Anti-Gay States Should Be Boycotted?

Just a thought in light of Prop 8; it's interesting how states refuse same-sex couples equal marriage rights but have no problem with the LGBT community spending hard earned cash within the state -- while in turn helping the economy thrive. 

Contributions from the LGBT communities to America and the world are very well known, and yet LGBT people are treated like outcasts or aliens from another planet.

My resolution to combat this issue? 

LGBT individuals should move their place of residence to a state that honors marriage equality. In a sense by moving it'd be like boycotting the discriminatory states, while taking large amounts of state revenue in the process. And when state officials get their acts together only then should one reconsider moving back.

The message is clear; LGBT individuals are needed so stop acting like they aren't.

What are your thoughts on boycotting discriminatory states?

2009 LA

Maine Makes Fifth State To Legalize Gay Marriage

Governor John Baldacci of Maine, signed into law a bill legalizing gay marriage. 

The move declares Maine as the fifth state to allow gay marriage. Other states that have already followed suit are Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts and D.C. 

The state of California use to be apart of marriage equality, until a few naysayers decided to engage Prop 8 and reverse the law; currently activists are hard at work to change the discriminatory bill.

After California passed its gay marriage law, previously I had written an article commenting that the law was only passed for state officials and businesses to increase revenue -- therefore, digging the state out of a debt hole. I was adamant that LGBT couples should keep weddings small, just in case the law was overturned.

California lawmakers understood that gay marriage would generate a lot of money, and I urged people to not spend a dime just yet. However, California gained that revenue and in the end gay marriage was still revoked -- breaking the hearts of many loving couples

Up next for the Marriage Equality Challenge? New Jersey and New York!

Let the fight begin!

2009 LA

Miss California's Same-Sex Marriage Answer Cost Her The Crown?

Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA 2009 on Sunday, but on Monday it was Miss California Carrie Prejean's (seen above-l) answer to a question about same-sex marriage from celebrity blogger and pageant judge Perez Hilton, that ended up being the nights biggest story.

During the show Perez asked Carrie, "Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?"

Carrie answered, "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," Carrie said to a mix of boos and applause. "No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman."

According to Perez Hilton, Carrie's answer to the hot button question cost her the crown. 

Miss California is very much entitled to her own opinion
however, I was taken aback that she felt all people shouldn't be given the same equal rights. Marriage is marriage, period.

It's a commitment established by two people that pledge to build their lives together, connecting, growing, and living as one family unit. All people are deserving of equal marriage rights no matter the race, creed, color or gender. 

People coming together to vote for President Obama, is the same way folks should come together for the common purpose of equal marriage rights.

And who's to say Miss California would have won the crown if she did answer differently? Obviously, Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was the better candidate because she took home the prize.

2009 LA

Two Eleven Year Old Boys Commit Suicide From Anti-Gay Harassment

In the past weeks, two eleven year old boys have committed suicide after being taunted repeatedly in school. 

Both boys suffered from the same taunts of bullying and harassment's of anti-gay epithets and attacks. Obviously, the youth were in desperate need for the pain to go away -- which resulted in their deaths.

The victims names are Carl Joseph Walker-Hoover (seen above) of Massachusetts, and Jaheem Herrera (seen below-r) of Georgia. 

Jaheem's mother stated that she repeatedly complained to the Dekalb school system about her son being harassed, but nothing was ever done to rectify the situation.

Our current culture of accepted homophobia, and the prevalence of bullying hurts LGBT youth and heterosexual kids as well. 

Because students are affected by a climate of anti-gay rhetoric, as a result, these anti-gay taunts were a driving force behind Jaheem and Carls' tragic suicides. 

When children go to school aren't they supposed to be protected? School houses are considered to be second homes to our children, and now we can't feel safe in knowing that our children aren't in good hands?

According to the 2007 National School Climate Survey, 73.6 percent of the students surveyed heard derogatory remarks like “faggot” or “dyke” frequently at school. 

We know that in schools the word “gay” with derogatory intent, can be applied to any student who maybe viewed as different no matter what their actual sexual orientation might be. 

Even in our own government right-wing groups and religious institutions, continually use anti-gay sentiment and rhetoric. Many describe scary imagery and falsify religious arguments to fuel misinformation and fear, many also outright claim that LGBT people are a threat to society.

But how many deaths must we witness before we enact laws to protect our children? 

Eleven states including the District of Columbia have student protections based on sexual orientation, and only seven of those states including the District of Columbia, protect based on gender identity and expression. 

We need to expand these protections to every state and defend the states that have already put in place these protections. 

We must fight back against the misuse of religion as a tool of hatred and intolerance. We must work to create a culture which embraces differences in gender and sexual orientation, just as we work endlessly to end racism, sexism and any other negative -- ism there is. 

We need a powerful movement that will protect our children from all negativity and danger. We must do it fast and we must do it NOW!

2009 LA

Colorado Man Sentenced To Death After Murder Of Transgender

A Colorado man by the name of Allen Andrade (seen-r), was convicted and sentenced to death for brutally murdering Angie Zapata (seen-l), a transgender woman that Andrade met over the Internet. 

This marks the first time a hate crime law resulted in the conviction of a transgender person’s murder. It took the jury two hours to return its verdict, which was praised by members of gay and transgender rights groups.  

"This is a landmark decision," Mindy Barton the legal director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado, told CNN. 

Barton attended the trial daily stating that, "Hearing guilty on first degree murder and guilty of 'bias-motivated crime' was an emotional experience for all the family, friends and supporters of Angie. She will not be forgotten."

Allen Andrade never denied killing Angie Zapata, although his defense team argued for a lesser verdict, contending that he acted in the heat of passion after discovering Zapata was biologically male. Prosecutors referred to Zapata as "she" throughout the trial, while the defense referred to the transgender teen as "he".

Defense attorney Annette Kundelius, argued that "when [Andrade] met him, he met him as 'Angie.’ "When he found out it wasn't 'Angie,' that it was 'Justin,' he lost control."   

The jury was not convinced. "This was an ambush attack," said Chief Deputy District Attorney Robb Miller. "This was an all-out blitz." Zapata was "born in a boy's body but living as a female," added Miller. “Ultimately, she was murdered because of it."

Prosecutors argued that after Zapata, 18, and Andrade 32, met online last summer, they hooked up at Zapata’s apartment in Greeley, Colo., where they spent almost three days together. 

While Zapata was away from the apartment according to court documents Andrade, noticed some pictures that made him think Zapata might be a man, CNN reports. When Andrade confronted Zapata about her sexuality she declared, "I am all woman." 

Andrade then grabbed Zapata and discovered male genitalia. Andrade told police he began pounding Zapata with his fists, and when she fell to the ground he picked up a fire extinguisher and hit her in the head, the documents show.

Believing he had “killed it,” he told police referring to Zapata; he covered the body in a blanket and cleaned up the crime scene. But as he was about to depart he said he heard “gurgling” sounds coming from the body and then Zapata sat up. That’s when Andrade hit her again with the fire extinguisher, the affidavit says. 

The jury heard jailhouse phone conversations including Andrade telling a girlfriend, "gay things must die." He did not testify in his own defense.

Although Zapata may have mislead the 32 year old Andrade into believing she was all woman, that still did not give him the right to take her life. No one has the right to take another person's life no matter what the situation. 

How did Andrade not know Zapata was transgendered after spending three days living with her? 

Maybe Andrade feared that someone would find out he was messing with a man, so he killed Zapata to cover up his tracks? 

Either way, what he did was wrong and I'm glad Zapata and her family have received justice.

2009 LA

The United States Endorses UN Gay Rights Message

The Obama administration formally endorsed a U.N. statement calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality, a measure that former President George W. Bush, had refused to sign. 

The Obama administration reversed yet another Bush-era decision that had long been criticized as being discriminatory by human rights groups. The United States was the only western nation that didn't sign on to the declaration, when it came up at the U.N. General Assembly in December.

"The United States supports the U.N.'s statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity and is pleased to join the other 66 U.N. member states who have declared their support of the statement," said State Department spokesman Robert Wood.  

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," Wood told reporters. 

"As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora." 

The Associated Press reported that the administration would endorse the statement.

"The administration's leadership on this issue will be a powerful rebuke of an earlier Bush administration position that sought to deny the universal application of human rights protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals," said Mark Bromley of the Council for Global Equality, which promotes equal rights for same-sex loving individuals.  

"This is long past overdue and we are encouraged by the signal it sends that the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will now be considered human rights," said Rea Carey, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

U.S. officials stated that America, opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review. There were concerns from the Bush team that those sections could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. 

In some states landlords and private employers, are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Twenty-seven European Union members, Japan, Australia, and Mexico, all endorsed the U.S. gay rights message. Seventy U.N. members outlaw homosexuality as homosexual acts can be punished by execution also. 

And more than fifty nations including members of the 'Organization of the Islamic Conference' opposed the declaration. Some Islamic countries stated that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

How does one compare same-sex relationships to pedophilia and incest? Pedophilia is when an adult has sexual desires for a child. Incest is when closely related people (family members) have sexual intercourse, which is also called "inbreeding."

People's assumptions and personal analogies are downright ridiculous. Pedophiles are allowed to run churches, work in schools, and live next door to us. Incest takes place everyday, and yet no one petitions charges against those that do it.

How can two same-sex loving individuals receive a worse rap than those that violate children? I'll never understand it.

2009 LA

Gay Couple Turned Away From Glen Ridge Country Club

        Picture of Glen Ridge Country Club - taken by Mia Song/The Star Ledger

Michael Norton a Glen Ridge, New Jersey, resident saw an advertisement for new members at the Glen Ridge Country Club in the community newspaper. 

Mr. Norton commented that he wanted a pool to "keep cool this summer", and felt this would be a great club for him and his partner to join.

Norton stated that when he asked a club administrator, "if a membership would include his domestic partner" the same way the club allows married members to include their spouses on their memberships, the club administrator gave him the cold shoulder.  

"It was unbelievable. I thought I was kicked in the stomach," said Norton, 58, of Bloomfield, New Jersey.

Barry Schrager, president of the country club's nine member board said that Norton and his partner Stewart D. Grossman, 62, were "victims of an unfortunate misunderstanding that stemmed from the employee's error in stating the club's membership policy. The club abides by state law which recognizes same-sex couples as civil unions and domestic partners", he said.

Norton and his partner decided not to pursue a membership, and instead the two men are preparing to file suit against the one hundred and fifteen year old club with the N.J. Division of Civil Rights. The couple expressed that the problem is bigger than just one country club's gatekeeper. Their situation could have been avoided if state laws would allow them to say they are married

"The equality is in the word," Grossman said. "If  you tell people you're married, people know what that means." 

Stephen Hyland, a Westwood family law attorney with many gay and lesbian clients commented that the Glen Ridge County Club incident could be attributed to the legal prohibition of the word "marriage" with regard to same-sex couples. "If this couple had been able to marry, then there would not have been any need to explain anything further," Hyland said.

Norton e-mailed Amy Sikkerboll the club's controller on March 23rd, asking about membership fees for the club's house and pool. Sikkerboll responded with an e-mail stating "Memberships include spouses but not significant others."

Schrager the club's board president, released a statement saying the club's policy is to consider all applicants without reference to race, religion or gender. He added that the club recognized all couples sanctioned by state law, including domestic partnerships and civil unions. 

Schrager, also expressed that the Glen Ridge Country Club changed its membership policy more than a decade ago to include women. 

Steven Goldstein, executive director of Garden State Equality stated that Norton and Grossman's experience at the country club was not unique, and that the organization has received thousands of complaints about discrimination against domestic partners stating,"This case is Exhibit A of why we at Garden State Equality are calling  for marriage equality," Goldstein said. 

"This should be a wake up call to everyone of the 120 state legislators. Wake up and smell the inequality that single sex couples endure."  

2009 LA

Gay Student Protests Blood Drive For Discrimination

Dustin Weinstein, a 20-year-old sophomore at Montclair State University, decided to help the New Jersey blood drive since the organization needed donors. 

Last November Dustin, was turned away from a Red Cross blood drive on campus. The rationale for the ban according to the FDA website is that, "Men who have had sex with other men account for the largest single group of blood donors who are found HIV positive by blood donor testing. By eliminating that group, the risk of transmitting HIV is diminished", the report said.

Does the FDA have statistical facts which proves that most HIV tainted blood comes from gay men?

Personally, I gave blood to a blood drive at my Alma mater years ago, and was shocked to find out that 85 percent of the blood had to be thrown out due to HIV infection. Moreover, I discovered that the majority of the tainted blood came from heterosexual people -- not gay people. So the misconception that AIDS is a gay disease is a bunch of baloney.

When AIDS was first reported by the Center for Disease Control in 1981, rumors about where AIDS came from began to circulate like wildfire. 

First we were told that monkeys brought AIDS to America from Africa, then we were told that AIDS came from gay men -- and this rumor stuck for a while due to the overwhelming prejudice against gay people.

After researching where AIDS really came from -- this is what I unearthed:

In 1969 George H.W. Bush explained to Congress (click link and read page 30 and up for facts), how allegedly runaway birth rates for African Americans were down-breeding the "American" population (but since African Americans are Americans, then how could they down-breed the American population?) 

However, Bush felt there needed to be something done in order to control the growth of the Black race and on June 9, 1969, Dr. D.M. MacArthur, Deputy Director of Research and Technology for the Pentagon, requested a sum of ten million dollars from the Congressional House Subcommittee on Appropriations, in order to develop a new contagious micro-organism capable of destroying the human immune system, but first the virus would have to be created. 

Ten years later in America, this resulted in the virus now known as 'Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome' (AIDS).

To read more on this subject matter, I received partial research from here.

Medical Correspondent for the Sunday Times Neville Hodgkinson (seen-r), noted that the virus appeared in America first -- and not in Africa nor anywhere else. 

He explained how increasingly complex procedures were taken -- to diagnose the virus, "but the basic problem was not being able to validate any of these procedures against pure virus taken from patients - still remains."

The medical professional then revealed in detail that both the HIV tests and statistics concerning AIDS, had been manipulated in a duplicitous manner and it would seem that the main beneficiaries would be the pharmaceutical firms. 

As Comedian/Actor Chris Rock once said in his Bigger and Blacker stand-up comedy, "There ain't no money in the cure, the money is in the medicine!"

Dustin Weinstein, this article is a tribute to you. 

No more will you have to feel as if gay people are the epicenter of AIDS, due to a long standing rumor that was conceived out of pure hate as well as the need to cover one's tracks -- as slowly but surely the real truth behind the story comes in to the light. 

2009 LA