Protest @ the Capitol: Stop the Anti-Gay Agenda!

ACTION: PROTEST AT THE CAPITOL

STOP THE STATE’S ANTI-GAY AGENDA!

Tennessee Legislators Are Now Scheming to Outlaw:

Adoption by Gays

Foster Parenting by Gays

Gay Civil Unions

Gay Marriage

What’s Next?

A Bill to Outlaw the Gay Vote?


YOU ARE NEEDED!

Come to the Protest at the Capitol

Send Legislators A Loud & Clear Message:

STOP THE HOMOPHOBIA!

STOP THE ANTI-GAY AGENDA!


ACTION: STOP THE STATE’S ANTI-GAY AGENDA!
When: Wednesday, March 2, @ 4:00-6:00pm
Location: Downtown Nashville, @ the Capitol
(Charlotte Avenue facing Legislative Plaza)
Sponsor: Tennessee Guerilla Women
Contact: guerillawomentn@yahoo.com
For more info, see: http://www.guerillawomentn.blogspot.com

Suggested Signs:

Equal Rights are not Special Rights
Against Gay marriage? Don't have one.
Every marriage should be a gay marriage :)
What damage could gay people do to marriage that
straight people haven't already done?
Liberty and Justice for All! - well, unless you're gay

Osama is against gay marriage too
Remember, interracial marriage was illegal once too.
Massachusetts allowed gay marriage and has the lowest
divorce rate in the nation. Texas has the highest. Now
who has family values?
Why does the right always want to take away our
rights?
Marriage is a right, not a private club
Equal rights for equal citizens
equal love, equal marriage, equal rights
A civil marriage has everything to do with over 1,000
federal rights and nothing to do with religion
Gay marriage: a legal issue, not your personal moral
issue
Love makes a family
Marriage equality is pro family
Just say no! to hate and discrimination

Tennessee Guerilla Women
Challenging the Conservative Politics of Sexism, Homophobia, Racism & Classism

Gay Marriage Ban Passes the Senate, House Vote Could Happen this Week

The following report is from the TEP (TN Equality Project) lobbyist:

The Senate passed the anti-Marriage Resolution tonight 29-3. Those voting against were; Haynes, Cohen and FORD. PLEASE send these gentlemen a note of thanks…whether we are in their districts are not.

Sen.joe.Haynes@legislature.state.tn.us
Sen.steve.cohen@legislature.state.tn.us
Sen.john.ford@legislature.state.tn.us

Cohen had filed one amendment that called for specific exclusion of civil unions in the resolution. The amendment failed 7-23. Those supporting the amendment were: Chism, Cohen, Haynes, Crowe or Cooper ( I am not sure about this one), Ford, Henry and Crutchfield.

_________

The marriage ban still must get through another House committee before going for the final vote. Stay tuned.

Rationalizing the State's AntiGay Agenda OR The Real Definition of Traditional Marriage: One Man and His Chattel

Back in the 1970s, Anita Bryant waged one of the most strident antigay campaigns of all time. Bryant supported her antigay agenda with arguments such as: “If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail-biters.“

Almost as ludicrous are the arguments made by our elected officials in support of their own antigay agenda.

While the sponsors of the antigay agenda aren’t revealing the names or sources of the studies that have convinced them that only heterosexuals are fit to marry, enter civil unions, adopt children, or even serve as foster parents, they do offer some alarmingly simplistic explanations for their antigay legislation.

They claim the proposed adoption ban has nothing to do with discriminating against a minority group and everything to do with preserving the traditional family. While Sen. Black and her cohorts claim to have the interests of children at heart, the feeble arguments they muster in defense of their antigay bills invariably center not on the children, but on the preservation of the traditional family.

Despite the state’s dismal record in the business of taking care of children, Sen. Black would rather see a child remain in state custody than be adopted into the home of a nontraditional family. Presumably she will soon amend her bill so that it also bars adoption by nontraditional heterosexual families. Unfortunately for Black, the traditional family is on the decline. Only 25% of all households in the nation fit the traditional model of one man, one woman and children.

Punishing children and would be adoptive parents for the demise of the traditional family is not going to bring it back.

If lawmakers were actually quoting studies on the well-being of children instead of defending tradition, we might hear them admit that all major research studies find that a parent’s sexual orientation is irrelevant to the development of children’s mental and social development. An analysis of two decades of studies on the topic, published in the prestigious American Sociological Review, supports these findings.

Among the many Professional organizations (too numerous to list here) that support adoption by gays are the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the National Association of Social Workers and the Child Welfare League of America.

When it comes to the rationale behind the marriage ban, legislators make the same feeble claims. They insist it has nothing to do with discrimination; rather it is about the traditional definition of marriage. “For thousands of years,” they argue, marriage has consisted of “one man and one woman.”

Actually, for thousands of years, marriage has consisted of one man and his chattel. Married women had no rights because law defined them as the property of husbands. As late as 1981, the Supreme Court overturned state laws designating a husband as “head and master with unilateral control of property owned jointly with his wife.” Moreover, until the 1970s, states did not even consider spousal rape to be a crime.

The tradition of one man and his chattel has been a hard one to change. It was not until the 1990s that the 50 states recognized that married women have the right to say no to their husbands, or that marital rape is indeed a crime.

Thankfully, traditions do change. Legislators should get used to it.

If lawmakers hope to be viewed with even a modicum of respect they need to come up with some credible evidence to support the argument that their antigay agenda is based on something other than old-fashioned bigotry. Obviously when legislators suddenly file twelve separate bills, all aimed at depriving a minority group of citizenship rights, they appear to be bigots.

Regardless of whether all or some of the antigay agenda becomes law, the fear and distrust provoked by the actions of our elected representatives will have consequences.

Anita Bryant’s antigay campaign was short-lived. She became the laughing stock of the nation; her successful career went down the drain at about the same time as her marriage. There are moments in time when we do appear to live in a just world. Let’s hope the current rash of bigotry in the legislature will soon provoke another such moment.

Gender Police to Girls: Flaunt Your Breasts or Else

A lesbian high school student will not have her picture in the yearbook due to the crime of posing in a tuxedo. Students posing for yearbook pictures in this Florida high school have two choices: a tuxedo or a piece of black fabric draped across their breasts.

This was the same choice I had back in the 1960s!

Like many girls, Kelli Davis dresses in jeans and t-shirts. She doesn't wear make-up. She says she's always been uncomfortable about "exposing" her breasts. Too bad, said her principal.

School officials stress that this is not about sexual orientation, rather it is about gender.

Well, duh. Sexual orientation is about gender, dummies.

The gender rules say girls will accentuate their breasts and legs, wear make-up, and at all times make themselves pleasing to males.

The number one gender rule: Girls and boys will display a sexual interest in the opposite sex, only.

Break the gender rules and you will be punished and maybe even rendered invisible.

While Kelli Davis is a self-identified lesbian, there are many many heterosexual girls who also object to the enforcement of rigid gender rules.

This story is yet more evidence that we are regressing big time. A friend of mine was expelled (or suspended) from UT-Knoxville back in the 1970's, for the crime of wearing pants to class. In those bad old days, women who wore pants lost their jobs.

Contact the principal and tell him that women actually wear pants in the workplace these days, and girls should certainly be allowed to wear pants in the yearbook, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Ask him why he forces girls to flaunt their breasts. It may be the first time he's ever thought about it.

Principal: Sam Ward sward@mail.clay.k12.fl.us
Fleming Island High School * 2233 Village Square Parkway * Orange Park, FL 32003 Telephone 904-541-2100 * Fax 904-541-2110

Blackburn's Arrogance & Bredesen's Disappearing Base

Adam Groves has the scoop on Marsha Blackburn's growing in-your-face arrogance. The congresswoman's new PAC is called WedgePAC.

The Tennessee blogger also notes the growing discontent among Gov. Bredesen's democratic base (as opposed to his Rethuglican base), or what's left of it.

Women to Bush: Please Send Our Chastity Belts!!

Go over to Give Us Real Choices and sign up to send your chastity belt order in to the shrub.


Dear President Bush,

I am writing today as a supporter of NARAL Pro-Choice America to order a chastity belt.

You might wonder why I am asking you for a chastity belt. Well, in your latest budget proposal to Congress, you ask for more funding for abstinence-only until marriage programs but do not provide any more funding for the Federal Family Planning Program.

I wish you would work with Congress to support other safe and effective reproductive health choices like: comprehensive sexuality education, access to emergency contraception, and equitable insurance coverage for contraception.

Until you give us real choices, please rush me the only thing that you seem to want to provide to protect my reproductive health: a chastity belt. My address appears below.

Sincerely,

Bush Budget to Hit Tennessee Hard

From http://www.americanprogress.org/

TENNESSEE: Another Southern state, Tennessee, could be among the hardest hit by the president's proposed budget. The state is slated to lose $303.9 million in discretionary grants, including $37.3 million for community and economic development and $3.2 million for low-income home energy assistance (LIHEAP). Health care and public housing were hit hard in the Volunteer State. According to FamiliesUSA, the budget would cost Tennessee $1.2 billion over 10 years in Medicaid funding, affecting "thousands of Tennessee children and senior citizens." In Memphis, local officials are concerned that "huge cuts" to HOPE VI and other federal housing programs will "severely curtail" plans to rehabilitate several older and decrepit neighborhoods.

Gay Marriage Ban Goes to Full Senate Vote/Passage Monday

At least that's the expectation. Scroll down for tips on making calls/writing letters.

Tennessee Lawmakers Determined to Strip Gays/Lesbians of Civil Rights

The following piece is in this week's issue of the Freedom Press; a variation is also up at TN Indy Media. Much, but not all, of this comes from an earlier post (Searching for Civil Rights & Dems with Spines). Yeah, I'm still into naming the names of democrats who should be tarred and feathered and run out of the state.

Speaking of spineless dems, Governor Bredesen continues to take the No Position position. The Democratic Gov. has no opinion on any of the many bills now on the legislature's homophobic agenda. Little wonder that Republicans love the Dem. Gov. so very much.

____

After a very long struggle and riots in the streets, Tennessee lawmakers are no longer free to write laws based on racial prejudice. Instead, they’ve moved on to writing laws based on sexual prejudice.

The Tennessee General Assembly is determined to strip LGBT citizens of the right to adopt children, the right to foster-parent children, the right to enter civil unions, and any and all hope of the right to marry.

While all of these efforts are equally alarming, if the same-sex marriage ban passes, it will be on the ballot in 2006 and almost assuredly become enshrined in the constitution, making it much more difficult to undo than the other discriminatory laws.

The same-sex marriage ban passed in the House Committee by a vote of 13 to 4. Two Reps. declined to vote. Apparently they believe there is some political advantage to gain by failing to stand for anything.

The four who voted against the marriage ban are all democrats. They are all women. Three out of four are African American.Tennessee progressives should remember their names: Kathryn Bowers (D-Memphis), Barbara Cooper (D-Memphis), Joanne Favors (D-Chattanooga) and Beverly Marrero (D-Memphis).

According to Out & About, “Representative Sherry Jones, widely seen as a supporter of the GLBT community, surprised many when she passed on the vote.” Jones was the only democratic woman who did not oppose the measure.

No one should have been surprised. When the House passed the anti-gay amendment last year, Jones declined to vote.

What is particularly disturbing is that when the LGBT community held a fundraiser for Jones last summer at the Lipstick Lounge, Jones was billed as a strong opponent of the anti-gay amendment. According to an email promoting the “Sherry Jones Fundraiser,” distributed by the Tennessee Equality Project:

“Sherry took a strong stand against adding language to our state's constitution to take away rights from women and to ban marriage/union rights for gays and lesbians. We watched as she stood toe to toe with House leadership. Sherry's actions were brave and true.”

It’s true that Jones voted against the civil union ban and the anti-choice amendment. Unlike the marriage ban, these two measures had strong opposition and were consequently defeated.

The suggested contribution for the LGBT sponsored fundraiser was $250 per couple.

In an interview featured in the Tennessean last year, Jones was advised that she had been called a “liberal.” She responded: “They don’t know me very well.”

The Davidson County Rep. has a point.

It appears that the anti-gay bill will soon go to a full House and Senate vote. According to Democratic House Committee Chairman John DeBerry, the bill is moving at record speed because legislators have "already heard the voices of the people. We got a chance to really debate this issue last year and get everything out of our systems. Now everybody knows where they stand and where the other man (sic) stands."

I’m not sure where the debate DeBerry refers to took place; perhaps it was in his living room. The House passed the marriage ban last year with no discussion. The vote was 86-5. Despite Davidson County’s reputation as a liberal or ‘blue’ county, Rob Briley (D) was the only Davidson County Rep. to vote against the marriage ban.

Tennessee democrats have no hesitation when it comes to soliciting money and volunteers from Davidson County, or from the LGBT community, but when it comes time to represent us, democrats seem to have us confused with the residents of Rhea County.

As Speaker of the democratic-controlled House, Jimmy Naifeh is a man known for the power he wields over House democrats. Despite Naifeh’s reputation as a leader who can bend the will of his fellow democrats, when it comes to the anti-gay bill, Naifeh is apparently impotent.

Repeatedly, the democrat has said the anti-gay bill will put discrimination into the constitution. It is “bad public policy.” he insists. Repeatedly, the democrat has said he will support the bill. ''I can't slow this train down. It's going so fast and hard. I don't want to slow it down.'' Naifeh can’t and Naifeh doesn’t want to. Naifeh is yet another democrat who declines to stand for anything.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Tennessee. Legislators claim they need to make it doubly illegal by inserting a ban into the constitution. They reason that a deluge of legally married same-sex couples will come to Tennessee in search of civil rights. This justification for embedding discrimination in the constitution is best expressed in the now infamous words of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Jeff Miller (R): “They could come to Tennessee and claim rights. That’s what I’m afraid of."

Imagine that, American citizens coming to Tennessee and expecting to have rights!

Contact Speaker Naifeh, tell him to act responsibly and stop “bad public policy” from being law. (Naifeh: 615.741.3774) speaker.jimmy.naifeh@legislature.state.tn.us

Legislators Need Phone Calls & Letters - Before Monday!!

Most of the committee hearings listed below were postponed to next week, which means there is more time to make your calls and write your letters. Keep in mind that the Senate is more conservative than the House, so there is a better chance of persuading House members than Senate members. Also, House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh has the power to influence many of his colleagues if and when he decides to do so. Everyone should contact Naifeh and urge him to take a stand against "bad public policy".

Naifeh has repeatedly referred to the proposed same-sex marriage ban as "bad public policy", yet he has refused to wield his considerable power against bad public policy. He needs you to tell him to do the responsible thing. Contact him: 615.741.3774 speaker.jimmy.naifeh@legislature.state.tn.us


Tips for making phone calls from a TN Guerilla Womyn:

"It felt good to make the calls to legislators yesterday. I did all 25 in less than an hour. I used the terms 'bigotry' and 'backward' and 'which does not attract new business to the state of TN because people want to live in more open-minded cultures'. I reminded them that there was a time that blacks and whites could not get married.

The people I talked to were very polite. They took my name and/or phone number/address. REP. Joe Armstrong's office aid said that she would start a 'no' list which means that they need more calls - his number is 741-0768."


Email them this letter from the Tennessean:

State's problems don't include gays adopting

To the Editor:

I cannot be the only one struck by contrasts of the lead story Feb. 20: ''State may not let gays adopt kids in its care,'' and the back page, Local section: ''Couple accused of abusing children ran Christian school near Knoxville.''

It is absolutely astounding to me that our lawmakers, led by Diane Black, Doug Jackson, Jim Bryson and Frank Buck, could spend so much time on such vitriol as the unfounded condemnation of gays as parents. But it is easy to do, it is popular to do and it is apparently, at least in Tennessee, the political thing to do. After all, there are more of ''us'' than there are of ''them.''

While we wander down the road toward state financial bankruptcy because of our backward, regressive tax system; while we prepare to throw hundreds of thousands of poor and disabled off the rolls of TennCare; while our children rank at the bottom of the country in graduation rates and test scores; while thousands of our military families are on the ropes financially; we stand protected and secure against the rampant danger of gay folks. God forbid they marry and God double forbid they adopt a child and give him or her a caring, loving home environment.

Maybe, just maybe, one of these days before I die, Tennessee politicians will stop the incessant bashing of people different from them and deal with real issues affecting real people in real ways.

Robert E. Wages
Nashville 37215


List of Legislators to Contact

Please contact the following legislators as soon as possible. It is very important that you contact your legislators immediately and TELL THEM TO VOTE NO on the following bills. You can call your legislator by calling 1-800-449-8366 ext.1+ number listed below or via email at http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/.


House Domestic Relations Subcommittee- Postponed to Next Week
(Was scheduled for: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 12:00- RM 29)
HB 751 by Rep. Clem- Prohibits Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships
HB 775 by Rep. Clem- Prohibits Homosexuals from Adopting

Members:
Rep. Sherry Jones (Nashville)- 2035
Rep. Tommie Brown (Chattanooga)- 4374
Rep. Jerome Cochran (Johnson City)- 7450
Rep. JoAnn Favors (Chattanooga)- 2702
Rep. Matthew Hill (Jonesborough)- 2251
Rep. Brian Kelsey (East Memphis)- 4415
Rep. Beverly Marrero (Midtown Memphis)- 9128
Rep. Debra Maggart (Hendersonville)- 3893
Rep. Mike Turner (Nashville)- 3229
Rep. Nathan Vaughn (Kingsport)- 6867

Know your extreme right-wing democrats:
''Scripturally, civil unions are an abomination under the sight of God.''
Democratic Rep. Nathan Vaughn

Senate Judiciary Committee- Postponed to Next Week
(was schedule for: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 3:30- RM 12/14)
SB 829 by Sen. Black- Prohibits Homosexuals from Adopting
SB 1615 by Sen. Bryson- Prohibits Homosexuals from Adopting

Members:
Sen. Curtis Person (East Memphis/ Germantown)- 2419
Sen. Doug Jackson (Dickson)- 4499
Sen. Tommy Kilby (Wartburg)- 1449
Sen. Steve Cohen (Midtown Memphis)- 4108
Sen. David Fowler (Signal Mountain)- 1764
Sen. Jamie Hagood (Knoxville)- 1648
Sen. Joe Haynes (Nashville/ Goodlettsville)- 6679
Sen. Jeff Miller (Cleveland)- 3794
Sen. Mark Norris (East Memphis/ Rural West Tn)- 1967

Passed: All of the House Budget Subcommittee members (listed below) voted for the marriage ban. House Budget Subcommittee- Weds., Feb. 23, 11:00- RM 29
HJR 24 by Rep. Dunn- Constitutional Amendment to define marriage

Members:
Rep. Harry Tindell (Knoxville)- 2031
Rep. Joe Armstrong (Knoxville)- 0768
Rep. Mike Harrison (Sneedville)- 7480
Rep. Steve McDaniel (Parkers Crossroads)- 0750
Rep. Bob McKee (Athens)- 1946
Rep. Kim McMillan (Clarksville)- 2043
Rep. Doug Overybey (Maryville)- 0981
Rep. Randy Rinks (Savannah)- 2007
Rep. Johnny Shaw (Bolivar)- 4538

Same-Sex Marriage Ban
May go for final Senate Vote Next Monday Evening (Feb. 28). Will also have to pass the House. If the marriage ban passes by a 2/3 majority, the civil rights of LGBT persons will be up for a vote in 2006!

SJR 31 by Sen. Miller- Constitutional Amendment to restrict marriage to different-sex couples only.

You can contact any Senator via the Legislature's homepage: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/

The "One Drop of Gay Blood" Rule

HOUSE BILL 543, By BunchSENATE BILL 829, By Diane Black
“Notwithstanding anything in this part to the contrary, no person is eligible toadopt if that person is a homosexual. As used in this section, “homosexual” means any person who voluntarily and knowingly engages in or submits to any sexual contact involving another person of the same gender.”

The evidence suggests that the minds of many of our lawmakers remain trapped in the 1950's. Look for them to start coming after communists once they've taken care of the "homosexuals," a term they use to describe all but the exclusively heterosexual.

Social science has long established that many self-identified heterosexuals engage in sex with same-sex partners. Sexual behavior and sexual identity are not the same thing, but who would expect TN legislators to be familiar with social science? These are the same yahoos who consider sex education to be X-rated for gawd's sake.

It's like the old "one drop of black blood" rule that defined even pale white people as black as long as their family history included even one distant black relative. If the adoption/foster parenting proposals become law, the question will be: Are you a homosexual, or have you ever engaged in homosexual behavior?

For TN lawmakers, if you are bi-sexual, or if you have ever engaged in homosexual behavior, you are a (gasp) "homosexual." Call it the "one drop of gay blood" rule.

SENATE BILL 1924By JacksonHOUSE BILL 2230By Buck
”Notwithstanding anything in this part to the contrary, no person may serve as afoster parent if that person is a homosexual or if an adult member of that person’shousehold is a homosexual. As used in this section, “homosexual” means any person who voluntarily and knowingly engages in or submits to any sexual contact involving another person of the same gender.”

Translation: the "one drop of gay blood" rule extends to all adult persons in your household. For some unknown reason, legislators will not punish you if you happen to have a LGBT teen in the home, or a heterosexual teen who sometimes has sex with same-sex partners.

But if you have a LGBT senior (one out of every 10 LGBT persons is a senior) in your household, your household is blacklisted, er "homosexuallisted."

Striking Back At Gay-Hostile Tennessee

This letter is published in today's City Paper. The author's wisdom is surely partially attributable to his age. He's 70 years old.


To the Editor:

What a vicious and pathetic bunch of mouth-breathing hillbillies we Tennesseans are. So we’re going to forbid gay marriage? What alien danger shall we root out next — subject-verb agreement? If our children want to understand the mindless instinct that put Jews into concentration camps, they need only look across the dinner table.

It is obvious that gays, their families and their supporters who live here can’t just pack up and leave Tennessee. But we can strike back economically by (1) discouraging our out-of-state friends and acquaintances from visiting, vacationing or sending their children to college here, (2) spending our disposable income on visits, vacations and catalogue purchases in gay-friendly, civilized states, (3) using every opportunity from word-of-mouth to letters to the editor to send our voices beyond the borders and denounce Tennessee for the Dogpatch it has become, (4) lobbying any organization we belong to against holding its meetings and conventions here, and (5) refusing to attend all sporting events that publicize and finance the state that uses tax income to discriminate against its own people.

In fact, I think we should organize a conference — perhaps in Vermont or Massachusetts — with the sole mission of bringing down the nation’s contempt on the state that treats gays so contemptibly.

If our fellow citizens are going to screw the gays over, then they should be made to pay something for it. And if our revenge should harm those “good Germans” who stand by silently while this inhumanity rages on, then so much the better …

Edward Morris
37204

Searching for Civil Rights and Tennessee Democrats with Spines

The gay marriage ban passed in the House Committee by a vote of 13 to 4. Two committee members declined to vote. Apparently they believe there is some political advantage to gain by failing to stand for anything.

The four brave souls who voted against the marriage ban are all democrats. They are all women. Three out of four are African American.

Tennessee progressives should remember their names: Kathryn Bowers (D-Memphis), Barbara Cooper (D-Memphis), Joanne Favors (D-Chattanooga) and Beverly Marrero (D-Memphis). (Put these names on your bulletin board!)

The other members of the Children and Family Affairs Committee are: J. DeBerry, S. Jones, Brown, Casada, Cochran, Eldridge, Hill, C. Johnson, Kelsey, Maddox, Maggart, Rowland, Shaw, Mike Turner, and Vaughn.

According to Out & About, “Representative Sherry Jones, widely seen as a supporter of the GLBT community, surprised many when she passed on the vote.” Jones was the only democratic woman who did not oppose the measure.

No one should have been surprised. When the House passed this measure last year, Jones declined to vote. It’s called: Getting re-elected is more important than standing up for what you believe. Granted, it’s hard to determine exactly what Jones believes

What is particularly disturbing is that when the LGBT community held a fundraiser for Jones last summer at the Lipstick Lounge, Jones was billed as a strong opponent of the marriage amendment. According to an email promoting the “Sherry Jones Fundraiser,” distributed by the Tennessee Equality Project:

“Sherry took a strong stand against adding language to our state's constitution to take away rights from women and to ban marriage/union rights for gays and lesbians. We watched as she stood toe to toe with House leadership. Sherry's actions were brave and true.”

It’s true that Jones voted against the civil union ban and against the anti-choice amendment. Unlike the marriage amendment, these two measures had strong opposition and were consequently defeated.

The suggested contribution for the LGBT sponsored fundraiser was $250 per couple.

In an interview featured in the Tennessean last year, Jones was advised that she had been called a “liberal.” The Democratic Rep. responded: “they don’t know me very well.”

The Davidson County Rep. has a point.

Earlier this week the same-sex marriage ban was also passed by the Senate Judiciary committee, by a 7-2 vote (see below). Two Democratic Senators voted against the measure: Steve Cohen (Memphis) and Joe Haynes (Nashville).

It appears likely that the bill will go to a full House and Senate vote next week. The Tennessee legislature is known for working at a much slower pace. According to House committee chairman Rep. John DeBerry, the bill is moving at record speed because legislators have "already heard the voices of the people."

Rep.DeBerry added, "We got a chance to really debate this issue last year and get everything out of our systems. Now everybody knows where they stand and where the other man (sic) stands."

I’m not sure where the debate DeBerry refers to took place; perhaps it was in his living room. The House passed the marriage ban last year with no discussion. The vote was 86-5. Despite Davidson County’s reputation as a liberal or ‘blue’ county, Rob Briley (D) was the only Davidson County Rep. to vote against the marriage ban.

Tennessee democrats have no hesitation when it comes to soliciting money and volunteers from Davidson County, or from the LGBT community, but when it comes time to represent us, Democrats seem to have us confused with the residents of Rhea County.

Members of the LGBT community, from across the state, will arrive at the Capitol next week so that legislators can hear the “voices of the people” affected by this shameful legislation. Billed as “Advancing Equality Day on the Hill”, and organized by the Tennessee Equality Project, the event is set for Tuesday, February 22.

It’s quite possible that when LGBT individuals and families arrive, some from as far away as Knoxville, legislators may be unavailable. At their current pace, they may be voting on the bill of discrimination by Tuesday.

The local mainstream media have been complicit in this shameful effort. There have been no efforts to educate the community or provoke a genuine debate. Instead we’ve heard a lot of vague platitudes about the need to protect heterosexual marriage. Proponents of this view have failed to explain exactly how same-sex marriage threatens heterosexual marriage. We suspect that the men in charge of passing this ban are afraid their wives will abandon them for the love of lesbians.

Remarkably, the Knoxville News Sentinel has recently emerged as arguably the most responsible mainstream media voice on this subject.

Same-sex marriages are already illegal in Tennessee. Legislators claim they need to make them doubly illegal by inserting the ban in the constitution. They reason that a deluge of legally married same-sex couples will come to Tennessee in search of civil rights. This justification for embedding discrimination in the Tennessee constitution is best expressed in the now infamous words of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Jeff Miller: “They could come to Tennessee and claim rights. That’s what I’m afraid of.”

Imagine that, American citizens coming to Tennessee and expecting to have rights. Aren’t we glad our elected officials are working hard to put a stop to this outrage?

The Tennessee General Assembly is obviously determined to make certain that Tennessee continues its long tradition of being the place not to come to if you’re looking for civil rights. Lest any of us forget, it was only a short time ago when Tennessee was the place not to come to if you were an African American in search of civil rights.

If you are not a LGBT citizen or an African American, well, all I can say to you is, be patient. The Tennessee General Assembly will undoubtedly be coming for your rights, just as soon as it finishes off the rights of LGBT citizens.

The Fundamental Civil Right of Marriage

I have an article in the latest edition of the Church Street Freedom Press. If you haven't seen the "L Issue", check it out! The article is pasted below.

Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’
fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Loving v. Virginia, 1967

American history is rife with instances of discrimination against gays and lesbians. In 1656, the New Haven Colony mandated the death penalty for lesbians. In the 19th and 20th century, punishment included castration, clitoridectomies, shock treatment, and lobotomies.

From the late 1940s to the late 1960s, thousands of LGBT persons were purged from the federal civil service. The Eisenhower Administration issued an executive order which banned the hiring of gays and lesbians in federal employment. The persecution of persons perceived as homosexual spread like wildfire throughout state governments and communities. Investigations and closed door interrogations led to widespread fear and intimidation.

George Bush hasn’t issued an executive order banning same-sex marriage, but he has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. State legislators have joined in this most recent assault on the rights of LGBT citizens by filing copycat legislation aimed at following one of American’s oldest and most shameful traditions, the enshrinement of discrimination into law.

Studies find that when lawmakers act to deny rights to gays and lesbians, the result is stress, anxiety, depression and alienation in the LGBT community.

After Bill Clinton signed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, he stressed that the law should not be used as “an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person." Yet the very purpose of the law, which declared marriage to be for heterosexuals only, was to discriminate. Moreover, all of history demonstrates that when lawmakers target one group of citizens for differential treatment, they promote division in the nation and an increase in prejudice. An increase in prejudice has a nasty habit of leading to an increase in intimidation and violence.

Tennessee is one of numerous states with legislators who have followed Bush’s lead by calling for a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit the “basic civil right” of marriage, on the basis of sexual orientation. Republican Sentator Jeff Miller, one of the amendment sponsors, defends his assault on the rights of LGBT citizens by protesting that he’s “not scared or phobic” of gays and lesbians. Miller protests: “They could come to Tennessee and claim rights. That's what I'm afraid of.''

According to Democratic House Speaker Naifeh, the proposed constitutional amendment is “bad public policy.” Naifeh plans to support bad public policy because, in his view, it’s popular. “It has overwhelming public support. I'm not going to stand in the way and get run over by that train," the democrat explains.

To add fuel to their fire, Tennessee legislators have introduced bills that would deny “homosexuals” the right to adopt children or serve as foster parents. These bills serve the purpose of focusing yet more public attention upon the LGBT community as suspect. Clearly, the message is: Gay and lesbian citizens are not only unfit for marriage, they are also unfit to associate with children.

Our Democratic Governor has done nothing to dampen the Bush Administration’s war on gays and lesbians. In one breath, the Governor notes that the amendment is unnecessary since same-sex marriage is already illegal, in the next he vows “I won’t actively urge (its) defeat.” Bredesen adds that same-sex marriage is “a vastly different issue from tolerance for gays.” The Governor is correct. Civil rights, or the lack thereof, is “a vastly different issue.”

Presumably, the Governor feels that gay and lesbian citizens should be grateful for the small favor of tolerance.

If legislators pass their amendment by a two-thirds majority, the same-sex marriage ban will be on the ballot in 2006. Despite their spin to the contrary, lawmakers will not merely be granting the majority population the right to determine if a minority group deserves civil rights, they will, in fact, be asking the public to follow their prejudicial lead.

The only hope of stopping this shameful effort to write sexual prejudice into the constitution is for the LGBT community and their progressive allies to demonstrate to legislators that the measure has overhwhelming public oppositon. That means packed committee rooms, packed legislative chambers and large demonstrations in the streets.

Six thousand progressives showed up in downtown Nashville to greet Michael Moore. How many will show up to demand that legislators abandon their plan to subject some of us to the indignity of having our civil rights on the ballot?

Senate Committee Oks Anti Gay Marriage Amendment

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the gay marriage amendment today. I was surprised to see a woman on this otherwise white male committee. It's always a surprise to see a woman on a committee that does not have words like "children" or "family" in the committee name.

Republican Jamie Hagood stood out for more reasons than her gender. She is young and pretty. She's also quiet, or at least she was today. During my one hour and ten minute observation, I didn't hear her say a word. The men discussed and bantered back and forth. Occasionally she would hold a piece of paper in front of her face and say something to Sen. Jeff Miller, who sat beside her. The paper did not hide the fact that she was in good spirits and apparently making little jokes which both she and Miller found amusing.

The gay marriage amendment was number 26 on the agenda. Thankfully a few bills were deferred. The men had a lot to say on virtually every bill that came up, but they were struck speechless when Number 26 arrived. Immediately it was time to vote. Interestingly, their nays and yays were spoken in tones so subdued, I had to strain to hear them.

The surprise of the afternoon was that Democratic Sen. Joe Haynes voted nay. Haynes is my senator, and I can tell you he is no progressive. Of course, Democratic Sen. Cohen voted nay, as he did last year. (Cohen is one of our very few progressive legislators, email him.) When the full Senate passed this measure last year, Cohen was the only senator to vote against it.

Today's committee vote was 7-2 in favor of the same-sex marriage ban. The committee is comprised of 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats. Sens. Jackson and Kilby are the two democrats who voted like republicans.

I'm not sure what has happened to Sen. Haynes, but I like it. He needs some thank you letters. If he gets enough of them he might decide to give up his republican ways. Send him an email.

Republican Sen. Jeff Miller is the sponsor of this effort to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution. I must say he looks a lot better in person than in his picture. You can email him here.

Representatives of LGBT organizations were in attendance, along with the ACLU-TN. I saw no rainbows or buttons to indicate that members of the LGBT community and their progressive allies were in attendance. Most of the audience had left by the time the marriage amendment came up.

The House Children & Family Affairs Committee takes the matter up in the morning (Wednesday, February 16 at 8:30 a.m. in LP 16). As the committee name suggests, there are quite a few women on this committee. At least one of them is a flaming progressive. Who knows, there might even be a discussion.

Update: TN Hate Amendment Goes to Committee Dates/Times

We need to pack these hearing rooms.

The Senate Judiciary Committee meets Tuesday, February 15 at 3:30 PM in Legislative Plaza Hearing Room# 12.

Members of this committee include Senators Person, Jackson, Kilby, Cohen, Fowler, Hagood, Haynes, Miller, and Norris.

The House Children & Family Affairs Committee meets Wednesday, February 16 at 8:30 AM in Legislative Plaza Hearing Room# 16.

Members include Representatives J. DeBerry, S. Jones, Marrero, Bowers, Brown, Casada, Cochran, Cooper, Eldridge, Favors, Hill, C. Johnson, Kelsey, Maddox, Maggart, Rowland, Shaw, M. Turner, and Vaughn.

Contact your legislators.

TN Spineless Democrats to Join in Gay Hate Fest - Hate Amendment Goes to Committee Wednesday

This piece is now up at the Tennessee Independent Media site.


Republican State Rep. Dunn, sponsor of the Hate Amendment this year, last year and as many years as it takes, plans to get the amendment passed "quickly, quietly and in a bipartisan manner." The plan is to get it into committee this week.

Why does Dunn imagine the gay marriage ban will pass “quietly” and “quickly”? When the measure passed last year, it passed with no discussion. There were also no committee rooms packed with members of the progressive community, no demonstrations in the street, and certainly there was no public condemnation by our Democratic Governor. It passed the Senate with a 29-1 vote; in the House it was 85-5.

Dunn calls his Hate Amendment the “natural marriage bill”. Dunn is clueless about the absurdity of this concept. Sorry, Dunn, but there’s precious little about the human race, or our many inventions, that qualify as “natural.” A nude marriage ceremony, now there’s a “natural marriage.”

Dunn and his Republican cronies, along with so-called Democratic lawmakers, plan to hold the first committee vote this Wednesday. If that goes well for them, legislators may seal the hate deal as early as the following week. If the measure passes by a two-thirds majority, the same-sex marriage ban will be on the ballot in 2006. Rest assured, every fundamentalist yahoo in the state will show up at the polls.

Let’s face it these guys are following in the longstanding American tradition of denying rights to everyone who is not just like them. From the US Constitution that proclaimed all white propertied men to be equal to each other and superior to everyone else, to the current Hate Amendment, the idea is the same. If you subscribe to their religious beliefs, their lifestyle, if you look like them, dress like them, live next door to them, belong to their country club, you’re in luck. The rest of us be damned.

With few exceptions, lawmakers in Tennessee are an elitist, arrogant, and selfish bunch who think anyone different from them is inferior, “unnatural”, or just plain weird. They are clueless about how to save the healthcare program that serves one quarter of all Tennesseans, and then feign surprise when someone points out that they get healthcare for life. Gee, they get healthcare for life and no one told them?

What are they good for? They excel at writing sexual prejudice into the constitution.

Obviously, the wrong people are watching children’s programming aimed at inspiring tolerance, understanding, cooperation and that other endangered value, empathy.

Democrats who have signed on to sponsor the Hate Amendment include: Rep. Eddie Yokley (D-Greeneville) and Rep. John Litz, (D-Morristown). Among the many Democrats who plan to vote for the amendment are: Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson) and House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.

As leader (some say dictator) of the Democratic-controlled House, Naifeh is signaling his okay for democrats to feel at ease about joining in the hate fest.

According to Naifeh, the Hate Amendment is “bad public policy”. Naifeh plans to vote for bad public policy because it’s popular. In his words: "It has overwhelming public support. I'm not going to stand in the way and get run over by that train."

With leaders like this, can anyone seriously wonder why the country is in so much trouble?

According to Howard Dean, democrats stand for social responsibility and republicans have proved they do not. Let’s face it Dean is not talking about Tennessee democrats.

These yahoos are not going to do the right thing until the progressive community demonstrates it's overwhelming opposition and in a style as visible and loud as the horn-honkers.

Six thousand progressives showed up in downtown Nashville to see Michael Moore. How many will show up to demand that legislators abandon the plan to let some of us vote on the civil rights of others?

from the mother of a gay son

As the witch hunt heats up, I believe it's gratifying (and painful) to read letters like this one.


Letter to the Editor by Sharon Underwood,
Sunday, April 30, 2000
from the Valley News (White River Junction, VT/Hanover, NH)


As the mother of a gay son, I've seen firsthand how cruel and misguided people can be.

Many letters have been sent to the Valley News concerning the homosexual menace in Vermont. I am the mother of a gay son and I've taken enough from you good people.

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny.

My firstborn son started suffering at the hands of the moral little thugs from your moral, upright families from the time he was in the first grade. He was physically and verbally abused from first grade straight through high school because he was perceived to be gay.

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.

In high school, while your children were doing what kids that age should be doing, mine labored over a suicide note, drafting and redrafting it to be sure his family knew how much he loved them. My sobbing 17-year-old tore the heart out of me as he choked out that he just couldn't bear to continue living any longer, that he didn't want to be gay and that he couldn't face a life without dignity.

You have the audacity to talk about protecting families and children from the homosexual menace, while you yourselves tear apart families and drive children to despair. I don't know why my son is gay, but I do know that God didn't put him, and millions like him, on this Earth to give you someone to abuse. God gave you brains so that you could think, and it's about time you started doing that.

read the whole thing

Hate speech, free speech

Hate speech is defined as oral or written communication designed to intimidate, harass, ridicule, terrorize, or degrade the person or group it describes. It can be a strong motivating force when used by powerful or influential people.

Our public airwaves belong to the American people. While I realize that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects most speech, there is little doubt that it does not protect all speech. While I am hardly a constitutional law attorney, I do know that slander and libel are forms of speech that are outlawed.

But the reason slander and libel are outlawed is because they are false. That is really not the issue I want to address.

There are other forms of speech that are not allowed such as the classic example of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. The speech in this example might result in injury to moviegoers, expense for the theater owner, and unnecessary costs to local government in using valuable human and other resources when they are not needed.

There is also the example made famous in the movie, “The Accused”, starring Jodi Foster in which a successful prosecution was brought against bar patrons who verbally encouraged rapists as they attacked a woman on a pool table.

Despite these restrictions, previous court rulings have proven to favor a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment, allowing certain hateful speech to be protected. The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacy groups have their verbal and written materials protected under the law. That is the law in our country. We are supposed to be able to have opinions without fear of retribution.

However, we must pause for a moment at the intersection where the First Amendment meets the laws against inciting others to commit crimes. Verbal encouragement for the commission of any criminal act is illegal in every state in the Union.

When does an opinion cross over into crime-inspiring hate speech? That question is not always easily answered. Sometimes using derogatory terms in private conversation can insult and demean without eliciting a criminal response or any reasonable expectation of one.

However, the context or social milieu in which hate speech is said or written makes all the difference. For example, describing a Jewish person by using a racial/religious slur is bad taste, hurtful, and reveals something about the person involved in the context of a cocktail party at the local country club. It is something altogether different if one is standing outside their home in Munich in the latter part of the 1930s. The Hitler SS walking down the street may hear the slur and report the incident.

We’re not quite to that point yet here in the US, but the stench of fascism is rising, wafting its way into every community in America. The Red States and the Blue States show an increase in crimes against LGBT community members. The implications of demeaning our community on the public airwaves is much more onerous at this point in time that it was in years past. The topic is hot. The rednecks and skinheads are waiting with baited breath, hoping their dreams will be fulfilled, gaining courage from the drumbeat of homophobia and transphobia washing across the country.

The recent appearance of Sean Hayes, otherwise known as Jack MacFarland of the Will and Grace television comedy series, in a public service announcement telling his viewers that hate speech is just not cool, is no coincidence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued statistics indicating that the greatest growth in hate crimes in the United States is occurring in two groups: Asian-Americans and lesbians/gays.

While race, religion, nationality, disability, and gender identity, in addition to sexual orientation, are often the target of hate speech and crimes, there are protections in place to penalize hate crimes against many groups. Lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgendered citizens have no such protection. This has to change not only on a federal level, but also on the state level.

The time to speak out is now. Exercise your right to First Amendment free speech. The world is watching.

Alabama May Beat TN in Race to Outlaw Already Illegal Gay Marriage

Alabama lawmakers are taking care of important business. The first statewide bill worthy of their attention turns out to be a gay marriage ban.

It looks like Alabama is running slightly ahead of Tennessee in the quest to ensure that marriage is a freedom that belongs only to heteros. According to the Birmingham News (Gay marriage ban vote OK'd), "Alabama lawmakers on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the idea of a constitutional ban on gay marriage."

Both legislative bodies are fixated on the idea of outlawing gay marriage twice; it's already illegal in both states.

Tennessee lawmakers plan to tackle the issue next week; during that same week Alabama lawmakers will be shaping House and Senate bills into one Hate Amendment. Both legislative bodies will be doing their devious deeds during Freedom to Marry Week.

TN House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh (D) said it is "bad public policy," but he's going to vote for it anyway.

State Rep. Rob Briley (D) wisely noted, “It makes us look like a bunch of intolerant rednecks.” Briley will almost certainly be one of the very few TN legislators who vote against the ban.

If Alabama and Tennessee legislators get the anti-marriage amendment on the ballot, there's little doubt that it will pass.

If only a few thousand of the many thousands of progressives residing in Alabama and Tennessean suddenly realized that a few thousand voices is all it takes, the Hate Amendments might never make it out of committee.

Why Gordon Bonneyman should run for Governor Or How Conservative is Bredesen Anyway?

A few choice words on the subject from around the state:

"Of course, since Bredesen is basically a Republican in Democratic clothing, it's not surprising that Republicans give him money.

Tennessee Republicans often complain that they would never be able to get away with the cuts Gov. Bredesen is proposing to TennCare. . . Republicans have a reputation for being grossly out of touch with the health care concerns of low-income people." --Roger Abramson, Nashville Scene

---

"Yes, if Hilleary had presented this "reform" to save TennCare, he would have been crucified. But that's beside the point. TennCare goes beyond politics. There will be no credible Republican candidate running against Bredesen in 2006. Whatever he presents, Republicans will vote for it.

[W]hen he [Bredesen] was elected I don't think anyone thought he would be presenting an obituary for TennCare.

Gordon Bonnyman killed TennCare? Well, as the most powerful man in Tennessee, he ought to be running for governor. More powerful than Blue Cross? More powerful that HCA? More powerful than the doctors? More powerful than the hospitals? More powerful than the health care lobbyists? More powerful than the governor?" --Conservative Frank Cagel, Metro Pulse

---

"The TennCare debate has seen many legal twists, but the state's insistence that its fiercest adversary be restricted from the legal process comes off as vindictive.

The growing personal animus of the Bredesen administration toward Bonnyman and the TJC has been painfully obvious for months. The governor has personally and repeatedly blamed Bonnyman for the out-of-control TennCare costs. The attempt to limit Bonnyman's role at this juncture appears to be as much a personal strike as a legal tactic.

Yet the fact remains that Bonnyman and his colleagues have an ethical and professional duty to represent the constitutional rights of their clients. And those clients — particularly those scheduled to be cut from the program — need the best legal champion they can get. On TennCare, that's Bonnyman."

--Tennessean editorial --

---

"The constitutional amendment to forbid gay marriage, sponsored by Rep. Bill Dunn, R-Knoxville, won initial approval in the last legislative session. If approved again this session by a two-thirds majority, it will go before voters in a statewide referendum in November 2006.

The governor said he believes the constitutional amendment unnecessary since state law already prohibits same-sex weddings, but 'I won't actively urge defeat' of the proposal. He said gay marriage is 'a vastly different issue from tolerance for gays.

I certainly have said frequently over the years that I would happily promote hire or discharge of people in state government without regard to sexual orientation or anything like that,' he said. 'But it seems to me that's a long way from putting official imprimatur of the state on a union where, you know, there's many thousands of years of history to the contrary. It strikes me as unnecessary and contrary to the values of most Americans.'"

--Tom Humphrey

Knoxville News Sentinel

via link to Nashville Files

to be continued

When Democrats Discriminate Just Like Republicans

Dear Senator Jackson,

I understand that you have filed a bill (SB 1930) that would forbid “homosexuals” or anyone from the GLBT community from adopting children. You have also filed a bill (SB 1924) that would forbid gays, lesbians or anyone in the GLBT community from serving as foster parents.

This latter bill goes further in that it seeks to restrict the rights of exclusively heterosexual persons by forbidding them from serving as foster parents whenever there is a member of the GLBT community residing in the home.

I fear you have forgotten to address the subject of teens who identify as members of the GLBT community. If exclusively hetereosxual persons follow your biased lead and refuse to adopt or foster parent GLBT teens, and GLBT persons are forbidden to adopt or foster parent, what exactly do you intend to do to protect GLBT teens from the severe consequences of your discriminatory bills?

I notice that you did not cite studies or provide any evidence to support the rationale for your bills. Indeed you have not even provided a rationale. What specifically are your thoughts regarding the need for your legislation? If you assume that “homosexuals” are sexual predators, then surely you should make that explicit claim and attempt to provide some evidence.

In fact, social science research has firmly established that the population responsible for the vast majority of sexual abuse or pedophilia continues to be hetereosexual males. Perhaps you should write a new bill that bans adoption and foster parenting by heteroexual males. Granted this is absurd, but not so absurd as the aforementioned bills.

As a Tennessean, I am appalled at your attempt to write blantant discimination into the law. I fear your actions will subject the state of Tennessee to the ridicule and scorn of the world, as did the infamous actions of officials in Rhea County.

I am a long time supporter of the Democratic Party, but democrats such as yourself give me little reason to continue that support.

Sincerely,

Crusading Legislators Plot to Run Gays Out of TN

In itself, homosexuality is as limiting as heterosexuality: the ideal should be to be capable of loving a woman or a man; either, a human being, without feeling fear, restraint, or obligation.

~Simone de Beauvoir

UPDATE: DEMOCRATIC Sen. Doug Jackson (Dickson - (615.741.4499) is responsible for a number of the homophobic bills, including SB 1924, which forbids anyone in the GLBT community from serving as foster parents. The Democrat's bill also explicitly punishes heterosexual persons for residing in the same home as GLBT persons. It mandates that heterosexuals also cannot be foster parents if anyone resides in the home who is not exclusively heterosexual.

Nothing is said about forbidding heterosexuals from adopting or foster parenting GLBT teens. No doubt it's an oversight.

This is a partial list of the recent anti-gay legislation. Find out more at Out & About. I've also posted something at Daily Kos.

HB 334 / SB 215 - against civil unions and domestic partnerships
HB 543 / SB 829 - prohibits homosexuals from adopting
HB 751 / SB 914 - against civil unions and domestic partnerships
HB 775 - Prohibits adoptions by homosexual persons, and prohibits a parent from surrendering or consenting to the adoption of such person's child if such person has knowledge that a prospective adoptive parent is a homosexual. HJR 81 - marriage amendment
HJR 10 - marriage amendment
SB 1924 - prohibits a homosexual person from being foster a parent and also applies to anyone if a homosexual person resides in the same residence
SB 1930 - prohibits adoptions by homosexual persons
SJR 31 - marriage amendment
SJR 45 - marriage amendment
SB 1615 -Prohibits adoptions by homosexual persons, and prohibits a parent from surrendering or consenting to the adoption of such person's child if such person has knowledge that a prospective adoptive parent is a homosexual

----------

Republican State Senator Diane Black has filed a bill that would forbid gays and lesbians from adopting children. Black is one of numerous Tennessee legislators who seem to think their job duties consist of making Tennessee over into their own heterosexual image. If there’s one thing Tennessee legislators have plenty of, it’s conceit.

Presumably, the homophobic crusaders imagine that if they are successful in making Tennessee into the most gay-hostile state in the nation, all the gays will leave. If that should actually happen, you can be sure that crusading legislators will move on to another target. Our highly placed sources tell us that as soon as the last gays have left the state, legislators plan to begin persecuting people who sleep with St. Bernards.

In the past few days a slew of bills have been filed that would deny gays and lesbians the freedom to marry (it’s already illegal), the freedom to enter into civil unions, the freedom to adopt children, and the freedom to serve as foster parents. Freedom may be on the march in Iraq, but it’s sure as hell stalled here in Tennessee.

Sen. Diane Black (R-Gallatin), serves as vice chair of the Senate General Welfare, Health, and Human Services Committee. It’s her first term in the Senate. As a nurse, perhaps it’s fitting that she has a leadership role on a committee charged with meeting the health needs of Tennesseans.

If only she would get her mind off the sexual activity of her constituents and her nose out of the business of homosexuals, she might notice that the state is in the throes of a healthcare crisis. But, hey, if legislators were in the habit of paying more attention to healthcare and less attention to the type of sexual activity constituents might or might not prefer, we might not have a healthcare crisis.

The good news is that Tennessee legislators are no longer interested in passing bills of discrimination against African Americans. Some legislators may even recall that it was only decades ago when remarkably similar lawmakers paid dearly for similarly hateful legislation with a full blown civil rights revolution, complete with riots in the street. But it’s doubtful if any of these anti civil rights crusaders know much about history other than what they’ve found in the Bible and the Left Behind series. Try asking them if they remember Stonewall, but don't be surprised when they ask if it's in the new or the old testament.

The crusading legislators appear to have their sights set on a challenge to Anita Bryant’s place as most infamous anti gay rights crusader of all time. Thanks to Bryant's anti gay campaign, Florida passed a law forbidding gays from adopting children. That was in 1977, and the law is still on the books.

Earlier this month the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the infamous law. With more than eleven separate bills, all filed in the past few days, all aimed at forever depriving the GLBT community of freedom, Tennessee’s crusading lawmakers are definitely serious contenders for Bryant’s place in history.

Anita Bryant was a Miss America runner up and a successful recording artist; she was paid handsomely to endorse Coca Cola, Kraft Foods, Holiday Inn and Tupperware. She was the Florida Sunshine Girl. Back in the 1970s, hardly a day went by without her television appearances on behalf of Florida orange juice. She sang: “Breakfast without orange juice is like a day without sunshine."

Bryant’s fame led church leaders to pick her to be the official spokesperson for homophobia. The wholesome Sunshine Girl did as the men said. She not only crusaded against gays, she founded the Save Our Children organization, an organization based on the premise that since gays and lesbians couldn’t have children, they must surely be out to recruit the children of heterosexuals. Presumably, people believed that gays were plotting to take over the planet!

Shortly after the Sunshine Girl’s successful campaign against a gay rights ordinance, her career took a major nosedive. In a just world, Tennessee’s crusading legislators would suffer a similar fate.

I don’t know about you, but these days I’m feeling highly motivated to work especially hard for a just world.

If gays are granted rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes

and to people who sleep with St. Bernards and to nail-biters. ~Anita Bryant

They could come to Tennessee and claim rights.

That's what I'm afraid of. --Tennessee State Sen. Jeff Miller

Strangers in a strange land

Last night I was told I'm a bigot. The reason had to do with my views regarding radical right wingnut Christians who are presently occupying my country's power seats on many levels up to and including the wingnut residing at 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue.

The white heterosexual Christian male who said this to me has decided that he is a part of the LGBT community because he managed to gain grant approval for the only HIV/AIDS ministry in my experience that is housed within and supported by a Baptist church.

I was quick to ask him if his church was affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (wingnuts) or the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (slightly less nutty, but still quite flavorful.) He indicated the latter. While I was somewhat relieved, eventually I had to walk away from this fellow before a screaming match ensued.

He seemed to think that my overall negative view of evangelical Christians indicated a wider negative view of all who subscribe to that faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have many friends who are Christian. None are Baptist. None are evangelical. He is both.

I went to the Web site for his ministry and was dismayed to find that tolerance for LGBT folks was not spoken there, while PWAs were elevated to near sainthood. I guess you're a better PWA if you are heterosexual. Hmmm....

He said that my "negative attitudes" are analogous to what the X-tian wingnuts do to "homosexuals."

I thought my hearing had failed once again. I fail to see the analogy. To the limits of my best recollection, I do not recall any groups of queers campaigning on the local, state, and national levels to take civil rights away from X-tians. They are *certainly* doing that to us.

The best explanation that I have for why we are the ultimate target for so much hatred is because we represent the most dangerous threat (along with reproductive freedom for women) to the patriarchal social structure we live in.

Lesbians, even more than gay men, threaten them where they live,down to and including our crazy notions that we can have children outside what they feel is a family. Hey...we even do it without the direct assistance of men. That, too, is reproductive freedom, not just the ability to have an elective abortion. That is an important component of reproductive freedom for women, but it is only *a part*.

W has his hands full if he really believes that all these angry womyn and queers are going to take this lying down.

I stopped doing that in 1978. I do not intend to resume that position.

Social Security Will Kill You

Dubya, the man who sold us weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, is selling the end of Social Security in his SOTU speech, right now. The Republican side of the room is erupting with obedient applause and the obligatory standing ovations. Please let the Emperor be brief.

Back in the 1980s and 90s, right-wing don't think tanks like the Heritage Foundation laid out the plan. Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all of them needed to go, wrote faux scholars like Charles Murray.

When they eliminated the entitlement to a safety net for poor mothers and children, precious few of us bothered to protest. So now it's time for 'the end of social security as we know it'. Goddess help us if we stand by and let them do this.

Jesus General offers some talking points to help Bush in his quest to promote social insecurity.

1. Social Security will kill you. Nine out of ten people will die within twenty years of the time they start collecting it.

2. Social security supports terrorists. Somewhere, a member of the Weather Underground is waiting for his check to arrive so that he can buy groceries and maybe even the parts for a bomb.

3. There were social security checks on the planes that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

4. Social security has weapons of mass destruction. Sure, logic tells us that social security is a concept and is therefore incapable of possessing anything, but Ahmad Chalabi tells me it has them.

5. Social Security is trying to homosexualize our children by promoting its pansexual philosophy.

6. Yes, my efforts to sell my plan to Congress are failing. I've fired the person responsible. Donald Rumsfeld will now take over. I'm sure he'll repeat the many successes he had at the Pentagon.

Lawmakers Return to Unfinished Business of Controlling Women's Wombs

State Rep. Chris Newton says Tennessee has "the most liberal abortion laws in the United States of America."

Like he'd know.

The Republican doesn't say which tv channel he gets his facts from, but it's hard to believe that Rep.Newton is deluded enough to believe that Tennessee has the "most liberal" anything.

According to NARAL, when it comes to reproductive rights, Tennessee rates as one of the worst states in the nation. 94% of Tennessee counties have no abortion provider. Doctors have the right to refuse to provide contraceptives. The state offers no help for low-income women in need of abortions. We have no laws in Tennessee that require hospitals to offer victims of rape access to emergency contraceptives. Nor have our legislators passed laws to ensure equity in private insurance coverage for prescription contraception.

But, gee, when would our legislators have time to pass laws aimed at helping women avoid unintended pregnancies? I mean, the business of introducing and re-introducing legislation aimed at striking down women's rights is time-intensive labor. It also gets lawmakers a whole lot of attention, and that may actually be the entire point of the annual exercise.

With the current session less than a month old, Rep. Newton has already managed to introduce not one, but two proposals to strip women's right to choose from the state constitution. And, no, the Republican didn't stay up late at night working on the project. He merely copied, word for word, the anti-choice resolutions from last year. Yeah, he gets paid for this.

One of the resurrected anti-choice resolutions was passed by the ultra-conservative Senate last year, and killed by the House. Let's hope our hard-working legislators will be able to do everything all over again this year, just like they did last year. We sure wouldn't want any nasty healthcare crisis to distract them from their traditional fun and games.