Dear Supreme Court Justices: You're On Deck

Dear Supreme Court Justices: You're On Deck
Dear Supreme Court Justices,

You are on deck, and it’s me again. I’m writing both to thank you for taking up a case that might finally grant security to millions of families like mine and to beg you to think about the chaos you are rendering if you fail to do so. Here you are up to bat again. Please make this one count.

My sweet family is but one example of the ways the current situation is demoralizing and, frankly, bizarrely complicated. I doubt that any of you can even imagine the contortions to which LGBT families are subjected in the current landscape. I keep trying to think of the perfect analogy to offer so that you can understand, but, instead of an analogy, I’m left with the stories of my own small family. You remember us. My partner and I have a seven-year-old son, and I want you to hurry up before I have to explain to him how you have failed to protect his mothers and his future. As I told you before, he is growing quickly, and your time is running out.

But there’s more to it for us than just not wanting our son’s outlook to be compromised. Just last week, we encountered another horrific way in which the inconsistency of state to state laws can harm us. This one is ridiculous — so, ridiculous, in fact, that I wouldn’t even believe it myself if I weren’t living it. A little over a year ago, my partner was a pedestrian hit by a car. We have been struggling with medical bills for major back injury and post-concussive syndrome. But we have supportive employers, and family, and we are well-insured. Or so we thought.

Well, that driver was underinsured, so we looked to our own insurance to see about our underinsured policy. Apparently I made the original call to get both cars insured eight years ago when we moved here. And, although I was explicit that the coverage was for both of us, our insurance now claims that, because it was not legal for us to be married in our state fourteen months ago when the accident happened, the policy really only covers me. Luckily, we have other avenues to pursue, so we will let attorneys fight that one out.

Because we are now legally married and are free to be so both in our state and federally, I wanted to make sure that our current coverage — with a different carrier — fully includes us both, as it would any other married couple. When I explained to our agent exactly why I was so frustrated by this, she actually posed another complicating question. If such an accident happened again, and we are eligible for coverage in our home state and federally, would our insurance still be required to pay if the accident actually occurred in a state that does not allow same-sex marriage? I, of course, could not provide an answer.

Surely you recognize the absurdity of what I am telling you. After a couple of years of having to do our taxes together federally and then redo them separately for our state, I thought the absurdity was coming to an end. Now I’m not quite sure how to be certain my partner and I are fully covered with car insurance unless we take out completely separate policies because, although in our state and federally we are married, we still aren’t married in some states and that could be used against us if an accident happened there.

It’s not enough that the hospital where she was first seen treated me horribly when I arrived at the ER to be with her. It’s not enough that she, who stayed home with our son for the first years of his life, still isn’t quite legally his mother because a judge in our state has put up obstacles solely because he doesn’t believe in two-mother families, despite supportive laws in our state. It’s not enough that we had to pay taxes on the part of her insurance my employer paid because that was treated as taxable income when my straight colleagues received that benefit tax-free. We keep these insults at bay merely by clinging to the love we share and the delight of being family to one another. But, honestly, could any family, including yours, be expected to endure with such chronic insult?

In the end, many of us in LGBT families may need to thank you. The marriages many of us have formed are melded in ways few straight couples can understand simply because we have walked through fire together. But enough is enough. We have gone the extra mile. But we are tired of doing so. We are tired of the sometimes small but all too often enormous barriers to our pursuit of happiness that you have allowed.

So when you hear this case, and when you debate it, trying to decide if you should just leave it to states to sort it out, please think about my sweet, small family and the ways the current inconsistencies can and do hurt us. We have so many more important things to be working on, like our son’s spelling homework or his swing for his next little league game. For his sake and ours, please knock this one out of the park.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

www.huffingtonpost.com/paula-k-garrett/dear-supreme-court-justic_1_b_7157804.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

DVD: “Boy Meets Girl,” “Mommy,” “First Period,” “Appropriate Behavior,” & More!

DVD: “Boy Meets Girl,” “Mommy,” “First Period,” “Appropriate Behavior,” & More!

dm-6

It’s a super-queer week in home entertainment, from a drag queen comedy to a bent vampire flick (Drink Me; above) to a Cannes hit by one of cinema’s youngest gay talents.

We’ve got five to rundown, so let’s get on with it!

 

First Period

($24.98 DVD; Screen Media)

Likened to John Waters meets John Hughes, director John Vaughn’s cross-dressed retro comedy sees a pair of unpopular high school girls clash with the popular ones when a talent contest threatens to tip the balance. Features supporting turns from Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira Queen of the Dark, Jack Plotnick, and Eating Out’s Rebekah Kochan. Extras include a commentary, deleted scenes, making-of featurette, and deleted song.

 

Appropriate Behavior

($29.95 DVD; Kino Lorber)

After making a splash at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival, this Brooklyn-set first feature from director/writer/star Desiree Akhavan sees a bisexual Persian-American woman go off the rails a bit while coping with an ex-girlfriend and her conservative family. Both funny and poignant stuff.

 

Drink Me

($24.99 DVD; TLA)

In this nudity-filled British import, a gay couple, Andy and James, find themselves at a dangerous crossroads when mysterious stranger Sebastian enters their lives. Is it possible he’s a… vampire? (spoiler alert: yes)


Boy Meets Girl

($24.95 DVD; Wolfe)

Transgender actress Michelle Hendley provides a nuanced star turn in this romantic dramedy about a pre-operative trans female, Ricky, who juggles friendships and crushes of fellow Kentucky locals including a bi-curious Republican girl and good ol’ boy best bud.

 

Mommy

($19.99 DVD; Lionsgate)

The latest feature from young, gay Quebecois filmmaker Xavier Dolan snagged a Grand Jury prize at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival. Mostly shot in a narrow 5:4 aspect ratio – as if on a cellphone – it involves the relationship between a teenager suffering from ADHD and violent impulses and his widowed mother.

 

ALSO OUT:

Im-a-Stripper-4-Vudu-PosterI’m A Stripper: America’s Most Wanted

 

The Barber

 

There’s Always Woodstock

Lawrence Ferber

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/4yxHkRCVSJ8/dvd-boy-meets-girl-mommy-first-period-appropriate-behavior-more-20150428

Falling Through the Cracks: My Struggle to Survive as a Homeless Youth

Falling Through the Cracks: My Struggle to Survive as a Homeless Youth
2015-04-26-1430081314-2329887-Huffington_edited1.jpg

The sun has only barely begun to peek over the horizon but the faint brightness of the early morning sunrise stirs me in my sleep. I start to wake and for a brief moment I feel almost normal — perhaps even happy — suspended in a blissful state of ignorance as the sleep begins to leave my body and my mind wakes and adjusts to its surroundings.

Almost within the same instant, I am paralyzed, I can’t move or breathe, and an overload of anxiety begins to fill every fiber of my being. Reality sets in and I am suddenly all too aware that I am under a bridge and surrounded by cold concrete ringed with the piercing smells of asphalt and urine.

There were always moments like this, moments where I’d have to remind myself where I was and who I’d become. My mind seemed to be going through this process of rejecting its surroundings — unable to fully accept the present — I would constantly find myself lost in vivid memories of my past as if my psyche was trying to remind me of who I was, and then within the same breath, I’d feel the harsh pangs of depression arise as I remembered my reality.

I was homeless, forgotten, abandoned, and alone. A product of the Texas foster care system, I had no one.

My life was reduced to two pairs of cloths, a well-worn backpack, and the streets. By day, I begged strangers for their change; and by night, I was turning tricks for a place to stay, a shower, a hot meal, or whatever resources I could trade my body for.

That was my reality.

The many years I had spent growing up in foster care took away any chances I had at a normal life. I lived in over 20 different homes — sometimes moving every six to eight months — never staying in one place long enough to create support systems, build community, or establish roots. Sometimes, I think that maybe this was for the better because almost all of the 20-plus homes I lived in were imbued with abuse.

By the time I was 18, I had been raped and beaten more times than I care to remember — often by the very people the state of Texas was paying to “care” for me.

On the streets, I found out very quickly that there aren’t a lot of resources for homeless youth in Houston, especially if you’re gay. I remember once being turned away from the Covenant House — a homeless shelter that caters to youth — after an intake worker determined I was gay and erroneously suggested that I “probably had AIDS” and would be a risk to other youth in the shelter.

So I learned to make due with what I had. Most nights, I would wonder the streets in Montrose until someone picked me up. Sometimes I’d get lucky and they’d let me spend the night, but more often then not, I’d be forced to sleep on the roof of a shopping strip in the north side of Houston — no more than 10 blocks away from the group home I was living at when I aged out of the system and into homelessness.

I spent the next six months on the streets doing this over and over again, living day-to-day, surviving through the street economy — alone, ashamed and guilt-ridden.

One day in August of 2010, I was in downtown Houston searching for an air-conditioned space and a restroom and ended up wondering into the University of Houston-Downtown.

That day, the course of my life changed.

Youth who age out of the foster care system in Texas are eligible to utilize a tuition waiver that covers the complete costs of tuition and fees at state-funded institutions of higher education within the state.

It was on that fateful day in August that I found out about this waiver, and with the help of university staff I registered for classes and applied for financial aid. I spent the majority of my first semester homeless, struggling to keep up with my course work — but eventually, I would receive a refund check for about $2,000 that I used to get my first apartment.

I live in that very same apartment today, and in May of this year, I will graduate from the University of Houston-Downtown with a bachelor’s degree in social work.

My life was, still is, and will always be worth something.

I wasn’t a lost cause, a degenerate, or a waste of space. I was a human being, a person, and a youth, who because of my life’s circumstances ended up on the streets. But with the right opportunity, I was able to surpass those circumstances and accomplish so much in such a short period of time.

I’ve advocated for greater protections for foster youth, testifying countless times before committees in Congress and the Texas legislature. I’ve worked to elect progressives to public office — most recently, working for Senator Wendy Davis’ gubernatorial campaign. I’ve won national leadership awards from the Human Rights Campaign and the National LGBTQ Taskforce, and I’ve even had the chance to intern on Capital Hill for Senator Patty Murray inspiring her introduction of the 2014 Tyler Clementi Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act.

2015-04-26-1430082261-3668011-1836785_10201130363856116_8504838402045636873_o.jpg

Yes, at one point in my young life I was homeless, but by the grace of God I am now a strong, resilient and intelligent contributing member of my community.

I am worth something — and so is every other homeless youth.

My life is proof that we can change the future of thousands of youth forced into homelessness by simply valuing their lives, making investments into their futures, and recognizing that they are worth more than a few bucks and some leftover lunch.

I share my story to tell you that there is hope, there is life after homelessness, and our lives do matter. We are the future. Invest in us, value us, recognize our worth, and watch us sore to unimaginable heights.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

www.huffingtonpost.com/kristopher-sharp/falling-through-the-cracks-my-struggle-to-survive-as-a-homeless-youth_b_7147872.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices

Sorry, Christians, GoFundMe Is Cracking Down On Your Hate Campaigns

Sorry, Christians, GoFundMe Is Cracking Down On Your Hate Campaigns

pac_man_by_dani_beloved-d5nqdc1Well, it was fun while it lasted.

An Oregon bakery that was ordered to pay $135,000 after violating the state’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding just had its GoFundMe campaign yanked down.

Whomp, whomp.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, Christian owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, first made headlines back in September 2013 when they denied two lesbians a wedding cake, crowing that homosexuality was an “abomination unto the Lord.” In July 2014 they briefly made headlines again when they began marketing “ex-gay cakes” out of their home.

After seeing the serious paydays enjoyed by an antigay pizzeria in Indiana and a homophobic florist in Washington state, the clever Kleins decided they wanted in on the action. They raised more than $109,000 towards their $135,000 fine before GoFundMe put a stop to the campaign.

In a statement, GoFundMe said that it yanked the page because the campaign violated the policy against raising money “in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.”

“The money raised thus far will still be made available for withdrawal,” the statement continued. “While a different campaign was recently permitted for a pizzeria in Indiana, no laws were violated and the campaign remained live. However, the subjects of the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”

Naturally, the Kleins were not happy about this. They immediately took to Facebook to say this was the work of the devil:

1

We think this Facebook commenter said it best when she replied:

2

Better luck next time, Kleins.

Related stories:

Christian Mechanic Says He Won’t Service Cars That Belong To Gays, GoFundMe Campaign Imminent

These Georgia Florists Owe It To Jesus To Deny Gay People

As Predicted, Antigay Mechanic Says He’s Received Death Threats, Calls For Support From Fellow Christians

Graham Gremore

feedproxy.google.com/~r/queerty2/~3/s1sO4tbnA84/sorry-christians-gofundme-is-cracking-down-on-your-hate-campaigns-20150428

Historic Same-Sex Marriage Case Finally Reaches Supreme Court

Historic Same-Sex Marriage Case Finally Reaches Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is set to hear historic arguments in cases that could make same-sex marriage the law of the land.

The justices are meeting Tuesday to offer the first public indication of where they stand in the dispute over whether states can continue defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, or whether the Constitution gives gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.

The court is hearing extended arguments, scheduled to last 2 ½ hours, which also will explore whether states that do not permit same-sex marriage must nonetheless recognize such unions from elsewhere.

Same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia.

The cases before the court come from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee, four of the 14 remaining states that allow only heterosexual marriage. Those four states had their marriage bans upheld by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati in November. That is the only federal appeals court that has ruled in favor of the states since the Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of the federal anti-gay marriage law.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has written the court’s three prior gay rights decisions, including the case from two years ago. All eyes will be on Kennedy for any signals that he is prepared to take the final step in granting marriage rights to same-sex couples.

Such an outcome was inconceivable just a few years ago.

The first state to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry was Massachusetts, in 2004. Even as recently as October, barely a third of the states permitted it. Now, same-sex couples can marry in 36 states and the District of Columbia, a dramatic change in the law that has been accompanied by an equally fast shift in public opinion.

The main thrust of the states’ case is to reframe the debate.

“This case is not about the best marriage definition. It is about the fundamental question regarding how our democracy resolves such debates about social policy: Who decides, the people of each state or the federal judiciary?” John Bursch, representing Michigan, wrote in his main brief to the court.

Other arguments by the states and more than five-dozen briefs by their defenders warn the justices of harms that could result “if you remove the man-woman definition and replace it with the genderless any-two-persons definition,” said Gene Schaerr, a Washington lawyer.

The push for same-sex marriage comes down to fairness, said Mary Bonauto, who will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs. The people who have brought their cases to the Supreme Court are “real people who are deeply committed to each other. Yet they are foreclosed from making that commitment simply because of who they are,” she told reporters last week.

Arguments made by Bonauto, other lawyers for same-sex couples and more than six-dozen supporting briefs have strong echoes of the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case, in which the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage. In that case, the justices were unanimous that those bans violated the constitutional rights of interracial couples.

No one expects unanimity this time. But many believe the justices will take the final step toward what gay rights supporters call marriage equality, in part because they allowed orders in favor of same-sex couples to take effect even as the issue made its way through the federal court system.

That was action through inaction, as other judges played a major role over the years. Only 11 states have granted marriage rights to same-sex couples through the ballot or the legislature. Court rulings are responsible for all the others.

A decision is expected in late June.

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter at www.twitter.com/shermancourt .

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/28/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-arguments_n_7158274.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay+Voices