"A life lived in fear is a life half-lived..."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 155"
Thursday, October 29, 2009
"The Poet's Corner"

"What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love."
Dostoevsky, Fyodor M. [1880]
The Brothers Karamazov
"In The News Today..."


After 10-Year Dispute, Expansion of Hate Crimes Law to Gays Signed
Move may help Obama quell rising discontent from rights groups
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 29, 2009
When a gay Wyoming college student was slain in 1998, congressional Democrats pledged to broaden the definition of federal hate crimes by the end of that year to include attacks based on sexual orientation.
The effort instead turned into a decade-long proxy war between liberal groups that want to expand gay rights and conservative groups that do not. But Wednesday, President Obama signed the bill and then hosted a White House reception for gay activists and the parents of the slain student, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard.
"After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," Obama said after the signing.
During that period, the House and the Senate separately approved the hate crimes expansion numerous times. But congressional Republicans repeatedly used legislative tactics to block final passage, arguing that most crimes that would fall under the law could be prosecuted under other statutes, and conservative groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition said the legislation would turn "homosexual behaviors as well as cross-dressing, transvestism, and transsexualism into federally-protected 'minority' groups."
This year, with enlarged majorities in Congress, Democrats attached the hate crimes law to a $681 billion defense spending bill this month over GOP objections. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the approach put "radical social policy" on the "back of our soldiers."
The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin. Under the law, judges can impose harsher penalties on crimes that are motivated by such animus, and the Justice Department can help local police departments investigate alleged hate crimes.
According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies around the country reported 7,624 hate crime incidents in 2007, the most recent year for which data were available. More than half were categorized as racially motivated, and about 17 percent were based on sexual orientation.
For Obama, the signing could quell rising discontent among gay rights groups, which have complained that he has done little to advance their causes in first year in office.
In particular, many gay activists say, Obama has not made good on his pledge to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prevents gays from serving openly in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively allows states that do not permit gay marriage to not recognize the unions of gay couples married in states that do.
"I think that obviously there's a great deal of impatience and frustration within our community, not just related to the last 10 months, but the last 10 years," said Joe Solomonese, president of the District-based Human Rights Campaign, which has worked for years on the issue. "But the White House was an absolutely critical partner in getting this legislation to the president's desk, and I have no doubt the White House will continue to be a partner in this fight."
Shepard's mother, Judy, said in a statement that she and her husband, Dennis, "are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly."
Although the House of Representatives passed the law 249 to 175 in a mostly party-line vote in April, the Senate added the legislation to the defense bill instead of passing it separately. The move angered Republicans, most of whom voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes of both provisions in Congress.
"The Republican machine, they don't have the megaphone of the Obama administration, but maybe if they could have more effectively got their message out," said Mathew D. Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group.
But Rick Scarborough, head of the Texas-based conservative group Vision America, which has long opposed the hate crimes legislation, said there may be little Republicans can do to stop further gay rights legislation.
"I think they [bills that would expand gay rights] are morally wrong, and I'll continue to do my best to enter the debate," he said. "But it's a new day. These were the promises of Barack Obama, and he's living up to them."
Move may help Obama quell rising discontent from rights groups
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 29, 2009
When a gay Wyoming college student was slain in 1998, congressional Democrats pledged to broaden the definition of federal hate crimes by the end of that year to include attacks based on sexual orientation.
The effort instead turned into a decade-long proxy war between liberal groups that want to expand gay rights and conservative groups that do not. But Wednesday, President Obama signed the bill and then hosted a White House reception for gay activists and the parents of the slain student, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard.
"After more than a decade of opposition and delay, we've passed inclusive hate crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are," Obama said after the signing.
During that period, the House and the Senate separately approved the hate crimes expansion numerous times. But congressional Republicans repeatedly used legislative tactics to block final passage, arguing that most crimes that would fall under the law could be prosecuted under other statutes, and conservative groups such as the Traditional Values Coalition said the legislation would turn "homosexual behaviors as well as cross-dressing, transvestism, and transsexualism into federally-protected 'minority' groups."
This year, with enlarged majorities in Congress, Democrats attached the hate crimes law to a $681 billion defense spending bill this month over GOP objections. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the approach put "radical social policy" on the "back of our soldiers."
The legislation extends provisions first passed in 1968 that make it a federal crime to target individuals because of their race, religion or national origin. Under the law, judges can impose harsher penalties on crimes that are motivated by such animus, and the Justice Department can help local police departments investigate alleged hate crimes.
According to the FBI, law enforcement agencies around the country reported 7,624 hate crime incidents in 2007, the most recent year for which data were available. More than half were categorized as racially motivated, and about 17 percent were based on sexual orientation.
For Obama, the signing could quell rising discontent among gay rights groups, which have complained that he has done little to advance their causes in first year in office.
In particular, many gay activists say, Obama has not made good on his pledge to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which prevents gays from serving openly in the military, and the Defense of Marriage Act, which effectively allows states that do not permit gay marriage to not recognize the unions of gay couples married in states that do.
"I think that obviously there's a great deal of impatience and frustration within our community, not just related to the last 10 months, but the last 10 years," said Joe Solomonese, president of the District-based Human Rights Campaign, which has worked for years on the issue. "But the White House was an absolutely critical partner in getting this legislation to the president's desk, and I have no doubt the White House will continue to be a partner in this fight."
Shepard's mother, Judy, said in a statement that she and her husband, Dennis, "are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly."
Although the House of Representatives passed the law 249 to 175 in a mostly party-line vote in April, the Senate added the legislation to the defense bill instead of passing it separately. The move angered Republicans, most of whom voted against the defense bill because of the hate crimes of both provisions in Congress.
"The Republican machine, they don't have the megaphone of the Obama administration, but maybe if they could have more effectively got their message out," said Mathew D. Staver, president of the Liberty Counsel, a conservative legal group.
But Rick Scarborough, head of the Texas-based conservative group Vision America, which has long opposed the hate crimes legislation, said there may be little Republicans can do to stop further gay rights legislation.
"I think they [bills that would expand gay rights] are morally wrong, and I'll continue to do my best to enter the debate," he said. "But it's a new day. These were the promises of Barack Obama, and he's living up to them."
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 154"
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 153"
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
"The Poet's Corner"

"Then must you speak Of One that lov'd not wisely but too well."
William Shakespeare in Othello (V, ii, 343-344)
"Fear Eats the Soul"
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 152"
"The Truth Today..."
Corvino: The Homosexual AgendaBy John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
10.23.2009
Gay-marriage opponents claim that we gay folk are trying to influence your children. In one sense, they are quite right.
We are not trying to “recruit” your children, if by that you mean “turn them gay.” As gay people, we understand enough about how sexual orientation works to know that you can’t turn people gay—or straight, for that matter—by some act of will.
Rather, we’re trying to do just what those scary “protect marriage” ads say we’re trying to do. We’re trying to teach them about same-sex marriage. In school.
There—I said it. The secret’s out. The gay agenda has been leaked. Call the Maine Yes-on-1 campaign and tell them there’s new material for Frank Schubert and company to quote out of context.
Meanwhile, let’s talk about that campaign—specifically, the ads warning that if Maine keeps marriage for gays and lesbians, Maine schoolchildren will be taught about homosexual marriage.
Put this way, the claim is extremely misleading. Maine (unlike California, which micromanages everything) does not dictate teaching about marriage. Maine curriculum is controlled locally, and individual schools can teach about same-sex marriage (or not) whether or not Maine has marriage equality.
To put the point another way: just because something’s legal, that doesn’t mean it must be taught in Maine schools (or vice-versa).
But whatever happens with Maine’s Question 1, I want Maine schools to teach about gays getting married. Other states’ schools, too.
Part of my reason for wanting this has nothing whatsoever to do with my support for marriage equality. I also want schools to teach about genocide, and I’m pretty staunchly anti-genocide. Schools are supposed to inform students about what’s happening in the world. For better or worse, same-sex marriage is happening in the world. Even if it is taken away in Maine, it will keep happening elsewhere. Indeed, even if it were somehow eliminated everywhere, it would remain part of our history. Students need to know this.
Of course, when we teach about genocide, we make it clear that genocide is a Very Bad Thing. By contrast, responsible teaching about same-sex marriage would have to acknowledge that it is a controversial thing, with sane and decent people on different sides of the issue.
And that is doubtless one reason why you, dear parent, fear teaching about same-sex marriage in schools. You’d rather that your children not know that there are some sane and decent people who deny that same-sex marriage is a Very Bad Thing. Indeed, that there some who think it is a Perfectly Fine Thing. You want to shelter them from such diversity. I don’t.
I want them to know that there are people with different views on marriage, and that gay people are getting legally married in parts of the United States and elsewhere. I want them to know it because any informed citizen ought to know it. But I also want them to know it because some of them might themselves be gay.
That’s right: there’s a small but statistically significant chance that your child might be gay. Ignoring the issue won’t make it go away. And isolating him from the fact of other gay people won’t make it go away, either. It will just make him…well, isolated.
Now, your child might not be gay, and if that’s so, learning about gay marriage isn’t going to make him gay. Sexual orientation doesn’t work that way. (If it did, I’d be straight.) If your child is straight, he will remain straight, regardless of what happens in Maine, California, Massachusetts and elsewhere.
But let’s suppose he’s gay. If so, and if I’m right that he can’t willfully change that fact, then his best chance for a happy, fulfilling life is probably in a relationship with someone of the same sex. (I say “probably” because some people—a very rare subset—are happier single; let’s assume he’s not one of those.) Realistically, his choice is not between a gay relationship and a straight relationship; it’s between a gay relationship and none at all.
Now I don’t expect you simply to take my word for any of this. You want your child to be happy, and you can’t imagine his happiness as a gay person. Maybe you’re deeply convinced that he’d be better off alone than with someone of the same sex.
I don’t doubt that you sincerely believe this. But I sincerely believe that you are wrong—badly wrong, wrong in a way that does needless harm to your gay child.
I want your child to know that his love is a good thing. I want him to know that he deserves a chance at romantic bliss. I want him to know that, regardless of sexual orientation, he can seek someone to have and to hold, for better or for worse, until death do they part.
I want him at least to have that option.
And that, to be very frank, is the bigger part of my reason for wanting schools to teach about gay marriage. I want all kids, including gay kids, to have a fair shot at happiness.
That’s my homosexual agenda in a nutshell.
******
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist” appears Fridays on 365gay.com.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit http://www.johncorvino.com/.
His upcoming speaking appearances include:
November 10: Central Washington University (debate with Glenn Stanton)
November 11: Colorado State University, Pueblo (debate with Glenn Stanton)
November 12: Miami University of Ohio
November 16: Bergen Community College (NJ)
Check school websites for rooms and times.
For more about John Corvino, or to see clips from his “What’s Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?” DVD, visit http://www.johncorvino.com/.
His upcoming speaking appearances include:
November 10: Central Washington University (debate with Glenn Stanton)
November 11: Colorado State University, Pueblo (debate with Glenn Stanton)
November 12: Miami University of Ohio
November 16: Bergen Community College (NJ)
Check school websites for rooms and times.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"In The News Today..."
Canada Marks Anniversary for Gays in MilitaryBy Tobi Cohen, THE CANADIAN PRESS

Commander Luc Cassivi is seen aboard HMCS Ville de Quebec Monday, September 21, 2009 in Montreal. As Barack Obama plunges into a controversial plan to overhaul rules about gays in the U.S. military, he might consider looking to the Canadian experience which celebrates a milestone next week. As debate heats up in the U.S. over its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, Canada quietly marks an anniversary of the date homosexuals were allowed to enter the military here.
MONTREAL - While Barack Obama plunges his country into a controversial debate about gays in the U.S. military, he could perhaps find comfort in the Canadian experience which celebrates an anniversary milestone next week.
The U.S. president has promised to repeal America's policy of, 'Don't ask, don't tell,' reviving a heated debate in his country that has not made a ripple in Canada since Oct. 27, 1992.
On that day Canada's Federal Court ruled that barring homosexuals from military service violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a landmark verdict that prompted more openly gay men and women to join the ranks of the Army, Air Force and Navy.
In the last 17 years, many have risen to the top in their respective fields - an otherwise impossible feat under rules that once barred the promotion of enlisted individuals who'd been outed.
Luc Cassivi is one of them.
He certainly didn't talk about his sexual orientation when he joined the Canadian Navy in 1983. He's now the highest-ranking sailor aboard HMCS Ville de Quebec, a commander in the Navy, and he's no longer shy about who he is.
"I've been openly gay for a number of years. My friends and my co-workers know it and it surely has not been an impediment for me progressing," Cassivi said in an interview aboard his Halifax-based frigate.
"I'm not saying that things have always been rosy. There were periods when things were difficult for a lot of people. . . But I think we're well past that at this point."
According to the Palm Centre, a California-based think tank focused on research related to gender, sexuality and the military, Canada is a leader among the 25 countries that now permit military service by openly gay people.
Canadian Forces chaplains have been blessing same-sex weddings on military bases since 2005 and, over the last four years, military recruiters have participated in gay-pride festivals in Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and Vancouver.
Cassivi spent 15 years in tight quarters as a submariner. He said he's experienced his share of awkward moments and uncomfortable jokes. There were even times he considered leaving the military.
But once the rules changed, he says, so did the culture. Opportunities began to surface. These days, Cassivi says, success is dictated by performance.
"It's not colour, cultural background, gender or the like. It's (whether) you are competent at what you do," he said. "If you're competent at what you do, then the team will take you in and fully integrate you."
Cassivi said coming out with his colleagues merely simplified his life. He doesn't see himself as a champion for gay rights and says this is the first time he's ever spoken in the media about his sexuality. What he's most concerned about, he says, is getting the best out of his crew.
"I believe in the power of the people who work for me. It's really about them at the end of the day," he said.
"I try to do the best job I can and if somebody sees me as a role model, good for them. If what I do inspires them to carry on and achieve their full potential, that's great, but that's for them to judge, not me."
Michelle Douglas is heartened to learn just how much things have changed for her fellow homosexuals.
The 45-year-old public servant was inadvertently thrust into the spotlight when she was discharged from the military police in 1989 because she was - in their words - "not advantageously employable due to homosexuality."
She had no idea at the time the historic impact her legal challenge would have, but as the anniversary of that fateful victory approaches, Douglas said she's thrilled to have played a "small part" in the rights movement.
"It was a real turning point for equality rights for gay and lesbian people in Canada," she said.
"To have such an institution as the military now be open to gay and lesbian service members was an important victory."
While she never did return to the Canadian Forces, she was pleased to see service members marching for the first time at Toronto's pride festival in 2008.
"I approached them and told them who I was. They kind of had heard of my case but for them it was really something they saw as history," she said.
"It was heartwarming to me to know that there had been such advances. . . that it could now be viewed as history and people could just get on with their lives and serve their country proudly and openly."
Megan MacLean, a spokeswoman for Canada's Department of National Defence, said the military keeps no statistics regarding homosexual members but says gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people serve in all three branches of the military.
Since the rules changed in 1992, she said, incidents of discrimination and harassment have been "extremely rare."
She touted Canada as a global leader when it comes to inclusiveness. She noted, however, that the Obama administration had not sought any Canadian advice on how to tackle the thorny subject.
Nathaniel Frank, a senior researcher in the U.S. with the Palm Centre, said that's not an unlikely proposition.
Every time the debate surfaces in the U.S., he said officials look to more liberal countries like Canada and Britain. While American conservatives often dismiss Canada and Western Europe as too laissez-faire, Frank said that's inaccurate.
There was actually plenty of political opposition before the Canadian ban was lifted, he said, and a majority of male soldiers polled prior to 1992 said they'd refuse to shower, undress, or sleep in the same room as a gay comrade.
"The same kinds of rhetoric we heard here (in the U.S.) during our debate in the early 1990s and since - that this would never work, that it would undermine morale and cohesion, that the military would suffer and that it's too big a risk - were also heard in Canada," Frank said.
But a 2000 study of the Canadian experience by the University of California research group found no basis for the allegations.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered soldiers reported good working relationships with their peers; incidences of sexual harassment among women dropped; and not a single assault could be attributed to gay-bashing.
The study concluded that lifting the ban on openly gay members had no bearing on military performance, unit cohesion, or discipline.
He expects the same would be true if the U.S. dropped its 'Don't ask, don't tell' policy and says he's optimistic nay-sayers won't be able to stave off change for much longer.
"We know we're standing on the right side of history," he said.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
"Same Gender Loving People - No. 151"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)

.jpg)

