Strollerderby : gay rights

Sixth Grader's Project on Harvey Milk Banned by School

JeanneSager — Mon, 25 May 2009 16:01:00 GMT

Natalie Jones just wanted to get a good grade on her sixth grade project. She didn't know writing about Harvey Milk, a person she said stood up for all people regardless of their backgrounds, was going to make schools officials pull out their "sex education" policies.

Maybe because she's in sixth grade, and she wasn't writing about sex?

The California sixth grader was yanked into the principal's office the day before her Power Point present was slated to be given in class, and complimented by the administrator for doing high school quality work. A backhanded compliment, apparently, because the principal then informed Natalie she was probably not going to be making the presentation the following day.

"She explained to me because he was a gay, that not maybe all the parents might agree with their kid watching that," Jones said in an interview with CNN.

OK, better to pretend the gays just don't exist then? Because, as Natalie's mother, Bonnie, pointed out - this was a project on a man's life. It wasn't about gay sex. Natalie picked the state's first openly gay politician to profile after watching the Sean Penn Academy Award-winning movie (named Milk, by the way, if you've been hiding under a rock and haven't heard about it). She said it's because "he stood for all minorities, no matter what you were." See, nothing about sex, folks.

And that's where Mt. Woodson Elementary School really got this one wrong. Because they picked on a kid talking about a homosexual person not only as though that were something bad but as if that's all he was. Yes, Harvey Milk was openly gay and did a lot for gay rights. But he was also a politician in California. A pretty famous one. And this is a California student writing about an influential figure for a report for a California school.

So they're not only teaching kids that they discriminate against homosexuals and encouraging discrimination, but they're teaching them how to pigeonhole people based upon one part of their life.

The ACLU is demanding an apology from the school district, by the way, and has threatened to file a lawsuit.

Image: Amazon

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!

Teacher Fired for Letting Kids Play Gay

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:24:00 GMT

Note to all teachers with small-minded administrators - don't bother trying to teach your kids about history. At least not homosexual history.

A teacher in a rural Oklahoma town has been fired by administrators after trying to teach the story of gay college student Matthew Shepard's murder by assigning students parts in The Laramie Project, a play based on the hate crime inflicted on the young homosexual man a decade ago.

Of course, officials say it isn't the play itself that prompted the firing. Debra Taylor dared let her students voice their opinions about the school's decision to CANCEL the play that earned her a place on the chopping block.

When her principal told her the play - which he'd previously given permission to Taylor to put on - had to be stopped, she let her kids spend twenty minutes in a local park, writing their feelings on helium balloons and releasing them (not enviro-friendly, but at the very least offering some catharsis). Taylor says she never asked the kids to change their minds about homosexuality, just to be tolerant.

The park stunt is what administrators say was Taylor's undoing. What about it was wrong, they won't say. Perhaps that she let kids voice dissent? That she voiced dissent? That she did something else that might, possibly, maybe make the kids think again about tolerance and respecting others?

Because cancellation of the play to begin with was inappropriate, but it might have had a very positive affect on the kids. Suddenly, they saw it was like to be discriminated against. After several weeks of hard work put into practicing for their production, they had the rug swept out from under them by school officials - and for no reason.

And how's this for irony? The school punished Debra Taylor, but her job loss makes her a role model for kids. Kind of what we always hope our kids' teachers will be.

Image: USA Today

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

Court Bans Divorced Mom's Partner from Sleeping Over

JeanneSager — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:01:00 GMT

Proving once again that what's good for the gander isn't necessarily going to be allowed by homophobic family court judges for the goose, a divorced mom from Tennessee has been informed she can't allow her lesbian partner to sleep over on the same nights as her kids.

Her ex-husband, meanwhile, has remarried and his wife sleeps over - well, lives - with him every night.

Angel Chandler and Joseph Barker have been divorced for ten years, and shared custody of their two kids (now thirteen and fifteen) that whole time. They've both entered new relationships too, Barker remarrying five years ago while Chandler has maintained a monogamous relationship with a woman since 1999. But when they went to court late last year to modify the custody arrangements, the State of Tennessee sent both parents and both kids for psychological work-ups.

The evaluation determined Chandler's partner was a positive influence on her two kids. The court ignored it. A "paramour" restriction was added to the custody arrangements earlier this year, restricting Chandler's partner from being in their home on the nights when the kids were with Mom. Because after nine years, suddenly a set of teenagers are going to be shocked to find out Mom's a lesbian?

The women are now living in a duplex, side by side, so they can abide by court rules and still be together - sort of. The ACLU has stepped into the fray, filing a brief this week that urges the court to remove the paramour restriction, calling it unconstitutional for interfering with Chandler's abilities to raise her children as she sees fit.

If the court really wants to do what's best for the kids, how about allowing two sets of parents to get on with their lives in loving relationships and letting those kids see examples on both sides of happy, committed, successful couples?

Image: Amazon

Source: ACLU

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Man Says Drinking Breastmilk Cured His Cancer

Principal Censors Pro-Gay School Paper

Parents Upset: Transgender Kids Use Different School Bathrooms

Mommy and Mama Now Legal in New York

More Parents Leaving Kids Alone to Save on Daycare

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

Update: Wife of Mom Kicked Out of PTA for Prop 8 Stance Speaks Out

JeanneSager — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:28:00 GMT

When I wrote shared the story of a lesbian mom kicked out of the PTA for campaigning against Prop 8 this week, the last people I wanted to offend were Robin McGehee and her family. They are, after all, the victims here - not only of discrimination from the school and the Roman Catholic church as a whole but the entire State of California.

When Robin McGehee's wife, Kathy Adams, responded to the story here on Strollerderby, her words struck at the core of intolerance - what it does to the family, or, in this case, a little boy whose mom says "only wants to see his friends."

Adams shared more of the story behind the church's decision to make her wife their sacrificial lamb. Their little boy, Sebastian, had been enrolled there since pre-K because the public school program in that part of California does not offer pre-K. That Sebastian's birth father is Catholic and the family had a number of connections to staff and other parents at the school all played a role in their choice (as it would in any parents' decision regarding their child's education). They were depending, she said, on a belief that the people at St. Helen's "tried to enact general principles of faith that honors the dignity of all human beings."

Unfortunately, these people didn't try hard enough. McGehee was informed she was a face for St. Helen's as PTA president and her public face as a gay rights advocate put her in a conflict with the church's teachings. The family removed Sebastian from the school that very day, Adams said. Now their little boy mourns for the life he enjoyed with his friends at a school where his teachers were loving, caring individuals, where his recent participation in a walk-a-thon garnered the school more than $1,000 in donations.

Already saddened and disgusted by the church's actions, the details Adams layed out make it that much more difficult to fathom the possibility of one day sending my daughter to Catholic school. It was a question I asked this week - how does one send their child to a school where the teachings are in direct opposition to the family's basic values?

In Adams' and McGehee's case, it was what they saw as their best option. As Adams says, "Parents are often faced with choices that are far from perfect."

She's too right. Public schools in some areas are atrocious. In my rural area, the public school system has been on a rollercoaster ride quite literally since a few days after I graduated when my school was dissolved and merged with two other districts. Private school pickins' in a rural area are slim. A Montessori school with steep tuition is at least 45 minutes from my home on a clear day; the ride lengthens significantly in inclement weather. Living in the northeast, inclement weather is a factor during a large chunk of the school year. Homeschooling is not an option; in part because I don't feel confident in my own abilities to teach but even more so because of the work responsibilities of both myself and my husband. So what's left? A fundamentalist Christian school that churns out kids who head off to colleges headed by Falwell and Robertson. No. No. No.

So we're back to the Catholic school. I was raised Catholic. When I walk into a church, the scent of incense and flickering candles beckon like Grandma's kitchen on a cold winter afternoon. There is comfort in the church, comfort in the familiar. Yet I attend Mass only as an Easter and Christmas Catholic. I refuse to attend in January, when I know they'll be shaking the collection box for the trip to Washington, D.C. for the March for Life. I refuse to put my daughter into a Sunday School where she will be directed - as I was - to copy a form letter in my own child's penmanship to be sent off to my Congressman, begging for the reversal of Roe v. Wade. I refuse to allow my daughter to be instructed that her gay uncles are sinners, that their love for each other is any less powerful than the bond between myself and my husband.Yet, I appreciate the values of "thou shalt not kill," "thou shalt not steal," "the merciful shall obtain mercy." They're values I share with the church, values I want to share with my daughter.

The local Catholic school is akin to many across the country, willing to look the other way when families who skip Mass sign the tuition checks. The school has allowed actors from shows like the Sopranos to act as very public fundraisers - the very non-Catholic values of a HBO show full of killing, cursing mobsters be darned. It is a school first, a religious organization second. And it's schooling I want for my daughter, after all, an education.

So I feel for McGehee and Adams. They only want what's best for their little boy. Can they find it in our world?

Click here to read Adams' entire story and the original post

Image: St Helens School

Journalist Suing for Sperm-Donor Dad's Identity

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

School's In Session for Boys Who Want to Be Girls

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

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

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:01:00 GMT

The saddest thing about the anti-gay ballot initiatives that passed Tuesday in California (banning same-sex marriage), Florida (banning even same-sex civil partnerships) and Arkansas (banning foster care and adoption by unmarried couples ie: same-sex couples) is the effect they have on the children of same-sex parents.

I don't think my partner and I would feel much need for legal marriage if we didn't have children. If we didn't have children, I'd be working full-time for my own benefits and wouldn't need hers. I'd have my own retirement security, probably be able to make the house payments if anything happened to her.

But we have two children and being able to both be their legal parents is critical to their well-being. As adoption attorney, Jennifer Fairfax points out in this article from US News and World Report,

"Adoption gives the child two legal parents, two people who have to support the child, two people that the child can inherit from. If the parent dies, the child can get security from either."

Considering the high value social conservatives place on stay-at-home parents, one would think that helping families support a stay-at-home parent by making sure that either parent can provide health benefits and other legal protections to the family's children would be a priority, leading to support for same-sex adoption and/or marriage.

My partner and I are lucky. We were able to adopt in one of a handful of jurisdictions that have strong court precedents for granting same-sex co-adoptions, though this jurisdiction does not have a law protecting these adoptions specifically. As such, either of us can give our children what straight parents take for granted. Our children can rely on the fact that if anything happens to one of us, their lives will not be further disrupted by legal questions about the status of their surviving parent.

Marriage would grant these rights automatically, as married couples always have the right to petition to adopt together and a married woman who gives birth can automatically name her legal spouse the child's other parent--regardless of whether or not the second parent is biologically related to the child. Marriage would also save us between $50,000 and $100,000 in taxes and other "fees" associated with cobbling together legal protections for our family over the years of raising our children. College fund, anyone?

When people oppose same-sex adoption, what they oppose is an idea that falls short of their ideal of two married, opposite-sex parents. But the plain truth of fact is that millions of children do not live in these kinds of families already. Banning their actual family structures from legal recognition and protection does not help those children magically attain the two-opposite-sex-parents ideal, even if you want to believe (against the word of authorities like the American Academy of Pediatrics) that ideal really is best.

What opponents of same-sex marriage and/or adoption do not understand is that these arguments are not theoretical. Banning various people from various institutional protections will not make those people go away. In fact, the "gayby" boom continues boomingly on unchecked. Every young queer high school or college student I talk to these days simply assumes that she or he will someday be a parent. It is not just a double-standard for adults gay rights opposition upholds, but a double-standard for increasing numbers of children (at least 90% of whom, for the record, will grow up to be heterosexual). When you deny me the right to marry or the right to adopt with my partner, you deny my children the same security yours take for granted. You may not like it, but my children are here now and they aren't going anywhere. Don't they deserve the same protection as their playmates?

Image note: Which child deserves the protection of two legal, married parents?

Is Mandy Moore Being a Homophobe or a Normal Daughter?

JeanneSager — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:59:00 GMT

Divorce is ranked as one of the highest stressors on the family unit, so it's no surprise actress Mandy Moore was upset when her parents' marriage broke up. But now internet reports put the blame on Stacy Moore's decision to leave Don Moore for another woman. Does that really change the way a kid is going to feel when her parents separate?

The twenty-four-year-old actress is reportedly threatening to boycott her own brother's wedding if their mother shows (with or without her new girlfriend). A report in the Star says Mandy "always believed that her mom and dad were happy and that her mom was straight. Now she has no idea what to believe and feels as if she’s been lied to her entire life."

Taking this all with a grain of salt (it is the Star after all), I have to admit I feel bad for Mandy. Studies have shown that whether you're four, fourteen or twenty-four, watching the two people who created you fall apart is jarring - at least in the short term. Although researchers have largely discounted the theory that children of divorced families suffer major long term affects, the immediate feelings have been likened to the emotions we deal with when someone dies. Children feel abandoned when their parents divorce. They feel rejected. That their parents may finally be feeling free and happy - for the first time, perhaps, in their whole life - isn't something kids can look at in the short term.

Kids whose parents have been living life as a heterosexual and suddenly come out of the closet often feel that rejection tenfold. They question how long that parent has been aware of his or her sexuality and whether their conception was the result of a sexual relationship that one parent truly hated. They ponder whether they would have been born if their mom or dad followed their projected path from the get go.

I'm not advocating gay parents remain in the closet by any means. They have the same right to be happy as a straight parent who files for divorce. Part of parenting requires putting a piece of yourself before your kids if only to serve as an example for them of how to live. Coming out allows gay parents say to their kids, "I walk the walk, now listen to me when I tell you to be true to yourself."

Is it unfair to expect sons and daughters like Mandy to put gay rights on the table when they're watching their parents' marriage fall apart? Or do her supposed statements make her out to be a homophobe?

Image: PopCrunch.com

School Board Member Uses Gay Slur, Says Student Said it First

Saggy Mom Boobs Get a Lift! Carry It Off with the Cleavage Caddy

Gender's Up to Five-Year-Old Hermaphrodite, Not Parents

Don't Pay Child Support? Bid the Gun Rack Bye Bye

Teen Marriage: It Can Last a Lifetime

Gay Babies: The New Man-Purse?

First Graders Surprise Lesbian Teacher at San Francisco Wedding

Dad Goes Mad on Bigotry for the Children

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:44:00 GMT

There's a proposal on the California ballot that would rewrite the state Constitution to ban gay marriage, because after solving a $20 billion debt and discovering it is still another $4 billion in the red, the state apparently doesn't have more important shit to deal with. But anyway, that's where we are right now in California. In the land of the Hollywood elite and us crazy liberals with our "San Francisco values," we might yet rewrite a document that begins with the right of "pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness" to restrict that very happiness for a select few.

Why?

For the children, of course.

That's actually on the anti-gay marriage campaign -- save marriage and protect the children. I've seen a few of the anti-gay marriage commercials now, and the one that really irks me is about a girl who comes home from school to tell her mom about what she learned: "That a prince can marry a prince, and I can marry a princess!" The mom's eyes go wide, and a homely, balding guy comes on the screen to intone: "Think it can't happen? Think again!"

Well, think it doesn't happen already? Think again.

What the hell kind of lesson are we teaching our children by not teaching them about a large and valued segment of society? It's almost as if the line of thinking is that by denying someone basic rights, like marriage, they're going to go away altogether and oh sweet jesus the easter pig, thank god we don't have to talk about gay people anymore!

Please.

Look, if you're going to make this campaign about protecting children, let's at the very least protect them from ignorance. Are we afraid of talking in school about what goes on down the block? In the end, this isn't a proposition about what we teach in school -- it's a proposition that restricts rights for some people while granting them to others. But if you insist on making it about education, fat homely man, imagine what school books will look like in 30 years when your grandchildren flip to the chapter on gay rights and ask which side of history you were on?

But I digress from what I really wanted to do with this post, which was to share a great essay from my friend Danny Evans, author of Dad Gone Mad and former SD cohort. He really nailed the opposition to the "for the children" aspect of this hideous anti-gay crusade.

"An editorial I read the other day said Prop. 8 must be passed for the sake of the children – a precious, impressionable lot who will suffer immeasurably by having parents of the same gender. I scoffed at that. Where is the outrage about the children who suffer as a result of divorce, infidelity, abuse, and other “crimes” perpetrated by heterosexual couples? Are we to believe that even those kids are better off than those who would be raised by two loving parents who happen to have the same plumbing? Seriously, California. Give me a fucking break."

Indeed.

Please, go check it out. And if you live in California, please -- vote Ellen.

[Photo: slapupsidethehead.com]

School Board Member Uses Gay Slur, Says Student Said it First

JeanneSager — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:18:00 GMT

He's stepping down from his post as a member of the board of education in Robbinsville, NJ, but maybe Joe Armenti would be better suited back in high school? The board has been facing pressures from an outraged public since Armenti used the word "faggot" in response to a teenager's presentation to the board on a ban on the use of offensive language.

His initial excuse? The teen said it first. Excuse me, who's the teenager here?

Joseph Armenti's exact words, according to the Times of Trenton were, ""If my son wants to call somebody a faggot he should be allowed to; it's his First Amendment right." In other words - he's protecting his son's right to be a bigot and a homophobe. What a stand-up Dad. It was a response to a presentation by a student who was advocating the school district begin a program to report using offensive language via a "suggestion box." Students who used inappropriate words would then be approached by a counselor to discuss the situation. The student presenting the idea to the board used the word "faggot" as an example of language that would fall under the program.

What's disturbing isn't that Armenti used the word. In fact, as a reporter who depends on the right to freedom of speech in this country to make a living, I wouldn't step in to tell an adult what he can or can't say - even if I don't agree with him. To paraphrase Hamlet, "words, words, words," are what you make of them. But for a school board member to promote kids' "right" to spew hate toward one another is disturbing. And that's what Armenti was doing when he chose the word "faggot" rather than "s**t" or "f**k" or any of dozens of words deemed offensive by some but not down-right prejudiced and hate-filled.

That this came from the mouth of someone at the top level in a school system makes this story that much more disturbing. If this is what they're feeling at the top, what's trickling down to the kids? When the board meets later in the month to accept his resignation, I'd suggest Armenti spend a day in a classroom, maybe follow around one of the members of the Robbinsville High School's Gay-Straight Alliance. He could see just who he's protecting his son to insult.

Image: PinkNews

Goin' to Connecticut, Gonna Get Married

Angelina Buys Her Kid a Knife. What's Next, Maddox Jolie, Tomb Raider?

Teenager Arrested For Kiddie Porn - The Pictures Were of Herself

Dirty Diaper Thief on the Loose in Upstate New York

Don't Pay Child Support? Bid the Gun Rack Bye Bye

Five-Year-Old Catches STD From Dad's Towel?

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part One, Marriage

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 23:50:00 GMT

Okay, he didn't actually talk to us. He had someone on his campaign staff fill out a questionnaire from the Washington Blade and send it back. But hey--that's more than any other republican candidate for president has ever done. And a progressive republican he is! McCain doesn't want to have us stoned in the public square. Well, not unless a state decides that's our appropriate fate. McCain is a strict federalist, he says and certain things should be left to the states:

"My home state of Arizona shouldn’t be compelled to recognize a marriage from California or Massachusetts. Those states can decide that issue by themselves. "

Of course he doesn't say this, but what he means is Arizona shouldn't be compelled to recognize same-sex couples married in California or Massachusetts. And that makes so much sense, since marital status changing from state-to-state has worked so well throughout U.S. history so far. Oh wait, never mind.

Straight, married readers, how would you like to have to check that wedding ring at every state line you cross? Imagine this: road trip from New Jersey to Vegas, you're married today, single tomorrow, married today... Or this, ladies: hubby's traveling for business and really isn't married when the woman in the slinky dress in the hotel bar asks. Or seriously, this: you're filling out those federal tax forms, a marriage certificate from your state hanging over the kitchen table. Which box do you check? Both "married" and "single" are a legal lie.

If we are going to keep awarding people rights and privileges based on their family formations (which we shouldn't, but that's a post for another day), marriage should most certainly not be left up to the states. Anyone--republican or democrat--who says so is weaseling out of supporting queer families without coming clean and saying so outright.

Strollerderby : gay rights

Sixth Grader's Project on Harvey Milk Banned by School

Parents Blame Obama for Field Trip Snafu

Schools Say No Pain in the Butt Parents

Class Rings for Your Pre-Schooler?

Iowa Mulling Same Sex Birth Certificates?

Hooray for Book Banners - No Really

Choose Life License Plates Debate Heats Up

Genetic Mom Gets OK to Adopt Baby Carried by Partner

Teacher Fired for Letting Kids Play Gay

Challenge to Arkansas Adoption Ban Okay'd by Judge

Michigan Court Must Hear Lesbian Custody Dispute

Some Good News in Cross-Continental Custody Battle

Lesbian Lawmaker Denied Chance to Work for Kids

Mother and Daughter Parted by Court after Lesbian Break Up

Court Bans Divorced Mom's Partner from Sleeping Over

Stop Sending Palin Baby Presents

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Man Says Drinking Breastmilk Cured His Cancer

Principal Censors Pro-Gay School Paper

Parents Upset: Transgender Kids Use Different School Bathrooms

Mommy and Mama Now Legal in New York

More Parents Leaving Kids Alone to Save on Daycare

Jon Stewart Slam Dunks the Argument for Gay Marriage

BREAKING NEWS: Judge Overrules Ban on Gays Adopting in Florida

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

Update: Wife of Mom Kicked Out of PTA for Prop 8 Stance Speaks Out

Mom Kicked Out of the PTA for Position on Prop 8

Journalist Suing for Sperm-Donor Dad's Identity

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

School's In Session for Boys Who Want to Be Girls

Prop. 8 Protests Spawn Hope and Great Photos

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

Is Mandy Moore Being a Homophobe or a Normal Daughter?

Dad Goes Mad on Bigotry for the Children

School Board Member Uses Gay Slur, Says Student Said it First

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part One, Marriage