Mayor Bloomberg landed another left on the right yesterday, coming out strongly in favor of gay marriage - and vowing the city will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, if allowed.
The Republican mayor used his weekly Sunday radio address on Memorial Day weekend to say he is "firmly opposed" to any constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
President Bush and other prominent Republicans endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The measure is set for a Senate vote next month.
"The U.S. Constitution should be something that unites, rather than divides Americans," said Bloomberg, a life-long Democrat who joined the GOP to run for mayor in 2001.
"I do not believe that government should be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry," he added during the address on 1010 WINS.
The mayor took pains to give his comments local context, referring to a lawsuit due before the state Court of Appeals tomorrow that focuses on five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York City.
Bloomberg recently took a stand against the Bush White House by advocating for stronger gun control laws as well as lambasting the wingnuts for their anti-stem cell research, pro-intelligent design stance.
Bloomberg was slightly more subdued yesterday, saying he was trying to strike a balance between enforcing the laws of the land and working to change those laws that he considers unconstitutional.
"I believe New Yorkers should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of sexual orientation," he said.
"If they [the Court of Appeals] rule that same-sex marriages are legal, then we'll perform them," he vowed.
This terrifies Pennsylvania wingnuts who recognize that banning gay marriage is ultimately unconstitutional and tremble as the interstate marriage recognition issue inexorably inches toward the Supreme Court. Hence, the desperate scramble to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution.
If marriage is legalized in NY, we may go there to wed. That would be nice.
A local hate group has issued a call for an "evangelistic outreach" to bring their message of hate, bigotry and intolerance to Pittsburgh's LGBT community during the 2006 PrideFest activities.
Rescue Pittsburgh is best known for their "blow up the women's health care center" message of Christian love. However, founder Joseph Parente has tried to hurl invectives at a homo or two in conjunction with his cohorts at Operation Rescue.
The month of June has become, for some, "pride" month, or a time to parade the sin of homosexuality just as they did in Sodom. Under the banner of lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender, sin will be lauded as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. God's Word, however, is clear:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord". --Romans 6:23
We must stand in the gap for those trapped in the bondage of homosexual perversion, boldly speaking the truth that sets the captives free. Jesus Christ is the only one who can rescue us from our sin, please join with us as we love our neighbors enough to tell them the truth.
Uh huh. Well, PrideFest is certainly a good starting point if you are looking for homos in bondage, but most of the BDSM crowd respect the family friendly atmosphere and limit their bondage apparatus. But I digress ...
You only have to browse through a few of his blog posts to recognize the Parente is no more an authentic Christian messenger than Barney. Beyond his endless ranting about abortion and baby killing politicians, he actually posts a description and photos of a man who appears to be an employee of the Allegheny County Department of Health and asks his reader(s) to track down information on this person. Nice. I guess Parente learned that little tactic in his domestic terrorism classes. Too bad he ran out of film and only identified one person over the past three months. Perhaps his mom wouldn't increase his allowance and he spent it all buying anti-choice porn over the Internet.
It takes someone really committed to saving babies to allow three young children (10,12 and 14) to be arrested -- trying to bring water to Terry Schiavo. That's the kind of good parenting that clearly proves why homosexuals are unfit to raise children!
What you WON'T read on the Rescue Pittsburgh blog is any reference to volunteering at a soup kitchen or food pantry, conducting prison ministry, taking clothing and medicine to the homeless, visiting seniors in nursing homes, OR fostering children. Nope. Not a whisper. Because those are boring run-of-the-mill Christian activities. Parente and his ilk are in it for the glory and the attention. Not to mention the unceasing desire to control the lives of other people.
PrideFest organizers estimate 8,000 people will attend this year's celebration, including several thousand heterosexuals.
Parente usually attracts two dozen or less wingnuts to his little hatefests.
In another overt example of homophobic law enforcement, Allegheny County police are "stepping up patrols" around a South Park bathroom suspected of being the location of many a gay tryst.
The Post-Gazette report hits the classic homophobic note -- the site's proximity to a children's playground. Because you cannot report on gay sex without making at least one subtle allusion to children.
Now I understand that having sex in public places is illegal. But when is the last time you read a story about cracking down on heterosexual public sex? I guarantee you that there are more incidencts of breeders having public sexual relations than homos. And I guarantee you that most gay men are not having sex in public restrooms. But those who do are not guilty of a greater crime than the majority of high school students parked at South Park.
When I was in high school, we rode the activity bus and had to walk through the parking lot of Sam's Club to get home. Every day for the entire track season in my junior year (1987), a car was parked in that lot containing an adult man and woman having sex. We walked right past it every day and they never batted an eye. They were having sex within eyeshot of the middle school and a half a block from a preschool. Where was the umbrage? Who protected me?
Let's be honest -- this is not a crackdown on public lewdness. This is a crackdown on the crime of being gay.
Whereas our federal government seems insistent on bringing the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Senate floor, things are looking up in the federal court system. More accurately, we aren't losing ground in the federal courts
On Friday, the US District Court ruled that an Oklahoma law banning LGBT couples from adopting was so extreme that it threatened to invalidate adoptions from other states. If a gay couple traveled to Oklahoma, their parental rights would not be recognized while they are in the state.
What the hell kind of sense does that make? As one of the judges opined, the adoption was approved by a court in another state which indicates that it was deemed to be in the best interest of the child(ren).
Obviously, Oklahoma has some serious homo-hating folks in their legislature. Or back home among the voting faithful.
Is it progress that we can now visit Oklahoma without our children being deemed orphans? Hmmm.
WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee yesterday approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."
"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.
"If you want to leave, good riddance," Mr. Specter finished.
"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Mr. Feingold, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."
Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment -- which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages -- to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.
Arlen voted Yes because he thinks the measure should get a full vote on the Senate Floor, but is personally opposed to the measure. Huh. Why do I think he's trying to appease Pennsylvania conservatives in order to rally votes for Ricky?
The proposed amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has scheduled a vote on it for the week of June 5.
Early June is going to be a busy month for homophobic legislation. Its also when the Pennsylvania House will (possibly) consider a state level marriage amendment.
Face it, this is a Republic ploy to drive conservative voters to the polls. The ass-whipping in the Pennsylvania election this past week has them scared out of their minds that Ricky's base will sit out the November election. The anti-incumbent feeling in the air does not bode well for Mr. Sanctimonious.
Of course, it doesn't bode well for Rendell either.
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania is displeased with the First Lady for suggesting that gay marriage not be used as a campaign tool. Even Laura Bush is not spared their fury when the AFA smells a whiff of tolerance. From their May 17 press release:
Homosexuals have a right to live their lives as they want, but they do no have a right to force our society to redefine marriage and family.Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.Even the Rev. Jesse Jackson is on record as stating that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.Those involved in the homosexual lifestyle have never been forced to sit at the back of the bus nor are there water fountains labeled ?Gay Only.?The thousands of ex-gays in this country show that people are not born ?gay.?
I could be wrong, but I suspect being prevented from medical decision making, having your parental rights restricted or terminated, and losing your job BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY would in fact be on par with being sent to the back of the bus. I have never been sent to the back of the bus, but I can clearly point out an array of civil rights that are now labeled "heterosexual only." Including marriage.
?It is tragic that Mrs. Bush doesn?t see the importance of making the marriage amendment a campaign issue.Americans want marriage between one man and one woman protected through a constitutional amendment.Marriage is the foundation of any society and the voters recognize the need to protect its foundation,? stated Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
?The federal Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory.Our proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory.People want to protect traditional marriage and any individual running for public office would be well-advised to make marriage amendments a campaign issue,? Gramley concluded.
In other words folks, ramp up the hate-rhetoric because the homo-bigots are gonna roll. With the power dynamic shifting in the House, I have no idea what the future of the Marriage Amendment will be. Stay tuned.
I think a few PG readers must have slept in on the Sundays when their pastors talked about visiting the imprisoned and other Jesus references to compassion for the less fortunate.
Last week, the paper ran a feature on mothers who are in jail. It was harsh and difficult to read, especially when a woman admitted that she loves heroin as much as she loves her child. That's a difficult line to read. No matter that its true.
But these two particular readers took affront at the notion that these women deserve compassion and respect as mothers to their children.
T. Pawlos of Crafton asks "What about the children and other family members? They are the ones hurting and embarrassed by these women's actions." T. continues, "I don't feel a bit sorry for them." And "They think of only themselves, now and forever, trust me."
Well, that's a nice example of Christian compassion. If a woman embarrasses her family, she deserves no compassion. I'm surprised T. didn't use the phrase "loose morals."
Patricia Wilkeson of Robinson (are you surprised?) writes "I don't have any sympathy for any woman who says, "I love heroin as much as my child." I'll never understand all the "do-gooders" who support these creatures of habit."
Creatures of habit. That's nice. Patricia goes on "Why don't you honor those who work along with their husbands, sometimes at two jobs, to support their children and grandchildren?"
Shouldn't those working mothers stop being so selfish about their careers and stay home with their kids? I wonder what human mistakes Patricia's own children made that result in her caring for her grandchildren?
Then there's the line that is so very sad and reveals the bitterness in Patricia's heart. "Alcoholics and drug addicts who have to do anything to support their habits belong where they'll end up -- on the obituary page."
I'm tempted to churn out a few sentences lambasting her as an example of how perverted American Christianity has become. Or how successful the Republicans have been at turning the middle class against other vulnerable groups.
But all I can think about if whether Patricia is having a nice Mother's Day. Somehow I doubt it.
Democratic Party Chair Dean sat down with the always-delightful Pat Robertson on The 700 Club and promptly lied that the Democrartic Party platform did not include gay marriage. In fact, it does support gay marriage.
"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force promptly responded by returning a $5,000 donation to the DNC and issuing a statement condemning Dean.
The Stonewall Democrats sort of chastised Dean. "Therefore, we strongly point out that Governor Dean incorrectly spoke when stating that the 2004 Democratic Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Dean is busy mending fences. He's pissed off the homos obviously, but also the homobigots who rightly perceive that he was deceptively trying to win support.
What the hell was he thinking? That moderate Republicans watch The 700 Club? No, you idiot, the loonies watch it. The ones who willingly buy into the demonization of homosexuals. And would happily send us marching off to reeducation camps if given the opportunity.
The DNC seems to be doing its best to closet the homos (Pam's House Blend does a great job on this). First, Dean eliminated the gay liaison position within the DNC vis a vis consolidation. Then, the DNC Annual Grassroots Report eliminated any reference to LGBT grassroots efforts which had previously been successfully documented. Third, the DNC fired gay outreach advisor Donald Hitchcock because his partner was openly critical of Dean.
Now, Howard is hanging out with Pat Robertson and his merry band of bigots.
The Correspondents have been vocal pragmatic Democrats. We support Bob Casey with the full awareness of his limitations (and that, frankly, we are gambling by putting our future in his hands). But we lament the erosion of Democratic commitment to our community and find the DNC's recent series of actions truly frightening.
That sounds so pretentious.
I meant to say that we are pissed off by Dean's overt diss of the LGBT community. He's coming to town folks for a gay event so now is the time for local Democrats to call him to task. We cannot just continue to swallow the DNC excuses. We have to hold them accountable now so the LGBT community is not sacrificed for Hillary's Presidential bid.
NOTE: Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents have applied for press credentials to cover the Stonewall Convention. We are optimistic that the Stonewall Democrats recognize the importance of blogs in the media. Since Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents is the the largest regional LGBT blog, we anticipate a positive response from Stonewall. A co-chair of the local chapter has promised to get us a response soon. We look forward to covering this critical event for our local readers and for the national LGBT community through our contributions to Big Gay Picture.
Thanks to the Post-Gazette, we now know to avoid Chocolate Celebrations and the Milkshake Factory on Southside.
It is the family business of siblings Chris and Dana Edwards, both of whom are proud members of the Bush Administration. Dana coordinates POTUS travel and Chris, who bears the title SPECIAL assistant to the President, oversees logistics for the press corp.
For some reason, a Post-Gazette editor decided to waste valuable feature space gushing over the Edwards candy store -White House connection . There's some inane reasoning that running a candy store prepares you to work in the White House. It is good that at least someone in the White House has run a successful business.
The best part is that Dana got her job because of her brother. It doesn't get more obvious that this Administration is not run by the most talented people, but by the most connected.
After annoying us with some pathetic jokes about Chris buying her a pearl necklace and how much money they make (poor Dana makes less -- imagine a woman making less!), the PG gives us this total line of garbage:
Both display the unswerving loyalty to the administration that George and Laura Bush seem to inspire in many of their young staffers. In interviews, Chris continually tried to turn the conversation about his own family back to how the president's emphasis on family inspires him.
The PG thinks its news that two bright young Pittsburghers have been hoodswinked by the "family value" lies dripping out of the White House. Or, more likely, that Dana and Chris are young, upwardly-mobile, heterosexual, white adults who are willing to trade every bit of decency and intelligence they may posess for their own personal advancement and career trajectories. Chris and Dana are perfect examples of privileged hypocrites who don't give a flying fig about Pittsburgh families.
All the while selling us chocolate. And milkshakes.
Thus Pittsburgh queers and allies, you are duly warned that Chocolate Celebrations and the Milkshare Factory are owned by traitors who contribute to the Administration that wants to strip us of every civil right we deserve.
PG writer Sally Kalson tackles the thorny issues of surrogate pregnancy custody in response to a recent court ruling removing custody of triplets from their surrogate mother. It is a complicated, sticky mess and certainly deserving of some attention for our legislature.
However, PA plans to establish a legal framework in surrogacy matters will tap into the age-old battle on family values. Legislation proposed by Senator Jane Earll, R-Erie, permits only an infertile married couple to establish a surrogate contract. Obviously, LGBT couples are left out since marriage is not an option for us. At least in Pennsylvania.
But consider how this legal restriction will impact heterosexuals. Single adults would not be able to use surrogacy to conceive a child. Nor would married couples who perhaps have their own reasons for not wanting to carry a child. As Kalson points out, issues around frozen embryos only make the situation more complicated - what if the the couple divorces? or one partner dies? Under this legislation, that would eliminate surrogacy.
My point (and, I hope, Kalson's point) is that when the government legislatively imposes an ideal family framework on Pennsylvania citizens, it usually doesn't fit. Heterosexual marriage does not automatically confer some special degree of happiness or healthiness on any family unit. What is does confer is a two-tiered family status: the married, reproducing heterosexuals and all the rest of us.
Kalson sums it up neatly:
Current law considers gay couples and lone adults good enough to adopt children who are already born. They ought to be good enough to enter a legal agreement to produce a child through surrogacy.
That said, the state still needs a framework to protect the children born of such agreements, and we don't have to reinvent the wheel to get it. The Uniform Act covers the eventualities with sufficient clarity.
From the very beginning, it makes plain to everyone -- sperm and egg donors, gestational moms and their spouses (if any), intended parents and the courts -- what provisions are permissible and enforceable, and who has what legal rights and responsibilities. In Pennsylvania, no such clarity exists.
From the New York Daily News. 
I think a few PG readers must have slept in on the Sundays when their pastors talked about visiting the imprisoned and other Jesus references to compassion for the less fortunate. 
