KnowThyNeighbor.org

Gay Bashers A Protected Class in Massachusetts

If You Are Looking To Beat Up Some Queers, Welcome to Massachusetts.  From Provincetown to Boston's South End to Gloucester It Appears That Hunting Season On Gays Is Now Open.  But Who Ever Thought The Latest Gay Bashing Would Be In a Boston Municipal Court Room  

A very dangerous precedent was set last week by Judge Thomas Horgan in Boston who handed down a two year suspended sentence to gay-basher Fabio Brandau, 29, for his brutal attack on a group of gay people last August in Boston's South End.  Brandau and three other attackers left two men so badly beaten that they were sent to the hospital with major concussions.  "Fucking faggots," were the words being used by Brandau continually throughout the assault.  On May 27th Brandau pleaded guilty to nine criminal charges and four civil rights violations however, Judge Thomas Horgan felt that Brandau's realized penalties for this should only include paying the victim's medical bills, an order to stay out of the South End, an order to stay away from the victims, and a court sponsored "anger management" program.  So much for those out there who believe hate crime legislation is a crock of shit, evidently in Judge Thomas Horgan's courtroom it is.

The Fenway Community Health Center's Violence Recovery Program's Emily Pitt, provides statistics that hate crimes increase during times of extreme anti-gay rhetoric such as one finds during the "dialogue" caused in legislative reviews of LGBT rights such as our fight for marriage equality and the media reporting.  One wonders what sort of additive effect a stupid and reckless decision such as Judge Thomas Hogan's has on hate crimes here in Massachusetts.  One can only summise that Judge Hogan has opened the door to alot more of the same.  

Boston/South End Gay Bashing 2008/2009:  BayWindows 

Provincetown May 2009: Boston Herald  

Gloucester April 2009:  Boston Globe 

Boston/South End Gay Bashing 2008:  BayWindows via Edge 

Provincetown Summer of Hate 2007:  Cape Cod Times

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

Tom Lang, Director  KnowThyNeighbor.org

N.H. Staggers to SSM Approval Wednesday

With loopholes big enough for trained dogs to jump through, the New Hampshire legislature and Gov. John Lynch look like they have a workable compromise all can approve. It's likely that Wednesday this coming week will be the day for a tweaked bill to get to Lynch and him to sign it.

To placate the anti-gay and anti-marriage equality sorts, the revised bill ended up today with wording even stronger than Lynch proposed when he sent it back to the lawmakers for revisions. The concurrence committee of both houses put in broad conscience exemptions for nearly anyone connected with the wedding business.

As the AP writer put it:

The new version, which is expected to come up for a vote Wednesday, adds a sentence specifying that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage. It also clarifies that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees. The earlier version said "charitable and educational" instead of "charitable or educational."

That could very well end up in Law Suit City if enough regressive sorts put their hands to their foreheads sighing that they sensibilities are being ravished by having to deal with homosexuals. Or, as Rep. Anthony DiFruscia put it more colorfully, "Hypothetically, if I'm a Nazi... do I now get an exemption because my conscience says if you're not blond and blue-eyed, I can discriminate against you?"

Regardless the governor was looking to pretend that he forced religious protection into this bill. Pretty much what he was asking for was already law and it was the fringe added to the canopy he proposed. The range of the compromise committee was a single sentence, plus one more word to the entire bill.

It looks like Wednesday will be wedding day.

Cross-post note: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

~Mike Ball

San Antonio Police Respond to GLBT Community Complaint

The San Antonio Police Department has come under fire lately from Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender activist after police allegedly used derogatory comments against a lesbian couple during a home raid. The women, Lindsey and Carol, had been at home for the evening when police charged through the door advising, "We have a warrant." Evidently, a warrant had been issued after an anonymous informant who had been assisting the SAPD for over 2 years claimed that a man named "Randy" had been seen with methamphetamine in the home. Unfortunately, after the police entered the house, they allegedly made several lewd and derogatory comments about the couple including many references to their sexual orientation. The outrage from the community was swift and resulted in numerous emails to Police Chief, William McManus, resulting in him contacting the San Antonio Stonewall Democrats to advise them that he wanted to speak to the LGBT community about the situation. Chief McManus arrived at a crowded restaurant to a round of thunderous applause. He stood before the room and began by disarming everyone with a history of his involvement with the LGBT Community, including serving as Grand Marshal of the San Antonio Gay Pride Parade in spite of severe criticism. He then assured the group that, because of this history, he would never turn a "blind eye" to allegations of inappropriate conduct by officers against the gay community adding that, "[if the allegations] happen to be true, there are heavy consequences." He further stated:

    The leader in a good organization leads by example, and I believe I've done that. My being here tonight is an example of this.

However, the Chief did admit that, although the academy training provides diversity training to new candidates, the officers are not trained to recognize a "slight" to the LGBT community. Lindsey and Carol's case is now in the hands of Internal Affairs and the matter is being investigated. The investigation will not be made public until it has been completed, for which no time frame was provided. Chief McManus insists that the LGBT community must not assume that something went wrong during the search but should instead, "...let due process run its course." In closing, Chief McManus delivered a heartfelt and tender review of his relationship with the LGBT community; however, he was shaken by the way the LGBT community drew such conclusions against him as he, "thought our relationship was better than that. A little love and trust goes a long way on both sides." So we are left waiting for answers, but now know that the investigation is ongoing and that these officers' alleged actions are not going unquestioned.

This report was brought to us by a cooperative effort with http://jaysays.com

While speaking to PFLAG and LGBT officials KTN has learned that both women are suffering PTSD (post tramatic stress disorder) from this event and were originally reluctant to pursue the issue based on their fears.

Thank You Massachusetts For Five Years of Equality

This Says It All...

Tom Lang and Alexander Westerhoff spent all day at the Massachusetts State House on Friday holding an 8' x 4' sign which reads, "Thank You Massachusetts for 5 Years of Equality.  Lang and Westerhoff who have been together for 21 years and who were married on the first day of legal recognition, May 17, 2004 by The Reverend Peter J. Gomes of Harvard, make holding this Thank You sign their anniversary tradition.

"We have held this sign on our anniversary for five years now and have vowed to be at the Massachusetts State House every year on or about May 17th to say thank you," Lang says.  "This day to us is a day of thanks and we want all those who made this possible to know that we will never forget that on May 17th, 2004, at least in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts my husband and myself and all other gay people became one step closer to being full American citizens."   

Tom Lang, Director of

KnowThyNeighbor.org 

Kathleen Sullivan for Supreme Court Justice!

Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term after 19 years on the bench. The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction. We are urging the consideration and appointment of Kathleen Sullivan.

Kathleen Sullivan is hands down one of the most qualified candidates. She is a Marshall scholar and former Stanford Law dean whom constitutional law legend Laurence Tribe once called “the most extraordinary student I had ever had.” She is the author of the nation’s leading casebook in constitutional law, has litigated before the Supreme Court, and has been named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America by the National Law Journal. Sullivan was also a professor of law at Harvard Law School from 1984 until 1993. She joined Stanford Law School in 1993 and became the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law in 1996. Sullivan then served as the dean of Stanford Law School from 1999 until 2004, when she voluntarily stepped down to serve as the inaugural director of a new Stanford center on constitutional law. Since 2004, she has been the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at Stanford Law School.

In addition to this impressive list of qualifications, Sullivan is also a woman and openly gay which would bring some much needed diversity to the Supreme Court.

If chosen, Sullivan would become the first ever openly gay Justice and third female Justice in United States history to serve on the Supreme Court leading to a Court that more truly reflects the composition of the American population.

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/event.php?eid=100917488367

N.H. Gov. Plays Marriage Games

Oh, my. New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch has me thinking macho and sexist thoughts — like he needs gonads.

Today he is speaking with reporters saying he will/he won't sign the same-sex marriage bill he got at the end of last week. His latest have-it-all-ways tactic is saying he'd approved it with some changes. I'll update here when those become clear.

It seems he can't stand the idea of having to stand. The reactionaries and fundies want him to veto it and put the Old Testament into marriage law. The equality and civil-rights types want him to cut the crap and sign it already. He apparently thinks that if he adds some more pseudo-religious veneer, he'll satisfy both sides.

He's bound to anger everyone.

The way I read the state constitution, this becomes law without his signature. It would take agreement from both houses to reconsider the content of the bill if he doesn't veto it. Good luck with that, Johnny Boy. I bet he's going to have to veto it or let it become law.

Follow-up: He claims to have provided language he wants added or altered. Those words have yet to appear on the news sites.

Follow-up to Follow-up: Lynch's changes would be:

I. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a religious organization, association, or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, shall not be required to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges to an individual if such request for such services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges is related to the solemnization of a marriage, the celebration of a marriage, or the promotion of marriage through religious counseling, programs, courses, retreats, or housing designated for married individuals, and such solemnization, celebration, or promotion of marriage is in violation of their religious beliefs and faith. Any refusal to provide services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges in accordance with this section shall not create any civil claim or cause of action or result in any state action to penalize or withhold benefits from such religious organization, association or society, or any individual who is managed, directed, or supervised by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society, or any nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conjunction with a religious organization, association or society.

II. The marriage laws of this state shall not be construed to affect the ability of a fraternal benefit society to determine the admission of members pursuant to RSA 418:5, and shall not require a fraternal benefit society that has been established and is operating for charitable and educational purposes and which is operated, supervised or controlled by or in connection with a religious organization to provide insurance benefits to any person if to do so would violate the fraternal benefit society’s free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and part 1, article 5 of the Constitution of New Hampshire

III. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed or construed to limit the protections and exemptions provided to religious organizations under RSA § 354-A:18.

IV. Repeal. RSA 457-A, relative to civil unions, is repealed effective January 1, 2011, except that no new civil unions shall be established after January 1, 2010.

To my reading, this is much ado about squat. Lynch wants to rephrase what is already law and already covered in the kind of mealy-mouthed bill the legislature passed. This likewise lets religious and now fraternal organizations be as bigoted and discriminatory against LBGT citizens as they are now. Making sure the Elks and VFW are covered is trivial.

It appears as though he thinks he is protecting is perceived lifetime job by:

1. Making noises about vetoing the bill
2. Adding inconsequential refinements to pretend that he accommodated all sides.

What a bozo. Then again, the votes to override a veto are likely unobtainable this legislative term. Plus the Senate has already added crazy lingo pretending there are two types of marriage in New Hampshire. They can probably make Lynch feel he's done something substantial. I suspect voters all around will know better next election.

Cross-post: This also appears at Marry in Massachusetts.

 ~Mike Ball

KnowThyNeighbor.org Important Strategy for Social Change on Gay Rights

In the Wake of KnowThyNeighbor.org's Posting of 83,000 Names of Anti-Gay Petition Signers in Arkansas Last Week, The Pro-Gay Activist Group Sets Sights on Maine and Washington

KnowThyNeighbor.org in unison with Arkansas' Center for Artistic Revolution made national news last week with our joined effort posting online 83,000 signers of Act 1, the Arkansas Anti-Gay Adoption and Foster Ban.  Press drew recognition from the Advocate.com, Daily Kos, The Arkansas Times, the Human Rights Campaign and a Contributing Editor of Fortune Magazine which led to yesterday's Huffington Post article of KTN exposing the CEO of Wal-Mart, Mike Duke and his wife as signers of the anti-gay/anti-child petition.

Director, Tom Lang, took a call from an Arkansas college professor of Political Science who told him that as she was lecturing her class on KnowThyNeighbor's "brilliant" strategy, her students were on KTN's site searching the database, finding signers within social and family circles and even a professor at her university.  KnowThyNeighbor was lauded by this Poli-Sci Professor for changing the way that Secretary of States all over this country will be disseminating petition information to the public as well as creating a method of database research that will prove invaluable to future generations while at the same time using our strategy for social change in the Gay Rights Civil Right Movement.

KnowThyNeighbor.org was an essential part of the fight to save marriage in Massachusetts.  The dialogue created by our strategy would have not happened otherwise if we had not risen to the occasion.  Recently, we have been receiving calls from Washington State LGBT to battle a potential referendum there and of course KnowThyNeighbor will be watching Maine closely and posting the names of signers of the anti-gay petition in that state as well.  Anti-gays will not have to be CEO's of companies like Wal-Mart to go down on the wrong side of history in a very public way.  These signers in Maine and Washington will need to reconcile with their family, friends, co-workers as to why they took a stand which will unquestionably hurt others.  And KnowThyNeighbor.org will be there to shine a light on it all.  History lasts a long time.......(thanks to the internet).

Tom Lang, Director

Maine's Governor Makes SSM Legal

."

---

Bypassing huge opportunities for theatrics and cowardice, Maine's Gov. John Baldacci took his pen to the same-sex marriage bill this afternoon. Within a half hour of receiving the bill (LD 1020), he made it law.

With so many, including the sitting President, cowardly about the fairness and equality and hiding behind, "Duh, well, I always heard in church that marriage was between one man and one woman," Baldacci tore the rag off the bush.

He said:

I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.

This new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs,. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees. Instead, it reaffirms the separation of church and state.

It guarantees that Maine citizens will be treated equally under Maine’s civil marriage laws, and that is the responsibility of government.

There may still be an effort for a plebiscite by the dirty nasty sore losers. I wish them failure in trying to get over 55,000 Mainers to sign for a vote in November. Short of that, they are bound to see that a majority of their peers wants strong marriages and equal rights.

~Mike (masssmarrier)

Maine Passes Same-Sex Marriage

Up in the Yankee Augusta, the Maine House fell in line with the Senate, passing same-sex marriage (LD 1020). The vote was 89 to 58 (adjusted later to 89 to 57).

Listening to a couple of hours of the testimony live, I got the firm sense that the opposition had accepted the vote long before it occurred. Several representatives predicted a following plebiscite (a.k.a. People's Veto). They added that they expected to reverse the decision.

In the way is Gov. Baldacci. He is wishy-washy, not promising to veto or sign or let the bill pass untouched. While he mumbled weak marriage is one man/one woman, there is no passion. By the bye, the House as it voted does not have enough proponents to override a veto.

If the bill becomes law and if the opponents get 10% of the vote numbers for the last governor's race on petitions, there will be a referendum to overturn it. For a state making the shift from legal domestic partnership to SSM, ripping back a legal right granted by the legislature would be a tough sell.

As it was, the arguments opposing the bill were pretty weak and illogical. A couple of lawmakers tried the old a man and a woman fit physically and make their own babies. As usual, there was no corresponding admission that many opposite-sex couples were not healthy for their children, nor any recognition that many couples, regardless of genders, adopt, use medical help to reproduce, cannot reproduce or choose not to do so.

The baby-making argument is pale and frail.

One opponent, Sheryl Briggs (D-Mexico), illustrated the befuddled traditionalist. She said she has known one of her daughters has been an out lesbian for 15 years. Briggs voted against the bill despite this. The underlying justification went to the heart of the cultural divide. She consistently referred to her daughter's "choice," as in "lifestyle she has chosen."

On the other side, the speakers were similar to those the judiciary committee hearings in New Hampshire and Maine. There was a good mix of the personal, legal and logical from the representative. One, David Webster (D-Freeport), noted that some religions and Protestant churches support SSM and others do not. As a legislature, he said he had not right or intent to legislate any religion's dogma over another's.

For example, Briggs' testimony led immediately to that from Emily Ann Cain (D-Orono). She noted that 1020 "does not create same-sex couples in Maine." Instead, it affirms "what already exists." She asked others to join her "simply asking for fairness and equal treatment under law for what already exists in Maine."

Another supporter, Veronica Magnan (D-Stockton Springs) was a counterpoint to opponents. She is middle-aged and a lifelong Christian. She said she was "born again in the spirit in 1972." However, she and her fundamentalist church parted ways on such issues as gay rights as the church became more radical. In her mind, the argument that a family requires a father and mother to work is not the norm from what she has seen in her life. Instead "two committed adults have made the difference." She made it very plain she was pro-marriage, for SS couples as well.

~Mike (massmarrier)