Politics Same-sex Marriages (¡DOS!)

[mystery_chick]

let's just say I'm glad that I'm not a Catholic... or ... well... hehe. :mellow:
--Mandy

 

[Scarlet Crystal]

No, I get it :lol: I haven't gone to Church in a loong time, but that doesn't change the fact that I ALWAYS say my prayers every night.

 

[pii_lena4ever]

:hmm: They say it like it's a bad thing. It makes me mad at my Catholic-ness sometimes.

[post="1426489"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

they do say it like it's a bad thing. i hate that. i'm not catholic, but lutheran. but no matter what my religion says i've still always found gay people, and by that, gay marriage, completely okay and normal, and i think they should get rights to get legally married everywhere! i have a friend who's gay, and i didn't know it when i got to know her, and when she told me, that didn't change my opinions about her at ALL. she's still SO great.
i don't understand people who are against homosexuals - after all, we are all people, which gender we ever happen to be attracted to.

I haven't gone to Church in a loong time, but that doesn't change the fact that I ALWAYS say my prayers every night.

same here!

 

[the_alliance]

they do say it like it's a bad thing. i hate that. i'm not catholic...i don't understand people who are against homosexuals - after all, we are all people, which gender we ever happen to be attracted to.

[post="1427997"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

the Church is not against homosexuals. she is only against homosexual acts. how many times do i have to post that?

ETA: refer to this post

 

[Existentialist]

Fred Phelps is the moron who protested at Matthew Shepard's funeral. I have no respect whatsoever for the man. May he be reincarnated as a dung beetle (no offense to dung beetles).

And Pedro from the Real World! I loved him. Very cool guy.

Vatican Paper Condemns Canada Gay Marriage

1 hour, 59 minutes ago

The Vatican newspaper on Thursday attacked Canada's legalization of gay marriage, calling it a distortion of God's plan for the family.

Canada became the fourth nation to grant full legal rights to same-sex couples when the Supreme Court's chief justice signed legislation Wednesday.

"The distortion of God's plan for the family continues," said L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican daily. "In Canada, homosexual unions have become equal to marriage."

The Roman Catholic Church in Canada, in line with the Vatican's worldwide policy, vigorously opposed the legislation. The Netherlands, Belgium and Spain also allow gay marriage nationwide.

As for this, I wonder if they realize that this contradicts Jesus' teachings - the whole love everyone bit? If you restrict some people's rights, you certainly don't love them.

 

[sugababyboo]

Yes, Fred Phelps is a horrible person and I don't think dung beetles would be offended by your comment

I believe the only reason why pii mentioned that she isn't Catholic is because she has made the observation that they are one of the groups that are the most opposed to gay marriage. Let's be real, it's not as if the church and the majority of catholics in the world have embraced homosexuals in the first place. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only way they would accept a gay person is if he or she was reformed and stopped living their "sinful" lifestyle, repented and are now "straight". And, how many openly gay bishops are there in "the church"?

When gay christians go to church it's never to one that is directly linked to the Vatican. On FX's 30 days the cameras went into a gay church with a gay minister in San Francisco and the UCC have received harsh criticism for accepting homosexuals and recognizing same sex marriage.


There are a VERY small number of people on this board alone who either Catholic and or Christian who are FOR gay marriage and support homosexuals. In the last thread there were less than a dozen member who openly admitted that they were Catholic and/ or Christian and were for gay marriage. Because of their postion they are in the minority on this board and in the world as well.

One of the many reasons that I have heard from Christians who are opposed is because it would offend them if it became legal. The government should not base their laws on any specific religion and if they ever did, it shouldn't just be about Christianity. As little birdy once mentioned hindus don't eat beef, muslims don't eat pork let's make a law forbidding EVERYONE from eating those animals because it would offend those two religious groups. No, that would be ridiculous. All the religions in this country are given the freedom to practice their faith. Hindus and muslims in this country are not forced to eat those animals because freedom of religion allows them to.

Since we're on the subject of gay marriage legalization being "offensive" then we must dig little deeper. Pornography, prostitution, cigarettes, consensual sodomy, the death penalty, anti-depressants (hello Tom Cruise) even the existence of alcohol offends people in this country yet all of those things are LEGAL in this country.


We must not forget those people who are against interracial marriage which is of course legal. HOWEVER, it didn't become legalized until 1967 thanks to the Supreme Court. I feel like a broken record by mentioning this again, but like gay marriage the majority of this country were against interracial marriage because of their racism, fears, and ignorance. The Supreme Court justices knew the only way American Society would progress is if they made them confront their prejudices by legalizing it. Those who were (and still are) opposed were given two options, accept it and support it, or tolerate it and move on. Thankfully, a lot of those people chose the latter. The result is positive because more Americans are racially diverse( Johnny Damon, Halle Berry, Jessica Alba are all bi-racial) and accepting and tolerant of different races. And if anyone believes that this is a consequence or negative then I have no idea where you're coming from, unless you time traveled here from the 1950's.

 

[Jamison]

the Church is not against homosexuals. she is only against homosexual acts. how many times do i have to post that?

ETA: refer to this post

[post="1428158"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

Before I address this I just want to bow down to Amaya ...your post so totally rocked hun!


Anyways, I understand what you're saying and I've read what you've posted about the churches opinion on homosexuals, but they are still against gay marriage, gay civil unions, and gay adoption. They may think it's okay to be gay and just sit in a corner and not do anything about it (even though many Catholics are very adamently against homosexuality), but when it comes to having equal rights they are not for it.

And let's be real, there are going to be very few homosexuals who are never going to have a sexual act with another homosexual. That attraction they have to the opposite sex is why they are gay.

Maybe it's just me, but the Church's stance on this issue is kind of sneaky. On the outside it looks like they are tolerant towards gays, but when you dig a little deeper, you see that's not the case at all in reality. But then again, that could just be me.

 

[pii_lena4ever]

the Church is not against homosexuals. she is only against homosexual acts. how many times do i have to post that?

ETA: refer to this post

[post="1428158"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

oh, i didn't mean that the church is against homosexuals, just the homosexual acts. i know that. what i meant was simply that i don't understand people who are against them, no matter if they're religious or not. sorry if i was unclear about it. -_-

Anyways, I understand what you're saying and I've read what you've posted about the churches opinion on homosexuals, but they are still against gay marriage, gay civil unions, and gay adoption. They may think it's okay to be gay and just sit in a corner and not do anything about it (even though many Catholics are very adamently against homosexuality), but when it comes to having equal rights they are not for it.

And let's be real, there are going to be very few homosexuals who are never going to have a sexual act with another homosexual. That attraction they have to the opposite sex is why they are gay.

Maybe it's just me, but the Church's stance on this issue is kind of sneaky. On the outside it looks like they are tolerant towards gays, but when you dig a little deeper, you see that's not the case at all in reality. But then again, that could just be me.

i'm with you on this one. it is kind of sneaky. so no it isn't just you. -_-

 

[sugababyboo]

Thanks Jamison!!

I guess the church's feelings towards gays reminds of people who love to watch Will and Grace, Ellen Degeneres talk show and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, yet they are against gay marriage. To me, this is just screwed up because you cannot embrace parts of gay culture but not accept gays as a whole. It's like a girl who is obsessed with Chinese culture. She listens to the music, loves the movies, television and literature etc.. but says "I totally dislike Chinese people and believe that they should not have the same rights as me"


NNNNOOOOOOO! Gays are not just entertainment figures merely existing for our amusement, they're humans too, not a sideshow or a dancing monkey! They are a part of society, they work, they pay taxes, they have families and let's not forget some of them are fighting the war in Iraq and have fought in past wars as well. Gays are not going away anytime soon! AS the Boston Globe once said, "They're here, they're queer, GET OVER IT!"

 

[pii_lena4ever]

I believe the only reason why pii mentioned that she isn't Catholic is because she has made the observation that they are one of the groups that are the most opposed to gay marriage.

the reason i mentioned that i'm not catholic was that here we were discussing what the catholic church thinks about gay marriages, and i was giving my point of view, and also telling you what religion i belong to. because that's what we do here; talk about what people with different religions and from different places think about gay marriage. just wanted to point out where i stand.
it wasn't about stamping/branding the catholic church to be the most anti-gay group, it was just making clear where i stand, what i believe in respective what i think about gay marriages. -_-

To me, this is just screwed up because you cannot embrace parts of gay culture but not accept gays as a whole.

ditto. i really agree. it's all weird and not right to only accept parts of it. as someone already said, jamison i think it was, very few gays are just gonna sit quiet in a corner their whole life and never do any gay actions. the actions are a part of being gay, and therefore it's weird not to accept it all. aren't gay people people just like straight people? shouldn't they be able to get married as a sign of their love and so on just like the straight people do? what's actually that different? in the end, it's all about love between two people.

i too look forward to the day when people laugh about how this used to be a subject of debate, the day when it's all accepted and found normal by everyone. i hope that day comes while i live.

 

[sugababyboo]

Thanks for clearing that up hun And I'm on the same page as you, the optimistic side of me believes that most of world will laugh at how this issue used to be controversial.

 

[pii_lena4ever]

Thanks for clearing that up hun And I'm on the same page as you, the optimistic side of me  believes that most of world will laugh at how this issue used to be controversial.

[post="1428807"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

yeah let's hope so. the optimistic side of me believes that too. i mean just look at how much more accepted it has become just in these couple of years! though there's still much work left to be done... but still. there has already been improvement. let's just hope and work for more, so that it would some day be all equal.

 

[the_alliance]

not sure if this analogy will work, but i'll give it a try.

a white lie doesn't hurt anybody's feelings, but the idea of lying is bad. similarly, gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone but the idea that this marriage is not open to producing life is bad. that's how i interpret what the Church teaches.

 

[tolkien]

There are a VERY small number of people on this board alone who either Catholic and or Christian who are FOR gay marriage and support homosexuals.  In the last thread there were less than a dozen member who openly admitted that they were Catholic and/ or Christian and were for gay marriage.   Because of their postion they are in the minority on this board and in the world as well.

I am Catholic and I am 100% in favour of gay marriage and I support homosexuals. Now, in Canada, homosexuals can marry and it's great.

 

[Jamison]

not sure if this analogy will work, but i'll give it a try.

a white lie doesn't hurt anybody's feelings, but the idea of lying is bad. similarly, gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone but the idea that this marriage is not open to producing life is bad. that's how i interpret what the Church teaches.

[post="1428951"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]​

But there are many straight couples who get married and don't produce life, whether by choice or because they physically can't, is that bad? And should they be banned from getting married just because they can't produce life?

 

[sugababyboo]

I apologize for sounding like a broken record but some people do not get married to have children. It is not legally required for married couples to reproduce. Today, some couples choose to have children out of wedlock and again, it is perfectly legal. Some couples get married to validate their relationship, to legally solidify it by signing a legally binding contract aka a marriage license. Like Jamison suggested, infertile couples are allowed to get married.

When it comes marriage some people need the license while others don't. This past week the ladies of "The View" spoke about a recent study that showed that more couples are living together rather than getting married. In the 1970's the average age for a married person was in the early 20's since then that number has gotten older (about late 20's to early 30's) One of the main reason why it has changed is because living together is not as taboo as it once was.

I got this from yahoo...I love Kanye! lol

Kanye West Calls for End to Gay Bashing

2 hours, 27 minutes ago

Kanye West says "gay" has become an antonym to hip-hop — and that it needs to be stopped. During an interview for an MTV special, the 27-year-old rapper launched into a discussion about hip-hop and homosexuality while talking about "Hey Mama," a song on his upcoming album, "Late Registration."

West says that when he was young, people would call him a "mama's boy."

"And what happened was, it made me kind of homophobic, 'cause it's like I would go back and question myself," West says on the show, "All Eyes on Kanye West," set to air Thursday night (10:30 p.m. ET).

West says he changed his ways, though, when he learned one of his cousins was gay.

"It was kind of like a turning point when I was like, `Yo, this is my cousin. I love him and I've been discriminating against gays.'"

West says hip-hop was always about "speaking your mind and about breaking down barriers, but everyone in hip-hop discriminates against gay people." He adds that in slang, gay is "the opposite, the exact opposite word of hip-hop."

Kanye's message: "Not just hip-hop, but America just discriminates. And I wanna just, to come on TV and just tell my rappers, just tell my friends, `Yo, stop it.'"

West, whose debut disc "The College Dropout" won a Grammy for best rap album, will see his second record in stores on Aug. 30.

 

[xdancer]

Kanye West seems like an awesome guy!

 

[Sex-Dwarf]

This is what the Iranian authorities do to their gay youth. read this words cannot express how i feel about this. Sometimes i think that Bush is actually right on Iran

 

[noggi16]

I didn't look but I can imagine. Things like that are common in lots of countries. So maybe (and I've said this before,) Americans should stop worrying about not being able to marry, make a will if they want legal protection and try to help people less fortunate than themselves.

 

[sugababyboo]

First, America isn't the only country that's against gay marriag/'homosexuals and didn't kewii say that the threads in this forum shouldn't be used to blame or point fingers at specific countries, because I'm 100% sure that she did. Anyway, I found this interesting article invovling John Roberts..

Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case
In 1996, activists won a landmark anti-bias ruling with the aid of the high court nominee.
By Richard A. Serrano
Times Staff Writer

August 4, 2005

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.

The lawyer who asked for Roberts' help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

Roberts did not mention his work on the case in his 67-page response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, released Tuesday. The committee asked for "specific instances" in which he had performed pro bono work, how he had fulfilled those responsibilities, and the amount of time he had devoted to them.

Smith said the omission was probably just an oversight because Roberts was not the chief litigator in Romer vs. Evans, which struck down a voter-approved 1992 Colorado initiative that would have allowed employers and landlords to exclude gays from jobs and housing.

"John probably didn't recall [the case] because he didn't play as large a role in it as he did in others," Smith said Wednesday. "I'm sure John has a record somewhere of every case he ever argued, and Romer he did not argue. So he probably would have remembered it less."

Jean Dubofsky, lead lawyer for the gay rights activists and a former Colorado Supreme Court justice, said that when she came to Washington to prepare for the U.S. Supreme Court presentation, she immediately was referred to Roberts.

"Everybody said Roberts was one of the people I should talk to," Dubofsky said. "He has a better idea on how to make an effective argument to a court that is pretty conservative and hasn't been very receptive to gay rights."

She said he gave her advice in two areas that were "absolutely crucial."

"He said you have to be able to count and know where your votes are coming from. And the other was that you absolutely have to be on top of why and where and how the state court had ruled in this case," Dubofsky said.

She said Roberts served on a moot court panel as she prepared for oral arguments, with Roberts taking the role of a Scalia-like justice to pepper her with tough questions.

When Dubofsky appeared before the justices, Scalia did indeed demand specific legal citations from the lower-court ruling. "I had it right there at my fingertips," she said.

"John Roberts … was just terrifically helpful in meeting with me and spending some time on the issue," she said. "He seemed to be very fair-minded and very astute."

Dubofsky said Roberts helped her form the argument that the initiative violated the "equal protections" clause of the Constitution.

The case was argued before the Supreme Court in October 1995, and the ruling was handed down the following May. Suzanne B. Goldberg, a staff lawyer for New York-based Lambda, a legal services group for gays and lesbians, called it the "single most important positive ruling in the history of the gay rights movement."

In the blistering dissent, Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas, said "Coloradans are entitled to be hostile toward homosexual conduct." Scalia added that the majority opinion had "no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to."

The case was one of several Roberts worked on pro bono at Hogan & Hartson, a prominent Washington law firm that expects partners to volunteer time in community service.

In his answers to the Senate questionnaire, Roberts talked generally about his volunteer work.

"My pro bono legal activities were not restricted to providing services for the disadvantaged," he wrote, explaining that he often donated behind-the-scenes time and expertise on projects.

He said he participated in a program sponsored by the National Assn. of Attorneys General to "help prepare representatives of state and local governments to argue before the Supreme Court." He said that several times a year he reviewed briefs in "selected cases" and met with state or local attorneys in moot court before their Supreme Court appearances.

He also said he had worked with high school and college students and teachers "studying the legal system and the Supreme Court." And he said he had "actively participated on a pro bono basis in efforts to achieve legal reform."

Roberts personally handled two pro bono cases.

In the first, Roberts was asked by Rehnquist — for whom he previously had been a clerk — to represent a man who had been convicted of Medicaid fraud, sentenced to prison and fined $5,000. The federal government also had filed a civil suit in the case and won a $130,000 judgment.

In U.S. vs. Halper, Roberts' first appearance before the high court, he argued that adding a civil penalty to a criminal one was double jeopardy and therefore unconstitutional.

In 1989, the court agreed unanimously. Eight years later the court reversed itself, again 9 to 0.

The second case was a Washington, D.C., welfare case that involved about 1,000 residents who lost benefits when the city cut programs amid a budget crisis.

Roberts, representing homeless people and others who could not work because of illness or injuries, argued before an appellate court that the city had erred in not first formally notifying recipients about the change in benefits.

The court ruled against him in December 1995 in one of Roberts' few appellate losses.

According to others who worked on the case, Roberts asked the court to reconsider, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court declined to hear the case.

"Mr. Roberts was essentially the principal counsel," recalled R. Scott McNeilly, a staff lawyer with the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless. "He was very involved."

When the welfare recipients lost in the courts, McNeilly said, most "were put out on the streets. They lost the money they were using to take the bus to see a social worker or money they were paying to a friend to sleep on his couch."

In the questionnaire, Roberts described them as "the neediest people" in Washington.

And I have to post this one too..

SAN FRANCISCO
Gay vets celebrate 20 years
American Legion Post 448 is unique in U.S.
- Patricia Yollin, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, August 7, 2005

A few years ago, Mario Benfield was in San Diego chitchatting with other veterans at the state convention of the American Legion. His official cap and jacket made it clear he was from San Francisco, which invited a question from a fellow legionnaire.

"He said, 'How is that fruity post doing in your district?' " Benfield recalled. "So I said, 'I'm the commander of that fruity post, and we're doing fine.' "

Next Sunday, Alexander Hamilton Post 448 will mark its 20th anniversary with a celebration at the War Memorial Veterans Building in San Francisco. Among the American Legion's 14,700 posts around the world, this one stands out -- it's predominantly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.

"It's the only one I know of," said Joe March, spokesman for the American Legion's national headquarters in Indianapolis. "It's very unique."

The post was founded by gay rights activist Paul Hardman, who wanted to give gay men and lesbians a chance to belatedly come out of the military closet. He also hoped to create a vehicle to challenge the War Memorial Commission and its attempts to reduce space for veterans in their building on Van Ness Avenue.

Hardman took Revolutionary War hero Hamilton as the post's namesake because of ardent and intimate letters he'd written to a friend, Col. John Laurens, featuring sentences such as these: "You should not have taken advantage of my sensibility to steal into my affections without my consent."

Post 448 has almost 300 members, 90 percent male, with 100 more in a squadron of relatives and an association of supporters. Veterans from the Vietnam War outnumber all others, followed by the Korean War, World War II, the conflicts in Grenada and Lebanon, the Gulf War and the current war in Iraq.

Arch Wilson of San Francisco is one of the post's 19 founding members.

An 81-year-old World War II veteran who lives in San Francisco, he served in the Army from 1943 to 1946 as an infantry rifleman in Europe and the South Pacific.

During that period, the Pentagon declared that homosexuals were mentally ill and should be barred from enlisting or discharged if they'd somehow gotten in.

In those days, Wilson didn't discuss his sexual orientation with anyone. Instead, he'd listen to "buddy talk" about wives and girlfriends.

"But just as today, we had sensors," said Wilson, a retired telecommunications clerk. "I had gay friends, but it was taboo to talk about homosexuality, even with gays. We'd gossip about movie stars, have gay-like banter -- but we didn't know what camp was because it hadn't been invented."

Four decades later, when Rene Puliatti entered the Navy after graduating from the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1985, the Pentagon had altered its policy several times -- but the closet was still intact.

Puliatti intended to make a career out of the military. He lasted five years.

"I felt depressed and isolated," said Puliatti, 42. "But I finally decided my career, friendships and stability were more important than coming out."

Twenty-four hours later, the young lieutenant changed his mind and told the commanding officer he was gay. Two days later, he addressed 50 of his fellow officers.

"Everyone was surprised because I hid it well," Puliatti said. "But they applauded."

He stayed five more months because he was working on a high-security project. When Puliatti left the Navy, he came out to his family.

"My brothers said, 'So you're gay. But why the military?' " said Puliatti, who lives in Oakland and works in San Francisco as a project management assistant at Glide Health Services.

Wilson and Puliatti were sitting in Room 128 of the Veterans Building. One-third of the cluttered office belongs to their post.

Plaques from past Veterans Day parades decorate the wall. A flyer for a 2002 "beverage benefit" for Post 448, sponsored by the Eagle Tavern leather bar and the Bears of San Francisco, hangs on the refrigerator.

Gay veteran -- it's a hybrid identity that is sometimes problematic. The military is anti-gay, and much of the gay community is anti-military, along with San Francisco as a whole.

"We're straddling two worlds," Wilson said. "Within the gay community, we don't find easy embrace. And the local American Legion just didn't want us. They'd think of everything -- like losing our application again and again. Cheap stuff like that. It's still not lovey-dovey. We've sued them twice."

As for the national American Legion, Puliatti said, "They hate us. Just the fact we exist is a thorn in their sides."

But March, spokesman for national headquarters, merely said, "I wouldn't venture there. Our slogan is, 'A vet is a vet is a vet.' "

Wilson said older veterans tended to be the least open-minded.

"They have this die-hard attitude of intolerance," he said. "They're dying off -- but not fast enough."

The dual personas surface often.

Post 448 marches every year in the gay pride parade in June and the Veterans Day parade in November. A contingent also appeared in a pair of gay rights marches in Washington, D.C., and two San Francisco demonstrations against the war in Iraq.

In 1986, its members formed the color guard for opening and closing ceremonies of Gay Games II in San Francisco, but had to come up with nonmilitary uniforms and not carry rifles.

And then there are members like San Franciscan John Forrett, 41, who used to be a captain in the Army and is now a captain of the beer booth at the Folsom and Castro street fairs and at gay pride weekend.

"We're a pretty diverse group," Forrett said of his colleagues in Post 448.

At a meeting Thursday night to plan for the 20th anniversary bash -- which will include Assemblyman Mark Leno and San Francisco Supervisor Bevan Dufty as speakers -- 66-year-old Vietnam vet Joe Czuberki said, "We're an American Legion post, so we're emphasizing the red, white and blue. But we're also using lavender and silver balloons to acknowledge our connection with the community."

The Alexander Hamilton post is more political than most of its counterparts in the American Legion, Wilson said.

It has worked hard to oppose the "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward gay people in the military that has been in place since 1993 -- and has passed resolutions against the ban that were defeated twice at the state convention.

"There have been millions of gays in the service for many years," said 81- year-old lesbian Charlotte Coleman, a member of Post 448 who served in the Coast Guard and now lives in San Francisco's Castro District. "It's ridiculous to think they can't do as good a job as anybody else."

But Post 448 wants to change attitudes as much as policies, and that happens as well.

On Thursday night, former merchant marine Paul Goercke gazed at the splendor of the War Memorial's Green Room -- where next Sunday's event will be -- and recalled how he was on his way to the gay pride parade in June when a teenager on the Muni Metro spotted his uniform.

He told Goercke that his father refused to talk to him after he came out to his family two years ago. But the pair ended up going to the 2003 gay parade together, and saw Post 448 marching up Market Street. That's all it took.

"The father said, 'If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me, ' " said the 78-year-old San Franciscan.

And suddenly Goercke was all choked up..

For more information about the Post 448 celebration, call (415) 431-1413 or visit www.post448.org. For more information about the Post 448 celebration, call (415) 431-1413 or visit www.post448.org.

E-mail Patricia Yollin at pyollin@sfchronicle.com.

Page A - 15
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...BAGU6E4D5C1.DTL