Equality. Fairness. Nothing more, nothing less!

Why do we need you to stand with us on February 12th? Look at what we are fighting! This comments are from your elected officials!

It's OK to fire someone if they're gay. Historically, homosexuals haven't suffered. - Representative Joseph Fischer (October 2006)

Homosexuality is aberrant behavior. - Senate President David Williams (January 2008)

The University of the Cumberlands stands for what is positive [by expelling a gay student]. - Senate President David Williams (August 2006)

I don't want to entice any of those people [queers] into our state. Those are the wrong kind of people. – Senator Dick Roeding (July 2006)

The Log Cabin Republican Club of Kentucky, a gay GOP group, "are nothing but a bunch of queers." - Senator Dick Roeding (July 2006)

I wouldn't think that there would be a lot of support in the General Assembly for giving benefits to people that were involved in same-sex relationships. Doing so would be bad public policy. - Senate President David Williams (July 2006)

I am committed to protecting traditional marriage. I proudly supported the Same-Sex Marriage Amendment proposal in Kentucky in 2004 and was pleased to see it pass with 74% of the vote. - U.S. Representative Geoff Davis [part of Kentucky’s Congressional delegation] (July 2006)



We need your support as the opposition has the voices and numbers that we fail to get to the Capitol. The sad truth is the opposition is the minority, but have been able to drum up enough voice in the capitol to seem like the majority. Lets make a difference this year; start doing!

Click here to sign-up now, or visit kefaction.org! Join us! Show your support by standing united with Kentucky Equality Federation and Bluegrass Fairness of Central Kentucky! Your presence will make a real difference in the fight for equality and fairness for LGBT Kentuckians!

Stupid, unfounded Homophobia: Kentucky Basketball Fans Outraged Over Photo of Players' Embrace

From The Official Queen of Shade:

If a photo says a thousand words, apparently this seemingly innocent photo of two University of Louisville basketball players embracing has produced thousands of words spewing gay panic.

Hundreds of irate readers have contacted the Louisville Courier-Journal after the publication of the image. It shows Cardinals players Jerry Smith hugging Juan Palacios in the first half of their game against the University of Louisville after a big, emotional play. One reader accused the legendary conservative newspaper of "pushing the homosexual agenda."

Louisville Courier-Journal public editor Pam Platt explains. "Some of the comments registered by angry, offended and/or baffled readers: 'Awful,' 'an embarrassment,' 'horrible decision,' 'poor judgment,' 'distasteful,' 'a mystery' and 'shame on you.' " Then, she nails it: "What is it about two athletes sharing a moment of physical and emotional closeness in the middle of a big game, in the middle of a basketball court, that puts some people off so much?"

Sports fans should be used to witnessing these moments and photos of athletes bonding and it's just beyond the pale that so many (presumably very! straight!) readers would read gay subtext into an innocent sports photo. Platt makes an interesting argument that content is a Rorschach test and people bring "their own ideas and baggage to what they see and read—or what they don't see and don't read into words and images." Or, perhaps, what they would like to see.

Homophobic Senate President Williams sleeping?

I loved this post from Hillbilly Report. Senate President David Williams appears to be sleeping during the State of the Commonwealth Address. Homophobic Senate President Williams lashed out at House Bill 91 that would require schools to formulate a code of "acceptable behavior and discipline that prohibits harassment, intimidation, or bullying of a student."

The House of Representatives passes this bill yearly; but homophic people such as President Williams prevent the bill from ever becoming law..... One might say Williams has "homosexual issues" that he needs to resolve.

Gay man beaten to death - UPDATE

Received this email about updating us about Ricky Williams. You may recall the post "West Virginia gay man being beaten to death ignored by mainstream media."

Like Kentucky, West Virginia was once part of conservative Virginia, but split from them during the middle of the civil war in 1863. The Ricky Williams attack occurred more than 100 miles from Welch, WV (remember in 2006 the police chief blocked paramedics from performing CPR on a gay man because he falsely assumed the man was HIV positive and therefore a health risk).

Click here for a list of gay hate crimes in Kentucky.

Anyway, below is the email we received about this:

You were the only organization to report the Ricky Williams murder in Milton, WV. Of 3 suspects, only 2, the male, Danny Vaughn, was picked up. People are now reporting that they have seen Vaughn in town with one of the females present at the scene of the beating. Vaughn's name is no longer on the jail website. Rumor has it that he was released due to lack of evidence. If that is the case, one can get away with murder in Milton.

A few residents have been trying to seek justice in this horrific "hate" crime. Calls have gone unanswered at the prosecutor's office. Milton city officials have remained mum. Ricky Williams deserves more than this! Can you help? Can you direct us to someone who can?

We are trying to keep the issue alive on a site graciously provided by Stephanie Heck (http://miltonwv.org). Maybe some of your members can help us by posting. The readership averages over 1,300 views per day. We know some city, county and state ppl are reading it. We just can't let Ricky's brutal death be forgotten. Thanks for any help you can offer.

LGBT blogger slams Barack Obama

There are many pieces floating around blogs right now about Barack Obama’s relationship with the LGBT community. Below are exerts from InterstateQ (North Carolina based LGBT blogger). Thoughts?

President Barack Obama? Could it really happen? If so, the LGBT community should be worried. While many may applaud the junior senator from Illinois’ “big tent” approach to his campaign, it is also a strategy that has left the LGBT community standing at odds with forces from the religious right and rabidly anti-gay “ex-gay” movement.

In South Carolina, Obama’s “big tent” campaign strategy coalesced in the form of gospel concerts attracting huge numbers of African-American voters and featuring a “respected leader” in the “ex-gay” movement.

From New Hampshire state Rep. Mo Baxley:
Obama lost the support of many in the LGBT community when he featured [anti-gay] entertainer Donnie McClurking at campaign events in South Carolina and then went ahead with the events even after being personally informed of the entertainers’ very public and virulently anti-gay remarks - making him the only Democratic candidate to be protested by members of our community. While Obama certainly has a pro-LGBT platform, in this circumstance, his actions speak louder than his well-intentioned words and we can not support a candidate that harmed the LGBT community in South Carolina in his quest to become president.

If Obama wins the U.S. presidency the LGBT community is in for four years of being subjected to a dangerously employed “big tent” strategy that places an oppressed group of citizens at the same table as their oppressors. Obama’s presidency would see James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Donnie McClurkin and other anti-gay leaders sitting down with LGBT community leaders telling them how much they are evil while Obama sits back and says, “We should work together and hope for change.”

Obama may not have the courage to stand up to the right-wing bullies if he becomes president, just like he wasn’t able to stand up against them and say, “I’m sorry Donnie, but your views do not match my view of America. My campaign is about one of equality and that isn’t something you stand for. I’ll have to ask that you not perform. I can’t give you a platform for hate.”

The Conservative Case For Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan posted something today that I loved. I wanted to share it with you:

Social conservatism resists change and that therefore extending civil marriage rights to gay couples is inherently liberal. The reform corresponds with the evolution of civil marriage away from procreation and toward companionship - and social conservatives worry about such change. In that sense, I don't disagree with Reihan's point. The most coherent conservative objection to same-sex marriage is simply resistance to any tampering with a vital social institution.

But as societies change, conservatives have to adapt. Given that our society now has a huge number of openly gay couples, many with children, and that the law has to respond to this social reality, the practical decision conservatives have to make is: what shall we do about this? My fear, expressed almost two decades ago now, was that the ad hoc responses - domestic partnership, civil unions and the like - were as practically unavoidable as they were subtly undermining of marriage. Give gays domestic partnerships and marriage-lite and straights will demand them as well. And so marriage becomes less special and less constructive an institution.

I can see that, back in 1989, when I first made the case, the jump to full marriage equality seemed a leap. But two decades later? When it has become the norm in many countries and in one state? When civil unions exist in many other states? Why does it remain socially liberal to resist the conservative logic of including everyone within the same family structure, with the same responsibilities? And, of course, when you actually listen to the current advocates of banning such marriages - and unions - you do not hear nuanced or Hayekian social arguments very often. You hear truisms - "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" - or religious invocations of the "sanctity" of a civil institution.

I suppose marriage equality is socially liberal in as much as it tries to defend and integrate a previously despised minority. But it is socially conservative in its attempt to envelop that minority in the traditions and responsibilities of family life. In this, it is exactly the same as welfare reform: ending a disincentive to family life among a minority that needs more social stability. I have to say that having finally begun to live a married life, all my previous intuitions about its integrating impact have been borne out more profoundly than I ever imagined.

If you can make the leap to seeing gay people as the equal of straight people, then encouraging their marriages to one another is arguably one of the most socially conservative measures now subject to national debate. That's why it remains so saddening that so many social conservatives still regard it as definitionally anathema. I don't think it's a leap to believe that homophobia or fundamentalism are the critical stumbling blocks. Or that they are the real reasons for the resistance.

Hope, renewal, and the reality of prejudice

I think both Christmas and the coming New Year must be a time of renewal, of hope and determination to work for a better Kentucky, United States, and world..... where people can experience all the liberties our founding fathers fought for. Therefore, wherever inequality exists and the leaders that are in control refuse to act, there is a greater responsibility for all of us to take a stand against all that dehumanizes the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people.

The flag of the Commonwealth of Kentucky says it best: "United We Stand, Divided We Fall." Thank you to everyone who contributed and/or donated to Kentucky Equality Federation.

An enormous fight is in front of us in 2008; front and center is the issue of domestic-partner benefits in the Kentucky Retirement System, as outlined by James:

I had hoped the New Year in Kentucky, with a new gubernatorial administration that has to be an improvement over that of the discredited Gov. Ernie Fletcher would start out in an encouraging manner for those of us who believe in equality for everyone regardless of sexual orientation.

Alas, that is not to be. Just as Gov. Steve Beshear and Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo were sworn in and starting to look around their respective offices, members of their own Democratic party were filing legislation to prevent state universities from offering health care benefits to employees involved in domestic partnerships.

I had hoped that the year 2008 might be a year where those of us who believe in gender and sexual orientation equity would be able to take some steps forward in adding on to rights already achieved --- things like hate crime protection, access to marriage/civil union rights, adoption, automatic rights of inheritance --- instead of having to backtrack and re-fight battles already won.

A few legislators --- led by Democratic Reps. Ancel Smith and Richard Henderson --- do not understand that Kentucky has always been --- and still is --- a place where all people should be welcome to live in harmony.

It is clear that Smith and Henderson, in bringing up a previously defeated proposal to block public universities in Kentucky from extending health benefits to unmarried, live-in partners of the institutions' employees, acted without the sanction of their own party. This has caused an embarrassing situation not only for party leaders, but for Democratic leaders and other party members within the Beshear administration.

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 as a matter of good business. The policy makes the universities more competitive with other top universities nationwide, because it opens the pool of potential employees and appeals to the increasing number of private employers --- who can be drawn upon for financial support and to provide cooperative educational opportunities and investment with the universities --- who already extend health care benefits to live-in partners of workers, regardless of sexual orientation.

In other words, the universities' policies are good business for a state that is on the precipice of a new era of economic progress after four failed years of an administration that collapsed under its own prejudices and lack of vision.

The matter of inclusion is a moral and ethical issue. Moral, because all great religions preach that love and tolerance should trump all other rules for living. Ethical, because this country --- and the states that make it up --- was based on the premise that all people are created equal.

If our government creates policies that benefit its public employees, it should do so for all the employees, without discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, and yes, sexual orientation.

If these representatives --- and the other Democrats and Republicans who co-sponsored this legislation, which has its roots soaked in bigotry --- will not withdraw their sponsorship, then the people of their districts should look for gay-supportive candidates from either party to replace them.

Click here to read unedited comments from James.

Attorney General Stumbo to seek his old seat in the House

Attorney General Greg Stumbo will seek his old seat in the state House, he said on WHAS radio (Louisville) this morning.

Freshman Rep. Brandon Spencer, D-Prestonsburg, decided to resign after "prayerful consideration," he said in a letter to Governor Beshear.

Stumbo spoke to Floyd County election officials and told them he would accept the Democratic Party's nomination for a special election to fill Spencer's spot in the 95th House District.

Stumbo spent 24 years in the Kentucky House, 19 in leadership before being elected Attorney General.

At a minimum, Stumbo being back in the Kentucky House will irritate Representative Stan Lee. Stumbo ruled the way Lee wanted on the domestic-partner issue at Kentucky universities, but Stumbo included “a blue print on how to offer domestic partner benefits legally” in his ruling.

Stumbo had been considering a possible run for U.S. Senate against Republican incumbent Mitch McConnell. He had said he would likely challenge McConnell if polling done by an exploratory committee showed him within 10 percentage points of McConnell (see Ditch Mitch KY to stay updated on McConnell).