From my ace source comes word that the legislation endorsing the statewide effort to include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in the Human Relations Act passed 7-0. Motznik and Payne weren't in the room and didn't vote.
Deasy asked to be added as a cosponsor, offering that he was behind on his email as a reason for his delay in doing so. Huh.
Now here's the interesting part. Reverend Burgess voted in favor of the legislation because he's against discrimination AND because the bills have exemptions for religious entities. Its awesome when the law meant to protect people from discrimination lays out who gets the freedom "to" discriminate. Awesome.
I have a call into Dan Frankel's office for clarification on what those exemptions mean. More on that later.
From our friends at Steel City Stonewall Democrats comes word that 7 out of 9 members of City Council have agreed to support the proposed "Will of Council" which essentially gives a big thumbs up to state legislation that would include "sexual orientation" and gender identity and expression" as protected classes under the Human Relations Act. These protections already exist within the City; this action underscores that those protections have strengthened the City
Two aren't supporting it. That would be Councilman Dan Deasy of District 2 (which includes the neighborhoods of Banksville, Chartiers City, Crafton Heights, Duquene Heights, East Carnegie, Eliott, Esplen, Fairywood, Mount Washington, Oakwood, Ridgemont, and Sheraden). That would also be Councilman Ricky Burgess of District 9 (includes the neighborhoods of East Hills, East Liberty, Homewood, Larimer, Lincoln/Lemingon/Belmar, And Point Breeze North).
I can only speculate as to why either man would choose to stand silently by while this opportunity passes. Reverend Burgess is a former board member of the Pittsburgh AIDS Task Force so it is inconceivable that he not be aware of the discrimination so many members of our community have faced in the housing market and on the job. Surely, he must have absorbed that the stigma of AIDS is deeply intertwined with the stigma of being gay and that a just society does not allow vulnerable individuals to go without a place to live or the means to feed their family simply because they don't fit in.
I believe unanimity is important on this issue. I have oft stated that Pittsburgh is a good place to be gay and that Pittsburgh's gay community strengthens the entire region. A hallmark of my belief rests on the legacy of this local piece of legislation that could. We have inherited a Mayor who does not believe in civil unions, but we do have the fortune to stand upon the shoulders of many activists who worked tirelessly to achieve this reform.
I'll be at work tomorrow when Council votes on this. Maybe someone can email me the outcome?
A gay visitor (Anthony M. Brown) to Pittsburgh (Greensburg) took a few minutes to share his thoughts with the Tribune Review.
We don't want anything more than what all other committed couples have: the tax, health, pension, visitation and death protections that are a part of marriage. These are not special rights. They are protections offered by the government, not the Catholic Church.
Anthony, thanks for making time to share your thoughts. Another quarter heard from is the American Family Association of Pennsylvania where Diane Gramley was stomping her faith-clad furry boots because "homosexual organizations" got the jump on her in broadcasting this legislative flurry. Here's an interesting claim:
Pennsylvania?s primary election is April 22nd. Are you registered to vote? The last day to register is March 24th. An important fact mentioned by David Barton during my interview with him: over 90% of homosexual men and lesbians voted in 2006, while 30 million Christians stayed home!
As always, Diane asks for your money but not your prayers.
This was an ugly victory last time around in 2006 and a clear example of social conservative Democratic values clashing with the interests and civil rights of the entire LGBT community. Here's how the last round of elected officials voted on the marriage amendment. Many of those in the House took the straightforward coward's way of voting in favor of amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Senate did this elaborate dance of "yes, I am, no I am not" switcheroos so they could vote against the "concept" while not having to deal with a pro-homo vote.
Don't let them get the jump on us. Contact your Senator today and ask her/him to oppose amending hate into our Constitution.
Just in case you thought Christian fringe nutjob Mike Huckabee has any redeeming qualities, here he is in an interview with beliefnet....
Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations. Well, I don?t think that?s a radical view to say we?re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we?re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what?s been historic.
That's pretty straightforward ... changing the definition of marriage to include two men or two women is tantamount to a man and animal. There's none of that gay marriage opens the door to man on dog marriage logic that Santorum espoused. Nope, Huckabee makes a much more straightforward equivalent.
Michael Kerlin's "In Search of Peace?" (Dec. 30 Forum) was filled with more than its share of animus. He reported trembling at the "implications" of the pope's peace message, "The Human Family, A Community of Peace"; suggested parallels of genocide and secret informers; and mentioned those hair-raisers: inquisition, torture and paranoia. It sent me scurrying to the text.
Scurrying, huh? Well, that's an interesting word.
Mr. Kerlin's major discontent, however, has to do with his perception of the pope's "implicit" anti-homosexual agenda. True, Pope Benedict's message does speak of the natural family as a community of love and life -- of the love of a man and woman whose union produces children. Schoolchildren know that conception or fertilization is the result of the union of egg (female) and sperm (male). To call pointing to that reality homophobic defies reason.
The union of male and female, alike but different, points to the creative force, the yin and yang of life. Achieving that integration of differences is at the heart of harmony and peace. Anything that circumvents the ability to learn to integrate those differences undermines the ability to learn to live in peace for the entire community.
It is kind of amusing that she references schoolchildren and sexual education to defend the Pope. I doubt His Holiness was resting on a fundamental biological arguement; there was plenty of "sacredness of life" infused.
Here's my question Dolores. The Catholic Church has had, let's say, 1200 years to integrate the male and female differences and, thus, generate harmony and peace.
How has that been working out? I mean this is the City which had to publicly debate how to protect the womenfolk connected with a predominantly Catholic police force, is it not?
Peace that is achieved without the trials and tribulations of finding that convergence is hardly worthy of the name. At best it is acquiescence; at worst -- apathy.
What the heck does this mean? I can speak only for myself in saying that stepping away from a life trying to force myself into convergence with men has brought me more peace than anything else in my life. I can also speak only for myself in saying that when I was struggling with poverty and illness, it was pretty clear what would have brought me some peace.
