![[Home]](images/homeicon.gif)
Right Pressing Disney on Gay Days Again
Wednesday, 30 May 2001
ORLANDO, Fl. -- Disney is again being pressured by groups of religious
conservatives to publicly denounce the annual "Gay Days" event held
every June at the park, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
Martin Mawyer of the Virginia-based Christian Action Network, sent a
letter last week to Disney chairman Michael Eisner demanding Disney
officials warn families about the event.
In the past Disney has posted signs near the entrance of the park,
alerting people that a "Gay Days" event was being held in the park that
day.
Disney and the other Orlando theme parks don't sponsor Gay Days but
many of the week's events are held on the theme park resort's property.
The annual event which began at Walt Disney World in 1991 with a
handful of participants has since mushroomed into the largest regional
event of its kind in the country.
"All are welcome," is the park's reply.
Gay Days drew as many as 100,000 gays and lesbians to Orlando last year
and has drawn the participation of Universal Studios, SeaWorld and
Tampa Bay Busch Gardens. Dozens of parties are scheduled in local clubs
and venues.
Far right protesters such as those associated with the anti-gay faction
of Operation Rescue have in the past have been a visible if easily
disregarded component of the event since its beginning.
But beginning with last year's event, the usual tide of protesters
faded. The only thing accompanying the 2000 Gay Days in Orlando was a
promise by the same Christian Action Network to videotape "what goes
on" at Pleasure Island disco after dark.
The videotape was shown at the Republican National Convention last
summer.
"Our policy is to be hospitable to everyone who comes to our resort, to
welcome everyone as a guest and to treat everyone with respect," said
Disney spokeswoman Rena Callahan. "Mr. Mawyer is welcome to visit Walt
Disney World any day and we will welcome him as a guest as well."
In 1997, the Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly to
boycott the Walt Disney Company to protest the company's gay friendly
policies, including its "tolerance" for the Gay Days events.
The president of the denomination's moral and ethics panel said at the
time, "You can't walk on the family side of the street and the gay side
of the street in the Magic Kingdom at the same time."
__________________________________________________
http://www.pioneerplanet.com/docs/0521sodomy.htm
State court strikes down Minnesota's sodomy law
(AP)
Minnesotas law that prohibits oral sex and other intimacy between
consenting adults is unconstitutional, a state district court judge has
ruled.
Judge Delila Pierce said the law, which had been on the books since the
1800s, is unconstitutional because it violates the right of privacy
guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution.
The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties
Unions national Lesbian & Gay Rights Project had filed a lawsuit last
summer challenging the sodomy statute on behalf of a cross section of
Minnesotans.
The judge ruled on Friday, but the ruling wasnt announced until Monday.
Although the state court ruling should prevent the sodomy law from being
enforced anywhere in Minnesota, the MnCLU is asking the court to
technically classify the case as a class action. MnCLU attorney Teresa
Nelson said that would leave "absolutely no uncertainty" that the law
cannot be enforced statewide.
"This is a good day for privacy and fairness in Minnesota," said Charles
Samuelson, executive director of the MnCLU. "By inviting the
government into every bedroom in the state, this law was clearly
unconstitutional -- which is why the court struck it down."
Gov. Jesse Ventura agreed, his spokesman said.
"Its consistent with the governors philosophy that there are some things
the government has no business making laws about," said John
Wodele. "He sees this as a welcome decision."
Matt Coles, director of the ACLUs Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, says 35
states, including Minnesota, have had their sodomy laws either
repealed by legislatures or struck down by the courts. In 1961, all 50
states had sodomy laws on the books.
"One more down, 15 to go," Coles said after hearing about the Minnesota
judges decision.
"We absolutely are going to stay with it."
Minnesotas law prohibits oral and anal sex between any adults, including
married couples and disabled people who cannot engage in any
other form of intimacy. Penalties include up to a year in jail and up to
$3,000 in fines.
For years, efforts to repeal the law in the state Legislature were
unsuccessful.
Although sodomy laws are rarely enforced, Coles says they can be used
against proponents of domestic partners ordinances and other
issues sought by gays and lesbians.
"The people who want to keep the (sodomy) law on the book, theres a
method to their madness," Coles said. "The existence of these laws
are used to generally delegitimize gays and lesbians in public debate."
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.startribune.com/viewers/qview/cgi/qview.cgi?story=84213304
Hennepin County judge finds sodomy law
unconstitutional
Pam Louwagie
Star Tribune
Monday, May 21, 2001
Civil libertarians today hailed a Hennepin County District Court ruling
that declared unconstitutional a Minnesota law banning sodomy because it
violated rights to privacy.
Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union
(MCLU), said the group had been working at repealing this law for 20 years.
"At its core this case is about keeping the government out of our most
private lives," Nelson said today at a news conference.
In June, the MCLU began a lawsuit challenging the law, which considered
anal and oral sex unlawful even when it's private and between consenting
adults. The statute, which has been on the books since the 19th century,
calls for a penalty of a year in prison and a $3,000 fine.
The law put lawyers, renters and others who take oaths to be lawful, in
a position of possibly violating it, some at today's news conference said.
"Proof of what's going on in your bedroom is not the only issue," MCLU
President Mike Goldner said.
The ruling issued Thursday by District Judge Delila Pierce doesn't
affect such things as prostitution or rape. It applies to noncommercial,
private acts.
Minnesota is the 35th state to act against such laws, supporters of the
suit said.
"It's a happy day that Minnesota is catching up," said Joni Thome,
president of the Minnesota Lavender Bar Association, which is for lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender lawyers and law students. "All Minnesotans
should be happy because now what we deem to be private is actually private."
MCLU officials said they were disappointed that it took this long in
Minnesota, which is normally known as a leader in privacy issues.
-- Pam Louwagie is at plouwagie@startribune.com .
RHODE ISLAND HOUSE PASSES TRANSGENDER-INCLUSIVE NON-DISCRIMINATION LAW
By a 46-41 margin, the Rhode Island House of Representatives yesterday
passed a bill (H 5920) which would clarify that Rhode Island
non-discrimination laws protect transgender people from
discrimination. The bill codifies federal and state court decisions which
have held that it is impermissible to discriminate against individuals
simply based on traditional notions of masculinity and femininity.
"This is a tremendously important piece of legislation that updates Rhode
Island law to make it consistent with our modern understanding of sex
discrimination prohibitions," explained Jennifer Levi, staff attorney at
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, who was instrumental in helping to
draft the language of the bill. "Unfortunately, because of some poorly
reasoned old cases, there is a misperception that transgender people are
excluded from sex discrimination laws. This bill clarifies that no such
exclusion exists."
The bill would add the phrase "gender identity or expression" to Rhode
Island's non-discrimination laws. It defines "gender identity or
expression" as including "a person's actual or perceived gender, as well as
a person's gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression or behavior,
whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, expression, or
behavior is different than that traditionally associated with the person's
sex at birth." Consistent with the United States Supreme Court decision in
the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins in 1989, the bill makes
discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes impermissible.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) is New England's leading legal
rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual
orientation, HIV status and gender identity and expression
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 9, 2001
HRC PRAISES ADMINISTRATION FOR NAMING EVERTZ
TO TOP AIDS POST
Budget Does Not Adequately Address HIV Care and Prevention Needs, Says HRC
WASHINGTON - The Human Rights Campaign praised the Bush administration today
for naming Scott H. Evertz as director of the Office of National AIDS
Policy. The appointment marks the first time an openly gay person has held
the post, and is a major sign the administration is fully committed to
fighting HIV/AIDS on a national and global scale, says HRC.
"We applaud President Bush for this appointment," said HRC Political
Director Winnie Stachelberg. "It is our sincere hope that this signals the
new administration's commitment to providing active leadership in the
national and international fight against HIV and AIDS."
Evertz is the Wisconsin president of the Log Cabin Republicans, the
nation's largest lesbian and gay Republican group. During the presidential
campaign he was one of a dozen openly gay Republicans to meet with Bush in
Austin. According to news reports, the ONAP will also include officials from
the Department of Health and Human Services and the State Department. The
administration says the addition of a State Department official will help
them address the international component of the HIV/AIDS crisis.
"Secretary Tommy Thompson has indicated that he wants to be
personally and directly involved in the fight against AIDS and HIV, and this
appointment is further evidence of his commitment," said Stachelberg. "With
Evertz in place, we can now look ahead and focus on the myriad of difficult
issues that confront us."
Additionally, the administration is expected to announce that it
will form a task force to deal with the international AIDS problem, which
has the potential to unravel entire nations. Secretary of State Colin L.
Powell and HHS Secretary Thompson will co-chair the group.
While the aforementioned developments are positive, HRC today expressed
concern that the administration's proposed budget will not adequately fund
crucial HIV/AIDS care and prevention programs. The president's 2002 budget
requests $1.8 billion for the treatment and care of people with AIDS through
the Ryan White CARE Act, the same amount Congress provided this year - and
the current level was insufficient. But the budget does not take into
consideration the rising cost of treatments, including the expanding arsenal
of expensive drugs used to combat the disease.
"The current budget will make it more difficult for people living with
HIV/AIDS to get the life-saving drugs they need and does not adequately fund
prevention efforts shown to effectively limit the spread of HIV," said
Stachelberg. "With 40,000 new HIV infections each year, half of which occur
in people under the age of 25, and 46 percent occurring in gay men, a
greater commitment to care and prevention is needed to comprehensively
address this epidemic. HRC will work with our allies in the community,
Congress and the administration - just as the organization had with the
Clinton administration when its numbers came up short - to see to it that
HIV and AIDS programs receive the proper amount of funding."
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the
number of people living with AIDS in the United States increased 33 percent
between 1996 and 1999. Between June 1999 and June 2000, the number of
people living with HIV or AIDS reported to the CDC increased an additional
10 percent. There are an estimated 312,000 people living with AIDS in the
United States, and the CDC estimates as many as 900,000 Americans are
infected with HIV. For African-Americans, AIDS is the leading cause of death
in the 25-44 age group.
State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAP) expenditures have
increased 22 percent between June 1999 and June 2000, and ten states
reported in March they would run out of ADAP funding by the end of March,
2001. Without increased federal funding, states will come up short in their
ability to meet the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.
For instance, in Florida African-Americans comprise 13 percent of
the Florida population, but 46 percent of AIDS cases and 60 percent of HIV
cases reported through December 1999. In March, the state Minority HIV/AIDS
Task Force identified the ongoing lack of adequate funding for minority
community-based organizations and AIDS service organizations as one reason
for this disparity. This shortfall is hindering the ability to establish
infrastructure and capacity building in order to provide early intervention
and care and support services to the growing population of people living
with HIV/AIDS in Florida. As a result, many of the most vulnerable people
living with HIV and AIDS are denied access to medical care and
life-prolonging drug therapies that could extend their lives.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay
political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively
lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to
ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans can be open,
honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Florida's Highest Court Upholds Broward's Domestic Partnership Law
Lambda helps secure better workplace benefits for more families in Broward
County
(ATLANTA, April 9, 2001) ? The Florida Supreme Court has put an end to
right-wing efforts to block domestic partner benefits for unmarried public
employees in Broward County, ensuring that more families can get vital
health insurance and other workplace benefits, Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund said Monday.
"With this order, the Court has improved security and peace of mind for
many lesbian and gay families, and it has allowed Broward to be a better
employer," said Stephen R. Scarborough, staff attorney with Lambda's
Southern Regional Office, who assisted the county in the case.
Broward County adopted its Domestic Partner Act (DPA) in April 1999,
creating a domestic partner registry and providing health and other
benefits and protections for county employees' partners and their children.
The conservative Northstar Legal Center, on behalf of a local resident
named Lawrence Lowe, sued the county, claiming that the DPA conflicted with
Florida's state law by creating a "marriage-like" relationship, and that
the county exceeded its authority by enacting the ordinance.
After the state Circuit Court rejected all of Lowe's claims, he appealed,
and last year, the Florida Court of Appeals for the Fourth District
unanimously upheld that ruling. Lowe appealed to the Florida Supreme
Court, which, on Wednesday, rejected Lowe's petition for review.
Scarborough noted, "All of Broward wins with this workers' benefits program
? the county gains by being able to better attract employees, and the
community overall has the advantage of improved security and health
coverage available to more of its families."
While scores of states and cities now offer domestic partner benefits to
their workers, Broward, which includes Fort Lauderdale, is among the first
public employers in the country also to encourage its contractors, through
a bidding preference, to offer family benefits to unmarried as well as
married employees.
Lambda supported the county's law from its beginning, working with other
local organizations to secure passage of the DPA and later helping to
defend the law from a legal challenge. Scarborough and former Staff
Attorney Marvin C. Peguese co-authored Lambda's amicus brief in Lowe v.
Broward County on behalf of groups including Broward County Log Cabin
Republican Club of Florida, Congregation Etz Chaim, the Dolphin Democratic
Club, Equality Florida, Fort Lauderdale Business Network, Gay and Lesbian
Community Center of Fort Lauderdale, Gays United Against Repression and
Discrimination, Parents Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,
Political Advocacy Coalition Political Action Committee, and the Sunshine
Cathedral Metropolitan Community Church.
Lambda has helped defeat similar legal challenges from Northstar and other
conservative groups opposing domestic partner benefits programs in Atlanta,
Chicago, New York, and parts of Arizona and California. Two cases are
pending in San Francisco.
Lambda is the oldest and largest legal organization dedicated to the civil
rights of lesbians, gay men, and people with HIV and AIDS. With 16
attorneys, Lambda has its headquarters in New York and regional offices in
Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta. Lambda will open an office in Dallas in
2002.
(Lowe v. Broward County, No. SC00-2252)
Click here to view Lambda's news release online.
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/pages/documents/record?record=818
THREE STATES ADVANCE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION;
NEW YORK SENATE VOTE LOOMS
Latest NGLTF legislative update shows Boy Scout bills bite the dust; civil
union, same-sex marriage bills heard in committee for the very first time
April 3, 2001 - Legislative chambers in Delaware, Illinois and Maryland
during the final week of March approved civil rights legislation banning
sexual orientation discrimination, while New York's Sexual Orientation
Non-Discrimination Act passed a Senate committee and awaits a key
vote, according to the latest Legislative Update issued by the National
Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
So far this year, NGLTF has tracked 486 bills relating to the gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and to the HIV/AIDS community
in all 50 state legislatures. Of these bills, 275 are favorable and
211 are unfavorable.
Maryland is poised to become the 12th state in the United States to outlaw
sexual orientation discrimination. Similar civil rights bills have cleared
the House and Senate and await one more procedural vote before advancing
to the desk of Gov. Parris Glendening, who has pledged his support. Other
civil rights bills have passed the Illinois House and the Delaware House
and are on their way to each state's Senate. Of these three states, only
the Illinois bill includes gender identity as well as sexual orientation.
Other highlights included in the NGLTF Legislative Update include:
****Connecticut and Rhode Island have held hearings on measures to legalize
same-sex marriage, with Rhode Island's hearing also covering a bill to
recognize same-sex unions. Civil union bills remain alive in California
as well as Rhode Island.
****So-called "Boy Scout Protection" and "Defense of Scouting" bills that
would have prevented local public entities from saying no to discrimination
appear stalled or dead. These anti-GLBT bills had been under consideration
in Arizona, Georgia and Washington. In Arizona, a Boy Scouts bill died after
a vote on the House floor. In Washington, a similar bill is stalled. And in
Georgia, the Legislature has adjourned for the year.
****Utah legislators have approved and the governor has signed an anti-GLBT
bill relating to health education curriculum and prohibiting instruction in
"advocacy of homosexuality." Similar bills are under consideration in Maine
and Vermont.
"The results of the 2001 state legislation sessions, in total, reflect
continuing progress for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people,"
said NGLTF Executive Director Elizabeth Toledo. "It is historic that
Maryland will become the 12th state to outlaw sexual orientation
discrimination. It is encouraging that three other states -- Delaware,
Illinois and New York -- are considering taking similar steps. And it is
invigorating that for the first time, multiple states are beginning to
discuss and debate if and when to legalize civil unions and ultimately,
same-sex marriage."
To read the full NGLTF legislative update, please visit
www.ngltf.org/statelocal/leg2001.htm
To view or download NGLTF's state issue maps, please visit
www.ngltf.org/library
----------------------
Netherlands Ends Discrimination in Civil Marriage: Gays to Wed
Dutch lead the world in recognition and equality for same-sex couples
(NEW YORK, March 30, 2001) ? Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund
applauds the Netherlands for becoming the first nation to allow same-sex
couples to marry, conferring upon those couples full equality and
responsibility in the eyes of Dutch marriage law.
Just 3 years after enacting registered partnership, which allowed same-sex
couples to access most of the protections of civil marriage, last December
the Dutch Parliament by large majorities passed legislation to end
discrimination in marriage itself. As the law goes into effect just after
midnight on April 1, 2001, same-sex couples will wed in a ceremony in
Amsterdam's City Hall.
"Non-gay people throughout the world, including here in the U.S., will see
that the sky does not fall when same-sex couples are included in the
protections - and the public celebration - of civil marriage," said
Lambda's outgoing Marriage Project Director Evan Wolfson.
The Dutch action follows 10 years of steadily increasing international
support for same-sex couples' freedom to marry. Denmark enacted its own
registered partnership status for same-sex couples in 1989, and was quickly
followed by Norway, Greenland, Sweden, and Iceland ? with a 1995
Scandinavian treaty to respect each other's registered partnerships.
France also created a form of marital recognition for same-sex couples in
1999. In legal victories abroad courts have recognized the marital nature
of committed gay and lesbian relationships in Columbia, Hungary, Israel,
Namibia, and South Africa. And in May 1999, the Canadian Supreme Court
mandated that the definition of "spouse" must include same-sex
partnerships. Still other countries are currently considering same-sex
partner recognition, including Germany, Switzerland, Spain, and the Czech
Republic.
"The world-wide movement toward the freedom to marry is reflective of
growing public support overseas and in the U.S.," continued Wolfson.
"Recent polls in Canada and Switzerland showed that a majority of the
public ? 53% ? supports equal marriage rights. In the U.S., a 1999
NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that two-thirds of Americans believe
that same-sex couples will win the freedom to marry."
"With examples like marriage in Holland, civil unions in Vermont, and
growing public support here in the U.S., we can engage even more
fair-minded Americans in helping end discrimination in marriage," added
David Buckel, newly appointed Coordinator of Lambda's Marriage Project.
Buckel works with a team of lawyers at Lambda who will continue to lead the
movement for equal access to this central state institution.
"It's time for the United States to get back in the lead on liberty and
equality," said Buckel. "Each state here should be moving toward equality
in marriage to support all American families."
In the United States, where to date same-sex couples are excluded from
marriage in all 50 states, gay and lesbian families lack the most basic of
protections, including the automatic ability to make medical decisions on a
partner's behalf, visit in the hospital, inherit, have joint parenting,
adoption, foster care, custody, and visitation, file joint tax returns, and
share such government benefits as Social Security and Medicare. Hawaii and
Vermont, however, have enacted more extensive protections for same-sex
couples.
After several years of groundwork by community activists and a 1999 victory
in the Vermont Supreme Court (Baker v. Vermont), that state conferred upon
same-sex couples the most comprehensive set of protections offered them
anywhere in the United States. A new marital status called Civil Union
provides same-sex couples all of the Vermont-sponsored protections and
responsibilities of marriage, but still leaves those couples unequal and
with a lesser status than heterosexual couples.
Marking the occasion of the opening of the Dutch marriage laws to same-sex
couples, community education and action groups across the country ? such as
Marriage Equality New York and California ? are holding press conferences
and rallies throughout the weekend of March 31. Similar celebrations
marking this breakthrough are planned around the world.
The new Dutch law will require that at least one partner must be a Dutch
citizen or resident ? the same requirement for heterosexual couples who
marry and any couple entering a registered partnership.
-- 30 --
Link directly to Lambda's news release:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/pages/documents/record?record=814
Baltimore Sun, March 29, 2001
( http://www.sunspot.net/ )
House panel approves gay, lesbian rights bill
Proposal is amended to match Senate version
By Howard Libit, Sun Staff
One day after a decisive Senate vote, a House of Delegates committee
swiftly approved yesterday a proposal to ban discrimination against gays and
lesbians in Maryland.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 13-8 to send the measure to the
full House, where it is expected to be easily approved. The committee
amended the bill to exactly match the version that cleared the Senate 34-12
Tuesday.
"The fact is, if there is one case of discrimination that can be
prevented or one case of discrimination that needs to be adjudicated, then
we need to have the law in place," said Del. Kenneth C. Montague Jr., a
Baltimore Democrat. "We need to put people on notice that the law in
Maryland is not to allow that kind of behavior to happen."
The legislation -- a top priority of Gov. Parris N. Glendening --
would add gays and lesbians to the groups protected by the state law banning
discrimination in housing and employment.
Supporters of the bill say it is necessary to provide overdue
protections to people who have no legal recourse against discrimination.
Opponents say the state shouldn't provide legal protection to
homosexuals and describe the measure as government endorsement of behavior
they see as immoral. "Gays and lesbians are not minorities as I am," said
Del. Emmett C. Burns Jr., a Baltimore County Democrat. "For them to come in
here and claim a minority status the same as I am is utter hypocrisy."
Montgomery, Howard and Prince George's counties and Baltimore have
laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, but there is no
statewide statute.
During yesterday's committee debate, supporters of the bill rejected
attempts by opponents to amend it to make it different from the Senate
version. That could have jeopardized the legislation by forcing a
House-Senate conference committee.
--
Associated Press, March 29, 2001
Gay rights supporters now focus on Senate
By John O'connor
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) -- Hundreds of people celebrated one
legislative victory on civil rights for gays Wednesday and predicted another
after a tough journey in the Illinois Senate.
There was additional cause for celebration after Senate President
James "Pate" Philip said he plans to give the issue a committee hearing
instead of stalling it.
The Illinois House approved the measure Tuesday without a single vote
to spare. Now it goes to the more conservative, Republican-controlled
Senate.
"We're just going to plead our case as best we can and contact as
many constituents as we can," said Rick Garcia, director of Equality
Illinois, which sponsored the annual lobby day for gay and lesbian issues.
"As in the House, we will appeal to senators' sense of fairness and good
will."
Cory Jobe, programs director for state Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka,
said winning over downstate lawmakers could be key to success.
"Legislators in central and southern Illinois need to know they have
gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender constituents in their
districts," Jobe said.
After a Statehouse rally, supporters fanned out through the building
to press their lawmakers to support the measure.
The proposal adds "sexual orientation" to a state law that bans
discrimination against people for jobs, housing, public accommodations or
credit. The law currently protects people from bias based on race, religion
and similar traits.
Landlords living in their own building with five or fewer apartment
units would be exempt. It also exempts religious groups that oppose
homosexuality, said the sponsor, Rep. Larry McKeon, D-Chicago.
Supporters have said the idea, which passed the House in 1993 but
failed in 1997 and 1999, is to provide equal protection for everyone, not to
create special privileges.
More and more people are warming up to that idea, said Sen. Carol
Ronen, D-Chicago.
"There's a climate of tolerance and openness and a
can't-we-all-just-get-along? climate that is happening more and more," Ronen
said after speaking at the Capitol rotunda rally. "Once you start debating
it, the objections that most people have to it are going to disappear. It's
not a real far-reaching or complicated bill."
Philip said he probably will let the bill go to committee for a
hearing.
But he also criticized the measure, comparing it to a House bill that
would prohibit discrimination against people who drive motorcycles.
"If you do it for them, everybody else -- people with bicycles.
Everybody's got some kind of cause," Philip said. "You just kind of start
the ball rolling. I'm not sure that's a good idea."
Trying to counteract conservative Christians' opposition to the bill,
the rally featured several ministers and religious leaders who followed the
equal-rights-for-all theme. Al Sharp, director of Protestants for the
Common Good, said the bill was about justice and courage.
"It's about courage because so many people know it's the right thing
to do, to vote for the bill, but they won't stand up and be counted," Sharp
said.
The bill is HB101.
. On the Net: http://www.legis.state.il.us
GLAAD APPLAUDS CANCELLATION OF DR. LAURA
LOS ANGELES, FRIDAY, MAR. 30, 2001 -- Culminating its three-year public
education campaign against the rhetoric of talk-show host Laura
Schlessinger, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) today
hailed the cancellation of TV's "Dr. Laura" as a major victory against
defamation and anti-gay intolerance.
"Dr. Laura," produced and distributed by Paramount Domestic Television,
ended production on Mar. 29. The freshman TV show has been a critical
and ratings failure since its Sept. 11, 2000 debut, and since early
November it has been downgraded to post-midnight time slots in 29 of the
nation's top 30 media markets.
GLAAD launched its campaign in 1998, when Schlessinger began using
terms such as "deviant," "disordered" and "biological error" to describe
gays and lesbians. GLAAD's high-profile initiative successfully thwarted
corporate sponsorship of the show, forcing Paramount to offer deeply
discounted rates and rely almost exclusively on direct-order products to
fill national ad slots. In February, GLAAD was awarded the PR Week
Award for Non-Profit Team of the Year 2001 for its Schlessinger campaign.
"Paramount Domestic Television justified its decision to air 'Dr.
Laura' by saying that it would 'let the people decide,'" said GLAAD
Executive Director Joan M. Garry "Well, the people have decided. Viewers and
advertisers alike have decided that when given a choice, they will
choose to reject those who advocate intolerance and advance an agenda of
exclusion."
"This is a culmination of GLAAD's three years of strategic education
and advocacy work," Garry said. "In coalition with thousands of local
activists from across the country, we have held Laura Schlessinger
accountable for her defamation of our community. And we've sent a strong
message that we are no longer an easy target for prejudice. GLAAD hopes
the cancellation of 'Dr. Laura' will make media corporations think twice
about giving a platform to someone who promotes derision and exclusion.
Such decisions will never go unchallenged."
(NOTE: A complete, detailed timeline of GLAAD's work regarding Laura
Schlessinger, from 1997 to present, can be found at www.glaad.org. )
In recent years, Schlessinger (whose doctorate is in physiology, not
psychology or psychiatry) has perpetuated misinformation and reinforced
damaging stereotypes about homosexuality. She also has advocated
dangerous pseudo-therapies--condemned and discredited by the psychiatric and
psychological communities--intended to "convert" people from gay to
straight.
"In the final analysis, Schlessinger's defamatory characterizations of
our lives have been exposed for what they really are: politically
motivated opinions in the service of an anti-gay agenda," Garry said. "Not
science; not fact; and not the objective, unbiased conclusions of a
qualified 'Dr.' As a result of this ongoing campaign, people across the
nation both gay and straight now know that 'Dr. Laura' is not the place
to find accurate information about sexual orientation issues."
Schlessinger's attacks first came to GLAAD's attention in 1997 when she
characterized homosexuality as a "biological faux pas" in her
syndicated newspaper column. In February 1998 and March 1999, GLAAD Executive
Director Joan M. Garry met with Schlessinger in an unproductive effort
to educate her about the hurtful impact of her words. When Schlessinger
signed with Paramount Domestic Television for a TV talk show in
mid-1999, GLAAD launched a campaign to bring the topic of defamatory language
into the national public consciousness. A crucial part of the campaign
involved meetings between GLAAD and senior executives at Premiere Radio
Networks (radio syndicator of "The Dr. Laura Program") and Paramount.
A pivotal moment in the campaign occurred on March 15, 2000, when
Schlessinger disavowed a qualified apology she had made to the gay community
only five days earlier. Having demonstrated that she could not be held
accountable for her public statements, Schlessinger's recant prompted
GLAAD to call on Paramount to terminate its plans to produce her TV
show.
"From the beginning, we knew GLAAD's case against Laura Schlessinger
would prevail or crumble based on the credibility of our message and
research," Garry said. "We documented Laura's words verbatim and in
context for two years. We took our case to Schlessinger herself twice, to
Premiere Radio Networks and to Paramount in an effort to effect change
from within the system. Once it became clear that neither Schlessinger
nor her media partners had any intention of taking responsibility for
her public comments, we took our case to advertisers, local television
stations and the American public."
Beginning in April, GLAAD and local community coalitions began meeting
with station managers in nine of the top ten media markets who had
purchased "Dr. Laura" for airing in the fall. In May, GLAAD expanded its
work through "Local Laura Activism: Step by Step," a groundbreaking
online initiative that gave local activists across the country the tools
they needed to plan, ask for and conduct meetings with their local TV
stations, educate advertisers, and work with their local media to increase
public awareness of Schlessinger's harmful rhetoric.
In May, GLAAD placed ads in major daily newspapers and advertising
trade publications discouraging companies and their media buyers from
associating their brands with Schlessinger's messages of intolerance. The
ads also expanded GLAAD's base of support to include the National
Mental Health Association, the National Organization for Women, People for
the American Way, and the National Conference for Community and Justice.
GLAAD also worked with lesbian and gay employee groups within major
sponsors of daytime television to discourage media buys on the show.
Advertisers that withdrew their support from Schlessinger's TV and radio
programs include Procter & Gamble; Sears, Roebuck and Co.; General Foods;
Xerox; AT&T; Kraft; Pillsbury and dozens of other major brands.
"Dr. Laura" debuted in September to low ratings, obscure advertisers,
blistering reviews and GLAAD's continuing efforts to identify and
dissuade companies from sponsoring the show. Since its debut week, the
show's ratings have dropped 50 percent from a high of 1.8 to a 0.9, and the
show has undergone two retoolings. In the last four months, markets
representing more than 70 percent of the nation's TV homes -- including
all of the top 10 markets -- have downgraded the show to post-midnight
timeslots.
"The cancellation of 'Dr. Laura' offers Schlessinger yet another
opportunity to do the right thing," Garry said. "GLAAD calls on Schlessinger
to publicly state that she will stop using her self-described 'hurtful
words' to characterize the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
community. Whatever happens, GLAAD will continue to keep an eye on
Schlessinger, and we'll hold her accountable again if she continues her
defamatory attacks."
The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to
promoting and ensuring fair, accurate and inclusive representation of
individuals and events in all media as a means of eliminating homophobia
and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Arkansas sodomy law struck down
By KELLY P. KISSEL, Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (March 23, 2001 5:51 p.m. EST) - An Arkansas judge
threw out the state's anti-sodomy law Friday, saying it unfairly
singled out homosexuals for prosecution.
No one has been prosecuted under the 1977 law. But seven homosexuals
brought a lawsuit challenging the law, saying they feared being
charged and convicted and losing their jobs or professional licenses.
Pulaski County Circuit Judge David Bogard said the Arkansas
Legislature erred when it barred consensual, noncommercial sexual
activities between people of the same sex while permitting the same
activities among heterosexuals.
The Arkansas law carried a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.
The state argued that the government had an interest in criminalizing
behavior that most of its citizens would find morally inappropriate,
but Bogard disagreed.
"The people of Arkansas have the right to legislate on issues
involving morals, but homosexuality is not only a question of morals,"
Bogard said.
Bogard said a way of life "that is odd or even erratic" cannot be
condemned just because it is different.
Ruth Harlow, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education
Fund in New York, which represented the group, said that even though
no one was prosecuted, its members did not like being branded as
criminals.
"The law hangs over their heads and treats them like second-class
citizens," she said. "It says it's illegal when you do it but not when
your neighbor does, as long as they are heterosexual."
The Arkansas attorney general's office said it has not decided whether
to appeal.
Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are the only other states that outlaw
sodomy between same-sex partners.
Arizona Daily Star, March 21, 2001
( http://www.azstarnet.com/ )
Legislative briefs (excerpt)
House backs repeal of sexual laws
The House gave final approval yesterday to repealing laws that make
cohabitation, oral sex and sodomy a crime.
The 31-24 vote on HB 2016 came over the objections of lawmakers who
said the laws, while not enforced, need to remain on the books.
"We might as well also be repealing the Ten Commandments," complained
Rep. Jake Flake, R-Snowflake.
But Rep. Marian McClure, R-Tucson, said she got more than a thousand
calls and messages in favor of repeal. "Most of my constituents believe
that this is an issue of fairness, whether it affects them or not."
The measure now goes to the Senate.
--
Louisville Courier-Journal, March 22, 200
( http://www.courier-journal.com/ )
Federal judge upholds gay-rights ordinances
By Sheldon S. Shafer, The Courier-Journal
A federal judge has upheld the constitutionality of the Louisville
and Jefferson County ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
Yesterday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Simpson III clears
the way for both ordinances to be enforced.
City attorneys said they believe it is the first time in the country
that a federal court has upheld a gayrights law that was challenged on the
basis of a First Amendment religious objection.
Dr. J. Barrett Hyman, a Louisville gynecologist who challenged both
ordinances, said he will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, if
necessary. ''The Bible clearly teaches us that this behavior is immoral, and
it should not be legalized and glamorized,'' Hyman said.
However, Alderwoman Tina Ward-Pugh, who led the push for the
Louisville ordinance, said, ''This is a victory not just for the gay
community but for the entire community.''
''This is an affirmation by the legal system that all people deserve
to be treated fairly,'' said County Commissioner Darryl Owens, who supported
the county measure.
Louisville's aldermen passed an ordinance in January 1999 making it
illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in employment -- including
hiring, pay and promotion.
NINE MONTHS later, Jefferson Fiscal Court passed a broader ordinance.
It banned discrimination based on sexual orientation not only in employment,
but also in public accommodations -- such as by service providers -- and in
housing, including renting apartments and selling property.
Both laws were adopted after divisive campaigns that featured
rallies, petition drives and massive efforts to call elected officials.
Hyman, represented by the conservative American Center for Law and
Justice, filed two suits challenging the two ordinances. The cases were
consolidated before Simpson.
Hyman contended, among other things, that his religious beliefs were
in such conflict with the ordinances that he would not comply with them --
including hiring a gay or lesbian -- and that he thus risked prosecution on
account of his faith, which is protected by the First Amendment.
He also claimed that the ordinances infringed on his freedom of
association and his freedom of speech.
The American Civil Liberties Union, on behalf of the Fairness
Campaign, which promoted the need for the protections, and the U.S.
Department of Justice filed petitions in support of the city and county
laws.
SIMPSON, IN a 33-page ruling, dismissed the litigation. He wrote that
Hyman ''has made no allegation that would suggest that his (medical)
practice has as a purpose the exercise of his religion.''
He also found that the ordinances ''are rationally related to a
legitimate government interest.''
The Rev. Peter Hayes, chairman of the American Family Coalition of
Kentucky, said the court had to address tough legal issues. But the laws
''infringe on our First Amendment rights to practice religion,'' he said.
Dan Farrell, a spokesman for the Fairness Campaign, said that ''the
laws have had a huge impact. . . . You have to count how much safer people
feel at work.''
Under the ordinances, victims of discrimination can file complaints
with the Louisville-Jefferson County Planning Commission. If the commission
finds discrimination, it can fine the violator up to $10,000. Its findings
can be appealed to Jefferson Circuit Court.
Ten employment complaints have been filed under the city ordinance,
said Carolyn Miller-Cooper, assistant director of the Human Relations
Commission. Under the county ordinance, complaints number 14 over
employment, three over public accommodations and two over housing.
One of the city cases was recently settled; commission policy doesn't
provide for making details of a case public. Miller-Cooper said the
commission staff is still investigating the other 28 complaints.
AS LONG AS the federal litigation was pending, the commission could
not have levied any fines, she said.
Even if Simpson's ruling is appealed, the commission probably will be
able to follow the investigations through to the end of the process,
Miller-Cooper said.
The ruling ''is a huge victory for everybody who fought so hard for
fairness and sends a message to the whole nation,'' said Babs Elliott,
senior city attorney who defended the Louisville ordinance.
''Lots of municipalities'' across the country have passed or are
considering gay-rights measures, she said. ''This gives them some comfort
level that they are constitutional.''
In a separate matter, a Jefferson Circuit judge ruled recently that
the broader county ordinance does not apply inside Louisville. That ruling
is now pending before the Kentucky Court of Appeals. In a friendly suit, the
county contends that its broader measure should apply inside Louisville
Washington Blade
March 23, 2001
http://www.washblade.com
Maryland bill moves ahead
Full Senate to take vote
by Kara Fox
Gays in Maryland won a huge victory Tuesday when the conservative
Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee narrowly approved a proposal to
ban discrimination against Gays across the state. The committee has
defeated or bottled the legislation for the past eight years, making
this the first time it has ever approved the bill.
With the vote tied at 5-5, committee chair Sen. Walter M. Baker
(D-Cecil) provided the vote that was needed to send the legislation
to the full Senate. The Senate will likely debate the bill today,
Friday, March 23.
Maryland's Anti-Discrimination Act of 2001, Senate Bill 205, would
prohibit discrimination against Gays in the areas of employment,
housing, and public accommodations across the state. The measure
passed the full House in 1999, but died in Senate committee.
Activists had hoped that the bill would pass the committee this year.
When Baker gave the final vote that passed the bill, Gay civil rights
activists grew tearful and embraced one another, and even a few
senators, in a celebration of the victory they had won with the
strong backing of Gov. Parris N. Glendening (D), who made the bill
one of his top legislative priorities this year.
Glendening's personal crusade for Gay civil rights was sparked by his
brother, Bruce, who was Gay and had to hide his sexual orientation
during his Air Force career. He later died of an AIDS-related illness.
"This is a tremendous victory for justice, fairness, and inclusion in
Maryland," Glendening said moments after the vote. "This is a human
victory."
"I don't know if it's excitement or relief," said Blake Humphreys,
managing director for Free State Justice, Maryland's largest Gay
civil rights group. "I'm overwhelmed with joy that we were able to
get this legislation through."
Opponents, led by conservative Republicans on the Senate committee,
are contemplating trying to filibuster the proposal when it reaches
the full Senate. They intend to introduce a number of amendments to
the bill. However, proponents say a majority of the members of the
House and Senate support the bill and would likely not let the
conservative senators hold it up.
The Senate committee endured lengthy debates and days of discussion
before finally approving the legislation on Tuesday, March 20. The
committee was scheduled to vote Thursday, March 15, but Baker was ill
and could not attend the session. Then, the following day, Sen.
Clarence M. Mitchell IV (D-Baltimore), a proponent of the measure,
was absent.
On Monday, March 19, the committee reconvened and voted on a number
of amendments to the bill.
Sen. Leo E. Green (D-Prince George's), who was considered the key
swing vote, made changes that ensure that the bill would not condone
same-sex marriages, require benefits for domestic partners, or
mandate the teaching of homosexuality as acceptable behavior in
schools. The amendment passed 6-5, with four Republicans and one
Democrat voting against it.
Heading the opposition were Sens. Alex X. Mooney (R-Frederick) and
Larry E. Haines (R-Carroll), who spent more than two hours proposing
nearly a dozen amendments to water down the bill, including some
amendments that were introduced two years ago.
Haines attempted to change the legislation to allow people with a
"conscientious objection based on a bona fide religious belief" to
not be covered under the law and to exempt Carroll County, the county
he represents, from the bill.
Mooney introduced amendments that would allow religious organizations
to deny renting space to Gay groups; not allow schools to teach the
"homosexual lifestyle;" expand the minimum number of employees a
business could have to not be covered under the bill from 15 to 50;
change the bill's title to "Special Legal Rights for Transgendered,
Bisexual, Gay, and Lesbian People of Maryland;" have the bill cover
only "non-practicing homosexuals;" and not allow openly Gay people to
be employed by public schools. The amendments failed by a vote of
6-5, except the last amendment. Sen. Philip C. Jimeno (D-Anne
Arundel) joined the other Democrats in defeating the schools
amendment by a vote of 7-4.
However, two of Mooney's amendments did pass, with Baker as the deciding vote.
The Maryland Chamber of Commerce sought one of the changes, asking
for protection for businesses that survey employees on their sexual
orientation, if that survey is for defending against a discrimination
lawsuit brought by a worker. The other change exempts the Boy Scouts
and Girl Scouts of America from the bill, although the U.S. Supreme
Court already has given protection to the Boy Scouts.
"The amendments are relatively innocuous," Sen. Perry Sfikas
(D-Baltimore), a proponent of the bill, told the Blade, "They are
what a couple of senators wanted to see so they could feel more
comfortable with the bill. Gay and Lesbian leadership would have
preferred not to see the amendments, but it is something they could
live with."
"It seems gratuitous that Baker would let Mooney submit the
amendments," said Nancy Meyer, co-chair of Free State Justice.
Cathy Brennan of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender
Community Center of Baltimore and Central Maryland said she was
concerned about the Boy Scout amendment, saying that it expanded the
Supreme Court decision.
After the committee went through the amendments and a motion to pass
the measure was made, lengthy debate ensued, and Mooney spoke for 30
minutes straight on why he opposed the bill. After two and a half
hours, the committee adjourned to go into full Senate session and
never returned.
"It was a big weight lifted off our shoulders that Baker voted for
[Green's] amendment and that the amendment passed 6-5," Humphreys
said after the committee adjourned. "Up until that point, we did not
have a confirmation from Sen. Walter Baker. Now we know the bill will
pass."
Before the committee session Tuesday, Mooney told reporters that he
was going to introduce seven more bills and that he didn't think the
meeting would end before full Senate session at 7 p.m.
In the beginning of the voting session, Mitchell pointed out that he
thought more amendments were going to be introduced.
"Amendments are now out of order," Baker said. "Amendments are no
longer allowed. There is a motion on the bill."
Mooney pleaded his case, saying that the chamber wanted two more
amendments added. Baker put a vote on the decision, letting the
committee decide if they wanted to hear more amendments. The vote
passed to not allow any more amendments, 6-5.
Sen. Timothy R. Ferguson (R-Frederick/Carroll) continued the debate,
indicating that he did not understand the workings of the bill.
"Right now if [a Gay person] wants to fight a truly discriminatory
practice, they [can] go to court and hire a lawyer," Ferguson said.
"There's no cause of action. This bill gives you a cause of action,"
said Sen. Ralph M. Hughes (D-Baltimore).
"You're telling me that they can't do anything?" Ferguson asked.
"Right now if someone is discriminated against, they can't do
anything?"
"The purpose of this bill is for a cause of action. This just adds
sexual orientation. You can discriminate [against Gays now]," Hughes
replied.
"I find that hard to believe," Ferguson said.
Mitchell interrupted the debate to call the question - or to vote on
the bill immediately.
"Extended debate is for the floor, not committee. This is to limit
debate," Baker said.
The committee voted 6-5 to end debate and to pass the bill favorably.
When the vote was finally taken, Baker, Hughes, Mitchell, Sfikas,
Green, and Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Montgomery) voted for the
legislation. Mooney, Ferguson, Haines, Jimeno, and Sen. Richard F.
Colburn (R-Caroline/Dorchester/Talbot/Wicomico) opposed the bill.
"I look forward to signing this legislation," Glendening said.
If the proposal is approved, Maryland would join 11 other states and
the District of Columbia in protecting Gays from discrimination. A
similar proposal died in Virginia earlier this year. Currently, four
Maryland jurisdictions prohibit discrimination against Gays,
including the city of Baltimore and Montgomery, Howard, and Prince
George's counties.
"It was a long fight and difficult fight. This is certainly a first
step. We still have a lot of work ahead of us," Sfikas told the
Blade. "I think all Marylanders have a state where everyone is valued
and no one is left out or left behind. And, [the Gay community]
should be pleased and proud of themselves."
The addition of Sfikas to the committee in place of a more
conservative Democrat was seen by activists as a harbinger of good
news for the long-struggling bill. Gay civil rights activists were
also successful in swaying Green and Baker to change their votes.
Activists say they are sure they have enough votes in the full House
and Senate to get the bill passed. A House committee has a similar
bill on hold, House Bill 307, that they will likely consider. The
last day for bills to cross over is Monday, March 26. The legislative
session ends April 9.
Texas Court Upholds Conviction of Two Men for Consensual Sex at Home
Lambda Promises to Appeal
(NEW YORK, March 15, 2000) ? Pledging to appeal, Lambda Legal Defense and
Education Fund criticized a ruling from a Texas Court of Appeals Thursday
that upheld the state's "Homosexual Conduct" law and reinstated the
conviction of two Houston men for having sex in the privacy of one man's
home.
"The government does not belong in people's bedrooms policing consensual
adult intimacy, nor can it have one rule for gay people and another one,
granting more freedom, for non-gay people," said Lambda Legal Director Ruth
E. Harlow.
Harlow, who argued the case before the Texas court, said, "The State here
condemns lesbian and gay couples in a way that the Constitution does not
permit."
Assisted by Lambda Cooperating Attorney Mitchell Katine of the Houston law
firm Williams, Birnberg & Anderson, Lambda will continue to challenge
Texas' criminal ban on sexual relations between people of the same sex.
Lambda argues that the Texas law poses stark problems of inequality that
conflict with the basic constitutional right to equal protection and is
contrary to the right to privacy that all Texans enjoy.
In a well-reasoned dissent, two justices on the Fourteenth Circuit Court of
Appeals emphasized that "Equal protection simply requires that the majority
apply its values even-handedly."
Rejecting the only asserted justification for the law, the dissent stressed
that, "It makes no sense for the State to contend that morals are preserved
by criminalizing homosexual sodomy while supporting sodomy by heterosexual
couples, including unmarried persons."
The case began September 17, 1998, when sheriff's deputies, responding to a
false report of an armed intruder, entered a private Houston apartment
where they found the pair having sex.
Both men were arrested and jailed for over 24 hours before being released
on $200 bond each. A county criminal court convicted John Lawrence and
Tyron Garner of a Class C misdemeanor, which carries up to a $500 fine.
Lambda appealed on their behalf.
Last June, a panel of the appeals court held that the statute violates the
Equal Rights Amendment of the Texas Constitution because it punished only
certain couples for oral or anal sex without adequate justification. Texas
has had a sodomy law since 1860, but decriminalized such activities by
different-sex partners in 1974.
On motion by the state, the entire appeals court reheard the case, ruling
7-2 to overturn the panel's ruling.
Said Harlow, "Contrary to this decision, the courts' role is to protect
individual liberties when the legislature and prosecutors have
overstepped." She said that Lambda would petition for review in the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals.
Katine added, "It's a sad day in Texas when our courts do not rise to the
occasion of having to enforce vital constitutional principles."
Texas now is one of only four states, along with Arkansas, Kansas and
Oklahoma, that prohibit consensual sex acts between same-sex partners only.
Lambda recently argued its legal challenge to the Arkansas law, Picado v.
Jegley. Twelve other states still prohibit consensual oral and anal sex
between different- and same-sex partners alike, despite the nationwide
trend toward abolishing such invasive criminal laws.
Headquartered in New York, with offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, and
Atlanta, Lambda will open an office in Dallas in 2002.
For more information, go to Lambda's website at www.lambdalegal.org.
(Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, No. 14-99-0019-CR)
Link directly to Lambda's news release:
http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/pages/documents/record?record=807
Rutland Herald, March 3, 2001
Rutland, VT
( http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/ )
Backers of marriage bill didn't think it through, House learns
By TRACY SCHMALER, Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER -- A proposal to ban same-sex marriage in Vermont crumbled
under scrutiny on Friday from opponents who successfully argued that its
supporters had failed to contemplate the legal fallout of the measure.
After two hours of debate on the House floor -- that was at times
reminiscent of the civil unions discourse a year ago -- the chairwoman of
the Judiciary Committee asked that the proposal be passed over so that the
panel could review it further.
Rep. Margaret Flory, R-Pittsford, conceded that the debate Friday
raised issues that the committee needed more time to investigate and asked
that any action on the bill be postponed until March 15, after lawmakers
return from their weeklong town meeting recess.
The move came after Rep. Margaret Hummel, D-Underhill, stunned many
in the chamber by pointing to an existing statute that the committee
overlooked while considering the initiative. Under Hummel's reading of the
law, the proposal, in addition to outlawing gay marriage, would criminalize
sex between same-gender couples.
"What should have happened was that this was raised back while the
committee was taking testimony," Hummel said after the vote, adding that she
found the law while reading the marriage statute that was the subject of the
proposed change. "I think they honestly did not consider this possibility."
Hummel was one of several Democrats to criticize Flory for failing to
conduct a complete examination of the proposal in committee. During some of
the more contentious points in the debate, House Democrats accused
Republicans of promoting the bill to gain political mileage with the public
on the issue of civil unions during the town meeting recess.
"I am quite frankly stunned to think the chair of Judiciary is
willing to pass a bill without the full knowledge of the facts," said Rep.
Ann Seibert, D-Norwich. "If I weren't so appalled, I could give way to the
basic sadness that I feel. This is clearly nothing but an attempt to
sprinkle confusion, dissention and hatred into a stew we have been wallowing
in for well over a year."
The House began its debate on the bill, which would essentially
change the existing marriage statute to prohibit same-sex couples from
marrying, by mid-morning. Within an hour, the Democrats had failed in their
attempts to thwart the bill or get it remanded back to the committee.
Some argued that the bill was redundant because marriage had been
defined as the union between one man and one woman in at least two other
places in Vermont statutes. Others maintained that including the language
in the so-called incest provision of the law was an unnecessary slight.
Flory responded that the proposal was a "clarification" of the
existing law and agreed to move the language to a new section of the
marriage law so as not to offend.
It wasn't until Hummel stood and noted that under the proposal
same-gender couples who had sex could be arrested on a felony charge and
subject to five years in prison and a $1,000 fine that things started to
unravel for supporters.
Rep. Duncan Kilmartin, R-Newport City, a member of the committee, was
quick to counter that the provisions in the civil unions law passed last
year, took care of the scenario that Hummel raised. It was then that
Democrats pounced on Republicans for being disingenuous about their intent
behind the bill. Supporters have insisted that the measure wasn't related
to civil unions, the law passed last year that created a parallel system of
marriage for gay and lesbian couples. Rather, they argued it was to clarify
the existing marriage law.
"This bill has absolutely nothing to do with incestuous
relationships. You know, if it walks like duck talks like a duck and smells
like a duck, it is a duck and the name of this duck is sham," said Rep.
George Cross, D-Winooski. He was referring to the slogan used last year by
opponents of civil unions who maintained that the bill was gay marriage.
"This bill is nothing more than a mechanism, a cruel and deceitful
mechanism, to attempt one way or another to undo what was done a year ago.
"I don't believe all the good members of the Judiciary Committee
intended to precipitate a deceit on this body but somebody did somewhere,
and that's what this is all about," he said. "It's about civil unions and
let's get down to it."
Rep. Michael Kainen, R-Hartford, a member of committee, argued that
there was never any intent to criminalize homosexual sex.
"The argument being made that somehow this is a sham, this is somehow
an attempt to criminalize fornication between two people who are members of
civil unions doesn't hold water," Kainen said. "So that duck that's been
spoken about ain't gonna swim."
Opponents of the measure also got a boost during the lunch break when
the committee took testimony from attorney Paul Gillies. Under questioning
by Flory, Gillies said he believed the measure to be redundant.
Bay Windows
Boston, MA
http://www.baywindows.com
Gay Arizona Republican fights recall campaign
Many Suspect Drive To Oust Neil Giuliano Is Homophobic
By Peter Cassels
A group of conservatives has launched what many see as a thinly
veiled homophobic campaign to remove the openly gay mayor of Tempe,
Ariz. Although organizers contend they are merely unhappy with the
direction Neil Giuliano has taken the city in his seven years in
office, an undercurrent of anti-gay rhetoric, such as hate letters,
e-mails and phone calls, has marked the recall effort. Two of the
messages contained death threats.
The Citizens to Recall Neil Giuliano Committee has submitted a recall
petition containing 4,606 signatures to the Tempe City Clerk's
Office. If at least 3,982 are validated by the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office by the end of March, the mayor will face a special
election Sept. 11.
Extremely popular in the city of 170,000 residents, Giuliano, a
Republican, won a fourth term in a non-partisan election last
November with 70 percent of the 33,000 votes cast. The recall effort
is therefore viewed as the work of a vocal minority of voters
displeased with his record of economic development that helped propel
him to the landslide victory.
At the height of the controversy that began the recall effort,
Giuliano's office received about 50 anti-gay letters, e-mails and
phone calls. One e-mail message was signed ``gay-beater." Another
said, ``Don't waste your e-mails and time on me and the thousands of
other `homophobes' who are going to actively work towards removing
the mayor from office. That's what he would call us, correct? Because
we don't share his homosexual views." One voicemail message said the
mayor should be ``taken out." Police are investigating two e-mail
death threats, but have not made any arrests. They did provide the
mayor with a security detail for a few days after the threats were
made. Ordinarily, Giuliano does not receive police protection.
The campaign to remove the mayor was sparked when John Greco, interim
city manager, submitted a recommendation to the Tempe City Council
last September that it modify the United Way campaign for city
employees so that contributions could only be directed to charities
that comply with Tempe's non-discrimination policy, which includes
sexual orientation. Workers would still have been able to support
organizations that don't comply, but not through the city-sponsored
program. Critics saw the move as targeting the Boy Scouts of America
and its policy barring openly gay members and staff.
In a Bay Windows interview, Giuliano said he was not involved with
Greco's decision to make the recommendation but did say, ``It makes
sense to me," when asked to comment by a member of the news media.
The action's timing was unfortunate because the mayor left the next
day for a one-week trip to China to participate in an international
sister-cities conference.
In his absence, there was a public outcry over the recommendation,
which opponents blamed on Giuliano and cited as an example of
promoting his ``agenda," widely viewed as a reference to his sexual
orientation.
The controversy received wide media coverage, led by The Arizona
Republic, the state's largest daily newspaper. Coincidentally, the
paper's publisher was the president of the Valley of the Sun United
Way, the regional charitable program. ``Unbeknownst to us at the
time, we were taking on the United Way and the newspaper was
tremendously supportive of the organization," Giuliano explained.
``They covered [the story] like you wouldn't believe."
Upon his return from China, the mayor assessed the situation and saw
``there was no way that I could put the toothpaste back in the tube.
My recommendation to the council was that we've got to drop this and
leave it alone. We had a lot of other major issues that we were
debating and a lot of high profile projects and we became stressed
over an issue we hadn't even taken action on."
While critics called the incident part of Giuliano's ``gay agenda,"
the mayor denied that he has one. ``If it had been my agenda it would
have been dealt with in an entirely different way," he contended.
``First of all, it is not the mayor's and City Council's United Way
campaign. I would have asked the employees what they would want to
do. Our employees are a rather thoughtful and progressive group, I
think. Just as many cities around the country are reviewing their
relationship with the Boy Scouts, we could have had a thoughtful and
productive dialogue about the issue. Instead, it erupted into a
maelstrom and got totally out of hand."
The mayor pointed out that Tempe hasn't spent an inordinate amount of
time debating gay rights issues: ``We passed domestic-partner
benefits for city employees 4-to-3. I was the tie-breaking vote. That
was two years ago and it was not a controversy at the time. We have a
gay liaison officer and a non-discrimination policy, but we're hardly
engaged in issues of sexual orientation politics on a regular basis.
That's just not what the local level does."
The citizens committee, headed by A.J. LaFaro, whom Giuliano said was
not previously known to be active in civic affairs, started its
recall effort in the incident's aftermath. It listed eight examples
of why the mayor should be removed from office, including development
projects such as a man-made lake that has been the focal point of
business development, airport and mass transit expansion, increased
traffic and pollution, as well as the Boy Scouts contribution issue.
Most of the issues, the mayor said, were debated and resolved during
his tenure. ``They're basically against everything that's happened in
the last seven years," he explained. ``The leaders are the folks who
come every week to City Council meetings and complain about
everything the city's doing. They're people who are generally unhappy
about everything combined with the folks from the far Right and
religious Right, who never liked the fact that we have a gay mayor."
The organizers began circulating petitions in early October and
gathered 2,500 to 3,000 signatures near polling places on Election
Day. Arizona law requires that 20 percent of those who voted in the
last election must sign petitions to recall an official. ``The
threshold is obviously pretty low," Giuliano pointed out. ``So even
though I won by 70 percent, the ones who didn't vote for me can be
enough to initiate a recall." He believes the committee has gathered
enough valid signatures to force the recall. Once the county
validates the required number of signatures, the recall is effective
and the mayor must stand for election. At that time, candidates can
be nominated to run on an election ballot. His opponents have yet to
name a candidate. ``I don't think it will be a high profile citizen
who is involved in the community," the mayor predicted.
Giuliano called the campaign for his removal ``an abuse of the law.
There must be severe malfeasance or a criminal action, such as
committing a felony, involved. You don't recall officials for holding
a view or opinion on a legitimate public policy issue. Those issues
are supposed to be decided in elections."
Nevertheless, the mayor and his supporters say they are taking the
recall effort seriously and have formed a campaign committee, called
Neighbors for Neil. ``We're not going to let this small group of
unhappy citizens rule the day and change the direction of the city
just because of the emotional nature of the issue regarding the Boy
Scouts and the United Way," he asserted.
To fight the recall effort, the mayor wants to raise about $50,000,
which, he said, ``doesn't sound like much, but the legal limit per
individual is $320 and we can't take corporate checks." His campaign
can accept PAC funds, but they are limited to $500 per contribution.
Giuliano supporters are rallying behind him, he reported: ``All the
people who have been very supportive of me over the years. No one has
abandoned me." All the Tempe City Council members, U.S. Sen. John
McCain (a friend), Gov. Jane Hull, former Arizona Attorney General
Grant Woods, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund have endorsed him.
He has received hundreds of e-mails, letters of support and
unsolicited contributions, ``which is kind of rare in politics. So I
think we'll be able to run a very effective and strong campaign. Who
the opponent is will determine how well we can do. I say let's bring
it on. Let's have the election and get on with life."
(Contributions to the campaign to keep Giuliano in office can be
mailed to: Neighbors for Neil, 2074 East Balboa Dr., Tempe, AZ 85282.
For more information, e-mailstoptherecall@hotmail.com.)
The Dominion Post, March 1, 2001
Morgantown, WV
( http://www.dominionpost.com )
Senate OKs bill adding gays to hate-crime law
Would also protect disabled
BY MONTE MAXWELL, The Dominion Post
CHARLESTON -- The state Senate has passed a bill on to the House of
Delegates that would expand the limits of hate crimes to include disability
and sexual orientation.
The bill's sponsor, Sen. Herb Snyder, D-Shenandoah Junction, called
Senate Bill 23 a reaction to a jump in the number of hate crimes being
reported on West Virginia's college and university campuses.
"That means something's wrong," Snyder said.
Snyder, Senate Judiciary vice-chair, introduced a similar bill last
session at the encouragement of members of the NAACP chapter in his home
district. The group's president related concern that, although blacks and
other racial minorities are covered by the state's 19-year-old hate crime
law, some people are still vulnerable.
That bill sailed through the Senate but failed to make it to the
floor of the House before the session ended.
Snyder's determined to see it through this time. That's why he
introduced it during the first days of the session.
Whether or not this proposed law is ever used, Snyder believes it
sends an important message about the freedom American citizens enjoy and the
responsibilities that come with it.
"Whatever your personal beliefs are, you have a right as an American
to have those," Snyder said. "But you don't have the right to abuse and
commit crimes against other people because of that belief."
Sen. Roman Prezioso, D-Marion, is one of the 20 senators who
supported SB 23. He's in full agreement with Snyder.
"I can't agree with what everybody does, but I don't believe it's in
my demeanor to look down on anyone because they do things differently than I
do," Prezioso said.
"And I don't think just because people are different that they should
be persecuted."
He said that if the bill causes just one person to stop and think
before committing a crime spurred by hate or prejudice, he'll be proud he
voted to put it on the books.
SB 23 goes to the House Judiciary Committee, of which Delegate
Barbara Evans Fleischauer, D-Monongalia, is a member. She supports the bill
but expects the vote in the House to be close.
"I think it's the right thing to do," she said.
Fleischauer said it goes against the spirit of America to demonize
people based on their behavior. She drew parallels to how Hitler singled
out people based on their religion and the atrocities that followed.
"Those crimes do not have a place in our country," Fleischauer said.
If the House Judiciary approves it, it moves to the full House for a
vote.
The Pantagraph, March 1, 2001
Bloomington, IL
http://www.pantagraph.com/news/
Committee vote advances gay-rights amendment
By KURT ERICKSON, Springfield bureau chief
SPRINGFIELD -- Setting the stage for another potentially emotional
round of debate, a House panel approved legislation Wednesday prohibiting
discrimination against gays and lesbians.
The measure, sponsored by the General Assembly's only openly gay
lawmaker, was sent to the House floor by members of the Human Services
Committee on a 5-3 vote.
State Rep. Larry McKeon's proposal is similar to legislation that
failed to receive House approval in 1999 and in 1997. The amendment,
however, now contains provisions that attempt to address concerns that the
legislation would give homosexuals special rights, rather than equal rights.
Those changes, as well as changes in the makeup of the 118-member
House, have McKeon, D-Chicago, hopeful the 2001 version of his bill will be
approved.
"I think we've done a lot of work to educate many of my colleagues,
and after the last election we picked up a couple of yes votes that we
didn't have in the past," McKeon said. "It looks like we could pass this
with 64 or 65 votes."
The measure would change the Human Rights Act to prohibit
employment-related and housing-related discrimination based on sexual
orientation. Though some communities in Illinois have approved local
ordinances barring such discrimination, McKeon wants it to become the law of
the Land of Lincoln.
"This is the last bastion of legalized discrimination," McKeon said.
One opponent, the Rev. Robert Vanden Bosch of Concerned Christians of
America, said, "I believe this legislation goes way too far."
And the Baptist preacher added, "I don't think we're going to see
this legislation pass out of the House of Representatives."
Members of other Protestant denominations support the bill, said Mary
Schaafsma, who represents a group called Protestants for the Common Good.
"We have long held a principled position on this issue that God
intends for all people to be able to experience human flourishing in all
aspects of life -- economic, social and political," Schaafsma said.
The state's current human rights act bars discrimination on the basis
of race, religion and gender.
In the mid-1990s, efforts to make similar changes to local ordinances
in Bloomington and Normal focused attention on the issue of gay rights, but
the proposals never received enough support to be made into law.
The legislation is House Bill 101.
HRC PRAISES BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED BUDGET INCREASES THAT WILL HELP
PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV/AIDS
Further Details Needed on Other Crucial HIV/AIDS Programs, Says HRC
WASHINGTON -The Human Rights Campaign today applauded the Bush
administration's decision to increase spending in its proposed budget for
key programs that will help people living with HIV and AIDS.
"We commend the Bush administration for increasing funds for
research at the National Institutes of Health at a time when the AIDS
epidemic is exacting an enormous toll on peoples' lives both nationally and
globally," said HRC Political Director Winnie Stachelberg. "We look forward
to examining the budget in-depth as more details become available. But the
initial view of the budget appears favorable in certain areas."
However, with a $2.1 billion increase for public health programs and $2.8
billion earmarked for the NIH, some cuts will need to be made to other
public health programs in order to balance the books, says HRC.
"We're concerned that there could be cuts to HIV/AIDS programs
because the budget doesn't even mention HIV/AIDS programs within HHS," said
Stachelberg. "There is no discussion of HIV prevention despite 40,000 new
HIV infections each year, half of which occur in people under the age of 25.
Nor is there mention of the Ryan White CARE Act, reauthorized last year with
bipartisan support."
The administration's budget also calls for increases for Housing
Opportunities for People With AIDS. This vital program provides shelter to
people living with HIV/AIDS to help keep these individuals from being
exposed to other life-threatening diseases, poor nutrition and lack of
medical care, which can lead to premature death.
It is estimated that up to 60 percent of people living with HIV and
AIDS will need housing assistance at some point in the course of their
illness. According to the National AIDS Housing Coalition, one-third to
one-half of all people with AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger
of losing their homes.
The budget also includes $124 million more in funding for Community
Health Centers, which provide health care in medically underserved areas
throughout the United States. These centers serve many clients who are
living with HIV/AIDS. Additionally, the administration's budget offers more
money to fight the international spread of HIV.
The Human Rights Campaign is the largest national lesbian and gay
political organization with members throughout the country. It effectively
lobbies Congress, provides campaign support and educates the public to
ensure that lesbian and gay Americans can be open, honest and safe at home,
at work and in the community.
Southwest Times Record, March 1, 2001
Fort Smith, AR,
http://www.swtimes.com/
Bill To Ban Gay Adoptions Fails
By David Robinson, Times Record, drobinson@donreynews.com
LITTLE ROCK - Lacking a single vote, a bill that proposed to ban
state placements of adoptive and foster children with gay parents was
rejected by a House panel for a second time Wednesday.
The vote by the House Aging, Children and Youth, Military and
Legislative Affairs Committee killed House Bill 1026.
"It's dead," said Rep. Randy Minton, R-Ward, noting that bills can be
brought up for committee consideration only twice.
Minton thought he had the winning votes on his second try after
persuading Rep. John Eason, D-Marianna, to change his vote.
But Rep. Wilma Walker, D-College Station, who voted for Minton's bill
the first time, left the room before the vote was taken.
The bill failed with 10 voting yes and nine voting no. It needed 11
votes to go to the full House.
Walker would not say after the meeting why she had left. She also
would not say how she would have voted, but said she had learned since the
last vote that the Department of Human Services "does a super job of weeding
out" people unfit to either take foster children or to adopt.
About an hour's worth of testimony for and against the bill included
the views of two local psychiatrists.
Dr. Robert Rice, a Little Rock psychiatrist, emphasized that children
do best in a home with a mother and a father.
He said Minton's bill "stands up for what cultural norms as the
foundation of civilization has borne out: that the best thing, the best
environment for a child is a mom and a dad."
There is no evidence that gay or lesbian parents are harmful to
children, said Dr. Andre Derdeyn, a psychiatrist who directs the University
of Arkansas for Medical Sciences child and adolescent psychiatry training
program and who directs the psychiatric service at Arkansas Children's
Hospital.
Rice said the evidence cited by opponents of the bill is based on
nonscientific studies by the American Psychological Association.
"Those are case studies designed and orchestrated by people with an
agenda to promote," Rice said. "These are not large, double blind,
randomized put to stringent scientific methods."
Rice also emphasized the importance of having an adult male in the
home, saying crime is fostered by single parent, fatherless homes.
"Many of the issues that Dr. Rice brought up, I don't even want to
respond to them," Derdeyn said. "Maybe people believed them 50 years ago,
but we've come a long way in terms of what kids need and they need careful,
loving parents who are invested in them ... who are not hostile to them."
He said "there is no magic" to having a man in the household.
Derdeyn added that he was raised in a single-parent home.
Grif Stockley, a Little Rock lawyer and former president of the board
of directors for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, said in 28
years he has never heard of there being a problem with gay and lesbian
foster parents.
Stockley was co-counsel in the 1991 lawsuit against the state's child
welfare and foster care system. Arkansas still is trying to meet the terms
of a settlement of that lawsuit, referred to as Angela R.
"Not one time did any of us representing the plaintiffs hear a
parent, a child, a social worker, a supervisor, a psychologist, a physician,
a service provider, a child care expert or a juvenile judge say that one of
the problems in the Arkansas foster care and adoption system was the
presence of gay and lesbian foster care or adoptive parents," Stockley said.
The Department of Human Services began in October asking prospective
foster parents if they are gay or lesbian as a result of a decision by the
state's Child Welfare Agency Review Board. Those who answer affirmatively
are denied the right to become foster parents.
Joe Quinn, DHS spokesman, has said agency officials could recall no
instances of a prospective foster parent saying they were gay or lesbian.
The policy does not apply to adoptions, Quinn said.
Black Caucus, Ashcroft Have Tense Meeting
From http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5523-2001Feb28.html
http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5523-2001Feb28.html
Black Caucus, Ashcroft Have Tense Meeting
By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 1, 2001; Page A6
A meeting between Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and members of the
Congressional Black Caucus turned tense and confrontational yesterday, doing
little, lawmakers said, to heal the wounds left from Ashcroft's nomination
battle and long-standing disputes over his stands on racial issues.
"It was definitely not a love-in. Particularly toward the end of the meeting,
it got very, very tense," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), first
vice-chair of the caucus. "By the end, basically, I think he was ready to go."
"He was very nervous and he should be," said Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). "People
weren't fighting; it was sort of disbelief. We thought he would be a little
more open, a little more reaching out, a little more give and take."
The session became particularly adversarial when caucus members, who had
invited Ashcroft to the session, asked him if he would support the
renomination of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White to a federal
judgeship. As a Missouri senator, Ashcroft had opposed White, the first
African American on the state's highest court, blocking White's appointment.
Yesterday, he again said he would not support White's renomination.
Ashcroft held a short news conference after the closed-door meeting, calling
it "a candid exchange about issues that are very important to all Americans,
but issues that have a special importance to the Congressional Black Caucus.
It was a frank, candid exchange."
An Ashcroft aide contended that the meeting was less adversarial than Lewis
and Cummings suggested. "Clearly these are folks who did not support him in
his confirmation. They asked some tough questions," the aide said. But, he
said, Ashcroft "was not uncomfortable" and the attorney general stressed his
goal of "open communications, mutual respect and trust."
At the news conference, Ashcroft focused on the one area of agreement between
the Bush administration and the black caucus: ending the use of racial
profiling by state, federal and local law enforcement officers.
"I believe racial profiling is an unconstitutional deprivation of equal
protection under our Constitution," Ashcroft said. Yesterday, President Bush
instructed Ashcroft "to review the use by federal law enforcement authorities
of race as a factor in conducting stops, searches and other investigative
procedures."
Ashcroft was opposed by an array of liberal groups that advocate civil
liberties, abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights and civil rights. His
opposition to White was a major issue for the civil rights community, along
with his opposition to desegregation plans in St. Louis and Kansas City.
He declined to discuss investigations into accusations that black voters in
Florida were disenfranchised during the 2000 election, but said he would
support efforts to ensure that faulty voting machines in heavily black
precincts do not interfere with balloting in the future.
=============================================================
BODY FOUND AT GALLAUDET EARLY THIS MORNING
=============================================================
Associated Press
Saturday, February 3, 2001
For the second time in just over four months, Gallaudet University is the
scene of a homicide investigation.
District Police say a fire alarm was activated in Cogswell Hall at about
4:15 a.m. Emergency crews found an unconscious male in a fourth-floor
room at the dormitory. They did not find any smoke or fire in the building.
Sgt. Joe Gentile says there are indications that foul play was involved.
Gentile says the D.C. medical examiner will have to determine the exact
cause and manner of death.
The D.C. Police Department has also called upon the FBI to assist with
special forensic investigators.
Cogswell Hall and the surrounding area is being treated as a crime
scene. More than 100 students have been evacuated and they are being
questioned by police with the aid of interpreters.
Campus activities have been canceled.
Last September, a 19-year-old male student was found beaten to death
in a first-floor room of the same dormitory. Eric Plunkett's death is still
considered an open investigation.
A student initially charged in connection with that case has been barred
from the university. Charges against Thomas Minch were later dropped.
San Francisco Chronicle [San Francisco, CA]
February 1, 2001
San Francisco firm also adds Web site, charges for Net ads
By Dan Fost
While PlanetOut consolidates its position as the queen of the gay media
world, the San Francisco company is coming under increasing criticism for
what some perceive to be monopolistic practices.
Some gay journalists and activists have called for a federal antitrust
investigation into PlanetOut's proposed merger with Online Partners, the
owner of Gay.com, the second-largest gay-1riented Web site.
The activists also complain that, with PlanetOut's pending acquisition of
the two largest gay-oriented magazines, the Advocate and Out, too many
influential media outlets will be concentrated in too few hands.
Their concern was heightened last week when PlanetOut said it would start
charging for enhanced features with its online personal ads. Even though the
basic ads will remain free, the company's critics fear that the move is a
harbinger of future charges once its hold on the gay media is cemented.
"This looks like an amazing concentration of gay media," said Henry Scott of
New York, the former president of Out magazine. "Where is there going to be
this world of different voices?"
Scott sent an e-mail to 200 people, urging them to ask the federal
government to investigate the antitrust implications of the
PlanetOut-Gay.com merger.
Such an investigation is probably unlikely on several grounds. For one
thing, the new Bush administration will probably not be as aggressive in
prosecuting antitrust cases as was the Clinton administration.
In addition, even with the merger, PlanetOut and Gay.com claim their Web
sites would reach 3.5 million unique users each month -- but that's only a
fraction of a vast gay market, much of which is still closeted and
uncounted.
According to Rosanne Siino, PlanetOut's vice president of corporate
communications, polls put the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
population in the United States at 17 million people.
Even if the newly merged PlanetOut Partners reaches 20 percent of that
market, as claimed, "We're not by any stretch of imagination capturing this
market," Siino said. "Lots of people can emerge to be as big. We hope not,
but there are not lots of barriers to that happening."
William J. Baer, an attorney with Arnold and Porter in Washington, D.C., and
the former chief of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition,
said antitrust investigators would probably ask several key questions in any
inquiry:
-- Will the acquisitions give one company near exclusive control of
editorial content and advertising revenues for specific groups of people?
-- How costly would it be for an alternative to start up?
-- Were these businesses failing? Would they go out of business if they were
not allowed to merge? Would there be other buyers?
Harlan Levinson of Los Angeles, a merger opponent, doubts regulators would
find answers that favor stopping the marriage. "I wish writing to the FTC
might actually do something," he said in an e-mail. "If they are not going
to keep Mobil and Exxon or Time Warner and AOL apart, do you really think
that they will care about small potatoes like (PlanetOut) and Gay.com?"
Neither PlanetOut nor Gay.com is even profitable. How can they be accused of
wielding monopoly power if they can't operate in the black?
PlanetOut Chief Executive Officer Megan Smith said the consolidation is
necessary for the company to grow and achieve profitability. She said
between them, PlanetOut and Gay.com have spent about $60 million.
"Anyone is welcome to put their capital in and build the brand they want.
It's fine. We're open to that," Smith said. "It doesn't make sense to
criticize people for doing it. If they want to compete with it, get out
there and build it."
One backdrop to the PlanetOut debate is the debacle of Australia's Satellite
Group, a gay media and real estate company that went public last year, only
to end up in receivership with seven gay publications shuttered.
To someone like Jim Provenzano of San Francisco, a freelance writer and
former PlanetOut staffer, the lesson of Satellite is that one company should
not control so many publications.
"The collapse of Australia's gay media may serve as a harbinger of the media
blackout that could happen if financial truths are belatedly faced by the
U.S. version," Provenzano said.
To Smith at PlanetOut, however, Satellite's failure proves just the
opposite: "We have no desire to go the way of Satellite media in Australia.
We want to make a strong, profitable company."
In pursuit of profits, PlanetOut -- like many other Internet content
companies -- is looking for ways to charge its customers. That's where the
charges for the new personal ad features come into play.
The charges will run $9.95 per month, or $29.95 for a full year, for such
features as an advanced search agent, e-mail notification, blocking of
certain personals and access to thumbnail photos.
Access to personal ads without those features will remain free. Smith said
it's not as if the company "did a bait-and-switch and took a totally free
product and started charging."
Smith meets the critics head-on, suggesting that Scott in particular might
have an ax to grind because he tried to buy Out. It was later sold to
Liberation Publications, publisher of the Advocate, and then PlanetOut
announced its intention to buy Liberation.
The deal to acquire the magazines was announced last March, but still hasn't
closed. Smith said the terms are being renegotiated because changes in the
market have changed the value of each company, and most of the deal is in
stock.
The merger with Gay.com's parent Online Partners was announced in November
and has been approved by the two companies' boards of directors, Smith said.
It is awaiting approval from state government.
Two specific incidents have incited PlanetOut's antagonists in recent
months. One was a spat between prominent gay journalist Andrew Sullivan and
the Advocate. The other involved the Advocate's and PlanetOut's sponsorship
and coverage of a large march in Washington, D.C.
Sullivan, a conservative, publicly ripped the Advocate for an interview it
published with then-President Clinton at a time when Sullivan was talking to
editors about contributing to the magazine. His heated criticism led
Advocate editor Judy Wieder to decide not to publish any of Sullivan's work.
"I said we need to give it time," Wieder said. "If we have Andrew write
while he's tearing down the Advocate, it makes it look like we agree with
his point of view."
Sullivan accused the magazine of banning him, but Wieder insists her
decision was temporary.
Now that things have cooled down, Wieder said, "I would be delighted to have
Andrew write for the Advocate anytime."
Still, Sullivan said in an e-mail, "I haven't been told yet whether the ban
on my stuff has yet been lifted from the Advocate and Out. You'd better ask
the censors."
Sullivan also said to count him among the critics of the gay media
consolidation. "I think the consolidation of gay media into one huge blob is
deeply disturbing," he wrote. "There's also a chilling liberal monopoly at
PlanetOut. . . . You can find virtually no independent or conservative
voices in the mix -- just the usual chorus of leftist whining and Democratic
Party apologists.
"I thought it would be hard for the gay media to get much worse, but this
monopoly is a truly depressing development. And where are all the media-
skeptical left-wingers who would usually protest such a concentration of
power? Oh, they're all working for PlanetOut."
Wieder and Smith denied the allegations, saying it's crucial that the
magazines and the Web sites keep a diversity of voices.
"As editorial director, it's important to me that individual properties or
Web sites have their own personalities, like personalities of your
children," Wieder said. "The idea that it would somehow all get homogenized
and lose its competition and its edge -- I don't think that would work."
Wieder also defended the magazine from criticism that it didn't aggressively
cover the failings of the Millennium March, a large gay pride gathering last
April in Washington, D.C., because it was a sponsor of the event. In the
aftermath of the march, thousands of dollars are missing and the FBI is
investigating.
Bill Dobbs, a gay activist and attorney in New York, said, "The Millennium
March mess taught many of us how the (gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender) community media is not doing its job. These mergers ought to
raise lots of red flags because a minority community is very vulnerable to
media manipulation of information."
But Wieder said the magazine has been among the most forceful critics of the
march. "We got criticism from people sponsoring the march, that they could
have used less bite from us," she said.
Media Bytes appears every Thursday in The Chronicle. Send buzz, dirt, tips
and comments to dfost@sfchronicle.com.
(c)2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page B1
Contact: Aaron Belkin
Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military
Univ. of California, Santa Barbara
(805) 893-5664; belkin@sscf.ucsb.edu
![[Up]](images/upicon.gif)
![[Previous]](images/previcon.gif)
![[Next]](images/nexticon.gif)
www.glinn.com Copyright © 2008 by GLINN Media Corporation