WTF?! Private School Expels Students Perceived to be Lesbians?!

This really is unbelievable! Can you imagine being kicked out out of school, not only for your sexuality but, for your PERCEIVED sexuality? This is ludicrous! It's upsetting and completely backwards. I don't know how any educator can call students into his or her office and demand that they state their sexuality. I can't imagine that someone who dedicates their life to teaching young people would expel their students for loving each other. It makes my blood boil! When will this end???

From The SF Chronicle

By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Published on Wednesday, January 28, 2009

A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.

Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.

"The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.

As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.

Kirk Hanson, a lawyer for the two girls, said he was disappointed and would talk to them about a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court.
According to the court, he said, "if you're a religious school, you can discriminate on any basis you want."

He also noted that all children must attend school, either public or private, and said schools serve different purposes from a voluntary organization like the Boy Scouts.

John McKay, a lawyer for California Lutheran, said he was pleased the court recognized that "a religious school is not a business, and the purpose of a religious school is to teach Christian values."

Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said.

The ruling is the first to consider a religious school's status under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination by businesses and was amended in 2005 to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. State education law also forbids anti-gay bias, but that law applies only to public schools.

The girls were juniors at the high school in Wildomar (Riverside County) when the principal, Gregory Bork, summoned them to his office in September 2005 and questioned them separately about their sexual orientation and whether they loved each other. The principal acted after another student reported postings on the girls' MySpace pages.

Bork suspended the girls based on their answers, and the school's directors expelled them a month later. The girls, who later graduated from another high school, have not been identified and have not discussed their sexual orientation, Hanson said. Their suit said the school had no right to dismiss them because of its perception that they were lesbians.

The court acknowledged that past rulings have interpreted the Unruh Act's definition of businesses broadly, to include a Boys' Club, the Rotary Club and a private golf club that let the public use its facilities.

But the school differs from those institutions, the court said, because the main reason for its existence is the religious message it seeks to instill in its students.

Read the ruling

The ruling in Jane Doe vs. California Lutheran can be read at:

links.sfgate.com/ZFZP

Shoot tonight with owners of Cafe Forant

Tonight will mark my second interview shoot with notable out members of the LGBT community. My first interview, about 3 weeks ago, was with David Patrick Stucky, an amazing gay activist who worked with Harvey Milk in the 70s in San Francisco. He talked about everything from being out in Kansas as a child/adolescent to his involvement with the gay movement, which began in the 60s. He truly is a remarkable man with so many unbelievable stories. I'll be posting some of his interview soon.

I'll be interviewing his (and my) friends Carolyn Montgomery, Lea Forant, and their son Eli tonight. They own and run Cafe Forant, a warm and familial haven in the Hell's Kitchen area of Manhattan. They have recently been the targets of the AFA (American Family Association) because of their ad for Swanson broth that was published in The Advocate. Campbell's Soup Company, the owners of Swanson broth, wanted to represent their product with gay/lesbian chefs and their families. The AFA brutally attacked Campbell's, The Advocate, and Lea and Carolyn. Despite the cruelty the couple is experiencing, their strength and love has continued to shine through.

Lea, Carolyn, and Eli are scheduled to appear in another ad for Swanson broth in The Advocate in March, however The Advocate may be "cropping out their family," only to show Lea in the ad. The Advocate, the most prominent LGBT magazine, seems to be swayed by the AFA. If The Advocate decides to crop out Carolyn and Eli, it will be a huge setback for everyone who is fighting for equal rights.

I'm very excited to talk to Lea, Carolyn, and Eli. They are strong women who have a lot to say. Stay tuned for their interview.

Amazing inauguration photos!

Check out the incredible photos posted on Boston.com.

Today is the day!

When I got to work today and MSNBC was already on the tube, I felt more emotional than I had expected I would feel today. Not that I thought I wouldn't feel that hopeful, almost overwheleming feeling, but I didn't think I would feel it so deeply.

Everyone is talking about the changes that will happen, the dawning of a new era for our country, and the history that is being made today. It's true our children and grandchildren will ask where we were when the first African-American president of the United States, Barack Obama, was sworn in. I hope by then it won't be as miraculous or surprising as it is today. By then, I hope there will have been a female president, a Jewish president, a Latino president, or heaven forbid it, a GAY president.

New possibilities and hopes for the future have been flooding my mind all morning and afternoon. However, the most poignant thing for me is seeing all of the faces in the crowd--everyone that traveled to Washington DC to witness something we never thought could happen in our lifetime. The smiles, tears, hopeful stares up at our new president were truly something amazing. The vision of the 2 million people that showed up at the Mall was one of the most spectacular thing I've ever seen.


I have definitely become more political since I began investing my free time to fighting homophobia. I think if you're part of a minority-- whether it's race, religion, ethnicity, or sexuality--this inauguration means more than just a change for the nation as a whole.

Barack Obama represents everything that is new and different. And for all of us who feel, or have felt, different inside, today is the day to let those insecure feelings slip away. Today we should embrace everything that has been branded, "different," because definitions are beginning to change. Difference is a GREAT thing; without it, no progress would be made. I think everyone is slowly beginning to see that.

I am proud of what we all have accomplished as a nation and as individuals. I hope that this inauguration will prompt people who are in the closet to come out proudly. Barack Obama has shown us that inclusion and fairness are the ways of the future. So let's all be proud of our country today, but more importantly, let's be proud of ourselves for being different, however scary that may be.

Obama to End Military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Policy

Yes! Obama! Yes! With less than a week until the inauguration, spirits seem to be flying high with change on the horizon. Overturning the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a pivotal and progressive step in the LGBT movement. If Barack Obama follows through with this, I believe we will see a lot more support for the LGBT community in the next 4 years. It will allow more people to come out of the closet and make themselves known. Remember, the more people that come out, the better chance we have at eradicating homophobia as it exists today.

From Fox News

FOX News' Carl Cameron contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama will allow gays to serve openly in the military by overturning the controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy that marred President Clinton's first days in office, according to incoming White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

The startling pronouncement, which could re-open a dormant battle in the culture wars and distract from other elements of Obama's agenda, came during a Gibbs exchange with members of the public who sent in questions that were answered on YouTube.

"Thadeus of Lansing, Mich., asks, 'Is the new administration going to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell policy?'" said Gibbs, looking into the camera. "Thadeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much. But it's, 'Yes.'"

The Obama transition team declined to elaborate on that one-word answer when asked by FOX News on Wednesday about a timetable for repealing the policy, which was enacted by Clinton after a protracted public debate. Obama officials also would not explain which lawmakers or Pentagon officials would attempt to repeal "don't ask, don't tell."

Clinton, who initially sought to overturn the longstanding ban on gays in the military, ended up enacting the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a compromise that made it illegal for commanders to ask about the sexual orientation of service members, who were also barred from announcing they were homosexual. If a service member's homosexuality becomes known anyway, he or she is expelled.

Clinton is widely viewed as having stumbled during his first days in office by getting caught up in the raging controversy, which detracted from the rest of his agenda. It is not yet clear whether Obama would face a similar debacle.

For years, Obama has said he generally opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Last summer, he told a gay magazine he can "reasonbably" see it being repealed. But that was a far cry from Gibbs' unequivocal promise that the policy will indeed be ended.

The gay community is eager for a quick repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," but fears it could be months before the new administration reaches a consensus with lawmakers and the military. Others think Obama could do it quickly, but is leery of the kind of fallout Bill Clinton faced when he tackled the divisive issue.

Battle over gay marriage shifts to Maine

The gay marriage issue is certainly spreading. Let's hope that Maine will join Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing everyone, regardless of their partner's gender, to be legally married. I'm proud that New England lawmakers are working hard to defeat homophobia and inequality! Let's hope this movement, sparked by Prop 8, will continue to progress in all parts of the country!

From Reuters

By Jason Szep

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

BOSTON - A Maine lawmaker introduced a bill on Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage, but it looks set to face tough opposition and bring a rancorous fight over the definition of marriage to the rugged eastern state.

The legislation proposed by Democratic state Sen. Dennis Damonck would make the state the nation's third to allow same-sex marriage. It seeks to redefine marriage as the legal union of two people rather than between a man and a women.

"Today I have submitted an act to end discrimination in civil marriage and to affirm religious freedom," he told a news conference in the state capital Augusta.

As he spoke, Republican Rep. John Tardy was drafting legislation to enshrine the definition of marriage as one man and one woman into the state constitution. "The language is being worked on now," his spokesman said.

The looming fight in Maine, a rural state of 1.3 million people with a Democratic-controlled legislature, underlines a concerted push for same-sex marriage recognition in New England's six states by gay and lesbian advocates -- a bid that would effectively create a regional niche for gay marriage.

In November, Connecticut became the second U.S. state to allow legal same-sex weddings after Massachusetts' top court ruled in 2003 that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional, paving the way for same-sex marriages the following year.

On Friday, New Hampshire Rep. Jim Splaine signed off on legislation proposing same-sex marriage in that state, which borders both Maine and Massachusetts. He said he expected the bill to come up for a public hearing in two or three weeks.

Five of New England's six states already offer same-sex couples some form of legal recognition, with New Hampshire and Vermont permitting same-sex civil unions that grant many of the same rights as married couples but lack the full legal protections of marriage.

"I think it is important to make our civil unions have full marriage equality with the word 'marriage' so that it is clear that we do not discriminate and that we welcome same-gendered couples," Splaine told Reuters in an interview.

Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, a group of lawyers who led the legal fight for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut, said on Tuesday similar legislation was being drafted in Rhode Island and Vermont.

The group has set a target of bringing same-sex marriage to all six New England states by 2012.

Some economists say carving out an economic niche for gay and lesbian weddings -- and the spending that comes with them -- makes sense at a time same-sex marriage has stalled in California and a recession is deepening.

M.V. Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts' Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies, led a study released in July that said over the next three years about 32,200 same-sex couples would travel from other states to marry in Massachusetts.

That would translate into 330 jobs and a $111 million boost to the state's economy, the study projects.

Labor unions, churches to fight gay marriage ban in court

Great to know there are allies out there! Keep up the hard work.

From the LA Times
January 13, 2009
By Jessica Garrison

Labor unions and some churches announced Tuesday that they planned to file friend-of-the-court briefs in support of invalidating Proposition 8, the November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state.

The California Council of Churches and other faith organizations including the Progressive Jewish Alliance representing millions of members said they will file on Thursday.

On Friday, a coalition of labor unions representing more than 2 million California workers said they planned to file their own brief. The briefs will support the lawsuits filed by gay-rights groups the day after Proposition 8 was enacted.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take the case and could hear arguments as soon as March.

Sal Rosselli, the president of United Healthcare Workers-West, issued a statement saying his union supported filing the brief because the right to marriage is a fundamental constitutional right "that cannot be abolished by ballot initiative. ... Our organizations stand for fairness and equality for working people — not only in the workplace but in all aspects of society."

Study: Race not deciding factor in Prop. 8 vote

New poll shows that race was not a factor in determining the outcome of Prop 8. If you ask me, I think EVERYONE needs to come together to fight not only the gay marriage bans, but homophobia as a grander problem. We all need to fight for a common cause regardless of race, gender, religion, or sexuality. We're all in this together. Let's not place the blame, let's work toward the same goal of equality for every human.

By Josh Richman
Oakland Tribune

Posted: 01/06/2009

Neither African-Americans nor any other ethnicity were disproportionately in support of Proposition 8, which changed California's constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to a study of election results and post-vote surveys released Tuesday.

Rather, whether someone voted yes or no on the ballot measure was influenced mostly by the person's age, religiosity, party affiliation and general political ideology, the study's authors say.

Although support for Prop. 8 in the African-American community had been pegged as high as 70 percent by one previous postelection survey, this study — which not only reviewed pre- and postelection polls, but also crunched precinct-level election results and census data from Alameda, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego counties, in which two-thirds of the state's African-Americans reside — found the number was between 57 percent and 59 percent.

And that number is more about religiosity than race, study co-author and New York University assistant professor of politics Patrick Egan said. While higher than the level of support among white and Asian-American voters, it's due to the higher rates of African-American church attendance: Fifty-seven percent of African-Americans attend church at least once a week, compared with 42 percent of whites and 40 percent of Asian-Americans, he said.

The study found that more than 70 percent of voters who were Republican, identified themselves as conservative, or who attended religious services at least once a week supported Prop. 8. Conversely, 70 percent or more of voters who were Democrat, identified themselves as liberal, or who rarely attended religious services opposed the measure. More than two-thirds of voters 65 and older supported Prop. 8, while majorities younger than 65 opposed it.

Continue...

Church vandalism heats up gay marriage debate

From the Los Angeles Times

January 5, 2009

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights sent out an e-mail this morning urging Catholics to call San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom to protest vandalism over the weekend at Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the city’s Castro District.

The e-mail claims that opponents of Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to ban gay marriage, defaced the church with swastikas alongside the names of Pope Benedict XVI and the San Francisco archbishop.

“Part of the blame for the latest attack goes to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,” the e-mail said, because “they say nothing” when “gay men dressed as nuns show up at Mass.”

On the other side, proponents of gay marriage held an “Equality Camp” over the weekend in San Francisco to train activists to “leverage social media/socialnetwork/Internet-based activities” around fighting for gay marriage and combine them with traditional political organizing.

Proponents of gay marriage are also organizing a nationwide demonstration this Saturday against the National Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996. Meanwhile, the legal wrangling over Proposition 8 continues.

Opponents of the measure filed a lawsuit challenging its legality the day after the election.

The Supreme Court could hear arguments as soon as March.

-- Jessica Garrison

Some photos from LUTN in NYC

Thanks to the lovely Betsy Goldman for snapping these photos at the Light Up the Night for Equal Rights rally on Dec 20th. It was a freezing night, but I know we got lots of attention, especially from all of the holiday shoppers in Times Square.

Footage to follow...

Happy New Year!

I can't believe it's 2009! I wish everyone a joyous, peaceful, and healthy new year. I have a feeling this will be a great year. Hopefully, it will be a year of change. Let's all do our part to make the world a more accepting and free-thinking place.

I will post the footage I have from the Light Up the Night for Equal Rights rally that was held nationwide at the end of December soon. I got the chance to speak with the organizers, Jamie McGonnigal and Heath Tucker, as well as some of the speakers. It was a great event despite the extreme frigidity of NYC.

Again, happy new year to all!