Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents

Obama and Faith Based Anything: I Knew It!

Sue — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:41:00 -0400

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic Registry Passes First Hurdle

Sue — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 20:24:00 -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.

Correction on the Campaign Event for Luke Ravenstahl

Sue — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:35:00 -0400

I have been informed that individuals invited to the LGBT luncheon with Luke Ravenstahl are not being required to make a campaign contribution. They are invited to do so, as their discretion.

I don't know all the ins and outs of these sort of invitations, so I'm going to take this information at its word. What I must do is also assume that my original source acted in good faith and perceived the invitation language in a different way. That's for them to sort out.

I stand by the rest of my post. LGBT leaders attending a campaign fundraiser for Luke Ravenstahl strains creduality in light of his failure to move one single inch closer to gay-friendly positions during his tenure as Mayor. It just gives him further ammunition to say that he has broad based LGBT support.

Attending a meeting with the Mayor in his capacity as an elected official is a different animal, particularly when you hold him accountable for his promises. Where is the gay liaison? Where is the gay advisory committe? Where does he stand on gay civil protections and domestic partnership benefits under a City-County merger?

The private campaign meetings (apparently, 4 not the 2 I reported earlier) are not generating results for our community. Does it make sense to make financial contributions or lend your name to a campaign under these circumstances? Is is the responsible thing to do when you represent our community? I say the responsible thing to do is to ask the Mayor to take one step forward and take action before you support him.

That's my opinion. Yes, I am stirring up the pot. I do it all the time. But you -- you the supporter of Luke, you the letter writer from Braddock, you the person who took on a leadership role in the GLCC or the PrideFest committee -- you put the pot on the stove. I am following a long tradition of pot stirring -- stirring that took groups of Pittsburghers to DC marches, stirring that got PrideFest up and running and then up and running again, stirring that codified civil protections in City law, stirring that grew a phone line into a community center, stirring that brought thousands of gay people out of the closet.

I just use a computer instead of wooden spoon. I'm not out to attack anyone personally and just this morning took down an anonymous comment that slandered someone in our community. This isn't about attacking anyone. It is about a dialogue. Sure, I get the ball rolling with my thoughts and opinions. But blogging is a wonderful resource and it would be great to see more folks in the LGBT community doing it.

Have a great weekend!

Luke and the Gay Luncheon ... You Knew There Was More To The Story ...

Sue — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:49:00 -0400

As we discussed earlier in the week, plans are underway for LGBT "supporters of Luke" to get together with him over lunch to discuss LGBT issues. A few key LGBT designated leaders have been invited. This was confirmed by local LGBT business owner and chair of the Delta Foundation, Gary Van Horn, in the comments section of our blog.

Also confirmed in the comments: this is a private event and not open to the media.

What I've recently discovered is that those attending the private lunch to discuss LGBT issues are allegedly being required to make a campaign contribution to the Luke Ravenstahl war chest.

Wow. I'm sure this goes on all the time. Money buys you access. Is it a sign of the times that gay money is worth courting? Should we care about a secret meeting?

Well, yes. And here is why. This will be the second private opportunity for dialogue on LGBT issues between the Mayor and actual LGBT people. The first was held on election eve after he infamously announced live on WQED that he was opposed to civil unions. That meeting, too, was top secret and did not result in the Mayor reversing his public stance on civil unions.

Publicly, the Mayor has had contact with the LGBT community. He's just adroitly sidestepped any type of public contact that involves dialogue. This includes the "Big Gay Chat" sponsored by the Allegheny County Democratic Committee last spring. Luke sent a surrogate.

Luke himself did attend PrideFest. With a police escort. He attended OUTrageous Bingo. He spent some time in a gay bar. None of these contacts allowed for any real dialogue between Luke and our community. He came, but he didn't listen. He didn't even know we had anything to say. Or maybe he just didn't care.

The community is not well-served by secret meetings and backroom negotiations. We deserve a Mayor that is willing to talk publicly about our issues and engage a cross section of the community, not just one particular interest. We deserve a Mayor who doesn't trade access for campaign contributions (allegedly).

If that is the price of admission to this luncheon, let us hope that those who represent us on boards and committees and commissions will think twice before attending. Have any of the previous private meetings and soirees moved Luke a single inch further along the line of gay tolerance? There is no evidence of that. No change on civil unions. No support for HB 1400. No promise to protect the civil liberties and domestic partner benefits in a City-County merger. No nothing.

The private meetings aren't working. At least, they aren't working for our community. They might be working for the campaign. We don't know because even the gay media is excluded (believe me, I've tried).

Make no mistake, gentle readers, we are WAY past the point at which attending PrideFest is newsworthy. There's no extra credit points for taking that risk. The Mayor's people should be aggressively courting connections with the LGBT community. What happened to plans for a LGBT liaison in the Mayor's office? Or the LGBT advisory committee?

So, the meeting. Gary thinks it is a worthwhile investment of his time and he's entitled to that opinion. He's also entitled to organize events to support candidates in whom he believes. However, I think that continuing to contribute our hard-earned monies to a candidate that hasn't done a single thing for our community is going to get us nowhere. We cannot allow Luke Ravenstahl to continue making promises to us -- liaisons and committees, etc -- with no consequences for his failure to act.

So, why not email your local LGBT leaders and ask if they plan to attend the Mayor's event and, if so, whether they are financially supporting his campaign? It would be interesting to identify LGBT leaders that publicly support a candidate opposed to civil unions. After all, we can get the campaign contribution information after the fact if the City Paper keeps up the database. It would just be nice to know in advance where people stand.

LGBT supporters of Luke, comment away ...

Ulf, Canine Cop, Responsible for Every Civil Rights Violation in the History of Pittsburgh

Sue — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:37:00 -0400

What's more important for local social justice - the stability of the Thomas Merton Center or the culpability of a dead police dog? I'd like to ask Carole Weidmann that question. Carole's pants were ripped during an anti-war protest a few years ago and the culprit may have been Ulf, the dog who was shot and killed by Justin Jackson a few weeks ago. Mr. Jackson was subsequently killed by return fire. (Ripped pants do not equal dead teenager.)

Carole is oft brought up as an example of the horrors of police brutality in Pittsburgh. Carole is also a board member of the Thomas Merton Center, Pittsburgh's most significant anti-war organization. The Merton Center seems to be in terrible straights -- almost all of the professional staff have resigned. One sent an email (I have a copy if you want it) citing board issues as a reason for his resignation. The organization is struggling financially.

Who is going to protect the rights of other Justin Jacksons if TMC isn't back on solid ground? As a member, I'd personally prefer Carole put her time and energy (and her legion of fans) to use on that issue.

It is sad to read a City Paper story about a CMU student who claims to have stared down Ulf and avoid being "mauled" as he put it. That's just silly, condescending talk. David Struthers believes his elite status saved the day when he was confronted with a big bad police dog anxious to get 'em. I noted with some interest that the City Paper did not include any perspective from reputable dog trainers. I have consulted a few and their interpretation of the YouTube video footage is very different than Mr. Struthers.

Further, there's the never-ceasing coverage of police dogs gone wild with little if any acknowledgment of situations where police dogs saved lives or prevented violent endings. No information on the difference between a dog grabbing a suspect and a dog biting a suspect. Anyone with large dogs can tell the difference. A dog can be trained to subdue. They do it every day and no one ends up dead. It doesn't take Swami Struthers to prevent a catastrophe.

I love the man called Potter and his crew. They do good reporting. But this story mimics the one-dimensional approach to the death of Justin Jackson we saw when the story broke. And it continues to really piss me off to see all of this man v dog coverage. And I would be disingenuous if I didn't write this post out of deference to their feelings. I almost didn't. But they have much thicker skins than certain people who write 80 paragraphs responses to my criticism. So on we go ...

If David Struthers is so concerned about the other Justin Jackson's of the world, maybe he should call up Carole, roll up his sleeves and do something to build up the TMC.

Instead we get this ...

Still, Struthers believes, there was one overwhelming factor that helped his police-dog encounter toward its peaceful end. "I had a confidence, when I was sitting there, with the dog coming toward me, [police] weren't just going to let the dog maul me," he concludes. "First, because there were a lot of people there. But, really, if you release dogs on people attending elite universities there's going to be a lot of people upset at that," and very publicly. "I can't imagine [Jackson] thinking that a lot of people are going to care if he gets mauled, in the world at large. It changes how you are going to react in that situation. What happened to this guy was par for the course in many Pittsburgh neighborhoods, and that's the real story, as far as I'm concerned."

Par for the course? Ahem. This man puts monies (and his talent) in the coffers of a University that builds robots for war. A war in which Justin Jackson is much more likely to be used as cannon fodder than CMU "elite" students. So spare us the moral high ground, David. You have no clue what Justin was thinking when he pulled that trigger and it is insulting to imply otherwise. More importantly, why don't you speak out about what you are doing to make a difference?

To summarize. Stop the man v dog media coverage. Give the public a well-rounded perspective on police dogs -- find out how many suspects have been apprehended without violence with the assistance of a police dog --- now that would be a story. Consult dog behavioral experts instead of college students for analysis. Figure out what the hell is going on with the Thomas Merton Center -- they don't even list their board members on the website.

City-County Merger: Here's The Homosexual Agenda

Sue — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:59:00 -0400

Simply put, we cannot support this merger until we have two guarantees.

First, we must have the County pass legislation ensuring our civil rights are preserved. Right now, those of us who live or work in the City are assured protections based on our sexual orientation and gender identity. At the Big Gay Chat last spring, sponsored by the ACDC, County Council President Rich Fitzgerald admitted that passing this type of legislation would be an uphill battle.

Second, we must insist that the County provide domestic partnership benefits for all employees. Onorato hides behind claims that it is a budget issue. That's ridiculous. If all the gay and unmarried heterosexual employees quit tomorrow and they were replaced by happily married heterosexuals, the budget would somehow accommodate their families. WHY IS MY FAMILY DIFFERENT? I can say this based on the fact that Ledcat works for the City so this will directly impact moi!

So, here's where our champions suit up and make sure that Pittsburgh's gay residents are not kicked to the curb. I understand that Luke is having a big gay luncheon at Images in the next few weeks. I'm hopeful Gary and company educate him about the importance of these two issues. It is important that we use whatever access we have to make sure Luke is aware of how this very significant legislation will impact us.

How come I never get invited to important gay luncheons? I eat lunch. I know my silverware.

Let's not forget Dan. Or our County Council reps. Oh, in my case, that's NOT Brenda Frazier so I'm basically screwed (thanks, HosPAC for quashing homo allies, by the way). We'll need that $0.15 discount on those drinks to drown our sorrows when we can't take the damn bus out of the County to find housing or jobs. Awesome.

Deep breath.

Anyway, we need to be sure that our County Council and Chief Executive understand that we are law-abiding, tax-paying, bus-riding, drink-buying residents of this County and we deserve equal rights.

So, our champions have their work cut out for them. Bill and Doug, Patrick and Bruce. Rich. ~~Brenda~~. Gary and Steel City need to work with Luke to make sure he understands these issues. Someone needs to do something with Dan. Maybe explain budgets.

Champions?

Will Pennsylvania outlaw divorce?

Sue — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:17:00 -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.

SB1250 - What's Next?

Sue — Mon, 05 May 2008 21:17:00 -0400

The legislation passed in the Appropriations Committee 18 - 8. Four Democrats voted yes. Two Republicans voted no. So now the legislation moves toward a vote by the full Senate.

Yes, that means more telephone calls.

The "yes" votes (pro-Amendment) in SW PA are:

John Pippy (R)

Barry Stout (D) - Yikes!

Mary Jo White (R)

Regola (R)

The "no" votes (anti-Amendment) is SW PA are:

Gerald Lavelle (D)

Sean Logan (D)

So here is what you need to do. If you live in Lavelle (most of Beaver County) or Logan (Monroeville and some of the Mon Valley) country, please call them to say thanks and ask them to continue to oppose the legislation.

The big thing for me is Barry Stout -- a Democrat -- voting in favor of legislation that would constrict the civil rights of my community. Your job is to think of at least one person you know that lives in his district and pick up the phone to call THAT PERSON to make a call to Senator Stout telling them they do not appreciate his vote on this issue and that not everyone in Washington, Greene or Beaver counties are bigots.

Does your sister live in Mon City? Is your cousin from West Finley Township? I know there are gay people in Waynesburg. This is the time. Call 'em up. Ask them who is taking care of their health care, their jobs and their taxes while Senator Stout protects them from gay marriage?

Stout's telephone numbers: (724) 225-5400 and (717) 787-1463

And kudos to reader ctb for calling out John Pippy on the issue. Is it deplorable that his staff would treat you with such disrespect just because your opinions differs from him. He still works for you (and by default, so do they). Good for you for not backing down. Sending the letters is perfect. You deserve to be treated with respect and courtesy when you call someone elected to represent you. Good for you.

So get on the phone. Here's a handy map for Senate contact information. Lots and lots of gay people come rolling into town from these areas. Hey, isn't Patrick Arena from Little Washington? Someone call him. Get some names from him. Isn't Eda Bagel from Little Washington?

I know some women from Beaver County read this blog. We need your help!

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

Sue — Sun, 04 May 2008 21:53:00 -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 13:58:00 -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.

Bruce Kraus: Excerpts from his testimony

Sue — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 10:18:00 -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.

I'm voting for Hillary and it was the rich, white gay men who won me over

Sue — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:23:00 -0400

Today, I made up my mind that I am supporting and voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm sure no one is surprised. I've made a good faith effort to get excited about Barack Obama. I wanted to be a believer. But it just didn't happen. The preacher in him turns me off.

Here's what it comes down to for me. On "the issues," they are pretty close. By that I mean, their stances on ENDA, DADT, civil unions, marriage, etc. On paper, they "appear" very similar.

In action, they are nothing alike. Barack Obama has refused to interview with local gay media anywhere. Period. He gave one interview to the national gay magazine, The Advocate. How can one national interview, late in the primary season, build a relationship with the gay community? He made a speech imploring the African-American religious community to embrace gay civil rights. This after he brought notorious "ex-gay" Donnie McClurkin on board his swing through the south gospel tour or whatever it was called. He clearly has no problem affiliating with a movement that denounces homosexuality as something to be cured, a stance that taps right into the self-loathing so rampant among closeted minorities and youth. He talks like a preacher and walks like a well, like many preachers who disparage gay people.

Hillary Clinton marches in Pride parades. Her daughter visits gay bars. She worked to stop the national "marriage protection" amendment. She lifts up the gay people in her life, particularly those who touched her family personally. Hillary grants interviews to local gay media. She reaches out with intent to build relationships with our community. She has a LGBT steering committee in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

This is not about one issue. My life is not a single issue. When our next President is working on health care, economic issues, environmental issues and so forth, I want her to be cognizant of all citizens and the impact her decisions will have on our families, including my little lesbian family.

If Obama ignores us as a constituency when he's fighting for the nomination, why should we believe he would care about us if he's nominated and elected?

This primary race has come down to the fact that one of them has to go. His name is John McCain and I believe that Hillary Clinton is the one to do it. ***************************************************

The rich white gay men is a little shout out to the hosts of today's LGBT Hillary cocktail party with the Queer as Folk celebrities. It was a modest crowd and one in which I recognized about 4 people. It turns out that the LGBT leadership, in general, is very divided. Passions flared during the Saturday night pub crawl. Steel City Stonewall and the Gertrude Stein Club leaders should really have some chat about actually showing up for events they sponsor -- that was embarrassing to me, as a member of Steel City. If your members spoke through the endorsement process, you should honor that and ensure that a few of your board members show up. No one from the GLCC board. No one from the human services sector. No one from GLENDA. Almost no lesbians or queer women at all. It was a room filled with somewhat older and a whole lotta young gay white men and it was the most camaraderie I've felt in months. Kudos to you, for making that happen.

Finally, I'll say this. How can gay people vote against their own self-interest? How can you trust a man who doesn't walk the walk? We may have no other choice come the Convention, but for now ... I'm voting for Hillary.

The Gay Bar Crawls: I didn't go but here is what I think

Sue — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:11:00 -0400

Philadelphia's gay bars were visited by Chelsea Clinton and Ed Rendell last night. Pittsburgh's gay bars got actors from Queer as Folk.

Philadelphia's bar crawl was covered by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. I haven't seen anything about Pittsburgh's bar crawl. Did it even register?

Is there any PA politician that could make a believable bar crawl for Hillary here in Pittsburgh? Dan Frankel? Sophie? Luke? <pause ... ok, ha ha ha> Jason Altmire? Is he for Hillary?

No one crawled into a gay bar for Obama.

What's up with that?

ps: I don't cover bar crawls because I hate smoke and would be beyond cranky in about 5 minutes. When the bars go smoke free, I'll be there.

Saturday Random Stuff

Sue — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 11:12:00 -0400

Melissa Etheridge is going to Philly, Reading and Columbus, Ohio, but not Pittsburgh. I hear she just doesn't sell well here. Very sad.

Now that Melissa caught your eye, read on please.

Equality Advocates PA wants to build on the great turnout of gays and gay allies to the Pittsburgh hearing on SB 1250, the so-called marriage protection amendment. They want you to turn out for the next hearing Harrisburg and a big rally on May 5. Buses will be scheduled to transport folks from Pittsburgh. Anyone want to go and carpool? You guys should be really proud of yourselves for setting the bar so high vis a vis the turnout here in Pittsburgh. Way to go, homos! You rock.

Scary international news from Rome (365gay.com)

Rome police are searching for members of a mob of youths who burst into the city's LGBT center, ransacking the building.

The attack on Mario Mieli Homosexual Cultural Circle occurred Thursday night while members were in the building.

As they attempted to confront the gang the youths yelled anti-gay and anti-Semitic slogans. As they ran off the gang yelled praises for Benito Mussolini, Italy's wartime dictator.

"We fear that this situation is linked to the electoral climate," the association said in a statement.

Rome is in the midst of a mayoral runoff between rightist and leftist candidates.

And in Kyrgyzstan (Pink News):

Human Rights Watch drew attention to the fact that the police action in the capital Bishkek was the second time Labrys had been targeted in this way.

The centre was hosting a dinner for local and international LGBT groups on April 8th when three officers entered and threatened to arrest anyone who did not produce identification.

They also searched private files at the centre, which also serves as a shelter for transgender people and women who are victims of violence.

Kyrgyzstan is a former Soviet republic in central Asia, home to more than five million people.

Although the majority are Muslim, the country is relatively secular and homosexuality is legal.

But in Columbia, some good news ...

Colombia's Colombia’s Constitutional Court has ruled that the government must extend pension benefits to same-sex partners.

The court ruled that same-sex partners must be given the same pension and health benefits as opposite-sex married partners receive.

The ruling said that to exclude same-sex partners would violate the principle of non-discrimination and human dignity as the expression of personal autonomy, protected by international law.

If you interested in a different perspective on gay issues, follow the link on the right the the Pink News site. Lots of good stuff and an international perspective on US issues. Did you know that other countries have elections with candidates from more than two parties (or one party, really, right?). That candidates in Europe take pro-gay stances that are controversial. That you don't have to surgically implant the Bible to your body to be taken seriously?

Wow.

Queer as Folk Events

Sue — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:16:00 -0400

800+ people have forwarded this information to me.

Steel City Stonewall, the Gertrude Stein Club and Hillary Clinton for President are bringing back Queer as Folk to Liberty Avenue. There's a pub crawl Saturday night and a cocktail hour Sunday afternoon. Sharon Gless, Robert Gant and Michelle Clunie are the guests of honor.

I have never seen a single episode of Queer as Folk. Should I rent it?

Anyway, it is kind of cool pub crawl as pub crawls go. I won't be doing that part because of the bar smoke, but I'm hoping to cover the cocktail mingling and get some inside scoop on which local homos are pro-Hillary and why.

The most important thing is knowing which of you homos is pro-voting.

Be part of the conversation - WQED invites us to a chat with Jim Lehrer

Sue — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:50:00 -0400

WQED asked me to let you know that we are invited us over for a chat with Jim Lehrer. They are the weekly host of one of our favorite het-men, John McIntire so it should be good times. I'm not always a personal fan of Chris Moore's moderating style (he talks over people), but I do like to listen to him talk on his own. I have to work Saturday so I'm not sure I can make it, but it would make for a great live blog ...

WQED Vote 2008: A Town Hall Meeting and Broadcast with Jim Lehrer to Air Live on Sunday, April 20 at 6pm

Public is invited to be part of studio audience

PITTSBURGH - While Pennsylvania presidential campaigns usually begin in Philadelphia, they don't end there. What do these candidates know about the Pittsburgh region? What does the public want them to know?
The NewsHour's Jim Lehrer will host WQED Vote 2008: A Town Hall Meeting and Broadcast along with a guest panel of politicians, education leaders, philanthropists, foundation heads, high-profile members of the media, and community leaders on SUNDAY, APRIL 20 from 6 to 7pm in The Fred Rogers Studio at WQED, 4802 Fifth Avenue in Oakland. The Town Hall Meeting will air live on WQED-TV and WQED-HD and will be simul-streamed on WQED Interactive at www.wqed.org. The Town Hall Meeting will re-broadcast on WQED-TV at 11pm on April 20.

The public is invited to be part of the studio audience for this historic discussion in advance of the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. To reserve a seat, please call 1-888-622-1370 or log on to www.wqed.org.

Doors open at 5pm.

Lehrer will moderate a panel discussion on the primary and the presidential election. WQED’s Chris Moore and Tonia and Michael Bartley will facilitate the panel and audience discussion conducting interviews and lending their expertise on covering local issues.

Republican Jim Roddey and Democrat Joe Mistick, OnQ political analysts will also provide commentary.

The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer will broadcast from the WQED studios on April 21 and 22 to a nationwide audience.

Don't Buy Cupcakes at the Priory Bakery: Bar owners target LGBT ally Brenda Frazier

Sue — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:50:00 -0400

The CP bloggers have done a nice job summarizing an attempt by a newly formed bar-owned PAC, HosPAC, to punish Brenda Frazier in her current campaign by launching a "Don't Vote for Brenda Frazier" campaign of their own. Her crime? The drink tax.

"I just don't buy it that there's no alternative to balance the county budget except to impose a new tax," said John Graf, owner of the Priory Hospitality Group and chairman of the new committee, called HosPAC.

"The people spoke loud and clear that they didn't want this tax," Graf said. "[The members of Allegheny County Council] weren't listening and they weren't willing to be creative."

The group's first visible efforts will be radio ads and rented billboard space to push the message: "Don't Vote for Brenda Frazier."

"It just happens that Brenda Frazier is the first person running," Graf explained. "It's our intention to challenge each and every person that voted for this tax."

What's interesting about this situation from a gay perspective is the juxtaposition of Frazier, a long time LGBT advocate, and the local gay bar owners emerging as leaders under the Delta Foundation mantle.

According to DF Chair Gary Van Horn, part owner of Images, no local gay bar owners are members of the PAC. Van Horn points out that he is not a one issue voter and remains mum on his support for or opposition to Frazier.

I would hope that the gay bar owners would stay out of this. While the drink tax does have an impact on them, so would losing a House seat to someone who is not an ally of the gay community. Len Bodack and Dom Costa don't have pro-gay track records and we need every ally we can muster in the battle over the marriage protection amendment and the advancement of civil protections legislation.

We cannot afford to be divided on this. Frazier's election is imperative for the well-being of the entire LGBT community.

Let me amend my earlier statement. I would hope the gay bar owners support Frazier. A gay friendly state environment is good for business. Period.

I'm just bummed that the Priory is involved in this. I love their bakery and, clearly, I cannot patronize a business that wants to elect some homo-bigot or quasi-homo-bigot into a space I need filled by an ally.

So, don't buy cupcakes at the Priory Bakery.

sdf

More on Obama Balking

Sue — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 16:44:00 -0400

The Philadelphia Gay News follows up on their decision to leave blank space on their front page allocated to Barack Obama's interview, plus some insight as to how the Advocate interview just isn't the same.

Is Steel City Stonewall Diluting Its Own Endorsement?

Sue — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:59:00 -0400

As this group finds its footing in the party and the region, I have for the most part been impressed with the new leadership (and recent leadership). I'm particularly pleased that they have invested some resources on issues as opposed to just elections. It is important that LGBT Democrats send a clear message to our elected officials on how we view issues and what steps we can take as a community to express our position.

That being said, I do worry that the organization "dilutes" the impact of their endorsement. First, there has been a tradition of naming individuals to an honor roll of sorts -- "Honorable Mentions" -- indicating they are good on issues, but didn't receive the endorsement. Sometimes they didn't submit a questionnairre, but the group feels they deserve consideration. I'm just so-so with that practice. It isn't really democratic and doesn't make the actual endorsement that valuable.

Another example was Friday when the organization used their official email blast to inform us of an upcoming LGBT event for Hillary Clinton, the endorsed candidate. Great. That's a good use of resources. A few lines down there was a listing for an Obama event. Huh?

I'm not offended, but I am confused. Is that organization's purpose to elect a slate of candidates selected by the members or is it to educate the general LGBT community on all Democratic candidates, information and events? Either is fine I suppose, but trying to do both is sending people like me -- members -- conflicting signals.

Here's my ultimate question -- why should I turn up for an endorsement process when it doesn't carry a lot of weight? If you are going to promote candidates who were not endorsed, either as Honorable Mentions or by promoting their events, why should I care about the endorsement? What value does it have?

In my opinion, the slate should be the slate. Individuals should be free, of course, to promote whomever they choose, but the origanization should focus on getting folks from the slate elected and not dilute resources on candidates who are not on the slate. No matter what the reason. Maybe next year, they'll fill out the questionnaire or show up at an event. But if Steel City can mobilize the local LGBT community to have an impact on a handful of elections, they have done their job as well as sent a message about our political power.

The endorsement of Steel City should be coveted by local Dems and something they have to earn. We shouldn't settle for anything less.

That being said, please consider joining the organization as Ledcat and I have done. It is a long way to November. In practical terms, you should be deciding if Luke Ravenstahl needs to do more than show up at PrideFest to earn your endorsement.

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 20:06:00 -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.

Obama: The Advocate Interview

Sue — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:21:00 -0400

I can't get past Obama inviting Donnie McClurkin on his swing throug the south tour. I can't swallow his alliance with an avowed "ex-gay" determined to convert/heal me from my sexual orientation. It is a very personal issue for me.

That being said, Obama has an interesting interview with The Advocate. Everyone should follow the link and read it. Now The Advocate isn't the same thing as real life engagement with the LGBTQ community. But he does make good commitments. Except for an inclusive version of ENDA. He supports it, but doesn't think it can pass. Sounds like the HRC to me.

I could go on for paragraphs about how turned off I am by the Obama campaign and the majority of Obama supporters that I know. But the important thing is that Obama gave an interview to a significant press outlet in the LGBTQ community and we should pay attention.

Please read it.