Saturday, May 20
by Sue on Sat 20 May 2006 08:24 AM EDT
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.
Friday, May 19
by Sue on Fri 19 May 2006 08:16 AM EDT
From the AP
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?
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.
My question is what it bodes for the homos?
Thursday, May 18
by Sue on Thu 18 May 2006 07:17 AM EDT
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:
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 17
by Sue on Wed 17 May 2006 07:33 AM EDT
Marlene Lott of Butler County picked up her pen to share her thoughts on gay marriage with the readers of the Post-Gazette.
Ms. Lott trots out the same tired old connections between same-sex marriage and polygamy and/or close-kin marriage. However, her next line of reasoning is the most interesting.
God is not tolerant.
What Ms. Lott doesn't spell out is that in her mind, God is not tolerant of anyone who is not a white, heterosexual, Christian-American. That's her definition of "wholesome" - a throwback to the good old days when homos were in the closet, minorities knew their place and everyone believed in Mom and Applie Pie. In other words, she wants to live in a land governed by 1950's television standards and The 700 Club.
She even uses the code phrase "traditional family" which doesn't gel with most of the families I know -- single parents, blended families, grandparents raising grandchildren, transracial adoptions, mixed religion partnerships, etc. Many of whom are practicing Christians.
Ms. Lott is a bigot and she put that out there for the entire region to read. What's worse, she believes that God is a bigot and instills that value in her grandchildren. Grandchildren who are probably growing up in a school district that is predominantly white and filled with children whose parents fled racially diverse neighbhorhoods for the so-called safety of suburbs.
How very wholesome.
Sunday, May 14
by Sue on Sun 14 May 2006 09:30 AM EDT
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.
by Sue on Sun 14 May 2006 09:02 AM EDT
In yet another ridiculous attempt to court younger readers, the PG's Cat Specter has gotten herself a makeover. At least her photo has. The Betty Crocker 'do is gone. Instead, Cat has for a very predictable Pittsburgh look - Yinzerette skeeve. You know what I mean -- pseudo skanky hair and the undernourished look of someone who gets most of their nutrition from Marlboro. But its a hair style she paid Iszazu $150 to achieve. And she more than likely bought her jaunty beret at Macys or one of these look alike Oakmont boutiques.
Hey, I'm a Mon Valley girl and have five generations of steelworking ancestors to prove it. I grew up in a river of Yinzerettes replete with big hair, loud makeup and all the accoutrements of a Saturday night hanging at Century III Mall. It doesn't matter how many times Lamont Jones hits her with the whore stick, she ain't gonna pass.
Speaking of the jaunty beret. Take a look at these side by side shots and tell me I'm wrong about Cat's Carrie Bradshaw aspirations ....
Advice this week is pretty much the usual fare. She responds to a question about casual sex with the typical gender-based dismissve "boys will be boys" lines. She rallies on a question about mother's day gifts (more is better). I was almost disappointed until she reverted back to form on the final letter from a man who is not savvy on text messaging, but nonetheless seems to juggle a bevy of beauties he describes as "my women." Nice. Without questioning why he is dating high school students, she gives him this bit of wisdom:
Cat's Call: The typed word is savable, the spoken word can always be denied later.
Straight from the Yinzerette's mouth. Sort of.
Saturday, May 13
by Sue on Sat 13 May 2006 07:40 AM EDT
Earlier this week, the Correspondents learned that our website was allegedly being classified as "pornography" by the Carnegie Library computer system. I contacted the librarians to ask for clarification.
Richard Kaplan, Manager of Reference Services, wrote back to me with an explanation. It would seem that my site is not categorized as pornography, but that some of the internal and external links are blocked.
He did submit the entire URL as a site to be free of blocking, but apparently that determination is not in the hands of the library itself.
Now I readily acknowledge that there are portions of this site not appropriate for children, but I do think I write some kid-friendly pieces. Well, adolescent friendly.
Still, I had no idea that the library had to filter websites to receive funding. So much for community access. I am always telling my clients (day job = social worker) to utilize the library for computer access. It never dawned on me that this would automatically put limits on their access to information.
I guess it should have.
But as our anonymous lesbian librarian pointed out in the comments to the first post, this is not the library's fault. I still say the Carnegie Library rocks!
I'll have to check out my own site next time I am there. I'll try to get to the photo of Mary Cheney in leather!
Friday, May 12
by Sue on Fri 12 May 2006 07:39 AM EDT
Ah, Howard. You were a good homo friend.
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.
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 will be the keynote speaker at the upcoming Stonewall National Convention right here in Pittsburgh.
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.
Wednesday, May 10
by Sue on Wed 10 May 2006 11:18 PM EDT
Tune into KDKA Thursday evening when I'll join evening host John McIntire for an in depth look at Mary Cheney's book tour. Yes, Mary has a new book out "It's My Turn Now" which gives us an inside peek at the life of a traitorous Republican whore who happens to be a lesbian. John enjoys lesbian peeking, but prefers his traitorous whores to be apolitical so this might get interesting.
I'll be on during the 9 PM hour.
Here's something interesting from Americablog.com
For someone who has been "out" for a decade, Mary still shows major signs of just-coming-out syndrome. It's what Jeff Gannon is going through, and what many if not most gays go through (especially conservative ones) when they first come to terms with being gay. They start being publicly gay, sometimes say good things, but more often than not their internalized homophobia comes slipping out.
This is all over the blogosphere (the gaily decorated blogosphere I should add) and its amusing to no end reading the defensive crap popping up from the homos. Especially those who live in the suburbs and want to rationalize their privileged quasi-gay existance. Listen up -- watching LOGO and subscribing to The Advocate do not make you a gay advocate. It barely makes you gay. Get off your privileged ass and do something.
by Sue on Wed 10 May 2006 07:40 AM EDT
A federal judge has ruled that the constitutionally protected freedom of speech of the Worldwide Street Preachers' Fellowship were violated when the Harrisburg Police refused them access to the 2003 PrideFest celebration. (365gay)
The Fellowship attempted to enter an unused portion of Riverfront Park which was not roped off for the event. They were prevented from doing so and sought relief in federal court.
I agree with the court. The Fellowship's rights to assemble and speak against homosexuality should be protected as long as they do so within the confines of the law. Just like the rights of the Klan and Fred Phelps and other hate mongerers.