GLBT Daily News

I'm gonna starts the Gay Daily News again. Being that the last one was culled away. Anyhooo... here is the first story.





Reaction on the first day of Connecticut's civil union law
Emotions range from
'ecstatic' to 'sad'

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) | Oct 1, 10:29 PM "This is a historic day. We're beyond ecstatic." — Randy Sharp, 46, of Plainville, who applied for a civil union license with his partner Jeff Blanchette, 44.

"If the state of Connecticut would recognize a Britney Spears weekend Las Vegas marriage, surely they can recognize the marriage of couples who have been together ten, twenty, or thirty years." — Frank O'Gorman, director of People of Faith for Gay Civil Rights.

"Today was a sad day for our state. It was a sad day for our state's children." — Brian Brown, executive director of Family Institute of Connecticut.

"We don't want any of this crap in our state. Look what happened in Massachusetts, California, all that crap. We don't want gays here. We just figure they will breed themselves out." — Protester who identified himself only as Brandon.

"Politicians tend to be afraid of this issue because they think it's political suicide, and I think what happened in Connecticut completely and totally disproved that." — state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, a key sponsor of the law.

Conn. Rep. Michael Lawlor

Catholic churches lead signature drive for ban on gay marriage
Ban supporters must collect 65,000 signatures in Mass. by Nov. 23
BOSTON (AP) | Oct 2, 4:30 PM

Rev. Walter Waldron's homily usually earns a smattering of amens, but on Sunday his parishioners at St. Patrick Church gave him a round of applause.Waldron used his time at the pulpit to rally support for a petition that calls for banning gay marriage in Massachusetts. At the end of Mass, he held up a copy of the petition and urged parishioners to sign it in a room at the rear of the church.


"It just seems so strange for me to stand here today and preach what I think is so obvious: Marriage is between a man and a woman," Waldron said. "It's not just our faith. It's for the good of society."

This weekend, supporters of the proposed constitutional ban on same-*** marriage launched a signature drive at churches across the state. They must collect more than 65,000 signatures before Nov. 23 for the question to qualify for the 2008 ballot, but its sponsors hope to gather double that number to protect against a challenge.

Supporters of gay marriage, led by the MassEquality advocacy group, gathered outside many churches Sunday to protest the signature drive.

"We completely respect people's right to worship," said Marc Solomon, the group's political director. "However, we are very concerned that the church hierarchy has made taking away marriage equality — and replacing it with nothing else — such a high priority."

Boston Catholic Archbishop Sean O'Malley has urged parishioners to sign the petition. Some Protestant churches in this heavily Catholic state also planned to collect signatures.

Former Boston Mayor Raymond Flynn, one of the petition's chief sponsors, said church officials have an obligation to "speak out on important issues in the civic arena."

"The marriage petition is not against gays but for children," he said. "We believe that a loving family with a mother and a father is the best environment for children to be brought up in."

Last month, the state Legislature defeated a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned gay marriage but created civil unions for same-*** couples. The proposed ballot question is more restrictive, banning gay marriage without creating civil unions.

Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to wed. Vermont and Connecticut recognize civil unions.

At St. Thomas Aquinas Church in Boston's Jamaica Plain neighborhood, MassEquality supporters approached parishioners and urged them not to sign the petition.

"I want them to see the face of someone who is married so they can see how benign and human we are," said Elizabeth Anker, 51, who married Aina Allen, her partner of 20 years, last year. "They don't have to blindly sign a petition because the hierarchy of the church told them to."

Wendy Loveland, 41, and her spouse, Margaret Williams, handed out copies of a letter they wrote explaining their support for same-*** marriage. Some parishioners appeared to be confused by why the protesters were there.

"So where do I sign the petition?" one elderly woman asked Loveland.

"Oh, we're against that," Loveland responded.

"I won't even read the letter," the parishioner said. "I want to sign the petition."

At St. Patrick, in Boston's Roxbury neighborhood, more than half of the roughly 50 people who attended Waldron's Mass signed the petition. Earlier, at least 30 parishioners signed the petition following a Mass said in Cape Verdean.

"I don't believe two men or two women should marry. That's not what God intended," said Connie Fidalgo, who collected signatures at a table outside the church.

Some St. Patrick parishioners said they wouldn't sign the petition.

"It's 2005. Times have changed. It's time to accept people for who they are," said Ilduce Brandao, of Boston.

Waldron said he isn't worried that his outspoken support for the petition would offend some members of his church.

"We're not crossing the line between church and state," he said. "This is not only a societal issue. It's a moral issue."

Boston Catholic Archbishop Sean O'Malley has urged parishioners to sign the petition banning gay marriage.

VOTING IN GENERAL FOR ANY REASON.

Since George Bush won the Presidency, [He bought his way in] this Good Ole Boy has torn up his Voters Registration Card.

Today the City of Cleveland is Voting for Mayor, and I don't freeking care who wins.

THIS FALL FIRE THEM ALL

RE-ELECT NO-ONE!!

A passport to married life
Local gay couple’s Canadian wedding is full of surprises

Rob Hepler and Terry Bush kiss after being married on Sunset Beach in Vancouver, in Canada. A crowd of about 50 onlookers‑—all strangers‑— applauded at the completion of the ceremony.

Indiana bill would limit reproduction procedures for gays, singles
Panel to make recommendation to Legislature on Oct. 20
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) | Oct 4, 4:18 PM

An interim legislative committee is considering a bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child.

Sen. Patricia Miller (R-Indianapolis) said state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana.

"If were going to try to put Indiana on the map, I wouldn't go this route," said Betty ****rum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "It feels pretty chilling. It is governmental intrusion into a very private part of our lives."

Miller acknowledged that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."

"Our statutes are nearly silent on all this. You can think of guidelines, but when you put it on paper it becomes different," she told The Journal Gazette of Fort Wayne for a story Tuesday.

Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that will vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.

The bill defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then requires "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor cannot begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

The legislation appears to affect some married couples, although the rough draft is unclear at times. Miller said the draft will be clarified before a vote.

The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents, for example, the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother. But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.

Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, said his office began hearing about the bill Friday, a day after the rough draft was discussed by the Health Finance Commission.

He said it sets up a clear discrimination that would be difficult to uphold in court, and considers the bill to be unique nationally.

"My question is 'What is the danger that we are legislating against?' Are we saying that only married persons should be able to be parents, which is certainly a slap in the face to many same-*** couples but also to many who do not have a partner but have undertaken being a parent," Falk said.

Miller said the state often reacted to problems and that she wanted to be proactive on this issue.

"We're not trying to stop people from having kids; we're just trying to find some guidelines," she said.

She acknowledged such a law would bar single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said "all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family — a mother and a father."

Bill to limit reproduction options for gays, singles dropped
Sponsor: Issue became 'more complex than anticipated'
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) | Oct 7, 12:01 AM


A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.

State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.

"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission," she said.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana.

But Betty ****rum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana called it government intrusion.

"It feels pretty chilling," ****rum said Tuesday.

Miller acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."

Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that was to vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.

The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then required "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor could not begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks.

Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

N.H. governor opposes constitutional amendment against gay marriage
State panel recently
recommended amendment
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) | Oct 7, 8:01 PM

Gov. John Lynch said he's against gay marriage, but opposes changing the state's constitution to ban it.

"There is no need to amend our constitution to do what is already set in law," Lynch told the Concord Monitor. "Our time is better spent focusing on the real challenges facing New Hampshire and working to unite people, not divide them."

New Hampshire law already defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. But on Wednesday, a state panel studying same *** unions voted to recommend a constitutional amendment to state marriage is between one man and one woman.

Any move to change New Hampshire's constitution would have to pass the House and Senate before going to a general vote, and even legislators who support an amendment say it will have a difficult time passing.

But lawmakers on both sides of the issue said they welcomed the start of a long-term debate on gay marriage in New Hampshire.

"From the societal point of view, it's about time we began that," said Rep. Jim MacKay, R-Concord, who sits on the gay marriage commission. MacKay voted against an amendment.

"Right now, it's the third rail of politics: nobody wants to touch it," said Rep. Tony Soltani, R-Epsom, chairman of the commission. Soltani supports an amendment. "I don't expect anybody in a leadership position to be enthusiastic about it or make it a part of the platform. I do expect them to give it due consideration," he said.

Beware of Graham Norton
on gay *** hot lines
Brit brings his raunchy
comedy to off-Broadway
NEW YORK (AP) | Oct 8, 5:00 PM

Graham Norton is calling a gay *** hot line from the stage of his off-Broadway stand-up comedy show, talking to men in a breathless voice over speaker phone as the audience tries not to snicker too loudly.

One after one, the guys hang up as Norton says — with a completely straight face — that he's gained weight recently and was horribly maimed during a circumcision.

This is not new territory for one of Britain's raunchiest comics, who is still relatively unknown in the United States despite a short-lived talk show on Comedy Central last year. Norton is hoping to change all that with his camp, obnoxious show, "Graham Norton: Know All," playing a limited run at the Village Theatre.

Whether he will win over any new fans, however, remains to be seen. Those in the audience seemed well-accustomed to his manic style, ***-laced jokes and endless questions directed toward them, playing along even as he mocked a hairdresser for being dim and a vegetarian for being, well, a vegetarian.

Norton's wit is wry and sharp, alternating from commentary on topics of the day — Katrina, Nick and Jessica, bird flu — to his interaction with audience members, who become a cast of characters in the show.

This is where Norton is most enjoyable, thinking on his feet and not-so-gently razzing his audience, including the poor, unsuspecting men he calls on the gay chat line. Norton can get away with it — and be funny — because the gibes are relatively innocent, and he is all too ready to turn the joke back on himself.

Where he backfires, though, is in some of his cultural critiques and the bizarre photos and Web sites he references throughout the show. He is known for making fun of eccentric Web sites on his British talk shows — even phoning the authors on the air — but on the stage, it somewhat falls flat.

Pictures of pandas having *** is just not that funny. What's more amusing is his description of catching and killing a mouse in his apartment — a self-described flamboyantly gay man using tongs to pick up a glue strip with the still-breathing mouse attached. Throw in Norton wearing a sparkly Superman T-shirt, and you get the point.

Norton also has a gift for satirizing celebrity culture, often quite bitingly. His musings on how well Martha Stewart got along with her prison cellmate are unfit for print. Kate Moss — or as Norton calls her, Hurricane Kate — also gets trashed for her well-publicized dalliance with cocaine.

What ultimately plagues Norton, but also makes him somewhat irresistible to watch, is his utter lack of focus. With tighter direction and a sifting out of his weaker material, he could sustain a much longer stage run — that is, if he doesn't get blocked from all the gay chat lines in New York first.

[Jenna]

Massachusetts high court to review law that bars nonresident couples from marriage:
The court that paved the way for Massachusetts to become the first state to legalize same-*** marriage will now decide whether gay and lesbian couples from other states can marry there. The case is being closely watched across the country because if the supreme judicial court strikes down a 1913 law that bars out-of-state couples from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would be prohibited in their home state, gay and lesbian couples from across the country could go to Massachusetts to wed and demand marriage rights at home. Eight gay couples from surrounding states, all of whom were denied marriage licenses in Massachusetts, are challenging the law.

Michele Granda, a lawyer for the couples, argued before the high court Thursday that the 1913 law "sat on the shelf" unused for decades until it was "dusted off" by Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Granda said the high court, in its historic ruling legalizing same-*** marriage, found that under the Massachusetts constitution, same-*** couples had the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. "Nothing in [that ruling] says that our officials can discriminate simply because officials in other states discriminate," Granda told the six-judge panel.

Attorneys for the state argued that the law is being enforced in an evenhanded way for both heterosexual and same-*** couples. Assistant attorney general Peter Sacks said Massachusetts risks a "backlash" if it flouts the laws of others states by marrying gay couples from states that prohibit it. "We've got respect for other states' laws," he said.

The high court is expected to issue a ruling in the next few months. The eight couples who sued are from Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, and New York. They include Sandi and Bobbi Cote-Whitacre of Essex Junction, Vt., who have a recognized civil union in their home state but want to marry.

"The civil union gave us state benefits, but we grew up believing that you find someone you want to spend the rest of your life with and you get married," Sandi said. "In reality, after 38 years I'm her wife and she's mine. We want the document."

After same-*** marriage became legal in the state in May 2004, Romney ordered city and town clerks to enforce the 1913 law and wrote to every other governor in the nation that out-of-state gay couples would not be allowed to marry in Massachusetts. A few communities initially defied the governor but eventually complied. (AP)

Quiet gay rights referendum campaign heads into stretch
Vote is on Nov. 8
AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) | Oct 11, 3:22 PM

Gay rights supporters and opponents routinely trade barbs, characterizing their adversaries as radical or extremist, with a statewide vote looming just a month away. But the campaign has been superficially quiet to date.

Gov. John Baldacci, who backed the gay rights proposal and signed it into law, has been receiving constituent comments on the issue only about once a week, his office says.

Maine Grassroots Coalition leader Paul Madore, looking to repeal the law, says the foundation of the battle for victory at the polls on Nov. 8 is one-to-one conversation, not a marketing blitz. Media advertising will always be a function of financial resources, he says, but bolstering and expanding a network of repeal advocates is key.

"You have to be strong on the ground. ... We have to rely on personal contact through our volunteers," Madore says.

New campaign finance reports are due this week. According to previous reports, supporters and opponents of a law outlawing discrimination against gays and lesbians raised more than $200,000 earlier this year.

This year's referendum campaign commenced after Baldacci signed a new law in March that would extend the Maine Human Rights Act to make discrimination based on sexual orientation illegal in employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education.

The act already prohibits discrimination based on race, color, ***, disability, religion, ancestry and national origin.

A conservative church-led alliance including Madore's grassroots coalition and the Christian Civic League of Maine mounted a successful petition drive seeking a people's veto of the expanded law, filing more than 56,000 signatures.

Low voter turnout is a hallmark of off-year elections and mobilizing potential voters has been the bedrock strategy on both sides.

A statewide poll released in August pegged support of the new gay rights law among Maine voters at three out of five, but gay rights backers say nothing can be taken for granted.

"Until the airwaves are lit up, people won't be focusing on this," says state Sen. Barry Hobbins, D-Saco, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee that forwarded the bill to the full Legislature with a positive, if split, endorsement.

Indeed, commenting on the Strategic Marketing Services results in August, pollster Patrick Murphy predicted, "this election will come down to which of the campaigns is most successful at getting out its core supporters."
The new law would exempt religious organizations that do not receive public funds. Its language also declares that the law is not meant to speak to the issue of gay marriages.

The repeal forces, nonetheless, insist that broadening civil rights protections for homosexuals will grant a new status to gay men and lesbians that could open the door to same-*** marriage.

"That's the bottom line," says Madore.

Hobbins hopes the late addition of statutory wording to say the measure "may not be construed to create, add, alter or abolish any right to marry" will focus debate where he thinks it belongs.

"As it turns, out, that language could be the savior of the bill," Hobbins says.

Maine has a statute that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The state also has created a domestic-partner registry for both same-*** and heterosexual couples that allows them to inherit property and be designated as a guardian or next of kin.

A 1997 law extending gay rights was repealed by a people's veto — a process through which a law can be overturned by referendum — the following year. Another legislatively enacted bill that included a referendum provision was defeated by voters in 2000.

Tim Russell, legislative liaison for the Christian Civic League and the Coalition for Marriage, says modern communications methods are important to the repeal advocates.

"We're using the Internet," he says. "That's where we're going to get our word out."

Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for Maine Won't Discriminate, says supporters of the pending law also network and raise money on the Internet.

There are plans for paid media, he says, but the off-year balloting is "all about turnout."

The November ballot appears to have no more stirring attraction. Five lower questions will ask voters whether they want to ratify pieces of an $83 million bond issue and another proposes a constitutional amendment that would authorize tax assessments of waterfront land used for commercial fishing activities to be based on the land's current use.

The bond package earmarks $33.1 million for transportation projects, $20 million for economic development and jobs, $9 million for education, $12 million for land conservation and a working waterfront initiative, and $8.9 million for clean water, environment and health projects.