Who cares that Cheney supports gay marriage? U.S. Supreme Court said it lacked the authority to rule on gay marriage

So does anyone really care that former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney now supports gay marriage? He certainly did not when he was the sitting U.S. Vice President. Not to mention that the U.S. Vice President is also the ex-officio President of the United States Senate (a member of a body who is part of it by virtue of holding another office).

During every photo opportunity the Cheney's had with their granddaughter, they never included their lesbian daughter in any of the photo's. Say what you will, but the President cannot force the Vice President/President of the U.S. Senate to do anything, much less force him to leave his lesbian daughter and her partner out of photo's.

This week, Dick voiced his support for same-sex marriage, as long as it is handled by the states and not the federal government. The former U.S. VP said "people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish."

Hmmm. Why didn't he say this when it would have actually carried weight.......when he was President of the U.S. Senate, or the U.S. Vice President?

We still have a long way to go for marriage equality.

In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to opposite-sex couples, and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and the United States Supreme Court, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), dismissed the appeal "for want of [a] substantial federal question," meaning the U.S. Supreme Court lacked the authority to rule or override the Minnesota Supreme Court. That dismissal by the Supreme Court of the United States constituted a decision on the merits, and established Baker v. Nelson as the controlling precedent as a matter of federal constitutional law on the absence of federal authority regarding same-sex marriage.

This is one of many reasons gay rights organizations are so outraged about the latest federal lawsuit. (previous story)

Challenges to DOMA have already been rejected by several federal courts, including a decision by Judge James S. Moody in the case of Wilson v. Ake.

Most legal scholars believe that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.

Now, there is all this talk about a march on Washington, D.C.! When will people learn that the battle for marriage equality must be waged within our states? Even the U.S. Supreme Court has said so!

Gay Culture War reaches the West again as conservative groups try to block Referendum 71 in the State of Washington

The Culture War continues as citizens in the State of Washington are being asked to sign Referendum 71, a referendum seeking to overturn legislation awaiting the governor's signature that offers "everything but marriage" to gay and lesbian domestic partners.

No one needs a campaign to stomp on legislation that doesn't hurt anyone. The bill in question tidies language in numerous statutes and legislation to give registered gay and lesbian domestic partners equality in business and legal affairs, the same rights married couples enjoy.

Referendum 71 was filed by Larry Stickney, president of the Washington Values Alliance. Supporters need to get more than 120,500 valid voter signatures by July 25 in order to qualify for the November ballot.

Stickney said he was filing the referendum on behalf of a broad-based coalition, saying that foes were going to "do all we can to turn this back."

Governor Chris Gregoire said she will sign the domestic partnership expansion into law on May 18, saying it "embraces the values of the people of the State of Washington."

The filing of the referendum delays the scheduled July 26 effective date of the law until the signatures are counted. If opponents qualify for the ballot, the law is delayed until the results of the November election.

The bill expands on previous Washington state domestic partnership laws by adding such partnerships to all remaining areas of state law where currently only married couples are mentioned. The statutes range from labor and employment rights to pensions and other public employee benefits.

Stickney said that opponents to the law worry that it will ultimately lead to courts legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.

"This kind of legislation kind of tees it up for the courts to act," he said.

Four states have legalized same-sex marriage: Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa through court order, and Vermont through legislative action.

Same-sex marriage was legal in California for five months until a state referendum to ban it passed last fall. Bills to allow same-sex marriage are currently before lawmakers in New Hampshire, Maine, New York and New Jersey.

New Jersey, California, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage. Thirty states have gay marriage bans in their constitutions.

Get to know us first; but for some, the message was late

Since the California setback, gettoknowusfirst.org has made several public announcements to air in California; but these video's do not only apply to California, but rather, our entire republic.

Marriage Equality USA's Robin Tyler and her wife, Diane Olson appear on the videos. Both Tyler and Olson are members of Marriage Equality USA's Advisory Board.

Tyler, a longtime LGBTI activist was one of the original complainants to the California Supreme Court that resulted in the same-sex marriage ban being struck down, only to have voters reinstate it the very same year!

These video's are very touching, but they should have been aired by the official No on 8 Campaign; these video's show LGBTI people in everyday situations and shows some details of their family lives. In the final month of California's Prop 8, the official committee, omitted commercials that featured LGBTI people......huge mistake!

It doesn't matter what the official No on 8 Campaign people say their 'experts' told them about not showing LGBTI couples in the final month before the election when defeat seemed all but certain because of the enormous leaps the "no same-sex marriage" campaign had made. This begs the question, what is an expert, and who knows your community better......you, or them?

Though the federal government cannot force a definition of marriage on the states, these ads seem to focus on the federal government, especially since they will be airing in urban and rural markets on broadcast and cable channels during the Presidential Inauguration week in January 2009.

Their message is simple, and very appropriate:

1. Marriage promotes families.
2. Support marriage equality
3. Get to know us first.

Will Healthcare Inequality Strike Twice?

By: P.S. Johnson

Martin Cothran with the "Family" Foundation of Kentucky was quick to jump on this news today (below is an edited version of the email Kentucky Equality Federation on Wednesday).

Today, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that same-sex partners could not get health benefits in government or public universities because of state’s 2004 constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage.

This decision is important to the Commonwealth of Kentucky’s LGBT population because conservative groups and lawmakers in Kentucky have been closely monitoring the Michigan Supreme Court case.

The Michigan Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision affirms a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling. Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and city governments in Michigan have benefits policies covering at least 375 gay couples. Some of the plans began as far back as the early 1990s.

After the appeals court ruled in February 2007, universities and local governments rewrote their policies to try to comply with the gay marriage ban (similar to what the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville did after the Kentucky Attorney General issued a legal opinion on this issue in 2007).

Former Kentucky Attorney General Greg Stumbo referenced the Michigan court case, in addition to the Michigan Attorney’s General opinion in his 2007 legal opinion.

Michigan’s anti-gay law, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."

Have a moment? Take our official survey's (listed under "Community") to help us improve ourself and know what issues are important to you!

Cothran apparently forgets that both Michigan and Kentucky are sovereign states within this Union. The conclusions the Michigan Supreme Court reaches have no jurisdiction here in Kentucky, and no one has any idea what the Kentucky Supreme Court would decide should the decision by Northern Kentucky University, University of Kentucky, and the University of Louisville to offer domestic partner benefits ever be challenged and heard all the way to the Kentucky Supreme Court.

I think Rep. David Watkins (D-Henderson) did a great job of putting the "Family" Foundation of Kentucky in their place in a House Health and Welfare Committee meeting to bar Kentucky's universities from offering domestic partner benefits.

Why is a "Family" foundation so opposed to people having healthcare? Oh, wait, it is just homosexuals they want to exempt.

NKU to offer same-sex benefits

Northern Kentucky University’s plan to allow same-sex domestic partner benefits (story) has reignited controversy about same-sex civil rights across the Commonwealth. The Board of Regents at NKU was wise to wait until the 2008 General Assembly adjourned before approving the new benefits.

This comes more than two years after NKU’s Faculty Senate President recommended the benefits package.

Some of the worst comments around the Commonwealth:

1. I am against anything which promotes or encourages same-sex partnership because the bible says that it is a sin. We need to encourage better moral standards for our children, even in college levels.
2. This is exactly what we needed, paying medical bills for nasty queers.
3. I have no problem with the decision IF the university would also apply this policy to heterosexual unmarried couples who "live in the employee's household for at least 12 months and be "financially interdependent" with the employee." That way the policy would be fair to everyone regardless of sexual preference. If the policy is only available to same sex partners than it is outright discrimination by a government entity. Just make it fair to everyone and everyone will be happy.

Comment # 3 makes a good point! Under this line of thinking, homosexuals are being discriminated against every day…..we cannot file joint tax returns, no marriage, no civil union, no criminal injuries compensation, no exemption from conveyance tax, no hospital visitation rights, no international immigration or Visa rights, etc., etc. Thanks for reminding us just how bad the Commonwealth of Kentucky treats us!

Congratulations to everyone at NKU and its Board of Regents......you did the right thing!

House Democrats attack Domestic-Partner Benefits

Democrats in the Kentucky House of Representatives have elected to attack domestic-partner benefits.

Are they crazy? There are over 550,000 Kentuckians without health insurance coverage!

During Governor Beshear’s Inaugural Speech he quoted Kentucky Senator Henry Clay as saying: “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”

Some House Democrats apparently disagree.

Ryan Alessi at Pol Watchers is also reporting this (below):

Two Democratic state lawmakers are dredging up a controversial proposal to block public universities in Kentucky from extending health benefits to unmarried, live-in partners of the institutions’ employees.

The move by state Reps. Richard Henderson, D-Jeffersonville, and Ancel Smith of Leburn already has raised eyebrows among members of their own party — especially considering new Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear has repeatedly promised to veto any such bills. “I had expected it but not from those two,” said Rep. Tom Burch, D-Louisville, who said he opposes the bill. “I expected it from Republicans.”

Sixteen other Democratic lawmakers have signed on to the bill, which Henderson and Smith pre-filed yesterday in preparation for the upcoming General Assembly session that begins Jan. 8.

Both Henderson and Smith said they have received pressure from constituents to block universities that receive public funding from offering such domestic partnership benefits.

“I live in an ultra conservative district with 150 churches,” Henderson said.

Trustees at several Kentucky institutions, led by the University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville, have approved offering health care to domestic partners of unmarried employees, including to gay couples.

Let’s hope Governor Beshear keeps his promise to veto this horrible legislation.

Pets more important than gays; even if you're a U.S. Ambassador.

What a great man….a person who stood up to injustice for himself, his partner, and our entire community. How sad. The U.S. Department of State cares more about an Ambassador's pets than the person he or she loves; Dogs and Cats are higher on the "food chain" than humans.

By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer

Michael E. Guest, a tall, soft-spoken man with salt-and-pepper hair, looks every bit the diplomat. At the young age of 43, at the start of the Bush administration, he was named ambassador to Romania, and since he returned in 2004 he has trained new ambassadors before they ship out overseas.

But last month, after 26 years in the Foreign Service, he did something uncharacteristically undiplomatic.

Ambassador Guest resigned from the State Department, giving up a career he loved, in order to protest rules and regulations that he believes are unfair to the same-sex partners of Foreign Service officers, giving them fewer benefits than family pets. He had spent the years since his return from Bucharest trying to win changes in policies, appealing directly to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, but said his proposals were met with indifference and inertia.

"I've felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner, who is my family, and service to my country," Guest told a crowd of 75 senior State Department officials, a few steps from Rice's office, at his retirement ceremony on Nov. 20, according to a transcript of his remarks. "That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the secretary's leadership, and a shame for this institution and our country."

Same-sex partners -- or unmarried heterosexual partners -- are refused anti-terrorism security training or foreign-language training and are not evacuated when eligible family members are ordered to depart. Unlike spouses, they do not receive diplomatic passports, visas or even use of the State Department mail system. They also must pay their own way overseas, get their own medical care and are left to fend for themselves if a partner is sent to a dangerous post such as Iraq.

Many of these rules, Guest said, could be changed with Rice's signature, which he said was not a matter of gay rights but of equal treatment.

There are 12,000 Foreign Service officers, and about 5 percent are gay.

J. Michelle Schohn, an officer in the intelligence bureau, said she gave up a budding career in archaeology and joined the Foreign Service simply because of the hassles she encountered when her partner was based in Azerbaijan, shortly after the Soviet Union collapsed. One of her partner's colleagues got married and his spouse immediately got a diplomatic passport, but Schohn was treated no differently than any American tourist. Because of the difficulties, she ended up flying to Azerbaijan a month at a time to stay with her partner, and received no housing allowance for staying home.

At one point, during violent protests, "had there been an evacuation, we would have had to pay to evacuate me," she said.

Once Schohn joined the Foreign Service, she said, the department "has been very good to us," posting the two together in Jerusalem and now back in Washington, though same-sex couples technically cannot bid for jobs in tandem.

Another Foreign Service officer, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of her counterterrorism work, said she had to pay for her partner's evacuation when she was based in an African country that erupted in conflict. Her partner was not allowed to attend embassy security briefings and was prohibited from using the diplomatic postage service. "Effectively, she doesn't exist," she said.

The travel costs of family pets, however, are paid for by the State Department.

When Guest was ambassador, he signed a waiver allowing his partner and other unmarried partners to pay to use the embassy medical facilities. When Guest returned to Washington to head the management and leadership school at State's Foreign Service Institute, he began a campaign to get the rules altered. He won an annual award in 2006 from AFSA for "constructive dissent," but saw little or no response from top officials. Finally, he wrote Rice directly in December, knowing that soon he would be posted again overseas.

"This was my last chance. I never got a response," Guest said yesterday. "I don't know that I expected a response. What I wanted was attention to the issue." He said that in the State Department culture, "one word from the secretary" would have spurred action.

"That's what I was hoping, that I would somehow get to her heart," he said.

HRC playing "catch-up" with the "Wal-Mart issue"

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) appears to be playing catch-up with the “Wal-Mart issue.”

The Human Rights Campaign is giving Wal-Mart (WMT) a red "do not buy" rating in its new consumer guide, bestowing a lump of coal on the retail giant just in time for the holiday shopping season. Citing Wal-Mart's refusal to offer domestic partner benefits to its gay and lesbian workers, the HRC said Tuesday that the USA's biggest private employer has "more work to do in furthering equality." It advised gays and their supporters to shop elsewhere.

Wal-Mart rated a red 40 on a scale of 100, down from a yellow 65 in 2006. It was among 54 companies that scored 45 or lower in HRC's 2008 Corporate Equality index, which assigns ratings to 519 large companies.

Also in the red: Toys R Us, RadioShack (RSH) and AutoZone (AZO).

Wal-Mart rival Target (TGT) rated a "green" 80, meaning that "consumers should make every effort to support these businesses." Last year's guide was downloaded from the group's website (www.hrc.org/buyersguide) more than 250,000 times.

But, we covered this story back in July:

• Wal-Mart shuns gay groups!

If you shop at Wal-Mart you can find the same (or better) prices at Meijer, K-Mart, Family Dollar, Kroger, or Save-A-Lot. Stop shopping at Wal-Mart! Forget about the so called "convenience" of "everything" being in one store, it is time for the gay community to stand their ground against Wal-Mart.Let us forget for a moment that this company destroys the "American Dream," exploits their employees, and contracts labor for less than $1.00 per hour in other countries.

Let us not forget that Sam Walton, Wal-Mart's founder sit on the Board of Directors of Winn-Dixie for nearly a decade (thereby learning the grocery business) and opened the first Supercenter (with groceries) less than a year after Winn-Dixie retired him. Let us not forget that Wal-Mart targets other stores to run them out of business: K-Mart, Winn-Dixie, Sloan's (Lexington), Rose's, Kroger, Toys "R" Us, Publix (Florida), Food Lion, A&P, Grand Union, Colonial/Big Star and Piggly Wiggly, and Target.

As it stands Wal-Mart remains the only national discount chain that does not offer partnership benefits (both Sears Holding Company and Target offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits). Wal-Mart also has the dubious distinction of being one of the few companies to ever pull back a GLBT initiative.

Ohio wins domestic partner court victory

Great news for the gay couples and domestic partners in the State of Ohio. Maybe Kentucky educational institutions should take note:

Miami University’s (university town of Oxford, Ohio) practice of offering benefits to same-sex “domestic partners” of its employees survived another court challenge Tuesday.

The Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals ruled that State Rep. Tom Brinkman Jr., a Cincinnati Republican, did not have legal standing to sue the university over its benefits policy.

Brinkman had argued the same-sex partnership policy violates an Ohio constitutional ban on civil unions that went into effect in 2004.

As a taxpayer and the parent of two Miami students, Brinkman said he had a legal right to sue.

The appeals court, however, upheld a lower court decision last year that dismissed Brinkman’s lawsuit.

Both courts concluded Brinkman did not have standing as a taxpayer because the school uses private donations to reimburse the state for tax dollars spent on its domestic partner benefits.

Miami began offering benefits to domestic partners of employees in July 2004. School officials have said about 30 people have the benefits at a total cost of less than $100,000.

Bigoted organizations that wrongfully right in the name of righteousness.

As the American Family Association continues its boycott of Ford, others are actually sponsoring the national hate group that lists the following on their website:

• The mandate for marriage continues. Voters in seven states passed amendments that protected the institution of a man and a woman.
• Homosexual groups are pushing to place gender confusion and the cross-dress identities into the youngest levels of public education. American Family Association (AFA) says it has now secured over 700,000 signatures from those pledging to boycott the Ford Motor Company over its continued support of same-sex marriage and homosexual advocacy.
• Supporters of hate crimes laws routinely deny that these politically correct laws are intended to silence religious speech or opposition to gay rights political agendas. Yet, when given the chance to prove this claim, the supporters of hate crimes show their true colors.
• AT&T needs to hear from you today! Ask them to stop sponsoring the mockery of God on TNT network.

Who supports and sponsors the American Family Association, and the Louisville based American Family Association of Kentucky?

• Kroger
• Thornton's
• Wal-Mart (click here for a related post about Wal-Mart)

When you visit the national American Family Association website and click "donate," there is an annoying cartoon-like character of Don Wildmon, their Chairman, thanking you for your donating. Well, thanks but no thanks Don, I'll be keeping my money for a more worthwhile cause other than supporting an intolerant, bigoted organization such as yours.

The United States of America has over 300 million citizens. The American Family Association claims nearly 3.3 million members which accounts for 1% of the total population. Is it really a stretch to believe that 1% of the total United States population are closet homosexuals or have gay issues they haven't addressed yet? Why else would they be so terrified of a minority group and do everything possible to deny constitutional freedoms to them? I know one thing.....I'm sick of them spoon feeding rhetoric to the public.....I'm fighting back, starting with this post.

Though the American Family Association claims nearly 3.3 million members, their Kentucky chapter could only manage to gather a mere 200 people to visit the Kentucky Capital the day they held a rally and no lawmaker was present.

LOGO presidential debate - gay marriage.

Six of the candidates seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination participated Thursday in a two-hour forum in Los Angeles devoted to issues of concern to gays and lesbians. The event — moderated by journalist Margaret Carlson was broadcast live on Logo, a lifestyle cable channel aimed at gay and lesbian viewers.

For anyone who missed the LOGO presidential debate you can watch it here.







The basic subject of the LOGO debate was gay marriage, non-discrimination, etc. This is what Law Digest says about gay marriage:

The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the nation's federal system of government. Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.)

However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, legal scholars have stated that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.

Kentucky Constitution, Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Kentucky Revised Statutes
Section 402.005: Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Gay marriage? It isn't going to happen in Kentucky anytime soon. I'd settle for the following for now (progress takes time):

• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in credit based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law prohibiting discrimination in service based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
• A Kentucky law giving me the legal right to visit my "partner" in the hospital.
• The Governor, as well as the Kentucky House of Representatives and Senate to leave the issue of "domestic-partner" at Kentucky educational facilities alone.

For additional coverage about the debate visit InterstateQ.

Gay Man & Sick Partner's Family Highlights Lack Of Same-Sex Couple Rights.

Hospital visitation rights*, as well as the right to make decisions for your partner are only two of the many rights the Commonwealth of Kentucky denies same-sex couples (and in the case, the State of Indiana).

This case however is bringing national attention to one of the many problems faced by same-sex couples:

For a quarter century Patrick Atkins and Brett Conrad shared their lives including a home and bank accounts but when Atkins fell near fatally ill Conrad discovered he had no rights in determining the care or who would deliver it to his ailing partner.

In 2005 Atkins collapsed while on a business trip to Atlanta. He had a ruptured aneurysm and later suffered a stroke while hospitalized.

When Conrad arrived in Atlanta Atkins' family directed the hospital to refuse him access to the ailing 47-year old, the Indianapolis Star reports. He was allowed by sympathetic hospital staff to sneak in after hours and after Atkins parents had left.

When Atkins was moved to a nursing home Conrad again was forced to sneak in to see the man with whom he had spend more than half his life.

Later that year Conrad filed for guardianship of Atkins. But the now severely disabled man's parents quickly moved their son to their home and have refused to allow Conrad access to him. For the past two years Conrad has been battling the Atkins family in court.

Legal documents obtained by the Star show that Atkins' mother, Jeanne Atkins, believes homosexuality is a sin and refuses to acknowledge the men's relationship. In June the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that Conrad must have visitation rights.

"Brett and Patrick have spent 25 years together as life partners - longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents - and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's lifestyle," the ruling said.

But the court left the care of Atkins up to his parents. The Atkins family has asked the Appeals Court to reconsider the visitation ruling. Eventually the case is expected to go to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Indiana (like Kentucky) has a so-called defense of marriage law barring same-sex couples from marrying and no legislation giving any rights to gay and lesbian couples.

* Kentucky Equality Federation and allied organizations tried unsuccessfully to get hospital visitation rights passed by the 2007 Kentucky General Assembly.

Fletcher reappoints Regents that support domestic-partner benefits.

Governor Fletcher's policy flip-flops are legendary, and this article in yesterday's Herald-Leader about his reappointments to the Board of Regents takes the cake:

Governor Ernie Fletcher filled three spots on the University of Kentucky and University of Louisville boards of trustees Wednesday with people whose stances run the gamut on the controversial topic of providing domestic-partner benefits to college employees.

Three of those named — two from UK and one from U of L — are reappointments of trustees first given those plum assignments by Fletcher’s Democratic predecessor, Governor Paul Patton.

The governor reappointed Louisville civic activist Owsley Brown Frazier, the retired vice chairman of the board of Brown-Foreman Corp. Frazier was among the 14 U of L trustees who backed a proposal to provide health benefits to the unmarried partners of university employees, which would allow gay couples to be covered.

Fletcher recently has urged lawmakers to pass legislation that would block agencies that receive state funds, such as universities, from offering such benefits and included that issue among 67 items on his agenda for a special legislative session. That was a change from the governor’s stance this spring, in which he said such decisions about benefits should be left up to the universities.

Fletcher now has appointed a total of 10 to UK, including extending the terms of May and Miles, and has chosen 12 of U of L’s trustees, which includes Frazier’s reappointment.

This is yet another example of how Governor Fletcher doesn't have any core values of his own, his moves are a pure calculation of how he can stay in office, by reaching out to the conservative right wing and asking the Kentucky House and Senate to pass legislation to ban domestic-partner benefits.

If Governor Fletcher doesn't want the universitys to decide the issues on their own (as they are supposed to), why did he reappoint members back to the Board of Regents that voted in favor of domestic partner benefits?

Denied!

This is a listing of "disabilities" the gay community must put up with. Conservatives say their is no use for civil unions, etc. well, what about the following rights homosexual couples are not entitled to:

- Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee;
- Appointment as guardian of a minor;
- Beneficial owner status of corporate securities;
- Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses;
- Consent to post-mortem examination;
- Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property;
- Criminal injuries compensation;
- Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee;
- Disclosure of vital statistics records;
- Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation;
- Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments;
- Exemption from conveyance tax;
- Funeral leave for government employees;
- Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates;
- Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits;
- Legal status with partner’s children;
- Making partner medical decisions;
- Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death;
- Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation;
- Right to inherit property;
- Rights and proceedings for hospitalization and treatment (both voluntary and involuntary);
- Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications;
- Tax relief for natural disaster losses;
- Right to marry someone out of the country, and bring them back here to the U.S.

The denied rights we judge to be the worst have been placed in bold.

In a "free society" where homosexual couples must also pay taxes.....why not refuse? If the government refuses to recognize our relationships maybe we should refuse to recognize their authority (just a thought, but gosh that would be funny).

Is this list missing anything?

Washington leaves Kentucky behind with new Domestic Partner laws.

New laws go into effect in the State of Washington on Monday:

• The right to visit a partner who's in the hospital.
• The ability to make important medical decisions for that person if necessary.
• Registered couples can now inherit property from a partner who dies without a will and administer their estate.
• Domestic Partners will now have the ability to sue for the wrongful death of their loved one.

Did you realize you don't have these rights if you're in a same-sex relationship in the Commonwealth of Kentucky?

Get involved today and help us change Kentucky!

Your thoughts and comments are always welcome!

Kentucky Senate Passes Ban on Domestic-Partner Benefits.

As most of you probably know, the Senate passed a bill to ban domestic-partner benefits at all Kentucky public institutions.

Senate Bill 5 (passed 28-6): Create a new section of KRS Chapter 61 to define a "public agency" as any agency participating in a state-administered retirement system or plan, any agency participating in the state health insurance plan, and any public institution subject to KRS Chapter 164; define "family member" as the employee's spouse, natural or adopted children, stepchildren, and children for whom legal guardianship has been awarded; require public agencies to allow the employee to select health insurance coverage for only the employee and family members of the employee.

Amend to make technical changes; add grandchildren for whom legal guardianship or legal custody has been awarded to the definition of "family member"; declare an EMERGENCY.

It remains to be seen what the House of Representatives will do with Senate Bill 5 when and if it makes its way to the House after the "cooling off period."

Fletcher's appeal to his right wing ultra-conservative voters appears to be paying off. Hasting Wyman's Southern Political Report released a poll conducted by InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion showing Democrat Steve Beshear with a 41 percent to 38 percent lead over Republican Governor Ernie Fletcher.

Family Foundation of Kentucky threatens to file an injunction to stop UK domestic partnerships.

The Family Foundation of Kentucky is considering filing an injunction against the University of Kentucky to stop domestic partner benefits from going into effect on Monday when their new fiscal year begins.

Let them file their injunction, because doing so could open a Pandora's box they will never be able to close again.

Domestic Partnership? The real issue here with the Family Foundation of Kentucky is if homosexuals have the rights to any of the benefits associated with marriage. Why would they not?

Kentucky Constitution - Section 233A: Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Marriage is something created by the state (both Kentucky and the United States) for the benefit of its citizens.

Most people cannot disassociate a chapel, white dress, and a best man from their definition of marriage. The only religious thing about marriage however is in the minds of the people. When a marriage is dissolved it is done by the state, not God. When a minister pronounces someone married he or she does so by saying "by the power invested in me by the Commonwealth of Kentucky."

Marriage Defined:
Marriage is an interpersonal relationship with governmental, social, or religious recognition, usually intimate and sexual, and often created as a contract.

The reasons people marry vary widely, but usually include one or more of the following: legal, social and economic stability; the formation of a family unit; procreation and the education and nurturing of children; legitimizing sexual relations; public declaration of love.

• What gives heterosexual couples the right to be the only ones to enjoy this? The state.
• Is Section 233A (passed by a 2004 Constitutional Amendment) of the Kentucky Constitution unconstitutional? Yes. It violates Section I, Section II, Section III, and Section IV of the Kentucky Constitution.
• Does Section 233A of the Kentucky Constitution violate United State law? Traditionally, the federal government did not attempt to establish its own definition of marriage; any marriage recognized by a state was recognized by the federal government, even if that marriage was not recognized by one or more other states (as was the case with interracial marriage before 1967). With the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, however, a marriage was explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. (See 1 U.S.C. § 7.) Thus, no act or agency of the U.S. federal government currently recognizes same-sex marriage.
  
  Some opponents of same-sex marriage, wanting to ensure that the constitutionality of such laws cannot be challenged in the courts under the Full Faith and Credit clause, Equal Protection Clause or Due process clause of the United States Constitution, have proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment to the constitution that would prevent the federal government or any state from providing a marriage or the legal incidents thereof to a same-sex couple, whether through the legislature or the courts.

Let the Family Foundation of Kentucky file their injunction so the legal battle may finally begin.

A UCLA report released in January 2007 about the attitudes of college freshmen nationwide says acceptance of same-sex marriage grew between 2005 and 2006. The study found that 61% of incoming freshmen last year agreed that same-sex couples should have the right to marriage, up 3.3 percentage points from 2005.

Wal-Mart shuns gay groups!

Wal-Mart sets a bad example for the world. Disney, Target, Ford, and other companies never folded to homophobic groups, but Wal-Mart as the world's largest retailer could not stand its ground. What a horrible example!

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, has decided to curb its support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) organizations after conservative Christian groups threatened a boycott, and after some of its own employees expressed disapproval. The move comes a year after Wal-Mart had put on a gay-friendly smile. The company joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. It sponsored the annual convention of Out & Equal, a group that promotes gay rights in the workplace, and sold gay-themed jewelry in stores.

"We are not currently planning corporate-level contributions to GLBT groups," said Mona Williams, the company's senior vice president of corporate communications. Individual stores can still donate to gay groups.

If you shop at Wal-Mart you can find the same (or better) prices at Meijer, K-Mart, Family Dollar, Kroger, or Sav-A-Lot. Stop shopping at Wal-Mart! Forget about the so called "convenience" of "everything" being in one store, it is time for the gay community to stand their ground against Wal-Mart.

Let us forget for a moment that this company destroys the "American Dream," exploits their employees, and contracts labor for less than $1.00 per hour in other countries.

Let us not forget that Sam Walton, Wal-Mart's founder sit on the Board of Directors of Winn-Dixie for nearly a decade (thereby learning the grocery business) and opened the first Supercenter (with groceries) less than a year after Winn-Dixie retired him. Let us not forget that Wal-Mart targets other stores to run them out of business: K-Mart, Winn-Dixie, Sloan's (Lexington), Rose's, Kroger, Toys "R" Us, Publix (Florida), Food Lion, A&P, Grand Union, Colonial/Big Star and Piggly Wiggly, and Target.

Wal-Mart doesn't want a pice of the pie, the want the whole thing: "In North America, Wal-Mart's primary competition includes department stores like Kmart, Target, Meijer, or Canada's Zellers, Winners, or Giant Tiger. Wal-Mart's move into the grocery business in the late 1990s has also positioned it against major supermarket chains in both the United States and Canada like Winn-Dixie, Kroger, Food Lion, A&P, and Albertsons. Several smaller retailers, primarily dollar stores, such as Family Dollar and Dollar General, have been able to find a small niche market and compete successfully against Wal-Mart for home consumer sales. In 2004, Wal-Mart responded by testing their own dollar store concept, a subsection of some stores known as "Pennies-n-Cents."

As it stands Wal-Mart remains the only national discount chain that does not offer partnership benefits (both Sears Holding Company and Target offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits). Wal-Mart also has the dubious distinction of being one of the few companies to ever pull back a GLBT initiative.

Fletcher expected to outline topics the General Assembly may deliberate by Monday.

Kentucky Governor Fletcher is pondering issues for the General Assembly to discuss when he calls them into special session according to an article published earlier by the Herald-Leader.

Fletcher has been hinting for weeks about calling a special session that would at least include consideration of an energy bill on which lawmakers couldn't agree in March. He said last month he was waiting until after the May 22 primary elections.

Neither Jodi Whitaker, Fletcher's spokeswoman, nor Senate President David L. Williams would say what dates the governor was considering.

"The governor talked about several time frames, but I don't want to break his confidence," Williams said. But Williams added that this summer offers a "window of opportunity" while lawmakers' children are out of school and before the governor ramps up his re-election campaign in the fall against Democratic challenger Steve Beshear.

Beyond the energy bill -- which contains incentives for companies that would turn coal into gasoline -- other issues on the table include:

• State funding for the relocation of a runway at Blue Grass Airport.
• Restoration of money for university and state building projects Fletcher vetoed in 2006.
• Approval of funds for a stadium at the Kentucky Horse Park for the World Equestrian Games in 2010.
• A bill that provides state tax breaks to the families of active military personnel.
• A bill to bar public universities from providing health benefits to live-in partners of employees.
• And two Senate education bills left over from this spring's session aimed at improving math and science instruction.

Did you notice? A bill to bar public universities from providing health benefits to live-in partners of employees.

Equality and fairness doesn't live here, or more to the point, it has not in the Fletcher Administration.

We must remember Kentucky's first Republican chief executive in more than 30 years also rescinded an executive order signed by former Governor Patton that protected gays and lesbians in state government from discrimination. That's not even the worst of it.....of the 365 days in a year, Governor Fletcher chose "diversity day," to do this!

Governor Fletcher, a Baptist minister, also refused to veto 11 million dollars in funding to the University of the Cumberlands in Southeastern Kentucky to build a new pharmacy school after they expelled a gay student. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky expressly prohibits funding to private educational institutions. This is ultimately expected to end up in the hands of the Kentucky Supreme Court.

Fletcher is expected to announce what the General Assembly may deliberate by Monday. Per the Kentucky Constitution, when the House and Senate is not in session the governor may call them into special session to deliberate specific issues.

Fletcher is under pressure from The Family Foundation of Kentucky to add domestic-partner benefits to what the General Assembly may deliberate, and drawing fire from Kentucky Equality Federation, Louisville's Fairness Campaign, and the Kentucky Fairness Alliance for even considering it.

Kentucky Attorney General rules domestic partner benefits unconstitutional.

Kentucky's top law enforcement officer, Attorney General Greg Stumbo (D) ruled domestic-partner benefits unconstitutional today, but left the door open for universities and colleges around the commonwealth to make them constitutional by broadening their definition of domestic-partner.

House Representative Stan Lee (R), currently running for the Office of Attorney General to replace Stumbo was one of two representatives to request the opinion (no surprise there).

“They still have the flexibility to allow and to offer their health insurance plan and its benefit structure to other people,” Stumbo said. “They cannot define the class of people in a manner that would be creating a legal status similar to that of marriage.”

The University of Kentucky and the University of Louisville currently offer domestic-partner benefits.

As I read Stumbo's opinion something struck a cord with me, from another state:

• In 2004 Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D), acting on the advice of Attorney General Mike Cox (R), terminated domestic partner benefits that had been won by state unions.
• In February 2007 the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled the state's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage prevents public institutions from providing benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

Here we have a clear case of party lines. A democratic attorney general doesn't slam the door; a republican attorney general does.

UPDATE:

"When ruling domestic-partner benefits unconstitutional in their current form Attorney General Greg Stumbo appears to have made an unbiased opinion based on the commonwealth's current laws and various court decisions. Though this isn't the opinion we obviously wanted, General Stumbo was very clear about ways existing domestic-partner benefits could be made constitutional," stated Kentucky Equality Federation President Jordan Palmer. "It was no surprise that Lexington's intolerant House Representative Stan Lee (R) was one of two officials requesting the ruling."