WOWOZWE! People DO visit this teeeeny little useless except for me gay rights site....ehheeh...so I found referalls to my sites:

"Should I get Married" oookay

"Scandanavia age of consent" oookay

"Punish Queers" >:(

"homophobia arguements" Heh...I look for the same thing sometimes, but I just hear the same shit...

"causes of bisexuality" eeesh...

And now, for history. I've been hearing about the "StoneWall Riots" for AGES. But me, in my utter laziness never looked into it. Well, I FINALLY got off my ass and looked around for StoneWall riots stuff and I found some pretty interesting stuff. It looks to me like it all started when homosexuals were finally FED up with being treated like a herd of goats. Can't say I blame them...after all, this paved the way for the Gays Rights movements. Or at least, it was one of the factors. heh...

An astrological look at the StoneWall Riots--How odd...but interesting.

A SLEW of stuff on facing the oppressors--Oh yes...long one...and a rather detailed description of what homosexuals went through in those days. It still goes on now, but not like years ago it seems....long, but educational.

The Stonewall riots--1969 Socialism today...hmmm...another site to link eventually. :D

Here's a Stonewall Veterans site---I don't qualify...aahhahahah...but it's there for all 2 of you to see. LOL!

Heritage of Pride--Yup. Another site to link to eventually. NycPride.com

Before and After StoneWall.--OH! It's a film...well shit...I didn't know that...

More Stonewall stuff. It's "Queer history". Okay.

StoneWall 25:Case 1-2

Well, I guess that'll do for now. I hope it helped SOMEONE. It helped me learn about Stonewall. heh

And now, disgusting:
Reuters
30 August 2001

U.S. judge upholds Florida gay adoption ban
By Jim Loney

MIAMI (Reuters) -- A federal judge on Thursday upheld Florida's law barring homosexuals from adopting children, deeming valid a claim by the state that it has a legitimate interest in placing adopted children in "married homes."

In his ruling in a case brought by four gay men who wanted to adopt, U.S. District Judge James L. King said Florida's 1977 law, dating to singer Anita Bryant's crusade against laws protecting homosexual rights, did not violate the would-be parents' constitutional rights of privacy and equal protection.

"At the least, it is arguable that placing children in married homes is in the best interest of Florida's children," King wrote. "...the Court must find defendants' purported legitimate interest in excluding homosexuals from adopting, namely placing adopted children in married homes, to be valid."

The case was brought by four men who made adoption applications to the state after serving as foster parents or guardians. All four were automatically disqualified because they are gay.

The men sued Kathleen Kearney, the secretary of Florida's Department of Children and Families and a local administrator.

The four, Steven Lofton, Douglas Houghton, Wayne Larue Smith and Daniel Skahen, sued on the grounds that the law infringed on their constitutional right to privacy, intimate association and family integrity and violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the men, said the law was based on "irrational prejudice against gay people" and said it was considering further legal options.

"I'm greatly saddened by it (the ruling)," said Howard Simon, director of the ACLU's Florida branch. "It took 50 years to reverse legalized racial discrimination in this country. I hope it won't take 50 years to reverse legalized discrimination against gay people."

The judge noted that Lofton and Houghton had developed strong emotional bonds with the children they sought to adopt. But he said the existence of those bonds "does not inherently grant them a fundamental right to family privacy, intimate association and family integrity."

He said Lofton, a pediatric nurse who was a foster parent to the child he wanted to adopt, and Houghton, a clinical nurse who was the guardian of a child abandoned by his father, had no expectation that their relationships with the children, arranged and sanctioned by the state, would be permanent.

"It is undisputed that there is no fundamental right to adopt, nor is there a fundamental right to be adopted," King said.

The judge also noted that Florida was the first state to statutorily ban adoption by gays or lesbians and currently was the only state with such a prohibition.

The ACLU said the law was enacted at the time when Bryant, a singer who gained fame as a promoter of Florida orange juice, launched a crusade against a Dade County, Florida, ordinance offering equal rights for gays.

Florida argued that the law banning adoption by homosexuals served to reflect the state's "moral disapproval of homosexuality consistent with the legislature's right to legislate public morality."

King discounted that argument.

"The Court cannot accept that moral disapproval of homosexuals or homosexuality serves a legitimate state interest," he wrote.

But he noted the plaintiffs did not try to demonstrate that homosexual families are "equivalently stable, are able to provide proper gender identification or are no more socially stigmatizing than married heterosexual families."

A statement from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's office said only, "We agree with the ruling upholding the law that was passed by the legislature."

Well, fuck you, Jeb. I wasn't going to vote for your sorry ass anyway. Too bad the only other choice is Janet Reno. But she's tough, so she's a better choice. And fuck Florida. It's one of three states that STILL has such a ban.

And now, :(

The Oregonian
31 August 2001

Commentary: Transgender murder shows need for understanding
By LORI BUCKWALTER and ROEY THORPE

Somewhere down a dark lonely road outside of Hillsboro, an act of gruesome violence ended Loni Okaruru's life.

As with so many other victims, we are left to wonder not only about who might have done this, or why, but about her final pain and the future that was taken from her.

The media, including The Oregonian, inappropriately call her a male. She was a transgender woman. Washington County authorities say it is the first murder there to be classified as a hate crime -- killed because she lived as a woman.

The road of transition in this culture can be dark and frightening for every transgender person. What happened to her lurks like a predator in the fearful corners of our minds, but we build our lives anyway, by small acts of affirmation and courage, in the hope that safe haven is just ahead. The sanctuary we seek is built in time and space, but also within the heart. Sometimes we just don't make it home.

What will this sanctuary look like? It will be somewhere, sometime, when what we are, who we love and what we dare to dream will be not just tolerated, or accepted, but celebrated by all.

For transgender people, this means especially that others will honor our courage to confront the accidents of birth and culture that have separated us from our true natures. We hope that they will hear our stories and recognize the same aspirations to happiness and wholeness that they feel within themselves. We wait to hear our real names spoken, our real identities recognized beneath obscuring flesh, and our love returned in kind -- as anyone might in our places.

We do not yet know what turn on this long road Okaruru might have taken that led to her death. But she deserves our respect now, at least, as the victim of a terrible crime. She deserves to be remembered as someone whose life did not fall easily into preordained categories and to be remembered in a way that does not label her in whatever category comes to
mind. She committed herself to being herself, and in this world, that courage is not easily come by.

Whatever else, Okaruru didn't deserve to be beaten to death and dumped in the weeds, any more than she deserves to be called what she wasn't, and couldn't be.

Let's take this as a starting point to reconsider what prejudice can do, and the acts that it can condone, inflicted with intent to cause pain, to take away the future, to steal the hope inside ourselves. Such crimes wound us all. The Oregonian must think carefully about the impact that its coverage of this terrible crime has on the people who walk in Okaruru's shoes every day.

It's time to stop pretending that gender minorities in this society aren't the easy targets for exclusion, assault, injury and violent death; they are. This death reminds us how such crimes against transgender people seem so oppressively possible. Those of us who know the tragic list of transgender bias victims are brutalized anew with each new story.

It's time for the state of Oregon and the United States to stop making excuses and enact legislation against gender-based bias crime.

It's time for us to honor Okaruru's name, the steps she was taking to live her life and dreams that were no less important than our own. Sanctuary may be within us, but we still must find it together or not at all.

Sad...:( But I can hear right-winged pundits now..."It was a consequece of her "lifestyle choice".

Fuck you.

posted by Jowy Siren at 5:33 PM

Good to know! :)

State high court OKs benefits for partners of gays.

The Olympian
24 August 2001

State high court OKs benefits for partners of gays
By Patrick Condon

"We conclude that the Legislature delegated authority to the city to
determine who should be eligible for benefits." -- Justice Susan
Owens, writing for majority

"I would ... encourage my colleagues to honor, not defeat, the plain
meaning of the written word, no matter how much they may disagree
with the legislation which incorporates it." -- Justice Richard
Sanders, lone dissenting opinion

OLYMPIA -- Cities in Washington can offer health benefits to the
partners of gay employees, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The high court upheld the city of Vancouver's domestic partner
benefit program, which a resident of that city had sued to overturn.

Only one justice, Richard Sanders, dissented from the majority
opinion.

In the wake of Thursday's ruling, domestic partner programs -- such
as the one administered by the city of Olympia -- are likely free of
future legal challenges, according to attorneys in the case.

"I think what the court did is recognize that this is happening, and
put their seal of approval on it," said Karolyn Hicks, a Seattle
attorney who works with the American Civil Liberties Union. "What
they said is that cities have the right to do this."

Because there is no federal issue at stake, opponents of domestic
partner benefits have no recourse with the federal appeals courts,
including the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The legal challenges are probably done," said Jordan Lorence, a
Virginia attorney who represented the Vancouver resident who sought
to throw out the benefits.

Lorence has specialized in such cases around the country.

Justice Susan Owens, writing for the majority, noted that the state
Legislature did not define the term "dependents" when it granted
cities the authority to provide medical benefits to "employees and
their dependents."

"We conclude that the Legislature delegated authority to the city to
determine who should be eligible for benefits," Owens wrote.

In his caustic dissenting opinion, Sanders said the majority opinion
ignores the clear meaning of the term "dependent."

"I would ... encourage my colleagues to honor, not defeat, the plain
meaning of the written word, no matter how much they may disagree
with the legislation which incorporates it," Sanders wrote.

Most domestic partners are not financially dependent on each other
and don't meet that threshold, Sanders wrote.

"The majority strains to arrive at a politically correct result,"
Sanders wrote.

Lorence also accused the majority of bending to political pressure.

"I think if we were talking about something more boring here, like
bridges or bonding authority, the result would have been different,"
Lorence said.

Officials with the city of Olympia, which has been administering
domestic partner benefits since 1995, kept a close eye on the
Vancouver case.

"We've felt for some time that our policy was on sound legal
footing," Mayor Stan Biles said. "We think this affirms the legal
advice that the council got when it adopted the policy in the first
place."

Out of 575 Olympia city employees, 29 are registered with the city as
members of a domestic partnership, said Cathy Raymond, the city's
director of human resources.

However, a smaller number of employees actually pay to receive health
benefits for their partner, Raymond said.

Public and private employers increasingly see domestic partner
benefits as an important tool for recruiting and retaining quality
employees, said Terry Weiner, an assistant city attorney in Vancouver.

"That's why we adopted this policy, and it's why we defended it,"
Weiner said. "It allows us to remain competitive in the employment
marketplace."

The court acknowledged as much in its ruling.

"We recognize that the city has a strong interest in retaining
qualified employees," Justice Owens wrote.

Biles said he hopes the ruling will lead more employers to offer
domestic partner benefits.

"What's good about this ruling is that it matches a trend throughout
this country that says these programs are on solid constitutional
footing," Biles said. "It's essentially another step in the
direction of eliminating discrimination in this country."

posted by Jowy Siren at 5:05 PM

I'd just like to add though that Rohm, while indeed homosexual, was also a bit of a predator. But they didn't punish because he was a predator, they punished him because he was homosexual. Just felt the need to say that.
posted by Jowy Siren at 5:35 PM

Queer, Gay History: The Third Reich

This is about how gays were treated during WW2. I already knew about that, but I haven't seen any stories about how homosexuals were actually treated until I found this article through looking at my referrers. Yes, people have found this tiny little gay rights site through search engines. hehheeheh...
posted by Jowy Siren at 5:32 PM

I believe I said some great things in this discussion.

:)

posted by Jowy Siren at 8:18 PM