My Question For The Candidates

I am 5 months pregnant with our first child. It has been an incredible struggle - emotionally, physically, and financially to get here. One of the many burdens we have endured as a result of not being able to get married is benefit from tax breaks for medical expenses as a married couple could. My partner is the breadwinner, but we could not claim "my" expenses on her taxes. It is not fair.

We live in the state of VA - one of the worst in the nation for LGBT families. Despite the thousands of dollars we have spent securing documents to try to protect our family (again, something a married couple would not have to do) - we are scared to death of what could happen because someone, somewhere will not recognize our family and our rights. The new Marshall Newman amendment is downright frightening, discriminatory, and clearly unconstitutional. Why are such laws even allowed to pass?

I want the candidates to take a long serious look at ALL the ways these laws HURT FAMILIES and I want to know what steps they will take to give MY FAMILY the SAME protections as any other family.

Clinton & Obama to Participate in LGBT Forum

On August 9, 2007, at 6p Pacific, 9p Eastern, leading presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, will join Melissa Etheridge and HRC's Joe Salmonese in a live address to the GLBT community.

Presidential candidates have never before participated in such an address.

Co-hosted by Logo (a division of MTV Networks) and the Human Rights Campaign, panelists will address a live GLBT audience on issues specific to the community. According to the HRC website, issues such as "relationship recognition, marriage equality, workplace fairness, the military, hate crimes, and HIV/AIDS" among other issues, will be discussed in the live, commercial-free broadcast on August 9th.

Live video streaming will be available through Logo's website - LOGOonline.com. The show will be broadcast live on Logo's cable TV channel (out of Los Angeles).

Remote participants will be able to submit questions during the broadcast via HRC.org and LOGOonline.com.

Coming Out....Pregnant (part 2)

In a previous post, I talked about how being a lesbian who is pregnant can remove the choice of coming out when and how you please. The difference being, when you are not pregnant, people do not (usually) take it upon themselves to inquire about your personal life in such a way their questions might spark discomfort or uncertainty. Now that my body is leaving no doubt as to whether I am pregnant or have simply been eating too many chocolate chip cookies and ice cream (which I have, but I AM eating for two!!), we have begun to share the good news with those with whom we come in constant contact.

Not sure how they might react to the news, we volunteered one of our neighbors to share the news with our 75 and 85 yr old next door neighbors. The conversation went something like this:

ML - We are going to have another birthday in December!

H & T - Really? Who?

ML - Tara is pregnant!

H & T - ?

ML - Tara is having a baby!

H & T - Did she get married?

ML - Nooooo.

H & T - ? Why did she do that?

ML - They have been trying for a long time. They really wanted to have a baby!

H & T - So she is going to be a single mother?

ML - Noooo. She has Kristie. The baby will have 2 mothers!

H & T - ?

H & T - Well, what do we say?

ML - Congrats!

H & T - Oh! OK!

And congratulate us (really me) they did. And continue to, every time we see them. Every phone call they ask how I am feeling and warn me to be careful and take care of that baby! I am sure they still haven't quite figured this out. They have yet to congratulate Kristie. And I hope they will be able to see the three of us as a family. But they have not stopped inviting our dogs over for treats (even freshly soaked from a swim in the river!). They still complained to ML about how we never invite them over. So, guess who is coming to dinner tomorrow?

CNN Report Raises Interesting Points about Same-Sex Couples Raising Children

On Monday, CNN spotlighted a news story about gay families, called "Gay Adoption: A new take on the American Family." Not only was this story one of their "Top Stories" for the day, but it was also prominently displayed on the left top of their homepage, with a picture of a gay family and their adopted children, and a paragraph introduction to the story.

CNN highlights stories in this manner to call attention to the news coverage.

The article begins with a story about 5-year-old Jackson who lives with his two dads. The parents talk about their own anxiety about raising their son in a non-traditional family. They admit that at this point, it probably worries them more than it does Jackson.

They also told the reporter that recently, Jackson has been asking about a "mom".

Peggy Drexler found similar scenarios in her "research" on lesbian and "single-by-choice" female families, Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men. One boy being raised in a lesbian household regularly clings to the leg of his male aftercare worker when his moms come to pick him up. Another boy with lesbian moms regularly says he "wants a Daddy." Another boy being raised in a single mom household routinely points to men on the tv and tells his mom, "That's my daddy."

Are the comments these children make the norm for children being raised by lesbian and gay parents? Maybe. Maybe not.

Drexler's research was definitely not representative of lesbian households overall. And while CNN reports a similar comment, little Jackson is not representative of all children being raised with two dads.

Certainly some of the resistance to gay & lesbian couples having children and/or adopting (aside from resistance just being flat out homophobia) has to do with the notion that children need a mother and a father in the home in order to turn out well.

But why? Is it because successful parenting can be reduced to such a simple formula?

Mom + Dad = happy Child

How is it that the attacks on gay parenting have been reduced to this simple notion of what it takes to raise a child?

What about other aspects of parenting - like providing a loving, safe environment; setting boundaries; providing routine and structure; teaching (and modeling) life lessons such as right from wrong, learning from mistakes, problem solving, thinking critically ... I could go on and on.

Why is it that these issues are not up for consideration in this attack on same-sex couples raising children?

Most of us who raise children know there is no right way to raise a child. We know that we have to continuously change our approach, evaluate what we're doing and why, re-evaluate what we're doing and why, change our approach again.... And even then, if we wake up on the wrong side of the bed, or our child wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, we might just have to toss it all out the window and find something new. Or maybe we'll just screw it up for a moment, or a day, and try again tomorrow.

And then, we have to start all over again during the next stage of our child's development because again, what used to work probably isn't going to work the same way now that our child is maturing and learning and developing.

Most of us also realize that no two parents are the same. Even when two parents in a household are basically on the same parenting philosophy page, one parent will handle a situation in their own unique way because of their particular personality, and the other parent will handle the same situation slightly differently.

And most of us realize that no one is perfect. There is no "perfect" way to parent a child. There are numerous ways to approach a common goal - raising a child - and just because I might approach it one way, doesn't mean there aren't many other excellent ways to approach it.

Most of us further realize as parents that we will have absolutely no clue how well we've done for years. And honestly, some of us may never really know how successful we were as parents.

And so, given these realities about parenting and what it takes to be a "good" parent, how can the definition of parent be reduced to the simple formula, mom plus dad equals happy child?

Sure, gay and lesbian parents may or may not hear their children ask about where their mom/dad is. But kids routinely ask about things they are curious about. And kids routinely ask *for* things they don't have.

And certainly single parents get these questions as well. But they're not being attacked in the same manner as gay and lesbian parents are. So what's the deal? Homophobia it seems ....

Jackson's parents responded by talking to him about the female figures in his life. Jackson's response - "Ok." Will he ask again at a later date? Maybe. And his parents will probably address it in a similar, age-appropriate manner, as many parents do when their children ask questions about anything.

Some gay and lesbian parents will address their family makeup as their children ask questions. Some gay and lesbian parents will address their family makeup well before the questions surface.

But all parents do this - no matter what the topic. Sometimes parents prepare their children ahead of time and sometimes they wait until the questions surface. Certainly gay and lesbian parents are well within the norm on this issue.

And the reality is, there isn't a normal family anymore. The "normal" family is like a rainbow - full of different colors and expanding and contracting depending on where it begins and where it ends. And tomorrow it looks completely different.

Normal is abnormal. Every family has something different - some alternative configuration. *That* is normal. So what's the big deal?

Does this mean a gay couple can't be successful without a mom in the picture? Does this mean a lesbian couple can't be successful without a dad in the picture?

Maybe we should be asking this in response, "Why is it so many heterosexual couples aren't successful when there is a mom and a dad in the home?"

We're kind of partial to this part of the story, "We're not moms, we're not heterosexual. We're not biological parents," Rob Calhoun said. But "we're totally equal and just as loving as female parents, as straight parents, and biological parents." "Love makes a family, not biology or gender," he added.

Now doesn't that just about sum it up?

(Please do not misunderstand the point here - We are NOT trying to define a "good" parent. We are simply trying to point out that doing so is quite probably impossible, and certainly we believe any definition should be inclusive of all family units - LGBT, opposite-sex, coupled, not, etc. The closest any parent can get is to do the best they can with good intentions, evaluating their methods continuously, seeking help and guidance when needed, and love and guide their children into adulthood. Obviously this implies that techniques employed by parents do not include abuse of any kind.)

Gay Kiss Blacked out of Newark Yearbook - Hetero Kisses Left Alone

Staff and Administration at East Side High School in Newark, NJ, took the "liberty" of blacking out the above picture in every high school yearbook before distributing them to students.

Teachers sat in one room with markers, blacking out the picture, while students lined up in an adjacent room waiting to pick up their copy of the yearbook.

Superintendent of Schools, Marion Bolden, claimed the picture was "illicit" and provocative. The picture was brought to her attention by Assistant Superintendent, Russell Garris, who oversees the high schools in the district. Garris was concerned the picture "might upset parents."

Bolden, Garris, and other officials at the school, seem to have missed the other "illicit" and provocative pictures displayed in the yearbook - you know, the heterosexual ones. In fact, had staff turned just one more page further in the yearbook, they would have seen precisely this. (Unfortunately, I have not been able to capture a still copy of the heterosexual kissing photos. Please view the Fox News video coverage of this story for pictures.)

Bolden, Superintendent of the Newark Public School District, claims there will be an investigation into who approved the final version of the yearbook, prior to printing.

This is an interesting stance for Bolden, considering the Mission Statement on the District's website claims, "The Newark Public Schools recognize that each child is a unique individual.... We further recognize that each child can only be successful when we acknowledge all aspects of that child’s life...."

Launching an investigation into who approved a picture of two young men kissing does not seem consistent with the claim that the District recognizes the "uniqueness" of each of their students. Nor does allowing heterosexual kissing pictures to remain in the yearbook while blacking out a homosexual couple kissing seem like an "acknowledgment" of this aspect of this couple's life, and denying the display of the picture doesn't seem like promotion of success for this couple. In fact, the act of blacking out the picture sends a message of quite the opposite - East Side High School and the Newark Public School District will not acknowledge homosexuals and will not promote any homosexual student's success.

The East Side High School website makes similar claims as the Newark District website. From their information page, "Our citizenry is a divergent mixture of people and cultures from around the world that makes East Side High School a place for all students to excel and thrive." And part of their mission statement, "We are concerned for the welfare of each individual." Apparently "all students" does not apply to homosexuals; and apparently a student's welfare isn't of concern if they're gay.

While Bolden previously claimed she was going to launch an investigation to find the party responsible for allowing the inclusion of this "illicit" picture in the yearbook, she has just released a public apology; and now she's singing a different tune. In her apology, she claims the picture was, in part, blacked out due to confusion as to whether the boy who purchased the page for the yearbook was actually a student at the high school.

Come on. Do you think we're actually that stupid? If that was truly part of the motivation for blacking out one picture among a series of pictures on this boy's page, then why didn't you insist the stagg black out the entire page prior to distributing the yearbook to students? I mean seriously....

The District claims it will reissue an "un-redacted" version of the yearbook to any student who wants one.

Well that's just famous of you. If you really want to rectify this situation, send each and every family who received a yearbook two versions of the yearbook - one with all the heterosexual kissing pictures blacked out (leaving the gay couple untouched) and one with no pictures blacked out. Or better yet, send them three versions - the 3rd with all kissing pictures blacked out. Let the families decide which version they want to keep.

Or maybe you should put some funding into anti-discrimination classes for your staff and administration. Maybe then the entire district, Assistant Superintendents included, can be consistent with the District Mission statement claims of recognizing the diversity and difference in all their students.

Minor Lesbian Girls Get Kicked Off Bus

On June 8, two teenage girls were kicked off a public bus for kissing. The bus driver called the girls "sickos" and allegedly smacked one of the girls.

The teenage girls who are 14 years old, were on their way to the Sexual Minority Youth Resource Center.

The Youth Resource Center states they have been "[c]reating safety and support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQQ) youth in Oregon since 1998, through youth empowerment, community building, education and direct services."

A quote from a minor on their website talks about the impact SMYRC has had on their life. "SMYRC has given me a safe place where I can go, not having to worry about people calling me names or telling me that who I am is wrong. In all honesty, SMYRC has saved my life."

But apparently getting to SMYRC is a little more challenging for some.

The TriMet bus line in Portland, Oregon, regularly transports youth passengers to the Rec Center. One of the teenagers involved in the incident relies on the TriMet system to transport her to and from school on a daily basis.

The TriMet policy, according to a spokesperson, is to never eject minors and other vulnerable persons from the bus.

On June 20th, The Advocate reported the TriMet transit officials issued a formal apology to the teenagers and their families.

The driver is being held "responsible" - although TriMet policy forbids public disclosure of any disciplinary actions.

Quiz on Family Values

Feature: Quiz on Family Values at Cafe Press

1) Who brings babies into this world unplanned and unwanted?

2) Whose children are filling up our foster care system?

3) Who models more hate and discrimination to their children?

Hint: It's not the homosexuals

Our Family Values products are our number one seller at Cafe Press. We invite you to take a look at this and all of our products.


http://www.cafepress.com/wearefamilytoo

Matthew Shepard Act

Did you know that one in six hate crimes are motivated by the victim's sexual orientation, and yet today's federal laws don't include any protections for these Americans?

What's even more outrageous is that the radical right is running an all-out campaign to stop Congress from expanding hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity - something three out of four Americans support.

The Human Rights Campaign is asking all of us to contact our Senators and urge them to pass this important legislation!

http://www.hrcactioncenter.org/campaign/matthew_shepard

Opus Comic - Davie Dinkle has Two Moms

Berkeley Breathed's nationally sindicated comic strip, OPUS, is causing quite a controversy amongst various advocacy groups.

The strip depicts two young boys talking about Davie Dinkle, a third grader, who has two moms. One of the boys questions how Davie will fare with no male role models in the home as one of the boys' father throws the tv out the window, yelling and screaming at the baseball game he's been watching, as the tv smashes on the porch next to the boys.

The strip's message that fathers are essentially useless in raising children, at least this is how the Father's Rights Movement has interpreted the strip, has prompted some heated debate on the subject. Another view of this portrayal of a father figure could be the presence of a father in the home is not such a big loss.

But either way, the emphasis of a lesbian family raising children seems to have gotten lost.

Father's Rights Groups and other advocates sympathetic to fathers are criticizing the strip's message that fathers are useless in raising children.

Gay Rights Advocates are promoting the strip's message that lesbian families are raising children and criticizing the focus the strip seems to have taken - the status of fathers in childrearing.

And the Religious Right is just flat out bashing the concept of gay parenting.

Those of us who raise children in the context of lesbian and gay households know that children raised in a loving home with appropriate boundaries and limits, with teachings including right from wrong among other things, and teachings lacking hate and discrimination among other things, are environments where children thrive.

Similarly, we know that just because our children are raised by two moms or two dads, doesn't mean there aren't strong male or female role models in our childrens' lives.

We also know that there are entirely too many variables to say that any single family constellation, any single parenting style, and single educational environment, and single (you choose) is *the* best environment for any or every child.

Here's the part that's confusing. Why is it a bad thing when two people want to raise a child together. Or, alternatively, why should a parent / parent figure be excluded from a child's life simply because someone wants to exclude them?

This comic strip depicts a reality for some children - some families have two moms; some families have fathers who watch sports, drink beer, smoke cigars and get angry at the tv. Sure, this strip puts fathers in a negative light as every other group of people, minority or otherwise, has been shed in some negative light at some other point in time. That's not to say any of these depictions are correct, or that any of these groups *should* be depicted in a negative light ... it's just a reality.

Is it a reality that fathers often get shafted? Absolutely. Fathers are typically depicted as uninvolved or absent. They generally end up marginalized in their child's lives, even when they want quite the opposite.

No matter whether you think this strip is funny, or you hate it, or you don't really care one way or another, there are collective truths this controversy seems to be ignoring:

• Some children live in homes where fathers are present and uninvolved.
• Some children live in homes where mothers are present and uninvolved.
• Some children live in homes where fathers are present and involved.
• Some children live in homes where mothers are present and involved.
• Some children live in homes where fathers are absent.
• Some children live in homes where mothers are absent.
• Some children live with two moms.
• Some children live with two dads.
• Some children live with numerous family members.
• Some children live with no parents at all.
• Some children live in environments where there is no love.
• Some children live in environments where there is an abundance of love.
• Some children live in environments where [you fill in the blank]. (Quite honestly this list could go on endlessly, which happens to be the point ....)

The point of the controversy shouldn't be about who the strip is focused on; or who is being portrayed as good or evil. Or who is "better" able to raise children.

There are entirely too many variables affecting the outcome of childrearing to generalize and point to one variable as *the* reason children are or are not successful in life.

Some children grow up to be productive members of society - happy and healthy - whether that is attributable to their home environment, some outside influence, or a combination of the two.

Some children grow up miserable, unproductive and unhappy - whether attributable to their home environment, some outside influence, or a combination of the two.

What is glaringly missing in all the focus on whether someone is being slighted or someone else is being portrayed in a positive light, is a focus on obliterating the anger and hatred so prevalent in our society.

Children don't need to be taught to hate.

Children need to learn acceptance.

People need to learn acceptance.

Until we as a society learn to accept people for who they are, and accept that people are different from us and may have different ideas and opinions, comics and similar messages such as this OPUS strip will continue to be disseminated. People will continue to fight over comics and similar messages such as this. And things will remain the same.

4EQLTY

Check out our 4EQLTY products at Cafe Press!

Is PA Really Making a Moral Statement on their License Plates?

I was on my way to pick my son up from school the other day when I noticed the license plate on the car in front of me. Now I don't know, maybe it's just me, but this plate really looks like Pennsylvania is taking a stand on the Right to Life (or the Right to Choose... depending on how you see it). More on this "choice" in a minute.

I did a quick search on the specialty license plates available in Pennsylvania. There are quite a few Special Organizational License Plates available in Pennsylvania - but notice, I said, "Special Organizational." At least that's how PennDOT labels these plates on their website.

There are nearly 170 such "Special Organizational" plates available for purchase. Some of these organizations are colleges such as Temple University, Arcadia University (my alma mater), and Lehigh University. Then there are such "Special Organizations" such as the Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve, the American Legion and the Carpenters Union. There are Fire Companies, the Harley Owners Group, the Autism Society of America, and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. And yes, there is even Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania, an organization listed as such with the state of Pennsylvania.

Out of all the "Special Organizations" listed, only one license plate is not associated with a specific "Organization" - the PA Choose Life plate.

PennDOT tells us we should contact our "Special Organization" to find out how we can order our "Special Organizational License Plate." So, theoretically, if I *wanted* to get my hands on a "PA Choose Life" license plate, how would I go about doing so?

If I want a plate with the 4H Club on it, I'll call the National 4-H Council. If I want a plate with the Ruffed Grouse Society on it, I'll call the Ruffed Grouse National Wildlife Conservation Society.

It would seem to me that a "Special Organizational" plate would have some indication as to the organization associated with the special plate.

But this particular Pennsylvania License Plate isn't about supporting an organization like the other 166 license plates listed on their site. This plate is about making a statement - a statement aligned with a particular (conservative, radical right wing motivated) ethical stance.

And it's a veiled statement at that.

What is the statement "Choose Life" really saying? Is this a statement for choice, or is this a statement against choice? Or is it neither?

My personal opinion is (and I'll know for sure once I get a response from PennDOT on who I need to contact to get one of these license plates) this is a Right Wing Extremist Agenda, blurring the lines of separation of Church and State, trying yet again to hide their rhetoric of hate in a Politically (in)Correct, highly visible, and highly public manner.

I wonder if Edward G. Rendell, Governor, is actually aware that Pennsylvania is taking this ethical stance in such a public way ....

Update: I received a response from PennDOT in reference to my query about the PA Choose Life plate. I still don't know what "organization" the plate is associated with. But now I have a name and number to contact someone about the plate ....

Marriage Rights - Do We Really Need Them?

I have been involved in numerous conversations related to the Benefits of Marriage. People often ask me why LGBT couples would actually want the right to get married. I suppose to straight people, and maybe to our society in general, marriage seems like a commitment between two people, one accompanied by a piece of paper, which really amounts to not much more than that - a formal commitment and a piece of paper.

And so I suppose the push-back I've heard on the issue of Gay Marriage stems from a lack of understanding of rights provided to couples through the Institution of Marriage.

Afterall, gay and lesbian couples can have a formal commitment ceremony. So what's the big deal about the piece of paper?

Recently someone asked me for a list of the benefits marriage affords to straight couples. In the recesses of my brain, I seemed to remember hearing there were some 100 benefits afforded to married people. After a quick search, I found out I was WAY wrong.

There aren't 100 or so benefits of marriage ....

There are nearly 1500 benefits!!!

In 1996, there were more than a thousand federal laws in which a couple's marital status would provide them with benefits, rights or privileges not accessible to unmarried couples.

Each state provides another 400+ benefits, rights and privileges to married couples.

So can same-sex couples live without marriage benefits? Sure. But it seems a little unfair to reserve those 1500 benefits, rights and privileges just for straight people, don't you think?

Coming out...pregnant

Coming out has never really been an issue for me. Sure there have been times I have hesitated, then wondered if and how it would affect the relationship with the person I just told. For many people, there is always the choice of when to come out, and to whom. I am learning pregnancy adds a whole new dimension to coming out. Whether I want to share my news or not, people will soon notice my pregnancy and start asking questions. What will I say, and how will they react?

Soon the women in my pilates and yoga classes at the YMCA are going to take note and most likely ask me why I have not yet shared my good news. Will they still put my mat out for me before I arrive for class? Will they still refer their children to my clutter and organization workshops?

Soon our 75 and 85 yr. old neighbors are going to wonder about my protruding belly and ask "how did THAT happen?" Will they still call every chance they get to see what our dogs are doing.....to thank us for taking out their trash.....to ask when we are going to bring they pups over again for a visit?

Soon my clients will notice. They may already know I am a lesbian, they may not. What will they ask and how much will I share? Will they join me in my excitement? Or will I lose a client to homophobia?

For anyone in my life who has wondered, but with whom I have never actually "come out," my pregnancy could either strengthen our relationships ~or~ be what breaks it apart. Their choice.

To laugh - or not?

To a gay person at first glance, these are funny. But should we be laughing?

• If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in sick to work: "Hello. Can't work today, still queer." ~ Robin Tyler
• I'd rather be black than gay because when you're black you don't have to tell your mother. ~ Charles Pierce
• "Dear Abby," In response to a reader who complained that a gay couple was moving in across the street and wanted to know what he could do to improve the quality of the neighborhood. She replied, 'You could move.' ~ Abigail Van Buren.
• The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft, we can all declare we are homosexual instead of running off to Canada. ~ Lorne Bloch
• Why can't they have gay people in the army? Personally, I think they are just afraid of a thousand guys with M16s going, "Who'd you call a faggot?" ~ Jon Stewart
• My lesbianism is an act of Christian charity. All those women out there praying for a man, and I'm giving them my share. ~ Rita Mae Brown
• Soldiers who are not afraid of guns, bombs, capture, torture or death say they are afraid of homosexuals. Clearly we should not be used as soldiers; we should be used as weapons. ~ Letter to the Editor, The Advocate
• You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to> be able to shoot straight. ~ Barry Goldwater
• Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands? ~ Ernest Gaines
• My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror. ~ W. Somerset Maugham
• Drag is when a man wears everything a lesbian won't. ~ Author Unknown
• If male homosexuals are called "gay," then female homosexuals should be called "ecstatic." ~ Shelly Roberts
• My mother took me to a psychiatrist when I was fifteen because she thought I was a latent homosexual. There was nothing latent about it. ~ Amanda Bearse
• It always seemed to me a bit pointless to disapprove of homosexuality. It's like disapproving of rain.... ~ Francis Maude
• The only queer people are those who don't love anybody.... ~ Rita Mae Brown
• The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision. ~ Lynn Lavner
• If Michelangelo had been straight, the Sistine Chapel would have been wallpapered. ~Robin Tyler
• Pronouns make it hard to keep our sexual orientation a secret when our co-workers ask us about our weekend. "I had a great time with... them." Great! Now they don't think you're queer - just a big slut! ~Judy Carter

NJ Couples Get Married ... Well sort of ...

Couples were finally able to legally commit to each other in NJ this week. In the wee hours of the morning on Monday, February 19, 2007, couples across the state applied for civil union licenses. Some mayors opened their doors at midnight Sunday night / Monday morning to receive the applications.

Like all applications for marriage in the state, those applying for civil unions had to wait the mandatory 72 hours before tying the knot. Couples who were previously married in another state were automatically recognized in NJ and, if they choose to have a ceremony in NJ, would not have to wait the mandatory 72 hours.

At 12:01a.m. on Thursday, February 22, 2007, in Lambertville, NJ, Beth Asaro and Joanne Schailey were joined in civil union by Mayor David DelVecchio. Other ceremonies were performed in Asbury Park and South Orange.

Not all residents, however, will be able to have a ceremony in their home town. Some mayors are refusing to perform the ceremonies. DelVecchio, however, welcomes them. He has received applications from at least 25 couples from municipalities outside of Lambertville. Applications for licenses have also been received in Bernards, Clinton Town, Clinton Township, Collingswood, Hillsborough, Raritan Borough, Readington and South Plainfield.

Other states have similar laws legalizing same-sex unions. Like New Jersey, Connecticut and Vermont have civil unions, California has legalized domestic partnership, and only one state, Massachusetts, gives same-sex couples the right to marry.

While civil unions give same-sex couples many of the same rights as heterosexual couples, it still doesn't give couples all of the same rights. Among the many rights now conferred to same-sex couples, civil union provides couples the right to adopt, child custody rights, visitation of a partner who is hospitalized, the ability to make medical decisions and the same access to health insurance coverage employers offer spouses of employees. Partners who have been joined in civil union now also have the right not to testify against their partner in court. But because the federal government and most states do not recognize same-sex unions, partners are not able to receive Social Security benefits.

New Jersey will allow non-residents to apply for civil union licenses. However, if couples return to their home state where the unions are not recognized, they will not receive the benefits of the union.

Evil Is ....

Heard an interesting quote today ....

Evil is not a Cultural Condition ... it's a Human Condition.

Discrimination is ....

people who think they have a say over what other people do

people who want to deny rights from other people ... because they can't think about anything but themselves ... their "beliefs" ... their supposed "morals" ... their delusions

people who LIE about other people just because they think they're better than other people because all they can think about is themselves (see above)

people who think THEY make the rules ... when really it's just their delusion talking

people who lie TO other people to put people down ... control them ... take rights away from them ... humiliate them ... desecrate them ... because all they can think about is themselves (again, see above)

people who think it's actually OK to have different rules depending on who/what you are ... simply because they decided they can make the rules regardless of anyone else because they can only think about themselves (never mind, you know to see above)

people who lie to themselves ... others ... the world ... and cheat themselves ... others ... the world ... in order to get around the system (yes, we know you do ... and we can prove it ;) - feeling a little ... paranoid? "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean ...")

change is inevitable. change sucks. but without it we end up ignorant, anger-filled bigots who think the world exists to revolve around us.

move on people. please. welcome to reality.

NJ Elementary School Shows Video Depicting Gay Families - Parents Get Nasty

There is a huge controversy going on in Evesham, NJ right now. Turns out the school district decided to show the award-winning film, That's a Family!, to 3rd graders. The film was intended to be part of the District's commitment to diversity, which includes showing diverse families as part of their mission to be inclusive of all children in the district. It has, however, turned into displays of bad behavior and, frankly, a lot of intolerance on the parts of many parents in the district.

First we need to be really clear - we have not viewed the film in question. We have reviewed articles and various commentary on the subject. Our views are based on what we have read and clips we have seen of the video.

The School District released a comment on its website which states in part, "...the video does not discuss marriage or advocate any particular lifestyle. As part of our Health curriculum, the Evesham Township School District does include teaching of the many varieties of families that represent our community. The concept is taught from the perspective of accepting and respecting all of our children. Its main focus is to encourage children to understand the diversity of family backgrounds, and to note that the roles and responsibilities in families are similar. This unit aligns our curriculum with the state of New Jersey's Core Curriculum Content Standards in Comprehensive Health and Physical Education."

But apparently, parents have missed the point. While many types of families were depicted in the film, it's the lesbian and gay families that have caused quite a stir in the community and seems to have landed the District smack-dab in the middle of a national debate on the issue of same-sex marriage.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported earlier this week that after parents viewed the video, the ensuing four-hour meeting "frequently erupted into shouting, accusations and name-calling." According to first-hand accounts of parents who attended the meeting, the general feeling was the same - parents behaved badly, were acting as poor role-models for their children and epitomized the need for such a video to be shown.