Michael Geer, President of the Pennsylvania Family Institute, is an ignorant pea brained jerk. And that's me in a mellow mood. The PG published his letter to the editor (and NOT mine). He makes two points in response to the PG's editorial that the "marriage protection" amendment is unnecessary (and redundant)
First, [t]he PG editors seem unwilling to look beyond Pennsylvania's borders when it comes to understanding the debate over the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, SB 1250
Ahem. Mr. Geer. You didn't do your homework on this one. Please consider Ohio where the amendment you propose allows men who batter their partners to avoid conviction of domestic abuse because they aren't married. Or Michigan where a similar amendment deprives state and municipal entities (including colleges) from offering domestic partner benefits, hampering their recruitment efforts. Or Florida, where a proposed amendment, will impact approximately 17,000 children with same-sex parents.
So, yes indeed, let every Pennsylvania voter -- every resident, adult and child alike -- look outside our state to see what havoc this legislative hatred brings into the lives of thousands of people, heterosexuals included. I suppose you could say that those Ohio women shouldn't be shacking up with men outside of marriage. Or that Michigan should send more recruiters to Oral Roberts University anyway. And, shucks, Florida loses children in the child welfare system so often, that what's another 17,000 anyway?
How does any of this protect your marriage? Because none of you have made that clear. You just hide behind the next argument.
Without a Marriage Protection Amendment, Pennsylvania's marriage law is at risk from a legal challenge that could arise at any moment. It's time for lawmakers to let the people decide and pass SB 1250. To the Post-Gazette, it may be bigotry, but to most Pennsylvanians, it's simply fair.
Let the people decide. That worked out well during Reconstruction and the following ... well, forever years. It took the people nearly 140 years to decide that women should vote (maybe someone should remind the Christian Women's Groups of that). If only that pesky Supreme Court would stop interfering, the people could just keep on deciding who deserves civil rights and who doesn't.
Wrong, Geer. The CONSTITUTION decides. Check out the comments from City Council Pres. (and honorary lesbian) Doug Shields in a previous post. The people don't get to decide to create a second-class group of citizens because our very existence offends you. Life isn't fair, Geer. A lot of things offend me --- people who kill animals, parents who abuse their children, the entire system of senior support services in our nation -- but what especially offends me is when religious bigots like you want to impose your moral belief system on the rest of us, especially when you play some sort of quasi-democracy shell game.
You can't cry "freedom of religion" in the name of Constitutional law and then turn around to strike out the parts of that document that you don't like. That's just wrong. There's nothing fair about it.
I just hope some more people decide to call their Senators. You can bet your Bill of Rights that Geer has mobilized a full flotilla of Christians to make those calls. Are we gonna let him get away with this?
Short, but sweet. Have you written your letter to the editor, yet?
Senate Bill 1250, the Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment, is in direct violation of my religious beliefs as a Zen Buddhist priest ("Panel OKs Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage," March 19).
I am a strong advocate of marriage and live under a strict ethical code (which predates Christianity). That code of ethics guides my actions toward kindness, compassion and generosity and not toward anger, hatred and bigotry.
Our commonwealth was organized for the benefit of all its citizens. It is time we take down (not put up) the signs saying "No gays allowed."
REV. KYOKI ROBERTS Head Priest Zen Center of Pittsburgh
A Presbyterian minister whose 2006 church trial for conducting a lesbian marriage ceremony ended with dismissal on a technicality says she has again been brought up on the same charges.
The Rev. Janet Edwards, parish associate at the inter-denominational Community of Reconciliation in Oakland, said that an investigating committee of Pittsburgh Presbytery informed her Monday that it will pursue the case against her for the 2005 ceremony.
The Rev. Doug Portz, acting pastor to Pittsburgh Presbytery, said he was not allowed to discuss church trials.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) says clergy may bless same-sex couples only if the ritual cannot be mistaken for a marriage ceremony. But Rev. Edwards has never denied that she conducted a marriage ceremony.
"I believe with my whole heart that my decision to perform Nancy [Cole] and Brenda's [McConn] wedding was faithful to my pastoral call," she said.
This was not unexpected. As we reported in early march, a formal complaint had been issued or reissued one might say. Last time around, the charges against Edwards went nowhere based on technicalities. Persistent anti-gay forces within the church have soldiered on, determined to pin the church down on gay issues. See here for previous coverage on this.
Guess who is rolling into town? Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his posse of homo hatin' legal eagles. Moore, you may recall, wanted to slather Alabama Courthouses with the 10 Commandments. Ironically, he's narrowed his focus to homosexuals, a group noticeably absent from said Commandments. Hmmm. I guess he's moved on to Leviticus.
Anyhoo, The Foundation for Moral Law is coming to Pennsylvania to posit that our hate crimes law violates the state constitution. The issue centers around the provisions amending the hate crimes law to include sexual orientation. This led to the arrest of homegrown religious wing nut Michael Macavage who was protesting at Outfest in Philadelphia.
Macavage filed suit and the Commonwealth Court agreed with his claim that the *process* by which the original ethnic intimidation law had been amended was flawed. The process included an attachment to an agricultural bill.
Moore and his minions of hate celebrate the impending demise of the thought police.
"The law can punish actions, not 'our thoughts.'As we have seen in Philadelphia and in various states and countries, 'hate crimes' are used to prohibit Christians and anybody else from referring to homosexual behavior as immoral or a sin.
See this is where it gets interesting. Moore and Macavage hide behind claims that this is about controlling their thoughts or their religious beliefs, but they aren't challenging the law on those grounds. They are challenging it on procedural grounds. Why? Because they know the law doesn't interfere with their hate thoughts.
They neglect to point out that Macavage and his Repenters were arrested for their actions. They were not peacefully protesting or handing out tracts or carrying some "homos are demon spawn" signs. They were intentionally disrupting a lawful gathering of the gay community. Their actions were disruptive, belligerent and intentional. Their free speech does not give them the right to tramp all over the rights of the objects of their protests.
So, I wonder why the legislation was part of the agricultural bill? If it is overturned on procedure, does that mean it can be reintroduced on its own merits? Assuming we can take care of this pesky marriage amendment and get our human relations definitions expanded. It would be like the trifecta of legislative years. Or something.
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.
From the PG's Forum section comes this reflection on the pontifical peace perspective.
On World Peace Day, Jan. 1, most of the world's citizens will be too poor, too hungry, too surrounded by violence or too worried by this century's other basic challenges to pay attention. Those who do pay attention likely will think first of war in places like Iraq and Eastern Congo, genocide in Sudan, a looming crisis in nuclear Pakistan and widespread poverty all over.
The spiritual leader of more than a billion of the world's people will be thinking about homosexuality.
Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI issued his message for World Peace Day. Entitled "The Human Family, A Community of Peace," the message argues that peace begins with the family. That's a reasonable point. But then the pope writes, "Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and woman ... constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace."
Having implicitly named homosexuality as an obstacle to world peace in his fifth paragraph, the pope then waits until the seventh paragraph to mention the environment, the ninth to mention poverty and the second-to-last to mention war and violence.
Thankfully, Pope Benedict is wise to the ways of the Pink Menace.
By using World Peace Day to promote an anti-homosexual agenda and to demote the importance of poverty, the environment and war, Pope Benedict XVI is behaving scarily like his predecessor of 100 years ago. It is easy to imagine in the coming years the arrival of more explicitly anti-gay encyclicals, oaths against homosexual-friendly scholarship and perhaps even secret informers.
The predecessor was Piux X who was more concerned with modernity and mixed (Catholic/non-Catholic) marriages than any mere trivialities such as looming war or natural disasters. Pius even set up his own secret leauge of informers. Cool. Cause that never goes badly.
At this point in history, Pope Benedict XVI must choose his path. He can follow the paranoid, intolerant and inward-looking path of Pope Pius X. Or he can focus on the real problems of the day.
Pope John Paul II, no friend to homosexuals, focused most of his energy on building bridges across the Berlin Wall and then helping to prevent the Cold War from turning into World War III.
On World Peace Day 2008, our pope should imagine the place he might gain in history if he chooses to focus on poverty, the environment and war -- and while he's at it, on accepting the hundreds of millions of homosexuals inside and outside his flock. He may never condone their behavior -- sadly, such progress may have to wait for a future pope -- but he can at least treat them with peace and humanity.
Excellent point. Until someone ponies up a real heterosexual marriage that has been negatively impacted by a gay relationship, how about we focus on the myriad of social problems that have been demonstrated to prevent world peace? Or just one! Pick one problem and then attempt one solution. Like Bono. Minus the cool, but add a gajillion dollars of weekly tithes.
