Public Overestimates Percentage Of Gays/Lesbians In U.S.

These numbers are from a new survey by the Gallup Poll -- done between May 6th and 10th of a random national sample of 1,024 adults, with a margin of error of 4 points. They asked the respondents to make their best guess at the percentage of the United States population that was homosexual. For the most part, the guesses were outrageously large.

It turns out that the average guess was 23% -- nearly a quarter of the population. And every demographic group questioned had a very high average guess -- ranging from 15% to 28%. I have to admit I was amused at these numbers (and that's why I bring you this poll).

Gallup says the percentage of homosexuals in the United States is about 3.8%. That's the number of people who admit they are homosexual when asked by Gallup in a survey. I think that's an underestimate. It's still very hard to be an open homosexual in many parts of this country, and I wouldn't be surprised if some hid that when surveyed.

My best guess would be around 6% to 7%, and I admit that is only a guess. What do you think? I would be interested in your best guess?

Public Wants Rights For Same-Sex Couples

In the last decade or so the opinion of Americans toward same-sex marriages has radically changed. Poll after poll has shown that while only a few years ago most Americans opposed same-sex marriages, now a small majority actually support the rights of gays/lesbians to marry the person they love. This has been a remarkable turn-around in a very short period of time, and it was shown to be real in the last election -- when the people of four states voted to approve same-sex marriages, and a fifth state voted down a constitutional amendment that would have prevented it.

But a new poll shows that the change in thinking may actually be much deeper than originally thought. According to a new Gallup Poll (conducted between November 26th and 29th of a random national sample of 1,015 adults), even larger percentages believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights as heterosexual married couples (whether you call their same-sex union a marriage, a civil union, or something else). And most surprisingly of all, this view cuts across political lines. Consider the following numbers (with the percentages shown being those in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples):

DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE INHERITANCE RIGHTS FOR GAY AND LESBIAN DOMESTIC PARTNERS OR SPOUSES?
General public...............78%
Democrats................88%
Independents...............77%
Republicans...............68%

DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE HEALTH INSURANCE AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR GAY AND LESBIAN DOMESTIC PARTNERS AND SPOUSES?
General public...............77%
Democrats...............94%
Independents...............77%
Republicans...............61%

DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE ADOPTION RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS SO THEY CAN ADOPT CHILDREN?
General Public...............61%
Democrats...............75%
Independents...............61%
Republicans...............46%

Those are some pretty incredible numbers, well outside the margin of error of the poll (4 points). The only group showing less than a majority in any of the three areas was Republicans on the question about adoption rights -- and even there nearly half approved of it (46%).

It is becoming more obvious every day, that on the question of rights for same-sex couples, the Republican Party is out-of-step with the opinions of more and more Americans -- including many members of their own party. The American people want same-sex couples to have the same (equal) rights as heterosexual couples enjoy.

African-Americans Support Equal Rights For Gays/Lesbians

They right-wing fundamentalists have been making a big deal out of fighting to preserve their right to discriminate lately -- and a big part of this fight is to deny the right of same-sex couples to marry (a right already enjoyed by heterosexual couples). They claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow damage the institution of marriage, although none of them has been able to explain just how this "damage" would occur.

One of the communities that has been slow to accept the equality of same-sex marriages has been the African-American community (example -- a majority of African-Americans voted for Proposition 8 in California). And the right-wing has been trying to use same-sex marriage as a wedge to separate African-Americans from other progressives in this country. Thankfully, it looks like that effort is failing.

A couple of weeks ago, President Obama demonstrated some political courage in admitting to Americans that he believed same-sex couples should have the same right as other couples to marry, and to enjoy the rights and privileges that come with marriage. Then last week, for the first time, the NAACP came out publicly in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry. Together, these two watershed events have caused a lot of people to re-examine their thoughts about same-sex marriage equality.

A Public Policy Polling survey now shows that 55% of African-Americans would now join the 57% of all people in Maryland to vote to keep their new law allowing same-sex marriages. And a new ABC News/Washington Post Poll (released last Wednesday) shows that 59% of African-Americans nationwide now support the right of same-sex couples to marry. That's an even bigger majority than in the general public (where 53% support same-sex marriage).

This is wonderful news, and I'm very happy to see it. I say that because I strongly believe that if one group (any group) in this country can be denied equal rights, then any other group could also have their rights curtailed. Either everyone has equal rights are no one has those rights guaranteed.

There's still a long way to go before equal rights are established for everyone in America (in spite of constitutional guarantees), but with each passing month and year more progress toward that goal is made. To borrow a phrase from the African-American community, we just have to "keep our eyes on the prize".  

Scalia Says Constitution Doesn't Protect Women

Sometimes I wonder just what planet Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is living on.   Although he has been given the task of protecting the rights of American citizens, as a justice on this nation's highest court, he has recently said that he doesn't believe the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of more than half of the citizens in America -- women.   Here is what he said to University of California - Hastings law professor Calvin Massey in California Lawyer Magazine:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about.

His thesis is that the Fourteenth Amendment was never meant to provide equal rights to all United States citizens, but only to the slaves that had been freed after the Civil War.   This is an odd argument for a right-wing justice that claims to be a "strict-constructionist" on the Constitution.   Normally the strict-constructionists want to make their decisions on what the Constitution specifically says, without reading into it meanings that are not there in writing.

To uphold his belief that the Constitution doesn't guarantee equal rights for women, he has to insert his own beliefs of what was intended by the writers of the amendment, and there is no reason to believe he has judged their intentions correctly.   It is just as likely (perhaps more likely) that the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant exactly what they wrote -- nothing more and nothing less.   Here is what the amendment says:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The amendment seems pretty clear to me.   It clearly says that "any person" is guaranteed equal protection under the laws of the United States, and makes no distinction between the citizens in any way.   Section 2 of the amendment does restrict one right to males -- voting.   But this was taken care of by the Nineteenth Amendment which assured women also had that right.   Taken together, the Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution clearly guarantee equal rights to women.   I don't see how an argument could be made that the Constitution doesn't guarantee women's rights.

But I don't think Scalia is really saying that women shouldn't have equal rights (although his argument could be used to try and deny women their rights).   What he is really doing is trying to set up a justification for denying equal rights to homosexuals.   He knows that someday soon the Supreme Court will have to decide if homosexuals have the same right as all other Americans -- specifically the right to marry.   And if he can convince people that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't protect women's rights, then it'll be much easier to sell the idea that it doesn't protect homosexual rights.

It's that pesky phrase "any person" that he is trying to overcome.   That phrase, if it means what it says, would include ALL American citizens, including homosexuals.   But if he can sell the idea that the phrase only applied to men, then he has opened the door to denying rights to homosexuals.   I think this is a disingenuous argument, propelled only by his right-wing beliefs -- not the Constitution.

To interpret the Constitution like Scalia wants it interpreted would be a giant step back for this country.   Many groups, including women, have fought long and hard for their rights.   Even the suggestion that those rights are not guaranteed by the Constitution is not just ridiculous -- it is anathema to the very idea of a free nation.

Fundies Shoot Themselves In The Foot

Back in the 1960's there were some landmark Supreme Court decisions that outlawed prayer and other religious activities in public schools.   They determined that it was a violation of the U.S. Constitution to force students to participate in any religious activity -- a violation of the constitutional concept of separation of religion and government.   This upset many christians, especially right-wing fundamentalists, and since that time they have been searching for ways to inject religion back into the public school systems.

Back in the early 1980's they can up with an idea.   They decided they could get religion back into public schools by forcing the school systems to allow the formation of student clubs -- clubs that don't have anything to do with the school's academic curriculum.   They fought for this idea, and finally prevailed in 1984 when they got Congress to pass a law that would allow the formation of these non-academic clubs.  

As expected, religious clubs were formed in many schools -- especially high schools.   And this quickly spread across the nation.   The Supreme Court upheld the law, since no student was forced to join or participate in any of these clubs.   It was a smashing victory for the fundamentalists -- or at least they thought so at the time.

But things haven't quite worked out like the fundies had hoped, and many of them are unhappy now with how the law has worked out.   It seems that the same law that allowed the religious clubs has also allowed the formation of other clubs (such as atheist clubs).   And to the horror of many fundies, it has also allowed the formation of gay-straight alliances.

Currently there are about 4,000 of these gay-straight alliances in schools across the country, with many of them in the fundie-controlled Bible belt -- and the movement is still growing.   Even worse for the fundies, there is no way they can stop the formation of these clubs.   That is because they are protected by the same law that protects the religious clubs -- a law that was past due to their own efforts.

Would the fundies have pushed for the law if they had known it would result in the proliferation of gay-straight alliances in schools?   Probably not.   But it's too late now.   It looks like they have just shot themselves in the foot because they didn't think through their brilliant idea.   What a shame.

Republicans Still Opposed To Equality

Here are some facts.   Homosexuals have always fought for this country and done so bravely -- from the Revolutionary War to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Around two out of every three Americans believes that the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (DADT) should be scrapped.   Forcing gays/lesbians in the military to hide their sexual preference or be kicked out violates the American promise of equal rights for all its citizens.   Majorities in both the House and Senate believe DADT should be repealed.   About 70% of those in the military, including most military leaders, think DADT should be done away with.

Considering the above facts, it would seem to be a foregone conclusion that the DADT policy would be repealed.   But that doesn't take into account the small-minded beliefs of congressional Republicans.   Republicans talk about equal rights but they don't really believe it. They only want equal rights for people like themselves -- not everyone.   They don't think they were elected to insure all Americans are treated equally, but to instead push their own narrow-minded religious beliefs on everyone else.

They proved that once again yesterday.   The Democratic leadership in the Senate tried to bring the military appropriations bill (which included repeal of DADT) to the Senate floor for a final vote, but to do that they needed 60 votes to stop the Republican filibuster.   They only got 57 votes.   There is no doubt that DADT would be repealed if allowed to be voted on, but the Republicans continue to prevent that with their filibuster.   This means it is unlikely that DADT can be repealed this year (and even more unlikely it could happen next year after the Republicans assume control of the House).

President Obama is not blameless in this whole mess.   On the campaign trial he promised to repeal DADT -- and two years later he has failed to accomplish that.   He could have just issued an administrative order (like Truman did to end segregation in the military), but he didn't.   He could also have instructed the Justice Department to not appeal the decision of a California judge that ruled DADT unconstitutional -- but he let the appeal happen anyway.

The president says the repeal of DADT should be done by Congress.   The truth is that he doesn't have the political courage to do it himself and wants congressional cover.   That is just sad.   It's time for the president to grow a spine and do the right thing (especially since the Republicans seem determined to block it in Congress).   And he should do it now.   America has waited long enough for him to keep his promise.

Can A Cupcake Really Be Gay ?

I've discovered a fairly new blog that it took me a very short time to become a fan of -- My Name Is Jujube.   This lady's blog was just born last May, but I like the way she writes and I think she'll be very successful.   She has a nice way of attacking the ridiculous and her post last Monday was about a baker who refused to cook "gay cupcakes".   I was going to do my own take on the story, but then I realized that I couldn't do it any better than Jujube did.   So I present her words here for your enjoyment:

"So, Just Cookies bakery in Indianapolis, Indiana received an order for rainbow cupcakes for National Coming Out Day. The owner of the baker refused, to fill the order, claiming that he had two impressionable young daughters and thought it would be best to decline. Now, mind you, there was no message on the cupcakes. The only request was the the cupcakes be multicolored, to represent diversity. But apparently, rainbow cupcakes are too "gay" for this bakery. The owner made a comment about his bakery being "family owned" and it being a matter of "values".

Ummmm.... I am not even going to comment on the idiocy that equates RAINBOW colored cupcakes with a lack of family values. Not only do I think it is ridiculous for this man to believe that he can shield his children from the truth that there ARE homosexuals living in this world, but I have to wonder WHY his children would even need to know that these cupcakes are a "gay rainbow" instead of just an ordinary every day rainbow, IF he is that opposed to homosexuality. 

Does he not allow his children to order rainbow sprinkles at the ice cream shop, for fear he may be encouraging them to develop homosexual tendencies? Does he shield their eyes after every rain storm because they might, God forbid, see a RAINBOW??

I have to laugh at this mentality. This had nothing to do with the design of the cupcakes. If the same organization had come in and ordered plain chocolate cupcakes, this man would have had some other excuse to not allow their order to go through. He simply DOES NOT like the idea of a group SUPPORTING diversity and ACCEPTING homosexuality, so he used the excuse. Plain and simple. 

I am sure if this man was approached with an order for the SAME EXACT CUPCAKES from a group proclaiming to be from a local church, he would have gladly filled them, and never worried for a second that his children may get the wrong message FROM A CUPCAKE DESIGN!!"

Another Step Towards Equality

The United States Congress (and president) may be too gutless too vote for equal rights for all U.S. citizens, at least in an election year, but thank goodness for the court system.   It looks like the courts are doing the job that Congress doesn't have the political courage to do -- get rid of the odious "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) policy of the United States military.

Earlier this year a federal judge in California declared DADT to be unconstitutional.   He is currently considering whether to ban the policy altogether.   This would be good for future cases, but would not help those who have already been kicked out of the military for their sexual preference.

Now a federal judge in the state of Washington has gone a step further.   U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton ruled last Friday that the United States Air Force must give a decorated flight nurse, Major Margaret Witt (pictured), her job back.   Major Witt had been kicked out of the Air Force after her commanding officers learned she had a loving relationship with a female civilian.

Judge Leighton said Major Witt was a "central figure in a long-term highly charged civil rights movement."   He went on to tell Major Witt,   "Today you have won a victory in that struggle, the depth and duration of which will be determined by other judicial officers and hopefully soon the political branches of government."

The Justice Department did not comment on the judge's ruling and have not said whether they will appeal the ruling or not.   If the ruling is not appealed, it will provide a path for those who have been kicked out because of their sexual preference to regain their military status and career.   It would also mean the end of DADT, regardless of what Congress does (or doesn't do), since the military would be taken to court each time they tried to kick someone out for being gay/lesbian.

President Obama has said he is in favor of doing away with DADT, even though he has been hesitant to actually do anything about it (like issue a presidential directive).   This is the chance for him (and Attorney General Holder) to make good on their promises.   All they have to do is nothing -- just don't appeal the judge's decision.   Let it stand as a precedent for future court actions until the Congress gets around to voting DADT out of existence.

Back in 2006, Judge Leighton had originally ruled that the government had the right to enforce DADT and dismissed Major Witt's case.   Fortunately an appeals court ruled that because of the Supreme Court decision outlawing sodomy laws in Texas, DADT might actually be a violation of Major Witt's equal rights.   The case was resurrected and sent back to Judge Leighton's court.

After a six-day trial, the judge ruled that Major Witt should be re-instated by the Air Force.   He found that the dismissal did not serve any legitimate military interest, and in fact, had hurt morale and damaged the ability of Major Witt's unit to perform.   The judge said,   "There is no evidence that wounded troops care about the sexual orientation of the flight nurse or medical technician tending to their wounds."

This is just one more small step forward in assuring that equal rights are provided for all American citizens.

Opposing Equality In America

The equal treatment of all Americans by their government has been a long and hard-fought battle, and it still has not been won.   Although our Founding Fathers loved to talk about democracy and equal rights, the country they created did not initially give equal rights to all of its citizens.   In fact, the only people who could vote in the newly-created nation were white male property-owners.

Fortunately they gave us not only a dream of equality, but also a Constitution that could be interpreted and amended to further the cause of granting equality to all citizens.   After the Civil War, the Constitution was amended for the fourteenth time.   That Fourteenth Amendment not only guaranteed that former slaves were to be guaranteed the full rights of an American citizen, but has also been used by the Supreme Court since that time to guarantee the rights of many others.

Thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court decisions regarding it, most Americans now accept that things like race, ethnicity, sex and age should not bar any citizen from equal protection and equal rights in America (although some battles are still being fought to fully realize these rights).   The newest battleground for equal rights is now being fought over sexual preference.   There are many in this country, especially religious fundamentalists, who still believe that gays and lesbians should not share the same rights as other Americans.

I know that most of these people use their religion as an excuse to deny rights to other Americans, but I tend to think that there are just some that need to have another group of people to look down on and fell that they are better than -- maybe to boost their own feelings of inadequacy.   After all, religion was also used to deny equality to minorities and women.   Those "religious beliefs" have fortunately been largely overcome, and now the battle is being fought over extending full equal rights to American homosexuals.

Currently the battle is being waged on two fronts -- equality in the military and equal marriage rights.   Just yesterday, the right-wingers in the United States Senate (mostly Republicans) refused to allow a Defense Appropriation bill to come up for a vote by invoking cloture (ending unlimited debate).   They did this because the bill included a provision that would end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy (DADT) of the United States military.   DADT is a military policy that dictates the expulsion of gays/lesbians who don't hide their sexual preference from their fellow soldiers and the military command structure.

Homosexuals have always served proudly and bravely in the military of the United States.   To force them to hide their sexual preference and live a lie is a basic denial of their equal rights as a citizen of this country.   It also denies this country the service of many qualified and valued military professionals simply to satisfy the bigotry of some Americans -- people who would not be affected in the least manner by granting homosexuals the right to serve their country (the same right all others, including non-citizens, are granted).

But I think the DADT policy will soon be a thing of the past.   We may have to wait until the election is over, since many right-wingers and "blue dogs" are currently playing to their base of social conservatives, but it will end.   A clear majority of people in America are opposed to DADT and its days are numbered.

The much harder fight is over granting gays/lesbians the right to marriage (with all its legal and social ramifications).   Several states have granted this right but many others have not, and of those who haven't many are refusing to grant the constitutional "full faith and credit" recognition to legal marriages conducted in states that allow homosexual marriage.   This is a question that will soon be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Sadly, it seems that some right-wing Supreme Court justices are already positioning themselves to deny equal rights to homosexuals -- sort of a latter-day Dred Scott decision.   One justice, Antonin Scalia, recently declared that the Fourteenth Amendment did not cover or grant equal rights to women.   He said the amendment was only meant to grant equal rights to former slaves when passed in the late 1800s, and therefore should be limited to that purpose.

Scalia went on to say that he was in favor of equal rights for women, but it should be done through state or federal law and not because these rights are covered by the Fourteenth Amendment.   Unfortunately, he is not the only justice that feels this way (in spite of many Supreme Court decisions to the contrary).   The past decisions and writings of Justices Thomas, Alito and Roberts show that they also would be open to a similar interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now I don't think any of these justices, including Scalia, are actively trying to deny equal rights to women (although a decision that the Fourteenth Amendment referred only to former slaves could be used that way in the future).   What they are really trying to do is justify a decision that the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant equal rights to those discriminated against because of their sexual preference.   If they can deny women's coverage by the Fourteenth Amendment, that makes it easy to deny coverage to homosexuals.

I am an optimist.   I believe that full equal rights will someday be granted to all American citizens -- including homosexuals (and bi-sexuals and trans-gendered individuals).   It is simply the right thing to do.   But a misguided and wrong-headed Dred Scott-type decision by the Supreme Court could set this back by many years (and even open up opportunities for legal discrimination against other groups).

It is conceivable that the court is just one vote away from severely restricting the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.   At this point all we can do is cross our fingers and hope that wisdom prevails on the court.   The alternative would be a huge step backwards for America.

Why is the concept of equality for all so hard to understand for many Americans?

(The above picture, painted in the late 1800s, is of Dred Scott.)

Another Republican Out Of The Closet

It's simply amazing how many rabidly anti-homosexual Republicans have either come out of the closet or have been exposed as being gay. I guess it just goes to show that Shakespeare knew what he was talking about when he said "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" (and the quote applies to both sexes). Those who protest the loudest are usually guilty of what they are protesting against.

The latest Republican to come out of the closet is former Republican National Committee chairman (and campaign chief for Bush's 2004 presidential campaign) Ken Mehlman. Mehlman has admitted to his family, friends and associates that he has been gay for many years. A couple of days ago, he admitted it also to a reporter. He told the reporter that he is fixing to participate in a fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (a group that fought against Prop 8 in California) and he knew there would be questions about his participation.

Mehlman said, "It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life. Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."

I wish he had done it years ago too. I'm glad he's done it now and I'm glad he happier, but doesn't he realize the unhappiness and heartache he caused multitudes of his fellow homosexuals for far too many years now? He's out now and wants to work for the ability of gays/lesbians to get married, but he's got a whole lot to make up for and participating in a fundraiser or two is not going to do it.

Interestingly enough, while all news outlets have done at least some stories on Mehlman coming out of the closet, Fox News has not said a word about it. It's amazing how they can ignore any story that might cast a bad light on the right-wing "values". Then again, maybe they just don't know what to think about a right-winger who has decided to be honest.

I'm just wondering now who will be the next Republican or right-winger to come out of the closet.

Time For Fairness And Equality In The Military

For years now, the United States military has had a policy of "don't ask, don't tell" when it comes to homosexuality in the armed services. That means that any gay or lesbian soldier or sailor must keep his/her sexuality a secret or be unceremoniously kicked out of the military. This is not only unequal and morally wrong, but it has cost the military branches thousands of capable men and women who were doing an extraordinary job for their country.

This ridiculous and unfair policy should have been ended years ago, but it looks like there may be a chance to finally get it done this year. Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pennsylvania), who served in both Bosnia and Iraq and was awarded the Bronze Star, says he will submit an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that is currently being considered in Congress. President Obama has agreed to support the amendment, which will not take effect until after the military completes its study of how to implement the change (about December 1st).

It looks like the amendment has a very good chance of being approved in the House, where Democrats have a substantial majority. It's in the Senate that the bill may have some problems. Most Republicans oppose the measure, and the Family Research Council is lobbying heavily to defeat the measure. They say it will hurt the military's effectiveness, because soldiers and sailors will not want to serve with gays and lesbians (although there have always been homosexuals in the military).

Murphy believes that is a silly argument. He says, "Straight men and women in our armed forces, this argument asserts, aren't professional enough to serve with gay troops while doing their jobs. As a former Army officer, that is an insult to me and, more important, to my fellow soldiers still serving -- gay and straight alike." He is right. Those opposed to equality in the Armed Services are just trying to impose their own homophobia onto our courageous and professional soldiers and sailors.

This is not the time for homophobia and fear. We are talking about nothing less than the equality and decent treatment of young men and women who are willing to lay down their lives to defend our country and Constitution. It is only right that we treat them with dignity and fairness. Anything less is unthinkable.

It is time to do away with the very flawed policy of "don't ask, don't tell". Now. No more delay.

Obama Takes Step Toward Equal Rights

For many years now, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered individuals have been unable to enjoy the same rights as other Americans. This is especially true when it comes to the rights of a sick or dying person in a hospital. Too many times, these individuals have been denied the right to visit or console a life partner in their time of need.

This is because many hospitals give visitation and decision-making authority only to legally-recognized family members. Since few states recognize the right of homosexuals to marry, that means their partners are not recognized as a family member -- even though they may have lived in a committed relationship for many years.

This unfair behavior even extends to a living will created beforehand by the sick person. Even though the person may have designated their life partner to be the decision-maker in a time of emergency, many hospitals have refused to honor that since the people were not legally married or related by blood. There is no way that this hospital behavior is right, but it has been happening in violation of the sick or dying person's wishes.

President Obama has decided that this terrible injustice must stop. Yesterday, he instructed the HHS secretary to draft new rules for hospitals receiving Medicare or Medicaid funds. They must now abide by the wishes of the sick person. If he/she wants an unmarried life partner (or just a friend) to visit, console or even make medical decisions, then that is the way it will be. Any hospital that doesn't abide by this new rule could have their government funds cut off.

When giving the order, President Obama said, "Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their side -- whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay. Often, a widow or widower with no children is denied the support and comfort of a close friend. Also uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

He went on to say this should "guarantee that all patients' advance directives, such as durable powers of attorney and health care proxies, are respected", and that patient designees should be able to "make informed decisions regarding patients' care."

While this gives gays and lesbians rights they have long been denied, it also extends the rights of heterosexuals. If a person has no family, or is estranged from his/her family, they can designate a close friend or unmarried partner to visit and, if necessary, make medical decisions. In other words, these new rules will be beneficial to persons of all sexual orientations.

I don't know why this couldn't have been done a year ago. Maybe the president thought it could interfere with his proposed health care reforms. No matter. At least it has now been done. Finally the sick and dying have the right to make their own decisions -- regardless of hospital policy or rules.

With this decision, the president has taken a step toward insuring equal rights for all Americans. It is only a small step, and much more needs to be done -- but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Chairman Of Joint Chiefs Supports Equality

Once again, the Republican Party is showing itself to be little more than the party of NO. This time they are opposing the removal of the terribly unfair "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" policy of the United States Military. Leading the opposition to equality is Senator John McCain (R-Arizona).

In the past, McCain had said he would consider changing the policy if the military leaders advocated making the change, but he seems to have changed his mind on that -- probably because he has to run for re-election this year and has a fundamentalist teabagger opponent in the Republican primary. He's busy now trying to appeal to that right-wing party base.

McCain told Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael G. Mullen, and Defense Secretary, Robert Gates (both of whom were Bush appointees) that they were trying to force through a change in the law. He said, "I'm happy to say that we still have a Congress of the United States that would have to pass a law to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell', despite your efforts to repeal it in many respects by fiat."

But it looks like McCain and his Republican cohorts are fighting a losing battle on this issue. A clear majority of the American people want to see the policy dumped and replaced with a policy that celebrates equality for all. And I believe a majority of the Congress feels the same way. It's possible that a few moderate Republicans will even back the change in law.

But the final nail in the coffin of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" was hammered in by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen. Mullen (pictured) told Congress yesterday, "Speaking for my self and myself only, it is my personal belief that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly would be the right thing to do."

He went on to say, "No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

Well said, Admiral Mullen. Well said.

U.S. Should Ban Foreign Aid To Uganda

For a long time, Uganda was an outlaw nation. It was ruler by one of the bloodiest of all dictators, Idi Amin, and even operated as a safe haven for international terrorists. With the death of Amin, I had hoped that Uganda would finally join the growing list of civilized and humanitarian nations.

It's beginning to look like that was a futile hope though. Uganda is now considering a new law that would institute draconian punishments for homosexuals, and it looks like that law will be easily approved. The law has been pushed by American fundamentalists from The Family -- they couldn't get their vicious views approved here, so they have convinced the Ugandan government to do it.

Many American fundamentalists like Rick Bowen, who participated in President Obama's inauguration, and Pat Robertson are refusing to condemn the new Ugandan law. The law would make any person convicted of having homosexual relations subject to receiving a LIFE SENTENCE. If that sex was with a minor or a person with a disability, the person could receive the DEATH PENALTY.

Fortunately there are some nations that still believe in equal rights and human rights. The prime ministers of both the United Kingdom and Canada have said the Ugandan legislation is unacceptable. Sweden has gone even further, and said they will be cutting their foreign aid to Uganda (they give about $50 million a year).

I have to wonder, where is the outrage from the American government? The United States is very good about preaching about human rights to other countries. Isn't it about time to take some action to back up our big talk?

At a minimum, the United States government should cease all foreign aid to Uganda, and they should do this immediately and publicly. If the Obama administration really supports human rights, it is time for them to show it and Uganda would be a great place to start.

Texas Supports Gay/Lesbian Unions

State government has been run by right-wing Republicans for years here in Texas. The general consensus among most people is that Texas is a bastion of conservative thought and values. But is that really true? A new poll by Texas Lyceum shows Texas may be more liberal than normally thought to be -- especially on the topic of homosexual unions or marriages.

I have to admit that this poll surprises me. I thought a majority of Texans probably opposed gay and/or lesbian civil unions or marriages. I'm happy to be wrong though. According to the Texas Lyceum poll conducted this month, about 57% of Texans support either civil unions or marriage for homosexuals (32% support civil unions and 25% support marriage). Only 36% of Texans are opposed to both.

Even more surprising is the fact that this support crosses party lines. While 65% of Democrats and 56% of Independents supported either civil unions or marriage, a majority of Republicans (51%) also supported one or the other. Here are the numbers when broken down by party:

DEMOCRATS
Civil Unions...............29%
Marriage...............36%
Neither...............29%

REPUBLICANS
Civil Unions...............37%
Marriage...............14%
Neither...............43%

INDEPENDENTS
Civil Unions...............31%
Marriage...............25%
Neither...............35%

Could Texas actually be ready to enter the 21st century with everyone else?