Friday, January 05, 2007

GLBT DIGEST - January 05, 2007

**IF YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE, CONTACT US and we'll be happy to send the full article.


The Washington Post

Sex-Ed Plan Could Revive Heated Debate From 2005

By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 5, 2007; B04

Montgomery County school officials previewed new middle and high schoollesson plans yesterday on sexual orientation and condom use, topics thatcould refuel the debate on how much the county's teenagers need to knowabout homosexuality and premarital sex.

The lessons -- which have come under more dispute than any other piece ofthe county schools curriculum -- represent an attempt at compromise amongthe school system and polarized community groups that have fought bitterlyabout the merits of taking lessons on sexuality beyond heterosexuality.

In spring 2005, a federal judge halted the school system's sex educationlessons, noting that they seemed to offer only one perspective onhomosexuality and to dismiss religions that consider it a sin.

School board members will consider the new sex education curriculum Tuesdayat what promises to be a well-attended meeting. Defenders of the curriculumexpect the community groups that sued in 2005 to halt the new sex-edcurriculum to do so again. But group leaders said yesterday that they wouldgive the school board a chance to act before taking any steps.


The Miami Herald

Support for gay teen

Re the Jan. 2 article Gay teen draws scorn for proposed club at school: Thecomments by the residents of Okeechobee regarding Yasmin Gonzalez and herefforts to establish a gay-straight alliance would be risible if theyweren't so ignorant and hateful toward gay youth.

Why is holding hands a simple public display of affection when performed byheterosexuals but a sex act when done by same-sex couples? Society hastrained us to conflate homosexual orientation with homosexual behavior.Sexual privacy in the straight world starts at the bedroom door; all otherheterosexual behavior is fine in public.

For gay people, it starts at our societally imposed closet door, which ismeant to completely hide us from public view. Thankfully this is changingbecause young people like Gonzalez are saying ``Stop.''

DAVID LEVY, Lake Worth


Forwarded from Kenneth Sherrill - Ken's List

US: Paul Varnell--Why 'Just' Discrimination Isn't

Independent Gay Forum, January 3, 2007

Why 'Just' Discrimination Isn't
by Paul Varnell

(First published in the Chicgo Free Press on January 3, 2007.)

It is amazing how many politicians claim they support equal rights andoppose discrimination against gays, but then favor a ban on same-sexmarriage, oppose allowing gays to serve openly in the military, even opposeadoption by gay couples.

Exactly what is equal about letting heterosexuals marry the person theylove, but not gays; letting heterosexuals serve openly in the military, butnot gays; and letting heterosexuals adopt children, but not gays--not evenlet them adopt gay youths?

I don't know about you, but I am getting a little tired of people who saythey are for gay legal equality--except when they are against it, or sayingthey are against discrimination--except when they are for it, and then usingall sort of verbal evasions to wriggle out of acknowledging how anti-gaythey are.


Forwarded from Kenneth Sherrill - Ken's List

Schwarzenegger's gay marriage misstep;If hehadn't vetoed a bill granting marriage rights to all, thegovernor could havesaved the state a court battle.

Los Angeles Times, CA, January 3, 2007,1,5485885.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

Editorial--Schwarzenegger's gay marriage misstep If he hadn't vetoed a billgranting marriage rights to all, the governor could have saved the state acourt battle.

IT COULD have been different. If Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed abill in2005 legalizing same-sex marriage instead of vetoing it, the CaliforniaSupreme Court would have been spared the task of deciding, as it probablywill this year, whether a voter-approved ban violates the stateConstitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

But Schwarzenegger said he had to respect Proposition 22, approved in 2000,which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid orrecognized in California." Whether committed same-sex couples will berelieved of second-class status now depends on the state Supreme Court. Andas Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer's ruling notes, the stateConstitution trumps any ballot question and entitles same-sex couples towhat he called "the last step in the equation: the right to marriageitself."


Forwarded from Kenneth Sherrill - Ken's List

Boston Phoenix, MA, January 3, 2007

A deadly move against same-sex marriage
The politics may be even more complicated than you think, but the issue iseasy to understand

There was never any real question that the legislature, convened in aConstitutional Convention, would vote on the bigoted proposal to banmarriage between couples of the same sex.

The vile jaw-boning of the thankfully now ex-governor Mitt Romney hadnothing to do with it.

Likewise, the admonition of the state's Supreme Judicial Court had little todo with it.

The issue, as Phoenix political writer David S. Bernstein pointed out beforethis week's dispiriting vote, was guaranteed to come to a vote becauseSenate president Robert Travaglini thought it should.


Forwarded from Kenneth Sherrill - Ken's List

List of MA legislators who voted for the amendment.
Issue Date: 1/04/2007, Posted On: 1/4/2007

Roll call of shame

On Jan. 2, 62 lawmakers voted in favor of taking marriage rights awayfrom their LGBT constituents. For more than a year advocates andthe public have wondered which legislators would join camp and vote to overturn marriage equality. Thisweek's vote provided the answer.

Now that we know who they are, it's time to let them know how you feel.The lawmakers in blue won reelection last November and will be voting onthe amendment when it comes up again at the next ConCon. If you live inthe district of any of these lawmakers, they need to hear from you,either by calling their office or via e-mail, that you're disappointedin their vote and that you want them to oppose the amendment when itcomes up next time (If you don't know who your state representative andsenator are, visit to find out). As for thoselawmakers in red, they either retired or lost their reelection bids, sowe won't be seeing them again at the next ConCon.

[Send your comments about articles to]

1 comment:

Warmongers Anonymous said...

"If he hadn't vetoed a bill granting marriage rights to all, the governor could have saved the state a court battle."

Now I'm sure that would include those who might choose to marry their siblings, correct? Because we wouldn't want to be showing hatred and intolerance towards those who have different sexual inclinations from us.