Got Milk?

Sean Penn used to be one of those people that … well, I’d cringe whenever I’d hear his name. There were all those “bad boys” movies in the 1980s and that whole Madonna thing and … I remember a few times over the years that someone would start talking about him … and to tell the truth, I just sort of stopped listening. Then, several years after the movie came out, I finally convinced myself to watch Dead Man Walking, a movie that totally took me by surprise, although it wasn’t until he’d done I am sam and Mystic River that I started to think that maybe he wasn’t going to be so bad after all.

Now, granted – I haven’t seen the movie yet, but from what I am hearing – one of his next movies may just prove me wrong again. I’m talking about a movie, currently set to release in November called Milk.

Milk is the latest movie from Director Gus Van Sant (the same guy who brought us Good Will Hunting, Even Cowgirls Get The Blues, and My Own Private Idaho, just to name a few) and tells the story of San Francisco’s first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk.

If you don’t know about Harvey Milk, go rent the excellent documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk.

On November 27, 1978, then city supervisor of San Francisco, California, Harvey Milk was assassinated by the recently resigned city supervisor, Dan White. White was convicted of his crime, but only received a seven year sentence because his legal defense team claimed junk food made him temporarily incompetent. Yes, this was the original “Twinkie Defense”. San Francisco erupted in riots over this – and the Milk assassination became one of the crucial turning points in the fight for gay civil rights.

Even this early in the game, Sean Penn is already starting to receive adoration from the way he is portraying Harvey Milk, leaving some to start to wonder if a second Oscar Award is coming soon. (His first was for Mystic River.)

Me? I just wonder what Barbra Streisand is thinking right now?

Her Son-In-Law, Josh Brolin, who recently finished filming Milk – where he plays Milk’s assassinator Dan White, has just started filming Oliver Stone’s W. where he plays George W. Bush – Two totally opposite (yet strangely similar) real-life characters I’m sure The Funny Girl has some pretty strong feelings about…

And from the recent cover of Entertainment Weekly – he appears to have a pretty good likeness…

…although this is now starting to lead into a topic for another, later, blog post!

Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere - The Year in Review (B) The Most Responded To Post

When I started this blog (after several - ok, more than several - failed attempts at blogging) it was because I had something to say, and I figured this was a good way to say it. I never saw myself as the whole activist type - although I know others who do, considering everything I’ve been through and what I’ve done with my life … I consider myself more as a thinker, an educator, a helper, people person… I like to help fight for the cause, but more from the background - more like being the supporting actor than taking the lead role. And blogging fit right into this….

I’ve tired (from time to time) to post about things that really matter to me … maybe just to raise awareness - maybe just to talk about it in a way I don’t see too many other people talking about it …

That is, after all, the spirit of “Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere” (Don’t let the Bastards Get You Down) … Bad things happen to everyone in this life - especially when you’re a little bit different - and, for me anyway, well … the way I see it, one has two options: Sit there and take it and let it drag you down with it, or you can do whatever you can about it and hopefully become better in the process.

My most responded to post, Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone, Unless The Bastard Is A Faggot is a perfect example of this.

One of the issues many (if not all) gays and lesbians face (at least at some point in their lives) are messages from the right-wing Christians about their belief that homosexuality is a sin, an abomination to God - and these messages can appear everywhere. For someone trying to deal with their own issues (religious issues, personal issues, or sexuality issues) these messages can be quite a downer.

The battle of basic human rights is something that the gay community has been fighting for awhile now… in their daily lives, in the courts… and the religious right is there for the fight.

The original post was a great example of this… and in some ways it was a wake-up call. One of the ways the gay community has been fighting for their human rights was using the courts to help protect their rights. A gay bar gets shut down for no reason other than it’s a gay bar, our right to freely assemble may be compromised.  A gay guy is murdered brutally just for being gay and the gay community thinks that should be a hate crime.

So, what was stopping the religious right from using those same tactics? They say it’s their constitutional right of freedom of religion to persecute homosexuals, it’s protected by the Bible and the Constitution. They say they want to continue spewing their anti-gay message, and anyone who says they shouldn’t are violating their constitutional right to free speech.

In many ways, lots of us are fighting the same battle over and over again… the one that goes “Homosexuality is bad.” “No it isn’t.” “The Bible says it is.” “My Bible doesn’t say that.” “Yes, it does. Right here.” “Nope. My Bible says Jesus was about love and tolerance, not about persecuting people.” “You’re mis-reading the bible, because it says, right here, that Homosexuality is bad.” “No it isn’t.” “The Bible says it is.” … see the pattern here.

And reading the comments to my post (17, so far, as of today) you’ll see quite a bit of that pattern. I mean, come on, people - can we get past that? It really isn’t getting us anywhere.  But, unfortunately I think it’s going to continue for eternity. Nobody’s going to win this one - unless we decide to just drop it. (But, I don’t see that one happening anytime soon.)

So, I guess the Noli Nothis Permittere Te Terere message is: just don’t let them get you down. It’s a pattern that has nothing to do with who you are, just what you are.

Remembering Loving v. Virginia

June 12^th marked the anniversary of a landmark legal case known as Loving v. Virginia.

The plaintiffs, a black woman named Mildred Loving and her white husband Richard Perry Loving were arrested in 1958 when they returned to their Virginia home after being married in the District of Columbia. Because Virginia law prevented interracial couples from being married, they were arrested, pleaded guilty, and were sentenced to a year in prison. However, the trial judge suspended the sentence for 25 years, as long as the Lovings left the state of Virginia and didn’t come back for 25 years.

The Trial judge, Leon Bazile issued the following statement:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

The Lovings moved to Washington D.C. where they began a series of lawsuits claiming that Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which caused their marriage to be considered a criminal act, was a direct violation of the 14^th amendment to the Constitution. Ultimately, the Supreme Court overturned their convictions and declared the Racial Integrity Act unconstitutional. The opinion of the court stated:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

It is interesting to note, however, that while this decision declared that laws which prevented interracial couples from getting married was unconstitutional, it still took around 30 years for some states (such as Alabama) to take those laws off the books.

When doing research on this topic – it surprised me (in a way) to read what people had been saying at the times about interracial marriages – like the quote from Leon Bazile above. They started to sound very similar to what some people are saying about gay marriage.

Ok. I understand it. Kind of. When you feel very strongly about a subject, you are going to find whatever you can to justify it – especially if it conflicts with your other beliefs. Some people do turn to philosophy or religion. For example – you think prejudice is wrong. However, you don’t like gay people. So, you have two options. Either change the way you think, or find a way to make it acceptable. Now, many people think the Bible says homosexual behavior is immoral. Therefore, it’s ok to be prejudiced against gay people. After all, if God says it’s ok, it’s not prejudice, right?

There used to be a lot more people who thought that interracial marriages were disgraceful, immoral, and an abomination. Interracial couples were often the target of violent attacks, pranks, name calling, etc… They justified their hated by saying God didn’t want people of different races getting together. They said it wasn’t natural. They said it was abomination against God’s will.

At some point in history, we all went through a paradigm shift. It started with interracial couples standing up for themselves. It started with a few brave individuals who would speak out against the injustice of it all. And today, when we look back at those brave souls, we consider them visionaries – we consider them heroes.

Because their paradigm shifted before other people’s? Maybe. Or, maybe it was because they said something about it.

Hate Crimes…

Today, I received the following comment from my blog post: 2005 Hate Crime Statistics -

I still dont get the hate crime thing. If you take away the violence/crime part you end up with thought crime. do we really want to go there? a crime is a crime.did someone intend to kill you.. that is a crime..
WHY they wanted to? who cares.. if they DO kill you.. you are dead… and all murdered people should be avenged EQUALLY. gays do not get MORE rights. I rarely hear about gay on gay crime but from what i have read its even MORE heinous crime than straight on gay. why is that?have a nice day go straights! Comment by kent j — December 11, 2006 @ 9:49 am

Hate crimes are about more than just someone beating someone else up, or someone killing another person. Hate Crimes, by their very nature, effect more than just the victims - they effect entire groups of people. The physical and emotional damage caused by hate crimes impacts entire communities, races, genders, or ethnic groups (or whatever group to which the victim(s) belong. Hate crimes are about more than just interpersonal violence - they are about intimidation - they’re about power - and they’re about disrupting communities and violating civility.

As to the notion of “thought crimes” … yes, I do want to go there. If you take the violence and crime away from a thought - you’re left with just a thought. (Not a thought crime.) Nobody is talking about getting arrested because they thought something. That’s just downright silly.

The reasoning (or, the motives) behind crimes has always been an important factor to consider:

Suppose Person A has just killed Person B - Person A is guilty of first degree murder, right? Well … no. In order to figure out the answer to that question, other factors need to be taken into consideration. What if Person B was trying to kill Person A and was killed in self-defense? That’s not even a crime. What if Person A killed Person B accidentally? That might be a manslaughter charge, or in some cases, a crime-less accidental death.

The degree of violence has so little to do with it - it is barely worth mentioning. Does a person who stabs someone five times get a lesser sentence than someone who stabs someone ten times, under the same circumstances? Nope. It doesn’t work that way.

What none of this, so far, has taken into consideration is the impact hate crimes have on society in general or the group to which the victim(s) belonged. If someone’s actions terrorizes a group of people, why should that not be taken into consideration? More social resources (provided by politicians, law enforcement agencies, social service agencies, etc) are needed to deal with the aftermath and implications of hate crimes - why should these issues not be taken into consideration either?

Another silly notion if you really think about it is the comment about how gays shouldn’t have any more rights than anyone else. First off, homosexuals aren’t the only victims of hate crimes. Hate Crimes also effect people of various nationalities, genders, races, and religions. I have a feeling people would look at you funny if you said, “No special rights for blacks!” hunh? Or, “Jewish people don’t deserve more legal protection than gentiles.” So, why does it make it ok to say that about homosexuals?

Secondly - nobody is saying that anyone has any more rights than anyone else. It’s about saying what’s right or wrong in the eyes of the law - and victimizing someone solely because of certain factors (such as sexual orientation) is wrong. Trust me, it’s just as much of a hate crime if a heterosexual was assaulted because he was straight than a homosexual who was beaten up because he was gay. They’re both the same.  Nobody has any more or less rights than anyone else.

Anyway, kent - I hope you have a great day too. Not sure what to make of that “go straights!” comment, but … that’s ok. I don’t have to know where you want to go, but if you need help setting up a car-pool, just let me know - ok?

Un-American Arrogance In Biblical Porportions

On November 28, 2006, the American Family Association released an Action Alert urging the public to show their outrage that an elected official wants to take his oath of office on the Holy Book of his religion. Gasp! The Shock! The Horror!

The AFA quotes Dennis Prager:

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. 

This is not, nor has it ever been, about anybody’s “favorite book”. If I were elected to congress and wanted to hold my hand over a Harry Potter book or Eragon - I would understand if people started to look at me funny and start to complain. The placing of the hand over the Bible, or any other Holy Book is one thing - Harry Potter, quite another.

Belief in, or acceptance of, the Bible has never been a requirement to hold public office. If it were, Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers would probably start to roll over in their graves. It’s un-American.

America was built on the concept of freedom - and one of those freedoms is the freedom of religion. I, as an American Citizen, am free to choose whatever religious beliefs I wish to follow. If I want to pick up a bible and head to church - I am free to do that. Or not - it’s ok. If I want to pick up the Koran and become Muslim - I have that right. If I want to become a zen Buddhist, or practice Judy-ism (the gospel according to Judy Tenuta)  … it’s all good.

But, if I want to force my religious beliefs on anyone, force them to use materials from my religion in their activities - that is Un-American!

America is not only interested in one book. We are interested in a lot of things. The Bible is ok. But Harry Potter is a better seller. I hear Stephen King has been selling a lot of books lately too. And just think how well a book of Britney Spears crotch shots would sell - it’d put Madonna’s Sex book to shame!

But, I’m getting away from myself here.

This reminds me of something quite similar. It’s the image of someone swearing on a Bible in a courtroom that the testimony they’re about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sounds familiar, right?

When a Muslim is to testify, and they place their hands on a Koran - it’s apparently no big deal. When a child, who is too young to know what the Bible is or what it represents is to testify, he doesn’t put his hand on anything - the judge usually just asks them if they know the difference between the truth and a lie and then ask them to promise to tell the truth, and it isn’t a big deal. When an atheist testifies in court and dosen’t put his hand on a bible, it’s still no big deal.

How, exactly, is this any different than what’s going on here?

And how, exactly, is forcing elected officials to place their hands on the Bible (and not the Koran) not in direct violation of the Establishment Clause?

Censorship

Maybe this is old news - I don’t know. It was new to me. Over Thanksgiving, a friend showed this to me … so I thought I would pass it on to you.

I’ve never been a fan of censorship … especially in this day and age … so if you’re like me - maybe you’ll enjoy this.

Religious Objections…

After a Minneapolis Bus Driver complained about a gay-themed advertisement on a bus she was driving, she asked to be allowed to drive another bus because the ad offended her religious values. The transit authorities considered this to be a reasonable accommodation to her religious beliefs.

I read about this story shortly after I read about the Minneapolis Cab Drivers who, because of their Muslim beliefs, were refusing to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

And these aren’t the only examples of people who are supposed to deal with the public in general but refuse to do something because of their religious beliefs. From time to time we hear about others too: pharmacists who refuse to fill certain prescriptions because of religious objections (such as the birth control pill) … or, how about doctors who refuse medical treatments because of religious objections?

I just wonder if things are being pushed too far?

When it comes to the Minneapolis bus driver - according to the Amalgamated Transit Unit Local 1005 - bus drivers have never been excused from driving buses with ads that they object to for religious reasons, including political based messages and endorsements of political candidates.

So, then why start precedent with gay-themed ads?

Legally speaking, most businesses must accommodate its employees religious beliefs unless it brings undue business hardship. However, once you start drawing lines between what diverse groups of people find appropriate or inappropriate, someone is surely guaranteed to feel left uncomfortable or worse. By letting drivers refuse to drive buses with pro-gay ads on them, homosexual employees are left feeling uncomfortable and rejected. And yet, both religion and sexual orientation are supposedly protected by the company’s policies.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that if you deal with the public, you may just have to interact with people you normally wouldn’t associate with or look at things you’d rather not see. If you do not like to deal with people who are different than you - then maybe getting a job in the public sector isn’t such a bright idea.  “The Public” is made up of a wide mixture of people from various political lines of thoughts to religions to sexual orientation to national origins to skin color … and if you would rather not deal with the public - it should be up to you to find a career or job more suited to you.

While this may be a minor blip on the radar - it concerns me because I wonder what could happen next?

When it comes to medical care, doctors take the Hippocratic Oath which states, amongst other things, that they heal their patients to the best of their ability and not deliberately cause anyone harm. When it comes to times of war, battlefield doctors (remember that old show, MASH?) tend to overlook who’se side of the conflict someone was fighting for - and they’re labelled heroes because they healed the sick, even if they were the enemy. But, when it comes to treating someone who has a disease like AIDS, can a doctor refuse treatment because he has a religious objection to the type of person she or he is healing?

I must have forgotten about that part of the Hippocratic Oath where it states it’s ok to refuse medical treatment to someone who needed it just because you disagree with his lifestyle, political views, or sexual orientation.

And in those cases of rape or incest where a woman may want to choose to terminate pregnancy? Or, in times when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother - how do you legislate the idea that one person’s life is worth more than anyone else’s? And why wouldn’t that be unethical?

Or, what if I turned it all around.

What if I refused you when you needed it because I had religious objections to your religious views?

Homosexuality and Pedophilia (and Child Predators)

One topic I am actually surprised I haven’t focused on (on this blog) yet is that of child predators. When NBC’s Dateline started doing it’s To Catch A Predator series, I started watching. Part of me was afraid that homosexuals were about to get a bad rap. I knew that all that was needed would be for one gay person to appear on the show and change the focus of everything. Before long, homosexuality and pedophilia would be, once again, linked. So far, thank Goodness, that hasn’t happened.

In fact, Dateline: To Catch A Predator has almost had the opposite effect. Through this show, we have seen how just about any kind of person can be a child predator. Those featured on the show have included military men, the average Joe next door, and even church leaders and other highly religious people.

One of the myths that have stuck around (even long after it has been debunked) is how homosexuals are pedophiles or child predators. Sure, such things do happen occasionally - however it is far from the norm. In fact, by far the greatest number of pedophiles are heterosexuals - or, at least people living in heterosexual relationships or at least reflecting the heterosexual lifestyle.

And yet, someone always manages to twist the facts to suit their own wants and needs. One recent example of this is from a group calling themselves Americans For Truth. They recently wrote an article about a recent episode of the Oprah Show that focused on pedophilia and child predators. The article starts out by saying:

One of the questions I have regarding any linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia is why such a disproportionate number of child molestation victims are boys—if (openly) homosexual men comprise such a small percentage of society? We doubt that Oprah Winfrey, who is very pro-”gay,” will pursue the answer to that question, but at least she is exposing the notorious group NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association), which once marched in homosexual “pride” parades in the early days of American “gay liberation.”

While Oprah may not pursue the answer to that question - let me address it now. There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. None. What-so-ever.

The writer of this highly prejudicial and misleading article fails to take a number of facts into consideration. For example, most of the convicted pedophiles and child predators are heterosexuals. Most are married, living the heterosexual lifestyle. Sure, occasionally one identifies himself as homosexual, but this is far from the norm.

Another way in which this article tries to mislead you is by throwing up the notorious group NAMBLA, and pointing out one aspect of gay history that we’re not very proud about. Because the article cannot say (and be truthful) that NAMBLA is a group of gay men (because supposedly most of its members are blatantly straight) they point out that in the early days of the gay rights movements, they were allowed to march in the Gay Pride Parades. What the article doesn’t say is that the gay community, in general, can’t stand NAMBLA or what they represent either. We’re just as repulsed by them as Americans For Truth is.

(And, since when does marching in a gay pride parade mean you’re a homosexual? Tell that to the countless politicians who march every year in local gay pride parades. Tell that to the members of PFLAG, a wonderful organizations for the Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. Tell that to … ok, you get the idea.)

The Americans For Truth article contains very little truth, and whatever truth it does contain is both prejudicial and misleading, like the Nambla statement. Even the headline isn’t true. “Oprah Exposes NAMBLA:Homosexual Pedophiles Online”… Oprah did no such thing. In fact, Oprah never even focused on homosexual pedophiles at all. The article also names Todd Calvin, NAMBLA member and convicted pedophile. It is presented in a way that makes you think the guy is gay - even though, on Oprah, we heard from his ex-wife, and the only suggestion of homosexuality is the fact that he was convicted of molesting a young boy.

I also think it is highly suspect in the way they single groups, such as NAMBLA, while ignoring other groups entirely. Why was there no mention in this article about all those Catholic Priests who molested young boys? (And why were those Catholic Priests not labeled homosexual and kicked from the Church, but rather often promoted or moved to different areas?) While it’s true that most “pedophilia groups” are not organized the way NAMBLA was, that doesn’t mean they do not exist. Many such groups do exist, nameless, recruiting through friends of friends - getting together to share ideas about how to seduce the innocent and not get caught.

The Oprah Show did expose a lot of topics that need a lot of focus and attention. Or, maybe what we need is another slight paradigm shift? The Internet has been, and is still, used for illegal purposes - and that does include child porn, that does include groups of pedophiles, and countless other illegal activities. I am not blaming the Internet, far from it. But, when we get onto the Internet, we need to be aware that such things do happen around here. More importantly, law enforcement needs to be aware of it.  (And, more and more every day, they are.)

My Thoughts on Freedom of Religion

There has been a lot of blog talk lately about Freedom of Religion. The general consensus is that “Freedom of Religion” means that anyone can practice their religion any time and any place they choose. Unfortunately, I think the general consensus is … well, a little misguided.

Recently, I posted the antics of Tyler Harper. He’s a high school student who believes that his religious freedom was being infringed upon when he wore t-shirts with a blatant message slamming and condemning his fellow students. When school administration sat down with him to inform him that his t-shirts were inappropriate, and tried to counsel him into demonstrating in a more productive, less threatening way – Tyler Harper started screaming that his religious freedom was being violated.

In another, similar story – this week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claims of a cosmetology teacher who said her religious freedoms were being violated. Martha Piggee brought the suit when the school she had been working at failed to re-hire her. The main incident that led to the school’s decision involved a gay student named Jason Ruel. Piggee had placed several comic-book style religious pamphlets denouncing homosexuality into the student’s lab coat, urging him to talk with her about his sexuality and her belief in God. After Ruel complained to the school administration, they investigated, finding that Piggee’s actions violated the school’s policy for sexual harassment. The decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said that they could “see no reason why a college or university cannot direct its instructors to keep personal discussions about sexual orientation or religion out of a cosmetology class or clinic.”

So, does this mean that “freedom of religion” can be used as an excuse for inappropriate schoolhouse bullying or sexual harassment?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the First Amendment is what’s known as the Establishment Clause. It keeps the government from establishing a National religion. The second part is known as The Free Exercise Clause, and states that government can’t infringe on our rights to participate in whatever religion we choose to. While the Establishment Clause is absolute, the Free Exercise Clause often faces state restrictions.

Over the years, the courts have faced the issues of what happens when local laws come into conflict with religious beliefs or practices. Examples have included Native American religious rituals involving the use of Peyote (a controlled substance) … Bigamy in the Mormon Church … even Jehovah’s Witnesses have been the focus many times. The result has been limitations placed upon the Free Exercise Clause.

For me, the issue is as much a moral one as a legal one. If one person’s religious beliefs infringe upon the rights of another individual (or group of individuals) something is wrong.

Would we get a better perspective if we, temporarily, took religion out of the picture for a minute. Let’s say that someone was sexually harassing another person. Is there any reason that would be considered ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mrs. Piggee does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Or, let’s say that someone is bullying someone. Is there any reasons that would be ok? Then, why should we believe, as Mr. Harper does, that it’s ok if done in the name of religion.

Is it ok to kill another human being? What if that was being done in the name of religion? Most religions have a long history of doing just that. Even Christianity.

Mourning The Loss Of One Of Our Own…

This past Monday, 39 year old Tyrone Garner died of meningitis. He was a shy guy, according to those who knew him - but his story is one of inspiration, and his contribution to the gay rights movement were immeasurable.

On September 17, 1998 Tyrone Garner went to the home of John Lawrence, where the two men began to have sexual relations in the privacy of Lawrence’s own home. For obvious reasons, this seemed to upset Robert Eubanks, Garner’s partner at the time. Eubanks must have decided to teach his lover a little lesson because he responds to this by calling 911 and telling the dispatcher that a crazed gunman was loose in John Lawrence’s house. The police quickly respond and find no crazed gunmen, but two men engaged in private, consensual sexual relations. Lawrence and Garner were arrested for Homosexual Conduct. (In Texas, it was a misdemeanor crime to participate in gay sex.) The two spent several hours in jail before posting the two hundred dollars bond.

The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund approached Garner and Lawrence and offered their support. Lawrence wanted to fight the charges, but Garner was reluctant, stating he didn’t think they could win. He told the Houston Chronicle, “I didn’t enjoy being outed with my mugshot on TV. It was degrading to me.”

The two men pleaded No Contest to the charges, and took their case to the state level where it lost again. In 2002, their case landed them before the United States Supreme Court. By now, Garner had decided to fight these charges at all cost.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lawrence and Garner, finding that Texas’ Sodomy Law violated the US Constitution’s privacy guarantee. The decision also struck down similar laws in thirteen other states.

The Sodomy Laws that criminalized homosexual behavior had long been used to criminalize homosexuals in order to deny them civil rights, were often used in custody cases, were used in denying housing or employment. Essentially, it prevented many people from seeking legal redress simply because the homosexual was considered a criminal. The decision of the US Supreme Court pretty much put a sudden stop to this.

This also started paving the way for future gay rights work - such as the fight for same-sex marriage.

Garner was never the political type - but his contribution to the world proves that even the smallest amongst us can affect the world in great ways.

Since 1998, life hasn’t been particularly easy for Garner, battling not only his legal rights, but also lengthy illnesses such as the meningitis that ultimately took his life. To Garner, I bid thee good night. May the angels hold you tightly and keep you safe, and warm, and loved.

The Time To Speak?

One of my new on-line acquaintances, David Shelton, recently posted in his blog about one of the candidates running for Mayor of his home-town of Clarkesville, TN. One of the candidates had, earlier this year, written a letter to The Leaf-Chronicle (the city’s newspaper) criticizing them for writing an article about this year’s gay pride parade, and asking them to not “give impression gay lifestyle is healthy” [sic].

Like David, I am also saddened every time this rhetoric is hurled from the pulpits, every time the Bible is used to justify bigotry or condemn anyone who might share different social values. But, we have to remember that this is nothing new - just look throughout history over the past couple thousand years and you’ll see examples that will make your head spin. The Bible has been used as justification for genocide - just look at the history of the Crusades - anyone of non-christian faiths (like the Muslims, Pagans, etc…) were slaughtered; even Christian Sects like the Cathers were pretty much wiped out, all justified by what was written in the bible. The Cathars were, obviously, an important part of history - a portion of history that will forever be lost because … well, there ain’t none left to tell their side of the story.

Throughout history, the bible was used to justify slavery. The bible was used to justify the oppression of women, even today, remnants of this can still be seen. How many times have we heard that women can’t do something because of Eve’s involvement during the events in the Garden of Eden.

Even in the modern day, the Bible has been used to justify everything from hate groups (like the Klu Klux Klan) - Timothy McVeigh used the bible to justify his actions in blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City - or, how about how the bible has been used to justify the murder of abortion doctors or the bombing of clinics where abortions take place.

I do not want this post to sound like I am anti-Christian, although I know that a lot of people will think that. I am not attacking Christianity, but rather the actions of certain (but not all) Christians.

I firmly believe that one of the great things about living in America is that we have a right to voice our opinions, as long as it is done in an appropriate manner. I do not fault Clarksville Mayoral Candidate Mark Hiehle for voicing his opinion. Even though I do not agree with his opinion, I’m glad he was able to voice it.

But … where are the voices that oppose that line of thought? How many letters were sent to the editors of the Leaf-Chronicle praising them for the story they wrote about their gay pride parade? Where are the voices that say there is nothing wrong with the gay lifestyle? Where are the voices that say it might be a sin according to your religious beliefs, but not to mine?

Why haven’t we heard more from these people?

Or, how about those out there who don’t support gay rights, but don’t believe in condemning it either? Where are those voices?  And where are the voices reminding us of passages such as Matthew 7:1? (Judge not lest ye be judged.) Or, how about John 8:7? (So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.)

I, for one, would like to hear more of those voices…

What Are We Teaching Kids?

I’ve been hearing a lot lately about the attack on free speech coming out of California. Recently, the California Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving a high school student named Tyler Harper. There has been so much talk about this issue - it’s actually kinda hard to tell what’s really going on.

If you listen to most of the blog posts I’ve read on the subject so far, you’ll think this is a case of Christianity coming under fire by the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit. Or, maybe you’ll think it’s about Christianity and homosexuality. I’ve heard about how the constitutional right to free speech doesn’t hold anymore if you’re a Christian.

They want to make this an issue about morals and principles - and in a way I agree with that. I just don’t think it’s about the same morals and principles.

Tyler Harper attends Poway High School in Southwest California. The school itself is no stranger to controversies. In 2003, the Gay-Straight Alliance held what they called A Day Of Silence, intended to teach the students tolerance of others, especially on the basis on sexual orientation. The day saw several altercations between students resulting in several suspensions. Then, a group of students decided to hold a Straight Pride Day, in which several students wore anti-gay T-shirts which led to more incidents and a few more suspensions.

The following year, 2004, the Gay-Straight Alliance petitioned the school to hold another Day of Silence, but before they could do so, the group had to sit down with the principle in order to “problem solve” ways to prevent altercations and reduce the tensions felt the previous year.

On the April 24, 2004 Day Of Silence, student Tyler Harper wore a T-shirt saying “I WILL NOT ACCEPT WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” on the front, and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL, ROMANS1:27” on the back. The following day, he wore the same t-shirt, except the message on the front of the shirt had changed to, “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED”. (The message on the back remained the same.)

A Teacher saw this shirt and overheard several students talking about it. Remembering the altercations from the year before and explained to Harper he thought it was “inflammatory” and that it violated the school’s dress code. Harper was directed to the principles office, who asked him to remove the shirt because he also found it violated the school’s dress code. The principle explained that it wasn’t because of his views on homosexuality, but because it “created a negative and hostile working environment for others”, and that there were less threatening ways to get his message across, even coming up with some different ideas. All of which Harper turned down, asking to be suspended from school.

Harper spent the rest of the day in the school conference room, but was later visited by a Deputy Sheriff, Hubert, who acted as the School’s Resource Officer. He was at the school that day because the principle asked him to come in for the day after someone claiming to be a parent called the school, stating complaining about the school’s condoning of homosexuality and threatening that they “would be doing something about it.” Hubert sat down with Harper trying to understand the situation, the two discussing their viewpoints on homosexuality, religion, and the Bible. Harper contends this amounted to him being interrogated.

The Assistant Principle, Giles, also sat down with Harper. The two attended the same Church, and shared the same faith and beliefs about homosexuality. Giles expressed he knew where Harper was coming from, but wished that he could express himself in a more positive way, urging him to organize something with the school’s Bible Club.

On June 2, 2004, Harper filed a lawsuit in district court alleging five causes of action - violating his freedom of speech, violating his right to free exercise of religion, violating the Establishment Clause, violating the Equal Protection Clause, and violating the Due Process Clause. On June 22, 2004, the school filed a motion to dismiss the charges, and on July 12, Harper filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to stop the school from violating his constitutional rights.

On November 4, 2004, the courts granted the school’s motion to dismiss the equal protection and due process claims and denied the motion for the first amendment claims (free speech, free exercise of religion, and establishment of religion). The court also denied the preliminary injunction. Harper then filed in the appellate courts.

Last week, the Appellate Courts declined to hear the case.

After reading the history of the case, it becomes clear this isn’t really an issue of Christianity v. Homosexuality - as a lot of people are claiming. Many of those involved in the story shared Harper’s views on homosexuality and religion, expressing concern that Harper’s T-shirt had gone too far. Harper’s failure to even consider alternatives (as well as Harper’s asking to be suspended because of this) made it clear to me he was out more for the political statement than the religious values he says he’s for.

In my opinion, it’s more of a moral outrage to create a hostile environment for other people - which appears to be Harper’s main plan of attack.

Is this what we are teaching our kids? If you don’t like someone, or if you don’t like a group of people - it’s ok to degrade them, belittle them, and create a hostile environment for them? If you don’t agree with someone’s religious beliefs or political views, it’s ok to harass them?

Sorry … but I don’t think so.

ACLU & The Westbourough Baptist Church

When I first heard that the Westbourough Baptist Church was showing up at the funerals of American Soldiers who were killed in Iraq and claiming that their death was God’s Punishment for the recent advances in gay rights in America - I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding.” But, then I remembered what the Westbourough Baptist Church was all about, and just rolled my eyes and went back to what I was doing.

Please … the last thing I want to do right now is get started on how wrong that is. These are soldiers who lost their lives fighting for what they thought was a great nation and made the ultimate sacrifice - only to return home and have a small group of Evangelical Assholes Christians using them for their own political agendas, that have absolutely nothing to do with the war or why they lost their lives. Something just isn’t right here.

In case you missed it, because of the Westbourough folks, Missouri passed a law that forbid groups like them (or any sort, of group for that matter) from demonstrating “in front of or about” these funerals. Now, the Westbourough folks and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) are bringing about a lawsuit, claiming this infringes on their constitutional right of freedom of assembly.

For some reason … this reminds me of something that happened many many moons ago. I used to do quite a bit of volunteer work with one of the PBS stations in Denver. One day, during one of the semi-annual telethons, we were showing a movie called Longtime Companion, and I got what I thought, at first, was a crank call. (We tended to get a lot of them when gay-themed programs were aired.)

The gentleman who called started off talking about how disgusting homosexuality was, and informing me of his belief that homosexuals were an abomination to God. After several (long) minutes of this, he starts talking about what a great nation America is, how the Founding Fathers had the right ideas when they adopted the bill of rights granting us the ability to protest anything we like, the freedom to bear arms … and by this point, my finger is resting on the phone right next to the little red button (aka, PANIC BUTTON), hoping this guy isn’t about to tell me he’s waiting outside in his truck with his shotgun, waiting for us to step outside on our next smoke break.

But, then he moves on to the topic of PBS and how great they are and how they reflect the American system. He tells me that even a group of people as disgusting as these faggots can have their airtime, just like everyone else - and that’s something that he respects. He told me he was going to pledge a certain amount, as long as we didn’t send him any of the gay junk we were giving away as an incentive to get people to donate. (Turns out, he sent in more money than I had expected, and a lot more than he told me he was going to.)

Back then, I got to thinking he had a point. Here we are living in America, a place that has such a wide range of people with diverse backgrounds, interests, philosophies … and everyone’s able to try and live out the American Dream. (Well, kinda.)

So when I heard about this ACLU Lawsuit - it got me thinking about those Westbourough people and … well, and the fact that they have the same rights that the rest of us do … freedom to assemble … freedom of speech … I just can’t help thinking that … maybe they have a point as well.

There has to be some solution to everything here … and I am wondering if that solution doesn’t in fact lie in letting them have their say … at least for now. Maybe it will be like the Conservative groups in Colorado, back in the early 1990s, when they tried to ass Amendment Two (which nearly legalized discrimination against gays and lesbians, had the supreme court not found it unconstitutional). Most of the active conservative groups were blaring their homophobic message whenever they could. Every time you heard from most of these people it was about how bad gay people were - how gay people were to blame for this crime or that - how gay people were destroying families - how gay people were … you pretty much name it, they said it. They pointed to a lot of research by scientists who were disbarred from organizations, kicked out of the American Psychiatric Association … and eventually, people started to get sick and tired of hearing from them … including the conservative groups that promoted their messages.

I like to think that the people of Colorado finally saw these people for what they were - homophobic morons who instead of teaching a Christian message of tolerance and loving your neighbor (even if they be different than you) … but either way, the state (in general) seemed to lose interest. Once they lost interest, and nobody wanted to hear their messages … they didn’t exactly go away, but you could turn on your TV and chances are you wouldn’t see a commercial … or, you could walk past a gay bar and not see one of their vans (with the message posters on the windows) …

Sorry Phelps … maybe this is what’s in store for your Westbourough group if you keep doing what you’re doing…???

Does This Feel Like Discrimination To You?

They’re building a new shopping center in Oak Park, Illinois (near the intersection of Lake and Harlem.) So far, the process has gone on without any major complications. Some of the folks in nearby stores and office spaces have commented on the noise, but that’s nothing beyond what’s expected when you’re piling large metal beams into the earth…

Lately, they’ve been trying to get retailers interested in renting space in the new building. That, too, has been pretty much what anyone would expect … until now, that is.

The Village of Oak Park is trying to “expand the market of people who are going to come downtown” says Village President David Pope in a Chicago Sun-Times article. It kinda sounds like they’re trying to diversify the Chicago suburb that was named last year as one of the nation’s “sexiest” suburbs.

However, when Lane Bryant - a store that caters to plus sized women - applied to rent space in the new shopping center, the Village of Oak Park denied their request saying Lane Bryant didn’t fit the “kind and quality” of the shops they were trying to attract.

And just what “kind and quality” of customer is that?

Lane Bryant is screaming “Discrimination” by filing a lawsuit against the Village of Oak Park, asking to be allowed to open their store at that location (1116 Lake Street) and to award the developer 2.4 million for its losses on the deal.