When the Tea Party takes over the comics, it will look like this...

These were taken from The Boston Globe.  For more cartoons, visit:   Tea Party Cartoons

I'll be reading in Atlanta the weekend of October 15-17.   

More info at http://atlqueerlitfest.blogspot.com/

Just a reminder..

The following countries now allow LGBT service people to serve without questioning.  Why is it that the "home of the free and the brave" isn't on this list?

Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Russia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom
Bermuda
Uruguay

This is the sort of thing that drives me crazy....

This report is the sort of news that drives me crazy.  With all the anger at the Obama administration we get this news about dissatisfaction with the new  health plan.  And it's not because people want it repealed.  One question: where were all of you when Obama was being persecuted for being "socialist" for his health care plan?  Here's part of the report of a recent poll from MSNBC:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's health care overhaul has divided the nation, and Republicans believe their call for repeal will help them win elections in November. But the picture's not that clear cut.  A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.

"I was disappointed that it didn't provide universal coverage," said Bronwyn Bleakley, 35, a biology professor from Easton, Mass. 

More than 30 million people would gain coverage in 2019 when the law is fully phased in, but another 20 million or so would remain uninsured. Bleakley, who was uninsured early in her career, views the overhaul as a work in progress. 

The poll found that about four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. On the other side, about one in five say they oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all.

Hmmm.  Don't you think your voice of support for a more comprehensive health plan could have helped earlier?

A poster worth reading...

Our Basset Hound is in Therapy

The therapist was smiling, but there was concern in her eyes.  Then she spoke the words parents dread: "You have a special needs dog."  Of course we immediately went down the where did we go wrong? path.  Should we not have passed up the class in Cambridge on Advanced Barking?  Why didn't we go to the Sit/Stay Symposium?  We were at fault, not doubt about it.

"Willa will have to meet with me once a month, as well as a weekly phone call,"  the dog therapist said.  At first we thought that Willa, our sweetheart of a dog who hides behind the sofa when anyone outside the family enters the house, would have to speak on the phone.  It was a relief to find out that either Bruce or I would have to speak.  Because I am rather phone phobic, the weekly consultation has gone to Bruce.

And then the next dreaded word: Antidepressants.  She recommended Paxil, 20 mg a day.  Yup.  A designer antidepressant.  I shuddered.  I was on Paxil years ago and walked in a daze for a week.  I finally stopped taking it when I entered City Hall and completely forgot what I was there for.  The next day I remembered it was to register our other bassets, Oscar and Shakespeare. If you've picked up a theme here, there is.  We name our dogs after literary figures: Shakespeare, Willa Cather, Oscar Wilde.  We are especially attracted to authors who were gay or "questioning."  In case we ever switch to movie stars, we've penciled in "Tom Cruise."

We were also told to assert our dominance over our bassets.   This did not go over well.  When I told Shakespeare to sit before he got his treat, he walked away.  If a dog can roll his eyes, Shakespeare did.  The thought bubble over his head went something like this: "Ten years with you and you now start to pull this crap?"  Willa, on the other hand, simply ran in circles.  I'm trying to convince myself that she's actually quite advanced linguistically, and has mistaken SIT for SPIN.

So we're trying our best.  And I'll update our progress later.

Anti-Gay Hate Mail from Senator's Office

Chris Matthews of MSNBC follows up on a story about a Republican staffer who sent the message "all faggots must die" to one of the most popular gay blogs in the country, Joe. My. God.  Here's the clip:

Save the date

Book release reading/reception sponsored by Back Pages Books: Sunday, November 14 @ 2:00 in the Chapel of First Parish Church in Waltham.

                                                                                                           

Be Careful What You Use As Campaign Fodder

By now, most people have heard of Christine O'Donnell, the Republican nominee for Delaware's senate seat.  She's the candidate who spoke out against masturbation and who may have illegally used campaign funds for personal expenses.


What has been getting the most attention, however, is her dabbling (her words) in witchcraft.  And apparently she went on a date with a woman (gasp) while she was doing this.  Don't get me wrong.  I think Christine O'Donnell is completely unfit to serve as Senator of Delaware.  I stand unequivocally opposed to just about everything she supports.  But I'm extremely uneasy about the glee many Democrats have expressed at this new revelation about O'Donnell.  I think the Democrats are entering ethically questionable territory when they start using people's spiritual beliefs -- or even the exploration of a specific spiritual belief -- in order to score political points.  I find it just as disturbing that her going on a date with a woman has become political fodder.


It's one thing to highlight a candidate's hypocrisy during a campaign.  And indeed, O'Donnell has been wildly hypocritical in her anti-gay, anti-anything but Christianity stance.  But that's not what I'm hearing from the Democrats.  They seem to be implying that her exploration of a spiritual belief and the fact that she had a date with a woman is juicy enough to keep her from being elected.


I'd prefer that the Democrats just not go down that path.  There is a great deal to question about O'Donnell's readiness for elected office, not the least of which is her possible violation of campaign laws.  That's serious.  And I think it's a lot more acceptable to question that rather than her spiritual and romantic past.

(If you'd like to follow this blog -- and I hope you will! -- scroll down and click "follow" on the left.)

Playing Politics with People's Lives

I know I should be furious that the Senate blocked the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Tuesday.  I'm sure I'll be angry soon, but right now I'm just sad, terribly sad, that once again our government is playing politics with people's lives.  I haven't even been able to watch Rachel Maddow since the Congress blocked the Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal.  I can't even hear my side talk about the issue.

Make no mistake about it: LGBT people are not the only ones to be used as pawns in this election year.  Immigrants, Muslims, women -- there's a litany of groups that have been exploited for political purposes.  And make no mistake about this: while Republicans may be the most egregious in using the disenfranchised for political gain, the Democrats also must share the blame.

We should all remember that President George Bush Sr., back in 1990, suspended the military ban on gay people during Operation Desert Storm.  That's right.  A Republican President simply signed a piece of paper that allowed LGBT people to serve.

For almost two years, the Democrats did nothing to repeal the DADT policy.  Until now.  It is not a coincidence that it was brought before Congress right before the elections.  There is a great "enthusiasm gap" between liberal and conservative voters this fall.  The conservatives are energized; the liberals are not.  The oldest political tool in the book is to energize the base when things look tough.  Bringing DADT before Congress now was meant to energize the base.  That is playing politics with people's lives.  The Democrats are guilty of this, even if less so than the Republicans.

We only have to look at Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts to see what leadership is around LGBT issues.  Within a year of becoming governor, he rallied lawmakers and leaders to keep the issue of gay marriage off the ballot.  He met with individuals.  He twisted arms.  He convinced lawmakers to do the right thing.

We need that sort of leadership now from President Obama.

I'll get angry soon, but right now I'm tired of anger.  But give me time.

A drawing worth a thousand words...

Just for fun...

I'll write about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debacle later.  This morning I just needed to smile.  (Thanks to Steve.)

Back from the summer, with some questions...

Hello, Everyone....I'm blogging again after taking the summer off.  It was a great summer of reading, writing, teaching a writing course, and spending lots of time in Toronto, our home away from home.  Part of the joy of being in Toronto was being able to tune out American politics for a while.  Well, I can't so that anymore.

It was a politically hot summer, partly due to the Tea Party Movement.  I've been trying to figure out some sort of logic to the Tea Bagging political thinking, but I've having a hard time.  Some questions I have:

1. If Tea Baggers really want smaller government, why are so many against a woman's right to choose?  I heard the Republican nominee for the New York Governorship answer the question about a woman's right to an abortion after rape or incest by saying, "There's adoption for that."  Said another, "I believe God has a plan for everyone."  What?  God has a plan for a fourteen year old girl to get raped by her father and then be forced to bear the child?

2.  The same goes for same-sex marriage.  If you want government out of everyone's life, how can you support government deciding that same-sex couples shouldn't marry?

3. Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, may not technically call himself a Tea Bagger, but since his election, he sure has been on the cut spending, lower taxes, kill government bandwagon.  That is, until Louisiana needs the money after the BP oil spill.  Then he pleads with the federal government for money and gets upset when it doesn't come fast enough. Isn't this a contradiction?

4. Tea Baggers claim that they want to get back to the basics of the Constitution, but how many have actually read it? One example is their blatant disgust of the judiciary.  They seem to want the government to run with only two branches of power.  That certainly isn't what I understood the Constitution to say when I read it, and, years later, taught it.  For a far more nuanced discussion of how Tea Baggers misrepresent the Constitution, visit http://www.media-ocracy.com

5.  And one last question. Why is it that so many of the Tea Baggers who want lower taxes and smaller government draw the line at their own entitlements?  Jon Taplin has a great entry about this on his blog.  Here's some of what he writes:

The New York Times-CBS Poll on the Tea Parties is notable for the great number of contradictions revealed. Since 75% of the Tea Party are older than 45, we can probably assume that at least 50% of them are on Social Security or Medicare. They don’t seem to grasp the contradiction.

And nearly three-quarters of those who favor smaller government said they would prefer it even if it meant spending on domestic programs would be cut.  But in follow-up interviews,
Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

It's going to be a long election season.  Stay tuned.

Book Release Date: November 15, 2010

Summer Sign-Off

Hello, folks.....

I'm going to need to take the summer off from blogging.  Teaching a writing course, getting ready for my upcoming book, and working on a new writing project are taking up all my time.

I'll be back in the fall!


Best to you.

Ken

Even fake gay marriages ceremonies might be illegal in Texas

If Texas Republicans have their way, you can be imprisoned if you marry a gay couple, even if that marriage is meaningless because the state won't recognize it.  They'd also like to bring back anti-sodomy laws to keep LGBT people from have relationships.  I guess it doesn't matter that the United States Supreme Court already ruled that such laws are illegal -- and that the ruling was in response to a Texas law.

From Alex Blaze of the Bilerico Project:

   The part of the Texas Republican Party's platform making its way around the blogosphere says they want to imprison people who participate in marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, even if those ceremonies have no legal meaning. It also calls for a return to sodomy laws, something that people thought was crazy to mention two years ago, but now is in a major party's platform:


    Homosexuality - We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, refuse to recognize, or grant special privileges including, but not limited to: marriage between persons of the same sex (regardless of state of origin), custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.


    Texas Sodomy Statutes - We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.


    This all comes in, ironically, after pages of "freedom" and "no government interference" rhetoric. Everyone should be free to do only what these people want them to do.

Firing up the base

Well, as the Republicans used to do so well, when you're in political trouble, fire up your base.  According to the Huffington Post, the Obama administration is making a series of diplomatic and political gestures of good will this week to the gay rights community with which it has occasionally clashed.

Writes The Post:

On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder was cheered by a crowd of gay and lesbian employees at the Department of Justice after he pledged to use newly enacted laws to protect their presence in the workplace.


"The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which the president signed into law last October, finally protects our nation's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered individuals from the most brutal forms of bias-motivated violence," Holder said.


The remarks were part of a broader outreach by the administration to LGBT employees. On Tuesday, the White House is set to host an event celebrating LBGT Pride Month. There was some confusion as to whether the president would show up at the ceremony. But an administration official tells the Huffington Post that he will give short remarks.


"[H]e is expected to deliver brief remarks," the aide said. "Invited guests include elected officials, state and local community leaders, and LGBT Americans from communities across the country -- including many youth -- who have stood up for equality."


The actually invitation list is not yet known, nor would the administration official elaborate. But it stands to reason that it will be chosen delicately. The president has been interrupted routinely in public forums by gay rights protesters who insist he hasn't gone far enough on the topic of repealing the military's ban on open service. Don't Ask Don't Tell has receded as a political issue after the House was able to put gradual repeal of the policy into the defense authorization bill. But there are certainly other contentious topics.


One activist emailed that he expects there to be a "look back" at what the White House has accomplished. But there is more that the president can do in address with respect to future activity.
Story continues below


"This Administration has taken small but significant steps in advancing LGBT equality (namely hospital visitation rights)," said Kevin Nix, Director of Communications at Family Equality Council. "But much more is left to do when it comes to the one million LGBT families raising two million kids in this country--like repealing DOMA and passing the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, which would swing open the doors for LGBT people to adopt. We look to this White House and Congress for leadership on these key issues that directly impact families."

The Ick Factor

TPM Live Wire is reporting on "The Ick Factor" in gay relationships.  That is, what Mike Huckabee thinks id the ick factor.  After reading this, it's hard not to think that Mr. Huckabee himself is the real ick factor in this debate:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) is against gay marriage, at least in part, because of the "ick factor."

"I do believe that God created male and female and intended for marriage to be the relationship of the two opposite sexes," Huckabee said in a recent New Yorker profile. "Male and female are biologically compatible to have a relationship. We can get into the ick factor, but the fact is two men in a relationship, two women in a relationship, biologically, that doesn't work the same."


Huckabee goes on to say that "some pretty startling studies" show that "monogamous marriage" is the way to end poverty.

"No culture in the history of mankind has ever tried to redefine marriage," he added.


Earlier this year, Huckabee -- who, according to polls, is a Republican frontrunner in the 2012 presidential race -- said gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt, saying, "Children are not puppies."


Sometimes it's hard not to see Mr. Huckabee, rather than gay relationships, as having an "ick factor."

Send an email to Home Depot

Joe. My God. is reporting that  The American Family Association has launched an email and phone campaign against Home Depot because the fix-it giant will host a crafts workshop for kids at Southern Maine Pride.


Writes the American Family Association:

    To this end, Home Depot is basically encouraging the attendance of children at events which openly expose them to transvestites, cross-dressers, and homosexual activists. Unfortunately, Home Depot's participation in the Southern Maine Pride Festival doesn't stand alone. It has also sponsored and participated in the 2010 Boston Gay Pride parade. Homosexuals often exploit young children in their desire to 'normalize' their gay lifestyle. Gay pride events have a long track record for offensive public displays of homosexual conduct. Obviously, Home Depot is OK with the idea of exposing children to an unhealthy and risky environment. So much so, it is willing to also celebrate it by participating in its promotion. Send an email to let Home Depot know you are sickened by their support and approval of children at homosexual events. If you are a customer, please add an additional personal line to our prepared letter to Home Depot. After sending your email, make an extra effort to protect children by calling Home Depot personally. Brad Shaw is the Vice President of Public Relations. His direct number is 770-384-5350.

If you'd like to counter this email campaign, can send a  message of thanks to Home Depot at consumeraffairs@HomeDepot.com or by calling 770-384-5350.

Family Leave Act to extend to LGBT families

The Associated Press is reporting that The Labor Department intends to issue regulations requiring businesses to give gay employees equal treatment under a law permitting workers unpaid time off to care for newborns or loved ones.

According to AP:


Labor Secretary Hilda Solis planned to announce Wednesday that the government would require employers to extend the option that has been available to heterosexual workers for almost two decades, two officials briefed on the plan said Monday. Neither was authorized to speak publicly ahead of the announcement.


The move, coming less than five months before November's congressional elections, seemed likely to incite conservatives and Republicans who stood in lockstep against the Obama administration's earlier efforts to repeal a ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military. It also appeared likely to be popular with loyal Democrats and organized labor.


The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year to take care of loved ones or themselves. The 1993 law, which also allows employees to take time off for adoptions, has previously only been applied to heterosexual couples.


The Labor Department planned to extend those rights based on a new interpretation of the law, the officials said. There was no plan to ask Congress to change the law, which means future presidents could reverse the decision.


President Barack Obama and his administration have slowly rolled out policies to help gays and lesbians, who supported his candidacy but have soured on what they consider his slow pace in making incremental instead of wholesale changes. He planned to meet with gay activists Tuesday at the White House, the second time such a reception has been held at the executive mansion.


Gay activists have been frustrated with Obama's approach to gay policies. The White House reluctantly backed a compromise on the military's "don't ask don't tell" policy on gays in the military that would move ahead on repeal but still allow the Pentagon time to implement new policies.


Earlier this month, Obama issued orders for government agencies to extend child care services and expanded family leave to their workers. Obama's order for federal employees, though, covers only benefits that can be extended under existing law, without congressional action. Legislative action would be required for a full range of health care and other benefits.


Last year, Obama gave federal workers' same-sex partners a first round of benefits including visitation and dependent-care rights. He also authorized child-care services and subsidies; more flexibility to use family leave to attend to the needs of domestic partners and their children; relocation benefits; giving domestic partners the same status as family members when federal appointments are made; and access to credit union and other memberships when those are provided to federal workers.

Way to go, Iceland!

As many of you know, the legislature of Iceland voted unanimously - that's right, not one legislator opposed -- to legalize same-sex marriage in the country.  What's also important is the the United Nations, which often shies away from LGBT issues,  has commended the move.

According to UN News:

Iceland deserves credit for eliminating barriers to same-sex marriage, which will become legal in the Nordic country this weekend, the United Nations human rights chief says.

Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, wrapped up her official visit to Iceland with a statement on Friday commending Iceland "for the significant progress it has achieved through recent legislation removing legal impediments to same-sex marriages."

Iceland will become the ninth country to legalize same-sex marriage following legislation that passed the country's parliament earlier this month. Same-sex marriage is already legal in Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden, as well as in some areas of the United States and Mexico.

In her statement Ms. Pillay also praised Iceland for strengthening the independence of its judiciary and freedom of expression, and she welcomed efforts to set up an independent human rights institution.

During her visit – the first ever trip to Iceland by a UN human rights chief – Ms. Pillay met Foreign Minister Össur Skarphédinsson, Justice and Human Rights Minister Ragna Árnadóttir and other senior Government officials, as well as representatives of civil society and academia. She also addressed the University of Iceland in the capital, Reykjavik.
Hmmmm.  Nine countries have legalized same-sex marriage.  Isn't it about time that the country that calls itself "the leader of the free world" do the same?

Wise words from former Senator Edward Brooke

Former Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke was the first popularly elected African American to make it to the US Senate.  Here's an excerpt from his editorial in today's Boston Globe.

Regardless of its target, prejudice is always the same. It finds novel expressions and capitalizes on new fears. But prejudice is never new and never right. One thing binds all prejudices together: irrational fear. Decades ago, black service members were the objects of this fear. Many thought that integrating black and white soldiers would harm the military and society. Today, we see that segregation itself was the threat to our values. We know that laws that elevate one class of people over another run counter to America’s ideals. Yet due to ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ the very people who sacrifice the most to defend our values are subject to such a law. We owe them far more.

I am not persuaded by the argument that service members are not “ready’’ for repeal of the policy. Not unlike racial segregation of the armed forces, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ lends unwarranted deference to prejudice. Now, as then, we should confront and eliminate discrimination rather than preserve a law that fosters it.

The Senate is expected to take up repeal of the law in July. If I were still in the Senate, I would vote to show my respect for the sacrifices of all soldiers — gay and straight. Congress should repeal this legislation and score another victory of progress over prejudice.

The Republican Party to which he belonged when he was elected is unrecognizable now.  It's too bad his fellow Republicans-- including Scott Brown, who has announced he will vote against the DADT repeal -- won't listen to him.

Wow. This is really scary.

Greetings, all

Hello, folks...

I'm at the Bennington Writers Seminar right now giving almost 24 hour attention to writing and literature until June 20.  As much as I'd love communicating with you in this blog, I'm going to have to wait until June 22 before my next entry.

Thanks for your patience and interest in this blog!

This is in the "you've got to be kidding me department."

In Seattle, Wash., a white male teacher had an 8-year-old African American girl removed from the classroom. In most cases, children are removed for behavioral and disciplinary issues, which is clearly understandable and acceptable; however, this wasn’t the case here.

The teacher removed the girl, claiming her Afro was making him sick. Naturally, the father of the child, Charles Mudede, was extremely concerned after the incident, and, as a result, the girl, who was the only black child in the advanced-placement class, has missed two weeks of school.

The incident, which occurred at Thurgood Marshall Elementary School, was featured on KIRO-TV. The segment showed the hair product the girl used, Organic Root Stimulator's Olive Oil Moisturizing Hair Lotion, as well as interviews with her mother and lawyer.

While the girl was eventually relocated to another class down the hall, the fact remains that such a decision could be made by a teacher alone, without the school contacting the parents directly — especially given the implications on the surface of a white teacher picking on a single black child as being the origin of his allergy. The NAACP stated that it will file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education.

The fact that a teacher would engage in such behavior is troublesome — especially in front of other students. If America is in a post racial period, it appears that “post” and “pre” may be synonymous. Teresa Wippel, school district representative, said, “We're certainly concerned about the incident and are looking into it. … Our goal is to make sure the student returns to school. The parents have, so far, not wanted to put her back in school. They want to be sure everything is resolved to their satisfaction.”

We, as a people, have endured many centuries of being degraded just for our physical features. I understand the strength and pride that Charles Mudede is displaying with respect to this situation. I, too, am a parent, and teach my children that the way they speak and look and act makes me proud, and that they should maintain such fortitude when others cannot acknowledge what they see in themselves. –torrance stephens, ph.d.

Please don't say the G word

I mentioned this guy on Tuesday.  Rachel Maddow covered him Wednesday night in her usual perceptive yet understated way.

The Rhinestone Sisterhood

Click below Review of Rhinestone Sisterhood to read my review of The Rhinestone Sisterhood in Edge Publications.


Review of Rhinestone Sisterhood

And this guy is a professor?

WARNING...ALLOWING KIDS OF SAME-SEX PARENTS INTO YOUR SCHOOL WILL LEAD TO PORNOGRAPHY DISTRIBUTED TO THEIR CLASSES....

This piece is from Lisa Wangsness of the Boston Globe:



A contributor to the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston said yesterday he regretted a portion of a column that has infuriated gay Catholics in the region.

In the column, published last week, the writer argued that one reason the children of gay parents should not be admitted to Catholic schools is the “real danger’’ that they would bring pornography to school.

That allegation, plus several others in the column, has drawn a torrent of criticism from gay rights advocates.

And yesterday, the editor of the paper, The Pilot, said in a statement, “The tone of the piece was strong, and we apologize if anyone felt offended by it.’’

The controversy began June 4, when The Pilot published a column by Michael Pakaluk, a former philosophy professor at Clark University in Worcester and former visiting scholar at Harvard who now teaches in Virginia. Pakaluk was reflecting on another controversy, regarding the decision by a Hingham priest to rescind the acceptance of a child of a lesbian couple to a local parochial school.

The Archdiocese of Boston has just begun developing a policy regarding the admission of children of gay parents to Catholic schools, following the Hingham controversy.

In the column, Pakaluk wrote that pornographic items “go along with the same-sex lifestyle, which — as not being related to procreation — is inherently eroticized and pornographic.’’

In a phone interview yesterday, however, Pakaluk said he now views that sentence as a “weak argument.’’

“I think I probably would not make that point again, and I can see how it would be offensive,’’ he said.

In the column, Pakaluk also expressed concern that by welcoming gay families, Catholic schools could give children the impression that the practice of homosexuality is acceptable, as well as potentially provide an opportunity for a gay parent to “advocate for his lifestyle.’’ He added that gay parents should not be called “parents’’ unless they are biologically related to their children.

Pakaluk, who has been writing monthly columns for The Pilot since 2002, according to the archdiocese, stood by those aspects of the column yesterday. He said that what gay Catholics and their supporters believe is “on a major collision course’’ with Catholic teaching that sexual relations should only take place within a heterosexual marriage, that opposite-sex partners in marriage represent the image of God, and that a mother and father make “distinct and complementary’’ contributions toward raising a child.

“Parents have to be committed to trying to live Catholic morality; otherwise, they are not partnering with the school,’’ he said.

Jarrett Barrios, a former state senator from Cambridge who is now president of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, called the column “void of the love, compassion, and inclusiveness that so many proud practicing Catholics, myself included, have grown up with.’’

Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of DignityUSA, an advocacy group for gay Catholics, said, “I think this is an absolutely appalling piece. I think it’s incredibly irresponsible for a Catholic newspaper to allow such hateful and insupportable claims to be made in their paper.’’

The editor of The Pilot, Antonio M. Enrique, said in a statement to the Globe yesterday that the column did not necessarily reflect the views of the archdiocese or the paper, which he said tries to promote conversation and understanding of the different positions on issues of interest to Catholics.

“Pilot readers are accustomed to reading differing views on many complex social issues,’’ he said. “Our Catholic laity is well educated and can make up their minds on whether they agree or disagree with a particular opinion.’’

Charles Martel, cofounder of the national Catholics for Marriage Equality who attends St. Ignatius Parish in Chestnut Hill, said Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley must “decide where he really stands.’’

“He can’t have it both ways and say he, in fact, is welcoming these children and then have these kinds of statements made in The Pilot.’’

But a spokesman for O’Malley said yesterday that Enrique, not the cardinal, is fully responsible for what The Pilot prints.

The Pilot has provided space for numerous points of view on this issue. In a letter to the editor that ran on the same page as Pakaluk’s column, Monsignor Paul V. Garrity of St. Mary’s Parish in Lynn wrote that Catholic schools have long welcomed all children, regardless of their family situation.

“To begin to discriminate against children who have two mommies or two daddies would fly in the face of this very proud tradition,’’ he said.

Look at your husband and smile

 Did the cue cards keep telling Mrs. Haggard, "Look at your husband and smile. Look at your husband and smile. Look at your husband and smile. Look at your husband and smile?"

Not sure how the anti-gay forces will respond to this....

 Here's a pretty wonderful story.  The results are in for the first ever study to track children with lesbian parents from birth to adolescence.  Most rational folks expected that there would be no difference between kids raised by lesbian parents and those raised by hetero couples.  But guess what?  Children raised by lesbian parents fared better than those raised by hetero parents in a number of important categories.

According to Time Magazine:

The authors found that children raised by lesbian mothers — whether the mother was partnered or single — scored very similarly to children raised by heterosexual parents on measures of development and social behavior. These findings were expected, the authors said; however, they were surprised to discover that children in lesbian homes scored higher than kids in straight families on some psychological measures of self-esteem and confidence, did better academically and were less likely to have behavioral problems, such as rule-breaking and aggression.

"We simply expected to find no difference in psychological adjustment between adolescents reared in lesbian families and the normative sample of age-matched controls," says Gartrell. "I was surprised to find that on some measures we found higher levels of [psychological] competency and lower levels of behavioral problems. It wasn't something I anticipated."

In addition, children in same-sex-parent families whose mothers ended up separating, did as well as children in lesbian families in which the moms stayed together.

It's not clear exactly why children of lesbian mothers tend to do better than those in heterosexual families on certain measures. But after studying gay and lesbian families for 24 years, Gartrell has some theories. "They are very involved in their children's lives," she says of the lesbian parents. "And that is a great recipe for healthy outcomes for children. Being present, having good communication, being there in their schools, finding out what is going on in their schools and various aspects of the children's lives is very, very important."

 

A Rush to the altar...and what are you thinking, Elton?

Over the weekend Rush Limgaugh celebrated his love of traditional marriage by having his fourth.  No surprise there.  What was surprising was the entertainment for the wedding.  Why did he agree to do this gig?  I doubt he needed the million dollars.  Here's what chicagopride.com says about the situation:

Despite the anti-gay rhetoric of Rush Limbaugh, Sir Elton John has reportedly performed to the 400 wedding guests of the conservative radio commentator.


According to People magazine, Limbaugh reportedly hired Elton John for $1 million to perform at his lavish Hawaiian-themed Florida ceremony on Saturday.


The 59-year-old Limbaugh married 33 year-old Kathryn Rogers. This is the fourth wedding for Limbaugh, who actively speaks out against gay marriage in support of traditional marriage.


The Limbaugh and openly gay Elton John pairing is odd considering the singer's longtime commitment to gay rights.  Elton John married his partner David Furnish four years ago.


An editorial posted on Queerty.com says Elton John should be shamed for taking the cash. "There are reasonable things the LGBT community can do to disavow support for people who make a career out of gay baiting, and there are unreasonable things," says the editorial.


"It will be Rush who writes out the check to Elton for the seven-figure sum; money that, let's all face, Elton doesn't really need. And even if his intention was to donate the cash to a LGBT youth group, it's already bloody money, and tainted."


There has been no comment from Elton John about accepting Limbaugh's invitation nor his intentions for the money.


Some of the most famous guests were Karl Rove, Fred Thompson, Sean Hannity, Rudolph Guiliana, James Carville, and Mary Matalin.

Elton John and Karl Rove at the same party?  I have no words.

First gay marriage in Portugal!

Barry Hatton of the Associated Press is reporting on the first same-sex marriage in Portugal!  A lesbian couple was married on Monday.  Here's what Hatton has to say:



Teresa Pires and Helena Paixao (left), divorced Portuguese mothers in their 30s who have been together since 2003, married in a 15-minute ceremony at a Lisbon registry office.

"This is a great victory, a dream come true," Pires said as the couple kissed and hugged.

"Now we're a family, that's the important thing," Pires said, adding they would continue to fight for equal rights for homosexuals, including adoption.

The ceremony came less than a month after Portugal's conservative president ratified a gay marriage law passed by Parliament in January. His approval made Portugal the sixth in Europe to let same-sex couples wed.

The center-left Socialist government said the law is part of its effort to modernize Portugal, where homosexuality was a crime until 1982. Three years ago the same government lifted Portugal's ban on abortion, despite church opposition.

Pires and Paixao, the lesbian couple, had campaigned for a change in the law since a registry office turned them away when they first tried to marry in 2006.

Officials argued the law stipulated that marriage was between people of different sexes. The women appealed to Portugal's Constitutional Court because the constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The court rejected their appeal, but left-of-center parties in Parliament supported the government bill which removed the reference to marriage being between different sexes.

Another Golden Girl has left....

So this a good time to remember what that show did for marriage equality in this scene with the late Rue McClanahan.  Only Betty White survives of the four.

Gay couple temporarily reunited

Here's an uplifting story about a bi-national gay couple reunited, at least temporarily.  Senator John Kerry worked to bring some justice here.  But at the risk of being a wet blanket at the party, I also think we should remember that if Kerry had had his way, the couple would never have been married in the first place.  He campaigned against the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's marriage decision when he ran for president.

The story is taken from The Boston Globe and was written by Maria Sacchetti:


Tim Coco and Genesio Oliveira (lefy0 married in 2005, among the throngs who wed after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts. But for nearly three years, they lived apart — Coco in Haverhill and Oliveira in his native Brazil — because federal law does not recognize their union.

On Wednesday, Oliveira returned to Massachusetts for an emotional reunion after federal immigration officials took the rare step of granting him permission to stay for one year on humanitarian grounds, clearing the way for him to try again for legal residency. His return followed personal appeals by Senator John F. Kerry, US Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on their behalf.

“We’re overjoyed. Words can’t express it,’’ Coco, 49, an ad agency owner, said yesterday from their home in Haverhill, where he had decorated his yard with yellow ribbons to mark their long separation. “Every new moment now is a fresh new moment in our life.’’

Kerry called the couple heroes for persevering in their marriage.

“Here were two people who loved each other and were as committed to each other as you could ever imagine, and a quirk in the law was being allowed to keep them apart. I just wanted to do everything I could to reunite them,’’ he said in a statement.

Kerry also praised Napolitano and Holder, saying, “They really listened, and they righted this wrong.’’ Unlike heterosexuals, gays and lesbians cannot sponsor their immigrant spouses for legal US residency.

Oliveira was allowed to return because US Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is under the Department of Homeland Security, granted him humanitarian parole. Parole is a rarely used mechanism that permits otherwise inadmissible people to enter the United States for “urgent humanitarian reasons’’ or “significant public benefit,’’ said agency spokesman Chris Bentley. About 250 to 350 people are granted such parole every year, he said.

He declined to comment on Oliveira’s case because of privacy laws. Holder’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Humanitarian parole is temporary, but Coco said the couple might seek to reopen Oliveira’s case or try another venue so that he can remain permanently.

According to the 2000 US Census, some 35,000 same-sex couples include one US citizen and a partner who is not.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, criticized the move, saying it seemed unfair to grant a special exception for Oliveira when so many others, such as earthquake survivors in Haiti, are clamoring to get into the country.

“It’s a side-door attempt at changing the Defense of Marriage Act,’’ he said, citing a 1996 federal law declaring that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. “That’s the problem with our immigration laws; it’s just this vast collection of exceptions for people who get the attention of a particular bureaucrat or judge or politician.’’

But Kerry and others contended that Oliveira was a victim of injustice. He had applied for asylum in 2002, saying a doctor had raped him in Brazil when he was 16 and he suffered discrimination in his native country because he is gay. An immigration judge found his story credible but rejected his asylum claim, noting that Oliveira had returned to Brazil twice without incident, including for his father’s funeral.

Oliveira was ordered to return to Brazil in 2007. By then, he had been married two years and living in Haverhill with Coco and their dog, Q-tip.

For nearly three years, the couple talked nightly over the Internet and lobbied lawmakers and others for Oliveira’s return. Coco estimates they spent about $250,000 in legal fees and other expenses on the case.

Oliveira missed the death of Coco’s mother in 2008 and lived in near seclusion just blocks from the doctor who had assaulted him as a teen in his hometown in eastern Brazil.

Though Brazil recognizes same-sex marriage for immigration purposes, violence against gays persists. More than 100 homosexuals and transvestites were killed last year in Brazil, according to the US Department of State’s human rights report.

Wednesday night, the couple celebrated with family and friends. They finished each other’s sentences. Oliveira whipped up a batch of chicken Alfredo, with strawberries for dessert.

“It seems like I never left,’’ Oliveira said. “This has made Tim and I stronger than ever. Our commitment for each other, I always say to him, is unbreakable.’’

No LGBT recognition in the UN

Reuters is reporting that a United Nations committee that decides which nongovernmental organizations can be accredited to the world body moved on Thursday to keep out the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

I've condensed the story by reporter Eric Walsh:

Diplomats from Western nations that support gay rights complained that Egypt and other developing states that have been criticized by rights groups for discriminating against gays and lesbians prevented the committee from voting on whether to accredit the group, thereby leaving it in limbo.


"IGLHRC (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) is disappointed by the vote of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations to block action on our application," Cary Alan Johnson, head of the New York-based group, said in a statement to Reuters.


Johnson said it was a "clear case of discrimination against an organization because it defends the human rights of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi- and transsexual) people around the world."


A Western diplomat told Reuters that "unfortunately we didn't have the votes" on the committee to overcome opposition from countries like Egypt, Qatar, Sudan and others. The diplomat added that IGLHRC (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission) clearly fulfills all the criteria for U.N. accreditation.

Funny song about recent scandals

Here's Nancy Anderson singing about recent sex scandals.  Lyrics by Stephen McCauley.  This is a fund rasier for the group "banned in Boston."  Enjoy.  (With thanks to Mameve.)

Good news from Iowa

As anti-gay marriage forces keep working to overturn the state Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex couples to marry, it's nice to see that a majority of Iowans now favor marriage equality.  This seems to be a pattern: once gay marriage is allowed in a state and people see that their world hasn't turned upside down, there is a shift toward acceptance.

Here's an abridged version of the  story from KCCI-TV:

In the past 14 months, the Iowa Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages and the Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommended that the state legalize medical marijuana. Now, a new NewsChannel 8 poll shows that a majority of Iowans support both ideas.

The survey found that 53 percent of those polled said they favor marriage rights for same-sex couples and that 41 percent are opposed.

Opponents of same-sex marriage put candidates on notice this week, delivering a petition to the statehouse that they said makes clear that the issue will be on the minds of voters.

"When folks go to the polls next week and then in November, they will in fact support candidates who understand their Constitution and who will defend marriage," said Bryan English of the Iowa Family Police Center.

He said he feels that the NewsChannel 8 poll results don't accurately reflect the feelings of most Iowans.

Justin Uebelhor of the group One Iowa said he thinks a majority of Iowans have bigger concerns.

"Iowans want their elected officials to focus on issues like jobs and education and really, those pocketbook issues, rather than focusing on divisive issues that are going to pit neighbor against neighbor," Uebelhor said.
 

Another example of religious intolerance

As you know, there are organizations in Iowa who are doing everything in their power to overrule the Iowa Supreme Court's decision to allow same-sex marriages in the state.  One of those groups is the Iowa Family Policy Center, a Christian organization led by Chuck Hurley.  (Don't you love how these groups always claim the word "family" as their own?)  Jason Hancock of the Iowa Independent has written a story that highlights yet again where the real intolerance lies in this debate.  According to Hancock:
 
Chuck Hurley (left), president of the politically influential Christian organization Iowa Family Policy Center, says any religious leader who supports legalized same-sex marriage is “confused at best and blatantly evil at worst.”

The statement comes in response to demands that Hurley retract an earlier statement calling members of the pro-marriage equity Iowa Interfaith Alliance “pseudo pastors.”

Iowa Interfaith Alliance delivered a letter to legislators during the 2010 General Assembly signed by more than 150 religious leaders in Iowa who support marriage rights for same-sex couples, which Hurley refers to as “state-sanctioned sodomy.”

“Yesterday, I said that I believe a pseudo pastor, meaning anyone who would knowingly lead their flock astray on issues of morality and spirituality, and so clearly violate the revealed Word of God, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and a false shepherd,” Hurley said, later adding: “In my opinion, those who signed their name to the Interfaith Alliance petition in support of state sanctioned sodomy are not only wolves in sheep’s clothing, but they are blind leaders of the blind.”

He called on members of the Interfaith Alliance to “repent, turn to Christ, and join us in showing genuine concern for both the physical and the spiritual wellbeing of those caught up in the destructive sin of homosexuality.”

Connie Ryan Terrell, executive director of the Iowa Interfaith Alliance, responded immediately.

“Mr. Hurley is blatantly disrespectful of the many clergy from across Iowa who are supportive of marriage equality simply because he believes differently,” she said. “Mr. Hurley, who is not a pastor, has every right to his belief, as do the clergy who signed our letter in February and other clergy from across the state who support marriage equality.”

Terrell said Hurley has no business proclaiming who should and should not call themselves pastor.

“It is inappropriate and uncivil for Mr. Hurley to do so,” she said. “He should retract and apologize for his statement that clearly has no place in this public discussion.”

 Can't wait to read about the ensuing scandal that seems to go hand-in-hand with folks who are so irrationally and intolerantly "Christian."

Maryland Voters Now Favor Same Sex Marriage

Here's some good news from Out Loud News in Maryland.  I've condensed the story:

A Washington Post poll released on May 11 shows that same-sex marriage is gaining among Maryland voters.  The poll, conducted May 3-6, finds that 46 percent overall favor legal same-sex marriage, 44 percent oppose it, and 10 percent have no opinion. Among registered voters, 48 percent are in favor and 43 percent are opposed, according to the Post.  By contrast, in late 2007, an identical Post poll question found 44 percent in favor overall and 51 percent opposed.

The margin widens when it comes to recognition of out-of-state marriages involving gay and lesbian couples.  By a margin of 55 percent to 38 percent, Marylanders approve such recognition. In response to these numbers, Equality Maryland executive director, Morgan Meneses-Sheets said, "The new polling data released by the Washington Post is a huge, public step forward for marriage equality in Maryland." She continued, "As the article indicates, a clear majority consensus is building across the state, not just in support of out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition, but for full marriage equality for lgbt couples."

The Post poll indicates "a notable dip in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage among African-Americans since the last Post poll. Blacks in Maryland are now nearly equally divided over the issue."

Gay Marriage Legal in Portugal Next Monday

On Top Magazine is reporting that same-sex marriage will be legal in Portugal next Monday. 

Writes the staff of the magazine:

Beginning June 7, marriage in Portugal will be defined as a “contract between two people wishing to form families through the full communion of life.”


Prime Minister Jose Socrates, a Social Democrat, promised to legalize gay marriage if his party was returned to power. Lawmakers approved the bill in February.


President Anibal Cavaco Silva reluctantly signed the gay marriage bill into law on May 17, saying he was only doing so because Social Democrats were certain to overturn a veto.


“There are moments in the life of a country when ethical responsibility has to be placed above one's personal convictions,” he said in a televised address to the nation.


The president initially attempted to derail the legislation, forwarding four out of five of the bill's articles to the nation's Constitutional Court. He said he did so because he doubted the bill's constitutionality. But the court's majority agreed that the four articles were constitutional.


An article that bans married gay and lesbian couples from adopting children was not forwarded by the president to the court and the prohibition remains in the final law.


During a visit to Portugal as the president considered the issue, Pope Benedict called on Roman Catholics to oppose gay marriage. He called the institution “insidious and dangerous.”


Portugal joins five European countries – Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and most recently Sweden – in legalizing gay marriage.

Good news!

Day 4 of Dan Choi's Hunger Strike

via Joe.My.God

New York, New York

Since the producers of Sex and the City 2 made the huge mistake of taking the ladies out of New York for the film, I thought a cinematic tribute of New York was in order. Please, if there's a Sex and the City 3, don't get rid of New York.

Gay Malawian Couple Pardoned

Voice of America is reporting the very good news that the gay couple in Malawi, previously sentences to 14 years of hard labor each, has been released.  Here's an abridged version of the report:

Malawian President Bingu Wa Mutharika’s weekend pardon of a homosexual couple recently convicted for holding a public betrothal ceremony has drawn praise from U.S. President Barack Obama, and from Britain and a Malawian gay rights group.  U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who was visiting Malawi at the time of the reprieve, called Sunday’s release of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga from prison a courageous decision.

Journalist Watipaso Mzungu of the Malawi Daily Times newspaper said Malawians’ reactions have been mixed.  And, he said President Mutharika’s decision continues to raise a lingering question in a country that imposes stiff bans on homosexual behavior.

Two weeks ago, a Malawian judge convicted Monjeza (photo: left, back) and Chimbalanga (right, front) of unnatural acts and sentenced them to 14 years in prison.  The sentence has drawn criticism from governments and human rights groups.  It has also sparked debate about activities by other African governments that are attempting to toughen penalties against homosexuality, which is illegal in 38 of Africa’s 53 states.

Mzungu, a Blantyre-based journalist, noted that traditional religious group opposition to the legalization of homosexual unions remains very strong in Malawi, a predominantly (80%) Christian country.  He said there are signs that President Mutharika, while signaling that he is not overturning state law, is clearly acceding to demands of the international community.

Despite the international attention, he said Mr. Mutharika’s own political fate is not being threatened and that his critics will try to reach a common understanding for the benefit of the country’s development needs until the next election cycle in 2014.

Journalist Mzungu said the country’s Minister of Gender and Child Welfare has told state media in Malawi that, “if the two guys go home and begin staying together, they are going to be rearrested.”

Mzungu said it is his clear understanding that President Mutharika is not trying to overturn the law, but is simply trying to find a way out of Malawi’s current clash with international human rights advocates, while signaling that violators of the current laws still face punishment.

“The president did emphasize that he did it (the pardon) on humanitarian grounds.  Therefore, it is an expectation that the two guys will not get married again unless they want to face another jail term,” he noted.

With charges dropped against them, Monjeza and Chimbalanga still have the option of leaving Malawi. 

Sex and the City Ladies talk Gay Marriage

from Towleroad:

Dan Choi to embark on hunger strike

From Lt. Dan Choi, as quoted in towleroad:

Immediately following congressional mark-ups on the National Defense Authorization Act 2011, Captain James Pietrangelo and I will commence a fast in pursuit of Equality and Dignity. We have three demands of President Barack Obama.

DEMAND #1: End the Comprehensive Working Group "Study," which insults the dignity of all Americans.
DEMAND #2: End "Don't Ask Don't Tell" discharges forever.
DEMAND #3: Replace all discriminatory regulations in the military with a comprehensive non-discrimination policy. 

This action is not organized in the name of any organization.

Dan  Choi has been critical of the compromise that is now being debated, saying that it is a delaying tactic.  Yes, it certainly delays repeal.  As a matter of fact, there are even more stipulations for its repeal once the study by the Department of Defense is completed in December.  The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated that the proposed legislation includes "very clear language" that gives senior leaders the final say in whether it's implemented.  So what if these senior leaders decide to say no?  The rebellion of military leaders against allowing LGBT people to serve in the Clinton years has left many folks skeptical of any possible deal.

As for me, I'll wait and see before forming an opinion.  If this compromise leads to a repeal of DADT in the very near future, then I'll applaud the efforts of this week.  But if it is delayed for any significant length of time, or if the repeal doesn't take effect, then you can count me in as someone who no longer trusts the Democratic Party or its leaders.

Today's letter to President Obama

May 27, 2010

President Barack H. Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I served my country for over 30 years. I enlisted in the Army as a private and retired as a Major General. During that time, I saw a great deal of change in the Armed Forces. Racial segregation was ended in the ranks, women were recognized as equals and we moved to an all volunteer force.

My father was a laborer, my mother a domestic worker. I knew that there was no way I was headed for college. As a young Black Man I enlisted in the army long before President Truman desegregated the armed forces.

I served in segregated units (all Black) before being selected for Officers Candidate School. I then attended an integrated Leadership Academy and then Officers Candidate School which was also integrated. After graduation from OCS I was assigned to a combat arms unit for which I had been trained. I was reassigned to a service unit (Graves Registration) that was all Black.

The message was clear: It did not matter that I was qualified to serve in a combat arms unit that happen to be all white. It only mattered that I was Black.

Mr. President, I know what it is like to be thought of as second-class, and I know what it is like to have your hard work dismissed because of who you are or what you look like. I also know what a difference it made to me and others when President Truman eliminated segregation in the Armed Forces and placed qualification ahead of discrimination.

As a retired Army Commander, I also know how disruptive it is to remove a trained skilled member from a unit. In Korea, I had a Sergeant First Class in my unit who was gay. it was no secret. He was in charge of the unit’s communication. He was essential to our performance and our survival and he was dam good at his job. If I had to remove him, our unit’s effectiveness, as well as morale, most certainly would have been harmed.

Military leadership is about being able to constantly adapt to change, and I have seen the Army implement significant change and react to new directives since I enlisted. Perhaps the greatest military change is that we are now an all volunteer force. I cannot believe that we could have made that transition successfully if the services were still segregated or if the roles of women in the ranks had not been greatly expanded.

The services have, for the most part, kept pace with changes in American society as to matters of race and gender. Likewise, they must now keep pace with the changed attitude among the American people, especially younger generations, concerning sexual orientation. If they do not, military service will become a less viable option for more and more young people, and the quality of our forces will suffer. I suggest that the warriors of tomorrow will not want to become a part of an institution that does not respect their peers.

The men and women who volunteer to serve, especially in dangerous times, are the most important resource of our armed services. This includes the lesbian and gay troops who have served – and – are serving honorably. Just like their heterosexual service members, they risk their lives to defend our country. Our country owes it to them, and to all our troops to treat all who serve with respect and gratitude.

Our armed services believe in, and promote, the idea that one person can make a real difference. To commanders on the ground in Iraq, an Arabic linguist can make a difference. To a parent, whose son is bleeding on the battlefield, one lesbian nurse can make a difference.

You, too, Mr. President, can and will make a real difference here. You can make a difference in whether “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is repealed this year, and whether implementation comes shortly thereafter.

As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” Mr. President, do all you can; stand with us and work with us to end this denigration of our American values.

Respectfully,
Major General Vance Coleman
United States Army (Ret.)

John Lewis

Yet one more reason why John Lewis is my hero.  I don't know of a politician with more integrity, courage, and dedication than this man.

Keep this tape on file

Keep this tape from Think Progress on file.  These are the George Wallaces, the bigots,  of history.  It's funny how when they speak of soldiers spilling blood, there's absolutely no understanding that some of those soldiers are gay.