Timbre of a TimeFree Mind

[Ron Tait ABC SW Australia]

Human beings aren't the only species to indulge in homosexual behaviour. But how prevalent is it in the animal kingdom and why is it so?

Colin Hyde is the Director of Life Science at Perth Zoo. He's seen a lot when it comes to animal behaviour. Exactly why animals are gay, he couldn't say, but there are a number of reasons for the behaviour, he believes.

"In a lot of animals, sexual behaviour is driven by hormonal responses to pheromones and other hormones that are laid down in urine." In others, there are behavioural aspects to the practice. In rare cases, complex social interactions are reaffirmed by sex behaviour.

The behaviour could be hierarchical with one animal seeking to dominate another. Colin's also heard that in some cases, the animal's brain is a different sex to the body with the hapless animal playing out its thoughts rather than its gender assigned role.

Homosexual behaviour doesn't seem to be more common in any particular species, though it does appear more common in the higher order species. It can cause a problem for farmers where the girls are more interested in the other girls than the boys. Cows will sometimes compete with the bull for the mating position on another cow. Giraffes only spend time with the females when they're mating, keeping together in male groups the rest of the time. Giraffes are about as intelligent as cows, says Colin. "They're tall and they eat grass." The homosexual behaviour is probably hierarchical.

In some species birds, it's the females who buddy up. Spoonbill females will share a nest, mate, lay eggs and "and seem almost to pair bond," says Colin.

The bonobo chimp has a social structure based around sex. "Sex replaces the handshake almost in the species," says Colin. "They use sex as a way of keeping the group cohesion." It's like a 70s hippie version of the chimpanzee, he jokes.

Hannah!

Haden!
Wednesday, October something or other (I think its the 27th), 2004
RE: Concord, City in a Coma
Well, this week, I shall tell you about Concord. Concord is the capital city of New Hampshuh. It has a population of little over 40,000 people, if you include the small township of Bow, that bumps it up to a whopping 47k. I think the last census revealed an Asian population of 0.18%, which means, NOT VERY MUCH. So, with us moving here, we probably tripled the Asian population. In fact, I think we have seen the other 8 Asians that live here in Concord. And they all work at the Manchu Wok in the mall.
Okay, just kidding. In truth, I’ve counted 9 Asians. And every time I see another person of Asian descent (I can’t be politically correct any longer), they stare at me with a look on their face that says, “Hmmm, you’re new. Haven’t seen your face before.” Its like, we should all know each other or something. In fact, last week I took the kids on a brisk walk through the neighborhood (I wasn’t pushing the double stroller briskly, the weather was brisk), and one of our neighbors is a Slant eye (okay, I said the PC thing was going) family. Wow! He stared at us as he fertilized his lawn. Then we went up to the porch and started yelling in Chinese to the old lady of the house. I am convinced he yelled, “Hey, old lady!! Come out here and stare at the Korean slant eye and half breed kids! They must be the family that moved from OR-EE-GONE!!” Or, something like that.
To drive the point home, one last Asian story (although more are sure to come). I took the kids to the story time at the library. The YMCA kids were there, all seated and listening. One little girl (looked Korean), turned around and smiled at Haden and me. Then she turned again. The girl next to her said, “That’s not your mom.” I don’t know what that meant, but I find it funny. Are all Asians in Concord related to one another?
Okay, so Concord is a nice little city. In fact, I think of it like a suburb, but its not a suburb of anything. It has a nice little downtown area with lots of neat looking church spires and the Merrimack River next to it. And then there is Loudon Road. Loudon Road is a main road the ends up going to Loudon, where the big NH Raceway is located. This is where the big NASCAR races occur three times a year. The raceway can fit 100k people for a single race (as my friend Dave put it, “100 thousand people, and not a full set of teeth in the place) and when there is a race, Concord turns into a very interesting place. Back to Loudon Road. As you driver further East on Loudon Road, you eventually get to the main commercial area – well, a bunch of chain stores and a mall. Every chain store and restaurant you can imagine is on Loudon Road. There are like, 12 Dunkin Donuts – even one in the mall. Its got all the chain restaurants and stores, like a suburb, but nothing of Concord’s own. This is why I think Concord is like a suburb – OF NOWHERE!!! Oh, and on the end of Loudon, is the big Wal-Mart. This place is a source of constant entertainment. On a race weekend, you wouldn’t believe the number of RVs and truuuu-ucks that are in the parking lot.
Okay, let me discuss the Dunkin Donuts. They are freakin’ everywhere. Where we have a Starbucks, Seattles Best (which merged recently with Starbucks) or coffee cart – here they have a Dunkin’ Donuts. Even in the grocery store. Just in case you need a sick cup of coffee and a mouthful of sugared fat. It explains a lot of why people around here look the way they do (that’s another e-mail). So, due to the fact that NO STARBUCKS exists in Concord, we are all set to save a bunch of money. Because we don’t eat donuts on every block. Okay, there is a Starbucks in the Manchester Airport, but you have to have a boarding pass to get to it. The next Starbucks is next to the Costco, again, 45 minutes away and pretty much in Massachusetts. Starbucks is the only major chain restaurant to have not yet made it to Concord.
Okay, enough of that. Let me tell you something very cool about Concord. After asking many, many questions when we first moved in, Lee finally found out who picks up the garbage. See, it doesn’t matter who picks up the garbage. We don’t pay a garbage bill either. Each week, we just stick our garbage out at the curb. We can put as much out there as we want. And guess what, we don’t receive a bill each month. The City of Concord picks up our trash. Why is this so freakin’ cool? Because our property taxes pay for the garbage removal. Very cool, eh? A city government that efficiently uses my tax dollars, such that I don’t have to pay Waste Management to remove my trash, yard debris (doesn’t exist here), and recycling.
The interesting thing about this is that people have to buy their own garbage cans. And some (I’d say most) people don’t buy garbage cans. They just throw their bags of garbage out next to the street. Yep, no cans. Just bags of garbage. Oh, and we don’t have a yard debris can. Lee just takes our clippings out back to the 17 acres of conservation land behind our house. One time he found a Christmas tree. Oh, and the dogs do their waste removal in the woods too. Very cool. No more scooping for me! As far as recycling goes, I can gather my own stuff and drop it off, which is a bit more work.
And, I forgot to mention that the parking meters downtown are $0.25 an hour. Yes, that’s 25 cents an hour. It seems kind of cheap, but whatever. Did I also tell you how freakin’ nice people here? People see me coming with the kids and the giant stroller, and they go out of their way to open doors and help me. Just the other day I had a nice conversation in front of the Home Cheapo waiting for fries at the hot dog mobile home with a gentleman who is missing several front teeth. He told me about winter, me being from Oregon and all, although I am unsure he knows anything about Oregon. That its pretty interestin’ an all, that some years we have a winter, and some years it ain’t so bad. Oh, and that he as a 19 month old son that won’t stay seated in the cart either. Right about then, the lady in the hot dog mobile home told me that I was all set. People around here are real friendly. And to prove it...
Okay, so we went to a non-chain restaurant that was recommended to us – a steak and lobster place. Yes, lobster is plentiful here. We met some nice people next to us from Canterbury – just north of here. They were interested that we are from Oregon. He asked how I like Concord, and then laughed. He said, “Its a bit dull, huh? We used to call it, ‘The City in a Coma.’” I thought that comment is a bit too truthful and funny. And I share that with you. You all now know where we live...in a suburb that’s in a coma that really isn’t a suburb of anywhere. I think I shall make a tourist pamphlet for distribution.
As far as we are concerned... Haden gave me my first kiss last week, and continues to kiss me when I ask him (well, sometimes he does). Hannah is busy being a “pink fairy princess,” while I am a “blue princess.” And Lee is at work most of the time. In fact, he just came back from Portland, City of Roses – in the rain. I am so jealous.
All our love, Stasi

[John Dean. Findlaw.com]

This next presidential election, on November 2, may be followed by post-election chaos unlike any we've ever known.

Look at the swirling, ugly currents currently at work in this conspicuously close race. There is Republicans' history of going negative to win elections. There is Karl Rove's disposition to challenge close elections in post-election brawls. And there is Democrats' (and others) new unwillingness to roll over, as was done in 2000. Finally, look at the fact that a half-dozen lawsuits are in the works in the key states and more are being developed.

This is a climate for trouble. A storm warning is appropriate. In the end, attorneys and legal strategy could prove as important, if not more so, to the outcome of this election as the traditional political strategists and strategy.

Let's go over each factor that spells trouble - and see how they may combine.

A GOP Disposition For Nasty Campaigns

Before this year's race, the 1988 presidential race between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis was well-known as the most foul of modern campaigns. The Bush campaign used Willie Horton to smear their way to the White House - with Lee Atwater playing the hardest of hardball.

Horton was a convicted murderer. Massachusetts Governor Dukakis gave him a prison furlough. Once furloughed, Horton held a white Maryland couple hostage for twelve hours, raping the woman and stabbing the man. By using these facts - and Horton's mug shot - in a heavy-handed negative advertisement, Atwater turned the election for Bush. As a Southerner, especially, he must have understood how the ad catered to racial prejudice.

In the 2000 Republican primary race, George W. Bush used similar tactics against Senator John McCain. That's no surprise: Bush's political strategist Karl Rove, and Bush himself, were protégées' and admirers of Lee Atwater. To my knowledge, all of Rove's campaigns have accentuated the negative - often dwelling exclusively on nasty attacks. This one is no exception.

Thus, if Bush narrowly prevails on Election Day, the Democrats are likely to be in a less than congenial mood - and especially likely to go to court. And there will doubtless be fodder for litigation, given the GOP's propensity to try to disqualify votes and voters.
This next presidential election, on November 2, may be followed by post-election chaos unlike any we've ever known

Look at the swirling, ugly currents currently at work in this conspicuously close race. There is Republicans' history of going negative to win elections. There is Karl Rove's disposition to challenge close elections in post-election brawls. And there is Democrats' (and others) new unwillingness to roll over, as was done in 2000. Finally, look at the fact that a half-dozen lawsuits are in the works in the key states and more are being developed.

This is a climate for trouble. A storm warning is appropriate. In the end, attorneys and legal strategy could prove as important, if not more so, to the outcome of this election as the traditional political strategists and strategy.
LINK

[Sheila Samples]

My friend Bernie says anyone who believes that George W. Bush's war on terror isn't a miserable, howling failure is surely a member of the media, a perp over at the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), or has had "the lobotomy." Bernie says if Bush manages to screw up another election, the second thing he's going to do is hit us with a full-blown draft.

"The second thing?" I asked. "Okay -- since Bush always screws up everything he touches -- I'll bite. What's the first thing?"

"Iran!" Bernie snorted. "Don't you pay attention? The articles have already been written. The graphics are loaded. The media is just waiting for Bush to give 'em the signal so they can write the headlines and fill in the date and time of the attack. Then," he grinned, "Hi-ho, hi-ho -- it's off to war we go..."

Bernie could be on to something. Anybody even remotely familiar with the totally mad ravings of the Machiavellian Michael Ledeen for the past two decades, or the sheer inhumanity lurking behind the chilly smile frozen on the warmongering face of Bill Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch's neoconservative Weekly Standard, knows that Iraq was only the beginning of a struggle with the "terror masters" of evil -- a war that Ledeen cheerfully announces will "go on forever."

"I've been watching Ledeen for years," Bernie said, "ever since the '80s, when he weaseled his way not only into the National Security Council and the Pentagon, but into Alexander Haig's brain over at State. Now, he squats in the 'freedom chair' at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and works with folks at AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) whippin' up blind fear that Iran is gonna nuke us before sunset.

"Nobody makes a better livin' at killin' than Mikey Ledeen. Hell," Bernie continued. "The body parts hadn't been scraped off the streets of Baghdad from Bush's premature and giddy attack on Iraq before Ledeen was ready to move on -- to deliver God's gift of freedom to millions of folks unfortunate enough to live on top of the oil in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and even little ol' Libya. Liberation's a dirty job," Bernie said. "It's hard work -- but like Ledeen says, somebody's gotta do it."

"Bernie," I said, fighting the impulse to skitter into the corner to crouch there, whimpering and gnawing on what little remains of my hair, "there must be another way. Surely, if George Bush screws up...er, wins another election, surely he's learned his lesson. He won't listen to people like Kristol and Ledeen..."

"Naw, Bush don't listen to 'em," Bernie grinned. "He don't have to listen. He wouldn't understand what they were sayin' even if he did listen. He just opens up, and whatever they shout in his ear immediately blasts out through his pie hole. I call it Bush's pie-hole foreign policy. I call it Bush's premature, pre-emptive pie-hole foreign policy. I call it Bush's predatory, pre-emptive, pie--"

"Okay -- okay! I get the picture!" I interrupted hurriedly. "But you're right, Bernie. There's no way we can continue on this course without a draft. As of today, we've lost http://globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm 1,110 American troops in Iraq. Seven of that number are reported as killed but not identified because their families don't yet know they are gone forever. More than 8,000 have been wounded and nearly that many more evacuated because of disease, much of which -- like Ledeen's eternal war -- is the depleted uranium gift that just keeps on giving.

"Americans need to snap out of it," Bernie said, his eyes suddenly hard. "Time's up. Americans are out there dancin' alone on the brink of catastrophe, and nobody's covering their backs. They've been played for fools by the media, betrayed by their political leaders and cuckolded by their religious leaders.

"Help is not on the way for folks who think they can barricade themselves behind closed doors and ride out the storm," Bernie said. "War is on the way. A draft is on the way, and you can take it to the bank that these guys agree with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has been widely quoted as saying contemptuously that military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.

"Look," Bernie continued, "I don't know whether Americans just can't handle the truth -- or if they've been lied to so damn much they don't recognize it anymore. They may not like it -- you may not like it -- but this guy's a liar. Plain and simple. If what comes blaring out of his pie-hole isn't true -- it's a lie. Not an exaggeration. Not a misrepresentation. Bush doesn't 'misspeak.' He lies. Lies. Lies."

Bernie pointed out that Bush likes to brag about not only his first, but his best accomplishment after taking office -- the massive 670-page No Child Left Behind Act. Although he has relentlessly cut funds for this education program, buried so deep that few noticed is a provision requiring public secondary schools to provide military recruiters not only with access to facilities, but also with contact information, to include addresses and telephone numbers, for every student -- or face a cutoff of all federal aid.
LINK

[Christianity Today; compiled by Rob Moll]

Nicholas Kristof, a columnist at The New York Times, has made theology an occasional specialty of late. Last July, in Jesus And Jihad, Kristof used the recently released 12th book of the Left Behind series to explain how evangelicals and Muslim terrorists are essentially the same.

"It's disconcerting to find ethnic cleansing celebrated as the height of piety," Kristof said. (The article is reposted for free here.)

"If a Muslim were to write an Islamic version of "Glorious Appearing" and publish it in Saudi Arabia, jubilantly describing a massacre of millions of non-Muslims by God, we would have a fit."

Kristof said,

I often write about religion precisely because faith has a vast impact on society. Since I've praised the work that evangelicals do in the third world (Christian aid groups are being particularly helpful in Sudan, at a time when most of the world has done nothing about the genocide there), I also feel a responsibility to protest intolerance at home.

Earlier, Weblog has praised, critiqued, applauded, and criticized Kristof for his columns on evangelicals and evangelical thought. Why do we care? Because it's The New York Times. But also because Kristof seems like a nice guy trying to reach out to evangelicals, who have a lot of influence in American society and ought to be understood.

However, in his recent columns Kristof seems less to be trying to understand evangelicals as they are than about trying to set them straight. Last year, Kristof complained that more people believe in the Virgin Birth than in evolution, and said he was troubled by "the way the great intellectual traditions of Catholic and Protestant churches alike are withering, leaving the scholarly and religious worlds increasingly antagonistic."

On Saturday, Kristof wrote, "So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof?" He says he's been researching how the Bible regards homosexuality (though he seems to have skipped over the Fall) because "that is the ground on which political battles are often decided in America."

Here, at the beginning of the article, Kristof shows he doesn't really want to understand these wacky conservative Christians. He gives an example of the religious ground on which political battles are fought. "When a Texas governor, Miriam "Ma" Ferguson, barred the teaching of foreign languages about 80 years ago, saying, 'If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us.'"

That's not exactly the kind of politically engaged religion that today's evangelicals identify with. In fact, it seems that Kristof isn't trying to understand conservative Christians so much as make his liberal-leaning readers feel smug, knowing that evangelicals are backward, anti-intellectual, and would ruin the country if allowed in power.

"The story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality," Kristof writes. "In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom."

Kristof goes on to say, "The most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters. …

"While homosexuality never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt."

Kristof can't separate Old Testament Jewish law from New Testament morality.

Jonathan and David may have had sexual relations, Kristof says. "Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance—as well as episodic condemnations of gays."

Kristof then says Jesus never condemned homosexuality. Paul did, he writes, but maybe only gay sex and not lesbian sex. "In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul's instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long?"

Because the Bible is so ambiguous, we should just allow gays to marry, he says. "Or there's another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best 'to remain unmarried as I am.' So if we're going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage altogether?"

Kristof is the one cherry-picking biblical phrases. His column reads as if his researching the Bible's take on homosexuality amounted to reading liberal theologians, who would agree with his own views, and reading the passages they referred to. It shows the potential danger of jumping into the Bible outside any tradition of interpretation.

Weblog agrees that the Bible's central message is love, but God's love doesn't allow people to do whatever makes them feel good. Because of his love, God disciplines and punishes.

Kristof's forays into the Bible do little to deepen anyone's understanding of the Bible's take on homosexuality or conservative Christian concerns over same-sex marriage. Kristof cites no theologically conservative scholars. Not only are evangelicals anti-intellectuals who think Jesus spoke English, they don't even know what their own Bible says, according to Kristof. Or, they only chose texts to justify homophobia while wearing polyester-and-cotton t-shirts. Hypocrites.

Weblog thinks Kristof should keep reading his Bible, meet some evangelicals, and get acquainted with a wider spectrum of biblical scholarship.

[Citizen Online]

Georgia’s Roman Catholic bishops are asking their faithful to support a constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage.
The Most Rev. J. Kevin Boland, bishop of Diocese of Savannah, and the Most Rev. John F. Donoghue, archbishop of the Diocese of Atlanta, wrote a joint letter that directs parishioners in the state to vote "yes" on Amendment No. 1 on Nov. 2.

That amendment would recognize marriage as a union between only a man and a woman. Under state law, gay marriage is already illegal. But state lawmakers placed the amendment on the ballot to prevent a state court judge from overturning that law.
"Marriage between a man and a woman is a fundamental relationship and creates the most basic building block of society," the bishops wrote.

It is also "the best environment for the procreation and nurturing of children," the bishops said.
Savannah gay rights activist Kevin Clark said he was saddened by their stance. Christ "taught love, inclusion and equality," said Clark, who directs the Savannah chapter of the statewide antidiscrimination group, Georgia Equality.

Voters in 10 other states will also vote Nov. 2 on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Savannah political consultant Dave Simons called the bishops' strong statement "a rarity," but this year, he added, many religious leaders - from white Southern Baptist parishes as well as black churches - have strongly supported marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

[The Guardian]

David Gow in Brussels

José Manuel Barroso, the new European commission president, yesterday risked provoking an institutional crisis in the EU by defying MEPs' calls to dump Rocco Buttiglione, an outspoken opponent of gay and women's rights, as justice and civil liberties commissioner.

Armed with a half apology from Mr Buttiglione for any offence he might have caused gay people and women, Mr Barroso effectively challenged his critics within the European parliament to have the guts to vote him and his entire 24-strong team out of office on Wednesday - two days before the signing of the EU's new constitutional treaty.

The president, asserting his authority by taking personal charge of the EU's non-discrimination policies and assuming powers to sack incompetent or corrupt commissioners, made plain he was counting on splits among his opponents and abstentions to win an "absolutely convincing" majority next week.

But socialist, liberal, Green and other leaders warned Mr Barroso that he would have to make further, substantial concessions by early next week if he and his commission were to avoid a heavy defeat - or, at best, win such a slim majority his team would be left a lame duck for the five-year tenure.

Martin Schulz, leader of the 200-strong socialist group, accused the president of going back on his word after conceding on Tuesday that he would strip Mr Buttiglione, an Italian Catholic, of his civil liberties responsibilities.

He dismissed as "cosmetic" Mr Barroso's decision to set up a shadow team of commissioners, chaired by himself, to monitor his performance. Mr Schulz, whose group voted against Mr Barroso's appointment in July, said his members would vote as a bloc against the entire commission if there were no change of tack by the president.

[AP]

The poll released Friday found the majority of likely Ohio voters favor a constitutional ban on gay marriages, although support for the Nov. 2 ballot issue decreased from an earlier survey.

The Ohio Poll, sponsored by the University of Cincinnati and conducted by its Institute for Policy Research, found that 57 percent of likely Ohio voters supported the amendment that would make marriage between one man and one woman the only valid union under the Ohio Constitution.

Forty percent said they intended to vote against the amendment and 2 percent were undecided, the poll found.

The telephone poll was conducted among 757 like voters picked at random statewide between Oct. 11 and Sunday. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

An Ohio Poll released in August found that 56 percent of likely voters supported the ban, while a September survey found that 65 percent supported it.

State government leaders are divided on the issue. Gov. Bob Taft, U.S. Sens. Mike DeWine and George Voinovich and Attorney General Jim Petro oppose the ban. State Auditor Betty Montgomery, Treasurer Joe Deters and Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell support it. All the officeholders are Republicans.

ON THE NET

Ohio Poll: here

San Francisco is a city of many neighborhoods. One or two blocks and you have gone from an Asian 'hood to a Russian one. I love it and Darren and I were not afraid to put our feet to the pavement and explore. And explore we did. The room at the Majestic Hotel was luxurious but very small...a perfect place to rest between explorations.

The people of this bay city seem to like visitors and they are not afraid to let you know how to get to where you want to go. We purchased mass transportation passes and jumped on MUNI, buses and/or the trolleys. The hills of San Francisco can be brutal if you are aerobically challenged.

Aside from the apparent apparition in our hotel, one gets the sense that there are many old souls hanging around. I know that there are a lot of folks crammed on the penisula that is home to the city but on most mornings you don't get a sense that there are more than say, Portland or Wichita. But I did get a sense of those....whom have come and left physically. They seem to still be in love with this wonderful city and part of them are still there.

[New York Times]

A report by the Anglican Church issued in London today calls on the Episcopal Church USA to apologize for appointing an openly gay bishop and to refain from promoting any other clergy living in a same-sex union.

In consecrating V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire last November, the report said, the Episcopal bishops "acted in the full knowledge that very many people in the Anglican Communion could neither recognize nor receive the ministry as a bishop in the church of God of a person in an openly acknowledged same-gender union."

The Lambeth Commission's report invited the Episcopal Church "to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached" in Archbishop Robinson's election.

Until there is an apology, the report says, those who took part in the consecration, which would include the American body's presiding bishop, the Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, should consider whether to withdraw themselves from functions of the Anglican Communion.

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the
wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect, or
conspiracy theory society. Rather, it is the scientific conclusion of the best
paid, most widely respected geologists,1 physicists,2 and investment bankers
in the world. These are rational, professional, conservative individuals who
are absolutely terrified by a phenomenon known as global “Peak Oil.”

The ramifications of Peak Oil are so serious, one of George W. Bush’s
energy advisors, billionaire investment banker Matthew Simmons, has
acknowledged, “The situation is desperate. This is the world’s biggest serious
question,” while comparing the crisis to the perfect storm: “If you read The
Perfect Storm, where a freak storm materializes out of the convergence of
three weather systems, our energy crisis results from the same phenomenon.”

In May 2001, George W. Bush himself went on the record as saying,
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we’re running out of energy
in America.” In October 2003, Bush’s nemesis Michael Moore released the
book, Dude, Where’s My Country? Chapter three of the book, “Oil’s Well that
Ends Well,” was dedicated to the coming post-oil die-off.

If you’re like 99 percent of the people reading this letter, you had never
heard of the term “Peak Oil” until today. I had not heard of the term until a
year ago. Since learning about Peak Oil, I’ve had my view of the world, and
basic assumptions about my own individual future, turned completely upsidedown.
A little about myself: In November 2003, I was a 25-year-old law school
graduate who found out he had just passed the California Bar Exam. I was
excited about a potentially long and prosperous career in the legal profession,
getting married, having kids, contributing to my community, and living the
“American Dream.” Since learning about Peak Oil, those dreams have been
radically altered.

I must warn you, the information contained in this book is not for the
faint of heart or the easily disturbed. Whether you’re 25 or 75, an attorney or
an auto mechanic, what you are about to read will likely shake the foundations
of your life.

Sincerely,

Matt Savinar
CLICK HERE to read (pdf file)

Greetings from Haight-Ashbury

Lobby entrance at the Majestic. Located in the Pacific Heights area of San Francisco not far from the Japanese district, it use to be a single dwelling house. Wonderful service and a great little bar just inside the lobby. No smoking in the bars of California which makes them comfortable.

Darren figures out our next move in the lobby of the Majestic Hotel

Another view

San Francisco home

Altar at the Shrine of St Francis of Assisi, San Francisco. This beautiful church is in the Italian district of the city.

San Francisco City Hall

Chinatown, San Francisco. We took a tour the first night and Cynthia, our Guide led us down back alleys and through back doors to tell us some of the history. Fascinating.

Majestic Hotel, San Francisco, October 9th 2004. Ghost?

San Franciso for a couple of days.

[Doreen Brandt]

Gay African American families are doubly targeted for discrimination a new study shows.

The study, using statistics fro the 2000 Census, show that nearly half of black same-sex couples have lived in the same residence for at least five years - a figure almost as high as for married black couples - and that a majority of those households included children.

But, the survey also shows that gay and lesbian African American couples have lower median incomes than either white same-sex couples or black married opposite-sex couples.

The study was prepared by National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Black Justice Coalition.

"This report underscores the powerful negative impact of both racism and homophobia," said Matt Foreman, NGLTF executive director.

"This report clearly shows that denying the protections that come with marriage disproportionately hurts the ability of gay and lesbian African American couples to save money, provide for their children, buy a house, or prepare for retirement."

The survey found that black same-sex couples were raising children at nearly twice the rate of their white counterparts: 61 percent to 31 percent for females and 46 percent to 24 percent for males.

But, while black male same-sex couples reported a median income of $49,000 a year, and black lesbian couples earned $42,000 a year. By comparison, African American married opposite-sex couples earned $51,000 a year and white same-sex couples averaged $69,000 a year.

The report contained another disturbing fact. Eleven percent of the black women in same-sex households were veterans, compared with 3 percent of black women married to male partners. Eighteen percent of the black men in same-sex households were veterans, compared with 31 percent of black married men.

But, black women are discharged from the military under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at disproportionate rates. Although they make up less than 1 percent of the military, 3 percent of those kicked out under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" are black women.

The reported concluded that "removing discriminatory legislation and allowing black same-sex couples to access benefits available to married people will hurt no one, and will allow more Americans to better support and protect their families."

FannyAnn Eddy (photo courtesy of Lorena Espinoza)

[Feminist Daily News Wire]

A leading Sierra Leone gay and lesbian rights activist was found brutally murdered in her office. FannyAnn Eddy, the founder of the Sierra Leone Lesbian and Gay Association and an activist known across Africa, was found raped and repeatedly stabbed to death, reports Human Rights Watch (HRW). There is concern amongst the human rights community that she was a victim of hatred.

According to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), Eddy "understood that freedom for women, particular lesbians, was related to their ability to provide for themselves economically," and she "brought a level of courage, boldness and tenacity to her work that is rare even among human rights activists known for all three." Eddy worked tirelessly with IGLHRC and HRW to advocate for the Resolution on Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in the United Nations.

The IGLHRC is investigating the details of her death and how the government and police responded. HRW is urging the Sierra Leone government to investigate Eddy’s murder fully and fairly to "send a message to a frightened lesbian and gay community that violence against them will not go unpunished."

[New York Lawyer]

A state judge on Tuesday threw out a Louisiana constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, less than three weeks after voters overwhelmingly approved it.

The judge, William A. Morvant of the 19th Judicial District Court, said the amendment was flawed because it had more than one purpose: banning not only gay marriage but also civil unions.

Groups that oppose same-sex marriage expressed outrage, and Michael Johnson, a lawyer for supporters of the amendment, said he would appeal.

"We have judges acting in arrogance to usurp the actions of the Legislature and deny the voters of Louisiana who voted overwhelmingly to support the protection of marriage," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council in Washington.

A gay-rights group called Forum for Equality had challenged the amendment, arguing among other things that combining the issues of same-sex marriage and civil unions in one ballot question violated state law.

(Reuters)

In Tuesday's vice presidential debate marked by sharp personal attacks and exchanges, the one kinder and gentler moment centered on Mary Cheney, the lesbian daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

As Cheney and his Democratic challenger Sen. John Edwards disagreed about a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Edwards praised Cheney and his wife Lynne for his public expressions of love and support for Mary, one of Cheney's two adult daughters.

"You can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy," he said.

Cheney replied, "I appreciate that very much."

But on policy, the two disagreed.

Cheney said that he would prefer to let states regulate marriage as they have traditionally done but he backs President Bush, who is pushing for a constitutional amendment.

"He (Bush) sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president," Cheney said.

Cheney repeated his belief that "people ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business." But he said that does not mean the government should sanction or approve homosexual relationships.

Edwards said he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman but backed partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term committed relationships.

He also said marriage law should be left in state hands. But he attacked the idea of a constitutional amendment as unnecessary, divisive and politically motivated.

"This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong," he said.

Both the House and the Senate rejected the proposed constitutional amendment this year. Republicans, who control both houses, said it was important to stimulate debate and get lawmakers on the record. Democratic critics accused Republicans of holding the symbolic vote only to rally conservative voters before the Nov 2. election.

Each year about five million dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, monkeys, and other animals die in lethal dose tests performed in the U.S. During lethal dose tests, experimental substances are forced into the animals throats, or is pumped into their stomachs by a tube, sometimes causing death by stomach rupture from the sheer bulk of the chemical dosage.

Substances are mixed and injected under the skin, into a vein, or into the lining of the abdomen, they are often applied to the eyes, rectum and vagina or forcibly inhaled through a gas mask. Scientists observe the animal's reaction which include convulsions, labored breathing, diarrhea, constipation, skin eruptions, abnormal posture, and bleeding from the eyes, nose or mouth. According to statistics, 50% of these animals will die in this experiment 2 to 3 weeks later.

The horrible fact about these incidents is that they are unnecessary as there exists cheaper, efficient, better ways with better results....that can be used instead of using animals.

Take a stand against the inhumane treatment given to animals in medical research by signing this petition. You can make a difference~ click here

[SFGate.com]

Forty-four people. Nine white wedding gowns. One hundred thirty-two political T-shirts. Almost $100,000 of funds raised. Two documentary filmmakers, three clergy people, 10 gay and lesbian couples married in San Francisco, one gay couple married in Massachusetts. One bus, rented for $26, 000. Eight days, 11 stops.

The National Marriage Equality Express, festooned with paper wedding bells, left Oakland early Monday morning for a field trip of massive proportions. Singing a repertoire of wedding-themed songs they're sure to tire of over thousands of miles, the crew of cheery riders boarded the bus in the dark, headed past fog-cloaked hills and began their journey across the country.

The 44 riders are headed toward Washington, D.C., for an Oct. 11 rally for same-sex marriage. In between, their primary plan is to "inspire justice" and show a little San Francisco-style love and activism to both supporters and naysayers in parts of the country where Gavin Newsom isn't a hero and sourdough bread isn't a particular point of civic pride.

The riders are a motley crew, including an elevator mechanic, a military veteran, a psychologist and two Unitarian ministers. Also on the bus are: Stuart Gaffney and John Lewis, plaintiffs in a lawsuit seeking the right for same-sex couples to marry in California; Jim and Eve Lubalin, the parents of a lesbian, who have been married 40 years; and Martha McDevitt-Pugh, an American woman who moved to the Netherlands -- it was the only way she and her Australian partner found to legally stay in the same country -- but flew home for the bus ride.

The caravan stopped in Sacramento and Reno on Monday. It will hit Laramie and Cheyenne, Wyo., Denver, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus and Akron, Ohio, and Pittsburgh before landing in Washington just in time for National Coming Out Day.

'Go educate people'

"If everyone meets people like you across the country, marriage equality will be a reality very soon. ... Go educate people," said Oakland City Councilman Danny Wan, who was there to wish the crew bon voyage. "Please send a postcard."

With that, the riders packed up their signs and snacks and pillows and drove off into the big, bad world outside the Bay Area bubble to get a taste of how the rest of the country thinks about them and their notions of walking down the aisle man-by-man and woman-by-woman.

First stop: Sacramento. In the shadow of the Capitol building, the group held its first rally of the trip before a crowd that topped out at 40, if that. "Gov. Arnold, you can, you will, please sign the marriage bill," they chanted, referring to the Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act that Assemblyman Mark Leno will re-introduce in the Assembly this year.

"You are right, you are loved and you will prevail," Kathleen Montgomery, the president of the Sacramento chapter of the group Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, told the crowd. She said her son fell in love with a Portuguese citizen but can't sponsor him for U.S. citizenship as he could if he were straight and married. "They are united by love," she said, tearing up, "but separated by a continent and an ocean. To deny my son the right to build a life with the person he loves isn't just unfair ... it's cruel."

While caravan riders and local supporters spoke, members of the crowd traipsed up to sign a long paper scroll -- a letter to President Bush asking him to reconsider his position on the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would change the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Then Molly McKay, a trip organizer and associate executive director of Marriage Equality California, presented the city with a care package of books, videos, T-shirts and other materials wrapped in a box that read "To Sacramento with California love."

"I think they're brave," said Kirsten Bosch, 33, a software developer watching the rally. "It's not easy to travel across the country. They're going to places where they're not wanted at all."

They were less wanted -- largely ignored, really -- at the next stop, in Reno. Word hadn't quite gotten out about their cross-country adventure, and the few people who showed up for the speeches on the steps of the city's federal building and courthouse all were from the media.

'Go back to Frisco'

No mind. The activists said their piece, had the planned "kiss-in" -- mostly tame pecks -- endured a snarled "go back to Frisco" and marched gamely around the block.

The big Reno excitement came on the way out of town, when three same-sex couples from the bus -- dressed in tuxes and a wedding dress -- ran into the Silver Bells Wedding Chapel and asked to get married. For heterosexual couples, it's typically a 45-minute job.

Receptionist Sandy Chamblin looked a bit confused. She smiled, sort of.

"We can't do that," she said.

"How come?"

"Because it's not legal."

"We'd like to make it legal."

She listened politely to their stories -- the years that they'd been together, that they just desperately wanted to protect their relationships. Then she said it again: "We can't do that here."

She still looked a little stunned after they left. "They seemed nice," she said, "but I was a little uncomfortable, because that's not what I believe in. I know it's in the Bible somewhere."

[Randy Myers]
The phone's loud and abrasive ring temporarily unhinges the conversation, but Phyllis Lyon ignores the intrusion. She remains intent on completing a thought on same-sex marriage and her 50-plus-year relationship with the woman seated next to her, attired in a nearly identical purple dress shirt.

The caller persists. Mildly annoyed, Del Martin, Lyon's 83-year-old partner, picks up the phone, carriage and all, and plunks it with a clang in front of Lyon. An exasperated "why don't you just answer it" look flashes across Lyon's face. The 79-year-old sighs, and concedes.

This is a minor exchange in the life of two gay-rights pioneers, determined women who helped form the nation's first lesbian organization and -- nearly half a century later -- were the first same-sex couple to exchange "I do's" at San Francisco City Hall. CLICK here for full article

[720 ABC Perth]

There are rumblings within the Anglican Church over calls to redefine same-sex relationships.
The head of the church in Australia, Archbishop Peter Carnley, has told the Anglican general synod in Fremantle that if all relationships - homosexual and heterosexual - were described as "friendships" it would remove an expectation there must be sexual activity.

The synod is due to consider the ordination of gay people and the blessing of same-sex unions.

South Sydney Anglican Bishop Robert Forsyth believes Dr Carnley's comments are contrary to scripture and says any changes will be resisted. "I don't know about splitting the church here in Australia [but] it certainly could cause great tension," he said. "In the world Anglican communion it already is causing ... splits between some of the bodies in Africa and Asia and for example the Anglican Church in the United States of America."

[IOL Africa]
Uganda fined a radio station $1 000 (about R6 500) for hosting a talk show featuring a group of gay men, saying the programme illegally encouraged homosexuality, the country's information minister said on Monday. Simba FM, which broadcasts in the Luganda language, was also ordered to apologise to listeners, Ugandan Information Minister Nsaba Buturo said.

"We are a God-fearing country and homosexuality is illegal in Uganda," he said. "When you have an audience and you are in effect encouraging others to be homosexual, it causes a great deal of distress to the whole country." Uganda is torn between an influential Christian lobby and a newfound sexual permissiveness, reflected in the raft of racy tabloid newspapers sold on the streets of the capital.

The East African country's Broadcasting Council said Simba FM's August 26 show breached standards laid out in the Electronic Media Act. A spokesperson for the Kampala-based radio station was not immediately available for comment. Homosexuality remains a crime in Uganda, but Buturo said the four men, who went on air to protest against discrimination based on their sexual orientation, would not be prosecuted.

"I do not believe anything can happen to them," he said. "But this was a case where we felt the public good had to outweigh the individual good."

[Katherine Danks]

A 66-year-old British man has been jailed in Morocco for committing homosexual acts, Consular officials said today. Kenneth Watson was caught having sex on September 25 with an 18-year-old Moroccan man and a 16-year-old Moroccan boy said the British Embassy in Rabat.

The boy was released but Watson and the second Moroccan were sentenced to a year in prison by a court in the southern city of Taroudant. "One of the two boys was released because he was a minor but the second boy got the same sentence – one year in jail," a spokesman said.

Homosexuality is illegal in the North African nation but the area is a popular destination for sex tourists. The maximum sentence is three years in prison. The age of consent in Morocco is 18. The spokesman said Watson - a regular visitor to the area - was appealing his sentence.

[Gene Lyons]
In what looks like a sign of desperation, the Republican National Committee has sent fliers to voters in Arkansas and West Virginia claiming that "liberal politicians" and "activist judges" want to ban the Bible.

Translation: "Dear Hillbillies: We think you are dumber than dirt. Are you? If so, then vote for George W. Bush and keep your Bibles. You're surely gonna need them. P.S. There'll be just as many queers in wedding dresses either way. Next time you hear about the gay marriage amendment will be 2008."

I doubt the GOP tactic will work. In Arkansas, appeals to bigotry normally backfire. The fire-breathing fundamentalists always make more noise, but their dogmatism scares people. I've spoken to many Christians who resent being told how to vote as a matter of faith. In Rome, Pope John Paul II's representative recently emphasized that American Catholics are free to vote their consciences, as most would have done anyway. So will Protestants, Jews and everybody else.

But why would Republicans act desperate? Don't polls show President Bush cruising to an easy victory over yet another hapless Massachusetts liberal? Didn't 9/11 turn all those 2000 "soccer moms" into 2004 "security moms," comforted by Bush's tough talk and his manly Texas swagger?

Speaking of which, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards recently mocked the exaggerated movie-cowboy walk Bush bragged about in his acceptance speech: "He's walking with his arms a little wider, as if he's gonna go for his sidearms," she said. "I don't know whether his tailor is making his suits too tight under the arms or whether he's adopted a kind of Gary Cooper-John Wayne walk down the hall to the podium." If real cowboys walked that way, she might have added, it was because of gimpy legs due to horse-steer collisions. Bush became a "rancher" in 1999; he rides golf carts.

But I digress. No, most polls don't show Bush swaggering to an easy victory. Only those most touted by the allegedly liberal media show him leading comfortably. Most others, including both parties' internal polls, I suspect, show an extremely tight contest that appears likely to keep everybody up late on election night - if not beyond.

At best, polls should be considered roughly as accurate as racetrack tout sheets. Back in 2000, the brand name Gallup Poll showed George W. Bush leading Al Gore by 13 percentage points two weeks before the election - a veritable landslide. Its final count showed Bush up by five. As everybody knows, Gore won the popular vote by roughly one-half of 1 percent nationwide. Did that many people change their minds? Or were the polls badly skewed by poor methodology and wishful thinking?

Truth is, it's impossible to say. A pollster who routinely told clients what they wanted to hear wouldn't stay in business long, although suppressing voter turnout is always the GOP's No. 1 priority. (Rural voters in places like Arkansas and West Virginia being an obvious exception.) Hence, polls making a Bush win seem inevitable definitely have their uses.

Several factors make accurate polling trickier than ever, caller ID and cell phones among them. Many Americans rarely answer calls from anybody they don't know. Millions have only cell phones, whose numbers aren't published. Persons without caller ID and/or cell phones skew older and whiter than the general population; hence, more Republican. Calculating the odds is tricky. With passions high, many are reluctant to discuss their political views with strangers. Some even lie.

For prestige reasons, pollsters invoke "science," but do plenty of guesswork. Skeptics have been hammering recent Gallup CNN/USA Today polls. For example, Gallup's Sept. 13-15 poll showing Bush leading 55-42 among "likely voters" assumed a 40 percent to 33 percent GOP advantage in voter turnout.

As rival pollster John Zogby pointed out, this ignores history. In 1996 and 2000, registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans by four points. That's an 11-point swing based on, pardon me, fuzzy math. Determining "likely voters" is equally problematic. Republicans truly fear high turnout among impassioned "Bush haters." New registrations among traditionally Democratic groups are high; hence, the Bible smear.

So is Gallup in the tank? If so, it has company. Consider a recent CBS-New York Times poll showing a big Bush lead. A glance at the poll's "internals" showed 28 percent of respondents voting for Gore in 2000 and 36 percent for Bush. Since Gore out-polled Bush by a half-million votes, the results are absurd on their face.

State polls have been similarly wacky. Rival surveys in Minnesota, which no Republican has carried since 1932, favored Bush by two points or John Kerry by nine. Take your pick. Ditto Wisconsin and Oregon, where polls released within 24 hours differed by 16 and 13 points respectively.

The smart money says to believe polls like the Pew Research Center, Zogby, Harris Interactive, Democracy Corps and American Research Group, which depict an extremely tight race apt to be decided by voter turnout. That means you.

Today, the American Civil Liberties Union launched a nationwide push to encourage people with ties to the 11 states that will be voting on anti-gay family constitutional amendments this November to phone their friends and relatives back home and speak out about these harmful amendments. A copy of the e-mail blast developed for this campaign is available at www.aclu.org/getequal.

“Gay people and their families are being attacked like never before,” said Matt Coles, Director of the ACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project. “Most of the amendments being voted on this November go much further than just limiting marriage between a man and a woman. Many were deceptively drafted to block gay people from obtaining any protections for their families.”

“But Americans value fairness,” he added, “and when they see how these laws will harm families, they won’t support them. That’s why it’s critical that everyone reach out to their family and friends and explain that these amendments could result in same-sex couples being treated as legal strangers.”

The “Phone Home” campaign targets people who have ties to as well as people within the 11 states with amendments on the November ballot, which include Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Utah. While the sponsors of these amendments have largely claimed that they are necessary to protect "traditional" marriage, the amendments in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Utah could potentially ban any type of same-sex relationship recognition including civil unions and domestic partnerships.

The ACLU is urging people to make the following points when speaking out against these amendments:

• Same sex couples are committed and take responsibility for each other just like heterosexual couples.
• It is cruel and unfair for same-sex couples to be treated as strangers from one another, especially if one is sick or dying.
• America welcomes everyone; we don't use our state constitutions to pass judgment on each other.

The “Phone Home” initiative is a part of a broader “Fighting for Marriage” campaign developed by the ACLU to encourage activists to fight for marriage equality. The ACLU developed a comprehensive online toolkit, available at www.aclu.org/getequal, which provides practical advice and resources designed to make the case for, and counter arguments against, marriage equality. The kit includes talking points in support of marriage equality and against anti-gay relationship amendments, successful lobbying strategies, arguments for countering opponents’ rhetoric, resources to aid in building local coalitions to defeat anti-gay amendments, and ideas for community mobilization.

While the battles over same-sex relationships are being fought, the ACLU also encourages people to push for domestic partnership policies in their communities and places of employment. Detailed instructions for advocating for domestic partnership policies are available by visiting www.aclu.org/getequal and clicking on “Relationships.”

[channelnewsasia.com]

The Spanish government approved a bill to legalise homosexual marriages, which will make it only the third country in Europe to condone same-sex marriages - but the move sparked fury within a still influential Roman Catholic Church.

The plan, which will also give gay couples the right to adopt, "recognises all rights for homosexuals, when it comes to qualifying for a pension, administering an estate, asking for a loan, authorising surgery for a partner but also to adopt a child," cabinet spokeswoman Maria Teresa Fernandez de la Vega said.

Spain "is in the forefront of Europe and of the world in the struggle against centuries of discrimination," de la Vega said, adding that about four million of Spain's 40 million inhabitants, or 10 percent were homosexual.

To date, gay marriages are only legal in Europe in Belgium and the Netherlands -- though only the Netherlands allows gay couples to adopt. Similar unions are legal in six Canadian provinces and the US state of Massachusetts.

The plan, which is to come into force next year once it obtains parliamentary approval, has been fiercely opposed by Spain's Roman Catholic Church, whose influence remains high if declining. A statement issued by Church sources following the announcement decried the move and said "society cannot remain indifferent to this attack" on its traditional values.

An association of Christian fringe groups and the archbishopric of Barcelona also pledged to campaign against the move. "It would impose on society a virus, something false, which will have negative consequences for social life," Juan Antonio Martinez Camino, spokesman for Spain's Episcopal Conference, insisted in midweek.

But de la Vega rejected the criticism.

"There are thousands of children already living in Spain with homosexual parents and more than 50 studies show there are no differences between children who grow up with homosexual parents and others. "Most Spanish people think what is important in adoption is the well-being of the child quite apart from the sexual orientation of the parents," she said.

Recent opinion polls point to an electorate in step with the government with a July poll indicating 66.2 percent support for same-sex marriages, though the figure fell to 48.2 percent for adoptions by gay couples.

Some 14 articles of the civil code will be altered so that the words "man and woman" and "father and mother" are replaced by "partners" or "parents".

According to Justice Minister Juan Fernando Lopez de Aguilar, "this initiative has not been taken against anything or anyone."

He told the news conference that the government "is cooperating with the (Roman Catholic) Church and considers that an open conflict with it is not good."

"This law is part of the Socialist programme which has been voted for by the Spanish," said Beatriz Gimeno, president of the country's Gay, Lesbian and Transexuals Federation.

"The Church has nothing to say about it. This interventionist tendency by the Church is the virus and must be eradicated."

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose crusade to liberalise social policy includes facilitating divorce, said earlier this week: "I deeply respect the opinions of the Catholic Church even if they are very critical of the government. I ask them to show the same respect."

Spain's main opposition Popular Party plans to propose an alternative law allowing homosexuals to form a "civil union" that would give them the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples, save for the right to adopt.

Gay rights groups in Madrid said they would hold a celebration in the capital's 'gay quarter' Chueca to mark a "historic" day.

[washingtonpost.com]

Following is the transcript of the presidential debate between President Bush (R) and Sen. John F. Kerry (D). The moderator of the nationally televised debate was Jim Lehrer of PBS. LINK