Lesbiatopia

Tomorrow will mark the first Congressional hearing to evaluate the continued viability of the U.S. military "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy since its inception in 1993.

Much has changed in the way of public opinion over the past fifteen years. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) no longer appears to reflect the attitude of the majority of American citizens.

In sequential polls (1993, 2001, 2008), conducted jointly by The Washington Post and ABC News, participants were asked, "Do you think homosexuals who do publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military or not?" In 1993 only 44% of those polled answered affirmatively. The number rose to 62% in 2001 and has continued to rise to a decisive 75% in the most recent poll conducted last week.

In the meantime, recruitment and retention demands have increased markedly over the past several years as our military leaders strive to fulfill the personnel requirements created by our current overseas campaigns. Honorable, qualified gay and lesbian servicemen and women are discharged daily for no reason other than their sexual orientation, while other weary soldiers’ tours are extended and they are recycled to combat zones again and again.

In light of these developments, DADT has garnered a second look by members of Congress.

The Military Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee will consider arguments both for and against the policy at 2 PM tomorrow in a hearing which will be open to the public. (The hearing will be held in room 2118 of the Rayburn House Office Building on Independence Avenue in downtown DC. Those who wish to attend are encouraged to arrive early and be prepared to wait.)

Tomorrow's hearing is the first stage in response to a bill, H.R. 1246 or the “Military Readiness Enhancement Act,” introduced last February by Senator Marty Meehan (D-MA). The bill, if passed as is, would replace the DADT policy with one of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Representatives from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) will be present to offer statements in support of the bill. Although it is unlikely that a repeal of DADT will occur during the current administration, it is quite feasible in the near future depending on which of our current Presidential candidates is successful this November.

How do the candidates feel about this issue?

Senator John McCain believes that we should maintain the status quo.

He was quoted recently by the New York Times as saying, "Generally, overall, it’s working… I think it’s logical to leave this issue alone. I really do.”

Senator Barrack Obama has stated repeatedly that he would like to see DADT repealed.

In a statement released last month in correlation with annual Pride celebrations around the country, Obama is quoted as saying, “Let’s repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and demonstrate that the most effective and professional military in the world is open to all Americans who are ready and willing to serve our country.”

Read More......

On July 15th the Massachusetts State Senate voted unanimously to overturn a ninety five year old law banning marriage by out of state couples whose union would not be recognized as legal in their home states.

The 1913 law was resurrected in 2004 by then governor Mitt Romney in response to the legalization of same sex marriage. At the time Governor Romney was quoted as saying he did not want Massachusetts to become “the Las Vegas of gay marriage.” He was successful in limiting same sex marriage rights to couples who were citizens of the state.

When California legalized same sex marriage last month it imposed no such restrictions. Since that time the state’s economy has seen a boon to its tourism and wedding-related industries to the tune of millions of dollars. A recent study conducted by researchers at UCLA projected a net to California’s economy upwards of $600 million over the next three years, but they may have to adjust their predictions in light of the recent Massachusetts decision. (The bill will now go to the House, where it is expected to pass without contest.) It seems that gay and lesbian couples all over the United States will now have a choice.

The New York Times reports, "a just-released study commissioned by the State of Massachusetts concludes that in the next three years about 32,200 couples would travel here to get married, creating 330 permanent jobs and adding $111 million to the economy, not including spending by wedding guests and tourist activities the weddings might generate."

Much of the anticipated Massachusetts influx is expected to arrive from neighboring New York, where Governor David Paterson has declared that he will recognize same sex marriages performed in other states as legal unions with all accorded rights and privileges. Same sex marriages involving out of state couples performed in California and Massachusetts will undoubtedly lead to court challenges in many of the other forty eight states. While this may increase urgency on the part of opponents to pursue a federal marriage amendment there does not appear to be adequate support in Congress at this time.

Clearly, money talks and perhaps this is the silver lining to a recessed economy for gay and lesbian couples.

Read More......

Over on Current TV, debate is hot over a State of Wisconsin law that says if a same-sex couples from Wisconsin goes to California to get married, it is a criminal offense that threatens them with a $10,000 fine or up to 9 months in jail (or both) if they do marry in California.

This law was passed decades ago, says it is illegal to enter into a marriage outside the state if that marriage is not legal in Wisconsin and was enacted to prevent underage couples from crossing state lines to marry.

In 2006 Wisconsin voters passed a constitutional same-sex marriage ban; gay marriage is not legal in Wisconsin.

But up till last month this law was not really a problem for Lesbians and Gays in that state because the only state that had gay marriage was Massachusetts. Their law essentially has a caveat in it that says same-sex marriages preformed in Massachusetts are only legal outside the state of Massachusetts if that state also recognizes same-sex marriage. In other words, if I got married in Massachusetts, my marriage would only be recognized in California.

California’s marriage law has no residency requirement for marriage and has no “good only in California” caveat. The May 15 ruling opened up marriage to all same-sex couples no matter where they live.

It has also opened up a big door to challenges for other states anti same-sex marriage laws under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, or more commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause mandates that states within the US have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states.

Now, the religious right-wing fundamentalists in Wisconsin are pointing to the underage couples law, stating it should be applied to Gay and Lesbian couples residing in Wisconsin as a way to stop them from marrying in California and by doing thereby prevent these Constitutional challenges.

Same-sex marriage opposition in WI is out in full force hoping to accomplish just that.

Most of the pro-law supporters in the Current TV debate seem to think this law is a fair way to handle the problem. But they are mostly justifying their positions by saying things like, “Gay Marriage is an abomination to God”, “The Bible says it is wrong”, “God hates Homosexuality” and that being Gay is “a threat to religion.” What I see going on here in this debate is the “religiously affiliated” want laws to officially codify their religious beliefs. They seem to have forgotten there is and should always be a distinct separation between church and state.

There is such hatred of homosexuals in this country and it all seems to be come from religious zealots who believe that the only rights anyone should be afforded are the ones they believe in.

Religious Right leaders such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and D. James Kennedy have often claimed that they offer the mainstream vision of America. Their own words, however, demonstrate a radical world view far removed from the values of most Americans. Over the past two decades, their rhetoric and agenda have been shrill, divisive and extreme.

Being gay should not be viewed as a threat to anyone’s religion, gay or straight, and that all people should be treated with the same equal basic human rights like anyone else. We all pay our taxes, live by the laws that are governed to us and do our best to live up to a respectable moral code.

Gays having the same rights as everyone else will not affect any one religious affiliation more than another; more people will not become gay, more people will or will not go to church, the social fabric will not be destroyed and the cathedrals will not fall.

Religious groups take widely varying stands on issues such as marriage and human sexuality. It is imperative that the government respects American diversity by not imposing one tradition’s narrow view of marriage and sexuality on the entire country.

The problem with doing this is that our country is comprised of so many different religious groups and political affiliations that to have one dominant religious influence mandating the laws of our country is downright unfair.

Even among the LGBT community or the Editorial Staff at Lesbiatopia for that matter, there is not agreement on religious beliefs or how the Bible should be perceived.

I hold a Doctorate in Classical Humanities and have made it my life's work to study ancient cultures and their myths.

In my opinion, the Bible is a fictional tale, based on relevant events at a period in history when the Bible was written to explain natural occurrences that the writers of the Bible had no explanation for and The Bible should not be rendered as an entirely historical or factual piece of literature anymore than say the Iliad should.

Renee, on the other hand, believes that the Bible is based mostly on truths and past events, but that there is a strong need for Americans to find their own path of spirituality and not base life choices on exact quotations from one book and one book alone.

But both Renee and myself however believe some Christians have continuously mis-quoted passages from the Bible to their advantage, especially when arguing against homosexuality, thus creating an overwhelming sense of hypocrisy on their part in our eyes when they ignore other passages of the Bible that even they cannot abide by.

One such example of this Bible misinterpretation we have found is highlighted extensively and with much success in the documentary film For the Bible Tells Me So, which brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture – and reveals that religious anti-gay bias is based almost solely upon a misinterpretation of the Bible.

But most importantly we both agree what we really need is a strict line of demarcation between church and state and the single greatest threat to church-state separation in America is the movement known as the Religious Right.

We feel organizations and leaders representing this religio-political crusade seek to impose a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on all Americans through government action and they represent very serious threat to every American and their basic freedoms.

In final, it doesn’t matter what any religious group feels or thinks about homosexuality. It is not their place to lobby for such a law as the one being debated in Wisconsin because it fits into their religious beliefs.

We feel they need to remove their religious affiliations and go back to Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution; that which seeks to provide a fair, just and non-religious mandate and all US states and territories must to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states, not the just the one the Religious Right agrees with.

We support the American’s United for Separation of Church and State position that says the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, established religious liberty -- the right of individuals to worship or not -- as a defining American value.

This separation protects us from undue religious influence in government and undue government intervention in religion and private decision-making. We feel that the wall separating government and religion is being eroded, and so is our right to make personal decisions.

And we probably will see you in the Supreme Court before this debate finally ends.

Read More......

Historically when times are not good in this country the blame tends to fall on the party that holds the White House.

With the terrible economic news of factory closings in the heartland, and numbers on home foreclosures, joblessness and gas prices heading upward everyday, many folks in this country are feeling pretty dissatisfied.

According to a recent Pew Research poll measuring the attitudes of the middle class, for the first time in 50 years of polling, a majority of Americans believe they are falling behind economically.

If you add in the extraordinarily un-popular, mismanaged war in Iraq, that in essence was started under false pretenses by the current Republican Administration, (one strongly supported by Republican Presidential Nominee John McCain,) things are not looking all that rosy for the GOP this fall.

In 1933 Adolph Hitler wanted to pass this thing called the “Enabling Act” that fundamentally abolished the German Constitution and made him the “Fuhrer”. But with the German economy in the toilet and with no perceptible strategy to fix it, he was really not all that popular. Most people in Germany saw that his only agenda was to secure power for himself and the Nazis. So with only about a 30% approval rating with the German People, his political future did not look all that bright.

To make his position secure Hitler had some of his boys head over to the German Parliament or Reichstag Building and start a little fire that he blamed on the “others” to get attention away from he fact that he was not doing his job all that well….

His plan worked, conservative voters who had no time for Hitler’s crap before the fire felt threaten by “the others” now and voted him the powers he needed to become what he in the end became. As Hitler knew, it is a pretty well accepted the more conservative an individual is, the more concerned they will be about being able to control their environment and he played that card.

In 2004, Republican strategists effectively borrowed a page from Hitler’s play book. Saying they wanted to protect children and families, they used the "specter" of gay marriage, “gay others” and our “gay agenda” and supported the Federal Marriage Amendment to divert voter attention from a war that was not going all that well at all and via same-sex marriage bans on 11 state ballots they managed get enough conservative voters out to the polls to retain the White House in that election.

The Federal Marriage Amendment, also known as the Marriage Protection Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would define marriage in the United States as a union of one man and one woman. The FMA also would prevent judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples.

The most recent vote to take place on the proposed Amendment occurred in the United States House of Representatives on July 18, 2006 when the Amendment failed 236 yea to 187 nay votes, falling short of the 290 yea votes required for passage. The Senate has only voted on bringing debate to a quick end with regard to the proposed Amendment.

The Republicans know the economy is tanking. As well,they know the war in Iraq has turned into an endless morass, and many of their traditional supporters are feeling things are getting pretty out of control in this country. Consequently, not really having an effective plan in the offering to fix these concerns, it seems Republicans are getting out the matches and are trying to light up the Gay Reichstag fire one more time.

Saying the FMA was urgent and necessary in light of the recent California court ruling that could potentially force gay marriage on states that don’t want it, last week Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, (who’s voting record in the Senate is in lock step with the current administration,) re-introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment in the Senate for the first time since it stalled in the House nearly two years ago.

Referring to California and that states lifting of its same-sex marriage ban, Wicker said in a statement …

Invariably, couples from that state will now move to states like Mississippi, or the other states that have prohibitions on same-sex marriage…. And they will ask that those 'marriages' be recognized.”

Smart man that Wicker, this is my plan exactly… Because under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, more commonly known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, states within the United States have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states. It is my intention to go to California after the November Election, get married there and then come back to my home state of North Carolina and sue them for violating my Constitutional Rights under Article IV, Section 1…. Must be why Wicker is a Senator huh?

While the FMA has no more chance of passing in congress then it had in 2006, bearing in mind that even Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain says he does not support it, you can be sure that as November gets closer, instead of putting forth plans solving the economic woes in this country and that get us out of Iraq, you will be seeing more and more Republicans saying “oh look, evil gay people want their full rights guaranteed them under the Constitution. We can’t have that, it would ruin the country.”

"Pro-family groups" said they were upbeat about the bill, while emphasizing its importance in protecting families and children.

Hell why they are at it, maybe Senator Wicker, all long with his Republican friends, should just go ahead and try to repeal the whole constitution like Hitler did in Germany.

A 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office finds 1,138 statutory provisions "in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving 'benefits, rights, and privileges,' that include property rights, benefits, and taxation. Additionally same-sex couples are ineligible for spousal and survivor Social Security benefits.

I have been living in a committed lesbian relationship for over 10 years, and we have two well-loved and well cared for children. We work, vote and pay our taxes to support this nation. We are Americans and good ones. In addition we are also a family and a good one of those too. My “Gay American Family” is here to stay and we want our full rights under the Constitution.

No, the problems in this country are not caused by us “Gay Others” or my “Gay Family”; they are being caused by 8 years of bad management under a Republican Administration that Sen. Wicker has fully supported all along. It is the incompetent policies of that Republican Administration that caters to the likes of Big Churches, Big Oil and bigots that has lead to run-a-way inflation, unemployment and fuel prices, that my “Gay American Family” as all American families currently are experiencing full force across this nation.

And I am sick and tired of being used as a smoke screen for Republican incompetence.

Read More......

Just in case you have any questions why we as LGBT voters need to support Barack Obama….

With the death toll in the war in Iraq rising every day, the economy heading into the tank and numbers on home foreclosures, joblessness and gas prices heading to the moon, John McCain, has taken some very unpopular George Bush-like stances on lifting the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, expanding Bush's tax cuts, and leaving the troops in Iraq forever, so he will need all the conservative voters he can get.

McCain knows that in 2004 Bush did a pretty good job of using same-sex marriage bans on 11 state ballots to get conservative voter out to the polls, even though McCain refused to support the proposed federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which Bush promoted in that election.

But when it’s your name on the ballot, old Republican tricks die hard, so in an effort to woo votes from people he once called "agents of intolerance" he is making a play to conservative evangelicals by last week expressing his support for the ballot measure to end same-sex marriages in California, also known as Proposition 8 and Florida’s Anti Gay Marriage Initiative.



In an E-Mail to the anti-gay protectmarriage.com, McCain said…

I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona,"

On the other hand, recently Barack Obama posted a letter on San Francisco’s Alice B Toklas Democratic Club website expressing his support for secure equal rights LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country that I would like to share with you….

Dear Friends,

Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.

For too, long issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans.

Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Any more Questions?

Read More......

Now here is a story that made me cry when I dug into it….

From current TV

On Wednesday, 26th June 2008, Janice Langbehn sued the Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami for denying her the right to have access to her dying partner, Lisa Pond. The two women, who had been together for 18 years and had three children together, were about to embark on a family cruise when Pond collapsed and was rushed to hospital. Except for a 5-minute visit, Langbehn was not able to spend time with her partner as she lay dying, because the hospital did not recognize the two women as a family. In addition, after her partner's death, Langbehn was not allowed to access the death certificate, which in turn made it impossible for her to claim life insurance and Social Security benefits for their children. Langbehn is represented by Lambda Legal, the largest organization fighting for civil rights of lesbian and gay citizens in the US.

In February 2007, Janice Langbehn of Olympia, Washington, along with her partner Lisa Marie Pond, and three of their four children were in Florida getting ready for a cruise to the Bahamas as part of a celebration for their eighteenth anniversary.

While the ship crew was getting ready to sail, Janice was down in the family’s stateroom unpacking, and Lisa and the kids were on the top deck of the ship playing basketball when she collapsed from what was later determined to be a brain aneurysm.

The kids managed to help her down to the family's stateroom, unable to walk or stand on her own.

As soon as Janice saw Lisa she knew something was seriously wrong and asked her if she had hit her head, to which Lisa replied in sign language, (which the couple had learned fostering language-delayed children) no.

Soon paramedics were on board taking Lisa to the hospital and as the wheeled her off the ship she signed “I love you” to Janice…

And it would be the last time Janice and their children would see Lisa alive, because when the family arrived at Miami’s Jackson Memorial Hospital they were told that because they were not considered relatives, they could not see Lisa and were told by a hospital social worker “You are in an antigay city and state” before he left them standing in the waiting room while in the trauma room, alone, Lisa’s condition worsened.

Janice and Lisa had taken every precaution that something like this would never happen to them including signing advanced directives and durable powers of attorney, but Lisa still died alone, because even after a friend back in their home in Olympia, WA faxed the legal documents that showed that Lisa had authorized Janice to make medical decisions for her, she still was not invited to be with her partner or told anything about her condition. Janice wasn't allowed to see Lisa again until a priest arrived to give Last Rites. So Lisa was denied the right to be with her family and to hold Janice’s hand during the last moments of her life.

While I was researching this story, my thoughts went two experiences I recently had with the passing of special people in my life.

I was there at the passing of both my grandparents. I held their hands as they said good-bye and left this world, both telling me they loved me. These were times of sadness to be sure, for losing one that is so much a part of your heart is going to be a sad time, but they were also times of indescribable closure for everyone. Looking back these were times that were needed by all and I am so happy I got that time with them.

Because of this personal experience with the passing of a loved one, I at times found myself crying while writing this article, my heart truly went out to Janice and her family, for they were, as I well know from my own experiences, denied a truly important moment by not being allowed to be there so they could say a last good-bye and I love you to Lisa, a partner of 18 years and a loving mother.

I cried at how cruel and hateful these people in the hospital were, because they above all, know what this time means to those passing and those who remain to carry on.

I also cried because this could happen to any of us who are in a long-term committed lesbian or gay relationships. The very thought of not being there as Debs left the world and not being able to tell her my last I love you me made me cry.

This time will one day come to us all, death is just part of life. I accept that and when the passing of my partner Debs or myself comes, it will be a sad time to be sure. But to me, it is a sadder thought not to have the people you love there holding your hand, telling you it is ok and that they love you when that time does come.

How dare these people!!!!!

Read More......

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The federal government has ruled that the Social Security Administration must extend benefits to the children of partners in same-sex unions even if the parent is not biologically related.

The U.S. Department of Justice opinion was in response to a case involving a Vermont couple. It says that the federal Defense of Marriage Act does not exclude the nonbiological child of partners in a same-sex union from receiving benefits.

The October 2007 opinion was made public this month.

The opinion refers to two Vermont women who entered into a civil union in 2002 and later tried to pass on the nonbiological parent's disability benefits to their child born in 2003.

Read More......

Its a new day and a new dawn in California.... 2 down 48 to go...

Read More......

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow dream away
In the wind of change

Read More......

This is for those who argue against gay marriage and insist that the only marriages between men and women can be real and that lesbians and gays cannot form committed relationships

When Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin fell in love and moved in together it was 1953. They stayed together for better or worse, for richer and poorer in sickness and health, and thru FBI investigations of their gay right activism ever since and today, more than a half-century after they became a couple Lyon and Martin plan to become one of the first same-sex couples to legally exchange marriage vows in California in a private ceremony San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will be to officiating in his City Hall office.


On February 12, 2004, Martin and Lyon were issued a marriage license by the City and County of San Francisco after mayor Gavin Newsom ordered that marriage licenses be given to same-sex couples who requested them.

The California Supreme Court later voided these licenses on August 12 2004.

But is was this incident that would be the catalyst for last months historic California supreme court decision that will make it finally possible for Del and Phyllis to be at long last pronounced legal spouses.

Yes Del, 87, and Phyllis, 84, will finally make it legal, even though Phyllis will be pushing Del down the aisle in a wheelchair after the ceremony.

Del Martin was born on May 5, 1921, in San Francisco and was educated at the University of California, Berkeley and at San Francisco State College, where she studied journalism. She was married for four years to James Martin, whose name she retained after her divorce and has one daughter.

Phyllis Lyon was born November 10, 1924 in Tulsa, Oklahoma and holds a degree in journalism from the University of California, Berkeley.

Martin and Lyon met in Seattle in 1950 when they began working for the same magazine and became lovers in 1952, entering into a formal partnership in 1953 when they moved to San Francisco together.

Years later, Lyon and Martin recalled how they learned to live together in 1953.

"We really only had problems our first year together. Del would leave her shoes in the middle of the room, and I'd throw them out the window," said Lyon, to which Martin responded, "You'd have an argument with me and try to storm out the door. I had to teach you to fight back”

But in a recent AP Article Del said, "We get along well… And we love each other."

Together they founded The Daughters of Bilitis, considered to be the first lesbian rights organization in the United States. The DOB lasted for fourteen years, becoming a tool of education for lesbians, gay men, researchers, and mental health professionals.

In 1979 Lyon-Martin Health Services, named after Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin was founded by a group of medical providers and health activists as a clinic for lesbians who lacked access to nonjudgmental, affordable health care., the clinic soon became a model for culturally sensitive community-based health care.

Since 1993, Lyon-Martin also has provided case management and primary healthcare in programs specifically designed for very low-income and uninsured women with HIV.

My partner Debbie and I have been together for 10 years and today I was telling Lesbiatopia’s Publisher, Lesberita, that 10 years living with the same person could seemed like a long time, but that is time that has seemingly flown by for us.

Yes Debbie and I have had our ups and our downs… we struggled with addictions, illnesses and pregnancy. We have been poor, so poor we worried about what we were going to eat. Our relationship has been stressed to the point we quit speaking for days. But we have always continued working together to overcome our problems and we still work together everyday, because we love each other.

We know what stresses each other are facing; we know each other’s life dreams, we mesh well on basic values and goals in life. We appreciate the things we do for each other in our relationship and at the end of the day are glad to see each other.

After all these years, Debs is still my best friend. I can’t even imagine going to bed and not having her there with me, but when we are apart, I often think fondly her. Romance is definitely still part of our relationship and I still just love to touch and kiss her.

I want to spend the rest of my days with her and be there holding hands as we live out our last days.

I can only imagine that is how Del and Phyllis feel about each other and I bet they would also say that it only seemed like yesterday when they were tossing shoes out of the window.

Congratulations Del and Phyllis. We here at Lesbiatopia hope you have many happy years to come.

Who says lesbians and gays cannot form committed relationships?

Read More......

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door….

Except if you are gay and married, then its lights out.

Up until 1991, just being gay was considered grounds for exclusion from the United States, as gays and lesbians were classified as "sexual deviants" under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

We Gays and Lesbians have fortunately been removed from that list, and are no longer being precluded from coming to the United State to live just because we are gay, that is a long as you don’t have a same sex partner you want to bring with you.


As it stands now, because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, even same sex couples which have been legally married in Massachusetts, California, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Norway or Belgium, are not be able to immigrate with their spouses based on their marriage in those places to the land of the free and the home of the brave.

But is not just a problem for people who want to immigrate to this country.

Consider this; one day you meet the girl of your dreams while vacationing overseas or you happen to fall in love with a student from another country while in college and decide you’d like to spend your lives together, getting married in a state that recognizes gay marriage?

In 16 countries throughout the world, the foreign partner in gay bi-national relationship could be granted citizenship in the residing country, just as a heterosexual couple can.

But the official policy of the United States says foreign partners of a gay bi-national relationship don’t have that right.

As a result, gay and lesbian couples, notwithstanding of the length of their relationship or the level of commitment, are more often then not, forced to either live apart or find another country in which to live that will recognize their commitment to each other.

With California extending its marriage law to include same sex couples you can be sure bi-national same sex couple in the United States will find this an ever-increasing problem that they will somehow have to deal with.

The Uniting American Families Act (UAFA, H.R. 2221, S. 1328) is a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate this discrimination against same sex couple in the immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful permanent residents.

But the “Family Friendly” Republican Party opposes this act, so it is sitting in committee and bi-national same sex couples in this country suffer still every day.

Our friend Ada, over at Current TV sent along this heart-rending video called "Let My Partner Stay", which in Brittany and Joanna, a lesbian bi-national couple find they have to deal with the fact same-sex marriages are not recognized in the United States and that the lamp beside the golden door has, for them, been extinguished.

The cornerstones of this country are supposed to be "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ".

Brittany and Joanna did not look very happy to me; I saw a lot of tears in that video.

I know when I watched this video I cried with this couple, but does anyone know if Lady Liberty was weeping for Brittany and Joanna as well?

Read More......

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
from the midnight sun where the wild dyke queens grow.

The hammer of the gods
Will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying:
Gay Marriage, it is coming!

This just in from our source in the Secret Lesbian Viking Enclave …

The Norwegian parliament has passed a vote in favor of giving same sex couples the same ‘marriage’ rights as straight couples, making Norway the sixth nation in the world to remove marriage discrimination from its legislation.

With the new law, married same sex couples will be on equal footing with married heterosexual couples and will have the same rights regarding adoption and artificial inseminations.

Among other things, the new legislation replaces the "registered partnership" law from 1993, a law that gave Norwegian gays and lesbians the right to civil unions.

Religious institutions will still be allowed to opt-out of wedding gay and lesbian couples, and health care workers who do not want to perform artificial inseminations on lesbians because of their personal convictions will not be under any obligation to carry out the procedure.

The Norseman, were once seen through the classical mindset as "Barbarians from the North", but now the modern historical image of them has changed much and shows the Vikings as inspirational, adventurous peoples who brought much to Christian Europe. This new law only reinforces that perception of those proud people of the north with us here at Lesbiatopia.

So sisters sharpen up your swords and battle-axes, get in your long ships, and let the hammer of the Gods blow you to our Western Shores, your enlightenment is more than welcomed here.

Read More......

Yesterday, A federal appeals court upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by 12 gay and lesbian veterans who had challenged the military "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The plaintiffs, all had been discharged under the policy, instituted by Congress in 1993.

1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Howard said in the decision issued Monday that while some people may question the wisdom of the policy, the court had to defer to congressional decision-making.

The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy prohibits the military from asking about the sexual orientation of service members, but requires discharge of those who acknowledge being gay or engaging in homosexual activity.

The plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit that the policy violates their Constitutional rights to privacy, free speech and equal protection.

But the question I have to ask... Why is it Congress still won’t take action to end DADT seeing that one of the reason this country even has a Capitol Building for them to sit in and many of them are even alive today is in part because of one brave Gay American?


On September 11, 2001, when Mark Bingham, boarded United Airlines Flight 93 in Newark, NJ, little did he know that United Airlines Flight 93 was one of four planes to be hijacked as part of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, nor did it ever cross his mind that he would become a hero that day, even throughout his life he had alway been a heroic man. I am sure he never thought he would save a future presidential hopeful.

But when Christian family man Todd Beamer finished reading the 23rd psalm and uttered the now famous phrase, “let’s roll”, Mark stood up from his seat and was there to be counted among the hero’s that day, he was with those who attempted to storm the cockpit trying to prevent the hijackers from using the plane to kill perhaps even thousands more additional victims that day.

Mark Bingham was openly gay.But on United Airlines Flight 93 on September the 11th 2001 that did not matter to the others Mark joined with trying to keep the terrorist from striking our Nations Capital. Mark Bingham did what he had to do, and he helped strike the first blows in the war on terror…

Jesus of Nazareth said, “Greater love hath no man than this… that a man lay down his life for his friends”… and Mark Bingham, Gay American, paid the ultimate price when he gave his life to save others, others he did not even know, others that would deny him his full rights as an American Citizen.

Speaking before a crowd of 500 people who gathered at the University of California at Berkeley for the memorial service for Mark, Sen. John McCain praised Mark Bingham's heroic sacrifice and said,

It is now believed that the terrorists on Flight 93 intended to crash the airplane into the United States Capitol where I work, the great house of democracy where I was that day… It is very possible that I would have been in the building, with a great many other people… I may very well owe my life to Mark and the others who summoned the enormous courage and love necessary to deny those depraved, hateful men their terrible triumph. Such a debt you incur for life.”

At a forum in New York in 2007 when asked about the military policy toward gays, Mr. McCain said,

I recently had a conversation with some other military leaders on this issue and their point to me was ‘It’s working, so leave it alone. Generally, overall, it’s working.’ I don’t think there’s any doubt that there are evolving attitudes in America about many issues, including this one, but every military leader that I talk to, I say ‘Should we change it?’ They say, ‘It’s working.’ And right now we’ve got the best military we’ve ever had - the most professional, best trained, equipped and the bravest. And so I think it’s logical to leave this issue alone. I really do.”

The Medal of Honor is the highest award for bravery that can be given to any individual in the United States. The Medal is awarded "in the name of the Congress of the United States," and for this reason, it is often called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

The criteria for the award of this medal is that the recipient distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against any enemy of the United States.

The deed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice, an action that conspicuously distinguished the individual above his comrades. Incontestable proof of the performance of service is exacted and the recommendation for award of this decoration is considered on the standard of extraordinary merit. Eligibility is limited to members of the armed forces of the United States in active military service.

While I think there are few who would deny that Marks actions on 9-11 more then met the criteria for this Medal, Mark however could never be eligible for the Congressional Medal of Honor, because as an Openly Gay American, under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Mark would never have been allowed to be a member of the US Military.

Senator McCain says he owes Mark his life, yet he and other member of congress, members Mark saved that day with his “gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against any enemy of the United States”, still sit back and oppose repealing Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

Fredrick Douglas said during the American Civil War…

Once let the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an ea