bill are calling it) that is causing quite the stir amongst the conservative, Christian homophobes. The reason I even am mentioning this is because my family brought it up at dinner tonight. They're all dead set against it. I kept my mouth shut because they don't know I'm bisexual, and I also didn't know enough about the act in order to make an informed argument for or against the act. After reading the actual act (and not biased essays/articles like what my family has read), I've discovered yet again how the conservative right is skewing something into a needless controversy.



Basics About the Act: The Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a federal bill that has passed the Senate but as far as I know, not yet through the House. The pure nuts and bolts of the act is that it's meant to provide federal assistance to smaller law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes. Hate crimes are defined in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 as "a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person." This act also specifies that hate crimes are crimes in which bodily harm is inflicted upon a person with discriminatory motives against the above minority groups.



How the Conservatives and Christians Are Skewing the Act: The conservatives are saying that this act is going to have a negative impact against freedom of speech in regard to their right to denounce homosexuality as part of their religious beliefs when it in no way restricts their right to speak their minds. They are comparing this act to a hate crimes act enacted in Canada under which a Christian preacher was arrested for saying that homosexuality was wrong. They are saying that this act is just another piece of the "homosexual agenda" when homosexuals are only one of the several minority groups protected under this act. It also includes hate crimes against race, gender, nationality, color, disability and religion. That's right. It protects them, too. Yet their only focus is on the fact that it protects against hate crimes in regards to sexual orientation.



Personally, every day I am more and more appalled by the short-sighted and ignorant views of the Christian Right. And the way my family just hopped on board without looking to find out what the act really said has left me very dismayed and even more reluctant to come out to them. Why do people have to be so closed-minded and (not to repeat myself but I have no better word) ignorant? They'll take anything they can find and turn it into something it's not just to fit their own beliefs. The Christian Right is trying to come out in force to stop a bill that protects them just as much as it protects homosexuals. It's absurd. Couple this along with the mass movement against same-sex marriage, and I feel less and less like I'm living in the so-called Land of the Free.

----------------

Talula

"The lorry blocked the road. And the corrugated iron blocked the road. And a thirty-foot-high pile of fish blocked the road. It was one of the most effectively blocked roads the sergeant had ever seen."--Good Omens, Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett

Edited by: Talula at: 9/23/04 10:51 am

[sam7777]

Where Bush, Kerry stand on gay rights

Quote:

---

- One of the most hotly debated social issues of the presidential race involves whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and enjoy the legal and financial benefits accorded married couples. Here's where President Bush and Democrat John Kerry stand on gay marriage and other gay-rights issues:



Bush on gay marriage: Supports a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman and deny states the ability to recognize marriage between same-sex couples. "Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country," he said this year at a White House briefing announcing his support for the amendment.



Bush on other gay-rights concerns: Opposes gays serving in the military. A high-ranking Bush appointee deleted "sexual orientation" from a government Web site that listed several grounds, such as race and religious affiliation, for which it is illegal to discriminate against a federal employee. After complaints from members of Congress, "sexual orientation" was restored.



Kerry on gay marriage: Opposes a constitutional amendment on gay marriage; says the question should be left to individual states, as has historically been the case. Opposes state recognition of gay marriage, but favors recognition of "civil unions" between same-sex couples.



Kerry on other gay-rights concerns: The Democratic senator from Massachusetts is described by the Human Rights Campaign as "one of our biggest advocates" in the Senate for legislation to bar employment discrimination against gays and lesbians. Supports gays serving in the military.



Background: The gay-marriage amendment would deny gay and lesbian couples 1,138 federal benefits and protections that come through marriage, such as Social Security survivor benefits and access to family and medical leave, according to the Human Rights Campaign. Many of those benefits would be available to same-sex couples if states are allowed to recognize "civil unions," which are essentially marriages by another name.

---

Wow 1,138 federal benefits and protections and they say that it's not about civil rights?

_____________________

I still see dead lesbian cliches

[skittles]

from CNN Europe

Quote:

---

Gay unions 'like virus' in Spain



MADRID, Spain (AP) -- The Catholic Church blasted the Socialist government's plans to legalize gay marriage, saying Monday it would be like releasing a "virus" into Spanish society.



The Cabinet is expected Friday to pass a bill allowing same sex marriages, setting predominantly Roman Catholic Spain on course to join the vanguard of largely secular northern European countries that allow gay marriage or some version of it.



Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero took office in April with an ambitious agenda of social reforms, such as streamlined divorce and a relaxed abortion law. The church is furious, and spoke out Monday with some of its harshest words yet on one of Zapatero's boldest endeavors, gay marriage.



Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, spokesman for the Spanish Bishops Conference, said the church had nothing against homosexuals but feels a union of two people of the same sex is simply not a marriage.



Allowing this would create "a counterfeit currency in the body of society," Martinez Camino said in an interview on Spanish National Television.



Such legislation, he said, is like "imposing a virus on society, something false that will have negative consequences for social life."



After Friday's expected approval in a Cabinet meeting, the bill goes to Parliament for debate.



Zapatero runs a minority government but is generally supported by two small leftist parties. The government says once the bill becomes law, gays would be able to start marrying next year.



That would mark a sea change for this predominantly Roman Catholic country, although church officials admit that support for it has fallen in the generation that's transpired since the death in 1975 of Gen. Francisco Franco, whose right wing regime was closely linked to the church.



Polls say nearly half of Spain's Catholics almost never go to Mass, and a third say they are simply not religious.



A survey published Monday in the newspaper El Pais, which supports the Socialist party, said 62 percent of those questioned support gay marriage.



Spain would thus join Belgium and the Netherlands, which have legalized gay marriage. Sweden and Denmark have "civil union" laws for same-sex couples, short of allowing outright gay marriage. However, in both of these countries the union can be blessed by the Lutheran Church, which is the official state religion.



Zapatero's government is going so far as to plan an overhaul of church-state relations, a reform that Deputy Justice Minister Luis Lopez Guerra last week called "a road map" correcting what he called "undeniable advantages" enjoyed by the Catholic church and guaranteeing that Spain will be a secular state.



Many Catholic schools are subsidized by the government, for instance, and on income tax returns, Spaniards can check off a box that will send 0.5 percent of their tax debt to the Catholic church.



Deputy Prime Minister Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega told a news conference last week that the government did not plan to end state financing of the church, but acknowledged that reforms are afoot, although she gave no details.



"It is true that the government is talking about laicism, and we are going to keep working toward laicism because we think it is a mandate that is included in the Constitution and that's how our state is," she told reporters.

---

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[Gatito Grande]

!Muy excellente!



GG And here I just loved the Zapatero government, for getting Spain (wisely) of the frickin' Iraq war! Out

[justin]

I just found out that october is National GLBT awareness month. You can read more about it here



events include Ribbon days, coming out stories and Dragtoberfest.



Also the 11th is national coming out day.

A good story should provoke discussion, debate, argument...and the occasional bar fight. -JMS

[SoulieBaby]

Thanks for the heads up on the awareness month!

.:: SoulieJolie.Com : Angelina Messageboard : Girls who love Girls Messageboard ::.

"When I saw you, I was afraid to talk to you. When I talked to you, I was afraid to kiss you. When I kissed you, I was afraid to love you. Now that I love you, I'm afraid to lose you"

[kukalaka]

As expected the Spanish cabinet passed the gay marriage bill. The article I read didn't think there would be problems in parliament either.



The law would open marriage for gays without any differences even concerning adoption. So far the Netherlands are the only country having done that.



Gotta say, I'm thoroughly impressed. Go Spain

---

IDIC

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by robotguru

---

Things are looking up for Birmingham. These two articles came from the Sunday Birmingham Mercury.

Quote:

---

Gay dads adopt 3 kids Oct 3 2004



Sunday Mercury Exclusive story



A gay couple from the West Midlands couple have adopted three children, the Sunday Mercury has revealed exclusively.



Chris and Mark had to battle the legal system to become dads to siblings Anna, four, Vicky, five, and eight-year-old Ben.



All the pair ever wanted was their own children, but they feared no local authority would ever consider them as adoptive parents.



They say they are providing a loving famiy home for the youngsters, who were previously in care.



"They have called us both daddy for months now," said Chris. "What children need is love and lots of support – and that's what they will have with us."

---

I especially like this

Quote:

---

Homophobic stars may face ban from Oct 3 2004



By Tom Wells, Sunday Mercury





Soul diva Beverley Knight has blasted the homophobic Jamaican reggae stars who almost wrecked the MOBO awards last week.



The Wolverhampton-born singer attacked controversial acts like Elephant Man and Vbyz Kartel, accusing them of 'gay-bashing'.



And the Sunday Mercury has learned that Birmingham City Council chiefs could ban homophobic stars from playing at venues by withdrawing Public Entertainment Licences.



While no official policy decision hasyetbeen made,itisunderstood that the move has been given serious consideration.



If it went ahead, rap acts like Eminem - whose lyrics have also been criticised for their allegedly homophobic content -could face a ban from venues such as the NEC and NIA.



The music industry was left reeling last week when the Music of Black Origin (MOBO) annual ceremony was held without some of the biggest names in reggae present.



They were banned after organ-isers bowed to pressure from activist Peter Tatchell's gay rights group, OutRage!



Both Elephant Man and Kartel had refused to apologise for their songs, which include lyrics like 'Battyman fi dead' (gays must be killed) and 'Kartel buss one inna batty bwoy spine' (Kartel puts a bullet in a gay's spine).



Beverley, 31, whose former flat-mate Tyrone died of Aids, said: "I think it was a mistake that they were nominated in the first place.



"Personally I don't have much time for them, for artists who can gay-bash like that.



"I wonder why they have to go down that route? For me those are statements so explicit that they are not open to any kind of interpretation.I don't agree with it all."



A city council source revealed a ban on the homophobic acts could follow in Birmingham.



"It is something being talked about at the highest levels," he said. "The council could refuse to grant Public Entertainment Licences to acts whose lyrics encourage homophobia."



David Allison, of OutRage!, said: "If Birmingham City Council went ahead with this, it would be very positive. There is no real place for homophobic music or lyrics in modern Britain."



But last night, Blacker Dread, Chair of the Black Music Council, said: "We don't condone the kind of lyrics some of these artists are using.



"But what about free speech? If the council took this option they would just be bowing to Peter Tatchell's outrageous group, just as the MOBO organisers did."

---

I'm gonna write emails in, i'll post the email and any reply i get. What do you think about these articles?

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by AmbersSecretAdmirer

---

I say both articles are a step in the right direction and long, long overdue.



Good luck to the dads as they will be scrutinized like crazy by the anti sections of the press in case they make a mistake.



I agree that Birmingham City Council are spot on in considering, and hopefully adopting, a policy of banning homophobic artists.



As a Scotsman, I know that civil rights are better here in the UK than in some areas but not as good as others. This is a move forward and I applaude it.

[Repost Moderator]

Originally posted by robotguru

---

I think that the second one is especially important, singers have a lot of infulence over up and coming generations.



If you tell a white kid that blacks are scum, you will breed a racist.



If you tell a boy that girls are weak, you will breed a mysoginist (sp)



If you tell anyone that gays are the lowest of the low, you will breed a 'gay-basher'



That's why i think that homophobic acts, and acts that 'diss' other people or groups should be banned, they're ok for MC contests (i must have flipped just about every gay line there is while text battling, i'm always open about being gay and i know that people will use that, just as much as they know that if i am open about it, i'll have a good comeback or two.) but when you're selling this to kids, you are affecting their outlook on life.

[robotguru]

I have a question for our American kittens, the point made at the end about freedom of speech, isn't there a clause saying that you are not allowed to incite violence? Because that would be a valid point to make about some of these lines such as the one that was translated as "Gay's must die", to me, that sounds like inciting violence.

------------------



There can be no rainbow without rain, you cannot know true happiness until you know sadness first.

[skittles]

robotguru, there is a difference between saying "someone must die" and "kill that person". That is the difference in Freedom of Speech.



Yes, saying "gays must die" isn't a 'nice' thing to say, but stating an opinion (which is how I qualify that statement in FoS terms) is what the Freedom of Speech protects. The second phrase is a directive... someone is telling another to DO something.



There are also libel laws & laws against assault (speech threats qualify as assault. battery is the actual "battering") to protect people from speech that "hurts" or from the actions that result from the words spoken.



Our Freedom of Speech laws aren't perfect by any stretch, but I would rather have freedom of speech, than have someone decide for me what I can & cannot say in the privacy of my home or in a public forum or area.



As a teacher, I am limited in what I can say to students, both individually & in class/group settings. The laws are very specific on this. Yes, there are issues that I believe are important to bring into the schools, but there are groups I don't want getting access to our students. They have opinions that I'd prefer they didn't hear in a "forced attendance" setting. (you can't walk out of a class, even if you don't like what is being said)



Freedom of Speech is also limited in that you cannot yell "FIRE" in a theater or public building (unless there is a fire)... there are limitations that have been added into FoS protections, not all are wonderful, but this world & the laws in it are evolving.... hopefully for the betterment of all.



robotguru, there are other kittens who will chime in on this issue. I'm not an expert, so listen to all sides & then make your decision.



(also, I'm rambling a bit, too)

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt

[Gatito Grande]

And here's one such opinion:



"[group] must die" is hate speech: crimininalized in some areas (sometimes even inc. gays)



"I will kill [any individual or group]" is assault: illegal everywhere.



"Kill all the [group---as long as it's domestic, anyway]!" is incitement to assault, which is probably illegal (at the very least, any group/member can sue the perp of the incitement up the wahzoo).



GG . . . who's never forgotten these words of legal advice from my earliest days as an activist (from The Rights You Have, by Osmond K. Fraenkel, a book I've owned since age 12 or so), : "You can discuss the desirability of overthrowing the [U.S.] government by force, but cannot encourage others to do it."* Out



But I'm not a lawyer (Kitten legal eagles, feel free to correct me)



*Note: that was written waaaaaay prior to the Patriot Act: who knows now?

[kukalaka]

Well, someone yelling "FIRE" doesn't yell "Run! Flee! Maybe skedaddle!" either.



Sorry, but for me "someone must die" is pretty much the same as "kill'em!"

---

IDIC

[sheila wt]

In Sunday's election, Brazil elected its first transgender vice-mayor (the US doesn't have this position, does it?). A city in the northeastern part of the country gave her the victory with a large margin. Since the beginning of her career in the public service, she worked her way up, being a health department agent, community leader and head councilwoman of the city (in three elections she got the most votes of all candidates).

Let's just hope that this is only the beginning.

[Gatito Grande]

Hmmm: excellent sheilawt . . . and it looks like a trend.



Just recently, I saw a documentary, about "Third Gender" people (mainly MTF) in the Third World: it included the mayor of a very poor city in India (people elected her, because they were sick of the nepotistic corruption which she---cut off from her bio family---doesn't have), and (get this) a former champion kick-boxer in Thailand (she started her transition while still in the ring, but completed it after retiring). The documentary showed her returning to her home village . . . where she was accepted.



Makes you wonder: how the so-called "backwards" places of the world, seem to be more advanced than, well, the "Land of the Free."



GG Lucy Lawless---someone in whom I just happen to have a certain interest ---often boasts in interviews about a rural, conservative area of her native New Zealand, which elected trans (MTF) Member of Parliament. See what I mean about a trend? Out



ETA--- Check it out: genderqueer GG's a "Big Knowledge Woman" now . . . my mom would be so proud!

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 10/5/04 10:32 pm

[MellindraX]

Maybe this is the unpopular decision, but I think it would be terrible if they weren't allowed to sing. I certainly think there should be something where you buy you tickets, on the ticket, at the concert hall, whatever, that is effectively a warning sticker about the offensive material. Possibly even make it so only 18+ can buy tickets without the help of parents.



There's just something intrinsicly wrong about banning anything that isn't passing out rifles and saying, "Okay kids. Go crazy."

I’ve never purposely gone out to take somebody out. Well, maybe, in elementary school I once did try to trip somebody. –Amber Benson

[robotguru]

That's an opinion and it's cool, personally, i've never had any time for artists who 'diss' any group, i don't think it is needed and i think it makes an already bad situation worse. Would so much racism exist, for example, if there weren't artists with racist lyrics. I'm not naive enough to say it wouldn't exist without these lyrics, obviously it would and it has. I just don't think that this type of music helps.

------------------



There can be no rainbow without rain, you cannot know true happiness until you know sadness first.

[Thespia]

That one left me extremely sad.



FannyAnn Viola Eddy, a LGBT rights activist from Sierra Leone, was raped, stabbed and killed by five attackers on September 29, while working late by herself at the SLLAGA (Sierra Leone Lesbian and Gay Association) office, in Freetown. FannyAnn was brave enough to denounce silence on the violence against LGBT groups and individuals in Africa. I fear the very same silence will eventually cover her killing.



A quote from the IGLHRC

www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhr...detail=527 (I forgot how to put a link here):





Fannyann was the fearless leader of the Sierra Leone Lesbian and Gay Association. She understood that freedom for women, in particular lesbians, was related to their ability to provide for themselves economically. As a result, her approach to human rights advocacy included putting her own money into buying materials for young lesbians to make clothing and other items that they could sell for income. She understood that human rights is not only a legal principle to be enforced but a measure of human dignity to be demanded. As a result, she dedicated much of her time to getting into schools to teach children about their own self worth. And she understood that standing up for our rights is a process of both large and small acts. When she encountered difficulty getting a visa to travel to Geneva to tell her story to the United Nations Human Rights Commission, Fannyann sat vigil until it was approved.



MADRE

www.madre.org/articles/afr/fannyann.html

[xita]

Log Cabin finally realizing they are gay?

story.news.yahoo.com/news...overgayban

Gay GOP group sues military over gay ban



Tue Oct 12, 8:15 PM ET



Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network



SUMMARY: The largest U.S. gay Republican group filed suit against the federal government in a bid to overturn the military's anti-gay "don't ask, don't tell" policy.



       



On Tuesday the Log Cabin Republicans (news - web sites), the nation's largest gay GOP group, sued Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S government over the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian personnel.



Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America was filed in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of its gay and lesbian members currently serving in the military.



"A lawsuit should not be necessary when the experience of our allies in the war on terror, including Great Britain, Israel and Australia, all allow gays and lesbians to serve openly and honestly," said Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director Patrick Guerriero in a prepared statement.



"A lawsuit should not be necessary when our military has lost thousands of needed military personnel under this policy," he continued. "However, under these circumstances, where we are a nation at war fighting a global war against terrorism, we can no longer sit by and wait for our elected officials to find the political courage to do the right thing."



President Clinton (news - web sites) signed the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy in 1993, allowing gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces provided they don't reveal their sexual orientations.



According to Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), nearly 10,000 people have been discharged for violating "don't ask, don't tell" since the rule went into effect. In 2003, 787 people were dismissed, despite the military's need for soldiers with operations in Iraq (news - web sites) and Afghanistan (news - web sites).



SLDN, the nation's largest advocacy group for gays and lesbians in the military, is not involved in the Log Cabin suit. Spokesman Steve Ralls said he was surprised to learn of the lawsuit on Tuesday morning.



"It was news to us," Ralls told the PlanetOut Network, adding that his organization is planning to file a legal challenge to "don't ask, don't tell" before the end of the year.



Marty Meekins, a gay attorney who is representing the Log Cabin Republicans, said he is optimistic, especially since the Supreme Court struck down laws that made homosexual activity a crime.



"We would expect a response from the government in no later than 60 days," Meekins told the PlanetOut Network.



"We are obviously exploring various legal methods including a legal injunction," Meekins said. He added the timing of the lawsuit was not politically motivated, even though it took place a day before the final presidential debate over domestic issues.



"The timing is what it is," he said.



Although Log Cabin endorsed President Bush (news - web sites) in 2000, it withheld endorsing him again in this election after he supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

- - - - - - - - - - -
"Trust is a risk masquerading as a promise."

[robotguru]

I have no problems with the transgendered, but I don't believe my parents tax money is going towards this.



Killer to get sex swap on NHS Oct 3 2004



By Helen Gabriel, Sunday Mercury



FURY erupted last night after it was revealed that a convicted Midland murderer is having a £32,000 sex-change operation on the NHS.



Stephen Clarke, 38, is currently undergoing hormone treatment to grow breasts and is awaiting surgery to turn him fully into a woman.



He was jailed for life in 1992 for stabbing chef Christopher Vitel, 27, to death in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, and dumping his body in a wheelie bin.



Clarke is currently at the all-male Springhill Open Prison at Grendon Underwood, Buckinghamshire.



But he is now being allowed out on day release to work as a charity clerk in Aylesbury, where he dresses in women's clothes and likes to be known as Steph.



The killer, originally from Pleasley in Derbyshire, had stabbed Christopher 51 times before dumping his body.



He then stole his victim's car and credit cards and went on a spending spree in America with a gay friend before being arrested on his return to Britain.



Christopher's sister-in-law Karen Buxton, 42, from Mansfield, has attacked the sex-op news.



"Clarke should stay in jail until he rots for what he did," she said. "He should not be having sex-change surgery at the taxpayer's expense.



"He snuffed out the life of one of the loveliest, most gentle people in the world. Christopher was completely innocent and didn't deserve to die.



"Clarke took his life away, so why should he get any rights? The fact that he is due to be released is bad enough but this is just disgusting.



"In my book he shouldn't be entitled to any human rights. It's absolutely disgusting that the taxpayer will end up paying."



Jonathan Sheppard, a former Conservative parliamentary candidate for Bassetlaw, Nottingham-shire, also hit out at the decision.



"It's utter madness," he said. "What must the victim's family think about £32,000 being spent on a sex-change operation for a convicted murderer? That money could be used for five hip or 50 cataracts operations for people who have paid their taxes and obeyed the law. The principle is that prisoners should be entitled to the same as they would be on the outside. If this was a kidney operation then fair enough.



"But I'm sure the majority of people feel that £32,000 could be more fairly used, especially when there are such long hospital waiting lists."



But Mansfield's Labour MP Alan Meale defended the decision.



"He's serving his sentence and he's suffering from a recognised medical condition called gender dysmorphia," he argued.



"He's been suffering from ill-health for a number of years. The NHS has come to the conclusion, along with the Prison Service, that this is the proper treatment.



"He hasn't just suddenly decided he wants to be a woman. His condition and treatment are recognised all over the world."



A Prison Service spokeswoman said: "Prisoners requesting treatment to change their sex would be treated in line with NHS guidelines."

------------------



There can be no rainbow without rain, you cannot know true happiness until you know sadness first.

[Gatito Grande]

Um, we can discuss this more on the Trans thread, but I see several issues here (which to me, collectively add up to "What's the problem?")



1)The trans issue



2)The high cost of medical procedures



3)The ethics of having convicted criminals receive high cost medical procedures



4)The ethics of having convicted criminals receive high cost medical procedures, when those procedures are for sexual reassignment



When I volunteered as a prison visitor (in Pennsylvania, USA), I knew a prisoner---a convicted murder, BTW---who had had an expensive heart operation (paid for by the tax-payers).



I guess the question is, robotguru, would you have a problem w/ that? Because if not, I would strenuously argue that sexual reassignment therapy (inc. hormones and surgery) for the gender-dysphoric, can be every bit as life-saving as a heart operation.



GG The fact that U.S. medical insurance (public and private) does not usually recognize this fact---SRS = Life-saving---make *me* go Grrrr! Out

[skittles]

From the NYTimes - (free registration required)

Quote:

---

Pension System Recognizes Gay Spouses

By MICHAEL COOPER



ALBANY, Oct. 13 - New York State is moving to officially recognize same-sex marriages from Canada for the first time, at least in one limited area: State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi has ruled that the state's pension system will treat gay couples with Canadian wedding licenses the same way it treats other married couples.



The decision came after Mark E. Daigneault, a state employee seeking to wed his male partner in Canada, wrote the comptroller's office asking what the financial implications of the marriage would be. After studying the issue, Mr. Hevesi wrote back last week that the state's $115 billion pension funds, which he oversees, would "recognize a same-sex Canadian marriage in the same manner as an opposite-sex New York marriage.''



While the practical impact of the decision is limited, gay rights groups hailed the move as a giant step toward winning wider recognition for gay marriages.



"This becomes the first statewide program to recognize those same-sex Canadian marriage licenses as being real, and equal to any other marriages in New York State,'' said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, noting that Mr. Hevesi's move comes after several municipalities in the state and major car insurance companies decided to recognize same-sex marriages from Canada.



New York State already allows employees to make same-sex partners their pension beneficiaries; the comptroller's decision means that gay couples married in Canada would be entitled to automatic cost-of-living increases and accidental death benefits for survivors, benefits that currently go to spouses.



"I'm very happy with the comptroller's decision,'' Mr. Daigneault, who works for the insurance department and has adopted two children with his partner of 13 years. "It certainly helps my family get the protection that we need.''



The comptroller's ruling cited a March decision by the state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, which found that while same-sex marriages could not be legally performed in New York, the state must recognize those performed legally elsewhere.



"The decision is driven by the law,'' Mr. Hevesi said in an interview. "I have a personal point of view, and I'm glad the law conforms to my personal point of view. I think this is an important step. But it's not fuzzy law, it's not unclear. It's very hard to argue differently.''



Paul Larrabee, a spokesman for Attorney General Spitzer, said that Mr. Hevesi's decision was consistent with the attorney general's legal opinion.



The decision applies only to same-sex marriages performed legally in Canada, Mr. Hevesi said. The question of whether to recognize same-sex marriages performed this year in San Francisco and Massachusetts is complicated by other legal issues, he said, and his office has not been asked to decide on marriages from other states.



The comptroller wrote his decision in a letter dated Oct. 8 that was publicized Wednesday by the Empire State Pride Agenda.



Several pension experts said that the ruling appeared to make New York, which has the second largest public pension system in the United States, the first major public employee pension system to explicitly recognize same-sex marriages from Canada.



The nation's largest public pension fund, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, or Calpers, is preparing to comply with a law taking effect on Jan. 1 that will give domestic partners all benefits that were previously available only to spouses. While the California law allows the benefits to be available not only to domestic partners who register in California, but to those who form "legal unions" elsewhere, it is unclear whether same-sex couples married in Canada would qualify for the benefits without registering as domestic partners in California. Darin Hall, a spokesman for Calpers, said the fund was still studying the new law and how it would be put into place.



In New York, the comptroller's decision covers the 964,000 active and retired members of the state's pension system, which covers state employees and employees of local governments outside New York City. The fiscal impact of the decision is expected to be small, officials said.



Officials at the office of New York City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr., who is the custodian of the city's five pension funds, said Wednesday that those funds do not currently recognize same-sex marriages. Kevin Quinn, a spokesman for Gov. George E. Pataki, said that the governor would review the decision.



Mr. Daigneault said he had not yet set a date for his wedding but was looking forward to settling logistics as soon as his children's soccer schedule allowed.

---

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

When life hands you lemons, ask for a bottle of tequila and some salt