Another heartening letter to the editor, this time from Carole E. Rose of Mt. Lebanon on the topic of gay rights.  Ms. Rose is responding to a letter which regurgitated the "marriage = procreation" argument which this writer soundly rebuts:

Does she have her head in the sand? Does she think that children are born only of married couples? Does she think that every child who is born has a loving place to live? Has she ever heard of adoption? Has she ever realized that gay and lesbian couples can in most states both foster and adopt children and raise them in a loving environment? So why not raise them in a loving environment of married parents whether they are same-sex parents or heterosexual? I've seen it and it works.

The state sanctioned marriage of two opposite gender adults does not in any way carry a guarantee of a loving, stable home for children.  Otherwise, there would be a long line of adult-children filing for their state backed "my parents sucked" refund.

Ms. Rose also gets a good swipe in for full equality.

Earlier in her letter she enumerates the civil rights that same-sex couples have been granted by some (but not all) states. Well big whoop! When you are a little bit "not equal" you are not equal.

Well said, Carole.  While I'm glad for my brothers and sisters in those states, I'm concerned that Pennsylvania has not yet expanded our hate crimes laws to include acts perpetrated on the base of sexual orientation or gender identity (does anyone think beating someone up because they 'seem' gay is not a hate crime?).  I'm hopeful State Representatives Dan Frankel and Chelsa Wagner will successfully steer legislation that essentially prevents us from being fired, denied housing or ejected from a restaurant because we are gay. 

This topic was brought startling to my consciousness the other day when a coworker was discussing a 'staff only' bathroom with me, arguing that in an organization where we promote community integration, a staff only bathroom was akin to a "Whiles Only" or "Heterosexuals Only" bathroom.  I could feel my eyes widening as it has been a long time since someone (gently) threw that argument back in my face.  I wasn't defending the bathroom, just being brought up to speed on the issue.  However, he made an impression because I'm writing about it two days later on a seemingly unrelated issue.  There are people in my community who experience discrimination in bathrooms -- my trans-sisters and trans-brothers, my lesbian and queer women sisters whose appearance is masculine, and gay men who are stalked by the police for seeking connections in bathrooms.  Yes, the bathroom has been a place of much discrimination in our community (think of all the kids beaten up in the school bathroom for the crime of not fitting in). 

Legislation won't suddenly put an end to all of this, but it will provide an opportunity to educate owners on how to accommodate their LGBTQ visitors and manage confrontations that might infringe upon those rights.  It will send a signal that we have recourse.  We can complain to the manager and expect him to do something about it.  We can contact the police, if we've experienced an act of violence (not an expression of someones opinion, mind you), and expect them to do something about it. 

A "little bit" equal didn't cut it with Mr. Kampus in 8th grade algebra and it doesn't cut it with Carole Rose, either.

Thanks for writing.

Melissa Meinzer, one of two media outlets to cover the planning meeting for the Mayor's new advisory council, has the scoop here.  I found her take to be interesting, especially the follow up interviews with the Mayor's liaison Gary Van Horn and the Mayor's spokeswoman. 

The idea for the council, Van Horn said in a later interview, germinated in January. No action was taken on it, he says, because "nobody was stepping up to the plate and holding the feet to the fire." So Van Horn, who, as president of the Delta Foundation, a local LGBT business group, has cultivated a relatively close relationship with Ravenstahl, met with him about six weeks ago. "The mayor needed to fulfill his promise" of reaching out, Van Horn said. "We've seen in the last two years, he needs educated." For instance, he says, the mayor, without someone directly explaining it to him, might not have understood that without domestic partnerships, loving partners of 20 years might be denied hospital visits to one another.

The council will be comprised of 8 to 10 actively involved members of the LGBT community. Preference will be given to city residents, Baginski said at the meeting, and city employees are eligible.

"The committee will create their own bylaws," Van Horn said.

Other than that, the selection process is not clear.

Baginski said at the meeting that the applications, due Jan. 15, would be culled by herself, Van Horn and others in the mayor's office. But Van Horn said in a later interview "that was news to me": He said he hadn't realized he'd be on the selection committee until Baginski mentioned it.

How council members will be chosen "will be the mayor's discretion," Doven says. "I don't have any word on that."

As to how Van Horn got to be the de facto liaison for the LGBT community, Doven says "that's sometimes how things get started, perhaps he had a relationship with the mayor. I know that [Van Horn] has expressed concern to the mayor and he's had dialogue with the mayor."

Van Horn won't say if he plans to apply for a council spot himself: "That's to be determined. I want to see how this all pans out."

At the meeting, Van Horn stated that he and others, including PA Human Relations Commission Chair Stephen Glassman, had met with the Mayor "earlier this year" to discuss this plan. Glassman has confirmed for me that he and local activists, Tara Reynolds, attended that meeting, but has not yet responded to my requests to confirm the other attendees. 

After 40+ comments showed up on my blog post, the Mayor's office asked for my contact information.  I have not yet heard from them and have no idea if they plan to answer my questions or not.

The inconsistencies around this whole plan are a bit troubling.  Why is the Mayor so reluctant to have his people talk with the gay media?  His Deputy Chief of Staff promised me, in front of 27 people, to answer my question about campaign contributions being revealed.  She lied to me.  In a public meeting.  There has been no answer or attempt to answer that question.  I'm a City resident and I should get a real answer, not have to read about it in the City Paper.

Let's talk for a moment about the campaign contributions.  Yes, I want to know about contributions of substantial amounts of money, but I'm also interested in contributions that are smaller but still significant for the donor.  If I give any elected official $50, it represents a big investment on the part of this social-work-salaried lesbian.  It makes a statement about my alliances and my values and my personal support.  The number of nominees for this committee that make donations of $500 and up are probably low.  So, yes, Mayor Ravenstahl, it does matter if there are numerous individuals who supported you with modest amounts.  And you should share that information unless you have something to hide. Period. 

As I've said in previous posts, I think Gary does some good stuff for the community and I think there's nothing wrong with self-promotion to make himself the Mayor's go-to-guy on LGBT issues ... after all, no one else was trying to be that person.  But I think it is a violation of ethics for Gary to be part of the planning and nomination teams if he is considering submitting his name for the board.  I think he should pick one or the other.  If the Mayor wants Gary on his board, fine.  Just ask him to pull out of the nomination process to keep things transparent and fair.  That's not difficult.  Make the process fair and transparent.  And that's a decision both Gary and the Mayor can make as part of their commitment to build genuine trust and communication with the community.  This is the point where self-interest should take a back seat to what's best for the community.

As for the "putting the feet to the fire" quote, there are several heads in this community that should roll over that one.  This was initiated by other activists who have not taken responsibility for their actions.  Gary is not the only player, he is the only one willing to be held somewhat accountable.  That's ridiculous.  He gets to deal with all the personal crap in the comments section while others sit back and say nothing.  Shame on them.  If there's even a remote possibility their names are submitted and I find out about it, all details will be forthcoming. 

One other advantage to the new board is that you will get to read some other opinions in future City Paper articles, aside from Gary and myself!

In today's PG , Chris Strayer of Homewood (misspelled as Hoomewood, I think) rebuts the "marriage is for procreation" argument.  Or, as Chris puts it, marriage for breeding.  That was worth a chuckle.

I'm confused about this "engendering" business. I thought that was something ultrasound readers and OB/GYNs did. They look at the kid and assign her/him to one of two categories. Never mind that kids come in far more than two categories, and frequently do not agree with the engenderer's opinion. Is Ms. Jarrell arguing that only ultrasound readers and OB/GYNs should be permitted to marry? Of course not. But her argument that marriage is for breeding falls flat.

Postmenopausal women may marry; I presume Ms. Jarrell would "grandmother" women who married before menopause but cannot now bear children. Men need not obtain a sperm count before obtaining a marriage license. Couples do not need to have a kid first and take her/him to the county offices to certify their fertility. Fertility clinics don't require marriage, either.

And as for the "gift" to civilization, that smacks of the pay-to-play we so roundly despise in our politics. Ms. Jarrell may as well demand that only those able to help a politician obtain re-election be granted the constitutional right to petition for a redress of grievances.

Let gay folks marry. It's simple 14th Amendment equal protection, people.

Pay to play seems to be a theme this week.  :-) 

Personally, I think procreation is less powerful than the "way God intended" argument. It is hard to challenge people who are absolute in what they know God intends.  Nonetheless, Chris, thank you for writing.  The more pro-gay content in the newspaper, the more impact we have, especially when the content is driven by readers. 

In no particular order.

The Post-Gazette examines the impact of the "new needy" on already stretched safety net resources. 

Mr. Carpenter became one of the "new needy," a group of newly unemployed and under-employed workers being forced to seek help from charities for the first time.

Seventy-three percent of Pittsburgh-area nonprofits have seen increases in help requests from such first-timers in the last six months alone, said a study released last week. At the same time, 100 percent of the same agencies expect budget shortfalls over the next six months.

The result of that math is many of those desperate enough to ask for help are being turned away.

I have been worried about this for months.  Many of the "new needy" don't even know where to turn for help, but there certainly aren't many marketing dollars available.  One very important resource in the safety net is the Human Services Development Fund which catches people who might otherwise fall through the net, for example adults ages 18-59 who often don't qualify for programs and services. This is dedicated funding in the state budget, under the Department of Public Welfare.  We'll have to watch the Governor's budget carefully as this is something that is vitally important to many, many vulnerable families and individuals. 

Next, check out Autumn's reflection on Pat Boone and homosexuals.

Lifetime is looking for lesbian moms for a new series.

Interested in women running for office?  Join the Run, Baby, Run email list a la Gloria.