Gay rights issue highlights Tampa, Hillsborough differences

Anyone who needs more evidence of the deep social divide between the city of Tampa and Hillsborough County need look no further than the County Commission's discussion yesterday of its sexual harassment policies. Commissioners are developing guidelines in the wake of a sexual discrimination lawsuit brought against Commissioner Kevin White by a former aide. When commissioner Kevin Beckner suggested that the internal policy should specify protections for gays, he faced resistance from fellow board members. Commissioner Jim Norman accused Beckner of trying to make an end-run around the countywide human rights ordinance, which at one time did protect gays, but no longer does.

Compare that to what happened earlier this month at Tampa City Council when a member of the city's human rights board suggested adding transgendered individuals to the city's human rights ordinance, which has long protected gays throughout the city. Council members, with no dissent, agreed to explore the matter. Mayor Pam Iorio has said she supports the concept.

Beckner said for him the issue is simply a matter of making sure everyone who works for the county is treated with dignity and respect. He said he has no interest at this time in adding protection of gays to the county's human rights ordinance, understanding that it's a nonstarter with a relatively conservative County Commission. But he did seem frustrated that his suggestion for the internal policy didn't have more support. "It’s really unfortunate that some of my colleagues are really more interested in protecting politics rather than people," he said.

Janet Zink, Times staff writer

*

Comments

[just a'toe-tapp'n away in the ol' stall]

Annnnnnt... wrong again my inept little rabble rousers. Beckner was shot down for wanting to add the entire spectrum of misguided freaks (G, L, B’s, and T’s) to the show. The gay and lesbian community was making great strides until they let in the confused (B’s) and flat out nutjob (T’s).

You weren’t “born” a bisexual; it’s a choice... “I’ll have a guy today and a girl tomorrow” ... and... transgender folks also make a choice to go under the knife to quell the guilt over their abnormal lifestyle.

Beckner wont make it past a substantive challenge, osama been forgotten could have beaten the moron Blair.

[Obvious]

where do idiots like 3:20 come from? and why are there SO MANY of them here in tampa??

Keep up the great work Kevin!

[Mother Nature]

I knew that would ruffle you boy’s panties! Why don’t you freaks just quit your whining and be glad you’re not in jail for choosing to live a dangerous, un-natural, and un-healthy lifestyle.

Or... let me know when you two boys “evolved” into the ability to procreate.

[Philip Chandler]

There are some very sick and cruel people in the word, as is clearly evinced by the writings of “Mother Nature”.

This individual should face the fact that both the law and the society in which we live are changing, as gay men and lesbians continue to make both legal and political headway. Back in 1986, the US Supreme Court handed down an obscene decision (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) that permitted the states to criminalize gay sex, even when such sexual activity took place in private settings between consenting adults. This decision became the target of both immediate and sustained criticism; even some conservatives attacked the Court for meddling in the most private of contexts. At the time that Bowers was handed down, some 25 states made gay sex a crime; in some states, gay sex was punishable by extremely severe prison terms (the State of Georgia had on its books a statute that provided for the mandatory incarceration of any individual who had gay sex for a minimum of one year and a maximum of 20 years; the State of Montana had on its books a statute that provided for the incarceration of any individual who had gay sex for up to 10 years).

Activists seeking equality for gay persons turned to state supreme courts to strike down such statutes. Most state constitutions are more generous, either by their express terms or as construed by state reviewing courts, than is the US Constitution with respect to the guarantees of privacy and due process that they afford to their respective citizens. These activists were largely successful; over the course of the next 17 years, they invoked state constitutional analysis in state courts to strike down statute after statute, by 2003, only 14 states still retained these “sodomy” statutes.

The US Supreme Court revisited this issue in 2003, after two Texas men were convicted in state court of violating the Texas “homosexual conduct” statute (at 21.06 of the Texas Code). In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the US Supreme Court explicitly and bluntly overturned Bowers, apologizing to gay Americans for the terrible injustice that it had worked against these persons in Bowers.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to permit gay persons to marry. This development was followed in state after state; at the present time, a total of six states permit gay persons to marry (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). Whereas anti-gay bigots were once able to argue that this issue was “forced” upon the people by “judicial tyranny”, this argument no longer carries force – Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all legalized gay marriage without any form of judicial prompting.

Despite setbacks such as the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the gay community is making strides. Soon, the US Senate will approve a new hate crimes statute that will enhance the penalties for acts of violence perpetrated against persons due to their sexual orientation (note that this statute will apply to both gay persons and heterosexual persons alike; any gay person who attacks a heterosexual person based on his or her hatred of heterosexuals will face the same sentencing enhancement as that which will be applied to any heterosexual person who attacks a gay persons based on his or her hatred of gay persons).

The military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is becoming increasingly difficult for the Armed Forces to retain, and Congress is already considering repeal of this disgusting legislative enactment.

The bottom line is that we are winning the struggle for full and unequivocal societal acceptance. The sooner people such as “Mother Nature” wake up and smell the coffee, the better off they will be.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[Philip Chandler]

There are some very sick and cruel people in the word, as is clearly evinced by the writings of “Mother Nature”.

This individual should face the fact that both the law and the society in which we live are changing, as gay men and lesbians continue to make both legal and political headway. Back in 1986, the US Supreme Court handed down an obscene decision (Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986)) that permitted the states to criminalize gay sex, even when such sexual activity took place in private settings between consenting adults. This decision became the target of both immediate and sustained criticism; even some conservatives attacked the Court for meddling in the most private of contexts. At the time that Bowers was handed down, some 25 states made gay sex a crime; in some states, gay sex was punishable by extremely severe prison terms (the State of Georgia had on its books a statute that provided for the mandatory incarceration of any individual who had gay sex for a minimum of one year and a maximum of 20 years; the State of Montana had on its books a statute that provided for the incarceration of any individual who had gay sex for up to 10 years).

Activists seeking equality for gay persons turned to state supreme courts to strike down such statutes. Most state constitutions are more generous, either by their express terms or as construed by state reviewing courts, than is the US Constitution with respect to the guarantees of privacy and due process that they afford to their respective citizens. These activists were largely successful; over the course of the next 17 years, they invoked state constitutional analysis in state courts to strike down statute after statute, by 2003, only 14 states still retained these “sodomy” statutes.

The US Supreme Court revisited this issue in 2003, after two Texas men were convicted in state court of violating the Texas “homosexual conduct” statute (at 21.06 of the Texas Code). In Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), the US Supreme Court explicitly and bluntly overturned Bowers, apologizing to gay Americans for the terrible injustice that it had worked against these persons in Bowers.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to permit gay persons to marry. This development was followed in state after state; at the present time, a total of six states permit gay persons to marry (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine). Whereas anti-gay bigots were once able to argue that this issue was “forced” upon the people by “judicial tyranny”, this argument no longer carries force – Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine all legalized gay marriage without any form of judicial prompting.

Despite setbacks such as the passage of Proposition 8 in California, the gay community is making strides. Soon, the US Senate will approve a new hate crimes statute that will enhance the penalties for acts of violence perpetrated against persons due to their sexual orientation (note that this statute will apply to both gay persons and heterosexual persons alike; any gay person who attacks a heterosexual person based on his or her hatred of heterosexuals will face the same sentencing enhancement as that which will be applied to any heterosexual person who attacks a gay persons based on his or her hatred of gay persons).

The military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is becoming increasingly difficult for the Armed Forces to retain, and Congress is already considering repeal of this disgusting legislative enactment.

The bottom line is that we are winning the struggle for full and unequivocal societal acceptance. The sooner people such as “Mother Nature” wake up and smell the coffee, the better off they will be.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[Mother Nature]

Sorry Philip, there’s a huge difference between tolerance, and “full and unequivocal societal acceptance” attempting to be forced through intimidation, threats, extortion, and slanderous hypocritical attacks.

The GBLT community is among the nastiest, vitriolic, vindictive, hypocritical, and intolerant I’ve ever witnessed.

Bottom line: two wrongs don’t make a right, and two men can’t make a baby. When that changes, let me know.

[Tadump-tisssshhh]

I use to be gay... but it got to be a pain in the butt, so I quit...

[Terri]

Why don't you educate yourself in matters of vitriole and intolerant nastiness. These are, were, two kids. The LGBT community is far from perfect, as is the rest of the world. Too, clouding of the equal rights issue with the procreation argument is simply ridiculous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Gwen_Araujo

[Mother Nature]

You already have equal rights, what you want is "special" rights in an effort to justify your un-natural, un-healthy, and public endangerment lifestyle choice... in hopes of easing your guilt riddled and confused minds. And “clouding of the equal rights issue with the procreation argument” is no more “ridiculous” than clouding the gay marriage issue with slavery... which your ilk often does. So sell your sweat oil somewhere else.

[Philip Chandler]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you write about "intimidation, threats, extortion, and slanderous hypocritical attacks". The only intimidation and abuse that I see with respect to this issue is that which is imposed on gay Americans by religious wingnuts and right-wing extremists who fail to understand that we do NOT live in a theocracy.

I don't recall ever stating that two men can procreate. If you can find a single instance of my making such a statement, please bring this instance to my attention.

If you regard the procreative function as necessary before a couple may marry, then you must ensure that infertile couples, elderly couples, and those persons who do not wish to breed, also be denied marriage licenses. Is that what you really want?

You are quite right when you state that there is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Fortunately, more and more Americans are becoming ACCEPTING as opposed to tolerant. I state, again -- six states now permit gay couples to marry, and five states now recognize gay relationship in substance but not name (these five states being California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and New Jersey). The above-referenced five states refer to such relationships as domestic partnerships (California, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada) or as civil unions (New Jersey).

An additional four states grant to gay couples a limited subset of the rights associated with heterosexual marriage. These states include Hawaii, Maryland, Colorado, and Wisconsin.

All of these developments occurred within the last 10 years. In other words, gay Americans have managed to secure recognition of their relationships in no fewer than 15 states in less than 10 years.

Those Americans who state that they actually know one or more gay people personally tend to be much more accepting of gay people than are those Americans who insist that they do not know any gay people personally. Spending time with a gay person – either as a colleague or as a friend – has a powerful impact in terms of breaking down barriers between gay people and heterosexual people. Right-wing extremists know this, and it is for this reason that they do everything possible to ensure that gay people remain closeted. The closet is one of the most pernicious and ugly tools in the arsenal of oppression, and it is precisely because it enables bigots to continue to spew their hatred unchecked that I regard it incumbent on all gay Americans to come out to their friends, colleagues, neighbours, and co-workers.

As far as regards nasty, vitriolic, vindictive, hypocritical, and intolerant people are concerned – take a long, hard look into the mirror.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[Mother Nature]

Like I said: "two wrongs don’t make a right, and two men can’t make a baby. When that changes, let me know."

[NAMBLA]

We want our extra special rights too!

[not an ounce of guilt]

"You already have equal rights"

Laughable. There is no such thing as equal rights in this country. While we have a more equal set of rules and laws than most countries we most certainly do NOT have equal rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Teena

[Meg]

Appalling ignorance and cruelty! What does having a baby have to do with it? Many men and women can't have babies but they can be married. Should we ban marriage for all infertile people and all women over 50? Maybe we can even require divorce if they can no longer reproduce. Why are gay people so threatening to you?

[Philip Chandler]

Mother Nature -- I repeat: nobody ever said that two men could procreate independently. Please furnish me with a single example of my ever having made such a statement.

I also repeat -- if your criterion for deciding whether or not a couple should be permitted to marry turns on whether or not that couple can breed, then you must necessarily deny marriage licenses to the elderly, to infertile couples, and to those couples who state, up front, that they never wish to have children. Is that your desire?

You have not refuted even one of the points that I made above. All you have done is to repeat your tired refrain that two men cannot make a baby.

Exactly what is your point?

As for NAMBLA -- how absolutely typical of right-wing crackpots to conflate pedophilia with gay sexuality. I am an openly gay man, and I have absolutely no desire to have sex with children. Furthermore, I have never contracted a sexually transmitted disease, nor have I ever contracted HIV infection. Safe sex works, much to the dismay of some right-wing crackpots who actually WANT gay men to die of AIDS.

PHILIP CHANDLER

[Philip Chandler]

"You already have equal rights."

Really? So I can marry my boyfriend now?

So I can file a joint tax return?

So I can collect Social Security survivor benefits should my partner die before I do?

What planet do you live on, to post such utter tripe for the entire world to read?

PHILIP CHANDLER

[Terri]

http://queens-rules.org/2009/10/14/queens-hate-crime-suspect-arrested/

[ssssskip]

testy little freaks aren't we!

[Terri]

ayup!

http://queens-rules.org/2009/10/14/queens-hate-crime-suspect-arrested/

[Terri]

Sorry about that! Sadly there's no need to duplicate.

http://florida-issues.blogspot.com/2009/02/jury-deliberates-gay-murder-case.html

[~]

I "duplicated" once... now I pay child support... but i'm cool with that... love my kids!

[Brontosaurus]

---NEWS BULLETIN---

BILL FOSTER CAMPAIGNS AT PINELLAS COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

FOSTER FLYERS DISTRIBUTED AT ST. PETERSBURG HIGH SCHOOL

"Can I interest you in the government-funded story of Genesis?"

[T Rex]

---NEWS BULLETIN---

KATHLEEN FORD CAMPAIGNS AT PINELLAS COUNTY PUBLIC PARKS

FORD FLYERS DISTRIBUTED AT LOCAL PARK'S PONDS TO TURTLES AND FROGS

"Can I interest you in the government-funded story of how your grandma was a tadpole?"

[Brontosaurus]

T Rex, where did you get your GED?

The first of those bulletins is true. The second, of course, is nonsense.

[T Rex]

I got mine from “Mr. Slate’s Quarry and part-time GED School” ... I take it you got yours from the nearest “Mud Puddle Fertility Center and part-time GED School”

... As for the veracity of your “bulletin”... yawn!