Wow, lots to catch up on ...

Monday, May 5, 2008 is the Rally in Harrisburg.  Rally?  The Rally Against the "Protection of Marriage" Amendment.  Ledcat and I had hoped to attend, but fate (and work) conspired against us. Are you planning to attend?  I'm hoping for an eyewitness account.

Last week, there was a "highly charged" hearing in Harrisburg.  The PG has the coverage

Scott Hollander, executive director of KidsVoice, said his board members are divided on the gay marriage issue but unanimous in opposing the language banning "the functional equivalent of marriage." Under that language, children placed with unmarried foster parents could be denied health insurance through domestic-partner benefit programs and could face hurdles if those foster families want to adopt them, he said.

"They could lose many of the benefits they currently enjoy," said Mr. Hollander, whose group serves abused and neglected children in Pittsburgh.

It continues to amaze me that the folks opposed to the amendment have a long list of concrete ways this legislation will have a negative impact on families whereas the other side just has a claim that it will protect families with nothing to back it up.  How is it we are still having this discussion?

Here are the letters of recent vintage:

M.W. Sage of Swissvale puts it succinctly:

Regarding the bill to protect heterosexual marriage ("Backers, Foes of Gay Marriage Collide at Capitol," April 30): There are many greater issues needing attention. Couples know when a relationship is working and when it isn't. They can seek help if they want it.

The same is so for gay relationships.

The nation and the world have more pressing issues to be addressed. Let the Legislature busy itself with those.

Well put.

Meanwhile, a series of letters in the Tribune Review finally address this issue.

First up is Sharon Capretto of Mt. Washington.  She is a member of the Cult to Protect Marriage (something like that) and thinks that the will of the people is not embedded in our legislative system.  She must not vote.  Or at least, she doesn't trust most of the people who do vote:

This proposed amendment would give our federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional protection to ensure that a judge or the Legislature could not redefine marriage in our state without the will of the people. Twenty-seven states have seen fit to pass similar amendments. Pennsylvanians would like the same consideration.

In response, Amesh Adalja of Butler (hey, that's cool -- Metcalfe Country)is embarrassed by the Republicans embracing this issue at the expense of real concerns.

Inserting religious proscriptions into the state Constitution utilizes precious legislative time that could be directed toward lowering taxes, scaling back the size of state government, privatizing the state liquor stores and many other worthy Republican causes.

Then, Kris Sanders of Squirrel Hill (really?) chimes in:

Such moral reasoning recognizes that marriage is inherently based upon the complementarity between a man and a woman. They are clearly designed to come together in a way that leads to the generation of new life. It is the fundamental building block of any society.

I'm not sure it is scientifically accurate to claim that two men or two women cannot complement each other, unless you reduce human beings to the sum of the reproductive organs.  I'd say the 20,000+ children in the Pennsylvania foster care system are proof positive of that reductive assumption being utter bullshit.  By the way, how many kids do you foster, Kris? 

Now, I'm not an expert on the Founding Fathers, but I did study a little political theory.  My understanding of Jefferson and Madison is that society is built upon the individual in relationship to the institution.  They had a clear concept of individual freedoms and liberties, not family based liberties. Women and children weren't even enumerated in the Constitution, considered the property or wards of the male head of household.  Is that where Kris wants to go?  It was only through societal progress and a recognition of the civil rights of women (and children) that the modern family has evolved (and women are allowed to read newspapers). 

The family is not the building block of society, Kris.  Your partner/spouse and your children have rights and responsibilities that are separate and distinct from your own.  Coming together to build a family sometimes strengthens society and sometimes does not.  But you should be more precise if you plan to throw around scientific terms like "complementarity." 

Have you written your letter to the Post-Gazette, the Tribune-Review or the Pittsburgh City Paper?  People do pay attention.  Even legislators. 

This is a good letter. When Obama starts his explanation on opposing gay marriage, he uses the phrase "I"m a Christian."  Is he fueling the myth that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive?  This taps into my deep concern that the modern politician is forced into Christians versus LGBTQ community position.  Guess who loses?  The Christo-flavored rhetoric of Obama gives me pause.

Although both you and Senator Clinton decline to support gay marriage per se, it is your statements on this issue that seem alienating, divisive, and uninformed and that subtly contribute to the persistence of one of this country’s worst forms of religious persecution and social bigotry. Even the possibility that you and your platform -- wittingly or unwittingly -- may contribute to the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in any way against anyone is, to our sensibilities, unthinkable.

<snip>

While you are careful to appear to uphold and defend the GLBT community’s basic safety and legal rights, in a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune story that referenced comments you made during your 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, you led off your objections to gay marriage with the statement “I'm a Christian” [see below for full context of quote]. On its own as a part of your personal profile or in answer to a query about your personal beliefs, this statement is both appropriate and informative. But linked to your objections about gay marriage and by extension the gay lifestyle, it serves to entrench modern attitudes of religion-based bigotry and persecution and effectively implies that “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive. This is not only wrong and uninformed but also flies in the face of the most basic Christian values and beliefs of unconditional love and acceptance.

<snip>

Mr. Obama, you have clearly stated your reluctance to allow your private religious beliefs to shape your public policy. This is wise in theory but difficult in practice, because while you are free to interpret your personal religious beliefs in any way you choose, as a talented orator you realize that words are powerful and can also crucially shape both public policy and public opinion. This letter is not an attempt to change your personal opinions or religious beliefs on this or any other issue, but it is an invitation for you to reexamine your spoken expressions and public statements toward a segment of Americans about whom you clearly evidence a lack of knowledge and experience. Can we be gay? Can we be Christian? Perhaps now, Mr. Obama, you may be a bit more aware of the possibilities and the answer that must include us all in your visionary new world: Yes, We Can.

It is completely true.  My innocent little email was rejected by the Steel City Media cyber guardians.  I just wanted to ask Chris Potter a question.  Rest assured, Potter was on it once I made the call.  And once it became apparent that someone in marketing couldn't email her boyfriend ... well, he was on it a little bit.  He does have important columns to write and it has been awhile since he played the white-straight-guy privilege card so I'm gonna assume this was all just a big misunderstanding.

The important thing is that Gary and Beth are gone, right?  Right?

OK, onto other topics.  Letters to the editor.  The PG has been full of 'em -- everyone has something to write about gay marriage.  Some of it is good, some of it is crap.  Most of it is poorly written, but filled with joie de vivre!

Interesting to me has been the dearth of letters in the Tribune Review.  What's up with that? Have the subscribers been so blindsided by Richie's meeting with Hillary Clinton that they've lost track of important gay-bashing goals?  I mean how are you supposed to oppress an entire group of citizens if your base isn't stepping up on the letter writing?  The next thing, we'll be distributing civil rights to Mexicans, Hondurans and <gasp> people who wear turbans but aren't Islamic.  What is this world coming to? 

I wrote a letter to the Post-Gazette, but I forgot to send it to myself so I'm not 100% sure what I wrote.  I know that I did praise Doug Shields and draw comparisons between Sally Kern and the gay marriage amendment stuff here in PA.  I thought it was topical and had a national contexty flair that has yet to come to light in the other "published" letters.  Whatever. 

Seriously, my letter.  It rocked. 

Slow day at lesbian central.  I didn't cry when I came home which is a first since Mona's demise.  I really appreciate when people offer their condolences, but it isn't fun when someone wants to know about the injection experience.  I would think my terse one-word answers would be a social cue that I don't want to talk about it.  Ledcat brought my tulips from a local flower store here on the Northside.  He has a dog and now she wants a small little dog.  I draw the line at a dog that could actually squeeze outside of the fence. 

See what lesbian marriage creates?  Tulips (patronizing local businesses), a clean load of dishes (cleanliness next to Godliness), Chinese take out (more local business and the family of Ming Na -- hottie!), the one repeat of NCIS I missed this year (don't ask and I won't tell), and my secret hope that Ledcat will go ahead and replace the cat vomited sheets while I'm up here doing important blogging work. 

Q92.9. I listen.  I find the autotron female voice very amusing.  As well the lack of gay bashing phone calls being aired.  Ah, sweet.

I've been wracking my brains all weekend for an approach to this day. You've read all the facts about the legislation attempting to amend the PA constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  It has the potential to hurt a lot of people, gay and straight alike. 

You've read all the arguments from those who want to impose their Christian-interpretation of marriage on the rest of us.  And those who believe gay rights are not a civil rights issue (check out today's Post-Gazette for more on that).  You've also heard from thoughtful Christian leaders who do affirm individuals who are LGBTQ.  There was also civil rights luminary Coretta Scott King's affirmation.  We can trump card each other until the end of the day.

What you may not know, particularly if you are heterosexual, is the impact that all of this has on day to day life.  All of what?  All of the constant negative discussion about the gay community -- of course, there is a connection between the rhetoric that people hear in the pulpit and the way they treat gay people, or teach their children to treat gay people.  Love the sinner, hate the sin is not the American way.  Treat people poorly who get between you and what you believe is yours is a bit more accurate, particularly when there is a relentless drum beat about their being "one" way and "one" truth in a land of religious freedom. 

I live in Pittsburgh, a fairly gay-positive place considering how socially conservative most Catholics can be.  Still, there are probably three public places in the entire region where I would be comfortable holding the hand of my partner, Ledcat.  We spend entire weeks where we only touch each other inside our home or our vehicle.  I'm talking the most simple gestures -- and believe me, I'm very aware of those right now.  We lost our beloved pet this week and I've been inconsolable. You know that feeling of grief that sweeps over you unexpectedly ... imagine that the person you love is right next to you, but has to be careful about the things she says or the way she touches you when consoling you about a deep loss. 

It is horrible.  We have been fortunate to only have experienced a few frightening incidents -- mostly kids and mostly being stupid.  But it is still frightening to have anyone try to menace you because they think you are gay.  They get that message from their parents, their preachers and their peers -- gay people are fair game.  So they use whatever power they have -- intimidation, verbal harassment, even constitutional amendments -- to keep you down.  It happens at all levels -- I once had a supervisor send me an email with an embedded photoshopped image that degraded lesbians.  He thought it was funny.  It might have been funny coming from my friend Bob, but not someone with power and authority over my career. 

We have to pick our battles.  I fought back against the supervisor because I had protections in place.  I walked away from the menacing kids and found a public space because I had no protection from their ignorance other than the brightness of public opinion.  I'm fighting back against this amendment because I think we have to draw a line in the sand on this one.  Let the bigots stew in their own hatred and fear if they so choose.  That's why they have their own churches.  But just as they are free to practice their religions, I am free *from* their religions. 

Change is on the horizon.  Children grow up surrounded by cultural gay images -- television, music, movies, video games, etc.  They have gay friends in school and know gay neighbors.  This chips away at the mantra of fear emanating from those who seem to have the most to lose if we are granted our due equal rights.  OK, so I  still don't understand who that is, but I'm trying to allow bigots their due.

I want to hold Ledcat's hand.  Ultimately, I want to hold her hand in mine forever.  But I'm content to start with holding it at Target. 

Just this morning, I read my favorite comic strip, For Better or For Worse, and there is a reference to gay marriage (Michael's friend Lawrence is gay and has a partner, Nicholas). It is a casual reference, but I thought it an auspicious omen for this first ever Pgh Blogging for Equality Day. 

For B4E posts from my fellow bloggers, click on the logo at the top and follow the links ...

Michael Geer, President of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, is an ignorant pea brained jerk.  And that's me in a mellow mood.  The PG published his letter to the editor (and NOT mine).  He makes two points in response to the PG's editorial that the "marriage protection" amendment is unnecessary (and redundant)

First, [t]he PG editors seem unwilling to look beyond Pennsylvania's borders when it comes to understanding the debate over the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, SB 1250

Ahem.  Mr. Geer.  You didn't do your homework on this one.  Please consider Ohio where the amendment you propose allows men who batter their partners to avoid conviction of domestic abuse because they aren't married.  Or Michigan where a similar amendment deprives state and municipal entities (including colleges) from offering domestic partner benefits, hampering their recruitment efforts.  Or Florida, where a proposed amendment, will impact approximately 17,000 children with same-sex parents. 

So, yes indeed, let every Pennsylvania voter -- every resident, adult and child alike -- look outside our state to see what havoc this legislative hatred brings into the lives of thousands of people, heterosexuals included.  I suppose you could say that those Ohio women shouldn't be shacking up with men outside of marriage.  Or that Michigan should send more recruiters to Oral Roberts University anyway.  And, shucks, Florida loses children in the child welfare system so often, that what's another 17,000 anyway?

How does any of this protect your marriage?  Because none of you have made that clear.  You just hide behind the next argument.

Without a Marriage Protection Amendment, Pennsylvania's marriage law is at risk from a legal challenge that could arise at any moment. It's time for lawmakers to let the people decide and pass SB 1250. To the Post-Gazette, it may be bigotry, but to most Pennsylvanians, it's simply fair.

Let the people decide.  That worked out well during Reconstruction and the following ... well, forever years.   It took the people nearly 140 years to decide that women should vote (maybe someone should remind the Christian Women's Groups of that).  If only that pesky Supreme Court would stop interfering, the people could just keep on deciding who deserves civil rights and who doesn't. 

Wrong, Geer.  The CONSTITUTION decides.  Check out the comments from City Council Pres. (and honorary lesbian) Doug Shields in a previous post.  The people don't get to decide to create a second-class group of citizens because our very existence offends you.  Life isn't fair, Geer.  A lot of things offend me --- people who kill animals, parents who abuse their children, the entire system of senior support services in our nation -- but what especially offends me is when religious bigots like you want to impose your moral belief system on the rest of us, especially when you play some sort of quasi-democracy shell game. 

You can't cry "freedom of religion" in the name of Constitutional law and then turn around to strike out the parts of that document that you don't like.  That's just wrong.  There's nothing fair about it. 

I just hope some more people decide to call their Senators.  You can bet your Bill of Rights that Geer has mobilized a full flotilla of Christians to make those calls.  Are we gonna let him get away with this?