In Brief

Staff Reports

Christian Cartoonist's 2012 Calender Deemed Homophobic Removed From Online Sales By Amazon and Barnes & Noble

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON -- American Christian cartoonist Joe King’s calendar, I’m Not Gay, I’m Just a Sissy," which drew a firestorm of criticism after the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) along with a significant number of bloggers publicly denounced the calender and its sale through internet retail giants Amazon and Barnes & Noble-- both of whom have since pulled the calender from their sales offerings. The controversy began earlier this week when prominent New York based gay blogger Andy Towle published an article detailing the contents of King's calender which includes jokes about AIDS and gay lifestyles in a negative stereotyping of gay men.

Herndon Graddick, Senior Director of Programs and Communications for GLAAD, in an e-mail said; "This calendar has no business being sold and supported by reputable retailers. King has a right to his opinions, however anti-gay or anti-transgender they may be, but retailers also have the right to decide that they don’t want to support hateful and dehumanizing content like this.”

Barnes and Noble has since yanked the calendar for sale on its website, and a spokesperson for the company told GLAAD it has never been made available in stores. Amazon has also removed the item.

The calendar which is dedicated to the memory of the US revolutionary hero and to gay rights opponent Anita Bryant and which promises "12 months of sexual confusion" has drawn staunch criticism for what many some deemed homophobic humor and imagery, including one illustration which appears to poke fun at the HIV/AIDS crisis. Another cartoon is a parody of Paul Revere, showing the Revolutionary War hero on horseback shouting, "The sodomites are coming! The sodomites are coming!"

Few in the LGBT community are laughing about the calendar and as the fury built, its author hit back at critics.

King, a member of the Christian Comic Art Society, took to his Facebook page writing in defense of his work. "I feel like David vs. the gay Goliath," King writes in one post. In another, he adds, "All the hysteria is coming from those nice folks who haven't bothered to actually purchase and read my collection. Stranger still -- these are REPRINTS of nationally distributed work several years old. No outcry then."

Towle along with other bloggers were quick to point out this post in which King writes: The "truth" is that AIDS is an "elective" disease. It STOPS the day guys quit sticking it to each other. And for the tragedy of women and children infected... THAT stops the day their gay husbands and fathers stop cheating on them. Anyone need MORE education, science or funding to understand THAT?

The cartoonist,responding angrily to complaints raised by blogger Andy Towle commented saying: “Hoo-we! Hell hath no fury like a he/she scorned… The telephone tree of tantrums is lit up like a Las Vegas marquee for “Boy-Lesque” today with hate mail, threats of boycott and even the risk of Jesus spitting on me for my “Sissy” calendar.”

Thursday morning, King told his Facebook followers: “Aint the first time I’ve been banned – won’t be the last. I was born with a loud mouth and an itchy shirt, bury me next to the Baptist. [sic]“

Brody's Notes... NY TIMES: Politics & Gays, President Obama lets senior staff take lead

President Obama addresses the 2011 annual HRC dinner.
Photo by Michael Key, The Washington Blade

By Brody Levesque | HONOLULU, HAWAII -- New York Times Senior White House Correspondent, Mark Landler, writing in the paper's Politics section Friday says: "President Obama has long relied on his oratorical gifts to ease him through tricky political situations. But on the emotionally charged issue of gay rights, Mr. Obama has been content recently to let his lieutenants do the talking. And they have said some striking things."

This follows an established pattern for the Obama administration dealing with a wide variety of issues, most notably the repeal of "Don't Ask-Don't Tell," which was led by former Secretary of Defence Robert Gates along with the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen as well as the findings by the Attorney General of The United States, Eric Holder, that one section of the 'Defence of Marriage Act' was unconstitutional and therefore should not be enforced by the Justice Department in several pending Federal Appellate Court cases.

LGBTQ equality rights activists along with senior staff contend that the President is committed for enactment of equality legislation as evidenced by several executive orders that the administration has issued over the past three years, most recently the memorandum issued earlier this month which directed that the federal government and all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that U.S. diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons globally. The President wrote, “The struggle to end discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons is a global challenge, and one that is central to the United States commitment to promoting human rights.” There remains conflicts though as Landler pointed out writing:

Mr. Obama's strategy, administration officials and gay-rights advocates said, reflects two conflicting forces. He recognizes that support for gay rights and same-sex marriage is growing, particularly among young voters.

But he is reluctant in an election year to be drawn into a culture-war issue one that reliably helps Republicans turn out evangelical voters in their favor and that also strikes a particular nerve with religious black voters, a bedrock Obama constituency in battleground states like North Carolina and Florida.

There is little indication that Mr. Obama plans to endorse same-sex marriage before the presidential election in November, despite recent statements that tiptoe right up to that position. Speaking to a gay-rights group in October, he said, "Every single American gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender  every single American deserves to be treated equally before the law."

Landler interviewed Richard Socarides, the former head of Equality Matters, a Washington based LGBTQ Advocacy organisation and a Democratic political strategist who advised former President Bill Clinton on gay-rights issues. Socarides told Landler;

"It works for the White House on several levels, particularly in an election year, gay voters will be more enthusiastic for him than we would have been a year ago."

Mr. Socarides is among several gay-rights advocates who say they believe that Mr. Obama will declare his support for same-sex marriage before the election  both because polling data shows a sharp increase in voter support for it among crucial groups, and because two pending court rulings on marriage rights will make it harder to justify the president's position that his views are still evolving.

According to Landler in an interview with David B. Mixner, a longtime gay-rights advocate who has raised money for LGBTQ friendly candidates, Mixner said; “We can keep pushing for marriage without stopping our work for him,” he said, “because we can just look at the cast of characters waiting in the wings.”

Landler also noted that the President's record on LGBTQ rights outside of same-sex marriage is impressive, pointing out that the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that prohibited gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military fulfilled a campaign promise that many supporters did not believe Mr. Obama would be able to keep. In an interview with Melody Barnes, the chief White House domestic policy adviser, he quotes her as saying

"One issue after another he's taken them on and he's knocked them down in a very methodical way, but consistent with his views about justice and fairness in the United States."

Read  Landler's entire article at The New York Times here.

Brody's Scribbles... It’s Easy To Be Wrong

By Bart Vogelzang | VANCOUVER ISLAND, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA -- Amazingly, we sometimes get things right immediately, but more often than not we get things wrong. Frankly, it’s easy to be wrong, and we start off doing things that way, right from birth. We quickly realize that we were wrong, and manage to create the process we call learning; from our mistakes, from being wrong.

One thing we get from immediately being right is a frozen attitude. Just like when you stop searching for something once you find it, you stop searching for other options once you’ve found one that seems to work. If it works for you, there is no point in seeking further. The only really meaningful learning occurs from dealing with being wrong. It requires you to think about the situation, make guesses about other possible approaches and try again. If you are lucky, even if you don’t think so at the time, you’ll have a series of failures, being wrong often. Being able to see and admit to yourself that you are wrong actually makes you a much stronger, better person.

Attempting different approaches to things opens up pathways in your brain that simply cannot be opened by being right. Interconnections form, particularly if you have had partial success and partial failure; attaching your correct decisions to other correct ones, and marking wrong decisions for extra consideration in future. The results of being wrong aren’t wasted, as you are able to catalogue them into a sort of reservoir of future options, for different situations.

Besides acquiring the learning process, your ability to deal with disappointment and loss is also improved. You develop a ‘thick skin’ for your own errors, and also learn to understand and accept imperfection in others. They too are making mistakes, being wrong much of the time, and learning, just as you are.

At some point, you will realize that those who believe they are right, whether they are or not, are mostly pompous asses with little thinking behind them, and even less compassion. The biggest egos seem to be embedded in those who have no right to one at all, having not made any progress at learning anything. Of course we have to remember that there is one other group of people with this challenge, those who cannot see that they are wrong. They can be 100% wrong, and yet refuse to accept this, and will continue with their lives as if they are actually right. I’m speaking here about the devoutly religious, who will take anything that goes wrong as not being of their own creation, but that of some outside evil force of darkness, the Devil, or even the Will of God. Since they don’t accept their own failings into the equation, there is no room for learning.

"The pomposity of the ‘always right’ is repugnant at best, and downright dangerous at worst."

Like the arrogance of aristocracy, and the conceit of the inherited rich, the pomposity of the ‘always right’ is repugnant at best, and downright dangerous at worst. People with those traits have a very unfortunate tendency to not only run their lives based on those repulsive characteristics, but they try to force their myopic, stagnant, and even ruinous views on the rest of us, despite not being superior or effective at all; having no real abilities at dealing with challenges…never having needed to learn those. They come up with inane ‘solutions’, banal rules and regulations, and even repressive laws that simply will not do what they profess to want. These usually fly directly into the faces of those who have actually lived life, and discovered wrongness, thereby learning how to cope with failure. The inane ideas attack those who have learned from making mistakes, who have become compassionate towards their fellow human beings; their poisonous diatribes serve only one purpose, and that is to protect them from the horror, as they see it, of being wrong. They seek to remain ‘right’ at all costs, but their worst cost, unrealized by them, is the loss of their own humanity.

It’s easy to be wrong, and one should pity those who never are, or maybe more correctly, those who fear to be.

In Brief

Staff Reports

Hawai'i Set To Recognise Its First Same-Sex Unions On January 1st

HONOLULU, HAWAI'I -- In a private ceremony set for after midnight this coming Sunday,January 1, 2012, four same sex couples will enter into civil unions as the state's new civil unions law takes effect.

Hawaiian Democratic Governor Neil Abercrombie had signed the civil unions’ bill into law last February 23, making the state the fifth in the nation to recognise same-sex civil unions. While civil unions are not considered marriage, the legally binding agreement provides many of the same legal rights and benefits of marriage.

For the past ten months the State Health Department has been drawing up plans for an online application process for same sex couples who want to take advantage of Hawaii’s new law. Other state agencies have also been updating their rules and regulations in order to make certain that civil union couples have the same rights as heterosexual married couples. 

Local Honolulu Station KHON reported that one of the four couples taking part in the New Year’s Eve event has been together for the past thirty-three years.

Tambry Young and Suzanne King, two women who were married in Massachusetts in 2009, are helping the couples coordinate the event as members of the CU in Hawaii 2012 Planning Committee.

“They've seen some of their friends pass away before this actually could be enacted, so it's an important step for them,” said Young. "The Department of Health did a tremendous job in getting this system up and running,” said Young. “So basically what happens is twelve midnight the system goes live.”

“We can help them kind of walk through that to make sure that they have everything up and running,” said Young. “I think everybody's realizing that this is the next step in our evolution to get full equality and I think everyone's taking it serious,” said Young.

For both Young and King, January 1 will also mark a turning point in their thirty year relationship. Their marriage in Massachusetts will also be recognized as a civil union here in Hawaii.

“Part of the process is me changing my name to Suzanne Young, which will be effective January 1,” said King. “That's pretty awesome.”

Young and King were forced to terminate their reciprocal benefits agreement in Hawaii before the state could recognize their partnership as a civil union. ~ via KHON Channel 2 

Same-Sex Couples Lose Serious Benefits On Taxes

Ken Weissenberg, (left) and his spouse Brian Sheerin
Photo Via CNNMoney

NEW YORK, NEW YORK -- CNN Financial Editor and Reporter Blake Ellis reports that same-sex spouses are paying as much as $6,000 a year in extra taxes because the federal government doesn't recognize gay marriage.

In the article published in CNNMoney online Monday, Blake writes that according to an analysis conducted for CNNMoney by tax specialists, same-sex families don't enjoy the same perks as many heterosexual couples, because they are not allowed to file their federal returns jointly.

The imbalance persists despite increasing acceptance of gay marriage as a legal right. More than 12 states now grant full or partial marriage rights to same-sex couples, and a recent Gallup poll showed -- for the first time -- that a majority of Americans favor gay marriage.

But not the federal government, which is constrained by the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Even as more same-sex couples are able to file jointly at the state level, they are still forced to file as single when submitting federal returns to the IRS.

This means they can't combine their income and deductions to take advantage of lower tax rates. It's also harder for them to qualify for certain tax breaks because the credits phase out sooner for single filers.

"It's costing these families thousands of dollars a year, as well as the emotional pain and suffering," said Ken Weissenberg, a partner at accounting firm EisnerAmper who is in a same-sex marriage himself. "But it shouldn't stop anyone from getting married," said Weissenberg, who says he pays an extra $5,000 in taxes per year simply because he is in a same-sex marriage. "If I had to pay twice as much in taxes to be married to my husband, I would." ~ CNNMoney

Brody's Scribbles.... Life Defining Moments

By Bart Vogelzang | VANCOUVER ISLAND, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA -- Late December is that time of year that one gets inundated by something other than Season’s Greetings and wishes for a Happy New Year. It’s that time of year in which many of the media types just have to review the last year, ad nauseum, and make predictions for the next one, which will undoubtedly be just as incorrect as the ones made at the end of last year. However, there is something to be said for reviewing life; your own life.

I’m not talking about reviewing the last year of it, but the whole thing, from your earliest memories until now. There may be people who have never had a life defining moment (and I’m not talking about life affirming moments) but I’m pretty sure you cannot grow up without having at least one or two along the journey. It may be thrust upon you by outside sources, when someone points out some serious flaw, or a wonderful aspect, in you, but it may also be a near epiphanic moment as you come to a realization all by yourself, about yourself.

It would be easy to just list some of my own moments, but what is more important is the journey, indeed, the effort, to reach such discoveries. That some of them have happened in the distant past is sad, in a way, since it means I’m getting on in years, but conversely it also means I’ve been able to incorporate the effects over a longer period of my life, based on what I saw within me. Without an understanding of what is within, it is nigh impossible to change things for the better. Even when someone else throws an example of a ‘less than desirable trait’ at you, you still need to examine it, accept the reality into a wholesale awareness of what it means, and make any changes that can improve life for you, and those around you.

People can be manipulative and arbitrary. If you want to avoid consequences from that, you need to do it as soon as the evidence shows up, not waiting hopefully for improvements to take place all on their own. The details of my moment are not important to anyone else. Allowing myself to be forced into making a decision on something is a serious error in behavior, not the actual decision made. I learned to refuse to make decisions under duress, and it has stood me well.

Embarrassment is of your own making. Whatever happens, whether accidental or deliberate, if you feel embarrassed by it, you do that to yourself. People will often appreciate your carefree handling of a potentially embarrassing moment to the point of admiration, and conversely, ridicule you if you handle it badly. The best approach is to not allow yourself to be embarrassed, as that will almost invariably give you a better interaction with others, and absolutely a better result within yourself. Admittedly, unexpected circumstances might make this difficult to achieve.

Anger is both dangerous and counter-productive. Not only is there a lack of emotional control when you are angry, but the surge in adrenaline may well cause you to lose physical control over yourself and the situation. Walking away before you even get to a state of anger will allow you to address the problem rationally, having avoided investing too much emotion into things. Observing, then recognizing the first stages of anger is crucial, as is a plan for how to defuse such situations.

Truth is perception, and vice versa? People can only see, and therefore acknowledge, truths that are visible to them. However, seeing is more than just visual, auditory, or sensory reception, but requires the brain to process the information received, placing it into compartments, ‘folders’ if you will, which have been established over time, with past observations, experiences, and learning. Truth, by definition, is absolute, but for people, the leftover result from running the evidence through the mind’s filter, having eliminated all the preconceptions, is the truth. If the compartments aren’t there, new information will be placed, if at all, in locations that may not match the actual reality. Anything not finding a matching ‘folder’ is often rejected as evidence, or misconstrued and taken as proof of a different ‘reality’. The discovery that people ‘see’ what they want to see, or what they are able to see, is vital in knowing how to address the world around you. From clothing to hygiene, makeup to body modification, body language to the way you speak, each bit of ‘evidence’ creates an image of you in the minds of other people, and if you hope to communicate your message, whatever that may be, you must meet the requirements of visibility in the other person’s filter system or your message will be lost to them. 

It is a life defining moment to discover that we are all loving sexual beings, some more so than others, but all of us in some way; but not everyone in the same way, nor at the same intensity. Upon realizing that we all feel it, there forms a sense of camaraderie, a sense of shared knowledge, which transcends both gender and orientation. We realize our humanity and feel much more inclined to be helpful to others, as being part of our human family. Those who don’t feel that togetherness have not yet realized true love, most likely having missed it in the fog of religious notions, or maelstrom of childhood abuses, or both.

Des DownUnder On Sundays

A Christmas For Carol

By Desmond Rutherford

{ Part Two } {Part One Here}

“Marty? Is that you?”

“Come inside,” he commanded, as he turned and held the door open for her.

Carol entered the shop and was amazed to see it was empty, with rows of cages along each wall.

“It is you, isn’t it, Marty?”

“Yes Carol, it is. I have wanted to talk to you for ever so long, but they wouldn’t let me.”

“They?” she questioned, “Who are “they”, and what happened to you? You disappeared without warning me.”

“I know I should have; I would have let you know, but I only was offered this position recently and thought, no, hoped, I would run into you. I couldn’t visit you or go looking for you since I cannot go further than the awning over the door.”

“Oh, you’re not making sense, Marty, but then you never were much good at making sense. All you ever wanted was to…”

“…to make money and look after you and the baby. I could never have made sense or anything worthwhile, not that I did; my greed was my undoing.”

“What on Earth are you talking about, Marty, and what about this pet store with all its empty cages? You must be doing quite well if you’ve sold all your stock of cats and dogs. Do you have birds too?”

“No, birds aren’t meant to be in cages, Carol. Cats and dogs get set free in their new homes but birds are usually kept in cages. But these cages are not empty due to the sale of what was in them. Each of those cages represents one Christmas.”

“You are mad,” said Carol.

“Yes, I was, but I see things differently now. Look upon those cages over there,” Marty said, as he pointed to one wall of cages with locks on them. “Each of them is a Christmas passed; ones I missed having with you and Bobby.”

Carol was becoming a little afraid. She began to think that Marty might have escaped from a mental institution, but she couldn’t work out how he could then have a shop.

“What about those cages over there? They have locks on them too, are they also yours?” she asked.

“No, those are the cages of your Christmases; all the ones you missed sharing with others. And before you ask about these unlocked cages along the other wall, they are the cages of your Christmases yet to come.”

Carol was now really becoming frightened by Marty, and his words. Edging her way towards the door she tried to distract Marty with, “And what about the kitten in the window?”

“The kitten is waiting to see if it has a home this Christmas, or not.”

“Marty, can I call someone for you. I think you need help,” said Carol.

“Carol, I am not the one who needs help. I am beyond help. This is the only thing I have ever done to help you, or anyone other than myself. I am trying to show you that your life is going to be an empty cage unless you open up your heart to those who love you. I didn’t, and it has left me terribly alone.”

Carol swayed a little from the intensity of Marty’s message. She could hardly believe any of this was real, let alone aimed at her. Marty could see she did not believe him. With his hands, he gestured towards the door.

“Carol, if you do not want to save yourself then look at how your miserable life will affect others.”

The door to the pet shop flew open and a small figure of a young man staggered in. He fell to the floor, shaking and shuddering, blood stains around his mouth, his eyes vacant, glazed and turning lifeless. His skin was becoming as grey as it was pale.

Carol looked away. Marty grabbed her by the arm. “Look Carol. Do you know who this is?”

“No,” she quavered, “I’ve never seen him before.”

“Look again,” insisted Marty.

“No, I don’t I know him.”

“Carol, please,” pleaded Marty. “Please, for our son’s sake, come closer, and look deliberately upon the face of this boy.”

Hesitatingly, Carol approached the figure lying on the floor boards of the shop. The wind whistled through the spaces between the floor boards, and a freezing wind gusted through the door, dropping icy crystals on the boy’s threadbare clothing. She leaned down and almost fearfully touched his hand, shivering from the reality.

“It’s Robert’s friend, Jim. But Marty, what is he doing here?”

“He is going to die, Carol. He will die because you will drive him away by ignoring our son’s love for Jim.”

“I wouldn’t do that, I have never stopped Robert from being with him.”

“But you never make him welcome either. You have barely accepted our son, and never his friend; you just ignore him in the hope that he will go away, leaving you to your greed. This boy is who Bobby loves,” said Marty as he pointed to the frozen figure on the floor. “This boy loves our son and if you drive him away he will die. He will fall ill and die from a broken heart. Need I tell you what that will do to Bobby?”

Marty raised his hands again towards the door.

“Stop!” cried Carol. “Don’t show me, just tell me what I have to do.”

“I cannot tell you Carol, you must work out what is right and do it. Look to see me no more,” intoned Marty as the body of the youth grew paler and faded away; Marty himself faded as a white mist filled the room.

Carol heard the kitten mewling and rushed to pick it up.

The sunlight streamed through Carol’s bedroom window, but it was the sound of a kitten meowing that had awoken her. Quickly she rushed to the window and opened it. She saw the next door neighbour’s boy riding a new bicycle that he must have gotten for Christmas.

“You there, boy,” she called out.

“Me ma’am?” he called back.

“Yes, you. What day is it?”

“Today?”

“Yes, today. What is it?”

“Why…it’s Christmas day of course.”

“Thank you,” she said, “and boy? Merry Christmas to you.”

She looked at the clock, it was nine a.m. She’d have to hurry. Quickly she rang Robert on his mobile phone.

*************************************************

“What did she want? I suppose you have to rush home or to her shop,” said Jim.

“No,” said Bobby, “She wants us to meet her out front as soon as we can. She wants to take us to lunch for Christmas.”

“Us?” asked Jim.

“Yes, both of us, and…”

“and?”

“…and she called me Bobby.”

Happily Jim did not fall ill and he and Bobby are still together. The kitten adopted them, and has grown into a beautiful cat that sleeps with them both on the foot of their bed in Carol’s house.

Carol eventually found Marty’s grave where she placed a floral tribute. She still doesn’t understand all that happened that night in the Shoppe of Christmas Pets. She makes sure to celebrate the spirit of Christmas every day and will always remember Marty when he spoke to her on that Christmas Eve.

On Christmas Day, Carol embraced Jim’s and Bobby’s love for each other, and when Jim looked into Bobby’s eyes he wished out loud, “May our love be accepted by everyone.”

The cat purred contentedly on top of the bed, not a cage to be seen.

Happy Holidays

Brody's Notes & Scribbles is on holiday break and will return Tuesday, December 27, 2011. Our staff and contributors wish all of you a safe and happy holiday period.
Note: The second part of Des DownUnder's 'A Christmas For Carol' will appear this Sunday.

For all the latest in LGBTQ News & Commentary please visit LGBTQNation.com

Brody's Notes... Minnesota LGBTQ Community Apologises To Disgraced Adulteress GOP Senator

Amy Koch

By Brody Levesque | MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA -- As far right-wing so-called 'family values' christian groups continue to insist that same-sex marriage is a force that is destroying marriage by seeking access to the institution, one Minnesota resident “apologised” on behalf of the state's LGBTQ community for causing anti-gay Republican state senator Amy Koch to have an extramarital affair.

Koch resigned her leadership post amid allegations of an “inappropriate relationship” with a state Senate staffer. Koch, who is is married with one child, has been one of the leading proponents of Minnesota’s 2012 ballot initiative aimed at amending the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

Koch has neither admitted nor denied the allegations — she has said she will not seek re-election in 2012, but has not indicated if she will resign from the Senate prior to her term ending.

John Medeiros of Minneapolis in an open letter published in the Twin Cities Alternative paper, City Pages, renders an apology to Koch “on behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota ... for our community’s successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an ‘illicit affair’ with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.”

The letter comes a day after Koch issued her own apology released yesterday, in which the Senator her "deep regret" for "engaging in a relationship with a Senate staffer." According to City Pages political columnist Kevin Hoffman, although Koch's letter did not specify the identity of the other participant in the "inappropriate relationship," Hoffman writes "it is widely rumored to be former communications chief Michael Brodkorb, who lost several positions with the GOP in the wake of the scandal."

Text Of John Medeiros' Letter To Koch:

An Open Apology to Amy Koch on Behalf of All Gay and Lesbian Minnesotans

Dear Ms. Koch,

On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage. We are ashamed of ourselves for causing you to have what the media refers to as an "illicit affair" with your staffer, and we also extend our deepest apologies to him and to his wife. These recent events have made it quite clear that our gay and lesbian tactics have gone too far, affecting even the most respectful of our society.

We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry. And we are doubly remorseful in knowing that many will see this as a form of sexual harassment of a subordinate.

It is now clear to us that if we were not so self-focused and myopic, we would have been able to see that the time you wasted diligently writing legislation that would forever seal the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, could have been more usefully spent reshaping the legal definition of "adultery."

Forgive us. As you know, we are not church-going people, so we are unable to fully appreciate that "gay marriage" is incompatible with Christian values, despite the fact that those values carry a biblical tradition of adultery such as yours. We applaud you for keeping that tradition going.

And finally, shame on us for thinking that marriage is a private affair, and that our marriage would have little impact on anyone's family. We now see that marriage is more than that. It is an agreement with society. We should listen to the Minnesota Family Council when it tells us that marriage is about being public, which explains why marriages are public ceremonies. Never did we realize that it is exactly because of this societal agreement that the entire world is looking at you in shame and disappointment instead of minding its own business.

From the bottom of our hearts, we ask that you please accept our apology.

Thank you.

John Medeiros

Minneapolis MN

In Brief

Staff Reports

Michigan Governor Snyder signs bill to ban partner health care coverage

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R)

LANSING, MICHIGAN -- Michigan Governor Rick Snyder today signed House Bill 4770 following months of heated debate and advocacy. The bill attracted sharp criticism from the media, university leaders, business leaders, and progressive organizations throughout the state.

The bill will eliminate health care coverage for domestic partners of public employees. HB 4770 prohibits any government entity in the state from providing such coverage. HB 4771, which the Governor vetoed, prohibits unions from including coverage in collective bargaining agreements. Both bills passed the legislature on December 13. Lawsuits on behalf of affected families will likely be filed soon.

Anti-gay Republicans Representative Dave Agema (sponsor or the bills) and Attorney General Bill Schuette have been trying to strip away health care coverage for gay and lesbian families since February.

“Governor Snyder’s support for this bill is appalling. Today, the Governor told unmarried public employees that they can no longer care for their partners or children. He has put hardworking gay and lesbian couples and their children into harm’s way by eliminating important health care coverage. He has spent the last two years talking about creating a welcoming state with a attractive business climate, and this bill flies in the face of those goals.”

“All families in our state, including gay and lesbian families, should have fair access to health care coverage. Governor Snyder caved to the radical social agenda coming from the legislature. He has rejected our shared commitment to economic growth. In order to compete in today’s global business environment, we must build a culture that prioritizes fundamental fairness. This law will only serve to hurt Michigan." ~ Emily Dievendorf Director of Policy, Equality Michigan

Many public entities provide coverage for domestic partners of employees, including:

• University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University and 11 of the 12 other public universities

• State of Michigan (33,000 eligible employees under contracts that went into effect in 2011)

• At least eight cities, counties and school districts, including Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo

In Brief

Staff Reports

Hospital That Denied Visitation Rights To Lesbian Partner Rescinds Decision And Apologises

Rolling Hills Hospital in Franklin Tennessee

FRANKLIN, TENNESSEE -- A Tennessee woman who was denied visitation rights with her partner at the Rolling Hills Psychiatric Hospital in Franklin has been allowed a special visit and will commence regular visits during hospital's normal visitor's day Sundays.

Val Burke, a former staff writer for the Nashville LGBTQ community's Out & About Newspaper, told another writer for the paper Rolling Hills Hospital staff had denied multiple requests by her to visit her partner, who is currently a patient in the hospital's residential facility. Burke said that staff members excluded her from the room since she was not a legal spouse nor a family member.

"I went to visit her at the appropriate visiting time and was turned away," she says. "We have been living together for three years now, but that didn't matter to them either. The rest of her family is out of town, so she didn't have any one visit her."

Burke said she had previously been allowed visitation rights, but only with her partner's mother in attendance.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in September issued the rules for equal visitation and representation rights for LGBTQ persons. The regulations require all hospitals participating in Medicaid and Medicare programs – virtually every hospital in the country – to permit patients to designate visitors of their choosing and prohibit discrimination in visitation based on a number of factors, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

Hospitals are also required to put their visitation policies in writing, including any "clinically necessary or reasonable restrictions" to visitation that may be appropriate.

Richard “Rick” Bangert, chief executive officer of Rolling Hills told reporters inquiring about Burke's situation; “It was human error, they made a mistake. When I learned of it, I immediately met with my staff on Monday. We immediately made the change in terms of making sure that our policy was very clear.”

The Human Rights Campaign and the Tennessee Equality Project called on all hospitals to review their policies and practices related to hospital visitation after the Rolling Hills incident was made public. While noting that the incident at Rolling Hills Hospital has been resolved, both advocacy groups said that it serves as a reminder of the importance of hospital visitation rights for LGBT Americans. “Rolling Hills Hospital fixed the problem immediately, but this serves as a reminder discrimination still exists in the health-care arena and we need to tackle it,” said Paul Guequierre, HRC spokesman.

HRC President Joe Solmonese said, “Discrimination in a personal medical setting may be one of the worst forms of discrimination LGBT people face. Federal regulations were put in place for precisely this reason, to stamp discrimination out of the healthcare process and allow all people to be by their loved ones during their most vulnerable moments.”

“Denying a loving partner the right to be with his or her sick loved one shows the very personal side of anti-LGBT discrimination,” said TEP Nashville Chairman Chris Sanders. “We hope hospitals across Tennessee and the country learn from this sad incident and ensure this never happens again."

Bangert said he plans to meet with Burke saying, “I will apologize and work with her directly,” he said. “I take it very personally. This is not representative of the hospital.”

The Human Rights Campaign is asking hospitals to participate in its Healthcare Equality Index, an annual survey about policies and procedures related to LGBT people and their families.

The organization also has issued a field guide with information on how same-sex couples can prepare for a medical emergency. The HRC recommends that same-sex partners have health-care directives and visitation authorization forms prepared in advance of any medical crisis. Copies of those documents should be carried in a wallet. Details are at http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/protecting-your-visitation-decision-making-rights.

In Brief

Staff Reports

Utahns favor legal protection statewide for LGBTQ individuals when it comes to employment and housing

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- A recent poll commissioned by Equality Utah — a Salt Lake-based civil rights organization focusing on equal rights and protections for LGBT Utahns and their families — found that a majority of those polled favored a statewide nondiscrimination law that would make it illegal for someone to be fired from a job solely because they are LGBT. Additionally, Those same persons polled also favored a Utah-wide law that would make it illegal for someone to be evicted from housing solely because they are LGBT.

There was a caveat as those polled also indicated that they did not support same-sex marriage equality nor did they approve of adoption rights for same-sex couples.

The poll was conducted by the Salt Lake City based public opinion and market research firm Dan Jones and Associates. The survey polled 801 households across the state and contained a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent. According to the firm, the poll found that nearly 80 percent of respondents believed such statewide nondiscrimination laws already existed in Utah.

Trent Kaufman, researcher and executive vice president of the Cicero Group, parent company of Dan Jones and Associates said, "Utahns showed some interest in antidiscrimination laws in some areas and not in other areas. The data suggests the marriage or adoption issues relate to the family, while the other (data) aren't as related to family," he said. "These findings held true all across the state with respondents representing every county."

The poll also revealed that 54 percent of respondents believe that being gay is probably or definitely a choice.

"Utahns at their core are non-discriminatory people," said Brandie Balken, executive director of Equality Utah. "We don't believe that discrimination is OK regardless of the reason that it's being practiced. As understanding about the broad support of these protections and also understanding about the implications of discrimination on our communities continues to grow, it enhances our opportunity to achieve statewide passage for these important protections," Balken said.

"Making inroads toward equality will require more time and continued education, she said, so that "people are able to see people who are gay or transgendered at their full human selves, not as a category or preference. When we can speak about the values that we share, and what we see as a state as fair-minded, common sense protections based on our shared values, then we have the opportunity to make really good policy," she said. "Today in the state of Utah, I can say to you, 'I'm firing you because you're straight. I don't think you represent my company well,' or 'I'm evicting you because you're not transgender.' That's not a value set that Utahns hold." 

Gay rights in Utah Poll results

Of those polled:

• 73% somewhat or strongly favor a statewide nondiscrimination law in employment
• 73% somewhat or strongly favor a statewide nondiscrimination law in housing

[ More than 80% of respondents believed such laws already existed in Utah. ]

• 55% somewhat or strongly oppose gay or transgender couples becoming foster parents
• 52% oppose gay or transgender couples adopting children to whom they have no relationship
• 64% somewhat or strongly favor allowing legally recognized forms of partnerships, short of marriage
• 5% somewhat or strongly oppose allowing gay and transgender couples to marry in Utah
• 57% somewhat or strongly oppose Utah recognizing marriages of gay and transgender couples who move here
• 54% believe that being gay is probably or definitely a choice

Information: Equality Utah

Duluth, Minnesota Passes Resolution Against State Constitutional Amendment That Would Ban Same-Sex Marriage

DULUTH, MINNESOTA -- In passing a resolution Monday, Duluth became the first city in Minnesota to take a stand against the proposed state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage, which is slated to appear on the ballot for a statewide referendum vote in November 2012.

The Duluth City Council passed the resolution Monday in a 6-2 vote, with one city council member absent, having left prior to the vote's roll call. According to the local paper, the Duluth News Tribune, several city councilors earlier were critical of the council taking up the matter, suggesting it was not the proper venue, but they remained silent at Monday’s meeting.

“Equality concerns me. It will always concern me,” said Councilor Jeff Anderson, who co-sponsored the resolution. “This directly affects and impacts people in the city of Duluth.”

“This is about maintaining inclusive communities that will help us grow and thrive,” he said, suggesting that Duluth’s future will be brighter if people view it as a welcoming city.

After the meeting, Councilor Jim Stauber explained his opposition to the resolution.
“The good citizens of the state of Minnesota will all get a chance to vote on this. It’s a pretty simple issue, and people should be allowed to vote. I don’t think city council is the place to convince people whether to support this amendment or not. We’re here to conduct city business.”
On a personal level, Stauber indicated he is supportive of the amendment.
“I, for one, will not support any definition of marriage other than as a union between a man and woman,” he said.
But he said he will leave individuals to decide the issue for themselves.
“People shouldn’t be badgered by this council to vote one way or another,” Stauber said.
But speakers at the meeting all voiced support for the council taking a position on the issue.
Lana Youngblom said her son is gay and in a committed relationship. She urged the council to support the resolution, saying: “It shows Duluth is a welcoming, inclusive community.”
Youngblom said the state is home to more than 100,000 lesbian, gay and bisexual people. “What better way is there to let them know they are welcome here and supported,” she said.
Gary Boelhower said the city has an important role to play with an important symbolic action.
“The very foundation of our society is at stake,” he said. “This amendment would put discrimination into the constitution of our state.”
Council President Sharla Gardner, who co-sponsored the resolution, contended that the city shouldn’t remain silent on important issues.
“I believe the role of city government is to be the front line of democracy,” she said. ~ The Duluth News Tribune

In Brief

Staff Reports

Appeals Court Rejects Anti-Gay Graduate Student’s Bid for Reversal of Her Expulsion

ATLANTA, GEORGIA -- The U. S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a decision by a U.S. district judge who ruled Augusta State University may expel a graduate student who refused to comply with graduate degree programme requirements citing her Christian beliefs that homosexuality is immoral.

Jennifer Keeton, 24, who was pursuing a master’s degree in counseling, said she was ordered to undergo a re-education plan that requires her to attend “diversity sensitivity training” when the school told her that her anti-gay beliefs are incompatible with the standards of her desired profession. She sued the university in July 2010, claiming that faculty and university staff had violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of her Christian faith when it told her that, in order to stay in the program, she would have to change her beliefs about homosexuality which Keeton cited as: ..."that it is immoral, unnatural, and a “lifestyle choice” that can be reversed through “conversion therapy.”

According to the lawsuit filed in July 2010, faculty members allegedly assailed Keeton’s beliefs as “inconsistent with the counseling profession” and “expressed suspicion over ‘Jen’s ability to be a multi-culturally competent counselor, particularly with regard to working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (GLBTQ) populations.’”

In supporting Augusta State in its actions, the U. S. District Court judge wrote, “The record suggests, and the testimony at the hearing bolsters, the Plan was imposed because Plaintiff exhibited an inability to counsel in a professionally ethical manner — that is, an inability to resist imposing her moral viewpoint on counselees – in violation of the ACA Code of Ethics.”

In its ruling on Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit agreed with the district court judge, ruling that because Ms. Keeton was unlikely to prevail in her lawsuit, a court order for her preventing expulsion was unwarranted.

The court noted that the requirements of the counseling program—needed for its continued accreditation and compliance with the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics—are similar to the rules for judges, who must apply laws even if they consider them erroneous.

“In seeking to evade the curricular requirement that she not impose her moral values on clients,” the appellate court wrote, “Keeton is looking for preferential, not equal, treatment.”

Augusta State University spokeswoman Kathy Schofe told LGBTQ Nation last month that the university had tried to work with Keeton, suggesting she take diversity sensitivity workshops and attend the local Augusta LGBTQ Pride parade, but Keeton refused and declined to participate claiming the university’s “demands” violated her First Amendment rights.

Brandon McInerney Sentenced To Twenty-One Years In Prison; Lawrence King's Family Tells Court They Cannot Forgive McInerney

Brandon McInerney

VENTURA, CALIFORNIA -- Brandon McInerney, 17, was sentenced on Monday to 21 years in state prison for shooting an openly gay student in the back of the head during a computer lab class three years ago. McInerney did not speak at the hearing but his attorney Scott Wippert said his client was sorry for killing 15-year-old Larry King. "He feels deeply remorseful and stated repeatedly if he could go back and take back what he did he would do it in a heartbeat, Wippert said. 

The family of Larry King said in court during they could not forgive their son's killer. 

"You took upon yourself to be a bully and to hate a smaller kid, wanting to be the big man on campus,'" King's father, Greg King, said on behalf of his wife. "'You have left a big hole in my heart where Larry was and it can never be filled.'" 

In a deal reached with Ventura County prosecutors last month, McInerney agreed to avoid a retrial and to plead guilty to second-degree murder, as well as one count each of voluntary manslaughter and use of a firearm. A mistrial was declared in September when jurors couldn't reach a unanimous decision on the degree of guilt. Several jurors in interviews with the media after McInerney's trial said that he shouldn't have been tried as an adult.

Teachers and students saw a dispute growing between King and McInerney leading up to the February 2008 killing, which culminated in McInerney shooting King twice in the head in a computer lab at E.O Green Junior High School. McInerney, then 14, had reached an emotional breaking point after King made repeated, unwanted sexual advances toward him and other boys, defense lawyers claimed. 

The case drew widespread attention and raised questions about how schools should deal with students and sexual identity issues. Talk show host Ellen DeGeneres, who is openly lesbian, weighed in on her television show shortly after the shooting telling her audience that LGBTQ persons shouldn't be treated as second-class citizens. Because of pre-trial publicity, the trial was moved from Ventura County to Chatsworth in the San Fernando Valley section of Los Angeles. 

Ventura County Prosecutors said the shooting was first-degree murder and that McInerney should be punished as an adult. They argued the shooting was a hate crime, an aspect jurors rejected, after authorities found white supremacist materials in his home. Defense attorneys, who unsuccessfully argued to keep the case in juvenile court, said it was voluntary manslaughter because McInerney lost control of his emotions. They said the teen was beaten by his father and was described as a bright student who lost his motivation. 

King's father also blamed the school district for not doing more to address the brewing feud between the two teens and their son's flamboyant behaviour. "Instead of protecting him from himself and his poor impulse control, they enabled and encouraged him to become more and more provocative," Greg King said. 

During the sentencing hearing, King's family and Ventura County Deputy District Attorney Maeve Fox wore buttons with the teen's face on it, while some of McInerney's supporters wore powder blue wristbands that read "Save Brandon." After serving nearly four years since the murder and with the additional 21 years handed down Monday, McInerney will be released just before his 39th birthday. His murder conviction was stayed, and the plea deal agreed to after the mistrial called for him to be given the maximum sentence under California law for voluntary manslaughter — 11 years — and use of a firearm — 10 years, Fox said.

Brody's Notes... Marriage Equality Makes You 13% Healthier

By Matt Baume | WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA -- George Clooney takes a stand for marriage equality with his latest role. A new study connects anti-gay marriage laws to cardiovascular disease. Republican voters increasingly favor marriage equality, but this week several presidential frontrunners had some particularly unpleasant things to say about LGBTs. And after a year of monetary and staffing battles, there's fresh conflict in Maryland.

Des DownUnder On Sundays

Presented in two parts, Appearing Today & Next Sunday, Christmas Day:

A Christmas For Carol

By Desmond Rutherford

She was so awake. ‘Twas the day before Christmas and she had a thousand things to do. Why had she left everything to the last minute? Every Christmas it was the same. Carol Cage worked long hours, right up to Christmas Eve and then finally had to rush around to get everything done.

She got out of bed and went to her en suite bathroom. She changed her mind and went to her bedroom door and opened it. She had made a habit of closing it to avoid overhearing her son and his friend in bed again. She had heard them that first night some three months ago, when they came home late from the movies. Her son, her illegitimate son, was in a relationship with another boy.

She told herself it didn’t matter. She was almost not surprised. After all she had been through, what else could go wrong for her?

It was eighteen years ago that her boyfriend had gotten her pregnant and then left her; left her alone to fend for herself. She never heard from him again, leaving her holding a baby boy that she never wanted. Despite that, she had worked hard and succeeded in building up a business that provided a nice income for her and ‘the kid’, as she thought of him. Of course she never wasted money on him, only buying the essentials he needed for school. She was hardly the best mother in the world, but she fed and clothed him, giving him everything except the one thing he needed.

“Robert!” she yelled, from her now open bedroom door. She never acknowledged her son’s friend. It was like he wasn’t there. “Robert it’s time to get up.”

*************************************************

Robert and his friend, Jim, were jarred awake.

“Does she have to yell like that? What time is it Bobby?” Robert insisted on being called Bobby. He hated being called Robert, but he couldn’t stop his mother from using the name she had assigned to him.

“It’s seven a.m., I have to get up. Sorry Jim, but you know I have to do whatever she wants. It’s the only way I can get to go to college.” He leaned over his boyfriend and kissed him on the lips, and he asked him, “What are you doing today?”

“Waiting for her to finish with you, of course. Have you spoken to her about tomorrow yet?”

“No, not yet.” Bobby looked guilty as he made his confession. Jim wanted him to spend Christmas day with him. He had his own apartment a few streets away and longed to spend an entire day with Bobby. The two boys had never been able to manage an entire day alone. Bobby’s Mother had always seen to that, even though she never said anything to him.

“Robert!” yelled his mother, yet again.

“Robert,” mimicked Jim, “Mother calls. Why does she call you Robert? Everyone calls you Bobby.”

“That’s why; she knows I prefer Bobby, so she calls me Robert. Now, let’s get out of bed before she starts pounding on the damned door.”

The boys quickly showered together and dressed. Jim left forlornly, knowing he wouldn’t be fed, and Bobby went into the kitchen. His breakfast was waiting for him on the bar where they had all their meals. His mother’s perfectly good dining room was never used.

“Hurry up and eat Robert, I need to be out of here in ten minutes,” she said.

“Yes, Carol,” he said. He was not being disrespectful calling his mother by her first name. She insisted on it. She did not want to think of herself as a mother, at all.

Fifteen minutes later they were at her shop. Carol’s Flower Shoppe.

“Now Robert, I want you to sweep the floor again, and then tidy the store room. You know I must be able to see the stock. After that you will need to enter the deliveries into the computer. They should arrive by eleven.”

They worked hard all day serving many last minute customers and often Bobby had to make deliveries.

‘Twas the end of the day before he grasped his courage, “Carol?”

‘What?” She snapped at him.

“I was wondering, if I, err…”

“What is it? We don’t have all day. I have to get home to do the accounts.”

“Well, tomorrow is Christmas, and I wondering if I could, I could…”

“Spend it with ‘what’s his name’, I suppose. Is that what you’re trying to ask?”

“Please. It’s only one day,” he said.

“And what about the shop? Who’s going to take care of the plants?”

“Please, Mom, it’s Christmas.”

“Don’t call me that.”

“Sorry…Carol.”

She looked at him and for a moment felt a twinge of motherhood rearing its ugly head and for some unknown reason she relented as she looked into his eyes. “Oh all right, I’ll see to them, but be sure to mop the work room before you leave tonight, do you hear me?”

“Yes, I will.”

“All right, then you can go,” she said, with a slight hesitation that did not go unnoticed by Bobby.

“But will you be okay?” he asked his mother suddenly feeling some concern at the thought of her being alone on Christmas Day.

“Don’t worry about me. It is just another day as far as I am concerned except for fewer customers. But you have a good day with your friend, and mind you’re early the day after.”

“I will, and Carol?” He paused until she turned and looked at him...

“Merry Christmas, Mom. Ho, Ho, Ho!”

Bobby quickly turned and ran into the work room. His mother grimaced and sighed as she left the shop, muttering to herself, “Merry Christmas, stuff and nonsense…Ho, Ho, Hokum.”

Carol’s grimace changed into what might pass as a smile in a different time, as she walked home. She could have asked Bobby to drive her, but she didn’t want to waste the extra fuel. As she walked along the street she noticed a kitten in a window of a pet shop she had not seen before. She stopped to look at the playful kitten, wondering what its fate would be when it was no longer cute. She looked up the sign over the door, “Shoppe of Christmas Pets.” “How peculiar,” she thought, “that anyone would open a pet shop just for Christmas Eve.”

Unexpectedly, a man carrying a thin grey complexion appeared at the door. Carol felt his presence and turned her head to gaze upon him. She thought he seemed familiar, and it made her vaguely uncomfortable, but she dismissed it, until he spoke.

“Hello Carol,” he said.

~ To be continued

In Brief

Staff Reports

Connecticut Governor Names Openly Gay Man As Chief Of Staff

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT -- Mark Ojakian, Deputy Budget Director for the state of Connecticut has been named to succeed Tim Bannon as Governor Dannel P. Malloy's new chief of staff. Speaking to reporters in a press conference Thursday making the announcement, the Democratic Governor said; "He knows that I have a reputation for working people pretty hard. He's been living it for a year now, and still, he took the job, which I think speaks volumes about his commitment to the people of Connecticut. I have no doubt that he is the right person for this job.''

When asked if he was wearing people out, Malloy who has a reputation for working non-stop long hours seven days a week, rarely taking time off, quipped; "I hope so. That's the plan. I don't ask anyone to work any harder than I do. … I would be disappointed if there is anyone around me who is not working hard.''

Stepping to the microphone, Ojakian said, "While it has been an incredibly challenging year — and it has been, I didn't think my hair could get any grayer, but it has over the last year — it has been an honor'' to serve in the administration.

He added, "We still face many challenges in the weeks, months, and years ahead'' on a wide variety of issues.

Known as "OJ'' inside the state Capitol, Ojakian has worked with all of the key players in the administration. Besides thanking members of Malloy's inner circle, Ojakian, 58, also thanked his husband, Jason Veretto of West Hartford, whom he introduced at the press conference.

Before Malloy took office, Ojakian served as deputy comptroller for 16 years under Nancy Wyman, who is now lieutenant governor.

"I probably would not be standing here today had it not been for her friendship and her ability to mentor me over 16 years,'' Ojakian said.

"You would have had more hair, too,'' Wyman responded.

"I would have a lot more hair,'' Ojakian quipped.

The pick by Malloy was viewed as a solid move to choose a loyal, longtime, trusted state employee.  ~ The Hartford Courant

Minnesota State Senate Majority Leader Who Led Push For Constitutional Ban On Same-Sex Marriage On 2012 Ballot forced to resign after allegations of extra-martial affair are raised

Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch 

SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA-- Minnesota State Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch,(R) has resigned her post after Minnesota Senate staff recently brought up allegations of an “inappropriate relationship between Majority Leader Koch and a Senate staffer. Senator Koch, who is is married with one child, was one of the proponents of Minnesota's 2012 anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment ballot initiative.

During a news conference Friday in the State Capitol, Senator Geoff Michel,(R-Edina) told reporters that multiple staffers had reported to Senate leaders allegations of an “inappropriate relationship between Majority Leader Koch and a Senate staffer."We sit here with a lot of humility, sadness, and shock,” he said. Michel acknowledged that he had no personal knowledge of how long the relationship was ongoing for and that because of legal restrictions he would not discuss the name of the Senate staffer involved with the majority leader.

Michel told the gathered press corps that he would only specify that the alleged relationship was “inappropriate” a “conflict of interest” and created an “unstable work environment for staff.” On whether or not the relationship was sexual, Michel said "I think there's only two people who could fully characterize that,” however he indicated that Senate leadership never heard the word “sexual” used by the staffers when the allegations surfaced.

The night before Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch resigned her leadership post, she was confronted by her peers about allegations of an inappropriate relationship.

GOP senators met with Koch, R-Buffalo, Wednesday evening and confronted her, the senators said Friday. The allegations accuse her of an inappropriate relationship with a Senate staffer.

There were "multiple reports from staff" about the relationship, said Sen. Geoff Michel, R-Edina, in a press conference Friday afternoon called shortly after news of the relationship broke.

He didn't characterize the relationship, but it reportedly interfered with the Senate's work environment. He also did not name the staffer involved.

Michel has been named Interim Senate Majority Leader until a replacement an be elected.

When confronted, Koch neither admitted nor denied the allegations but mentioned resigning, Michel said.

Michel said nothing had been resolved before Koch's sudden resignation Thursday.Koch also has said she will not seek re-election in 2012.   ~ The St. Paul Pioneer Press

Brody's Notes... Newt Gingrich Attacks LGBTQ Community In Multi-prong Campaign Blitzkrieg

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

By Brody Levesque | DES MOINES, IOWA -- In a question and answer session today with the editorial board of The Des Moines Register newspaper, GOP presidential hopeful and front runner, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, attacked the LGBTQ community, first on the subject of same-sex marriage, and then on the topics of sexual orientation as well as the repeal of the Defence Department policy known as "Don't Ask-Don't Tell." Earlier this week, Gingrich lent his support to the Iowa far-right group Family Leader’s marriage vow. In a letter to the anti-gay organization, Gingrich vowed to support DOMA and a federal marriage amendment. That marriage vow calls homosexuality a choice and a threat to public health.

Gingrich also today signed the National Organization for Marriage’s (NOM) anti-gay “Marriage Pledge” earlier today. The pledge calls on candidates to vigorously support the Defense of Marriage Act, push for a federal marriage amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, repeal marriage equality in the nation’s capital, appoint anti-equality judges, and form a McCarthy-like commission to look into alleged incidents of harassment against NOM supporters.

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese reacted to Gingrich’s signing the NOM pledge saying;

"Newt Gingrich’s signature to the NOM Marriage Pledge is just the latest indicator of how beholden the GOP presidential candidates are to anti-gay groups. The tenets of the NOM pledge are rooted in hatred against LGBT Americans – by signing it, Gingrich and his fellow candidates are distancing themselves from mainstream opinion and taking an astonishingly extremist stance. 

We know that more than 50 percent of Americans support marriage equality, 77 percent of voters favor anti-discrimination laws, and a resounding number of people of faith believe their religion calls on them to support LGBT equality. His support for the NOM Marriage Pledge firmly puts Newt Gingrich on the wrong side of history.”

In the session this morning with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board, Gingrich noted that LGBTQ people have a “significant range of choice within a genetic pattern” and can choose to be straight just like someone can “choose to be celibate.” He also stated that there is a “big difference between saying that you’re to have an acceptance of people’s lifestyles and saying that you’re now going to normalize that as a standard for the whole country”:

Question: Do you believe that people choose to be gay?
GINGRICH: I believe it’s a combination of genetics and environment. I think both are involved. I think people have many ranges of choices. Part of the question is, do you want a society which has a bias in one direction or another?
Question: So people can then choose one way or another?
GINGRICH: I think people have a significant range of choice within a genetic pattern. I don’t believe in genetic determinism and I don’t think there is any great evidence of genetic determinism. There are propensities. Are you more likely to do this or more likely to do that? But that doesn’t mean it’s definitional.
Question: So a person can then choose to be straight?
GINGRICH: Look, people choose to be celibate. People choose many things in life. You know, there is a bias in favor of non-celibacy. It’s part of how the species recreates. And yet there is a substantial amount of people who choose celibacy as a religious vocation or for other reasons.

The following is a transcript of the rest of the Gingrich interview:

Question: With your view of history do you see comparisons between the civil rights era and the push these days for gay rights? There were lots of people in the South in the '60s who would have never had consented to blacks and whites marrying, and that's become the law of the land. There are lots of gay folks who see themselves in the same predicament. Talk about that.

GINGRICH: I think there is an enormous difference between an inescapable fact of race — and you have to decide whether or not you are in fact going to tolerate discrimination based on race — and a question about culture, a question about what are your values. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. That's a value proposition.

I think it is very important for society to try and emphasize that relationship. I think people growing up in a structure in which children have parents that they look up to and parents that they relate to is a very important thing.

I think there is a big difference between saying that you are going to have an acceptance of people's lifestyle and saying you now are going to normalize that as the standard for the whole country. The fact is I am a traditional classic conservative. And I am defending a value system which has a several-thousand-year history behind it, which is pretty clear. And I think that almost nobody who studies that value system has any doubts about that clarity.

Question: A lot of people from the South in the '50s and '60s would have said mixed-race marriage was a cultural thing that they couldn't accept at the time.

GINGRICH: Look, you can always make parallels if you want to. I don't accept that parallel. I think that it is fairly ludicrous. Nobody is suggesting that we have legal segregation of gays, nobody is suggesting they not be allowed to use the bathroom, they not be allowed to drink at the water fountain. I mean, segregation was a horrible thing. And I grew up, I was born in Pennsylvania, I grew up in an integrated U.S. Army. I arrived at Fort Benning when I was a junior in high school. Segregation was still legal, it was a totally different thing. And I think that it is frankly offensive to have this whole effort to draw the contrast and to say that if you feel strongly about marriage being between a man and a woman, gee, is that parallel to being a racist? The answer is no. I am defending a 3,000-year tradition. It's very deep in our culture for very profound reasons.

Question: But marriage is about to be a minority status in this country, marriage between a man and a woman.

GINGRICH: And that's a problem.

Question: Is there something as president you would see that you could do to turn that tide if that's what your value is?

GINGRICH: I think part of it is to shift the benefit patterns economically so there is a greater benefit to being married. Look at the impact. You go back and look at [then–Assistant Secretary of Labor Daniel Patrick] Moynihan's original warnings on this topic 40 years ago. And by every criteria, the breakdown of the family has gotten worse, the number of children who are growing up rootless and without any kind of adult supervision has gotten worse. And yet Moynihan was roundly attacked for having said things that are now patently true, very clearly obvious. I think [Rick] Santorum is actually on to something important, that finding a way to create a positive environment to maximize the desirability of marriage being the central building block and family being the central building block of society is a very important step we ought to take.

Question: So apart from marriage you say you support equal treatment of gay Americans?
GINGRICH: I'm against discrimination against people based on their private behavior. 

Question: So what is your position on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

GINGRICH: That would be my policy — don't ask, don't tell.

Question: So in the military, you would have separate standards?

GINGRICH: I don't think in the military, that you particularly want sexual behavior to be an overt issue.

Question: So you would not have wanted that repealed?

GINGRICH: I would not have wanted it repealed.

Question: Would you try and reinstate it?

GINGRICH: I would sign a reinstatement.

Question: Would you actively work to get it reinstated?

GINGRICH: Well, I would encourage the Congress to pass reinstatement, and I suspect the next Congress will pass reinstatement.

And by the way, when the president moved in the opposite direction, the two major ground combat forces — the Army and the Marine Corps — were both deeply opposed.

Question: They aren't now, though.

GINGRICH: They aren't now because they respond to the commander in chief.

Question: They aren't telling the truth, they aren't telling their true feelings?

GINGRICH: I think fairly often when you are in the chain of command, there is a way to ask the question just right. But the truth is I think it would be a career-ending conversation.