Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents

Obama and Faith Based Anything: I Knew It!

Sue — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:41:23 -0400

Color me not surprised by this little pronouncement from Mr. Theocracy.

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans that would expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and - in a move sure to cause controversy - support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.

"The challenges we face today, from putting people back to work to improving our schools, from saving our planet to combating HIV/AIDS to ending genocide, are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Some of those hands, Senator Obama, happen to be doing a damn fine job without being faith based. How about funding us?

Faith based institutions do not serve the entire public. They serve their faith based constituencies. Some folks play by the rules and don't play the conversion card. Too many don't and we cannot afford -- we cannot PREVENT -- them from inflicting their agenda on the vulnerable people they are entrusted to serve.

What's worse is that faith based entities are going to suck up resources previously allocated to secular organizations -- organizations already doing good work and perhaps heavily affiliated with unpopular and underserved communities. Like ours.

This is pandering, pure and simple. It is the #1 reason I am opposed to electing Barack Obama, but I have no choice do I? And he seems to know it. Damn.

Ellen DeGeneres and the Founding Fathers

Sue — Thu, 29 May 2008 21:50:21 -0400

Craig Galik of Duquesne is not pleased. Apparently, when he tunes in to the Ellen DeGeneres show, he doesn't expect to see any lesbian claptrap. Imagine his horror when Ellen spoke about her plans to marry partner, Portia De Rossi. On television. In front of viewers. Gay stuff.

Either Craig is the only person on earth who doesn't know that Ellen is a lesbian or he is just an idiot. Actually, I'm pretty sure its the latter based on these statements:

Isn't it funny that we can talk openly about gay affairs on TV, but we cannot freely talk about Jesus.

Is this what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wanted freedom for all?

This is exactly the narrow-minded thinking that is so seductive to people lacking the capacity for original thought. Craig postulates that there is more discussion of gay issues than Jesus-flavored religious issues on television. That's simply preposterous. You can't turn on a news station without smacking into some religious advisor or another commenting on the latest political issue. We can't have a discussion on anything -- from access to healthcare to hemlines -- without contemplating what Jesus would do about it. Craig also seems to forget that entire stations devoted to Jesus flavored religions dominated the airwaves long before LOGO came churning along. It has been a long, long time since it wasn't cool to talk about Jesus on television. Exactly one day longer than there has actually been television.

What Craig is trying to do is pit any discussion of gay issues as a suppression of his religious liberties. He does it poorly and with a distinct lack of poetry, but I'm sure he got a few amens out of the PG readers. It is just amazing that Christians can somehow redefine themselves as a persecuted minority on one hand and yet force all three Presidential candidates to prove their Jesus-love in order to win the nomination. Amazing.

To answer Craig's question about the Founding Father's wanting us to talk about gay issues as freely as religious issues, I say a resounding YES. Freedom to exchange ideas was a big Founding Father priority, not the content of said ideas. See the difference, Craig? They wanted a society where you get to be a small-minded bigot and I get to love a woman without impinging on each others liberties.

If you don't want to hear about the personal life of a lesbian, stop watching a television show named after and starring a lesbian. There's nothing radical about that.

Another Pro Homo Letter to the Editor

Sue — Fri, 23 May 2008 09:05:16 -0400

From Tuesday's Post-Gazette. Always good to read a hit-the-nail-on-the-head letter.

Like letter writer Kim Winbush ("Let's Keep Discrimination Out of the Pa. Constitution," May 16), I too was happy to see the Pennsylvania Senate table the Marriage Protection Amendment.

This brazen attempt to pander to the theocratic aims of the religious right must be opposed by all who cherish the freedoms of our secular nation.

Would that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court follow the excellent example of the California Supreme Court ("Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in California," May 16).

AMESH A. ADALJA, MD
Butler

Amen!

Gay Marriage Round Up

Sue — Sat, 03 May 2008 13:58:17 -0400

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.

Open Letter to Barack Obama on gay issues

Sue — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:13:39 -0400

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.

I was blacklisted by the City Paper

Sue — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:07:27 -0400

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.

Pittsburgh Blog for Equality Day 2008 - a lesbian perspective

Sue — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:30:34 -0400

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 ...

Letting the People Decide on Civil Rights .. Well, That's Worked Out Well Hasn't It?

Sue — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:30:02 -0400

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?

Zen Buddhist Priest Opposes SB 1250

Sue — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:58:57 -0400

Short, but sweet. Have you written your letter to the editor, yet?

Senate Bill 1250, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, is in direct violation of my religious beliefs as a Zen Buddhist priest ("Panel OKs Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage," March 19).

I am a strong advocate of marriage and live under a strict ethical code (which predates Christianity). That code of ethics guides my actions toward kindness, compassion and generosity and not toward anger, hatred and bigotry.

Our commonwealth was organized for the benefit of all its citizens. It is time we take down (not put up) the signs saying "No gays allowed."

REV. KYOKI ROBERTS
Head Priest
Zen Center of Pittsburgh

Local Presbyterian Minister Again Faces Charges for Lesbian Wedding

Sue — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:57:04 -0500

From today's Post-Gazette:

A Presbyterian minister whose 2006 church trial for conducting a lesbian marriage ceremony ended with dismissal on a technicality says she has again been brought up on the same charges.

The Rev. Janet Edwards, parish associate at the inter-denominational Community of Reconciliation in Oakland, said that an investigating committee of Pittsburgh Presbytery informed her Monday that it will pursue the case against her for the 2005 ceremony.

The Rev. Doug Portz, acting pastor to Pittsburgh Presbytery, said he was not allowed to discuss church trials.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) says clergy may bless same-sex couples only if the ritual cannot be mistaken for a marriage ceremony. But Rev. Edwards has never denied that she conducted a marriage ceremony.

"I believe with my whole heart that my decision to perform Nancy [Cole] and Brenda's [McConn] wedding was faithful to my pastoral call," she said.

This was not unexpected. As we reported in early march, a formal complaint had been issued or reissued one might say. Last time around, the charges against Edwards went nowhere based on technicalities. Persistent anti-gay forces within the church have soldiered on, determined to pin the church down on gay issues. See here for previous coverage on this.

Foundation for Moral Law to Challenge PA Hate Crimes Statute

Sue — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:22:20 -0500

Guess who is rolling into town? Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his posse of homo hatin' legal eagles. Moore, you may recall, wanted to slather Alabama Courthouses with the 10 Commandments. Ironically, he's narrowed his focus to homosexuals, a group noticeably absent from said Commandments. Hmmm. I guess he's moved on to Leviticus.

Anyhoo, The Foundation for Moral Law is coming to Pennsylvania to posit that our hate crimes law violates the state constitution. The issue centers around the provisions amending the hate crimes law to include sexual orientation. This led to the arrest of homegrown religious wing nut Michael Macavage who was protesting at Outfest in Philadelphia.

Macavage filed suit and the Commonwealth Court agreed with his claim that the *process* by which the original ethnic intimidation law had been amended was flawed. The process included an attachment to an agricultural bill.

Moore and his minions of hate celebrate the impending demise of the thought police.

"The law can punish actions, not 'our thoughts.' As we have seen in Philadelphia and in various states and countries, 'hate crimes' are used to prohibit Christians and anybody else from referring to homosexual behavior as immoral or a sin.

See this is where it gets interesting. Moore and Macavage hide behind claims that this is about controlling their thoughts or their religious beliefs, but they aren't challenging the law on those grounds. They are challenging it on procedural grounds. Why? Because they know the law doesn't interfere with their hate thoughts.

They neglect to point out that Macavage and his Repenters were arrested for their actions. They were not peacefully protesting or handing out tracts or carrying some "homos are demon spawn" signs. They were intentionally disrupting a lawful gathering of the gay community. Their actions were disruptive, belligerent and intentional. Their free speech does not give them the right to tramp all over the rights of the objects of their protests.

So, I wonder why the legislation was part of the agricultural bill? If it is overturned on procedure, does that mean it can be reintroduced on its own merits? Assuming we can take care of this pesky marriage amendment and get our human relations definitions expanded. It would be like the trifecta of legislative years. Or something.

(h/t the man called Potter)

"Will of Council" on Anti-Discrimination Legislation Passes 7-0

Sue — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:02:26 -0500

From my ace source comes word that the legislation endorsing the statewide effort to include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in the Human Relations Act passed 7-0. Motznik and Payne weren't in the room and didn't vote.

Deasy asked to be added as a cosponsor, offering that he was behind on his email as a reason for his delay in doing so. Huh.

Now here's the interesting part. Reverend Burgess voted in favor of the legislation because he's against discrimination AND because the bills have exemptions for religious entities. Its awesome when the law meant to protect people from discrimination lays out who gets the freedom "to" discriminate. Awesome.

I have a call into Dan Frankel's office for clarification on what those exemptions mean. More on that later.

Update from City Council: Two Members not so "Willing" to support the gay community

Sue — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:30:07 -0500

From our friends at Steel City Stonewall Democrats comes word that 7 out of 9 members of City Council have agreed to support the proposed "Will of Council" which essentially gives a big thumbs up to state legislation that would include "sexual orientation" and gender identity and expression" as protected classes under the Human Relations Act. These protections already exist within the City; this action underscores that those protections have strengthened the City

Two aren't supporting it. That would be Councilman Dan Deasy of District 2 (which includes the neighborhoods of Banksville, Chartiers City, Crafton Heights, Duquene Heights, East Carnegie, Eliott, Esplen, Fairywood, Mount Washington, Oakwood, Ridgemont, and Sheraden). That would also be Councilman Ricky Burgess of District 9 (includes the neighborhoods of East Hills, East Liberty, Homewood, Larimer, Lincoln/Lemingon/Belmar, And Point Breeze North).

I can only speculate as to why either man would choose to stand silently by while this opportunity passes. Reverend Burgess is a former board member of the Pittsburgh AIDS Task Force so it is inconceivable that he not be aware of the discrimination so many members of our community have faced in the housing market and on the job. Surely, he must have absorbed that the stigma of AIDS is deeply intertwined with the stigma of being gay and that a just society does not allow vulnerable individuals to go without a place to live or the means to feed their family simply because they don't fit in.

I believe unanimity is important on this issue. I have oft stated that Pittsburgh is a good place to be gay and that Pittsburgh's gay community strengthens the entire region. A hallmark of my belief rests on the legacy of this local piece of legislation that could. We have inherited a Mayor who does not believe in civil unions, but we do have the fortune to stand upon the shoulders of many activists who worked tirelessly to achieve this reform.

I'll be at work tomorrow when Council votes on this. Maybe someone can email me the outcome?

PA Marriage Protection Amendment - Again

Sue — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:24:03 -0500

It's back. Sigh. From Equality Advocates:

On January 17, 2008, Pennsylvania State Senators started working to pass a so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" that would amend the Pennsylvania Constitution to define marriage as solely between one man and one woman, as well as prohibit civil unions and potentially more.

Please take a moment to call and e-mail your Senator and give a voice to the millions of Pennsylvanians who oppose writing discrimination into our State Constitution. To find your State Senator's contact information, click here.
In 2006, Equality Advocates, with the help of countless LGBT Pennsylvanians and allies across the state, defeated the attempt to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution. This over-reaching amendment would have prohibited relationship recognition for all unmarried couples in the state.
Please act now to help ensure fairness for all Pennsylvanians!

A gay visitor (Anthony M. Brown) to Pittsburgh (Greensburg) took a few minutes to share his thoughts with the Tribune Review.

We don't want anything more than what all other committed couples have: the tax, health, pension, visitation and death protections that are a part of marriage. These are not special rights. They are protections offered by the government, not the Catholic Church.

Anthony, thanks for making time to share your thoughts. Another quarter heard from is the American Family Association of Pennsylvania where Diane Gramley was stomping her faith-clad furry boots because "homosexual organizations" got the jump on her in broadcasting this legislative flurry. Here's an interesting claim:

Pennsylvania’s primary election is April 22^nd. Are you registered to vote? The last day to register is March 24^th. An important fact mentioned by David Barton during my interview with him: over 90% of homosexual men and lesbians voted in 2006, while 30 million Christians stayed home!

As always, Diane asks for your money but not your prayers.

This was an ugly victory last time around in 2006 and a clear example of social conservative Democratic values clashing with the interests and civil rights of the entire LGBT community. Here's how the last round of elected officials voted on the marriage amendment. Many of those in the House took the straightforward coward's way of voting in favor of amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Senate did this elaborate dance of "yes, I am, no I am not" switcheroos so they could vote against the "concept" while not having to deal with a pro-homo vote.

Don't let them get the jump on us. Contact your Senator today and ask her/him to oppose amending hate into our Constitution.

Huckabee: Gay Marriage =s Bestiality

Sue — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:43:49 -0500

Just in case you thought Christian fringe nutjob Mike Huckabee has any redeeming qualities, here he is in an interview with beliefnet....

Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.
Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

That's pretty straightforward ... changing the definition of marriage to include two men or two women is tantamount to a man and animal. There's none of that gay marriage opens the door to man on dog marriage logic that Santorum espoused. Nope, Huckabee makes a much more straightforward equivalent.

Sigh. Not that it really makes any difference.

Peace be with you, but not you.

Sue — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:44:25 -0500

Dolores S. Jarrell of Peters takes umbrage with a PG Op/Ed critiquing Pope Benedict's priorities of peace.

Michael Kerlin's "In Search of Peace?" (Dec. 30 Forum) was filled with more than its share of animus. He reported trembling at the "implications" of the pope's peace message, "The Human Family, A Community of Peace"; suggested parallels of genocide and secret informers; and mentioned those hair-raisers: inquisition, torture and paranoia. It sent me scurrying to the text.

Scurrying, huh? Well, that's an interesting word.

Mr. Kerlin's major discontent, however, has to do with his perception of the pope's "implicit" anti-homosexual agenda. True, Pope Benedict's message does speak of the natural family as a community of love and life -- of the love of a man and woman whose union produces children. Schoolchildren know that conception or fertilization is the result of the union of egg (female) and sperm (male). To call pointing to that reality homophobic defies reason.

The union of male and female, alike but different, points to the creative force, the yin and yang of life. Achieving that integration of differences is at the heart of harmony and peace. Anything that circumvents the ability to learn to integrate those differences undermines the ability to learn to live in peace for the entire community.

It is kind of amusing that she references schoolchildren and sexual education to defend the Pope. I doubt His Holiness was resting on a fundamental biological arguement; there was plenty of "sacredness of life" infused.

Here's my question Dolores. The Catholic Church has had, let's say, 1200 years to integrate the male and female differences and, thus, generate harmony and peace.

How has that been working out? I mean this is the City which had to publicly debate how to protect the womenfolk connected with a predominantly Catholic police force, is it not?

Peace that is achieved without the trials and tribulations of finding that convergence is hardly worthy of the name. At best it is acquiescence; at worst -- apathy.

What the heck does this mean? I can speak only for myself in saying that stepping away from a life trying to force myself into convergence with men has brought me more peace than anything else in my life. I can also speak only for myself in saying that when I was struggling with poverty and illness, it was pretty clear what would have brought me some peace.

Pope Benedict: Homosexuality is a roadblock to world peace

Sue — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 21:03:43 -0500

From the PG's Forum section comes this reflection on the pontifical peace perspective.

On World Peace Day, Jan. 1, most of the world's citizens will be too poor, too hungry, too surrounded by violence or too worried by this century's other basic challenges to pay attention. Those who do pay attention likely will think first of war in places like Iraq and Eastern Congo, genocide in Sudan, a looming crisis in nuclear Pakistan and widespread poverty all over.

The spiritual leader of more than a billion of the world's people will be thinking about homosexuality.

Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI issued his message for World Peace Day. Entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace," the message argues that peace begins with the family. That's a reasonable point. But then the pope writes, "Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman ... constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace."

Having implicitly named homosexuality as an obstacle to world peace in his fifth paragraph, the pope then waits until the seventh paragraph to mention the environment, the ninth to mention poverty and the second-to-last to mention war and violence.

Thankfully, Pope Benedict is wise to the ways of the Pink Menace.

By using World Peace Day to promote an anti-homosexual agenda and to demote the importance of poverty, the environment and war, Pope Benedict XVI is behaving scarily like his predecessor of 100 years ago. It is easy to imagine in the coming years the arrival of more explicitly anti-gay encyclicals, oaths against homosexual-friendly scholarship and perhaps even secret informers.

The predecessor was Piux X who was more concerned with modernity and mixed (Catholic/non-Catholic) marriages than any mere trivialities such as looming war or natural disasters. Pius even set up his own secret leauge of informers. Cool. Cause that never goes badly.

At this point in history, Pope Benedict XVI must choose his path. He can follow the paranoid, intolerant and inward-looking path of Pope Pius X. Or he can focus on the real problems of the day.

Pope John Paul II, no friend to homosexuals, focused most of his energy on building bridges across the Berlin Wall and then helping to prevent the Cold War from turning into World War III.

On World Peace Day 2008, our pope should imagine the place he might gain in history if he chooses to focus on poverty, the environment and war -- and while he's at it, on accepting the hundreds of millions of homosexuals inside and outside his flock. He may never condone their behavior -- sadly, such progress may have to wait for a future pope -- but he can at least treat them with peace and humanity.

Excellent point. Until someone ponies up a real heterosexual marriage that has been negatively impacted by a gay relationship, how about we focus on the myriad of social problems that have been demonstrated to prevent world peace? Or just one! Pick one problem and then attempt one solution. Like Bono. Minus the cool, but add a gajillion dollars of weekly tithes.

AFA of PA turn attention to national lesbian blogger

Sue — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:47:57 -0500

If anyone is hard at work on the homosexual agenda, it is Pam Spaulding. Founder of Pam's House Blend, Spaulding works tirelessly to explore the true life of the contemporary LGBT community. Her blog has received national recognition and attracts thousands of visitors each day.

Spaulding is also a contributing editor at other blogs, including Pandagon. She recently posted about Pennsylvania's homegrown bigot, Diane Gramley of the American Family Association of PA. Gramley has her knickers in a knot because State College recently expanded their proctected classes to include sexual orientation.

Why do these people lie continuously — it’s like breathing to them. So where in any of these anti-discrimination measures does it require anyone to hire someone who is LGBT? The whole point is that these attributes are no hindrance to one’s ability to perform a job and that they must be considered equally or not singled out based on those attributes. And I don’t see Gramley calling for removal of protections based on religion from the list of protected classes, hmmm?

Good question. The religious wingnuts spin spin spin these laws to serve their own fear based agenda ...think Santorum's slippery slope from gay marriage to man on dog relationships.

Anyway, Gramley strikes back in a deliciously hypocritical way ... condeming Pam for allowing the address of a national anti-gay leader to remain on her blog for three weeks (Pam apologized) while publicizing Pam's employer in another paragraph. She works for Duke University. Could Ms. Gramley be encouraging her merry minions to protest to Duke? I'm sure it has been done.

This recent post about the AFA of PA and others further confirm
that homosexual activists who are calling for tolerance of their
lifestyle are many times the least tolerant of those who disagree
with them.

Please continue praying for the AFA of PA and others who oppose
homosexual activists attempt to redefine America and her families.

This comes from an email press release that is not currently on the AFA of PA website. I've uploaded the text of her email.

Tolerant. Eh.

The Hot Metal Church: Traditional Anti-Gay Christianity Wrapped in Punk Rock Clothing?

Sue — Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:18:48 -0500

I caught an article in the Post-Gazette about the impending relocation of a local non-traditional faith community -- the Hot Metal Bridge Faith Community. It seems someone sold the Goodwill Building so the Hot Metal folks are in search of a worship space.

The Hot Metal Community is more street than avenue. Founded by two kind of irreverant preachers, the group ministers to the poor and attracts individuals who don't fit in with mainstream visions of Christianity.

I had heard of this community and thought it was kind of cool to take a Christian message to the streets and use non-traditional means to help people access God. I mistakenly assumed the church had a bit of a progressive bent. Until I read this passage in the article:

Hot Metal is theologically conservative but encourages open discussion of difficult issues. At Bible Fight Club, held in the basement of a tattoo parlor, participants must argue for their own interpretation of a divisive biblical issue.

"We try to foster dialogue. We work at how we can hold opposing views on things like homosexuality but still love each other and claim Jesus as Lord," Rev. Eddings said.

THINGS like homosexuality? Huh. Well, I guess if they get a chance to talk it out in Bible Fight Club then a little thing like oppressing an entire group of human beings based on an inherent part of their identity isn't anything to be worried about. After all, they feed the hungry. I wonder if there is a Christian equivalent to a carbon footprint -- 15 meals offsets one gut punch to a homosexual?

You know what I think? The Hot Metal Faith Community is a tricked out version of Bishop Duncan's Episcopal Church --- give Peter Akinola some tattoos and a few piercings and he'd be right at home. Actually, a better analogy might be the satire "Saved" which punctured the whole Christian teen-culture scene.

I guess you can't judge a gay-ally by their tattoos.

Merry Christmas

Sue — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 21:31:08 -0500

I really believe that this song inspired me to become a social worker. Yes, I know that it is hokey and Eurocentric, but it is still my favorite holiday song and I get a little lump in my throat every time Bono urges me to thank god its them instead of me.

Now I just found out there is an updated version. I only recognize a few of the participants, but good for them for updating and shame on us for needing the update.

Luke + Gay Community = Marriage Made in Pittsburgh?

Sue — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:42:26 -0500

Pittsburgh wants to host the world's largest wedding vow renewal ceremony and the homos are invited! On February 10, 2008, 700 couples will participate in the world record setting event. Including gay couples.  According to event organizers, the Guiness folks will accept any US or International marriage certificate.

It costs $30 per couple to participate. Doors open at 6 p.m. and the ceremony is at 7:30 p.m. The secular ceremony will be performed by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl.

The Guinness world record for a group vow renewal is 272, set Sept. 16 in Sydney, Australia. To qualify, each couple must present a copy of their valid wedding certificate, which will be kept by Guinness officials.

Participating couples will receive a champagne and cake reception, gift bags and the chance to win prizes.

Yes, you read that right. Mayor Ravenstahl is going to remarry upwards of 700 people. Including gay couples. Only a few months after he went on the record as opposing both gay marriage and gay civil unions in a televised WQED debate..

How the heck do you go from opposing any legalization of gay relationships to welcoming us to the MacDaddy of wedding ceremonies?

You might recall there was a big secret meeting between Luke and LGBTQ leaders on election eve. Do you think they were picking out china patterns? Maybe deciding on a floral arrangement? I can't tell you because the silence from our "leadership" has been deafening.

Do you think they'll be going to the chapel? More importantly, do I have to buy them a gift or has Luke taken care of that?

Interesting to note that the ceremony has been secularized. Do you think there was a flap about including individuals who are in marital relationships without the benefit of a legal wedding certificate? Gay or non-gay alike.

Does one homophobic Mayor trump a whole flock of homophobic religious chaps?

Giant Eagle's War on Christmas?

Sue — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 12:04:13 -0500

(h/t Pam's House Blend)

Apparently, Giant Eagle hates Christmas and has taken active steps to stomp it into oblivion. This according to the Liberty Counsel's latest "Friend or Foe" list of retailers who adopt a secular holiday advertising approach. Liberty Counsel bills itself as a public interest First Amendment law firm. Founder Mat Staver claims that retailers like Giant Eagle are profiting from Christmas while "pretending that it doesn't exist."

Giant Eagle's sin? Using the phrases"holiday cards" and "holiday season" with no mention of the word Christmas.

Other retailers on the Naughty List include Bloomingdale's which has the audacity to mention a Hannukah card, but not Christmas cards on their website. And there you have a clear example of the hideous, Jesus-flavored intolerance these wingnuts use to bash down anyone who gets in the way of their theocratic wetdream. This isn't about religious freedom at all. God forbid a retailer acknowledge a Jewish holiday without the caveat that the "real" reason for the season is to cram a red and green bedecked whitified baby Jesus down our throats with a side of tinsel wrapped salvation.

Excuse me while I choke on the hypocrisy of the hyped up Christo-obsession with holiday advertising, while sincere believers of all faiths go about the business of feeding the hungry, visiting the imprisoned, clothing the naked and comforting the afflicted. Christmas or not.

Here's the complete list.

I'm heading for Giant Eagle to pour my meager pittance into the coffers of a corporate monolith that hasn't (yet) capitulated to the tyrrany of Christofascism. As soon as I finish my coffee.

Please note that the author of this blog identifies as a Catholic-flavored Christian (for now) and believes that the number of sincere believers far outweighs the opportunistic, publicity hounds who would willingly abuse any faith system at hand to further their own power-hungry agenda. She deplores, however, how many of the sincere believers suppress their humanism to satisfy their inner-craving for something to believe in and she wishes more said believers would seek something to think about.

The Morning After ... Debra Todd, ENDA and

Sue — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 19:56:01 -0500

I'm sure by now you've made the rounds of the usual suspects ... Comet, Burgher, Junkies, McIntire, Smoke Ball ... I could go on and on .... frankly, I didn't have the gumption to drag my ass out of bed any earlier than usual to Wednesday morning quarterback the election -- with a gay twist. I was too damn tired from working a 12 hour day that ended after 10 PM to twist any gays. I heard DeSantis say "doggone" on the radio and called it a day.

However, fortified with samosas (not mimosas, John) and an energizing day at work, I'm now ready to pontificate on all things gay.

First, please note that there has been no official followup from the Secret Gay Meeting held this past Monday by some unknown gay folks and the Mayor. Sources have identified a few of the leader who attended, but I cannot get any confirmation. The only person who has publicly stated their plan to attend is our faithful reader and commenter, steelcitydyke, and she hasn't shared with us. Thus, we remain firm in our belief that Luke Ravenstahl is opposed to civil unions and gay marriage. This does not bode well for the expansion of gay civil rights or gay visibility in the City.

Second, a big hooray b/c Debra Todd has become the first female Democrat elected to Pennsylvania's Supreme Court. Todd had the endorsement of the Steel City Stonewall Democrats. You can read how gay friendly she is here.

The Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) passed the House 235-185 minus protections for our trans sisters and brothers. And, hey don't worry, your Human Rights Campaign folks have also made sure to get religious exemptions tied into the legislation. Sigh.

Michigan elected its first openly gay mayor in Ferndale.

Iraqui gays express feelings of abandonement and frustration. This is an article that puts electing a twerp as our Mayor in perspective, doesn't it?

AFA of PA spinning hate on H.B. 1400 -- what are you doing?

Sue — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:06:01 -0400

Give it up for Diane Gramley, prez and proponent of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania. She works hard to get her message of hate and intolerance out into the Pennsylvania heartland , be it letter to the editor or press release. She's everywhere the homos should be.

Are you?

Gramley sent out this snarky little press release about H.B. 1400 which would extend protected class status to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender presentation. It is a significant piece of legislation that would give us statewide protections at our workplaces and in our housing situations. So you couldn't be fired because you are a lesbian or because you are a lesbian who dresses in a masculine manner. Here's how Gramley spins it:

H.B. 1400 will force all PA businesses with four or more employees to hire homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders i.e. men who think they are women and demand to use the women's restroom. Upon closer examination you will see that there is no exemption for churches, Christian schools or daycares.

This is a clear example of why the local lesbian community needs to get a real grip on our internalized transphobia and turn our collective attention to the many thousands of Pennsylvanias who lap up this anti-gay rhetoric. People buy into this completely distorted interpretation of the legislation and get on the phone with their legislators, terrified that they'll have skirt wearing men in their restrooms and lascivious lesbians in the daycares.

You, dear reader whomever you are, should do the same. You should call your State Rep and let her/him know how you'v experienced discrimination. Don't wait. Do it now.

Diane is hard at work tearing us down across the Commonwealth.

Most people like gays sayeth the polls; Duquesne University flips off Planned Parenthood

Sue — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:12:53 -0400

Here's some good news from the Post-Gazette's wonderful L.A. Johnson < is L.A.a man or woman? does it matter other than for my pronoun selection?>

A majority of U.S. citizens support equal treatment for gay people, a recent Harris Interactive poll reports.

About 56 percent of straight Americans 18 and older believe people should be more supportive of gay equality, a number that rises to 60 percent for those polled between the ages of 18 and 44, the survey said.

Hurrah! The survey also brings to light the value of heterosexual allies, especially those who speak out against incidents of discrimination and homophobia.

"People's minds are changed more ... by the person who isn't the minority," says Betty Hill, executive director of Persad Center (www.persadcenter.org), which offers counseling, education and advocacy for the Pittsburgh-area gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. "When a family member speaks up, it seems to be better listened to than when a regular old gay person like myself speaks up."

Now see that's exactly why Betty Hill is a lesbian who rocks -- "regular old gay person" indeed.

Anyway, her point is very true. And it is a point I made oh so eloquently at The Society with regard to my good friend John McIntire, one of the staunchest allies the LGBT community is lucky to have.

Heteros like John and that guy down the street and the lady at church and my friend Amy make all the difference b/c they normalize homosexuality.

That being said, I was pleased to have a chance to hang out with my friend Maria when she sat in for Lynn Cullen this morning. It ties into this little theme very nicely b/c Maria asked me to talk about my *other* blogging gig -- the Pittsburgh Women's Blogging Society. Sure, the lesbian flavor came up a time or two, but it was an opportunity to talk about other issues that matter to me. I'm a multi-dimensional homo!

One thing that was frustrating was our limited ability to talk about some big news -- WDUQ- FM will not allow Planned Parenthood to underwrite news segments. Why? Because Duquesne University pulled the puppet strings of so-called public radio. Check out Maria's well crafted post on the topic and decide for yourselves -- should NPR's flagship station in Pittsburgh have a modicum of free speech or should it be all fetus, all the time?

Geez oh man. Anyway, because it was about a rival station and we are supposed to have the courtesy of not talking about other stations, we had to low key it because saying "another local station" without the whole MacDaddy Catholic Church thing was pointless. I hope we were successful and Maria gets to go back.

I wrote some emails to Scott Hanley and the big kahuna Dr. Doughertry at Duquesne. I even filed a complaint with the NPR ombudsman. Do they seriously not realize how much of their local listening audience are liberal do-gooder yuppies who support organizations that promote women's health and try to keep kids from contracting the clap? Seriously?

Here's something amusing -- take a look at the list of local companies that accept the membership Q-card. Disclaimer or not, the station is willing to promote these folks in exchange for a little love to the members. Let's see who can identity the most companies that have some business practice which violates Catholic principles. You go first ...all I'm gonna do is remind you of the entire Rolling Stones exhibit at the Andy Warhol Museum and call it a day. :-)

All fetus, all the time. I just like the sound of that.

LGBTQ Round Up -- ENDA, rude Republicans,and Catholic Charities

Sue — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:07:02 -0400

A few things you might find interesting ...

The vote to mark up the ENDA has been postponed due to mounting pressure from LGBTQ groups to reinstate protections based on gender identity.

"The step taken today by the committee to delay action on the substitute bill is a clear demonstration of the strength of grassroots organizing as exemplified by our members and thousands of advocates across the country," said Jon Hoadley, the Executive Director of National Stonewall Democrats.

"Our work isn't over until Congress passes, and the President signs, an Employment Non-Discrimination Act that protects all working Americans from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity," said Hoadley.

On Monday Stonewall Democrats launched NoSubstitutes.org, an online organizing effort to mobilize people to save the the original version of ENDA.

Here's some background courtesy of Pam's House Blend.

Republican heavyweights are skipping candidate forums' sponsored by people who don't look like them. Bad choice according to the Post-Gazette editorial board.

[T]he absence of the frontrunners suggested their commitment to black and Hispanic concerns was only partial, too.

"[The missing candidates] told every black request and every brown request, there's a scheduling issue here," PBS moderator Tavis Smiley told an interviewer. "Is it really scheduling or is it a pattern?"

It looks like a pattern when debates and forums sponsored by the National Urban League, Logo (the gay cable network), Univision (a Spanish-language network) and the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials are factored in. Coincidence or contempt for vast voter constituencies?

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a church-state case in which religious social service organizations are required by New York State Law to pay for workers birth control health insurance benefits. The law, like that in 23 other states, exempts religious institutions that hire and serve primarily those of the same faith. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that since groups like Catholic Charities hire and serve people of different faith, they are essentially social service agencies and thus must follow the law.

Let's say that again ... Catholic Charities must follow the law. Ah, how sweet! (h/t 365gay.com)

New Lutheran Bishop won't rock the boat on gay issues

Sue — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:40:20 -0400

I have to admit I'm not at my best so this will be very short (I have bronchitis).

There's a new Lutheran Bishop in town.. And he is neither friend nor foe to the homosexual community, so he says.

Bishop-elect Kurt Kusserow of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America plans to honor a request from the denomination's national assembly to refrain from removing gay ministers who have partners, at least until the church issues a new policy on sexual ethics in 2009.

"I think that already reflects the hearts of most of our bishops," said Bishop-elect Kusserow, who attended part of last week's assembly in Chicago.
"There are pastors and members of our churches who are involved across the board in all sorts of things that are questionable in terms of church practice. What it means to be a pastor is to work with people in their difficulties. ... It is not a wise pastor who goes looking for other people's faults to weed them out."

Essentially, they are in a holding pattern until 2009 which does allow the church to continue to dialogue without current pastors living under the fear of being evicted.

Well, it is nice to see a religious leader acknowledge that there are worse things a Lutheran could do, than go with a boy or two, even if the parish-hood, thinks their trashy and no good ... but there are worse things they could do!

Going to Pittsburgh and We're Gonna Get (re)Married ... Homos, too!

Sue — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:07:29 -0400

The Post-Gazette reports that as part of our city's 250th anniversary, we'll be host to the "World's Largest Wedding Vow Renewal" in February, 2008. Organizers hope to attract 1,000 wedded couples to renew their vows. Why?

Two of the themes of the 250th celebration are attracting reunions and homecomings to the city and underscoring family and community ties. Getting a thousand couples to reaffirm their vows is a way to do both.
"It's something that comes straight out of the word 're-union.' I was surprised no one had thought of it already," said Kitty Julian, marketing director of Carnegie Museums of Art and Natural History, who came up with the idea. "Pittsburgh is all about love of family, tradition, nostalgia ... This is exactly in that neighborhood."

Something about the phrase "straight out of the word 'reunion'" got me thinking -- would event organizers welcome LGBT couples who are legally married, albeit not in Pennsylvania? Would they recognize couples who are domestic partnered and civil unioned? So I dropped Ms. Julian a line to find out.

Turns out, they will! Here's what she had to say via email:

Wedding vow renewal isn't a legal event, but is a celebration of love
and family. We'd be honored to have LGBT couples participate. Since this
is a Guinness World Record breaking attempt we are following their
requirement that, "all couples must provide a copy of their original
marriage certificate." They don't seem to specify that it must be from a
specific state. So, as long as people have such a certificate, and
pre-register they are in! I don't know what Guinnness says about civil
unions or even if one gets a certificate in that situation, but we'll
contact them to find out, and will report back what we learn.

So that means all you crazy gay couples who married in Canada, Massachusettes, Europe and beyond ... you get to participate. Does anyone who has been civil unioned know about the certificate thing?

After the Guinness ceremony, there will apparently be a mass blessing (no pun intended) led by leaders from multiple local faith communities.  Now that could get interesting...

The date of the ceremony is Sunday, Feb. 10. Those wishing to preliminarily register for the event may contact Carnegie Museums marketing assistant Leigh Kish at 412-578-2571 or kishl@carnegiemuseums.org.

Sunday Round Up' - Politics, Nudie Lesbians and the Loss of A Community Icon

Sue — Sun, 20 May 2007 10:01:20 -0400

The Post-Gazette reports that local gay business owner and community advocate, Jay Bernard, has passed away. Jay and his business partner Bill Stanhope owned Jay Design in Lawrenceville. Jay was the founder of the Boys of Lawrenceville "a benevolent organization of gay men" and the author of a monthly column about pet adoption. I've heard of Jay, but did not have the opportunity to meet him. Jay's company donated some items to an event I am hosting tonight for my day-job. I will be thinking of him when we raffle off those items. God speed.

The Presbyterian debate over gay marriage continues. From the PG:

A regional Presbyterian court's decision yesterday upheld Pittsburgh Presbytery's ban on gay marriage ceremonies, and reiterated the national church's stance that ordination requires chastity in singleness or fidelity in heterosexual marriage.
But the language was such that both sides of the local debate regarding the ban on actively gay clergy in the Presbyterian Church (USA) found aspects of the ruling acceptable.

Several Middle Eastern governments have filters in place to prevent their citizens from accessing gay and lesbian sites.

Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen had the strictest social-filtering practices, blocking pornography, gambling and gay and lesbian sites.

That's interesting. I usually have at least one IP address a day based in those very countries that visits my site, usually with a keyword search for "hot lesbians" or "lesbian photos" or "naked lesbians." Once it was "nudie lesbians." I chalk that up to a translation issue. Someone is getting through that filter.

The Post-Gazette on Jerry Falwell's legacy:

Intolerance today comes clothed in piety.

Meanwhile, today's Trib runs this nice little affirmation of Falwell from the self-described "mean girl" Ann Coulter:

Let me be the first to say: I ALWAYS agreed with the Rev. Falwell.

Coulter sets the record "straight" on Tinky Winky's sexual orientation and explains why he didn't go far enough identifying who was responsible for 9/11 (hint: he's a Kennedy).

Meanwhile, South African churches get the go ahead to perform same-sex marriages.

Reports say that 5,000 people turned out for the Warsaw gay rights parade in spite of government sponsored crackdowns. Anti-gay crusaders want to ban gay propaganda in the schools. Does that sound familiar?

And, closer to home, Kent State has installed a "gender neutral" bathroom to accomodate transgender male and female students. Nearby Oberlin has a residence hall specifically for transgender students. The times they are a changin'.

h/t to Page One Q and Pam's House Blend

Bush, Pope, and Ahmadinejad included on homophobic Hall of Shame

Sue — Thu, 17 May 2007 10:52:33 -0400

h/t Pam's House Blend

Today is International Day Against Homophobia.

LGBT groups in more than 50 countries will participate in the initiative, which was launched in 2005 to mark the day in 1990 when the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of disorders.

I work for a mental health provider that just extended health insurance coverage to employees in domestic partnerships. So an important day to commemorate say the lesbians.

In conjunction, Human Rights Watch has identified the worst offenders in the homophobic Hall of Shame:

"This `hall of shame' does not claim to include the worst offenders, but it highlights leaders who have lent their authority to denying basic human rights," said Scott Long... "Bush and Pope Benedict both speak of human dignity, but their homophobic words and actions undermine families and endanger health."

Top on the list? Pope Benedict XVI for undermining families. Then comes President George Bush for jeopardizing public health with his abstinence only programs. Next is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for violating the right to privacy on a widespread scale. Poland and the Philippines are represented as well.

Interesting day to be a gay Catholic American (from Poland?).