The Cat Is An Invasive Species

I have had cats that hunt every day regardless of weather or if they have just eaten. One beautiful red tabby would bring parts to the welcome mat several time a day. He mostly feasted on mice, chipmunks, loads of birds, and baby rabbits. One day he brought home what was left of an adult rabbit and I watched as he had a stand off in the street with a huge black bird. He has passed away but his hunting was ledgend.

According to the authors of a first of its kind study on bird mortality, the American housecat is a "non-native, invasive species" responsible for the deaths of 500 million North American birds annually.

Nearly 80 percent of the birds were killed by predators, and cats were responsible for 47 percent of those deaths, according to the researchers, from the Smithsonian Institution and Towson University in Maryland. Death rates were particularly high in neighborhoods with large cat populations. Predation was so serious in some areas that the catbirds could not replace their numbers for the next generation, according to the researchers, who affixed tiny radio transmitters to the birds to follow them. It is the first scientific study to calculate what fraction of bird deaths during the vulnerable fledgling stage can be attributed to cats. “Cats are way up there in terms of threats to birds — they are a formidable force in driving out native species,” said Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, one of the authors of the study.

Lynn Lavner on The Bible

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision."
-- Lynn Lavner

Boehner is Going to Waste OUR Money Fighting This

 This is a good example of why the president does not want to defend DOMA. John Boehner wants to waste our tax money to defend the discrimination that these people face. This is one story of a lovely couple that deserve the same recognition as any other married couple.
Cross post from ACLU.org

Bereaved Spouse Challenges "Defense Of Marriage Act" As Unconstitutional

November 8, 2010

Surviving Spouse Of Same-Sex Couple Challenges Federal Government's Failure To Recognize Their Marriage

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – Edith "Edie" Windsor, who shared her life with her late spouse, Thea Spyer, for 44 years, will file a lawsuit against the federal government tomorrow for refusing to recognize their marriage. The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the "Defense of Marriage Act" (DOMA), a federal statute that defines marriage for all federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. Windsor and Spyer were married in Canada in 2007, and were considered married by their home state of New York.

Spyer died in 2009. Due to DOMA's discriminatory policies, Windsor was not able to claim the estate tax marital deduction that is available when the surviving spouse is of the opposite sex. In her lawsuit, Windsor is seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and to obtain a refund of the federal estate tax that she was forced to pay following Spyer's death. The lawsuit will be filed with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union, the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and the New York Civil Liberties Union.  

"After Thea died, the fact that the federal government refused to recognize our marriage was devastating," said Windsor. "In the midst of my grief at the loss of the love of my life, I had to deal with my own government saying that we weren't a family."

Windsor, a senior computer systems programmer, and Spyer, a clinical psychologist, met in the early 1960s, and lived together for decades in an apartment in Greenwich Village. Despite not being able to get legally married, they got engaged in 1967. Over 30 years ago, Spyer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and Windsor helped her through her long battle with the disease. After building a life together for more than 40 years, they were finally married in Toronto in May 2007. Their relationship is the subject of a documentary entitled, "Edie & Thea: A Very Long Engagement."

"We treasured every moment of our 44 years together and were thrilled to be able to finally have the chance to spend our last years together as a legally married couple," said Windsor. "It meant so much to us that our commitment to each other had finally been recognized."

Windsor was the sole beneficiary of Spyer's estate. Because they were married, Spyer's estate normally would have passed to her spouse without any tax. But because DOMA refuses to recognize otherwise valid marriages of same-sex couples, Spyer's estate had to pay more than $350,000 in federal estate taxes. Earlier this year, Windsor requested a full refund from the government. The IRS rejected that claim, citing DOMA.

"Edie and Thea were together for 44 years, the last two of which they were lucky enough to spend as a married couple," said James Esseks, Director of the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. "All Edie is seeking is the same treatment for her marriage that the federal government appropriately gives to married straight couples. It is completely unfair for the federal government to pretend that Edie and Thea were strangers, and to tax them that way." 

In the lawsuit, Windsor alleges that DOMA violates the equal protection guarantee of the U.S. Constitution because it recognizes marriages of heterosexual couples, but not of same-sex couples, despite the fact that New York State treats all marriages the same.

"If Thea were 'Theo' instead of 'Thea,' then Edie, as Thea's spouse, would have inherited Thea's estate tax-free," said Roberta Kaplan of Paul, Weiss. "Edie and Thea were denied equal treatment, and it is obviously unjust that there should be a tax simply for being gay." 

"No one should have to fight with the government after losing the person she's loved for more than four decades," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "Edie and Thea made the same life-long commitment that other married couples make, and their marriage deserves the same dignity, respect and protection afforded other families."

Another lawsuit raising the same legal challenge to DOMA is being filed tomorrow in federal court in Hartford, CT. Brought by Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, that case includes five married couples and one widower from three states who are harmed by DOMA in a variety of significant ways, including denial of health care coverage and social security benefits.

Both of these cases follow similar litigation in Massachusetts, where a federal district judge ruled last summer that DOMA violates the federal Constitution. That case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, challenged the federal government's refusal to recognize the marriages of same-sex couples legally married in Massachusetts and is now on appeal. The case was also brought by GLAD. Windsor's case pursues the same legal theory in the context of federal estate taxes.

Windsor is represented by Kaplan and Andrew Ehrlich of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP; Esseks and Rose Saxe of the ACLU LGBT Project; and Arthur Eisenberg and Alexis Karteron of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

FOR THOSE WITH VAGINAS

This is great!

If you Like Manhattan Transfer, you will love this.

If you Like Manhattan Transfer, you will love this.

This is well worth the read.

This is well worth the read.
 
Cross Post from American Gay Blog
 
After listening to some of the painful debate in Maryland, I got a tweet with a link to this essay at Insidegov.org written by Matthew Urdan. It's an analysis of the legal effort underway to secure full equality. I'm hoping we opt for the civil society, but the haters are doing their best:

America is at a major crossroads and it is time to decide what we want for our society. Do we want to work together to solve our issues and contribute to the positive growth of our nation or do we want to live in a society of hate where the left and the right are always at odds, where bullying and scapegoating is accepted? Do we want to lead the world in the promotion of human rights and democracy, or do we want to be the bully imposing our will on sovereign nations for our own benefit, even if our actions conflict with our most cherished ideals?

In many ways, our response to gay marriage is a microcosm of these larger questions. Paradoxically, while we condemn nations like China for their human rights violations, we still embrace racist practices here at home and give hate a forum. The Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is a step in the right direction to end one of our nation’s last great frontiers of hate and denial of dignity and respect to a significant segment of our nation’s citizens. It is probably the best decision of Obama’s presidency to date, no matter what your politics and views regarding gay marriage are if for no other reason than the decision recognizes the humanity of gay men and women and that they are entitled to equal protection under our laws as citizens of the United States.

At the end of the day, gay marriage is not about you or me or what we think is right and wrong. Gay marriage is about the dignity and respect our fellow Americans deserve as citizens of the United States and equality under the law exactly like the way we have extended dignity and respect, under the law at least, to African Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian Americans, women and the disabled.

Urdan also analyzes the key Supreme Court decisions affecting LGBT Americans, including Romer and Lawrence. That leads to his conclusion:

While defining issues and outcomes through the court system can be a very long and winding process, recent decisions in the state and federal court systems indicate that an ultimate showdown before the Supreme Court is inevitable. When that day comes, homosexuals and same-sex couples will likely achieve full status as citizens, and same-sex marriage will likely be found constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. When that day comes we will take a giant step forward as a civil society that respects the rights and dignities of not only our fellow Americans, but of all humanity.

Under Water Museum

This is an amazing project in Cancun.  400 sculptures under water. Check it out at the Baltimore Sun. 

Lovitz: Why I came out in the jury box

Cross Post  from 365gay.com

 

By Jon Fairbanks, 365gay contributor
03.12.2011 10:21am EST

If there was ever a time to marvel at social networking and its ability to engage people in meaningful dialogue, it’s today. From a simple Facebook status update, my story has traveled the globe, appearing in multiple languages everywhere from The Village Voice to Perez Hilton to international publications.  The positive response has been overwhelming.
I’ve received over 200 emails and calls from friends and complete strangers thanking me for my stand.

I couldn’t be more proud or honored.  However, I never set out to be an activist. Like I said on MSNBC, I’m just a young gay man who saw some inequality in the state and nation and said what was in my heart when I was asked for total candor by the judge.
I sat for two full days of juror questioning during voir dire, and when it was my turn, I simply answered, “I can’t possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class one in the eyes of this justice system.’’
Shaking and in shock that I’d ever say such a thing out loud, I quietly sat down while those around me had a mix of responses, from applauding and high-fives to snickers and eye-rolls. I was so proud to have shared my feelings with that jury room.
To clarify, I was not advocating  shirking one’s civic responsibilities.  We have taxes to pay and jury duty summonses we must obey. But when we are asked by a judge – or by anyone – about how we feel as citizens, it is our duty to note that with civic responsibilities come civic rights that we do not share. Knowing that, how could any of us possibly be impartial?
I’m hoping to now start a campaign encouraging all gay and lesbian citizens to make just such a statement.  Not to get out of jury service, but to make the point that when we have all the responsibilities but not all the rights of citizenship, then we indeed are second-class citizens.
We are too often expected to suffer such status in silence.
Anyone can applaud with a roomful of like-minded at a benefit or scream for rights in a Pride Parade.  However, speaking out in a roomful of strangers is when a dialogue of differing opinions can lead
to real change.
I sincerely hope someone in that jury box will remember what I said when the next bit of misinformation is repeated aloud about gay marriage and DOMA, and hopefully, they will take a stand of their own.

The Facebook Song

Gay Bashing in Detroit

Twenty-three-year-old Justin Alesna says he walked into a gas station and another customer started unloading derogatory insults. The man punched him in the eye twice shattering his eye socket.
Two other customers just laughed. The clerk asked Justin to leave. No police were called and there is no security video.
Justin made a video and posted it on youtube.
Please send some love his way at Facebook

Detroit Victim Wants to Stop the Hate: MyFoxDETROIT.com

Gay Soldiers on "What Would You Do?"

"What Would You Do?" created a scene with gay soldiers at a lunch counter. Interesting reactions.

Republicans Break the Law to Bust Unions

The GOP will do ANYTHING including breaking the law to get what they want. They have been caught and I am sure the people will see to it they pay the price.

Hate Mongers at it Again.

Another good example of the twisted minds of those who wish to keep us down...

Cross post from goodasyou.org

The Alliance Defense Fund's latest claim:

First, a federal court in California ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that the teachings of Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics indicating homosexual behavior is sinful are “harmful” to those engaging in this conduct. The court went on to hold a California law preserving marriage as between a man and a woman violates the federal constitution. A court ruling a church’s doctrine is harmful is just one step away from saying it’s illegal. [SOURCE]

Right. Except not. At all. Even kind of.
Yes, Judge Walker did accept the idea that gay couples have been harmed by Prop 8 -- in terms of stigmatization and in terms of pure economics. And yes, he found that religious animus was a huge part of proponents' push. And yes, he found that Prop 8 was in violation of the constitution. But he did not make the logic leap that ADF is claiming. He didn't say that religious beliefs or church doctrine themselves are illegal, only that they are not valid reasons to support civil discrimination!
The truth is that LGBT people and allies, by and large, support true religious freedom more than any other generalized crew. Just look at the recent Snyder v. Phelps decision. Virtually to a person, the LGBT commentariat supported the fairness and even cruciality of the ruling. This despite the fact that LGBT people have far and away been the Phelps family's biggest target over the past couple of decades (even if the MSM didn't start caring all that much until the Phelpses started targeting soldier funerals). And as we've mentioned several times before: Openly gay Rep. Barney Frank was one of three members of Congress to vote against the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, a piece of legislation specifically designed to limit the Phelps family's novel form of religious expression. This despite that he has been personally targeted by the "God Hates Fags" crew on a number of occasions (as has yours truly, but I still ardently support the Snyder v. Phelps ruling).
Modern anti-LGBT evangelicals have this weird idea that we homo folk are all sitting around scheming ways that we can stop personal faith and its expression. This is a bizarre, misrepresentative, and factually incorrect position to take. We would defend the Alliance Defend Fund's right to stand outside our apartment window, on the public NYC sidewalk, carrying signs condemning our lives, loves, and/or drapes. But we will not -- WE. WILL. NOT. -- allow these personally-held condemnations to stymy our *civil* rights under our shared constitution. This distinction matters greatly, and it's way past time groups like ADF start respecting it.

Truth Wins Out Launches Petition To Remove "Ex-Gay" App From iPhone

Cross Post from joemygod.com

Truth Wins Out, the organization that fights the "ex-gay" movement, has launched a petition calling on Apple to remove Exodus International's new iPhone app.

This new iPhone app is the latest move in Exodus’ dangerous new strategy of targeting youth. In light of the recent wave of LGBT youth suicides, this tactic is particularly galling as it creates, legitimizes, and fuels the ostracism of LGBT youth by their families. According to a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, LGBT teens who experienced negative feedback from their family were 8 times more likely to have attempted suicide, 6 times as vulnerable to severe depression, and 3 times more likely to use drugs (Caitlin Ryan, San Francisco State University, June 2009). Apple doesn’t allow racist or anti-Semitic apps in its app store, yet it gives the green light to an app targeting vulnerable LGBT youth with the message that their sexual orientation is a “sin that will make your heart sick” and a “counterfeit.” This is a double standard that has the potential for devastating consequences. Apple needs to be told, loud and clear, that this is unacceptable. Stand with Truth Wins Out — demand that the iTunes store stop supporting homophobia and remove the Exodus app.

Sign the petition here.

WOW! Maggie Wrote My Blog!

I was checking any comments and I found one from Maggie Gallagher, the mouth piece for NOM.
National Org. for Marriage is a Hate Group that whole purpose is to defeat gay marriage everywhere. They lie, use twisted studies, and demonize the LGBT population.


I wrote a commentary on an article about her not using her husbands name, never seen the man, her lack of a wedding ring, and that her son is in a Broadway musical. (Thats so Gay)


She wrote back; "Actually your complaint is that I don't use my family as a prop, they are never seen. I am a public figure. My family are not. Is that so hard to understand? "


Franky, if one was to spend ones time preaching about traditional marriage, don't you think that one would WANT to show by example what a traditional marriage looks like? At least appear to be married?
This woman spends most of her time working against families away from her own. Her outward appearance (lack of wedding ring)does not suggest she is married. (She may have "outgrown" it due to all the fast food on the road).
Traditionally, women take their husbands name as well.


I am just so pleased that her nasty org. has found my blog which I started to spread the news I find interesting and how it effects my gay world.