http://donmilleris.com/2008/10/03/on-the-campaign-trail-in-mi-in-nc-va-and-oh-this-week/

How ... nice. Different, I suppose. (And bears alarming echoes of familiarity.)

Anyway, putting that aside, most of what Mullen has to say is a load of balls - just what you'd expect. You know, he bangs on about the "militant preaching of homosexuality" (see wongaBlog and his militant toast) and thinks gay pride should be banned as it's obscene. The usual.

In fact, while you can't read the actual post, because the Church of England forced him to remove it, you can see previous posts in this cached version, courtesy of Google. You need the cached version because petermullen.typepad.com no longer seems to work.

Yup, the guy's an idiot.

But I am, I must confess, rather suspicious about the motives behind the CofE's order that it be taken down. Is it because it was offensive, or because it reminded the public what many people in the Church really believe? Personally, with no evidence to back me up, I can't help but think it's the latter.

Why hide it? Too many people in organised religion (from punters to preachers) are narrow-minded bigots, the Rev Mullens of this world. But we can't make our world a better place if we pretend that we're all friends and that there isn't a problem. There is a problem. It's huge. Can we just deal with it, please?

This year's Castro Street Fair in San Francisco was about Diversity in the LGBT community. Gary and I had a great time. We were able to go around early in the day and take some pictures but I believe our photos only captured just a glimpse of how great the event was as the day continued with all the booths, music, dancing and celebration. From Alice in Wonderland to Same Sex Marriage, it was a wonderful fair in San Francisco!

BubbleShare: Share photos - Play some Online Games.

I can't help but feel inspired by Fr. Geoffrey Farrow, a catholic priest from Fresno, California who recently came out of the closet and urged his parishioners to vote no on Proposition 8. This past Sunday, Fr. Farrow delivered a speech to his congregation stating his moral conflict with the Catholic Church's position on gay marriage and homosexuality. After receiving a pastoral statement in June from the Bishop of his diocese urging priests to preach the importance of voting "yes" on Proposition 8 (which would be a vote against gay marriage), Farrow felt compelled to take a public position against his Bishop's recommendation. Citing modern research and christian principles, Fr. Farrow spoke to his congregation about the need for love, acceptance, and a growing understanding of GLBT individuals. His statements to his congregation (read below) were beyond brave. 

As someone who was raised in the Catholic faith, it is encouraging to see a pastoral response that promotes acceptance, love, and actual christian values on this issue. My spirituality is something I've struggled with for many years, centering mainly around my sexuality and political ideals. While his congregation seemed supportive of his statements (mostly), I imagine the large response may not be so accepting. 

Knowing very well that this decision will likely cost him his priesthood, or at least cause a strong reaction from the governing body of the church, Farrow stood firmly in his belief of what was right and true. His courage and leadership are nothing short of extraordinary given the ramifications that will come. I couldn't help but remember a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (though I had to look it up of course). 

"It is better to die excommunicated, than to violate one's conscience." -St. Thomas Aquinas

Read the entire speech after the jump. As most of you know, I was appointed pastor here at the Newman Center on April 15th of this year.  When I arrived, I set out to address a series of various projects to repair our facilities.  To date, most of these deferred maintenance items have been addressed.  In the middle of dealing with contractors, the parish finance committee, the building department of the diocese, neighbors, etc., I received a FAX from the bishop's office on the 30th of June. It was the bishop's pastoral letter for the month of July.

This single FAX threw my whole summer, and in fact, my whole life into a turmoil.  Recently, I was speaking with some of our parishioners who advocate for the ordination of women. In the course of our conversation, a question arose which has haunted me: "At what point do you cease to be an agent for healing and growth and become an accomplice of injustice?"  By asking all of the pastors of the Diocese of Fresno to promote Catholics to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the bishop has placed me in a moral predicament.

In his "Pastoral," the bishop states: "Marriage is much more than simply two persons loving each other.  Marriage is naturally, socially, and biologically, directed to bringing forth life."

Actually, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life.  The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction.  So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why is that two people of the same gender, who are incapable of reproduction, cannot enter into a valid marriage.

The objections which are raised at this point are taken from Sacred Scripture. Scripture scholars reveal the problematic nature of attempting to use passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as an argument against same gender relationships. Essentially, these scriptures are addressing the cultic practices in which sex with temple prostitutes was part of an act of worshiping Pagan gods.  With regard to the Pauline epistles, John J. McNeill, in his book: "The Church and the Homosexual," makes the following point: "The persons referred to in Romans 1:26 are probably not homosexuals that is, those who are psychologically inclined toward their own sex-since they are portrayed as 'abandoning their natural customs.'"  The Pauline epistles do not explicitly treat the question of homosexual activity between two persons who share a homosexual orientation, and as such cannot be read as explicitly condemning such behavior.  Therefore, same gender sex by two individuals with same sex orientation is not "abandoning their natural custom."

In 1973, as a result of a greater understanding of human psychology, the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness.  In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church's watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled: "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics."  In this document, they made the most remarkable statement.  They stated that there are "homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct."  While these statements are hardly glowing affirmations of gay and lesbian persons, they represent a watershed in human perception and understanding of gay and lesbian people.

These new insights have occurred as a result of the birth and development of the science of psychology and understanding of brain development in the 19th and 20th centuries.  The California Supreme Court cited and quoted an amicus brief filed by the APA in the Court's opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California's ban on same sex marriage. Specifically, the court relied on the APA's brief in concluding that the very nature of sexual orientation is related to the gender of partners to whom one is attracted, so that prohibiting same sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.

In directing the faithful to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the California Bishops are not merely entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements made by the Church itself that homosexuality is innate (i.e. orientation).  In doing this, they are making a statement which has a direct, and damaging, effect on some of the people who may be sitting in the pews next to you today.  The statement made by the bishop reaffirms the feelings of exclusion and alienation that are suffered by individuals and their loved ones who have left the Church over this very issue.  Imagine what hearing such damaging words at Mass does to an adolescent who has just discovered that he/she is gay/lesbian?  What is the hierarchy saying to him/her? What are they demanding from that individual? What would it have meant to you personally to hear from the pulpit at church that you could never date?  Never fall in love, never kiss or hold hands with another person?  Never be able to marry?  How would you view yourself?  How would others hearing those same words be directed to view you?  How would you view your life and your future?  How would you feel when you saw a car with a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker?  When you overheard someone in a public place use the word "faggot?"

I remember the first time I heard that word, faggot, I was hanging out with my cousins.  They all played on the football team of the Catholic high school in our town.  One of them spat out the word in the form of a curse.  I was just a kid in the 5th grade, I'd never heard the word before, and so I asked: "What's a faggot?"  A faggot is a guy who likes other guys, was the curt reply.  Now pause.  Think.  What would those words mean to someone in junior high school who discovers that he/she is attracted to people of their same gender?  The greatest fear that he/she would have is that they would be rejected by the people they love the most-their family.  So, their solution is to try to pass as straight, deceive, and in effect-lie.  Of course, this leads ultimately to self loathing.  It should come as little surprise that gay teenagers have elevated suicide rates.  According to the Center for Disease Control's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide.

The bishop states: "The Church has spoken out constantly that those with a homosexual orientation must be respected with the dignity of every child of God.  Every individual is created in the image and likeness of God and should never be subjected to prejudice or hatred."  A pious thought uttered by a cleric, robbed of any substantive meaning, as the executioner begins his work.  Only a few select people actually read those documents.  What most Catholics hear about being gay or lesbian at their parish church is--silence.  A numbing silence, which slowly and insidiously tells them, "You don't belong here, this is not for you, and you are not welcome."  It is not the crude overt vulgarity of some churches.  But rather, it is the coldness of a maitre d' who simply won't seat you, or the club which has put you on a waiting list with no intention of allowing you to join.  And simply asks you to wait in polite almost, apologetic tones.

In effect, the bishops are asking gay and lesbian people to live their lives alone.  Why?  Who does this benefit?  How exactly is society helped by singling out a minority and excluding them from the union of love and life, which is marriage?  How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives?  What is accomplished by this?  Worse still, is to intimidate a gay or lesbian person into a heterosexual marriage, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful "theology."  This "theology," which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society which they claim to abhor.

When the hierarchy prohibited artificial birth control, most of the faithful in the United States, Canada and Europe scratched their heads in wonderment and proceeded to ignore them.  There is an expression in theology: "the voice of the people is the voice of God."  If your son or daughter is gay/lesbian let them know that you love them unconditionally. Let them know that you are not ashamed or embarrassed by them. Guide them as you would your other children to finding true and abiding love.  Let them know that marriage is a union of love and life and is possible for them too.

I do not presume to tell you how to vote but I do ask that you pray to the Creator of us all.  Think and consider the effects of your vote on others, especially minorities in our society who are sitting next to you in church, and at work.  The act of casting a vote takes you a few minutes but it can cause other human beings untold happiness or sorrow for a lifetime.  It can grant them hope and acceptance, or it can cause them to lose civil rights.  It can be a rebuff to bigotry and hatred, or it can encourage bigotry and hatred.  Personally, I am morally compelled to vote "NO" on Proposition 8.  It is my hope that the people of California will join with those others around the world such as Canada, Europe and South Africa who welcome their gay and lesbian family members fully into society by granting them the civil right to marry.

I know these words of truth will cost me dearly.  But to withhold them, would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well.  Jesus said, "The truth will set you free."  He didn't promise that it would be easy or without personal cost to speak that truth.

Senator Biden and Governor Palin firmly agreed that the constitutional rights of gay couples must be enforced and preserved. However, when individually asked whether or not they supported gay marriage, both vice presidential candidates replied, "no". I respect their beliefs and my opinions of them have not changed. But, we all need to ask ourselves "what is marriage?" "is marriage only for heterosexual couples?" "should the United States government have a hand in marriage?"

What are my beliefs, concerning this issue? It is quite simple and clear: I believe all human beings, regardless of their sexuality, should receive basic human rights and be given the opportunity to reach their potential, or better. How can you not allow homosexual couples the right to marry, when you support hospital visitation rights, life insurance, etc. for all couples (gay or not)? It is probably a matter of how one defies 'marriage', should it be between a man and a woman? or can everyone of all sexual orientations marry?

Of course, Bishop Martino's letter was a defense of the Catholic position against abortion rights. You can read the full text of the bishop's letter here.

I admit that I don't know how I feel about abortion. I tend to believe that all people should have the right to decide what happens to their bodies. I don't think abortion should be a crime. I don't think gay men and lesbians should be discriminated against because of the nature of their affections. But the church's typically disdainful approaches to the physical nature of the body seem well-rooted in the neuroses of the figure oddly known as St. Paul.

But there was a line in Bishop Martino's letter that appalled me:

Recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that “God is so humble that he uses us to spread his Word.”

The appalling pomposity of this statement amazes me. The church has certainly claimed that the word of god does not need to be justified by reason because god himself is something that cannot be understood by traditional methods of understanding - methods found within the principles of science and reason. And yet Pope Benedict's statement clearly assumes that we, as humans, are capable of interpreting and accurately passing along the word of god. There seems to  be a fundamental flaw lingering somewhere in the midst of the church's arguments.

Just as horrifying is the implication, contained in Pope Benedict's words, that men have the authority to act as gods, as they interpret him or her or it. I find this terribly frightening, not only because such a directive could ultimately leash any hope of personal freedom, but because of its incredible arrogance.

God may be humble, but his followers need not be. I will never be able to understand the Catholic church's double-speak.

Know hope.

Go Obama.

It was ten years ago today that Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and left to die on a fence in rural Wyoming. I can remember clearly how saddened I was, and how much harder it seemed to want to come out of the closet after that. October 12th will mark the 10th anniversary of his death. I have something I've already written that will be posted that day. Please celebrate the memory of Matthew this week in whatever way you find appropriate. Please let him be a reminder of the progress that has been made and the work that is still left to be done.

I'm sure by now most people who care one way or another about the Christianity Vs. Homosexuality will be aware of the very vague verse in Leviticus, Ch18, V22: 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' Now, quite how that condemns homosexuality, I don't know (seeing as it's physically impossible for a man to have sex with another man as he would with a woman, and a gay man wouldn't 'lie' like that with a woman anyway.) However, that verse does seem to give every Priest and Bishop the ability to say what they like about gay people. 

Take today for example. A CoE Clergyman has said that "homosexuals should have their backsides tattooed with the slogan: "Sodomy can seriously damage your health"."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7655585.stm

Is that really something someone in a highly respected position in the community should be saying? That's a prime example of the reason why I don't like going to church anymore, and a reason why religion shouldn't be involved in politics, or this time tomorrow every gay person's arses would be hurting a lot (and probably not for a reason they'd like.) Religion needs to move with the times, and people who can't accept that shouldn't be allowed in the pulpit.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1636392&w=425&h=350&fv=link%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.cbsnews.com%2Fvideo%2Fwatch%2F%3Fid%3D4503513n%26releaseURL%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Frelease.theplatform.com%2Fcontent.select%3Fpid%3DE8glOhMyONLlgGynyoGwGrrSKYfLGdCa%26partner%3Dnewsembed%26autoPlayVid%3Dfalse%26prevImg%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fthumbnails.cbsig.net%2FCBS_Production_News%2F839%2F869%2Fes_shepard_1006_480x360.jpg]

(Towleroad)

I'm continually amazed by Judy Shepard. She has devoted her life ever since Matthew's murder to educating people about discrimination, fighting for hate crimes laws, and keeping Matthew's memory alive. I've been privileged enough to see her speak several times, and to chat with her. She is such an exceptional woman, and sets an example, through her tragic loss, of what every mother with a gay child should be doing in their own little corners of the world to help the gay community continue to break down the walls of discrimination.

Unfortunately, many mothers just don't seem to have it in them.

Take that Janice says former JDMA model, Shaun McCarron, from the gay couple Shaun and Paul

www.shaunandpaul.com  has new news from the boys regarding the woman!

In a recent Katie Couric interview, Palin made the leap of a GOP lifetime, by mentioning she has a long-time friend who is a lesbian. She further stated that she doesn't judge gay people, that she doesn't think of her friend as a 'gay' friend, but as a 'friend' friend, and that SHE herself didn't make THAT choice... choice in being gay I suppose... which makes me think, "did this ever cross her mind... being gay?"

In my opinion, human sexuality is one of those scary frontiers that folks would rather avoid discussion... spending millions on NASA research and underwater exploration makes more sense. Donating thousands of dollars to your local tax-free church makes more sense than checking out a free library book on adolescent sexuality. But I digress...

So, let's go with this approach. Let's say we throw caution to the wind and collectively decide, human sexuality is determined at birth. THEREFORE, wouldn't a homosexual child qualify as a 'Special Needs' child?

I know, I know, I'm opening up a can of hostile worms here especially since there are some defense attorneys who would also like to align criminal behavior as predetermined, alcoholism as predetermined, as the same way cheating spouses (usually men) like to say their promiscuity was predetermined.

So, people born with physical and mental disabilities are not deviants (though in the dark ages they'd say otherwise), but homosexuals are. They made THAT choice.

So back to the ideal that sexuality is determined at birth... can we, or I, or you, or somebody make the case that homosexuals are also 'Special Needs' people as well, especially if human sexuality is determined - at conception?

I mean, it makes no sense to me that homosexuals are deviants, for heterosexuals are the only group that can physically create them (maybe gays come from deviant pre-marital sex... which, in that case, Bristol BEWARE).

Perhaps Sarah Palin will come to this conclusion herself and become the most aggressive, staunch advocate for gay rights because, GAYS ARE SPECIAL NEEDS PEOPLE.

She'll finally have another party to celebrate her lipstick with. Cool beans.

Special Needs VICTIM

Special Needs COUPLE (it would be nice if Samantha could have legal visitation if Lindsy ends up in rehab, the hospital, or if they have a baby).

Advocate for 'Special Needs' peoples... "I am, what I am!"

There is a very powerful segment of our media that would love nothing better than to see our country "brought down to size", and they are using their front man Barack Obama to do it.

The following are facts about Barack Obama that our media will not tell you about. Truly he is "Change".:

Obama didn't rise to prominence on his own merits

Barack Obama's ties to Communist Guru Saul Alinsky

Barack Obama and "Reverand" Jeremiah Wright

Nation of Islam activist of Barack Obama's camp payroll

Michelle Obama's salary increase

The following is Barack Obama’s voting track record for your review. It is eye opening to say the least.

SB = Senate Bill

HB = House Bill

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**ABORTION BILLS**

SB 230 (1997)

VOTED NO

To prohibit partial-birth abortion unless necessary to save the life of a mother and makes performance of the procedure a Class 4 felony for the physician.

HB 709 (2000)

VOTED NO

To prohibit state funding of abortion and induced miscarriages except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Excludes premature births from funding except to produce a viable child when necessary to save the life of a mother. Would permit funding in cases of rape or incest when payment is authorized under federal law.

SB 1661 (2002)

VOTED NO

A part of the Born Alive Infant Protection Package. Would create a cause of action if a child is born alive after an abortion and the child is then neglected through failure to provide medial care after birth.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**CRIME BILLS**

SB 381 (1997)

VOTED NO

To require prisoners to pay court costs for frivolous lawsuits against the state.

SB 485 (1999)

VOTED NO

To give no offer of “good time” for sex offenders sentenced to the County Jail.

*Obama was the only vote against this measure.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**UNIONS**

HB 3396 (2003)

VOTED YES

To make unionization easier by not requiring a secret ballot to organize if 50% of the eligible workers publicly sign a card of support for unionization.

SB 230 (2003)

VOTED YES

Entitles a teacher who is elected as an officer of the state or national teacher’s union to be granted a leave of absence for up to six years, or the period of time the teacher is serving.

SB 1070 (2003)

VOTED YES

Allows college graduate assistants who teach college courses be eligible to join a union.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**CHILD PROTECTION**

PRESENT SB 609 (2001)

To restrict the location of buildings with “adult” uses (meaning pornographic video stores, strip clubs, etc.) within 1,000 feet of any public or private elementary or secondary school, public park, place or worship, preschool, day-care facility, mobile park or residential area.

HB 1812 (1999)

VOTED NO

To require school boards to install software on public computers accessible to minors to block sexually explicit material.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**TAXES**

SB 1075 (1999)

VOTED NO

To create an income tax credit for all full-time K-12 pupils in an amount equal to 25% of qualified education expenses up to a maximum of $500 per family.

SB 1725 (2003)

VOTED YES

To restore the Illinois Estate Tax.

SB 1733 (2003)

VOTED YES

To impose a Gas Use Tax on the purchase of natural gas from outside the state of Illinois for use or consumption in Illinois. Forces the delivering supplier to pay 2.4 cents per therm of gas, or the customer can elect to become a “selfassessing” purchaser and pay 5% of the purchase price or 2.4 cents per therm.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**ELECTIONS**

SB 1415 (2003)

VOTED YES

To create public funding for supreme court races.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**GAY RIGHTS**

HB 581 (2003)

NOT VOTING

Allows domestic partners to be allowed to assume the rights of a spouse or survivor with regards to pension benefits under the Chicago Teacher’s pension system.

SB 228 (1997)

VOTED NO

Changes the “Illinois Equal Opportunity Act of 1997” to stipulate, notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any unit of government or school district that gives benefits to samesex couples under any criteria must give equal benefits to heterosexual couples.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**DRUGS**

SB 880 (2003)

VOTED YES

To allow the purchase of 10 hypodermic needles from a pharmacy without a prescription.

HB 2000 (4659)

PRESENT

To establish a zero-tolerance drug-testing policy for Department of Corrections Employees.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

**BUSINESS**

SB 777 (1999)

VOTED NO

To end the unemployment insurance fund building tax.

SB 879 (1999)

VOTED NO

To end the minimum contribution tax rate for the unemployment system.

SB 795 (2001)

VOTED NO

To reduce employers’ minimum contribution insurance rate.

SB 796 (2003)

VOTED YES

To increase the Illinois minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $6.50 per hour.

]]> http://lifelovelipstick.wordpress.com/?p=213 Sun, 05 Oct 2008 23:03:10 +0000 Rhonda Gail http://lifelovelipstick.pl.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/weddingbeeeharmony-controversy/ I don't want to delve too far into this, because everything that CAN be said is being said in the wedding blogging community.  I just want to state that I love WeddingBee, and have been waiting for the stage that I can apply to be a Bee.  However, in light of eHarmony buying WeddingBee, I definitely no longer want to blog for them.  It remains to be seen whether I will keep WeddingBee on my reader.  I get so many great ideas and inspiration there, but don't really want to support eHarmony in any way.  

Before this all went down, I didn't even realize that eHarmony was anti-LGBTQ, with ties to Focus on the Family and with refusal to match LGBTQ couples.  Now that I know that, while I'm very happy for Mrs. Bee, and everything this means for her financially and personally, I just wish she'd sold to another company.

I just want to ask: can anyone, anyone, imagine Condoleeza Rice or Margaret Thatcher or even Hillary Clinton for God's sake, winking at the nation and/or being coquettish in any national format?

Yeah. Just checking.

And Andrew Sullivan says:

The damage John McCain's baldfaced sexism and Sarah Palin's cocktail waitress act have done to American feminism has yet to be fully assessed. Palin has actually forced me to realize that, however much I despise Hillary Clinton, I have never doubted her professionalism and capacity to fight and win on her own terms in a male-dominated world by meeting and exceeding the standards of any male counterpart.

By contrast, Sarah Palin has yet to even do the rounds of the Sunday morning interview shows, let alone hold a press conference.

Over the last several years, the Republican party has been morphing, before our very eyes, into a proudly anti-intellectual, sexist, and religious authoritarian party---and Sarah Palin represents the apogee of this transformation:

As a Canadian, I am constantly reminding myself, how lucky I am to live in such a free country, where I have the right to marry whoever I love.
I am proud of Canada for being a pioneer in the fight for equality and basic human rights. Only a hand-full of countries around the world has legalized gay marriage. The Netherlands was the first country in 2001, Belgium in 2003, Canada was next in 2005, followed shortly by Spain, South Africa in 2006 and Norway was the last country to legalize gay marriage earlier this year. That’s six countries in the world…SIX out of about 194 countries.
There are of course countries that offer partnerships, but they won’t call it marriage. There are about a dozen titles for these partnerships like, same sex unions, civil partnerships, registered partnerships, civil recognition and domestic partnerships. Some people would think, fine, I don’t care if you let me use the word marriage, I just want my partner and I to be recognized by law as a couple. But the problem is not just the word itself; it is the benefits that come along with marriage, as well as simply being recognized as an equal part of society. Not allowing gays and lesbians to use the word marriage is demeaning. It says same sex couples are not equal and should not be allowed the same freedoms as straight couples.
But, of course, civil recognition is better than no recognition. In nearly 85 countries, like Panama and Barbados, it is still illegal just to be gay (Or more so the act of having gay sex). And in some of those countries, like Jamaica and India, only gay sex between men is illegal. Gay people in these countries are often punished with prison, torture, sodomy and sometimes death. This CNN report shows a bit of what it is like to be gay in a country like Iraq.
So why are these barbaric practices still in place today? It scares me to know that there is so much intolerance and hatred in this world. Even the most powerful country in the world, the US, is still condemning gay marriage and basic gay rights.
Luckily there has been some progress. The state of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004 and in May of this year, same sex couples were given the right to marry in the state of California. However, there are already people who are trying to take that right away from them. Proposition 8, also known as, “The Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry Act” will appear on the November 2008 ballot in California. Fortunately, I am not the only person that finds it disturbing to see the words, “eliminates” and “right” in the same title of a state proposition. Sites like NoOnProp8.com and VoteNoOnProposition8.com, whose tagline is “Californians against eliminating basic human rights,” have begun to show up. And Hollywood heavyweights, Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg each donated $100,000 to efforts to stop California’s marriage initiative.
But of course, there’s a flip side. ProtectMarriage.com is encouraging people to vote yes. They feel, if a same-sex couple gets married, it is somehow an infringement on their rights and freedoms. But what about rights and freedoms of the LGBT community? As if a same-sex marriage will have any sort affect on their own marriage. These are usually the same people who think it’s fine that Britney Spears had a 55-hour marriage. Or as it was put by Tina Fey in a skit as Sarah Palin on SNL, “Marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers.” Why don’t these left wing “marriage protectors” fight against the people who are truly threatening the sanctity of marriage?
Typically, these people tend to ignore the fact that marriage was originally instituted when women were considered property and the wedding was a business transaction where the woman’s father would transfer property rights to the new husband.
Although I know a big reason why gay people are still condemned for being themselves has a lot to do with religion, I don’t want to bring religion into this particular discussion, but I do want to make one point. I realized a long time ago that religion is not for me. To me it just promotes exclusion; it says, those who are different don’t belong. And for centuries people have been able to mask their hatred behind religion, but it is time that we accept everyone for who they are, and interpret religious publications like the Bible and the Qur'an as metaphors and not word-for-word translations.
That being said, the only way to truly stand up for yourself in a democracy, like Canada or the US, is with your vote. Whether you are in either country, a very important election is coming up. Although Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not outright support same-sex marriage, they have stood up for gay rights and Obama is continually including the LGBT community in all of his speeches and he even has an LGBT section on his website. He also opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.
John McCain on the other hand, supports Proposition 8 and D.O.M.A. (Defense of Marriage Act), which stipulates that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state and it prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. And he has said that he does not believe that same-sex couples adopting children is “appropriate.” Essentially to me, what that says is, he believes that children are better off living in adoption agencies than in the homes of gay people.
Thankfully, in Canada, the fight has already been fought. I remember when same-sex marriage finally became legal in 2005. It was covered a lot in the news that the decision was being made by the Supreme Court of Canada that day (the day before my birthday, June 28, 2005). My partner and I were on the edge of our seats waiting for the news. Just knowing that people in Ottawa, who we would probably never meet were currently deciding our future for us. I was anxious. I had faith in Canada, but I did not know enough about the system to really know what was about to happen. Finally, Carlos and I were sitting hand-in-hand when they announced same-sex marriage is legal in Canada. We felt accepted, we were so appreciative and finally we were equal. Soon after, we were engaged and I was legally entitled to refer to my partner of four-years as my fiancé.
Gay marriage became legal in Canada under Paul Martin’s Liberal Government so before Conservative Stephen Harper became the Prime Minister in 2006, he swayed voters by saying that he would revisit the debate on gay-marriage if he was elected. And that’s exactly what he did. My fiancé and I felt hopeless, we were afraid the Conservatives would take away our newly, rightfully granted rights. The Conservatives held a free vote in the House of Commons on a motion calling on the government to restore the “traditional” definition of marriage. MPs voted 175-123 against the motion. 110 of the votes in favour of the move came from Conservatives, while 13 votes came from Liberals and the NDP and Bloc Quebecois all voted against it.
With the federal election coming up on October 14, there is a lot of speculation that the Conservatives will become a majority government. If they do become a majority, they will not only be able bring same-sex marriage back to vote, but they would have the power to instate laws and make them irreversible.
So please reevaluate your leader of choice. Learn about where they stand on matters like human rights and make your vote count.
The NDP have a long history of standing up for the minority, standing up for equality and standing up for what’s right. So as I go to the polling station, I will be giving my vote to the party who is fighting not just my rights, but for everyone’s basic human rights.
I realize that I might sound a little melodramatic about the whole subject. I probably come across as prejudice myself by referring to evangelists and left wings as “these people”, but I think it illustrates how polarized our views and beliefs are. And it is something that is very personal to me. Although our society has come a long way, gay people are still treated like second-class citizens. We continue to face discrimination and hatred because of so many people’s narrow-minded views. I don’t understand how people can be against any sort of love whether it be gay or straight. If two people love each other, why does anything else matter? And on that note, I will be proudly marrying my fiance next year and I hope that one day soon, people all around the world will be able to enjoy the same right!

Photos courtesy Carlos Melendez

When I first heard Ruth Kelly was resigning I cheered. I care little for her opinions and      have always been troubled by her position of power. Although, to be fair I guess I should explain why Ruth Kelly makes me shudder.

It’s not just that she has made serious blunders. One of her departments was responsible for losing the details of 3 million learner drivers. She publicly bickered in the most embarrassing way with Jamie Oliver over school dinners, and took her dyslexic child out of state education, flouted six special schools in her area to finally put him in private education. Sending the message to all us have nots that if your child has special needs and you don’t have £15.000 a year to educate them privately, you’re screwed. She even managed to remain in place when her department allowed convicted paedophiles to work in schools. Yet, like I say, it’s not just these cock ups; it’s not even the way she votes that irks me. Even though she has voted in favour for detaining terror suspects without charge for 42 days, the renewal of Trident, the introduction of foundation hospitals, for the war in Iraq, and the astonishingly draconian idea of ID cards. None of which sit well with me. No, it was her more troubling habit of abstaining due to ‘conscience’ which irritated me. This insinuated that MP’s who did vote somehow did so without conscience.

Kelly’s abstinence record includes

The proposed reduction of abortion time limits

Equal access to services for single women and gay couples to use IVF

Reducing the gay age of consent to 16,

Gay and single parent adoption,

Section 28,

Civil partnerships,

Equal rights for temp and agency workers

The right, under the freedom of information act, for the public to know the inner workings of parliament.

The green taxes amendment

The animal welfare bill

Child Support Agency amendment (2006) To name but a few.

I guess I don’t need to say me and Ruth Kelly will never be buddies. Something I think both of us are happy about.

When I first heard she was stepping down, (after celebrating), I wondered why. When statements suggested it was to spend more time with her family, I just didn’t buy it. Why now? I asked myself. Wasn’t she the ‘wonder-woman’ who eleven days after being elected an MP had her first child and became the first minister to have baby changing facilities in her office!? If she could manage it then, what’s changed? Has the wonder worn off? I was baited; I thought she’d left over the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill. Abortion is always an emotive subject for the best of us, let alone for a strict catholic and alleged member of Opus Dei.

Then I considered it.

The average day of an MP is not a family-friendly one. As Oona King explains, “One of the things about being an MP is that you often don't have an average day. The working day usually goes on very late... very, very late.” In the video interview with Video Jug she continues, saying “You work a normal day like everyone does and then you work all evening too. And you work most of the weekend as well.”

http://www.videojug.com/interview/becoming-an-mp-2

So if a woman as intelligent, opinionated, and determined as Ruth Kelly can’t balance life as an MP what message does this send out to us citizens?

It tells me Parliament is not a very female-family-friendly place to work. They purport to offer equal access to opportunity, but what chance do mothers have of really becoming MP’s and remaining sane? With the majority of child-rearing still up to women, surely it is time for Government departments to practice what they preach.

Ruth Kelly states if it hadn’t been for her husband she could not have done her job. How many wives of MP’s crave this credit too? Just how many fatherless, (and in a minority of cases motherless), children of MPs are there? More importantly, does this mean single parents could not retain the position of MP? I wonder if they just don’t consider a career in politics for this reason. Shame. Sadly it is democracy that suffers. It is voters left with irrelevant representation, something set to worsen if the silver-spoon brigade gets in at the next election.

To add to this bizarre turn of events. The press has been clamouring to ‘understand’ why Ruth Kelly wants to spend more time at home, neglecting to question why it’s so difficult to be a mother and an MP. Male MP’s manage it. Gordon Brown himself said in the Guardian that "as a father" he understood Ruth Kelly’s decision, "She has missed several years and she wants to be with them as much as possible." Hopefully he will be next to resign then. I think the nation would like to see him spend more time with his children. Or is that still women’s work? I would have preferred him to say ‘we are looking into the reasons why Ruth Kelly cannot balance her work/life responsibilities. Perhaps parliament needs to take some responsibly and update its equal opportunities policy’. No such luck.

This doesn’t change my fundamental dislike of Ruth Kelly’s politics. But I defend her right to pursue a career of her choice, irrespective of her motherhood. I just don’t understand why people are not lining up to demand she is given flexible working hours. If no one will stand up and defend her right to the equality a working mother is entitled to, then what chance do the rest of us working mothers have?

Especially the ones without a choice, you know, those single mothers forced back to work by Labour.

Here in the second video clip, Barack Hussein Obama slips up and, quite comfortably, says, "my Muslim faith." Only when the guy interviewing Barack corrects him, does Mr. H. Obama try to salvage the slip.

In this third video, it starts off with Barack Hussein Obama's admition that his Christian church is ok. Then his pastor says "God damn America" There are a lot of YouTube videos about his pastor's racist & anti-America comments. feel free to search. Then Barack Hussein Obama says he's been to 57 states, (with 1 to go, Alaska & Hawaii). Theres only 50 US states, but there ARE 57 Islamic states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Hmmm..... There are a lot of pictures that would seem to suggest nothhing but the fact that Barack Hussein Obama has a Muslim background. Whether or not he is now a Muslim is not the issue. The issue is lying to the US people. Also, he lied on the state bar exam in Chicago, saying he'd never been know by any other names, but he was registered at his Indonesian School (as a Muslim) by the name of Barry Soetoro. The lady in the video doesn't quite read along with the words well, but thats why there's a pause button.

Proteus (2003) is an ambitious film featuring the story of an interracial gay love affair in a Dutch penal colony. There is an imprisoned white sailor and a black prisoner who carry on a lustful affair that transform into something deeper. There is also closeted married plantation owner. 

The plot tries to weave into subtexts deeper than the overall theme but does not overcome the campy almost Harlequin Book feel of the movie. There are emotional highpoints for the actors and edgy gay love scenes but the film never rises above its B rated soapish plane.

The cinematography is beautiful and the period costumes are well done.  If you are in the mood for a soapy gay film, then rent the DVD.

Here it is, I need to share this with you,

we live in the year,

2008.

(You sure this is not 1978????)

Did you know that?

And in 2008 it sometimes seems we have learned nothing.

We have become the arbiter of what is acceptable within the beds of consenting adults.  We have chosen to focus on a very small area:  whether people of the same sex are allowed to love each other.

Yes, you heard that right.  What we are talking about is ability of people to be allowed to FREELY EXPRESS LOVE TO ONE ANOTHER.

Let's repeat that:  FREEDOM TO LOVE.

Now I'm not patronizing you, I repeat this to drill it into my own head that it could actually be true that God loving heterosexual human beings think they have the right to determine the course of love for the rest of the world.  (Oh, did I mention?  I'm God Loving and a monogamous, loving heterosexual.  Aren't I lucky?  Arent' I special?  Guess God must have chosen me.)

The point is, educated, allegedly loving individuals, citizens of the most free of societies, or so they herald, are actually, yes, seriously, contemplating to amend the Florida constitution to tell people, to mandate, to enact into law a prohibition against love.

Yes, that is what we are talking about, prohibiting love.

No God I have ever believed in ever considered that a possibility, two rules, remember, the essence?  Love God and Love your neighbor.

Whew.  Sorry, I'm pretty upset.

I want to know where the exit door is from this Society gone mad.  No, I don't mean checking out, I mean escaping from the collective illusion.

Here, let me tell you what's going on.  Received, via another, yes, my allowed and legal love, an email, copied below for you to read and digest:

"Dear all - yes this is a direct appeal for money to help a worthy cause.  It is sad that we have to spend good resources to fight for basic human rights in the US in 2008.

A worthy cause - run by a good friend I've known for several years.  Please help!

Kind regards,"

*****

Begin forwarded message:

From: ******

Date: 1 October 2008 9:15:31 AM

To: ********

Subject: Hello from Florida

Dear Friends,

I'll be right up-front about this - this is an appeal for $$$.  (No, not for me.)

I hope you know I wouldn't be asking if it wasn't important.  Please read on and I will explain why.

There is a poisonous amendment to the Florida Constitution on the ballot this November known as Amendment 2 - the so-called "Marriage Protection" Amendment.

Yes, they're at it again.  The right wing is using fear of gay people to try to win another election.  But they may have over reached this time.  They claim it's about "gay marriage" but Florida already has multiple laws banning same-sex marriage.  What they're really after is engraving discrimination into the Florida Constitution and the elimination of domestic partnership rights and benefits which are offered by several counties (e.g. Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach), municipalities and employers (think Disney) here in Florida.

The good news is that to amend the Florida Constitution the proponents need a vote of 60% + 1 to win and we need 40% +1 to send it to the trash bin where it belongs.  Polls show both sides are within 2% of the magic number.  We have seen that once we explain the negative consequences to all Florida unmarried couples, especially seniors who would be forced to choose between sharing health care and receiving government benefits, our numbers go up.  The key to our victory will be in getting the word out to as many people as possible.  That's where you come in.

Florida Red and Blue, the group I have been working for since July, was formed solely to defeat this amendment.  As many of you know I have worked on a few campaigns in the past and I must say I am impressed with the sophistication of Florida Red and Blue.  We are using all the latest tools to fight this battle.  Included in our arsenal are TV ads which are already "in the can" and have been tested with focus groups with off-the-charts positive results.  The reason the ads are so effective is they tell real stories of real people and how they would be affected if Amendment 2 passes.  The TV time has been booked and all that remains is the money to run the ads.  All our other expenses and overhead are covered from now until Nov. 4 so every dime we raise from now on will go directly to getting these ads on the air.

Please help with a contribution of whatever you can afford,  It's easy; just go to our web site www.SayNo2.com or send a check to Florida Red and Blue  12864 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 314 North Miami, FL  33181.  There are just 5 weeks left until the election so the need is urgent and immediate.

If this amendment is defeated here in Florida it will send shock waves across the country.  The Republicans have used this tool in the past (remember Ohio 2004) and they will keep using it until it no longer works.  If we can stop them here it will be a real turning point.  But most importantly we will preserve the limited rights and benefits available under domestic partnerships for all unmarried Florida couples and keep the government out of the private lives of individuals and families.  When government tries to make these kinds of decisions we end up with travesties like the Terry Schiavo case.

Thanks for your help.  I know there are many demands on us all these days so it's important to choose where our dollars will have the most impact and do the most good.  Beating Amendment 2 in Florida is one of those places.  [-------] And for more information on the amendment, go to www.SayNo2.com. There you can read articles,view videos, make a contribution and find a list of our supporters like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Patricia Ireland, NOW, the NAACP, AFL-CIO, etc.

Thank you most sincerely for your support,

******

PS - if you have any friends in Florida make sure they know to vote No on Amendment 2.  You'd be surprised how many people don't know about this with all the attention going to the presidential race."

UPDATE:  WE HAVE RECEIVD PERMISSION TO POST THE AUTHOR'S CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE ABOVE QUOTED EMAIL:

dougsternyc@netscape.com

(954) 734-0171

SO THAT'S IT FOLKS.

A CHANCE TO ACT FROM THE SOUL, TO ACT FROM OUR HEARTS.

DOESN'T SEEM THAT DIFFICULT, DOES IT?

PEACE AND NAMASTE.

surface earth photos, copyright - 2008

A rose by any other name.......................................

-surface earth, copyright 2008

GRRRRR, OUR SURFACE EARTH DESIGN, SHE IS READY, BOOTS ON......................

YOURS,

SURFACE EARTH

DEGENERES: "They are trying to stop gay people from marrying, like somehow Portia and I staying at home watching Dancing with the Stars is affecting anybody..."

LENO: "I come from Massachusetts, and they've had it in Massachusetts for a long time, and it's fine. The world doesn't collapse. You know, I go to West Hollywood — people know that it's the gay area. The nicest area, the cleanest area, the safest area. The economy is falling apart, I don't care what you do!"

DEGENERES: "That's exactly right. I look at the people who are losing their homes and they're foreclosing, and people in Texas who have lost homes. There are so many people that need money right now – and if you’re raising millions of dollars – give it to those people, please, because you don’t need to promote hate."

That's actually one of the things that shows what sociopath the anti-gay forces are.  In their warped lizard brains, they probably think that forking over money to discriminate against a class of citizens is a "worthy cause."  Meanwhile, people are dying, starving, the economy is falling apart, there's disease, poverty...and these fundamentalists claim the name of Jesus?

Pathetic fools.

Watch it:

(Towleroad)