"It's very difficult, once a right has been claimed in law, to reverse that right, but we're going to try," said the Rev. Christopher Coyne, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston.

If ever you doubted that the opposition to gay marriage was about anything other than denying gays the same rights as everyone else, let this put your doubts to rest. Church officials want to fight in order to revoke the rights that gays now enjoy in Massachusetts. Never mind that the earliest-known church-sanctioned wedding were between same-sex (male) couples. And never mind that the most-cited scriptures condemning homosexuality are right next to other damning scripture that most "modern" clergy choose to quietly ignore.

It's all about rights, and control. And the control of people's rights. This is the biggest shift of power-control away from churches and into secular law since the legalization of birth control and non-emergency abortion. And they aren't going to give up that kind of power without a fight.

A Brazilian mayor took anti-gay discrimination to a new level on Tuesday by signing a decree that prohibits gay people from moving into his town.

(Found via several of my LJ friends.)

As numerous sources and friends have pointed out, today the Supreme Court of the United States handed down their ruling in the Texas sodomy law case, Lawrence and Garner v. Texas:

The Supreme Court Thursday struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex in a decision gay rights groups hailed as historic.

...

"This is going to carve out protection for private sexual behavior," Hassel said. "As long as it's between consenting adults, this ruling would appear to cover it."

There is some additional legal analysis, and of course Justice Antonin Scalia is outraged. (Note that he also refers to Roe v. Wade, and alludes to the fact that he does not feel that there is any Constitutional basis for privacy.)

This is drawing much attention from many directions.

The San Francisco organization, STOP AIDS, has been given what is effectively a cease-and-desist order:

The Bush administration yesterday ordered a San Francisco AIDS prevention group to immediately halt a handful of explicit programs that "appear to encourage or promote sexual activity" or risk losing as much as $500,000 a year in federal grants.

...

After a two-day site review last year, CDC investigators concluded that the "design and delivery of STOP AIDS prevention activities was based on current accepted behavioral science theories in the area of health promotion," Gerberding wrote in February.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56979-2003Jun13.html)
Note that the Post asks for some small boon of demographic information before letting you view their stories.

Shortly after that second quote, the article indicates that CDC Director Julie L. Gerberding (referred to above) had decided that the local review process was no longer sufficient and that she was planning on changing it.

This begs the question of what does warrant funding– abstinence-only programs? Do they think that will be at all effective in stopping the spread of HIV?

According to this article, the DOJ has partially back-pedalled and will allow the DOJ Pride group to have their annual pride celebration. Provided they pay for the use of the facilities. The claim is that they never meant to exclude the group, only that the event would no longer be sponsored. Some people quoted in the article dispute this, but the article doesn't go into delicate-enough detail to say for certain. At least they get to have their event.

From a friend's LiveJournal:

US Justice Department forbids Gay Pride event at headquarters

Quoting:

Homosexual employees of the US Department of Justice have been forbidden to hold an annual "Gay Pride" event at the department's headquarters, a gay DoJ employee said Friday.

Attorney General John Ashcroft "will not allow us to hold our annual pride ceremony in the building," said Melissa Schraibman, who works in Justice Department's tax division.

...

In 2002 Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, the most important DoJ official after Ashcroft, was at the event. Thompson's presence however resulted in sharp criticism from influential conservative groups.

...

Schraibman said that other groups of DoJ employees – including those belonging to ethnic or special interest groups – continue to use the Department building as a meeting place.

Thank goodness the Bush administration is even-handed, fair and inclusive. I'd hate to see what they would try to get away with if they weren't. I mean it, I'd really hate that.