Box Turtle Bulletin

Kevin Douglas-Olive Settles with Homophobic In-Laws

We reported earlier about the legal battle waged against Kevin Douglas-Olive by the parents of his deceased partner, Russell Groff.  The Groffs were insisting that Russell be disinterred and reburied at a site of their choosing and were using the legal system to try and overturn the terms of Russell’s will.

The Washington Blade is now reporting that Douglas-Olive and the Groffs have reached a settlement by which the joint tombstone for the two men would be replaced by two individual stones and the parents would receive some personal items of sentimental value.

This story, along with that of Patrick Atkins,  serve as a reminder that if your state does not have marriage, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in place, you should not delay in preparing the legal documents that will give you some limited measure of protection.

“Make sure that your affairs are in order early,” [Mark Scurti, Olive’s attorney] said. “Don’t wait until your partner is ill or something catastrophic happens.”

Olive agreed. He said that he and Russell erred by waiting until Russell was in the hospital to formalize their legal protections.

“There are so many gay couples running around with no legal documents written up whatsoever,” Olive said. “It’s stupid. Just stupid. It was stupid on our part.”

Putting Party Ahead of Equality

Republican Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani has had a historically supportive relationship with the gay community. This has been evident not only in his mayoral politics but also within his activism within the Republican Party.

There is some criticism now that claims that Giuliani is sacrificing his moderate positions to appeal to more conservative elements within the Party, but it is indisputable that he is by far the most pro-gay candidate on the GOP side. And he has been subjected to a great deal of criticism from social conservatives who believe that theocratic ideology trumps fiscal policy or good government.

But what are we to make of gay people who seek to harm Giuliani’s chances in the primary?

Some argue that a more conservative Republican candidate is easier to beat in the general election while a moderate might appeal more to the populace and might beat a Democrat. They further claim that a Democrat, any Democrat, is better for the goals of the gay community than any Republican and that any efforts towards weakening the Republican nominee is justified.  While I disagree, I don’t fault those who have thoughtfully come to this conclusion. 

It was in this mode of thinking that a Democratic Party activist, Ryan Davis, created a UTube video called Gays for Giuliani.  But Davis went beyond seeking to harm Giuliani, he was willing to trash his community to do it.

Nothing in this commentary should be construed as apologetic for Giuliani.  Nor do I suggest that harsh criticism of his reversal on some policy position is not warranted.  But this is not the way to do it.

There are five things which I find nauseating about Davis’ irresponsible production.

1. The premise behind this effort is that Republicans will be punished for supporting gay equality, if not by anti-gay conservatives, then by gays themselves. Davis’ efforts remind any Republican that is in some position of authority out there that any effort to be fair and equitable to their gay constituents can be used against them in the future – so they’d better oppose the local non-discrimination ordinance.

If you happen to be in a city where changing one Republican councilman’s vote would make a difference, you know how damaging Davis’ video is. And this is especially harmful in that this is not just some right-winger screaming about “pandering to the homos”, it’s gay people punishing a politician for their support.

2. This is a gamble that is far too dangerous to make. We have no reason to believe that Fred Thompson, or some other conservative, would not become President if they were the nominee of the Party.

There is no question that Giuliani is not hostile to our community. Some might argue – based solely on history – that he would be as supportive, or more so, than Hillary Clinton. To seek to harm the nomination of a pro-gay moderate so as to favor an anti-gay conservative could have disastrous results for our community’s efforts at achieving equality.

3. This video plays on the worst stereotypes. It seeks to portray gay people as selfish and hedonistic and flamboyantly effeminate. 

4. This video mocks the very rights and equalities that our community fights so very hard to achieve. In a week in which we hear about long-term committed partners trying desperately to have their relationships honored, Davis mockingly said:

“I am also so grateful to Rudy for the Domestic Partnership Plan that he has implemented in this city because I have had no less, no less, than five domestic partners.”

Those of you out there who are hoping for the opportunity to have a plan like NYC’s implemented locally know that this sort of language only serves to convince on-the-fence policy makers that gay people are only playing at relationships.

5. Some in our community are willing to put the goals of the Democratic Party above the goals of our community. The Advocate, for example, interviewed Davis and rather than call him on the harm that he’s doing to our quest for equality praised him for his activism. In answer to the sole question about “a few LGBT people [who] have misinterpreted your PSA”, Davis said:

“It’s not supposed to make [gays and lesbians] feel better about our place in the world—it’s supposed to help keep Rudy from getting the Republican nomination and becoming president.”

Well, sorry Advocate and sorry Ryan Davis, but keeping Giuliani from the Presidency is not my goal. Achieving a society in which we have equality is my goal.

I find your goal to be despicable.

UPDATE:  Ryan J. Davis has graciously responded to my criticisms on his myspace page.  Perhaps not surprisingly, his responses changed neither my opinion about his tactics nor my impression about his maturity. 

Marketing Hate

When the Soprannos character Vito Spatafore was revealed to be a gay mobster, it represented a surprising and poignant turning point in the show. And the Sopranos remained true to its gritty and violent nature by having him whacked. In a brutal scene, Vito (played by Joseph R. Gannascoli) was beaten to death and sodomized by a pool cue.

Now Gannascoli and Rockwell Billiards is grotesquely marketing a pool stick under the brand “A Cue to Die For.” GLAAD has strongly condemned this glamorization of anti-gay violence as product promotion. Anti-gay violence is a very real experience for thousands of gays and lesbians each year. Some die, and many others experience a lifetime of consequences as a result. Gannascoli and Rockwell Billiards aren’t just making light of this violence, they’re exploiting it for their marketing campaign.

GLAAD provides contact information from a press release. “Joe Gannascoli (Vito) is available for radio and television interviews. To schedule, call Doug Friedman at (973) 985-1050. Rockwell Billiards: John Candy (877) 231-1466 www.rockwellbilliards.com.”

Update: As Timothy Kincaid points out in the comments, the Miami Herald reports that Gannascoli is apologetic and is “a great supporter of the gay community.” He is considering “pulling all the pool cues.” No word from Rockwell Billiards yet.

Update (8/17): Rockwell Billiards has decided to cease sales of the cue.

Gays Too Precious To Risk In Combat

From the Onion News Network, why “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is essential to protect they only group of Americans who have been “untouched by war.”

God bless America and her gays

“Harassed” Firemen are now “Threatened”

NBC San Diego is reporting:

Four San Diego firefighters claim they’re receiving threats after filing a compliant with the state for being “forced” to participate in the city’s gay pride parade.

There are no details as to the nature of the “threats” or whether they are threats in the same way that “look at the big firemen” is sexual harassment.

Capt. John Ghiotto spoke with NBC 7/39 Monday. He said he’s received threatening phone calls in light of his and the three other firefighters’ complaints.

“This is not what I wanted. This is not where I wanted this to go,” Ghiotto said. “But… we had no other choice and hopefully this will make us a stronger department.”

Perhaps.

Activism Divides Russian Gay Community

A recent opinion poll in Russia said that only 9% disagreed with Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov’s ban of the gay pride march last year. With rising nationalism in Russia, the nascent gay rights movement is often branded as a dangerous foreign influence. Against that backdrop, the Washington Post reported last weekend on the divide in the Russian gay community, between those who believe the only way to combat rising homophobia is through direct confrontation, and those who would rather lay low hoping for things to improve as the older generation dies off. Elena Gusyatinskaya keeps a vast gay-themed archive in her tiny apartment, including storage space for personal diaries that people are afraid to keep in their own homes. She comments:

“On the one hand, it’s good that people are talking about it, that it isn’t covered up that this fact exists,” said Gusyatinskaya, drawing on conversations with the hundreds of gay people who have visited her archive in the past decade. “Yet how this is talked about, particularly on television, doesn’t help to destroy homophobia, but rather unleashes it.”

Hat tip: Ruslan Porshnev

Gay Lutherans Receive a Mixed Message

On Saturday, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America rejected a proposal to lift the celibacy requirement on gay ministers.  However, the next day they passed a resolution encouraging Bishops not to enforce the rules.

In a historic decision that could shift the future of their church’s policy on sexuality, the nation’s largest Lutheran denomination Saturday urged its bishops to refrain from disciplining gay ministers who are in committed same-sex relationships.

The resolution came from Chicago’s Bishop Paul Landahl on the final day of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America’s national meeting at Navy Pier. After emotional testimony on the biblical interpretation of homosexuality, church leaders passed Landahl’s resolution by a vote of 538-431. Saturday’s resolution surprised some in the church because it came a day after leaders defeated a measure that would have ended the ban on non-celibate gay clergy.

This mixed messager reflects a reluctance on the part of many to lay aside traditional interpretations of Scripture while yet finding a way to show compassion and champion equality in a time in which the understanding of homosexuality has changed. I am encouraged by this step taken by the ELCA towards a more inclusive theology based on objective realities and Christ’s message of oneness and equality.

If You Think Your Parents Are Bad…

Patrick Atkins knew that his family was judgmental and unaccepting.  And he knew that after 25 years together, Brett Conrad was the person he trusted to love, honor and cherish him.  But he did not know that he would suffer a ruptured aneurysm on a business trip which would leave him mentally impaired at the age of 47.

And so, like many gay couples, Brett and Patrick did not prepare the extensive and often expensive legal documents that would have given each other the protection and control over their own lives.  And now Patrick’s illness is a stark illustration of what can happen if legal protections are forgotten and family members are allowed to put their own biases above your happiness or care:

Conrad traveled to the Atlanta hospital to be with Atkins but was soon denied access by the family. Hospital staff defied the family’s wishes and let Conrad visit Atkins during off-hours.

Atkins eventually was moved to a nursing facility in Carmel, where Conrad would arrive after regular visiting hours so the Atkinses would not see him.

He filed his guardianship request in June 2005. That November, the Atkinses moved Patrick into their home and have since refused to let Conrad visit. They also have refused his phone calls.

It is inarguable that the Atkinses are cruel people. And their behavior cannot be justified. And, sadly, as long as gay couples are denied the easy remedy of marriage and instead are subjected to legal barriers and multiple forms, this story will repeat itself.

So each of us take a moment to ask ourselves if we trust those who have legal claim to us to honor and respect our lives. And if the answer is “no” then take the steps necessary to protect yourself from those who might believe that their dogma or bigotry can justify any level of cruelty.

(hat tip to reader David)

American Family Association Denounces “Redbook”

Rev. Don Widmon’s American Family Association has issued an action alert calling for a boycott of Redbook magazine, saying that it “encourages a pagan, hedonistic lifestyle.”

Well heck, I could have told him that. When I wrote “The Heterosexual Agenda” I used Redbook articles going back to 1975. Where has he been for the past 32 years? Tupelo?

Ex-Gay Survivors Appear At Southern Baptist Headquarters

Darlene Bogle, a former Exodus-affiliated leader in the ex-gay movement, and Christine Bakke, a former ex-gay client, appeared in Nashville this week to petition the Southern Baptist Convention to reconsider its full-bore endorsement of ex-gay ministries. The Southern Baptist Convention recently appointed Bob Stith, a Ft. Worth, Texas, pastor and chairman of Living Hope Ministries in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area, to become the denomination’s first national strategist for gender issues.

Darlene and Christine stood near the Billy Graham statue outside Southern Baptist headquarters and shared their stories. Then they went inside to deliver copies of their statements and framed collages about their experiences to a receptionist, and asked that they be passed on to Rev. Stith.

The Tennessean has an article this morning about Darlene’s and Christine’s appearance in Nashville. Soulforce issued a press release describing last week’s action and you can see video of the event here:

Partner of Gay Navy Vet Who Was Refused Funeral Responds

A commenter identifying himself as Paul Wagner, Cecil Sinclair’s partner, left a comment with more details concerning High Point Church’s refusal to host Cecil’s funeral. Because of the details he provided, and the fact that his email address and ISP identify his location as being in Texas, I’m inclined to believe it’s the real thing.

Update: I tried to respond to him via the email he provided with my condolences, but the email was returned as being an invalid address. While I’m inclined to believe the account below, I haven’t yet been able to confirm it.

Update: The Dallas Morning News Religion Blog received the same message.

Update: I have confirmed that this is indeed Cecil Sinclair’s partner. Paul’s original comment had a typo in his email address, making contact difficult. I have since been in direct contact with him.

I am the partner of Cecil Sinclair who passed. It is unfortunate that the church has decided to tell untruths in order to make themselves feel better, or make their side of the story into a saner response. Hopefully more of the truth will come out in future articles or investigations.

First of all, let me start by stating that it was a member of the church who offered the use of their facility to us, on behalf of his brother who is/was a member of their congregation. I was introduced to this man as Cecil’s partner. To my knowledge, this person at least was fully aware that we were living openly as a couple. This same member of the church, when were later advised that we could not use the facilities, on his own, with money from his own pocket, not church coffers, went and procured another facility for the funeral. The church did not do so. At no time did a member of the church contact us to indicate that they had a problem with any part of the service we were planning. We never had contact with the minister or any of the administration.

On Tuesday morning, we gave the church a total of 83 various pictures of Cecil that were forwarded to us by various members of his family. Of those, not a single one showed a man hugging or kissing another man, nor were there any overtly homosexual references. Cecil’s sister Kathleen sat and worked with the two people preparing the video and went through all of the photos with them. There was only one photo which would be considered offensive, as it was a picture of him in his early 20s making a rude gesture at his best friend who was taking the photo. We removed it and never asked that it be included. It was just overlooked in the rush to get things done. These individuals went through all the other photos, which were pictures of family gatherings, birthday parties, vacations, etc. At no time was anything expressed to her or us that they had a disagreement with any of the other photos.

Cecil’s brother Lee, who was the member of the church, asked that we include a call to prayer near the beginning of the services, as well as a call for salvation at the end. We immediately agreed to this because it meant so much to his brother personally. We even asked if they wanted to have their own minister conduct it, or if our officiator could. Our officiator was a baptist minister. There was no objection raised, so we assumed that it was OK.

On Wednesday evening about 6pm, we received a call. The person on the line put Cecil’s brother Lee, who is mentally impaired, onto the phone. Lee informed us that something had gone wrong, and then someone else got on the phone. That person informed us that a terrible string of errors was made, and that the service could no longer be held at their facility. We never spoke to the pastor nor anyone from his administration directly. It was all done through middlemen. When we requested to know why we could no longer use their facility, there was no answer. They simply stated a mistake was made.

Later that night, while we were scrambling to find another location, Cecil’s niece called back to the church and demanded an explanation. It was at that time a very long string of excuses began to form. First she was told that it was because we were bringing in outside food, which they didn’t allow. Then we were told it was because there was construction going on nearby which they felt would be too obtrusive. We said we didn’t think it would interfere. Then we were told it was because there was a scheduling conflict. When asked was other event was being held that was conflicting, the call was disconnected.

The remembrance we held for Cecil I felt was wonderful. We started with a brief welcome by the officiator. A song (For the Fallen) was sung. Cecil’s obituary was read. We then played the video which was about 10 minutes long, showing him from childhood, graduation, his naval service, and family gatherings, especially those from his 46th birthday, which had just been on the 5th of July. The officiator then read from personal family statements and remembrances of him. His mother, father, uncle and sister had all contributed personal insights into his life that they were not able to state themselves due to grief. A time was then allowed for individuals to come to the mike and offer their own personal remembrances of him. The chorale then sang another song (Amazing Grace). Closing remarks were made by the officiator and we then moved to the light meal that had been prepared. Meat and cheese sandwiches, cakes, and cookies. Only a small amount of this was offered by the church, most was either brought by family or friends.

To me personally, I have no problem with the church turning us away. My problem is with the method in which they did it. I happen to know several other members of that church who are also gay, and they had no idea that their church held that opinion on this topic either. If they had told us right away, or even on Tuesday that they were not comfortable with the service, we would have been more than willing to try and come to some sort of compromise, or we could have changed venues. We were never given that option. Someone in a position of power made the decision to cut us off, and didn’t even have the moral courage to tell us the truth to our faces.

Hopefully your reading this helps to make sense of what occurred. I fully understand the church’s right to deny us the use of their facilities. I also served in the military, (US Army, 1987-2002), and I have fought to defend their freedom of religion and freedom of choice.

If just one couple or family can be saved from having to suffer the same as we did, I would consider all this to have been worthwhile. I truly believe all congregations need to have more open communication between all their members, so that the person who had initially welcomed us into their church would have known that is was not acceptable in the eyes of their leaders, and the entire issue would have been avoided. If we had known from the beginning we were not welcome, or the offer had never been made, we would have just continued making the same arrangements we finally had in the end. Nothing we did for Cecil’s remembrance ceremony was changed, other than the location.

I loved Cecil truly and deeply, and I am sorry that anyone considers a truly heartfelt, emotional, even spiritual connection to another human being to be sinful, simply because that love is between two people of the same sex.

New SDFD Parade Policy

In the wake of the complaints by fire fighters required to drive a fire truck in the Gay Pride parade, the San Diego Fire Department has issued new rules.  In the future all parades will be staffed by volunteers.  The rule will apply to all parades in which the city participates.

The department takes part in 14 community parades each year, including the pride celebration, Fourth of July, St. Patrick’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Cesar Chavez Day.

If an unpaid volunteer can’t be found, the City will pay four hours of overtime to an engineer to participate. The City is not anticipating having a problem finding somone willing to get paid overtime for riding in a parade.

The Artificial “Evils” of Gay-Straight Alliances

In his rush to decry the evils of Gay-Straight Alliances, Exodus’s Mike Ensley sarcastically asked the following:

Yes, because believing in Biblical principles and any alternative to embracing homosexuality is much more like child molestation than recommending erotica, pornographic movies and books that promote prostitution to minors, or giving them graphic instruction on dangerous sexual activities.

In a comment here at Box Turtle Bulletin, Mike clarified:

I was challenging the one who made the claim that “pro-family” leaders were child molesters with the fact that GLSEN (along with another teen-oriented gay site I linked to) does point minors to inappropriate materials.

But does GLSEN point minors to inappropriate materials?  And what then are these inappropriate materials?  And are they as Mike describes them?

Erotica – for this claim, Mike links to the Amazon listing for Rainbow Boys, a gay themed book for young adults by Alex Sanchez. I have read Rainbow Boys and there is no credible way whatsoever that this book can be described as erotica. There is nothing graphic in the book and while the language and themes are written so as to be familiar to today’s youth, this book is less objectionable than Catcher in the Rye or, for that matter, Atlas Shrugged, both required reading in my high school.

Pornographic Movies – here Mike links to a site called gayteens.org and the site’s link to an Amazon search engine. While each link may result in different movie options, the choices presented when I linked were:

• The L Word, First Season – this is a television show
• Imagine You and Me – rated R
• Will and Grace, Season Six – a network television show
• Queer as Folk – a Showtime television show
• Eating Out 2 – an unrated movie that is not pornography
• Better than Chocolate – an unrated movie that is not pornography
• Dante’s Cove – a television show
• Loving Annabelle – an unrated movie that is not pornography
• Tan Lines – an unrated movie that is not pornography

I agree that some of these choices are not appropriate for young teens. Some include sexual themes that are at least as graphic as some of their heterosexual counterparts. For example, Queer as Folk and the L Word are on par with The Sopranos as far a nudity and Eating Out 2 is similar to any other teen sex farce.

One movie is rated R and several, being arthouse movies, are unrated.  But none of the presented options are “pornographic movies”.

Books that Promote Prostitution – this is an Amazon link to Revolutionary Voices, a compilation of stories by gay teens.

I am unfamiliar with this anthology and do not know whether Exodus’ claim that it describes prostitution as an “empowering experience” is true. Somehow, I doubt this book champions prostitution. 

Ensley’s only link to GLSEN (“to minors“) references their recommended book list for grades 7 to 12. There were quite a few books listed, but I had heard of or read many of them. I looked through the list and did not see any that I was aware of that would be inappropriate for kids in their late teens.

I am familiar with the cultural offerings available to gays and lesbians. I browse bookstores and go to film festivals. Because of this, I immediately recognized Ensley’s “inappropriate materials” to be objectionable not for their adult content but solely because they are gay supportive.

I wondered whether Ensley was perhaps unaware of the nature of those things he listed and was sincerely repeating warnings that he had heard to his anti-gay audience so they could share his concern. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the idea that he was cynically whipping up an artificial outrage so as to deliberately and deceptively create the impression that GSA’s were corrupting children.

Then I read his last link, “giving them graphic instruction on dangerous sexual activities.”

And any doubt that I had disappeared. Ensley linked to a “report” by MassNews, an anti-gay activist group that is best known for lying through their teeth. And the report? It was a rehash of the ever-trumpeted “fistgate”. This references an educational forum in Massachusetts in 2000 in which a panel moderator answered the questions of 16 year olds including a question one had about a sexual practice known as “fisting”.

What is interesting about this “scandal” is that there is no one in the gay community suggesting that this is an appropriate subject for a youth forum. Yet Ensley presents this as though it were common, supported, and somehow connected to GLSEN.

Is this an accident? Does Ensley not know this? Is there even a possible chance, however remote, that Ensley thinks that the material he referenced is pornographic or that GSAs support teaching about fisting?

To me it seems unlikely.

So the question remains:  Did Mike Ensley deliberately set out to present an argument which advanced the notion that GSA’s present inappropriate material so as to expose children to adult sexuality?  Did he choose to do so by making egregiously false claims about books and other materials and suggesting that GLSEN supports teaching children about unusual sex practices?

Only Mike Ensley knows the answers to those questions.  And only Mike Ensley knows whether he has sold his integrity so as to advance his political cause and has placed his culture war as a higher priority than his honesty.

Church Refuses Funeral For Gay Man

Update: A commenter identifying himself as Paul Wagner, Cecil Sinclair’s partner, has more details about what happened.

High Point Church in Arlington, Texas, had offered to hold a funeral service for Cecil Sinclair, 46, after he died of heart disease while waiting for a transplant. Sinclair had been a Navy veteran of Desert Storm helping rescuers find downed pilots, and he came out to his family after returning from the gulf. The church started praying for him after he fell ill six years ago out of concern for his brother, a church member and employee. When Cecil died, they offered to hold a funeral, feed 100 guests, and put together a multimedia presentation of photos from his life.

And that’s where the trouble started. Some of those photos had “kissing and hugging,” showing that Cecil was gay. The church changed its mind and refused to hold the funeral. They didn’t even give the family a chance to find common ground:

The pastor said that he could imagine a similar situation involving a different sin. Perhaps a mother who is a member of the church loses a son who is a thief or murderer, (Rev. Gary) Simons said. The church would surely volunteer to hold a service, he said.

“But I don’t think the mother would submit photos of her son murdering someone,” he said. “That’s a red light going off.”

It’s sad that the church would cancel a funeral without consulting with the family. After six years of prayer and concern, Cecil’s sexuality was not a secret. But now the man is dead after a very long illness and the family is grieving. Simons’s comparing Cecil to a murderer was a particularly low blow and completely uncalled for.

It seems that all too often, the Church misses out when opportunities arise to reach out. But with examples like this one, it’s no wonder so many gays are hostile to Christianity. History has been a persistent teacher.

Richardson Stumbles

The internet is a buzz. On last night’s Democratic forum sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and broadcast on LOGO, Melissa Etheridge asked New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson whether he thought people were born gay or if it was a choice. He answered, “It’s a choice.” She rephrased the question, thinking Richardson misunderstood her, but Richardson repeated that he thought it was a choice. He then followed that with a rambling monologue about not seeing people with labels, but none of it was convincing with his deer-in-the-headlights look. At one point he said, “I don’t like to answer questions like that.”

Understanding the terrible damage his performance inflicted, Richardson issued this clarification after the debate:

Let me be clear — I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice. But I’m not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law. That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for.

But video from last night’s forum is hitting the airwaves hard on this morning’s news programs, swamping his clarification. This comes as Richardson is still trying to recover from his “maricón” incident, where he used the Spanish anti-gay slur on the Don Imus show in March, 2006.

Gay bloggers are all over the map this morning as to who won last night’s forum. Everyone has their favorites. But they all agree on one thing. Richardson inflicted very serious damage to his campaign as far as the gay community is concerned.

Update: Bill Richardson will appear on the Michelangelo Signorile show on Sirius OutQ 109 4:25 pm EDT (1:25 PDT) try to clarify this further.

Update: With all the focus on Bill Richardson’s stumble in the forum last night, it’s worth noting his record on gay rights:

1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature]
2. Signed into law the state’s first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature]
3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010]
4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state’s HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature]
5. Created the state’s first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature]
6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.