The Rights Of Gay Employees

It is remarkable how little progress gay people have made in securing the basic protection against discrimination on the job. In 29 states, it is still legal to fire workers for being gay. But momentum is building in Congress for the first federal law banning such discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Federal law has lagged behind the reality of American life. There are now openly gay members of Congress from between-the-coasts states like Colorado and Wisconsin. And according to the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights advocacy group, 85 percent of Fortune 500 companies have policies protecting gay employees from discrimination.
But gay rights advocates have for years faced opposition to a federal civil rights law from the religious right, and from parts of the business community, who argue that it would lead to a flood of litigation.
Bipartisan bills have been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, modeled on existing civil rights laws that cover race, religion and sex. Unlike some past bills, these include gender identity, protecting transgender people from discrimination.
The bills were written to meet some of the concerns of opponents. The law would not apply to religious organizations, or to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. It would not allow for quotas or “disparate impact” lawsuits, which generally use statistical disparities to prove discrimination.
There is reason for cautious optimism. In 2007, the House passed a nondiscrimination law that did not cover transgender people. The current Congress is more Democratic, and even in the past two years, gay rights have made significant strides. As states and localities have passed antidiscrimination laws, it has been clear that they do not disrupt the workplace, and they have not resulted in an enormous number of lawsuits.
Supporters in the House think they have the votes. The biggest hurdle is likely to be winning the support of 60 senators, the de facto number now required for most legislation because of filibuster rules.
People who believe in workplace fairness should lobby senators to get on board. It is unacceptable that in a nation committed to equality people can still be fired in more than half the states for being gay. Congressional leaders should make passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act a top priority.
from The New York Times

UN Allows Gay, Lesbian Group To Join Debates

GENEVA — The United Nations granted official status to a gay and lesbian organization from Brazil on Monday, allowing it to participate in U.N. meetings ranging from health to human rights.
The victory for the Brazilian Association of Gays, Lesbians and Transsexuals marks the third consecutive year the U.N. Economic and Social Council has overturned a decision by a 19-country committee blocking gay groups from participating in the global body's debates.
Swedish and Spanish groups were accredited as recognized non-governmental organizations in 2007 and 2008, breaking years of resistance from some governments. At one U.N. debate in 2003, Pakistan's ambassador even suggested use of the term "sexual disorientation."
One of the U.N. council's main powers is granting consultative status to organizations so that they can participate in formal U.N. meetings. More than 3,000 groups already have such rights.
"If the U.N. cannot be open and diverse, then we are really set for failure," said Guilherme Patriota, a senior Brazilian diplomat. "There are another 400 NGOs seeking the same status next year. We need to keep working on making the U.N. more open to plurality and diversity."
Patriota told The Associated Press that the organization was a valuable partner of Brazil's government in AIDS campaigns, condom promotion and other social causes, and questioned why the application was rejected in the first place.
The U.S. also criticized the U.N. committee mandated with recommending which campaign groups should be given a place. U.S. diplomat John Sammis said that body seems to spend more time coming up with ways to exclude qualified civil society groups rather than on work aimed at including them.
The U.N. council also backed a U.S.-based democracy group to participate in meetings, and suspended an Arab human rights group for a year after a complaint from Algeria.
The Democracy Coalition Project says it acts as a caucus of the world's democracies, but nonmembers China, Cuba and Russia argued that it was "engaged in politically motivated activities" against certain governments, according to the U.N. report recommending rejection of the application.
The Arab Commission for Human Rights had its status suspended until 2010 because it allowed a non-registered individual to speak at a U.N. review of Algeria's human rights record.
Algeria said the speaker, Rachid Mesli, is accused of belonging to a terrorist group. But the commission's Geneva representative, Abdel Wahab Hani, said Mesli is a human rights lawyer who was given political asylum in Switzerland after Amnesty International called him a prisoner of conscience in Algeria.
"We're not diplomats. We're not here to hide reality," Hani said. "We're here to say what is happening in the Arab world."
The ban followed the February recommendation by 18 U.N. countries as diverse as Britain, Cuba, Egypt and Israel. The U.S. was the only country to abstain, saying it needed more information about the charges against Mesli to take a position.
from The Associated Press

Councilman Wants City To Favor Companies Who Offer Domestic Partner Benefits

LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA - First District City Councilman Robert Garcia wants the city of Long Beach to seek contracts with companies that offer equal spousal benefits packages for straight and gay employees.
Garcia has placed on next Tuesday's council meeting agenda a request that the city attorney draft an equal benefits ordinance.
It would require companies that offer spousal benefits to include domestic partnerships in order to get city contracts.
"Everyone deserves equal treatment in the workplace," Garcia, who is openly gay, said in a statement released Wednesday.
"This is an important step forward for equality and civil rights in Long Beach."
Second District Councilwoman Suja Lowenthal is co-sponsoring the ordinance.
The Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce released a statement Wednesday saying that it is "neutral" on the ordinance.
While Chamber officials say they support Garcia taking action on his convictions and note that such ordinances are common in California, they also say that the ordinance may put extra burdens on businesses.
"Business is simply unable to sustain increased governmental expense requirements in the current recessionary environment," the Chamber statement says.
Randy Gordon, the Chamber's president and CEO, couldn't be reached for further comment Wednesday.
The state of California already has an equal benefits ordinance in place, as do other large cities
including Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Minneapolis, according to Garcia.
Garcia responded Wednesday that the ordinance won't hurt businesses and is "a natural progression" of Long Beach's support for equal rights.
Not all businesses will even be affected by the law, he said.
"This only applies to businesses that offer spousal benefits, which essentially excludes almost all small businesses and small contractors," Garcia said.
Long Beach's ordinance would include other exceptions as well, such as in the case of a public emergency or if there are too few companies that offer a particular service to allow selectivity based on benefits.
Erik Sund, the city's business relations manager, said he didn't know how many of Long Beach's contractors would be affected by the law.
"We haven't really done any hard data valuation of our existing vendor population," Sund said, noting that companies that already have contracts with the city won't be affected by the ordinance until the next time they bid.
In addition to some exemptions, the law also will include an "in lieu" option for businesses to provide money to employees for health care costs until an equal spousal benefits program is implemented.
Sund said this would allow them to continue with the city's bidding process and would help Long Beach keep contractors on the table.
"I feel confident that we have a number of tools in place that won't restrict competition or our selection," Sund said.
Paul Duncan, co-chairman of the Long Beach Community Business Network, which is a networking and support organization for gay and lesbian businesses, said that he can't speak for his organization but that he supports the equal benefits ordinance.
"I think we should be entitled to the same (rights) as married couples, so it wouldn't put more of a burden (on businesses) than if we were a straight couple," said Duncan.
Kim Woods, executive director of the LGBT non-profit The Center Long Beach, put her support behind the proposed ordinance.
"We are thrilled that Councilmember Garcia has proposed this historic ordinance," Woods said in a statement. "The LGBT community is united in supporting this important measure."
from The Press Telegram

India Gay Ruling Boosts AIDS Fight But Stigma Lingers

NEW DELHI, INDIA - An Indian court ruling to decriminalize gay sex will boost the fight against AIDS, but a powerful stigma against homosexuality and uneven quality of healthcare will still hamper efforts, a top AIDS worker said.
The Delhi High Court on Thursday overturned a British colonial era law on gay sex to the delight of gay activists and health workers, and the consternation of some religious leaders.
But the verdict can be challenged in the Supreme Court and an 1861 law banning "sex against the order of nature" -- widely interpreted to mean homosexual sex -- has not yet been repealed and carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years.
In India, which numbers at least 2.5 million HIV infected people among its 1.1 billion-plus population, prejudice against homosexuals as well as AIDS sufferers will still likely deter many afflicted with the disease from seeking treatment.
"It will make a difference, not overnight but definitely over a period of time," J.V.R. Prasada Rao, UNAIDS Asia Pacific Regional Director, said by phone.
"This is still a community which is underground...they don't come to the treatment centers because of the stigma attached to this," he added.
India's medical services remain uneven, Rao said.
More effective government in most southern states means infection rates have stabilized, but rates are rising in populous northern states such as Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the northeast, he said without providing figures.
"The southern states started their response much earlier," Rao said. "The health system and the governance is definitely better in the southern states."
An estimated 33 million people globally are infected with the AIDS virus, most of them in Africa or other developing countries.
Rao said Thursday's verdict could be a cue for other nations, including former British colonies such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which ban gay sex under the same section of their penal code as India does -- section 377.
"India being a large country and a path-breaker in democratic reforms. This particular judgment in India is definitely going to have its impact on other countries, and especially on the ... mobilization of the public opinion," he said.
from Reuters

Russian Gays Cancel Protest During Obama Visit

MOSCOW - Russian gay activists said on Monday they had called off, due to safety concerns, a demonstration outside the U.S. embassy planned for Tuesday during U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to Moscow.
Moscow city officials last week banned the protest in favor of same-sex marriages. Activists, though, said they would protest anyway, running the risk of clashes with police.
But Monday Nikolai Alexeyev, one of their leaders, said they had canceled the protest.
"In the context of another unlawful ban by the authorities on a public event as well as the special measures taken in the Russian capital during the visit by U.S. President Barack Obama, we have decided to cancel the event due to concerns over the safety of our members," he said in a statement.
Obama flew into Moscow for talks at the Kremlin Monday and will leave early Wednesday.
City authorities said last week they had refused a request by gay activists to protest because they said another group had already booked the area in front of the U.S. embassy and that most Muscovites were against the demonstration.
Russia decriminalized homosexuality in 1993 but tolerance is not widespread and Moscow's authorities often ban pro-gay protests.
from Reuters

Why The Gay Rights Movement Has No National Leader

Every so often, the American social order is reshuffled. And that upheaval is typically accompanied by a prominent face.
Frederick Douglass became the face of the black abolitionist movement. A century later, Martin Luther King Jr. played that role in the civil rights movement. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem became the spokeswomen for the modern women’s movement.
Yet the gay rights movement, which is about to enter its fifth decade, has never had a such a leader despite making remarkable strides in a relatively short period of time.
Gay people have no national standard-bearer, no go-to sound-byte machine for the media. So when President Obama last week extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, there was no alpha gay leader to respond with the movement’s official voice, though some activists criticized the president for not going far enough.
Until 1973, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association. Today, same-sex couples can marry in six states. How did a group that has been so successful over the last generation in countering cultural prejudice and winning civil rights make it so far without an obvious leader?
One explanation is that gay and lesbian activists learned early on that they could get along just fine without one. Even in the movement’s earliest days following the violent uprising at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village 40 years ago this week, no singular leader emerged. Some historians believe this is in part because it was — and still is — difficult for the average American to empathize with the struggles of gay people.
“The gay movement has always had a problem of achieving a dignity or a moral imperative that the black civil rights movement had, or the women’s rights movement claimed,” said Dudley Clendinen, who co-wrote the book “Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America” and now teaches writing at Johns Hopkins University. “Because this movement is fundamentally about the right to be sexual, it’s hard for the larger public to see that as a moral issue,” he said.
By contrast, the moral authority that leaders like Dr. King, Ms. Friedan and Ms. Steinem could claim — and the fact that Americans did not look at them and imagine their sex lives — made it easier to build respectability with the public.
Another reason for the absence of a nationally prominent gay leader is the highly local nature of the movement. Unlike the civil rights and the feminist movements, the gay movement lacked a galvanizing national issue.
In the 1950s and 1960s, black activists pushed for the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and asserted their rights in the courts in cases like Brown v. Board of Education. Feminists campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s.
“Betty and her group wanted to do it from a more top-down approach,” said Daniel Horowitz, a professor of American studies at Smith College who wrote a biography of Ms. Friedan. “You go to Washington and you lobby members of Congress. In fact, she talked explicitly about the N.A.A.C.P. as her model, and the N.A.A.C.P. had achieved its goals primarily through Supreme Court cases.”
Many gay activists pursued a different approach, focusing on issues pertinent to their local communities. Though he has achieved celebrity status of late, Harvey Milk was a mere San Francisco city supervisor, without much in the way of a national profile, when he was assassinated in 1978.
City councils and state legislatures are where domestic partnership laws and legislation extending anti-discrimination protections to gays and lesbians originated. In 1982, Wisconsin became the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. And of the six states that now allow same-sex marriage, three — Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont — legalized the practice through a vote by the state legislature, without prodding by a court.
“The issues of gay rights are mainly state issues, so the focus for activism is going to be on the local level,” said David Eisenbach, a lecturer in history at Columbia University and the author of “Gay Power: An American Revolution.”
The shifting legal and political environment that has confronted the movement over the years has also made it difficult for a singular leader to emerge.
After the Stonewall uprising 40 years ago, the goal was to persuade society to stop treating gays and lesbians like social deviants.
That movement for equality was later overshadowed by efforts to combat AIDS in the 1980s and early 1990s. And AIDS itself is a reason leaders were hard to come by. “AIDS wiped out a whole generation,” Mr. Eisenbach said. “What you have is a vacuum. And that still has not been filled.”
As the AIDS crisis was contained, gay activists shifted their focus in the late 1990s and early 2000s to laws about discrimination, hate crimes and domestic partnerships. Successes on those issues were due in large part to gay rights groups that rose up at the local level and learned to work with local lawmakers.
Until 2003, few even contemplated that gay couples would be able to marry. Then Massachusetts’ highest court ruled that gay couples had that right under the state’s Constitution, ushering in a whole new phase of the movement. Activists on the state and local levels were already well in place and found themselves positioned to wage the campaigns for same-sex marriage — as the recent successes in the Northeast have shown.
“They see dispersal as a great thing, that it’s better not to have a concentration or too much attention overinvested in one individual,” said David J. Garrow, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who has written about the civil rights and women’s rights movements.“The speed and breadth of change has been just breathtaking,” he added. “But it’s happened without a Martin Luther King.”
from The New York Time

Obama Invites Gay Rights Advocates To White House

As advocates for gays and lesbians intensify their criticism of the White House, President Obama has invited some of their leaders to an East Room reception next Monday to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Rebellion, the 1969 Greenwich Village demonstrations that gave birth to the modern gay rights movement.
The White House has not publicized the reception, and officials did not respond to e-mail requests for comment. But gay leaders from here and around the country said they had received either telephone calls from the White House or written invitations to the event, and were told Mr. Obama is expected to speak.
Some said it would take more than a reception to change their view that Mr. Obama has not been aggressive enough in pursuing gay rights. As a candidate, Mr. Obama campaigned to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law barring gay marriage, and ‘’don’t ask don’t tell,’’ the military policy that bars gays and lesbians from serving openly. But advocates have accused him of dragging his feet.
“What’s going to change the way the community is feeling is seeing the introduction of a bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’’ said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of the Family Equality Council, a Boston-based advocacy group, referring to two policies Mr. Obama pledged to overturn. She said gay rights advocates want to see “a president who is fulfilling the promises he made on the campaign trail.’’
Mr. Obama would not be the first Democratic president to mark the Stonewall uprising; Ten years ago, Bill Clinton declared June as Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. But the Obama reception comes amid growing complaints from gay leaders like Ms. Chrisler, who supported Mr. Obama’s election but are becoming increasingly upset with him as president.
Just last week when Mr. Obama announced a package of domestic partnership benefits for federal workers, several prominent gay and lesbian political leaders attacked the president for failing to extend full health benefits, saying that the initiative was a mere token effort that included benefits that had already existed.
Ms. Chrisler, who was in the Oval Office for the signing of the memorandum, said she was not satisfied by what she called the ‘’limited benefits’’ Mr. Obama offered. She said she hoped Monday’s reception would be “an opportunity for us as a community to highlight again to this president and this administration that real lives are impacted by his decisions.’’
Whether Mr. Obama will address the complaints at Monday’s reception is unclear. One person who received the invitation said the White House was billing the event as a celebration, akin to the festive affairs the administration holds on St. Patrick’s Day or Cinco de Mayo. Another said the invitation included an offer to bring a guest. “They want people to understand that their partners are welcome,’’ said this person, speaking anonymously because the White House has not announced the event.
The White House event will be just one of many commemorations of the Stonewall uprising, named for the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar on Christopher Street that was the site of a police raid that turned violent in the early hours of the morning of June 28, 1969. The raid led to a series of protests that spawned the creation of gay advocacy groups and, more broadly, empowered gay people to begin fighting for recognition and civil rights.

Update:
Shin Inouye, a White House spokesman, said, “Next Monday’s event is a chance for the White House to recognize the accomplishments of LGBT Americans. Invited guests include families, volunteers and activists, and community leaders. This event was long planned as a way to applaud these individuals during Pride month.”
from The New York Times

Why Should Homosexuals Have Super Rights?

Is it fair, is it just to give those who live parasitic lives 'Super Rights?' After all, it is the duty of every member of society to contribute to the commonweal. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them.1 Thus, homosexuals not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future.
After all, it is the duty of every member of society to contribute to the commonweal. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them.(1) Thus, homosexuals not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future.
Those who engage in homosexual sex seek what they term 'gay rights.' In reality they demand Super Rights. What do I mean by Super Rights? Being empowered to override other citizens' unalienable rights (e.g., freedom of speech and association). These Super Rights (conferred by 'non-discrimination,' 'hate crime,' and 'hate speech' laws) allow homosexuals -- if they so choose -- to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them. Thus, a principal knowing that homosexual teachers are more prone to have sex with pupils (empirical studies to date indicate that a male teacher who engages in homosexuality is the most apt to get sexually involved with pupils) may not want to hire a teacher who declares his affection for same-sex sex. But if the homosexual wants the job, his Super Rights trump the associational rights of the principal as well as the right of pupils not to experience extra risk (safety is part of their right to life). A couple renting out the other side of their duplex may not want to place their children at risk by renting to a gay couple. But if -- even on a whim -- the homosexuals want the duplex, their Super Rights trump the property and associational rights of the parents as well as their children's right not to be exposed to potential molestation. The Super Rights of homosexuals also squelch others' freedom of speech. Thus, a broadcaster may opine that same-sex sex is dangerous. But if a homosexual finds such speech 'offensive' his Super Rights trump the broadcaster's freedom of speech and the broadcaster may be fined or imprisoned.
In addition to subsidizing those who engage in homosexuality, the right of ordinary citizens to happiness is diminished by homosexuals' expropriation of beaches, restrooms, and rest areas for their sexual trysts. As if these violations of fairness were not enough, those fancying homosexuality run a large and growing 'quasi-secret society' to achieve their aims -- aims often inimical to social order. Examples include the 'shadow organization' in the U.S. military, which provides illegal sexual contacts and career advantages to enlisted practitioners,(2) and homosexual 'guides' (e.g., Spartacus) that specify which rest areas, parks, and restrooms have been commandeered for gay sex.
Forcing dutiful citizens to financially support and also relinquish their unalienable rights to those who don't carry their own weight while posing a risk to children ineluctably lowers the vitality of a society. As a result, while the sun still rises on those countries that give Super Rights to homosexuals, their declining birthrates assure that it will soon warm a barren landscape. So I ask again, is it fair, is it just, to give those who engage in homosexuality -- a worthless as well as dangerous amusement -- 'Super Rights?' In substantial part, the fate of Western Civilization hinges on the answer.
from The Family Research Institute / Dr. Paul Cameron

Attackers Stone Romania Gay Rights March

BUCHAREST, ROMANIA - Police used tear gas against protesters who hurled stones at the annual gay rights parade in the Romanian capital Saturday, officials said.
About 100 people were detained for throwing stones and fireworks at police and about 400 participants in the gay rights march, said Christian Ciocan, a police spokesman. Police responded with tear gas. Nobody was injured, he said.
"We regret that our opponents use violence ... Police only did their job to protect an authorized march," said Florin Buhuceanu, one of the organizers of the gay rights march. "It is our right to express our beliefs and we will not renounce in the face of violence."
Romania decriminalized homosexuality in 2001.
On Tuesday, two men leaving a Bucharest cinema that hosts the annual "Gay Fest" festival were beaten by eight attackers. Police stopped the attack and arrested several people.
from The Associated Press

Oregon Gets Gay Rights Bill

OREGON - More than three decades after he co-sponsored one of the early efforts, Gov. Ted Kulongoski signed bills on Wednesday barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and providing legal recognition of same-sex couples through domestic partnerships.
"We are all created equal and that Oregon is a land of equal opportunity for all of our citizens," said Kulongoski, who was joined by about 200 people gathered on the west steps of the Capitol.
Among them were former Gov. Barbara Roberts, who led the opposition to statewide anti-gay rights ballot measures in the 1990s; House Speaker Jeff Merkley, D-Portland; Senate Majority Leader Kate Brown, D-Portland, who is married but considers herself bisexual, and other lawmakers from both parties.
"It took more than 20 years, but what great progress we have made," said Gail Shibley of Portland, the first openly gay lawmaker, who was in the House from 1991 to 1997.
"Biblical strictures aside, love one another and treat others as you would be treated yourself are at the top of my list," said Fred Neal, a retired state elections manager and the first gay candidate for the Portland City Council in 1994.
As a legislator in 1975, Kulongoski co-sponsored a bill that would have added sexual orientation to Oregon's civil-rights law.
A similar bill failed by one vote in the House that session.
Senate Bill 2 bars discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace, housing and public accommodations. Oregon joins 17 other states with similar laws.
House Bill 2007 creates domestic partnerships, which establish marriage-type benefits in civil contracts for same-sex couples. The state law does not extend to more than 1,000 benefits that federal law confers to married couples.
from The Statesman Journal

Are Governments Misreporting To Advance Gay Rights?

According to Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron of Family Research Institute, a Colorado think tank, governments in three countries have exaggerated the percentage of homosexuals in the general population.
In 2003, Statistics Canada examined a random sample of 121,300 adults and reported that 1.7% were bi/homosexual. Yet because of a decline in incidence from about 2% of adults aged in their 20s and 30s to a third of one percent among the old, inclusion of respondents aged 60+ yields an estimate of 1.4% who engage in homosexual behavior.
In 2005, the US National Center for Health Statistics interviewed a random sample of 11,571 younger adults, but misreported the findings. The question asked respondents about "ever having" had a same-sex experience. According to the analysis, "[a]bout 6.5 percent of men 25-44 years of age have had oral or anal sex with another man… 11 percent of women 25-44 years of age reported having had a sexual experience with another woman."
These statements were inaccurate: the questions that generated these statistics were about lifetime same-sex sexual activity, not merely sex with adults (e.g., for men "ever done any of the following with another male" [6% 'ever', but 2.9% in last 12 months -- only 1.6% exclusively with men], and for women "ever had any sexual experience of any kind with another female" (p. 9) [11.2%; 4.4% in last 12 months – only 1.3% exclusively with female(s)]). Thus most 'homosexuals' also had sexual relations with the opposite sex.
In 2005, the British Department of Trade and Industry said "a wide range of research" indicated "lesbian, gay and bisexual people constitute 5-7% of the total adult population." Yet surveys which include adults of all ages put the prevalence closer to 1-2%.
Dr. Paul Cameron, of the Family Research Institute, a Colorado-based think tank, said these were "Curious mistakes and omissions for well-funded bureaucracies charged with reporting the truth, but certainly in harmony with activists' attempts to swell their numbers and hide their early average age of death."
Paul Cameron, Ph.D. & Kirk Cameron, Ph.D., presented "Federal Distortion Of The Homosexual Footprint." Paul Cameron, a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, and the Postgraduate Medical Journal, has published over 40 scientific articles on homosexuality. The EPA is the oldest regional Psychological Association in the United States. At its Philadelphia convention members presented the latest advances in scientific work to colleagues.
from The Christian News Wire

Schwarzenegger's Support For Gay Rights Only Goes So Far

SACRAMENTO - Perhaps more than any Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger openly professes his support of gay rights. He has signed more than a dozen laws strengthening domestic partnerships and hate-crimes protections.
Some of his close friends and advisers are gay and lesbian. And the live-and-let-live governor evinces no moral qualms about same-sex marriages. He's "not personally hung up on the whole thing."
So will Schwarzenegger sign a gay marriage bill? No.
Not now. Perhaps never.
On so many subjects, including health care and stem-cell research, Schwarzenegger is willing to risk political capital to propel a national debate.
And with his fame, centrism and popularity, the governor could have a unique platform to lead on gay marriage.
But on a subject that stirs passions among activists on both sides, he's uncharacteristically passive: The people of California can navigate, he says. Or the courts can steer. That hands-off stance isn't what some Californians have come to expect from their take-charge governor.
Some observers think his actions are aimed at safeguarding his conservative base.
But the governor's confidants say the stance isn't calculated to duck political shrapnel. In fact, even the governor's close gay advisers disagree on the marriage debate. His allies believe his stance makes perfect sense for a man who cares more for the tangible – say, allowing domestic partners to file joint state tax returns – than the symbolic, even if it makes history.
"His sort of feeling is, 'What's the big deal? If you're gay, you're gay. There should be no discrimination,"' said a former aide, one of several who spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is politically fraught. Schwarzenegger is "not a cause kind of guy."
The governor "does not calculate the political balancing act of the gay marriage issue," said Adam Mendelsohn, his communications director. He tries to represent "the position of the people of California."
So, while the governor backs domestic partnership rights, he also abides by a 2000 ballot measure, Proposition 22, that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Intentional or not, that may be an astute straddle. Majority Democrats yearn to legalize same-sex marriage, but it's not a top priority for most. Meanwhile, the conservative wing of the governor's own party already thinks he is too accommodating. It's unclear if Schwarzenegger could push the subject much further without backlash.
Polling suggests the governor's views align with Californians. Support for gay marriage has grown in recent years, especially among Democrats. Residents are now roughly split on the gay-marriage question, but Republicans remain overwhelmingly opposed.
Still, the governor's nuanced position leaves activists on both sides unsatisfied. That nuance leads some to study his record, personal history and public statements for any hint the governor might sign a marriage bill under the right circumstances.
Schwarzenegger ran as a pro-gay rights Republican in 2003, but he never courted the marriage debate – which was spotlighted when San Francisco in 2004 briefly allowed same-sex unions.
A year later, he vetoed a gay marriage bill, citing Proposition 22. Schwarzenegger also defers to the courts and the California Supreme Court will likely weigh in by year's end. The governor vows to abide by the court's ruling.
"If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary," Schwarzenegger wrote in his 2005 veto message. "If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective."
Schwarzenegger has vetoed three other gay rights bills sponsored by Equality California, the state's main advocacy group for gay rights. He has enacted 13 gay rights measures, extending tax rights to domestic partners and limiting the use of "gay panic" defenses in trials.
Over the last three years, Schwarzenegger has signed 76 percent of the bills sponsored by Equality California.
This year, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, has revived what he calls "gender-neutral" marriage. He expects AB 43 to pass the Legislature with little fuss. Despite the governor's vow to veto it, Leno hopes Schwarzenegger – who is secure in his final term – will seize "the opportunity of a lifetime."
"I think he would prefer to be remembered not as someone who vetoed it repeatedly," said Leno, one of five openly gay legislators, "but as a historic figure."
After winning re-election handily, Schwarzenegger has clout and popularity to spare. But if he were to sign AB 43, it would rile conservatives. That could complicate budget negotiations and distract attention from Schwarzenegger's preferred second-term agenda: health care reform, global warming and prison reform.
Asked about gay marriage recently, Schwarzenegger has not equivocated.
"I believe in all the same rights," he said last month. "And I've passed and signed many bills in order to make sure that we have that here in California. But I don't want, as the governor, to go against the will of the people."
Some conservatives already consider that a tepid defense of traditional marriage.
Mike Spence of the California Republican Assembly contends Schwarzenegger has "done the bare minimum to keep the radical homosexual agenda from being signed." And, "he could break his word."
Those concerns were only reinforced by comments from comedian Tom Arnold, Schwarzenegger's motorcycle-riding buddy, following the governor's re-election.
"When you're a lame duck, or whatever you call it, you can do whatever you want," he told KQED public radio. Such as? "Gay marriage," Arnold said. "I want (it), and I know he feels the same way."
Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, laments that Schwarzenegger has "played politics with our community."
"I believe he does support full equality," Kors said. "And, in a way, that makes his vetoes of bills the right wing screeches about all the more infuriating."
The governor's rapport with the gay community dates back decades, beyond Hollywood to his bodybuilding days.
When a teenage Schwarzenegger started weight-lifting seriously, his mother fretted and sent her son to the doctor.
"What is the matter – what are all those pictures on your wall here of these naked men, all oiled up with little posing trunks?" his parents asked, Schwarzenegger told CNN in 2005. "What's going on?"
The ease with which he shares such a story suggests his personal comfort level.
But Schwarzenegger's interest goes deeper than that.
As a new governor, Schwarzenegger summoned Erwin Chemerinsky, a noted constitutional law professor, to discuss the legal questions surrounding gay marriage.
"He listened very carefully and asked good questions," said Chemerinsky of Duke University.
Which is not to say he is always eloquent about the subject. After the San Francisco same-sex weddings began, the governor suggested the marriages had shaken the city with "riots." Not so.
Still, the governor did not exploit gay marriage during his re-election campaign. And last summer, he helped raise funds for the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay rights group favoring same-sex marriage.
The governor's closest staffers include four who are openly gay or lesbian, including his chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, senior adviser Daniel Zingale, deputy chief of staff Ross LaJeunesse and his personal assistant Clay Russell. Three of them have longterm partners.
Zingale favors gay marriage. Kennedy has argued it would be an end-run around voters – and one that could backfire on gays and lesbians. (The governor's office denied requests to interview them.)
So how much does it matter – given current domestic partnership protections – if a marriage bill is signed?
California already has some of the nation's strongest gay rights protections behind Massachusetts, where marriages are legal. Even some supporters argue that the distinction between current domestic partners and state-sanctioned weddings are largely semantic.
Others, though, say this is the next frontier of civil rights. They remain hopeful Schwarzenegger will take the next step.
James Vaughn, director of the Log Cabin Republicans of California, believes if the state Supreme Court clears the way, that Schwarzenegger will "be the man responsible for giving us marriage."
from The Orange County Register