US Queers Censored!
Yahoo appears to have deleted the US Queers egroup - this without notification of list management. Apparently this was the result of an orchestrated campaign of complaints against list owner, Rusty Morris. Developing.....
Friday, July 18, 2003
US Queers Censored!
Posted by lloydletta at 11:39 PM
Unpleasantness on the Minneapolis Rumours List
David Piehl calls out the Wiz....
Dave Piehl firstname.lastname@example.org
Tue Jul 15 16:19:02 2003
Previous message: [Mpls] Avidor on Access/Excess
Next message: [Mpls] NEDC, Robert Woods, and CNIA
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I was glad to hear that the city is pursuing the
mis-appropriated funding at NEDC per the article in
the Star Tribune.
Robert Woods is of particular interest to the feds, per the article "Meanwhile, federal investigators have shown interest in Woods. The Department of Housing and Urban Development subpoenaed his transcripts from Washington University and the University of Minnesota law school. Woods filed a lawsuit in February in an effort to quash the subpoenas; the suit was later dismissed." - Steve Brandt wrote articles a few years
back about this subject.
I still wonder why Wizard Marks and Basim Sabri brought the same Robert Woods to Central Neighborhood in 2000; no woder the current board is still having
The Wiz responds:
Oh, no, you sleazy sob, you're not putting that on me. I was opposed to Mr. Woods because I had already heard from friends on the Northside that a considerable cloud hung over him. Once I met the man I had even more reasons not to vote for him. Unfortunately, I was hugely outvoted by other board members.
This is so typical of Piehl to make a statement he knows to be a lie. It is my contention that no one heard my misgivings because David Piehl, et.al. had so poisoned the well that no person of color (who comprised most of the board at the time) would hear anything from a white person in the neighborhood. When I came on the board race relations in Central
had sunk to an all time low and people of color on the board would no longer trust what anyone white person had to say. Those board members held up specific people as reasons why they were unwilling to trust and you, David, were at the top of the list.
EY: Wizard Marks - the Great White Hope.... lol. Then the List Queen jumps in....
"I still wonder why Wizard Marks and Basim Sabri brought the same Robert Woods to Central Neighborhood in 2000; no woder the current board is still having trouble!"
"Oh, no, you sleazy sob, you're not putting that on me. I"
Needless to say, gratuitous personal shots meant to inflame repetitive neighborhood feuds only invite pointless insults as a response.
It's all childish, and I want to remind other members to avoid such rhetoric. Indulge your feuds elsewhere.
To all: I'll deal with discipline for this stuff off list.
Posted by lloydletta at 11:38 PM
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Frank, Kolbe, Baldwin urge Colleagues to Oppose the Anti-Gay Ammendment to the Constitution
Congressman, 4th District, Massachusetts
2210 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
July 15, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Peter Kovar 202-225-9400
HOUSE MEMBERS CALL FOR OPPOSITION TO
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE,
Urge Their Colleagues to Follow Cheney's "States Rights" Campaign Rhetoric
Three Members of the U.S. House of Representatives this week sent a letter to their fellow lawmakers urging them to oppose a proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The "Dear Colleague" letter mailed to every Member of the House yesterday by Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) points out that, during the 2000 Vice-Presidential debate, Dick Cheney publicly stated that the same-sex marriage issue ought to be decided by each state, adding that he didn't "think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area." The letter concludes by urging "those who share the Vice President's commitment to federalism to refrain from sponsoring a Constitutional amendment which would repudiate the statement he made" in the debate.
A copy of the letter is attached.
July 11, 2003
Recently Members have been asked to cosponsor a Constitutional amendment on the subject of marriage. Many of its supporters have sought to portray it as a question of whether or not same-sex marriages should be allowed. In fact, what is most radical about this amendment is not that it defines marriage, but that it takes away from each of the fifty states the right to decide this question and gives it for the first time in our two hundred year history to the federal government.
It should be noted that while some of those supporting the amendment have argued that it is meant simply to prevent judicial actions of one sort or another, the amendment, if adopted, would prevent states by acting through their state legislatures, referenda, or any combination thereof with regard to same-sex unions.
The argument against such a centralized approach was articulated very well during the 2000 Presidential Campaign by one of the major party candidates. When asked by Bernard Shaw to state a position on the subject of same-sex couples, Vice Presidential candidate Dick Cheney responded as follows:
"This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free
society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We don't get to choose, and
shouldn't be able to choose and say, 'You get to live free, but you don't.' And I
think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship
they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to
regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.
The next step, then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought
to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship, or if these
relationships should be treated the same way a conventional marriage is. That's
a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk.
I think the fact of the matter, of course, is that matter is regulated by the states. I
Think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's
appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area.
I try to be open-minded about it as much as I can, and tolerant of those relationships.
And like Joe, I also wrestle with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction
of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and
accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into."
While we acknowledge that we do not find ourselves in complete agreement with the Vice President on all public policy issues, we believe that this answer, given one month before the presidential election, makes a very strong case against a Constitutional amendment which would establish precisely "a federal policy" of the sort that the Vice President opposed.
We urge that those who share the Vice President's commitment to federalism to refrain from sponsoring a Constitutional amendment which would repudiate the statement he made here.
REP. BARNEY FRANK
REP. JIM KOLBE
REP. TAMMY BALDWIN
Posted by lloydletta at 11:00 PM
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Kerry tries to play both ways.....
Washington Post via CultureWatch
In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision striking down a Texas law against sodomy, Kerry said he remains opposed to gay marriages but said he would oppose any constitutional amendment to outlaw such marriages on grounds that it was "gay bashing."
Kerry said he supported civil unions and broad rights for gays but added, "I have a belief that marriage is for the purpose of procreation and it's between men and women. I see no great compelling rationale for changing that institution when measured against the rights that can be granted to people to live exactly as others do but not in that quote nomenclature."
Steve Miller of CultureWatch Notes: Reality check: While Kerry has two daughters from a first marriage that ended in divorce, and his current wife, Teresa Heinz, has children from her prior marriage (she was widowed), Kerry and Heinz have failed to live up to their sacred obligation to procreate children together and thus validate what they refer to shame-facedly as their "marriage."
Gay groups were caught off-guard by the Defense of Marriage Act that Bill Clinton signed (allegedly after leading activists told him that marriage wasn't that big a deal). Can they manage to put together a credible effort to block the proposed anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate before being sent to the states? Let's hope so.
EY: HRC is beginning to change on this - working on bills that will equalize tax treatment for domestic partners, and an imigration bill that allows for equitable treatment of gay partners. Still the whole focus on Domestic Partners rather than focusing directly on marriage makes no sense to me. It is pretty pathatic that gay "leaders" - the ones paid to advocate on our behalf told Clinton that marriage wasn't a big deal. The way Clinton acted with both DOMA and DADT gave the best arguments for Republicans to make some headway with the gay vote.
Locally here in Minnesota, some Republican candidates for State Legislature favor gay marriage as public policy, most notably, Larissa Presho, who ran for Representative in 58B.
Posted by lloydletta at 10:10 PM
The Lindner Agenda:
Interview with Representative Arlon Lindner
By Eva Young
Representative Arlon Lindner (Republican-Corcoran) made the news more than any other Republican Minnesota legislator this session.
Lindner started things off by introducing House File 341, a bill to remove all references to "sexual orientation" in the state human-rights statutes. One provision in Lindner's bill stipulated that gays shouldn't receive compensation from a fund to give assistance to victims of the Holocaust.
While Lindner has a history of making controversial statements that offend people, it was the ones he made about gays and the Holocaust, and about America turning into "another African continent," that prompted several House DFLers to file an ethics complaint against him.
When the Dalai Lama spoke before the Minnesota Legislature in 2001, Lindner sent an e-mail to all his House colleagues that he was boycotting the occasion.
Lindner's e-mail stated: "AS A CHRISTIAN, I am offended that we would have the Dalai Lama come and speak to a joint meeting of our Minnesota Legislature. He claims to be a god-king, a leader of the Buddha religion, which historically has been considered a cult because of its anti-Biblical teachings concerning the one true Holy God, Creator of Heaven and earth, and His Son, Jesus Christ."
On May 1, 1997, Lindner stated that he intended "to protect the family institution that exists today--the man-woman relationships where children can be born, raised. I'm a Christian. I believe what the Bible has to say about man and woman and the family, and about heaven and hell and sin. One of those teachings I get from scripture is that homosexuality is wrong, that it is a sin like adultery would be a sin."
According to Lindner in 1997, sanctioning same-sex marriages would open the door to "a man marrying a child or a man marrying a dog."
I had been interested in meeting and talking to Lindner for quite a while. I wanted to find out why he holds the views he does, and what he hopes to accomplish with his over-the-top statements.
While at the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Senate companion bill to Lindner's House bill, I introduced myself to Lindner. I asked him if he would be willing to do an interview for Lavender Magazine. He agreed. Lindner and I met on the State Capitol Steps to discuss the Lindner agenda.
EY: How did you get interested in politics and running for office?
AL: My first interest in politics was back in the Goldwater days. [Republican Barry Goldwater ran for President in 1964.] Then, I got married and was busy raising my family. More recently, for the past 15 to 20 years, mostly at the grassroots level, I have been active.
EY: Were you involved in party organization in your area?
AL: Not really. Real grassroots. Pounding signs. That sort of thing. They didn't know who I was when I first ran for endorsement.
EY: Were these contested endorsements?
AL: The last race was somewhat contested. The first time was also. After that, I ran for three elections without being contested.
EY: What was the name of the person who ran against you in the last race?
AL: Bob Ivey.
EY: Was this a moderate-versus-conservative issue? Did he use the statement you made about the Dalai Lama as a campaign issue against you?
AL: Yes, he did.
EY: You have been in the papers a lot lately. Why did you introduce the bill to repeal the Human Rights Act as it applies to gays, and why did you include the language about the Holocaust in the bill?
AL: I put my bill  in defense of innocence. Taking sexual orientation from all of our statutes. In the very first page, the part about the Holocaust was there, and that got a lot of people's attention, because they saw it on the first page. About the Holocaust, I didn't think that homosexuals had been persecuted to the same extent as the Jews. I was comparing the five to ten thousand homosexuals to the six million Jews.
EY: You think the gay community has been exaggerating it?
AL: I don't remember hearing this.
EY: Was it OK that gays were killed in the concentration camps, even if there was only one gay victim of the Holocaust?
AL: Absolutely not. [Lindner has changed his position here. His statements in the past suggested that he did not think gays were victims of the Holocaust.]
EY: You wouldn't agree with the Reverend Fred Phelps, of Westboro Baptist Church and the godhatesfags.com Web site, who has picketed AIDS funerals?
AL: I have never heard of Reverend Fred Phelps.
EY: Would you ever picket the funeral of a man who died of AIDS?
AL: Most certainly not.
EY: You have made many statements in the past that have been criticized. For example, the statement that gay marriage is like a man marrying a dog, and that sort of thing.
AL: That wasn't said this time. That was said in '93, '94, around that time.
[My research shows these statements were made in 1997.]
EY: Do you still agree with that?
AL: It's possible. I saw this on TV one time. They were showing about one of those Eastern countries. I don't know whether it was Hindu, or some type of religion where a woman was actually marrying a dog over there, and they showed the whole ceremony, and how she went through a lot of preparation for this, and this was sort of a spiritual celebration for them. I think this was on Channel 2 but I don't remember the name of it, or anything.
EY: Do you think this is comparable to a gay marriage, where two people, same species and same gender, or a straight couple, same species, commit to each other? Which do you think is more comparable: a woman marrying a woman and a woman marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman and a woman marrying a dog?
AL: To me, being heterosexual, and a man and woman married and having children--I believe that's the normal, God-given way. Genesis tells us, in the beginning, He made them male and female, and He didn't make anybody in between. I believe according to the Bible, and according to my life's experiences and the experiences of others, that we do have a choice in life, and I believe people chose some time in their life to practice homosexuality.
EY: Well, do people choose to practice heterosexuality?
AL: I don't think they have to. I think that's a natural thing. Like I say, that's the way we are made. Our bodies are made for heterosexuality, and that's how we have children, and the families are the foundation of our country.
EY: What about heterosexuals engaging in the acts you attribute to gays--specifically, anal and oral sex. Heterosexuals do engage in this, and at pretty significant levels. Is that natural?
AL: I imagine that some do, and I don't care what a married couple does when they are married, and I don't even want to know, and usually, heterosexuals--very few married couples tell us about what they do.
EY: What about swingers?
AL: I think they are just the fringe.
EY: What about monogamous, long-term gay relationships?
AL: Well, I think if you have gay relationships, that would be the best.
EY: If you are going to have gay relationships, then you should be monogamous?
AL: I think it's safer for the person. If you have multiple partners--and this goes for heterosexuals, too--the chances of getting STDs or AIDS is certainly greater.
EY: So, marriage in and of itself does not prevent the spread of AIDS? You have to be married to an uninfected partner, and you have to be faithful.
AL: That is correct.
EY: Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota and the Minneapolis Republican City Committee will be having a booth at Gay Pride. Would you be interested in joining us?
AL: I think not. I read about the incident that started Gay Pride, and I don't think it's anything to celebrate.
In a follow-up with Lindner on the phone, I asked him: If he doesn't want to know about what heterosexuals do in their bedroom, why is he so concerned about what goes on in gay bedrooms?
Lindner's response was that government "shouldn't be in anyone's bedroom."
In addition, Linder stated that he introduced his bill to remove GLBT human-rights protections because a "militant homosexual movement undermines the American family."
When I asked if Lindner would support repeal of the state sodomy law that prohibits consensual oral and anal sex, he said it probably was used to prosecute prostitution and public sexual activity. I told Linder he seemed to agree with Skip Humphrey on that issue, as Humphrey used the same reason when he was Attorney General to oppose repeal of the sodomy law.
Lindner told me he had gotten about 1,500 e-mails regarding his bill. He remarked that he is sure there are "lots of gay families out there that are good." He was concerned about "militants in the schools."
Eva Young is president of Log Cabin Republicans of Minnesota. Contact her with political gossip and comments at (612) 588-2044, or at email@example.com
The Language of Lindner:
Statements that Prompted the Ethics Complaint
"I'm not convinced that they [gays] were persecuted. I was a child during World War II, and I've read a lot about World War II. It's just been recently that anyone's come out with this idea that homosexuals were persecuted to this extent. There's been a lot of rewriting of history....The main gay participants in the Holocaust were Nazi concentration camp guards."
"What I'm trying to prevent is the holocaust of our children getting STDs, AIDS, and various other diseases....If you want to sit around here and wait until America becomes another African continent, well, then you do that, but I'm going to do something about it." When this statement was criticized for being racist, Lindner said, "I don't believe that's a racist statement. That's a statement of fact."
Posted by lloydletta at 9:36 PM
Colleen Perfect of Catholic Parents Online says no to an interview......
What is she afraid of?
Posted by lloydletta at 9:20 PM