Google
 

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Advertisements
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 15, 2007 - 01:38 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

The Boston Herald reports that:

Quote:
Among lawmakers who switched from previous support of the ban were state Reps. James Vallee (D-Franklin), Brian Wallace (D-South Boston), Richard Ross (R-Wrentham), Robert Nyman (D-Hanover) and Paul Loscocco (R-Holliston), among others. Senators who switched included Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham)and state Sen. Michael Morrissey (D-Quincy).

...

Lawmakers who switched sides to vote against the ban appeared to do so for different reasons, with some saying they were affected by the stories of gay families and others indicating they were persuaded it is wrong to subject minority rights to a popular vote.


The Eagle Tribune offers this observation:

Quote:
Gay marriage advocates and foes spent more than $1.5 million last year to lobby Massachusetts lawmakers and shape public opinion over the proposed state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Several groups backing gay marriage, led by MassEquality, spent a total of more than $1 million in 2006 to keep a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage off the ballot, according to state records. Gay marriage opponents, led by VoteOnMarriage.org, spent about $500,000 to get the amendment before voters, the records show.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
vanrozenheim
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 15, 2007 - 03:26 AM
Site Admin


Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 440

Boston.com:
Quote:
The proposal needed the votes of 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to make it on the 2008 ballot as a referendum. In January, the measure passed its first convention with 62 votes, but it fell short today by 5 votes.

Joyce Durst, an opponent of same-sex marriage from Mattapan, had come the State House today to pray that the measure passed. When the amendment failed, she pulled a crumpled tissue from her pocket and began to sob.

"I'm sick," said Durst, 60. "I'm sick."


Wow. She got heart-broken because her fellow citizens have equal rights (at least on paper)? My heart would break, if it didn't turn to stone long time ago.
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 15, 2007 - 02:50 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

Yes, the poor dear. It must be just horrible to learn that you do not control the world... very traumatic. And then to have such fervent prayers go unanswered... even God has slipped his leash, it would seem.

She might consider seeking counseling. I'm sure someone will get around to hearing her tale of woe... just as soon as they are finished consulting with the people who have real problems.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 20, 2007 - 04:45 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

New York:

Assembly Passes Marriage Equality Bill

Quote:
The New York State Assembly just voted to pass the marriage bill by a vote of 85 to 61. The vote comes a bit over a month after Gov. Spitzer introduced the bill into the Legislature and a bit under a year since the NYS Court of Appeals ruled that it’s the Legislature’s job to decide on the issue of same-sex marriage. We’ll post the vote tally shortly.

...

Now the only thing that stands between gay New Yorkers and their ability to marry is the State Senate, and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has mentioned more than once that the marriage bill will not be moving under his watch. His majority, however, has been steadily shrinking—most notably (and most recently) with Craig Johnson’s victory this past February as an openly pro-marriage equality candidate in a traditionally Republican district.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
berto
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 28, 2007 - 01:08 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Bush threatens to veto DC budget if Domestic Partner funds not blocked

Quote:
President Bush issued a warning to Congress on Wednesday that he will veto budget appropriations for the District of Columbia unless the measure contains language barring the district from using any of the money for its domestic partner registry.

The registry allows same and opposite-sex unmarried couples to register their relationships.

Three quarters of the District of Columbia's budget comes from local revenue - city taxes and fees. But, about $120 million in additional funds comes from the federal government.

That money is contained in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act.

Under Republicans the legislation stated that none of the federal money could be used to support the partner registry. When Democrats took control of Congress the requirement was removed.

In threatening a veto the White House on Wednesday issued a statement saying: "The Administration strongly opposes the bill’s exclusion of a longstanding provision that disallows the use of Federal funds to register unmarried, cohabitating couples in the District, to enable them to qualify for benefits on the same basis as legally married couples. Under Federal law, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to this rule."

The Domestic Partner registry includes such partner rights as hospital and nursing home visitations, medical decisions, and inheritance rights.


They should call his fucking bluff...

_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 28, 2007 - 04:24 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

They should. If they had any integrity at all, they would.

We shall see.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
berto
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 29, 2007 - 04:35 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
... and Congress caved. Big surprise.

Quote:
A bill providing federal funding to the District of Columbia has passed the House after a clause stating the money could not be used to fund a domestic partner registry was reinstated.

[...]

When the bill came to a vote on the House floor late Thursday Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) offered an amendment adding back the anti-gay language.

The amendment passed by a vote of 224 to 200.

[...]

The District of Columbia established a local domestic partnership registry in 1992. However, the Republican congressional leadership routinely prevented the registry from being enacted until 2002.

Since that time, the Republican-led Congress have repeatedly attached anti-gay language to past appropriations bills which stipulate that federal funds cannot be used to operate the program.

Since local funds are used, observers have noted that the provision was simply used as a way for Republicans to demonstrate their disapproval for the law and for same-sex families.


For the *umpteenth* time, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats, fuck the Democrats

_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 29, 2007 - 05:51 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

Well, you DO realize that were every Democratic member of Congress to relocate to Canada and stand for election in some riding or other, the vast majority of them would almost certainly register with the Conservative Party of Canada? Indeed, about half of them would be considered "extreme." Outside of Alberta, I would not estimate their hypothetical chances of winning many elections to be very high.

Yes, the Democratic Party has its Russ Feingolds. It doesn't have very damn many of them.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kyleovision
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 29, 2007 - 09:27 PM



Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 290
Location: USA
Fuck the Democrats?

Honey-dahling, not even with *yours*. No, sir, I know where they've been.

_________________
"That buzzing-noise means something. You don't get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something."
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
berto
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 30, 2007 - 12:24 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Kalamazoo, Mich. does an end run around bigoted law

Quote:
Kalamazoo has found a way around a court ruling that said providing health insurance to the same-sex partners of city workers violated the state amendment banning same-sex marriage.

The solution: don't call it a domestic partner benefit. Under a motion agreed to by City Commissioners Friday the plan now will be called an "Other Qualified Adult" program and is available to any two people living together in a dependent relationship where one person is a city employee.

Earlier this year a Court of Appeal panel ruled the state's constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage made it illegal to offer same-sex domestic partner benefits for public employees.

[...]

The ruling is under appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court but the justices said that until it renders a decision the appellate ruling must go into effect.

[...]

The compromise worked out by city staff is similar to a plan that was approved for Michigan State University. City commissioners voted to allocate $40,000 to the scheme. The number of people who might join is not known. Four workers had participated in the same-sex partner plan. Over the next two weeks city staff will go over the details with Kalamazoo' unions.

Following the vote Vice Mayor Bobby Hopewell said he was pleased with the outcome. "This is an issue of being a good employer," he said.


Let's hear it for Kalamazoo! Very Happy

_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 30, 2007 - 04:42 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

Yes, three cheers for the city's good intentions. Their clever ploy is not so clever that it will withstand a court challenge. I'm afraid they are screwed.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Kyleovision
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 30, 2007 - 11:23 AM



Joined: Feb 22, 2007
Posts: 290
Location: USA
Quite surprising indeed for a wee right-wing cess-pit like Kalamazoo, situated as it is in the midst of the grand open sewer of religious fervor that is most of the west coast of the state.

Quote:
...[A]n "Other Qualified Adult" program... is available to any two people living together in a dependent relationship where one person is a city employee.


If this is accurate reporting, the basis of eligibility is not necessarily the same as a domestic-partner set-up, or even similar to it. It all rides on what a 'dependent' is under the new rules. The IRS has its own definition of what a dependent is, and it is most assuredly *not* a working spouse. Without alot more information, it's hard to tell whether this is a meaningful effort, or not-- much less whether it will withstand a court challenge.

_________________
"That buzzing-noise means something. You don't get a buzzing-noise like that, just buzzing and buzzing, without its meaning something."
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
berto
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 30, 2007 - 02:45 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
Some NJ homos just clued in: "civil unions" ain't worth shit

Quote:
Ross and Richard Cash were among the hundreds of couples who hurried to get their licenses. With Cash unemployed and his private health insurance costing $480 a month, the couple hoped the new law would be their financial white knight -- compelling Ross's employer to give his partner the same spousal benefits as heterosexual married couples.

But more than four months after New Jersey's civil union law went into effect, Ross, 46 and Cash, 54, are among the many same-sex couples severely disillusioned with their prospects for legal equality. Citing federal regulations that allow many employers to effectively ignore state laws regarding corporate benefits, the Fortune 500 company where Ross has worked as a computer specialist for 21 years denied the couple's request for joint coverage.

"I feel beaten up and deflated," said Ross, who asked that his company's name be withheld out of concern for his job. "Everyone celebrated when this thing passed because we thought it would be equal to marriage, that the only thing different would be that we called it 'civil unions.' But civil unions aren't giving us the legal rights we hoped for."

[...]

A recent study by Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay advocacy group, indicated that as many as one in eight of the 1,092 same-sex couples who have registered for civil unions there have been denied all or part of the benefits they hoped to gain from the law. That is particularly significant because New Jersey, as the first state outside New England to approve civil unions, was seen as a bellwether in gauging how they would take root outside the bluest of the blue states.

"The supporters of this law hoped this measure would be implemented and enforced without any major difficulties or consequences," Rep. Joseph J. Roberts Jr., speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly, wrote in a letter to the state banking and insurance commission. "Regrettably, this apparently has not been the case."

Most vexing for gay couples in New Jersey is that they have little legal recourse. Smaller companies that buy private health insurance plans for their employees are compelled to offer them to same-sex couples under the state's civil union laws. But most legal experts agree that federal regulations give companies with self-funded insurance plans -- a group covering 55 percent of the country 105 million working-age employees -- the power to ignore state laws regarding corporate benefits.

And when companies choose to follow federal laws, they often cite the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman as a reason to deny coverage to same-sex couples. New Jersey officials estimate that almost 90 percent of the reports of noncompliance to date have been linked to companies covered by these federal laws.


To re-iterate: separate but unequal is not acceptable, and never will be. Ever. Anywhere. Oh, and in case it slipped anyone's mind, that was a Democrat in the White House when this scurrilous piece of sleazy legislation was signed into law -- with his signature.

Full equality or bust, no compromises with bigots. No retreat, no surrender.

_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
berto
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 30, 2007 - 03:08 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: Valhalla Mountains, British Columbia, Canada
St. Petersburg (Fla.) Pride faces anti-Pride rally (what do they call an anti-gay Pride rally? Straight Shame?)

Quote:
After last year's unexpected trouble, the city has struggled mightily to balance the First Amendment rights of bigoted blowhards with the rights of those who just want to enjoy their Saturday in the sun.

A plan for well-intentioned but troubling "free speech zones" has been more or less scrapped, which is a good thing. When America works like it's supposed to, an antiwar protestor's right to be seen and heard outside a Bush rally gets the same protection as a bully preaching the gospel of intolerance.

Under the revised rules, signs and bullhorns won't be banished for the parade. "They can protest in any lawful manner, " says city attorney John Wolfe. Lawful being key.

Afterward, the big signs and bullhorns won't be allowed inside the areas that are covered by the festival's permit. And expect police to keep a sharp eye out for anyone disrupting the event.

Don't expect, however, to see Mayor Rick Baker hanging around. On this subject he is oft-quoted as having said he doesn't support the event's "general agenda." (I wonder if he likes any of the specifics, such as how it may boost the city's reputation and potential for tourist dollars as a gay-friendly place.)

Hey, maybe St. Pete could adopt Tampa Mayor Pam Iorio as a sort of step-mayor, just for today.

[...]

Who might learn from it? Anyone who thinks the battle for tolerance is won, that there's room for complacency, that events that gather together people who share a difference aren't necessary. Anyone who thinks what happened to Matthew Shepard was long ago and far away. Anyone who didn't already know the kind of prejudices gay people regularly endure.

Could the presence of a protest so ugly even help sway some people toward a more live-and-let-and-let-live attitude? Hope springs eternal.

The best revenge: The Pride event has blossomed into the city's biggest single-day event and attracted impressive corporate sponsors (take that, Festival of States).

_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jun 30, 2007 - 05:50 PM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

Quote:
The best revenge: The Pride event has blossomed into the city's biggest single-day event and attracted impressive corporate sponsors



Mmmmmm. Corporate greed-heads. My favorite! I have some cash lying around -- do any of them want to sell me a rainbow flag? I'm looking for something that isn't nylon, but I don't want silk. How about some homophobia-free rum? (Is that even possible? Pride season just isn't Pride season without one of those carefully-crafted rainbow-hued mai-tais.) Maybe they can just hook my favorite gay bar up with a bear distributor. (Alack -- many bartenders in such places will not attempt even a monochrome mai-tai. Can you believe it?)

Snarkiness aside, the Tampa/St Pete area makes satisfactory efforts to redeem that particular nook of Florida as far as Gay tourism goes. Unfortunately, their efforts are almost entirely based on "PR." Still -- while the degree of success leaves much to be desired, the efforts are satisfactory if not impressive.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
vanrozenheim
Post subject:   PostPosted: Jul 02, 2007 - 05:19 AM
Site Admin


Joined: Aug 26, 2006
Posts: 440

Dawn Wolfe, director of communications for Triangle Foundation, has written the following, very optimistic article:

The tide is turning toward equality for gays
Quote:
The great state of Massachusetts was recently offered the chance to reinstate bigotry against same-sex couples and politely declined. Less than 25% of that state's 200 legislators voted to make equality a popularity contest. Equal marriage rights for lesbian and gay couples are now and forever the law of the land in Massachusetts. Amen.

Could this vote mark the end of bigotry disguised as social policy? Or was that milestone marked in 2006, when voters in that other great state, Arizona, voted against a gay marriage ban in their state's Constitution? A look at the numbers shows that the end is, indeed, near.

[..]

Eventually, of course, the entire country will understand that no one thrives when anyone faces discrimination. Sadly, until that day comes, Michigan may find itself losing even more of its best and brightest -- and with them, their talent, tax money and disposable incomes -- because this state refuses to catch up with the times.


She is seriously deluded, in my view. One of those naive folks believing that war and misery belong to the past, and from now on the humanity is going to develope straightforward toward the bright future.

One of her (homophobic) commenters published a more realistic view on the current stand of gay agenda in the US:

Quote:
And gay marriage just isn't happening in the rest of America - which is almost shocking considering the political proclivities of some of the most liberal states. Also, what major Democratic presidential candidate supports gay marriage?
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Aug 31, 2007 - 05:04 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

Polk judge rules against gay marriage ban

Quote:
A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa's law banning gay marriage.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional and he ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples.

...

Polk County is expected to appeal the ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court.

County Attorney John Sarcone said the county would immediately seek a stay from Hanson, which if granted would prevent anyone from seeking a marriage license until an appeal could be heard.

The case will be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court, which could refer it to the Iowa Court of Appeals, consider the case itself or decide not to hear the case.


The case is the craftsmanship of Lambda Legal, who probably deserve a few bucks as a display of gratitude for their efforts. That's easily enough accomplished.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Rain
Post subject:   PostPosted: Aug 31, 2007 - 05:10 AM



Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
Let's hope the timing doesn't backfire on Lambda Legal. The Iowa Caucuses are not too far away.

_________________
Each of us inevitable; Each of us limitless - each of us with his or her right upon the earth; Each of us allowed the eternal purports of the earth; Each of us here as divinely as any is here. ~ Walt Whitman
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Feral
Post subject:   PostPosted: Aug 31, 2007 - 05:19 AM



Joined: Sep 06, 2006
Posts: 1754

Ah yes... cue the Democrats. The last election was just ever so tainted by that grotesquely ill-timed New Jersey decision. Very inconsiderate of those fags to not put their lawsuits on hold so the Democrats can paint the right "optics."

I would be hard-pressed to find a state that did not have an equal marriage case decided (one way or another) or pending.

_________________
"If you want the freedom, the abilities, you have to find a way. Just don't be so passive. We are capable of so much more." -- Larry Kramer
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Rain
Post subject:   PostPosted: Sep 01, 2007 - 05:31 PM



Joined: Apr 12, 2007
Posts: 472
Location: NYC
Quote:
Iowa Permits Same-Sex Marriage, for 4 Hours, Anyway

By MONICA DAVEY
Published: September 1, 2007

DES MOINES, Aug. 31 — From towns around the state, places like Cedar Falls, Ames and Cedar Rapids, same-sex couples converged on this city as early as dawn on Friday as word spread that a judge had overturned a state law banning gay marriage.

“Imagine this — right here in Iowa,” Amanda Duncan said as she and her partner of three years, Aleece Ramirez, filled out their application for a marriage license and put down $35. “Hopefully, this starts a fire that spreads to other places.”


Click on the headline to read the full article.
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2006 The PNphpBB Group
Credits