National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Denounces Bush Nomination of Pickering on Eve of Martin Luther King Day Weekend
Washington D.C., January 16, 2004 - The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force today denounced President Bush's recess appointment of Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr. to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, announced this afternoon. As a segregationist Mississippi state legislator in an all-white legislature in the 1960s, Pickering opposed measures aimed at expanding voting rights for African Americans. More recently, as a federal district court judge, Pickering has continued to display indifference or outright hostility to issues of racial equality. He opposes reproductive choice. As reported by the Jackson, Mississippi "Clarion Ledger" newspaper, Pickering equated homosexuality with other social problems in a 1984 speech before the Mississippi Southern Baptist Convention, saying that society has been degraded by such things as pornography, homosexuality and divorce, according to "The Clarion Ledger."
Following is a statement from National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Executive Director Matt Foreman on the appointment of Charles Pickering:
"Wednesday, in a bald attempt to win African American votes at the expense of gay Americans, the White House told the media of their plans to unveil a $1.5 billion dollar plan to promote marriage (as if the African American and gay communities are mutually exclusive communities). Yesterday, the President laid a wreath at the tomb of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, through a recess appointment, he anointed Charles Pickering to a U.S. Court of Appeals, an individual who has spent his life opposing everything Dr. King stood and fought for. This kind of hypocrisy is both breathtaking and appalling. We stand in solidarity with the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP of Mississippi and national NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and all fair-minded Americans in opposition to this action."
BRIEF BACKGROUND:
Judge Charles W. Pickering Sr: Nominated to: Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit Status of nomination: Defeated in committee 3/14/02; Renominated 1/7/03 Voted out of Committee 10/02/2003; Failed cloture vote 10/30/2003, 54 to 43 Appointed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by President George H.W. Bush, 1990.
Friday, January 16, 2004
Scheme Gives Religious Groups Special Treatment, Including Right To Discriminate With Public Funds
President George Bush's "faith-based" initiative rolls back vital civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Bush touted the plan today, January 15, 2004, in New Orleans in a visit to Union Bethel AME Church, a predominantly African-American congregation. Later in the day, he was scheduled to lay a wreath at the crypt of Dr. Martin Luther King in Atlanta.
Americans United, which has spearheaded opposition to the Bush plan, said the president is misleading the public about its true character.
"For years, the government has worked with religious groups to provide social services," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "But religious groups were required to play by the same rules that secular agencies followed.
"President Bush wants to give religious groups special treatment," Lynn continued. "He clearly has no understanding of the separation of church and state. The government has no business funding salvation and religious conversion. That's the job of our houses of worship."
Continued Lynn, "Under the president's plan, churches would be allowed to discriminate in hiring with public funds. That's taxpayer-subsidized job discrimination. This initiative would roll back nondiscrimination rules dating back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration.
"It is hypocritical of President Bush to lay a wreath at the grave of Dr. King on the same day he is pushing a plan to roll back vital civil rights protections," Lynn said. "This is disgraceful.
"Our Constitution forbids government-funded religion," Lynn concluded. "President Bush is trying to overturn two centuries of church-state separation."
The Bush initiative is stalled in Congress because of constitutional and civil rights concerns. Meanwhile, however, the administration has pushed for implementation through executive orders. Most religious and civil rights groups continue to oppose the president's plan.
President George Bush's "faith-based" initiative rolls back vital civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Bush touted the plan today, January 15, 2004, in New Orleans in a visit to Union Bethel AME Church, a predominantly African-American congregation. Later in the day, he was scheduled to lay a wreath at the crypt of Dr. Martin Luther King in Atlanta.
Americans United, which has spearheaded opposition to the Bush plan, said the president is misleading the public about its true character.
"For years, the government has worked with religious groups to provide social services," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "But religious groups were required to play by the same rules that secular agencies followed.
"President Bush wants to give religious groups special treatment," Lynn continued. "He clearly has no understanding of the separation of church and state. The government has no business funding salvation and religious conversion. That's the job of our houses of worship."
Continued Lynn, "Under the president's plan, churches would be allowed to discriminate in hiring with public funds. That's taxpayer-subsidized job discrimination. This initiative would roll back nondiscrimination rules dating back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's administration.
"It is hypocritical of President Bush to lay a wreath at the grave of Dr. King on the same day he is pushing a plan to roll back vital civil rights protections," Lynn said. "This is disgraceful.
"Our Constitution forbids government-funded religion," Lynn concluded. "President Bush is trying to overturn two centuries of church-state separation."
The Bush initiative is stalled in Congress because of constitutional and civil rights concerns. Meanwhile, however, the administration has pushed for implementation through executive orders. Most religious and civil rights groups continue to oppose the president's plan.
Thursday, January 15, 2004
Dear Friend of Choice,
In 1973, the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, which made abortion safe and legal, became the law of the land.
Thirty-one years later, I’m asking you to show your support to keep it that way: Join Working Assets members and their friends on Sunday, April 25, 2004, for the pro-choice March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C.
Why march? Because Roe v. Wade hangs in the balance as right-wing judicial appointees fill our courts. Because we cannot stand silently by while the current administration attacks reproductive freedom and strips our rights away. And because we need your voice for choice.
If you’re as concerned as I am about our reproductive rights, then register today to march — you don’t have to be a Working Assets customer. To reserve your free sign for the march, get updates, learn about special travel deals, tell your friends and more, click here.
I hope to see you in Washington, D.C.
Sincerely,
Laura Scher, CEO
Working Assets
P.S. Please sign up to join us at the pro-choice March for Women’s Lives in Washington, D.C. on Sunday, April 25, 2004. Now is the crucial time to show support for our reproductive rights! Click here to register.
PLEASE SEND QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO: info@actforchange.com.
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/hXA50BAvnU0Jm80POS0AI
Wednesday, January 14, 2004
http://www.wvgazette.com/
How would Jesus vote?
VARIOUS studies show a striking pattern: Americans who attend church ardently — especially fundamentalists — vote Republican nearly 2-to-1, while “unchurched” people vote Democratic by the same ratio.
Some GOP strategists — Karl Rove, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. — work constantly to mobilize this so-called “religious right” for Republican victories. They’ve had significant success.
But a glaring contradiction exists: Everything that Jesus stood for seems opposed by Republicans now in control of Washington.
Jesus said, “blessed are the peacemakers” — yet the Bush administration was hell-bent for war in Iraq, using fictitious alarms to justify it. A year before starting the war, President Bush swaggered privately in the White House: “F—- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
Jesus said, “blessed are the poor” and lived among the lowly — yet the Bush administration showered trillion-dollar tax giveaways on the wealthy, causing record deficits. The White House ignores 45 million “working poor” Americans who lack health insurance.
Jesus opposed the death penalty, saying, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” — yet President Bush set an all-time execution record when he was governor of Texas, and boasted of it.
Why on earth do so many churchgoers vote for the opposite of Jesus? This puzzle was hinted at recently in a New York Times commentary by Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners religious magazine.
“How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration’s failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure,” he wrote. “Neglect of the environment is a religious issue. Fighting pre-emptive wars based on false claims is a religious issue (a fact not changed by the capture of Saddam Hussein).”
Wallis noted that conservative worshippers support Bush because of issues such as “guns, God and gays... the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, marriage amendments, prayer in schools and, of course, abortion.” But he added: “Allowing the right to decide what is a religious issue would be both a moral and political tragedy.... True faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins.”
Former Charleston politician Charlie Peters, who moved to the nation’s capital and created The Washington Monthly, sometimes lamented that the “religious right” is powerful while the “religious left” is toothless. His concern is being addressed today by a coalition of liberal ministers called the Clergy Leadership Network for National Leadership Change, which formed to foster policies helping little people.
“God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and one’s faith in God is not based on what party they belong to,” the group declares. Its administrator, the Rev. Albert Pennybacker, added: “The main religious heritage of America is moderate and progressive — and that voice has not been heard in recent years.”
Although they’re evidently outnumbered 2-to-1 within churches, we hope members of this clergy movement can offset the sad pattern of churchgoers voting for the opposite of Christ’s values.
How would Jesus vote?
VARIOUS studies show a striking pattern: Americans who attend church ardently — especially fundamentalists — vote Republican nearly 2-to-1, while “unchurched” people vote Democratic by the same ratio.
Some GOP strategists — Karl Rove, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc. — work constantly to mobilize this so-called “religious right” for Republican victories. They’ve had significant success.
But a glaring contradiction exists: Everything that Jesus stood for seems opposed by Republicans now in control of Washington.
Jesus said, “blessed are the peacemakers” — yet the Bush administration was hell-bent for war in Iraq, using fictitious alarms to justify it. A year before starting the war, President Bush swaggered privately in the White House: “F—- Saddam. We’re taking him out.”
Jesus said, “blessed are the poor” and lived among the lowly — yet the Bush administration showered trillion-dollar tax giveaways on the wealthy, causing record deficits. The White House ignores 45 million “working poor” Americans who lack health insurance.
Jesus opposed the death penalty, saying, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” — yet President Bush set an all-time execution record when he was governor of Texas, and boasted of it.
Why on earth do so many churchgoers vote for the opposite of Jesus? This puzzle was hinted at recently in a New York Times commentary by Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners religious magazine.
“How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration’s failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure,” he wrote. “Neglect of the environment is a religious issue. Fighting pre-emptive wars based on false claims is a religious issue (a fact not changed by the capture of Saddam Hussein).”
Wallis noted that conservative worshippers support Bush because of issues such as “guns, God and gays... the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, marriage amendments, prayer in schools and, of course, abortion.” But he added: “Allowing the right to decide what is a religious issue would be both a moral and political tragedy.... True faith results in a compassionate concern for those on the margins.”
Former Charleston politician Charlie Peters, who moved to the nation’s capital and created The Washington Monthly, sometimes lamented that the “religious right” is powerful while the “religious left” is toothless. His concern is being addressed today by a coalition of liberal ministers called the Clergy Leadership Network for National Leadership Change, which formed to foster policies helping little people.
“God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and one’s faith in God is not based on what party they belong to,” the group declares. Its administrator, the Rev. Albert Pennybacker, added: “The main religious heritage of America is moderate and progressive — and that voice has not been heard in recent years.”
Although they’re evidently outnumbered 2-to-1 within churches, we hope members of this clergy movement can offset the sad pattern of churchgoers voting for the opposite of Christ’s values.
Register, Pray, Vote! Register to vote, update your address, or change your party registration - because your vote matters!
From Sojourners: Faith , Politics, Culture
1-14-04
The beginning of a debate
by Jim Wallis
We were quite overwhelmed with the response to my December 28 Sunday New York Times op-ed, titled "Putting God Back in Politics." The Times ran several letters to the editor, it created a vigorous dialogue in their chat room, and we received hundreds of e-mails ourselves - the vast majority positive. Nearly 20 other newspapers have either reprinted the piece or quoted it. We've learned it was discussed by several Democratic candidates and their staffs, and a dialogue with them has already begun. We also heard from the White House. Obviously, the topic of religion, moral values, and the election struck a nerve.
Since then, other media outlets have taken up the "religion question" and begun pressing candidates on their views. I've done several talk shows, and, in an interview on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor," I was amazed to hear host Bill O'Reilly concede that poverty and the environment were issues with religious dimensions. Beliefnet has helpfully published profiles of the religious backgrounds and perspectives of all the presidential candidates, and a debate is beginning on what all that does and should mean in this critical election year.
What I am saying in interviews is that the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout they might be, is less important than how their religious and/or moral commitments and values shape their political vision and their policy commitments. If one's religious and ethical convictions don't shape a candidate's (or a citizen's) public life, what kind of commitments are they? Yet in a democratic and pluralistic society, we don't want to evaluate candidates by which denomination or faith tradition they belong to (and only vote for the candidate in our group) or how often they attended church or synagogue (like a tally of votes missed by a member of Congress), but rather to understand the moral compass they bring to their public lives and how their convictions shape their political priorities.
There are already positive signs. While Howard Dean's initial forays into religion were clumsy at best (surely someone on his staff must have known that his "favorite New Testament book" of Job was, in fact, in the Old Testament), his concern about losing our "sense of community" in America is a deeply moral and religious one. Perhaps knowing what is contained in the books of the Bible is ultimately more important than knowing where they all are! Dick Gephardt is talking in Iowa about health care as a "moral issue," and John Edwards is sounding like a preacher when he declares that poverty is not only an economic concern, but is "about right and wrong," and that "poverty reduction is a moral responsibility." Joe Lieberman seems to be regaining his religious voice when he speaks about the poor, and John Kerry is talking about a "broken value system," and not just his war record. At least a few journalists think that Wesley Clark seems to be more comfortable than some of his colleagues about relating his faith journey to social justice. Dennis Kucinich has spoken of his moral values all along, and of course, Rev. Al Sharpton speaks like the Pentecostal preacher he is. All this is good. When George Bush starts campaigning in earnest, he may also have to be more explicit about how his personal faith applies to those same social issues.
In the midst of this discussion, former Christian Coalition leader and 700 Club host Pat Robertson sailed into the fray by telling his television audience: "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him. ...It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad; God picks him up because he's a man of prayer...."
Robertson and his comrade Jerry Falwell have become dependable media sources of outrageous or just plain stupid remarks about religion. Neither has deliverable constituencies anymore, but they have become ludicrous foils for those journalists eager to discredit religion. Having once claimed to control the direction of a hurricane and that liberals and feminists were the ones truly responsible for the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, Robertson's powers of discernment regarding the outcome of this election may cause some to doubt his certainty. More important, the public conversation about religious and moral values in this election year might have the potential to be a serious and thoughtful discussion, leaving the Robertsons and Falwells as the humorous asides they deserve to be.
1-14-04
The beginning of a debate
by Jim Wallis
We were quite overwhelmed with the response to my December 28 Sunday New York Times op-ed, titled "Putting God Back in Politics." The Times ran several letters to the editor, it created a vigorous dialogue in their chat room, and we received hundreds of e-mails ourselves - the vast majority positive. Nearly 20 other newspapers have either reprinted the piece or quoted it. We've learned it was discussed by several Democratic candidates and their staffs, and a dialogue with them has already begun. We also heard from the White House. Obviously, the topic of religion, moral values, and the election struck a nerve.
Since then, other media outlets have taken up the "religion question" and begun pressing candidates on their views. I've done several talk shows, and, in an interview on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor," I was amazed to hear host Bill O'Reilly concede that poverty and the environment were issues with religious dimensions. Beliefnet has helpfully published profiles of the religious backgrounds and perspectives of all the presidential candidates, and a debate is beginning on what all that does and should mean in this critical election year.
What I am saying in interviews is that the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout they might be, is less important than how their religious and/or moral commitments and values shape their political vision and their policy commitments. If one's religious and ethical convictions don't shape a candidate's (or a citizen's) public life, what kind of commitments are they? Yet in a democratic and pluralistic society, we don't want to evaluate candidates by which denomination or faith tradition they belong to (and only vote for the candidate in our group) or how often they attended church or synagogue (like a tally of votes missed by a member of Congress), but rather to understand the moral compass they bring to their public lives and how their convictions shape their political priorities.
There are already positive signs. While Howard Dean's initial forays into religion were clumsy at best (surely someone on his staff must have known that his "favorite New Testament book" of Job was, in fact, in the Old Testament), his concern about losing our "sense of community" in America is a deeply moral and religious one. Perhaps knowing what is contained in the books of the Bible is ultimately more important than knowing where they all are! Dick Gephardt is talking in Iowa about health care as a "moral issue," and John Edwards is sounding like a preacher when he declares that poverty is not only an economic concern, but is "about right and wrong," and that "poverty reduction is a moral responsibility." Joe Lieberman seems to be regaining his religious voice when he speaks about the poor, and John Kerry is talking about a "broken value system," and not just his war record. At least a few journalists think that Wesley Clark seems to be more comfortable than some of his colleagues about relating his faith journey to social justice. Dennis Kucinich has spoken of his moral values all along, and of course, Rev. Al Sharpton speaks like the Pentecostal preacher he is. All this is good. When George Bush starts campaigning in earnest, he may also have to be more explicit about how his personal faith applies to those same social issues.
In the midst of this discussion, former Christian Coalition leader and 700 Club host Pat Robertson sailed into the fray by telling his television audience: "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him. ...It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad; God picks him up because he's a man of prayer...."
Robertson and his comrade Jerry Falwell have become dependable media sources of outrageous or just plain stupid remarks about religion. Neither has deliverable constituencies anymore, but they have become ludicrous foils for those journalists eager to discredit religion. Having once claimed to control the direction of a hurricane and that liberals and feminists were the ones truly responsible for the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, Robertson's powers of discernment regarding the outcome of this election may cause some to doubt his certainty. More important, the public conversation about religious and moral values in this election year might have the potential to be a serious and thoughtful discussion, leaving the Robertsons and Falwells as the humorous asides they deserve to be.
President Bush's "Promotion of Marriage" Initiative Called Cynical Election Year Ploy to Exploit the Hot-Button Issue of Gay Marriage in the African American Community
Washington D.C. January 14, 2004. NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MATT FOREMAN RESPONDS TO BUSH ADMINISTRATION $1.5 BILLION 'MARRIAGE PROPOSAL' -- "The Bush administration promotion of marriage proposal, reported today, is not about helping couples or promoting marriage. Instead, this is a cynical election-year ploy to exploit the hot-button issue of gay marriage in the African American community.
"Struggling families do not need $1.5 billion worth of marriage counseling. More importantly, they need jobs, health coverage, and decent schools for their children. Bush has presided over the greatest job loss since Herbert Hoover. They should call this proposal 'A Marriage Counselor in Every Pot.' This is wedge politics at a base and reprehensible level.
"The White House has already outlined its plan. During the campaign, the President will present himself to Black churches as a "compassionate conservative" seeking to "promote marriage," Of course, the real message will be fueling the notion that extending equal marriage rights to gay people threatens the institution of marriage and highlighting the president's opposition to that.
"It is cruelly ironic that even just days after Bush and Cheney endorsed an amendment that would write discrimination into the Constitution and prevent courts from granting the most basic forms of recognition to gay couples -- even things that cost nothing, such as hospital visitation rights -- Bush wants to throw billions to marriage counselors as an alleged solution to problems married couples face. Gay people who want to marry are not a threat to straight couples, and billions for marriage counseling are not the solutions to the problems straight couples are experiencing. What struggling families really need are jobs, health coverage and decent schools for their children.
"This administration knows that a Democrat cannot win in the fall without overwhelming African American support and turnout, like that enjoyed by Al Gore in 2000, who got 90% of black votes. They also know that surveys show that support for equal marriage rights for gay people is significantly lower in the African American community. Presto! They plan to pit two of the Democratic Party's most solid blocs of support the African American and gay communities (70% of gay voters backed Gore in 2000) against each other and wedge off the votes they need to stay in power. They are grand masters at this kind of divisive politics. In past elections they have successfully scapegoated immigrants and poor women, and exploited issues of race and choice. This time around, they are trying to make gay marriage the Willie Horton of the 2004 election cycle.
"This is not the first time President Bush has attempted to pit African Americans against gays, as if these are mutually exclusive categories. Last June the Bush Administration sent a memo to Congress portraying local and state gay rights laws as a hindrance to meeting the service needs of "this country's black and brown urban poor." The administration urged Congress to allow faith-based service providers to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation for jobs paid for with public funds, which it portrayed as essential to preserving the "civil rights and religious liberty" of these religious groups. *
"Pundits who think this proposal is an attempt to satisfy the President's base on the extreme political and religious right are sadly mistaken. No matter how much rhetorical red meat or how many billions the President sends their way, they will never be satisfied until the President bows and expresses his unequivocal support for the constitutional amendment."
Media Reports on Marriage Promotion Plan: The Bush administration is preparing to unveil a $1.5 billion proposal to "sustain marriage." Media reports say that this proposal is a result of intense pressure by conservatives seeking to "defend traditional marriage" which has increased since the recent decision of the Massachusetts supreme court that denying gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional. The ultimate goal of this broad coalition of conservative religious organizations is getting the President to fully support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would deny the right to marry to same-sex couples and restrict the recognition of relationships outside of marriage, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. (On December 15, the President said he would support the amendment "if necessary.")
According to Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary of the health and human services department, the marriage promotion programs will "help couples, especially low-income couples, manage conflict in healthy ways." Mr. Horn said that money for marriage promotion would only be available to heterosexual couples, citing a 1996 federal law that seeks to define and limit marriage to between persons of the opposite sex.
Today's New York Times quotes administration officials saying that during the re-election campaign the President will likely visit programs trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighborhoods. An anonymous White House source states, "The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches and he's very good at it."
For detailed critical analysis of the forces behind marriage promotion and its rationale, see a December 2001Task Force report on welfare reform that examines the Marriage Movement and the Fatherhood Movement (founded by Wade Horn, now the architect and key policymaker of Bush's $1.5 billion marriage promotion proposal), state experimentation with marriage promotion, and how these policies hurt gay families, especially lesbian mothers.
Leaving Our Children Behind: Welfare Reform and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community, can be found at: http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/WelfRef.pdf
* More details can be found in a report on the Bush-Cheney Administration's records on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues that The Task Force will releasing later this week at: www.thetaskforce.org/
Washington D.C. January 14, 2004. NATIONAL GAY AND LESBIAN TASK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MATT FOREMAN RESPONDS TO BUSH ADMINISTRATION $1.5 BILLION 'MARRIAGE PROPOSAL' -- "The Bush administration promotion of marriage proposal, reported today, is not about helping couples or promoting marriage. Instead, this is a cynical election-year ploy to exploit the hot-button issue of gay marriage in the African American community.
"Struggling families do not need $1.5 billion worth of marriage counseling. More importantly, they need jobs, health coverage, and decent schools for their children. Bush has presided over the greatest job loss since Herbert Hoover. They should call this proposal 'A Marriage Counselor in Every Pot.' This is wedge politics at a base and reprehensible level.
"The White House has already outlined its plan. During the campaign, the President will present himself to Black churches as a "compassionate conservative" seeking to "promote marriage," Of course, the real message will be fueling the notion that extending equal marriage rights to gay people threatens the institution of marriage and highlighting the president's opposition to that.
"It is cruelly ironic that even just days after Bush and Cheney endorsed an amendment that would write discrimination into the Constitution and prevent courts from granting the most basic forms of recognition to gay couples -- even things that cost nothing, such as hospital visitation rights -- Bush wants to throw billions to marriage counselors as an alleged solution to problems married couples face. Gay people who want to marry are not a threat to straight couples, and billions for marriage counseling are not the solutions to the problems straight couples are experiencing. What struggling families really need are jobs, health coverage and decent schools for their children.
"This administration knows that a Democrat cannot win in the fall without overwhelming African American support and turnout, like that enjoyed by Al Gore in 2000, who got 90% of black votes. They also know that surveys show that support for equal marriage rights for gay people is significantly lower in the African American community. Presto! They plan to pit two of the Democratic Party's most solid blocs of support the African American and gay communities (70% of gay voters backed Gore in 2000) against each other and wedge off the votes they need to stay in power. They are grand masters at this kind of divisive politics. In past elections they have successfully scapegoated immigrants and poor women, and exploited issues of race and choice. This time around, they are trying to make gay marriage the Willie Horton of the 2004 election cycle.
"This is not the first time President Bush has attempted to pit African Americans against gays, as if these are mutually exclusive categories. Last June the Bush Administration sent a memo to Congress portraying local and state gay rights laws as a hindrance to meeting the service needs of "this country's black and brown urban poor." The administration urged Congress to allow faith-based service providers to discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation for jobs paid for with public funds, which it portrayed as essential to preserving the "civil rights and religious liberty" of these religious groups. *
"Pundits who think this proposal is an attempt to satisfy the President's base on the extreme political and religious right are sadly mistaken. No matter how much rhetorical red meat or how many billions the President sends their way, they will never be satisfied until the President bows and expresses his unequivocal support for the constitutional amendment."
Media Reports on Marriage Promotion Plan: The Bush administration is preparing to unveil a $1.5 billion proposal to "sustain marriage." Media reports say that this proposal is a result of intense pressure by conservatives seeking to "defend traditional marriage" which has increased since the recent decision of the Massachusetts supreme court that denying gay couples the right to marry is unconstitutional. The ultimate goal of this broad coalition of conservative religious organizations is getting the President to fully support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would deny the right to marry to same-sex couples and restrict the recognition of relationships outside of marriage, such as domestic partnerships and civil unions. (On December 15, the President said he would support the amendment "if necessary.")
According to Wade F. Horn, assistant secretary of the health and human services department, the marriage promotion programs will "help couples, especially low-income couples, manage conflict in healthy ways." Mr. Horn said that money for marriage promotion would only be available to heterosexual couples, citing a 1996 federal law that seeks to define and limit marriage to between persons of the opposite sex.
Today's New York Times quotes administration officials saying that during the re-election campaign the President will likely visit programs trying to raise marriage rates in poor neighborhoods. An anonymous White House source states, "The president loves to do that sort of thing in the inner city with black churches and he's very good at it."
For detailed critical analysis of the forces behind marriage promotion and its rationale, see a December 2001Task Force report on welfare reform that examines the Marriage Movement and the Fatherhood Movement (founded by Wade Horn, now the architect and key policymaker of Bush's $1.5 billion marriage promotion proposal), state experimentation with marriage promotion, and how these policies hurt gay families, especially lesbian mothers.
Leaving Our Children Behind: Welfare Reform and the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community, can be found at: http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/WelfRef.pdf
* More details can be found in a report on the Bush-Cheney Administration's records on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues that The Task Force will releasing later this week at: www.thetaskforce.org/
Candlelight Vigil
Sunday, Jan 18th, 2004, 4:45-6pm at
Ben T Davis Beach (Curtney Campbell Causeway across from the northside boat ramp)
We will be holding a candlelight vigil on the Courtney Campbell bridge at the Ben T. Davis beach. There will be a few messages spoken on the missing men, and a sunlight candle vigil.
This is a Vigil to show support for the missing men and victim, we need to make this a very large event to make a point to the local law enforcement and community. We must show whoever may be responsible for the disappearance of these men we are not afraid. Please gt as many people as you can to attend, only for a hour, and to show your support.
We are asking that you bring
* a candle to light at sunset and
* a white rose to place at the pictures.
We also are looking for the following things:
* a bullhorn or a non electric Public Address system
* a large banner to make a sign stating the event
Anyone with Gay.com Chat Logs from December 11th- 23rd, 2003, please burn it to a Cdrom Disk if possible save it in Word/Excel. Contact mdr4508@yahoo.com for more information.
We are asking that you pass this email along to Everyone,
There will also be a life celebration ceremony after the vigil. (see below)
I hope to see everyone there, please email me for any more information needed.
Thanks
Micheal D. Ramsey, Citrus/Hernando Coordinator for Equality Florida.
Life Celebration for
Michael Wachholtz
10/26/77 – Christmas ‘03
Sunday, January 18, 2004, 7:00 pm
Hosted by Mike’s Friends.
at Georgie’s Alibi, 3100 3rd Ave N,
Saint Petersburg (727-321-2112)
A Party you’ll never forget,
celebrating the life of a friend
we will always Remember.
Sunday, Jan 18th, 2004, 4:45-6pm at
Ben T Davis Beach (Curtney Campbell Causeway across from the northside boat ramp)
We will be holding a candlelight vigil on the Courtney Campbell bridge at the Ben T. Davis beach. There will be a few messages spoken on the missing men, and a sunlight candle vigil.
This is a Vigil to show support for the missing men and victim, we need to make this a very large event to make a point to the local law enforcement and community. We must show whoever may be responsible for the disappearance of these men we are not afraid. Please gt as many people as you can to attend, only for a hour, and to show your support.
We are asking that you bring
* a candle to light at sunset and
* a white rose to place at the pictures.
We also are looking for the following things:
* a bullhorn or a non electric Public Address system
* a large banner to make a sign stating the event
Anyone with Gay.com Chat Logs from December 11th- 23rd, 2003, please burn it to a Cdrom Disk if possible save it in Word/Excel. Contact mdr4508@yahoo.com for more information.
We are asking that you pass this email along to Everyone,
There will also be a life celebration ceremony after the vigil. (see below)
I hope to see everyone there, please email me for any more information needed.
Thanks
Micheal D. Ramsey, Citrus/Hernando Coordinator for Equality Florida.
Life Celebration for
Michael Wachholtz
10/26/77 – Christmas ‘03
Sunday, January 18, 2004, 7:00 pm
Hosted by Mike’s Friends.
at Georgie’s Alibi, 3100 3rd Ave N,
Saint Petersburg (727-321-2112)
A Party you’ll never forget,
celebrating the life of a friend
we will always Remember.
Freedom To Marry - Valentine's Week February 9-15, 2004
For more than 35 years, the predominantly GLBT Metropolitan Community Churches have worked to make legal marriage rights available to all people, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons.
Every year, MCC churches perform more than 6000 same-sex weddings -- weddings that are recognized by God and by our GLBT communities, but not by the civil authorities.
The reality is that many nations of the world -- including Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands -- have moved far beyond the United States by providing legal marriage benefits to same-sex couples. And this past year, U.S. citizens scored a major victory when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in that state.
Part of my interest in this cause grows out of 35 years of activism on behalf of human rights: I want to see all people receive equality under the law, including the marriage laws.
That's why I'm inviting GLBT couples to advance the cause of same-sex marriage rights by taking part in same-sex marriage actions during Valentine's Week, Feb. 9-15, 2004. This year, a wide array of GLBT and GLBT-friendly organizations, including DontAmend.com, HRC, PFLAG, NGLTF, ACLU, LLEGO, Marriage Equality, Freedom To Marry, Lambda Legal and many others are promoting special marriage events throughout Valentine's Week.
One of the most effective things you can do is to go to municipal offices and courthouses during Valentine's Week to apply for marriage licenses -- and to call attention to the discrimination inherent in the current marriage laws.
How can you participate? Simply follow the action steps below to join me in this important annual GLBT event -- and make a difference in your own community. -- Rev. Troy D. Perry, MCC Founder and Moderator
If you would like King of Peace, MCC to actively participate in "Freedom to Marry," please contact Kay Wade at 727-323-5857 x-206.
For more than 35 years, the predominantly GLBT Metropolitan Community Churches have worked to make legal marriage rights available to all people, including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons.
Every year, MCC churches perform more than 6000 same-sex weddings -- weddings that are recognized by God and by our GLBT communities, but not by the civil authorities.
The reality is that many nations of the world -- including Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, and the Netherlands -- have moved far beyond the United States by providing legal marriage benefits to same-sex couples. And this past year, U.S. citizens scored a major victory when the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage in that state.
Part of my interest in this cause grows out of 35 years of activism on behalf of human rights: I want to see all people receive equality under the law, including the marriage laws.
That's why I'm inviting GLBT couples to advance the cause of same-sex marriage rights by taking part in same-sex marriage actions during Valentine's Week, Feb. 9-15, 2004. This year, a wide array of GLBT and GLBT-friendly organizations, including DontAmend.com, HRC, PFLAG, NGLTF, ACLU, LLEGO, Marriage Equality, Freedom To Marry, Lambda Legal and many others are promoting special marriage events throughout Valentine's Week.
One of the most effective things you can do is to go to municipal offices and courthouses during Valentine's Week to apply for marriage licenses -- and to call attention to the discrimination inherent in the current marriage laws.
How can you participate? Simply follow the action steps below to join me in this important annual GLBT event -- and make a difference in your own community. -- Rev. Troy D. Perry, MCC Founder and Moderator
If you would like King of Peace, MCC to actively participate in "Freedom to Marry," please contact Kay Wade at 727-323-5857 x-206.
Soulforce Signs on to “Friend of the Court” Brief in Massachusetts Calling Civil Unions "Separate and Unequal"
(January 13, 2004) - Today, GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) and other legal experts filed “Friend of the Court” Briefs arguing that the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) granting equal marriage rights would not be satisfied with a “civil unions” bill. Soulforce signed on to the “Amici Curiae Brief of Civil Rights Leaders.”
The expert briefs were filed in response to the Massachusetts Senate’s request for an advisory opinion from the SJC as to whether a civil unions bill would satisfy the SJC’s ruling that granted equal marriage rights in the state of Massachusetts to same-gender couples in the case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health.
“The Amici Curiae Brief of Civil Right Leaders” states that creating a separate status for same-sex couples is not equality, and separate is inherently unequal. The Massachusetts Constitution strictly forbids any system that creates a separate, second-class status of citizens.
“Soulforce, Inc is pleased to have signed on to this brief, written on behalf of John Lewis, one of the original speakers at the 1963 March on Washington, the Boston Bar Association, and 27 other local and national civil rights groups,” said Karen Weldin, Soulforce Director of Operations. “We look forward to the day when all people will be treated equally, with dignity and respect, and no one will be regarded as a second class citizen in a country that guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Soulforce is a national interfaith network committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teaching against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Soulforce teaches and employs the nonviolent principles of M. K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to the liberation of sexual and gender minorities.
Founded in 1978, 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. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) were lawyers for the seven same-sex couples who won an historic court victory on Nov. 18, 20-03, in the case of Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health which granted equal civil marriage rights in Massachusetts.
For more information on Soulforce, see www.soulforce.org. For more information on GLAD, see www.glad.org.
(January 13, 2004) - Today, GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) and other legal experts filed “Friend of the Court” Briefs arguing that the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) granting equal marriage rights would not be satisfied with a “civil unions” bill. Soulforce signed on to the “Amici Curiae Brief of Civil Rights Leaders.”
The expert briefs were filed in response to the Massachusetts Senate’s request for an advisory opinion from the SJC as to whether a civil unions bill would satisfy the SJC’s ruling that granted equal marriage rights in the state of Massachusetts to same-gender couples in the case of Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health.
“The Amici Curiae Brief of Civil Right Leaders” states that creating a separate status for same-sex couples is not equality, and separate is inherently unequal. The Massachusetts Constitution strictly forbids any system that creates a separate, second-class status of citizens.
“Soulforce, Inc is pleased to have signed on to this brief, written on behalf of John Lewis, one of the original speakers at the 1963 March on Washington, the Boston Bar Association, and 27 other local and national civil rights groups,” said Karen Weldin, Soulforce Director of Operations. “We look forward to the day when all people will be treated equally, with dignity and respect, and no one will be regarded as a second class citizen in a country that guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Soulforce is a national interfaith network committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teaching against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Soulforce teaches and employs the nonviolent principles of M. K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. to the liberation of sexual and gender minorities.
Founded in 1978, 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. Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) were lawyers for the seven same-sex couples who won an historic court victory on Nov. 18, 20-03, in the case of Goodridge v. Dept of Public Health which granted equal civil marriage rights in Massachusetts.
For more information on Soulforce, see www.soulforce.org. For more information on GLAD, see www.glad.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)