BULLY POLICIES
Gay students added to anti-bully bill
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reached an agreement on an anti-bullying bill set to be debated today.
BY EVAN S. BENN
ebenn@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE - A controversial anti-bullying bill has been changed to appease opponents who want school districts to include protections for gay students.

State Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, agreed to allow school districts to list categories of frequently targeted bullying victims when the districts draft their policies.

The move comes after pressure from gay-rights groups such as Equality Florida and from state Rep. Ken Gottlieb, a Miramar Democrat, who argued that categories are necessary to protect all victims and punish bullies.

The bill, which House members will vote on today, would require all school districts to create an anti-bullying policy that includes protections for all students.

School districts that fail to create bullying rules would risk losing state money.

''This is a much more comprehensive plan than anyone has had before,'' Bogdanoff said. ``Everyone has kind of put their arms around it.''

`NOT GOING BACKWARD'

Gottlieb has tried for years to pass an anti-bullying bill that banned harassment based on sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity and other factors frequently targeted by bullies. His efforts were struck down by lawmakers hesitant to pass a bill with gay-rights protections.

Bogdanoff's amended bill does not suggest which categories to list, but it allows districts to include categories if they want.

Districts like Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach will be able to keep their current bullying policies with some minor changes.

The bill also outlines ways for students and teachers to report bullying anonymously, and it prohibits using computers or other technology to harass students.

''I'm happy that we're not going backward anymore,'' Gottlieb said. ``We've finally got to the point where people are realizing that bullying is a major problem in our schools.''

A Senate version, sponsored by Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican, passed the Criminal Justice committee on Tuesday.

Sen. Ron Klein, a Delray Beach Democrat, tacked on an amendment that would give school districts a little extra time to write their new bullying policies. The policies would have to be in place by Dec. 1, not Sept. 1. School district representatives said the earlier date would not have given them enough time to prepare solid policies.

HONORS DEAD TEEN

The bill is called the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act, named after a Cape Coral teen who hanged himself last June after enduring years of bullying.

''We're preserving the strongest anti-bullying policies in the state, and those can be used as guidelines for other schools throughout the state,'' said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida. ``This is a step in the right direction for all students in Florida.''

Source: Miami-Herald
See the full article

TALLAHASSEE -- Bobbie Bean's son was beaten unconscious by a classmate, first on the school bus and then in the locker room.

It happened four years ago, when Bean's son was 14, at Sebring Middle School. Experts compare the long-term psychological trauma to that of a war veteran.

"We're a long way from recovery with him," Bean said after testifying in front of lawmakers Tuesday.

Bean spoke on behalf of a proposed law that would require schools to write detailed anti-bullying policies that give teachers broad authority to punish bullies. The law also gives parents the option of filing criminal charges against bullies.

Until Tuesday, proponents worried the law's chance of passing was growing smaller by the day. Lawmakers have been arguing about whether the bills (HB 535 and SB 1384) should include special protections for students who are considered likely to be bullied: gays and ethnic or religious minorities.

With less than two weeks until the end of session, members of the House and a Senate committee agreed to a compromise.

Under the compromise proposal, school officials will have to write bullying policies that protect every student without naming specific groups.

But schools will be allowed to write separate discrimination policies expanding on the kinds of students most likely to be affected by bullying.

The compromise sailed through its second reading in the House of Representatives and was passed unanimously by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee.

It has to be passed by one more committee, the Senate Education Appropriations Committee, before being voted on by the whole Senate.

The compromise pushes back the date schools need to enforce the policies to December 2006.

"It's huge," said Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, who sponsored the House bill and helped negotiate the compromise.

She said the law will likely be used as a model around the country.

Cape Coral school teacher Debbie Johnston spearheaded the proposed law in honor of her son, Jeff, who she said hanged himself last year after being bullied.

She and many of her supporters did not like the version of the law that named specific groups of protected students.

Source: Herald Tribune
See the full article

Poll shows coming out wouldn't hurt most politicians 72 percent of Americans would vote for gay candidate if they agree on issues

By DYANA BAGBY

A poll released Monday by the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Institute shows that a majority of Americans would continue to vote for a politician who shares their policy views even if they later found out he or she was gay.


Robin Brand of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund said a recent poll offers an 'extremely positive' message about voters' willingness to support gay elected officials.
Conducted by Zogby International, the Victory Poll surveyed 1,007 people this spring and found that 72 percent of Americans do not believe a politician's sexual orientation is important as long as the candidate has a record of "getting things done for everyone in the community," according to a press release.
These numbers show a decrease in concern about candidates' sexual orientation over the last two decades when compared with poll numbers quoted by openly gay U.S. Sen. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) at a Utah Stonewall Democrats fundraiser April 21.
Frank, who came out as gay in 1987 when he was 47, had already served in Congress for three terms. He said a poll conducted at the time that asked if voters "were disappointed that he was gay" showed 42 percent thought his open homosexuality would hinder him and 21 percent said they would stop voting for him, according to an April 22 article in the Salt Lake Tribune.
Robin Brand, senior vice president for politics and strategy for the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, said Monday she was unfamiliar with Frank's comments, but noted that there is a difference when asking solely about politicians' sexual orientation versus asking about their sexual orientation in conjunction with their political views.
"If you only ask about their sexual orientation, it's different than putting this in context of issues they are fighting for," Brand said. "If you ask that question in a vacuum, answers will be different."
The Leadership Institute, which works to ensure gay inclusion in the electoral process and educate Americans about the contributions of gay elected officials, is a separate non-profit group affiliated with the Victory Fund, which supports openly gay candidates for public office.
Times were also different when Frank came out and people's attitudes toward lesbian and gay politicians are changing, Brand added. And the fact that Frank, who has served in Congress since 1981, continues to be reelected is proof his sexual orientation was not a major factor, she said.
Other findings of the Victory Fund poll:
• 60 percent of Republicans agree that sexual orientation is not important if a gay candidate has a strong record of getting things done for everyone;
• 80 percent of independent voters would "definitely" or "probably" still vote for an elected leader who shares his or her views if the official came out as gay or lesbian; as would 80 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of Republicans; and
• 72 percent of voters in small cities and 70 percent of voters in rural areas say they would "definitely" or "probably" still vote for an elected leader who shares his or her views if the official came out as gay or lesbian.
"This poll is extremely positive," Brand said. "It's not surprising, although the numbers were higher than I expected. But these are the kinds of results we are seeing on Election Day — our candidates are well-qualified and working on issues important to voters in their districts."

© 2006 A Unite Media Publication

Candidates Can Down Load Coming OUT Kit Here

The Coming Out Toolkit from The Victory Fund also includes both qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative research conducted by Lake Associates and quantitative research conducted by Zogby America, evaluates the political climate for LGBT officials and offers strategies and information for those ready to serve as openly LGBT leaders.
The Zogby results can be found here
See the full article

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reached an agreement on an anti-bullying bill set to be debated today.
BY EVAN S. BENN ebenn@MiamiHerald.com

TALLAHASSEE - A controversial anti-bullying bill has been changed to appease opponents who want school districts to include protections for gay students.
State Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, agreed to allow school districts to list categories of frequently targeted bullying victims when the districts draft their policies.
The move comes after pressure from gay-rights groups such as Equality Florida and from state Rep. Ken Gottlieb, a Miramar Democrat, who argued that categories are necessary to protect all victims and punish bullies.
The bill, which House members will vote on today, would require all school districts to create an anti-bullying policy that includes protections for all students.
School districts that fail to create bullying rules would risk losing state money.
''This is a much more comprehensive plan than anyone has had before,'' Bogdanoff said. ``Everyone has kind of put their arms around it.''

`NOT GOING BACKWARD'
Gottlieb has tried for years to pass an anti-bullying bill that banned harassment based on sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity and other factors frequently targeted by bullies. His efforts were struck down by lawmakers hesitant to pass a bill with gay-rights protections.
Bogdanoff's amended bill does not suggest which categories to list, but it allows districts to include categories if they want.
Districts like Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach will be able to keep their current bullying policies with some minor changes.
The bill also outlines ways for students and teachers to report bullying anonymously, and it prohibits using computers or other technology to harass students.
''I'm happy that we're not going backward anymore,'' Gottlieb said. ``We've finally got to the point where people are realizing that bullying is a major problem in our schools.''
A Senate version, sponsored by Carey Baker, a Eustis Republican, passed the Criminal Justice committee on Tuesday.
Sen. Ron Klein, a Delray Beach Democrat, tacked on an amendment that would give school districts a little extra time to write their new bullying policies. The policies would have to be in place by Dec. 1, not Sept. 1. School district representatives said the earlier date would not have given them enough time to prepare solid policies.

HONORS DEAD TEEN
The bill is called the Jeffrey Johnston Stand Up for All Students Act, named after a Cape Coral teen who hanged himself last June after enduring years of bullying.
''We're preserving the strongest anti-bullying policies in the state, and those can be used as guidelines for other schools throughout the state,'' said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida. ``This is a step in the right direction for all students in Florida.''


posted at miamihearld.com
See the full article

The Senate Education Committee unanimously approved legislation that would require school districts to establish and enforce anti-bullying policies. A similar bill was scheduled to go before the House Education Council.

The Senate committee rejected a hotly debated amendment that would have allowed school districts to focus protection on certain groups such as gays and racial, ethnic or religious minorities. They are considered most likely to be harassed.

Sen. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, said that without his amendment, school districts would have to scrap existing plans that have proven effective. Republicans rejected his amendment on a straight party-line vote, 5-3.

The House sponsor, Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, R-Fort Lauderdale, said she planned to offer an amendment to her bill (HB 535) that would allow anti-discrimination policies that list certain groups for protection, but districts still would have to develop separate anti-bullying policies.

Source: Sun-Sentinel
See the full article

Denial Of Marriage amendment picks up four Senate votes over '04
By James Downing
Posted @ The Hill

while this article is posted at the HILL
the links have been provided by POLITALK
please us them to contact the players and organizations involved in this Denial Of Marriage Amendment



A majority of the Senate this year will support the Federal


Marriage Amendment, an outcome that both the left and the right say will energizetheir respective bases in November.In the summer of 2004, the effort to define marriage as between a man and awoman failed in the Senate, on a 48-50 vote. Now that Republicans have increased their majority, the amendment has collected more support.If all senators vote the way they did in 2004 and the freshmen vote asexpected, the bill will attract 52 votes - well short of the 67 needed toamend the Constitution.First-term Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), John Thune(R-S.D.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have all co-sponsored the amendment.These four legislators replaced Democrats who voted against the amendment in2004.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who won the seat vacated by Sen. John Edwards(D-N.C.), has also co-sponsored the new legislation. Sen. John Kerry(D-Mass.) and Edwards, who opted not to return from the campaign trail tovote on the amendment, are opposed to it.Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) does not support the amendment. He won the seatof retired Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.), who voted for the 2004 amendment.Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) also plans to vote against the measure. Hereplaced Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.), one of six Republicans whovoted against it in 2004."I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment," Salazar said in a statement."I believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, but theregulation of marriage has always been, and should remain, the jurisdictionof the states. We should not enshrine discrimination against any group inour Constitution."The amendment should come before the House in late July. In 2004 the Houserejected it on a 227-186 vote, far short of the two-thirds necessary.Matt Daniels, president of the Alliance for Marriage, said he believes that52 senators will vote for the amendment. He added that getting a majority ofthe Senate will show that "momentum is growing" for defining marriage inheterosexual terms."Washington is still catching up to what is happening outside the Beltway,"Daniels said, citing a string of victories for his side at the state level.The 48-50 vote in 2004 was not technically on the amendment itself.Instead, it was on a GOP motion to invoke cloture following a Democratic-ledfilibuster.Jim Backlin, vice president of legislative affairs at the ChristianCoalition, speculated that some Democrats up for reelection in red statesmay reject the filibuster this year, but others said such a change inposition is unlikely.Christopher Labonte, legislative director at the Human Rights Campaign, saidthat Republicans are still a long way off from getting the 60 votes neededto invoke cloture.Backlin said a vote would charge the conservative base, which now seesmarriage as its most important issue. Right-wing groups have expressed theirfrustration that the Senate did not vote on more socially conservative billslast year.Many gay-rights advocates share Salazar's view of the amendment as anattempt to codify discrimination in the Constitution."The Constitution was never amended to take away rights from a group ofAmericans," said Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry.Wolfson called the amendment a ploy for short-term political gain; he saidRepublicans would use the amendment as a distraction and an attack point insome races this fall. He likened the marriage amendment to the Terri Schiavocase, adding that it would drive some voters away from the GOP.Labonte said that a vote could drive more Democrats to the polls this fall,but he was quick to add that Republicans like Sen. John McCain(Ariz.) were also on his side. In addition to McCain and Campbell, the otherRepublicans who voted no in 2004 are Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), SusanCollins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and John Sununu (N.H.).Democrats who voted yes were Sens. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) and Ben Nelson(Neb.) and former Sen. Zell Miller (Ga.).A vote this year could help the Republican effort to turn out its base, but it will also provide fresh fodder for Steve Laffey, a conservative who ischallenging Chafee in the Sept. 12 GOP primary. Chafee is also expected toattract criticism from the right when the Senate votes on the estate tax.--
See the full article

L egislation introduced in the U.S House of Representatives last week would amend the Social Security Act to afford same-sex couples the same benefits, responsibilities, and obligations as others who pay into Social Security. The Equal Access to Social Security Act, H.R. 5152, would add the term "permanent partner" to the Social Security Act in addition to the terms "husband" and "wife," which are already present in the legal code.
"Same-sex couples are denied more than 1,000 federal benefits that other taxpayers are entitled to," said Democratic congressman Jerrold Nadler of New York, who authored the bill. "The Equal Access to Social Security Act addresses this inequity. Ultimately, the only way same-sex couples will be treated equally is when they are allowed to marry—but until that can be a reality for the millions of same-sex couples in this country, we should act to make federal law fair to all."
Nadler's bill does not address same-sex marriage but does provide gay and lesbian couples with some of the benefits married couples enjoy under the Social Security system. Under H.R. 5152, children of same-sex couples would be able to collect survivor benefits in the event of a parent's death, just as children of federally recognized married couples may do.
"I've heard many conservatives say that other than the case of marriage, they don't want to discriminate against the LGBT community," Nadler said. "If they truly don't want to discriminate, here is their chance to prove it. Same-sex couples pay the same taxes as married couples, and they deserve the same Social Security benefits as everyone else."
Recognizing that the elderly often face difficulty maintaining their standard of living after a partner dies, the bill would also entitle elderly same-sex couples to the survivor benefits offered by Social Security to heterosexual widows and widowers.
Seventeen members of Congress have cosponsored Nadler's resolution: representatives Tammy Baldwin, Howard Berman, John Conyers, Joseph Crowley, Rahm Emanuel, Sam Farr, Barney Frank, Raúl Grijalva, Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee, Carolyn Maloney, Jim McDermott, George Miller, Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Henry Waxman, and Lynn Woolsey.

(The Advocate)

See the full article

Proposed amendment moves on, but it's missing the governor's name
BY PAMELA STALLSMITH
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, April 11, 2006

In a symbolic move, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage will go on the Nov. 7 ballot without the signature of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine.

A governor isn't able to veto or amend the lan- guage of a proposed amendment itself. The bill from the General Assembly only puts the question on the ballot, so the lack of action by Kaine -- who has said he will vote against the amendment because he thinks it's overreaching -- sends a message.

"It is symbolic and relatively rare for a governor to allow a measure to take effect without his signature," said Kaine spokesman Kevin Hall.

The proposed amendment cleared the assembly this year with overwhelming, bipartisan support. Amendments must pass two legislative sessions, with an intervening election.

The amendment would define marriage as between one man and one woman, as well as ban civil unions, domestic partnerships and any relationship between unmarried couples that approximates marriage.

Nineteen states have passed similar proposals, and Virginia will be among at least six states to put such a measure before voters in the fall.

"I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, and current Virginia law makes that abundantly clear," Kaine, a former civil-rights lawyer, said in a statement yesterday.

"But I am concerned that the broad wording of the proposed constitutional amendment goes much further than that, threatening the constitutional rights of individuals to enter into private contracts, and also threatening the discretion of employers to extend certain benefits, such as health care coverage, to unmarried couples."

Meanwhile, the Family Foundation Action yesterday criticized the Democratic governor -- who reached out to social and religious conservatives during the campaign -- for "reversing his position" because he completed a candidate survey last year indicating support of the amendment.

"It is disappointing that a governor who has spoken so eloquently about his faith has chosen to break his campaign promise," Victoria Cobb, the group's president, said in a statement.

The group's candidate survey last fall asked whether candidates supported "legislation identical to that which passed this year calling for a Virginia state constitutional amendment, which declares that marriage in Virginia shall consist only of the union between a man and a woman."

Kaine's response was: "Support. I have long supported Virginia law that declares marriage to be between a man and a woman, and I support a constitutional amendment."

Hall said Kaine's answer was accurate.

"It's a front-loaded question designed to play gotcha in a campaign season by a group predisposed to make mischief on social issues like this," Hall said.

In other developments, the campaign to defeat the amendment has picked up two $100,000 gifts.

The pledges of the Weinstein family of Richmond, owners of a real estate company, and an anonymous gay couple were announced at the formal launching Saturday night of the Commonwealth Coalition.

Equality Virginia, the state's largest gay-rights organization and one of the coalition's founding partners, has committed about $750,000 in staff resources and cash to the effort.

The Family Foundation Action, an arm of the Family Foundation of Virginia, is holding a series of fundraising receptions around the state. It hasn't received any large gifts that rival the coalition's.

"Supporters of marriage amendments have been outspent in nearly every state where amendments have passed," spokesman Chris Freund said. "So we anticipate working at a financial disadvantage."

Marriage ballot text

In November, Virginians will vote to accept or reject the constitutional amendment defining marriage. The ballot wording is the same as the amendment:

"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions.

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."

Contact staff writer Pamela Stallsmith at pstallsmith@timesdispatch.com or (804) 649-6746.

Source: Richmond Times-Dispatch (Va.)
See the full article

KATRINA A. JACKSON
Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Black leaders, including those in the church, have an obligation to oppose a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in South Carolina, the Rev. Nelson B. Rivers III, chief operating officer of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said Saturday.

"This is not about sexual orientation or about a lifestyle, this is about fairness and equality," Nelson said during an event sponsored by the South Carolina Progressive Network.

Around 200 people attended the group's Democracy Day event, which focused a variety of topics including immigration, education and same sex marriage.

"Equality is what we must stand on. We cannot be afraid and surrender the higher ground for moral principal," said Rivers, who encouraged the crowd to see the debate as a civil rights issue.

The position could put Rivers in conflict with some black church leaders who think marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

Voters will decide in November whether the state Constitution should be changed to ban same-sex marriages.

State law already bars same-sex unions, but supporters say a constitutional ban is needed because a court ruling could trump the law and force South Carolina to recognize same-sex unions from other states.

Those who oppose it feel the amendment will deny gay Americans their rights.

Ohio has not been able to prosecute domestic violence cases in same-sex partnerships since they passed a similar amendment, said Donna Dewitt, co-chairwoman of the South Carolina Progressive Network.

"Also, recognizing insurance for the partners has been a problem in that state. So it is an amendment that will impact families," Dewitt said.

Brett Bursey, director of the state Progressive Network, said the group has launched a campaign to educate the public on the implications of the amendment.

"It's a mean-spirited, get-out-to-vote ploy," said Bursey, "I don't think many people understand what the amendment will do. It's discriminatory against families."

Rivers, who also spoke on immigration and education, encouraged the crowd to fight against all forms of discrimination, including that against Hispanics and the poor.

He says discrimination is the reason South Carolina requires only a minimally adequate education.

"I think they intentionally don't educate all their children," Rivers said, "And I think the motive is race, economics and greed. The three of those become a grand conspiracy against the public schools in this state."

Jim Campbell, 80, traveled from Charleston to attend the event. He said America is a country of immigrants and should not create laws to "keep people out."

"It's like the country doesn't learn," Campbell said. "It has a congenital experience with African Americans as the first undocumented workers who were brought here against their will. Now at this stage of our history they're saying they want to kick people out."

America's greed and selfishness often overcomes its policies and principles, Rivers said.

"America has benefited from God's good graces, from a land rich in natural resources," he said. "But instead of showing God honor by honoring his land and his people, America is a greedy and selfishness nation. But democracy is more than a slogan."

Source: The State (Columbia, S.C.)
See the full article

From the Los Angeles Times




Many codes intended to protect gays from harassment are illegal, conservatives argue.




Ruth Malhotra went to court last month for the right to be intolerant.Malhotra says her Christian faith compels her to speak out against homosexuality. But the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she's a senior, bans speech that puts down others because of their sexual orientation.Malhotra sees that as an unacceptable infringement on her right to religious expression. So she's demanding that Georgia Tech revoke its tolerance policy.With her lawsuit, the 22-year-old student joins a growing campaign to force public schools, state colleges and private workplaces to eliminate policies protecting gays and lesbians from harassment. The religious right aims to overturn a broad range of common tolerance programs: diversity training that promotes acceptance of gays and lesbians, speech codes that ban harsh words against homosexuality, anti-discrimination policies that require college clubs to open their membership to all. The Rev. Rick Scarborough, a leading evangelical, frames the movement as the civil rights struggle of the 21st century. "Christians," he said, "are going to have to take a stand for the right to be Christian."In that spirit, the Christian Legal Society, an association of judges and lawyers, has formed a national group to challenge tolerance policies in federal court. Several nonprofit law firms — backed by major ministries such as Focus on the Family and Campus Crusade for Christ — already take on such cases for free.The legal argument is straightforward: Policies intended to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination end up discriminating against conservative Christians. Evangelicals have been suspended for wearing anti-gay T-shirts to high school, fired for denouncing Gay Pride Month at work, reprimanded for refusing to attend diversity training. When they protest tolerance codes, they're labeled intolerant.A recent survey by the Anti-Defamation League found that 64% of American adults — including 80% of evangelical Christians — agreed with the statement "Religion is under attack in this country." "The message is, you're free to worship as you like, but don't you dare talk about it outside the four walls of your church," said Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Assn. Center for Law and Policy, which represents Christians who feel harassed.Critics dismiss such talk as a right-wing fundraising ploy. "They're trying to develop a persecution complex," said Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.Others fear the banner of religious liberty could be used to justify all manner of harassment."What if a person felt their religious view was that African Americans shouldn't mingle with Caucasians, or that women shouldn't work?" asked Jon Davidson, legal director of the gay rights group Lambda Legal. Christian activist Gregory S. Baylor responds to such criticism angrily. He says he supports policies that protect people from discrimination based on race and gender. But he draws a distinction that infuriates gay rights activists when he argues that sexual orientation is different — a lifestyle choice, not an inborn trait.By equating homosexuality with race, Baylor said, tolerance policies put conservative evangelicals in the same category as racists. He predicts the government will one day revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that preach homosexuality is sinful or that refuse to hire gays and lesbians."Think how marginalized racists are," said Baylor, who directs the Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "If we don't address this now, it will only get worse."Christians are fighting back in a case involving Every Nation Campus Ministries at California State University. Student members of the ministry on the Long Beach and San Diego campuses say their mission is to model a virtuous lifestyle for their peers. They will not accept as members gays, lesbians or anyone who considers homosexuality "a natural part of God's created order."Legal analysts agree that the ministry, as a private organization, has every right to exclude gays; the Supreme Court affirmed that principle in a case involving the Boy Scouts in 2000. At issue is whether the university must grant official recognition to a student group that discriminates.The students say denying them recognition — and its attendant benefits, such as funding — violates their free-speech rights and discriminates against their conservative theology. Christian groups at public colleges in other states have sued using similar arguments. Several of those lawsuits were settled out of court, with the groups prevailing.In California, however, the university may have a strong defense in court. The California Supreme Court recently ruled that the city of Berkeley was justified in denying subsidies to the Boy Scouts because of that group's exclusionary policies. Eddie L. Washington, the lawyer representing Cal State, argues the same standard should apply to the university."We're certainly not going to fund discrimination," Washington said.As they step up their legal campaign, conservative Christians face uncertain prospects. The 1st Amendment guarantees Americans "free exercise" of religion. In practice, though, the ground rules shift depending on the situation.In a 2004 case, for instance, an AT&T Broadband employee won the right to express his religious convictions by refusing to sign a pledge to "respect and value the differences among us." As long as the employee wasn't harassing co-workers, the company had to make accommodations for his faith, a federal judge in Colorado ruled.That same year, however, a federal judge in Idaho ruled that Hewlett-Packard Co. was justified in firing an employee who posted Bible verses condemning homosexuality on his cubicle. The verses, clearly visible from the hall, harassed gay employees and made it difficult for the company to meet its goal of attracting a diverse workforce, the judge ruled.In the public schools, an Ohio middle school student last year won the right to wear a T-shirt that proclaimed: "Homosexuality is a sin! Islam is a lie! Abortion is murder!" But a teen-ager in Kentucky lost in federal court when he tried to exempt himself from a school program on gay tolerance on the grounds that it violated his religious beliefs.In their lawsuit against Georgia Tech, Malhotra and her co-plaintiff, a devout Jewish student named Orit Sklar, request unspecified damages. But they say their main goal is to force the university to be more tolerant of religious viewpoints. The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit law firm that focuses on religious liberty cases.Malhotra said she had been reprimanded by college deans several times in the last few years for expressing conservative religious and political views. When she protested a campus production of "The Vagina Monologues" with a display condemning feminism, the administration asked her to paint over part of it. She caused another stir with a letter to the gay activists who organized an event known as Coming Out Week in the fall of 2004. Malhotra sent the letter on behalf of the Georgia Tech College Republicans, which she chairs; she said several members of the executive board helped write it.The letter referred to the campus gay rights group Pride Alliance as a "sex club … that can't even manage to be tasteful." It went on to say that it was "ludicrous" for Georgia Tech to help fund the Pride Alliance.The letter berated students who come out publicly as gay, saying they subject others on campus to "a constant barrage of homosexuality.""If gays want to be tolerated, they should knock off the political propaganda," the letter said.The student activist who received the letter, Felix Hu, described it as "rude, unfair, presumptuous" — and disturbing enough that Pride Alliance forwarded it to a college administrator. Soon after, Malhotra said, she was called in to a dean's office. Students can be expelled for intolerant speech, but she said she was only reprimanded.Still, she said, the incident has left her afraid to speak freely. She's even reluctant to aggressively advertise the campus lectures she arranges on living by the Bible. "Whenever I've spoken out against a certain lifestyle, the first thing I'm told is 'You're being intolerant, you're being negative, you're creating a hostile campus environment,' " Malhotra said.A Georgia Tech spokeswoman would not comment on the lawsuit or on Malhotra's disciplinary record, but she said the university encouraged students to debate freely, "as long as they're not promoting violence or harassing anyone."The open question is what constitutes harassment, what's a sincere expression of faith — and what to do when they overlap."There really is confusion out there," said Charles C. Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, which is affiliated with Vanderbilt University. "Finding common ground sounds good. But the reality is, a lot of people on all sides have a stake in the fight."


Posted at the LA Times
See the full article

Polls indicate grass-roots anger

By Susan Milligan and Rick Klein, Globe Staff | April 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Iraq war, gas prices, scandals, and now simple ineffectiveness -- most recently the failure to reach an immigration deal and budget accord -- have put the Republican Party in serious danger of losing its majority status in the House of Representatives this year and ending the one-party rule President Bush has enjoyed for most of his presidency, according to independent pollsters and officials in both parties.

Results of an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday indicated that Americans would prefer a Democrat-led House by the largest margin in recent history, 49 percent to 33 percent. And state chairmen of both parties say they are detecting the kind of grass-roots anger that flares only once every decade or two.

The Democrats' opportunities are limited by carefully drawn congressional district lines that favor sitting congressmen, but both Democrats and Republicans agree that the minority party has its best chance to flip control of the House, which has a 29-seat Republican majority, since the GOP surged to power in 1994.

A ''cacophony" of bad news -- from the failure of Social Security reform to the war in Iraq to the botched response to Hurricane Katrina -- imperils the GOP's chances, said Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster.

''It seems like it's been one misstep after another," Fabrizio said. ''It's lousy. The national political environment is not hospitable to Republicans." Even the Republicans' signature strength -- national security -- appears to have weakened after having helped the party elect more House members in 2002 and 2004, he said.

''Anybody who tells you that this year is even comparable [to 2002 or 2004] is smoking crack," Fabrizio said.

Across the country, party officials and pollsters report a public clamor for change.

Changing control of the House would greatly imperil the remainder of the Bush agenda, as well as impose oversight and challenges to administration policy the president has rarely faced during his time in office.

In the Northeast, moderate Republicans face being punished for simply being part of the ruling party. Several -- such as 10-term Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, who appeared with Bush in his district on Wednesday -- are under fire for their support of the Iraq war.

In upstate New York, half a dozen Republican-held seats could be in play, because of Bush's unpopularity and popular Democratic statewide candidates who could draw voters to the polls, including gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In Ohio, corruption scandals involving Republican Governor Bob Taft and a GOP member of Congress, Representative Bob Ney, fuel Democrats' argument that the Republicans have abused their power.

In several states, including Illinois, Arizona, and Colorado, the unexpected retirements of longtime GOP representatives give Democrats unanticipated opportunities to pick up seats in places where constituents might have been reluctant to throw out a long-serving lawmaker, but might vote for change in an open race.

In the Southwest, a fiery battle over immigration is dividing Republican voters, and may lead some to sit out the midterm elections. And in the Mountain West -- where demographic changes are aiding Democrats -- independent-minded voters are angry about the budget deficits and increased government surveillance allowed under the USA Patriot Act, according to political specialists.

''They've definitely got a tailwind" because of the federal budget deficit and voter worries over their personal finances, Denver-based pollster Floyd Ciruli said of the Democrats. Colorado voters, who flipped control of both houses of the Legislature in 2004 and elected two new Democrats to Congress, may well send another Democrat to the House after the fall elections, he said.

''The Democrats are hungry, the Republicans are dispirited, and in this state, they are very divided," Ciruli said.

While unpopular nationally, Bush can still be hugely helpful to certain candidates by raising money and turning out the hard-core Republican base. But voters may register their frustration with Bush, who is not on the ticket, by ousting GOP congressmen, analysts say, greatly raising the hopes of Democrats who had worried that Republicans might achieve their goal of a near-permanent congressional majority.

Anti-Bush sentiment in Nevada -- a state that no Democratic presidential candidate except Bill Clinton has won -- could help Democrats pick up two of the state's three congressional seats, said Jon Ralston, an independent political analyst.

''Bush's numbers here are abysmal, and that's hurting [Republicans] to some extent," he said.

Democrats say they hope to stitch together enough victories in states as varied as Nevada, Ohio, and New York to achieve the 15-seat gain they would need to assume control. Some Democrats speak of a tidal wave similar to the one in 1994, when the GOP picked up a stunning 53 seats, even defeating House Speaker Thomas P. Foley, Democrat of Washington. But most say they would be thrilled just to have the majority again after 12 years.

''History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes," said Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Malden, quoting Mark Twain. Just as voters in liberal Massachusetts inserted balance in their state government by electing Republican governors, voters nationally are tiring on one-party rule in Washington, he said.

And since Bush will be in the White House until January 2009, the only way voters can restore divided government is by voting for Democratic congressional candidates.

''It's building up to a pretty big anti-Bush, anti-incumbency, anti-Republican congressional leadership dynamic here," said Bill Carrick, a veteran Democratic pollster in California. While 2000 redistricting favored Republicans, ''if you get a national tidal wave, you can blow through a lot of those problems."

Statistically, the Democrats' task appears arduous.

Examining congressional races according to common models that take into account the results of the last elections and Bush's 2004 performance in individual districts, congressional campaign specialists count approximately 30 to 40 seats in play, some of them leaning Republican.

But Democrats and independent analysts note that those numbers do not account for voter passion -- the kind that they predict could drive anti-Republican constituents to the polls and lead disgruntled Republicans to stay home.

''You can throw those [statistical] models out," said Chris Redfern, former Ohio House minority leader and the current chairman of the state's Democratic Party. ''There's a Republican fatigue going on."

National GOP officials note that the Democrats have not come up with a unified message, such as the ''Contract With America" Republicans rolled out two months before their 1994 sweep. And state party leaders say that if they focus voters' attentions on the individual candidates and local matters, instead of Bush and national issues, they can hang onto their majority.

''If we had a presidential election this election cycle, I would be extremely concerned. But this next election is going to be decided on a district-by-district basis," said Matt Salmon, a former US representative from Arizona and the state's current GOP party chairman.

Mark Weaver, a GOP consultant in Columbus, Ohio, acknowledged that Republicans in his state are in trouble because of corruption scandals, the war, and Bush's unpopularity.

But he said the state's long-dominant GOP operation has a far more sophisticated get-out-the-vote effort than the Democrats', and that they would be able to turn out thousands of loyal voters and hang on to imperiled congressional seats.

Ron Kaufman, the longtime GOP national committee representative from Massachusetts, acknowledged that Republicans are growing concerned about the possibility of a Democratic ''wave" that could shift power in Washington. But he said events could change in the GOP's favor before the elections.

''The unknown question is, 'What's the climate going to be in November?' Is there concern about that? Yeah," Kaufman said. ''But time is on our side, in my opinion. I'm glad we have seven months."
See the full article

Bill requires gays' history to be taught

STATE SENATOR WANTS CALIFORNIA TO LEAD WAY
By Aaron C. Davis
Mercury News Sacramento Bureau



SACRAMENTO - The state Senate will consider a bill that would require California schools to teach students about the contributions gay people have made to society -- an effort that supporters say is an attempt to battle discrimination and opponents say is designed to use the classroom to get children to embrace homosexuality.
The bill, which was passed by a Senate committee Tuesday, would require schools to buy textbooks ``accurately'' portraying ``the sexual diversity of our society.'' More controversially, it could require that students hear history lessons on ``the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the economic, political, and social development of California and the United States of America.''
Though it's a California bill, it could have far-reaching implications, not only by setting a precedent but also because California is the nation's largest textbook buyer and as such often sets the standards for publishers who sell nationwide.
The bill could also bring sex wars roaring back into state politics in an election year in which gay-rights advocates had already purposefully relegated same-sex marriage to the legislative back burner, and as signature-gathering efforts for propositions rolling back gay rights had begun to slow.
``We're totally opposed to inserting sexual orientation into textbooks in our schools. This is more than just accepting it, it's forcing our kids to embrace it, almost celebrate it,'' said Karen England, executive director of the public-policy group Capital Resource Institute, which believes teaching about sexual orientation should be left up to parents.
``This is not about discrimination. California is one of the most friendly gay, lesbian and transgender states in the nation,'' England said. ``This is a bold and out-front attempt to do what I think has always been the goal of a small but very loud group.''
The bill's author, Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, rejects the criticism. ``We've been working since 1995 to try to improve the climate in schools for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender kids, as well as those kids who are just thought to be gay, because there is an enormous amount of harassment and discrimination at stake,'' she said.
As for the need to teach gay history, Kuehl points to research she says concludes that gay students might do better in school and be less at risk for suicide, truancy or drug and alcohol abuse if they saw their own lives more accurately reflected in school textbooks and if the issue were more openly discussed in classrooms.
``Teaching materials mostly contain negative or adverse views of us, and that's when they mention us at all,'' said Kuehl, one of the Legislature's six openly gay lawmakers. A Senate analysis of her bill noted that one of the few times homosexuality is routinely discussed in classrooms is in relationship to pathology. ``In textbooks, it's as if there's no gay people in California at all, so forget about it,'' she said.
The bill expands on the existing state education code that already requires inclusion in the curriculum of the historical role and contributions of members of ethnic and cultural groups.
But central to the coming legislative floor debates will no doubt be questions about how gay issues might be woven into American history. The answer is still up for debate -- as is which historical figures might be outed in the process, and how textbook authors would decide their relevance.
``We're not suddenly going to say, `So and so was gay' when they never said that,'' Kuehl cautioned. ``But if you're teaching Langston Hughes poetry, you get a twofer because he was admittedly gay and he was black. So you could say he was a gay, black poet and talk about that.''
Aejaie Sellers, executive director of the Billy DeFrank LGBT Center in Santa Clara, said she thinks required gay-history lessons for students are a fantastic idea.
``Gays throughout history should be recognized. This is not something new, this goes back to the 18th and 17th and 16th century,'' said Sellers. ``The decriminalization of history could go back hundreds of years. There are certainly people who have made positive contributions to American history but all we ever hear is the tragic stuff.''
``Who knows,'' Sellers asked, ``that the author of `America the Beautiful,' Katharine Lee Bates, was gay?''
England says she doesn't really care, because a person's contribution to history doesn't hinge on sexual orientation.
``I don't care if, or who, whatever historical figure they want to say is gay,'' England said. ``If we're discussing history, who someone had sex with is inappropriate. I don't think most Californians want history and social sciences taught through the lens of who in history slept with whom.''
Sellers said she thinks the need for gay history and other lessons may vary from school to school.
``There are some schools that have gay-straight alliances where students feel heard and where teachers believe gender identity is not optional, that you're born with it. And it seems teachers there support and reflect that in their teaching. There are other schools where that's not the case.''
Whether the bill becomes law and if gay-history lessons become mandatory might quickly become Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's call.
The bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 3-1; voting in favor were Sens. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove; Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk; and Kuehl. Voting against it was Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman, R-Tustin.
The bill, SB 1437, requires only a majority vote in the Assembly and Senate, meaning that it could pass even if lawmakers -- Republican and Democrat -- voted the same way they did for last fall's gay-marriage bill. That bill passed, but the governor vetoed it.
Contact Aaron C. Davis at acdavis@mercurynews.com or (916) 325-4315.
See the full article

Suit names Children and Families

By Jim Ash
DEMOCRAT CAPITOL BUREAU CHIEF
Tallahassee Democrat

The Department of Children and Families is under fire from children's advocates for allowing foster children to spend the night in a conference room in Tallahassee, but legislative leaders said Wednesday that won't change their minds about allowing gays to adopt.

"Some of these kids are the most disadvantaged in the state," said House Majority Leader Marco Rubio of West Miami. "They shouldn't be forced to be part of a social experiment."

A department spokeswoman said Wednesday that some of the allegations in the suit are "overstated," but she acknowledged that at least three children at one time spent the night in the conference room, a practice that ended Jan. 29.

"We take these allegations very, very seriously," said Sara Parramore, a spokeswoman for DCF District II, which includes Tallahassee. "Many of these children have serious behavioral problems and are very difficult to place. We are working very hard to solve this problem."

The suit asks a Leon Circuit Judge to force the department to end "the policy and practice of forcing children to live in the conference room or any other unlicensed facility." The suit names DCF Secretary Lucy Hadi and a nonprofit foster-care provider, Big Bend Community Based Care.

Advocates claim the foster children have been temporarily housed in a DCF office at 3019 Jackson Bluff Road, where they are deprived of "adequate beds or bedding, food, supervision, health services or sanitary facilities."

No hearing has been scheduled.

Also on Wednesday, Gov. Jeb Bush and Hadi announced that Florida had received a waiver giving Florida greater say to target federal foster-care dollars to where they are most needed.

"By providing needed flexibility in funding, this waiver eliminates bureaucratic impediments to the success of foster-care programs in Florida," Bush said.

The waiver gives Florida greater authority to spend the money on in-home programs as well as family unification, Bush said.

The lawsuit comes at a time when legislation calling for the end of Florida's three-decade ban on gay adoption is stalled in both the House and Senate with a month left to go in the legislative session. The legislation would only apply to gays who are already serving as foster parents, which the law allows.

While the legislation would have little immediate impact on the thousands of Florida children awaiting adoption, it is more evidence that policy leaders need to look at more creative solutions for finding them permanent homes, said Fort Lauderdale attorney Michael Dale, a veteran children's advocate who represents the Tallahassee foster children.

"It's not part of our case, but the variety of available options ought to include gay adoption, in my opinion," Dale said. "Florida and Alabama are the only two states who don't allow it. That doesn't seem right."

Dale said he would prefer to find a solution outside of the courtroom, but that he was forced to act quickly to alleviate substandard conditions for his clients. The Legislature isn't doing its job, he said.

"The Legislature does not hold the governor and the agency as accountable as they should," he said. "I would prefer not to fight a war to the bitter end. Ideally, we can sit down and work this out. But we're not afraid to go to court."

House Speaker Allan Bense, R-Panama City, said Wednesday he will not allow the legislation to progress this year.

Bill sponsors, including Rep. Sheri McInvale, R-Orlando, are claiming a moral victory regardless.

They say the bills at least started a debate and received a committee hearing, something that hasn't happened since the ban was first imposed in the 1970s, at the height of an anti-gay rights crusade by former Florida Department of Citrus spokeswoman and television pitchwoman Anita Bryant.

Rep. Curtis Richardson, D-Tallahassee, said Wednesday he had not made up his mind about the subject of gay adoption. But he said he has been fighting for years to improve foster-care placements for Florida children, 52 percent of whom are African American.

Richardson said he supports greater participation in adoptions by church-based organizations.

"We always need to keep a closer eye on the Department of Children and Families," he said. "Every year, something like this comes up."

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060406/CAPITOLNEWS/604060320/1010/NEWS01
See the full article

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer


Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a prospective 2008 presidential candidate, said yesterday that he thinks bans on same-sex marriages have no place in the nation's laws.
Feingold said in an interview that he was motivated to state his position on one of the most divisive social issues in the country after being asked at a town hall meeting Sunday about a pending amendment to the Wisconsin state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.
Feingold called the amendment "a mean-spirited attempt" to single out gay men and lesbians for discrimination and said he would vote against it. But he went further, announcing that he favors legalizing same-sex marriages.
That puts him at odds with many prominent Democratic politicians who support gay rights but not same-sex marriage. Should Feingold decide to run for the party's presidential nomination in 2008, his position would put him to the left of many likely rivals.
"Obviously, it's a very difficult issue and evokes a lot of emotions," Feingold said in a telephone interview yesterday. "I think it's something ultimately that people throughout the country will accept, but it's not an easy issue." He accused the Bush White House and the Republican Party of using same-sex marriage as a wedge issue "to hurt Democrats who are against discrimination."
The Wisconsin senator said he is prepared to work with supporters of same-sex marriage to ensure that it is legal in the future.
"Further steps would be appropriate," he said, noting that his first priorities are to defeat the proposed Wisconsin amendment as well as a federal constitutional amendment that is expected to come to a vote in the Senate later this spring.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
story on line....
See the full article

Bullying bills battle it out for passage
Two bills aim to protect kids from bullying, but sexual orientation language in one may have doomed its chances.

BY EVAN S. BENN
ebenn@MiamiHerald.com

On the Web Rep. Ken Gottlieb's bill

On the Web Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff's bill



The teenage students walk into the Capitol with body piercings and spiked hair.




They stand in front of legislators and talk about being afraid when the school bell rings and about being the butt of vicious jokes in homeroom.
Some are gay, some are Muslim, some are black, and some are shy.
All have been victims of bullying.
''I'm a senior who has to eat lunch in the student-government office because when I go in the cafeteria, I get food thrown at me,'' Michael Freincle said at a recent House committee hearing.
'I get called names like `queer,' 'homo' and 'faggot' every day I walk through the cafeteria.''
Bullying is a phenomenon as old as school itself.
But after the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 and the recent rise of taunting through websites and text messages, lawmakers across the country have begun to pass laws designed to identify and punish bullies.
LOCAL POLICIES
Twenty-nine school districts in Florida currently have written policies against bullying and harassment, including Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach. Two Broward lawmakers are fighting to enact a statewide policy that would protect students in all 67 counties.
But the proposals from state Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, and Rep. Ken Gottlieb, a Hollywood Democrat, are different in a major way: One has a chance of becoming a law, the other does not.
Gottlieb has tried for the past six years to pass a bill that would ban harassment of students based on sexual orientation, religion, race, ethnicity and other factors frequently targeted by bullies, and it would require training for teachers to identify such bullying.
Last year was the first time the bill even got to a committee vote -- and it was promptly struck down.
Gottlieb doesn't see his bill going anywhere this year, either. The reason: Many legislators are reluctant to rally behind bills that protect gay rights.
''There are certain categories that people don't want to have,'' Gottlieb said. ``You have people who are up here, who are elected and in the political process, and they have difficulties discussing it. I think that shows you just how much we do need a policy.''
Bogdanoff cast one of the votes against Gottlieb's bill last year in committee.
Bogdanoff then decided to take up the bullying issue herself.
Her bill, which prohibits schools from including specific categories of targeted students in their anti-bullying policies, has been approved by two committees and has two more hearings before going to a full House vote.
Bogdanoff's bill is being touted as model anti-bullying legislation by a group called Bully Police USA.
The group's website, bullypolice.org, grades each state based on its anti-bullying laws. Florida is one of 27 rated as ''failing'' for its lack of a statewide policy.
`GAY-RIGHTS BILLS'
Brenda High, the group's founder and executive director, said she chose to support Bogdanoff's bill because it has a better chance of becoming a law than Gottlieb's.
''I've monitored these bills around the country for years, and the ones with victim definitions really struggle to get passed,'' High said last week from her home in Pasco, Wash. ``To be starkly honest, people see them as gay-rights bills, and that scares them away.''
Several students and equal-rights groups have come to Tallahassee in recent weeks to talk to legislators about the need for an anti-bullying law.
Those who support Bogdanoff's bill praise its inclusion of cyberbullying -- picking on other students through text messages or websites such as myspace.com -- and how it would take away state money from local school districts that do not adopt its requirements.
But its opponents say having categories of targeted students is necessary to protect victims and to help train adults to identify harassment.
Also, they worry that Bogdanoff's bill would invalidate the categorized anti-bullying policies in place within some school districts.
''It is essential and vital to identify specific categories that are the most prevalent ways of bullying,'' said Deborah Perez, a junior at Booker T. Washington Senior High in Miami and vice president of Miami-Dade Public Schools' student-government association. ``You can't prevent something unless you talk about it. Identifying specific students who are commonly known to be victims of bullying can be beneficial to students, faculty and staff when it comes to training.''
TIME RUNNING OUT
Odalys Acosta, faculty advisor for a peer-counseling group at Hialeah-Miami Lakes Senior High in Hialeah, supports Gottlieb's bill, not Bogdanoff's, but acknowledged that ``any law is better than no law.''
Like High and others, Acosta said she hoped the two lawmakers would come to a compromise that includes the best parts of both bills.
But with about half of the 60-day legislative session already finished, that seems unlikely.
''The problem is that some adults have no idea what the average teenager goes through in a single day,'' Acosta said. ``I don't think most grown-ups would make it to lunchtime in the shoes of a teenager.''


See the full article

By Elizabeth Baier
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

March 31, 2006

Jack Kosko and John Fitzgerald will always consider themselves a married couple.

They were among the first gay couples to exchange vows in Massachusetts in 2004, one week after the state's Supreme Court allowed same-sex couples to obtain marriage licenses.

But the legality of their marriage was dealt a blow on Thursday when the court issued a second ruling saying same-sex couples from states where gay marriage is banned cannot legally marry in Massachusetts.

Florida is one of those states.

"In our hearts our marriage will always be legal," said Kosko, 57, who retired to Fort Lauderdale in late 2004.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which three years ago made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage, upheld a 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home states.

"The laws of this commonwealth have not endowed non-residents with an unfettered right to marry," the court wrote in its 38-page opinion. "Only non-resident couples who come to Massachusetts to marry and intend to reside in this commonwealth thereafter can be issued a marriage license without consideration of any impediments to marriage that existed in their former home states."

More than 6,000 gay couples have tied the knot in Massachusetts since the court ruled in 2003 that the state constitution gives same-sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Kosko and Fitzgerald, 52, married in 2004, in the gay-friendly town of Provincetown. Soon after Kosko retired early to South Florida. Fitzgerald stayed as town treasurer of Provincetown. They visit each other once a month.

Kosko is disappointed his marriage will not be recognized once Fitzgerald moves to Fort Lauderdale.

"I think if it's legal in Massachusetts, then it should be legal everywhere," said Kosko, who lives in Coral Ridge.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Elizabeth Baier can be reached at ebaier@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4637.
See the full article