FUSsa-talk Mailing List: Fwd: [hcsf] NEWS -- 2010.01.11.Monday

[Robert Tapp (tappx001]

Given the role that marriage equality plays in our UU values, and the 
importance of the CA trial, you might want at least a temporary subscription to 
this hcsf newsletter that will be giving close local coverage.

Bob

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 01.11.10
>  
> 1)   Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom -- but no cameras
> 2)  LA Times editorial: In the age of YouTube, it's only fitting that a court 
> challenge to the amendment banning same-sex marriage is broadcast.
> 3)  California same-sex marriage defendant wants out of case
> 4)  Republicans in Congress aid effort to kill same-sex marriage law in D.C.
> 5)  Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church
> 6)  Black, gay and indisputably African
> 7)  Ugandan lawmaker defends harsh anti-gay law
> 8)  Hey Uganda!
> 9)  American Jewish World Service Creates Fund to Promote Lesbian, Gay, 
> Bisexual and Transgender Rights in Uganda
> 10)  Republicans don't vote for gay speaker
> 11)  Antigay Attack Reported on Chicago's El
> 12)  Alltop - Top GLBT News
> 13)  Lady Gaga Excited To Create New Products For Polaroid
>  
>  
>  
> 1)
> San Jose Mercury News
> http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14165465
> Prop. 8 trial Day 1: Live coverage from the courtroom
> 
> By Howard Mintz
> 
> hmintz [at] mercurynews.com
> 
> Posted: 01/11/2010 08:39:48 AM PST
> Updated: 01/11/2010 10:45:25 AM PST
>  
> 11:41 a.m.: Emotional testimony from plaintiff
> 
> The Proposition 8 trial may eventually be laden with expert testimony from 
> academics and others, but it is starting off on the emotional side with the 
> testimony of Jeff Zarrillo, one of the plaintiffs seeking the right to marry 
> his partner, Paul Katami.
> 
> Zarrillo choked up when asked by lawyer David Boies about the difficulty of 
> coming out as a gay man years ago, recalling small details from his youth, 
> including his fear of going out for his high school football team. Asked 
> about his partner of nine years, he said: "He's the love of my life. I love 
> him probably more than I love myself."
> 
> Zarrillo, a 36-year-old Burbank man, told the judge he wants to be married so 
> he can "experience the same joy and happiness" as his parents and his 
> brother, who is married. As for domestic partnership, Zarrillo testified it 
> is not equal. "That's not enough," he told the packed courtroom. "It's giving 
> me part of the pie, but not the whole thing."
> 
> After less than 15 minutes, he finished up his testimony. The lawyers 
> defending Proposition 8 chose not to cross-examine him, a bit of a surprise.
> 
> 11:03 a.m.: Opening statements conclude
> 
> The lawyers are done for now in the Proposition 8 trial. Charles Cooper 
> finished his opening statement, defending the need for society to preserve 
> the traditional definition of marriage and limit it to heterosexual couples 
> for its procreative purposes. He told the judge that marriage must be "pro 
> child," and that would be at risk if same-sex couples were allowed to marry. 
> Cooper insisted that the courts should stay out of the issue and allow the 
> voters to decide whether they want to allow same-sex marriage, but the judge 
> questioned that thesis. "There are certainly lots of issues taken out of the 
> body politic. Why isn't this one of them?" the judge asked at one point.
> 
> 
> The court is now taking a break until 11:10, at which time Jeff Zarrillo, one 
> of the plaintiffs seeking the right to marry, will take the stand.
> 
>  
> 10:31 a.m.: Defense attorney begins presentation
> After Stewart's brief argument, Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the 
> Proposition 8 defense, has begun his presentation. But that was only after 
> Walker lobbed a tough question to California Attorney General Jerry Brown's 
> lawyer. Brown has taken the position that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, 
> refusing to defend the law. The judge asked why Brown did not take that 
> position when Proposition 8 was on the ballot, given its importance. When 
> Brown's deputy, Tamara Pachter, responded that the AG doesn't take that step 
> in the state's initiative process, Walker was incredulous.
> 
> Cooper, meanwhile, is hitting the main points in the defense: that the voters 
> have spoken on the issue, and gay couples in California enjoy strong legal 
> protections under domestic partnership laws. Walker's first question to 
> Cooper was on the example of President Obama's mixed-race parents and the 
> evolution of marriage in the country, raised earlier by Olson. Cooper argues 
> that the restrictions on interracial marriage were distinct, and weren't 
> based on efforts to preserve traditional marriage, as is the case in the 
> same-sex marriage case. The judge wants to know what evidence in the trial 
> will show that difference.
> 
> 10:18 a.m.: Obama's parents mentioned
> 
> Olson is now on a roll with fewer interruptions from the judge. He pointed 
> out that under laws that existed in various states until the 1960s, when the 
> U.S. Supreme Court finally declared bans on interracial marriage 
> unconstitutional, President Barack Obama's parents would have been unable to 
> marry, underscoring what he argued is the discriminatory impact of selective 
> marriage laws. He called the argument that domestic partnership laws are 
> sufficient protection for same-sex couples "a cruel fiction" and a "badge of 
> inferiority" for gay couples.
> 
> 
> Walker did ask Olson why the courts shouldn't just stay out of the gay 
> marriage debate for now and allow the political process to continue to 
> resolve the conflict. "That is why we have courts," Olson replied. "That's 
> why we have a constitution."
> 
> Olson just completed his opening argument, and now Therese Stewart, San 
> Francisco's chief deputy city attorney, is making her argument about how 
> denying marriage rights to same-sex couples can impact local governments. 
> Stewart is a veteran of the gay marriage legal battles. She argued the issue 
> in both cases that reached the California Supreme Court.
> 
> 9:45 a.m.: Judge peppers attorney with questions
> 
> Just a few minutes into Olson's opening statement, it's clear Walker is not 
> going to be a bystander content to just listen during the trial. He's already 
> peppered Olson with questions, including wondering whether a state needs to 
> remain in the business of issuing marriage licenses and why domestic 
> partnership provisions confer lesser legal rights and meaning than marriage. 
> When Olson said Californians would never get "out of the marriage business," 
> the judge was persistent. "Why won't they get out of the marriage business? 
> It would solve this problem," Walker said. It is likely the judge will raise 
> every possible question during the next two weeks, his style in even routine 
> cases.
> 
> Olson revealed the first four witnesses to take the stand in the trial will 
> be the plaintiff couples, including a lesbian couple from Berkeley. He opened 
> his remarks by saying: "This case is about marriage and equality. The 
> plaintiffs are being denied both the right to marry and equality under the 
> law."
> 
> 9:21 a.m.: Judge takes the bench
> 
> Walker has just taken the bench. The first five minutes is spent with all the 
> lawyers introducing themselves.
> 
> Walker is beginning the proceedings by discussing his effort to broadcast the 
> trial by posting it on the court's Web site by using the YouTube platform. He 
> just noted the court has received more than 138,000 responses to the proposed 
> court rule change that allows broadcast, most in favor. The judge informed 
> the court that only 32 people opposed it, prompting chuckles when he said 
> "the returns are in." The U.S. Supreme Court nevertheless has put the 
> broadcast on hold until Wednesday to consider the issue.
> 
> 9:06 a.m.: Opening arguments to begin
> 
> The Proposition 8 trial is about to get under way. Walker's courtroom doesn't 
> have a spare inch. It's jammed with spectators, lawyers and media. Theodore 
> Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general during the George W. Bush 
> administration, is preparing to give the opening statement for the 
> plaintiffs, who are challenging the constitutionality of California's ban on 
> same-sex marriage. Olson and Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the 
> Proposition 8 defense, exchanged an embrace outside the courtroom, not 
> surprising given the two men are members of the conservative legal 
> establishment who now find themselves on the opposite sides of the 
> controversial trial. A little Hollywood flavor is in the courtroom with 
> director Rob Reiner.
> 
> 8:24 a.m.: Judge and lawyers assemble
> 
> The Proposition 8 trial is getting ready to start rolling, although cameras 
> will not roll with the proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court this morning 
> issued an order blocking Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's move to 
> post the trial on a delayed basis on YouTube, at least for the first few 
> days, while the justices consider the issue. Proposition 8 backers have been 
> vigorously trying to block broadcast of the trial, pushing the matter all the 
> way to the nation's high court. Meanwhile, hundreds of people have been 
> gathered outside the San Francisco federal  building, many of them 
> participating in a rally in support of gay marriage. And everyone is now 
> lining up outside Walker's courtroom, readying for the start of trial, which 
> is set to begin about 9 a.m.
> 
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> EXTRA ---
>  
> Monday morning 11 January 2010
> from Courage Campaign --
> 
> 
> 
> In just three days, an astounding 140,671 Americans signed our letter asking 
> Judge Vaughn Walker to "televise the trial" -- and we hand-delivered 138,248 
> of your signatures to the court Friday morning. 
> 
> The good news: Judge Walker just announced the amazing final results on 
> public comments: 138,542 in favor, 32 opposed. Congrats to the Courage 
> Campaign and CREDO Action communities!
> 
> The bad news: Opponents of marriage equality filed an emergency appeal with 
> the U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday, begging to hide the trial from the 
> American public. And a few hours ago, the Supreme Court delayed their 
> decision until Wednesday.
> 
> Prop 8 supporters and anti-equality organizations like the National 
> Organization for Marriage have spent tens of millions of dollars on 30-second 
> ads scaring the American people into thinking that same-sex marriage will 
> destroy our country. And now, when federal judges want to open the courtrooms 
> to America, Prop 8 supporters want to unplug the TV.
> 
> What are they hiding? And what are organizations like NOM and Focus on the 
> Family willing to do and say to keep the American people from finding out the 
> truth?
> 
> The Prop 8 trial starts today. That's why the Courage Campaign Institute is 
> launching the "Prop 8 Trial Tracker" -- a web site that will hold right-wing 
> organizations accountable for what they say every day of the Prop 8 trial. We 
> need your support immediately. Will you contribute $25, $50, $100 or more 
> right now to help us get the truth out ASAP?
> 
> http://www.couragecampaign.org/GetTheTruthOut
> 
> On the defensive, Prop 8 supporters are scared they will lose. Maggie 
> Gallagher, President of NOM, has made Judge Vaughn Walker the immediate 
> target of NOM's misinformation strategy, launching a baseless attack on the 
> judge a few days ago:
> "The case will be a show trial in a kangaroo court. I don't say that lightly 
> of any federal judge, but Judge Walker's extraordinary bias has already been 
> flagrantly on display."  
> As the trial unfolds, we can expect NOM and their allies to continue to try 
> and convince the public the court is biased. And our Prop 8 Trial Tracker 
> will continue to monitor these misleading right-wing claims, in and outside 
> the courtroom, and report the truth.
> 
> We're launching the Prop 8 Trial Tracker as a public service to get the truth 
> out. But we can't do it without your support. Please contribute $25, $50, 
> $100 or more right now to support our work during the Prop 8 trial to hold 
> the right-wing accountable:
> 
> http://www.couragecampaign.org/GetTheTruthOut
> 
> Thank you for helping us get the truth out ASAP.
> 
> Rick Jacobs
> Chair, Courage Campaign Institute   
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> My comment ---
> Has it occurred to anyone that the rightwing's attempt to prevent video 
> coverage of this trial is the same thing as the KKK riding night raids under 
> cover of white sheets?
>  
> --->
>  
> 2)
> Los Angeles Times
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-cameras11-2010jan11,0,2005290.story
> latimes.com
> 
> Editorial
> 
> The public and Prop. 8
> 
> In the age of YouTube, it's only fitting that a court challenge to the 
> amendment banning same-sex marriage is broadcast.
> 
> January 11, 2010
> 
>  
> In what could be the understatement of this young year, U.S. District Judge 
> Vaughn R. Walker called the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 "a case 
> that has sparked widespread interest." Therefore, the jurist has concluded 
> that the nonjury trial beginning today should be recorded by television 
> cameras and disseminated on the Internet. 
> 
> Obvious as it might seem, Walker's belief that an important public trial 
> should be widely accessible is considered heresy by many of his judicial  
> brethren, especially those on the U.S. Supreme Court. They too should 
> recognize that televised proceedings can be as important to civic 
> understanding as C-SPAN's coverage of Congress.
> 
> The constitutionality of Proposition 8's ban on same-sex marriage might seem 
> strictly a legal issue -- and a dry, not terribly telegenic subject at that. 
> But in weighing whether to strike down a law (or, in this case, a state 
> constitutional amendment), courts sometimes take account of factual 
> circumstances and expert testimony. Witnesses at this trial will include 
> economists, psychologists and activists on both sides of the Proposition 8 
> campaign. We've expressed concern in the past that some of the testimony 
> might degenerate into another nasty skirmish in the culture wars, ventilating 
> myths such as the discredited idea that sexual orientation is a choice. But 
> if the judge is to hear such testimony -- along with, we hope, more pertinent 
> arguments -- so should members of the public, and not just those with 
> physical access to the courtroom. In the age of YouTube, the ideal of public 
> justice acquires an exponential importance.
> 
> Arguments against televising the trial are either flimsy or self-serving. 
> Yes, the presence of cameras can lead some lawyers to pitch their arguments 
> to viewers at home instead of to the judge, but we think they'll be careful 
> because doing so can prove counterproductive. Some Proposition 8 supporters 
> also say that witnesses might be intimidated by the presence of cameras. 
> That's a plausible scenario in a criminal case, but it has no merit in this 
> context. Academic experts are experienced in articulating their opinions to 
> audiences. And Proposition 8 advocates who will be testifying already have 
> inserted themselves into a highly public controversy.
> 
> Assuming that the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 
> ratifies Walker's decision, Californians will be offered a second civics 
> lesson stemming from this controversy, the first being last year's televised 
> arguments in the state Supreme Court. Such broadcasts should be the rule 
> rather than the exception, even when the issue at stake is less freighted 
> with politics than the challenge to Proposition 8. 
> 
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 3)
> Contra Costa Times
> San Francisco East Bay
> http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_14154883
> California same-sex marriage defendant wants out of case
> 
> By Paul Elias 
> Associated Press
> Posted: 01/08/2010 11:00:33 PM PST
> Updated: 01/09/2010 10:42:05 PM PST
> SAN FRANCISCO — An outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage, serving as an 
> official litigant defending the state's ban on same-sex weddings, asked a 
> judge Friday to remove him from the lawsuit because he feared the trial would 
> generate publicity that could endanger him and his family.
> 
> Hak-Shing William Tam was one of five people who formally intervened to 
> defend a federal lawsuit filed against the state that Gov. Arnold 
> Schwarzenegger and state Attorney General Jerry Brown have declined to 
> defend. Tam and the other four interveners were also the official proponents 
> of Proposition 8, which passed in November 2008 and was upheld four months 
> later by the California Supreme Court.
> 
> "I dedicated the majority of my working hours between January 2008 and 
> November 2008 toward qualifying Prop. 8 for the ballot and campaigning for 
> its enactment," the San Francisco resident told the judge in May in urging to 
> be named an official party to the lawsuit.
> 
> On Friday, Tam told the court that he was harassed and his property 
> vandalized during the campaign, and feared similar retribution if he 
> continued to represent same-sex marriage foes' interest in the lawsuit and 
> trial.
> 
> "In the past I have received threats on my life, had my property vandalized 
> and am recognized on the streets due to my association with Proposition 8," 
> Tam said in a court filing. "Now that the subject lawsuit is going to trial, 
> I fear I will get more publicity, be more recognizable and that the risk of 
> harm to me and my family will increase."
> 
> 
> Tam on Friday didn't mention the judge's decision to allow cameras to record 
> the trial, but lawyers representing Prop. 8 interests failed to prevent the 
> trial from being video recorded. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit 
> Court of Appeals late Friday turned down their appeal of the decision to 
> televise the trial.
> 
> In a one-paragraph order, the panel said that the Prop. 8 campaign had not 
> presented reason for "intervention by this court" in the broadcast issue.
> 
> Lawyers for the Prop. 8 campaign had argued that Chief U.S. District Judge 
> Vaughn Walker did not have the legal authority to permit cameras in the 
> trial, which is set to begin Monday in San Francisco. The Prop. 8 backers did 
> not ask for a delay in the trial. But the Prop. 8 legal team filed an 
> emergency petition with the 9th Circuit, asking the appellate court to 
> intervene and block the broadcast until their arguments can be addressed. The 
> petition contends that Walker's decision to broadcast the trial on YouTube 
> threatens to turn it into a "media circus."
> 
> The lawyers oppose video recording the trial, which the judge will preside 
> over without a jury, because they fear witnesses may restrain or alter their 
> testimony if cameras are present in the courtroom. Federal trial courts 
> generally prohibit cameras in the courtroom.
> 
> Bay Area News Group writer Howard Mintz contributed to this story.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 4)
> Washington Post
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703848.html
>  
> Republicans in Congress aid effort to kill same-sex marriage law in D.C.
> Friday, January 8, 2010; A20 
> 
> 
> WHEN IT COMES to District voters having a say in their governance, 
> congressional Republicans are a curious lot. They -- with a major assist from 
> weak-willed Democrats -- refuse to give voters a voice in the House of 
> Representatives. Yet 37 Republicans from the House and two from the Senate 
> have risen in righteous indignation to defend the people's right to vote on 
> same-sex marriage. Pardon us while we roll our eyes at such flagrant 
> grandstanding.
> 
> Both Sens. James M. Inhofe (Okla.) and Roger F. Wicker (Miss.) last year and 
> 31 of the House Republicans in 2007 voted against D.C. voting rights.
> 
> Before the District's law legalizing same-sex marriage can take effect, it 
> must survive a 30-legislative-day congressional review. The clock starts 
> ticking next week. With the Democrats in control of both houses and keenly 
> uninterested in meddling in this bit of local governance, we and other 
> proponents of the measure are optimistic that the measure will officially 
> become law. Apparently the Gang of 39 shares this assessment. So it's trying 
> a different tack: intervening in a lawsuit that is trying to force a public 
> vote on the law. Such a move, which was proposed by Bishop Harry Jackson of 
> Hope Christian Church, was blocked by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics.
> 
> The board ruled that D.C. law doesn't permit ballot measures that would have 
> the result of promoting discrimination.
> 
> The Republicans argue that the District overstepped the authority granted it 
> by Congress and trampled on their rights as members of "the District's 
> ultimate legislative body." Give us a break. Same-sex marriage rights for 
> citizens of the District were granted not by a court but by the duly elected 
> representatives of the people. That's the way it's supposed to work. But if 
> that's not enough democracy for the Gang of 39, let it give District voters a 
> representative to vote on taxes that District residents pay and wars that 
> District residents fight. Then come back and talk to us about referendums.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> View all comments that have been posted about this article.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703848_Comments.html
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 5)
> Washington Post
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703478704574612451567822852.html
> Washington, Gay Marriage and the Catholic Church
> 
> D.C.'s same-sex marriage law has put the archdiocese in a bind.
> 
> By EMILY ESFAHANI SMITH
> 
> January 9, 2010
> 
> The push to legalize gay marriage is often billed as a civil-rights 
> struggle—a successor to the movement that ended legalized racial 
> discrimination decades ago. But there is another component to the fight that 
> is now on display in the nation's capital: The drive for gay marriage is also 
> forcing unwanted change within the Catholic Church.
> 
> Last month, Washington D.C.'s City Council passed legislation legalizing gay 
> marriage. Mayor Adrian Fenty, a Democrat, quickly signed the bill. To become 
> law—which could happen as early as March—the legislation must undergo a 
> congressional review period.
> 
> By passing gay marriage, the City Council has put the Catholic Church, or 
> more accurately, the Archdiocese of Washington, in an awkward position. 
> Either the church will have to recognize gay marriage or it will be forced to 
> abandon a large portion of its charitable programs.
> 
> That's because the District outsources many of its social services to 
> Catholic Charities, which runs the charitable services of the archdiocese. 
> These charities provide a variety of services—including shelters for the 
> homeless and food for the hungry—to about 124,000 needy residents in the 
> region (which also includes a portion of Maryland). The archdiocese also 
> oversees St. Ann's Infant and Maternity Home, a care center for foster 
> children, and it administers adoptions for the District. For this work, 
> Catholic Charities receives approximately $20 million in contracts, grants 
> and licenses from the city. It bolsters these funds with $10 million of its 
> own money and a network of 3,000 volunteers.
> 
> If same-sex marriages are legalized, which seems inevitable, Archbishop 
> Donald Wuerl of Washington points out that the church will find itself in 
> violation of the new law if it continues its city-sponsored social services 
> programs. Why? Because city contractors are required to abide by all of the 
> District's laws and there are provisions in the bill requiring the church to 
> acknowledge gay marriage by offering employment benefits to same-sex couples 
> and by placing children with gay adoptive couples.
> 
> The archdiocese was not a particularly strong advocate against gay marriage 
> in the District, but it did press for a religious exemption to be added to 
> the same-sex marriage bill. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont all have 
> broad religious protections in their gay marriage laws, which allow gay 
> couples to marry but do not require religious organizations to recognize 
> those marriages.
> 
> But the City Council refused to add a religious exemption to its bill. 
> According to Patrick Deneen, a professor of government at Georgetown 
> University, the City Council "is being uniquely recalcitrant," especially 
> when you "consider existing precedent elsewhere in the country that shows 
> sensitivity to, and respect for, religious liberty." Without the religious 
> exemption, the archdiocese has said publicly that it will have no choice but 
> to abandon its publicly sponsored charitable works.
> 
> Phil Mendelsohn, a city councilman who voted for the bill, told me that the 
> gay-marriage legislation that is about to become law actually expands 
> religious freedom. "This bill doesn't require any church or faith to 
> solemnize a marriage contrary to [their] beliefs," he said. "It does, 
> however, allow many churches who wish to solemnize same-sex marriage to do 
> so."
> 
> This claim is a smoke screen. The City Council's bill only reiterates 
> religious protections already guaranteed under the First Amendment. It 
> doesn't extend other protections to religious organizations that take money 
> from the government, as the religious exemption the archdiocese sought would 
> have. It would have been a small concession to grant such an exemption. But 
> in the conflict between gay rights and religious rights, the city favors gay 
> rights. It argues that the church should not discriminate while it receives 
> public funds.
> 
> Framed in this way, it is hard to disagree. If the church receives public 
> money, it should have to live by the public's rules. But Mr. Deneen makes the 
> argument that it's actually the city that is dependent on the church. The 
> archdiocese receives public funds because it provides important social 
> services in a way that is both cheaper and likely more effective than if the 
> city itself provided those services. At the very least, while still spending 
> the $20 million it already gives the archdiocese, the city would have to live 
> without the $10 million the archdiocese spends on its charities if the church 
> dropped its charitable programs altogether.
> 
> But the archdiocese isn't willing to play hardball with the city. Susan 
> Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, told me that her organization is 
> committed to serving the poor, regardless of what the laws are in the 
> District, and that it is now looking "to find a way to enable Catholic 
> Charities to keep working in partnership with the city."
> 
> So either the archdiocese will drop benefits for all employees—if it doesn't 
> provide benefits to married couples, it won't have to offer them to same-sex 
> couples—or it will follow in the footsteps of Georgetown University, the 
> District's largest Catholic organization. There, an employee, whether gay or 
> straight, married or not, receives full benefits for himself plus one legally 
> domiciled member of his or her household. This would allow the archdiocese to 
> save face by pretending it isn't knowingly recognizing gay marriages.
> 
> Either accommodation would allow the archdiocese to continue to run its 
> charities. Yet both require a change within the archdiocese. The first would 
> force the archdiocese to drop benefits it had provided in support of 
> traditionally married couples, while the latter would entail a dishonest 
> dodge from an institution built on sincere faith.
> 
> Ms. Smith, a former Bartley fellow at the Journal, is a Collegiate Network 
> Journalism fellow at the Weekly Standard.
> 
>  
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 6)
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-foster10-2010jan10,0,6042102.story
> latimes.com
> 
> Opinion
> 
> Black, gay and indisputably African
> 
> The draconian anti-gay legislation being considered in Uganda brings to mind 
> a South African gay nightclub, an answer to the homophobes' claim that it is 
> un-African to be black and gay.
> 
> By Douglas Foster
> 
> January 10, 2010
> 
>  
> When word began to whip around the world that the Ugandan parliament would 
> take up a bill making lesbian or gay sex a capital crime, my thoughts went 
> first to a nightclub I frequented when I lived in Johannesburg, South Africa, 
> a few years ago. 
> 
> It was always a revelation to spend an evening at Simply Blue. The club was a 
> collecting spot for Africa's gay diaspora, and its patrons came from every 
> part of the continent. The age range was wide, class lines were smudged, and 
> there was a symphony of languages. The very existence of the place posed an 
> answer of sorts to the claim of homophobes that there was something 
> un-African about being black and gay. 
> 
> To get to Simply Blue's curved bar and large dance floor, patrons had to 
> climb a long flight of stairs and go through a security pat-down. You could 
> always spot newcomers because they usually sat off to the side in the 
> shadows, on broken-down couches, their eyes wide and jaws slack. Many of them 
> literally had had the idea beaten into them that they were part of a cursed, 
> despicable, tiny minority. 
> 
> There was the middle-aged man from Zimbabwe, formerly married, whose brother 
> had plotted to have him killed because of the shame he'd brought to his 
> family when he'd switched to dating men. There was a young Nigerian who 
> lingered on the sidelines for weeks before inching out onto the dance floor, 
> but then moved in an explosion of long-suppressed joy at finding himself 
> dancing in public across from another man. I met an older fellow, a 
> soft-spoken farmer from Uganda who'd raised his children before leaving his 
> home, his wife and his country. He'd finally decided he couldn't live to the 
> end of his life without having the chance to express his truest self.
> 
> One night at Simply Blue, I found myself in a long, confusing and infuriating 
> conversation with an evangelical preacher from Soweto, who was the guide for 
> a group of conservative, anti-gay white American evangelicals traveling 
> around the country. He belonged to a sect that inveighed against 
> homosexuality. 
> 
> Here's how he reconciled the two halves of his existence: He felt an 
> irresistible need, he said, to occasionally be in a place like Simply Blue 
> with other black gay Africans because it helped him feel less strange, and a 
> little less lonely. But he was also proud that he had so far stayed true to 
> his theology by never acting on his desires. He watched -- but never touched.
> 
> I thought about that preacher's story -- about the intensity of the pull he 
> felt and also about his shame and self-revulsion -- in the context of the 
> three American anti-gay evangelical pastors who recently took their message 
> to Uganda, and now seem shocked at the proposed law introduced in the wake of 
> their visit. They participated in the March conference that sparked the 
> Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009, though they  insist they had no intention of 
> inspiring legislation that calls for the death penalty for homosexuals. But 
> by posing as experts who offered testimony about how gay men rape teenage 
> boys and how homosexuals are plotting to destroy marriage and the family, 
> they helped build an explosive device and light a fuse. 
> 
> One of them, at the time of the conference, announced that these sorts of 
> revelations were like a "nuclear bomb" that would eliminate the entire  
> country of homosexuals. They can't now disclaim responsibility for the bomb 
> having been detonated. 
> 
> South Africa is far from nirvana for lesbians and gay men: There's certainly 
> no shortage of homophobia within its borders. But it's the one place on the 
> continent -- and one of the few places in the world -- with a constitution 
> that explicitly prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. 
> 
> In 2007, when I spent a year in Johannesburg, I heard the deputy chief 
> justice of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Dikgang Moseneke, 
> address the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. In his speech, he paid tribute to 
> liberation heroes like the late Simon Nkoli, a courageous black revolutionary 
> and an out and proud gay man. Nkoli, like the men and women with less 
> well-known names who regularly turn up at Simply Blue, countered the lie that 
> same-sex attraction is a relic of colonialism. 
> 
> The theme of homophobic African politicians is that gay identity is a 
> perversion imposed on black people by white oppressors. The historical fact 
> is the reverse, of course: Legal prohibitions on homosexuality were 
> originally imposed by white colonial rulers. So it's no small twist in the 
> plot that the new wave of threats to Ugandan gays should be reinforced by 
> American religious extremists. 
> 
> The proposed legislation places in stark relief the persistence of deadly 
> prejudice. The roots of hatred can be traced to myriad traditions -- 
> indigenous and foreign, white and black. What's more important than 
> identifying the sources of the poison is to find the antidote. The first step 
> is listening to the voices of African lesbians and gay men, and taking our 
> cues from them about how to offer the most effective support. 
> 
> I've been logging on daily in recent weeks to the Box Turtle Bulletin, the 
> website widely credited with alerting Americans to the Uganda legislation, 
> and also to Gay Uganda  http://gayuganda.blogspot.com/, the distinctive, 
> irrepressible blog of a partly closeted young gay blogger who's broken 
> important news, and provided bracing perspective, ever since the anti-gay 
> panic began to build in Uganda. "I am fighting for our lives and freedom in 
> my country," the Gay Uganda blogger wrote on New Year's Day, as government 
> officials and preachers called on Ugandans to join in a nationwide 
> demonstration against homosexuality on Jan. 19. 
> 
> "I want to stay home in 2010," the blogger wrote. "I would love to be here, 
> as a Ugandan, who is free and not persecuted for his sexuality. I would like 
> my family to grow, my family to know, my family to accept me." 
> 
> Most of the gay refugees from all over the continent who gather at Simply 
> Blue once felt the same way. They were migrants to South Africa not by choice 
> but by necessity. 
> 
> And now they're part of a burgeoning mass of women and men across the 
> continent who reject the impossible, insulting, ahistorical, cruel and 
> utterly false choice: Are you African, or are you gay?
> 
> Douglas Foster is a professor at Northwestern University's Medill School of 
> Journalism.
> 
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 7)
> San Francisco Chronicle
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/09/MN871BFFV5.DTL
> Ugandan lawmaker defends harsh anti-gay law
> 
> Godfrey Olukya, Associated Press
> 
> Saturday, January 9, 2010
> 
> (01-09) 04:00 PST Kampala, Uganda --
> 
> A Ugandan lawmaker Friday refused to withdraw proposed legislation that would 
> impose the death penalty for some gays and lesbians despite international 
> condemnation and presidential opposition to a measure that could scare off 
> foreign investors.
> 
> Lawmaker David Bahati said he would not heed a call late Thursday from the 
> government to drop the proposed bill, as he feels such a measure is necessary 
> in the conservative East African country.
> 
> On Thursday, Minister of State for Investment Aston Kajara said the 
> government would ask Bahati to scrap the bill because they fear backlash from 
> foreign investors. The bill, which Bahati proposed in September, has provoked 
> criticism from gay-rights groups and protests in London, New York and 
> Washington.
> 
> "I stand by the bill," Bahati said. "I will not withdraw it. We have our 
> children in schools to protect against being recruited into (homosexuality). 
> The process of legislating a law to protect our children against 
> homosexuality and defending our family values must go on."
> 
> That leaves the decision to the country's parliament, which will discuss the 
> legislation in late February or early March.
> 
> Although President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues he believes the bill 
> is too harsh and has encouraged his ruling National Resistance Movement Party 
> to overturn the death sentence provision, Information Minister Kabakumba 
> Matsiko said the parliament will act independently of the presidency.
> 
> "The bill did not come from the executive," she said. "It is a private 
> member's bill."
> 
> Earlier this week, several lawmakers and officials from the ruling party said 
> they will push to remove the death penalty statute, and have proposed instead 
> that gays receive counseling to convert them to heterosexuality.
> 
> The proposed legislation would toughen Uganda's already strict laws against 
> homosexuality, which are bolstered by Uganda's conservative society, which 
> generally frowns on homosexuality.
> 
> The draft of the new bill says anyone convicted of a homosexual act - which 
> includes touching someone of the same sex with the intent of committing a 
> homosexual act - could face life imprisonment. Current legislation imposes 
> seven years' imprisonment. Under the new law, the death sentence could apply 
> to sexually active gays living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. The new 
> law also expands its scope to include Ugandans living abroad, who can be 
> extradited and punished.
> 
> On the African continent, South Africa is the only country that allows gay 
> marriage. However, some South African groups have rejected homosexuality as 
> "un-African" and gangs carry out so-called "corrective" rapes on lesbians. A 
> 19-year-old lesbian athlete was gang-raped, tortured and murdered in 2008.
> 
> The Catholic Church in Uganda has said it supports the bill but not the death 
> penalty provision. But a group of nontraditional churches has accused 
> Museveni of siding with gays and maintains that the Bible supports killing 
> gays.
> 
> http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/09/MN871BFFV5.DTL
> 
> This article appeared on page A - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle
> 
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 8)
> Hey Uganda!
> 
> Western gays are coming to promote homosexuality and sodomize your kids.
> 
> (signed) U.S. Conservative Evangelicals
> 
> see the editorial cartoon: 
> 
> http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs083/1101866686918/img/237.jpg?a=1102921564264
>  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 9)
> http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-jewish-world-service-creates-fund-to-promote-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-rights-in-uganda-81012457.html
> American Jewish World Service Creates Fund to Promote Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual 
> and Transgender Rights in Uganda
> 
> NEW YORK, Jan. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In response to egregious human 
> rights violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) 
> individuals in Uganda, American Jewish World Service (AJWS) has established 
> the URGENT LGBT UGANDA FUND.The fund will support Ugandan grassroots 
> organizations working to defend the rights of sexual minorities and to defeat 
> a dangerous piece of proposed legislation -- "The Anti-Homosexuality Bill."
> 
> The bill seeks to broaden the criminalization of homosexuality and penalize 
> supporters and funders of LGBT programs and rights. The passage of this bill 
> would severely impede human rights and development groups' efforts to ensure 
> the safety and security of the Ugandan LGBT community. It would also make it 
> extremely difficult for groups to implement effective prevention and 
> treatment of HIV/AIDS. Moreover, the bill violates the freedom of every 
> person to live a safe and dignified life -- a core value that unifies all of 
> AJWS's work and is central to the Jewish experience.
> 
> "AJWS's work is propelled by a very basic value: the essential dignity of 
> every human being," AJWS president Ruth Messinger said. "In the spirit of 
> b'tselem elohim -- the understanding that each person is made in the divine 
> image -- we recognize that every human life is of equal value.
> 
> "We are especially reminded of this in supporting the work of LGBT 
> communities around the globe."
> 
> AJWS is part of a growing progressive, faith-based coalition committed to 
> global justice and has joined with leading advocacy organizations and 
> international human rights funders in calling on the U.S. government to 
> swiftly condemn Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill. AJWS has also taken the 
> lead in calling upon Jewish and other faith-based leaders to sign onto 
> congressional letters to President Barack Obama and Ugandan President Yoweri 
> KagutaMuseveni. These letters are currently being circulated by the House of 
> Representatives Equality Caucus.
> 
> As an international development and human rights organization, AJWS funds 
> more than 400 grassroots organizations in 36 countries throughout Africa, 
> Asia and the Americas -- including many organizations working to protect the 
> rights of sexual minorities. AJWS has been standing in solidarity with LGBT 
> communities for a decade. But as the global trend of discrimination and 
> persecution against LGBT people intensifies, the need to respond by 
> safeguarding human rights has become all the more urgent.
> 
> In recent months, AJWS has been listening to and working with its grantees in 
> Uganda to strategically and effectively advance human rights in the face of 
> growing insecurity and violence. The new URGENT LGBT UGANDA FUNDwill allow 
> AJWS to continue this work as successfully and productively as possible.
> 
> Anybody wishing to donate to AJWS's URGENT LGBT UGANDA FUND should visit 
> www.ajws.org/donatelgbt.
> 
> "Through the creation of the URGENT LGBT UGANDA FUND, in conjunction with our 
> broader advocacy efforts, AJWS is taking the lead in the Jewish community and 
> in the broader faith-based community to ensure that all people -- regardless 
> of their sexual orientation or gender identity -- can realize their full, 
> true selves," Messinger said. "No one should live in fear, and it is our duty 
> to address these injustices now and always."
> 
> 
> SOURCE American Jewish World Service
> 
> RELATED LINKS
> http://www.ajws.org
> 
>  
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 10)
> San Francisco Chronicle
> Willie's World
> 
> - Willie Brown
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/01/09/BASU1BF35Q.DTL
> Republicans don't vote for gay speaker
> 
> Sunday, January 10, 2010
> 
> John Pérez became California's first openly gay Assembly speaker the other 
> day, but it happened without the usual unanimous voice acclamation of the 
> house that past speakers have enjoyed.
> 
> Apparently, conservative bloggers raised such a ruckus over voting for "one 
> of them" that Republicans declined to participate in the ceremonial, 
> bipartisan "best of luck" voice vote.
> 
> Whether "one of them" meant voting for a Democrat or someone gay was never 
> stated, but from the looks of things, the message was received.
> 
> The Republican Assembly members, however, had no problem joining in a 
> standing ovation for Pérez.
> 
> --- big snip ---
>  
> This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
>  
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 11)
> http://www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=105316
>  
>  Posted on Advocate.com January 11, 2010 08:23:19 AM
> Antigay Attack Reported on Chicago's El
> 
> 
> A Chicago man reported that he fended off antigay attackers on a train Sunday 
> by falsely claiming he was HIV-positive.
> 
> By Julie Bolcer
> A Chicago says he suffered minor injuries early Sunday morning when three men 
> on a Chicago Transit Authority train beat him while yelling antigay slurs in 
> an attack that ended after the victim lied and said he was HIV-positive. 
> 
> According to the Chicago Tribune, Daniel Hauff of Rogers Park said the attack 
> was triggered by his attempt to quell a dispute between two men on a Red Line 
> train near the Argyle stop around 3 a.m.
> 
> Hauff, 33, reported that two other riders joined one of the quarrelsome men 
> in taunting him with antigay slurs, which escalated to a beating after the 
> conductor, who was called on the emergency intercom, assessed the situation 
> and left. 
> 
> Hauff said he ended the attack by “wiping some of his blood on the attackers 
> and telling them he was HIV-positive, which was not true," the Chicago 
> Tribune reported.
> 
> Three men were arrested in the area for misdemeanor battery and the use of 
> disparaging comments, although the police report did not specifically 
> reference antigay slurs. The suspects were released on bail Sunday. 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 12)
> Alltop - Top GLBT News
> http://glbt.alltop.com/
>  
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>  
> 13)
> Lady Gaga Excited To Create New Products For Polaroid
> 
> Access Hollywood - January 8, 2010 4:00 PM PST
> http://omg.yahoo.com/videos/lady-gaga-excited-to-create-new-products-for-polaroid/9656?nc
> video
>  
> ***
>  
> 
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender | Reply to group
> Messages in this topic (1)
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group Start a New Topic
> ---
> 
> Humanist Community of San Francisco news, discussion, and events list.
> Post message:      hcsf [at] yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe:      hcsf-subscribe [at] yahoogroups.com
> 
> List owner:      hcsf-owner [at] yahoogroups.com
> 
> http://www.AmericanHumanist.org/
> http://www.SecularHumanism.org/
> http://www.cfiWest.org
> http://www.cfiMetroNY.org
> http://www.cfiFlorida.org
> 
> The Evangelical War On Science
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk&mode=related&search=
> 
> The End of Faith http://www.samharris.org/
> 
> The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion
> http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/booksellers/press_release/delusion/
> http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusion
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWL1ZMH3-54
> http://www.amazon.ca/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004
> 
> Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1574888498/102-8939772-5052156
> 
> ---
> MARKETPLACE
> Going Green: Your Yahoo! Groups resource for green living
> 
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
> .
>  
> __,_._,___