Daytona Beach News-Journal

Thanks to a Web site, Pablo Abreu recently found out something about five of his DeBary neighbors that he plans to keep to himself.

"No, no, no, I'm not going to say something to them," the 70-year-old resident said. "Never talk politics. It's a matter of principle."

The seven neighbors on Quail Meadow Court and 12,715 other Volusia County residents signed the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment that constitutionally would define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. The petition information is published on a Web site called KnowThyNeighbor.org with a database searchable by name, address and county.

A backer of the amendment calls the site an attempt to intimidate potential signers. But an official with the Jacksonville church, which launched the Web site in June, said he wanted to spark conversation about the so-called anti-gay marriage amendment that could go before voters in 2008.

"We want to create dialog among fair-minded Floridians," said Pastor Gary DeBusk of the Christ Church of Peace in Jacksonville.

The church has received many calls from people wanting their information taken off the site, but DeBusk said he explains the information is public record.

Volusia County Supervisor of Elections Ann McFall said petitions are available to anyone who asks, though this is the first she has heard of someone publishing the information on the Internet.

Flagler County, where 2,947 people have signed the petitions, is one of seven counties not yet on the Web site. DeBusk said his group had to go to the 67 counties separately for the information, which was provided in various formats and those last few have been harder to merge into the database.

Flagler County Supervisor of Elections Peggy Rae Border said her office received a request and provided the information to the church.

John Stemberger, chairman of Florida4Marriage.org, spearheading the amendment effort, said the Web site has not hurt their efforts. While the group failed to get the required 611,009 signatures by Feb. 1for this fall's election, they are 50,000 signatures away from getting on the ballot during the 2008 election.

That goal should be reached well before the 2008 deadline, Stemberger said.

The Web site has created needed media attention and has been a useful tool for his group, he said. "A lot of our people have used it to figure out who has not signed the marriage amendment," he said.

But he's quick to say he doesn't want to praise the church's effort, saying it is "disingenuous and deceptive."

"They say it's to engage neighbors in conversation, but it's clearly intimidation," he said.

See the full article

By Sheryl McCarthy

Many blacks oppose such unions for religious reasons, but bigotry is bigotry, even if it's cloaked in faith. Blacks should know this better than most.

As the debate rages over whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, I'm disappointed whenever I hear other African-Americans say, "No, they shouldn't."

We're more opposed to same-sex marriage than whites are, according to a June survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which found that 65% of African-Americans are against it compared with 53% of whites.

I understand the reasons.

African-Americans are overwhelmingly Christians, and many of us believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Beyond that, even suggesting that the struggle of gays and lesbians for the right to marry is similar to our own civil rights struggle is often perceived as an insult.

I've heard the most racially militant blacks argue that the gay struggle is different from our own because we have no choice about being black while gays can choose whom they want to sleep with. This reasoning persists despite growing scientific evidence that people's sexual orientation is innate and that they don't choose it any more than they choose their sex or race.

Some African-Americans also argue that gays and lesbians were never slaves or victims of a system designed to keep them in their place, and that while homosexuals have the option of keeping their sex lives private, few blacks can hide their race.

A comparable struggle

Even some civil rights leaders, such as Jesse Jackson, have tried to put distance between the black and gay struggles. And black ministers, among them the Rev. Bernice King, Martin Luther King Jr.'s daughter, have led protests to fight efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.

The fight for gay rights is like our civil rights struggle, however, and it's hypocritical for groups that have had to fight long and hard to win their own constitutional rights to turn around and try to deny them to the next group. We're seeing this in the descendants of immigrant groups that were despised and vilified during their early days in this country, and that now want to deny recent immigrants the means to become lawful citizens.

This hypocrisy was apparent to me as I was growing up in a black Baptist church. I routinely heard ministers condemn gays from the pulpit, even though half the male choir members, the choir director, the flower arranger and plenty of other male church members were obviously gay. The church would have had difficulty functioning without them.

Because it's difficult enough to be black in this country, I know that black communities would prefer not to have to deal with the added stigma society attaches to homosexuals, and the obvious link to HIV and AIDS. And with stable heterosexual marriages rare enough in black communities, some African-Americans think that encouraging same-sex marriage would only complicate the situation.

Nonetheless, the main argument used against same-sex marriage is that the Bible says it's wrong. We point to the Scriptures, to the story of Adam and Eve (and the absence of Adam and Steve), to the retribution inflicted on the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah, and to depictions of male-on-male sex in Leviticus and Romans as being so perverse that it warranted death.

I won't attempt to argue with the Scriptures, other than to say they reflect the mores and biases of the times they were written. And just as there are Scriptures ordering slaves to obey their masters, cautioning women to be silent in church and submissive at home, and applauding the persecution of the Jews because they killed Jesus, none of these positions is argued by enlightened people today.

I won't dismiss the beliefs of blacks who believe that homosexuality is immoral, but I'd caution them that morality has often been used as a cloak for old-fashioned bigotry, fear and discomfort with people and behaviors that are different.

But what about religion?

How can African-Americans reconcile religious beliefs with acceptance of same-sex marriage?

I asked the Rev. James Forbes, pastor of The Riverside Church in New York. Forbes is black, and his diverse congregation has gone on record as supporting same-sex marriages — and all other families that are based on the principles of love and justice. Forbes says acceptance might increase as African-Americans become more aware of scientific evidence that suggests sexual orientation is innate — and not a choice.

As for the Bible's apparent disapproval of homosexual behavior, Forbes says it's a matter of how one reads the Bible.

"What is clear," he says, "is that the Bible says the highest principle is love. Once it becomes clear that our sexual orientation is more or less a given, I think black people will begin to recognize that including all in the family of God is a more righteous principle than the abhorrence of gay love."

I see marriage as a civil right, and no group's religious beliefs should be allowed to deny the rights of others. And because blacks have suffered from bigotry and injustice that were cloaked by religion and morality, we should avoid doing the same thing to others.

Sheryl McCarthy is a freelance writer and columnist for Newsday on Long Island, N.Y. She's also a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.


Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2006-08-21-forum-blacks-gay_x.htm?csp=34
See the full article

New Language Requires State Parties to Increase LGBT Delegates to 2008 Demcratic Convention

Washington, DC - Today, the National Stonewall Democrats applauded the Democratic National Committee (DNC) for adopting delegate selection rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention that seeks to correct historical under-representation by LGBT Americans at past conventions. Under the new rules approved this Saturday at the annual DNC summer meeting held in Chicago, state Democratic parties will be required to increase the participation of LGBT Americans within their delegations.

“Stonewall applauds the DNC for adopting delegate selection rules that require all state parties to build lasting partnerships with LGBT Democrats,” said Jo Wyrick, NSD Executive Director. “These rules begin the process of correcting historic under-representation of LGBT Americans in party affairs. We expect state parties to use these rules to establish goals that accurately reflect LGBT Americans within their delegations, and we expect the DNC to reject any proposed state party plan that does not meet this threshold.”

The Democratic National Committee approves a series of rules every four years that guide state parties in drafting and implementing delegate selection plans for the Democratic National Convention. Although rules adopted for past conventions encouraged state parties to outreach to LGBT Americans within their delegate selection plans, the draft adopted on Saturday goes further by requiring presidential campaigns and state parties to take remedial action to correct past under-representation from the LGBT community.

“Although these new rules will ultimately increase the number of LGBT Delegates in 2008, the rule has broader significance” said Wyrick. “These rules will move state parties into deeper partnerships with LGBT Democrats that will last well beyond the 2008 convention. Although a majority of state parties are already partnering with our community, parties who have been reluctant to engage our community will now be required to do so. These partnerships will ultimately increase the voice of LGBT Democrats within important policy discussions and party affairs.”

National Stonewall Democrats has already begun working with state Democratic parties to implement the new rules approved by the DNC on Saturday. Over the next two years, NSD has committed to assist and train state parties as they draft and achieve delegate selection goals that accurately reflect LGBT Americans. Additionally, NSD will also be conducting a series of training programs in 2007 that will equip LGBT Democrats with the resources needed to participate in the delegate selection process and in presidential campaigns.

------

National Stonewall Democrats is the only national organization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democrats, with more than 90 local chapters across the nation. NSD is committed to working through the Democratic Party to advance the rights of all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.Find out more at www.stonewalldemocrats.org.
See the full article

Marriage battle takes new shape in Colorado Gay rights groups push to define status of domestic partners
- Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, August 7, 2006

(08-07) 04:00 PDT Denver -- A new strategy to win legal recognition for same-sex couples is emerging in Colorado, a state that is a bulwark of the conservative Christian movement.

At least one constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples is expected to be submitted here today for the statewide November ballot. But some gay rights organizations in the state are not fighting it.

Instead, they are supporting an initiative to define the rights of people in domestic partnerships, rights that largely parallel those of married couples under Colorado law. Nowhere has such a measure been put to a statewide vote.

"We feel really strongly that people need something positive to vote for rather than just being against the marriage ban," said Sean Duffy, executive director of Coloradans for Fairness and Equality, the group campaigning for domestic partnerships.

The controversial tactic could become a model for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights organizations nationwide after two major legal defeats in state courts this year and passage of same-sex marriage bans in 19 states since 2004. Marriage bans will be on ballots in at least seven more states this November.

"When gay marriage has gone 0-19 at the polls -- including in Oregon, which is not a bastion of Reaganism -- it's time for something different," said Duffy, who describes himself as a conservative Christian Republican. Duffy, who said he is heterosexual, previously worked for the state's Republican governor, Bill Owens. He said he sees gay rights as being parallel to school choice and other conservative concerns.

Support for the partnership measure has come from both sides in the same-sex marriage debate. In the state Legislature, which swung Democratic in 2004 and put the referendum on the ballot two years later, four Republicans voted for it and one Democrat voted against it.

Some same-sex marriage activists actually oppose the measure. Evan Wolfson, a major figure in the efforts to allow same-sex couples to marry, assailed the domestic partner strategy. Wolfson, who argued a 1993 case before Hawaii's highest court that helped start the national debate on the issue, now leads the New York advocacy organization Freedom to Marry.

"Given that the anti-marriage amendment is moving forward, my preference would be to focus on a clear and authentic discussion with the voters of Colorado as to why they should reject discrimination, then circle back to the question of what protection should we put in place," Wolfson said. "It's not that I'm against domestic partnerships. I'm against partnerships as a substitute for equality in marriage."

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights group, has donated $50,000 to the domestic partner rights referendum campaign.

Colorado has played host to significant events in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights movement. In 1992, Colorado voters passed Amendment 2 to the state Constitution, which would have prohibited any legal recognition of homosexuality. It was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a fundamental decision in gay rights law.

And a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples that failed this summer was authored by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and sponsored in the Senate by Wayne Allard, both Colorado Republicans.

Now, in Colorado Springs -- a city that is home to several major conservative Christian organizations, including Focus on the Family -- a wealthy philanthropist has started a public discussion on what it means for people to be "born different."

Hanging from light poles throughout Colorado Springs are banners with an image of a Brittany spaniel named Norman who moos like a cow instead of barking. Ads on buses, billboards, television and radio tell Norman's parable, and campaign staffers work the city's streets daily, asking residents whether they think people choose to be gay.

When passers-by answer that homosexuality is a choice, they are asked when they chose to be straight.

"In the past, I think any discussion like this can get jagged, and people feel like they have to take a position right away. This is more, 'What do you think?' and 'Let's explore it,' " said Mary Lou Makepeace, a former Republican mayor of Colorado Springs and executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Fund for Colorado, a project of the Gill Foundation, which paid for the $900,000 campaign. "We're not telling people how to think -- we're asking them to think."

Tim Gill, the entrepreneur who started the foundation, is a major financial backer of the domestic partnership effort, famously announcing he would spend
"$3 million to $30 million" of his own fortune on it.
The public awareness campaign is not related to the domestic partner rights initiative.

Colorado Springs resident Katrina Keeley, who watched her three children play in a fountain downtown near where Norman campaign workers had set up one day last week, said she moved to Colorado from Bakersfield 11 years ago partly because the state's conservative image attracted her.

She knows about the ballot measures likely to be up for a vote this fall, and about Norman, and said she already has made up her mind on the issue.

"If you're sharing a household, whether gay or not, I believe you should be able to share inheritance and things like that. But I don't think they should get married," said Keeley, 31.

Hers is the kind of sentiment backers of the domestic partnership referendum believe will help them win.
They say their polling shows the percentage of the public backing the referendum is "in the mid-50s and climbing." The measure also comes as supporters of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights are revisiting the fight for same-sex marriage across the country.

A recent statement signed by hundreds of leaders, activists and scholars -- along with many more people through a Web site -- calls for a "new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families."

The Colorado domestic partner rights initiative effort is not addressing these concerns specifically. But a major message of the campaign is that domestic partnerships are not marriage and that same-sex couples need basic protections if they are not allowed to wed.

"The public conversation here really is (about) the challenges that gays and lesbians face, what are the practical issues they have to grapple with, and it's really not a gay marriage conversation," Duffy said.

Same-sex marriage opponents with Coloradans for Marriage, who say that today they will submit the 68,000 signatures needed to put a constitutional measure on the state's November ballot limiting marriage to heterosexuals, are not taking a position on the partnership referendum.

"Domestic partnerships are not a threat to the definition of marriage if we enshrine in our Constitution the definition of marriage as a man and a woman," said Jon Paul, executive director of Coloradans for Marriage, which is backed by Focus on the Family, the Roman Catholic Church and other conservative and Christian leaders.

But Jim Pfaff, who represents Focus on the Family on the Coloradans for Marriage coalition, said Focus on the Family objects to domestic partnerships partially because they are a stepping-stone to marriage and also because they are "discriminatory."

"We believe holding out benefits only to same-sex couples discriminates against other relationships where there might be a need" for those rights, Pfaff said, adding that he thinks same-sex couples don't need to be specifically granted those rights because many are available through contract law.

Two other constitutional amendments also may be on the ballot, one supporting gay rights and the other restricting them.

One would ban both marriage and legal recognition "similar to marriage" for same-sex couples. It is proposed by Protecting Colorado Children, which also is backed by Focus on the Family. Protecting Colorado Children did not return a call for comment.

Conservative groups nationwide often label domestic partnerships "marriage lite" because partners qualify for many rights enjoyed by married couples.

An amendment from Coloradans for Fairness and Equality would change the Constitution to assert that "domestic partnerships are not similar to marriage" -- if supporters of the more expansive ban file today.

Pat Steadman, a veteran gay rights lobbyist in Colorado who helped the legal effort to overturn Amendment 2, said the domestic partnership push is -- for now -- the smart move.

"With the recent court decisions, what we're doing here makes more and more sense," Steadman said. "We're moving the ball down the field. We're getting over the hurdles of how people feel about the 'M' word."
See the full article

See the full article

Beth Kassab
Orlando Sentinel Staff Writer

During the annual Gay Days in Orlando earlier this summer, the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention & Visitors Bureau bought a billboard to entice travelers to head south.

Fort Lauderdale has emerged as a hot spot for gay-friendly travel, a market so lucrative that state tourism marketer Visit Florida recently created a task force to explore how to better cater to gay travelers, who are estimated to have $641 billion in purchasing power this year.

"We rolled out what we call the rainbow carpet a couple of years ago, and we've seen a lot of green success," said Nicki Grossman, president of the Fort Lauderdale bureau.

Though marketing to those groups isn't new -- Key West began nearly 10 years ago -- the task force and a report due out this year by the Travel Industry Association of America confirm gay travelers' status as a highly sought-after group.

The Orlando/Orange County Convention & Visitors Bureau, however, has continued to shy away from niche marketing.

And though Disney doesn't officially acknowledge Gay Days, its resort is the focal point of the event that drew 140,000 people this year.

"We're really going to put our focus where the research has told us to put our focus, which is the core family market," bureau spokeswoman Danielle Courtenay said.

Fort Lauderdale, on the other hand, is a place where gays feel comfortable holding hands on the street, said Darren Frei, editor of The Out Traveler.

"The only time you can really do that at Disney World is during Gay Days," Frei said. "Fort Lauderdale has really become the gay neighborhood of Florida."

Earlier this summer, Visit Florida Chairwoman Donna Ross created the task force focused on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender markets.

"When you have a population that big and that travels with that kind of buying power, we would like very much to participate," she said.
See the full article