Yeah, It's Like That!

I just had no idea it was education via cable television!

Is this what cats get out of our programs? A kind of hidden signal buried in a wavelength humans can't perceive?!

Hmmmm.......

Oh, What Next?

School Costume Event Draws Church Ire
by The Associated Press

Posted: April 7, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Reedsburg, Wisconsin) An elementary-school event in which kids were encouraged to dress as members of the opposite gender drew the ire of a Christian radio group, whose angry broadcast prompted outraged calls to the district office.

Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week.

On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.

A local resident informed the Voice of Christian Youth America on Friday.

The Milwaukee-based radio network responded by interrupting its morning programming for a special broadcast that aired on nine radio stations throughout Wisconsin.

The broadcast criticized the dress-up day and accused the district of promoting alternative lifestyles.

``We believe it's the wrong message to send to elementary students,'' said Jim Schneider, the network's program director. ``Our station is one that promotes traditional family values.

``It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error.''

Schneider co-hosts ``Crosstalk,'' a nationally syndicated call-in Christian radio show.

After the program aired, both the school and Reedsburg School District office were flooded with calls complaining about the event.

The response surprised Principal Tammy Hayes, who said no-one had raised any objections beforehand.

She said a flier detailing Wacky Week had been sent home with children the prior week, and an announcement was also included in teacher newsletters.

The dress-up day was not an attempt to promote cross-dressing, homosexuality or alternative gender roles, district administrator Tom Benson said.

``The promotion of transgenderism _ that was not our purpose,'' Benson told the Baraboo News Republic. ``Our purpose was to have a Wacky Week, mixing in a bit of silliness with our reading, writing and arithmetic.''

This is a prime example of what is wrong with the world today.

Completely missing the point that it is "WACKY WEEK" at the school, some moron could only see that the kids were encouraged to dress as someone of the opposite sex.

They ignored the dressing as someone elderly option.
They ignored that this was in the spirit of fun.
They ignored that this makes the kids use their minds and be creative.

Why?

They are ignorant!

So now a whole brouhaha has erupted from some innocent fun.

I suppose the same people who are aghast at this were adversely affected by Jack Benny, Jackie Gleason, Bob Hope, Milton Berle, Harvey Korman, Dustin Hoffman, Patrick Swayze, John Leguizamo, Wesley Snipes and Robin Williams dressing as women as well. We can see how dressing as women led to those actors' slippery slopes towards Hell.

Why can't these righteous, pompously pious, I-must-stick-my-nose-into-someone-else's-business "Christians" (I quote that because we all know they are not) keep their "family values" to themselves?

If they never want to experience any fun at all, that's fine by me. The school here is just trying to get the kids to engage in an activity that exercises their creativity. Disguised as fun, (which being creative is) this helps to exercise a part of the kids' minds that is unfortunately neglected in today's world of standardized tests and budgetary constraints. Art and music education aids children in learning how to "think outside the box" and develop problem-solving skills they need for math and science.

Oh, I forgot...fundamentalist Christians don't want those kind of "smart (aleck) kids"...

Love Shoe!

Clinton talks; Obama balks

By Mark Segal and Sarah Blazucki
(c) 2008 Philadelphia Gay News

The Democratic race for president has been heating up for months. And
where once eight contenders graced the national stage, only two have
made it to Pennsylvania' s primary: Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama. In these months, an alliance of LGBT papers sought to speak with
the top three contenders - Clinton, Obama and former Sen. John Edwards -
to no avail. Now, with the delegate spread hovering around 150, smaller
constituencies, including the LGBT community and their superdelegates,
are playing a larger role.

PGN invited both Clinton and Obama, as well as presumptive Republican
candidate John McCain, to speak with us. Only Clinton granted an
interview.

PGN: I assume that you and President Clinton have gay friends. Can you
give me your impression of one of those couples that you socialize with,
without giving any names?
Hillary Clinton: Oh my gosh. There are so many of them. I know that Mark
[Walsh, Clinton's national director of LGBT outreach] is on the phone.
Let me say this, we don't get to socialize a lot. But when we do, it's
usually at a big event where we get to see people and spend time with
them. This is something I want to do more of as soon as I finish this
presidential campaign. It's sort of hard to pick out people. We go to
some events in Washington and New York. I've got friends, literally,
around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life.

PGN: How would you respond to those friends if they asked you why they
can't get married?
HC: What I say is that marriage is in the province of the state, which
has actually turned out to be lucky for us, because we didn't have to
get beaten on the Federal Marriage Amendment because we could make,
among other arguments, that it was such a stretch for the federal
government and it was wrong to enshrine discrimination in the
Constitution. And that states are really beginning seriously to deal
with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their
own state constitutions and under the legislative approach. I anticipate
that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple
of years that will move this important issue forward and different
states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over
many years and you will see an evolution over time.

PGN: What will you do to improve the immigration policy for same-sex
couples?
HC: I think that that's one of the biggest problems that we've got to
contend with. Even states that have civil unions, domestic partnerships
or even marriage laws are running into roadblocks with the federal
government when it comes to federal benefits and privileges. Of course,
immigration is a federal responsibility and I am going to do everything
I can to eliminate any disparities in any benefits or rights under our
law at the federal level so that all people will have available to them
every right as an American citizen that they should, and that would
include immigration law.

PGN: What changes would you make toward governments that execute gay
people, such as Iran, Egypt and Iraq and numerous other countries in the
Middle East and Africa? Will you offer political asylum?
HC: I would be very strongly outspoken about this and it would be part
of American foreign policy. There are a number of gross human-rights
abuses that countries engage in with whom we have relations and we have
to be really vigilant and outspoken in our total repudiation of those
kinds of actions and do everything we can, including using our leverage
on matters such as aid, to change the behavior so we can try to prevent
such atrocities from happening.

PGN: In 1948, President Truman issued an executive order banning
discrimination based on race. Would you issue an executive order or a
signing order with a military appropriations bill to temporarily - until
Congress had a chance to deal with it - end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"
HC: If I were legally able to do it. I don't know what the legal
framework would be because you remember that, in the face of what Bill
[Clinton] was trying to do in '93, the act, by veto, proved majorities
made prohibitions on doing that. So whether the president has authority
to do it by executive order or not, I'm not sure. But I have been
committed for more than nine years to eliminating "Don't Ask, Don't
Tell."

PGN: Could you do so via a signing order connected to a military
appropriations bill?
HC: No. I don't think so. I will have that examined, but I don't think
so. What a signing order can do, a signing statement, what Bush has
done, is to say you're not going to enforce certain aspects of a law
that's been passed. This is different. There's a law already on the
books, which says the president cannot waive "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
But nobody has ever asked it of me quite like that. I don't think the
president would have the authority. I think we'd have to get it changed
by legislation, but I will look into that.

PGN: You co-sponsored the Domestic-Partnershi p Benefits and Obligation
Act for federal employees. Would you support federal domestic-partner
legislation to give rights to all LGBT citizens, not just federal
employees?
HC: Of course. But I think the reason why I have zeroed in on the
Obligations Act is because that's what's in the province of the federal
government and I think we might be able to get that passed. But I would
certainly sign anything that was broader too.

PGN: In states like New Jersey and Massachusetts and others that have
passed domestic-partner bills or civil-union bills, one of the major
roadblocks they find is the federal tax codes or joint filings for IRS
returns. What could we do about that?
HC: That's one of the laws we have to change. I will have a
comprehensive review, and I think a lot of that work has already been
done, to look at everything that is discriminatory in the tax code or in
any other aspect of federal law. And we will try to eliminate all of
that discrimination. I think we will have a good argument, ironically,
because I think we can say, look, the states are making determinations
about extending rights to same-sex couples in various forms and the
federal government should recognize that and should extend the same
access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to
achieve that.

PGN: Should the Department of Education give local school districts and
teachers direction on presenting GLBT-positive lesson plans?
HC: That's an area that you can get direction from the federal
government but the federal government doesn't have any real authority. I
think there was some guidance given during the Clinton administration
and I will look into that and see if there is some additional guidance
that could be given.

PGN: Currently before the Pennsylvania legislature is an anti-gay
marriage bill that would be on the Pennsylvania ballot in 2010, when
your colleague, Sen. Arlen Specter, is up for reelection. What advice
would you give him and our legislators?
HC: Don't pass it. I really hope that that doesn't go anywhere. I would
be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of
mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won't happen.

PGN: How would you improve services for GLBT youth and seniors?
HC: I would be guided by advice by the LGBT community about the
additional kind of services that would be needed on top of the general
services that were available. For example, I've done a lot of work in
supporting the LGBT community here in New York to deal with the special
problems that adolescents face: the high suicide rates, the sense of
alienation and the experiences with bullies. I think there's a lot of
very specific and difficult challenges that LGBT young people face.
Obviously, I want to protect our young people and I want to give them
access to the services that they need. I believe the idea of guidance at
schools is important so that schools are well aware of how much more
intense the mistreatment of LGBT kids happens to be. I think we need to
do everything we can to try to protect our kids and give them a chance
to have a productive and safe childhood and adolescence, and I would
certainly zero in on that.

PGN: As first lady and as senator, you've lent your presence and support
to various gay organizations by being present at gay Pride celebrations
and so forth. When elected president, would you continue to do such?
HC: To the extent that security would permit. That's one of the
challenges of being president. I don't think the Secret Service let Bill
walk in a parade when he became president. I had a lot more flexibility
as first lady. I have more flexibility as a senator. I'll see how much
they try to trim my sails as president.

PGN: If you win the nomination, will you speak with PGN as the
Democratic nominee for president?
HC: Absolutely and I'll speak to you as president.

GOP Former Senator Slashes Bush On Gay Marriage, War, Abortion

Sad that none of what I read here surprised me in any way. It just reaffirmed everything I believed had been going on since Dubya took office.

by The Associated Press

Posted: March 25, 2008 - 5:00 pm ET

(Providence, Rhode Island) Former Rhode Island Senator. Lincoln Chafee often seemed to be odd man out in Washington.

He was one of the Senate's most liberal Republicans, bucking his party on big issues such as Iraq, tax cuts, abortion and the environment. His reserved, sometimes quirky personality was never a smooth fit in the clubby Senate, where friendships can mean more than political ties in making things happen.

In his new political memoir, Chafee revels in his outsider status as he chronicles his disillusionment with the bitter partisanship that dominated his seven years in the Senate. He wields a broad brush, heaping blame on Republicans and Democrats alike for putting party loyalty and ambition ahead of the public good.

Chafee points plenty of fingers, but President George W. Bush, whom Chafee backed in 2000, earns his harshest scorn.

He brands Bush as two-faced for solemnly promising during the campaign to be a ``uniter, not a divider,'' but later pursuing a hard-line GOP agenda using wedge issues like abortion and gay rights. Chafee complains about Bush's ``juvenile streak.'' And he rails at Bush's pretending to search for weapons of mass destruction behind the White House furniture during a skit at a black-tie Washington dinner.

``It was obscene for him to joke about a falsehood that American troops had gone to their graves believing,'' Chafee writes.

As U.S. casualties in Iraq mounted in fall 2003, Chafee says he even considered a primary challenge against Bush but quickly scrapped the idea after Saddam Hussein's capture boosted the president's political stock.

Chafee bemoans the GOP's rightward drift and the disappearance of moderate Republicans such as himself. Chafee's independence was a matter of political survival in a Democratic-leaning state.

Chafee's hopes for a second full term were dashed in 2006 by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse in the Democratic wave that swept control of Congress from the GOP. Chafee in 2004 voted for Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, as a symbolic protest against the younger Bush. Last year he became an independent.

Readers may detect a bit of pettiness, too. Chafee does not bother to refer to his 2006 GOP primary opponent Steve Laffey by name.

He recalls being ``irked and amused'' at the parade of ``Democratic Bush enablers'' who campaigned in Rhode Island for Whitehouse, such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

``I was the only candidate in the race with a record of standing up to entrenched powers,'' writes Chafee, the lone GOP senator to vote against authorizing the Iraq war.

The seeds of bitterness with Bush were sown early on.

Chafee recalls Vice-President Dick Cheney outlining a ``shockingly divisive'' agenda during a meeting with a handful of moderate GOP senators shortly after Bush won the presidency in 2000.

``Cheney was not asking for support _ he was ordering us to provide it,'' writes Chafee, who somehow seems surprised at such hardball tactics by Cheney, a man infamous for his take-no-prisoners brand of politicking. Chafee, too, seems stunned that none of his GOP colleagues put up much of a fight.

Chafee reminded Cheney that the votes of their small group of moderates would matter in a closely divided Senate.

``I chose my words carefully, and probably stammered with the effort to contain my fury,'' he writes.

Cheney, ever the conservative warrior, brushed Chafee aside.

Six years later, Rhode Island voters did roughly the same thing, ending the political balancing act that was Chafee's Senate career.

Sometimes You Just Want to Tear Your Hair Out!

Reading ridiculous stories such as this:

by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: March 25, 2008 - 10:30 am ET

(Atlanta, Georgia) The Georgia Court of Appeals has overturned a criminal contempt charge against a woman who was sentenced to 10-days in jail for not handing her daughter over to foster care after she lost custody solely because she’s a lesbian.

The little girl, now aged seven, was eventually returned to Elizabeth Hadaway but the contempt sentence had not been rescinded, although it had been stayed to allow Hadaway to appeal.

The appeals court ruled a year and a day after the lower court judge passed the sentence.

"Just yesterday I was watching Emma hunt for Easter eggs and thinking how the possibility of going to jail and being separated from her again made it hard to just enjoy the moment,” said Elizabeth Hadaway, a 29-year-old paramedic who first took in the little girl when the child’s biological mother asked her to raise and adopt the little girl named Emma.

"I’m just so grateful that the court has lifted this burden so we can move on and I can keep focused on making sure Emma has a happy home and a good life."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented her in the appeal and secured the little girl’s return home from foster care last May, applauded the appeals court decision.

"We’re pleased that the court has agreed with us that Elizabeth Hadaway shouldn’t do jail time simply for doing the right thing for her child, but it’s unfortunate that it’s taken almost two years of court proceedings to end up with things where Elizabeth, Emma, and Emma’s biological mom wanted them to be in the first place," said Debbie Seagraves, Executive Director of the ACLU of Georgia.

"None of this would have ever happened if the trial court had recognized this child’s needs and not been swayed by misguided beliefs about gay people," said Ken Choe , a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s national Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project.

"No child should fear being torn away from home just because his or her parents happen to be gay."

Hadaway was granted legal custody in 2006 and under Hadaway's care, the child began making great strides in her schoolwork, self-confidence, and emotional well-being.

In January, 2007, Wilkinson County Superior Court Judge John Lee Parrott appeared to be on the verge of granting Hadaway's request to permanently adopt Emma when he noticed in a home study report that Hadaway was living at the time with her same-sex partner of seven years.

At that point Parrott abruptly denied the adoption, ordering that Emma be sent back to her biological mother.

Hadaway complied and met with the biological mother at a truck stop to hand over the girl.

After accepting custody, the biological mother saw how distraught Emma was at being taken from Hadaway and again insisted that Hadaway should raise the girl, according to court papers.

Hadaway, who had ended her relationship with her partner, then moved with Emma to Bibb County, where she applied in a Bibb County court for custody with the biological mother's full consent.

Shortly after that Parrott found Hadaway in contempt of his ruling and ordered the little girl be taken from her home to live in foster care in spite of the biological mother's wishes.

In early April a Bibb County judge then granted custody of the child to Hadaway, after hearing evidence from an expert commissioned by Wilkinson County DFCS to study Emma in her foster home.

The expert found that the little girl is unable to get the individualized attention she needed in her foster home and was experiencing emotional trauma because of the separation from Hadaway.

Nevertheless, the child remained in foster care, with the Division of Family and Children Services uncertain of which judge's ruling to follow.

In May DFCS agreed that the biological mother's wishes should be honored, and little Emma was reunited with Hadaway. (story)

The contempt charge against Hadaway remained outstanding, however, and her ACLU attorney filed a motion with the Court of Appeal to have it overturned.

©365Gay.com 2008

Let's see: The biological mother wants her daughter to be raised by this woman. The daughter wants to be raised by this woman. The woman wants to raise this woman's daughter.

Do I have that right?

THEN WHAT'S THE PROBLEM??!!

Ignorant, conservative, Bible-up-their-ass idiots are the problem! Worst part is they are judges! You'd think they would have to exhibit some sort of....some sort of.....uh, what's the word????.....intelligence...to be appointed to the position!

Apparently not.

I guess those who do are the "rogue judges" we keep hearing about. You know, the ones who read (imagine that) the constitutions of their state and find nowhere does it say marriage can only be between persons of opposite genitalia, so rule in favor of gay and lesbian couples being allowed to marry, since nothing says they can't.

Yeah, what renegades!

Conservatives call that "legislating from the bench".

I call it "doing their job"...even if it meant a verdict I was unhappy with.

So Like a Cat!