Are you f**king kidding me? That's a wonderful idea... Less condoms for young people! Let's not teach our kids about safe-sex? They are bound to do it, would you like them to have safe-sex or unsafe sex? You decide. Yet another waste of tax payers money going into faith-based sex education pushed by the Bushh admin.

Bush Admin Tells Parents Of Gays To Tell Their Kids To Abstain From Sex

(Washington) A new government Web site gives parents advice on how to convince their children that "abstinence is the healthiest choice." That's dictating values, say organizations ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to gay rights groups, and they want the site taken down.

But Michael Leavitt, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department, says the Web site is right on target.

The site was designed for parents who are embarrassed about talking with their children about sex, Leavitt said in a statement.

"Parents have a tremendous amount of influence on their children and we want them to talk with their teens about abstinence so that they can stay safe and healthy," he said.

Promoting abstinence is fine, said Monica Rodriguez of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, but the government should also address the needs of teenagers who are already sexually active, gay or lesbian, or who have been sexually abused.

For example, she said, the site should promote the proper use of contraceptives, and it should not imply that homosexuality is wrong by encouraging parents of gay or lesbian children to consult a therapist.

"By and large, it's a Web site that believes in abstinence until marriage," said Rodriguez, whose advocacy group promotes comprehensive sexual education. "Everything on the Web site is designed to promote that value and help parents communicate that value to their children."

Her 41-year-old organization as well as the ACLU, the National Education Association and more than 100 other advocacy groups are asking HHS to take down the Web site.

Bill Pierce, an HHS spokesman, said he was not surprised certain groups dislike the site.

"They've always opposed us on the issue of abstinence. That's fine," Pierce said. "One thing we do know about abstinence is that if you practice it, you will not have an unintended pregnancy or risk catching a sexually transmitted disease."

The site advises parents to tell their teens why they should not have sex: "Tell them abstinence is the healthiest choice. They will not have to worry about getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. They will not have to worry about sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. Nor will they have to worry that the person they are dating is only interested in them because of sex. "

And it paints a bleak picture for teens who get pregnant: "Many teen mothers never finish high school. Teen mothers and their babies are more likely to have health problems. And families started by teen mothers are more likely to be poor and end up on welfare."

For parents of teenagers already having sex, there is a section on contraception.

But Rodriguez said that section promotes unsafe sex rather than safe sex.

The site describes condoms as imperfect, saying they can break or be used incorrectly, and it includes a chart of whether a condom protects a little, some, or a lot, against various sexually transmitted diseases.

"There's this misconception that giving young people negative information about contraception will encourage them not to have sexual intercourse, when all it will do is encourage them not to have contraception, so the strategy backfires," Rodriguez said.

Patrick Fagan, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the Web site's information about condoms looked accurate.

"This is standard, straightforward research on the effectiveness of condoms," he said.

The groups protesting the Web site also contend it is biased against gays and lesbians.

The site says: "If you believe your adolescent may be gay, or is experiencing difficulties with gender identity or sexual orientation issues, consider seeing a family therapist who shares your values to clarify and work through these issues."

Rodriguez said the Web site's definition for homosexuality - "a person who prefers sexual contact with people of the same sex" - implied that being gay was a sexual preference rather than a sexual orientation.

"There's no information whatsoever for their parents other than to go talk to a therapist," she said.

Fagan, though, said the Web site would be useful for parents of gays and lesbians.

"Teenagers involved in homosexual acts ... are worth the same transmission of information on the effectiveness of condoms and on the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases," he said.

Earlier today a human rights group said Uganda's progress against AIDS is at risk because of American demands for abstinence programs.

The report, by Human Rights Watch, said Uganda's president has fallen under the influence of Christian conservatives in the United States and is now promoting abstinence more, and condoms less, among young people.

Just before signing the bill before an audience of cheering supporters in the State House Cabinet Room, the governor declared this to be a "proud day for Maine." Baldacci, who submitted the bill, says it not only "offers essential civil rights," but also "serves as a welcome."

The law, which received final House and Senate passage last night, takes effect in late June. It makes Maine the sixth and final New England state to adopt a gay rights law.

But opponents aren't giving up. The Christian Civic League of Maine plans to announce its next move -- and that could be a petition drive to send the legislation out to voters. The civic league helped to organize two previous, successful referendum campaigns to undo gay rights laws. Its online newspaper says the only way to stop the newest bill is through a "people's veto" referendum.

State lawmakers gave final approval Wednesday night to a bill to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination. It was expected to be signed Thursday by Gov. John Baldacci.

The bill would amend the Maine Human Rights Act by making it illegal to discriminate in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

"We're thrilled," said Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine, a gay and lesbian advocacy group. "We believe the democratic process of government happened here."

The state Senate approved the bill 25-10; the House voted 91-58. There was no debate in either chamber.

The measure gained ground Wednesday with agreement to an amendment addressing concerns the law would be a gateway to gay marriages.

The amendment says the law "may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry that may exist" under state or federal law.

The Christian Civic League of Maine, which has led two successful referendum efforts since 1998 to overturn legislation to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, said it would announce its next step Thursday.

Its online newspaper said Wednesday the only way to stop the bill is through a "people's veto" referendum.

Smith said her group would wage a campaign to preserve the new law.

The California judge who ruled that gay couples should be allowed to marry stayed his decision Wednesday pending the outcome of anticipated appeals.

On March 14, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled that gay couples in California can marry, and that the state's law against it was unconstitutional.

That decision was stayed automatically, but Wednesday's decision was meant to make it clear that no gay couples can get married in California until appeals have run their course. The dispute may not be settled for years.

Gloria Allred, an attorney for a Los Angeles lesbian couple who wanted to immediately marry, told the judge Wednesday that every day her clients cannot marry "is a day they are suffering irreparable harm."

Opponents of gay marriage said they immediately would appeal once Kramer finalized his ruling.

Ken Mehlman, the chair of the Republican National Committee, has finally been asked directly "the question": Are you gay?

By Chris Crain | ccrain@window-media.com

Eric Resnick of the Gay People's Chronicle reports in this week's edition that he cornered Mehlman in Akron, Ohio, on March 19 after he spoke to the Summit County Republican Party. After years of rumor and dodging the question, Mehlman's response: "[You] have asked a question people shouldn't have to answer." Mehlman further claimed that his sexual orientation, gay or straight, "changes nothing" about his leadership of the GOP.

As we reported previously, Mehlman similarly dodged the question last year when he was managing George W. Bush's re-election campaign and was asked by the Blade if any top campaign staffers are gay. Things heated up for Mehlman when GQ reported in its current edition that Steve Schmidt, who works with Mehlman at the RNC, flatly denied the rumor: "Ken Mehlman is not gay," Schmidt told ABC News' Jake Tapper, who penned the GQ article.

By refusing to answer the question, of course, Mehlman only adds fuel to the fire. History may record, at some point, its first genuinely closeted heterosexual, but they are clearly few and far between.

The Chronicle reports that Mehlman peppered his remarks to the Summit County GOP, which is ironically headed up by a married (to a woman) man outed by a local publication, with his usual veiled attacks on gay marriage and abortion rights. He also urged the party to expand its reach to include Latinos and African Americans. Asked after his speech by the Chronicle whether the GOP should widen its tent and embrace gay rights to attract lesbians and gay men, Mehlman again dodged. "The Republican Party is based on ideas. Anyone who shares those ideas is welcome."

In other Mehlman news, RawStory.com has published a "response" by editor John Byrne to my blog posting that took issue with "anonymous sources" who claim I "spiked" a Blade story that would out Mehlman. Byrne now claims that RawStory did not report, and does not believe, that I "spiked" the story, even though ConspiracyPlanet.com published the RawStory piece with a headline saying exactly that. Instead, I "thwarted" or "stifled" the story by hiding information from my own reporters. I'll leave the difference to semanticists, but the claim is rubbish however it is worded.

More interestingly, Byrne trots out as proof of a pattern in this regard that I declined an offer to investigate alleged audiotapes of a profile recorded by Congressman Ed Schrock on a phone sex line. RawStory suggests that I hid this offer from the Blade staff, as well. His only source for that claim is a former staffer who he knows was not even working at the Blade the time the offer was made. The irony here is that Byrne only knows that the Blade was offered the Schrock tapes because I told him, a fact he conveniently fails to report. Does he think I keep secrets from my staff and then blab to RawStory.com? The same goes for my own personal history with Ken Mehlman. RawStory reported the ties as if they were some secret revelations to be exposed, never informing readers that I wrote a very public editorial with the exact same information almost five months earlier.

Q & A with HRC head, Joe Solmonese.

Joe Solmonese is the incoming head of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest gay-rights group in the country.

He arrives at a time when gay-rights advocates are reevaluating their political strategy after the November passage of nearly a dozen state bans on same-sex marriage and the reelection of President Bush, who favors a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Solmonese was executive director of EMILY’s List, a political action committee that works to elect pro-choice Democratic women.

Q: After the elections, some people argued that the gay-rights movement needed to step back from the marriage issue and focus on more moderate goals such as civil unions. Do you think that’s right?

A: I always chuckle when I hear that because I think, if you really understand where we are in history, it is not a setback. … What I’m focused on is the fact we are as committed to that as we are to ending workplace discrimination, hate crimes, a whole range of issues. I don’t think one is mutually exclusive of the other. … The fight for marriage is the thread that runs through all of our work.

Q: Are you at all concerned that gay marriage was the “red Ferrari rolling down main street” [as HRC board member Hilary Rosen wrote in an op-ed shortly after the elections] and that it turned people off to the gay-rights movement?

A: You know, it just depends on who you are. Every American reacts to it in a different way. … What is happening out there in the country is so much bigger than all of us, and it’s our job to try to harness that change and make sure that people understand, if this is happening, why are we seeking that it happen? What is this equality we’re pressing for?

Q: You have said that you plan to take the gay-rights movement “to the next level.” What do you mean?

A: I was referring to the need for us to respond to the changing political landscape. For all that we are doing here in Washington and on Capitol Hill, we need to ensure that our efforts are just as expansive across the country. … We have to make sure there is as much influence coming from the grassroots.

Q: How is the political landscape changing?

A: You have look at where we are over our history as a formal, political movement. … We’re in this big period of change. … These brave people in Massachusetts came forward and said we want to be treated with the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans, and they won and that’s a historic thing. It’s bigger than me, it’s bigger than us, it’s bigger than HRC.

Q: You spent nearly 12 years at EMILY’s List. How does that prepare you to lead a gay-rights group?

A: Well, first and foremost, it enabled me to gain a keen understanding of the social fabric of this country. I spent more time out in America than here in Washington during most of my tenure, and, in doing so, I really seemed to learn how it is that we make gains both in red states and in blue.

Q: Speaking of red states, will you reach out more to Republicans or attempt to become more bipartisan?

A: Obviously if we’re going to make any gains we’re going to have to widen our circle, so in terms of reaching out, when we’re out there in states around the country, these issues don’t really know partisan boundaries, and that’s the same here in Washington.

Q: There are three members of Congress who are openly gay [Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)]. How many more do you think are in the closet?

A: I have no idea.

Q: No idea?

A: None at all. I can tell you it’s not something I think about.

Q: But couldn’t it affect how they think about [gay rights] issues?

A: I’m much more interested in how people vote and what people say. … Our mission is to either change what they’re saying or change what they believe, or, as a last effort, try to change the person who holds that seat. We’re going to be successful if we focus on how they vote and what they say rather than who they are.

Q: You are gay yourself.

A: Yes.

Q: Do you have a partner?

A: No.

Q: If you did, would you want to get married?

A: Yeah.

Q: Newt Gingrich’s sister works at HRC. Dick Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. Do you think family members can have an impact on policymakers? Do you exploit that?

A: The simple answer is: unquestionably. It is at the core of what we need to do. When you know someone — whether it’s a co-worker, a family member or a friend — it influences the way you see the world. It is, I believe, the single most important thing in changing the hearts and minds of Americans.

Q: What do you think of outing campaigns?

A: Different people have different philosophies about this and approach it in different ways. … If you’re outing someone on the Hill, are you doing it because you’re going to change their mind about their vote?... I think that I and the HRC focus on how people vote and what people say.

Q: Would you advise people who are waging outing campaigns to stop?

A: Well, I haven’t really had a long conversation with anyone who’s on this, so I can only speak to what I think.

Q: Can you say whether the campaigns are good or bad, helpful or unhelpful?

A: You ask yourself, good, bad, helpful or unhelpful in doing what? In doing what? I’d be curious to see how they would answer that sentence. Is it in causing someone to lose their job? Is it in changing a vote, changing the direction of Congress? That is the question I would ask.

Q: Have you seen votes changed as a result of outing campaigns?

A: No, I haven’t.

Jerry Falwell had just recovered from viral pneumonia in mid-February; a little before midnight yesterday, he suffered from "respiratory arrest". Let me just say - THANK GOD. When I saw the first report that he had suffered a heart attack (tunred out to be false) I couldn't help but wish that he would go into a "permanent vegetative state". Well that didn't happen. Though he did either stop breathing or his breathing slowed way down. Jesus! Let this man die!

This just figures - the always "moral" Boy Scouts have a new scandal...

The national director of programs for the Boy Scouts of America has been charged with receiving and distributing child pornography, the U.S. Attorney's office here told NBC News on Tuesday.

Douglas S. Smith Jr. was charged with one felony count of having photos that show "minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

Sources in the U.S. Attorney's office told NBC that Smith was expected to plead guilty.

The images were of young boys and the investigation started in Germany, the sources added.

In a statement Tuesday, the Boy Scouts of America said it had no indication of prior criminal activity.

"We are dismayed and shocked to learn of the charge," it said. "Smith was employed by the organization for 39 years, with no indication of prior criminal activity. He was not in a leadership position which involved working directly with youth."

The statement said Smith was placed on paid administrative leave immediately after the organization learned that he was being investigated for a crime, and that Smith decided to retire shortly thereafter.

Smith, 61, would not comment when reached by phone at his home.

He was expected to appear in federal court Wednesday morning. If tried and found guilty, he faces prison time ranging from five to 20 years.

A resident of Colleyville, Texas, Smith is himself an Eagle Scout. According to Greg Fields, a Boy Scout of America spokesperson based in Irving, Texas, Smith is no longer involved in troop activity.

A second judge in Cleveland has agreed that the American state of Ohio's new constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage also weakens the state's domestic violence statute.

On Thursday, Cleveland Municipal Judge Lauren C Moore ruled that a man accused of physically abusing his live-in girlfriend could not be charged with domestic violence, because of Issue 1, which voters approved last fall.

That amendment to Ohio's constitution says the state cannot give legal status to unmarried couples.

Moore's ruling came one day after another Cuyahoga County judge reached the same conclusion. In that case, where a man was also charged with striking his girlfriend, Judge Stuart Friedman reduced a felony domestic violence charge to a charge of misdemeanour assault.

Ironically, while Issue 1 was designed to deny legal status to same-sex couples, the vague wording of the amendment is now affecting heterosexual couples, as evidenced by the two judges' rulings.

Eric Stern, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, the largest group of LGBT Democrats, blamed the Bush administration and others who supported anti-gay state constitutional amendments that passed in 11 states in November.

"Instead of protecting families, as President Bush and Republicans claimed these measures would do, these amendments actually undermine the stability of the American family," he said in a press release.

"As we see in Ohio, the ramifications of these amendments extend far beyond discrimination against same-sex families."

County prosecutors said they would appeal Friedman's and Moore's decisions.

Camilla Taylor, a staff attorney with Lambda Legal, said not everyone agrees with Friedman's and Moore's legal opinions. She cited another recent ruling where a third Cleveland municipal judge, Ronald Adrine, had come to the opposite conclusion in a similar domestic violence case.

"I think that these cases will be decided ultimately by the Ohio Supreme Court," Taylor told the PlanetOut Network.

Some supporters of Issue 1 said weakening the state's domestic violence law was not what they intended.

Phill Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values, an organisation that lobbied for Issue 1, told a Cincinnati television station, "The law the way it's currently written is truly unequal treatment."

He promised to work with state legislators to amend the domestic violence law to fix any inequities.

Source: uk.gay.com

The Mrs. Oregon America Pageant, which showcases married women with talent and beauty, is upset with Mayor Tom Potter. Each year the pageant director writes the mayor of Portland and asks for a letter of congratulations for contestants. This year however, Mayor Potter had a different kind of letter. It stated...

"We've reviewed your request and will have to decline issuing your pageant a letter. On your website under the Eligibility criteria you list "We recognize a marriage as a union between one man and one woman". The City of Portland does not discriminate based on sexual orientation and recognizes everyone equally."

Libby Crawford the director of the pageant says that Mayor Potter turned her down because one particular pageant rule - the organization defines marriage as between "one man and one woman". Libby goes on to say that "He is really discriminating against heterosexual couples. So that means that he will support any other organization. Crawford says defining marriage is like other rules set in place for interested participants. "It also says in our rules that you have to be a natural born female... so... ya know".

Mayor Potter has been vocal in the past regarding GLBT issues. His own daughter is a lesbian as well. Go Tom! It's nice to have a mayor that stands up and actually has some balls.

The $7.75 receipt is tattered at the edges now, and the printing is faded.

But to Melinda Vest and Beverly Morgan, it is precious proof positive that last year, during the brief window when gay couples were allowed to marry in Oregon, their marriage was certified in Multnomah County.

The receipt, saved for months and worn smooth, is one of dozens of pieces of memorabilia being collected and displayed by the county, home to Portland, where more than 3,000 gay couples from across the country came to get marriage licenses before a judge put a stop to the six weeks of impromptu weddings in mid-April of 2004.

The collection, dubbed the "Wedding Album Project" will be on display for a month at Multnomah County's headquarters, then turned over to the Oregon Historical Society for its research archives, and the use of future historians.

A similar collection was put together by the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, which published a special section featuring photographs from gay readers who had gotten married.

In Oregon, every couple that got a marriage license got an invitation from the county in the mail inviting them to take part in the project; so far, hundreds have done so.

Besides the receipt, there are countless photos, of beaming brides and bashful grooms. Some sent photographs of themselves in younger days, alongside pictures of their decades-later wedding day. One couple submitted a DVD of their wedding celebration; another framed their wedding invitations and vows, along with pictures of the ceremony.

"This is a time capsule," said Tracy Waters, who submitted framed photos and the invitation from her wedding to Laurel Harroun, her partner for 30 years. "I am proud of us - we are both proud of each other. We have both had life challenges to sort out, and I have felt compelled to get it in a frame for herstory's sake, because I believe there needs to be room for everyone in the circle."

One woman Xeroxed her journal entry from the day of her wedding, while others wrote testimonials about their time together, their year of being married, and the backlash against gay marriage in Oregon, which culminated in a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"We met on Feb. 5, 1966," wrote Washington resident Vern Robbins. "At the time we met I was working in a night club as a lounge singer. We went home together and never ever slept apart after that."

Robbins' partner, Glen, died in January of diabetes, Robbins writes.

"Thank you, Oregon, for allowing me to grant his greatest wish (to be married)," Robbins' submission concludes.

Gay marriage remains a hot-potato topic in Oregon, with the legislature debating civil unions and a decision pending from the Supreme Court on the legality of the amendment banning gay marriage, which passed in November with 57 percent of the vote.

But Ken DuBois, a spokesman for the Oregon Historical Society, said the organization jumped at the chance to permanently house the wedding album project.

"Whether people are in favor of it or against it, it is part of history and there is no denying that," DuBois said. "We have to have as complete a record as we can possibly get of important times in our state's history. Just imagine how interesting this personal writing will be in 50 or 60 years."

County commissioner Maria Rojo de Steffey, one of four county commissioners who spearheaded the county's drive to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, said the idea for the wedding album came up when the county was looking for something to commemorate the first anniversary, traditionally celebrated with gifts of paper.

"We have gotten some calls about this, from people telling us it is the wrong thing to do," said Rojo de Steffey, who said she received hate mail and death threats during the first flush of the gay marriage decision in 2004. "But we feel strongly about it, about commemorating these folks and their marriages."

The county is also considering the possibility of doing an oral history project with some of the gay couples who were married, she said.

Anne Clark, a 43-year-old graduate student in clinical psychology at Antioch University of New England, was one of the couples who got married last year in Multnomah County. She was so moved by the other couples she met that she changed the topic of her dissertation to focus on the meaning of marriage for a cross-section of the couples she met.

When she finishes the dissertation, she plans to donate a bound copy to the wedding album project.

"I felt that I had to do this for historical purposes," Clark said. "I feel like I should be someone who speaks out, who talks about what the experience was like, and who shares the experience with someone else through my own words."

By JULIA SILVERMAN
Associated Press Writer

More than 50 ministers across Kansas called upon voters Friday to vote against a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.

In a letter to the public, the ministers said the amendment violates a basic tenet of all faiths, which is to treat all people equally, with respect and love. Passage of the amendment, which is on the April 5 ballot, would hurt thousands of Kansans and make their lives harder, the letter said.

“For me, as a Christian, if I am taking the faith seriously, there's only one way I could vote and that's no,” said the Rev. Robert Meneilly, a letter signer who is the retired pastor of the Village Presbyterian Church in Prairie Village. “If we are all made by the same God in the same image, we should all have the same rights.”

The letter is posted at www.kansansforfairness.org, the home of Kansans for Fairness, a coalition of groups that support human rights. Among those signing it were the Rev. Larry Keller of St. Mark's United Methodist Church in Overland Park, the Rev. Holly McKissick of St. Andrew Christian Church in Olathe and the Rev. Tarris Rosell, associate professor at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Kan.

Bruce Ney, president of Kansans for Fairness, said the letter was put together by clergy members who “are somewhat taken aback by the idea that every Christian religion in the state of Kansas backs this amendment when, in fact, that is not true. This was their attempt to make that clear and get the word out.”

In the letter, the clergy say that “it is not the state government's role to codify one religious interpretation of the Bible, or one religion over another in the Kansas Constitution. To the contrary, the great contribution of our Constitution is to protect the rights of all faiths.”

The Rev. Jerry Johnston , pastor of First Family Church in Overland Park and a leader in the effort to pass the amendment, said the views of the “small group” of ministers do not reflect the views of the majority.

“Religious liberty is to set people free by the power of the gospel, and the aim of all the vast majority who believe in this amendment is to protect marriage,” Johnston said.

If homosexuals receive rights, he said, what's to stop defenders of group marriages from asking for their rights, he said. All of the states that have had an opportunity to vote on a ban on gay marriage have approved it, Johnston said, adding he thinks it will pass in Kansas also.

The campaign in favor of the amendment is led by One Voice of Kansas Inc., a (hateful) nonprofit group.

Besides defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, the amendment would prohibit the state from granting marriage in other relationships.

Bishop's careful apology fails to end dispute and shows even more hypocrisy in the church

The morning after San Diego's Roman Catholic bishop apologized to a family after canceling their gay son's funeral Mass, he left two voice-mail messages for an evangelical Christian activist who crusades against homosexuality.

"James, please take my call," Bishop Robert Brom said Tuesday into the answering machine of James Hartline, a Hillcrest man who supported canceling the funeral Mass. "I have to explain how it's all wrong and how I was done in. We need to talk and we need to meet. Please call me back immediately."

In a second message, the bishop sounded more urgent: "This is Bishop Brom begging you to call me back. I did not cave in. I stood for our position and I still do, but I need to explain, and I need your help."

Hartline said he never returned Brom's calls. Instead, he played the messages for a reporter, saying he was outraged by the bishop's "totally spineless" apology to the family of John McCusker, a nightclub owner who died this month. The bishop had banned a Catholic service for McCusker, citing what the diocese considered his sinful business activities.

In the days after Brom released his three-sentence statement, many are trying to decipher what the leader of nearly 1 million Catholics in San Diego and Imperial counties meant by his words of consolation.

Was he expressing regret for canceling the funeral?

Or was he simply expressing sympathy for the family's turmoil?

From talk shows to e-mails, the nuanced words of the statement have been parsed and debated:

"I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral for John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused them. To help rectify this situation, insofar as it can be, I will preside at a Mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata. In consideration for the family, I will not be available for any further public statements on this matter," Brom wrote Monday.

Adding to the speculation is a cover letter that accompanied the statement when it was sent Tuesday to Catholic clergy.

"The enclosed statement . . . should be read carefully," wrote Monsignor Steven Callahan, a top official with the diocese. "Note the extent and nature of the apology that Bishop Brom offered, free of media interpretations."

Callahan followed up with a notice to clergy on Wednesday that the Mass would be for the family only and closed to the public.

Yesterday Brom, 66, wouldn't answer questions about why he banned the funeral, the first such cancellation in his 15-year tenure, or discuss why he was so concerned about Hartline's opinion.

Brom did, however, indicate that he felt besieged by dual forces as he tried to navigate the controversy: "Throughout this whole ordeal I have struggled with my obligation to clearly define moral principles and at the same time to be properly compassionate."

Meanwhile, the diocese issued another statement yesterday afternoon acknowledging that the apology "has met with a variety of interpretations. The covenant with the McCusker family, found within the statement itself, precludes any comment in this regard." The McCusker family could not be reached.

Mark Brumley, president of San Francisco-based Ignatius Press, a Catholic publishing company, said the bishop's statement was unclear.

"It would serve the community of San Diego well to have some clarification," said Brumley, a former spokesman for the San Diego diocese. "There are people on many sides of this issue who will look to the statement to see where the bishop comes down on the issue and will be unable to do so."

Janet Mansfield, a member of the liberal reform group Call to Action, still regards the apology as important. "For a bishop to actually apologize is something," she said, adding, "I think he's walking a tightrope."

Dignity USA, a national independent advocacy group for gay Catholics, released a statement with its San Diego chapter yesterday praising Brom's apology. Pat McArron, former national president and a San Diego resident, said there is disagreement over what Brom meant by his statement.

"Dignity, quite frankly, has chosen not to pick it apart," McArron said.

But Mike Portantino, publisher of the San Diego-based Gay and Lesbian Times called Brom's statement a "shallow victory."

"Do I feel that the Catholic Church has changed its stance or opinion? No," Portantino said. "I think they felt a tidal wave of publicity coming their way and their public relations arm recognized that this was not only within the gay community but even within Catholic community."

The flap began last week after Brom canceled a funeral Mass scheduled at the Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, where McCusker had been a student. McCusker, 31, died March 13 while vacationing in Mammoth.

The diocese said the funeral wasn't canceled because of McCusker's sexual orientation, but because his "business activities" – he owned a gay bar and a popular nightclub with a largely gay clientele – "were contrary to sacred Scripture and the moral teaching of the church."

The diocese said it had obtained information that a gay porn video had been recorded at McCusker's Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, and that gay porn stars had appeared at his North Park bar, ReBar. But McCusker's friends said he often rented out the nightclub and had no involvement in making the video.

McCusker's family moved the funeral to an Episcopal church last Friday. Monday night, as the gay community and its supporters gathered to discuss a response, his family read Brom's apology and urged people to accept it "as an offering of peace."

But as Holy Week draws to a close and Christians prepare to celebrate Easter on Sunday, the issue doesn't appear to be over.

Yesterday, Sue Lopez of Bay Park was among a small group of protesters gathered outside the diocese headquarters. They were upset that Brom issued any apology at all.

Noting that the church teaches that homosexuality is a sin, Lopez said the bishop buckled "under tremendous pressure by the homosexual community."

She added: "We're praying for his leadership, that he'll be a shepherd, not a politician, and not come out with statements that you have to read carefully. Say what you mean, mean what you say, and let the chips fall where they may."

ELLENSBURG, Wash. (AP) — Central Washington University has became the third university in the state and one of 25 nationwide to bar discrimination against openly gay, bisexual and transsexual staff and students.

With little fanfare after more than a year of consideration, the Board of Trustees voted March 4 to add gender identity and expression to the school's non-discrimination policy, which already covered race, color, creed, religion and other group identifiers.

"We want to make Central a community where people feel welcome and are not intimidated," said Nancy Howard, the school's equal opportunity chief. "It also sends a clear message to our university community that individuals are not to be singled out and treated poorly because of these characteristics."

Other universities in the state that specifically bar discrimination against people who express themselves as gay, bisexual and transsexual are the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma.

"It's one of the most oppressed populations on college campuses across the state," said Leslie Webb, director of Central's diversity education center, which sought the change.

Next month Central hosts the first tri-state lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender conference, "The Power of One: LGBT Leadership Conference," which is expected to draw about 200 college and university students and staff from Washington, Oregon and Idaho.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was added to the Central's policy about 10 years ago, Howard said. The policy change allows those who feel they have been subjected to discrimination or harassment to turn to the university's informal and formal grievance processes.

"The idea is that we want Central to be a place where employees can pursue their careers and be successful, and students can come and study and have a social life without worry that these type of incidents occur," Howard said.

I just bought this book...

The debate surrounding same-sex marriages has reached a fever pitch, embroiling Americans in an emotionally charged argument that further reflects America's deep social and political divide. Scott Redmond offers a unique perspective on this homosexual plight in his new book Get Over the Rainbow: Why Everyone Should Join the Fight for Gay Rights (now available through AuthorHouse).

"While other books have been written about this issue, Get Over the Rainbow was written by a heterosexual male who had nothing personal to gain from legal, same sex marriage, other than living in a nation where everyone is treated equally," writes Redmond.

The book opens with an interesting theory on why 2004 was a defining year in America's battle over homosexual marriage. It explains how this became a campaign issue in the presidential election, even though both candidates were opposed to offering gays their day at the altar.

Redmond challenges numerous arguments against homosexual matrimony throughout the book. He details the hypocrisy in using the Bible as a tool for discrimination and reminds those who believe that Hollywood promotes the gay lifestyle that mainstream America decides which movies and television programs are popular.

Get Over the Rainbow sets the heated debate over gay marriage in context with earlier Supreme Court rulings, such as legalizing birth control in the '60s and abortion in the '70s. It explains why the majority in Colorado could not win a legal battle against the minority homosexual population, and offers an optimistic outlook, steeped in logical reasoning and historic legal evidence, for the future of homosexuals' right to marry.

A passionate discussion about equal treatment of gays from a straight perspective, Get Over the Rainbow also offers compelling arguments that cut to the chase and eliminate misconceptions.

Redmond was recently fired from his job as a radio talk show host because of his controversial views which, he says, were not accepted by the traditional conservative AM-talk radio audience. Born in New Orleans, he has spent most of his broadcasting career in that city. Known as "Scoot" on the air, Redmond has done radio shows throughout the country and has carefully studied media's effect on society. He also has produced, written and hosted several television talk shows and wrote a regular column, "Straight to the Point" for the gay publication, OUTFRONT. He attributes his close bond with the homosexual community to his struggles with obsessive compulsive disorder. Get Over the Rainbow is his first book.

For more information on this new book click here.

Here starts the backlash of adding unequal treatment into the constitution of many states across the US. First off I do not condone domestic violence in any way, shape or form - although I still find something about this very amusing. For all of you who voted Yes on Measure 36 here in Oregon this one goes out to you!

Just when you thought that passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and therefore not providing equal treatment under the law was a smart thing to do - this is what you get. These amendments are not only hurting hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians - now it's hurting the straights. The first story comes from Ohio with many more to follow. I hope people can learn from this once it effects them and not just gays and lesbians. Here it goes...

CLEVELAND (AP) -- Domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people because of Ohio's new constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Judge Stuart Friedman changed a felony domestic violence charge against Frederick Burk to a misdemeanor assault charge.

Prosecutors immediately appealed.

Judges and others across the country have been waiting for a ruling on how the gay marriage ban, among the nation's broadest, would affect Ohio's 25-year-old domestic violence law, which previously wasn't limited to married people.

Burk, 42, is accused of slapping and pushing his live-in girlfriend during a January argument over a pack of cigarettes.

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Before the amendment, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The gay marriage amendment no longer allows that.

John Martin, who supervises appeals in the public defender's office, said the office was pleased with the ruling but would not comment further because of the appeal.

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony that could have resulted in an 18-month jail term; a misdemeanor assault carries a maximum sentence of six months.

"This case is a good example of why we need a domestic violence law. A misdemeanor assault doesn't carry with it a significant enough penalty for repeat domestic violence abusers," said Matt Meyer, an assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor.

Some opponents of the amendment have said they hope the conflict over the domestic violence law would result in the gay marriage ban being repealed.

Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Ohio's is regarded as the broadest marriage amendment of those passed by 11 states Nov. 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status to all unmarried couples and gay marriages.

By CONNIE MABIN Associated Press Writer

Rumors are still running rampant about when the Oregon State Supreme Court will make it's ruling on Li v. State of Oregon (the fate of the 3,021 same-sex marriages). Could be this week or next. My understanding is that the ruling must be before March 31st - or Multnomah County will be forced to begin issuing marriage licenses again. I know that sounds strange considering the passing of Constitutional Amendment 36. There was a 90 day stay issued by the lower court. Assumptions are that they would request another stay if the ruling were to be delayed past March 31st.

Opinions are released on Thursdays, although they post the "Notice of Forthcoming Opinion" on Wednesday. Here is a link to where they are posted: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supremeWednesday.htm

For updates on this case you can visit the Basic Rights Oregon website @ www.basicrights.org

A California judge ruled last week that the state’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional—a legal milestone that, if upheld on appeal, would open the door for the most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s decision raises a more daunting question for America’s African American community as it relates to the marriage debate:

“If the KKK was opposing gay marriage, I would ride with them.” When black Chicago Baptist minister, the Rev. Gregory Daniels took that provocative stance on same-sex marriage last fall he roiled liberals, moderates and conservatives alike. A day after Daniels shocked even the most conservative Christians, 10,000 black marchers, including Bernice King, the slain civil rights leader’s youngest daughter, called same-sex marriage black America’s “most pressing demon.”

One year after the world witnessed 29 days of San Francisco weddings new data suggests that Daniels, King and other black church leaders are on the wrong page.

“This is not our agenda,” says 27-year-old Megan Stack. Stack an Indiana University medical student who is black and lesbian points to images celebrating the first anniversary of the event. “These folks don’t look like me,” she said.

In fact that’s the picture painted by demographic data released by San Francisco officials who tracked the 4,037 licenses issued between February 12, 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsom gave the go ahead to same-sex nuptials, and March 11 when the state Supreme Court ordered them stopped.

According to Carole Midgen, the lesbian chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization who got married, the weddings represented people from everywhere.

“The majority of the over 4,000 newlyweds were 30 to 60 year old, white collar Caucasians,” she said.

Thom Lynch, executive director of the San Francisco Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Community Center agreed.

“We saw attorneys, artists, teachers, and couples from New York to Oregon, from Paris, France to Paris, Tennessee. Most couples were white, some were Latino and a few were African America or Asian-American,” Lynch said.

University of Pennsylvania professor, Eric Dyson questions the new black agenda that calls for among other things, privatization of Social Security and a ban on same-sex marriage. Dyson’s upcoming book is titled “Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has The Black Middle Class Lost Its Mind?” He said, “Many black church leaders have turned a blind eye to official data that states most gays and lesbians heading to the altar are non-black, middle aged, and have college degrees.”

The sparring over same-sex marriage personifies the deep divisions between black ministers and the black gay community. Raymond Dre Mayes is openly gay. The Fort Wayne short order cook says gay marriage is not a black agenda.

“Most black gays and lesbians are in the closet or so-called DL (down low). Most of us can’t afford to come out. Imagine an openly gay teacher, police officer or city councilman. We’ve got bigger fish to fry.” Mayes said.

Bestselling author J.L. King whose explosive book “On The Down Low” explores sex between closeted black men argues, “Shouldn’t black America be discussing the HIV/AIDS crisis, youth gangs and unprecedented unemployment among black males? Are we ignoring the real issues affecting black families?”

The author joins a growing number of black intellectuals who want the spotlight put on issues critical to black survival. Stack says, the headlines are screaming about the black HIV/AIDS crisis, joblessness, and health disparity.

“Have we allowed right wing conservatives to distract the back community from its real priorities?” asked Stack.

The California ruling striking down the ban on same-sex marriage is sure to turn up the volume on the marriage debate.

“It’s ironic that some black ministers would make these issues a national priority given the black church’s historical role in fighting for economic empowerment and a more just society,” said Dr. Martinl Luther King’s widow Coretta Scott King.

By Chris Levister

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- A gay civil rights bill is one or two votes shy of a majority in the Senate, Sen. Darlene Fairley said Tuesday after a hearing on the measure.

"I am very optimistic," said Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park. "It's the right thing to do."

The state House has already approved the bill, and Gov. Christine Gregoire has said she will sign it into law if the Legislature passes it.

Public opinion at Fairley's committee hearing ran six-to-one in favor of the bill, though some opponents warned of deep-seated opposition across the state.

The bill, which would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians in jobs, housing and insurance, has been introduced - and rejected - annually for nearly 30 years in the state Legislature.

Rep. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, the bill's sponsor, said he believes this is the year it will pass.

"Some have asked, is this a necessity? Let me assure you, from the school yard to the boardrooms, discrimination is real for gays and lesbians in Washington state," Murray told the Senate panel. "I appeal to you as a gay man, as a native son of this state, as your colleague, to pass this bill."

Opponents included the Christian Coalition, Washington Evangelicals for Responsible Government and private citizens.

"Tens of thousands if not millions of Christians hold that homosexuality is a reprehensible lifestyle," said Randy Leskovar, senior pastor of Calvary Chapel in West Seattle. "So when we're saying it is a lifestyle that must be accepted ... you're going to have to allow something you think is reprehensible to be looked on as being OK."

Several opponents said they believe homosexuality is a choice, subject to change, and thus should not get the same protections as race and ethnicity.

Supporters of the bill pointed out that religion and creed, which are subject to change, are protected under existing law. And some legislators flatly rejected the idea that sexual orientation is a matter of choice.

"This is not a lifestyle. There's no more choice than I have a choice to be five feet tall," said Sen. Margarita Prentice, D-Renton.

"I have seen gay children abused, humiliated, spit on, called 'fag' and 'sissy,' beaten up - I don't know anyone who would choose that lifestyle," said Sen. Brian Weinstein, D-Mercer Island.

"Maybe you don't represent all the people," said Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Redmond, after noting that most of the committee members seemed to support the bill.

"When the homosexual community tried to make this a civil rights issue, I have a real problem with that," said Hutcherson, who is black. "Homosexuals have not had to go through what I had to go through growing up in Alabama."

Vernon Johnson, a Western Washington University professor who is also black, said he supports the bill because he opposes discrimination in all forms.

"I have experienced discrimination and I know firsthand the pain it causes," said Johnson. "I think what we are talking about is the pain of discrimination."

Carol Waymack, a Seattle doctor, told senators she simply wants her lesbian daughter to have the same opportunities as her straight son.

Several businesses wrote letters supporting the bill, including Washington Mutual, Hewlett-Packard, Nike and Coors Brewing Co.

"I'm looking at how I'm going to invest $75 million," said Clayton Lewis, chief operating officer of HouseValues, an Internet real estate company that went public last December. As a gay man, Lewis said, "knowing I have the same chance, the same opportunity to succeed, is critical to me."

Fifteen states have anti-discrimination laws that protect gays and lesbians.

Fairley said she plans to pass the bill out of the Finanical Institutions, Housing and Consumer Protection Committee on Thursday. There's no word yet on when it might come to the Senate floor.

By REBECCA COOK
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Gay marriage ban completes first step.

The Indiana House today finalized a first step toward a state constitutional ban on gay marriage, approving the proposal with bipartisan support today.

Proponents hailed the 76-23 vote as a move toward protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage from activist judges, while opponents decried it as singling out gays and lesbians for discrimination.

"The basic unit of our society is the family, and the cornerstone of the family is marriage, and marriage is the union of one man and one woman," said Rep. Eric Turner, R-Gas City. "A strong consensus has emerged in our country and our state that marriage must be strengthened."

All 52 Republicans voted in favor of the proposal, while all 23 who voted against it, including Rep. Craig Fry of Mishawaka, were Democrats.

"I'm offended we would pick on a certain group in our society who are not bothering me, who are not bothering you, who are not bothering anybody," Fry said. "I believe it is a tragedy, and I am embarrassed for this chamber."

The same proposal passed the Republican-controlled Senate 42-8 earlier this session.

However, amending the constitution requires a resolution to pass consecutive, separately elected General Assemblies and then approved in a statewide vote. That means if the proposal passes again in 2007 or 2008, it could be on the November ballot in 2008.

Indiana, as do at least 42 other states, already has a law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Seventeen states have constitutional language defining marriage.

A similar resolution passed the Republican-controlled Senate with bipartisan support last year, but Democrats who controlled the House then refused GOP attempts to advance or even debate it. Democrats controlled the chamber 51-49 then, and all 49 Republicans had pledged to support the amendment.

Republicans now have a 52-48 majority in the House, and House Speaker Brian Bosma had pledged efforts to pass it this session. Although debate today was sometimes emotional, Bosma later commended the chamber for debating the issue openly and calmly.

Catholic leader vows to hold Mass in memory of gay nightclub owner

The head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego apologized yesterday to the family of gay nightclub owner John McCusker, less than a week after denying McCusker a Catholic funeral because of his "business activities," according to a statement released by McCusker's family.

In a stunning twist to a controversy that has created an uproar in San Diego's gay and Catholic communities, Bishop Robert Brom also promised to preside at a Mass in memory of McCusker at Immaculata Catholic Church at the University of San Diego, according to the statement.

McCusker, 31, died March 13 while vacationing in Mammoth.

In the statement released by McCusker's family, Brom said, "I deeply regret that denying a Catholic funeral for John McCusker at the Immaculata has resulted in his unjust condemnation, and I apologize to the family for the anguish this has caused them. To help rectify this situation, insofar as it can be, I will preside at a Mass for the family, in memory of John, at the Immaculata. In consideration for the family, I will not be available for any further public statements on this matter."

Earlier in the day, a woman who answered the phone at the diocese said neither the bishop nor his spokesman would have any further comment.

Last week, Brom forced the Immaculata to cancel McCusker's funeral, declaring that no parish within the diocese, which includes San Diego and Imperial counties, could hold a Catholic service for him.

At the time, the diocese said McCusker's "business activities" – he owned a gay bar and a popular nightclub with a largely gay clientele – "were contrary to Sacred Scripture and the moral teaching of the Church."

In defending its decision at the time, the diocese said it had obtained information that a gay porn video had been recorded at McCusker's Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, and that gay porn stars had appeared at his North Park bar, ReBar.

McCusker's friends said McCusker often rented out Club Montage and had no involvement in making the video.

Last week's decision forced McCusker's family to scramble for an alternate venue for his funeral, which was held Friday at St. Paul's Cathedral, an Episcopal church near Balboa Park.

Last night McCusker's mother, Christine McCusker, read the bishop's latest statement to a packed crowd at the San Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Community Center in Hillcrest. The crowd of at least 300 people, who showed up expecting to discuss ways to respond to the diocese's actions, was stunned and delighted by the unexpected news.

Christine McCusker told the crowd that when her family met with the bishop yesterday, Brom "regretfully acknowledged his hasty decision."

She urged the crowd to accept the bishop's apology "as an offering of peace and an offering to do what John would have done, as he is a great advocate of reconciliation and forgiveness."

The controversy over McCusker's funeral became a popular topic on the Internet and came at an awkward time for the Catholic church, which has been dealing for several years with fallout from disclosures of widespread sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the United States.

Those who showed up last night to support McCusker's family said the bishop probably didn't expect the backlash that his actions received.

"I think he saw the response from our community as well as our straight allies," said Ken Riley, 50, a physician and member of Ebony Pride of San Diego.

Some conservatives expressed grave disappointment at the bishop's about-face. Ernie Grimm, who edits the monthly Catholic newspaper San Diego News Notes, said he felt "betrayed."

"He had showed a lot of courage in making his original decision and encouraged a lot of us lay Catholics who had been looking for stronger leadership from our bishops," Grimm said. "He caved in the face of opposition."

James Hartline, a Christian conservative activist from Hillcrest, said he alerted the bishop to McCusker's gay business interests.

Hartline said he spoke with Brom at least four times about the McCusker case, including a meeting yesterday that lasted an hour. At no time did the bishop indicate he would reverse his position, Hartline said last night.

"He emphatically stated to me he would not budge one bit," Hartline said. "It's very, very strange. He was preparing a document that was going to include the fact that he was not going to reverse course at all."

Rebecca Moore, a professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, said Brom acted with grace and compassion in owning up to what she and many others said was a mistake.

"A funeral does not make a statement about the morality of the deceased, but rather it makes a statement about the mercy of God," Moore said. "Bishop Brom had second thoughts about his original decision and had the guts to publicly change his mind. That takes courage."

By Alex Roth and Jeff McDonald
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Union-Tribune researcher Dick Harrington contributed to this report.

A joke at a weekend political roast has raised the ire of some gay advocates in Massachusetts.

"I have to admit, that as a Mormon, I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman... and a woman and a woman," he told an audience at a St Patrick's Day breakfast attended by members of the legislature.

The Republican governor has been a longtime foe of same-sex marriage. Recently he has been traveling around the country speaking to GOP groups in what many believe to be a test for a possible presidential run in 2008.

House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, a liberal Democrat, lit into Romney for his travels, asking if he'd had trouble finding his way from the airport.

"Are those tickets in your pocket?" he asked. "I don't want to keep you too long. You can leave any time you want."

In a speech last month to Republican Party members in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Romney lambasted Massachusetts's highest court, which paved the way for gay marriage, accusing the justices of striking "a blow against the family.'' (story)

Several days later, in Utah, he declared ''America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."

When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts last May, Romney invoked a 1913 law prevented town clerks from issuing licenses to couples who do not reside in Massachusetts.

The law says that the state cannot marry an out-of-state couple if that marriage would be "void" in the couple's home state. It had been created to prevent interracial marriages. The law is now under appeal. (story)

But, despite his opposition to same-sex marriage, Romney is still "too pro gay" for some conservatives.

Following a speech in Michigan, that state's chapter of the American Family Association sent a letter to state senators warning of what it called Romney's liberal record on abortion and gay rights.

"While it is certainly the prerogative of the GOP caucus to provide a forum for speakers who hold a diversity of public policy positions ... we also hope you will not allow your event or your hospitality to be used in any way to validate or legitimize Governor Mitt Romney's support of legal abortion-on-demand or his endorsement of homosexual activists' political agenda," wrote AFAM President Gary Glenn.

by Margo Williams 365Gay.com Boston Bureau365gay.com

DETROIT (AP) -- A lawsuit challenging a recent attorney general's opinion that bans public employers from offering benefits to same-sex couples in future contracts was filed Monday by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.

The lawsuit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, asks the court to rule that Proposal 2 does not bar government employers from providing health insurance and other benefits to employees' same-sex partners and their children.

Those bringing the suit include a Washington-based AFL-CIO group called National Pride at Work that backs gay rights; Kalamazoo city employees; workers at state universities; and employees at various state agencies and departments.

Proposal 2, which Michigan voters approved 59 percent to 41 percent in November, said a union between one man and one woman "shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose."

The ACLU says in the lawsuit that U.S. courts have held that providing health insurance to same-sex domestic partners does not constitute recognition of a marriage or a similar union and is necessary for employers to attract qualified workers.

The ACLU also argues in the suit that the intent of voters was not to deny the families of gays and lesbians health insurance or other benefits. The suit says the ballot committee that sponsored Proposal 2 "consistently and repeatedly" assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.

Last week, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued his first legal interpretation of the amendment, saying that Kalamazoo's policy of offering health and retirement benefits to same-sex partners violates the amendment.

Cox, a Republican, said his opinion does not apply to existing contracts.

Kalamazoo's policy gives domestic partnerships a "marriage-like" status, Cox said. Given the constitutional amendment's broad language, conferring benefits recognizes the validity of same-sex relationships, he ruled.

Cox said Proposal 2 also prohibits recognition of unmarried opposite-sex relationships.

In the absence of a ruling from a court, the attorney general's interpretation of the law generally is binding, Cox spokeswoman Allison Pierce said.

However, the Michigan Court of Appeals could hear a Proposal 2-based challenge to same-sex benefits early next month.

Cox said giving benefits itself does not violate Proposal 2. Governments could offer benefits to people designated by employees. But they couldn't be based on a union similar to marriage, he said.

It is unclear how Cox's opinion might affect universities that offer same-sex benefits. The schools have argued the constitution gives them autonomy to make those sorts of decisions.

Cox's decision could affect state employees.

In early December, the Granholm administration decided to not offer benefits to same-sex couples -- which were included in new labor contracts -- until a court rules on their legality.

For those who have ever pondered the "what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object" problem, California's gay marriage debate is about to show us in a big way.

Both sides are escalating their battles to have this issue finally settled forever, one way or another, in the state's constitution.

Monday's ruling by San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional threw gasoline on an already inflamed battle.

While Kramer ruled that "no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," his ruling far from settles the case.

This ruling, naturally, will be appealed.

So while Kramer's interesting piece of legal interpretation wends through the courts, larger forces are already at work.

Steaming in from the left flank are the pro-gay marriage forces, bolstered by Kramer's ruling but already hard at work in the Legislature. They hope to amend state law through Assembly Bill 19.

Introduced Jan. 5 by Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, this bill seeks a gender-neutral legal definition of marriage for California. It sits today in the Committee on Judiciary.

The bill reads, in part:

"Existing law provides that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman. This bill would enact the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act,' which would instead provide that marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between two persons."

Of course, Leno heralded Kramer's ruling as a win for his side:

But let's not be so quick to declare victory for the pro-gay marriage side.

Steaming in from the right comes the Defend Marriage effort backed by the Moral Majority. This side has gathered forces to not only fight AB 19, but to continue to seek a ballot measure for a state constitutional marriage amendment.

In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The vote for the initiative was 61.4 percent to 38.6 percent.

The right also gained huge momentum last fall when all 13 states that had a "traditional marriage" constitutional amendment on the ballot approved them by high percentages: from 57 percent in Oregon to 86 percent in Mississippi.

Both sides recognize the importance of California in leading the nation on the gay marriage issue.

"When one out of eight Americans live in California, you know this is the biggest gorilla that influences everyone else," said Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for Children and Families.

And already claiming victory in the "traditional marriage" campaign is Matthew Staver, vice president of the Liberty Council, a national organization that describes itself as "advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family."

"The 2004 election energized people of faith and social conservatives with an overwhelming mandate on traditional marriage and morality," Staver writes on the council's Web site. "Every politician must hear the message of the American people loud and clear: If you don't vote right on marriage, then you may want to look for another job."

Clearly, both sides are feeling immovable and irresistible and they are racing straight toward the same target.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom set a lot of this in motion with his February 2004, defiance of state law, personally declaring same-sex marriage prohibitions unconstitutional and allowing some 4,000 gay couples to wed at City Hall.

It was an irresponsible display of contempt for California law that ended in heartbreak for those couples. The state Supreme Court soon nullified their marriages, while chastising Newsom.

Public officials cannot dismiss state law at their whim, the judges wrote. To do so means "any semblance of uniform rule of law would quickly disappear."

It's that uniform rule of law we still seek today.

The high court ducked the elephant in the room during that hearing, limiting its opinion to Newsom's actions only. No ruling was given on the overall legality of same-sex marriage.

That's no surprise. Gay marriage is an incendiary issue few politicians and legal experts want to touch.

Today, though, whether they look to the left or the right, they cannot help but see the large, looming shadow of an issue that will no longer be ignored.

What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?

Some say the universe implodes.

If so, by this time next year, the issue should finally have been decided. One way or another, somebody's universe will fold.

365gay.com reports:

(Washington) An amendment to the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage has been reintroduced in the House.

The measure was put forward by Rep. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) only days after a judge in San Francisco declared that barring gay marriage violated the California state constitution. (story)

Lungren, a former state attorney general, called the ruling by Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer "astonishing" and said that the US constitution needs to be amended to prevent courts throughout the country from ruling on gay marriage.

"The courts aren't democratic institutions," he said.

The proposed amendment amendment would bar same-sex marriage and prevent states from being forced to recognize gay marriages performed elsewhere.

Lungren's proposed amendment reads: "Marriage in the United States Shall consist only of a legal union of a man and a woman.

"No court of the United States or of any State shall have jurisdiction to determine whether this Constitution or the constitution of any State requires that the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon any union other than a legal union between one man and one woman.

"No State shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State concerning a union between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage, or as having the legal incidents of marriage, under the laws of such other State."

If passed, it would mark the first time the Constitution was amended to single out a group of Americans for unequal treatment.

Earlier this week President Bush renewed his call for an amendment. (story)

"Americans don't want the Constitution turned into a tool for discrimination," said Human Rights Campaign spokesperson David M. Smith.

"Congress should be spending its time protecting families, not ensuring their vulnerability under law."

A Senate version of the proposed amendment was reintroduced in January. (story)

Attempts by Republicans in Congress to pass a proposed amendment failed last July. (story) At the time GOP leaders vowed they would keep bringing the measure back until it passes.

According to exit polling in November 2004, 60 percent of Americans support either civil unions or marriage equality for same-sex couple.

by Paul Johnson 365Gay.com Washington Bureau Chief

The owner of a popular local nightclub with a gay clientele can't have a funeral in the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego because the church has deemed his business "inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching."

None of the 98 Catholic churches in San Diego or Imperial counties will be allowed to provide services for Club Montage owner John McCusker as a result of the decision by San Diego Bishop Robert Brom.

McCusker, 31, died Sunday of congestive heart failure while vacationing in Mammoth, his family said. The bishop made the decision three days later after learning that McCusker's family planned to hold his funeral at the Immaculata Catholic Church on the campus of the University of San Diego, where McCusker went to school.

Brom's decision – which prompted the church to cancel the funeral – has provoked heated debate in local Catholic and gay communities. Several prominent gay leaders say they plan to file a formal protest with the diocese and demand that Brom apologize to McCusker's family.

Mike Portantino, a friend of McCusker's and publisher of the San Diego-based Gay & Lesbian Times, said McCusker's family members are devout Catholics and his mother has taught catechism. The family was unavailable for comment yesterday.

The decision, called highly unusual by several local Catholics, immediately drew comparisons to the actions of Brom's predecessor, the late Bishop Leo Maher. In 1989, Maher prohibited state Senate candidate Lucy Killea from taking Communion in local parishes because of her support for abortion rights. Maher's action drew national attention.

McCusker's family scrambled for another venue and settled on an Episcopal church, St. Paul's Cathedral near Balboa Park, which will hold the funeral at 11 a.m. today.

The diocese issued a statement yesterday, saying: "The facts regarding the business activities of John McCusker were not known by church officials when arrangements were requested for his funeral. However, when these facts became known, the bishop concluded that to avoid public scandal Mr. McCusker cannot be granted a funeral in a Catholic church in the chapel of the Diocese of San Diego."

Chancellor Rodrigo Valdivia, a diocese spokesman, said the bishop's order applies to all 98 parishes within the diocese's jurisdiction.

Valdivia wouldn't comment when asked to specify which of McCusker's business activities violated church doctrine. He emphasized that the church's decision had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of McCusker, who was gay. Instead, the decision was based on McCusker's "public activity" as a businessman, Valdivia said.

"We received information that the business he was involved with was inconsistent with Catholic teachings," Valdivia said.

McCusker's nightclub, Club Montage, near Lindbergh Field, is one of the city's most popular dance spots. On Friday nights, it tends to attract a heterosexual crowd, while Saturday night is considered gay night, according to patrons and friends of McCusker. He also owned a gay bar in North Park named ReBar.

Valdivia cited Canon 1184 of the Code of Canon Law, which provides a list of those who must be "deprived of ecclesiastical funeral rites." Among those on the list are "manifest sinners" for whom such funeral rites "cannot be granted without public scandal to the faithful." The church uses the term "manifest sinners" to describe those whom it considers obstinate and persistent sinners.

Valdivia was unable to say how often the diocese has invoked this canon to deny funeral rites to Catholics in past years. He couldn't recall any examples.

"Short of reviewing a lot of files, I don't know," he said.

Immaculata church officials declined to comment yesterday, referring inquiries to the diocese.

McCusker's friends, as well as many gay Catholics in San Diego, said they were appalled and outraged.

"I cannot think of a less compassionate thing for the bishop to have done," Portantino said. "Bishop Brom should be ashamed of himself."

Nicole Murray-Ramirez, a longtime San Diego gay activist and one of McCusker's friends, said McCusker was "a very spiritual Catholic. We had discussions of our faith many times."

Ramirez said various Catholic gays and other members of the gay community plan to meet Monday to discuss a response. The group would probably demand an apology from the diocese, among other things, he said.

"Everyone agrees we will do this in the most dignified manner," he said.

After finding out about the diocese's decision, McCusker's family called Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who is lesbian. She steered the family to St. Paul's Cathedral.

"Our basic philosophy at the cathedral is whoever you are and wherever you find yourself on the journey of faith, we welcome you," said the Very Rev. Scott Richardson, dean of the Episcopal church on Sixth Avenue.

Richardson said Atkins called him Wednesday night to tell him the McCusker family "needed some help. We were happy to offer that."

McCusker was active in a variety of local causes, recently serving as vice president of the San Diego Human Dignity Foundation, which offers help to gays and lesbians. He was a member of the Greater San Diego Business Association.

Although Club Montage is hugely popular, it has also had its share of problems over the years. Five years ago, the City Council threatened to revoke its after-hours permit, citing illegal drug use and disruptive behavior at the Hancock Street club.

The diocese said the club's past problems had nothing to do with the bishop's decision.

By Alex Roth
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Staff writer Sandi Dolbee contributed to this report.