|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Christian conservatives in California, a less than popular group, must be sweating bullets. Their days of influence in this state might be near an end. Yesterday California became the first state to legalize gay marriage without being mandated to do so by a court order. The hot potato is in the hands of Governor SCHWARZENEGGER, who is a supposed libertarian, a social liberal and a man with a 30-something approval rating. What will he do? When he was running for governor, it was widely reported that ARNOLD supported gay marriage, or at least, civil unions. But that was before the "politics of hate" campaign waged by President BUSH and KARL ROVE during the 2004 presidential race. In November 11 states voted down the red herring issue at the polls. Since then, the country has been bitterly divided with more than 50% nationally opposing gay marriage, per se.
Clearly, though, Governor SCHWARZENEGGER would prefer the matter be decided by the courts. Unfortunately for him, the passage came a few months too early, as there are several key rulings expected from the California Supreme Court in the coming months. It is highly unlikely any ruling would come before October 9th, the deadline for SCHWARZENEGGER to act. California already has one of the most liberal laws in the nation granting many This law would change the wording of the marriage statute to "a civil contract between two persons" versus "a man and a woman." California would join Massachusetts as the only other state to allow marriage for same sex partners. Worldwide, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and most recently Spain have amended their laws to recognize the right of marriage for same sex couples. So, it comes down to the RUNNING MAN, who must make a difficult decision at a time when his popularity is at an all time low. Will he have TOTAL RECALL and go back to the candidate he was when he was just a movie star with political aspirations? Or was all of that just TRUE LIES from THE TERMINATOR who would ERASE the hopes of gays and lesbians in California? Either way, one side of this fiery issue will swallow a RAW DEAL and ARNOLD will no doubt suffer COLLATERAL DAMAGE. There seems to be no way for SCHWARZENEGGER to avoid being the THE VILLAIN and his decision might very well send him back to PUMPING IRON instead of making policy for the largest state in the nation?
|
In California, opinions are not as clear. Some polls that show 48% of the state's voters approve of the measure, with 46% opposed. The bill's sponsor, Assemblyman MARK LENO believes the governor is a big thinker, and would like to be on the right side of this issue over the long term. If so, the thinking is he would approve it. It would certainly recast ARNOLD, the politician, in a new light before a state whose voters don't hesitate to lead the nation in progressive policies.
rights, privileges and responsibilities to those gays and lesbians who register as domestic partners. The courts have been consistently expanding rights and responsibilities for gays and lesbians, just last month ruling that lesbians who parent a child must pay child support on the breakup of their relationship, and requiring a country club to grant spousal use of the facilities to a lesbian spouse of a member .
In a stunning display of clarity and reason, Canada's House of Commons voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage 158-133. It was stunning not because it happened in Canada, for that country is way ahead of the United States in implementing difficult minority rights issues into the daily lives of it's citizens. No, what is stunning is that it actually happened without the rhetoric and hyperbole that has dominated the issue in the United States, particularly after the most recent election. And Canada's Prime Minister, PAUL MARTIN, is a Roman Catholic! Listen to this: "We are a nation of minorities, and in a nation of minorities, it is important that you don't cherry-pick rights. A right is a right, and that is what this vote tonight is all about." Hello! Why can't this country, the one that is supposedly founded on human rights, get that right? The Senate in Canada must pass the bill before it becomes law, but that is expected perhaps before the end of the summer. If that happens, Canada will join Belgium and the Netherlands as the only two other countries on the planet where gays and lesbians are entitled to be married. Spain is expected to join that list sometime this summer. The passage will unify a practice that was already underway in the country. In 9 of Canada's 13 provinces, gay and lesbian marriage was already legal. And it wasn't really much of an issue in those provinces. Imagine that, eh. |
The Massachusetts Supreme Court said it yesterday, and the stage is set. A civil union is not sufficient to insure the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians are satisfied, and so legislators in that state must go about the business of codifying the right to marry for all citizens of that state. That paves the way for what could be a bitter and divided fight that could end up with a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Chief Justice MARGARET MARSHALL reasoned that the state couldn’t require religious groups to recognize gay marriage, but “neither may the government, under the guise of protecting ‘traditional values’, even if they be traditional values of the majority, enshrine in law an invidious discrimination” that is outlawed by our constitution. That should create major problems for the Democratic candidates, who thus far, have struggled to get their collective minds and stump speeches around the concept of gay “marriage, in favor of half-heartedly throwing behind the compromise position of civil unions. Only DENNIS KUCINICH and AL SHARPTON support gay and lesbian marriages. As the Reverend SHARPTON puts it, “Limiting homosexuals to civil unions is like saying we’ll give blacks or Latinos the rights to shack up, but not marry.” The looming dispute dovetails nicely into the Republicans expected wedge-issue presidential campaign strategy. But SHARPTON, KUCINICH, and Justice MARSHALL are exactly right. The rest of the Democrats running for president, well intended though they might be, are dead wrong on this issue. Marriage is about family, open, universally recognized and given value by all. It’s not just about similar rights and privileges. To create two classes of families in this country, one with the imprimatur of marriage and all that is good and fine; and the other with the stigma of some lesser, immoral circumstance would be disastrous, not to mention illegal under every notion of fairness our constitution was designed to protect. “The dissimilitude between the terms ‘civil marriage’ and ‘civil union’ is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual couples to second-class status,” MARSHALL went on to write. There cannot be 2 levels of families in our communities. Either gays and lesbians are equal citizens, with relationships that are equal in value and significance, as well as legality to the rest of the country, or they are second-class and not equal. Either we realize that everyone has the same right to live, and love and pursue a full and meaningful existence, or we are no different than the Nazis in HITLER’S Germany, or the slave traders of the pre-civil war era in this country. It’s not just about gays and lesbians having access to loved ones on their deathbeds, or the benefits of tax laws aimed at fostering familial relationships. It’s about gays and lesbians being seen and recognized as equal. It’s about everyone recognizing that their similarly committed relationships have the same import that a married might. And it’s about providing to gays and lesbians the same right to that special place they can call home, in a family, with a spouse, one person to share one’s life with. No one, especially not the government, should question the legitimacy of that. No one!. How it could be any other way is mind boggling, not to mention, as some sane justices reminded us yesterday, contrary to our revered constitution and the concept that “all men are created equal.” |
The NATIONAL LEAGUE of JUNIOR COTILLIONS has named CLAY AIKEN, the runner-up in last year’s AMERICAN IDOL contest, as the BEST MANNERED PERSON of 2003. It was the 12th annual contest by the group, which is an etiquette and social club out of Charlotte, North Carolina. Coincidently, AIKEN graduated from UNC, CHARLOTTE this past weekend. Others making the list of well-mannered persons for 2003 were: 2. OPRAH WINFREY 3. General TOMMY FRANKS 4. Atlanta Falcons Quarterback MICHAEL VICK 5. Shark bit surfer BETHANY HAMILTON 6. TOM BROKAW 7. First Lady LAURA BUSH 8. MEL GIBSON 9. National Security Advisor CONDOLEEZA RICE 10. British PM TONY BLAIR |
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DEPP got his start in 1984 in NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, and got his first real notice in the television series, 21 JUMP STREET where he appeared from 1987-1990. The runners up, in order of PEOPLE’S preference are:
|
Newly elected Epicopal bishop GENE ROBINSON granted his first interview to CNN after the weelend's tumultous events. He has been called a "cancer in the body of Christ" and is being blamed for an impending split in the Epicipal church, but he came off, in the interview at least, as a calm, reasonable, everyman. That's no small feat given the intense media scrutiny and overall pressure that engulfed his election, by a surprisingly easy 62-45 vote. Recent events in our Supreme Court and in the government in Canada have brought the issue of gay marriage to a boiling point in this country. The appointment of a gay bishop is thought to be a precursor to the consideration of gay marriage in the Epicopal church. If so, Bishop GENE ROBINSON seems up to the task of leading the fight. He survived a last minute character assassination, largely upon procedures he helped draft and implement in his church. And in his first interview following his election, he responded to the matter with diplomacy, candor and an accessability largely unseen in the clergy. Just think about the last time you saw a minister, much less a bishop who seemed ordinary, reasonable, and overall, quite likeable. And this is when he's discussing his alleged sexual harrassment, his open status as a gay man, and his herecy and the pending destruction of the Episcopal church at his very hand. Amazing performance indeed. The fact is, this issue will not split the church. If anyone thinks he is the only gay minister in religion today, they're kidding themselves. The Epicopalians threatened doom and gloom in the 70's when the church approved the ordination of women and in the 80's when BARBARA HARRIS was ordained as the first woman bishop. No such disaster followed. Bishop ROBINSON will have no easy road ahead. He finds himself under the microscopic eye of the media and conservatives in a most precarious time. When the issue of gay marriage surfaces in the Episcopal church the sacraments will really hit the fan. But if Bishop ROBINSON is who he appears to be, look for the Episcopal church to bring some equality, rationality and humanity to the fight. Somebody else said it. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” For gays and lesbians these days it seems that time is now. There are more gay and lesbian shows on primetime television these days than shows starring Catholics, Arabs, Asians, octogenarians, midgets, and Latinos combined. To be gay now is like having the best car or the best wardrobe on the block. Well, it’s always been like that, but now everybody recognizes it. And a lot of folks don’t like it. To wake up Sunday morning and discover Attorney General ASHCROFT and his posse at Justice are the “lawyers looking into codifying” President BUSH’s vision of marriage, that being between “a man and a woman” was quite a wake-up call. With all the craziness going on in the world, it’s more than a little troubling to learn that the nations law enforcement team are expending any resources at all on ways to prevent gays and lesbians from living in stable, loving relationships. Surely there are better ways to use these valuable talents. Aren’t there Al Queda operatives out there plotting our nation’s demise? Where are OSAMA and SADDAM, anyway? Heck, even the online gambling industry, operating unregulated offshore merits the scheming and plotting of ASHCROFT and his posse over the home lives of the nation’s gays and lesbians. Nevertheless, gay marriage was all over the Sun day news programs. It’s shaping up to be a wedge issue in the upcoming presidential race. If the religious right has its’ way, it’ll be more like a sledgehammer issue well before the election. The American public is not comfortable with this new emergence of gays. And conservatives will not miss the opportunity to capitalize. No matter that the arguments make no sense. On FACE THE NATION, some GENIVIEVE from some FAMILY RESEARCH something or other tried to justify banning gay marriage because it would destroy the social structure that is best for the raising of children, a two parent household, bound by the marriage of a man and a woman. Not a bad argument, except for divorce. If society sanctions marriage between 2 straight people because it is of primary importance to raise children in financially stable environments, then separation and divorce are the biggest threats to that structure, not gay marriage. But the right doesn’t need to be logical, just anti-gay. And the American public is buying it! Why gays and lesbians want to adopt an antiquated social structure imposed upon society by religious institutions as a way to exploit and extend their dominion and control over the public is beyond me. The model doesn’t even work that well for straight people, and that’s with all of the myth and romanticism, as well as the reinforcement and social pressures of the community at work to make it succeed. Straights still get divorced at nearly a 50% clip. Broken homes are as prevalent, if not more so, than stable, happy families. I’m not convinced that raising children in isolated and varied units, particularly in those households where the parents fell trapped by a social compact that just isn’t working for them, is the best way to rear children. My few courses in anthropology lead me to wonder whether children might not be better prepared to become able and contributing members of society by growing up in stable group environments, like chimps or gorillas. There, they have the full range of benefits from the groups best elders-they are fed by the best cook, nurtured by the best coddlers, taught by the best teachers, and protected by the strongest and most feared fighters. Compare that to the random and happenstance upbringing most children find themselves in when they come into this world. That, I’m afraid is another article altogether, if not an entire series of articles. Suffice to say, do gays really want marriage in the traditional sense? Or do they want the myriad rights and privileges afforded to married straight couples, without the grief associated with that antiquated device? Why shouldn’t gay “families” have similar rights of visitation with their loved ones who might lie dying in a hospital? Straight couples shouldn’t be the only ones with pension and other benefit rights that stem from a lifetime of employment. If there are tax advantages that flow from living committed, devoted lives, then gays ought be afforded those same options. And why should a straight person have the exclusive right to fall in love with someone from another country, and make that person a citizen, thus preserving a lawful life between that couple in this country. A gay couple under the same circumstances would either be forced to live elsewhere, or live as criminals. At the end of the day, Americans support equalizing these inequities for couples who choose to live their lives in committed, respectable relationships. Civil unions will likely be the vehicle from which this equality will flow. Of the 9 Democratic presidential contenders, only AL SHARPTON and DENNIS KUCINICH fully support gay marriage in the traditional sense. Even frontrunner and liberal crusader HOWARD DEAN doesn’t back gay marriages. He pioneered civil union status in the state of Vermont, and would do so nationally of elected. Even President CLINTON himself, who championed the bridge to the 21st century upon which we all would walk, signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically defines marriage as that between 1 man and 1 woman. So despite the recent landmark Supreme Court ruling, gays and lesbians find themselves still at a critical brink in time: will gay and lesbian relationships be recognized by the government, and afforded the same rights and privileges that straight people enjoy? Listening to the President last week in one of his rare press conferences, or to the Attorney General on Sunday, one could not be heartened by the fact that neither could even bring themselves to say the words civil unions. Even the Vatican joined the fray issuing a 12-page imperative describing gay marriage as “immoral”. (The irony is astounding-a criminal enterprise that harbors and enables child molesters is preaching about morality and in doing so condemning those who want to live in stable relationships.) In a surprise development, the Episcopal Church late Sunday evening voted to approve the election of an openly gay bishop, Canon V. Gene Robinson. He faces another vote by the congregation, but he could be the next front in the battle, which despite “QUEER EYE” and “BOY MEETS BOT”, has just begun. But that result may create a real dilemma for Democratic candidates in 2004. That dilemma emerged Tuesday, as the HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN hosted a Democratic presidential contenders forum in Washington D. C. to speak to members of the gay and lesbian community on issues relevant to them. Marriage was on everyone's minds. As it turns the only candidates who could utter the word in connection with gays and lesbians without any hesitation or discomfort were the Reverend AL SHARPTON and congressman DENNIS KUCINICH.. Most of the candidates could clearly get their minds around the concept of civil unions, a device Governor HOWARD DEAN instituted in his state of Virginia, in a bold step at the time. But there was tap dancing on the head of a pin when it came time to endorse the concept of gay and lesbian marriage. JOHN KERRY was firm in his distinction between a traditional marriage between a man and a woman, and the civil unions he envisions for gays. When rumblings broke out in the audience, a stern KERRY proclaimed "That is a historical, cultural view...That's my opinion." SHARPTON critcized "That's like saying we'll give blacks or whites or Latinos the rights to shack up, but not marry," CAROL MOSLEY BRAUN came close to advocating gay marriage. She said she would use the presidency to get the states to do the right thing, but took the position that it should be up to the states to decide. Even HOWARD DEAN shied away from granting gays and lesbians the right to marry traditonally. He seemed reluctant to infringe on the traditonal act of marriage, but would push for a national civil union law. Senator JOSEPH LIEBERMAN supports cicil unions, as does Congressman DICK GEBHARDT. Senator JOHN EDWARDS and Senator BOB GRAHAM did not attend the event, but sent word that they opposed gay marriage, but supported extending rights of gay and lesbian couples. In light of the relative ease with which the Canadians recently put this issue to bed, it points out just how far we have to go, despite coming an awfully long way, baby.
Canada is once again leading the way to a tolerant society in the 21st century. The country with the amazing roads, universal health care, as well as gays and lesbians in the scouts and armed forces, is now sanctioning gay marriage. In June, the Ontario Provincial Court threw out the concept of gender in the definition of marriage, and retroactively recognized 2 marriages which tool place in Toronto in 2001. At the same time, the court is ordering the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to all those same sex couples that apply. The Chretien government announced on June 18 that it will noy challenge the law, and has begun drafting the legislation. Until such time, same sex marriage is officially sanctioned by the government of Canada. That goes a step further than Quebec and the state of Vermont, which recognize civil unions, but not marriages. Canada joins Belgium and the Netherlands as the 3 countries who recognize same sex marriage.  Attorney General ASHCROFT continues to reign in civil liberties, particularly those enjooyed by minorities in this country. After coming under some pressure from neo-conservatives for acquiesing to federal government pride festivities at the Justice Departmentfor the first 2 years of the BUSH administration, ASHCROFT announced there would be no velebration this year. He cited the failure by President BUSH to proclaim June PRIDE MONTH, as CLINTON had initiated in 1994, as the reason for the ban on the celebration. The event was marked last year in the Great Hall by a speech from LARRY THOMPSON, the second highest ranking official at Justice. But in a shift of policy, and after an angry letter from New Jersey Senator FRANK LAUTENBERG, ASHCROFT decided to allow the festivities provided the participants pay for the event. The Great Hall, however, will not be available. Can we please make a note, all you gays and lesbians out there-let's make sure to get out and vote next year, so we can put this monster into premanent retirement!  
 Actor RICHARD CHAMBERLAIN, 69 years old and the former hearthrob DOCTOR KILDARE from 4 decades ago, has come out of the closet, admitting "I'm not afriad anymore." The star of two of the most successful miniseries of all time, THE THORN BIRDS and SHOGUN told NBC'S DATELINE "I'm not a romantic leading man anymore, so I don't need to nurture that public image," . The book, entitled SHATTERED LOVE, discusses a decades long relationship with MARTIN, many years his junior, but is notable for is lack of dish on the many Hollywood legends he had the opportunity to work with over the years. CHAMBERLAIN, who lives in Hawaii, had nothing but nice things to say. How refreshing.
SANTORUM interviewed on this date on FOX NEWS CHANNEL, itself a shameless bullhorn of hate and conservatism, said quite proudly, "I do not need to give an apology…I think this is a legitimate public policy discussion." Legitimate? Come on. The police wrongly entered the home of a gay man, engaged in private, consensual sex. SANTORUM would have America believe it is right for the police to arrest and prosecute these men, lest the state would have no legitimate interest in prosecuting bigotry, or bestiality, or incest, or adultery. I don’t know where RICK lives in Pennsylvania, but I would venture to say these other things he’s so worried about don’t get onto the dockets of criminal jurisdictions in very many courtrooms as it is. Who is he kidding? Can you imagine if D.A.’s were in the business of filing criminal warrants against every straight who ahs had an extra-marital affair. Our judicial system would be all gunked-up just dealing with those cases originating out of D.C. The act of sex between two consenting adults, whether straight or gay may be part of a committed relationship, or may not. To compare gays to those who commit incest, or bestiality, or adultery, or even polygamy would be comical in its’ stupidity were it not so disturbing in its’ lack of tolerance and understanding. And this is from one of our country’s younger leaders. Such vitriol could just have easily come from the likes of SADDAM HUSSEIN or the AYATOLLAH KHOUMENI. It is perhaps much ado about nothing more than a little podium time on the conservative bully pulpit for SANTORUM. The ultra-patriotic/conservative schtick is going to be quite in for a while, and RICK’S wasting no time getting to the front of the trend. In reality, if the indications from the Supreme Court are accurate, it seems the Justices are going to side against the State of Texas on this one. They will no doubt avoid the privacy question raised by the facts and rely on the less fateful equal protection aspects of the case. The Texas law does not prohibit sodomy amongst straights, and it is for that reason that it will fail, saving this conservative leaning Court from explicitly including within the right of privacy, gays having sex in their own homes. A decision as such would no doubt be a victory for gay rights, however slow the gains are in coming. The law should be struck down as SANTORUM apparently fears, on the right of privacy. No such luck with this Court. I thought Republicans wanted less government in our lives. Ever since BILL & MONICA, Republicans can’t seem to get their mind off of the private consensual sex lives of good and decent Americans. They clearly aren’t getting enough of their own.
Insensitive, divisive, disturbing, backwards and unfortunate indeed! The remarks are tantamount to a deprivation of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness for a whole class of tax-paying, society-contributing people. The remarks are hateful and unbecoming of a Christian, no a Roman Catholic. The remarks separate out a distinct group of citizens as targets for persecution, discrimination and violence. The remarks show just how hypocritical all that talk of inclusion from Republican officials and President BUSH himself really is. Where is the outrage from the White House? I guess gays and lesbians don’t matter. The remarks are a continuing harbinger of the erosion of civil rights in this country. That erosion is being fueled by neo-conservatives who have in their sites gays and lesbians, now. Liberal democrats beware. And Democratic hopefuls, pull your heads out!
|
|
|
 |
|
© Copyright 1995-2003 Manmade Multimedia, Inc. All rights reserved. |