Matthew Patterson: Why would you think, if you self-identified as lesbian, that the board didn't mean only men?
Luigi Novi: Because nothing indicates that it does. The word “gay” doesn’t refer only to men.

Matthew Patterson: It's a bit like calling a board, I don't know, "Asian Issues," and expecting people to automatically realize that you're talking about India. Because, yeah, India's in Asia, but it's not generally referred to as generically "Asian."
Luigi Novi: But homosexual men and women are generically referred to as “gay.”

Luigi Novi: By contrast, they're going to see "GLBT", and know what it means? Isn't it the other way around? Which word and its meaning is more common?

Matthew Patterson: So we should pander to popular stereotypes and thereby increase their power?
Luigi Novi: ?????????? Who said anything about stereotypes?

Matthew Patterson: We shouldn't attempt to educate and be a little more inclusive every now and then?
Luigi Novi: Isn’t that my position? That the word gay includes both men and women?

MikeC: I think the board might be better off labeled as GLBT because as the board stands now, bisexuality is also left off the title.
Luigi Novi: Which I did not see a problem with, since no one is trying to make marriage, for example, legal for gays, but illegal for bisexuals. If you’re bisexual, and you end up marrying someone of the opposite sex, the point is moot. If you end up wanting to marry someone of the same sex, then the situation is a homosexual one. As a matter of debating social issues, is that distinction relevant?

Matthew Patterson: We could simply call the board "Queer Issues," thereby eliminating both your problem and mine, except then I'd have to spend three pages explaining what "queer" means in an academic and sociopolitical context, and still nobody would get it.)

MikeC: And if GLBT is confusing, how about just writing Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered Issues?
Luigi Novi: Done.

---

Quote:

But homosexual men and women are generically referred to as “gay.”

---

Two High Courts made same-sex marriage decisions yesterday.

South Africa's Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled in favor (or is it favour) of same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided to duck the issue for now, declining to hear a challenge to the Massachusetts ruling.

Good lord. Given how recently South Africa abolished apartheid, did they just leapfrog over us socially?

Luigi: Good lord. Given how recently South Africa abolished apartheid, did they just leapfrog over us socially?

That's been happening a lot lately. America in the interim has been slipping backwards quite a bit.

Let's not be too hasty. Do recall that the greatest expansion of the civil rights of GLBT people in this country has come while George W. Bush has been President, after all. I would say, rather, that we are simply not moving forwards quickly enough.

Another sign that we're living in Bush's America:

CBS and NBC are refusing to air an ad from the United Church of Christ because the spot, intended to make the point that the Protestant denomination is welcoming, briefly shows two men who are holding hands being turned away from an unnamed church.

In a letter to the denomination, a CBS official said, "Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations, and the fact that the Executive Branch [the Bush Administration] has recently proposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Ralph G. Neas, president of the People for the American Way Foundation, issued a statement declaring, "It is beyond troubling, it is downright dangerous that the American ideal of inclusion is too 'controversial' for a network news broadcast because it conflicts with the political agenda of the White House."

I don't see what a proposal by the Bush administration has to do with acceptability for broadcast on the part of CBS, which is a private organization not connected to the government. What do they care what the administration is doing. If they don't want to air because they don't like it, they should just say so. Not pretend that what is acceptable is predicated on the sensibilities of the current administration.

Michigan's governor is planning to reneg on state government employee union contracts that offer "domestic partner" health benefits.

Granholm claims that the public vote for a state constitutional amendment (Proposal 2) clearly includes forbidding "similar unions for any purpose.

.......

Elsewhere in the world, New Zealand is considering legalizing civil unions. The measure is not unopposed, but there are signs that it has more support than in Australia, where Parliament has inserted the following into the Marriage Act:

"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

"Certain unions are not marriages: a union solemnized in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognized as a marriage in Australia."

Sounds like it could be interpreted that way. How lovely. When did the world decide to slide into a superstitious dark ages again.

Maybe you dont realize this, but being a student of history, homosexuality has gone through many phases of being semi accepted and then rejected. It's just one of those things..

Kindly provide examples.

Homosexuality, as we define it today, is an invention of the mid-twentieth century. Previous centuries had different interpretations on the acceptability of same-sex associations that include various degrees of intimacy, usually (though admittedly not always) short of "sodomy," which was the only forbidden aspect of such relationships. (And even that was usually overlooked if it was descrete.)

Today's homophobic attitudes are such that a boy who looks too much like a "sissy" can be assaulted, regardless of his actual orientation.

The only permissible "male bonding" is on the football field -- it can spill over into the locker room only to the extent of "bragging" about (hetero-)sexual conquests, but it must never extend into the showers.

Yes there is a definite "gay culture" that provides a homophilic opposite pole. And yes, within this "culture" a wavering or uncertain attraction is ecouraged to "bloom" into full homosexuality, but it as much the blame of the abscence of an official recognition of the acceptability of same-sex emotional intimacy that there is no "safe" middle ground.

First, I'd like to apologize for my last post. I wrote it in a hurry (I had some errands to run and had to log off) without thinking it out the way I prefer to when writing on something serious. Also, in my head I combined Derrick's post with a post from another location: a "gay conspiracy to seduce/indocrinate innocent children. On re-reading it, the haste and confusion come through much more clearly than the points I was trying to make.

The first, and only clear, point was that when Derrick mentioned "homosexuality has gone through many phases..." the general understanding of the definition of "sodomites" was not the same as what we today would consider "homosexuals" or gays.

While there have been periods where certain classes of people equate a person's whole being as being defined by a single action, particularly if that action is a crime (for example Jean val Jean in Les Miserables defined by Javert as a thief for one act of thievery), for the most part, a single act did not define a person's character, unless it was done as a defining act (an act of extraordinary courage or overwhelming depravity.)

One or two, or even regular, though occassional, acts did not make you a "sodomite," but only repeated and/or defiant acts of open depravity.

My second clearest (albeit far less clear than the first) point was that it is not an act of conspiracy or predation to continue to provide a non-judgmental point of view on a given issue just because the opposite side has decided to condemn even a questioning of one's own feelings on the issue.

When looked at historically, the evidence, that "gay conspiracy" advocates like to trot out does not condemn the "gay culture" for "indocrination," but the "straight" culture for abandonment.

I think there were a couple of other points I was trying to make, but even I can't recognize them in the jumbled thinking of my previous post.

Actually history was one of the majors I held in high school and college and do recognize that the behavior that is known as homosexuality has only become as recognizeable as such in the past few hundred years. And generally over those past few hundred years it has been condemned as an unnatural and immoral behavior.

During WWII just being homosexual in the Navy was enough to get a person courts-martialed and sent to Leavenworth. During the 50's it was enough to ruin careers and destroy families. Just for 2 examples.

Actually it was just around the time of WWII that the paradigm shifted from a focus on the crime of sodomy to ostracizing and imprisoning someone simply for being a "homosexual."

The first large-scale persecution of homosexuals as a group was by the Nazis during the Holocaust, where they were declared to be sub-human, just as the Jews and the Gypsies were

And it was the equating of "homosexuality" with Communism under the like of McCarthy, Kohn, and Shine that completed the shift and caused the condemnation of even self-questioning that I mentioned.

The earliest sign that I personally have seen of the shift was in the writings of C. S. Lewis, where he defines "phileo" (one of three Greek words for love) as friendship or the relationship between colleagues. He indicated that such colleagues would base their relationship entirely on their shared vocation or avocation. There should be no emotion in the relationship under normal circumstances. If an emergency came up for such a friend, you would, of course offer any help they need, but it would be embarrassing for both of you to talk about it, or even think about it too much.

That it was a paradigm shift is also indicated by Lewis' writings. In one of his autobiographical writings he mentions, without condemnation, the boys in his public school that regularly "bottomed" (not his word) for the others. He mentioned that both those boys and the ones they serviced grew up to be normal and productive members of society.

I can reach all the way back to sodom and Ghamorra is i wanted to. But i'm pretty sure it was a widespread pracitce amond the greeks and romans...IN certain towns and cities

Derrick-

I'm not sure, but with this latest post, I'm getting the impression that your point in your previous post is not what I thought it was. The trouble is, that in that case, I can't see any point at all. Could you please clarify. Thank you.

I can reach all the way back to sodom and Ghamorra is i wanted to.

No, we don't want to discuss the sexual orientation of Japanese movie monsters here.

I'm really rather surprised that I have heard nothing about what I saw Friday night. On the show Quintuplets, it ended with two girls kissing (performing a play). It was just a quick one, but followed up by a real smooch. At the very end a boy who was obviously meant to read as gay virtually attacked one of the regular characters and gave him a full-on kiss on the mouth too.

Maybe this kind of thing is getting more common -- I don't watch all that much TV -- but I remember the big deal made about the early women's kisses (one on L.A Law, another on Roseanne), and am curious because this seems to have broken another boundary, in that these were supposed to be 15- or 16-year-olds doing it.

Gamera and Gurion: The Untold Story.

In my post of Nov 13, I mentioned that oral arguments in New Jersey's same-sex marriage appeal would begin today. So this is mostly just a chance to give those who will be affected by the decision my best wishes.

Elsewhere, the Supreme Court of Canada is expected later this week to announce its decision on the constitutionality of the language of the law permitting same-sex marriage. This is an important decision, since the Conservative Party has won the majority since the law was passed and the new Prime Minister, Paul Martin is hoping for a chance to scuttle it.

Eh? No party currently holds a majority in the House of Commons and the Liberals (with a plurality of seats) are governing as a minority with Paul Martin as PM. The law changing the definition of marriage has not yet been passed - the Supreme Court is merely presenting its opinion on whether the current law, which defines marriage heterosexually, is constitutional. I'm not aware that Martin is hoping to "scuttle it".

OK, I really know nothing about Canada's politics. I was just trying to make sense of the report and its claim about the importance of the ruling.

S'okay Tom. A nice summary of the draft law and the reference questions asked of the Supreme Court can be found here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/samesexrights/beforethecourt.html

Thanks

Kiesling says in the fall edition of American Speech that the word derives its power from something he calls cool solidarity — an effortless kinship that's not too intimate.


Cool solidarity is especially important to young men who are under social pressure to be close with other young men, but not enough to be suspected as gay.
From the Linguist Deciphers Uses of Word 'Dude' article
--referenced by ScottN on the Kitchen Sink

Episcopalians?

And there's always the French!

Blame Canada!

How about blaming the christmas elves? They are always too cheerful anyhow. :-(

This is all your fault, Stanley!

It certainly is, Ollie.

According to Coyotes star Brett Hull, the NHL strike is responsible for Canada endorsing "gay Marriage."

“That’s what happens in Canada when there’s no hockey,” Hull said. “Guys have more time to hang out, talk about their feelings, next thing you know they’re in love with each other.

“I’ve got nothing against it,” he added, “but I’d rather be playing hockey.”

There is a challange to Kentucky's same-sex marriage ban amendment. And a counter-challange to one of the judges scheduled to hear the issue.

Apparently this judge "went on record" as being against the ban two years ago when he contributed to a political group that during this year's debates used its money and influence to try to defeat the ban.

While judges are expected to recuse themselves when they have a financial or other stake in the outcome, but there is nothing to suggest that Judge Graham has such a stake. It might be claimed that his politics are in sympathy with the defeat of the ban, but here apparently has never been any accusation that he puts politics above the law.

And judges often rule against their own politics. Many of the justices of the Massachusetts Supreme Judiciary Court did not personally favor same-sex marriage, but they felt that the law was clear.

Ohio's marriage amendment goes into effect on Jan 1, but some of the related legislation is already in place (and probably enforceable since it won't be tested in court before the amendment takes effect). Ohioans are learning that the changes affect many opposite-sex couples as well as GLBT couples. In fact, since the GLBT couples have been denied the rights even before the amendment and new legislation, it could be claimed that the "straight" couples are more affected than the GLBT couples.

The problem with passing laws restricting the rights of the "wrong" people, is that the laws don't stay focused just on those "wrong" people.

They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist;
They came for the Socialists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Socialist;
They came for the labor leaders, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a labor leader;
They came for the Jews, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Jew;
Then they came for me - And there was no one left to object.
Martin Niemoller

Saturday, Pope John Paul II met with representatives of a group of Italian pro-family associations. According to Reuters News Service, he "condemned same sex marriage as an attack on the fabric of society and called on Catholics to combat what he said was aggressive attempt to legally undermine the family."

Reuters quotes the Holy Father: "Attacks on marriage and the family, from an ideological and legal aspect, are becoming stronger and more radical every day."

The English translation of the Pope's words are not yet available on the Vatican's website, but the Italian original is. I ran it through Babelfish, and found the section Reuters quoted. To the best I can make out, it does not look like John Paul specified same-sex marriage. Instead he seems to have been referring to forces which seek to separate family from marriage: abortion, birth control and cloning.

...di accettare, e in alcuni casi favorire, la soppressione di vite umane innocenti con l'aborto volontario; di snaturare i processi naturali della generazione dei figli introducendo forme artificiali di procreazione, sono solo alcuni degli ambiti in cui è evidente il sovvertimento in atto nella società.
to accept, and in some cases to favor, the innocent human abolition of screw with the voluntary abortion; of snaturare the natural processes of the generation of the sons introducing shapes craft them of procreazione, are only some of amble to you in which?vidente the sovvertimento in action in the societ?

For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.
Niccolo Machiavelli

I know what you mean about here in Ohio. There is a domestic violence protection/assistance group in Cincinnati that has realized that the issue 1 and all is going to inhibit what they do when they try to help a woman who has been living with a man that has beat her.
The political climate in Ohio is definately not a good one right now. The Christian Taliban is going around with a definate swagger trying to scare any group or organization that tries to defy their plans into submission.

Okay, my Italian is far from perfect, and I wasn’t familiar with some of these words, so let me try and figure this one out:

...di accettare, e in alcuni casi favorire, la soppressione di vite umane innocenti con l'aborto volontario; di snaturare i processi naturali della generazione dei figli introducendo forme artificiali di procreazione, sono solo alcuni degli ambiti in cui è evidente il sovvertimento in atto nella società.

Vite “Vite” means “lives.” I know Babelfish is far from exact or perfect, but don’t know why it would translate such a common word as “screw.”
snatuare I’ve never heard of this word, and couldn’t find it online, but some contextual clues should help. First, it is obviously a verb in infinitive form, given the “are” suffix. Aside the from the first letter, it would appear to be similar to the word “natural,” so if a verb, it may mean “to naturalize,” or “make natural.” Now an “s” in front of an Italian word can turn it into an antonym (“Comodo” and “cortese” mean “comfortable,” and “courteous,” but “scomodo” and “scortese” mean “uncomfortable” and “rude”), so perhaps “snatuare means to make something not the norm, or “to marginalize,” or perhaps “to trivialize.”
figli Yes, “figli” is the plural of “figlio”, or “son,” just as “figlie” is the plural of “figlia”, or “daughter,” but “figli” can also means “children” in general, and I think that might be the context here.
forme artificiali di procreazione Yes, “forme” does mean “shapes,” but it can also mean “forms,” or in this context, “ways,” so the phrase appears to be “artificial forms of procreation.”
ambiti “Ambito” means “sphere,” though the phrase “di un vasto ambito” means “wide-spreading,” so I wonder if in the context here it is simply being used to mean “widespread.”
Sovvertimento Sovvertire means “to subvert,” or “to overturn,” so “sovvertimento” must mean “subversion.”

Hence, the Pope appears to be saying,

…the acceptance, and in some cases the favoring, of the suppression of innocent human lives through voluntary abortion; to trivialize the natural processes of a generation of children by introducing artificial forms of procreation, are only some examples of the widespread subversion evident in our society.

Of course, I don't see what this has to do with gay marriage. When I see my father, I'll ask him if my translation was on the money.

Luigi --

I thought I included this link to the original address. Like I said, Babelfish did not show any indication of a condemnation of "gay marriage" (or anything else that might refer to same-sex marriage), but if it translates "life" as "screw" it clearly is not an reliable authority.

R --

Ohio, as I indicated is only the beginning. There are signs that other states, such as Michigan, are also poised to deny benefits to "unmarried" couples based on its marriage amendment.

And even worse. The federal government, starting with the Social Security Administration is not only denying benefits to couples that were not properly married, but even those who were properly married if they were married in one of the towns that issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples during the same time period. So much for "full faith and credit."

The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men.
--Samuel Adams

Gee I feel so proud to be a resident of such a trend setting state. /sarcasm

Speaking of which I was just on Yahoo news and saw an interesting article about gays in Oklahoma. The following excerpts are rather sad and disgusting. And prime examples of what I am sure is going to be part of the battles between freedom and the Christian Taliban.

The author of Oklahoma's gay-marriage ban, Republican state Sen. James Williamson of Tulsa, insists hate was not a factor, but he shares the view of many in this churchgoing state that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice.

Except for one small town, no Oklahoma municipality has joined the hundreds of cities and towns nationwide that have expanded anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation.


"We'll never go there," Williamson said. "If a Christian couple here in Oklahoma doesn't want to rent property to openly in-your-face homosexuals, they should have a right to do that."

"As a Christian, I don't like that behavior," Williamson said. "If they want to live their life quietly, in the privacy of their homes, that's freedom in America.

...But when you want to force the rest of us to accept a new definition of marriage, we're not going to stand for that."

Except for one small town, no Oklahoma municipality has joined the hundreds of cities and towns nationwide that have expanded anti-discrimination laws to cover sexual orientation.

"We'll never go there," Williamson said. "If a Christian couple here in Oklahoma doesn't want to rent property to openly in-your-face homosexuals, they should have a right to do that."

The primary rationale the State offers for Amendment 2 is respect for other citizens' freedom of association, and in particular the liberties of landlords or employers who have personal or religious objections to homosexuality. Colorado also cites its interest in conserving resources to fight discrimination against other groups. The breadth of the Amendment is so far removed from these particular justifications that we find it impossible to credit them. We cannot say that Amendment 2 is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which we could discern a relationship to legitimate state interests; it is a classification of persons undertaken for its own sake, something the Equal Protection Clause does not permit. "Class legislation . . . [is] obnoxious to the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . ."

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.
Romer v Evans

A people who extend civil liberties only to preferred groups start down the path either to dictatorship of the right or the left.
--Justice William O. Douglas

I forgot the links:

The Williamson article.

Romer v Evans

Truth resides in every human heart, and one has to search for it there, and to be guided by truth as one sees it. But no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his own view of truth.
--Mohandas K. Gandhi

Tom, I just consulted my Mom, who indicated that my translation was mostly correct, though she indicated that "ambiti" means "ambitions," or as I take it in this context, "goals." I actually thought that that's what it was originally, but dropped that when Babelfish indicated that "ambition" is "ambizione," and when wordreference.com/it/ indicated that "ambiti" meant "sphere" or "wide-spreading." I should've gone with my first instinct (and now take those websites with a far greater grain of salt), since it now appears that that last sentence is closer to:

are only some of the goals toward subversion evident in our society.

Yep it certainly looks like williamson is either a party hack who blows whichever way the wind does or is a very hateful discriminator who feels that people have the right to deny services,houseing etc.. (I know that he only said that people have the right to deny housing to gays but denial is like pringles once you pop you just cant stop)

Since Ohio (See the link in my Dec 18 post) and Michigan have begun their anti-gay programs early, the other 11 states that have passed similar amendments have had a chance to see just how far-reaching they are.

Utah is in the process of passing laws to "correct" the problem, but since the constitution "trumps" a law, it will take years of expensive litigation, and several attempts at amending the amendment to finally realize that the problem is inherent to the attitude of exclusionism and the only solution is to repeal the amendment altogether.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
~Thomas Paine

Besides the 13 states that succeeded in amending their constitutions, there were several which began the process, but have not yet completed it because in those states the process is deliberately complicated and lengthy to discourage frivolous changes. I hope that they learn from Ohio, Michigan, and Utah, and abandon the plan before it's too late.

"He that will not reason is a bigot, He that cannot reason is a fool, He that dares not reason is a slave."
- William Drummond

I somehow doubt it. If they do abandon it they will be seen as soft on the subversion/marriage problem with the extremists and sheep.

I fear you may be right. Hence the Drummond quote.

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
--Elie Wiesel

The Human Rights Campaign has issued a report on all of the laws and constitutional amendments passed in all the states that affect the rights of GLBT citizens.

In addition to the 13 states that approved an anti-gay marriage ammendment, there were 15 that defeated one.

There were 160 bills extending rights, from new and/or improved domestic partnership laws to hospital visitation rights.

A few states, most notably Connecticut, added gender identity to their list of protceted classes for discrimination and hate crimes.

If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz

Well it is nice to see that there are still a few intelligent people out there.

Here's my deal. What if I posted something in favor of the amendment passing and said "Nice to see there are intelligent people out there"? People would get mad. Think about it, won't you?

The trial in San Francisco, testing the California anti-gay marriage law continues.

The lawyers for the Campaign for California Families argued yesterday and the group released a precis of that argument. You know, you'd think that lawyers would know to check for precedents. Some of these points were already discredited in court.

-- Marriage is naturally for only a man and a woman -- a special class of its own.

-- The state has both a rational and compelling basis for protecting marriage for a man and a woman, including for the sake of children.

-- California's marriage laws do not violate state guarantees of equal protection or due process.

-- California does not discriminate on the basis of gender because both sexes are treated the same in the marriage laws.

-- California does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because disclosing one's sexual orientation is not a requirement to be married, and it is impossible to clearly define sexual orientation.

-- Even if a court were to determine that marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, the proper standard of review is rational basis, which would have to "preserve the traditional institution of marriage," according to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

-- Homosexuality is not a suspect class because sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic, and homosexuals are not suffering economic prejudice or being denied political rights.

"Merry Christmas, California," said Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families. "The homosexual activists have a gift for you -- they want to steal marriage and trash your vote.

"No attorney, no politician, no court has any right to destroy the uniqueness of marriage for a man and a woman, especially when the voters have expressed their will so clearly."

Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be.
--The Supreme Court of the United States (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 Cal. 3d 756)

-- Homosexuality is not a suspect class because sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic, and homosexuals are not suffering economic prejudice or being denied political rights.


This argument is irrelevent but politically inflamatory. There is no call for afirmative action, or quotas ("One tenth of all marriages must be same-sex"). It is the same old cry that "homosexuals" are looking for "special rights.

I wouldn't necessarily call it irrelevant, but neither is it new material; all this really does is restate the central argument of the case. Marriage in this context is a political right, and one can show that same-sex couples are economically harmed (for tax and insurance reasons) because they are denied it. Basically, this is "No you're not!" in response to the other side's "Yes we are!", and I would think that a decent lawyer would know better.

Matthew, yours is a more generous reading of that statement and its meaning, and perhaps we should allow them the benefit of the doubt. Or at least the non-lawyers in the CCF.

Also I forgot to link to the news article where I got the quotes.

It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.
--Susan B. Anthony

Westboro Baptist Church is at it again!

...So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men.
--Voltaire

Oh, well no wonder. It's in their hometown; they don't even have to raise funds to travel anywhere. ( I often wonder how they can afford to be doing that all the time. An audit of their finances would no doubt prove illuminating.)

I've been offline since Thursday afternoon, with holiday preparations, family time etc. However, it seems that on Thursday, more of the proceedings in the case in San francisco have been made public. This time including arguments by both sides and comments by the judge.
Consolidating four different news articles I found the following points made by the various parties:

Plaintiffs:

"The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry."

By specifying the gender of a legal marriage partner, the state is ''reducing individuals to their sex, and doling out rights on that basis,'' said Deputy City Attorney Sherri Sokeland Kaiser.

"The assertion that marriage is inherently heterosexual can no longer be maintained now that there are a number of jurisdictions that allow same-sex couples to marry," Minter said, rattling off Massachusetts, Canada, Belgium and South Africa as among the places gay marriage is legal.


Minter said that the state's domestic-partner registry already sets the legal foundation for same-sex marriage. The registry was established five years ago but will expand Jan. 1 with a new law that gives same-sex couples nearly all the rights as married spouses.


It is discriminatory for the state to exclude gays from marriage if it recognizes they have those rights, Minter said.

Also Thursday, attorneys for same-sex couples and the city of San Francisco made their final appeals to Judge Richard Kramer to overturn the state law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. They contend that the law passed in 1977, and reaffirmed by the voters in 2000 violates the right to marry the person of one's choice and discriminates on the basis of sex and sexual orientation.

By specifying the gender of a legal marriage partner, the state is ''reducing individuals to their sex, and doling out rights on that basis,'' said Deputy City Attorney Sherri Sokeland Kaiser.

"The proponents are asking the court to destroy the cornerstone of a large building without considering the ramifications," Lavy told Judge Richard Kramer on Wednesday. "If your honor finds the marriage laws must be available for same-sex couples, you will be likely creating a constitutional right to incestuous and group marriage."

Procreation is the sole reason for the state to license and regulate marriage, attorneys for two socially conservative groups told Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer.

Couples that can't reproduce shouldn't have marriage rights, they said.

One attorney told the judge that the Scandinavian experience shows gay marriage leads to children being born out of wedlock.

"They can't perform the basic functions of marriage," said Rena Lindevaldsen, an attorney for the Campaign for California Families. "There is a basic difference between opposite-sex and same-sex couples . . . the ability to procreate and, therefore, insure the existence and survival of our species."

Kramer questioned that [a defense assertion that same-sex couples raising childeren "is not a proven family structure], noting that state law allows gays and lesbians to adopt children.

Kramer closely questioned Lavy's assertion that the meaning of marriage and parenthood has a strictly biological basis.


"Doesn't the constitution talk about raising and having children? Raising and having? Does it matter where kids come from?" Kramer asked.

Lavy responded that it was the state's concern to see that children were born into stable families since "it doesn't require fact-finding to know that, in general, opposite-sex couples of childbearing age will procreate."


"Will they be deterred from procreating if the people in the condo next door are a same-sex married couple?" the judge asked.


Kramer rejected the request [to rule on the basis of minor procedural errors in the defense's response], saying that he intended to rule "as a matter of law" without issuing a finding of facts about the case.

He said he had three options; he could find that:

• The marriage ban is constitutional, handing a victory to the Prop. 22 fund, the family campaign and the state;

• The marriage ban is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the city and gay rights advocates, or·

• He needs to conduct more hearings.

Calling appeals of his decision inevitable, Kramer frequently said during the two days of hearings that he wanted to provide a clean case record for appellate courts. "I am only the first stop," he said.

"It looks like both sides are arguing that the institution of marriage is something special," Kramer mused in court. "One side is saying it can't be denied to some people. The other side is saying it's special and can't be changed."

"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."
-- Former Lord Chief Justice Halisham

Judge Timothy Fox of the Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas ruled that a regulation prohibiting foster children from being placed in homes with GLBT family members (not just banning GLBT foster parents, but if even a GLBT teenaged son or daughter of the applicant) goes beyond the agency's mandate.

Fox's ruling said the review board was given the power to regulate the health, safety and welfare of children, but not what he called "public morality."

Regardless of the outcome of the state's planned appeal, keeping the ban in the future may be as simple as having the Legislature rewrite the powers of the review board to include authority over morality, Kathy L. Hall, the state's lead lawyer in the case, said Thursday.

"The state Legislature said, 'OK, board, you can make regulations that promote the health, safety and welfare of foster children.' Judge Fox said we exceeded that," Hall said.

"But no matter what happens on appeal, there's nothing now to stop the Legislature from going in next time and say, 'OK, board, we now give you the authority to regulate the health, safety, welfare and morality of children.' It's within (legislators') power to change that," she said.

The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.
--Justice Hugo Black

Ms. Hall is probably right, as long as the court hasn't actually ruled any practice unconstitutional. There's a difference between saying "You can't do that because the state didn't give you the power, although they could," and "You can't do that because the constitution of the state or of the United States forbids it no matter what."

OK. It was that I was missing something. Specifically that he struck it down on technical grounds before reaching to the question of constitutionality, and therefore that question was not addressed. Similar to the Supreme Court finding against the father who argued against "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance on technical grounds and not addressing the conflicting First Amendment claims that each side argued.

Finally, a "friendly" lawsuit concerning same-sex marriage!

Cheryl McCollough is a retired teacher from Rhode Island who now lives in Massachusetts with her new spouse Joyce Boivin. She is still under her school district's (in Rhode Island) group health coverage, and applied to include Joyce under her policy.

The school district and the insurance company were willing, but uncertain of the legalities. When they checked with Rhode Island's Attorney General, the reply was:

"No Rhode Island court has addressed or interpreted whether or not Rhode Island’s marriage laws permit same-sex couples to marry or whether same-sex marriages if performed in Rhode Island would be void," Attorney General Patrick Lynch wrote in a statement about same-sex marriage. "A different issue is whether same-sex marriages legally performed in Massachusetts would be recognized as marriages under Rhode Island law."

Lynch says his review of the law "suggests that Rhode Island would recognize any marriage validly performed in another state, unless doing so would run contrary to the strong public policy of this state," but says the interpretation of statute, legal precedent and common law must be directed to the courts.

The ACLU’s counsel does not view the matter as complicated.

Labinger points to the language in the collective bargaining agreement between the School Committee and the teacher’s union, National Education Association of Rhode Island, and notes that the only question the courts have to answer is what the collective bargaining agreement requires.

"We’re not asking what Rhode Island recognizes as marriage," said Labinger. "There’s really no question there’s a valid marriage."

Labinger notes that the state has recognized family coverage for domestic partners for more than a year.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

5-year-old Subversives?

A Catholic school in Costa Mesa, CA has admitted twin 5-year-olds, and the parents of the other students are up in arms. The twins' parents are both men.

The parents claim that their objection is that the family does not follow strict Catholic doctrine (which would include condemning homosexuality in general and adoption by homosexuals in particular).

Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of the Orange County Diocese schools, told the Los Angeles Times that if St. John the Baptist School insisted that parents of all of its students adhered to every element of Church doctrine, then it would have to reject the children of divorced parents or parents who practice birth control.

But Thomasson [Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families] said the issue of homosexuality is different.

"It's completely different ... Children of divorce do not advocate divorce. Children whose parents use birth control do not advocate birth control," Thomasson said. "It is children who are raised in a homosexual environment who are taught to advocate homosexuality to other children."

I would seriously like to see his evidence for those two points. First of all, I don't quite see how children who are raised by gays are taught to advocate homosexuality. Second, I'm not sure that children of divorce *don't* advocate divorce, particularly when the lives of both parents are improved by it.

Also, I would note that, from what I know of Catholic doctrine, it's not a sin to *be* gay, but it *is* one to practice it. So "advocating homosexuality" isn't precisely the thing that someone should be censured for. If a five-year-old child were advocating gay sex... well, that would be a rather different problem entirely.

Second, I'm not sure that children of divorce *don't* advocate divorce, particularly when the lives of both parents are improved by it.

*raises hand* Ooh, ooh, Mr Kotter! Why not ask the guy whose parents are divorced and happier now than they ever were married? ;-)

If a five-year-old child were advocating gay sex... well, that would be a rather different problem entirely.

I have a problem with 5 years advoating ANY kind of sex.

Well said, gentlemen. I'm especially impressed that Brian was able to make the point without using any "red dot" words. I know how hard it was for me, in this case, especially with Thomasson's inane "logic."

So all the other "sins" are different and not sinful enough to get chastized for, but homosexuality is? Very interesting.
Now I sincerely doubt that the twins are being taught to advocate anything. At 5 years old they are probably just happy being potty trained and working on their letters and numbers. As for when they get older the only thign I see them being is maybe a bit more open minded about different lifestyles which is what Randy Thomasson may be worried about.

I like the argument by Rev. Horan. The kids are not homosexuals; why pick on them?

I find it Thomasson's practice of his religion particurlarly damning: He openly advocates shutting out people not for their sins, but merely for being children of sinners. It says a lot of his views on the openness and inclusiveness of his religion.

I'm especially impressed that Brian was able to make the point without using any "red dot" words.

Backhanded though it was, I'll take the compliment. Can you tell I'm in a good mood this morning? I'd be singing if it weren't for that court order. ;)

I like the argument by Rev. Horan. The kids are not homosexuals; why pick on them?

*applause* I wish there were more Christians like you Mike.

I find it Thomasson's practice of his religion particurlarly damning: He openly advocates shutting out people not for their sins, but merely for being children of sinners. It says a lot of his views on the openness and inclusiveness of his religion.

I have a copy of the King James Bible, but sadly it doesn't have an index, so I can't find what I'm looking but isn't there something in there about not punishing someone for "the sins of the father?"

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

Deuteronomy 24:16

However, the Bible makes it clear that sin has an effect on children:

"Then the Lord passed by in front of him and proclaimed, "The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."

Exodus 34:6-7

I'd intended the compliment seriously. I'm sorry it came out sounding back-handed.

I must admit, though, that in general you do seem happier and more in control the last few days. Have they finally adjusted your meds? (This time the left-handedness is intentional, but it is also only meant in fun. )

(note to Tom, see the Kitchen Sink)

Another Note To Tom: See Sen. Boxer's speech.

While on the subject of gays adopting: the Supreme Court is deciding on its 2005 calendar. One of the cases it may decide to accept for review is Lofton v. Florida Department of Children and Families, which challenges Florida's law bannining gay from even consideration as adoptive parents.

If SCOTUS accepts the case, it will be the first
chance to clarify the scope of last year's landmark Lawrence v Texas case, since the 11th Circuit upheld the law by construing Lawrence and Romer v Evans so narrowly so as to practically deny the decisions made in those cases.

"The disqualification of eligible lesbian and gay applicants means [some Florida children] cannot be adopted by the persons best suited to become their parents," Coles asserts in the brief.

Coles notes that Florida, while excluding gays as adoptive parents, does allow adoptions by individuals who are unmarried, disabled, or have a history of substance abuse or even domestic violence.

In a passage unusually critical of a high court decision, 11th Circuit Judge Stanley Birch Jr. added, "We are particularly hesitant to infer a new fundamental liberty interest from an opinion whose language and reasoning are inconsistent with standard fundamental-rights analysis."

As a result, the 11th Circuit panel applied a relaxed "rational basis" standard when examining the Florida rule rather than the kind of "strict scrutiny" that would be used to weigh laws that interfere with fundamental rights.

Using the less-stringent standard, the appeals court accepted Florida's rationale for the ban, namely that placing children in homes with married fathers and mothers provides 'the stability that marriage affords and the presence of both male and female authority figures, which it considers critical to optimal childhood development and socialization."

Birch said the state's preference for homes with married mothers and fathers is based on "unprovable assumptions," but those assumptions are a sufficient basis for legislation. "Any argument that the Florida legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law."

"Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight. Oppression doesn't stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband -- it creeps up insidiously... step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone."
-- Baron Lane

How can anyone become a lawmaker and know nothing about the law? Two Kentucky legislators are sponsoring a bill to prohibit local anti-discrimination laws from including GLBT persons. I thought that the issue was settled by the Supreme Court in Romer v Evans when Colorado attempted to legislate the exact same thing! (I quoted the relevant portions of the Romer decision above in an earlier post.)

On the "flip side," Illinois looks like it may be ready ready to include sexual orientation to the "suspect" classes of their anti-discriminatory laws.

The layman's constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he doesn't like is unconstitutional.
--Justice Hugo Black

Well being an Ohioan I could make a few commetns about Kentucky but they might be considered derogatory.

But to be honest maybe they are thinking that they will be able to word thigns differently and also wasn't the romer case held in a slightly different emotional environemt than what is going on right now?

For the second time in a row (See my Nov 30 post above), The Supreme Court of the United States announced that it was not going to touch on a touchy GLBT issue on the same day that the highest court of another country made a ruling on the same issue.

This time the issue is adoption by GLBT parents. The other country is Israel.

In this case, however the parallelism is not as complete as in the November pair of decisions.

The US case concerns Florida's ban on any adoptions by GLBT's.

In Florida, no gay man or lesbian may adopt a child under any circumstances, even though they are welcome to become foster parents if they qualify. The state allows convicted felons, drug abusers and other questionably qualified individuals to complete the application to adopt, and to be considered on a case-by-case basis as parents, provided they are heterosexual.


By contrast, a sober gay millionaire with an advanced degree in child psychology and a vast, extended family with many children would be rejected out of hand.

During the past 15 years that Tal and Avital Yaros-Hak have lived together, they have had a total of three children.


The couple petitioned the Tel Aviv Family Court for the right to formally adopt each other's children in 1997, but the request was rejected because Israel's adoption law had no provisions for same-sex couples.


The couple appealed. While they failed to get a favorable ruling in the Tel Aviv District Court, the Supreme Court accepted the case.


Citing Article 25 of the Adoption Law, the Yaros-Haks argued that the law allows for "special circumstances" for adoption when it is for the good of the child, even if the child's parents are still alive.


The only condition is that the person seeking to adopt be single.


The couple argued that since the state does not recognize same-sex marriage, they are single by law.

Four charged with hate crimes for preaching against gays.

While technically correct, the article being distributed is misleading--the four charged are being charged more for being disorderly and disturbing the peace (they disrupted a homosexual event). The Snopes Article does a nice job outlining the facts of the matter. While I agree with the misdemeanors, hate crime may be a tad excessive. That said, the four were clearly in the wrong here, as even Bill O'Reilly noted.

Back in November I posted about a same-sex divorce case in Germany. In that case, the judge determined that since same-sex marriages were not legal in Germany, the couple did not have the right to sue for divorce. But the fraudulent marriage -- one of the men had pretended to be a woman -- was held to be valid nonthe less.

More recently, a couple of women who were legally joined under Vermont's civil union laws filed for, and were granted a divorce in Iowa. The ruling was appealed by a group of state lawmakers, based on the "fact" that Iowa does not officially recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions.

Without ruling on the appropriateness of the initial judge's decision, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The reason given was that the lawmakers did not have the "standing" to bring an appeal.

Presumably, if they can find someone with the standing to bring the appeal (perhaps a child of the union seeking to force a reconciliation?), the question can be posed, and the lawmakers would then be able to file an amicus brief.

Personally, I don't see how any ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court could give these lawmakers what they hope for, anyway. If I were in sympathy with their goals, I would tell them to forget this couple and concentrate on passing laws that will prevent a repeat.

But since I'm not in sympathy, I'll just chuckle at their bumbling.

Many of the states that voted for marriage amendments last November are finding those amendments challenged in court.

Most state constitutions require an amendment to be about only one thing. The lawsuits claim that by prohibiting same-sex marriage AND same-sex civil unions AND any other proposal to grant marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples they violate this principle.

The pro-amendment forces claim that all of that is "only one thing." The anti-amendment forces bring forth witnesses who would have voted for an amendment only banning same-sex marriage, but not for one banning only same-sex civil unions, or who would have voted for separate amendments against marriage and civil unions, but not against a third banning domestic partnerships, etc.

They claim that it is exactly this type of "all-or-nothing" end-run that the "only one thing" rule was meant to prevent.

In the case in Georgia, it is further claimed that the pro-amendment forces deliberately obscured the point. Not only did the voters have to decide on "all or nothing," but the "interpretive statement" on the ballot lied about that fact. The statement only indicated that the amendment would ban same-sex marriage. It did not mention civil unions or other programs, even though the amendment itself did.

According to Pravda, two men have applied for a marriage license in Moscow in order to test the Russian governments position on same-sex marriage. One of the men was editor-in-chief of Queer Magazine, Ed Mishin, but the other was a "straight" politician, deputy of the republic of Bashkiria, Edward Murzin.

The application was accepted, but the men are certain that the paper would soon be returned to them with an official denial. "Me and Ed Mishin have different sexual orientations, but the goal of our action is to amend the Russian law for the benefit of those people who are referred to as sexual minorities," Bashkirian deputy Edward Murzin said. Murzin, a straight man, decided to participate in the daring adventure in order to obtain a formal document, which denies a gay marriage registration.

The deputy particularly strives for amendments to the Russian Family Code in order to allow official registrations for homosexual marriages. Edward Murzin believes that the wording "a marriage is a voluntary union between a man and a woman" should be slightly changed to "a marriage is a voluntary union between two citizens."

........

"If we have the document of denial from the marriage registration office here in Moscow, we will be able to stand up for our rights further on," editor-in-chief of Queer Magazine, Ed Mishin, said in an interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. "The Russian Constitution does not say that people of one and the same sex cannot wed each other. Quite on the contrary, the Constitution runs that sexual, racial or religious discrimination is forbidden," said he.

I wonder what he will do if for some reasons they don't deny the application.

Not very likely. In every jurisdiction where the legislature has not ammended the law, the bureaucracy follows the law rather than the constitution (except for the rare case where a far-thinking activist, such as the mayors of San Francisco; Asbury Park, NJ; New Paltz, NY; etc., has some authority over the bureaucracy) until the courts intevene.

In two separate cases in Florida and Louisiana, the cause of equity and fairness in marriage laws suffered major setbacks.

In Florida, James S. Moody, of the US District Court for Florida upheld the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA) clause allowing states to disregard legitimate marriages performed in other states.

Moody said he could not declare marriage a "fundamental right," as the lawsuit urged him to do, and that he was bound to follow legal precedent.

"Each provision of the amendment is germane to the single object of defense of marriage and constitutes an element of the plan advanced to achieve this object," the ruling said.

"Despite this ruling, we are still married in our hearts, and legally married in Massachusetts," she [Nancy Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the Florida case] said. Her partner [Paula Schoenwether] added: "No civil rights movement was lost on one bad court decision."

Shades of Tinky Winky! The fundamentalist watchdogs of "decency" are on the warpath again.

Did you know that Spongebob Squarepants is gay?

Apparently this assessment is based on three (and a half) criteria: First, the character is one of several included in a new video intended to be released to schools to promote tolerence. \sarcasm{(And everyone knows that "tolerence" is a gay code-word for seducing young boys.)} Second, the organization distributing the video, We Are Family Foundation, has almost the same name as a pro-gay group. Many protesting fundamentalist websites linked to that "other" site to prove the Foundation has a "gay agenda." \sarcasm{(A "gay agenda" is a campaign to make child molesting not only legal but accepted.)} Third, Spongebob merchandise is a big seller in cities with large gay populations.

And then there's the fact that Spongebob is closer to his male buddies, Patrick and Squidward -- he has even been known to hold hands with Patrick -- than he is to the female (and air-breathing, therefore pressure-suited)Sandy the Squirrel. Really, he couldn't get closer to Sandy if he wanted to. And Spongebob seems to have a mental age of seven (Patrick even less) -- what little boy does not prefer other boys to girls at that age?

Give me a break.

In the interest of fairness, here is the same story as presented by one of the watchdog groups.

Also in March, the DVD of the song will be distributed to 61,000 public and private elementary schools across the country. It will be accompanied by a teacher's guide, designed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that, among other things, promotes the normalization of homosexuality.

Driving the project is the We Are Family Foundation (WAFF), which states on its website that the song was remixed "to speak the message of diversity and tolerance to elementary school children nationwide."

On the surface, the project may appear to be a worthwhile attempt to foster greater understanding of cultural differences among all Americans. However, a short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality.

....

Wildmon said it is difficult taking a stand against such projects. "Nobody I know has a problem with teaching children to be respectful and tolerant. It is wrong, however, to use such concepts to open the door to a secondary discussion about a controversial subject like homosexuality," he said.

the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that, among other things, promotes the normalization of homosexuality.

The B'nai Brith might be a bit surprised to hear that. The ADL is specifically there to fight anti-semitism.

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens." --ADL Charter, October 1913

My daughter's school is participating in that we are family program. So far there doesnt seem to be anyone complaining about anything. Maybe they just havent had their codebooks updated yet. Although my exfriends certainly "knew" the tolerant codeword.

It's official!

In Indiana, the only purpose of marriage is to bribe irresponsible teenagers not to become welfare moms and deadbeat dads.

The court added, "Opposite-sex marriage furthers the legitimate state interest in encouraging opposite-sex couples to procreate responsibly and have and raise children within a stable environment."

.....

Drobac pointed out that while the judges claimed opposite-sex marriage was to "discourage unplanned, out-of-wedlock births," the court admitted that same-sex couples wanting children are "by necessity, heavily invested, financially and emotionally."

.....

"Regardless of whether recognizing same-sex marriage would harm this interest, neither does it further it," the court concluded.

Ok Now for the latest insanity. The PBS Kids show Postcards from Buster (Just in case anyone doesnt know what the show is: A cartoon character named Buster goes around the country and visits with Real Life people from various regions and cultures and talks to them about their life. It is aimed at the kindergarden and early elementary set) is planning on showing an episode when the character visits a family in Vermont that has two mommies. (ie a same gender couple)
The Us Secretary of Education,Margaret Spellings, has condemned the episode: (Follows are excerpts from the Usatoday article on it.)
She says the episode strays from the intent of the government program designed to prepare preschoolers for school: "Many parents would not want their young children exposed to the lifestyles portrayed in this episode."


Spellings was applauded by James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which has criticized the use of the SpongeBob SquarePants cartoon character in a video it says promotes homosexuality.


Karen Pike, one of the Vermont mothers, called the objections "disgusting." The show is "trying to show that kids are kids and that there are many kinds of families," says Pike, 42, a photographer who has done freelance work for USA TODAY.


Spellings also asks that PBS "strongly consider" refunding the federal money used for the episode. John Wilson, PBS's senior vice president for programming, says PBS will not refund the money but will shoot another episode.

Being as this is PBS I am sincerely doubting that there would be any sensationalism or anythign even remotely disgusting about it but thanks to the fear and hatred and discrimination becoming official policy in the white house this is suddenly a very nasty thing.

I am a parent of two kindergarden age children and have found this show to be a great conversation piece with the kids. I would not be ashamed or concerned by them seeing this episode and be quite happy to talk to them about it.

Like Tom said in the previous post What are they afraid of? people opening their minds and learning not to hate and discriminate?

I have already called my local PBS station and registered my concern that they would not be showing this episode. I have also email Ms. Spellings and registered my disgust with her first action in power being one of discrmination and hatred. I would urge everyone else to do so as well.

Asked how Buster reacted to the two moms, Wilson replied: "Buster is a very tolerant and accepting rabbit, and he sort of took it at face value."

I saw that on the news today. My real question is of course, are they naive or stupid. Naive would be that they just didn't really think something like this wouldn't be controversal. I mean, what, have been living under a rock for a few years to not know this is a hot button issue? Do you not know there are some issues you do not touch with a ten foot pole on children's television? Don't they remember how they had wine and cheese fundraisers to remove all the copies of Huck Finn from the schools? They would be stupid for the following reason, someone did this intentionally to create controversary and conversation... and got upset when it created controversary and conversation! Wow, who would have thought it? I mean, can the media really concieve anyone may have a dissenting opinion from their worldview on the issue of homosexuality?

Mayeb they where hopeful that it would be a shot in the darkness for freedom and intelligence instead of the truely stupid response that it has generated.

Fear, hatred and ignorance all run hand in hand and that is all this is about.

Fear that it might get kids thinking and questioning and seeing that the world is not all just black and white but has many wonderful shades of difference.

Hatred of anything that does not conform to the officially prescribed vision of the world as seen through the narrow vision of our government and the other members of the Christian Taliban.

Ignorance of anything that is different and ignorance of how to learn about anything different that leads right back to the fear because humanity fears anything that is different or is not known.

Live free or die.

My problem here is that this is a preschool-age show. Now, I want my kids to learn about safe sex, how to deal with "monthly problems," and all sorts of other issues, but I don't think they should be learning it at the preschool age. I was at least in mid grade school before I learned about sexual issues, and I think that's fine.

This is PBS it is not like they where going to be doing any thing worthy of jerry Springer.
Teh episode was about Buster visting a family that made maple syrup. The family though consited of two mommies. that aspect was goign to be just in the background and just there. Unfortunately our new secretary of education to show her loyalty to the christian taliban and the program of fear, hatred and ignorance our government is espousing had to blow a minor background portion of the show all out of proportion and turn it into the focus of the show. Acting like it was going to be all about homosexual behaviors and sexuality and other such stuff. When like I said the focus of the show was simply about a family making maple syrup. A family with two mommies but a family none the less.

And the show is not preschool age but kindergarden when children are already asking many questions and deserving answers.
As for learnign about sexual issues i was 10 when I learned about sex and all as I have always been around people open and comfortable with themselves. This did not damage my psyche and did not lead to a childhood or teen years of wild promiscuity (I was 21 before I lost it) but actually led to my being more comfortable with the changes of puberty and not being as silly about things as some of my contemporaries where.

My problem here is that this is a preschool-age show. Now, I want my kids to learn about safe sex, how to deal with "monthly problems," and all sorts of other issues, but I don't think they should be learning it at the preschool age. I was at least in mid grade school before I learned about sexual issues, and I think that's fine.

Here's the thing, Mike. The show's not teaching kids about "sexual issues," it's saying, "Hey, cool, Vermont maple syrup is yummy." The show has also featured (among other minority groups) Mormons, Muslims, Hmong immigrants, and a family of seven living in a single trailer in Virginia. (At least, I hope that the latter is not representative of the living conditions of a majority of Virginians.) Would it be considered anything other than racist if the show were attacked because it featured a Muslim family of obviously Arabic ancestry? And would a complaint that impressionable children shouldn't hear about Mormons hold any validity at all? If not, *why* not? How are these cases any different?

And that's fine. I was reacting more to R's statement of how the show could serve as a good conversation and teaching piece for openness. My point was that I don't think I want a TV show doing that for my preschool children (and the article said preschool). From the original post, I was unaware that the main point of the show was about maple syrup, I ASSumed otherwise. Sorry for the confusion.

Thats ok. I wind up sitting and using PBS (not just the kids programs) as startign points for talking to my kids.
I probably did not help things by not speaking as clearly as I should have.

Looking back at my original post on this I did not specify that when i watch the show with my daughter (when I can) that we talk about the folks in the show as she is usually asking me questions about what is going on.

But I guess the main point I was getting and am getting so worked up over is that by censoring the episode it removes the ability to choose to watch it or not from the parents. So while I believe in protecting children from the bad things in the world one should not hide them under a rock. So i would let them watch this show. (We also sat and watched the recent programs on auschwitz and talked about it. And let her watch CSI. She gets excellent grades and is very capable in the sciences and mathmatics.)

But I digress. The secretary of education managed to get her term off to an interesting start by calling for censorship and making a harmless children's program out to be an instrument of propaganda. But what i was seeing was that by not making a big deal about the family having two mommies and just presenting them as a regular normal family who makes maple syrup it was a more important thing by not making it the point.

Sorry if I am not making sense. But I think you can figure out what I meant.

My real question is of course, are they naive or stupid. Naive would be that they just didn't really think something like this wouldn't be controversal. I mean, what, have been living under a rock for a few years to not know this is a hot button issue?

Realize, though, that there was no mention of lesbianism. There was just a family doing typical things for Vermont*. This was filmed before the SpongeBob incident, and approved months before that. At that time, the only similar outburst was the Tinky-Winky thing years ago. And that ended with Falwell and his organization (which published the original article) distancing themselves from the author, who in turn started claiming that he eas just reporting something widespread in the "gay media."

So there was no hint that this would be a "hot-button" issue.

*Yes both of the adult authority figures were female, but how would a child of the target age see that as any different from a mother and grandmother, or a "Kate and Allie" arrangement?

Or should they have known that, despite "Will and Grace" and dozens of HBO and Showtime programs that some people want to deny that same-sex couples even exist? Even the Jim Crow laws didn't go that far. There was never an attempt to deny (or hide) the very existence of people of color.

If they were concerned because the children in the Vermont family are assumed to somehow understand and "approve" their mommies having sex, I'd be much more concerned about the Virginia family where the five children live in the same room (trailer) with their parents.

R: Spare me the Port Huron statement. Although, "Taliban for a Democratic Society" is a rather accurate description of the left today.

I'll take it from your answer you are in the both camp. Maybe I'm a bit out of touch, since I neither have kids, nor expect much from television but I was under the impression when you saw programming on TV or radio that you found offensive, you file a complaint with both the station and the program's sponsers and stop watching the program in question. And if the program in question was brought to you by the Department of Education, then you complain to the Secretary of education.

Ah, for the days when PBS television consisted of Muppets ripping apart vowels, overcoming their illiteracy and throwing trash at people...

Maybe I'm a bit out of touch, since I neither have kids, nor expect much from television but I was under the impression when you saw programming on TV or radio that you found offensive, you file a complaint with both the station and the program's sponsers and stop watching the program in question. And if the program in question was brought to you by the Department of Education, then you complain to the Secretary of education.

But in this case, no one who saw the episode was offended. The Secretary (and her source) were offended by the mere existence of lesbians, and the possibility that children might think of them as normal people.

If merely [I]showing[/I] a homosexual couple (even though there was apparently no emphasis on this fact, as in 'this family has two mommies, not a mommy and a daddy') is interpreted as actively advocating homosexuality, does showing a non-Christian couple advocate, say, Islam? Should I complain to CNN's producers every time they show footage of Muslims because I don't want my children confused by the fact that some people don't believe that salvation comes only through the acceptance of Christ as a personal savior?

Brossa-

As you may have noticed, NitCentral does not use UBB/VB formatting tags. It has its own style of formatting. The tag consists of a backslash (\) followed by the command. The formatted text is then placed in curly braces({})

Examples:

This is\i{italic text}. = This is italic text.
And this is \b{bold text}. = And this is bold text.
And \red{red text} is over here. = And red text is over here.

For more details, click on the "Formatting" link in the left panel.

Ahh, yes. Thanks

Maybe I'm a bit out of touch, since I neither have kids, nor expect much from television but I was under the impression when you saw programming on TV or radio that you found offensive, you file a complaint with both the station and the program's sponsers and stop watching the program in question. And if the program in question was brought to you by the Department of Education, then you complain to the Secretary of education.

Very rarely is there anything on TV that offends me enough to call the stations or whatever. generally I just don't watch a show if I don't like it or it doesnt meet the standards I have for entertainment or education in my household. The few times I have called have been to lobby for Babylon 5 to remain on my local station at a decent hour(They had started bouncing it all over the schedule including at one point airing first run episodes at midnight) or to respond to somethign on the local news.

This was something that went beyond mere programming standards though as I didn't see anything offensive in the program description and would have liked the chance to see the episode for myself. But the actions of the Secretary of Education and others that over reacted to this denied me that. They basically enforced censorship on PBS.

R: Spare me the Port Huron statement. Although, "Taliban for a Democratic Society" is a rather accurate description of the left today.

Forgive my not understanding this but what is the reference and meaning in which you are using Port Huron statement? Also I have had personal experiences with many of the religious conservative "right" (My ex best friend (which has already been discussed elsewhere) and his wife and a mechanic at work to cite three examples) who would definately fall under the Christian Taliban heading as it also seems to fit more closely with the established goals of the "right" to enforce their limited narrow moral view of what american society should be and burn the Constitution and any who disagree.
I have been told by one of the CT that he would favor a Theocracy in America because it would in his words "Bring a sense of decency and morality to this country that it has been lacking"

R: Spare me the Port Huron statement. Although, "Taliban for a Democratic Society" is a rather accurate description of the left today.

Excuse my language, but that's a very heavy load of BS. This whole fiasco is the result of an evidently bigoted politician becoming offended by a public broadcaster daring to show a lesbian couple in a normal, positive light. What gall you have to suggest that the *left* is trying to enforce a viewpoint equivalent to theocracy.

I'll take it from your answer you are in the both camp. Maybe I'm a bit out of touch, since I neither have kids, nor expect much from television but I was under the impression when you saw programming on TV or radio that you found offensive, you file a complaint with both the station and the program's sponsers and stop watching the program in question. And if the program in question was brought to you by the Department of Education, then you complain to the Secretary of education.

Since when is PBS is subsidiary of the Dept. of Education? It is a public broadcaster, not a state agency meant to be manipulated and controlled by partisan hacks. It need not conform to the prejudices of the narrow-minded, but merely to standards of decency, tolerance, and integrity.

Ah, for the days when PBS television consisted of Muppets ripping apart vowels, overcoming their illiteracy and throwing trash at people...

The entire point of the programme was to instill values of tolerance and understanding in children who, when they grow older, can be very mean to peers who are "different" in some way, perhaps even meaner than adults. Gays and lesbians are human beings deserving of the same kind of understanding and acceptance as anyone else. Intolerance should never be tolerated.

Tom M: Point taken, but let's use an classic argumentum ab absurbum and let's say Buster visited a group of cannibals. And let's say, they were shown in a neutral light. And let's say the secretary of education lodged a protest over that, would that be justified? Since the diffence between the two situations is only in absurbity, how is the secretaries reaction any different. He saw something being made that he didn't like with money he is responable for.

R: It's not censorship. If Gilette is advertising on Friends, and Gilette decides that it doesn't like lesbian couples being associated with it's brand, and it withdraws it's adversting, making it impossible for NBC to continue producing Friends. There is an old saying, "He that's pays the piper calls the toons"

R: The Port Huron Statement was a self rightous liberal document that seemed to go on forever. Boasting about your superior virtues of tolerance and the light of reason is being compared to complaining about the inauthentic meaning of american life. Plus, it only works on other liberals. To me it sounds like "Dirka dirka Hillary Dirka Dirka Wrong war dirka dirka jihad"

"Taliban" is if memory serves, derived from talib, which is Persian for Student. Since Students for a Democratic Society is associated with the Port Huron Statement, well it was wordplay. Both the Taliban and the SDS were reconstructionists, that they sought to replace organic society with new one founded on their own wisdom. Since the major issues sought by the left today are reconstructionist in nature, since they seek to rewrite society in their image regardless of history or tradition, I think the Taliban label is accurate.

Josh G:
Every PBS program says at the end "This Program made possible by a grant from the US Department of Education."

My point was life was easier when PBS television was basically muppets teaching kids how to read, rather than having cartoons debate the culture wars. The minds of the young should be kept away from politics.

---

Quote:

Intolerance should never be tolerated.

---

...say Buster visited a group of cannibals.

I think I found that straw man you lost on the Ann Coulter thread.

1)Buster only travels around the United States. 2) Cannibalism was never as widespread as pulp fiction and cartoons indicate. And 3) Buster did visit Hmong immigrants, whose religion is animistic. I don't believe that they were cannibals, \sarcasm{but I could not be sure from the short visit with Buster, which did not focus on their religious beliefs}.

In any case, there was nothing in that episode to influence the children to become animists (let alone cannibals) themselves. But if an Asian American child should move into the neighborhood, the children who had seen Buster would realize that although they were a little different, the were still normal kids. Likewise, the main lesson that the kids would have taken from the Vermont episode would have been that speaking with a New England accent is not all that weird.

R: It's not censorship. If Gilette is advertising on Friends, and Gilette decides that it doesn't like lesbian couples being associated with it's brand, and it withdraws it's adversting, making it impossible for NBC to continue producing Friends. There is an old saying, "He that's pays the piper calls the toons"

(Clever pun on "toons") ()

It depends on how you define the word "censorship." For most people the point that makes it censorship is that it government action. Government censorship is prohibited by the First Amendment precisely to preserve the right of private entities like you and me, or Gillette, to freely express their feelings and beliefs.

Admittedly, in the case of government funding, the boundary between censorship and legitimately exercising oversight of the money her Department disburses is not as clear, but the episode was planned and filmed under the guidelines that the Department under her predecessor (another Bush appointee) had approved.

My point was life was easier when PBS television was basically muppets teaching kids how to read, rather than having cartoons debate the culture wars. The minds of the young should be kept away from politics.

If showing people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, people who are different because of physical or mental handicaps, people of different ages and genders as human and encouraging people to be polite to one another is "politics," then Sesame Street is also guilty, and it has been guilty right from the start.

Once again, the focus of the episode was on the children in the family and on their activities. Maple sugaring is not a lesbian activity. It is not a "straight" activity. It is a Vermont activity.

And when Sesame Street was showing black kids and white kids hanging around together it was when many communities were trying to fight integration with neighborhood covinents that people who moved into the neighborhood could sign promising that they wouldn't sell their house to blacks if the ever sold it.

One thing that's really confusing me in all this is Buster. Is this the same Buster from Arthur?

Yes, Although the show itself is live-action documentary, the episodes are introduced by Buster who supposedly recorded them as video postcards to send to Arthur and the others at home. Other children's progaming has done similar things (e.g. Travelling Matt on The Fraggles and Mail Call on Blues Clues), though usually as a segment of the program, not a spin-off.

R: The Port Huron Statement was a self rightous liberal document that seemed to go on forever. Boasting about your superior virtues of tolerance and the light of reason is being compared to complaining about the inauthentic meaning of american life. Plus, it only works on other liberals. To me it sounds like "Dirka dirka Hillary Dirka Dirka Wrong war dirka dirka jihad"

That's one of the more bizarre non sequiturs I've seen here. What does it have to do with anything apart from your continuing attempts to set up straw men?

"Taliban" is if memory serves, derived from talib, which is Persian for Student. Since Students for a Democratic Society is associated with the Port Huron Statement, well it was wordplay. Both the Taliban and the SDS were reconstructionists, that they sought to replace organic society with new one founded on their own wisdom. Since the major issues sought by the left today are reconstructionist in nature, since they seek to rewrite society in their image regardless of history or tradition, I think the Taliban label is accurate.

Once again, this is a straw man argument in which you are again ignoring that the Taliban sought to impose particular "traditional" religious beliefs on a country.

Josh G:
Every PBS program says at the end "This Program made possible by a grant from the US Department of Education."

Funny, because in my experience every PBS program says at the end, "This Program made possible by a grant from Corporation for Public Broadcasting and viewers like you."

My point was life was easier when PBS television was basically muppets teaching kids how to read, rather than having cartoons debate the culture wars. The minds of the young should be kept away from politics.

Tom and Brian covered this perfectly.

Orwell would be pleased. Perhaps enforcement should go to the Ministry of the prevention of vice and promotion of virtue.

No such ministry existed in Oceania. Again, what gall you have to suggest that producing programmes to teach children tolerance and understanding for people who are "different" amounts to some kind of Orwellian indoctrination. I did not propose the establishment of a "Two-minute Hate" against counterrevolutionaries!

Intolerance should be labelled for precisely what it is.

Tom M: Cannibals are long and standing tradition in debates in the discipline of ethics involving reducing arguments to the absurb, mostly because it's a non controversal argument, since nobody likes to be eaten. But okay, I'll "bite." Let's change it, to let's say Buster went to California and met a family of marajuana growers, an activity frowned upon by the federal government and larger country but tolerated locally. Disregarding questions about the legality of said practice, because it's not pertinant to the analogy, would the secretary of education be justified in such criticism?

Sesame Street: While not feeling especially inclined towards defending the world before my birth, I'm sorry, but the existance of black people was not controversal in 1973. And your analogy is bad.

Brian F: Well, that intergration you speak of, wasn't especially the nicest process, then or now. And it took plave mostly in the saintly north, or so the history books would have you belive.

Josh G: The Port Huron statement frames the arrogrance of the New Left and their intellectual progeny. My question was about if the creators were trying to create a controversy or were ignorant of the fact their work would create controversy. What I got was some screed about the Christian taliban, hatred, fear and ignorance, worthy of the Port Huron Statement. Quite frankly, if I wanted to be redeemed, I'd pray for it.

The Taliban were trying to impose a "traditional" belief structure on a culutre? Traditional means it's always been there. Historically, theocracies have always been imposed with alien or extremeist interpitation of beliefs, such as Calvinists in Geneva, Scotland or England. What they did was no different from what the Communists tried to do, to impose their vision of the Kingdom of God upon Earth. The problem is not, imposing religion upon a society (indeed, there is no separation of Church and State in the Moslem world) but rather, imposing an immanizing ideology upon a society.

The ending of every PBS show usually says both, but who do you think sponsers the Corporation for Public Broadcasting? I'll give you three guesses.

Sesame Street: While not feeling especially inclined towards defending the world before my birth, I'm sorry, but the existance of black people was not controversal in 1973. And your analogy is bad.

Godwin Alert!

So then you agree that the controversy is about the very existence of the GLBT? What is your (final) solution then? Identify them all with pink triangles and then gather them up and ship them to "relocation" camps?

I put the last remark in a separate post (and even clearly marked it) to make it easier for the mods to remove it if they feel I went too far. But I could not resist when I saw Matt's statement that this situation is different from the seventies because blacks' right to exist was not controversial, as is the that of the GLBT.

Let's change it, to let's say Buster went to California and met a family of marajuana growers, an activity frowned upon by the federal government and larger country but tolerated locally. Disregarding questions about the legality of said practice, because it's not pertinant to the analogy, would the secretary of education be justified in such criticism?

The legality cannot be disregarded. Any response to your question depends on a lot of questions Was it known that someone was involved in growing pot? (Were the authorities aware? The show's producers? The other family members?) Did this fact come out before, during or after filming, or after airing the show? Did the program mention the marijuana? or show it? Or show the children helping to raise it? This analogy fits the situation even more poorly than the cannibal analogy.

The Taliban were trying to impose a "traditional" belief structure on a culutre? Traditional means it's always been there. Historically, theocracies have always been imposed with alien or extremeist interpitation of beliefs, such as Calvinists in Geneva, Scotland or England.

But they believed that they were returning to a truer -- more fundamental -- version of the traditional religion. Just as the American fundamentalists do. And that is Josh's point. And why he put "traditional" in quotes.

Onto Board 6.