kajbfiawf

Coming Out Storiez FO REALZ

About

This is a test page on Blogspot.com.

The Hate Needs to Stop Now

Please read the article below that was published on CNN.com on April 24. Another young boy, age 11, took his own life after being bullied at school and being called "gay." We can no longer stand by and allow this hate spread among the younger generations.

Please tell your friends and family about this bullying. Tell your young siblings, cousins, children, and friends. They need to know that they have support!

PLEASE HELP PUT AN END TO THIS HATE!


ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Eleven-year-old Jaheem Herrera woke up on April 16 acting strangely. He wasn't hungry and he didn't want to go to school.

But the outgoing fifth grader packed his bag and went to school at Dunaire Elementary School in DeKalb County, Georgia.

He came home much happier than when he left in the morning, smiling as he handed his mother, Masika Bermudez, a glowing report card full of A's and B's. She gave him a high-five and he went upstairs to his room as she prepared dinner.

A little later, when his younger sister called him to come down to eat, Jaheem didn't answer.

So mother and daughter climbed the stairs to Jaheem's room and opened the door.

Jaheem was hanging by his belt in the closet.

"I always used to see these things on TV, dead people on the news," says Bermudez. "I saw somebody die and to see this dead person is your son, hanging there, a young boy. ... To hang yourself like that, you've got to really be tired of something."

Bermudez says bullies at school pushed Jaheem over the edge. He complained about being called gay, ugly and "the virgin" because he was from the Virgin Islands, she said.
Don't Miss

"He used to say Mom they keep telling me this ... this gay word, this gay, gay, gay. I'm tired of hearing it, they're telling me the same thing over and over," she told CNN, as she wiped away tears from her face.

But while she says her son complained about the bullying, she had no idea how bad it had gotten.

"He told me, but he just got to the point where he didn't want me to get involved anymore because nothing was done," she said.

Bermudez said she complained to the school about bullying seven or eight times, but it wasn't enough to save him.

"It [apparently] just got worse and worse and worse until Thursday," she said. "Just to walk up to that room and see your baby hanging there. My daughter saw this, my baby saw this, my kids are traumatized."

She said Jaheem was a shy boy just trying to get a good education and make friends. Video Watch what experts say about bullying in schools »

"He was a nice little boy," Bermudez said through her tears. "He loved to dance. He loved to have fun. He loved to make friends. And all he made [at school] were enemies."

Bermudez said she thinks her son felt like nobody wanted to help him, that nobody stood up and stopped the bullies.

"Maybe he said 'You know what -- I'm tired of telling my mom, she's been trying so hard, but nobody wants to help me,' " says Bermudez.

After Jaheem's death, the school board expressed condolences, saying the school staff "works diligently to provide a safe and nurturing environment for all students."

Trying desperately to understand what went wrong, Bermudez asked her son's best friend to recount what happened on the day Jaheem killed himself.

"He [said he was] tired of complaining, tired of these guys messing with him," Bermudez said, recalling the conversation with Jaheem's best friend. "Tired of talking, I think to his teachers, counselors and nobody is doing anything -- and the best way out is death."

Allegations of such severe bullying surprises experts familiar with the school district. It's anti-bullying program was considered exemplary and includes programs to raise awareness and a specially trained liaison. Students are even asked to sign a no-bullying pledge. But other parents told CNN they have complained about bullying as well.

Despite recent strides towards preventing bullying in schools and increased awareness programs, a Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network study showed that 65 percent of teens are bullied each year and most believe adults can't help them.

Less than a month before Jaheem's death, a boy in Massachusetts killed himself after being bullied, harassed and called "gay."

Eliza Byard, executive director of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, says to be effective, awareness programs need to include education about the harm that can be done by teasing someone about sexuality or perceived sexuality.

"Anti-gay language is really the ultimate weapon for a bully who wants to degrade his or her peers," she says. "And any effective response to bullying has to take that on."

Bermudez doesn't understand why the children at school couldn't learn to get along. Because of it, she'll never get to see her son grow up.

"My baby, that's my only boy, and I lost him now," says Bermudez. "He was my first child and ... to lose him 11 years after, he didn't live his life."
advertisement

She hopes her son's death will result in positive changes that will help other kids being bullied.

"Those that are being bullied -- they need to talk to their parents, they need to not hold back," she says. "I lost my son and now something has to be done."

By Mallory Simon

Sirdeaner Walker on Ellen

On April 6, 11-year-old Carl Walker-Hoover took his own life as a result of constant homophobic taunting at school. He was in the 6th grade and had been subject to this bullying since the fall. Carl was too young to know what his sexuality was, but the name-calling and teasing affected him deeply, as it would any child.

Bullying needs to stop, and the homophobia needs to stop. Unfortunately, kids learn this behavior from their guardians. It is scary that people are teaching their children that it's okay to hate others for being different than themselves. I believe this hatred comes from fear, and I only wish that every person could know a gay person, so that fear of the "unknown" could dissipate.

Please watch the interview below of Sirdeaner Walker, Carl's courageous mother. She truly is a beacon of strength, and I believe we can all learn something from her.

THE STORM!!

First watch this:




Then watch this:

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

Mom: Son Bullied At School Before Suicide

From http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/19137836/detail.html



BOSTON -- The mother of an 11-year-old boy who hanged himself says her son was tormented by classmates who bullied him ceaselessly, according to the Springfield Republican.

Sirdeaner L. Walker found her son, Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover, hanging by an extension cord on the second floor of her Springfield home on Monday night. Walker said Carl, a sixth-grade student at the New Leadership Charter School, had been taunted and threatened by classmates for weeks before he killed himself.Walker said Wednesday that bullying in schools cannot be tolerated any longer by parents and administrators."I just want to help some other child. I know there are other kids being picked on, and it's day in and day out," said Walker, 43.

She said that she contacted the school repeatedly over the last six months to ask teachers to intervene after learning her son had been targeted by students. Walker said her son’s classmates called him gay on a daily basis, made fun of his clothes and threatened to harm him, according to the Springfield Republican.

The 43-year-old, who had just returned from a church service for her son, said Carl was a Boy Scout who played football and basketball. Walker found her son’s body when she went upstairs to check on him on Monday."It was the worst experience of my life, and I'm a breast cancer survivor. Four years, it was four years ago I had breast cancer," Walker said.

According to the National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center, almost 30 percent of youth in the U.S. are involved in bullying as either a bully, a target of bullying, or both. The Resource Center also reports that a survey of students in grades 6-10 shows that 13 percent report having bullied other students, and another 11 percent said they were the targets of bullying.

Walker said Carl attended Alfred M. Glickman Elementary School until the fifth grade, but he had a hard time making new friends when he transferred to the New Leadership School.

Walker said in a recent incident, her son was harassed by his classmates after he bumped a TV with his backpack that bumped into a girl. Walker said the girl threatened her son with harm, and administrators did not do enough to stop bullying against Carl."I called there every week," she said.

According to Walker, school officials decided to try to mediate the conflict between Carl and the girl by having them eat lunch together for a week. She said the plan was poorly conceived and failed to help her son."If anything can come of this, it's that another child doesn't have to suffer like this and there can be some justice for some other child. I don't want any other parent to go through this," she said.

Henry M. Thomas III, chairman of the school's board of directors, failed to return repeated calls from a Springfield Republican reporter seeking comment.

A report released by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health on Wednesday showed that the suicide rate among young male adults in the state rose 28 percent in 2007. The category, however, does not reflect deaths among teenagers and students Carl’s age.

The New Leadership Charter School will offer grief counseling to students and staff on Monday."The NLCS family has suffered a major loss," said a statement on the school’s Web site.

Go IOWA!

April 3, 2009 (CNN) -- The Iowa Supreme Court struck down a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage.
Larry Hoch, left, and David Twombley, one of six couples that filed suit, celebrate Friday at a news conference.

Iowa becomes the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Friday's decision upheld a 2007 ruling by a lower court that Iowa's 1998 law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples went against the state's constitution. It becomes effective in 21 days.

"This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," said attorney Dennis Johnson, a co-counsel with Lambda Legal, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of six same-sex couples seeking to marry in Iowa. "Go get married. Live happily ever after," he said at a news conference where there was loud clapping among plaintiffs.

Other organizations were not pleased. "It's, quite frankly, a disaster," said Brian English, a spokesman for the Iowa Family Policy Center. "Obviously, we're extremely disappointed. We're saddened, perhaps a little bit surprised in the unanimous decision that the court handed down."

The state's highest court determined that "the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution," court spokesman Steve Davis said in a written statement. Read PDF of court ruling

"The decision strikes the language from Iowa Code section 595.2 limiting civil marriage to a man and a woman. It further directs that the remaining statutory language be interpreted and applied in a manner allowing gay and lesbian people full access to the institution of civil marriage," the statement on the court's Web site says.

The Iowa Supreme Court said it has the responsibility to determine if a law enacted by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch violates the Iowa Constitution. "The court reaffirmed that a statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion," the court said.

Polk County District Judge Robert Hanson found that the law violated the Iowa Constitution's guarantee of equal protection, and hurt gay and lesbian couples "in numerous tangible and intangible" ways

"Civil marriage in Iowa is the only gateway to an extensive legal structure that protects a married couple's relationship and family in and outside the state," Hanson ruled in Des Moines.

"Iowa reserves an unparalleled array of rights, obligations and benefits to married couples and their families, privileging married couples as a financial and legal unit and stigmatizing same-sex couples."
Don't Miss


The case was joined on appeal by several state lawmakers who opposed Hanson's ruling, calling it "a mockery of the judicial system." They argued that the ruling stepped on the state Legislature's authority by using the courts "to effectuate fundamental changes in public policies regarding marriage."

Legislatures in two New England states, Vermont and New Hampshire, have taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriages.

The Vermont Senate and House have voted to legalize same-sex marriage -- the House voted Thursday night -- but Vermont's governor has said he will veto the measure. New Hampshire's governor has signaled his opposition in the past.

Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

Nationwide, the issue of same-sex marriage remains highly divisive. A June 2008 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll found that 44 percent of adult Americans believe gay marriage should be recognized by law as valid; 53 percent are opposed.

The issue took center stage in the largest U.S. state in November, when California voters narrowly approved a proposition amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. California had been issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples since a May 2008 ruling by the state Supreme Court legalized the unions.

Portia de Rossi's Apology

This PSA was broadcast on Jimmy Kimmel Live on March 20. It's certainly nice to see the humor in something so terrible.

Fidelity

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

TODAY: California courts to weigh gay marriage bans

NEW YORK TIMES

By JESSE McKINLEY and JOHN SCHWARTZ

Published: March 4, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO — Under intense pressure from both sides in the debate over same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday on the ballot initiative passed by voters last November that outlawed such unions.

On the eve of the hearing, opponents of Proposition 8 rallied Wednesday in San Francisco.

For opponents of the measure, Proposition 8, the three-hour hearing is a critical legal test. But it is also, they say, a prime moment to rally their forces and demonstrate resilience after a stinging election loss that many among them believe could have been avoided.

“It’s a need for the community to show that we will not be passive participants to our own struggle,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights. “I think it goes to the heart of what we’ve seen since Nov. 5, and what we’ve come to appreciate as the critical importance of everyone stepping up and stepping out.”

To that end, Thursday’s hearing is being treated by some activists as a combination of election night and Super Bowl. In San Francisco, for example, Proposition 8 opponents have erected a Jumbotron screen in front of the courthouse for spectators unable to squeeze into the courtroom.

“This is our lives on the line,” said Molly McKay, media director of the volunteer group Marriage Equality USA. “We don’t want them to have to worry about getting in.”

Ms. McKay’s organization, one of several grass-roots groups that have taken a larger role in the debate on same-sex marriage since the election loss, also organized candlelight vigils around the state for Wednesday night. But more established gay rights groups like Equality California are using the hearing as a rallying point as well, having begun a television campaign on Tuesday with advertisements depicting the quest for same-sex marriage as part of a long-term civil rights campaign.

Supporters of Proposition 8, meanwhile, have taken a quieter tack. Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Protect Marriage, the leading group behind the initiative, said supporters held a day of prayer on Sunday, asking that the justices “be granted wisdom and for our opponents to understand that our support of Proposition 8 is to affirm traditional marriage, not denigrate gays.”

Mr. Schubert also said his side had asked that supporters who choose to show up outside the courthouse on Thursday not provoke confrontations and not carry signs unless they bear positive language.

While the fall campaign was heated — and expensive, with each side spending more than $40 million — the hearing is bound to seem somewhat anticlimactic to many. The court will only hear oral arguments on Thursday, and has 90 days to come to a decision.

And for all the passion surrounding the issue of same-sex marriage, the question before the court is one that may seem technical, even dry: Does the initiative approved by Californians merely amend the State Constitution or, as gay rights groups hope the court will rule, revise it?

Under California law, an amendment is a matter that the state’s longstanding initiative process deals with routinely. A revision, however, entails a fundamental change to the Constitution, and requires approval of either two-thirds of each house in the Legislature or a constitutional convention. That could be much harder to achieve than passage in a referendum.

What elevates the ban on same-sex marriage to the level of a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, opponents of Proposition 8 argue, is that it denies a right — the ability to marry — that the California Supreme Court earlier last year called inalienable. To take away that right now, they argue, would violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal treatment.

That court decision, in May, identified gay men and lesbians as a group that had historically suffered discrimination, and opened the door for some 18,000 same-sex couples to marry before Proposition 8 passed in November. The justices are also expected to rule on the validity of those marriages when they now decide the fate of the proposition.

Kenneth W. Starr, dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law and a former federal appeals judge and United States solicitor general, will argue before the justices on behalf of the measure’s backers. In a brief, Mr. Starr said efforts to overturn Proposition 8 ignored “the will of the people” expressed in an “open, fair election.”

But Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said that if a measure limiting what he described as the fundamental rights of gay people could be adopted by voter-approved amendment, then “any right can be taken away from any group” through a ballot measure. Mr. Minter will be Mr. Starr’s opponent at the hearing.

Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer working with Mr. Starr on the case, disagreed with the notion that Proposition 8 altered “some solidly entrenched right.” He also said the case could put to the test the state’s entire initiative process, which has been used in the past to legislate matters as varied as property tax rates and a ban on affirmative action.

“If the court strikes down Proposition 8,” Mr. Pugno said, “the initiative process itself is put into doubt.”

The case has also taken on some curious political ramifications. After initially saying his office would protect the measure, California’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, a potential candidate for governor in 2010, declared that he would be unable to argue in favor of it.

Instead, Mr. Brown filed a brief last year arguing against it. To rule in favor of the measure, the brief maintained, would be to say that the California Constitution’s “foundational guarantee of individual rights is no guarantee at all.”

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

From http://www.stopgeek.com

"You commie, homo-loving sons of guns..."

...As started Sean Penn's acceptance speech for his Oscar win for Best Male Performance in a Leading Role for his portrayal of Harvey Milk.

It certainly was quite a night for the gay and lesbian community. Not only was Penn's win a great surprise, but Dustin Lance Black's Oscar win for Best Original Screenplay for Milk was also wonderfully exciting and touching. Below is his acceptance speech:

"Oh my God. This was, um, this was not an easy film to make. First off, I have to thank Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg and all the real-life people who shared their stories with me. And, um, Gus Van Sant, Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, James Franco and our entire cast, my producers Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, everyone at Groundswell and Focus for taking on the challenge of telling this life-saving story.

When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California, and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life. It gave me the hope one day I could live my life openly as who I am and then maybe even I could even fall in love and one day get married.

I wanna thank my mom, who has always loved me for who I am even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, by the government or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value and that no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you and that very soon, I promise you, you will have equal rights federally, across this great nation of ours.

Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk"

It continues to give me hope when people like Black are recognized for the work they do, not only creative work, but for telling socially conscious stories.

How The G.O.P. Courts The Gay Vote

Cartoon by Barry Deutsch

Wyoming legislators reject changing state constitution to ban gay marriage

By Tony Grew • February 10, 2009 - 15:00

From http://www.pinknews.co.uk/

The state legislature in the US state of Wyoming has rejected a bill that would have cleared the way for a statewide ballot to ban recognition of any out of state gay marriage.

Republicans, who were behind the measure, portrayed it as protecting "traditional" marriage.

On Friday the state House of Representatives voted it down 35 to 25 after an emotional debate on the issue of same-sex couples. A similar move stalled in the state Senate last month.

Wyoming law already prohibits marriage by gay and lesbian couples.

The resolution, which sought to place the proposed amendment before voters, would have written this prohibition into the state constitution and also threatened to prohibit other forms of relationship recognition for gay and lesbian couples.

"We are grateful that the Wyoming House of Representatives stood up for equality and refused to write discrimination into the state constitution," said Joe Solmonese of leading LGBT equality group Human Rights Campaign.

"I am thrilled and proud that my colleagues took a stand against writing discrimination into Wyoming's constitution," said state Representative Cathy Connolly.

Rep. Connolly and 34 other representatives voted against the proposed amendment.

Several representatives made strong statements in opposition to the resolution. Rep. Pat Childers spoke of his daughter, who is a lesbian.

"Folks, till my dying breath there isn't anybody in this country who could say that she is a terrible person, or someone that needs to have their rights restricted," Rep. Childers said.

Last Friday's vote indefinitely tables the resolution. The session ends in March.

At present gay and lesbian couples can get married in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Civil unions that carry all the state rights of marriage are legal in New Jersey, Vermont and New Hampshire.

Gay marriage was legal in America's most populous state, California, between June and November last year, until a statewide ballot measure banning same-sex marriage was passed by voters.

The measure, Proposition 8, is being challenged in the courts.

Federal marriage rights were denied to same-sex couples by the 1996 Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA).

States are not required to "treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state."

California Supreme Court to hear gay marriage cases on March 5

By Howard Mintz
Mercury News

Posted: 02/03/2009 02:50:43 PM PST

The California Supreme Court will hear the legal showdown over gay marriage on March 5, ensuring a decision on the future of same-sex nuptials across the state will arrive before summer.

In a statement released Tuesday, the high court set three hours of arguments for its calendar in San Francisco, setting the stage for the justices to consider a series of legal challenges to voter-approved Proposition 8. Civil rights groups and a number of cities and counties, led by San Francisco and Santa Clara County, sued after the November election, arguing that the ballot initiative is invalid and should be struck down.

By a 52 to 48 percent vote, Proposition 8 restored the ban on gay marriage, after the state Supreme Court last year found the prior law outlawing same-sex marriage unconstitutional. The various lawsuits argue that the ballot measure was an improper method of amending the California constitution, and deprives same-sex couples of the right to marry established in the May 2008 Supreme Court ruling.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, in an unusual move, is not defending the law, arguing that Proposition 8 should be struck down because it erased an existing constitutional right.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year, and will decide not only the legality of Proposition 8, but also the fate of thousands of same-sex couples who married before voters approved the measure. The justices have 90 days from the March 5 hearing to decide the case.

Opponents of same-sex marriage have aligned behind Proposition 8, urging the state Supreme Court to uphold the law and warning that a ruling otherwise would ignore the will of the voters. Various organizations have threatened a political backlash against the court if the justices overturn the gay-marriage ban; the court was already divided 4-3 last year when it struck down the prior state law.

Proposition 8 supporters are being represented by Kenneth Starr, the conservative Pepperdine law school dean and special prosecutor in the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton.

Dozens of groups have also filed friend-of-the-court briefs with the Supreme Court on both sides of the issue.

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!