The Gaytheist Agenda

Oklahoma has joined Texas and several other states in the dumbing down of the nation’s students. Our schools are already overburdened and underfunded. But now they’ll have to deal with students squabbling over religion and being bullied by religious zealots who insist on “converting” them to save their immortal souls. Worse yet, is what the bill will mean for the status of education itself.

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

So why have tests at all? Might as well just have each student offer their opinions as to what, why and where things are. That would be as valid as anything else under this bill. After all, considering the constraints teachers will now be under they dare not challenge anything a student puts down as an answer or the student could easily come back and claim “religious discrimination”.

If a student chose to take his opportunity to speak to a group of students in a school-sanctioned assembly to tell them they must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or go to hell, then that student would have a right to do so, according to this bill. Especially, but not only if the student held a position of honor and authority (class officer, team captain), and was speaking in his or her official capacity, the school has clearly established religion in violation of both the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.

Wonderful. Enter all of the evangelists screaming about how the LGBT students, atheists, Muslims, etc, are going to hell, because the Bible says so. Expect the bullying and hate-crime rates to escalate any time now.

The same would be true if the student chose to tell the assembled students that they would not go to hell, that there is no hell and that those who promote belief in hell are liars. What if a Wiccan student chose to tell the assembled students that the only true God is Nature, or a member of a radical religious sect advocated assassination in order to preserve God’s will? According to this bill, those students would be free, in a forum supported by the school, to do so. Any or all of these scenarios would lead to lawsuits.

That would be classified by the Christians as “persecution”, of course, as it always is. Funny how when they cram their beliefs down the throats of other people its “speaking the truth” but when others reject them or speak their own beliefs its “persecution”.

The consequence of the bill will be to create havoc and promote discord in the public schools. That’s already happening in Texas, where the bill has been law for several months. Denton, Texas Independent School District, responding to the law, has decreed that no students may ever speak in assembly, to graduation, to the crowd at an athletic event or in other group function. As reported in The Denton Record Chronicle Sept. 1, the superintendent there said if no students are ever allowed to speak, then there will be no discrimination and no basis for lawsuits. Another school superintendent in Texas said, “… we’re just trying to have school, and I think this is a complicating factor” as reported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that has spoken out against the bill.

So they’ve already discovered by experience in Texas that this insane law doesn’t work, yet it’s still being attempted in Oklahoma? Why do the legislators in Oklahoma think the results in Oklahoma will be any different? I can safely say it’s not bloody likely.

This is a foolish bill that will result in chaos, injustices, bullying and a serious downturn in the quality of education. Particularly since it has been proven faulty in another state it’s foolish to try it in Oklahoma. If parents want to send their children to a religious school they have that right. Otherwise the best option for everyone is a secular school where all rights are respected and religion is kept strictly out of the equation.

When it comes to laws designed to protect certain groups of people, laws that protect religious people are good, while laws that protect LGBT people are bad. At least in the eyes of religious people. The worst thing is that they don’t see the inherent disconnect and bigotry in fighting against laws that protect us while supporting similar laws that protect them. Take this, for example.

ACLU Urges House Committee to Fix Flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (2/12/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (202) 675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today called on the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions subcommittee of the House Education & Labor Committee to fix the flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). As written in the 110th Congress, the legislation threatens the personal and civil rights of religious and racial minorities, women, LGBT individuals, and persons seeking reproductive health care.

The stated goal of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act is to revise and strengthen existing requirements on employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. However, the current language may have a much broader impact than intended, permitting employees to claim that they do not have to comply with state or local civil rights laws.

The current WRFA would strengthen the hand of police officers who want to pick and choose who they will protect, as well as emergency health care workers and mental health counselors who could abandon patients because their care conflicts with the worker’s religious beliefs. This legislation would make it significantly harder to get health or safety information or services. Employees would be even more likely to claim that their religion prohibits them from providing contraceptive care or HIV prevention counseling – even if the employer has no one else to provide those services. In most cases, the courts have correctly rejected these claims. The current WRFA language, however, is designed to protect these individual’s dangerous actions.

Said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would allow employees, for the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1967, to use civil rights as a weapon against others. Passing this bill without the needed fixes will jeopardize not only our rights, but also our public safety and access to health care. Civil rights protections are meant to be a shield, not a sword.

“Congress can, and should, pass legislation tightly focused on strengthening federal requirements that employers accommodate workplace scheduling changes so employees can observe religious holidays, or permit them to wear religious clothing, beards or hairstyles. These two areas account for nearly three-fourths of all the religious accommodation claims rejected by federal courts in the past 25 years. A narrowly tailored bill could address these issues without any of the completely avoidable harm the WRFA could cause if passed as written.”

It seems that legislation that is vague and allows for personal bigotries to cause discrimination and harm to others, such as LGBTs, atheists and people who are not of the same faith of the practitioner, is acceptable to some. Yet many people are fighting against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, claiming that it would violate their “deeply held religious beliefs” and force them to hire LGBT people against the tenets of their religion. Strange they continue to think their rights (to arbitrarily discriminate in the name of their chosen religion) are so much more important than ours (to have equal Human and Civil Rights) .

I don’t by any means support discrimination against people who are religious. At the same time people cannot think they can use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others. Rights must be provided equally and fairly, or else our nation is a failure.

A teacher at Capistrano Valley High School is the defendant in a lawsuit alleging he has made numerous anti-Christian statements to students.

Chad Farnan, a sophomore at Capistrano Valley High School, claims his Advanced Placement European history teacher, James Corbett, made hostile remarks toward Christianity. The Christian student cites an incident from last December when Corbett stated that conservatives do not want women to avoid pregnancies because that interferes with God’s work. In another statement, recorded by Farnan, the teacher claimed that when people put on their “Jesus glasses,” they cannot see the truth.

Jennifer Monk is with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is representing Farnan. She agrees with the judge who denied the school’s motion to dismiss the case. “At stake really is a Christian student’s rights to go to public school and be able to express their faith and hold their faith without being discriminated against in the classroom,” she argues.

…..

“These are anti-Christian diatribes by this teacher pretty much almost every day in class,” says the attorney. In addition to the comments about “Jesus glasses,” says Monk, “he’s said things like ‘Aristotle argued that there has to be a god. Of course, that’s nonsense.’”

Here’s where we have the problematic issue and the seeming double standard. Christians want to speak their mind about what they see as the truth in class, but they don’t want opposing views presented to them–that’s always “persecution”. Funny how if they say gays or atheists are evil, that’s “the truth”, but if someone says Christianity is false or a fairy tale–that being something they truly believe–then that is considered anti-Christian persecution. Sorry, but you guys can’t have it both ways.

Now of course I support this lawsuit as I do the lawsuits of those who go to court over religious people preaching hatred in schools towards LGBT people or those of other religions. I just wanted to point this case out so maybe some believers might just understand where we’re coming from when we demand they stop pushing their anti-LGBT, anti-atheist, ant-Islam, anti-Jewish, etc. opinions on us. If we’re to be tolerant of you, you must offer the same courtesy to us.

It appears the Tangipahoa Parish School Board takes a long time to learn it’s lessons, because the ACLU is in the process of suing them for the seventh time for violating the civil rights of students.

In the 1990s, the ACLU sued the board on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs who were upset over prayer policies in the schools. Parents complained that youngsters were routinely pressured to take part in prayers at football games and other school events. In one case, a football coach instructed the players to bow their heads, touch someone nearby and recite the Lord’s Prayer.

The ACLU won that case. A few years later, the board got the bright idea to paste a disclaimer in its science books, warning the kids about evolution. The board lost that one, too.

Now the board is back in court again. This time, the issue is prayer before board meetings. In August 2007, the board adopted a policy stating that clergy from “religious congregations with an established presence in the local community” will be invited to give invocations prior to school board meetings. The board president gets to decide who makes the cut, essentially giving him veto power over the prayers.

“Yet again the Tangipahoa Parish School Board has indicated that it favors some residents over others, and would rather waste taxpayer money on litigation than follow the law,” Marjorie R. Esman, Executive Director of the ACLU Foundation of Louisiana, said in a press release. “The Constitution does not permit school boards to endorse or promote religion, because the government must remain neutral to religion. The Tangipahoa Parish School Board is well aware of this bedrock legal principle, but chooses to flout the law rather than to obey it.”

This new lawsuit marks the seventh time the ACLU has sued the Tangipahoa board. Many of the lawsuits have been filed on behalf of anonymous plaintiffs. They fear reprisal if their names were made public…

Many of the plaintiffs have remained anonymous fearing reprisal, yet it’s always RW Christians crying “persecution”. This school board has been sued six times previously for illegally imposing Christianity on students, yet it’s always RW Christians crying “persecution”. It’s obvious that RW Christians have no real concept of the word persecution. I also have the sneaking suspicion that the ACLU is not yet done with the Tangipahoa Parish School Board.

And much like Tennessee, they’re willing to screw unmarried straight couples in order to discriminate against gay couples.

A bill in the Mississippi state Senate would bar cohabiting unmarried couples, including gay and lesbian couples, from adopting children.

The proposed law is an effort to close a loophole that allows gay couples to adopt. WLBT-TV in Jackson, Miss., reports that the state’s department of human services has 533 children in its custody who are eligible for adoption. Current guidelines for a prospective adoptive parent are that he or she must be either single — sexual orientation is not mentioned — or married for at least two years, 21 years old and have sufficient income and insurance to care for a child.

“We’re talking about taking a child and putting them into an environment where they are taught habits and exposed to lifestyles that are clearly detrimental to the child,” state Rep. Phillip Gunn told WLBT in reference to adoption by gay couples.

Gunn said, however, he does not want to prevent singles from adopting. “Obviously there are a lot of single people out there with a lot of love to give an adoptive child, and we certainly don’t want to prohibit that, and that is not a bad way to raise a child,” he continued.

Here we have the typical convoluted RRRW argument against adoption by gay couples. The children will be exposed to harmful things with a committed gay couple that they wouldn’t be exposed to in another environment. This necessitates that they conveniently ignore several crucial arguments they typically make when clamoring for the welfare of children. It also requires that they ignore the very research they like to cite, in distorted form, against same-sex marriage and adoption as evidence that “children are better off with a mother and a father”.

Gunn’s argument that children placed with same-sex cohabitating couples will be “taught habits and exposed to lifestyles that are clearly detrimental to the child” is nothing but bigoted propaganda. He is preying on stereotypes and bigotries that suggest gays/lesbians are predators and engage in bizarre behaviors. He wants people to envision innocent children being made to watch their adoptive parents play wild sex games with each other in the middle of the living room. If he knew how ordinary and mundane the average gay couple’s life was he would know he doesn’t have a leg to stand on with that argument.

To make matters worse, his argument assumes that all married heterosexual couples are, by virtue of the fact that they are heterosexual, living lifestyles that are in no way detrimental to children. The many children abused by their heterosexual adoptive parents would be among those to disagree. (Of course Poisonous Parents come in all varieties, not just the adoptive kind.)

Gunn’s argument further breaks down with his assumption that because a gay person is not living with another gay person, they will not be “exposing the child(ren) to” that stereotypical lifestyle. It appears Gunn believes that non-cohabitating people never date or have relationships. For someone as uptight as he seems to be, I would think he’d prefer a cohabitating couple to a single person who could conceivably bring home a new date every few months, or even every few weeks. Gunn never seems to realize that the adoptive parent and any date s/he brought home would be engaging in the exact same “lifestyle” for which he harangues cohabitating couples.

Then there is the research. Studies have shown that overall it is best for children to be raised with two parents. Of course the RRRW likes to distort this to mean that children need a mother and a father, alleging that the research proving ill effects from not having a father mean children need both. What they’re not saying is that the ill effects are from the child living with a single parent (typically a single mother), and not from failure to have a parent of each gender.

Accordingly, Gunn’s claim that it is more acceptable to place children with single adoptive parents than cohabitating couples is patently false and based on nothing but bigotries. He is advocating putting children into situations that are less beneficial to them under the guise of protecting them from dangers that don’t actually exist.

Finally, does Gunn truly believe that children would be better off languishing in foster care, state homes or other alternative care environments just to keep them away from cohabitating gay couples and–in the case of this law–cohabitating straight couples? Does Mississippi have so much money that it can continue to provide for the children who will be left without parents should his hateful bill become law?

I hope the powers that be in Mississippi have more sense and less homophobia than Gunn. I also hope that they care more about the children than they do about punishing gay people.

More than once when a L, G, B and/or T individual has stated that they are or are not voting for a particular politician because of his/her stance on some LGBT policy the cry goes out, “How can you be such a One Issue Voter?”. Of course it’s usually the case that the individual is not voting solely because of the politician’s stance on the LGBT policy, but also because of other issues as well and is mentioning only the LGBT issue at the time. But, that aside, it’s important for everybody to realize that LGBT concerns are in no way “one issue”, so voting based on them can in no way make a person a “One Issue Voter”. Allow me to break it down for you.

 
Marriage

 
Marriage in and of itself is not one issue as it provides couples so many rights and carries so many responsibilities. It also affects any children the couples may have, thereby having broader scope than just the couple themselves. However it is largely unavailable to same-sex couples.

Same-sex couples are currently allowed to legally marry in only one state, Massachusetts. Although they are granted the same rights and benefits as other married couples under state law, they are not granted any of the more than 1100 rights and responsibilities granted to married couples by the federal government. Furthermore, their marriages are not recognized as legal outside of MA, so if they travel to another state or move their rights are in jeopardy.

Five states, CA, CT, NH, NJ, and VT, offer Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships for same-sex couples. These unions offer ostensibly identical benefits and obligations to those of civil marriage in their states, but again none of the federal benefits of marriage. However it has been discovered repeatedly that the DPs/CUs fall short of their promises as they don’t actually provide the benefits they are supposed to. Employers, agencies, families and others have worked to avoid providing benefits to same-sex couples under DPs/CUs claiming that they’re not obligated to do so as the unions are not marriages. Hence the need for same-sex couples to have federally recognized legal marriage rather than the Colored Only drinking fountain of the 21st century known as DPs/CUs.

 
Four states (HI, ME, OR and WA) and DC offer DPs/CUs that offer portions of the rights enjoyed by married couples in their regions. Again, these unions are fraught with the same limitations as the others, in that they’re dependent upon others to comply with their stipulations and many try to get around them since they are not marriages.

Twenty six states have constitutional amendments that ban same-sex marriage outright, marking the first time in history that amendments have been used to write discrimination into constitutions. Forty three states have statutes restricting marriage to unions between a man and a woman including a number of the states that have DPs/CUs. (Some states have both a statute and a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage).

 
For same-sex couples who cannot marry or enter into a DP/CU, they can engage the services of a lawyer and draw up a number of documents to try to ensure that they have particular rights and privileges that opposite-sex couples would normally have. However this is often a very costly and difficult process , and may be contested by any number of people in various situations. For example it is not uncommon for one partner to be denied the right to see the other or make decisions for the other in a hospital even with Power of Attorney. When a partner dies their relatives may contest their will, making it impossible for the surviving partner to collect benefits left to them. These are just a few of the many examples of the indignities same-sex couples deal with by virtue of the fact that they are treated as second-class citizens and refused the right to marry.

Adoption

 
Adoption is another way that LGBT individuals are often denied the rights their straight peers are afforded. Ten states and DC allow “second parent adoption”, the process by which a partner in a same-sex couple can adopt his/her partner’s biological child without terminating the parental rights of the biological parent.

Single-parent adoption by individuals who are gay is outlawed in Florida, though they are allowed to be foster parents. Utah law forbids cohabiting, non-married couples to adopt, and likewise prohibits same-sex marriage thereby effectively outlawing adoption by any unmarried couples regardless of sexual orientation. That’s just one of many state and local laws that harm straight people in the process of engaging in bias against LGBT individuals.

However even if the child is the biological child of an LGBT parent, there are potential difficulties. While there is substantial, legitimate, peer-studied research to indicate LGBT parents are every bit as effective and fit as other parents, they must face constant criticism and bigotry. However opponents have used faulty, distorted and outright fabricated research to make the claim that children raised by LGBT parents are at risk in various ways. Furthermore the biases of judges, social-service workers and others who make decisions about child custody can result in children being taken away from their LGBT parents based not on the actual fitness of the parent, but on their sexual orientation/gender identity.

 

Housing

 
GLBT individuals can legally be denied housing based on their sexual orientation/gender identity in most states. To date there are approximately thirteen states and numerous cities that ban housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and some include gender identity. However there is currently no federal law that does so. Therefore GLBT individuals do not have the same protections under the law in this area that other Americans currently do.

 
Employment

 
Thanks to President Bill Clinton, federal civilian LGBT employees enjoy protection from discrimination. But private-sector LGBTs are not so lucky. While twenty states, DC and 140 cities have banned discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation (some including gender identity) others still allow employers to fire, or refuse to hire, people for being LGBT. And, of course, even where anti-discrimination laws exist religious organizations and employers run by religious organizations are exempt from them.

ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, would ban discrimination against LGBT people on a nationwide basis. After numerous attempts it went through both the House and the Senate last Autumn, albeit without protections for Transgender individuals. It seems that the bigots couldn’t be convinced that they were worthy of such protections so they were dropped from the bill. It sits now in limbo, waiting for President Bush to sign or, more likely, to veto it.

Hate-Crimes Protection

 
32 states and DC have statutes that provide stronger penalties for those who engage in bias motivated crimes against people based on sexual orientation. 11 have protections for people based on gender identity. Only 16 are required, however, to collect statistics on these crimes, allowing for much valuable data to be lost.

Currently no federal legislation exists for prosecution or data collection of bias motivated crimes against LGBT people. In 2007 the Matthew Shepard Act, named for the young gay man brutally murdered in 1998, was introduced to Congress. The bill made it through the Senate, but not the House. LGBT people remain without federal hate-crimes protection and will do so indefinitely.

 

Military Service

 
On a personal level I have no interest in serving in the military. I detest the idea of killing anybody except as a last resort in self-defense. I abhor war and am a conscientious objector. Furthermore I can’t fathom why any LGBT person would put his or her life on the line to serve a country that can’t be bothered to give him/her the same rights and protections as all other citizens. Nonetheless I accept that there are indeed many LGBT individuals who wish to proudly serve in the military and are prevented from doing so by discriminatory legislation.

Previously the military simply banned gay/bisexual people from serving. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993 he had promised to allow gay people to serve openly. The resultant backlash from military leaders and the right-wing forced him to implement a compromise, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, more commonly known as DADT. Gays could ostensibly serve in the military as long as they didn’t disclose their orientation, and the military couldn’t ask. While meant as a compromise, the policy has since led to more problems than it solved as it became very much a witch-hunt.

Between 1994 and 2005 there were 11,082 service-members discharged under DADT at a cost of approximately $200 million to the United States. Myriad polls have shown that the public favors allowing gay people to serve openly. Nonetheless military leaders remain staunchly in favor of DADT and it has been upheld in federal court five times.

 
In Conclusion

 
Marriage, employment, housing, partner benefits, health care decisions, inheritance rights, our families, hate-crimes protection, military service and so much more. Far from being “one issue”, these far reaching issues affect every aspect of our lives, and some can even put our lives in the balance.

So please realize that we are never “one issue voters”, even if it appears that we are. Things are much more complex and substantial than they seem on the surface.

Addendum: A comment has arrived. Tyler says:

 

I rant, you articulate. Very well done.

Thank you very much, Tyler. Actually on my blogs I articulate. Elsewhere I’m much more prone to ranting. Thanks again for stopping by.

Many people, political candidates in particular, are fond of the “states’ rights” argument when it comes to same-sex marriage. They choose the easy way out (for themselves) by claiming that this is the fairest option for all. But it isn’t the fairest option for the LGBT people who are denied rights in any state except MA, currently the only one that allows same-sex marriage. Nor is it the fairest option for any LGBT citizen who is married and moves out of MA, for those rights are not portable. Nor have Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships proven anywhere near equal to marriage. So “states rights” is just another way of saying to LGBT citizens you don’t count.

 
Now another instance has arisen in which the utter inequality LGBT citizens experience under the law has been laid bare. And the “states’ rights” nonsense only becomes more insidious as we see how real-life couples are harmed by this notion.

(Miami, Florida) Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond had planned to take their three children on a family cruise. The Olympia, Washington couple had been together 18 years and with their children were looking forward to the holiday.

But just as they were about to depart on the cruise from Miami, Florida. Pond, a healthy 39-year-old, suddenly collapsed. She was rushed to Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami with Langbehn and the children following close behind.

But once Langbehn and the children arrived at the hospital the hospital refused to accept information from her about Ponds’s medical history.

Langbehn says she was informed that she was in an antigay city and state, and she could expect to receive no information or acknowledgment as family.

…..

Other than one five minute visit, which was orchestrated by a Catholic priest at Langbehn’s request to perform last rites, and despite the doctor’s acknowledgement that no medical reason existed to prevent visitation, neither she nor her children were allowed to see Pond until nearly eight hours after their arrival.

Soon after Pond’’s death, Langbehn tried to get her death certificate in order to get life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. She was denied both by the State of Florida and the Dade County Medical Examiner.

With the help of Lambda Legal Langbehn has notified Jackson Memorial Hospital that she intends to file a lawsuit….

No opposite-sex couple in any state would have been put through that kind of hell. But since Pond and Lagbehn were lesbians the employees in that hospital felt it was fine to deny Lagbehn and their children crucial Human and Civil Rights. This is utterly unacceptable and will not stop until we as a nation put our foot down and make it stop.

We must stand up for what is right for everybody, for all families, in all states. Never again should a partner or child be unable to be with a loved one in their last moments or make decisions on their behalf because of the insensitivities or bigotries of others. Hatred and prejudice must give way, on a national scale, to Human and Civil Rights for all.

 

As you may have read here previously, Representative Stacey Campfield (R) proposed a bill whereby elementary and middle schools in TN would be banned from teaching or discussing any form of sexuality other than heterosexuality. I’m pleased to report that his attempt failed miserably.

“I’m trying to find out where this bill came from or is it part of your re-election legislation,” an annoyed Rep. Ulysses Jones asked sponsor Rep. Stacey Campfield, a Knoxville Republican.
Advertisement

The lawmakers argued and were gaveled into silence at times when they raised their voices, and in the end, the House panel sent the bill to the State Board of Education, effectively killing the proposal.

…..

Lilith Jackson, 9, her hair highlighted in bright pink, sat on the front row at the meeting with her two moms, Audra Kelly and Ardyce Mercier.

They think teachers at her school, the Brown Academy public magnet school in Chattanooga, should be able to talk about families with two mommies or two daddies as being healthy family structures.

“They should be teaching about other kinds of relationships and families,” Kelly said. She agreed that teachers should not being talking about sexuality in terms of “who is sleeping with whom.”

…..

Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Tennessee Education Association said no Tennessee schools are promoting gay rights.

“There is not a problem here,” said Hedy Weinberg of the ACLU of Tennessee. “It is a clear attack on one community.”

…..

Campfield said he had heard complaints from two school districts but had not verified them. He went on to say that the Education Department could opt to include the topic as part of school curriculum.

“It is possible,” said Bruce Opie of the Department of Education. “But it’s highly unlikely and highly improbable.”

Campfield noted a 2006 resolution by the National Education Association saying that activities and programs must increase “acceptance” of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people.

Tennessee Education Association lobbyist Jerry Winters insisted that TEA does not advocate for gays in schools.

Campfield lost one other battle: He asked for a roll call vote on any motion. Chairman Rep. Joe Towns denied the request. It appeared the subcommittee voted along party lines, with Democrats choosing to send the bill to the Board of Education.

My take? Campfield pulled the two “complaints” out of his backside as part of his anti-gay agenda. Kudos to Rep. Jones for his refusal to tolerate Campfield’s blatantly bigoted proposal. It’s high time such hateful legislation be recognized for what it is.

California could make history by becoming the first state in the USA to have an official holiday for a gay person.

Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) has announced he will introduce a bill that would formally recognize the efforts of civil rights pioneer, Harvey Milk.

The legislation, if passed, would establish a non-fiscal state holiday in his name on the anniversary of Milk’s birth, May 22.

In 1977, when he was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors Milk became the first openly gay elected official of any large city in the United States, and only the third openly gay elected official in the nation.

Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated in San Francisco on November 27, 1978.

…..

Leno’s bill would proclaim May 22nd ‘Harvey Milk Day’ and add it to the list of state holidays, although it will be crafted in a way so as not to generate additional state costs or increase the number of paid state holidays.

‘Harvey Milk Day’ will provide a forum to raise public awareness of Milk’s work to extend basic human rights to all people and demonstrate that each one of us possesses the ability to create extraordinary change in our communities, our country and the world,” Leno said.

…..

“Harvey Milk knowingly put his safety at risk and ultimately gave his life because he believed that living as an openly gay man would help achieve true equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans,” said EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors.

This is amazing. Harvey Milk is a true hero to GLBT Americans, and having a holiday in his name would be quite inspiring. I hope the bill passes so that Milk can be honored as he should be.

Several days ago I wrote about a proposed law in TN that would prohibit discussion in elementary and middle schools of any sexual orientation other than heterosexuality. Identical bills in the TN House and Senate would prohibit unmarried cohabitating couples from adopting children–be they straight or gay. And in Florida the ACLU had to intervene when a high school repeatedly restricted student’s 1st Amendment rights to speak up for GLBT equality by deeming such behavior “disruptive”.

Again Florida is in the news, this time for a “marriage protection” amendment backed by the RRRW group Florida4Marriage. This amendment barely got the required number of signatures by the deadline, and has met with significant opposition from a wide variety of individuals and groups within the state. Why? Because it is so broadly worded that it harms not only gay people but straight people who are not married to one another. Once again the RRRW hatemongers are so virulent in their need to harm gay people and “defend” their narrow definition of marriage that they do not care who else they harm in the process.

As a broad-based coalition of state, local and national organizations, Fairness for All Families will continue to educate voters and mobilize volunteers across the state. Many of our seniors rely on domestic partnership benefits that could be taken away by the so-called “marriage” amendment. Also at stake are other basic employment and health care benefits from local governments and businesses received by thousands of families including police, firefighters and other municipal employees. Why would we take away benefits that Florida families rely on? The law should not make it harder for families to take care of their loved ones. We should strengthen, not take away family protections. It is wrong to single people out and vote on the fundamental rights of others.

They have struggled to place this on the ballot because Floridians are learning just how intrusive and harmful this amendment is for our families. We are confident that fair-minded Florida voters will vote NO at the polls in November.”

When will legislatures learn that bigotry does not belong in our laws or our constitutions? These hateful, harmful bills and amendments need to be stopped before they even get started. The only benefit to over-reaching laws such as this one in Florida is that it may wake people up to their hideous unfairness sooner than later.