Blotting Out A Shameful Past

April 6, 2010

by Brian Leubitz

Times were different in 1967. Homosexuality was still listed in the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and considered something of an “illness.” So different in fact that the following request was made, in law, of the Department of Mental Health at the time:

plan, conduct and cause to be conducted scientific research into the causes and cures of sexual deviation, including deviations conducive to sex crimes against children, and the causes and cures of homosexuality, and into methods of identifying potential sex offenders.

There, listed amongst pedophiles, was our community.  The worst part is that this mess is still on the books of California law.  Hopefully, that will soon change:

Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal figures 43 years is long enough to try to “cure” homosexuality. So the Long Beach Democrat has introduced a bill that would strip a section from California’s Welfare and Institutions Code mandating a search for such a cure.

It’s unclear how seriously the department ever heeded the Legislature’s instructions. Department spokeswoman Nancy Kincaid said any research that did go on would have ended decades ago. But Lowenthal thinks the edict’s mere existence on the books is odious enough to warrant its demise.

“The fact this language has survived this long is pretty amazing,” she said in a news release. “We need to blot it out and make it clear we’re moving forward as a society, not backward.” (SacBee)

This is just one of the many laws on the books across the nation that has such out of date language.  Despite their unconstitutionality as declared in Lawrence v Texas, there are still sodomy laws on the books of 14 states. Many of which are only applicable to same sex couples.

While many of these laws will never actually be erased from the books, doing so is a worthwhile use of the Legislature’s resources.  It reminds us of the progress we have made, and the challenges as we move forward.

Filed under: Uncategorized

190 Comments Leave a Comment

  • 1. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Oh America…..the land of the free to live how I want you to live…the home of the slave owner and cowardly….let your white hood wave…America….America….You shed your hate on the….This Land is my land….but not your land…if you do not live like me….I oppress you….Coming to America (If you are straight)…..Coming to America (Only if your legal)…..Coming to America (Not you Canada)…..Coming to America (Not those 3rd world latin countries down below)…..Bye Bye Miss Un-American Bi (because you know only straight people are American)…..AANNDD THE HOOOME OOF THEEE….

    HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATEEEE!!!!!……..<3…..Ronnie

  • 2. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:53 am

    Yahoo, here's a good stab at correcting the problem!!!

    I'm going to mention again the Story of 81 Words, am I the only one that found this story so enlightening, I know it was written in 2002, maybe I'm just making a fool of myself, everyone else has already absorbed it.

    Goes along with the creationism vs evolution controversy, I didn't realize how much that impacts us, until I did some readiing onf the site of the National Association of Scientific Education ( think I go that right)

    Also it was news to me from this reading, that the polls in Canada and U.S. are different in that when studying these differences the U.S. polls mention God, in Canada they don't.

    I think Obamas plan for improving Education, is a basic building block, cause education has the most profound impact on the creationism vs evolution theories.

    s

  • 3. truthspew  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:56 am

    Sort of similar to how here in RI the only thing that stands against full marriage equality is an obscure reference in the Family Court Act of 1967.

    It is in that reference that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.

  • 4. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:12 am

    http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/En…

    Posted on Advocate.com April 06, 2010
    Marriage Equality Waltzes into DWTS
    Dancing With The Stars contestants Niecy Nash and Louis van Amstel brought marriage equality to the national stage Monday night.
    By Julie Bolcer

    (me) I watched this last night and we in awe….

    Marriage equality took the national stage Monday night on Dancing With The Stars. Contestants Niecy Nash and Louis van Amstel performed a waltz about an interracial couple that could not legally marry in the 1960s, which prompted van Amstel to compare the situation to the current plight of same-sex couples.

    (me) Louis himself is gay…so like he says it hits close to home….

    Nash commented to van Amstel during rehearsals that she could not imagine being unable to marry her boyfriend.

    (me) she gets it?!….

    "I hear you," said van Amstel. "I'm still in that boat. So, we've come a long way, but you've got to help me fight my battle too."

    (me) see?!…

    After their performance, Van Amstel said, "Everybody should be able to get married."

    (me) EXACTLY!!!!!!!……..the video is attached to the article when I can find it on youtube I'll post it here…..<3….Ronnie

  • 5. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:17 am

    copyright…..Ronnie Mc….hehehehe….<3

  • 6. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:21 am

    "any research that did go on would have ended decades ago" to them NARTH doesn't even exist,,,,,,,,

    it would be more true to say, only research conducted today, is done by creationists, in contradiction to the APA.

    But maybe they're trying to do this without as much noise from the opponents as possible

  • 7. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:01 am

    News from Vatican City, there is an anti Catholic Hate Camkpaign Against the Church, they say all the attention re pedophile priests, is just a cover up for an actual hate campaign, against the Church for it's stand against SSM and abortion……
    Well not quite, two seperate issues, but maybe they are actually beginnng to hear our message,,,,, I don't know if I would call it a hate campaign, but we squarely are taking on the Church and calling them out, on these issues,

  • 8. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:10 am

    Why do Hateros not know the difference btw. Hate and Anger?….hmmm?…hmmmm…?……??????…..I'm just saying……<3….Ronnie

  • 9. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:20 am

    I went looking for this after watching a video on instictmagazine.com……ummmm….be prepared…. this is disturbing……<3…Ronnie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50Bl94Xby4g

  • 10. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:26 am

    http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/rep-stacey-campf…

    Rep. Stacey Campfield Tries to Outlaw Teaching Homosexuality in TN… Again
    Written by Jonathan Higbee | Tuesday, 06 April 2010

    Read the article..its short….but I just want to point out the picture….He's holding a…i'm guessing a bumper sticker…. that says "CONFEDERATE VALUES"…..

    my guess is that he wants more then just no homosexuality in schools…yeah?……<3….Ronnie

  • 11. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:31 am

    You are so right, Brian. This definitely needs to come off the books. And the only reason the sodomy laws are still on the books is because of the way they are worded. They are worded so that they supposedly apply to ALL couples, but as you so aptly noted, they are only used against same gender couples. Isn't it about time that we get the government out of EVERYBODY'S bedrooms? This is why the fight for EQUALITY FOR ALL is so important.

  • 12. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:36 am

    Forgot to hit subscribe button again. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

  • 13. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:10 am

    I'll second Bob's endorsement of "81 Words." You can steam the episode here. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/ep…

    There are other places to read about it, and read the transcript, but if I put in more than one link, my post will get hung up in moderation.

    I'd also like to put in a plug for the radio show "This American Life." It is hands down one of the most brilliant shows available on radio. Always insightful, often hilarious, at times so moving they leave me in tears. You can listen to episodes for free at the website.

  • 14. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Well, that's one of my more amusing typos… you can stream the episode, not steam it.

  • 15. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:24 am

    I am in Louisiana and Louisiana is one of the 14 states with sodomy laws still on the books. I am familiar with Lawrence v. Texas but you can't get laws off the books until the legislature repeals them or the courts declare them unconsititutional. More importantly, you have to have a test case for the courts to consider a law unconstitutional. They still arrest people for it here, but the cases are quietly dismissed.

    the problem with the Catholic church is that they claim if they take a position againt SSM then it is their position, but our position for it is not a position, but an attack against the church. The church funding actions against SSM is not an attack on us, but our funding on SSM issues is an attack on the church. The more things change, the more things are the same.

    I am not the brighest person around, but I certainly know a hypocrite when they attack me. I don't have a problem with the church, but they have a problem with me. I don't want to live next door to a thief, but I am not going to stoop to his level to get revenge or to even the score. I try to live my life honorably and so should the churches. Instead, they want to tell me how to live my life and legislate it our laws.

    Well, the answer is to follow the teaching of the church completely or not at all. Lets put divorce people to death and outlaw divorce and even divorce within the church. The abuses there are as bad as the indulgences that they sold in the time of Martin Luthur which started the Protestian reformation. RELIGION, just two bad four letter words that don't mean anything alone that when put together spell hate, disaster and organized bigotry. And I expected more of them, shame on me.

  • 16. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:33 am

    I suspect that quote from Nancy Kincaid about research having ended decades ago refers specifically to research mandated by the California Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 8050 provides that the research if to be conducted by the The State Department of Mental Health, acting through the Langley Porter Clinic, with provisions that they can contract with the University of California.

    So all that "research" NARTH's so-called "scientists" continue to do most likely has nothing to do with this outdated state mandate.

    You can read Section 8050 in its entirety here:
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdo…

    (I do wish Brian would include links to primary sources with his posts) :)

  • 17. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:41 am

    How convenient for Rhode Island. Most states have had to go back and amend their statutes or constitutions in order to inject discrimination into their state's legal doctrine. :/

  • 18. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I'm shocked that they're still arresting people under LA's sodomy laws! All such laws were clearly held to be unconstitutional by the ruling in Lawrence. Even if the charges are "quietly dismissed" isn't just the fact that someone is arrested based on an unconstitutional law grounds for a lawsuit? Why isn't LAMBDA Legal or the ACLU bringing a case? Surely there's someone willing to be a plaintiff!?! I would think the case could be quickly resolved though a motion for summary judgment.

  • 19. fiona64  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:49 am

    I looked at my husband last night and said "I do believe that Louis van Amstel just came out on national television …"

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 20. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:58 am

    yup yup….he did…he did….lets see if the ratings drop…I don't think they will….<3….Ronnie

  • 21. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:03 am

    YES! And to see that we also have Niecy Nash as an ally makes it even sweeter!

  • 22. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:05 am

    Ronnie, the ratings won't drop until Kate is voted off the show, and they won't vote her off simply so that they can keep the ratings high!

  • 23. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:13 am

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/0…

    Posted on Advocate.com April 06, 2010
    Fla. Church Alters "No Homo Mayor" Sign
    By Advocate.com Editors

    Apparently fearing the loss of its tax-exempt status for mixing antigay evangelism and politics, the Dove World Outreach Center, a conservative Christian church in Gainesville, Fla., has altered a sign posted last month that read “No Homo Mayor.”

    (me) I'm sorry…but freedom of speech is a tax payers right….If you don't pay taxes you're not protected my constitution…..Why do they allow non-taxers payers to have rights protected by the constitution but we(LGBTQQIA tax payers) don't?…..

    The church, which also espouses on its website that “Haiti must repent,” “Obama is president because he is black,” and denounces “a gay lesbian’s election as mayor of Houston” (Annise Parker), changed the sign to read “No homo.” Dove World is headed by senior pastor Dr. Terry Jones (pictured).

    (me) A gay Lesbian?….doesn't that make her straight?….another thing the phrase "No Homo" means I'm not gay but I'm ok with gay people….really get with the modern Lingo Hateros…..

    The previous iteration of the sign was a reference to the mayoral candidacy of Craig Lowe, a Gainesville city commissioner who is gay. Lowe’s opponent in the race has condemned the church’s sign, saying a candidate’s sexuality should not be an issue in the election, The Gainesville Sun reports.

    (me) separation of church and state…enough said…tax exempt people should not be allowed to vote either….

    “Here in Gainesville they’re getting ready to have a runoff election between two candidates, and one of them is openly a homo, gay … uh … a fag, whatever you want to call him,” Dove Church pastor Wayne Sapp said in a video on the church's website. “Bottom line is, we cannot afford a homo mayor."

    (me) How much does a homo mayor cost?…..Of Course Florida cannot afford a homo mayor….social security checks and retirement money can only get you so far…..<3….Ronnie

  • 24. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:13 am

    Because the cases never come to trial. The last one a detective came out to the parish prison to investigate a complaint that a young man had been raped. I saw the police report and affidavit of probable cause. the det. determined it was consensual sodomy and charged him with that crime. That is L.R.S. 14:89. the det. filed the affidavit of probable cause and asked for an arrest wattant. The judge did not even sign it, but the jail held the man for about 30 days past his release date and he had to pay to bond out. the judge would not sign the warrant for the man's arrest, but the jail still held him past his release date from his bench warrants for unpaid traffic tickets. they want it to go away without having to repeal it.

    Yes, it could be quickly done, but the people who are charge with it do not have the money for an attorney and by the time the press and others hear about it they have been released or bonded out.

    However, someone is going to sue their ass over this sooner or later.

  • 25. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Well, it's obvious why the church removed reference to a mayoral candidate. The church only risks its tax exempt status if it advocates for or against a candidate. The church is allowed to be involved in issues campaigns, as long as they don't step outside the bounds set by the IRS. You can read about what the law prohibits and permits here, and at the additional links provided in the article.
    http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,…

    BTW, is this the guy who has the video on YouTube? If so, I sure hope someone has filed a complaint with the IRS and used the video as evidence. Maybe this isn't the same guy and I'm thinking of some other religious homophobe spewing hateful messages.

  • 26. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:38 am

    thanks for that Kathleen, I was beginning to wonder, so glad you enjoyed it , hopefully your endorsement , and especially the link (which I still can't do) will inspire others to read.
    It's the story of our history, it was written in the form of a play and I wonder if it was ever performed as such, if not it would be a very timely project for some actor's guild to take up.
    The other good site is the National Association of Scientific Education, amazing stuff to read their, all this thanks to Straight Ally #3008,
    Here's a thought, maybe rather than terms like hetero/hatero we could use creationist v/s evolutionist, If anyone wants to follow Dieters suggestion to donate to another cause than the HRC, we could consider the NASE, real partners in crime.

  • 27. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:39 am

    "the people who are charge with it do not have the money for an attorney"

    That's why they need to get LAMDA Legal or ACLU involved. Have you talked to them about any of these cases you know about? It sounds like in the case you reference the state is covering its ass, claiming that the arrest was for outstanding traffic tickets. But surely among at least one of the cases provides compelling evidence of unlawful arrest. It shouldn't matter (from a legal point of view) whether the person has already been released or not, just the mere fact that they're arrested based on an unconstitutional law should be cause for action, yes? I realize LA is its own little legal world down there, not based on English common law and all. :)

  • 28. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:54 am

    Bob, I heard the episode when it aired in 2002. I've been a fan of the show ever since it went into syndication in the mid-1990s. It was "appointment radio" for me. :) If I couldn't be at a radio for the broadcast, I would tape it for later. My American Life became was simplified when the episodes became available on the web.

  • 29. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:55 am

    Here it is: the Dancing with the stars video….

    so glad they actually aired this on TV.
    http://www.advocate.com/Arts_and_Entertainment/En…

  • 30. Garland  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I'm unconvinced that Lawrence v Texas (LvT) actually applies here. The CA statue in question is odious but, as it doesn't criminalize "homosexuality" (specifying only that the State Department of Mental Health should find a cause and cure), it isn't necessarily invalidated by LvT. It does imply that "homosexuality" should be eradicated along with other (apparently troublesome) "sexual deviations", that devising method(s) to do so is medically ethical, and that there exists some compelling state interest in doing so. One could make several very good arguments against the statute but mapping those arguments to the liberty interests decided in LvT isn't automatically a perfect fit.

    The specific CA Statute at issue is: <cite>California Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 8050-8053 (WIC:Division 8. Miscellaneous; Chapter 2. Research Concerning Sexual Deviation and Sex Crimes) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?sec… In a brief search, I've not been able to find its actual history — various media reports describe the statute as having been enacted either in 1950 and 1967. There's got to be some interesting backstory on how this legislation came to be (just as there are interesting backstories about how other eugenics programs came to be).

    I'll point to a potentially relevant investigation into the effects of un/seldom-enforced laws: <cite>Goodman, Ryan. Beyond the Enforcement Principle: Sodomy Laws, Social Norms, and Social Panoptics. California Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 3 (May, 2001), pp. 643-740. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3481180</cite>.

    <blockquote cite="Goodman, Ryan. Beyond the Enforcement Principle: Sodomy Laws, Social Norms, and Social Panoptics. California Law Review, Vol. 89, No. 3 (May, 2001), pp. 643-740. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3481180">... [T]his Article undertakes an empirical study of the social effects of an unenforced criminal law: sodomy statutes. The Article examines the constitutive impact these laws have on individual identity, social relations, and conceptions of public space. This aspect of the study is based on ethnographic research conducted in South Africa before and after the country's sodomy laws were abolished. The findings of this inquiry provide the empirical basis for development of a conceptual model for understanding the process by which laws intersect with informal social surveillance to produce a regime in which lesbians and gays are ultimately encouraged to discipline themselves. In developing this framework, the Article calls for integrating these understandings of micro-level social relations into a macro-sociological perspective on the regulatory effects of law. The Article thus examines the influence exerted by the criminalization of homosexuality on other institutional discourses (such as religion and medicine). These connections are explored as one way of analyzing law's constitutive effects in shaping and remaking social norms.

  • 31. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:16 am

    I want to second the endorsement of This American Life – "81 Words" is very much a radio show, listening to the mp3 from the web site is even better than reading the transcript.

    I'm also happy to further endorse the National Center for Science Education as Bob mentioned. I do want to make one distinction with respect to Bob's point, however, since it's important to know where the cultural battle lines are. I am confident that, practically speaking, all creationists are against marriage equality. If you take Genesis that literally (which isn't really possible since you can't reconcile Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, but that's another story), it's pretty much guaranteed that you agree with "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." However, not everyone that opposes marriage equality is a creationist (the Catholic Church and mainline Protestant churches accept evolution; among Mormons it's more variable). So on a Venn diagram, creationism is a circle within the lager circle of opposition to marriage equality.

  • 32. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:18 am

    truthspew, once Carcieri's out of office, isn't it likely that marriage equality will soon follow?

  • 33. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:19 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjUujCaZCg

  • 34. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:37 am

    Straight Ally #3008, you have been so much like a brother, turning me onto things, I am so grateful, perhaps I come to the table late, but I must say since following your directions (in terms of where to look), it's like I found a missing part of myself, I feel more whole,
    Considering, that I fit into the DSM for reasons other than homosexulaityh, (glad my brothers and sister are free) not that I didn't know that, but it's like you said listening does the trick.
    Now for the creationist thing, I was wondering like you say it's not definiteve and more circular, I was thinking, from my own dialogue with my childhood church, literalist's (take the bilble literally), more closely define, creationists.

    And also what percent of evolutionsits, would be anti SSM.

    I do thinki though, and help me with this one, Catholic Church= creationsts, do we disagree on that?

  • 35. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:46 am

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/0…

    Posted on Advocate.com April 06, 2010
    ENDA 4 Sentenced to Probation
    By Michelle Garcia

    Four protesters who were arrested after staging a demonstration inside of House speaker Nancy Pelosi's office were charged with "unlawful entry/remaining." The protesters, calling themselves the ENDA 4, as they were protesting to urge a House vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, were arraigned in D.C. superior court Tuesday, according to demonstration organizer GetEqual.

    (me) ummmm..her office is a public office….and what about the tea party who actually threatened and spit at people?…nothing….hmmmm……no arrests have been made for all the violence they did…..double standard….oh wait that's right…they're Hatero…so they are allowed to do it…..

    Washington, D.C., residents Janine Carmona and Samantha Ames, Dallas resident Chastity Kirven, and Michelle Wright from Fresno, Calif., were sentenced to six months of probation. Carmona and Ames were also sentenced to community service. Wright and Kirven will not be given community service duties, as it would be difficult to enforce with them living outside the capital's jurisdiction, according to Metro Weekly.

    (me) soooo…they have to do community service..for fighting for their rights but the Hateros don't?…..Oh wait that's right Hateros don't get punished for being violent…..while Equality advocates do for being peaceful yet forceful…..got ya….hatero violence good….gay peace bad…..oxyMORONS are fun..yeah?…..<3…Ronnie

  • 36. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:47 am

    re Catholic Church no matter which way we define if for now, position, or attack, any way we can lay this one at their feet and make them own it, would be a good thing. I'm happy to be attacking what is their position regarding SSM.
    The Popes shpere of influence is in the spirietual rhelm, he's crossing the line coming into politics, it's our job to make that clear however we can.
    Someone needs to nail another thesis to his door, and I think that could well be a very gifted Scientist, this time as opposed to a Theologin like Martin Luther, who did a great job of shutting the guy up back then.

  • 37. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Yes, especially because since they are trying to say that this is because of their stance on abortion and marriage equality, they are still yet trying to cover up the REAL source of all the uproar–the sexual assaults on children by priests, and the covering up of those assaults by monsignors, bishops, cardinals and even Pope Benedict himself, when he was in positions prior to his papcy where he had oversight and even now as Pope when he has even more oversight than he did as he progressed from bishope to cardinal to his current post. ANy way you look at it, this is a supreme shanda, and if they really gave a damn, they would be doing something about it instead of tryinhg to use political doublespeak and other machinations to deflect the heat.

  • 38. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:58 am

    At least ONE person from the haters side was arrested for SOMETHING!
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_us/u…

  • 39. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I feel even more at home now, thanks to Straight Ally bringing Venn diagrams into the discussion (the life of a lover of mathematics is a lonely one).

    By the way, SA, have your noticed the RCC's back-peddling on the issue of "intelligent design."

    A few years back, Jesuit Father George V. Coyne, who at the time was director of the Vatican Observatory, said:

    Science is and should be seen as “completely neutral” on the issue of the theistic or atheistic implications of scientific results, … while noting that “science and religion are totally separate pursuits.”
    —
    He calls “mistaken” the belief that the Bible should be used “as a source of scientific knowledge,” which then serves to “unduly complicate the debate over evolution.”

    Even Pope John Paul II is quoted as saying, "N]ew findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis."

    Well, among the ways Pope Benedict XVI has moved the RCC backwards is the firing of Fr. Coyne: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-401950/Po…

  • 40. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:31 am

    Ronnie, the fact that a building is owned by the government doesn't automatically make it a "public space" for purposes of the First Amendment.

    As to the tea party actions, there were actions in the protests that probably could have led to arrests (e.g., for assault) but, if I'm recalling the news reports correctly, the targets of the actions chose not to press charges.

  • 41. Vaati  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:35 am

    Things like that still being on the books is a troubling sign, even if it was just merely overlooked, which I doubt. It's because sentiments like it are still in our legal codes and echoed in advertisements for anti-gay campaigns that we're still having younger people exposed to this hateful point of view.

    Case in point, Constance McMillen. I'm sure many of you have already heard of her and the fact that she was not allowed by her school to either dress in a tux nor bring her girlfriend to her own senior prom. In fact, her school went so far as to cancel their own prom after she made the request.

    After they were brought to court over the issue they claimed she could go to another one at a place they specified. Only five other kids were there besides Constance and her girlfriend, while the real prom organized by parents was held at another location behind this girl's back.

    That more of her peers did not stick up for her, that her school, and the parents of those children chose to exclude her, means that their hate has successfully been passed on to the kids in that school. Constance will never be equal in their eyes now.

    This kind of thing thrives because it isn't being rooted out in places like deep within California or other local State laws, as long as our laws enshrine these ignorant views about LGBT people we're still going to see people like Constance left on the sidelines.

  • 42. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:39 am

    No excuses……this shite ends NOW!!!!!…..<3….Ronnie

  • 43. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:47 am

    Ronnie, I'm not trying to offer excuses. I just think it serves all of us if we better understand the laws involved.

    The "ENDA 4" understood that they would be could be arrested and chose to engage in this form of civil disobedience. I applaud them for that.

    And I agree that the "Tea Party" protests more closely resemble an unruly mob than a lawful protest, but it would do no good to arrest individuals for assault if the prosecutor would have no one willing to testify. Even worse, it would just feed their paranoia and hold them up as "martyrs to the cause."

  • 44. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:56 am

    You see that's the problem….they get arrested for practicing their civil rights…they become martyrs…..we get arrested for practicing our civil rights in a civil way…we deserved it and are wrong for doing the same thing they did but way more peacefully…..the notion the put forth is that we are not allowed to practice our civil rights but the are…cough…cough..segregation….cough cough….suffrage…cough…. cough….interracial couples…..noooooo…. nothing similar about what happened then and whats happening now….they make me sick…<3….Ronnie

  • 45. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 8:53 am

    I see on here remarks about intelligent design. This is a catch all phrase which I think is supposed to mean that evolution could not have happened by chance and that there must have been an intelligent design behind evolution. Because it seems so unlikely that this all occurred by chance they argue that this proves the existence of God and therefore the Bible and all the teachings of the organized church. this is nonsense.

    Let us just suppose that there is a God and he did create all this. What makes them think that this PROVES SCIENTIFICALLY that the God that any particular church worships is the one right and true God. If there was only one God, then he could certainly have wiped out the rest of the imposters. Just because you believe in intelligent design does not mean that YOUR GOD and not the other guy's God made the intelligent decision.

    We know that if we flip a coin in the air that about half the time it will come up heads and about half the time it will come us tails assuming that all other factors are equal. However, in real life, it is not that close. There are too many variables and changes. So it is less than perfect. So we live in less than a perfect world. It is designed perfectly, it does not operate perfectly. Thus, if they want to argue intelligent design, I buy that. However, than means that my God, the one who says that same sex marriage may have been the God that created all this intelligence and not their hateful God that preaches against me and my kind.

    They are grabbing at straws and they don't even have the intelligent design to realize it. It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person whose only weapon is a misunderstanding of the language and do not know how to use the logic of words properly.

    I will give them intelligent design as an argument for God, just not their God. And my God does not recognize them or their God. Now critize me and I will scream freedom of religion and call them bigots because they are against religious freedom. I am just tired of them and their short sighted ignorant arguments. Take care.

  • 46. Monty  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:19 am

    That, and nearly all of intelligent design consists of people not understanding how evolution actually works, or confusing it with abiogenesis.

  • 47. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:26 am

    Thanks for the reference to the above article at Jstor. Have just skimmed it so far, but looks interesting.

    BTW, I don't think anyone has suggested that the California Welfare and Institutions statute in Brian's original post is invalidated by Lawrence.

  • 48. G Rod  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:30 am

    @Kathleen
    @Carvel
    While the exchange of comments on this site is informative, why cannot the [regular] commentators to this site collectively ask Courage Campaign Institute to encourage LAMBDA Legal or ACLU to bring a case. Or collectively make the suggestion to them on behalf on one of our commentators.

    I am aware that some contributors such as Ronnie have taken action, why not as a group. G

  • 49. Straight Grandmother  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:34 am

    Kathleen, I recently discovered This American Life Radio programs. I have listened to many of their archived shows. The Babysitting one is the absolute BEST!!!! You have to be a bit patient for the story to develope but it is well well worth it here is the link, just choose stream episode http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/ep…

  • 50. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:36 am

    I'd certainly be glad to sign on to any such effort. I've never had courage campaign reply to any communication I've ever sent them, whether sent to the organization or to individuals within the organization. So maybe someone else should make the suggestion.

  • 51. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:51 am

    Well lookie here:
    It appears we have yelled loud enough, and the WhiteHouse is trying to distance itself from last weeks DOJ
    brief supporting DADT…LOL
    keep screaming:
    http://nclrights.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/gibbs-q…

  • 52. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:53 am

    and now we have it on tape:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7QzAl4ejS0&fe…

  • 53. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 10:04 am

    How come after around 5:00 every night the comments here almost always completely stop?..I get so bored at night, and hardly anyone comments after a certain time every night!!

  • 54. Pam  |  April 6, 2010 at 10:05 am

    Bob, the 81 words segment on This American Life is perfect; it really moved me that the tide was turned by a brave gay man who convinced just one gay psychiatrist to give a speech at the APA convention (with a mask on). It's a wonderful illustration of how individuals and small groups can make their mark on history by standing for the truth.

  • 55. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I'm really glad this was asked in a press briefing!!

    You know, something occurred to me when we were discussing this earlier. I haven't read the DOJ brief, but if the best they can come up with in support of the policy are outdated statements by Colin Powell and mis-characterization of scholars' positions, maybe their defense of the policy is about as effective as the defense we've witnessed in the Prop 8 trial.

    Now, do we know if Obama has directly answered Barney Frank's question as to whether Obama is committed to ending DADT this year?

  • 56. Straight Grandmother  |  April 6, 2010 at 10:38 am

    Vaati- It is interesting that you should bring up Constance McMillin. Yesterday wehnt he story broke I e-mailed Courage Campaign to run a topic on this. So today what is our topic? Old laws from 1967. The ConstanceMcMillin story is way more current than this article and it is hot button, it touches all of us as we all can remember when we were young and prom. Even if you went or didn't go you still remember prom. The Constance McMillian story is a HUGE story I spent a good part of my day reading the Constance Quite your crying facebook page. One thing that struck me is that ther graduation ceremonies for that high school is May 22. I would like to see a huge equality ride to that graduation ceremony and we are all outside shouting "Sham on you, Shame on you" they ahve to walk through us to get inside to their graduation and hear our taunts. Constance McMillian is a beautiful young woman and the actions of that community should NOT STAND. It is like Lt Dan Choi says, stand up, take a stand and make noise.

    I have no idea why Courage Campaign is ignoring this story that has inflamed do many people. I sent an e-mail to the ACLU of Mississippi last night (my time it was night) and said I had taken screen captures of facebook pages from people at the alternate prom. They didn't write baack to me today but at least I tried. On reading at eh GetEquality facebook page a poster said the the girls had now made thier facebook page private and she wasn't accepting private maessages any longer so my screen shots might be valuable evidence.

    I sometimes wonder if they don't have a bunch of these topics all written up and jsut throw them out there and are not agile enough to post more current topics. I mean…can you imagine goign to your prom and it is you and your date and 5 other people. And the prinicpal had to be in on this as he was a chaperone at the fake prom that Constance was told to go to. And teachers there were also teachers as chaperones. This is wrong on so many levels at yet on Prop8TT nothing, no topic at all, go figure!

  • 57. Straight Grandmother  |  April 6, 2010 at 10:43 am

    i just commented as a reply in Post #50

  • 58. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 10:49 am

    SG read the comments on the article on advocate.com…..
    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/0…

    I ripped some Hateros a new one…..they got swashed like the garbage they are by so many people bombarding these Hateros with swagger so strong….you'll get whiplash…..over 310 comments 34 pages…..I pwnd those swatzies…..we all did…..<3….Ronnie

  • 59. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Interesting fact:

    On the episode of dancing with the stars wherein they talked about marriage eqaulity, it is being reported right now in the associated press that it was the first time in the show's history where MORE people watched DWTS than watched American Idol!!!
    with 23 million people watching DWTS compared to only 21.6 million who watched Idol…LOL

  • 60. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 11:52 am

    It's after 5 and I'm still here, if you want to chat. :0

  • 61. Garland  |  April 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    @Kathleen

    I'm glad the article looks interesting to you. One of the things that I struggle with is keeping my head wrapped around is how deeply heterosexism is embedded in our institutions and power structures. (It shouldn't be a surprise, I know. To keep my sanity, I have to occasionally drink from the river of forgetfulness [tastes like Long Island Iced Tea!] and pretend that I don't notice heterosexism's unceasingly corrosive effects. But I still marvel at how exquisitely sexual minority identities have been redacted from history, the people holding those identities profoundly disenfranchised, and then the cultural memories of those actions erased.) I keep the Goodman article handy to remind myself why it's both so important and so difficult to craft language around these issues.

    After a bit of reflection, I think that blotting out the shameful behavior of the CA government and medical authorities is actually a really, really bad idea. Get that awful statute off the books, of course. But don't let the legislature forget that for decades, they've been trying to erase us. An attempted pogrom, regardless of the technique employed, the intention of the initiators, or its success or failure, is not a benign thing. (See Eugenics in California and Ellul, Jacques; The Technological Society.) Goodman makes a good case as to why having these unenforced things on books matters — they still shape societal discourse and the functioning of institutions even when the statutes aren't being actively employed to whack individuals.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted a bit of what Brian intended to convey. After the quote about Lowenthal's effort to repeal Cal Wel & Inst Code § 8050-3, Brian wrote: This is just one of the many laws on the books across the nation that has such out of date language. Despite their unconstitutionality as declared in Lawrence v Texas, there are still sodomy laws on the books of 14 states. I'd interpreted "one of the many laws" to include 8050.

    Following up on my own questions about dates: The current form of 8050-3 was basically put in place in 1967 — only a couple of small tweaks since then. It was based on: (a) Former W & I C § 5125, as added Stats 1965 ch 391 § 4. (b) Original W & I C § 5650, as added Stats 1953 ch 153 § 1. and (c) Stats 1st Ex Sess 1950 ch 35 § 1. I can't find CA legislative records from that far back online.

    In its current form, 8050-3 specifies that research for cause and cure of "sexual deviation" is a specific power and duty of the department (of Mental Health) and the superintendent of Langley Porter Clinic (who may contract with University of CA to do some or all of the research). Each state agency is directed to cooperate with the research effort "to the fullest extent that its facilities will permit without interfering with the carrying out of its primary purposes and functions." And the department of Mental Health may accept gifts or grants from any source for the accomplishment of the objects and purposes of this chapter. (Monies so received are specifically excluded from the provisions of Section 16302 of the Government Code and will be "expended to carry out the purposes of this chapter, subject to any limitation contained in such gift or grant.") So it seems that not only do we have offensive research but the arm-twisting of other state agencies to cooperate in the research effort AND the granting of special powers to this project so that it can accept outside funding (with or without conditions attached) without the funds going through the state treasury. Fascinating!

  • 62. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    Straight Grandmother, what is reallly interesting is that IAHS will have their graduation on Harvey Milk Day, the day set aside in the LGBTQQIA community to remember Harvey Milk on his birthday. So yes, it would be extremely appropriate for all of us to get together and head down to the graduation and have a showing there in just the manner you suggest. Okay, who else do we have here who is willing to do this? Contact me here, at my blog (click on my name here to go to the blog), on my FB page, through the p8tt group FB page, or through the FB page Let's All Unite for Equality and Ride to Washington DC at One Time. Let's do this, folks!

  • 63. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Randomly selected troops MY ASS!!
    look at some of these questions that were asked….coincidentally the very same questions verbatim that the right wing republican nutbags had said WEEKS before this "random" sampling of soldiers.
    http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_troops_g…

  • 64. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    Hmmmm…. I do wonder if the military has any idea what they're doing. They haven't exactly inspired confidence so far.

  • 65. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    These current weeks in natural disasters…..

    - 7.2 earthquake in Cali and Mexico….Home of Haggie.

    - 7.7 earthquake in Indonesia…..No LGBT discrimination protections, no legal recognition of couples, no homosexuality for muslims.

    - Beached baby hump back wale in the Hampton's, dying…..no same sex marriage in NY.

    - 23 dead in collapsed Virginia mine…..no same sex marriage, everything they are trying to do with the discrimination laws.

    - Multiple floods in NJ……no same sex marriage

    - Uganda landslide in March around 100 killed……genocide bill.

    - Chile 8.8 earthquake 432 dead….no adoption, no recognition of couples, no discrimination protections, Gay people can serve openly they just can't be gay

    - 7.0 earthquake in Haiti 230,000 dead……no recognition of couples, no discrimination protections not illegal but not supported either

    hmmmmmm…..Maybe God/Allah/GaGa/Cher/Jesus/ Mary/Gaia/ect ect ect……are trying to tell the Hateros something?……They're just not listening…..so sad….yeah?…..<3…Ronnie

  • 66. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I don't know the full history of the statute. Hopefully, it will be become readily available once a bill is drafted to change the language. I checked Lowenthal's site and nothing there yet.

    As to Brian's post, I had the same initial reaction when I read it. I think what he meant would have been more clearly conveyed if he'd flipped the clauses in one of his sentences: "This is just one of the many laws on the books across the nation that has such out of date language. There are still sodomy laws on the books in 14 states, despite their unconstitutionality as declared in Lawrence v Texas." That is, I think he meant that 8050 was one of the many laws with "out of date language"…. and others are sodomy laws (which are out of date by reason of have been declared unconstitutional).

  • 67. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Ronnie, the mining explosion took place in Montcoal, West Virginia, not in Virginia. They are two different states. In fact, I grew up about 20 miles away from the location of the mine, and the death toll is currently 25, with 4 missing and two in the hospital, one in ICU. ANd the company that owns the mine has been cited by the MSHA over 600 times in less than a year and a half for safety violations, including repeated citings for inadequate ventilation of methane gas and inadequate clearing of airborne dust particles and other small debris, both of which contributed to cause the explosion.

  • 68. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    Ah….the constitution……..You're out of order….NO you're out of order….It is your job to protect ALL voters….hmmmmm…..interesting video….<3….Ronnie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPTiTYDOQd8&fe…

  • 69. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    Dear Garland; I think that Lawrence v. Texas does partially invalidate the California laws. In particular to those concerning homosexuality. Not to homosexuality in non-consenting minors and other things that are not covered by LVT. LVT clearly states that people have a constitutional right under the due process clause and the 14th amendment to engage in consensual sexual acts in private with people of either sex. The stipulation is in private with consenting adults.

    The old laws are still on the books, but any attempt to prosecute would be met with a constitutional challange. That is the battle that is occurring in California now because they have sued to declare Prop 8 as violative of the Federal Constitution. The CA courts ruled it violated the state constitution or that the state constitution did not prohibit SSM. So they had prop 8 to change the state constitution. (I think we should have amended prop 8 to add taking away of the right of women to vote and returning blacks back to slavery and see how many would have supported it then) I know it is a bad joke, but the women and the blacks unless they are gay or have gay relatives and friends did not come out and support us publically like they should have. Yes, we did have some, but not like we should have.

    All the time in the courts there are decisions that change previous laws and decisions. It is too much trouble and there is no set procedure to go back and change all the orders, directives, laws and such with each change. They do make changes when somebody claims that their rights have been infringed and they will when the state tries to disrupt somebody's life with their stupid actions under an invalid law. I dare say that the passage in the law has been forgotten and no longer holds water fifty or sixty years later. I assume somewhere there are still laws on the books about women not being able to vote or some such nonsense.

    When the law changes, the social norms follow the law. The law says what you have to do legally. Social norms change slowly over time when the law changes. Slavery was outlawed and it took decades for people to accept the change, but eventually the country changed. If we get SSM then there will still be people who do not accept it, but SSM will be the law and acceptance will come with time.

    I am sure it is like Bill Cosby said in his case. When he and his intended wife went to his minister for counseling the man remarked that there were going to be problems because it was a mixed marriage. Mr. Cosby set the man right and informed him that both he and his intended wife were Black. The man remarked no, a Methodist and a presbyterian. There will always be trouble makers. We can live with them if we get legal equality.

  • 70. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    eh….West Virginia's a hot mess too….easy mistake to mix up two….like South Dakota and North Dakota….I mean really…..REALLY?!!….they're the same states…they just want more reps…..so they added names from the compass to their names…when technically they are North-West Virginia….hehehehehe…..<3….Ronnie

  • 71. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:04 pm

    Pam, exactly, so simple really, I'm thinking couldn't we apply the same principles to the Catholic Church scenario.

    We know ther are gay priests, they quietly tow the line, thinking change is impossible, at least not in this generation,

    We now from news reports, that the inner circle close to the pope, has been caught hiring male prostitutes, I'm thinking, why don't we find a real hot guy, possibly a scientist, and get him to pose as a prostitute, then when he gets real intimate with one of those upstairs priests. He could lay a real guilt trip on him, at least break us in to a conversation, with those gay priests, and get them to realize they could be the change,

    I loved the story I have to listen again, I thought it was a woman, who convinced the gay psychiatrist, I know we gotta listen again, cause otherwise I'm just blaming the woman again, they're good at that, getting men to stand up and do the right thing.

  • 72. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:16 pm

    Carvel, are you saying that you think the ruling in Lawrence invalidates this California Welfare & Institutions law (§§ 8050-3)? If so, I disagree.

    Lawrence strikes down laws which criminalize homosexual behavior (as you mention, with some obvious limitations). §§ 8050-3 mandates the study of "causes" of homosexuality, and in the process lumps it into various classes of anti-social "sexual deviation." What makes this law obsolete is our more evolved view and understanding of homosexuality.

  • 73. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Actually West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War because we did not believe that anyone had the right to own another person as if that person were a piece of property.

  • 74. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    Bob, what could have confusedd you is the fact that the narrator of the 81 words story is the granddaughter of the psychiatrist who was president-elect of the APA and helped get those 81 words removed.
    As for women getting men to stand up and do the right thing, I have often heard, even though I forget who is credited with it: "When you want something said, ask a man; when you want something DONE, ask a woman. And when you look at so many things, that is true. Women have actually been the force behind most of the progress we have made in history, even when men are credited with it.

  • 75. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm

    And yet now they think they have the right to treat LGBTQQIA people as a piece of property that they can tell who to love and marry, ect ect ect….how easily they forget and fall into the same trap they fought so hard against….hmmmmm…..<3….Ronnie

  • 76. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:26 pm

    Kathleen. I love you :) I am continually impressed with your legal knowledge and research you put into these details. Just wanted to say a heartfelt "Thanks!" for posting here :)

  • 77. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    And when you want something done neutrally ask a homosexual…..we are Switzerland……bwaaaaa….<3….Ronnie

  • 78. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:40 pm

    JohT, how very, very kind of you! I'm glad my effort is appreciated. I sometimes think I'm just too nerdy for everyone here. Wait! Are you the person who posted BSG references? Ok, not too nerdy for you. ;)

  • 79. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Ahhh, listen again, her name was Barbara Giddings, a lesbian activist, who talked the gay paychiatrist into doing it. Praise goes to the woman.

  • 80. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:44 pm

    That was bad…I know…but I had to say it….the awesome thing is that the LGBTQQIA rights movement cannot be credited by any single gender…This movement is all gendered….all racial…..all religions….all orientations….all ages….all inclusive….except clowns….they're on their own…..<3….Ronnie

  • 81. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:47 pm

    Bob, is it possible you were thinking of Evelyn Hooker? Her early research is mentioned in the story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker

  • 82. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    But Ronnie, we all know that clowns are a necessary part of everyone's life. That's why so manyof our family trees and schools have them.

  • 83. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Forgive my probable legal incompetence – but I was under the belief that Lawrence v. Texas had to do with laws against sodomy dealing with people solely of the same sex…?

    Sodomy being defined in law as 'any unnatural penetration', which would include bj's, etc… I was under the impression that SCOTUS held unconstitutional the laws in Texas that made this illegal between people of the same sex but not regarding members of the opposite sex… ?

    Ie: you could not say 'sodomy' (forgive the scare quotes, but what the hell) was legal between straight people, but illegal with gay people.

    So if your state bans 'sodomy' between anybody (gay or straight) L. v. T. did not hold, and therefore those laws are still valid…?

  • 84. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    I know, but both sides argue that the research is skewed by the bias of the people doing it, Narth, and religious right, definetly wouldn't be influenced by this decision,

    The scientists are left arguing with each other over who is doing it right, the research and stats.

    we know NASE is professional, and trust them, the religious right have the same respect for NARTH

    Know just think what ammo, the 81 word story is for narth, HAH it was just a bunch of homos that conspired to change the diagnosis to suit themselves. And they'd be pretty close to right,
    EXcept that it wasn't done to change anyone or to make them conform to a religious belief.

  • 85. Bob  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Okay,, last post for the night, for those of us that can't sleep, the million dollar question, re 81 Word Story, was it a man or woman?

    Her name was Barbara Giddings, a lesbian Activist

    Kathleen, I forget his name but the guy that said thanks up there, I second that, thanks for the link to Hooker night night

  • 86. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Clowns are evil and scary and they must be destroyed….nobody is that happy….nobody!!!!…ya hear….NOBODY!!!!!……ahhhhhh…just see for yourself…..<3….Ronnie:

    Case in point 1: starting at 3:00 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0tgvui46Is&fe…

  • 87. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Case in point 2: starting at 0:35…..
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz76d7h1sM0&fe…

  • 88. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    And case in point 3:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8Zpv28NBm4&fe…

  • 89. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    The latest from West Virginia in the battle against Fred Phelps and his band of crazies.
    http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201004060806?page=2…

  • 90. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    "Why do they allow non-taxers payers to have rights protected by the constitution …" .

    Actually I ask, why is there even such a thing as non-[tax] payers even permitted in this country? I thought we are all supposed to be equal? No establishment of religion and all that…?

  • 91. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    The majority opinion in Lawrence didn't rely on different treatment between same and opposite sex couples. It specifically held that "The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons."

    O'Connor's concurrence claims that the case didn't decide the issue. "Whether a sodomy law that is neutral both in effect and application, see Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), would violate the substantive component of the Due Process Clause is an issue that need not be decided today. I am confident, however, that so long as the Equal Protection Clause requires a sodomy law to apply equally to the private consensual conduct of homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, such a law would not long stand in our democratic society."

    But I think you'll find most legal analysis concludes that this ruling struck down all sodomy laws, depending on a long line of rulings that recognize a privacy right in personal relations (often attached to the Due Process clause).

    You can read the opinion here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.h…
    The syllabus is a handy distillation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.h…

  • 92. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    JonT, I wrote a reply, but my post had two links in it and is held up in moderation. May not appear till morning. Sorry.

  • 93. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    @Kathleen: Why yes, that's me :)

    Equality for all?

    So say we all?
    :)

  • 94. Ronnie  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    WE….. ALL!!!…..I mean…. so shall it be done…..<3…Ronnie

  • 95. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    @Kathleen: 'JonT, I wrote a reply, but my post had two links in it and is held up in moderation. May not appear till morning. Sorry.'

    No problem – been there myself :) I'm subscribed to this thread so I'll see it in email when it clears. Thanks.

    PS: To the moderators/overlords (CCI). Have you considered adding a forum-like interface here so that we could register/subscribe/edit, etc – and all the other cool things not really available in a 'commenting' system?

    Just say'in… :)

  • 96. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:02 pm

    The poor man in the clip does not understand the concept of judges invalidating laws based on other laws. We have a Federal Constitution that states the basic principles of law. If congress or the states pass laws against that Constitution, then it is the duty and the responsibility of the judges to invalidate the laws. If congress passed a law that declared that all men wearing yellow shirts would be fined $5,000 would the speaker declare that the law is good and valid because congress passed the law. The entire purpose of the judiciary is to invalidate the improper laws passed by congress which are in violation of the Constitution. That is why we have a Bill of Rights.

    The problem is that the cry of the extreme right wing is that much of the problem with the law is the activitist judges. The judges can only make decisions on cases brought before their courts of law on the issues and laws presented. They make decisions on the conflicting laws. What this cretin is trying to say is that he is attacking judges making decisions that he does not like. He does not tell us what decision he does not like, only that rather than tackle the decision on the mertits he wants to make an end run saying that judges do not have the power to make decisions that go against any law congress or the legislature passes.

    Under his theory congress could pass slavery laws, take away his right to vote and no court could sit in judgment of the law. People like this are generally ignored because his apparent education for 12 years did not take. It is a shame that someone who is interested in the law and in politics is so uneducated that he can not ask intelligent questions. He also can not make a valid point that we can discuss.

    It is like the debate on SSM. We do not have the right people discussing it with O'Riley to counter his arguments. They only know their understanding of the points and not the law and the counter arguments to those points.

    Nobody is in favor of activitist judges, but nobody can agree on what constituties activitism by a judge.

    Right to life is a funny phrase. It means that every person or individual has the right to their life and to make the decisions for their life. A fetus is not legally a life yet to win the argument before it is made, the antiabortionists have coined the phrase right to life to mean that a fetus has a superior right to that of a living breathing human being who has already been born.

    We need to start a grass roots campaigns with catchy slogans.

    Right to work – Everyone is guaranteed a job even if the government pays you not to work.

    Right to happiness – The government can not pass laws that take away your happiness. Rather broad, but so what.

    Restore Marriage Act – Since there were same sex marriages before the birth of Christ, restore marriage movement wants to give everyone over the age of 15 the right to marry the person of the sex and whatever race and such the right to marry whoever they want to marry.

    Anti Superior Rights Act. or the Religious Freedom Act – better yet, the Uniform Rights Act – Gives to everyone equal rights regardless of race, sex or religion or anything. As a consequence of this act, no religion is allowed to have any religious belief enacted into law. If the law respects your religious belief, then your religion can not advocate that belief. If for instance, your religion holds that Sunday is the Sabbath, and the state closes any establishment on Sunday, then your religion can not hold Sunday as the Sabbath as it would give your religion an unfair advantage and make it appear that the state is establishing your religion. You have six other days to pick to be your Sabbath. Seems only fair.

    The problem with all these silly ideas is that at some point in time there is someone who will believe in them and be serious about them. All you have to do is wave a flag, talk about motherhood, your children and God and people will flock around you and talk about how wonderful things used to be and how they can be wonderful again if we just go back to the old ways.

    It is late in the evening or actually early in the morning and I am a tired old man who has seen and heard too much in this life and is tired of listening to people who don't deserve the time of day like the guy in the clip. Take care.

  • 97. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:13 pm

    All you have to do is wave a flag, talk about motherhood, your children and God and people will flock around you and talk about how wonderful things used to be and how they can be wonderful again if we just go back to the old ways.

    Ain't it the truth! :)

    Good night, Carvel. Sleep well and hope to see you here tomorrow.

  • 98. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    In reading this thread I see that there is some confusion about the meaning of Lawrence v. Texas. That is a 2003 US Supreme Court case which invalidated the Texas sodomy statute. Sodomy was defined as any unnatural copulation of individuals regardless of sex. This would include oral, anal and even sex with animals. However, if there were separate statutes concerning sex with animals, it did not invaladate them. The court ruled that ANY CONSENSUAL SEX ACT BETWEEN CONSENTING ADULTS IN PRIVATE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. This covers all sexes and all acts between consisting adults in private. It does not cover public sex acts and if there are more than two people involved or if the sex act is for money. You can go to some web pages and read the decision.

  • 99. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    Well I am sorry but I think that every man who wears a yellow shirt SHOULD be fined $5,000…LOL
    Just sayin

  • 100. Bill  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    You can read more of the history of this law in a Los Angeles Times article by Bonnie Lowenthal. The URL is http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/04/opinion/l… .

  • 101. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    @Carvel: 'Nobody is in favor of activitist judges, but nobody can agree on what
    constituties activitism by a judge.

    You are exactly right – life tends to be a subjective experience :)

    But, I firmly believe that is an aspect of our government that strengthens us in the long run.

    The fact that SCOTUS and Fed judges are lifetime appointments has it's pluses and minuses. The fact that they are free to determine their views without regard to money and politics is ultimately, IMO, a very good thing in the long run.

    Of course, they are human and will believe what they wish to believe regarding reality. Sometimes that helps us, and sometimes it hurts, but I cannot think of a better way to do it – can you?

  • 102. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:20 pm

    I beg to differ…
    The exact definition of an activist judge is as follows:

    Any judge who makes a decision that doesn't support the inane ramblings and delusions of any Church or Republican may be considered an activist judge.

    Only a judge who 100% agrees with the insanity of Republicans and Churches can possibly be a fair and
    just judge.
    I believe that is the definition from the American family values dictionary.

    and I am pretty sure that Websters defines an activist judge as follows:

    Any judge who makes any ruling that would seem to imply that anyone who is not rich ,white, religious and republican deserves to live as human beings, could be considered an activist judge, because clearly the Constitution makes it very clear in ink that is apparently only visible to rich white folks, that only THEY shall be entitled to any rights whatsoever in this nation.
    and so long as rich white folks are in the majority..no-one else in the nation shall experience any form of equality or fair treatment.
    (In other words, in about 20 years when those rich white religious folks are no longer the majority in this nation, all will be set to normal as it should be.)
    and then we shall vote to make religion illegal, and all hetero marriages shall be deemed null and void, and at which time all rich white conservatives, shall be forced to live in servitude of their new gay multi racial majority leaders.

  • 103. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    JUSTIN IS GOING TO COME OUT TOMORROW!!
    see the clip!
    http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/just…

  • 104. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    @Carvel: 'Sodomy was defined as any unnatural copulation of individuals regardless of sex. This would include oral, anal and even sex with animals.

    Wow! I had no idea sex w/ animals was considered 'sodomy'. Learn something new every day.

    I was relying on my vague recollection of the US Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj2.htm) See Article 925. But there it is! A sadness – that gay sex is equated with bestiality in military law.

    Bummer. No wonder the haters continue to try to link being gay with the beasty stuff. :( It's in the fraken Uniform Code of Military Justice!

  • 105. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    /me sad :( Forgot to close italics – please forgive me.

  • 106. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    The law challenged in Lawrence was Texas Penal Code §21.06(a) "A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." §21.01(1) defined "[d]eviate sexual intercourse" as "(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or "(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object."

    While it's true the phrase "sodomy" has been used in various statutes to mean a broad variety of sexl acts, the Texas statute didn't use the word sodomy, and was specific about what acts it forbid.

    I actually did an independent study while in law school, that included a survey of how the 50 states regulated various sex between consenting adults. (this was the era post Bowers but pre Lawrence) I do seem to recall that there were some states that swept beastiality into their sodomy laws.

  • 107. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    @dieter: The realdefinition of an activist judge is one who disagrees with your position.

    I agree that the haters (xtian or otherwise) see that any judicial decision allowing glbt people to live free and equal is activist in their tiny little minds, but that does not make it so.

    I know it isn't so. So do a growing number of other thinking people. That's what they fear and fight. Frak em.

  • 108. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    OK I am so happy that I found the site where you can watch full HD episodes of GLEE…lol
    My favorite episode is WHEELS, and I just watched the show, and in the episode they have a sing off for who gets the solo. The sing off was the song "defying gravity"..
    and I listened to the words and I think that song could be the anthem for our group here:

    Something has changed within me
    Something is not the same
    I'm through with playing by the rules
    Of someone else's game
    Too late for second-guessing
    Too late to go back to sleep
    It's time to trust my instincts
    Close my eyes: and leap!

    It's time to try
    Defying gravity
    I think I'll try
    Defying gravity
    And you can't pull me down!

    I'm through accepting limits
    'Cuz someone says they're so
    Some things I cannot change
    But till I try, I'll never know!
    Too long I've been afraid of
    Losing love I guess I've lost
    Well, if that's love
    It comes at much too high a cost!
    I'd sooner buy
    Defying gravity
    Kiss me goodbye
    I'm defying gravity
    And you can't pull me down:
    Think of what we could
    do: together.

    Unlimited
    Together we're unlimited
    Together we'll be the greatest team
    There's ever been

    Dreams, the way we planned 'em
    If we work in tandem:

    There's no fight we cannot win
    Just you and I
    Defying gravity
    With you and I
    Defying gravity

    They'll never bring us down!

    so if you care to find me
    Look to the western sky!
    As someone told me lately:
    "Ev'ryone deserves the chance to fly!"
    And if I'm flying solo
    At least I'm flying free
    To those who'd ground me
    Take a message back from me
    Tell them how I am
    Defying gravity
    I'm flying high
    Defying gravity
    And soon I'll match them in renown
    And nobody in all of Oz
    No Wizard that there is or was
    Is ever gonna bring me down!

  • 109. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    I'm a total Gleek… can hardly wait for the new episodes. My favorite episode is Preggers – with the dancing football team and where Kurt comes out to his dad.

    My two favorite Christmas gifts: my Wacom Intuos4 Tablet and the two CD set of the Glee sound track. :)

    One of my favorite songs is Puck's version of Sweet Caroline: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bro1uLtlMxs&fe…

  • 110. JonT  |  April 6, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    @Kathleen: So essentially the Texas laws prohibited the following conduct: 'deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.'.

    Note: 'Same sex'.

    Deviate sexual intercourse being defined as “(A) any contact between any part of the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or “(B) the penetration of the genitals or the anus of another person with an object.”

    So, it was illegal for gay people (men, specifically, due to the 'penetration' qualifiers) but for straight people, this was all OK according to the law.

    Where's the justice in that? Right… hence the case.

    That is where the SCOTUS did right Dieter. Either you ban it for everybody, or don't ban it at all. That's what they decided. I agree they don't move as fast as I'd like, but in general, they tend to move in the right direction, eventually.

    It's not perfect, but I have 'faith' if I may use such a concept here. We will prevail eventually :) It will be a fight, but one we will win – if past history is any guidance. I'm hopeful – you should be too.

    "Don't let the bastards grind you down" – Google it :)

    Peace.

  • 111. dieter  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    That's good, but in my fantasies…all I ever see is the back of his head….LOL

  • 112. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    Yes, the Texas law was only a prohibition against the sex acts between people of the same sex. They swept lesbians into it too: (1) contact between mouth and sex organs, and (2) penetration with an object.

    As my more thorough response (still in moderation) said, the ruling in Lawrence didn't depend on an Equal Protection argument; it held there were privacy rights, generally a Due Process claim. It's generally agreed that Lawrence stands for the proposition that you can't prohibit these acts between any consenting adults (both same and opposite sex)

  • 113. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:11 pm

    :) Yeah, Mark Salling is hot.

  • 114. Kathleen  |  April 6, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    … with all the usual qualifiers: in private, etc.

  • 115. Carvel  |  April 6, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    The UCMJ is different than state law and the generally accepted definition of common law crimes. This term is so vague that many of the constitutional challanges against the law took the form of saying that it was not defined precisely enough to put people on notice exactly which acts were prohibited. Even the Supreme Court did not buy that argument. They said everybody know what they shouldn't do.

    I suppose it was like George Carlin said, anything but man or top and woman on the bottom and get it over with quickly was illegal.

    Supreme Court cases and state cases ONLY APPLY TO state and federal cases. The military has their own set of laws and not even the Constitution applies to the UCMJ cases. It is rather trickly.

  • 116. Sagesse  |  April 6, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    Coming at the topic from a really weird angle. And you wonder why people get confused about the constitution. And perhaps an argument for the role of the judiciary.

    This is an article about Diane Wood, who is on the unofficial shortlist to replace Justice Stevens. Her field is international law, and in it she describes how the US does not need to sign the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the rights are all protected by the constitution. In making that argument, she cites the following 'unwritten constitutional protections':

    "The Constitution does not explicitly mention equal rights of men and women; a right to travel; a right to be free from arbitrary interference with one’s privacy, family, and home; protection of the family; the right to marry; or cultural rights of minority groups. Yet as presently understood, U.S. law affords protection to most, if not all, of these rights as a matter of constitutional law. . . ."

    And you wonder why they're shrieking "Show me in the Constitution where it says [fill in the blank]!!
    http://opiniojuris.org/2009/05/21/diane-wood-worl…

  • 117. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 12:03 am

    YEAAAAAAAAA!!!!!……less then one week to GLEE!!!!!!……..Oh Oh Oh ohoh Oh OH!!!…….<3…..Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2FMdOLyRcA

  • 118. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 7, 2010 at 12:55 am

    Yes–EQUALITY FOR ALL! And NOW!

  • 119. Carvel  |  April 7, 2010 at 2:11 am

    Kathleen, What I said was that LVT case invalidates the California statute in so far as the California statute attempts ot make homosexuality criminal or prohibit it. Under LVT the state can not take any action against someone for a constitutially protected right.

    I guess the state can still carry the law on the books and they can investigate the problem of homosexuality all they want, but if the state uses that law against anyone the California action is a violation of that person's federally protected civil rights. That is why Scholia (Spelling may be wrong) was so opposed to the decision and he also thought it mandated SSM. He was right to be worried because he was right. However, we won and he lost.

  • 120. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 2:14 am

    http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/0…

    Posted on Advocate.com April 07, 2010
    Student Sent Home for "Lady Gay Gay" Shirt
    By Julie Bolcer

    Greenbrier High School in White House, Tenn. sent a student home Monday on the grounds that his “I Heart Lady Gay Gay” t-shirt caused a “disruption,” prompting allegations of a free speech violation. The shirt refers to gay icon Lady Gaga.

    (me) Look at the picture…..there is nothing offensive or disrupting about the shirt….again its the Hatero Adults who are making these things an issue…..

    According to NBC affiliate WSMV-TV in Nashville, “Cole Goforth's mother said the school is violating her son's freedom of speech and expression rights because kids who wear religious shirts and rebel flag shirts aren't sent home. The school said a shirt he wore is a disruption.”

    (me) Exactly….a disruption to what?….There's a rainbow heart on it…..or is just because a boy is wearing it and the word gay is on it?…..DING DING…..give the Nazi a prize…..

    Julie Gordon said she believes her 15-year-old son is being singled out. "I think they are singling him out, I really do, and they've made statements that if he wore this in California, he'd fit in just fine," she told WSMV-TV.

    (me) Tada……bigotry at its finest…..

    While shirts with the word “gay” on them are not specifically banned, the Robertson County School Board leaves it to principals to interpret the dress code. Administrators said they feared an escalation in the tense atmosphere sparked by a recent fight. The school invited Julie Gordon to appeal the dress code.

    (me) There is no interpreting the dress code…..you follow the dress code as it is written….they feared an escalation in the tense blah blah blah…..so your solution is to punish the victims rather then punish the Hateros?….nice real nice….had we done that to the Nazis….well you know…..<3….Ronnie

  • 121. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 2:17 am

    I get the feeling that a lot of people think that children can't handle the concept of gay people. If that were the case (it isn't, of course), shouldn't they be blaming the parents?

  • 122. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 2:28 am

    Yes….and then I wonder if they let their kids and teens watch GLEE….what do you mean let…this is the technology/information age….smart phones, internet, HULU, ect ect….If they are not seeing it at home they are seeing it on the school comps, cell phones, and so on…."I love living in the future"……hehehehe…..<3….Ronnie

  • 123. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 2:29 am

    The problem with the future is it keeps turning into the present.

  • 124. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 7, 2010 at 3:57 am

    Yes! I was wondering when they would get around to this. Chad Griffin has done more to advance LGBTQQIA rights in th past year than Joe Solmonese and his cronies at HRC have even thought about. He deserves all the press he gets.

  • 125. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Not to mention he's super HOTTT!!!!……ok sorry for that school boy moment…..but…yeah….<3…Ronnie

  • 126. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 4:00 am

    The HRC have been trying to advance LGBTQQIA rights? That's news to me.

  • 127. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 7, 2010 at 4:03 am

    That was my point. AFER has done more to help us than HRC even dreams about doing. Chad sees his job as running AFER out of business through helping ALL Americans have equal rights, whereas HRC sees their job as keeping the cashflow coming in for as long as possible so Joe can run around accumulating fashion awards.
    @Ronnie–Yes, he is hot, isn't he?

  • 128. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Sooo…last night on 90210 Adrianna came out in a very PUBLIC way….on stage after her first gig with her all girl band called "The Glorious Steinems" she laid a BIG whopping kiss on Gia in front of everybody….<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FkXcu3kb4U

  • 129. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 4:10 am

    yup yup…..<3…Ronnie

  • 130. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 7, 2010 at 4:25 am

    Just emailed AFER about the possibility of them helping get the word out about the FB group Let's All Unite for Equality and Ride to Washington DC at One Time so that we can really get some folks notified and get the groups from each area set up in order to set a date for the Equality Rides. Let's do this, everybody!
    Also, here in North Carolina, Equaltiy NC is having Action day on May 25, and BZ and I are both registered and will be there.

  • 131. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:17 am

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – Legislation that would prohibit teaching about gay relationships in Tennessee public schools has likely failed again.

    The proposal sponsored by Republican Rep. Stacey Campfield of Knoxville was sent back to the State Board of Education for further study by the House Education K-12 Subcommittee on Wednesday. It's at least the second year that the same panel has killed the measure.

    The proposal sought to prohibit the "teaching of … human sexuality other than heterosexuality in public school grades K-8."

    Campfield said the state should "stay neutral" and leave it up to parents whether they want to talk about anything other than heterosexuality.

    Bruce Opie, legislative director for the Tennessee Department of Education, says current state curriculum doesn't address any type of sexual preference.

    The companion bill is awaiting a vote in the Senate Education Committee.

  • 132. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Last month openly lesbian Houston Mayor Annise Parker issued a sweeping non-bias order granting employment protections to LGBT workers "at every level of municipal government." Predictably, the city's Christianists are screaming about men in dresses.
    “Forcing women in particular using city facilities to be subjected to cross-dressing men invading their privacy is beyond the pale and offensive to every standard of decency,” said Pastor Steve Riggle, senior pastor of Grace Community Church and an Executive Committee member of the Houston Area Pastor Council (HAPC). “This is not only morally wrong it exposes the city and therefore the taxpayers to endless litigation and expenses,” added Pastor Hernan Castano, senior pastor of Iglesia Rios de Aceite and a member of the HAPC Executive Committee. “It is irresponsible and indefensible.” Notably, however, supporters of the executive order are insisting that it remains unlawful for men to go into the women’s restroom.
    The Houston Area Pastor Council says Parker's move should have been expected because she's a dirty dyke: "We are appalled but not surprised that this mayor has so early in her administration proven that we were right in asserting before the election that her sexual preference is central to her public policy."

  • 133. Bob  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:24 am

    RE Chad Griffin, "he has brains but also roots. He grew up with people who are concerned about the issues. He's not dismissive of their views, and he's willing to engage.
    Many people who are true believers, can't bear the thought of engaging their enemy."

    What a man, maybe he could teach us more about this quality, personally I'm an advocate for engaging our enemy.

    Like Carvel said, the laws change first , but what Griffin points out is the true heroes, are those who fought the battle to begin with , without a law to support them, Then it takes a courageous lawyer, to take that fight into the courts and change the laws.

    And after the law is changed, again we have to engage the enemy, to get them to uphold the law, i.e. hate crimes usually require strong vigilence an advocacy to be enforced.

    Yeah Chad, help us engage the creationists/religious right,

  • 134. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:26 am

    http://instinctmagazine.com/blog/family-research-…
    Family Research Council's Paranoia Grows
    Written by Jonathan Higbee | Wednesday, 07 April 2010

    Citing the government as complicit in the homosexual agenda to "redefine marriage," the Family Research Council has — shockingly — come out swinging against GLBT couples being counted as married in the 2010 census. Because the U.S. Census Bureau has posted the George Takei/Brad Altman Queer the Census video on its site (among nine others), Family Research Council believes there is a conspiracy to overturn DOMA going on. As Instinct Associate Editor Jeff Katz put it, “they must not be fans of Star Trek.”

    (me) Ummmm…I really wish they would stop using that redefine marriage thing…the dictionary already says that marriage includes same gender couples….there's nothing to redefine….its already been done…..DEAL WITH IT!!!……and what is with the reich and obsession with conspiracy theories…..when they say that I picture them all wearing tinfoil helmets….i'm just saying…..

    My favorite piece of bigoted wingnuttery from the anti-gay group’s article on the subject:

    (me) hehehehehe….wingnuttery…..hehehehehe……

    Census officials urge gay couples not to let a little thing like the truth get in the way of a favorable gay "marriage" count. While these unions only exist in D.C. and five U.S. states, the Bureau insists, "Same-sex couples who are married or consider themselves to be spouses [in any state], can identify one person to be a husband or wife."

    (me) Nooooo….why would anybody want let the truth get out about what people really are as oppose to what you want them to be…..please…..I just threw up a little……

    Consider themselves to be spouses? What kind of government actively lobbies citizens to lie on their forms? Under this administration, America's legal realities may as well be minor hiccups on the road to a complete abolition of marriage and family. When it comes to advancing the extreme homosexual agenda of this White House, nothing matters.

    (me) hmmmm…..What kind of human thinks they have the right to tell other people who love and marry, where to live, what to wear, what to say, what to do, who/what to worship ect ect ect?…..

    (me) and I'm sorry but ….."a complete abolition of marriage and family"….so because gay marriage WILL be legal straight people will not be allowed to get married or have a family anymore?……That's so magical gayness going on…that it can force straight people to stop getting married and have families….hmmmm…..

    Guess not only does the Family Research Council yet again forget that GLBT Americans are part of their families, too, but they seem to be the only ones these days who believe the Obama Administration is advancing gay rights in this country.

    (me) PWND!!!!……<3….Ronnie

  • 135. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:28 am

    Gotta love this from Pams house blend.
    Apparently one of the fat hater girls who sent constance to a fake prom is upset that now her pictures of herself and the hatero prom are all over the web. Love Pam's response, and this gives me a great idea…let's all start using facebook to get photos of haters, and their stories, and make sure that every college in the land gets to see them…what college wants to enroll someone so hateful?..lets see.

    I received this nonsense in my inbox yesterday.
    from Holly
    ++++++@gmail.com
    to PAM@PHBLEND.NET
    date Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 8:53 PM
    Please remove pictures from private party from your website. These were retrieved from my facebook without permission.
    Thanks,
    Holly

    She was referring to this post and these photos, where no one is identified…
    Yes, it was Itawamba Agricultural High School's private party, where student Constance McMillen was not invited, but sent to a prom for pariahs in Fulton, MS, that includes in their minds, gay folks and the learning disabled. Given Holly, who is clearly less wise than her years compared to Constance, is unclear about the world of social media, I decided to do a little email teach-in.

    Holly,
    Unfortunately your Facebook profile was public, therefore you gave permission for the whole world to see and distribute your information. The photos aren't coming down.

    Just so you know, I didn't obtain the photos from your Facebook page anyway, I retrieved them from La Figa, after finding them because the Facebook page was public. Who knows how many sites are now featuring your HS friends enjoying the heterosexuals-only prom.

    Sadly, too many young people don't think before they publicly post photos or messages that they may later regret. On the Internet it is forever, and future colleges and employers will now see these images floating around the web with unflattering commentary because you chose not to take advantage of Facebook's very clear privacy features to begin with. They were available to you the moment you opened the account, and in fact, your account's now using them, but it's too late to do damage control because of poor judgment.

    Perhaps I'd consider taking them down if you and your friends, and your parents publicly apologize to all of the students sent to the "other" prom as pariahs.

    –P.

    She was clearly proud of the public prom photos before the proverbial sh*t hit the fan. I hope that Holly thinks about the ramifications of the hateful, self-absorbed and cruel behavior they publicly inflicted on Constance and those other students. The choices they made were conscious ones, and they were enabled by adults who should have known better. Instead their focus was on hypocritical piety about which sins they are willing to accept in their community.
    Apologies need to come from the people in Fulton who saw nothing wrong in what they did. It's one thing to harbor personal homophobia and bias against the disabled, it's another to act on it and teach that public cruel, bullying behavior is acceptable.

  • 136. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:37 am

    "Honey, I want a divorce. I know we've had a perfect relationship all these years, but now that Adam and Steve down the street are getting married, I don't think this can work out."

  • 137. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Tennis legend Martina Navratilova told ABC's Good Morning America that she's been diagnosed with breast cancer

  • 138. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 5:39 am

    I don't bother with most of the privacy features on Facebook. Why? Because I have nothing to hide. I don't care if people see what I'm doing. The fact that she obviously does should make her reconsider her actions.

  • 139. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:11 am

    Don't forget to watch GLEE on Oprah today….I'm watching it right now……yeaaaaaa….hehehehe….<3…Ronnie:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfN_FGMX_E8

  • 140. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Sadly this prop 8 trial trackers site may not be in existance for much longer.
    You all remember the Supreme courts recent decision to allow unlimited cash to flow into elections from big businesses?
    Well the courts just dealt another crushing blow in a ruling
    that now says Big business has the right to CONTROL what sites it allows to be accessed.
    Meaning that like in China, big business can now decide to block any sites that contain the word gay or lesbian…etc.
    and that does not mean just on your work computers either..that means even on your home computers. If a big business does not want you to find out about anything gay, they can block access.
    Apparently the courts have decided to force us all to only be able to learn about GOD and republicans online.
    the F.C.C. is fighting this, but they are likely to lose.

    the "non-biased" courts have just ruled we all must be straight white christians again…
    this ruling would actually allow companies to block any computer from showing anything that contains words like Obama..etc. effectively turning this country into a dictatorship, where only the people with billions, can allow what the rest of the world can see online.
    this is frightening. any day now if the ruling stands, you may turn on your computer only to see the words:
    "sorry, this page can not be accessed"

  • 141. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:25 am

    Land of the free corporations, and the home of censorship. Welcome to the United States of Comcast.

  • 142. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:25 am

    GLAAD has an action alert about a CNN segment that invited an "ex-gay" activist to promote so-called conversion therapy.
    http://tinyurl.com/y8kjbb

  • 143. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:26 am

    "Error: Unable to find site's URL to redirect to."

  • 144. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Sorry, didn't copy it correctly: http://tinyurl.com/y8kjbbh

  • 145. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:28 am

    Yeah ok….pft…..putting the majority of the country out of a job…..it'll never happen….and if it does….it will have no holding power……hackers come to mind…..i'm just saying….<3….Ronnie

  • 146. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:31 am

    "Homosexuality, Is it a problem in need of a cure?"
    "No."
    Segment over.

    If only it had gone like that.

  • 147. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:32 am

    Or better yet:
    "Homosexuality, Is it a problem-""No." Cut her off mid-sentence. That's just ridiculous.

  • 148. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:39 am

    I guarantee you that if they try to pull this crap on me, I'm not going to just sit there and take it. Shit's gonna happen.

  • 149. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:41 am

    He's ex-happy?…..So Sad…..we should send him an edible arrangement……chocolate covered bananas…..he'll like that……<3…Ronnie

  • 150. Carvel  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:47 am

    We need a little more details on this. When you say that BIG COMPANIES can block internet access how exactly do you mean. Do you mean to say that the internet providers can turn off access to sites that they disagree with or what. I am not worried about General Motors blocking my internet access. I am worried that my internet provider will not allow me to access the sites I wish to view. However, if my provider does not allw me to access the sites, I will sign up with a provider that does. Someone will make a killing selling access to forbitten sites.

    The only thing I know for certain is that once you forbid people from doing somethine that is how fast other people will make a fortune selling access to the forbidden things. Prohibition didn't work, illegal drugs are available, but the price is higher than it needs to be.

    What big companies are going to do what. Without mor information, it just doesn not make any sense.

  • 151. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:52 am

    Technically, Internet service providers are the only ones who can control what you see. But don't think they'll be the only ones with a hand in this. General Motors can't do anything directly, but they can influence your ISP in a number of ways to restrict your access to their competitors, for example.

    And I don't think it will be at all like illegal drugs. Internet service requires massive amounts of resources, so it's not exactly the kind of thing you can get in a back-alley deal. Also, providers often have a local monopoly (I've heard a number of people say that Comcast is the only practical option in their area, for instance), so you can't always just switch.

  • 152. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:57 am

    While the effect of the ruling could certainly be the kind of censoring Dieter fears, the real reason Comcast was challenging the regulation seemed to be more about wanting to block access to sites that use a lot of bandwidth. Also, what the court seemed to hang its ruling on was that the FCC regulations was mere "policy" thus didn't carry adequate weight to require the ISPs to comply.

    Here's the AP report on the ruling: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM…

    I'll post a link for the actual ruling in another post

  • 153. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 6:58 am

    a snip from my email:

    Now, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon — the most powerful broadband providers — are trying to fundamentally change the way the Internet works. They're seeking to make even bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers over what you can see and do online. If they succeed, the Internet would be more like radio and television: a few major corporations would control which voices are heard most easily, and it would be much harder for grassroots groups, individuals, and small businesses to compete with large corporations and well-funded special interests.

    The FCC wants to do the right thing and keep the Internet open, but the big providers have been attacking their efforts, with help from Black leaders who have financial ties to the industry. And a court ruling yesterday just made the FCC's job even tougher1. If the FCC is to preserve an open Internet, they will have to boldly assert their authority and press even harder. It's why they need to hear directly from everyday people, especially from Black folks, about the importance of an open Internet, now.

    Can you join us in sending a message to the Federal Communications Commission supporting their effort to preserve an open Internet? It takes only a moment:
    http://www.colorofchange.org/opennet/?id=2022-104…

    The FCC is working to create rules that would protect "net neutrality," the principle that protects an open and free Internet and which has guided the Internet's operation since it began. It guarantees that information you put online is treated the same as anyone else's information in terms of its basic ability to travel across the Internet. Your own personal website or blog can compete on equal footing with the biggest companies. It's the reason the Internet is so diverse — and so powerful. Anyone with a good idea can find their audience online, whether or not there's money to promote the idea or money to be made from it.

    For Black folks, this is crucial. For the first time in history we can communicate with a global audience — for entertainment, education, or political organizing — without prohibitive costs, or mediation by gatekeepers in government or industry. That’s how ColorOfChange became successful: because of the low cost of starting up online, we could start small and grow without spending a lot of money. The strength of our ideas, not the size of our budget, determined our success. In television, radio and print, this can't happen, because access is determined by big media corporations seeking to turn a profit.

    AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are spending millions of dollars lobbying to create a new system where they can charge large fees to speed up some data while leaving those who can’t afford to pay in the slow lane.2 Such a system could end the Internet as we know it — giving wealthier voices on the Internet a much bigger megaphone than poorer voices, and stunting the Internet's amazing equalizing potential.

  • 154. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:00 am

    It's not the ruling itself (while I am a strong supporter of file sharing, it's not the big issue here), but the fact that the courts are essentially saying that providers are allowed to control how much access their users have on a case-by-case basis sets a dangerous precedent.

  • 155. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:01 am

    You can read the ruling here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29495188/Comcast-v-Fede…

    I meant to add to my above post — If it really is just about the Court thinking a FCC regulation is inadequate, the effect of the ruling could be overturned by passing legislation.

  • 156. dieter  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:01 am

    see…while the cable and internet providers are in charge…if a church like lets say the Mormon church offers Comcast 30 million dollars, then by morning…every site with the word gay in it becomes un accessible. period. Nothing we can do about it.
    and the courts have ruled that this is perfectly OK with them.

    GM offers another 30 million and suddenly..no-one will be able to find about any other car online..etc etc etc..see where this is going?

  • 157. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:02 am

    Why do the hateros not realize the internet on a cell phone is not the same as internet on the comp…there's no parental control and no censoring…..geeze these people are stupid….its called the T-E-C-H-N-O-L-O-G-Y/I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N age…..all it takes is for one I.T. genius a cell phone and BOOM!!!!…..Viral…..no offense older humans….but you guys created it….we mastered it….hindsight……like foresight but without a future….moving on….I'm going to update my iPhone now….hehehehe…maybe buy some new apps….<3…Ronnie

  • 158. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:05 am

    Unfortunately, I'm a poor college student with a minimum-wage job, so no iPhone for me. But I do have a nice shiny desktop computer.

  • 159. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:06 am

    I agree that this ruling is bad precedent. I don't know whether the Court followed well-established legal principles or was off-base in its conclusion because (1) I haven't read the ruling in its entirety, and (2) I don't know much about communications law.

    But as I said before, even if this decision stands, there appears to be an end-run around it by passing corrective legislation.

  • 160. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:16 am

    The majority of cells have internet access….nothing is regulated….and again the Hackers of the world will not allow the big business regulate anything w.w.w. wise….there are always ways around it….not to mention all the jobs that will be lost, the amount of law suits that will rise due to our lovely constitution…..<3…Ronnie

  • 161. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Ronnie, yes, they are really the same.

    An ISP serves as a gateway to the net. It doesn't matter what device you use — phone or home computer — you still need an ISP to access the net. When you use your cell phone to access, you may not be aware of who your ISP is. It might be the phone company with whom you're contracting or it might be a third-party your phone company contracts, but you still need an ISP to get on the net.

  • 162. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Ronnie, I don't know if you just didn't see my post before you posted yours, but fact is that cell phone access to the net goes through an ISP.

    I seem to recall one media report said the ISP's blocking of site access was done without subscribers' knowledge.
    Hackers aside (I'm not one), I want to know that when I pay for net access, my provider isn't engaging in censorship. I don't care if it's censorship based on ideology or their business plan, I want to know I'm getting what I paid for.

  • 163. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:41 am

    No there not the same….there's parental control on comps…there is none on cells…..and I guarantee you if the internet become regulated in the land of the free….the entire country will burn….JMHGO…<3….Ronnie

  • 164. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 7:45 am

    Parental controls aren't the problem, though. ISP censorship is what we're worried about, and that's just as likely to happen with broadband providers.

  • 165. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:00 am

    It'll never happen….the world is run on internet…..they will be stopping people from doing their jobs….again the law suits that will rise….this country will burn….not to mention if they band the words homosexuality or gay…nobody will have access to pretty much everything on the internet…..lost jobs….it'll never happen….the bible gone….NOM gone….Internet shopping for everything from barnes and nobles to best buy gone…..the word gay is also a name….it'll never happen…..<3….Ronnie

  • 166. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:01 am

    Broadband providers are just another form of ISP. Ronnie, you're not understanding the basic technology. You don't get on the net at all unless you have some sort of internet service provider.

    Let's say you have AT&T as your phone provider. Then it's your service through AT&T that's letting you connect to the web. If AT&T turned off your service tomorrow, your phone would not be able to connect to the web until you get it hooked up with another provider. The phone itself is not connecting you, it's just a device to allow you to access the web through a service provider.

    What this ruling is dealing with isn't the kind of censorship that comes from a parent choosing to block content. This isn't about a search engine deciding which search results you'll get. This is about the very service provider that lets you get on the net (for example the one you use through your phone service) deciding what content it will let you have access to, and often without ever even letting you know that your access has been restricted.

  • 167. rf  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:02 am

    Michaelangelo Signorile had someone on to talk about this. The fear is not that the internet would be censored in a way that we can all see and fight against but that internet providers will start charging websites to upload faster than other sites. So if General Motors wants to eliminate youtube for example, they could pay x millions of dollars and have their content stream twice as fast as youtube.people would just naturally tend towards the faster site everything else being equal and youtube might go out of business. then GM could start manipulating content in ways that benefit them. eventually the fastest sites will be controlled by the wealthiest companies.

    He also said that a legislative workaround will very likely never happen. In fact, its more likely that the legislature will try to throw an amendment into a larger bill that would stop the FCC from trying to fix this problem. All republicans and perhaps half of all democrats support the big telecoms. The only real solution is to get the FCC to put the regulations it took off the internet back on. It appears that the FCC wants to and its an easy fix but they must act before the legislature tries some underhanded trick to stop them or they get replaced by a republican president.

  • 168. Monty  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:05 am

    And after that Citizens United nonsense, politicians will be even more in the pocket of corporations. We're screwed.

  • 169. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:11 am

    again…it'll never happen…it'll never hold….it'll never work…..the law suits are limitless…..<3…Ronnie

  • 170. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Not if we screw them first…..<3….Ronnie

  • 171. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Ronnie, the practical effect of this ruling is going to be less about content censorship, per se, than it will be about opening up the door to charging people more money if they use a lot of broadband.

    So, if you're someone who likes to watch steaming videos online, especially movies, or likes to do online gaming, you use up a lot more broadband during your time on the computer than someone who just does searches and sends text-only email. Right now, if these two different users both sign up for high speed internet access, the one doing all the video watching is eating up a lot of the company's "product."

    So let's say the amount of broadband the company has available will accommodate either 10 video watchers or 1,000 emailers (i'm using ridiculously unrealistic numbers here just illustrate my point). And let's say you have to charge the same for your service no matter what kind of user you are. If you're the company, who are you going to want? You clearly would rather take in 1,000 times your monthly rate, rather than 10 times.

    So the company solves that problem by setting a bandwidth limit on the service you buy. After you've used up your share, you can't use it anymore. If you want more, you'll have to pay more for a higher bandwidth allotment. And I'm not talking about speed here. Although speed and bandwidth are inter-related to some extent, they are different.

    Right now, when you sign up for ISP service (usually with an expectation that it will be provided at certain download/upload speeds), you generally pay for that service at a set rate, independent of how much broadband you use. If the company gets bogged down by too many high bandwidth consumers, they either have to upgrade their infrastructure, take on fewer customers, or risk having a very unhappy customer base that eventually bails and ruins their business. (like what's happening right now with AT&T users in the NY Metro area).

    What this ruling opens up is a whole new world of paying through the nose to use your ISP for all the things you've grown accustomed to.

  • 172. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:42 am

    rf's comment above is particularly apt. In a practical sense this kind of preferential treatment given to website owners who pay for the privilege is the really more likely pernicious consequence.

  • 173. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 8:52 am

    About my earlier post — I'm not sure it expressed what I was really trying to say. Right now, some providers do provide "per unit of use" in various ways. What I really meant to illustrate and got waaaaay sidetracked was a scenario where the ISP could just decide that, given their capacity and number of subscribers, they could keep things moving by just blocking access to some of the high use sites during peak usage times. Why not, especially if they don't even have to tell their customers they're doing it? Or let people know that's what you get unless you pay a whole lot more.

  • 174. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 7, 2010 at 10:23 am

    Bob, I'm very happy to have enlightened you, and hope that I continue to do so!

    The Roman Catholic Church is not a creationist organization – like mainline Protestant churches, the official doctrine is theistic evolution, in other words, God created life but through natural processes like evolution. Since there are members of these churches who oppose same-sex marriage (the RCC has been especially vocal), what you end up with are a certain portion of the population who are pro-evolution and anti-marriage equality.

  • 175. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 10:48 am

    The Advocate has a cover story on AFER’s Chad Griffin:
    http://www.advocate.com/Politics/Marriage_Equality/40_Under_Forty_Chad_Griffin/

  • 176. Bob  |  April 7, 2010 at 11:24 am

    Kathleen, thanks again for the link, upsetting as it is for us, this is about free speach, and how else are we going to engage conversation about this side of the equation, if they aren't allowed some airtime,

    Are we saying that we have to keep him quiet because his misinformation might harm us, I say let it see the light of day, the only disagreement I have is that after opening this up, they need to follow through with an actual debate, him against a scientist from NASE, or even more preferable a representative of the APA .

    I want them to go even further and parade for us, the contented OUT EX-GAYS, if they can find them.

    I don't doubt there are some, and here we are saying they don't exist, the same thing they do to us. Let's get to know each other. Can't science help us show those ex-gays, are really not gays, but the questioning ones, or the !% on the Kinsey scale, They are nothing to fear.

    I suggest engaging, rather than shutting them up, because the end result will be the same, but achieved much quicker, I wonder what Chad would say about this?

  • 177. Bob  |  April 7, 2010 at 11:32 am

    Yup I say give him the whole stage, lot's of room, let him walk way out to the end of the limb, the branch will brake.

    The APA could then become involved and explain things for us,

    I'm a strong advocate for mental health, living with both mental illness, and HIV/AIDS for a quarter century, I am fortunate to have a good dr. however not so for the majority of AIDS patients, whose history is complicated, with addictions, childhood abuse, spiritual violence, (sorry I'm talking here of my gay brothers, ) they find it very difficult to get psychiatric help, One of the reasons, Psychiatrists are afraid to deal with homosexual patients, becuase they might be seen as treating homosexuality,

  • 178. Bob  |  April 7, 2010 at 11:48 am

    thanks, did you read Kathleen/s article 10 re firing of FR. Coyne, seems the present pope set things back a tad.

    That's the problem, they each bring their own personal slant to the throne. And we wait, for the enlightened one to come (I mean Pope)

    Meantime, there's a big disconnect betwen what he actually believes, and what his followers do. I'm just trying to figure out how we could identify, that group in the middle and engage them? (pro SSM) within the Catholic Church, cause they're there.

  • 179. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 7, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    Ronnie, they have already screwed us twice. First with the Citizen United ruling against any regulations limiting how much the big corporations could contribute to political campaigns, and now with ths. And not only did they NOT use any lube or prophylactics, they did not even bother to kiss us or give us a reach-around when they did it. So get ready for the World according to Westinghouse.

  • 180. Ronnie  |  April 7, 2010 at 12:10 pm

    You'd think with all this screwing going on….somebody would be happy….yeah?…..<3….Ronnie

  • 181. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 7, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Bob (and Kathleen),

    Prof. Coyne and his successor, José Gabriel Funes, have both denied that his retirement had anything to do with his views on ID. Coyne is still working hard to promote acceptance of evolution, and I had the pleasure of corresponding with him on that topic. I was worried that Christoph Cardinal Schönborn might be pushing ID around 2005, but that seems to have fallen flat as well. Witness the conference in Rome hosted in March 2009 by the Vatican where ID proponents were pointedly excluded.

    As for acceptance of SSM by the Church, I think the best we can hope for is a retreat from entanglements in civil marriage laws, especially funding anti-SSM propositions (see Maine). State-by-state successes in marriage equality will help – I think it's only a matter of time before it comes to New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York, regardless of the trial outcome. It becomes harder and harder to speak out against something that obviously isn't hurting anyone.

  • 182. Bob  |  April 7, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Amen, thanks for that clarification, bless Fr. Coyne, and it brings me comfort knowing that you have communicated with him about these things, sounds like you got that angle covered. It does help in my dialogue though, because the other churches always use that unholy alliance with the catholics (because of their power) to say they are united with them in the battle re SSM, but that's the only place they're joined. My I would love to meet Fr Coyne.
    I was alarmed when the professor of seminary studies for the Lutheran Church Canada played this card in our dialog, They'e just not the same thing at all. He says they can join in the battle to save christianity, but just ask them for who's God.

  • 183. Kathleen  |  April 7, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I'm really glad to hear that SA. I've seen broadcasts of several of Fr. Coyne speeches and participation in panels over the years and really respect him. I've always thought the fact that modern Catholic Church recognized that science and religion are two different subjects and not necessarily in conflict with each other a very, very good thing. This is especially so, when you consider the broad influence the RCC has in the world. It's a great relief to learn that Fr Coyne's firing was not the sign of retreat that I'd heard it was.

    I'm not looking for the RCC to approve of ssm. I'll be perfectly happy if they take a similar position on this topic — recognizing that civil and religious marriages are two different things and they are not necessarily in conflict with each other. As much as I'd love for these religions to "grow up" wrt their views of homosexuality, I'll gladly leave them to interpret their scriptures any way they want if they just don't try to impose their interpretations on civil law and play nice with the rest of us who don't believe the same.

  • 184. Carvel  |  April 7, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Homosexuality is something that has to be treated. Not as a disease, but like being left handed. There are so many things in the world that are not set up for us to use and be comfortable with. A hundred years ago the answer for left handed people was they tried to convert them into right handed people and it failed miserably. When will the people of the world learn that some people are just different.

    Different isn't better or worse, it is just different. Homosexuality needs to be treated in that we need to learn who and what we are and how to accept ourselves. We need to accept ourselves without shame or embarassment. I knew so many young people in my time that turned to alcohol, drugs and addictions of various sorts to cope with being gay. They could not change being gay and their family and society could not cope with them being gay so they ran away from it. They used drugs, alcohol and anything they could get their hands ont to escape from reality.

    However, when reality is not so bad, then you really do not need to escape. As bad as all the religious right is to us and for society, we are hardest on ourselves when we struggle and fight not to be the way God made us. That is how we need to treat homosexuality. Teach people to be happy being who they are.

    In this case the cure for homosexuality is worse than the condition or disease. I am happy being me and I have learned to accept me. It is the other people who have a problem with me. And you know what, I just don't care at this point and stage in my life.

  • 185. Bob  |  April 8, 2010 at 3:26 am

    Okay Straight Ally #3008, one last comment , then I'll stop obsessing about the Catholic Church,,,,(well for a few days anyway),
    Have you ever heard of the RomanCatholicWomanPriests, talk about change quietly happening on the inside, if the link doesn''t come up you can google it, Wonder if Fr. Coyne is in favour of their work?
    Maybe it's them that will Be The Change, and not the Gay Priests……………….

  • 186. Straight Ally #3008  |  April 8, 2010 at 3:58 am

    Bob,

    I'll play armchair theologian about change in the Church. I do think there will be a greater role for women, although the priesthood is very unlikely. There have been altar girls for some time, women serve as lectors and eucharistic ministers and in important lay administrative positions. Maybe female deacons will be allowed at some point.

    I think a more likely change is to relax the requirement for celibacy. Married priests already exist; those originally from the Anglican communion and elsewhere have been ordained in the RCC. In another This American Life episode, a former priest noted that he knew of many cases where priests broke their vow of celibacy. Furthermore, celibacy was not mandatory until the 12th century; it's a matter of ecclesiastical law, so Pope Benedict could change it tomorrow. Ultimately, one change could affect the other, but it's all speculation on my part.

  • 187. Richard A. Walter (s  |  April 8, 2010 at 5:34 am

    Straight Ally #3008, women ar also allowed to be cantors for the liturgy.

  • 188. Bob  |  April 8, 2010 at 6:00 am

    one last stab at this, have you googled RomanCatholicWomanPriests, I've tried to post their link but it won't come through, by googling you come to their page.
    These priests have been secretly ordained,, through the proper channels by bishops, they refuse ex-communication, and are continuing there ministry, without the popes blessings. sorry to be a pest, I understand everything you've said about the role of woman, I just want to know if you have read about these woman who consider themselves catholic and work for change.
    Richard, thanks for your post before, will you google

    RomanCatholicWomanPriests and give me some feedback, please do we just ignore there existance

  • 189. Carvel  |  April 12, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    I keep telling people everywhere we are not trying to redefine marriage. There have been same sex marriages since before the birth of Jesus Christ. They were only outlawed by Rome when it became Christian in the 4th century and the church made the government change the law and forbid SSM. The Christian church was the first ones who tried to redefine marriage. They hijacked it and redefined it and we are just trying to undo what they did a long time ago. They threw the first punch. THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH REDEFINED MARRIAGE WE DIDN'T. Now we just want to get it back.

    SSM is older than Christianity. Tradition religion is paganism as it is the one that has been around the longest. Stop fallinginto their catch phrase mentality by believing their cleaver slogans. Right to life is not what it seems either. Right to life means that a woman does not have the right to her life, but a bunch of cells that have never had legal rights does and the cells rights trumps the mother's rights.

  • 190. Kathleen  |  April 26, 2010 at 8:10 am

    Bill to amend this section passes Assembly, now goes to State Senate: http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_149…

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required), (Hidden)

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL  |  RSS feed for comments on this post.

Having technical problems? E-mail prop8trial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!