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?