Sanity: Gone With the Wind-Bag

Driving home from a visit with my grandchildren yesterday, I unfortunately heard a minute or two of the Sean Hannity show. Actually, I'll refer to him here as Sean InSanity since that name is more descriptive of his personality.

So, as I was looking for a good oldies station, I heard InSanity blathering on about Hillary Clinton’s health care plan -- and it was clear that he did not approve.

He asked his listeners if any of them could show him where -- in the U.S. Constitution -- does it say American’s have a right to free health care?

In reality, the Constitution is not a document where you can find a list of citizen rights. But I’ll bet InSanity knows this – which is why he knows his question is a safe bet.

The Constitution is a document whose purpose is to guide the federal government as to the proper way in which to govern American citizens:

The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do, and in some places it explains how to do it (election procedures and such). The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do . . .

1. Make no law abridging freedom of speech, press, religion, or assembly,
2. Do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
3. Don't quarter soldiers in peacetime.
4. Don't conduct unreasonable searches and seizures.
5. Don't commit double jeopardy or force people to testify against themselves.
6. Don't deny an accused a speedy trial.
7. Don't deny an accused a trial by jury.
8. Do not impose excessive bail.
9. Just because certain rights of the people aren't mentioned in this Constitution doesn't mean you're allowed to usurp them.
10. Don't exercise any power not authorized in this Constitution.

So Sean, the Constitution does not say that I have a right to free health care. It does however say that Congress – with only a few exceptions – should not restrict rights – even if those rights are not specifically listed in the body of the document.

Where in the Constitution do you find the right to marry? Although the word “marriage” is not mentioned at any point, the Constitution does direct the government to treat all citizens equally. Thus any law that provides benefits to one citizen must be available to all.

And since the government has attached certain rights and benefits to marriage – i.e. linking tax benefits and eligibility to certain government programs to marital status, that status cannot legitimately be denied to any citizen – even if they are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered, transsexual or just plain queer.

If tomorrow the government decided it would rather get out of the business of linking marital status to government benefits and programs (just so it won’t have to recognize my marriage), I’ll bet Sean InSanity would be the first to throw a great big hissy-fit when he realized his marriage no longer held a special status.

And while we are in the subject of what the Constitution does and does not say, one thing we can actually read – in black and white – is the guarantee to citizens and non-citizens – of the right to habeas corpus.

Yet, Sean continually defends the Bush administration’s denial of this right to “enemy combatants” -- some of whom are citizens.

Where in the Constitution do you find the basis for an Income Tax? I dare Sean InSanity – who would scoff at the notion that we are all taxed illegally – to show me -- in the Constitution or anywhere in the law – where it is written that the government has the right to tax my income?

In his tirade about Clinton’s health care plan, InSanity extolled the virtues of small government, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts and capitalism in general. He falsely (and not for the first time) claimed the Regan tax cuts doubled revenue – which is a bold-faced lie.

InSanity confuses capitalism – an economic system – with democracy – a governing system. In the brief time that I listened, he defended the Pharmaceutical Industry, Exxon Mobile and the over-all oil industry.

What I came to realize as I listened to his extreme right-wing rhetoric is that America is doomed if the Sean InSanity’s, Michael Savage’s, Rush Limbaugh’s and their ilk still hold sway over a large segment of the population who get most of their information from these over-blown, devious and dangerous wind-bags.

When Bad Things Happen to Gay People

Have you ever seen the HBO movie If These Walls Could Talk, 2? Even though it was filmed in 2000, it is as timely as ever.

The film follows three lesbian stories in three different time periods and is set in the same house.

In the first story, the home is occupied by an elderly couple played by Vanessa Redgrave (Edith), and Marian Seldes as her life-partner (Abby). The film makes it obvious that these two have lived together in the house for most of their adult lives. Yet, when Abby becomes ill, Edith is denied the right to visit her in the hospital. And worse, after Abby dies, Edith loses her home and everything in it to a distant relative who inherits the house and contents -- by law.

Although the segment was set in 1961 - except for rare exceptions like California, Massachusetts and Vermont – state and federal laws have NOT changed. Gay and lesbian partners are STILL at risk of losing our property today.

Do you and/or your partner own your own home? Are both of your names on the deed? Do you have “rights of survivorship” so that when one of you dies the other will still own the house?

Do you have a Living Revocable Trust or Last Will and Testament that names your partner to inherit your property when you die?

Have you signed a Living Will and Medical Power of Attorney that gives your partner the right to make medical decisions for you and visit you in the hospital?

Just like the movie, for most of us, when our partner dies without a Will or Trust, our property will pass – by law -- to our nearest living relatives and not to our partner who is considered – by law – as a stranger!

That means, no matter how long we’ve been together – no matter how many ups and downs we’ve shared – our partner will have NO right to inherit anything we own.

In order to protect our partner, we need to put our wishes in writing. It’s easier and far less expensive than you might imagine:

Rainbow Law creates free and affordable legal document packages for single people and partners, with or without children. In addition, there are do-it-yourself software programs and other (non-gay) legal document preparation websites. And, some attorneys will work on a sliding scale.

Because we are denied equal marriage rights, as we grow older – and trust me, unless you die young, you are going to get old -- LGBTQ couples face a much greater risk of spending the end of our lives in poverty:

“Gay, lesbian and bisexual seniors also are at significant risk of losing their home when an elderly partner enters a nursing home. This is because federal Medicaid law permits a married spouse to remain in the couple's home when a husband or wife enters a nursing home — but it does not grant unmarried couples the same right.“

If a gay or lesbian partner is forced to use Medicaid – the state often places a lien on the home in order to recoup their losses. In fact, the Federal government encourages such liens – at the same time that they deny us the protections of legal marriage.

Even when we own our home jointly with rights of survivorship, a state has the right to place a lien on the one-half interest belonging to the partner who required nursing home assistance in the first place.

You can do more to protect your home from a Medicaid lien by sheltering it in an Irrevocable Trust. This may seem a bit complicated but it definitely beats homelessness!

When you put your home into an Irrevocable Trust, you are still able to live in it and benefit from it just as you do now. And time is “of the essence” if you want to use this method of home protection.

Medicaid has a “look back” period of 5 years. This means you must place your home into the Trust 5 years before applying for Medicaid or entering a nursing home!

Sadly, even when we obtain all of the legal documents necessary to protect our partner’s rights, other obstacles continue to adversely impact our lives:

• Laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Amendments to State Constitutions ban equal access to federal and state marriage rights and protections;

• And we remain ineligible for a host of state and federal protections like Social Security survivor benefits and estate tax exemptions.
  

• Even couples who have lived together for decades are often barred from sharing a room in a nursing home or an assisted living facility because there are no protections form discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  

We have seen breathtaking changes in our lifetime but clearly, it is not enough. It is one thing to kvetch about marriage equality. It is quite another to take the steps necessary to protect one another while we wait for lawmakers to stop catering to the wing-nuts.

Since protecting your partner is your greatest responsibility, will you take a few minutes to do it today?

Political Pawns

Last week, at the tail end of a post, we called for our readers to participate in an LGBTQ day of action on Valentine’s Day, Thursday, February 14, 2008. We suggested that, on that day, same-sex couples all over the country head to their local county court house to apply for a marriage license.

The purpose of the action is to use a National Holiday that honors true love to highlight the unequal treatment of stable, loving LGBTQ relationships.

For several years now, organizations like Freedom to Marry and Don’t Amend have been organizing and documenting such actions all over the country when thousands of couples have attempted to register. Some courageously walk in alone, others en mass. Hundreds more have protested and held rallies to voice their objection to the denial of equal rights and protections for our families – for no legally valid reason.

As we all know, 2008 is a Presidential election year. Thus, our call to action has prompted criticism from those who would otherwise support our efforts.

Three main reasons are given for objecting to a February 14, 2008 marriage equality action:

• First, any action that might energize the Repugnican base and drive the wing-nuts to the polls to pull the lever for a Bush clone should be avoided;
  

• Second, there are more important things to worry about: fascism, global climate change, endless war, poverty, and then some, so why sweat the “small” stuff;
  

• Third, why even bother since we may all be imprisoned in Nazi-like detention camps by then.

The answer to all three is, so what?

Do you really believe that if we sit quietly in our closets, waiting for progressives to save us, Republican campaign strategists will NOT remember us? Do you think they won’t use us as pawns in their efforts to create fear in the hearts of their wing-nut base? Of course they will! No matter WHAT we do or do not do!

And even if the world is going to hell in a hand-basket, why do all of those other problems trump ours?

Would you advise environmentalists to refrain from a 2008 Earth Day celebration that highlights the problems of greenhouse gasses and global warming? After all, the rabid-right believes they have a God-given mandate to dominate and control all of the Earth. In fact, they look forward to Armageddon and see perpetual war and global warming as the natural run-up to the return of their savior and the “Rapture.”

Why not ask scientists to be silent about stem-cell research? Ask women not to rally around the right to choose?

These people are crazy and if one thing won’t rile them up, another will!

And lastly, if we are all going to be interred anyway, why shouldn’t we go kicking and screaming?

In 1999, millions of American’s were certain that the world would stop on January 1, 2000. They stored food and water, bought generators, gasoline, batteries and stocked up on tarps and duct tape. Nothing happened.

So, maybe we will be rounded up and interred, or maybe we won’t.

If the Democrats do not win the Presidency in 2008, it will not be because we stood up for our rights. They will lose because the elections are rigged or because they were not courageous or because the media will keep plugging Republican talking points (lies) as truth.

Whatever else happens, rest assured, we will not go gently into that good night like a benign set of Rainbow pawns.

The Great Political Wedgie

Presidential candidates and political pundits get their panties all tied up in a knot any time the marriage equality issue is highlighted – especially during a campaign season.

Although polls indicate the Americans people are becoming more progressive and more accepting of equal rights for gay men and lesbians, our government – with the help of both political parties -- continues to wage war against our families.

Even in a “liberal” state like California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to veto (for the second time) a bill that would give same-sex partners the right to marry.

And although equal marriage rights are currently available in Massachusetts, as recently as June 2007 anti-equality advocates were fighting tooth and nail to pass a constitutional amendment that would redefine legal marriage in Massachusetts as a union between one man and one woman. The amendment was defeated but the right-wing nuts are determined to continue fighting for their right to discriminate and impose their beliefs on us.

All of the Presidential front-runners have flatly stated they do NOT support equal marriage rights.

Who knows if they are really expressing their true sentiments or if they are buying into the conventional wisdom that says this is the one wedge issue that will so rile up the Republican base that it is certain to spell defeat for any Presidential bid?

After a recent Iowa court ruling held that a ban on same-sex marriage violates the equal protections guaranteed to all Iowans regardless of their sexual orientation, the Associated Press described the candidate’s reactions as follows:

Mitt Romney called the ruling "another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people." John McCain said it was "a loss for the traditional family."

Hillary Clinton said she supports gay unions but said individual states should have last word on gay marriage. Barack Obama likewise punted, saying through a spokesman that "these matters should be left to the states."

A spokesman for Rudy Giuliani says the mayor "believes marriage is between a man and a woman."

The lesson to be learned from this struggle is that no matter if you live in Massachusetts, California or some place in between, you need to make sure your family is protected with Wills and Trusts to ensure your partner will have the right to inherit your property.

If you want your partner to make medical and financial decisions for you when you are ill or injured – and to have the right to visit you in the hospital – you need to create Advance Directives. If you have or want to have children together, you must nominate your partner as guardian of your child and enter into a parenting agreement to protect one another’s rights to parent the children, have visitation and collect child support.

None of these legal documents will give you the full range of rights and protections that are granted only by legal marriage – but it beats doing nothing at all.

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.

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

Do You Suffer the Pain of Self-Loathing? Get Therapy!

Hey, guess what?

A new "psychiatric diagnosis" (its a joke folks) finally describes what we already know:

Homophobes are really mentally deranged gay people who hate themselves so much they need to punish the rest of us for having the courage to live openly!

According to this article in RainbowZine:

"Homosexia nervosa is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a sexual orientation disorder characterized by extremely low self esteem and sexual orientation image distortion with an obsessive fear of same sex attraction."

There is a real study that is currently underway, called the 'Molecular Genetic Study of Sexual Orientation' which is claiming to be the "most extensive study yet to search for a genetic basis for homosexuality."

By gathering and studying DNA samples from 1,000 sets of gay brothers, researchers hope to prove a genetic predetermination for being gay.

If we can prove once and for all we are born gay, then that may be an immediate cure for legal inequality AND the underlying cause of it -- Homosexia nervosa!

And, maybe then we can all relax and live and let live.

Hopefully our Presidential Candidates will read up on the latest research before taking positions that rely on negative stereotypes, outdated science and mental disorders.

Dems: Talking the Talk

We hope you were able to watch the LOGO TV Democratic Candidate forum. If you missed them, check it out here.

The format was so GAY!

It had the feel of a television talk show -- with a Merv Griffin-esque set -- very chic and stylish.

Each candidate entered the studio to a musical refrain with a dance-club kind of beat. One at a time, they walked passed the well-dressed, mostly white and mostly young audience and made their way to the stage where they were seated in an over-stuffed chair.

Obama, Edwards and Clinton -- AKA the "front runners" -- seemed the most comfortable seated there. Perhaps they are more relaxed in general, or maybe they are just good at acting -- which may be why they are the front runners in the first place!

The questions were surprisingly good with Melissa Etheridge asking the best, most heartfelt questions.

All in all, the forum was a success in bringing out the candidates stance on the issues, which boil down to this:

• Each of them supports State and Federal legal protections for same-sex couples

• They all want to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

• Every one of them agree that we need more funding for AIDS education
  

• Only two -- Kucinich and Gravel -- support full marriage equality
  

The "worst" candidate was Richardson who believes "homosexuality" is a choice. He also would not sign a Marriage Equality bill even if it passed the house and senate.

Hillary lectured us on why her husband -- who let the LGBTQ Community down in so many ways -- was actually our champion because he prevented the Gingrich Republicans from inflicting even more harm to our families. In Hillary's view, DADT and DOMA were the solution to even harsher policies being pushed by right wing-nuts.

Maybe she's right. Thats how the game is played in Washington. LGBTQ people are/were used by both parties as political pawns to divide the country into mean-spirited factions who make a big stink over non-issues while the power brokers rape and pillage the economy and the military industrial complex wages an endless war and builds an unstoppable empire.

But hey, that just our opinion.

We are going to support Kucinich even though we are completely aware that he has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. But why should we support any other candidate when they do not fully support US? It seems like anything else would be a form of self-abuse.

Not that any of it matters anyway. We are skeptical about whether the election process and democracy even function any more.

The voting machines are hackable, the media is owned and controlled by big corporations, the Republicans, led by Rove, have reconfigured the justice department and have gerrymandered the voting district lines so that Republicans always have an edge.

But what gives us hope is the understanding that although the cards were stacked against the Democrats in November 2006, the people's will was stronger than the Republican machine.

Unfortunately, the stage is now set for Bush to suspend the elections in the event of a "national emergency" of his own making.

So, if there ARE elections and any one of the Democratic candidates are able to get elected, they ALL say they will fight for our rights to have a semblance of legal equality -- which is more than we can say for the Republicans.

The Dems -- they all talk the talk, but will they walk the walk?

We shall see...

Did You Miss the Gay Debates? Watch Them Here!

If you missed the LOGO/HRC - first ever - Presidential Forum, here is your chance to watch each candidate answer questions in a non-debate, informal setting.

Today you can watch. Tomorrow we will share with you our impressions of the format, the moderators, the questions, the candidates and their answers.

We hope you will also let us know what you think by commenting (use the link below) so that we can share your views as well.

Whatever else you may think, this is an amazing event.

Enjoy!

Barak Obama:


John Edwards:


Dennis Kucinich:


Mike Gravel:


Bill Richardson:


Hillary Clinton:

The Democrats Weigh In On LGBTQ Equality

History will be made tomorrow when the Democratic Presidential Candidates debate issues that are front and center in the lives of LGBTQ families.

The debate will air on August 9th at 9:00 PM Eastern time on LOGO TV (cable) and will also be streaming live online at visiblevote08.com. If you log on today, you can submit a question you want the moderator to ask the candidates.

That this debate is possible -- only 4 years after LGBTQ rights was made a major issue in the 2004 presidential elections -- is a testament at how important it is/was to be visible and keep the conversation going. As long as we are willing to stay hidden in our closets, we allow the opposition speak for us.

And when that happens, they make up wild stories about equal marriage rights causing people to have sex with dogs and children - which forces us to defend our dignity rather than demand our rights!

Now the truth is out: LGBTQ people are just people. Our agenda is simple: we want and deserve to have the very same freedoms enjoyed by every other American citizen.

Of the 2008 candidates, only Kucinich and Gravel support Same-Sex Marriage - allowing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples.

All the rest, including Biden, Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel and Edwards, support the following:

• Federal Recognition of State-Level Same-Sex Unions - This position would override Section 3 of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” which provides that for federal purposes, “The word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” 1 U.S.C. § 7

• ENDA - Supports passage of a federal bill prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity

• Hate Crimes - Supports passage of a federal bill that gives authority to the federal government to investigate and prosecute violent crimes motivated by bias against the victim because of their sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability

• Civil Unions - Supports civil unions for same-sex couples

• Federal Benefits for Same-Sex Couples - Supports extending federal benefits, rights, privileges and responsibilities to same-sex couples and their children provided the partnership meets certain federal standards of commitment and mutuality of interest

• Coverage Under the FMLA - Supports expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to cover domestic partners and their children

• Access to Survivor Benefits - Supports paying survivor benefits to the same-sex partners of gay and lesbian people

• Equal Tax Treatment for Same-Sex Couples - Supports fair and equal tax treatment of same sex couples on the same basis as married couples

• Domestic Partner Benefits for Federal Employees - Supports domestic partner coverage of health insurance and other employee benefits for gay and lesbian employees of the civilian federal workforce

• Adoption - Opposes bans on adoption based solely on sexual orientation

• Immigration - Supports the Uniting American Families Act, which would allow an American citizen to petition for immigration sponsorship for a same sex partner

• Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” - Supports repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy

• Funding for HIV/AIDS - Supports funding for the Ryan White Care Act to provide access to life-saving treatment and care for more than half a million low-income Americans with HIV/AIDS Supports passage of federal legislation that would allow states the option to provide Medicaid coverage to low-income, HIV positive Americans Supports increased funding for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and research

  Candidate information courtesy of HRC

We hope you will tune in because we need to pay attention to what these candidates say. We need to hold them accountable to keeping promises they make and to watch for evasive answers that could mean many different things.

A few recent articles published in RainbowZine highlight some of the reasons why this debate should matter to YOU:

Battle Between Gay Man And Sick Partner's Family Highlights Lack Of Same-Sex Couple Rights

For a quarter century Patrick Atkins and Brett Conrad shared their lives including a home and bank accounts but when Atkins fell near fatally ill Conrad discovered he had no rights in determining the care or who would deliver it to his ailing partner.

An Ohio Supreme Court Case Interprets The State's Anti-Same-Sex Marriage Amendment

Voters and legislatures should be cautious lest they discover that they have allowed irrational fear and hostility to menace the integrity of their state codes and constitutions.

The "What is a Family?" Question

A surprisingly large number of state and local laws - in areas ranging from zoning, to housing assistance, to rent control, to wrongful death, to name just a few -- make benefits, burdens, or criminal responsibility turn on family or marital status. The applicable statutes often use terms like "household member," "spouse," or "family" without defining them. Thus, courts are left to supply their own definition, and the definition often properly varies along with the purpose of the statute at issue.

Ohio's domestic violence law prohibits harming a "family or household member." The statute goes on to define those terms to include, among others, "a spouse, a person living as a spouse, or a former spouse of the offender."

A person "living as a spouse" is defined, in turn, as someone "who is living or has lived with the offender in a common law marital relationship, who otherwise is cohabiting with the offender, or who otherwise has cohabited with the offender within five years prior to the date of the alleged commission of the act in question."

School System Allows Group To Promote 'Gay Conversion' To Students

(McLean, Virginia) The School board in Arlington County, Virginia has agreed to allow a so-called ex-gay group to post material for high school students claiming homosexuality can be reversed.

Immigration laws make it doubly difficult for foreign-born partners to remain in the U.S.

Are The Gays A Political Issue?

It seems plainly evident that Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are putting all their money in the gay basket.

A Boy Named Leslie

You would think that a guy with a name like 'Leslie' would be kinder and gentler to the female sex. And since his girlie name undoubtedly made him a prime target of bullies, he was probably teased and gay-baited as a child and teenager. So, logically, it is possible then that a judge named Leslie would be more sensitive to LGBTQ equality issues, right?

WRONG.

You see, Leslie Southwick, a guy and former Mississippi appellate judge, is President George W. Bush’s third try at filling the open slot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which has remained essentially vacant since 2002.

We are not psychologists, but it seems to us that when a little boy is picked on relentlessly by bullies who try to emasculate him, he can grow up to behave in one of two ways:

1. He is sensitized to the suffering of others and thus treats them with compassion and empathy,
   
2. He internalizes (in a Stockholm Syndrome sort of way) the abuse he endured as a child and turns it outward as a weapon against others who trigger his fear and self-loathing.
   

It seems our little Leslie has chosen the second path.

"Several of Southwick's rulings have raised serious concerns about Southwick's confirmation. For example, in one 2001 case, Judge Southwick joined the majority to deprive a mother of custody of her child because of her involvement in a same-sex relationship."

When he heard the evidence in this particular case, Leslie must have been squirming in his throne with images of girl on girl action swimming in his head. Unlike other men, though, images like that probably do NOT arouse him. Rather, they frighten him to the point where he feels compelled to PROVE his manliness.

In this case, he showed his machismo by ordering that a child be taken from his mother. Good call Lezzie, er, I mean Leslie!

So far the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have vowed to block Leslie's nomination.

That is the correct thing to do.

As it stands right now, the 5th judicial circuit is already listing very far to the right and currently has a 14-5 split in favor of judges appointed by Republicans.

One more and the 5th circuit will look like the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

What this country does NOT need is one more self-hating bigot with the power to destroy the lives of LGBTQ people and our families.

Please write to your Senator and tell her/him that you do NOT want them to confirm Judge Leslie's appointment.

Remember, in the law, your silence can be construed as acceptance. If you choose to say nothing and do nothing, you are implicitly giving your consent to Congress and the Bush Administration to do whatever floats their boat.

FEAR: The Great Persuader

Broadly defined, 'homophobia' is a term used to describe discrimination in word, deed or attitude against members of the LGBTQ Community. It is often associated with HATRED of queer people in general.

But the suffix of the word is 'phobia' -- which literally means fear. And, according to Wikipedia, "fear is a distressing emotion caused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc, especially dread to meet or experience the danger".

So, in reality, homophobes do not so much HATE us as they FEAR us. And, as you know, fear leads to anger, which leads to hate which leads to suffering and discrimination and violence and...

Homophobia is just one brand of fear being sold in America today. It seems that today, fear has permeated our entire culture:

• Fear of terrorists and terrorism

• Fear of Hell

• Fear of Death

• Fear of Muslims

• Fear of 'Illegal Immigrants'

• Fear of imports

• Fear of... each other

Fear is a perfect tool for manipulating society in order to further an agenda that would otherwise be unattainable.

"It's fear of the unknown. The unknown is what it is. And to be frightened of it is what sends everybody scurrying around chasing dreams, illusion