The Heirs and the Dog that bit ‘em

We’ve all heard about the $12 million dollar Trust fund established by wealthy heiress, Leona Helmsley, for her pet Maltese, ‘Trouble’ (who lived up to his name when he a housekeeper).

Helmsley, a billionaire, left the bulk of her estate to a Charitble Trust and just $5 million each to all but 2 of her grandkids who she disinherited. Needless to say, the family has initiated a lawsuit to challenge the pup’s trust fund.

As the media focuses on the feud between the heirs and the dog that bit them, the bill for court costs, attorney and probate fees and the expenses of administering the Trust continue to pile up. Ultimately, the legal price tag may exceed $60 million dollars!

It looks like Helmsley really screwed the pooch this time!

Many LGBTQ people love our pets as though they are our children. If you have pets and are concerned about what will happen to them if you get sick or die, we have outlined a few things you might want to consider as you make your estate plan.

The following 3 step plan will ensure that your pets will be cared for in any event:

1. Make provisions in your Will and/or Trust to provide effectively for the comfort and care of your pet(s).

2. If you are making a Will but not a Trust, make arrangements, in advance, to protect your pets during the interim period between your death and the admission of your Will to probate. Too often this period is not considered. Although a Will can make provisions for the care of the pet, unless you have a Living Trust, no action can be taken by the Personal Representative to carry out these provisions until the Will has been admitted to probate and the Personal Representative has received the authority to proceed by the issuance of letters testamentary. The time between death and the authority of the Personal Representative to act can vary between several weeks and several months. Plans must be made to ensure care for your pets during this interim period.

3. Make advance arrangements to ensure your pets will be cared for in the event of an extended illness hospital stay.

Designating Caretakers

You should find a friend or relative willing to care for your animals in the event you’re your partner dies before you (or if you do not have a partner). The matter should be discussed in advance with the potential caretaker to make sure the animal will be cared for appropriately. The person who will receive an animal as the result of a bequest in a Will or Trust should understand that he or she becomes the animal's owner and, as such, has all the rights and responsibilities of ownership.

You should add the appropriate language in his/her Will or Trust to ensures the animal will be left with the caretaker you have selected. It is best to name alternate caretakers in the Will or Trust in case the first-named person is unable or unwilling to take the animal when the time comes.

Example:

“I give my [cat, Ginger], and any other animals which I may own at the time of my death, to [Mary Smith], presently residing at[address], with the request that she treat them as companion animals. If she is unable or unwilling to accept my animals, I give such animals to [John Doe], presently residing at [address] with the request that he treat them as companion animals. If he is unable or unwilling to accept my animals, my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall select an appropriate person to accept the animals and treat them as companion animals, and I give my animals to such person.

I direct my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee to give [$_] from my estate to the person who accepts my animals, and I request (but do not direct) that these funds be used for the care of my animals.”

Another alternative is to give the Personal Representative/Successor Trustee the discretion to select from among several caretakers prearranged and named in your Will or Trust.

Example:

“My Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall give [my dogs] to one or more of the following persons who agree to care for such [dogs] and to treat them as companion animals:

[Mary Smith], presently residing at[address];

[John Doe], presently residing at[address];

[James Smith], presently residing at[address].

My Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall have the discretion to select one or more of the persons named above to receive one or more of the [dogs]. If none of such persons are willing or able to take the [dogs], my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall have the discretion to give the [days] to another person or persons who agrees to care for such [dogs] and to treat them as companion animals.

My Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall give [$ ] to each person selected by my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee and who accepts one or more of my [dogs].”

Providing Funds for Pet Care

Under the laws of all 50 states, a you cannot leave any part of your estate outright to an animal. However, you may leave a sum of money to the person designated to care for the pet, along with a request (not a direction) that the money be used for the pet's care. It is important for you to select a caretaker you trust and who will be devoted to your pets, because the caretaker has no legal obligation under the above provision to use the money for the purpose specified.

You should leave only a reasonable amount of money for the care of any pet. A large sum of money may prompt relatives to challenge the Will or Trust and the court may invalidate the bequest for pet care. You may want to include an "in terrorem" clause in your Will or Trust to reduce the chance of a challenge to the Will or Trust. This clause provides that if a person unsuccessfully challenges a provision in the Will or Trust, he or she cannot then receive property under any provision of the Will or Trust.

Designating a Shelter or Charitable Organization to Care for Pets

If no friend or relative can be found to take the pet, the you should look for a charitable organization whose function is to care for or place companion animals. A humane society or shelter might agree to accept the animal along with a cash bequest to cover expenses.

The charity should agree to take care of the animal for its life or find an adoptive home for the animal. Before selecting a shelter, find out what kind of care animal receive at the shelter (for example, an animal should not have to stay for more than a short period in a cage). If the organization is directed to find an adoptive home for the companion animal in its care, you should obtain detailed information about the adoption procedure.

Example:

“Give all of my [dogs' cats, and other animals] to the [Humane Shelter], presently located at [address], with the following requests:

…that the [Humane Shelter] take possession of and care for all my animals and search for good homes for them;

…that until homes are found for my animals, the animals be placed in foster homes rather than in cages at the shelter;

…that if it is necessary to keep some of the animals in cages while making arrangements to fend permanent homes, in no event should any animal stay more than a total of 2 weeks in a cage;

…that each animal should receive appropriate veterinary care, as needed;

…that after attempts have been made for 3months to place an animal, my [son], presently residing at [address], be contacted if it is not possible to place an animal so that he can assist with finding a home for the animal;

…that the shelter make every effort to assure that none of my animals are ever used for medical research or product testing or painful experimentation under any circumstances;

…that, after placement, shelter personnel make follow-up visits to assure that my animals are receiving proper care in their new homes.

If the [Humane Shelter] is in existence at the time of my death and is able to accept my animals, I give [$_ to the Humane Shelter]If the [Humane Shelter] is unable to accept my animals, I give my animals and [$ / to one or more similar charitable organizations as my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall select, subject to the requests made above.”

Making a Conditional Bequest

New York and some other states allow the you to make a "conditional bequest" in which both the animal and a sum of money are left to a beneficiary who must use the money for the care of the animal.

A conditional bequest has the advantage of requiring the recipient to care for the pet but adds to the Personal Representative/Successor Trustee's responsibility the task of ensuring that the person receiving the money fulfills his or her commitment. Therefore, you must select a Personal Representative/Successor Trustee willing to undertake this added responsibility. If you want a conditional bequest, the relevant law in your state must be taken into consideration when drafting this language to ensure the provision for pet care in not later invalidated by the courts.

Establishing a Trust for Animals

Under the law of most states, an animal cannot be made the beneficiary of a trust. In a few states, persons can create trusts for animals, but such trusts are honorary, i.e. unenforceable in the courts, and effective only if the trustee chooses to abide by the terms of the trust instrument. However, a small but growing number of states, including New York, have enacted statutes so that trusts for animals can be created and can be enforced in the courts. Trusts in these states are not honorary even though they may be referred to as such.

In all states where a trust for animals can be created, the trust cannot exceed 21 years, even if the life span of a particular animal is longer. The trustee appointed in the trust will be directed to the trust instrument to use the funds in the trust to care for the animals. If the trustee cannot take physical possession of the animals, a separate person should be named as the caretaker.

In the states where trusts for animals are not permitted, a trust for human beneficiaries can include a provision that the trustee may use trust property to pay for the care of animals, as payment for such care benefits the human beneficiaries.

Providing for Euthanasia if Caretakers Cannot be Found

Provisions in a Will or Trust directing that an animal be euthanized upon the death of its owner have been invalidated by the courts. While you may feel it is important to protect your pet from subsequent mistreatment or a "bad home," it is questionable whether a healthy pet's life must end by euthanasia when its owner dies. Nevertheless, if a you wish to provide for euthanasia, it is preferable to specify in a Will or Trust that the pet be cared for by the Personal Representative/Successor Trustee or a friend for a period of time and ask that this person attempt to find a good home for the pet, and if no home is found after a specified reasonable period of time, that the animal may betaken for euthanasia. A court may be less likely to overturn such a provision.

An alternative is to write a letter to a friend or relative stating that upon your death, the animal should be euthanized. (A signed copy should be given in advance to the friend or relative and another signed copy should be held with the Will or Trust but not made part of the Will or Trust). The letter is not legally binding and the friend or relative is not obligated to carry out your instructions.

Euthanasia performed pursuant to a letter from you is also subject to court challenge.

It is preferable that permission of those relatives or other persons or charities who take the balance of the estate the residuary beneficiaries-be obtained before any animals are euthanized, as the residuary beneficiaries could complain that the animal is part of the estate property and should pass to them. This is unlikely, but it has happened.

It should be noted that if you bequeath your animal to a friend or relative, that person becomes the owner and has all the rights and obligations of the pet's care, including the right to euthanize the animal.

Example:

“My [cat, Ginger], shall be delivered to[Mary Smith or John Doe] for temporary holding. The Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall determine the amount from the estate to go with the animal for such temporary care and feeding. The Personal Representative/Successor Trustee shall advertise and otherwise make diligent efforts to find a good home for the animal, taking a reasonable amount of money for these purposes from the estate. If no home can be found after [ ] months, the animal shall be taken to [name and address of veterinarian] to be euthanized by the most humane method the veterinarian has competency to use.”

Providing Funds for Pet Care During Transitional Period

Finally, a provision which should be included in all Wills or Trusts where an animal is involved, is one allowing the Personal Representative/Successor Trustee to use estate funds to care for the animal for the period before the animal goes to the new home designated by the you. The Will or Trust should state that the costs of food, veterinary care, transportation and other expenses incurred by the Personal Representative/Successor Trustee in caring for your pet is to be paid from the estate as an estate administration expense, whether or not the expenses are deductible for estate tax purposes.

If you are using a Will only, short-term arrangements for care of a pet are necessary to cover the period between your death and the issuance of letters testamentary or letters of administration. These letters give the Personal Representative or Administrator authority to act, but depending on the jurisdiction, it may take from two weeks to two months to obtain them. Short-term arrangements are also necessary if the owner is hospitalized for a period of time.

Example:

“I direct my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee to pay, as an administration expense' all expenses associated with the feeding and care, including veterinary costs, of my [dogs and cats] until the animals are placed with the persons that I (or my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee) have selected to care for the [dogs and cats] for the duration of their lives, whether or not these expenses are deductible for estate tax purposes.”

Arranging for Friends/Relatives to Provide Short-Term Care

You should try to find a friend or relative who is willing to take care of your pets during these periods. You should leave word, preferably in writing, at home and with a neighbor, or with the building management and/or superintendent for the friend or relative to be notified. You should arrange for access to your home to permit the care and feeding of your pets during such short -term periods. If an apartment is involved, you should consider leaving a key with the superintendent or a neighbor. If there is a relative or friend in the area, you should consider providing that individual with a key and with written permission to the building management to enter the apartment in the event of your death or hospitalization.

Arranging for a Shelter or Charitable Organization to Provide Short-Term Care

There may be an animal shelter or charitable organization with which you can make arrangements – in advance -- to care for your pet in the event of your death or hospitalization. Should you make such arrangements, shelter personnel would need written instructions addressed to the superintendent or building management and the key to permit them access. Similarly, you should leave written instructions in your home and with a relative or friend to notify the shelter (if a shelter is chosen) or the individual who has agreed to take care of the pet during this period.

Emergency Instructions

Once you have decided upon such arrangements for the short-term care and feeding of the pet in the event of the pet owner's hospitalization or death, you should carry a copy of the instructions as part of your identification papers in the event of sudden hospitalization or death due to an accident or illness.

Sample Note to Carry in Wallet Regarding Emergency Care of Pets:

“In any situation in which I am unable to return home to feed my pets, such as my hospitalization or death, please immediately call [Mary Smith] at [address and phone] or [John Doe] at [address and phone], to arrange for the feeding of my [cats] located in my home at [address]. The superintendent of my apartment building [name, address and phone], my Personal Representative/Successor Trustee [name, address and phone], and my neighbor [name, address and phone] have a copy of this document.”

Providing Copies of Instructions to An Personal Representative/Successor Trustee

Finally, in the event of death, and to cover the interim period while letter testamentary are being obtained, the Personal Representative/Successor Trustee named in your Will or Trust should also be given copies of all applicable instructions.

Finally, the best way to assure proper care for your pet is to make long-term (final) and short-term arrangements for your pets now – either through your Will and/or Trust or in letters of instructions and other arrangements as discussed above.

Making these arrangements may entail a significant amount of effort on your part, but is important so that your animal is cared for in the event of your hospitalization, incapacity or death.

Fruit for Thought...

Recent debate about ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) has gay rights activists pitted against gay rights activists who are arguing over the breadth of coverage of the protections afforded by the act.

Broadly speaking, on one hand, you have gay rights activists who believe that ENDA will only pass by a veto proof margin if the protections do NOT cover job discrimination against transgendered and transsexual people. On the other side are those who argue that the LGB's must stand in solidarity with the T's because there is strength in numbers and/or it is the right thing to do.

Some LGB activists are uncomfortable that issues regarding the T’s have been “tossed into the pot” of legislative protections for L, G and B employees. They argue that to compare the T’s with the LGB’s is like comparing apples and oranges. Both queer and fruity but otherwise, not the same.

Another rationale we’ve heard (in support of excluding the T’s from ENDA) is that the T’s do have access to rights and protections that are currently NOT available to LGB people.

For example, because the T’s are not necessarily gay or lesbian, it is true that those who have opposite sex partners can and do take advantage of rights and benefits not available to those of us in same-sex relationships. Those rights and benefits might include marriage, adoption, military service, the ability to collect government benefits, etc.

We read a post about an activist who challenged the T’s to show their solidarity with the LGB’s by refusing to take advantage of their right to marry an opposite sex partner until the LGB’s also have that right.

Still others contend that it makes political sense to pass a watered down version of ENDA now – even if its protection is limited to the LGB’s. Those who believe in this approach include Representative Barney Frank, himself a G-man, who said that the important thing to do is get the bill passed and then we can try to add the T’s later.

We (Carrie & Elisia and therefore, Rainbow Law) find the entire debate somewhat distasteful if not disgraceful!

How often have you heard us rail against other minority groups for their unwillingness or inability to empathize with our (LGB) oppression?

If every member of a minority group in America – Gay, Lesbian, Transgendered, Transsexual, Bi-Sexual, Native American, Hispanic, African American, Black, Asian, Muslim, Jew, Arab, Indian, etc. -- who has ever experienced state sanctioned discrimination would just for one second reflect on that fact that all of us have, in common, the knowledge and understanding of oppression and the denial of basic rights simply because of our religion, skin color, ethnicity, gender and/or sexual orientation.

If only we can all be courageous enough to empathize with one another on this basic, human level, NONE of us would BE in a minority group because together, WE ARE THE MAJORITY.

When we are able to rise above the our own fear of “the other,” we will understand that the only true “US AGAINST THEM” dynamic is the one that pits the HAVE-NOTS -- mostly old, very young, and/or poor, people of color, LGBTQ people, religious, ethnic and racial minorities – against the HAVES -- mostly White, male, christian, wealthy, straight, holders of political and financial power.

Together, in solidarity, we would be a MAJORITY. It is essential to the survival of the true MINORITY that we continue to fear and mistrust one another.

Otherwise, the HAVES would no longer be free to go on raping and pillaging the Earth and our collective Spirit.

When we step back and look at the BIG picture, we cannot justify excluding the T’s from a law that THEY need just as much as we do.

Especially when we are asking other (often reluctant) minority groups to support OUR struggle for legal equality.

Somewhere, someone has to stop the cycle of climbing up the citizenship ladder by stepping on the backs of the next lowest despised minority.

Whether GLB, T or the other T, we're all oppressed by the same folks for similar reasons.

To us, it's perfectly clear: we're all Queer here.

The Matthew Shepard Act

The Matthew Shepard Act -- which when passed will (among other things) expand the existing hate crimes law to "authorize the Department of Justice to investigate and prosecute certain bias-motivated crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability."

Current law only includes race, color, religion or national origin.

The Act passed in the House last May and since then has been languishing in the Senate. If it passes in both houses, President Bush has threatened a veto.

This proposed legislation has created another opportunity for the religious right to bash the so-called "homosexual agenda." It also proves that they have no intention to ever give the LGBTQ Community access to even the most humane and fundamental legal protection -- the right to be free from violence for being who we are.

Whenever someone argues that it is merely the equal marriage issue that riles up the wing-nuts, tell them about Rod Parsley, the evangelical mega-church preacher whose book, Silent No More, sells three for $10 in the front lobby of Hope Christian's 3,000-member church. A chapter entitled "The Unhappy Gay Agenda" argues that gay people are much given to depression and deviance, including their "substantially higher participation in sadomasochism, fisting, bestiality, ingestion of feces, orgies … obscene phone calls … shoplifting, and tax cheating."

"Homosexuality is not just sick," writes Parsley, "it is sin."

And Bishop Harry Jackson of Maryland's Hope Christian Church who recently wrote:

"The gay community, with the help of the liberal media, has worked strategically on a P.R. campaign to make Americans comfortable with homosexuality. From the slightly effeminate male assistant to the first gay marriage ceremony on television, American audiences have watched homosexual themes creep into their lives."

Clearly, these "Christian" men and their disciples of hate don't want to extend to you the right to be free from violence.

According to Princeton University Professor Cornell West, these preachers have been "inundating the media and faith communities with the message that this legislation will allow police to storm into worship services and arrest clergy if they speak against being gay. They make the incendiary allegation that the bill will create "thought crimes" by punishing people for thinking ill of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.

The truth is that the Matthew Shepard Act protects all First Amendment rights. And, although that is a given, this bill goes out of its way to protect the free speech of ministers. Those pastors who wish to continue condemning and dehumanizing the gay community will be free to do so.

The hate crimes bill provides resources for the investigation of violent actions - not beliefs, thoughts, or words. The proposed federal statute does not punish nor prohibit free expression of one's religious beliefs. As University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey R. Stone recently concluded, "The argument of the pastors that the proposed legislation in any way threatens their right to preach their version of the Gospel is, to be frank, ridiculous."

Despite the ridiculousness of their claims, the powerful and cash-rich antigay lobby continues to mold opinion against this legislation with fear and falsehoods. Leaders like Jackson have used provocative "thought crime" arguments to obscure the truth that, according to the FBI, 1,017 people were the targets of violent crimes in 2005 because of their sexual orientation.

Their rhetoric steals attention away from the stories of gay couples being viciously beaten for holding each other's hand in public or a flight attendant sought out to be heinously murdered simply because he was gay.

These preachers don't care to hear the thousands of stories of lives and communities scarred by antigay violence. And, conveniently, those who bring up the reality that the Matthew Shepard Act is a constitutional and important means to prevent antigay violence are labeled by these clergy as "anti-Christian." The good intentions of this legislation have been greeted by malice by these manipulators of fact.

The efforts of antigay preachers and their supporters is not the way to create the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a "Beloved Community" - where we all strive to treat each other with respect and compassion.

The way to start building such a community is to listen to the words of Gordon Smith, the Republican senator from Oregon who is cosponsoring the Matthew Shepard Act. Before his fellow senators, Smith declared, "I believe that the moral imperative that underpins hate crimes legislation is simply this, and it comes from sacred writ: that when people are being stoned in the public square, we ought to come to their rescue."

In supporting the noble imperatives of the Matthew Shepard Act, we all have the chance to work toward a community that protects and respects the lives and dignity of all citizens instead of bows to falsehoods and bigotry.

Please contact your Senator today and ask that they ignore the hateful rhetoric and do the right thing. Pass the Matthew Shepard Act with a veto proof margin.

Help! Pat Buchanan is Imposing His Marriage on Us!

When we watch the news and hear outlandish and false statements about LGBTQ people and our "agenda" go unchallenged, we worry that the misinformation will eventually be seen as "the truth."

Unfortunately, as occasional victims of these lies, we are left to scream helplessly at the television, demanding for a correction or an apology -- which never comes.

Today we want to address a particularly annoying lie that keeps recycling throughout debates over the Larry Craig debacle -- that gay and lesbian partners demands for equal marriage rights are unjustified and illegitimate.

As you are no doubt aware, Senator Larry Craig’s tearoom tap dance is all-the-buzz lately on every TV news/talk show.

Pundits and talking heads – most of them straight (at least publicly) males – are pontificating on the inescapable reality that the GOP is riddled with gay bashing hypocrites.

Last week, on one particular segment of MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, he and Republican strategist, Pat Buchanan spent about 15 minutes agonizing over the potential negative impact Craig’s sordid tale would have on the Republican’s chances of winning the 2008 Presidential election.

During their exchange, Matthews stated (and has since repeated) that it irks him to see self-hating gay bigots like Craig pushing for laws like Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the Constitutional Amendment to ban equal marriage rights.

Matthews is especially fired up over DADT, which he believes is a “legitimate” concern for “patriotic” LGBTQ Americans who want to serve their country (and implicit in his insistence that arguments against DADT are legitimate, is Matthews’ opinion that demands for marriage equality rights are not valid).

A few nights ago, Matthews went head-to-head with Pat Buchanan over the Larry Craig fiasco and the two pundits their views on the validity of DADT and the issue of marriage equality.

Matthews reiterated his views on DADT and Buchanan countered that the policy is a logical solution because it protects unsuspecting and vulnerable straight soldiers from being molested by gays as they sleep in their barracks. (What a bunch of hooey!)

When the dueling conservatives got around to discussing marriage, blow-hard Buchanan bellowed that advocates for equal marriage rights are trying to force him to accept our marriages as legitimate – and that would be unfair to him:

“You‘re—but see, the two homosexuals would be asking their—they‘re imposing something on me. They‘re saying, you must recognize my—our relationship as marriage. And I say, look, my values say no. I mean, if you‘re living in Dupont Circle, that‘s your business.”

As usual and until now, Buchanan’s absurd statement went unchallenged.

We will now offer the response we can only dream of hearing on the air some day:

• First, that kind of insulting and conceited statement just infuriates us!
  

• Second, just how would our marriage be in any way an imposition on Pat Buchanan -- or anyone else besides us for that matter?
  

• Third, assuming that Pat Buchanan is a married man, we are not in the slightest bit burdened by his marriage. Despite knowing that somewhere lurks the specter of Buchanan’s marriage, we go on about our daily lives as if it does not exist at all.
  

The only problem we have with Buchanan’s marriage is that although we are American citizens and we pay taxes that support programs that are available to Buchanan and his wife, we are not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges granted by those programs.

Want to know what is really unfair? That WE are the ones forced to accept Buchanan’s marriage while being denied the right to our own!

If you want to add your voice to the growing chorus of American’s who are sick and tired of anti-marriage legislation, please sign our petition and we will pass it on to the President and your representatives in Congress.

Here you will find many more examples of Republican ‘moral values’ hypocrisy.

George and John: Breaking up is hard to do!

This week’s meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in Sydney should mark the last time that Australian Prime Minister John Howard and US President George W Bush get to schmooze one another as official heads of state.

As they gaze one last time into one another's eyes, perhaps they will be saddened that their days of war mongering against the Muslim world and against the LGBTQ Community are nearly over.

After all, they have been successful at murdering hundreds of thousands of Muslim men, women and children -- and have unleashed an unprecedented assault on gay men and lesbians in the US, Australia, Afghanistan and Iraq:

"Life is particularly less safe for gay and lesbian people in Iraq, many of whom are being hunted down and executed by Islamic extremists. But it is over the rights of their own gay and lesbian constituents that Bush and Howard are arguably most aligned.

In the lead-up to the 2004 US Presidential election, Bush’s Republican Party sought to mobilise right wing Christian voters by placing referenda on gay marriage on the ballot papers of many of the vital swing States that would determine the election result.

Bush went on to win many of those States, with gay marriage banned in each.

Similarly, in the lead-up to Australia’s general election in 2004, John Howard introduced legislation to ban gay marriage."

We say good riddance to both of these dangerous and delusional men.

The True Cost of Conservative "Family Values"

Seemingly unrelated stories involving Mother Teresa's lack of faith or belief in a celestial, all-knowing creator, and Republican Senator Larry Craig's titillating bathroom sex encounters, have us contemplating the true cost of conservative "family values."

As long as the religious wing-nuts continue to bribe Republican lawmakers with the promise of electoral victory by delivering "values votes" in exchange for a promise to recreate America into a CHRISTIAN- judeo* nation, we will continue to see more and more political figures facing a public shaming for their hypocrisy. * The judeo part is only temporary and will end with Armageddon.

And now, after they've destroyed their Republican hosts, these parasitic fascist wing-nuts are evacuating the party in droves as it smolders and burns.

As the unofficial leader of the Republican electoral strategy, Karl Rove is more responsible than any other single person for his party's downfall. The foundation of Rove's plan was to build a permanent Republican majority by catering to "the base."

Unfortunately for Republicans, their base happens to be a cluster of crazed and rabid religious fanatics who insist on controlling what the rest of us do in the privacy of our own lives.

Thus, the most recent scandals involving Republican Senator Larry Craig, Republican Senator David Vitter (not outed for gay sex but still shamed for a sex "scandal"), Republican Representative Mark Foley, and too many others to list, are simply the result of men spewing hateful rhetoric and passing mean-spirited legislation because they were directed to do so.

Now, the hateful, homophobic scheme that once seemed so clever, has come home to bite Republicans on the ass.

If LGBTQ citizens enjoyed equal rights, dignity and respect by our government, perhaps these self-hating gay Republicans would be able to express their sexuality in a healthy manner.

It almost makes you believe that God Himself directed the outings of these men as a way to remind His flock that a true Christian engages in activities that lift up the downtrodden -- not crush them.

And that brings us to Mother Teresa who apparently was having difficulty believing in God. Who can blame her? During her life of tending to the poorest of the poor, she knew that church leaders were protecting and defending depraved priests who molested children rather than using their vast wealth to truly end poverty.

She read the Bible and knew that its primary message was one of love, forgiveness and tending to children, the elderly, poor and infirm. How she must have suffered, seeing the great hypocrisy in her religion.

The real lesson is this: Greed and Lust are here to stay. They exist in religion, politics and in all areas of life.

Whether atheist, agnostic or a believer, some people try every day to live a meaningful life by giving back to those who are less fortunate.

Other people will cravenly and openly prey on and use anyone they can to get what they want, regardless of the impact that their actions may have.

In our quest for links to illustrate a few points we make in this post, we stumbled upon STR:The Freedom Blog, operated by Pastor Billy Bob Neck, who also happens to be running for president.

Here are a few of the "Christian" items we found there:

"What if Hillary Clinton were elected? Would she legislate the kind of immorality that would bring floods and greater harm to America’s infrastructure. Imagine the destructive power of hurricane Katrina and then multiply it ten-fold. That’s how angry God would be after Clinton turns America into a free-for-all for immigration, homosexuality and abortion. Could our insurance markets take a beating from God?"

and this...

"I’m recently returned from our own Christian summer camp, STR Young Patriots Freedom Camp, where as usual we all had a wonderful time praising Jesus and training up our children to be as strong in their faith and determination to defend this great country as our Muslim enemies. It was such a wonderful world of love, I can’t tell you! And Jesus was so happy he even helped us to beat all accuracy records on the shooting range."

and finally, this post about eliminating the two term limit for U.S. President:

"First of all, we need to petition our representatives and senators for an end to the absurd “law” that forces a President out of office before his work is done.

Secondly, in the event that we are unable to start a grass-roots movment [sic] which will correct this constitutional folly, we need to obtain pledges from all Republican candidates that they will uphold the principles of accountability, and rigor of the Bush Presidency. Only that will assure our fragile markets that prosperity can continue.

Finally, we must never forget to pray for the American people, we pray that they will continue to have the sense to trust George W. Bush and his loyal cabinet of patriots. This will help send a message to all of the candidates about the true meaning of conservatism."

We really thought this website might be a joke, but sadly, its for real.

Gay Camp Pain Contributions

Is it naive to continue to dream that the American people can come together to drag this country from the jaws of corporate control, political power and greed?

As we continue to hold onto hope, we occasionally find ourselves doused with cold reality -- like today, when we saw an article in today’s RainbowZine that Hillary Clinton is raking in donations from LGBTQ activists and celebrities.

Considering she does NOT support equal marriage rights, is a hawk on foreign policy, takes money from corporate lobbyists, it makes us wonder why…

Do they believe she is the most qualified candidate? Or is she the candidate most likely to WIN?

The way the media and conservative pundits see it, Hillary is the inevitable Democratic Presidential candidate. Unfortunately, we believe that Karl Rove and his talking thugs will do whatever it takes to bring her down – AFTER she wins the primary. And if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, after they destroy her, the Republican will be a shoe-in!

After all, the majority of voters would NOT want to "waste" their vote on a 3rd party candidate, right?

In America, we have a 2 party system that is largely controlled by corporate interests. Throughout history, both the Dems and the Repugnicans have worked together to rig the system so that a third party candidate will have a very difficult, if not impossible, time even getting their name on the ballot, let alone participating in the debates (have you seen a third party candidate debate on any network?)

We are often cautioned against casting our vote for a 3^rd party candidate lest we waste it - or worse -- because it will hurt the Democrat and help to elect the Republican. Thus we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Lately, we've begun to believe that the whole notion of wasted votes is just plain ignorant! We only waste our vote when we spend on a candidate that we don't actually believe in.

What we really need to do is to educate ourselves -- and each other -- about the election process and the party system.

When all Americans finally understand that the purpose of a democracy – the reason for voting in the first place – is to cast a vote for a candidate that best represents our individual conscience -- not just someone who represents a political party that is controlled by one or more entities motivated by profits and power -- not by what is best for America.

The question is, do we have the courage, no matter what the consequences, to walk into that voting booth and pull the lever for – or write in the name of– a candidate who stands up for what is right and good?

If enough voters do that, we could change it all in one day.

Speaking of educating, the Republican Party’s platform on LGBTQ issues is as follows:

"States should not recognize gay marriage from other states: After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states.

Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage: We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.”

And the Democratic Party platform is not much better:

“We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart.”

As for the Greens:

“In keeping with the Green Key Values of diversity, social justice and feminism, we support full legal and political equality for all persons, regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

a. The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

b. We support the recognition of equal rights of persons gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender to housing, jobs, civil marriage, medical benefits, child custody, and in all areas of life provided to all other citizens.

c. We support the inclusion of language in state and federal anti-discrimination law that ensures the rights of intersex individuals and prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, characteristics, and expression. We are opposed to intersex genital mutilation.

d. We support the right of all persons to self-determination with regard to gender identity and sex. We therefore support the right of intersex and transgender individuals to be free from coercion and involuntary assignment of gender or sex. We support access to medical and surgical treatment for assignment or reassignment of gender or sex, based on informed consent.

e. We support legislation against all forms of hate crimes, including those directed against people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, and intersex."

We suggest you check out where each party and their candidates stand on all of the issues. Until then, we’ll just leave it right there for you to contemplate…

Is Karl on the Down Low?

To paraphrase the famous orator, George W. Bush, there's rumors on the ‘Internets’ that Karl Rove is gay.

Apparently, Jeff Gannon, aka James Guckert (he’s the hot gay military stud/male escort turned White House correspondent who mysteriously spent several nights in the White House), is writing a tell-all book about his relationship with turd-blossom (Bush’s pet name for Rove).

That could explain Rove's sudden need to step down and spend more time with his family.

Guess he's got some 'splain'n to do!

So, you ask, what’s the problem with Karl Rove having a gay affair?

Ah, where to begin…

As the chief policy wonk in the Bush administration, Rove encouraged, aided and abetted Bush to use the equal marriage issue – in part - to divide the country into red and blue states.

His ultimate goal was to create “a long-lasting GOP majority” and he would do whatever it takes/took to accomplish it. In short, Rove is the guy who wakes up every day devising ways to make life harder for us as if we were pawns in his cruel little game.

If the rumors are true and Karl is on the down-low, his hypocrisy – his nerve -- is just breathtaking!

Not only does he hurt us explicitly by pushing for homophobic policies, his closeted dalliances are an implicit admission that he believes there is something wrong with being gay in the first place. The message that is broadcast to everyone -- gay or straight – is that we should be ashamed of who we are and should keep the truth about ourselves buried deep underground where it belongs.

Rove’s internalized homophobia – especially given his powerful position in the highest office in America -- tacitly says that our relationships do not deserve equal treatment under the law because they are like dirty little secrets.

And because he continues to live openly in a heterosexual marriage – complete with a child -- his deception is even more devastating. He has chosen to live his lie and subjected it upon his own family and millions of trusting American’s.

It's as if Rove cheated on all of us.

If Karl finally goes down (no pun intended) we hope it is with a great big thud.

The whole issue really make us wonder -- are there any straight Republican men left in this country? Doesn’t it seem to you the louder they yell about fags and homos, the more likely they are to be winking at some cute guy in the subway?

What’s up with that?

And any self respecting, openly gay man should tell guys like Rove to get lost! Because they choose to live dirty down-low lives, they should be left to wallow alone in fear and desperation.

We are certain that Karl Rove will reject the ironic argument that his sordid tale offers two of the most excellent rationale for equal marriage rights yet:

1. If we give the Karl Rove’s in this country the rights and privileges of marriage, they will no longer need to feel ashamed of who they are. They will be able to stand up, be proud and live openly;
2. Karl’s story may also convince conservatives that should support equal marriage rights – if only to protect all the wives who so often find themselves married to men who are only using them to hide from others what they hate in themselves.

Biting the Hand that Feeds You

We have all heard the cliché, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” which is commonly known to mean that you shouldn’t ruin a relationship with someone who pays you or takes care of you in some way.

The expression is meant as a cautionary message to those of us who are dependent on “the man” (i.e., greedy corporations, predatory lenders, etc.) for our everyday needs and a reminder that we should be careful about offending or demanding too much lest he cut us off from his “generosity.”

Even though the reverse is also true – that “the man” benefits – often more -- from our labor and our sweat, the “hand” in the metaphor almost never refers to the hand of the worker who generously gives of her time and energy. And the teeth that are cautioned not to bite, rarely belong to those who profit from our work.

America's trickle down, capitalistic economy has rendered most of us too tired to bite – or even think about biting.

It's all we can do just to get through the work day only to go home and pay the bills, cook, clean, care for the kids or other loved ones – and for many, go on to work at a second or third job before having the time and opportunity to lay down to rest.

Of course working just to pay for rent and food is hard enough – but omnipresent advertising for unaffordable products on TV, radio, magazines, sides of busses, taxis billboards, etc., makes life even less satisfying knowing that - no matter how many hours you put in - the large screen TV, stereo, computer, ipod, car is always out of your financial reach.

They say that the free market abhors a vacuum, and thus “the man” – seeing an opportunity to squeeze that last dollar out of a thin wallet -- stepped in to “help” poor people get the stuff they previously could not afford.

Thanks to pay-day loans, rent-to-own stores, instant refund tax preparation services, credit-card companies, tote the note used auto dealers, and more recently, sub-prime mortgage lenders -- poor people can have all the possessions necessary to live the American dream. Or at least the American dream that was invented by advertising agencies.

Unfortunately for “the man,” the chickens have come home to roost and the poor, according to Barbara Ehrenreich, quit paying their mortgages and they simply stopped shopping:

"Both Wal-Mart and Home Depot announced disappointing second quarter performances, plunging the market into another Arctic-style meltdown. H. Lee Scott, CEO of the low-wage Wal-Mart empire, admitted with admirable sensitivity, that it's no secret that many customers are running out of money at the end of the month."

It seems the downtrodden have been trod on so long that they just can’t get up the gumption – nor do they have the resources - to shop.

Not quite the revolution anti-capitalists had hoped for, but the effect may still be the same!

According to an article in Business Week Magazine:

“[W]ages for the working poor have been stagnant for three decades. Meanwhile, their spending has consistently and significantly exceeded their income since the mid-1980s. They are making up the difference by borrowing more. From 1989 through 2004, the total amount owed by households earning $30,000 or less a year has grown 247%, to $691 billion, according to the most recent Federal Reserve data available."

And don’t believe for one minute that the LGBTQ Community is somehow better off and less likely to be affected by poverty. Despite the myths to the contrary, gay men's incomes are 11% to 27% below average and lesbians' are 12% to 30% below.

But of course the Federal Reserve Bank has stepped in to help the corporations and financial institutions that prey on poor people stay afloat -- as they stand by and watch the poor drown in debt.

And, why not? Capitalism is profits over people. Therefore, since working class and poor people purposefully got themselves into this mess, why should the Government bale them out?

“Nobody, poor or rich, is compelled to pay a high price for a used car, a credit card, or anything else." Some see the debate ending there. "The only feasible way to run a capitalist society is to allow companies to maximize their profits," says Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "That will sometimes include allowing them to sell things to people that will sometimes make them worse off."

Apparently, greedy capitalistic institutions -- in their desire to wring the last dime out of the hands of the poor -- may have discovered that by doing so, they were the ones who were effectively biting the hands that were feeding them after all.

Time to Pay the Piper

We were recently asked why, if this is a blog about LGBTQ rights, do we write about seemingly unrelated issues?

The answer is simple: we believe that we are all interconnected and that there is no way to separate out what is vital to us as lesbians from what is vital to us as Americans, as people.

If there is no Republic of America -- or if there is no sustainable planet Earth - then there will be no legal rights for us to fight for -- no Constitution upon which we can base our arguments. Thus we do care about and write about geopolitical, economic and environmental issues.

And there is no way to ignore the truth: that we are living in a time of empire, of extreme economic imbalance, global warming, extreme climate shifts, human overpopulation and mass extinction of species.

Corporatism and greed created the Industrial Revolution which has in turn created the highly technological and modern world we live in today.

Throughout the Industrial Revolution, in general, Americans and other "Westernized" peoples have benefited greatly from a post industrial economic and technological boom.

Unfortunately, all of this was accomplished at the expense of those living in areas that were raped of their natural resources so as to fuel the boom.

The land and the people, plants and animals in areas once rich with natural resources have become barren and impoverished.

The planet -- and all of its inhabitants -- can no longer sustain this level of abuse. It must -- and it will -- come to an end.

It was fun while it lasted but now it is time to pay the piper.

The question remains, what will you do?

When will you be ready to rethink the way you live your life -- your own consumption -- the size of your own carbon footprint?

Are you aware that there is NO WAY we, the majority of beings living on the planet Earth, can continue to sustain this lifestyle?

Are you aware that the choice is no longer yours to make? That the planet is already doing what it naturally must do to rid itself of the cancer that we have become?

How will you react when only the very wealthy will have the ability to drive, to vacation, to purchase clean water and untainted food?

Will you panic, loot and riot -- giving justification for the mass slaughter and clampdown that is already being planned for?

Despite the dire warnings in this post, there is something hopeful to consider: recently we watched an interview of Joanna Gabriel who believes that this crisis offers an opportunity to create a more just world of sustainability. In other words, a global disaster could simply be a cleansing that forces us to "create the kind of world we wanted all the time anyway."

The message is one of hope and optimism. We hope you will watch the interview, below, and pass this link on to all of your friends and family members.

If we can't stop the destruction of life as we know it, then at least we can control the way we deal with it!

Net Neutrality is So Gay

AT&T, Verizon, and other big telecommunications companies are busy trying to set up a road block on your information super highway.

And, as usual, they are using doublespeak to confuse the issue.

According to SavetheInternet.com, Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the "guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

"Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination."

Unfortunately, to ensure that big companies like Verizon and AT&T do not interfere with your access to information on the web, Congress must pass legislation to create regulations preventing them from doing so.

As you can imagine, the Internet offers an opportunity for these huge corporations to make even more money. They see the Internet for its profit making potential and thus want to dominate and limit competition. It is in the best interest of AT&T and Verizon to to prevent Congress from regulating the Internet and they are using their power and money to influence policy makers and public opinion.

In other words, they are muddying the waters with misinformation.

Do a Google search of the words "Net Neutrality."

At the top of the search string you will see links to two web sites - both appearing to support Internet freedom.

One of the sites is called "Save the Internet" and the other, "Hands Off the Internet."

"Save the Internet" believes "that the Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth and free speech. We are working together to urge Congress to preserve Network Neutrality, the First Amendment of the Internet, which ensures that the Internet remains open to new ideas, innovation and progress." In other words -- Congress should regulate the Internet to ensure that everyone has equal power and access.

"Hands Off the Internet" believes "that the best way to avoid burdensome and unnecessary regulation and mandates is by ensuring that market forces deliver the benefits that only fair competition can bring to the American consumer - maximum choice in supplier, content and technology." In other words, Congress should NOT regulate the Internet and should leave it up to "free market forces" to ensure that big corporations can use their money and power to do what they wish.

Under the Bush regime, deregulation of industry and trade policy has been expanded. That is why we have seen an increase in mine disasters, a crumbling infrastructure, poisoned and faulty imported foods and goods, a sub-prime mortgage default crisis, and then some.

Congress began regulating business for a reason: big companies care about profits, not people.

Government is supposed to care about people, not profits.

It all started on a Saturday afternoon, March 25, 1911, when five hundred employees of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City were literally locked in to the building and a fire broke out. The women could not escape through the locked doors and so they were forced to choose between burning or jumping to their certain deaths. Many chose the latter.

The fire lasted only eighteen minutes, and killed 146 workers, most of them Jewish and Italian teenaged girls.

The tragedy pushed politicians to accept a new notion of the responsibilities of government --ultimately resulting in the passage of thirty-six new labor laws, an Industrial code, and an industrial safety model.

As soon as the government began to regulate industry to protect American citizens, corporations started fighting back.

And thus the "libertarian," free market misinformation campaign was born.

In order to make my point about government regulation, I just Googled "Triangle Shirt Factory fire" and found a number of information sites. And right now I know I could access just about anything I wanted to know, online, in seconds.

Net Neutrality

Life, Love and Politics

The first ever LGBTQ Presidential Debates will air tonight on LOGO TV.

And although these debates may seem like a dull happening, they are essential to your life. Whether we like it or not, a President has the bully pulpit and is able to use it to set a 'National Tone' so to speak on issues like equal marriage rights, health care, job security, immigration and other issues that are vital to you and me.

Every day people call or write to Rainbow Law with pleas for help or questions about legal rights and legal documents.

And behind those communications are real people living real lives:

• Some contact us when they get "married" because they want legal protections for their relationship.
• Others write when they are getting ready to have children, and still others because they have been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness or are about to have surgery.
• The most difficult calls for us are those that come after something tragic has occurred -- when it is too late for us to do or say anything that will help.
  

For example, without a Parenting Agreement, if a couple, who lovingly planned for and raised their children together, break up and the biological parent refuses to let the non-biological mom or dad see the kids, there is NOTHING to protect that non-legal parent's visitation rights.

And, when one partner dies without a Will or Trust, there is NOTHING a surviving partner can do when biological family members come to take possession of property that is deemed to belong to the deceased partner.

When a partner becomes ill or injured and has NOT signed a Living Will or a Medical or Financial Power of Attorney, a partner must rely on the good will of hospital staff and family members in order to even VISIT his or her partner in the hospital. And you can just FORGET about getting access to any bank accounts.

All of this is true NO MATTER HOW MANY YEARS WE HAVE BEEN WITH OUR PARTNER.

By now, every single LGBTQ person has been made aware of these facts. Yet, still, most of us have NOT put pen to paper to protect our relationship and our rights.

And, in a sense, we understand completely why that is the case.

• First, no one wants to think about a time when we may break-up, be injured, become ill or die -- especially when we are first happily in love and starting a life together.
• And second, straight people -- at least those who get married -- do not need to think about these basic protections because they are automatically granted to a husband and wife the moment they say "I do."
  

But taking these steps is what we DO need to do. And it is not about sickness and death -- it is about life and love.

Protecting your family is your greatest responsibility.

And until we have the same rights as heterosexual married couples, we must put our wishes in writing so that our partner and our children are not treated as strangers to us.

And even more, we need to get involved in the struggle for true marriage equality -- not just civil unions that will leave us primarily unprotected and our families vulnerable to devastating loss.

Tonight the Democratic Presidential Candidates will debate these and other issues that are vital to our relationships.

We hope you will watch the debates tonight, August 9, at 9:00 PM Eastern time. They will be broadcast on LOGO TV and will also be available online at visiblevote08.com.

And please, invite friends and family members -- queer and straight -- to watch the debates with you. We need as much support as we can get to convince these politicians that true equality is the only solution to inequality.

Equal marriage rights may not solve all of our problems, bu