Strollerderby : gay marriage

California School District Approves So-Called Gay Curriculum

Brett Singer — Wed, 27 May 2009 20:30:00 GMT

This was a tricky story to put into a headline. See, it's not a "gay curriculum" per se. That's what the opponents of the program, officially called LGBT Lesson #9, are calling it. A better headline is this one from KCBS news -- Alameda Approves Elementary Curriculum on Tolerance. The "controversial lesson plan aimed at discouraging bullying and teasing based on gay and lesbian stereotypes" was approved by the Alameda school board by a vote of 3-2.

Yes, 3-2. And it's only in Alameda, California. When I first saw the story on Fox News a few days ago (before the vote had occurred), I initially thought that this was state-wide. Because based on the tone of the reporting, one would think that something HUGE was going on.

Watch this fair and balanced (not) report from Fox News:

(If the embed doesn't work, please click here.)

Listen to the way Steve Ducey says "transgendered people" as if he were saying "horrible, evil nazis who would like nothing more than to eat your family dog."

The question the Fox report raises is whether or not it is "age appropriate" to teach K-5 kids about what they refer to as the "gay lifestyle." Also, "Opponents [of the curriculum] say that this is an effort to advance the gay, lesbian and transgendered agenda," according to Fox. Next: those opponents want to recall the board members who voted for it. Then Steve Ducey wraps things up for us by saying "OK. Same sex penguins. Only in California." (Well, also in New York, at the Central Park Zoo. But hey, East Coast, West Coast, we're all heathens in the eyes of the Duce.)

So what is everyone so upset about? One item is the book "And Tango Makes Three," described by FoxNews.com as a book that is "about two gay penguins who raise a baby peguin, is the basis for grade school teachings on gay and lesbian lifestyles."

Right. Because that's what the point of the book is. To showcase the gay lifestyle. Because being gay is just a lifestyle choice, right? A choice made by irresponsible Sodomites who hate America and all of the values on which we stand.

The purpose of the lesson plan is to promote tolerance. And judging by the reaction, some tolerance is needed.

Another take on this is provided by KGO-TV, an ABC News affiliate in San Francisco. That report says that parents are upset that they will be unable to "opt-out" of the lessons if they feel that they go against their religious beliefs. They also say that "race and religion...can also lead to bullying," but those things are not discussed.

Here's the thing. I don't know the full extent of the curriculum being proposed. But tolerance for gay people is not taught the way tolerance for people of different races are taught. Wen I was in school, we learned about racial tolerance. I very clearly recall a film strip (remember film strips?) in which Bill Cosby said, "There's a Black man sitting in your loafers," and pointing out the racism in old movies ("When they got scared -- these dudes turned white!"). We read "Native Son." What we didn't do was discuss anything about gay people.

Fast-forward thirty a few years. My son is in school. He learns about racial tolerance. He has told me more than once that anyone who believes that one race of people is better than another race of people is "insane." He learns about the holidays of religions that he wouldn't otherwise be familiar with. But as far as I know, he hasn't read "And Tango Makes Three." Why not? Maybe because gay stuff still makes people uncomfortable. (The Onion had a headline that reflected this brilliantly. I can't find it but basically it said that the popularity of "Queer Eye For The Straight Guy" could attributed to the fact that gay people are so cute without all that gay sex. The Onion said it better than that.)

I admit that this is based on my own experience, but I think there's something to it. Is this particular curriculum the answer? I don't know. Will reading "And Tango Makes 3" in second grade cause the sky to be consumed in hellfire? Nope. Gay parents are out there (no pun intended). Why shouldn't kids know that?

What do you think? Is K-5 too young to learn about gay people? Or should it be treated as another path down the road to tolerance?

Source: Mercury News

Image: Amazon

Mom Arrested for Having 555 Pound Son

13 Year Old Alfie Definitely Not A Dad

SNL Mother's Day Skits

Morning News - Sean Penn and Natalie Portman?

Brett Singer — Wed, 13 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

There are certain movie stars that, for me, are frozen in time. Natalie Portman is one of them. I may one day get over it, but I have trouble thinking of her as a grown woman. So when I read that she and Sean Penn are "together", and that their relationship may be the reason that Sean split with his wife Robyn Wright Penn, my initial reaction was "ew." Then I thought, hey, maybe I'm being unfair. She's a grown woman. Then I saw that she was 27 and he's 48. I know. It happens. Then I read this quote from a "source" about the couple -- "She stimulates him in ways no other person has, mentally or professionally." Aaaaand I was back to "ew." Lesson learned -- go with your instincts.

A teenager who led a cyber-attack against Scientology websites last year is pleading guilty. Tom Cruise says that there vitamins he can take to stop misbehaving like that. (Tom Cruise didn't say that. At least not as far as I know.)

A new study, published in the journal Applied Animal Behavior Science, says that animals like to play and have fun. The author, Jonathan Balcombe, "believes scientists, conservationists and other animal rights activists should not overlook animal joy." I think I understand what he means, but all you have to do is see how happy a dog is when you come home to know that animals can get happy. I do wonder what makes a guy want to do a study so he can find out that "animals experience happiness for happiness' sake related to play, food, touch and sex." By that I mean that he watches animals have sex. I mean, OK. Whatever, dude.

The New York State Assembly passed legislation that would legalize same-sex marriage. Yay! But it won't happen unless the Senate votes for it as well, and it doesn't look good. Boo!

Speaking of gay marriage, Donald Trump allowed Carrie Prejean to continue to serve as Miss California. I actually watched her news conference live, and what's fascinating is how she lies, repeatedly, and no one calls her on it. I'm not only talking about the "everyone is out to get me" nonsense; if she had lost her California crown, it would have been because she broke the rules by posing for semi-nude photos and being a paid spokesperson for an anti-gay marriage group. Her entire routine is load of hooey. She talked about the media not letting her tell her story -- but she's been on Fox News yapping about this since the paegent began. She said that she had been damaged by this whole affair -- except that, in reality, she got a freakin' job because of it. "This should not happen in America." Oh please. Physically, she's very attractive. But wow. What a dummy. She can't even speak clearly when she's reading a prepared statement. Somewhere, Vanessa Williams is shaking her head.

And finally, because I can't go five minutes without talking about Star Trek (have you seen the new movie? What are you waiting for, people?), new Spock Zachary Quinto revealed that he had his fingers glued together because he couldn't do the Vulcan hand jive that Leonard Nimoy made famous. I will never look at him the same way again.

Live long... and prosper...

Image: Wikipedia

SNL Mother's Day Skits

10 Year Old Burned By Tanning Bed

Poll - Portia and Ellen Most Trusted Moms

Brett Singer — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:30:00 GMT

ParentDish did a Mother's Day poll. Over 10,000 people voted. (For an Internet poll, that's a lot, trust me. Or as Paris Hilton might say, "huge.")

The first question on the poll was the following: "Which celebrity would you most feel comfortable leaving your kids with?"

You know who won? Drum roll, please...

With 31%, Ellen DeGeneres and Portia De Rossi took the top spot. Rounding out the list were Jennifer Aniston (22%), Rachel Ray (20%), Angelina and Brad (18%) and coming in last was Oprah Winfrey with 9%.

The results are interesting. I probably would have put Rachel Ray first, and Ellen and Portia second. (Carrie Prejean, methinks, would put Ellen and Portia dead last.) Putting Jennifer ahead of Angie and Brad seems odd, but I guess that's the way the celebrity winds are blowing this week.

Obviously the fact that the top choice was a same-sex couple is worth mentioning. Or is it? Have a majority of us progressed past the point where we care what sort of family we would leave our kids with? (In theory of course -- as far as I know, none of the famous folks in this poll are offering babysitting services.)

Out of this group, who would you leave your kids with? Would the sexual orientation of the parents factor in to your decision?

Source: ParentDish

image: Daily News

American Incest Dad Gets 109 Years In Jail

Did This Woman Commit Suicide Because She Couldn't Breastfeed?

Morning News: Better Than Expected, And That's Outside New England

Amy Kuras — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Is it just me, or does it seem like swine flu hysteria is settling down? While the news that the first US citizen death was of a pregnant woman is terribly sad, it appears (knocking wood now) that it’s not especially deadly for the young, healthy adults it’s been striking.

Of course, that might change this fall: most health experts believe the flu is likely to come back in the fall, perhaps in a more serious form. However, scientists have figured out the genotype of the virus and a vaccine is in the works. Whew.

Also in the “not as bad as originally feared” category is the wildfires in California and Arizona. Originally firefighters believed 400 acres in the Los Padres National Forest near Santa Barbara were burning; now it’s only 196 acres. However, 1,000 homes have been evacuated and 2,000 more are on evacuation advisory. In Arizona, a human-caused brushfire has burned through 1500 acres around the Coronado National Forest.

There’s good news all over New England as well: Maine governor John Baldacci signed gay marriage into law hours after the Legislature passed a bill allowing it, and New Hampshire’s state legislature passed a similar bill later yesterday as well. That leaves Rhode Island as the sole New England holdout, and there’s a gay marriage bill in their legislature although it isn’t expected to pass this year.

Best yet: The world’s oldest dog, a dacshund named Chanel, turned 21 yesterday. The average dog lives to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 15. She partied in Manhattan, and I bet that party was craazzzyyy. You know how those hounds are when they get their drink on.

Morning News - Dom DeLuise Dies

Brett Singer — Wed, 06 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Actor Dom DeLuise died on Monday. He was 75. DeLuise had kind of fallen off the radar in recent years, but I remember him from The Cannonball Run 1 and 2, as well as many Mel Brooks' classics. He also had a line of pasta sauces and other foods, cookbooks, and cooking videos. I didn't know this, but according to his web site, DeLuise wrote a few children's books. Here's a clip (NSFW) of Dom goofing around on one of his cooking CD-ROMs.

That Ben Bernake. Always bumming us out. Ben, aka Little Mary Sunshine, says that "another shock to the financial system would undercut the central bank’s forecast that the U.S. recession will give way this year to a slow recovery." Oh, blah blah blah. Where were you two years ago when we needed someone to tell us the bad times were coming? Huh? (It's possible that he was just as much of a bummer two years ago, I really don't know.)

By the time you read this, Amazon may have released a new, larger version of the Kindle -- the Kindle DX. Press conference Wednesday morning. Most folks seem to think that it will be a larger-than-it-used-to-be device (hence the DX, which generally doesn't indicate "smaller"), designed "with newspapers and magazines in mind." My prediction: it will cost more than I want it to.

$50 million for Missouri battery-makers! Someone will be happy about that. Battery-makers, mostly. Especially battery-makers in Missouri.

Miss California Carrie Prejean continues to make headlines, but not in the way she'd like to. She may have violated her contract with the Miss USA Pageant, and they might strip her of her title. One, she did a semi-nude photo shoot when she was 17, despite signing a contract that says she didn't. Also, after saying that she doesn't believe in gay marriage, she was hired by the National Organization for Marriage, described as "a group opposed to same-sex marriage." According to the Contra Costa Times, she wasn't supposed to do that. Her answer is to play martyr: "I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. On April 19, I chose to answer a question during the 2009 Miss USA pageant in an honest and personal manner that expressed my views of the long-established definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Yet my comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street." Um, hi. Carrie? The pictures are of you. Is it possible that they were "leaked" after you "expressed your opinion"? Yes. But does the contract that you signed say that you aren't supposed to have posed for photos where you aren't wearing clothes? Yes. It does. But are the photos of you? Yes. They are. Oops! Look at it this way, Carrie -- Vanessa Williams was stripped of her Miss America title, and she's had a very nice career. Maybe you can be a reporter for Fox News.

Microsoft is laying off 1,200 people. Wow. That sucks. (Sorry no trenchant analysis there.)

The St. Petersburg Times cheekily makes a list of swine flu related products and services: "Act now! Swine flu capitalism is a limited-time offer." T-shirts include the hilarious "I have flu-like symptoms, so oink off," "H1N1 negative. Get yourself tested," and "I went to Mexico and all I got was this lousy SWINE FLU!" Wow. What a riot. What's great is that the shirt will still be just as funny a year from now. By that I mean NOT FUNNY AT ALL.

Oh, and speaking of swine flu, some say that it's been around since September. That would be before Obama took office, in case anyone was wondering.

That's all for today -- please, be careful out there.

Image: Amazon

Morning News - Rush Angers His Own People

Possible Father of Malawian Orphan Opposes Madonna Adoption

Swine Flu - Maybe We Won't Close School

Mexican Sesame Street Addresses Swine Flu

OctoMom's Kid - Bite Mark And Black Eye

Swine Flu - Are You Worried About Your Kids?

Iowa Mulling Same Sex Birth Certificates?

JeanneSager — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:32:00 GMT

Same sex marriage is finally legal in Iowa, so what's next? Recognizing their right to parent as same sex partners.

Iowa is debating whether to strike the traditional "Mother" and "Father" listings on children's birth certificates so same sex couples can simply be parents.

Currently, Iowa law states that the woman who gives birth to a child is listed on the certificate as "mother." If she's married, the law states her husband is to be listed as father. So what if a mother is married . . . to another mother?

Other states have faced this battle - and nothing has been rectified. Massachusetts parents still face the "mother" and "father" lines on birth certificates, and town clerks have been told the "X" out the inappropriate gender title rather than having official forms printed up. Those parents say they've encountered trouble obtaining passports and other official documents for their kids because the birth certificates look doctored. Even parents who have more legal-looking certificates - including same sex adoptive couples who both appear as mother or father on their kids' birth certificates, encounter a hiccup at the federal level. As one lesbian mom explained, "The feds don't care if you're two moms or two dads, but the application still says father and mother."

So it's a Pyrrhic victory; the feds OK the passport, but force a mom to become a dad or vice versa.

If Iowa can make this leap, it may well be as large a coup as the passage of the same sex marriage act. Not only will gays and lesbians be afforded the right to marry who they please but to finally name their spouses as parents of their kids - without an adoption process and without requiring a gendered title that does not fit.

Come on Iowa!

Making More Marriages Versus "Making Marriage Matter Less"

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:00:00 GMT

A recent report tells us that half of all new babies born in Scotland last year were born to unmarried parents. And those statistics are indicative of a growing trend in many places of families that do not meet the imaginary norm of two opposite-sex married parents and their biological children.

Oddly enough, this lesbian mom thought first of all those Scottish babies when I heard all the good news about legal marriage expanding in the past two weeks. My partner and I can now have our Canadian marriage recognized in Sweden, Iowa and Vermont and depending on the U.S. Congress's response to the city's decision, the District of Columbia. Add these to a growing list that includes Spain, Belgium, Massachusetts, New York and of course, Canada.

Marriage is indeed a handy thing for us to have. It protects us in the event of death or accident, making sure we can care for each other in extremity and inherit from each other easily. It protects the children that come into our family while we are married, making sure we are both recognized as their parents, and thus responsible for them. But marriage isn't the only way to obtain those kinds of benefits. And same-sex marriage does nothing at all for children born to unmarried parents, whatever their gender configuration.

There are many reasons families other than the Leave it to Beaver model need recognition, care and protection from the government, but even exclusively focusing on children's needs quickly alerts us to the many ways in which marriage is not the answer to these needs.

No, a child with a de facto, but nonlegal parent can't be covered by that parent's employer-based health insurance. But even when that de facto parent becomes a legal one by caveat of a marriage to the first parent or through second-parent adoption (when available) the child will remain uninsured if that parent has no coverage herself, as many don't.

Marriage allows its members to visit each other in the hospital in emergencies, but same-sex marriage doesn't help the mother and father, unmarried to each other in such emergencies.

Marriage means any child born into the family of a married couple is automatically the legal child of both. This doesn't help live-in, unmarried partners of any sex who raise each other's children.

Marriage offers special rights to an ever decreasing percentage of the population and the children born to that group. But rather than expanding who can obtain these special rights, the government should be designing family law to protect all families in their ever-increasing variety.

Some great suggestions for doing that, based on models from countries that do it better, as well as her own brilliant legal thinking, can be found in Nancy Polikoff's book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage. Polikoff's central idea is that we should strive to make marriage "matter less" to the well being of families, allowing it without discrimination, but only as a personal, spiritual and symbolic ritual that is not required to protect and defend families and their dependents (whether those dependents are children or dependent adults).

Universal health coverage, court arbitration for non-martial family break ups, parenting rights for all of a child's acting parents, and other reforms would go much further and protect many more people than merely extending marriage rights and privileges. Furthermore, same-sex marriage, under Polikoff's plans would cease to be a cultural or political dividing force. Why? Because families could get what they needed without "marriage" leaving marriage itself to be defined in whatever way legally toothless groups wanted to define it. If a certain church wanted to restrict marriage to women and men, it could (as all churches can now, by the way) and if another wanted to marry groups of more than two people in a spiritually meaningful ritual, it could do that as well. But access or lack of it to any of these ceremonies would have no impact on the rights of any given family.

Polikoff's ideas are simple, common sense ones and I am glad to see them in print. I hope I'll see them in law someday. I hope it more than I hope for gay marriage, however convenient that would be for my particular family.

Morning News: 3 Charged in Anna Nicole Smith's Death

Madeline Holler — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Three people, including Howard K. Stern, were charged in Los Angeles County with providing former Playmate, reality TV star and lovable freakshow Anna Nicole Smith with way too many drugs.

Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor and Stern, who was Smith's boyfriend and lawyer, are accused of repeatedly and excessively furnishing the mother of two with prescription drugs. In a statement released from the Atty. General's office, the three "furnished thousands of prescription pills to Ms. Smith, including opiates, benzodiazepines, and other controlled and non-controlled substances." Smith died in 2007 of a drug overdose shortly after her teenage son's death. She had recently given birth to Danielynn, whose father was eventually identified as Larry Birkhead and not Howard K. Stern as had been presumed.

In what has been billed as "the weeklong battle of the century," The Daily Show's Jon Stewart absolutely spanked Jim Cramer on the show last night. Stewart, doing that thing where he starts out funny and then gets uncomfortably serious, called Cramer a snake-oil salesman and got the Mad Money screamer to concede his mistakes and insist he'll do better next time. You can watch the uncut version here.

Despite facing their own serious economic crises, members of the EU will go ahead with a planned tripling of the length of guaranteed paid maternity leave -- full pay for 18 weeks. Sweet! The U.K. has been fighting the measure, worried that it'll harm business and cost taxpayers too much.

Scam artist Bernard Madoff, who was sent to jail yesterday after he pleaded guilty to charges of fraud, read a statement with broad details about when and how is Ponzi scheme started and how it functioned thereafter. He also said he realized early on that he couldn't get out of it and that he knew one day he'd be caught. Oh, and he's sorry, real sorry.

President Obama has got some thinking to do. Two judges in California want their employees benefits extended to partners in same-sex relationships even though that would violate the Defense of Marriage Act. If he supports the judges, he'll be consistent with his work as an Illinois senator but have hell to pay with conservatives; if not, members of his own party will be pissed.

Here's another quandry for the president: what to do about U.S. school districts who want to lengthen the school day but shorten the school week in order to save money. Less time at school and longer breaks are exactly the opposite of what Obama suggested in his big speech on education last week.

The tallest building in the Western Hemisphere is getting a new name. The Sears Tower in Chicago will be renamed Willis Tower. The name comes from Willis Group Holdings, a London-based insurance group, and they were granted the naming rights in a real estate deal. How does everyone feel about this?

Finally, the tigers in a Swiss zoo are going to get an awfully cute snack one of these days: a cute little baby Hippo named Farasi. Born in November, the little fatty is the zoo's most popular attraction. Nonetheless, he'll likely be euthanized because the zoo isn't large enough for two male hippos and frankly, Farasi, Daddy was there first. Still. Euthanized? Can't some other zoo have him? Like that one in Germany that wanted to kill Knute the adorable and popular polar bear cub?

Photo: MSNBC.com

Education Secretary Talks Elongated School Year

They Say: Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Benefit Kids

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:30:00 GMT

As the Vermont legislature is poised to vote on whether or not to move from civil unions to gay marriage, the Vermont chapters of four national mental health organizations have weighed in heavily in favor of granting gay couples all of the legal benefits of marriage.

The National Psychiatric Association, the Psychological Association, the Association of Mental Health Counselors, and the National Association of Social Workers focused heavily on children’s well-being in their statement. According to the psychologist who released the statement, “Research has shown children of same-sex couples are as likely as children of heterosexual parents to flourish…[and] same-sex parents are just as likely to provide healthy and supportive environments for children."

The sole reason that the children of same-sex couples may suffer more than their peers in social situations is because of deeply engrained societal discrimination—a problem that will only fade as governments grant same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Photo: National Film Board of Canada

Michigan Court Must Hear Lesbian Custody Dispute

JeanneSager — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:31:00 GMT

The residents of Michigan passed a gay marriage ban in 2004, but that doesn't mean the courts can't weigh in on a lesbian couple's custody dispute.

A court ruled last week that the legal adoption of three children by two gay Michigan residents - while they were living in Illinois - must not only be recognized by the Michigan courts but addressed as the now estranged couple attempts to navigate a custody arrangement.

Diane Giancaspro and Lisa Congleton have three children between them, adopted in 1998, 1999 and 2002, while the couple was living in Illinois, a state that recognizes both parents in a homosexual relationship and allows for joint adoption. The women broke up in 2007 - after moving to Michigan.

But when Giancaspro sued for custody under Michigan law, her former partner called for the case's dismissal. Congleton was attempting to use the state's refusal to recognize domestic partnerships in her favor, stating that neither parent has rights in the state of Michigan. As depressing as it is that a lesbian had to make use of the laws that are set up AGAINST her to retain a connection with her children, it worked. The judge in the case said she recognized the "validity" of the adoption but couldn't enfore either woman's parental rights.

Giancaspro, with the help of the ACLU, took the case to an appeals court. Last week, a two to one decision from the court mandated the issue be put back before a Michigan court, ruling that the U.S. Constitution protects the adoption and therefore allows for a custody dispute to be mediated in a family court setting.

The decision has, of course, prompted suggestions by family values advocates that it's time for a gay adoption ban in Michigan (really guys? as if the gay marriage ban didn't prove you can't pull your heads from your you-know-whats?). But it's a victory for gay parents, who are finally getting access to a right afforded every other parent in the state - the right to their day in court.

I still can't help but come back to Congleton's argument, however. I understand she was grasping at the same straws any parent would to keep their children, but there's something deeply saddening about a mother forced to embrace the very laws that denied her rights that should be granted her as a member of the human race in order to be there for her kids.

Would you compromise your values in this kind of situation?

Image: Wikipedia

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

In the latest salvo against abortion rights, North Dakota's house of representatives this week passed a law defining a fertilized egg as having all the rights of a human being. The bil, which passed with a 51-41 vote, will now move to the state's senate for its consideration. If it is approved, legal challenges are expected that could end up in the United States Supreme Court -- a body that is now widely seen as having a five-justice majority willing to restrict abortion rights first enumerated in the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling.

Dan Ruby, the Republican state congressman who sponsored the bill, says it's not intended to ban abortion, simply to define when life begins -- a question that has mystified thinkers for centuries, but apparently is obvious to the North Dakota Republican Party -- and to give that life "some protections under our Constitution."

This is hardly the first or the only legislative assault on Roe, and it certainly won't be the last. It is, however, part of an interesting new political/religious movement that uses the term "personhood" to attempt to define not only fetuses, but blastocytes (what's next, follicles?) as fully-fledged human beings deserving of all the legal status of a baby, child, or adult. The so-called "personhood movement" aims to roll back abortion rights by means of state legislative action, primarily working in states that outlawed or restricted abortion in the days pre-Roe, when each state had its own laws regarding reproductive rights. In defining even a fertilized egg as human, backers are not only taking aim at abortion but also at many forms of birth control, which operate by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the woman's uterus. It could also result in pregnant women being prosecuted for behavior said to endanger their fetuses.

I'm interested in this movement, and wonder when they will turn their attention to granting "personhood" rights to children who have already been born. One group of persons whose rights need protecting is children who are US citizens but whose parents are not -- an estimated 100,000 parents were deported over the past decade whose children, having been born here, should be enjoying all the rights of other US citizens, rather than left behind by their parents or forced to return to countries with fewer opportunities for them. And how about extending "personhood" rights to gay Americans who would like to marry and raise their children together, just as their straight friends and relatives do?

The religious right's emphasis on what happens before birth and after death is mystifying to me at times. I'd like to remind them that there's life after birth, and protecting those lives seems a much better use of everyone's time, energy, and attention.

More By This Author:

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Moms

Gay Parent Public Service Announcements Censored During Super Bowl

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:35:00 GMT

If you watched the Super Bowl on California's KABC-TV, you missed an ad from "Get to Know Us First," a California campaign to promote understanding of the needs of same-sex headed families. Several ads featuring 2-mom and 2-dad families were produced for the organization to help promote the undoing of Proposition 8, which, in November 2008, took away marriage rights previously won by same-sex couples.

KABC-TV claimed it had decided not to air any "advocacy" ads during its Super Bowl programming. But the ad agency that produced the Get to Know Us First campaign claims several advocacy ads were in fact aired throughout the show.

The ads show real people in real families and send the subtle message that some of the fear-mongering from those who oppose same-sex marriage, adoption and family life is simply not accurate.

For one of the Get to Know Us spots, see below.

What do you think? Super Bowl appropriate or not?

Protect Children: Prohibit Divorce

JeanneSager — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:54:00 GMT

Since Californians who voted for Prop 8 late last year to strike down the rights of gays to marry said they were doing it for the children, there's a new movement afoot to keep kids safe:

Prohibit divorces. All of them. Keep heterosexual couples from breaking the bonds of holy matrimony.

After all - the sanctity of marriage and the children were at the heart of Prop 8, right?

A petition over at the Petition Site already has seven thousand some signatures, folks who signed their names to a letter proposing that divorce be stricken from the books to "keep the interests of children and families intact."

The marriage of a man and a woman has been at the heart of society since the beginning of time and it promotes the ideal opportunity for children to be raised by a mother and a father in a family held together by the legal, communal, and spiritual bonds of marriage. As a society we should put the best interests of children first, and those interests lie in traditional marriage. Permitting divorce destroys marriage as we know it and causes a profound harm to society. We should be restoring marriage, not undermining it.

Starting to sound familiar? Take out the word "divorce" and slip in "gay marriage."

Yup, they stole the whole thing from the Prop 8 folks over at ProtectMarriage.com; you know, the folks who warned Californians that "schools will now be required to teach students that gay marriage is the same as traditional marriage, starting with kindergarteners." (sic)

I'd love to say they won't be able to weasel out of their own words, but as the masters of twisting things to send people running scared of "the gay," I'm betting the evangelicals will have a field day with this one too. Only this time, the joke truly is on them.

Image: ThePetitionSite

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

They Say: Shunning Gay Kids Bad for Their Health

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

Brangelina Won't Marry Until the Gays Can

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:02:00 GMT

In an interview with W magazine, Brad Pitt discussed his strong support of same-sex marriage. Having given the anti-Proposition 8 campaign $100,000 last summer, Pitt explained to W that

"People who are against gay marriage do not understand the very freedoms that they themselves are enjoying. What if someone said, ‘Sorry, no Christianity here? No Judaism. Certainly no Mormons.’ No one would stand for that, and I wouldn’t allow anyone to say that either. I’d fight them in the same way.”

Pitt claims he and partner Angelina Jolie refuse to marry until the right to do so is afforded everyone.

Who should know better than the unmarried parents of six kids the hassle of not being married? While money--which both of them have in truckloads, of course--can provide a lot of familial security, the basic rights of both parents are not protected without marriage. Even Pitt's biological children are his only if Jolie says so and allows him onto the birth certificate. If the couple were married, any children born to Jolie would be Pitt's legal children. Same-sex couples usually must adopt each other's biological or adopted children to become both legal parents. And sometimes that option isn't even available. Pitt and Jolie have a unique understanding of this, having been through second-parent adoptions for their children who were born in places that don't allow unmarried couples to adopt together (as most U.S. jurisdictions do not, if that couple is two members of the same sex).

Brangelina are hardly ordinary folk. Like I said, their money can fill a lot of the cracks legal difficulties cause for us mortals. But I appreciate them putting their power behind the cause of standing up for those without the privilege of wealth--or the privilege to marry.

Image: wmagazine.com

Principal Censors Pro-Gay School Paper

JeanneSager — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 13:34:00 GMT

Two male students holding hands and a pro-gay editorial got a school paper yanked by administrators at a South Carolina school last month. Somehow, the principal is still claiming the school encourages diversity.

Apparently you can be different - just don't tell anyone.

Students at the Academy for Arts, Science & Technology near Carolina Forest have traditionally printed their paper on their own, using funds from ad sales to cover the cost of printing the quarterly paper. But when administrators, including Principal Ronnie Burgess, saw the picture of two male students holding hands and an editorial advocating for same-sex marriage, they told the kids the paper couldn't be distributed. They offered $500 in school funds to reprint the paper - without the editorial and picture.

Burgess said he was afraid the original paper would be "disruptive."

"I had some concerns about the content of the article and how it might impact students here and what the community concerns might be when the article was distributed," he told the Myrtle Beach-based Sun News. I'm not surprised that an administrator is afraid of community backlash (even homophobic, small-minded backlash), but what floors me is the rest of Burgess' statement to the paper: "At the academy we encourage diversity, we don't look to silence student voices, we hope to facilitate their expression."

So you encourage diversity, by telling gay teens they can't be pictured in the school paper? Sadly, this message hurts not only the gay kids but every student at the academy who is being provided with an example by the authority figures they're supposed to look up to and follow of "making the gays disappear." The move tells the kids of the academy that differences of opinion should be responded to by putting up money to make them go away.

The staff of the school paper is fighting adminstration on this one. They've cried censorship. Unfortunately, the teenage students are serving as better examples of who their peers should "grow up to be" than school administrators.

Image: Myrtle Beach Online

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

The Longshots: Girls Can Play Football . . . and Make You Cry

Ethnic Unity 101: Coming to China's Schools

Breastfeeding Moms Fighting Facebook Ban

Will Our Kids Be Allowed to Say Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukkah?

Mommy and Mama Now Legal in New York

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Good news for parents and children in New York state! In keeping with the state's ruling last year that same-sex marriages made out of state (in Canada, for example) had to be respected, the state health department now says that both parents in such marriages will be listed on the birth certificates of children born to them.

Any child born to a married woman is automatically considered the child of her husband--even if the woman conceived with donor sperm or other means (ahem) in which her husband is not the baby's biological parent. But in the case of children born to lesbians with partners who plan to parent with them, second-parent adoption is usually required (if it is, indeed, available) in order to secure the non-biological mother's rights.

With the new plan in New York, second parents will be immediately able to have access to and information about their children in the hospital, an invaluable privilege, as I'm sure those of you who've clocked NICU time can attest.

Now come on, New York, don't do this by halves. It's time to start performing those same-sex marriages so couples don't have to elope to Massachusetts any more. You know you could use those gay wedding dollars in this economy!

Jon Stewart Slam Dunks the Argument for Gay Marriage

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:42:00 GMT

There are few things more satisfying than watching someone make a clear ethical and logical argument for something you believe in, particularly when that argument is being broadcast to living rooms around America--and is being made to Mike Huckabee.

Just one of the many reasons this video made me love Jon Stewart even more than I thought possible: "I would argue," he says, "that a loving gay family with a financially secure background beats the hell out of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline anyday." That is really just the tip of the iceberg of his eloquence.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Photo: sueschaub.com

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Overrules Ban on Gays Adopting in Florida

JeanneSager — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:01:00 GMT

In the wake of Prop 8 putting the kibosh on gay marriages in California and Arkansas voters saying no to gays adopting or even fostering children, the gay community needed some good news. Thanks to Florida Judge Cindy Lederman, they finally got some. And it's just in time for Thanksgiving! Her honor ruled the thirty-year-old ban that's kept gay men and women from adopting children in Florida is unconstitutional today. Right at the tail end of National Adoption Month, Lederman signed the papers that make Frank Gill an official dad.

Gill and his partner of eight years have been raising a set of half-brothers for the past four years, ever since a child abuse investigator put the boys in the couple's "temporary" care just before Christmas. They have been the only parents the younger of the two boys, who is just four years old, has ever really known. Now they're the only dads he'll ever have to know.

Lederman is the second Florida judge to challenge the decades-old ban this year. A judge in August dubbed it an "unveiled" expression of bigotry. Lederman agreed, stating that children should be granted the fundamental right to be raised in a loving home by two parents, even if their birth parents can't be called upon to do the job. Denying foster children of gays and lesbians that right means children's best interests are being denied.

Lederman's comments in the Miami Herald are just the sort of words we need to hear two days before Thanksgiving:

''This is the forum where we try to heal children, find permanent families for them so they can get another chance at what every child should know and feel from birth, and go on to lead productive lives. We pray for them to thrive, but that is a word we rarely hear in dependency court.''

"It is clear that sexual orientation is not a predictor of a person's ability to parent. Sexual orientation no more leads to psychiatric disorders, alcohol and substance abuse, relationship instability, a lower life expectancy or sexual disorders than race, gender, socioeconomic class or any other demographic characteristic."

Duh! There are plenty of bad straight parents out there. And lots of good gay ones. Too bad I'm not a family court judge - I think I'd be good at this. Putting a damper on all this happy weeping, of course, is the state's attorney general's office - they've already guaranteed an appeal is headed to the third circuit court. But Frank Gill says he is happy today, and so are his sons. Yes, his sons. Because the adoption ban doesn't make more straight parents come pouring out of the woodwork.

``It results in more children being left without any parents at all. They don't have a mom or a dad," he told the Herald.

Here's to every child one day having a mom and dad or a mom and mom or a dad and dad . . . just as long as they have someone to love and care for them.

Image: Miami Herald (Frank Gill and one of his sons)

Separation of Church and State = Same-Sex Marriage

Arkansas Adoption Ban Passes, Fails to Eliminate Queers and their Spawn from the Earth

What Makes a Yuppie Parent?

Juno Goes to Washington? Congress' First Unwed Mom

The Trouble with Safe Haven Laws: Some Thoughts for National Adoption Month

Breaking News: CA Supreme Court Will Hear Prop. 8 Challenges

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:40:00 GMT

In case your post-election elation is starting to wear off, here's some good news in the fight for constitutional protections. The California Supreme Court agreed today to hear the case against Proposition 8 brought by the ACLU, the City of San Francisco, and gay rights organizations. This is the same court that unwittingly brought about the Prop. 8 firestorm after they ruled that banning gay marriage violates both the fundamental right to marry and the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

The lawsuits against Prop. 8 hinge on two main arguments, namely (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) that "the measure exceeds the legal scope of a ballot initiative by allowing a majority to restrict a minority group's rights, and that it violates the constitutional separation of powers by limiting judicial authority."

The court's decision to review challenges to Prop. 8 is great news, but the fight is far from over. The court also ruled that same-sex marriages will remain illegal until it has considered the constitutionality of Prop. 8. And if it does find the measure to be constitutionally sound, the court will have to decide whether to apply Prop. 8 retroactively, nullifying the 18,000 marriages that took place between the court's legalization of same-sex marriage and the passage of Prop. 8. We'll keep you posted.

Photo: Los Angeles Times

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Mom Kicked out of PTA for Prop. 8 Stance

eHarmony Forced to Set Up Gay Dating Site

Madeline Holler — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:26:00 GMT

The option for gays to stay at home to find a date have just broadened. A New York judge ruled that eHarmony, on the of the big players in online dating, must also facilitate hook-ups for gays and lesbians.

Love it.

The company eHarmony said it will launch the new same-sex dating site, named "Compatible Partners," by March 31.

From Yahoo!:

The settlement was the result of a discrimination complaint filed by Eric McKinley against eHarmony in 2005, which will be dismissed under the settlement agreement.

Recall, eHarmony was founded by evangelical Christian Dr. Neil Clark Warren and it also had ties to James Dobson's Focus on the Family (which is having a bunch of financial problems right now ... just putting that out there).

So now that we can't legally discriminate against gays for dating services, surely -- SURELY! --discrimination against gays who want to get legally wed can't be far behind.

Anti-Gay Church Lays Off Workers (After Spending Gobs on Prop 8)

Morning News: Stevens Loses; Senate Dems Now at 58

Mom Kicked Out of the PTA for Position on Prop 8

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Photo: www.lovesites.com

Mom Kicked Out of the PTA for Position on Prop 8

JeanneSager — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:25:00 GMT

The Roman Catholic school where Robin McGehee's been president of the PTA was OK with her being a lesbian. But supporting her own rights? Apparently that was taking things just too far. McGehee's been kicked off the PTA after attending a vigil thrown by the No on Prop 8 campaign.

McGehee and wife Kathy Adams' son, Sebastian, attends St. Helen's Catholic School in Fresno,Calif. Trying to be an involved mom, McGehee joined the PTA and was elected president. It's exactly what the school promotes on its Website, stating parents are expected to be involved in their children's education. But the day after the vigil, she says a priest from the Diocese of Fresno told her she was being relieved of her post in the parent-teacher association.

Raised as a Roman Catholic, what surprises me about this story isn't that McGehee was kicked out. I'm surprised she was on the board at all considering the church's stance on homosexuality. By its own admission, the school is built on the "traditional values" of Catholocism. The school philosophy lays out a code for kids to follow, including attendance at Mass and adherence to the church's teachings.

Those teachings are exactly why I'm a casual Catholic these days. I can't adhere to those teachings that specifically deny my gay friends the rights to love, honor and obey each other. I can't raise my daughter to look down her nose at her uncles who hold hands and kiss the way Mommy and Daddy do.

So why are McGehee and Adams subjecting their child to a place that teaches against their family?

Image: St Helens School

Same-Sex Marriage: "A Tiny, Symbolic, Semantic Grain of Happiness"

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Adoptive Parents Say: Boys Are Too Much Trouble

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:22:00 GMT

Yesterday, thousands gathered in 300 cities across the United States to protest the passage of Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California. The protests were a poignant and powerful reminder that no civil right is easily won.

Equality for gay families will be an uphill battle--all of the 30 states that have voted on gay marriage have banned it--but the impressive organization and high turnout of yesterday's peaceful protests demonstrate that the gay rights movement has the momentum to fight for as long as it takes.

Jezebel has posted a slideshow of photos of the protests submitted by readers across the country. I'm unable to post individual selections from the slideshow (aptly titled "Love Not Hate"), but, as you can tell from this one highlight on the right, it's worth browsing the whole thing, especially if you're feeling discouraged about the election's decidedly anti-gay rights outcome.

One of the photos shows a young woman carrying a sign that says, "Jesus Says Relax." I'd like to add to that my favorite Jon Stewart quote. Speaking of gay marriage a few years back, he said, "I really don't see what the big deal is--unless, of course, they're going to make it mandatory."

Photo: Jezebel

Same-Sex Marriage: "A Tiny, Symbolic, Semantic Grain of Happiness"

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 18:24:00 GMT

For those of you who missed it, here's Keith Olberman of MSNBC on the passage of Proposition 8, overturning the right to same-sex marriage in California:

Olberman makes some excellent points, but the one quibble I have with him is the notion that marriage is merely a semantic point when other legal options--like civil unions--exist. If it isn't called "marriage" an enormous loophole is created, allowing legislatures to come in and rewrite rights and privileges for "married" people only. We have to have one word for one set of rights and responsibilities.

Morning News: Cindy McCain Has a Boyfriend?

Madeline Holler — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:30:00 GMT

It's been awhile since we've had a juicy political-ish affair to report on, so let's start the day with this one: the National Enquirer (ahem!) has published a super grainy photo of a blond woman in a pony tail kissing a creepy looking dude (perhaps also wearing a pony tail).

The tabloid says the woman is Cindy McCain and the dude is, well, they don't say. They say this make-out scene was at a music festival in Tempe, Ariz., two years ago.

We're skeptical, though gracious enough to note the scandal mag totally nailed the John Edwards/Hunter Rielle affair.

But you have to ask yourself: Cindy in an ugly flannel shirt? Drinking Bud from a plastic cup? And don't we expect more discretion from the former non-first lady of the U.S. Thoughts?

We're trying to quit Sarah Palin, so to speak, we really are. But we can't get her off of the widescreen! It appears she is covering all her bases during the post-election media frenzy that features, mainly, her.

First, she told us she'd run for president in 2012 if she received divine orders to do so. Now that her Alaska compatriate (and felon!) Ted Stevens is behind by three votes (at last count) in his re-election bid, she's also saying she'll be lookin' out for God's orders to make a run for that Senate seat in 2010 (or fill an empty one if Uncle Ted wins but gets the boot). So many ways to get Todd and the kids the hell out of Alaska!

Palin's poised even to unseat George W. Bush and his wife Laura in the book world. Publishers are lining up to get the not-much-longer first couple to pen their memoirs, even setting aside bags of money for their troubles. But Sarah Palin could strike a deal that would get her way more than them ... something like $7 million. George, baby, it's so over.

Now it's Joe and Jill Biden's turn to check out their new digs (what? The vice president is finally going to give up his Amtrak pass and live in D.C.?). They're meeting with Dick and Lynne Cheney today and, yes, we'd like to be a fly on the wall there too. No word on whether Cheney will be disclosing all those undisclosed locations. Or whether he'll wait until Jill leaves the room to tell Biden to "go fuck himself."

Ex-Rep. Mark Foley is breaking his silence on the whole text message young male pages thing that basically wrecked his career and helped Democrats take over Congress in 2006. But he's not exactly contrite. He says he's sorry for getting caught, but not for what he did. "They were almost 18!" he says. "No one told me that they weren't enjoying it!" Um. OK (you perv).

Disgraced non-gay Ted Haggard is also breaking his silence two years after the meth-using evangelical minister got totally outed by his favorite gay male prostitute. Haggard says his indiscretions stem from having been molested when he was 7 years old. But that he's all better now. And basically it was God's will that all these Republicans, including himself, got caught being hypocrites.

We like it when gays embrace their gayitude and are especially happy that Connecticut has kicked off gay marriage season just as California preps to shamefully shut its down. The Connecticut State Supreme Court recently struck down a gay marriage ban and couples are lining up to make their partnerships legal. Huh. We're going to go ahead and declare that God's will too.

Photo: National Enquirer

Strollerderby Playdate: Feminist Mormon Housewives

Shannon LC Cate — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:30:00 GMT

I have a confession. I really like Mormons. I can't help it, most of them are just really nice people. And if you know the history of the LDS in the United States, you know they have been--historically--some of the most oppressed people in the country. They were fired on by federal troops and basically chased West to territory no one else wanted. They were polygamists (I know, I know, the LDS Church has a strong official stance against polygamy now) and were hated and condemned for their non-mainstream sexuality and "lifestyle choices." This makes me feel they are queer kin, in an odd way.

I am not now and have never been a Mormon myself, but I have had several LDS friends over the years. I always have a big disconnect when confronted by the face-to-face super niceness of Mormon individuals in spite of the institutional nastiness of the official church's positions on thing I care very much about. Imagine my delight at finding the Feminist Mormon Housewives, a group blog by, well, a bunch of feminist Mormon housewives. Lately, they've been on about the election, of course. Most of them were big Obama supporters and they had some dissident things to say about the big LDS push to pass Proposition 8 in California. (As does, Mormons for Marriage, an unrelated, but also terrific site.)

Even if the Mormons have been historically oppressed in the United States, they sure as heck are not the underdogs anymore. In fact, they are a huge, monied, powerful organization with a strong top-down organizational style which yes indeed, contributed mightily to Proposition 8's passing. It's good to know that there are women in this church who are not only thinking, but speaking for themselves in eloquent and intelligent ways rather than toeing a party--or religious--line.

Hey White Queers, Don't Get All Sarah Palin, Now

Adoption Ban Passes; Fails to Eliminate Queers and their Spawn from the Earth

Separation of Church and State=Same-Sex Marriage