Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents

3 down, 47 to go ... eh, maybe 46 and a half

Sue — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:36:12 -0400

By now, you've probably read that gay marriage is legal in Connecticut. Technically, the Supreme Court overturned a gay marriage ban. This has been in my inbox for several days as I've pondered what I could possibly add to the debate. I'm part of a national LGBT blogging email list and my inbox has probably 700 messages on this topic. From people who pretty much agree on the topic.

It is a big year for gay marriage. A tough year. California legalized it, but is facing the mother of all battles over a ballot initiative to de-gay the constitution. Arizona, the only state to successfully beat down such an amendment at the polls, is facing it once again. Florida also has it at the ballot box. Most of the monies are flowing into California on the conventional wisdom that defeating the proposition keeps marriage legal which is a step ahead of paving the way to legalize gay marriage. And some people really are stupid enough to vote against the Prop (the good vote) because Brad Pitt donated money (to the good side).

I had lunch with Tony Norman yesterday (name drop!) and he is of the opinion that the imminent election of Barack Obama will signify a culture shift of epic proportions in American society. Apparently, Tony opines, the homos will be along for the ride as we chatted about passing an inclusive ENDA and eliminating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

What comes to mind when I think about the opportunity to marry Ledcat is purely financial and legal. I've never even entertained the romantic and symbolic aspects. I watch my parents age with very little of a safety net and wonder how our interdependence will play itself out without even that safety net (Social Security survivor benefits, etc). We are secure with health insurance right now, but one small change in our employment situation could negate that security. It is a little scary. But then again marriage didn't do my grandmother too good ... after grandpap died, she garned a $78 monthly pension and no health insurance. Plus, the realization that she had been merrily charging (and paying) for years solely on his credit so she had none. Scary.

Legalized gay marriage isn't on the radar for Pennsylvania and that's fine with me. We have enough attention on this issue as the fracture point for the entire Western Kingdom of the Episcopal Church. I'm sure I'll be following how the divorce settlement turns into an ugly example of why "marriage" isn't such a holy union in all cases.

Pam's House Blend does a wonderful summary is you are interested in what the national LGBT groups are saying about this court decision (and the wingnuts, too).

Deliberative poll on same-sex marriage

Sue — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:07:36 -0400

The Post-Gazette's "Next Page" featured a fascinating article on the implementation of deliberative polling around marriage issues.

My interpretation of this process is that it strives to create an informed voter, rather than create systemic changing dialogue grounded in consensus.

At the core of deliberative polling lies the belief that to develop an informed opinion citizens need two things: access to balanced information and the opportunity to engage in deliberation with a range of alternative views.

Sounds interesting. Proponents of gay-rights have long argued that when our opponents get to know us, they will experience our issues in a personal way that should overcome the us/them dichotomy.

Saturday's event is sort of an all-day education session. Participants have homework, they engage in small groups and they learn the facts about the history of marriage in our culture. I'm going to read that booklet myself. At the end of the day, participants will be polled for their individual views, not a collective decision. That polling data will be made public.

The poll is designed to have a policy impact, presumably by turning out informed voters (and informing their networks). I wonder about the choice of this issue. Neither Presidential candidate is in favor of gay marriage and the issue is fairly dormant in Pennsylvania. Equal protection would seem more fitting since it has legislative life. However, those pesky State House elections remind us of the importance of retaining as many progressive reps as possible. As progressive as Pennsylvania goes.

This strikes me more as an intellectual exercise on a hot button issue, but not necessarily a Pennsylvania issue.

Domestic Registry Passes First Hurdle

Sue — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:24:24 -0400

As reported by the PG web-edition, City Council gave a thumbs up on the first vote for the domestic partner registry. The lone naysayer was the Reverend Ricky Burgess. Final vote will be next week. No word on how the Mayor feels about all this registry stuff, but it appears veto proof at this stage of the game.

Sigh. I am only speculating here, but my guess is that Reverend Burgess is sticking with the right wing rhetoric that even second class relationship civil rights are too much for Pittsburgh's homosexuals. This new system is just a scooch along the path toward anything resembling civil unions in Pennsylvania. Barely a scooch. Way more important to this lesbian is the probability that this registry will help our family keep our domestic partner benefits if Ledcat's job is merged into the County. Which is unlikely given her job, but it is good to be prepared. Like Boy Scouts. Only with labia.

I emailed Councilmen Shields and Kraus (no "e") asking for their thoughts on how the registry requirements might impact low income families, suggesting that the City compile a guide on how to meet the registry requirements. The most vulnerable families are those least likely to afford things like attorney fees for wills and those most likely to have financial and credit blemishes impacting their economic stability. Thus, they are most in need of the registry benefits (if any are available to them).

And, to be honest, some of the requirements are a bit arduous. I went through the process of adding my name to the household utility bills and it was a pain. Lots of red tape and questions and three way phone calls. It would be great if the City could put together a simple how to list to make things easier. I would hate to see this great new resource benefit only those of us who have the luxury of joint credit cards and power of attorney documents. That would be a great shame.

You know ... that would be a great project for the Mayor's new LGBT Advisory Board with input from his LGBT Liaison. Oh, except for the little detail that he hasn't appointed any of those people. Darn.

PG reader sets the record straight on Sexual History 101

Sue — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 17:10:35 -0400

Matthew Fusina of Franklin Park seems a little fed up.

A little foray into the fascinating world of sexual history would reveal that our "[recently] corrupted society" has, in fact, been corrupt at least since the dawn of recorded history. Before Mr. Davis makes such broad historical generalizations in the future, I would encourage him and those who hold staunch opinions based on anecdotal versions of history to become familiar with some of the classics in sexual history. I particularly would recommend works by John Boswell, Thomas Laqueur, Peter Gay and George Chauncey, all highlights of the modern sexual canon. Even if you leave with the same opinion, it will prevent the future course of the marriage debate from being filled with historical half-truths.

Breaking News: Shields and Kraus Propose City Domestic Partner Registry

Sue — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:53:16 -0400

Update: The Pittsburgh City Paper's Melissa Meinzer and Chris Potter do a really good job with this story on the CP's website. Good example of how web based media serves the CP readership. And you.

I contacted Shields' office and encountered a reluctance to work with a blogger which was disappointing as I worked very hard to get his letter to Sally Kern picked up by gay media around the country. Ah well ...

****************************************************************

City Council President Doug Shields and City Councilperson Bruce Kraus are proposing the development of City domestic registry for unmarried couples which would formalize the process for determining eligibility of City employees for domestic partnership benefits AND provide private employers with a similar resource. According to the Post-Gazette, the registry will also recognize familial relationships defined by mutual support.

I'm waiting for a comment from Council President Shields. I'm also poking around to see what impact this has had in other communities, including Philadelphia.

The PG story is here.

Ledcat and I already have an affidavit of our domestic partnership. It was a pain to get it and put us through more far more hoops than is reasonable. How many heterosexual married couples have to get both names on utility bills -- do you know how complicated that is?

This is an interesting step forward. I'm curious as to how the Mayor rules on this and hopeful this will force the issue of addressing domestic partnership benefits in a potential City-County merger.

Stay tuned ...

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!

California - Why We Cannot Rest On Their Laurels

Sue — Sun, 18 May 2008 14:58:53 -0400

What's good news for Californian queers may mean the battle over same-sex marriage heats up again in Pennsylvania as the anti-gay marriage amendment backers put on the pressure to revive that legislation.

They argue that predictions of courts overruling state DOMA laws has come true and call the Pennsylvania House to gird their loins for battle.

Not so quick. Michigan's Supreme Court just ruled that a statewide ban means no domestic partner benefits for state employees. In other words, the implications for an amendment about "marriage" could be far reaching. Regardless of California.

So what does all this mean for you? Well, I'd say two things. First, let's hurrah for our California sisters and brothers.

Second, maybe you should call your representative in the Pennsylvania House and let them know that you are opposed to the amendment and do not want to see it gain momentum when so much important legislative work remains to be done. You can find out who represents you via the Equality Advocates website. It can't hurt to make that call.

And remember ... a little over 30 days until PrideFest 2008. Equality Advocates should have a table there. So will Steel City Stonewall Democrats. Excellent opportunity to get involved and show them some $$ love to keep their good groove going.

California Ban on Gay Marriage Struck Down

Sue — Thu, 15 May 2008 21:10:54 -0400

From CNN.com

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday, saying sexual orientation, like race or gender, "does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

In a 4-3 120-page ruling issue, the justices wrote that "responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation."

"We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the majority.

How about that? We deserve basic civil rights.

I'm very happy. We need to keep moving forward here in Pennsylvania, keep working toward expanding our own civil rights. Keep motivated. Keep up the pressure and the volume.

Way to Go Queers: PA Senate Tables Amendment Legislation

Sue — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:18:32 -0400

I saw it first at Delaware Online followed by the Post-Gazette.

HARRISBURG -- The state Senate this evening voted to table a bill that would have amended the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

The main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, said it had become clear to him that the bill would not pass in the House and he therefore saw no point to a lengthy debate in the Senate.

The bill might have passed the Senate, which is controlled by Republicans 29-21.

Up to 14 amendments were planned on the bill, which would have meant a long night.

So what does this mean? Essentially, the bill has been put on ice, but it still has a heart beat and could come back. We can't forget that even as we rejoice.

What does that mean? YOU FREAKIN' DID IT! The Bill was expected to pass the Senate today and head for the House to be killed. But you you you beautiful homo lovin' telephone workin' fabulous folks made a difference.

Nice job, kids.

Clearly, there is work to be done. Now we have to turn our attention to HB1400 which will expand civil protections to our community. Instead of fighting against, we are on the fighting for team and we have multiple champions, including the Pittsburgh City Council.

Luke Ravenstahl is not one of those champions on this issue. He has declined to support the legislation.

I'm just sayin...

Will Pennsylvania outlaw divorce?

Sue — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:17:46 -0400

Pennsylvania's most colorful Senator -- and he would stand out brightly even in the gayest of gay communities -- Vince Fumo is proposing to amend the, well, amendment legislation to outlaw divorce with a few exceptions.

Mr. Fumo, who leaves the Senate on Nov. 30, said the stated goal of Senate Bill 1250 is to "protect the sanctity of the marital institution" by defining a legal marriage as only between one man and one woman.

The next logical step, according to Mr. Fumo, is to also outlaw divorces

You know, there just isn't much I can add to that.

Except this ... if Vince Fumo will go to such lengths, can't you make a phone call?

We have to start calling our House members soon.

So, Monday is the Big Gay Rally and You Can't Get to Harrisburg?

Sue — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:53:09 -0400

UPDATE: I made a call this morning to Fontana's office in Harrisburg. They are getting a ton of calls, going both directions. Similar reports from Costa's Harrisburg office. Keep it up. Sneak out for a cigarette break, even if you don't smoke, to make the call. I also heard that the rally is noisy. All good news. Keep it up. You are doing great

******************************************************************

Rejoice, fair homo and homo allies, for there is something very important you can do right from the comfort of your own cell phone.

Call your Senator. Tell the nice staff person who answer the phone that you are opposed to attempts to amend the constitution of Pennsylvania to prevent gay marriage aka SB 1250. That's all you really need to say, along with your name and address (so they know you are really a constituent).

If you want to say more, do so. Ask how the Senator stands on this issue (if you don't know). Thank the Senator for a pro-homo stance. Tell them why you are opposed to the amendment. Talk about your family. Mention the issues that are important to you -- health care? employment? economic development? taxes? whatever!

For my impassioned take on things, visit my Blog for Equality post.

The important thing is that you are reaching for your cell phone right now, scribbling down the number and heading for whatever quiet nook is necessary for you to make the call.

Why now? Why Monday? Because the bill is going to be voted out of Appropriations and possibly to the full Senate for a vote. This week. So waiting until it is more convenient for your individual life is not an option.

This isn't a situation where you -- especially if you are a gay person or love a gay person -- have the luxury of letting someone else do the heavy lifting. A contingent of Pittsburghers gave up a day to staff the rally for us. The telephone calls, well that's our part of the homosexual agenda. Step lively, people. Or, rather, dial lively!

You know that this amendment is smoke screen designed to keep us from organizing around important civil rights legislation sitting in committee. You know that this is about using gay marriage as an issue for the election -- rile 'em up to vote for McCain.

And you know that is all complete bullshit. The worst thing that could happen to our heterosexual married friends, family members and neighbors if Ledcat and I were to marry? The wedding registry. We have expensive tastes.

Why are you still reading this? Oh, you need telephone numbers. Here's the entire fleet of Southwestern PA Senators. If you don't know who represents you, click here to find out.

Jay Costa   Hburg (717) 787-7683   Pittsburgh   (412) 241-6690
Sean Logan   Hburg (717) 787-5580    Pittsburgh (412) 664-5200
Wayne Fontana Hburg (717) 787-5300   Pittsburgh (412) 344-2551
John Pippy Hburg (717) 787-5839   Pittsburgh (412) 262-2260
Jim Ferlo Hburg (717) 787-6123    Pittsburgh (412) 621-3006
Jane Orie Hburg (717) 787-6538   Pittsburgh (412) 630-9466 j
J. Barry Stout Hburg (717) 787-1463   Pittsburgh (724) 225-5400 b
Gerald Lavelle Hburg (717) 787-3076   Pittsburgh   (724) 654-1444
Mary Jo White Hburg (717) 787-9684   Pittsburgh (814) 432-4345
Donald C.White Hburg (717) 787-8724   Pittsburgh (724) 357-0151
Robert D. Robbins Hburg (717) 787-1322   Pittsburgh (724) 588-1323
Bob Regola Hburg (717) 787-6063    Pittsburgh   (724) 600-7002
Richard Kasunic Hburg (717) 787-7175   Pittsburgh (724) 626-1611

Now stop reading and start calling. It is practically painless.

Seriously, are you dialing?

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.

Letters to the Editor

Sue — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:10:25 -0400

Three letters in today's Post-Gazette, two for gay rights and one for gay oppression. Still no letters in the Tribune-Review.

Proud papa Edward Walkowski of Brookline simply wants his lesbian daughter and her partner to have equal rights. Edward recognizes the true political agenda of the Amendment supporters:

The political leaders pushing this amendment are nothing but political opportunists and hypocrites -- political opportunists because, by taking advantage of fears, prejudices and ignorance, they would hope to create a wedge issue that would aid their own political aims, and hypocrites because if they were truly concerned with protecting marriage and the family, they would attempt to legislate against divorce and to legislate for pre-marriage testing to ensure that couples would be stable partners and parents.

Lorette Barone of Point Breeze makes another simple point, namely that gay marriage won't impact her marriage. Nor will it protect anyone else's marriage.

Kudos to Bruce Kraus ("Gay Marriage in Pennsylvania," April 27 Forum). I have no idea how exactly the anti-gay marriage amendment will "strengthen marriage" -- an institution that has been in decline everywhere without any help from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community and lots of help from educational, religious and legislative bodies.

I do know that GLBT people marrying will have no impact on my 45-year marriage. The adoption of the amendment will disenfranchise a host of my fellow citizens who -- constitutionally -- share all the rights and privileges that I enjoy... well, almost, but not quite because they're... you know.

On the other hand, Nancy Staible of Zelienople believes marriage is the answer. Nancy is an old friend of the letters page.

Contrary to the attitude shared by several of the senators hosting the hearing, I think the people of Pennsylvania do understand what marriage is, what it is not and why we need to protect this bedrock of our society. I would venture to say that every member of those listening to or offering testimony, whether supporting or opposing the amendment, was born as a result of the union of one man and one woman and understand the value of marriage.

That's probably not true. There's a range of possibilities. I speak hypothetically because I don't know who was there or the circumstances of their conception. Someone may have gay parents. Someone may be the result of artificial insemination. Another could have been conceived as a result of sexual assualt or incest. I'm guessing a few were born to teenagers who didn't understand the consequence of their actions. Nancy and her ilk rarely mention those circumstances. Getting married because you "have to" is not the same thing as entering a loving union with full intent and commitment.

The limited role of government in our representative republic is to establish and maintain laws that are determined to be best for the country and its people. Marriage over time has been shown to be the gold standard for raising children, socializing men and women, building a strong economy and providing for healthy, long lives.

Also, not true. Research has shown that two parent families have strengths for children, but that gay parenting is little different than heterosexual parenting. If anything, it is the constant barrage against the gay community that is hurting our children.

Just this week, we see a newlywed couple who beat the hell out of each other and bystanders on the day of their wedding. What economic contribution does that make? It drains resources because of the need for police and judicial intervention.

Staible deludes herself that marriage is some sort of magic bullet to cure social woes. So why doesn't she turn her attention to the aspects of existing marriages that aren't working so well? Why not help women who are being battered by their spouses have better supports have healthy, long lives? Why not strengthen safety net resources so financial hardships don't destroy marriages? Why not address healthcare so families aren't forced to remain unmarried so women and children can access publicly funded healthcare because their male partners' business doesn't offer a family plan? There are tons of things Nancy could do.

If she really cared about marriage.

Bruce Kraus: Excerpts from his testimony

Sue — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:18:23 -0400

The Post-Gazette published City Councilman Bruce Kraus' recent testimony on SB 1250 which would embed a definition of marriage into the PA Constitution. All I can tell you is that this is a really great read. Here is my favorite excerpt:

With all the challenges that we, as a commonwealth, are facing -- deteriorating infrastructure; staggering health-care costs; municipalities crippled by the inability or unwillingness of legislators to ensure that nonprofits contribute toward ever escalating municipal service costs; rampant gun violence; and corruption in government -- certain Pennsylvania state legislators would like us to believe that defining marriage and outlawing civil union is our most pressing legislative priority.

In reality this is their mark of shame.

Legislating a ban on same-sex marriage or civil unions is homophobia, bigotry and sanctioned discrimination of a selected class of people. I would liken homophobia to racism, sexism and anti-Semitism because it seeks to dehumanize people and deny them their dignity, personhood and equal protection under the law. In the year 2008, would you dare to legislate to deny marriage or civil union based on race, creed, age or ethnicity?

This need not become a mark of shame, but rather a call to courage -- the courage to overcome fear and injustice. Choosing the right thing to do is not always popular or easy, but standing for what is right and true and just, especially when it is unpopular, is the true test of moral character.

Today I ask you, as members of the state General Assembly, with the power to end this discrimination before it can go any further, to not only vote against SB 1250, but to speak out against it and the intolerance, prejudice and discrimination it represents.

Bishop Zubik writes the opposing view. He's the Bride of Christ. Or something like that.

Obama addresses PA Marriage Amendment

Sue — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:36:48 -0400

Well, he finally has something to say about attempts to amend the PA Constitution.

"If I were in the state legislature, I would oppose it, Obama said.

Obama's silence on the proposed amendment to the state's constitution has proven worrisome to local gay rights groups who have largely thrown their support behind Hillary Clinton and just two days before the primary he made his position clear.

"I'm not in favor of gay marriage but I certainly don't want to see a court suggesting that somehow we can't pass laws that say gays and lesbians aren't being discriminated against," Obama said.

So he would oppose it. Check. But what do the rest of the words mean? He doesn't want to see a court suggesting ... isn't that the rhetoric of those in favor of the amendment who fear the courts overturning current legislations outlawing gay marriage? Huh?

This doesn't make any sense. It sounds like more of the same chest-beating "I am Christian, hear me tolerate" crap. It makes me almost long for a refreshing dose of Darryl Metcalfe's "I don't like gay people" mantra.

Please, gay Obama supporters, tell me what this means for your family. And mine.

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.

Brian O'Neill mixes peas and corn ... woo hoo!

Sue — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:53:36 -0400

For that to make any sense, check out O'Neill's column in which he tries to figure out how a marriage protection amendment works. Apparently, one of the most memorable bits of testimony:

One of the more imaginative arguments in favor of the amendment was made by Randy Lee, a law professor at the Widener University School of Law. A 50-year-old father of six, Mr. Lee likened the idea of equating gay unions with marriages to an unfair trade practice.

"You can't put a picture of corn on a can of peas and sell it as corn,'' he said.

Sue Frietsche of the Women's Law Project also mentioned that analogy to me. It you stick with the analogy, though, gay marriage makes more sense -- keep the peas with the peas and the corn with the corn. None of this succotash stuff to trick innocent children into eating their vegetables. Everyone knows kids sort mixed veggies out into little like minded piles anyway.

So what does it all mean? Well, since this is like my 19th post for the day (lots happening), I guess I'll Brian have the last word.

But there is something about the institution of marriage that people in love continue to value. That may be the only thing that unites everyone in this argument. If anyone can get past that irony, that's the good news.

PG poll on Marriage Protection Amendment

Sue — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:13:00 -0400

Through 4/15/2008, you can vote in the Post Gazette poll on the marriage amendment.

http://www.post-gazette.com/polls/?pollID=2463

As of tonight, 1,820 responses ..

A. Yes - 627 (34%)

B. No - 1136 (62%)

C. Don't care - 57 (3%)

The Amendment Hearing - Reports from the Field

Sue — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:06:13 -0400

Having read both the article in the Post-Gazette and the one in the Tribune-Review, I must say I came away with a sort of "it all came out equal in the end" impression -- namely, that it was a draw.

That's not what folks in the LGBTQ community are saying. Reports from various sources tell me that anti-amendment (the good guys) folks outnumbered pro-amendment (the bigots) folks by as much as 4:1. I guess the stickers proved useful after all and I shouldn't have made fun of them. Plus, there was cheering and boos unreported in the media.

Both newspapers start off with quotes from the christo-bigots. Here's the Trib:

"It advances a single purpose -- the preservation of Pennsylvania's marriage policy as understood throughout the existence of the Commonwealth -- by reaffirming the legal definition of marriage," said Deborah Hamilton of the coalition Pennsylvania for Marriage, reading a statement prepared by the Utah-based Marriage Law Foundation.

Now it is interesting to me that the paper makes a point that someone outside of Pennsylvania prepared the statement. Heck, if Deborah can't string a coherent statement together on paper, why let her talk?

The Trib does not quote any openly gay individuals or at least doesn't identify them as such. They also fail to quote any openly heterosexual individuals who fear for their marriages. So it sort of is a draw.

The Post-Gazette starts off with the Catholic flavor of bigotry

"I come to you today as a pastor, a pastor with a desire to testify on behalf of one of the oldest institutions of humanity -- marriage itself," Catholic Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh told an audience of more than 200 people in the Gold Room.

Interesting side note. While almost every gay man over the age of 50 that I know seems to have scoop on which priests and bishops are gay <they don't necessary corroborate each other>, no one wants to claim Zubik. They vehemently argue that he is heterosexual. That's odd.

Some gays are claiming that the PG bent over backward to be "fair and balanced" which could account for their failure to report on the turnout.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

City Councilman Bruce Kraus yesterday described such a qualification and the entire move to ban civil unions as a "mark of shame."

He implored members of the Judiciary Committee and the Legislature to stand against the constitutional amendment.

"This need not become your mark of shame, but rather your call to courage," he said. "The courage to overcome fear and injustice; to leave behind moral cowardice."

Our call to courage. And he didn't even have to send to Utah for help with that statement. I mean, that's a theme the LGBTQ community should pounce upon.

Speaking of courage, I hear that State Senator Jay Costa was the one asking tough questions of those in support of the amendment. Was Fontana there? Did he ask questions? I'm concerned given his staff comments about receiving a lof of critical calls.

Did you call you Senator? It is certainly not too late. Consider this a call to courage. Speak out now while someone is still listening to your voice. Outnumbering them 4:1 in socially conservative Pittsburgh -- where our 28 year old Mayor is anti-civil union for God's sake -- that's big news.

Apparently, Senator Jane Orie left when the cameras left. So she wants the film clips, but can't even bother to hear out what the others have to say? Classy.

Here's what the gay media is reporting.

Even more on PA so called "Marriage Protection Amendment"

Sue — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:21:15 -0400

A lot to impart so bear with me.

First, the hearing. If you cannot attend, you can submit written testimony. This comes from Sue Frietsche, Pittsburgh's Women's Law Project go-to-woman. I am still trying to determine if you can email it. Ledcat and I are working on a joint letter.

It can be in letter form, addressed to Senator Greenleaf at: Senate Judiciary Committee, Main Capitol Building, Harrisburg PA 17120, and it should be entitled, "Testimony of [your name] on Senate Bill 1250".

So, that's one critical piece of information and just proves that it is sometimes worth kicking up the dirt to find the flowers. Thus, if you cannot attend, you have no reason not to let your voice be heard on this important issue. It doesn't have to be profound or anything like that. Just write.

Second, I've mentioned my concerns about the "information dissemination" process around this legislation. I shared my concerns with local and statewide LGBT advocacy folks. Most agree that a dearth of resources are part of the problem. Stacey Sobel of Equality Advocates gave me a lot of insight into the process. I suspect, like many situations, it boils down to communication. The fact that I received at least 13 copies of the hearing notice (including a few today) does not offset the fact that it took four days to get the information in the first place. Creating another group or setting up another website is not the answer. We have to find a better way for advocacy groups to get the word out here in Pittsburgh -- it is *our* responsibility to make it happen.

Finally, I hope you caught the letters to the editor in today's Post-Gazette. One is from a long (very long) time friend of mine, Keith Bajura. His optimism is buoying amidst all this hearing hoopla:

Furthermore, marriage equality is going to happen. With our society becoming ever more accepting that homosexuality is a normal human trait such as having green eyes or being left-handed, the next generation will struggle even less with the issue than we do today. In fact, five countries of the world currently allow same-sex marriage.

Maybe we can get back to basics and remember that this country was founded on the equality of all people. It is only constitutional and only American that we offer marriage to all people -- gay or straight.

Then there is Marilyn Reed of Pine (where is Pine?) who hasn't been paying attention to the facts. She claims that this amendment won't impact domestic partner benefits. Then she trots out the worn out "Let the People decide!" argument. Sigh.

Your paper often seems to pride itself on its support of freedom of speech. The latest polling indicates that even those who don't completely support the majority who define marriage as the union only of man and woman still want the people to have the final say!

That didn't work out so well for the people in the 2000 election, did it Marilyn? This whole line of thought makes civil rights something that can be bestowed upon certain groups on the whim of the majority. Isn't that a scary world, Marilyn? There was a time, Marilyn, when the voters didn't think that you - a woman - had the right to vote. Or to get an education so as to be able to write letters to the editor. Was it okay for those people to make that series of decisions? Hmmm ...

Still no letters in the Tribune Review. What is the deal?

Please write your testimony. Let the Senators on the Appropriations Committee hear from you. It does make a difference.

More on Thursday's Hearing

Sue — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:25:50 -0400

Word trickled out Sunday about the upcoming Pgh hearing on SB 1250 which would amend the constitution of PA to permanently ban gay marriage. And other stuff, too. But no one on the right is talking about the negative backlash for their families beyond the voo doo protection from homo marriage.

I have had a dozen email messages today from various groups trying to muster the troops for Thursday. The odds are not good -- the hearing is in the middle of the day, we have had four days notice and, frankly, our side is not well-organized. I know that might make me a traitor to the cause to admit that publicly, but someone has to cry wolf. Because we seemed a lot more organized last time and barely won that round. This hearing was scheduled on 4/3 and Pittsburgh's queer community first heard about it on 4/6. We lost three, almost four, days of prep time and no one seems to have a good answer to that.

You know *they* are organized. And well-funded. And will be there in full force on Thursday.

I also know that local bloggers seem very well-organized to tackle this hearing. No one has to convince them that it is newsworthy which means thousands of blog readers are going to get some insight beyond a 30 second sound-bite on KDKA. I say work with the bloggers.

Look at Pam's House Blend. It is one of the largest sources of LGBT information, period. We could build on that energy here in Pgh AND tap into the terrific support of our heterosexual blogging allies, who frankly outnumber the gay bloggers. Far outnumber.

If you can be there on Thursday, it will make a huge difference. Every gay ally counts. Don't let parking or crowds or rush hour traffic deter you. You can be damn skippy sure it won't keep the Cranberry home-schooling Christo-bigot housewives from loading up the SUVs and rolling into town to defend their marriages.

Our folks are doing their best with really limited resources. Things need to change and each of us has to step up to be part of that change. My best suggestion is to join Steel City Stonewall Democrats. They broke the news about the hearing before any other local source. In some cases, it took 24 hours for other groups to catch up. Co-chair Kris Rust assures me they are expanding scope to work on issues, not just campaigns. Go to this hearing. Wear your sticker and be counted. Then go home and join Steel City. Stop by their booth at PrideFest. Read up on their slate. See how their endorsed candidates for state offices vote on this issue.

And, hey, gay groups -- use the bloggers. Not just me, for Pete's sake. 18 bloggers participated in Blog for Equality. They are paying attention and you just need to send them an email to start a dialogue, potentially reaching thousands of readers.

Be part of the solution.

Pgh Public Hearing on SB 1250

Sue — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:11:45 -0400

Courtesy of Steel City Stonewall Democrats comes this news.

Value All Families - Keep Discrimination out of Our State Constitution!

Please come to the public hearing in Pittsburgh on Thursday, April 10th and tell Pennsylvania Senate Members to vote NO on Senate Bill 1250.

Senate Bill 1250 is a Constitutional Amendment which would ban gay marriage AND civil unions in Pennsylvania. On Thursday, April 10th there will be a public hearing in Pittsburgh to discuss the impact this amendment would have on the Commonwealth. In past hearings, supporters of this discriminatory bill have been extremely active and vocal. It is crucial that we outnumber them this time around. We urgently need people to come to the hearing so senators know that people from the Pittsburgh area don't want our General Assembly to legislate hate.

Date and time: Thursday, April 10th, 2:00 pm

Location: Allegheny County Courthouse, Gold Room 437 Grant St., Downtown Pittsburgh Corner of Grant and Forbes

*** We will have lapel stickers at the hearing. Please be sure to pick one up to show your opposition to the marriage amendment***

Call (412) 681-7736 for more information.

Your faithful correspondent, alas, cannot attend as I have work commitments that cannot be missed. So I hope you will attend and speak your mind.

It is frustrating to only receive four days notice (and some change, I guess) for a middle of the day hearing. 3/4 of my work commitments are flexible enough to accomodate these sort of things, but not all of them. I guess that is how things go. It is particularly frustrating, though, in this case as lower income LGBT (and straight) families will be hit very hard by this type of discrimination and are least likely to be able to just drop everything at work for a 2 PM meeting.

Please let me know if you plan to attend.

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

PA Senate Judiciary Committee Votes OK on Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

Sue — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:12:27 -0400

Well, we lost this round. Our local allies, Jay Costa and Wayne Fontana, voted no, but even with Republican Jane Earll they couldn't prevent the "marriage protection" amendment from being voted out of committee. The legislation heads for the Appropriations Committee and then to the floor of the full Senate.

Here's how the vote went down. Note that Jane Orie went with the bigots, even though she didn't cosponsor the amendment.

yes -- lisa boscola, john gordner, jane orie, jeff piccola, john rafferty, mike stack, barry stout, M.J. white, stewart greenleaf, joe scarnati

no -- patrick browne, jay costa, jane earll, wayne fontana

I have had a really tough day at work so coherent commentary may be out of reach for this lesbian. When I think of the outrage over the Sally Kern hate-spew, I can't help but wonder if each of those people calling for her resignation took the time to weigh in on this particular issue right here in Pittsburgh. Right here.

Cause guess what? Last time around, our Senators played political footsie to have their homo-friendly appeal and keep their traditional Catholic values voters happy. I'm guessing not much has changed. This amendment calls for a ban on civil unions which may have repercussions for heterosexual couples as well as reach far beyond marriage to impact health care decisions and estate decisions and so forth. This apparently is the deal breaker for the Republi-bigots. Strip out the civil union language and they take their toys and go home.

It disgusts me that we have so few people willing to just say "hey its wrong." Instead, we have to play games and engage in the same old, same old. I am so tired of being a political football.

I'm just really tired.

"Marriage Protection Amendment" revitalized in PA Senate

Sue — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 11:06:02 -0500

It is back. According to Equality Advocates, the legislation to start the constitutional amendment process roared back to life on Valentine's Day.

Just yesterday, SB 1250, the "Marriage Protection Amendment," was published and referred to the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. There are 17 co-sponsors, the same number as last time. Four Republican Senators who co-sponsored similar legislation last time, are NOT co-sponsoring it this time around. Also, last time around, there were no Democrats as co-sponsors and this time there are two.

This legislation would embed anti-gay marriage protections into the constitution of our Commonwealth by defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Pennsylvania, as you may recall, has existing legislation which does that very thing and there are no attempts on the horizon to challenge that legislation. To my knowledge.

We had a bitter struggle over this in 2006. Many Southwestern Pennsylvania Democrats in the House voted in favor of the amendment. The Senate did some fancy footwork by introducing a watered-down version of the amendment (would not outlaw civil unions), counting on the fact that the Repubs would never go for it and they were right. So everyone walked away claiming they voted for it and against it. It all boils down to the fact that very few of our legislators were willing to publicly stand up against discrimination and homophobia.

Fast forward to 2008. Legislation in the House and the Senate to expand the Human Relations Act to include sexual orientation, gender identity and gender presentation are gaining momentum and co-sponsors. Pittsburgh elects an openly gay City Councilperson. PA Human Relations Commission Chair Steve Glassman, an openly gay man, is reappointed in spite of attempts by the AFA of PA to oppose the appointment. Philadelphia is not allowing tax payers to foot the rent for the openly discriminatory Boy Scouts. Presidential candidates participate in a televised debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign.

We have made progress. We cannot afford to let this push us back to the "I voted for it because I was against it" political survival mentality.

Here's the sponsorship breakdown, courtesy of Equality Advocates. I've noted the Western PA folks and the two Democrats. Note that no Democrats supported this legislation last time it was in the Senate. Let's ask ourselves who is making the most contacts in those districts.

Brubaker                                                                                                                      Musto (D),                                                                                                                     Gordner,                                                                                                                  Scarnati,                                                                                                              Kasunic (32nd - Fayette, Somerset, Washington, Westmoreland counties AND a D),
Armstrong,                                                                                                            Corman,                                                                                                        Eichelberger,                                                                                                         Folmer,                                                                                                                  Regola (39th - Westmoreland Co.)                Madigan,                                                                                                              Robbins (50th - Mercer and Crawford counties),                                                            Piccola,
Waugh,                                                                                                                       Rhoades,                                                                                                                    Punt                                                                                                                            and Wonderling

The good news is that four co-sponsors last time around have opted to NOT co-sponsor the legislation this time.Three of those individuals are from Western Pennsylvania. If you live in their districts, call them or email them and affirm that decision, asking them to focus on issues more important to your district than marriage protection overkill. Tell them about the economy and health care and road infrastructure and taxation issues that are having a real impact on your family right now.

Pippy (37th - Moon, Mt. Lebanon, Peters, Sewickley, etc), White (41st - Indiana County) and Janie Orie (40th - Pittsburgh's North Hills)

The 4th individual is Senator Rafferty from the Berks County region.

So, three Western Pennsylvania Senators have opted not to participate in a fear-driven attempt to scapegoat homosexuals while residents of Pennsylvania struggle with actual problems like the Birmingham Bridge suddenly breaking or the inability of multiple rich people to get a decent grocery store into an urban, predominantly African-American community or the shooting death of two teenagers due to gang violence. Oh hey, how about this one -- the media is filled with analysis on how to help mentally ill people stop killing college students, but once again there's no cost of living allowance in the state budget for mental health providers. Nice. How about fixing that little problem?

Truth be told people, your family is much more likely to drive across a failing bridge and fall to the river below than to suffer a single consequence of my relationship with Ledcat. Hey, we are actually going out to spend money buying a new vacuum cleaner today -- we are putting money into the economy. Isn't that what all good citizens should be doing? Then, of course, we'll come home to modify it as part of our plan to destroy our neighbors' marriages - oh, wait a minute, we live by two single mothers, an unmarried hetero couple, a single man, a widow, a grandma raising three grandkids and a gay couple. Well, there goes that plan.

Here's the final rundown of what you need to know and what you can do about it. The legislation is in the Judiciary Committee. There are several local Senators sitting on that committee. If you live in their districts, please pick up your phone and ask them not to vote this legislation out of Committee (see all reasons above).

Senator Jay Costa is the minority chair. Senator Wayne Fontana sits on this committee. Senator Stout (Washington County) sits on this committee. Senator Earll from Erie County sits on this committee. Senator Orie sits on this committee.

Equality Advocates should have a link up by the end of the day Monday so you can just click and email. Be careful when forwarding email alerts because they sometimes contain your personal information --- I discovered that when I clicked a link someone sent me last time and her address popped up in the "auto-fill" box on the webpage.

In summary, please take action in these ways. The links take you to contact information for each Senator.

1. If your Senator co-sponsored the legislation, please contact them and share your displeasure.

2. If your Senator sits on the Judiciary Committee, please contact them and ask them not to vote the legislation out of committee.

3. All others, contact your Senator and ask them to vote against the legislation.

More scripts and talking points will be coming. But I trust that you, homo and hetero alike, can eloquently identity at least three or four other issues that are more immediately pressing for your family (especially the voters!) than defending heterosexual marriage.

Please don't wait for someone else to make the call.

Local Trans Advocate Pens Letter to the Post-Gazette

Sue — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:20:05 -0500

Here's further evidence of the "Pittsburgh is a good place to be queer" mantra that I've oft repeated. In response to the recent media coverage of the rescue of Rebecca Hare, longtime trans advocate Dr. Emilia Lombardi shares her thoughts with the readers of the Post-Gazette. Lombardi praises Pittsburgh's first-responders for their sensitivity to Hare's status as a transwoman.

I wish to thank Chief James Holman and the City of Pittsburgh's Emergency Medical Services, River Rescue Unit. The professionalism and respect they showed Rebecca Hare as they rescued her from the cold river Feb. 7 makes me proud to live in Pittsburgh ("Rescue in River Tunnel a Dangerous Challenge," Feb. 8).

This is a stark contrast to other cities where their treatment of transgender people has been horrendous and may have actually led to further harm. This is another sign of the support the city has toward its lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender population.

I agree that Holman and his crew should be lauded for exemplary work and, hopefully, Public Safety Director Michael Huss will take note of this when reviewing the performance of other first responders. There's room for improvement, but we need to recognize when things go well.

As noted in this blog, media coverage of the entire rescue was abysmal. Clearly, the major outlets should put in a call to Mr. Potter (and presumably Mr. Scaife) for some guidance on responsibly covering the LGBT community.

However, I was disappointed in the media's reporting of this incident. Their reference to Ms. Hare as a man in initial reports was a blatant form of disrespect to her and to the transgender men and women living in Pittsburgh.

The only reporting agency that showed some respect was the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and for that I do thank them.

Lombardi's letter also appeared in the Trib.

On a related note, I like to highlight letters to the editor pertaining to the LGBTQ community as I believe it is important that we stay abreast of the messages being put out by John Q. Public himself. When I first began writing this blog in 2005/2006, I was kept busy nearly every day analyzing letters to the editor from the PG, the Trib, the Beaver County Times, and others related to the attempt to "protect" heterosexual marriage by amending the Pennsylvania commonwealth. That attempt failed, but another battle is on the horizon.

I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to move from grumbling about an issue to taking action. Our legislators do pay attention to public sentiment and it does make a difference when they get a feel for the sentiments of their constituents. You can have an impact by contacting your legislators and by writing letters to the editor. If your letter isn't published b/c another similar letter is, rejoice that at least two peole cared enough to write in the first place. Then write again on another issue. Don't be discouraged.

More details on the impending amendment push soon.