Gay

Dear X – x,

Here is the letter. I also attached some gay marriage stuff at the bottom. It's some bits and pieces.

Thank you for being a cool brother.

Love,

Y-y.

P.S. Here is a Film you should watch . . .

Begin forwarded message:

From: Y-y,
Dear Mr. Mayhem:
I am writing to you concerning an on air skit that was played on Wednesday 02/08/06 Morning program around 8:00 am. The title was called "Bareback Mountain." I was deeply offended and disappointed by the blatant stereotyping of gay men and their relationships. They overly made the characters feminine and used really bad gay sexual clichés. The title also advocates unsafe sex, which is not a joke. I don't understand why your radio station feels the need to make gay people the "butt" of your jokes to get ratings. I don't hear your radio personalities making fun of any other minority groups? How come they don't make fun of Black, Latinos, Jewish, Muslim, Christians, or Women? Because you know that those groups would not put up with it.
This is not the first time I have contacted you about your programming. We had a conversation about 2 weeks ago over the phone discussing the same subject matter that pertain to overly stereotyped gay men. The skit was about 2 gay sport casters on your standard morning show. You indicated that it was not right that your personalities were signaling out one group and you would talk to them. Either you didn't speak to them, or of you did they didn't care. Since my request was ignore, I am going to contact your sponsors and see how they feel about your radio station views on your programming and urge them to stop advertising on all your stations. I am also going to stop listening to all your stations and tell others to do so.

You might want to check out these websites and realize that there is a growing GLBT community here in Twin Falls. My community should not and will not stand for homophobia anymore. It's 2006 and people need to realize that we are not a whipping post for hate, discrimination or comedy. You might want to also follow your competing radio stations 98.3 and 96.5 footsteps and support diversity by playing radio spots supporting gay rights. Thank you.

www.queertimesofsouthernidaho.com

www.southernidahoglbt.org

www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~alliance/


Sincerely,
Y-y.

Bill Status
***********************************


HJR002.....................................................by STATE AFFAIRS
MARRIAGE - Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Idaho
to provide that a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic
legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.

01/24 House intro - 1st rdg - to printing
01/25 Rpt prt - to St Aff
02/02 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
02/03 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg
02/06 3rd rdg - PASSED - 53-17-0
AYES -- Anderson, Andrus, Barraclough, Barrett, Bastian, Bayer,
Bedke, Bell, Bilbao, Black, Block, Bolz, Brackett, Bradford, Cannon,
Chadderdon, Clark, Collins, Crow, Deal, Denney, Edmunson, Ellsworth,
Eskridge, Field(18), Field(23), Garrett, Hart, Harwood, Henderson,
Lake, Loertscher, Mathews, McGeachin, McKague, Moyle, Nielsen,
Nonini, Raybould, Roberts, Rydalch, Sali, Schaefer, Shepherd(2),
Shepherd(8), Shirley, Smith(24), Smylie, Snodgrass, Stevenson, Wills,
Wood, Mr. Speaker
NAYS -- Boe, Henbest, Jaquet, Kemp, LeFavour, Martinez, Miller,
Mitchell, Pasley-Stuart, Pence, Ring, Ringo, Rusche, Sayler, Skippen,
Smith(30), Trail
Absent and excused -- None
Floor Sponsor - Denney
Title apvd - to Senate
02/07 Senate intro - 1st rdg - to St Aff
02/13 Rpt out - rec d/p - to 2nd rdg
02/14 2nd rdg - to 3rd rdg

Bill Text
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Fifty-eighth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2006 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2

BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

1 A JOINT RESOLUTION
2 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
3 IDAHO, BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION 28, ARTICLE III, TO PROVIDE THAT A
4 MARRIAGE BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN IS THE ONLY DOMESTIC LEGAL UNION THAT
5 SHALL BE VALID OR RECOGNIZED IN THIS STATE; STATING THE QUESTION TO BE
6 SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE; DIRECTING THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO PREPARE
7 THE STATEMENTS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO
8 PUBLISH THE AMENDMENT AND ARGUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

9 Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

10 SECTION 1. That Article III of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be
11 amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION , to be known and designated
12 as Section 28, Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho and to
13 read as follows:

14 SECTION 28. MARRIAGE. A marriage between a man and a woman is
15 the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in
16 this state.

17 SECTION 2. The question to be submitted to the electors of the State of
18 Idaho at the next general election shall be as follows:
19 "Shall Article III, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho be amended
20 by the addition of a new Section 28, to provide that a marriage between a man
21 and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized
22 in this state?".

23 SECTION 3. The Legislative Council is directed to prepare the statements
24 required by Section 67-453, Idaho Code, and file the same.

25 SECTION 4. The Secretary of State is hereby directed to publish this pro-
26 posed constitutional amendment and arguments as required by law.

Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 15639

The language of this bill, including the term "domestic legal
union" is intended to protect marriage as being only between a
man and a woman.

It is intended to prohibit recognition by the State of Idaho, or
any of its political subdivisions, of civil unions, domestic
partnerships, or any other relationship that attempts to
approximate marriage, no matter how denominated. The language is
further intended to prohibit the State of Idaho, or any of its
political subdivisions, from granting any or all of the legal
benefits of marriage to civil unions, domestic partnerships, or
any other relationship that attempts to approximate marriage.

It is the intent that the language of this bill shall not (a)
interfere with the ability of persons or entities to enter into
private contracts; (b) interfere with the ability of a person to
provide for the disposition of their property at death, including
through wills or trusts; (c) interfere with the ability of a
person to name representatives, including financial or medical
powers of attorney, or to choose guardians or conservators,
through the means provided by the statutes of the State of Idaho.


FISCAL NOTE

The fiscal impact to the General Fund will be $50,000.00 (fifty
thousand dollars) to cover costs of placing the measure on the
ballot.

Contact
Name: President Pro Tem Robert Geddes
Speaker Bruce Newcomb
Rep. Lawerence Denney
Rep. Mike Moyle
Phone: (208) 332-1000


STATEMENT OF PURPOSE/FISCAL NOTE HJR 2


Quotes from news stories:

A similar proposal fell short of the required two-thirds majority last year. Sen. Tom Gannon, one of five lawmakers who changed their votes to help the measure pass 26-9, said he was responding to pressure from his constituents.

"I've been told by some that if I vote against this bill, I'll never see this place again," said Gannon, R-Buhl, as he stood outside the Senate chambers. "Sometimes you've got to go with what your constituents are telling you." HJR002, a proposed constitutional amendment

House approves bill to ban gay marriage

06:23 PM MST on Monday, February 6, 2006

KTVB.COM & Associated Press

BOISE – The Idaho House voted 53-17 today to approve a proposed constitutional amendment regarding gay marriage.

Representatives debated the issue for one-and-a-half hours, which says marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that is valid or recognized in Idaho.

It must receive two-thirds approval of the full House and Senate before the measure will go on the ballot next fall.

Supporters of the measure say it will protect traditional marriage. Opponents say it's unnecessary and discriminates against gay people.

The bill now goes to the Senate where its fate is more uncertain.

Republicans who voted in favor of HJR 2:

Anderson, Andrus, Barraclough, Barrett, Bastian, Bayer, Bedke, Bell, Bilbao, Black, Block, Bolz, Brackett, Bradford, Cannon, Chadderdon, Clark, Collins, Crow, Deal, Denney, Edmunson, Ellsworth, Eskridge, Debbie Field, Frances Field, Garrett, Hart, Harwood, Henderson, Lake, Loerthscher, Mathews, McGeachin, McKague, Moyle, Newcomb, Nielsen, Nonini, Raybould, Roberts, Rydalch, Sali, Schaefer, Paul Shepherd, Shirley, Leon Smith, Smylie, Snodgrass, Stevenson, Wills, Wood.

Democrats in favor of HJR 2:

Mary Lou Shepherd

Republicans opposed to HJR 2:

Kemp, Miller, Ring, Skippen, Trail.

Democrats opposed to HJR 2:

Boe, Henbest, Jaquet, LeFavour, Martinez, Mitchell, Pasley-Stuart, Pence, Ringo, Rusche, Sayler, Elaine Smith.



Amendment - The Senate still needs to act on a proposed change to the state's Constitution
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
ANNE WALLACE ALLEN

BOISE -- The Idaho House of Representatives voted Monday to approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in Idaho.

"You cannot make people moral by legislation," the sponsor of the measure, Rep. Lawerence Denney, R-Midvale, told his colleagues on the House floor. "But all of our social laws are legislated morality. Laws against murder and rape, robbery and incest, are all social laws. These laws are boundaries that we as a society say must not be crossed.

"If we don't set boundaries, and let everyone do what is right in their own eyes, we lose our entire structure; we have chaos."



Denney's proposal provides that "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized" in Idaho. To be placed on the ballot in November, it must win approval from two-thirds of the House and the Senate. It won that easily Monday in the House on a 53-17 vote.

Opponents of the measure have argued it is not necessary because state law already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

"What is the problem we're trying to solve?" said Rep. Shirley Ringo, D-Moscow. "Some people are gay. These folks have every right to be happy. We don't need to make their lives more difficult."

Supporters say the amendment would prevent judges' overturning that law and would protect children and families.

"The notion that we would develop public policy that would recognize same-sex marriage, or worse yet establish it through an activist court, would ignore that growing body of evidence that shows how important it is to have a man and a woman involved in a child's life for proper development," said Rep. Bill Sali, R-Kuna.

This year marks the third go-round for same-sex marriage in the Idaho Legislature. A similar proposal passed a Senate committee last year but failed to win the two-thirds majority in the full Senate. The year before, the measure died in a Senate committee after it passed the House.

Gay-rights advocates and other opponents of Denney's measure expected it to win the necessary votes in the House. But representatives against the measure still asked their colleagues not to approve it.

"Many of you have come to me and apologized for your intent to vote yes on this amendment," said Rep. Nicole LeFavour, D-Boise and the Legislature's only openly gay member. "I would ask instead perhaps this day that you consider making that apology to those people in your districts who will be directly impacted by this amendment. You might not even know them . . . many gays and lesbians live invisibly out of the need to protect their jobs, their families, their homes."

Rep. Mike Mitchell, D-Lewiston, told his colleagues that before he set off for Boise in January, his constituents asked him to focus on property taxes, dealing with sexual predators and trying to solve the problem of methamphetamine use.

"Not one person asked me to come down here and support this proposal that's before us," Mitchell said. "Keep in mind why we were sent here; this wasn't the key issue."

The proposed amendment probably will be assigned to a Senate committee. If it passes that committee, it will go before the full Senate.

Private copywritten dialog we wanted to share with you.