GLBT Issue Lists & Speakers

Great Lists and how to get them

* Safe Schools Coalition - all-around GREAT list!, local, state and US: http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org, click on "LISTSERVE" on the bar on the left side.

Local

* GLSEN Puget Sound for the Puget Sound region; King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties: mailto:glsenpugetsound-subscribe@lists.riseup.net

* Seattle Young People's Project / Queer Youth Rights: http://www.sypp.org/. Updates by Email: Enter your email address to be added to the SYPP listserve

Seattle LGBT Community Center: http://seattlelgbt.org/ - Top box, Add me to the Center's Weekly Events Email List

Seattle Out And Proud Announcement List (Pride): http://seattlepride.org/announcements.htm

Marriage Equality Now: http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/menow-announce

Washington State

* GLSEN Washington - http://www.glsenwa.org/. List is called WA State GSA Network: mailto:gsa-subscribe@lists.riseup.net

*
- Washington Won't Discriminate is not running their list now, but will start it up in the future, if necessary.

* Equal Rights Washington - Weekly update on equal rights in Washington State. Paste or type your email address into the box on the top left - Join or Donate to ERW: GET UPDATES, TAKE ACTION!: http://equalrightswashington.org/

* Legal Marriage Alliance of Washington: http://lists.qrd.org/mailman/options/lma

Religious Coalition for Equality: http://www.religiouscoalition-wa.org/ - Blue bar on left, Send me updates and alerts.

ACLU Washington: http://www.aclu-wa.org/ - Upper right-hand corner, Sign up for the ACLU-WA Email Activist Network. (Speaker's Bureau listed under Resources tab)

National

Youth Guardian Services runs great e-mail support lists for glbtq youth, in three age groups: YOUTH13-17, YOUTH17-21, YOUTH21-25, and the STR8 list, for straight ally youth under 25: http://www.youth-guard.org/youth/

* PFLAG National Weekly Updates: http://www.pflag.org/Weekly_Update.422.0.html, Subscribe to the Weekly Update now!. This is the official PFLAG list.

* Wonderful unofficial PFLAG list, PFLAG-talk: http://www.critpath.org/pflag-talk/talkfaq.html

* PFLAG also has a Safe Schools list, pflagschools: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pflagschools/

Human Rights Campaign: http://www.hrc.org/ - Top left, Stay Informed: Your email here

Lambda Legal: http://www.lambdalegal.org/ - on the right, Sign up for our eNews

* Freedom to Marry's Bi-monthly E-Update: http://www.freedomtomarry.org/e_update.asp

Don't Amend.com: http://www.dontamend.com/ - Left-hand top: Join Email List

---

* Lists to which I subscribe.

---

Speakers Bureau Contacts: http://seattlelgbt.org/speakers.html


You do things again and again, and nothing happens. You have to do things, do things, do things. You have to light that match, light that match, light that match, not knowing how often it's going to sputter and go out and at what point it's going to take hold. Things take a long time. It requires patience, but not a passive patience -- the patience of activism. - Howard Zinn

The Euston Manifesto

I signed this manifesto, after reading it on Tom Head's blog, which is part of the Jackson Free Press. Be warned -- this is long. It has to be long, to be clear and complete. Once you are done reading it, don't forget to SIGN IT.

A. Preamble

We are democrats and progressives. We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment. Indeed, the reconfiguration of progressive opinion that we aim for involves drawing a line between the forces of the Left that remain true to its authentic values, and currents that have lately shown themselves rather too flexible about these values. It involves making common cause with genuine democrats, whether socialist or not.

The present initiative has its roots in and has found a constituency through the Internet, especially the "blogosphere". It is our perception, however, that this constituency is under-represented elsewhere - in much of the media and the other forums of contemporary political life.

The broad statement of principles that follows is a declaration of intent. It inaugurates a new Website, which will serve as a resource for the current of opinion it hopes to represent and the several foundation blogs and other sites that are behind this call for a progressive realignment.

B. Statement of principles

1) For democracy.
We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures - freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.

2) No apology for tyranny.
We decline to make excuses for, to indulgently "understand", reactionary regimes and movements for which democracy is a hated enemy - regimes that oppress their own peoples and movements that aspire to do so. We draw a firm line between ourselves and those left-liberal voices today quick to offer an apologetic explanation for such political forces.

3) Human rights for all.
We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal, and binding on all states and political movements, indeed on everyone. Violations of these rights are equally to be condemned whoever is responsible for them and regardless of cultural context. We reject the double standards with which much self-proclaimed progressive opinion now operates, finding lesser (though all too real) violations of human rights which are closer to home, or are the responsibility of certain disfavoured governments, more deplorable than other violations that are flagrantly worse. We reject, also, the cultural relativist view according to which these basic human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples.

4) Equality.
We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress in relations between the sexes (until full gender equality is achieved), between different ethnic communities, between those of various religious affiliations and those of none, and between people of diverse sexual orientations - as well as towards broader social and economic equality all round. We leave open, as something on which there are differences of viewpoint amongst us, the question of the best economic forms of this broader equality, but we support the interests of working people everywhere and their right to organize in defence of those interests. Democratic trade unions are the bedrock organizations for the defence of workers' interests and are one of the most important forces for human rights, democracy-promotion and egalitarian internationalism. Labour rights are human rights. The universal adoption of the International Labour Organization Conventions - now routinely ignored by governments across the globe - is a priority for us. We are committed to the defence of the rights of children, and to protecting people from sexual slavery and all forms of institutionalized abuse.

5) Development for freedom.
We stand for global economic development-as-freedom and against structural economic oppression and environmental degradation. The current expansion of global markets and free trade must not be allowed to serve the narrow interests of a small corporate elite in the developed world and their associates in developing countries. The benefits of large-scale development through the expansion of global trade ought to be distributed as widely as possible in order to serve the social and economic interests of workers, farmers and consumers in all countries. Globalization must mean global social integration and a commitment to social justice. We support radical reform of the major institutions of global economic governance (World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, World Bank) to achieve these goals, and we support fair trade, more aid, debt cancellation and the campaign to Make Poverty History. Development can bring growth in life-expectancy and in the enjoyment of life, easing burdensome labour and shortening the working day. It can bring freedom to youth, possibilities of exploration to those of middle years, and security to old age. It enlarges horizons and the opportunities for travel, and helps make strangers into friends. Global development must be pursued in a manner consistent with environmentally sustainable growth.

6) Opposing anti-Americanism.
We reject without qualification the anti-Americanism now infecting so much left-liberal (and some conservative) thinking. This is not a case of seeing the US as a model society. We are aware of its problems and failings. But these are shared in some degree with all of the developed world. The United States of America is a great country and nation. It is the home of a strong democracy with a noble tradition behind it and lasting constitutional and social achievements to its name. Its peoples have produced a vibrant culture that is the pleasure, the source-book and the envy of millions. That US foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones does not justify generalized prejudice against either the country or its people.

7) For a two-state solution.
We recognize the right of both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples to self-determination within the framework of a two-state solution. There can be no reasonable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that subordinates or eliminates the legitimate rights and interests of one of the sides to the dispute.

8) Against racism.
For liberals and the Left, anti-racism is axiomatic. We oppose every form of racist prejudice and behaviour: the anti-immigrant racism of the far Right; tribal and inter-ethnic racism; racism against people from Muslim countries and those descended from them, particularly under cover of the War on Terror. The recent resurgence of another, very old form of racism, anti-Semitism, is not yet properly acknowledged in left and liberal circles. Some exploit the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation by Israel, and conceal prejudice against the Jewish people behind the formula of "anti-Zionism". We oppose this type of racism too, as should go without saying.

9) United against terror.
We are opposed to all forms of terrorism. The deliberate targeting of civilians is a crime under international law and all recognized codes of warfare, and it cannot be justified by the argument that it is done in a cause that is just. Terrorism inspired by Islamist ideology is widespread today. It threatens democratic values and the lives and freedoms of people in many countries. This does not justify prejudice against Muslims, who are its main victims, and amongst whom are to be found some of its most courageous opponents. But, like all terrorism, it is a menace that has to be fought, and not excused.

10) A new internationalism.
We stand for an internationalist politics and the reform of international law - in the interests of global democratization and global development. Humanitarian intervention, when necessary, is not a matter of disregarding sovereignty, but of lodging this properly within the "common life" of all peoples. If in some minimal sense a state protects the common life of its people (if it does not torture, murder and slaughter its own civilians, and meets their most basic needs of life), then its sovereignty is to be respected. But if the state itself violates this common life in appalling ways, its claim to sovereignty is forfeited and there is a duty upon the international community of intervention and rescue. Once a threshold of inhumanity has been crossed, there is a "responsibility to protect".

11) A critical openness.
Drawing the lesson of the disastrous history of left apologetics over the crimes of Stalinism and Maoism, as well as more recent exercises in the same vein (some of the reaction to the crimes of 9/11, the excuse-making for suicide-terrorism, the disgraceful alliances lately set up inside the "anti-war" movement with illiberal theocrats), we reject the notion that there are no opponents on the Left. We reject, similarly, the idea that there can be no opening to ideas and individuals to our right. Leftists who make common cause with, or excuses for, anti-democratic forces should be criticized in clear and forthright terms. Conversely, we pay attention to liberal and conservative voices and ideas if they contribute to strengthening democratic norms and practices and to the battle for human progress.

12) Historical truth.
In connecting to the original humanistic impulses of the movement for human progress, we emphasize the duty which genuine democrats must have to respect for the historical truth. Not only fascists, Holocaust-deniers and the like have tried to obscure the historical record. One of the tragedies of the Left is that its own reputation was massively compromised in this regard by the international Communist movement, and some have still not learned that lesson. Political honesty and straightforwardness are a primary obligation for us.

13) Freedom of ideas.
We uphold the traditional liberal freedom of ideas. It is more than ever necessary today to affirm that, within the usual constraints against defamation, libel and incitement to violence, people must be at liberty to criticize ideas - even whole bodies of ideas - to which others are committed. This includes the freedom to criticize religion: particular religions and religion in general. Respect for others does not entail remaining silent about their beliefs where these are judged to be wanting.

14) Open source.
As part of the free exchange of ideas and in the interests of encouraging joint intellectual endeavour, we support the open development of software and other creative works and oppose the patenting of genes, algorithms and facts of nature. We oppose the retrospective extension of intellectual property laws in the financial interests of corporate copyright holders. The open source model is collective and competitive, collaborative and meritocratic. It is not a theoretical ideal, but a tested reality that has created common goods whose power and robustness have been proved over decades. Indeed, the best collegiate ideals of the scientific research community that gave rise to open source collaboration have served human progress for centuries.

15) A precious heritage.
We reject fear of modernity, fear of freedom, irrationalism, the subordination of women; and we reaffirm the ideas that inspired the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century: liberty, equality and solidarity; human rights; the pursuit of happiness. These inspirational ideas were made the inheritance of us all by the social-democratic, egalitarian, feminist and anti-colonial transformations of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries - by the pursuit of social justice, the provision of welfare, the brotherhood and sisterhood of all men and women. None should be left out, none left behind. We are partisans of these values. But we are not zealots. For we embrace also the values of free enquiry, open dialogue and creative doubt, of care in judgement and a sense of the intractabilities of the world. We stand against all claims to a total - unquestionable or unquestioning - truth.

C. Elaborations

We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left.

The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people - children in particular - die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way.

These things are a standing indictment against the international community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other.

We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11, 2001 were America's deserved comeuppance, or "understandable" in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.

The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted - rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.

This opposes us not only to those on the Left who have actively spoken in support of the gangs of jihadist and Baathist thugs of the Iraqi so-called resistance, but also to others who manage to find a way of situating themselves between such forces and those trying to bring a new democratic life to the country. We have no truck, either, with the tendency to pay lip service to these ends, while devoting most of one's energy to criticism of political opponents at home (supposedly responsible for every difficulty in Iraq), and observing a tactful silence or near silence about the ugly forces of the Iraqi "insurgency". The many left opponents of regime change in Iraq who have been unable to understand the considerations that led others on the Left to support it, dishing out anathema and excommunication, more lately demanding apology or repentance, betray the democratic values they profess.

Vandalism against synagogues and Jewish graveyards and attacks on Jews themselves are on the increase in Europe. "Anti-Zionism" has now developed to a point where supposed organizations of the Left are willing to entertain openly anti-Semitic speakers and to form alliances with anti-Semitic groups. Amongst educated and affluent people are to be found individuals unembarrassed to claim that the Iraq war was fought on behalf of Jewish interests, or to make other "polite" and subtle allusions to the harmful effect of Jewish influence in international or national politics - remarks of a kind that for more than fifty years after the Holocaust no one would have been able to make without publicly disgracing themselves. We stand against all variants of such bigotry.

The violation of basic human rights standards at Abu Ghraib, at Guantanamo, and by the practice of "rendition", must be roundly condemned for what it is: a departure from universal principles, for the establishment of which the democratic countries themselves, and in particular the United States of America, bear the greater part of the historical credit. But we reject the double standards by which too many on the Left today treat as the worst violations of human rights those perpetrated by the democracies, while being either silent or more muted about infractions that outstrip these by far. This tendency has reached the point that officials speaking for Amnesty International, an organization which commands enormous, worldwide respect because of its invaluable work over several decades, can now make grotesque public comparison of Guantanamo with the Gulag, can assert that the legislative measures taken by the US and other liberal democracies in the War on Terror constitute a greater attack on human rights principles and values than anything we have seen in the last 50 years, and be defended for doing so by certain left and liberal voices.

D. Conclusion

It is vitally important for the future of progressive politics that people of liberal, egalitarian and internationalist outlook should now speak clearly. We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current US administration. The values and goals which properly make up that agenda - the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fighting against tyranny and oppression - are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to.

Notes for media
Solely for legal reasons this document is ©Norman Geras 2006. It will be made available under a Creative Commons licence.

The Euston Manifesto Group

Norman Geras, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Manchester University, normblog;
Damian Counsell, Director, Bioinformatics.Org, PooterGeek;
Alan Johnson, Editor, Democratiya, and Reader in Social Science, Edge Hill;
Shalom Lappin, Professor of Computational Linguistics, King's College London;
Jane Ashworth, Director of Engage;
Dave Bennett;
Brian Brivati, Professor of Modern History, Kingston University;
Adrian Cohen, Unite Against Terror;
Nick Cohen, journalist;
Anthony Cox, Black Triangle;
Neil Denny, Little Atoms;
Paul Evans;
Paul Gamble, Engage;
Eve Garrard, Senior Lecturer, Centre for Professional Ethics, Keele University;
Harry Hatchet, Harry's Place;
David Hirsh, Editor of Engage, Lecturer, Sociology, Goldsmiths College;
Dan Johnson, Muscular Liberals;
Hak Mao, [link];
Gary Kent, Director, Labour Friends Of Iraq (signing in a personal capacity);
Jon Pike, Chair of Engage, Senior Lecturer - Philosophy, Open University;
Simon Pottinger, Unite Against Terror;
Andrew Regan, Bloggers4Labour founder (signing in a personal capacity);
Alexandra Simonon, Managing Editor, Engage;
Richard Sanderson, Little Atoms;
David T, Harry's Place;
Philip Spencer, Associate Dean, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Kingston University;
Will @ A General Theory Of Rubbish

Other signers

Joe Bailey, (Prof.) Head of School of Social Science, Kingston University
Ophelia Benson, Deputy Editor, The Philosophers' Magazine
Paul Berman
Pamela Bone, journalist, Melbourne
Robert Borsley, Professor of Linguistics, University of Essex
Michael Brennan, Department of Sociology, Warwick University
Mitchell Cohen, City University of New York; co-editor of Dissent
Marc Cooper, The Nation
Thomas Cushman, Editor of The Journal of Human Rights
Heather Deegan, Reader in Comparative Politics at Middlesex University
Luke Foley,
Marko Attila Hoare,
Quintin Hoare,
Anthony Julius,
Oliver Kamm, blogger, journalist and author
Sunder Katwala, General Secretary, Fabian Society (in a personal capacity)
Jeffrey Ketland, Edinburgh University
Mary Kreutzer, Austrian political scientist, WADI Austria , and editor of the human rights-journal LIGA
John Lloyd, The Financial Times
Kanan Makiya,
Jim Nolan, barrister, Sydney
Will Parbury, Labour Parliamentary Candidate for Fylde 2005
Thomas Schmidinger, Assistant Lecturer for Political Science (Vienna University), WADI Austria
George Szirtes, Poet
Michael Walzer, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton; co-editor of Dissent
Bert Ward, Advisory Editor, Democratiya
Jeff Weintraub, University of Pennysylvania
Francis Wheen, journalist and writer
Sami Zubaida, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Sociology, Birkbeck College, London

SIGN IT.


Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time. - Thomas Edison

New York Marriage Decision: Homophobia Runs Deep

COMMENTARY
by Matt Foreman, Executive Director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

I never expected New York’s high court to rule for us on marriage. For a lot of solid legal reasons, New York was never in the first tier for marriage test case litigation and I distinctly remember having the unpleasant task 10 years ago of dissuading couples from going to court to press the issue.

So when I read the summary Friday morning — that the state constitution doesn’t require the recognition of same-sex marriage — I expected the body of the decision to be scholarly and well-reasoned. I also expected that it would express sympathy for the real discrimination and hardships gay and lesbian couples face and that it would very likely urge the Legislature to act to address these injustices.
Boy, was I wrong. The opinion was more than poorly written, illogical and insulting to any legal mind, it was plainly homophobic and a prime example of the failure of too many allegedly thinking straight people — in this case judges — to grasp that we are fully and equally human.

Sentences like:

“Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like.” (When a judge has to resort to “intuition and experience” rather than legal precedent and fact, you know you’re in deep trouble.)

“The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships will help children more.” (In other words, straight people need marriage more than we do because they can “become parents as a result of accident or impulse.” Score one for the gays?)

I could go on, but you get the point.

Relying on stereotyping (always a bad thing to do), one would be tempted to think this kind of crap could only be written by some upstate, right-wing political hack with no experience with gay people.

Wrong again. The author grew up in Manhattan and attended Stanford and Columbia. He clerked for Constance Baker Motley, a colleague of Thurgood Marshall at the NAACP and a solidly progressive judge. And get this: He teaches Sunday school at a church that is one of the nation’s most “welcoming and affirming” of gay people, where gay people are part and parcel of everything that happens, including the Sunday school program.

So how did this happen? The same way our parents, brothers and sisters, co-workers and friends can blithely vote for homophobic candidates and even anti-marriage constitutional amendments. The same way so many “decent” people feel no compunction about loudly guffawing at a joke about gay people. (Remember the joke industry Brokeback Mountain created?) The same way an elected official who’s been married for 30 years will look you in the eye, year after year, and say, “I’m behind you 100 percent but I need to be educated about this whole marriage issue.”

Bottom line: So many people who should know better, don’t. They do not get us, our lives or our love. In sum, they do not view us as fully or equally human.

It’s not all their fault, either. So many of us assume that because people know we’re gay, invite us over to dinner, thought Will & Grace was hysterical, comment on our lawns or welcome our partners home for the holidays.

Wrong, yet again. The reality is that most of us have never had a serious conversation about our lives with straight people close to us. (Case in point: I’ve been out to my parents for 26 years but I didn’t ask them to actually do something — like write a legislator — until three years ago.) People are astonished to find out that anti-gay discrimination is still legal in 33 states. They don’t believe you can be denied hospital visitation or control over the remains of someone you’ve been with for 50 years.

And equally important, they’re not going to stand up for us — at the polls, when they hear an ugly joke, or even when writing a legal opinion — unless we tell them why it’s essential and ask them to. Person to person, heart to heart. That needs to be our challenge and mission every day of the year.

As for the New York marriage opinion, the only good news is that the decision is so pathetic we won’t need to worry about thoughtful judges in other states relying on it — they’d be too embarrassed. And that’s exactly the way the majority of the New York Court of Appeals should feel the rest of their lives.

By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection which is noblest, second, by imitation, which is easiest, and third, by experience, which is the bitterest. - Confucius

Have a great Independence Day!

Thanks to Matt of Equality MySpace for this:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

~ Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

Bush on the FMA, Corrected & Annotated

Remarks of President Bush on the Marriage Protection Amendment

Corrected and Annotated by Mark Agrast, Sam Berger and Brodie Butland

Center for American Progress

June 5, 2006

Thank you all. Please be seated.

Good afternoon and welcome to the White House. It is a pleasure to be with so many fine community leaders, scholars, family organizations, religious leaders, Republicans, Democrats, independents. Thank you all for coming.

You come from many backgrounds and faith traditions, yet united in this common belief: Marriage is the most fundamental institution of civilization and it should not be redefined by activist judges.

FACT: Marriage is not being redefined by "activist judges." As a new Cato Report by Professor Dale Carpenter notes, "The 'threat' from courts is more imagined than real." Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision; 45 states have barred same-sex marriage by various means. The question isn't whether "activist judges" should redefine marriage, but whether the states should have the opportunity to settle this matter in their own fashion, without federal interference.

You are here because you strongly support a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. And I am proud to stand with you.

FACT: Clearly this is not a representative group. Recent polling shows that the country is closely divided over whether to support a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage. In fact, a June 4th ABC News poll found that only 42% of the public supports such an amendment.

This week, the Senate begins debate on the Marriage Protection Amendment. And I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.

FACT: A constitutional amendment would not put power back "in the hands of the American people"; it would all but permanently remove the issue from the democratic process by preventing states from allowing same-sex marriage if they choose to do so. As conservative scholar Bruce Fein states, "[The Federal Marriage Amendment] precludes legislative bodies from recognizing same-sex unions irrespective of majority sentiments."

The union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution.

FACT: This is certainly true. But it is not an argument for denying gay and lesbian Americans the opportunity to participate in that institution.

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that marriage is critical to the well-being of families. And because families pass along values and shape character, marriage is also critical to the health of society.

Our policy should aim to strengthen families, not undermine them.

FACT: There is no reason to believe-nor has any evidence been produced-that allowing people to marry who cannot now do so would "undermine" or have any other discernable effect on the families of those who are currently permitted to marry. On the other hand, denying gay men and lesbians the ability to marry does undermine their families.

And changing the definition of marriage would undermine the family structure.

FACT: There is no reason to believe-nor has any evidence been produced-that allowing gay men and lesbians to marry would have any effect on the "family structure." There have been no reputable studies showing that the legalization of same-sex marriage has any adverse effect on family integrity, child welfare or societal well-being.

America is a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. In this country, people are free to choose how they live their lives.

FACT: People should be free to choose how they live their lives, including choosing whom they wish to marry. As Vice President Dick Cheney said in opposing a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, "freedom means freedom for everybody."

In our free society, decisions about as fundamental a social institution as marriage should be made by the people.

FACT: Absolutely. But the amendment would prevent this from happening. The decision should be made by the people of each state through the normal democratic process.

The American people have spoken clearly on this issue through their elected representatives and at the ballot box.

FACT: They have indeed. Eighteen states have enacted their own constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and additional states are considering them. So why do we need a federal amendment? As Senator John McCain said, "[the proposed federal amendment] usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

In 1996, Congress approved the Defense of Marriage Act by large bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate, and President Clinton signed it into law.

FACT: That's why the Marriage Protection Amendment is superfluous. Former representative Bob Barr, the author of the Defense of Marriage Act, strongly opposes the amendment as unnecessary and an affront to federalism.

And since then, 19 states have held referendums to amend their state constitutions to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

In every case, the amendments were approved by decisive majorities, with an average of 71 percent.

FACT: The enactment of these amendments demonstrates how unnecessary it is for opponents of same-sex marriage to tamper with the federal Constitution.

Today, 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or a statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

These amendments and laws express a broad consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage. The people have spoken.

FACT: These amendments and laws indicate that a majority of the people oppose same-sex marriage, not that they favor a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Indeed, on that question the public is evenly divided. Moreover, majority opposition to same-sex marriage continues to shrink. Before we convert the wishes of a transitory majority into a permanent amendment to our Constitution, we should be sure that the proposed change will stand the test of time.

Unfortunately, this consensus is being undermined by activist judges and local officials who have struck down state laws protecting marriage and made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Since 2004, state courts in Washington and California and Maryland and New York have ruled against marriage laws. Last year a federal judge in Nebraska overturned a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, an amendment that was approved by 70 percent of the
population.

FACT: The cases in Washington, California, Maryland and New York are all lower court decisions. The Nebraska case, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, is the only case in which a state marriage amendment has been overturned, and that case is under appeal. The court invalidated the amendment because it was drafted so broadly that it would have prohibited every type of same-sex relationship, not just same-sex marriage.

And at this moment, nine states face lawsuits challenging the marriage laws they have on the books.

FACT: Not one of these states has been forced to recognize same-sex marriage. Why enact a constitutional amendment to address a problem that does not exist?

Some argue that defining marriage should be left to the states. The fact is, state legislatures are trying to address this issue.

FACT: State legislatures are not simply trying to address the issue, they are succeeding. Forty five states have banned same-sex marriage, two have created civil unions, four states and the District of Columbia have created some form of domestic partnership laws, and the California legislature has passed legislation allowing for same-sex marriage, although it was vetoed by the governor.

But across the country, they are being thwarted by activist judges who are overturning the express will of their people. And these court decisions could have an impact on our whole nation.

The Defense of Marriage Act declares that no state is required to accept another state's definition of marriage. If that act is overturned by the courts, then marriage recognized in one city or state may have to be recognized as marriages everywhere else.

FACT: There is no reason to think that the Defense of Marriage Act will be overturned, and there are no cases in which challenges to the law have been upheld. In fact, the only two courts that have considered challenges to DOMA have upheld it.

That would mean that every state would have to recognize marriage as redefined by judges in, say, Massachusetts or local officials in San Francisco, no matter what their own state laws or their state constitutions say.

FACT: It is inconceivable that the current Supreme Court would invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. But even if this were to occur, the duty to give "Full Faith and Credit" to marriages contracted in another state is subject to a "public policy" exception that has always permitted states to refuse to recognize such marriages. The exception would certainly permit states to continue to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages if they choose to do so.

This national question requires a national solution.

FACT: Marriage has never been a "national question." It has always been governed by state law, and should remain so.

And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts but from the people of the United States.

FACT: The solution should come from the people through the normal democratic process. It should not be set in stone by a transient majority.

An amendment to the Constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice.

FACT: The Marriage Protection Amendment is a solution in search of a problem. Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision. Since other states do not have to recognize such marriages, this is hardly an emergency requiring the extraordinary remedy of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution: the only law a court cannot overturn.

FACT: An amendment to the Constitution should always be a last resort. There is certainly no need for one here. While one lower federal court has called into question the validity of a state constitutional amendment in Nebraska, that decision is being appealed. Meanwhile, state constitutional amendments all over the country appear to be on firm ground.

The constitutional amendment that the Senate will consider this week would fully protect marriage from being redefined.

It will leave state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

FACT: The Defense of Marriage Act allows states to create their own definition of marriage. The Marriage Protection Amendment would change this by imposing a uniform definition on the states. The language of the amendment is unclear as to whether the amendment would permit the state legislatures to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

A constitutional amendment is the most democratic process by which our country can resolve this issue.

FACT: The most democratic process by which our country can resolve this issue is the normal one in which the people of individual states can debate and consider their own solutions.

In their wisdom, our founders set a high bar for amending the Constitution: An amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate and then ratified by three-fourths of the 50 state legislatures.

This process guarantees that every state legislature and every community in our nation will have a voice and a say in deciding this issue.

FACT: Since the consent of only three-fourths of the states is required, the amendment could become law over the objections of some of the most populous states in our nation, including California, New York and Illinois. States that have chosen to extend the right to marry to their
gay and lesbian citizens could have their decision negated, and marriage defined for their citizens, by the residents of other states.

A constitutional amendment would not take this issue away from the states, as some have argued. It would take the issue away from the courts, and put it directly before the American people.

FACT: A constitutional amendment would override state decisions, whether they are made by courts, legislatures, or popular referenda, and it would be virtually impossible to reconsider.

As this debate goes forward, every American deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect and dignity.

FACT: No American is treated with respect and dignity by this amendment, which not only demeans gay and lesbian citizens but shows contempt for the ability of the people to rightly decide this issue for themselves through the democratic process.

On an issue of this great significance, opinions are strong and emotions run deep. And all of us have a duty to conduct this discussion with civility and decency toward one another.

FACT: Civility and decency are not served by a discriminatory constitutional amendment introduced as a political ploy in an election year. As First Lady Laura Bush said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."

All people deserve to have their voices heard, and a constitutional amendment will ensure that they are heard.

FACT: A constitutional amendment will silence the voices of millions of Americans today and those of generations to come.

I appreciate you taking an interest in this fundamental issue. It's an important issue for our country to debate and to resolve. And the best way to resolve this issue is through a constitutional amendment, which I strongly support.

God bless.

Victory belongs to the most persevering. - Napoleon Bonaparte

Bayer Sold HIV-tainted Plasma

I couldn't believe this, so I googled a bit. It appears to be true, and just now, 20 years later, coming to light. NONE of the American executives responsible have been indicted, or even asked to own up to what they have done. See:

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/0503/22.php

Echoes from the past

From the original Mother's Day, actually. Spoken by the woman who called for Mother's Day in the wake of the U.S. Civil War. Listen to Julia Ward Howe as we approach Memorial Day:

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts, whether our baptism be that of water or of tears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.

"We women of one country will be too tender of those of another country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own. It says 'Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.'"

Blood does not wipe out dishonor nor violence indicate possession. As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar, but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a general congress of women without limit of nationality may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace.
Julia Ward Howe
Boston
1870

Thank you Anitra for blogging this.


Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing. - Arundhati Roy

Seven Areas of Self-Esteem

What a great list! Stolen from Cheryl's blog:

The Seven Areas of Self-Esteem

Physical prowess: Feeling confident in your bodys ability to meet the demands of daily life through physical strength, endurance, and flexibility.

Social skills and social comportment: Knowing how to present yourself well and to act appropriately and graciously in a variety of social situations. Becoming someone others want to spend time with.

Self-discipline: Developing the ability to direct your will toward a desired goal in a sustained manner; to stay with a task even when youre tired, distracted, discouraged, or no longer interested; to keep your promises.

Self-trust: Knowing how to tune in to and trust what you know and what you feel; to assess safety and danger; to act on your perceptions even when others may not agree with them.

Financial literacy: Developing your ability to spend, save, give, and invest wisely; to value your time and energy fairly; and to understand the laws of prosperity.

A place in the sun: Developing a special skill or innate talent for which you will be recognized and valued.

Positive self-image: Feeling secure and good about yourself, which includes a positive body image, and a positive relationship with self-adornment and personal style.


He who lives in harmony with himself lives in harmony with the universe. - Marcus Aurelius

Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years?

What Is the Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years?

Beloved, by Toni Morrison, center, was chosen as the best American fiction of the last 25 years. Runners up were Philip Roth, Cormac McCarthy, John Updike and Don DeLillo.

By THE NEW YORK TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/books/fiction-25-years.html
Published: May 21, 2006

Early this year, the Book Review's editor, Sam Tanenhaus, sent out a short letter to a couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify "the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years."

THE WINNER: Beloved, by Toni Morrison (1987)

THE RUNNERS-UP:
Underworld, by Don DeLillo (1997)

Blood Meridian, by Cormac McCarthy (1985)

Rabbit Angstrom: The Four Novels, by John Updike (1995)
(Rabbit at Rest (1990), Rabbit Is Rich (1981), Rabbit Redux (1971), Rabbit, Run (1960)

American Pastoral, by Philip Roth (1997)

THE FOLLOWING BOOKS ALSO RECEIVED MULTIPLE VOTES:
A Confederacy of Dunces, by John Kennedy Toole (1980)

Housekeeping, by Marilynne Robinson (1980)

Winter's Tale, by Mark Helprin (1983)

White Noise, by Don DeLillo (1985)

The Counterlife, by Philip Roth (1986)

Libra, by Don DeLillo (1988)

Where I'm Calling From, by Raymond Carver (1988)

The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien (1990)

Mating, by Norman Rush (1991)

Jesus' Son, by Denis Johnson (1992)

Operation Shylock, by Philip Roth (1993)

Independence Day, by Richard Ford (1995)

Sabbath's Theater, by Philip Roth (1995)

Border Trilogy, by Cormac McCarthy (1999)
(Cities of the Plain (1998), The Crossing (1994), All the Pretty Horses (1992))

The Human Stain, by Philip Roth (2000)

The Known World, by Edward P. Jones (2003)

The Plot Against America, by Philip Roth (2004)

Sounds like some good books to add to the reading list for the next few years.

Women threatened by fake Planned Parenthood clinics

I just heard about the following story from Planned Parenthood. I hope you'll join me in taking action to put a stop to the outrageous practices of fake "clinics" by clicking on the link at the bottom of this post.

An Indiana mother recently accompanied her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend to one of Indiana's Planned Parenthood clinics, but they unwittingly walked into a "crisis pregnancy center" run by an anti-abortion group -- one that shared a parking lot with the real Planned Parenthood clinic, and was designed expressly to lure Planned Parenthood patients and deceive them.

The group took down the girl's confidential personal information and told her to come back for her appointment, which they said would be in their "other office" (the real Planned Parenthood office nearby). When she arrived for her appointment, not only did the Planned Parenthood staff have no record of her, but the police were there -- the "crisis pregnancy center" had called them, claiming that a minor was being forced to have an abortion against her will.

The "crisis pregnancy center" staff then proceeded to wage a campaign of intimidation and harassment over the following days, showing up at the girl's home and calling her father's
workplace. Our clinic director reports that she was "scared to death to leave her house." They even went to her school and urged classmates to pressure her not to have an abortion.

Behind the Story: The anti-choice movement is setting up so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" across the country. Some of them have neutral-sounding names and run ads that falsely promise the full range of reproductive health services, but dispense anti-choice propaganda and intimidation instead. And according to The New York Times, there are currently more of these centers in the U.S. than there are actual abortion providers! What's more, these centers have received $60 million of government grants. They're being funded by our tax dollars.

A bill has just been introduced in Congress to stop the fraudulent practices of fake clinics, but it desperately needs more support. Tell your representative to take a stand: anti-choice extremists must not get away with this any longer! Click here to contact your representative:
http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake

Thanks.

----------
Donate Now >> https://secure.ga0.org/02/fake_clinics
Tell a Friend >> http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake/forward
Take Action >> http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake

Money, Religion and Politics

I have to file this under news and politics, although the problem is that it is NOT news. My friend Bruce has written an explosive blog, full of stuff you have to read! However, he tells the story in a very calm, reasoned manner. Everyone who cares about the state of equal rights around the world, and within the United State, should read this blog. And leave a comment, and blog about it, talk about it, spread the word.

So, go read: Lords Of The New Church

Go on........

If the crazy MySpace (ColdFusion) link doesn't work, try http://tinyurl.com/qqqvt. Or click on his name, above, and go to his blog.


"Remember these names: Scaife. Olin. Bradley. Coors. Smith-Richardson. Carthage. Koch. Lambe. Earhart. DeVos. Ahmanson."

Prosperity is just around the corner....

According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!

- SEAN WILENTZ, at: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history
Thanks to Dude the Obscure for the link.

V for Vendetta

Go see it!

'Remember, remember the fifth of November, the Gunpowder Treason Plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason…should ever be forgot.' – V

This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vangquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

Interconnectedness: Air is the Matrix

On Air, The Universal Glue
From David Suzuki's book, The Sacred Balance; Rediscovering Our Place in Nature, Greystone Books, 1997

The eminant Harvard astronomer Harlow Shapley once performed another thought exercise about air. He pointed out that while 99 per cent of the air we breathe is highly active oxygen and mildly reactive nitrogen, about 1 per cent is made up of argon, an inert gas. Because it is inert, it is breathed in and out without becoming a part of our bodies or entering into metabolic transformations. Shapley calculated that each breath contains about 30,000,000,000,000,000,000, or 3.0 X 10 to the 19th power, atoms of argon plus quintillions of molecules of carbon dioxide.

Suppose you exhale a single breath and follow those argon atoms. Within minutes, they have diffused through the air far beyond the spot where they were released, travelling into the neighbourhood. After a year, those argon atoms have been mixed up in the atmosphere and spread around the planet in such a way that each breath you take includes 15 atoms of argon released in that one breath a year earlier! All people over the age of twenty have taken at least 100 million breaths and have inhaled argon atoms that were emitted in the first breath of every child born in the world a year before! According to Shapley:

Your next breath will contain more than 400,000 of the argon atoms that Ghandi breathed in his long life. Argon atoms are here from the conversations at the Last Supper, from the arguments of diplomats at Yalta, and from the recitations of classic poets. We have argon from the sighs and pledges of ancient lovers, from the battle cries at Waterloo, even from last year's argonic output by the writer of these lines, who personally has had already more than 300 million breathing experiences.

Air exits your nose to go right up your neighbour's nose. In everyday life we absorb atoms from the air that were once a part of birds and trees and snakes and worms, because all aerobic forms of life share that same air (aquatic life also exchanges gases that dissolve back and forth at the interface between air and water).

Air is a matrix that joins all life together. It is constantly changing as life and geophysical forces add and subtract constituents to the composition of air, and yet over vast stretches of time the basic composition of air has remained in dynamic equilibrium. The longer each of us lives, the greater the likelihood that we will absorb atoms that were once part of Joan of Arc and Jesus Christ, of Neanderthal people and woolly mammoths. As we have breathed in our forebears, so our grandchildren and their grandchildren will take us in with their breath. We are bound up inseparably with the past and the future by the spirit we share.

Every breath is a sacrament, an affirmation of our connection with all other living things, a renewal of our link with our ancestors and a contribution to generations yet to come. Our breath is part of life's breath, the ocean of air that envelopes Earth. Unique in the solar system, air is both the creator and the creation of life itself.

Thanks to Keny on MySpace for pointing me to this excerpt, which I found at: http://www.fromthefourdirections.org/november02.newsletter.html


Another look at the issue of interconnectedness, by Iranian-born writer Azar Nafisi. "I believe in empathy." Mysterious Connections that Link Us Together: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4753976


To sit alone in the lamplight with a book spread out before you, and hold intimate converse with men of unseen generations--such is a pleasure beyond compare. - Kenko Yoshida

Christine Gregoire on the Signing of Civil Rights Legislation

Bill Signing Remarks from the Office of Governor Chris Gregoire

Civil Rights Legislation, ESHB 2661

January 31, 2006

Governor Gregoire:

In 1977, a group of thoughtful citizens took the first steps toward adding "sexual orientation" to the state's law against discrimination. We owe these citizens a tremendous amount of gratitude because it was their first steps that brought us to where we are today...my signing of the Civil Rights Bill into law.

Twenty-nine years: I can't think of any piece of legislation that has taken so long to work its way through the legislature. It makes today especially historic.

Today's victory is all about stopping discrimination. Some will try to cloud the issue, but the issue is clear: When is it okay to discriminate?

As a people, we exhibit different beliefs-we expect as much in a diverse society. But we're all bound by the same social contract; we're all bound by the same expectations and protections of liberty. This is all about why it's wrong to discriminate in employment, insurance, credit, and housing. Period.

It took the tenacity of many people over the course of the last twenty-nine years working on this bill, with even more people joining in the struggle with each passing year.

I am proud that finally, after far too many years, the State of Washington has taken an affirmative stand to say to gay and lesbian individuals, moms and dads, sons and daughters, neighbors, co-workers and friends, living in Washington State that they are, like all other people, free to work in an environment absent discrimination.

After far too many years of "near misses" and "could have beens" the State of Washington is standing strong in its commitment to gay and lesbian citizens that they do have a right to feel safe and free to apply for a mortgage without fear of recrimination; and that they must have the ability to look freely for an apartment to rent without fear of reproach.

There are so many individuals, advocates, and organizations that are responsible for making Washington state an inclusive state that values diversity. To name them would take what would seem like thirty years, but I do want to extend a special thank you to the House and Senate leadership - Speaker Frank Chopp and Majority Leader Lisa Brown for their unwavering commitment and hard work to see this bill move through their respective chambers; and I want to thank and commend those who made this bill's passage a bipartisan effort.

And there are a few people I want to give particular thanks to:

First, Representative Ed Murray, the prime sponsor of the bill. Rep. Murray worked 11 long, hard years to see this day. Ed, on behalf of all the citizens of our great state, thank you, for your perseverance, strength and commitment.

Thank you to Representative Shirley Hankins who was the second sponsor behind Ed on HB 2661. And thank you to Representatives Joe McDermott, Jim Moeller and David Upthegrove for their valiant efforts in this noble cause.

I want to recognize the committee chairs, Rep. Kathy Haigh and Sen. Darlene Fairley for their work in shepherding this bill through the process.

We must not forget the late Senator Cal Anderson. You have heard his name rightly and justly invoked with the Civil Rights Bill. Every year during his service to this state, first as a representative and then as a senator, Cal fought to ban discrimination in the workplace.

I can see a tree growing from my office window that was planted in memory of Senator Anderson after his death in 1995. Under that tree is a plaque that reads: "As a tribute to his integrity, dignity and courage in striving to make all citizens of Washington State equal under the law."

We have the late Dick Hemstad, a great Senate Republican who just passed away, to thank for his support. We have the late Senator and Representative Bud Shinpoch, another early supporter, to thank.

We also have Senator Bill Finkbeiner to thank for this important law.

And we have former State Sen. Pete Francis, the bill's original sponsor 29 years ago, to thank. Please join me in giving a big hand to Pete who joins us today.

I feel incredibly fortunate to be serving in a long line of Governors who have been unwavering in their support: Governors Rosellini, Evans, Spellman, Gardner, Lowry, Locke, all support this legislation. I'm the fortunate one to sign it into law.

Prohibiting discrimination knows no political party. We would not be here today if not for the valiant efforts of members of both chambers - Republicans and Democrats, alike - working together. The Legislature deserves credit for its civility and spirit of respect. This is an emotionally charged issue, and our lawmakers were the model of good behavior. You serve your constituents well and on their behalf I thank you.

In my State of the State address last month, I said that we must see ourselves through history's lens. A generation from now, citizens will wonder what took us so long. They'll see this law for what it is: A natural extension of our values as Washingtonians: The values of fairness, of justice, and of opportunity.

Our laws give us meaning; our laws speak to how we treat our fellow citizens; and our laws reaffirm our principles and reflect the true light of an enlightened society.

Thank you, all. Thank you for being thoughtful, thank you for being committed, and thank you for ensuring that all citizens in the great State of Washington stand equal under the law.

Human beings, by changing the inner attitudes of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives. - William James

Rest in Peace, Coretta Scott King, 1927-2006

I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'.... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people. (1)

Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages. (2)

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy." (3)

Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions. (4)

We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination. (5)

We have to launch a campaign against homophobia in the black community. (6)

Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group. (7)

All quotes from human rights advocate Dr. Coretta Scott King, April 27, 1927 - Jan. 30, 2006

Thanks to Soulforce for these quotes and sourcing. Soulforce encourages all Americans to both recommit themselves to the ongoing work of the King family and to send their condolences to:

The King Center
449 Auburn Avenue, NE
Atlanta, GA 30312

Sources:

(1) Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998

(2) Coretta Scott King, speech at The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, USA Today, March 24, 2004

(3) Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, quoted in the Chicago Sun Times, April 1, 1998

(4) Coretta Scott King, 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, quoted in the Chicago Tribune, April 1, 1998

(5) Coretta Scott King, Opening Plenary Session, 13th annual Creating Change conference of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Atlanta, Georgia, November 9, 2000

(6) Coretta Scott King, Reuters, June 8, 2001

(7) Coretta Scott King, a speech at the Palmer Hilton Hotel, quoted in the Chicago Defender, April 1, 1998


Whenever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love. - Mahatma Gandhi

Movies! Winter 2006

Finally, after a bit of a drought, I've seen some films. Probably have seen some and neglected writing about them, but there you go. Not all of life fits into the blog! Tonight I finally watched Another Woman (1988), http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0094663/. Gena Rowlands was wonderful, riveting. I had forgotten that it was a Woody Allen film, and it was masterfully done. Anyone approaching a mid-life crisis should see this one, so thoughtfully and artfully done. The supporting cast was uniformly wonderful, too.

In the past couple of days I finally watched Sanjuro (Tsubaki Sanjûrô - 1962): http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0056443/ and Yojimbo (1961): http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0055630/, a pair of films by Akira Kurosawa. Wonderful, just wonderful. The Clint Eastwood film "A Fistful of Dollars" was based on Yojimbo, which is just classic. Sanjuro is fun, with the foolish 9 would-be heroes.

Blue Citrus Hearts (2003), directed and written by my MySpace buddy Morgan Jon Fox from Memphis, Tennessee: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0398791/. Really AMAZING film shot for no money ($3000, according to IMDb). Filming and color was quirky, sound was uneven, pacing was uneven, but I was riveted. This is what indie film is all about. The "making of" feature on the DVD is a textbook of one way to make indie films. Well worth your money and your time! http://www.bluecitrushearts.com/

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005): http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0404032/ - Interesting mix of horror and courtroom drama. Excellent cast, art direction and sparing use of special effects. Thought-provoking rather than mindless.

Interesting little film from the DVR; Camp (2003): http://imdb.com/title/tt0342167/. If you like musical theater and drama kids, you'll like this movie.

Restoration

More later about these and any others I can dredge out of the memory banks.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Harry Potter (2005)

Chronicles of Narnia (2005)

The Family Stone (2005)

Euro-Trip

How to make a shiny ball out of mud

Dorodango, the latest rage among Japanese preschool through elementary school-age children. Seriously! Short instructions: http://bitsandpieces1.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-make-shiny-ball-out-of-mud.html

Much more complete instructions, including short video clips: http://www.kyokyo-u.ac.jp/youkyou/4/english4.htm

They are amazingly beautiful Professor Fumio Kayo of the Kyoto University of Education saw one of these beautiful creations, "and devised a method of making dorodango that could be followed even by children. Once Kayo teaches children how to make these mud balls, they become absorbed in forming a sphere, and they put all their energy into polishing the ball until it sparkles. The dorodango soon becomes the child's greatest treasure." Kayo is a psychologist who researches children's play.




People rarely succeed unless they have fun in what they are doing. - Dale Carnegie

The difference you make, by Jamie

The difference you make

You'll rarely be able to make things perfect. Yet you can always make things better.

You'll never be able to improve the past. Yet you can always improve right now.

Get in the habit of adding value to each moment. And those moments you enhance will soon add value to all that is around you.

Get in the habit of being a positive influence on the people you encounter. And bit by bit, your world will become a more beautiful, loving place.

The difference you make will make a difference for you and all that surrounds you. The love you give adds over and over again to the love with which your life is filled.

Use your time, your energy, your resources and creativity to produce a real and positive difference in life. It is the best investment you can make.

For more of Jamie's great writing, see her profile at: http://www.myspace.com/authenticspirit


Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Urge Your Legislators To Take a Stand Against Don't Ask, Don't Tell

From: Jim Maloney
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:12 PM
Subject: Urge Your Elected Officials To Take a Stand Against Dont Ask, Dont Tell

As a new year unfolds, please take a moment to write your elected officials to urge them to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Only one law in the United States mandates firing someone because of his or her sexual orientation. That law is 10 U.S.C. 654, also known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and it applies to all Americans serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, including active duty, Reserve, and National Guard personnel. Over two million Americans serving in uniform today are bound by this discriminatory law; among them, an estimated 65,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual Americans in uniform live with the constant threat of career-ending discharge under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." This is no way to treat patriotic Americans who volunteer to serve our nation in its time of need.

Over 10,000 Americans have been discharged under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the last twelve years - an average of two people per day. This discrimination comes at a cost of over $15 million per year in tax payer dollars, and results in the discharges of linguists, pilots, doctors, intelligence analysts, military police - many with critical skills we need in this time of conflict.

In March of 2005, the historic Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1059) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. This legislation would repeal the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" statute, and replace it with a non-discrimination law. There is currently no similar legislation before the United States Senate.

Take ACTION!
1. Urge your Representative to co-sponsor the Military Readiness Enhancement Act!
2. Urge your Senator to support similar legislation in the Senate to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell!"
3. Help SLDN Organize the Grassroots!


1. Urge your Representative to co-sponsor the Military Readiness Enhancement Act!

To find your Representative's name and contact information, click here: http://www.house.gov/

To find out if your Representative is a co-sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, click here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR01059:@@@P

A sample letter to urge your Representative to support the Military Readiness Enhancement Act is available online at http://www.sldn.org/templates/action/record.html?section=52&record=1936

If your Representative is already a co-sponsor, please email or write a letter to thank him or her! If your Representative is not a co-sponsor of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, please urge him or her to become a co-sponsor. A sample letter is available online at http://www.sldn.org/templates/action/record.html?section=52&record=2545

2. Urge your Senator to support legislation in the Senate to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

Although the Military Readiness Enhancement Act (H.R. 1059) was introduced in the House of Representatives in March of 2005, there is currently no legislation in the Senate to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Write your Senator and urge him or her to support legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

To find out how to contact your U.S. Senator, click here: http://www.senate.gov/

A Sample Letter to urge your Senator to support legislation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is available online at http://www.sldn.org/templates/action/record.html?section=52&record=2546

3. Help SLDN Organize the Grassroots!

SLDN is looking for a few good activists! SLDN is in the early stages of launching a grassroots organizing campaign to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." We are concentrating our initial efforts in the states of Rhode Island and Maine. If you or someone you know lives in or is registered to vote in Rhode Island or Maine, and would like to lend your voice to the thousands of voices around the country calling for an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," volunteer to be a grassroots activist with SLDN!

Contact Karen Armagost, 202-328-3244 ext 101 or kaa@sldn.org for more information.

As always, thank you so much for your support!
____________________________________________
Jim Maloney
Director, Military Education Initiative (MEI)
Phone: 415-370-3313
Fax: 415-437-0401
Email: mei@military-education.org
www.military-education.org