New York Bill on Gay Rights Is Set for Vote. The Republican-led New York State Senate will vote for the first time on landmark gay-rights legislation in December after having blocked its passage for decades. By James C. Mckinley Jr.. [New York Times: NYT HomePage]

New York Governor George Pataki, who is facing a serious challenge in his re-election bid from the Independence Party candidate, Thomas Galisano, has been promising for years that he would sign gay-rights legislation, but the Republican-led Senate has consistantly refused to bring it to a vote.  Over the last 18 months, he's told gay-rights activists that he would coerce the Republican leadership to bring it to a vote, and now seems to have finally gotten his way. Expectations are high that once the Senate has a chance to vote on the bill, it will pass and be signed into law.

While this is obviously a political ploy on the part of Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno to help his party have a better chance at keeping the Governorship of New York, the important outcome will be if gays and lesbians have their rights legally secured throughout the state.

In an odd bit of irony, the Houston Chronical is reporting today about the efforts a Texas Republican is taking to derail the election hopes of a fellow Republican who is running for Justice of the Peace.  The article notes:

[Republicans Urged Not to Vote Straight] GOP political activist Dave Wilson has a message for fellow Republicans -- If you vote straight, you vote gay.

Wilson is sending Republican voters an automated telephone message telling them not to vote a straight Republican ticket because it includes a gay candidate. [Houston Chronicle Home Page]

Yeah, you read that right.  Wilson is calling Republicans in one of the Houston Judicial districts to urge Republician voters to vote against Alex Wathen because he's gay.  And he's doing this even though the party leaders would rather that he not - because having Republicans vote a straight Republican ticket helps all of their candidates.  Instructing them not to vote straight Republican, they fear, could weaken other candidates as well.

As Harris County GOP Chairman Jared Woodfill said:

"Why would Dave do this?" Woodfill said. "I mean, I agree with him on the homosexual issue, and the party position on that is clear."

"But it is wrong for Republicans to send the message not to vote straight ticket," he said. "The straight ticket helps all of our judicial races in Harris County."

Why would Dave do this?  Perhaps it has something to do with the official Texas Republican Party platform for 2002, which goes beyong taking a political stance against gay rights and instead goes straight for a carefully worded moral stance that comes close to being against gays, themselves.

The platform says that:

 homosexual "behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders and shared by a majority of Texans."

Oh, is that all?

It's sad that in one state, gays are not only being politically maligned, but have apparently offended one of the major political parties to the point that they felt it was necessary to insert a plank condemning homosexual behaviour because it is contrary to the truth of God; and in another state gays are finally having a chance to have their rights enshrined in law, but only because the Governor's re-election bid looks like it might be in danger.

I can only hope that one day the Texas Republicans will figure out that it really doesn't matter what that think God has ordained or forbidden, God has no place in the making of political policy or the passage of laws; and that one day gays will no longer have to hope for a tight election race in order to finally have assurance of their rights.

[Ed.Note: Don't worry, I'll find a new topic soon - this is just one of those things that really frosts my cookies]

Media May Have Unwittingly Foreshadowed Sniper's Moves

By Dru Sefton

c.2002 Newhouse News

The Washington-area sniper may be taking cues from media coverage as to what his next move will be, experts say.

The evidence is mounting:

• Last Friday a former FBI profiler said on CNN, "I could see, he could keep going on down to Ashland, possibly all the way to Richmond ..." The next day, the sniper struck in Ashland, Va.
  
  
• On Oct. 15, The Washington Post ran a story headlined "Weekend Lulls in Shootings Could Offer Clue on Lifestyle," because each shooting had been on a weekday. The next victim was shot the following Saturday.
  
  
• On Oct. 4, 5 and 6, several criminal profilers were quoted on television and in print about how the sniper was "playing God" or "has a God complex." On Oct. 7 the sniper left a tarot card reading, in part, "I am God."
  
  
• On Oct. 3, a Montgomery County official appeared on several national networks, assuring nervous parents. "We feel children will be safe inside schools with us," he said on CNN. On Oct. 7, the sniper shot a student at a Bowie, Md., school.

Given the previous speculation about how much of an impact the media speculation is having on the sniper and his choices, I found this entire article quite interesting. In addition to the above examples, the article talks about how the on-air "profiling" by former FBI agents and former cops could actually lead the suspect to change how he acts in order to avoid conforming to the profile, and how it can also confuse the public. One concern is that if people hear too much about these armchair profiles (armchair because they don't have access to all the info), they might inadvertantly overlook a possible suspect if he doesn't fit what they think they're supposed to be looking for.

I know I've commented on this subject a few times already, but I find it quite disheartening that the media - print and TV - can comment on how the killer seems to be taking cues from the coverage, and yet they don't change how they're covering the case.  If their ethics don't dictate that should exercise more care, common sense should.

This is one of those times I wish Jack McCoy and the other heroes of "Law & Order" were real.  I have no doubt that if he were to see this kind of a pattern emerging - compete with the media recognizing that what they have to say may be helping this guy pick his targets and his timing - and go after the network editors for criminal charges based on their reckless disregard for human life.  The sticking point, of course, would be proving that he wouldn't have killed someone else even if the media wasn't reporting on it, so the case might not go very far, but just getting the charges filed might be sufficient to get a better national debate on where the news media should impose limits on themselves.

I don't mind them reporting the facts - that's their job.  Its the wild speculation that gives me concern.  Under these circumstances, not only does it make no sense, it is, in my opinion, unethical.  They're job is to report what has happened, not create news themselves - and I honestly think that in this case, even if they don't intend to, that is one of the side effects of what they are doing.