A PSA for Equality

As Michael said over on Facebook...Makes one rethink that whole "traditional" marriage bit....

This is SO GOOD!

Winner of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Rights Award at the sixth annual "Media that Matters" film festival.

I support gay marriage

I just ordered a free sticker to support gay marriage here is the letter that they sent out to share for others to order the sticker also...

Dear friend,

After a lot of years of devastating setbacks in the fight for marriage equality, it seems like we're finally moving in the right direction. With marriage legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and Maine, and the fights going strong in New Hampshire, New York and California, this movement is gaining more momentum every day, and I'm excited to be a part of it.

To that end, I wanted to let you know that CREDO Action is giving away some awesome stickers about supporting gay marriage - I think you'd really like them. I just got mine - if you have a minute, click this link to check out the stickers and get one of your own (for free!).

https://act.credoaction.com/stickers/?r_by=-305079-qIAw7ix&rc=fb.connect&sp=i_love_love

Thanks!

Don't Divorce....

A friend had this video on her blog. She just got married this summer in California to her partner so might be one of the couples forced to get a divorce. It is upsetting. So this video is made in support of the Courage Campaign to fight it.



"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

Really Amazing Special Comment...

A moving commentary by Keith Olbermann only this time it is on love. As this issue is a matter of love, equality and honoring our fellow human being.

Gay Rights...?

I am thrilled we have Obama as President-Elect. But I am really confused on how a country can elect Obama but still ban gay marriages? It really disappoints me that we as country don't give everyone equal rights. Even though that is one the foundations of this nation. I don't get it. I have had happy tears going last night and this morning but have some sad tears going now too. I have several friends that got married this past year - I was so happy for them and I hope that their marriages won't be annuled. And I hope that those bans are overturned and others who I love can get married too.

Cheering for Father Farrow

I was sent this in an email this morning it is from one of the links at the end. I read this and was really cheering for Father Farrow. There is some things bolded - I bolded them as they were important to me. I also have one astrick that will be explained at the end.

This is one of my big issues when I vote. I vote for someone who is for equal rights of ALL PEOPLE not just hetrosexuals.

Father Farrow risked his job, which he's held for 23 years, because he, and all other pastors in the Diocese of Fresno, were asked by their bishop, to (illegally)* promote Catholics to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, and he felt a moral obligation to break his vow of canonical obedience by preaching the following sermon:

As most of you know, I was appointed pastor here at the Newman Center on April 15th of this year. When I arrived, I set out to address a series of various projects to repair our facilities. To date, most of these deferred maintenance items have been addressed. In the middle of dealing with contractors, the parish finance committee, the building department of the diocese, neighbors, etc., I received a FAX from the bishop's office on the 30th of June. It was the bishop's pastoral letter for the month of July.

This single FAX threw my whole summer, and in fact, my whole life into a turmoil. Recently, I was speaking with some of our parishioners who advocate for the ordination of women. In the course of our conversation, a question arose which has haunted me: "At what point do you cease to be an agent for healing and growth and become an accomplice of injustice?" By asking all of the pastors of the Diocese of Fresno to promote Catholics to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the bishop has placed me in a moral predicament.

In his "Pastoral," the bishop states: "Marriage is much more than simply two persons loving each other. Marriage is naturally, socially, and biologically, directed to bringing forth life."

Actually, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why is that two people of the same gender, who are incapable of reproduction, cannot enter into a valid marriage.

The objections which are raised at this point are taken from Sacred Scripture. Scripture scholars reveal the problematic nature of attempting to use passages from the Hebrew Scriptures as an argument against same gender relationships. Essentially, these scriptures are addressing the cultic practices in which sex with temple prostitutes was part of an act of worshiping Pagan gods. With regard to the Pauline epistles, John J. McNeill, in his book: "The Church and the Homosexual," makes the following point: "The persons referred to in Romans 1:26 are probably not homosexuals that is, those who are psychologically inclined toward their own sex--since they are portrayed as 'abandoning their natural customs.'" The Pauline epistles do not explicitly treat the question of homosexual activity between two persons who share a homosexual orientation, and as such cannot be read as explicitly condemning such behavior. Therefore, same gender sex by two individuals with same sex orientation is not "abandoning their natural custom."

In 1973, as a result of a greater understanding of human psychology, the American Psychological Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness. In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church's watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled: "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics." In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are "homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct." While these statements are hardly glowing affirmations of gay and lesbian persons, they represent a watershed in human perception and understanding of gay and lesbian people.

These new insights have occurred as a result of the birth and development of the science of psychology and understanding of brain development in the 19th and 20th centuries. The California Supreme Court cited and quoted an amicus brief filed by the APA in the Court's opinion issued on May 15, 2008 that struck down California's ban on same sex marriage. Specifically, the court relied on the APA's brief in concluding that the very nature of sexual orientation is related to the gender of partners to whom one is attracted, so that prohibiting same sex marriage discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, rather than just imposing disparate burdens on gay people.

In directing the faithful to vote "Yes" on Proposition 8, the California Bishops are not merely entering the political arena, they are ignoring the advances and insights of neurology, psychology and the very statements made by the Church itself that homosexuality is innate (i.e. orientation). In doing this, they are making a statement which has a direct, and damaging, effect on some of the people who may be sitting in the pews next to you today. The statement made by the bishop reaffirms the feelings of exclusion and alienation that are suffered by individuals and their loved ones who have left the Church over this very issue. Imagine what hearing such damaging words at Mass does to an adolescent who has just discovered that he/she is gay/lesbian? What is the hierarchy saying to him/her? What are they demanding from that individual? What would it have meant to you personally to hear from the pulpit at church that you could never date? Never fall in love, never kiss or hold hands with another person? Never be able to marry? How would you view yourself? How would others hearing those same words be directed to view you? How would you view your life and your future? How would you feel when you saw a car with a "Yes on 8" bumper sticker? When you overheard someone in a public place use the word "faggot?"

I remember the first time I heard that word, faggot, I was hanging out with my cousins. They all played on the football team of the Catholic high school in our town. One of them spat out the word in the form of a curse. I was just a kid in the 5th grade, I'd never heard the word before, and so I asked: "What's a faggot?" A faggot is a guy who likes other guys, was the curt reply. Now pause. Think. What would those words mean to someone in junior high school who discovers that he/she is attracted to people of their same gender? The greatest fear that he/she would have is that they would be rejected by the people they love the most--their family. So, their solution is to try to pass as straight, deceive, and in effect--lie. Of course, this leads ultimately to self loathing. It should come as little surprise that gay teenagers have elevated suicide rates. According to the Center for Disease Control's Youth Risk Behavior Survey (1999), 33% of gay youth will attempt suicide.

The bishop states: "The Church has spoken out constantly that those with a homosexual orientation must be respected with the dignity of every child of God. Every individual is created in the image and likeness of God and should never be subjected to prejudice or hatred." A pious thought uttered by a cleric, robbed of any substantive meaning, as the executioner begins his work. Only a few select people actually read those documents. What most Catholics hear about being gay or lesbian at their parish church is--silence. A numbing silence, which slowly and insidiously tells them, "You don't belong here, this is not for you, and you are not welcome." It is not the crude overt vulgarity of some churches. But rather, it is the coldness of a maitre d' who simply won't seat you, or the club which has put you on a waiting list with no intention of allowing you to join. And simply asks you to wait in polite almost, apologetic tones.

In effect, the bishops are asking gay and lesbian people to live their lives alone. Why? Who does this benefit? How exactly is society helped by singling out a minority and excluding them from the union of love and life, which is marriage? How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives? What is accomplished by this? Worse still, is to intimidate a gay or lesbian person into a heterosexual marriage, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful "theology." This "theology," which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society which they claim to abhor.

When the hierarchy prohibited artificial birth control, most of the faithful in the United States, Canada and Europe scratched their heads in wonderment and proceeded to ignore them. There is an expression in theology: "the voice of the people is the voice of God." If your son or daughter is gay/lesbian let them know that you love them unconditionally. Let them know that you are not ashamed or embarrassed by them. Guide them as you would your other children to finding true and abiding love. Let them know that marriage is a union of love and life and is possible for them too.

I do not presume to tell you how to vote but I do ask that you pray to the Creator of us all. Think and consider the effects of your vote on others, especially minorities in our society who are sitting next to you in church, and at work. The act of casting a vote takes you a few minutes but it can cause other human beings untold happiness or sorrow for a lifetime. It can grant them hope and acceptance, or it can cause them to lose civil rights. It can be a rebuff to bigotry and hatred, or it can encourage bigotry and hatred. Personally, I am morally compelled to vote "NO" on Proposition 8. It is my hope that the people of California will join with those others around the world such as Canada, Europe and South Africa who welcome their gay and lesbian family members fully into society by granting them the civil right to marry.

I know these words of truth will cost me dearly. But to withhold them, would be far more costly and I would become an accomplice to a moral evil that strips gay and lesbian people not only of their civil rights but of their human dignity as well. Jesus said, "The truth will set you free." He didn't promise that it would be easy or without personal cost to speak that truth.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/10/11/priestly-portrait-of-courage/
http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/catholic_priest_defies_church_over_antig.php

(* I believe in the the seperation of Church and state and if the church tells us how to vote then they should be losing their tax extempt status as they are mixing church and state. They are "giving up" that right then. It is my belief if the theology of the church is preached then the perishiners will make the right choice by God. Period. And the church wouldn't be mixing that line of church and state.)

100 Things | As the World Turns

9. Okay I am going to admit this - I like

As the World Turns.

This is a 100 Things about me post but also asking everyone to help out. The American Family Association who is trying to get Proctor & Gamble who owns As the Worlds turns to stop a Gay story line

.

I hadn't watched in probably 10 or more years until recently if I am cleaning around that time or have mounds of clothes to fold you can see it on in the living room. It is a rare occasion maybe once a month. We didn't have local TV until just shortly before Fall 2007. So now that we do and I have started to watch more network TV (such as Moonlight and Oprah).

I feel like

As the World Turns

and I grew up together. I know that sounds really silly but it is a family-thing. My Mom watched it with her Mom and I watched it with my Mom and both my paternal and maternal Grandmothers. My Mom works for the school systems so in the summer it was very much the part of our normal routine that my Mom and all 3 of her daughter sitting down to watch

As the World Turns

. So I turn it on now mostly because it does have sentimental value to me. Now I can laugh at some of the same plots I saw when I was in high school - oh the drama. But I also remember times I have shared with both my Grandmothers, my Mom and my sisters. Such as I remember all my Mom, sisters and I all watching Holden and Lily getting together as teens. And until just recently they were both still on the show (Lily just left and being replaced). My Grandmother couldn't stand Lisa and you could see her getting annoyed with the character. I have a really strong memory where I am sitting behind the rocking chair playing barbies and my Mom is sitting on the couch folding clothes and watching As the World Turns. I am I think about 6 years old in the memory. So as I said it is a family thing and does have weird sentimental value to me. I am glad it is still on and going strong.

So as I said at the beginning of this post --As the World Turns has a gay plot line. And I am THRILLED they that do. Posting story lines such as it makes it more mainstream and hopefully bring it more awareness and acceptance. Noah and Luke have gained some attention and been called repulsive and immoral which is just silly. The American Family Association wants P&G to stop the story line. P&G has a phone poll to ask if they should keep it or get rid of it and even if you don't watch the show I would like to ask that people call and do the poll. It is touch button you don't have to talk to anyone. Even if you don't watch As the World Turns -- giving them a call to let them know Gay story line is acceptable - shows support. Phone number and buttons to push detailed here. Thank you!

Unbelievable

Michael sent me 2 links this morning that are just unbelievable....

The first Women in jeans cannot be raped

And then like the last line of the little commentary on this video says....

"While there’s no profanity in this clip, this is some of the most offensive language you’ll ever hear."

It is a state rep for Oklahoma saying some absolutely horrible things about gays and lesbians.

Both just make me sick....I don't get how people can believe the things they do...such hateful things.

San Diego Mayor

...saying he is supporting gay marriage....he is very choked up and emotional. It gave me tears.

http://cbs5.com/video/?id=26888@kpix.dayport.com

Voting Day!

Just a quickie...

Today we voted. Our new voter machines were pretty slick. But I am sure still have faults. But as you voted on the screen it printed out on paper right next to you so you could see it. It was a longer wait as they have to do more upfront to get you ready to actually vote.

We had dinner tonight and then have been snuggled up on the couch glued to CNN. I am just so disappointed in all the votes against domestic partnerships and the vote for making marriage one man and one woman here in Colorado. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised when we have some very big name political-religious groups here that are SO anti-homosexual.

To me God is love. I don't believe God would be rallying against love like those say they are God's followers do. Makes me sad.

Although I am sad and disappointed we do have some good things happening such as taking the majority in the HOUSE!

We are waiting now on the senate race.

Virgina wow...close so close! It looks like it will go to Webb (lets hope).
Missouri still waiting on.
Montana still waiting on.

Back to CNN, Michael and the kitty cats all snuggled up on the couch.

Voting...

It is election day tomorrow. Yesterday before heading to some friend's house Michael read the Analysis of the 2006 Ballot Proposals - the Blue Book of the Elections while I was getting a cake together to bring with us to our friends. I was confused on a few things that were coming up to vote on. But there were a few sections that annoyed me of course too.

Domestic Partnerships
The mail ads I have getting for domestic partnership make it really confusing for me. The ads come for a group I tend to usually agree with but the ads kept saying "It's not marriage." And that bothered me. I understand why they were putting it that way. So that maybe those that don't want those of the same sex to get married will at least give same-sex couples domestic partnership. But just like New Jersey - it isn't marriage. And it bothers me that people won't let those that want to get married - get married. So Michael read me the actual referendum and then the pros and cons they print. And of course the cons...and well the pros also did a little too because of just how they worded things. One of the cons that annoyed me......

"Domestic partnerships diminish the significance of marriage for society by reducing marriage to a list of benefits and responsibilities. The benefits given to married couples are intended to support child rearing by one man and one woman. The state has an interest in restricting recognition and legal protection to these married couples to provide stability for the individuals, their families and the broader community."

Yes insert rolling eyes. Like a same-sex couple can't support and raise a child? Grrr! All in all I am not happy that they aren't allowing marriage. And this just seems like it is better then nothing and maybe will make it easier in the future. And so I am of course voting yes on it.

Which brings me to the next one...

Marriage
Another thing up is an amendment that proposes adding a new section about marriage. Basically defining marriage as one man one woman. So you know I was all growly about that one.

And of course one their pro arguments...(rolling eyes and sighing)

"The public has an interest in preserving the commonly accepted definition of marriage. Marriage as an institution has historically consisted of one man and one woman and as such provides the optimal environment for creating, nurturing and protecting children and preserving families."

Grrrrr! Commonly accepted definition because people don't get love is love. And you can't help who you love. Of course again stating that a family is only one man and one woman with children. So of course voting no on that one.

Getting lots of repeat political calls? Check this link out, and this one and this one. We haven't actually had these but I have heard that some people aren't going to vote because they have been getting so many calls and seeing so many negative television ads.

A GREAT SOURCE for political links and thoughts is Twistedchick's Free Speech Zone.

So tomorrow we vote. I am hoping and praying things get better. I have literally been scared and so sad how this country has been heading since Bush has come into office. I have cried and laid at awake at night because of it. And so as I said...hoping and praying.

Edit: (added 7:34pm)
Talking to a good friend, she pointed out that actually the nation should not get involved in marriage at all. That everyone should have be domestic partners but that marriage should be something each church decides. That for our laws of country if you want to file joint taxes, you want the rights given to you as a spouse, you want to live in together in union as a couple then those that do should file for domestic partnership. And if you want a religious marriage ceremony then you go to your church of choice for a marriage ceremony. And that makes sense to me. That is a TRUE separation of church and state to me. Then the state is not involved in the religious aspect of marriage. And the church is not meddling in who wants to live together in a domestic partnership.

Gay Rights....

Well New Jersey...recognizes same sex unions but not marriage...so it isn't perfect but obviously closer...hopeful to me.

Links:
CNN
Daily Kos
Reuters
365Gay.com

The Marriage Amendment

Recently one of the forums I subscribe to brought up the Marriage Amendment. It's the proposed Amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. One of the tangents in the discussion raised that it is the Bible that makes a distinction for us ... us being society, the United States and the foundation of our Constitution.

A forum participant then made the following comment: "common sense can also lead people to take a stand for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

I took exception to that and replied:

It's common sense that also defied the overwhelming premise that the earth was round a few hundred years ago. But wisdom taught the world otherwise. Common sense even proclaimed that slavery was a right - yet wisdom eventually taught our country differently. The foundation of what's held as "common sense" has been so mis-aptly applied throughout the ages by the upper hierarchy of man so that the subjects and under privileged remained in control according to what social order *they* proclaim is worthy for their civilization. Wisdom allows those who are interested, to question, to explore and otherwise question the role of those who bestow "common sense" on the populace.

But if the premise reads that "common sense" can lead people to define marriage between the union of one man and one woman -- then wisdom can tell you that love knows no color, no belief, no orientation. Anywhere any doctrine, any canon , any scribe, or any law that is applied to explicitly *exclude* one segment of the populace based solely on their sexual preference is pure and unadulterated prejudice.

Pure and unadulterated prejudice does appear to be in defiance of what "God's love" is supposed to be about, no?

But thankfully we do currently live in a country of *choice* - and while one might want to subscribe to a party of "common sense," I choose the path of wisdom. It's interesting to point out that while some contribute gays and lesbians as a catalyst of social decay -- might actually want to take a long hard look at the countries that support gay rights. They are not in chaos or out having sex with sheep -- contrary to what "common sense" might believe.

In fact, one might be surprised that when the government minds their own business and stays out of the affairs between consenting adults -- the neighbors tend to get along better with one another. But alas, "common sense" is probably trying to reinvent the United States to become that of the fabled Eden.. ...which is neither viable or possible today...

Sorry "common sense," wisdom clearly wins here.

I'm a heterosexual male - and I approve of this message...

Linkage...

Jana Marcus "Transfigurations": A photo and essay presentation about people who are transgendered.

http://www.jlmphotography.com/recent/TransPresentation/sld001.htm

News....

From a news article about the newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop when asked if it was a sin to be homosexual--- "The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today."

I always think of that West Wing episode where President Barlet confronts a radio show host who says homosexuality an "abomination."

From the script of The Midterms Season 2

Bartlet: Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do." I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My chief of staff, Leo McGary, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? Or is it okay to call the police?

(Bartlet barely pauses to take a breath.)

Here’s one that’s really important, because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?

(The camera pushes in on the president.)

One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building when the president stands, nobody sits.

(Jacobs sees that, in fact, the president is standing and she is the only one in the room sitting. After a moment, she rises, holding her tiny plate of appetizers. After the president exits, Sam Seaborn sternly approaches a thoroughly belittled Jacobs.)