Pigs fly! Hell freezes over!

As local news and television uncover fraud across the Commonwealth, sponsors of the anti-gay marriage petition have been under increasing pressure to poke their heads out from behind their wall of denial.

Now it has finally happened.  Petition spokesperson Kris Mineau, who has been claiming for months that fraud charges are nothing more than lies fabricated by HO - MO - sexual activists, now has changed his tune! Mineau admits in today's Eagle-Tribune that "there may have been rare cases of fraudulent signature gathering." 

Wow, good for Kris!  A half-truth is better than a bold faced lie for sure.  Imagine. Only four days ago, Mineau, who sat and faced ten alleged fraud victims at the October State House hearing (not to mention an Arno whistle-blower who described in detail how she had frauded hundreds of citizens and witnessed petition forgery) was telling the Sentinel & Enterprise that "he had not heard of any collectors misleading citizens."  Now this! I can only wonder what will come tomorrow?

Aaron Toleos, Director

Comments

[Callie Wise]

Baby steps to absolution are better than none at all, I guess.

[John Hosty]

And the mountain is moved one spoonful at a time.

[Joe S]

Not that it is a suprise...but EVERYONE aleady knows what a lying and manipulating bottom feeder that Kris Mineau is...the very fact that he strayed one small step from his previous story means that the fraud allegations are even larger than he has preceived.

When the dam breaks, Kris wants to have some wiggle room to explain that he was "aware of fraud" so that he is not implicated as being part of the conspiracy.

Kris, I really hope that you read this website...I really hope you know how much contempt and disdain there is for you as a person for shoving this poison pill down the throat of Massachusetts citizens!!!!!

You are part of the vocal minority and this entire project has been an endeavor of lies, cheating and dishonesty on the part of your "camp".

You and your minions need to look to the real reasons you are waging this campaign of hatred.

You also need to explain to the voters what HARM SSM is causing this state, this nation and this world...I, and others, can give you many many reasons it helps society...all we hear is "doomsday predictions" without substance or merit....

WHERE IS THE REASON FOR TAKING AWAY RIGHTS GIVEN BY THE COURTS AND THE LEGISLATURE? Really Kris...(and others) WHERE IS THE HARM?

Just so you know....Everyone should REVISIT the signers listing provided at this site. The highlighting of names "DISAVOWING" their signatures is underway!

I myself have found THREE people that I contacted after seeing their names...they were SHOCKED and HURT that someone had DEFRAUDED them and did what they could to make ammends!

It won't stop here....JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL!

[mark and nigel]

Fascists steal democracy in the stealth of the night, when ignorance and apathy define the culture.

Theocrats steal the faith when the gospel of love and compassion is covered in fire and brimstone by pharistical preachers.

Heterosexists steal the meaning of diversity when any two human beings love another and express it conjugally for their happiness, and often to establish a family unit.

It begins when they steal your name, and your identity in order to achieve a goal that is supported by less than 2% of a population of a Commonwealth.

It continues when they repeat the mantra of LET THE PEOPLE VOTE when what they are saying is HO - MO - SEXUALS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY LEGAL OR CULTURAL RIGHTS THAT MIMIC HET MARRIAGE IN ANY WAY.

IT STOPS WHEN WE REMIND THEM:

LET THE JUSTICES DO JUSTICE
MARSHALL - THE FORCES OF JUSTICE.

We are personally having teeshirts made with these logos for ourselves. Has anyone contacted John Aravosis, or any further thought on this preparation for the SJC lawsuit activism later this spring?

[Paul Jamieson]

Can we finally put the fraud charges to bed?

Do you really think 67000 people didn't sign this petition?

New Slogan alert --------------------------------------------

MARSHALL - THE QUEEN IS DEAD
----------------------------------

[Joe S]

Paul...

The "QUEEN" may be dead...but we can all see the "Jester" is still with us...(YES...thats you freak boy!)

Still in search of a productive life I see...the tragedy that is you continues I guess!

[Paul Jamieson]

We can go for a walk where its quiet and dry, and talk about precious things!!!!

But when your tied to your mother's apron no one talks about castration!

The QUEEN IS DEAD boys, and its so lonely on the limb.

[mark and nigel]

MARSHALL-THE FORCES OF JUSTICE !!!!!!!

Joe -

Have you ever noticed that any woman who thinks and acts against the rightwing views of Paul Jamieson are verbally derided and attacked?

The male heterosexist is, to my mind, someone who loves " Jenny Talia " but not women.

[Paul Jamieson]

Nark,

Maybe Peg needs a rubber necklace to remind her of what a real civil right violation is.

[mark and nigel]

Jamieson - doesn't your wife ever tell you to go to bed?

[mark and nigel]

9 January 2006
THE REAL RHINESTONE COWBOYS
True life story of growing up gay on Brokeback mountain
By Ryan Parry Us Correspondent
COWBOY Chuck Browning is the epitome of all- American macho - a rugged rodeo star with a long history in ranching.

But a few days ago, watching Brokeback Mountain - a controversial Oscar-tipped film about a gay romance between a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy - he wept.

For Chuck went through the same struggle as the movie's characters when he realised it was the cowboys, not the cowgirls, he was attracted to.

The critically-acclaimed film, which opens nationwide next weekend and has been a surprise hit in the States, brought back memories of gay-bashing.

So strong was the homophobia that it cast a shadow over Chuck's upbringing on a Wyoming ranch.

"I thought it was an incredibly beautiful movie and very realistic," says Chuck. "And because it was set in the time and place where I grew up, there was a lot of things I could relate to. I knew I was different as a child, I just didn't know why.

Advertisement

"There were no gay role models in Wyoming back then."

Chuck runs his own ranch - the Five B - in Arizona with his long-term 32-year-old partner, Jay Barker.

Each year they compete in events held by the International Gay Rodeo Association, which Chuck has won 13 times. But the 43-year-old - who had childhood picnics on Casper Mountain where the Brokeback characters, played by Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, work - remembers when it was not so easy to be gay in the heartlands of America.

He says: "I spent my summers helping my uncle on his beef ranch. Men were men and women were women and that's just the way life was. I never thought it could be any different.

"It was only when I moved to Montana to start university that I began experimenting. I worked with a lifeguard there who was openly gay but I still couldn't empathise much. He was very camp and I am definitely not.

"Looking back at the cowboy lifestyle of men spending day after day doing hard physical work together, I can see how it is kind of a gay lifestyle. But people would never have dared admit to it.

"When I was growing up gay bashing went on which is some of the reason I never came out while I lived there."

In his early 20s Chuck went to live in Phoenix, Arizona, where he hoped to find acceptance of his sexuality.

"When I moved to the city it was a great revelation to me that there were other people out there who felt the same way I did," he recalls.

"Being gay wasn't a shock to my city friends. They were very supportive and accepting. It gave me the courage to come out to my family." Chuck told his mother Kay he was homosexual over a hotel breakfast when she came to visit. It was a dark time for him. He was grieving the loss of his first serious partner, Ken, who had died of an Aidsrelated condition.

"Mum was relieved that I confided in her," he says. "I told her Ken had been more than a friend and she was completely accepting.

"At the same time, she knew times might be hard for me. Few parents actually want their children to be gay because of the discrimination they have to endure. And mum was aware there were difficulties I'd have to face in life."

His dad had a tough time accepting the news. Chuck says: "My father didn't really understand. I think he still feels uncomfortable I'm gay."

For Chuck the most moving aspect of Brokeback Mountain is that the story on which the movie is based may have led to a real murder.

In 1997 a magazine carried a tale by Annie Proulx about two gay cowboys from Wyoming.

An instant success, Brokeback Mountain won awards and was famous across America. But not everyone was happy. "A lot of people were angry about the story," says Chuck. "They felt it stereotyped cowboys from Wyoming as gay."

Homophobic violence escalated. A character in the piece is tortured to death. Tragically the same happened in real life.

On October 7, 1998, student Matthew Shepard was lured from a bar by two men who said they were gay.

They drove the 21-year-old to a remote spot outside Laramie, Wyoming, tied him to a fence and pistol-whipped him before leaving him to die.

"It was a brutal killing," shudders Chuck. "It forced a change in attitudes.

"It was no longer OK to hate someone just because they were gay - even the most macho cowboys felt that."

However, fear and hatred of homosexuals remain. Many Christian groups have urged members not to see the film.

Chuck admits: "It is still a difficult subject for a lot of people.

"Of course there will always be the odd incident, which is sad. But for the most part the worldwide MTV generation has finally made it to Wyoming.

"Now Casper has an openly gay mayor, which just goes to show how times have changed."

[mark and nigel]

Ten Reasons Gay Marriage Is Wrong

1. Being gay is not natural. And as you know Americans have always rejected unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

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

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

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed. The sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6. 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.

7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8. 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.

9. 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.

[mark and nigel]

Dane Wells: How A Straight, White, Middle-Aged Bush Voter Became A Dying Lesbian's Staunchest Ally
By Michael Jensen
Posted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:53:30 PM EST

Tags: Laurel Hester, Dane Wells, New Jersey, domestic partner benefits, homophobia (all tags)

This interview involves Laurel Hester, the woman whose terminal cancer has embroiled her in a domestic partnership benefits controversy with the local government in Ocean County, New Jersey. You can read the entire three part interview I did with her here, here, and here. At the end of this article, I write about Operation Mockingbird, a way for you to let those opposing Laurel what you think of them.

The Birth of an Activist

When Laurel Hester learned of her terminal lung cancer early last year, she knew she was in for the fight of her life. What she didn't realize was that there would be two fights: one against the cancer itself, the other against the five Republican freeholders of Ocean County, New Jersey, who would refuse to let Laurel leave her pension benefits to her partner, Stacie Andree. Without those benefits, Laurel fears Stacie will lose their home after Laurel is gone.

Laurel knew how to fight the cancer--with doctors, medication, and sheer grit. What she didn't know how to fight were the homophobic freeholders who threatened to make her final days even worse than anticipated. Laurel took comfort knowing she wouldn't have to wage either fight on her own. Her partner of six years would by her side.

"She is my rock," says Laurel. "The wind beneath my wings."

What Laurel didn't know at the time of her diagnosis was that there would be a second rock supporting her -- one she had not ever dreamed of being able to count on.

His name is Dane Wells, a self-described straight, middle-aged, white guy who had never given gay rights more than a passing thought and calls himself fairly conservative. Indeed, he voted for Bush twice.

But Dane is now leading the fight to force the Republican freeholders of Ocean County to grant Laurel and her partner domestic partnership rights.

How in the world was such an unlikely activist born?

Dane and Laurel first met as fellow detectives back in 1980 in the Ocean County prosecutor's office. They worked a couple of cases together and found they meshed remarkably well. Dane recalls how much the young female detective impressed him. "There's a lot of swearing and crudity with cops," says Dane. "And some of the women were the worst offenders. But not Laurel. She was very classy."

She was also very intelligent and thoughtful, he says, something else that appealed to him tremendously. Very early on his career, Dane felt troubled by some of the moral ambiguities involved in law enforcement. "We'd bust people for narcotics use," says Dane. "And then we'd go down to the bar and drink for hours. (Laurel always declined to join them.) Frankly, I didn't see a whole lot of difference between doing the two things."

When Dane tried to discuss this with other detectives, their response was, "Aw, screw'em. Lock'em up and throw away the key. But Laurel was different. She was someone I could talk to about those value issues."

Thus their friendship was born. For the next seven years, the two detectives worked side-by-side. Dane found himself constantly impressed by Laurel, and the way she let others have the credit for her work.

"Many times I saw her work furiously on a case to bring it to a conclusion, and then let the coup-de-grace be executed by someone else," he says. "By the time the front-page story appeared announcing the arrest and showing the preening cops, Laurel was already back tucked away in the basement of the courthouse quietly working on the next case. But you had to see it for yourself because Laurel would never tell you of her role."

Eventually, Dane changed careers and the two lost touch for almost twenty years. That changed in October of 2004 when Dane saw an article in the local paper announcing Laurels promotion to Lieutenant. "When I called to congratulate her, she knew who I was even before I could tell her. `Hey, Partner!' she said."

Just like that, they resumed their friendship. Laurel was thinking about retiring and asked Dane for advice on how she might get into teaching. He promised to look into it and get back to her. By the time they had a chance to discuss it again several weeks later, Laurel knew she had cancer. She told Dane the bad news. That also marked the first time she told him she was a lesbian.

"It just never came up," says Dane when I expressed surprise that he had never known Laurel's sexual orientation. "When we worked together, we were both very professional people interested in our work. I know it seems strange to some. That's just how we were. And when she did tell me, it didn't matter at all. It was a neutral thing, like hair color. It didn't change who Laurel was."

By then New Jersey had passed legislation allowing local governments to offer domestic partner benefits to their employees. Hundreds of towns, agencies, and counties chose to do so. The Republican-dominated government of Ocean County had not. Laurel, fearing what would happen to Stacie after she died, wanted to leave her pension benefits to her partner, so she asked Dane for advice on how to proceed in approaching the freeholders.

"At first I suggested we be very civil," he says. "Together we worked with her superiors and union reps."

They sent a letter to the freeholders requesting the change. Laurel explained she was dying and time was of the essence. The freeholders ignored her for six months while Laurel fought to stay alive. With the support of Laurel's superiors and co-workers, she appeared at a freeholder's meeting to ask them in person. Again, they refused to change the pension rules. In one of the freeholders' very few public comments on the matter, James P. Kelly said granting Laurel's request would violate the sanctity of marriage.

Over the following weeks, the freeholders bandied about a variety of excuses, none of which held water with their critics. Indeed, several times Laurel's supporters caught them in flat out false statements.

Dane Wells has been Laurel's side every step of her fight, making phone calls, writing letters, doing phone interviews, anything to draw attention to Laurel's plight. And at no small cost to himself.

"People whisper about me," he says. "They say that I'm doing it because I'm really gay. Other people treat me...differently." He declines to elaborate because he doesn't wish to embarrass those close to him who are very upset at what he's done. "I'll be punished by those in power, though. I know that much," he says. "I might not even know it's being done, but it will."

That's not the only sacrifice Dane has made. "I pretty much canceled my life from that day forward," says Dane of when Laurel told him she was ill. "Her partner doesn't get paid when she doesn't work. So when Laurel needs someone to be with her, I go. For the past several weeks it's pretty much been every day."

When Laurel feels strong enough, Dane takes her out to eat or to the beach. When he and I last spoke, his voice was hoarse. "I've been on the phone trying to straighten out Laurel's insurance," he explains.

His efforts go far beyond offering comfort and companionship. When it looked like Laurel's case was going nowhere with the media, Dane spent countless hours online contacting groups who might be willing to help publicize what the freeholders were doing to her. He has made hundreds of phone calls, written hundreds of emails, and talked to anyone who might help. His efforts have generated world-wide press.

When I confess my surprise it was he--a rather conservative Bush supporter--who is the one to do and sacrifice so much for a lesbian fighting for domestic partner benefits, Dane is quiet for a moment. Then he says, "Laurel put her life on the line for the people of Ocean County. She deserves to be treated better than this." As for his being a Bush supporter, he says, "Not so much anymore."

I ask if it his experience with Laurel has changed his views. "Definitely," he says. "I'd heard of the issue [same-sex marriage] before, but, like most people, I'd never really given it any thought. I was more concerned about what they [politicians] were going to do with my taxes. But I've learned a lot of late. What really concerns me more than anything is the radical Christian movement. I never voted for this Moral Majority thing. They frighten me because I see very little difference between the Muslim fundamentalists and the Christian ones."

What does Dane think of the freeholders themselves? "Before all of this I thought all of them were perfectly decent human beings," he says. "Not so much anymore." He is quiet for a moment and then says, "What they did walking out on Laurel [at the last freeholder's meeting] was the most heinous act of cowardice I'd ever seen. To stare down a dying woman like that. It's like plunging a knife in her heart."

Towards the end of our conversation, Dane tells me that the doctor's have stopped Laurel's chemotherapy treatment. [The cancer had invaded Laurel's brain and to try to give her as much time as possible, she had been placed on a regimen of chemo.]

"She might die tomorrow, or she might rally again. I can't say. But it would mean so much to her to see the freeholders change their minds before she's gone." He pauses before adding, "I've talked with a lot of straight people about this and I just don't get it. They tell me that gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage, but I just can't see how. If giving Laurel what is rightfully hers somehow threatens their marriage, then they have way more serious problems in their marriage than that. I just don't understand."

Then he says he has to go because he promised Laurel he'd call.

I'm not surprised that Laurel and Dane have grown so close over the past eighteen months. They are very much alike. I'd wanted to interview Dane for quite a while, but he declined, not wanting to draw the attention from Laurel. Like her, he was content to let someone else take the credit while he toiled away in the background.

In fact, he only agreed now because he thought if people heard about his role, how he has changed, they, too, might come around before it's too late for Laurel. But even if they don't, Laurel will die knowing she had not one, but two, remarkable people fighting for her all the way.

TAKE ACTION NOW! JOIN OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD

At the end of my interview with Laurel Hester, I learned her favorite book was To Kill A Mockingbird, the classic tale of a man standing up for what is right. Laurel's life has embodied just that principle and I thought the best way to let the freeholders of Ocean County know what we think of them would be to send them a copy of a book that they clearly need to read. And it's our chance to be like Laurel's hero, Atticus Finch, and do the right thing by standing with her in her fight. Just through this site alone dozens and dozens of books have already been sent to to the freeholders.

Now we have teamed with Garden State Equality, NJ's GLBT rights group, to expand Operation Mockingbird by mounting a protest at the next freeholders meeting on Jan. 18th. (Books need to be received by Jan. 17th.) With the media present, we plan to present the freeholders with hundreds of copies To Kill a Mockingbird sent by folks just like you. Any used bookstore will have some (and Amazon.com currently has over 300 used copies available, starting at 90 cents).

Also, include a note that says, "To the Freeholders of Ocean County: This is Laurel Hester's favorite book. Please read it. You might learn something about doing the right thing."

Let's show Laurel--and the freeholders--that we are with for this final fight of her life.

Here's the address where to send the books:

Ocean County Freeholders, c/o Steve Goldstein
585 Standish Road
Teaneck, NJ; 07666

Here are the freeholders phone numbers: James F.Lacey: (732) 929-2004; John P. Kelly: (732) 929-2003; John C. Bartlett, Jr: (732) 929-2116; Gerry P. Little: (732) 929-2001; Joseph H. Vicari: (732) 929-2002 or you can email them at: CountyConnection@co.ocean.nj.us.

[Callie Wise]

What does Dane think of the freeholders themselves? "Before all of this I thought all of them were perfectly decent human beings," he says. "Not so much anymore." He is quiet for a moment and then says, "What they did walking out on Laurel [at the last freeholder's meeting] was the most heinous act of cowardice I'd ever seen. To stare down a dying woman like that. It's like plunging a knife in her heart."

That sums it up for me. And to claim Laurel's pension benefits being given to her partner will have some detrimental long-term effect on them is sickening. This is a dispicable form of hatred. I hope her last days are peaceful, or as peaceful as they can be after what she's been through. All of this added stress and worry couldn't have been good for her at all. What dispicable and hateful people!!!

[Stanley Pryhoda]

Why the Religious Right Loves the Imperial Presidency

By IseFire Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:29:48 AM EST
The legal proposal known as the "unitary executive" is much in the news. President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, argued for it in November 2000 at a panel sponsored by the rightwing Federalist Society.

The proposal, as Walter Shapiro summarized it in Salon.com, argues that "every part of the executive branch (including regulatory agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and, yes, independent counsels like Kenneth Starr) should be legally under the control of the president."

The media too seldom notes the synergy between the religious right's current desire for codified Christianization of the United States and the concept of the unitary executive.

That synergy is very important; it is a threat to liberty and a reason why both the unitary executive concept in general and Samuel Alito's nomination in particular should be opposed by progressives and anyone concerned about the power and influence of the religious right on the republic and American culture.

The basic idea of a super-powerful or all-powerful president (akin to the concept of an "imperial presidency") is not new.

Some early Americans thought the presidency should be an office held for life; some supporters of George Washington wanted to make him our king. Looking more aptly to modern comparisons, we see Franklin D. Roosevelt (a Democrat) and Richard Nixon (a Republican) both embodied relatively super-strong presidencies.

Roosevelt attempted to radically alter the nature of the Supreme Court without a Constitutional amendment.

Richard Nixon sought the power to declare war (which--though the casual observer would never know it--is a power wisely reserved for Congress) and the power of full immunity from legislative oversight.

Motivated largely by personal vindictiveness, Nixon acted illegally on his beliefs about the executive branch's would-be special privileges.

Fortunately, the media had active investigative reporters back then who exposed Nixon; also fortunately, Congress was not controlled by Nixon's own political party, and the cumulative result of those two realities was that Nixon's abuses caused his downfall.
That was then.

Today, many of Nixon's more powerful admirers, like Vice-President Dick Cheney and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld agree with Nixon and want to craft an imperial presidency.

They have succeeded hugely. (See here, here, here, and here; also, a broader overview wisely including President Clinton's administration is here; also, Cheney's love of the imperial presidency recently caught the attention of The New York Times.)

What makes the imperial nature of the Bush presidency especially dangerous is that it comes at the same time when much of the religious right believes, probably correctly, that a tipping point has been reached in their struggle to formally Christianize America in brazen defiance of our Founding Fathers' enlightenment ideals and in opposition to our Founders' dreams of what America might be at its best.

The religious right is basically a marriage of socially and theologically conservative Christians (including fundamentalists, conservative evangelicals, and others) with the Republican Party (including neo-conservatives within it, represented by Donald Rumsfeld among many others).

When Republican candidates win, the religious right wins.

And now, the religious right sees that the Republican Party controls the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, and the Presidency.

(Consider also that the culture of the Republican-controlled executive itself is expressly conservative Christian: after all, Bible studies occur in the Bush White House, Bush consults "rapture Christian" shamans on foreign policy, and Bush adheres strongly and openly to his version of Christianity.)

What is more, the media has also been variously tamed or purchased by the conservative Republican movement in America. (See Michael Massing's "The End of News?" and "The Press: The Enemy Within.")

It might be said that only the Supreme Court is the only serious player among great socio-political estates that remains to fall to pro-Christianization conservative movement in the U.S.

Enter Samuel Alito, and enter the great hope for a living "unitary executive," which under this president could be used to steamroll ahead the religious right's beloved Christianization agenda, and would almost certainly also embolden George Bush in his own public religiosity (Won't Alito's confirmation be evidence of Jesus' divine endorsement of all Bush stands for?), thereby foisting onto The United States of America its first Commander-in-Chief and de facto Pontifex Maximus.

So, for the religious right, what now is not to like about the concept of supreme executive power?

Yes, FDR made the presidency even more powerful, but he exhibited merely a genteel Episcopalian sort of Christianity; what is more, he wasn't a conservative; he backed progressive ideas from racial integration of the military to Social Security, Medicare, and the FDIC.

Nixon was a conservative, but he also seemed not very religious. (His language made at least one evangelical literally cringe when he and I considered together a transcript of an unedited Oval Office recording. And you thought sailors could swear?)

But today is very different: it's the era of near Republican hegemony and a pop evangelical president born of a multi-millionaire Big Oil dynasty and born-again of a multi-million person Big Jesus nationalistic piety.

This era is a great threat to the health of America, including to the hope that our children might come of age in a truly informed, democratic republic committed to defending ane expanding liberty, justice, and human rights for all.

So, what are some of the things we can do to counter this trend?

More on that next time.

[John Hosty]

NewsWire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EU Panel Calls For Protection of Assisted Suicide, 'Gay' Marriage
By C-FAM
MichNews.com
Jan 9, 2006

A statement issued by a European Union advisory panel attempts making assisted suicide, same-sex marriage and access to contraception to be among the "human rights" guaranteed to citizens of the EU.

[John Hosty]

As the mountain crumbles so does the hatred that kept it there for so long.

[John Hosty]

Basu: Gay marriage — prove it hurts
By REKHA BASU
REGISTER COLUMNIST

January 8, 2006

As a new legislative session gets under way Monday, expect a proposed constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage to kick up a lot of hot-headed posturing. Even the Ku Klux Klan is weighing in.

With fresh ammunition from a lawsuit filed by six gay Iowa couples seeking to marry, Senate Republican leaders want to take another stab at ensuring such a thing never happens in this state.

Some observers say opposing the amendment could be political suicide in a governor's election year. There's little currency in being seen as pro-gay marriage, even if some people opposing a constitutional amendment aren't, but don't think it merits a change in the constitution.

Let's step back from the politics to look at the logic.

Opposition to gay marriage tends to be emotional. Just the idea of it makes people uncomfortable, often for religious reasons. But if the constitution can be tampered with over uncomfortable religious feelings, it puts us on a very slippery slope.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Iowa. A constitutional amendment would just block future legislatures from changing that.

Opponents say same-sex marriage threatens marriage as we know it. But that kind of marriage may already be a thing of the past. Historian Stephanie Coontz has done the research in her recent book, "Marriage, A History," which chronicles changes in the institution since the ancient Roman empire. She says heterosexuals have already created many alternative structures for organizing sexual relationships or raising children.

In the 1950s, married couples were 80 percent of all U.S. households. By the beginning of this century, that had fallen to under 51 percent. Married couples with children account for just one quarter of households.

Forty-three percent of all first marriages in America end in divorce within 15 years. Coontz says divorce, single parenthood and heterosexual co-habitation have reshaped both the role and meaning of marriage. With an unprecedented number of young people choosing to live independently (there are more single-person households than married-couple-with-children households), marriage is no longer the gateway to adulthood, nor seen as necessary for raising children.

In 2003, almost 40 percent of couples who lived together without being married were raising kids, compared to the 45 percent of married couples doing so. And more than 40 percent of births to unmarried women are planned. Poor, unwed mothers might not want to marry their babies' fathers if they can't support a family. Older, financially independent women may not want to wait for the right man to become mothers.

So if marriage is no longer necessary to procreate, gay marriage can't be faulted for taking that role away. Besides, a third of lesbian households and more than a fifth of gay male ones have biological children under age 18. Not allowing those adults to legitimize their relationships hurts the children. That's why the American Psychological Association supports legalizing same-sex marriage, and the American Academy of Pediatrics supports legalizing partner adoptions.

The only other way same-sex marriage could hurt heterosexual marriage is the obvious scenario that someone who would otherwise have married a person of the opposite sex might now marry someone of the same sex if it's legal. That would mean the person was gay but pretending to be straight. Only a narrow religious view would condone living a lie. And religious discussions should be confined to religious institutions.

South Africa, Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands all have legalized same-sex marriage. A 2004 USA Today poll showed half of 18-and 19-year-old Americans support it. No wonder legislators are fighting to take away from future generations the power to decide.

But they can't block progress. Instead of being on the defensive, opponents of a constitutional amendment should demand those pushing it explain just how same-sex marriage will hurt society. If they can't, end of discussion.

This is from desmoinesregister.com

[mark and nigel]

Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post: On Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (D-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution: "Intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians . . . within the United States . . . is forever prohibited."

[mark and nigel]

A Traditional Gay Wedding
By Jonathan Rauch

First published October 15, 2005, in National Journal. Copyright © 2005, National Journal.

A cloudy afternoon on a recent Saturday in western Massachusetts. Rain sprinkles the Berkshire hills. Strolling in twos and threes along paths between broad lawns, 80 or so wedding guests make their way to a performance barn on the grounds of Jacob's Pillow.

Rustling, cheerful, curious, they take their seats. Gray light filters through high windows and casts soft shadows among the rafters. The barn is not a sanctuary, but it feels like one today.

A violinist, one of the relatives, begins a Corelli prelude, and the wedding party enters. Both grooms wear tuxedos and boutonnieres. The minister, a young seminarian in the United Church of Christ, tall in his robes, begins. Under order of the state Supreme Court, same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and today the minister will marry Jamie Beckland and Michael Pope.

“Every relationship of love is holy, sacred, and worthy of public affirmation and celebration,” he says, with a touch of emphasis, slight but sufficient, on the word every. “We pray that this couple will fulfill God's purpose for the whole of their lives.” Emphasis again, this time on the word whole.

Not everyone in the hall picks up the inflection, but the grooms do.

Jamie is 27, originally from Wisconsin, now a development officer at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Michael, also 27, works at a private research company. They plan to move to Massachusetts, the place where Jamie lived when they met and the only state where their marriage has legal force.

Jamie is taller, blond, bespectacled, thin, with the bearing of the former dancer that he is. Michael is dark, heavyset, as reserved as Jamie can be bubbly, a product not of the liberal Upper Midwest but of conservative southwestern Virginia, a state notorious for its gratuitously anti-gay legislation.

For all the differences, Jamie and Michael and their families have this in common: divorce. The newlyweds' immediate families count eight divorces between them, four on each side. Michael's parents divorced when he was 6, Jamie's when he was 10.

“I think there's a whole generation of kids from broken homes who only want to be married once,” Michael says. This marriage of two men, so radical by some lights, aspires to reconsecrate the deepest of marital traditions.

A few weeks before the wedding, over coffee at Starbucks, I asked Jamie why he wanted to marry. For my generation of gay men (I am 45), legal marriage was unthinkable, and emerging into the gay world often meant entering a cultural ghetto and a sexual underworld.

Jamie, who could just about be my son, replies with an answer that turns the world of the 1970s and 1980s upside down. Once he realized he was gay, he says, he simply expected to marry.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once he realized he was gay, Jamie simply expected to marry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Why does anybody get married?” he asks. “I wanted the stability, I wanted the companionship, I wanted to have a sex life that was accepted, I wanted to have kids. For me, it's not a choice. A marriage evens you out.”

The couple met on May 18, 2002. The next day, they exchanged telephone numbers at church (both are Christian). Within weeks, they knew it was serious.

In February of this year they took a trip to Massachusetts and went snow-shoeing on the grounds of Jacob's Pillow, a dance center where Jamie had worked when they met. There, on an outdoor stage, Jamie got down on one knee. “Which was hard, because we were in snowshoes.”

He gave Michael a compass inscribed, “May we always find our way together,” and launched into his carefully planned proposal, doing fine for about a minute before starting to cry. Michael began laughing, Jamie pulled himself together long enough to propose, and the two kissed, their faces stung by freezing tears.

Most weddings occasion unambiguous joy, but at this one, reactions run the gamut from delight to incredulity. Jamie's mother, Laura, freely confesses to having been a “monster mom” when Jamie first told her he was gay, seven years ago.

He recalls her blaming a demon that might have possessed him one day while he was using a Ouija board. Today, however, she is fighting a losing battle with her false eyelashes as the tears flow, and the tears are happy ones. “It's amazingly wonderful and appropriate,” she says of the marriage, “and it breaks my heart”—not that Jamie is gay or is marrying a man, but that he is making this final transition out of childhood.

Laura's parents, Lee and Ludene, both in their early 70s, have shown up at their grandson's wedding on the advice of their priest, who counseled support for their family even if they could not condone a same-sex marriage.

They say they are open-minded Catholics, but today's event has pushed them to their limit. “I feel that it's wrong,” Lee volunteers. “I don't think it's real. I kind of wish it hadn't happened.” He loves his grandson, no doubt about it. But “this is hard for me, to see it happen.” Ludene, who believes that marriage is for procreation, struggles to find a more conciliatory note. “We're living in a different age,” she says.

Jamie's two younger brothers are enthusiastic about the marriage. It never occurs to them to regard a same-sex marriage as anything but real.

His father, Kim, has been supportive all along. But his paternal grandparents, Jim and Carol, are guarded as they sit on a bench awaiting the ceremony's start. “We love Jamie, and I'm not going to drive a wedge in the family,” Jim says. Carol mentions that both are Christians who are close to the Bible. “This will be interesting,” she says. “I'm not the judge.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It never occurs to Jamie's younger brothers to regard a same-sex marriage as anything but real.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opponents of gay marriage have argued that same-sex couples, especially men, will undermine marriage by regarding it merely as a path to legal benefits, rather than as a moral and spiritual commitment. Gay couples may get married, goes the criticism, but will not act married. To judge by Jamie and Michael, there is little cause for worry on that score.

For their part, gay couples have had reason to worry that their marriages, however valid in the law's eyes, might be regarded as less than authentic in the eyes of family, friends, religious institutions, employers. After all, a marriage is a marriage not just because the law certifies it but because the community accepts and underwrites it.

Jamie's and Michael's relatives will face a question that never comes up after a straight wedding: whether to inform their friends, neighbors, and colleagues that their son or grandson or brother or nephew is married to a man. Among the parents' and grandparents' generations, most people said they would share this information selectively, or they would play it by ear, or they just didn't know what they would do. The marriage is no secret, but neither does it bask in the social sunlight that straight spouses take for granted.

Yet marriage has its own dynamic, one that deepens bonds between spouses and forges links to kin and community. From time immemorial, parents have expressed ambivalence, even dismay, over their children's choice of spouse, yet have been won over, if not to the choice, then to the marriage and the stability it provides. Michael's mother, Kathy, is from the town of Buena Vista, Va. She was raised in a strict Brethren Church but now considers herself “spiritual.” She has been married and divorced twice. “This is truly not what I expected to see in his marriage,” she says of Michael, her only son. But she adds: “I hope this is going to be a stabilizing factor in his life, because he's been at loose ends for a long time.”

Marriage creates kin, a process in evidence today. Laura, Jamie's onetime “monster mom,” toasts the couple with the words, “I'm so happy to have a fourth son.” Jamie's father says, “I've seen these two together enough to know that this is the kind of relationship that marriage is about.” Times may change, and marriage may change, but parents are ever parents.

It is almost 5 p.m. The minister has given his blessing, invoking Solomon's song that many waters cannot quench love. “Remember this,” he says, “remember this, remember this. Amen.”

Then: “Before God and all present, do you, Michael, enter into this marriage with an open mind and heart and promise to love Jamie as long as you both shall live?” Michael firmly answers yes, and then Jamie, less steadily, gives the same answer, wiping away tears as he says, “Most importantly, I will work every day at loving you better.” The minister calls for the rings, and laughter relieves sniffles as Jamie, flustered, offers his right hand.

That mistake corrected, the minister makes a pronouncement that I never thought I would live to hear. “By the authority vested in me by the state of Massachusetts, I declare that you, Jamie and Michael, are joined in the covenant of marriage, with the blessing of Christ's church. You may kiss.”

They do. It is done.

[mark and nigel]

Yes, we agree that the purpose of KTN is to witness to the gay affirming community of same and opposite sex couples who cherish diversity and who love us - or want to love us.

We spend all too much time with Mineau's Minions who come here to provoke, incite and write hurtful and harmful rhetoric to compound the injury of their petition.

We are men and women who love our spouses, and love our children and grandchildren. We love and cherish our family and friends who are opposite sex married, and honor their relationships. After all, we both had parents who were in SOLID MONOGAMOUS LIFE TERM MARRIAGES. The reality, as rare as it is today, is that our siblings are all in first marriages - all for over twenty years or more.

Our lives are not about libidinous sexual trysts with strangers. There are both gay and straight individuals who define their lives in that context.

From our initial stirrings of attraction, we thought of finding a life partner and sharing a life and raising a family. What could be more truly conservative than that?
It is NOT NEOCON, DOMINIONIST THEOCRATIC, OR HETEROSEXIST. It is, however, a human experience that we share with dedicated couples whom we know and love.

[Paul Jamieson]

"Yes, we agree that the purpose of KTN is to witness to the gay affirming community of same and opposite sex couples who cherish diversity and who love us - or want to love us."

BULLSHIT

BY Tom and Aarons own admission, and John Hosty's - KTN is organized to find out the names of people who signed a petition to end gay marriage in Massachusetts. Then, they will be able to mail, call or even more disturbing, visit these folks and try to convince them not to vote on this issue.

Keep telling yourself that this is a gay affirming site Nark - you have obviously ended up believing it.

[Callie Wise]

From our initial stirrings of attraction, we thought of finding a life partner and sharing a life and raising a family. What could be more truly conservative than that?
It is NOT NEOCON, DOMINIONIST THEOCRATIC, OR HETEROSEXIST. It is, however, a human experience that we share with dedicated couples whom we know and love.

Wow! You're SO right! I remember from a very early age "envisioning" my own wedding but the person opposite me in the ceremony was never a man. There were all the social pressures to put a man in that picture (even after I came out, my mom "encouraged" me to how can I say this...fantasize about men, but that just made the dreams and images in my head of the life I wanted dematerialize) but it never happened, no matter how much I tried. I was always a bit idealic, an old-fashioned romantic, and pictured gowns and flowers. We are more alike than different when compared to our opposite sex friends in the life-long imaginings of "happily-ever-after". We want much of the same thing: happiness, joy, love. There's nothing wrong with that!

[Stanley Pryhoda]

Thank you Mark and Nigel and Callie for your insightful views and postings.

KTN was established to speak to straight couples like Aaron and his wife; and not Mineau's Minions on a daily paid basis.

I enjoyed yesterday, for it was mostly postings of a positive nature. Of course, it was a day off for most, and Tyler's shift has not been filled yet.

[Stanley Pryhoda]

LET THE JUSTICES DO JUSTICE !!!!
MARSHALL - THE FORCES OF JUSTICE !!