Sponsor Of Tennessee “Don’t Say Gay” Bill Defends Legislation, Believing No Compelling Evidence Of Anti-Gay Discrimination Exists Springfield Ohio Commissioners Vote Against Amending City Human Rights Code, U.S. Senator Shaheen Supports Adding Same Sex Marriage To Democratic Party 2012 Platform, Maryland Election Board Clears Petition Language To Overturn Same Sex Marriage Legislation, New Poll Finds Substantial Increase In Support For Same Sex Marriage In California, Colton Haynes Oscar Sexiness, Tim Tebow Dates Professional Beard Taylor Swift, Toby Maguire Alarmingly Thin

The Republican sponsor of a proposal to ban the teaching of gay issues to elementary and middle school students said Tuesday that he is not backing off the legislation despite concerns from GOP leaders. The proposal was scheduled to be heard in the House Education Committee. But, reports The Tennessean, Representative Joey Hensley of Hohenwald said he plans to delay the measure for up to three weeks to work out its language. The legislation, known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, would limit all sexually related instruction to “natural human reproduction science” in kindergarten through eighth grade. Supporters of the proposal say they have heard reports of some teachers discussing alternative lifestyles, such as homosexuality, and they want to prevent that. State education officials say such instruction is already banned from the current curriculum, but proponents of the bill feel it’s necessary in case the state Board of Education decides to change the curriculum. “We don’t want students to be exposed to alternate lifestyles,” Hensley said. “If their parents want them to know about that, they can teach them at home.” Hensley acknowledged the proposal’s language needs more work to avoid any unintended consequences. “We don’t want to introduce sex education to K-8 students because they are not supposed to be teaching sex education in K-8 now,” he said. One amendment being considered won’t prohibit “any school counsellor, nurse or other authorized employee ... from appropriately responding to a student whose circumstances present issues involving human sexuality.” Opponents of the measure say it is too broad.

In Ohio, sexual orientation will not be added to Springfield’s list of attributes requiring anti-discrimination protection. Commissioners voted 3-2 Tuesday night against amending the city’s human rights codes, thus ending a months-long public debate in often standing room-only commission meetings. According to The Springfield News-Sun, commissioners tabled the ordinance in late September of last year so the city’s volunteer Human Relations Board could research and provide guidance on the topic. The board returned their findings in December, split 4-3 with the majority finding “no compelling evidence of discrimination to substantiate changes.” Assistant Mayor Joyce Chilton and Commissioners Dan Martin and Kevin O’Neill voted against the legislation. Mayor Warren Copeland and Commissioner Karen Duncan were in favour of the amendment. Their votes came before a maximum-capacity crowd in City Hall Forum. Some people were not allowed inside due to capacity issues. “It’s not a win for either side,” said opponent Jason Stevens. “This will continue to go on, unfortunately. I agree with some of the things some of the commissioners said, that this is an ongoing thing; all of us have to be educated a little bit further. But legislating morality for the population ... isn’t right.” Equality Springfield President and proponent Rick Incorvati said, “I think that we know more than we knew a year ago. I think we’ve heard a number of interesting speeches from the commissioners that help us understand their positions. “And there’s a conversation that will move on and that conversation will be to look for ways to promote acceptance in the Springfield community,” Incorvati continued. “What we have heard is most of the commissioners are aware there are problems. With that awareness, there’s an inclination to move in the direction of solutions.” Gay-rights group Equality Springfield representatives have said the threat to LGBT people living and working in Springfield is real. Incorvati has said he felt enough anecdotal evidence was presented to the commission and the Human Relations Board that it is difficult to maintain the position that discrimination doesn’t exist in Springfield. A common challenge from opponents was that proponents have failed to produce specific cases of discrimination in the city. Proponents said they couldn’t produce cases because it’s not currently enforceable. Opponents like Stevens have said, for example, that sexual-orientation discrimination in the workplace is misinterpreted as sexual harassment and the amendment should go before Springfield voters at the polls, not commissioners. He questioned the cost and feasibility of enforcement. Canton, a city a little larger in population than Springfield, added protection for LGBT workers in 2006. So far only two known allegations of sexual-orientation discrimination have been brought before Canton’s Fair Employment Practices Board, said Kris Bates, deputy chief council of the Canton Law Department. Neither of those cases went to a finding. She was not immediately sure why they didn’t go to a finding, but said it could have been because they were withdrawn, filed from outside their jurisdiction or there was insufficient evidence to make a finding.

United States Senator Jeanne Shaheen is pushing to include support for same sex marriage in the Democratic Party's 2012 platform at the same time state legislators are readying for a vote to repeal New Hampshire's 2009 law. The Concord Monitor reports Shaheen, a first-term Democrat and former governor from Madbury, released a statement yesterday calling on her party to adopt language at the national convention in September crafted by pro-gay marriage group Freedom to Marry. She said "any Democratic statement of core beliefs about the importance of families must include all our families, gay and straight," adding, "Our party has a long tradition of leading the charge on important questions of justice. Now is the time for the Democratic Party to stand up for the rights of same-sex couples and their families." New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same sex marriage when Democratic Governor John Lynch signed into law a bill that took effect January 2010. Since then, nearly 2,000 same-sex couples have married here."Senator Shaheen knows firsthand why marriage matters, having seen the outpouring of joy among her constituents since gay and lesbian couples began to share in the freedom to marry in New Hampshire," said Marc Solomon, a spokesman for Freedom to Marry. "We applaud her leadership in endorsing this crucial plank in the Democratic Party's platform." The New Hampshire House is set to vote next month on a bill introduced by Representative David Bates, a Windham Republican, that would end same sex marriage in New Hampshire. Bates said Tuesday that support for gay marriage in the Democratic Party platform would be a "disservice to them because I know a lot of Democrats that do not support these out-of-the-mainstream viewpoints," adding, "If the Democrats want to draw those lines and say that they're the party that supports homosexuals, I think they're revealing more and more how far they've departed from the mainstream." Shaheen's outward support for gay marriage contrasts with the muted approaches taken by Lynch and Democratic President Obama. Lynch did not specifically address the same sex marriage repeal effort in his final State of the State address, though he pledged to oppose legislation that "would strip any of our citizens of their civil rights." Obama objected to same sex marriage in the past, citing religious reasons, but has said during his presidency that his stance on the issue is evolving. Shaheen joins former U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, and former Democratic senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in calling for the party to endorse same-sex marriage this year. The 2008 Democratic Party platform said "we oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us. The proposed platform language crafted by Freedom To Marry states that "government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times,” and that, "We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called Defense of Marriage Act, and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.” Bates said marriage is "not just this nice, love-y feeling that two people have,” adding, "A fundamental element of marriage is that it is between two people of the opposite gender. Homosexuals have always had the same privilege and freedom to marry as anyone else, but it's their decision to be with someone else." Bates is in the process of crafting a floor amendment to his bill that would address concerns raised by fellow Republicans. One hang-up is a provision that allows individuals and organizations to refuse to recognize same sex civil unions if the unions "violate their sincerely held religious or moral beliefs." Bates was not yet sure how he will amend the wording to ensure greater recognition of civil unions, as some have requested, given his belief that "in many cases the rights of the homosexuals are being elevated above people's constitutional right to freedom of religion."

An update on a previous post, as Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley prepares to sign legislation legalizing same sex marriage, opponents of the bill have cleared one of the first hurdles to asking voters to overturn the law. According to The Associated Press, The State Board of Elections has approved the language opponents will use when collecting signatures to bring the law to referendum, Mary Cramer Wagner, director of the board’s Voter Registration Division, said Wednesday. The governor was expected to sign the bill into law the next day. Petition drafts filed by the Maryland Marriage Alliance and Del. Neil Parrott have a few typos that need to be corrected, but are other otherwise compliant with state petition regulations, Wagner said. Opponents said they will wait for written confirmation from the board to begin collecting signatures. Parrott (R-Washington), and Maryland Marriage Alliance leaders hosted a news conference Wednesday afternoon, saying they will work together to collect the nearly 56,000 valid voter signatures needed to put the measure on the ballot. Maryland Marriage Alliance, a group up of religious organizations and supported by the National Organization for Marriage, is expected to lead the signature-gathering effort. A website Parrott developed last year, mdpetitions.com, will be used to electronically disseminate petitions. The website uses voter rolls to fill out a potential signer’s information as it appears in state records, which is a requirement for a signature to be considered valid by the elections board. In Maryland, petition signers must provide and sign their name exactly as it appears on their voter registration information. A state Court of Appeals ruling last year loosened that standard somewhat by declaring that signatures did not have to be legible. “We’re supporting the infrastructure, we’re supporting the back end,” Parrott said. “But on the front end it will be Maryland Marriage Alliance, which is (helpful) because they’re going to take it not only through the petition effort, but through the campaign and to November.” Derek McCoy, director for the Marriage Alliance, would not say how much he expects the group will spend on its campaign to overturn the law and any monetary figure he could provide now would likely be inaccurate. Supporters of same sex marriage in Maryland said they expect to spend more than $500,000 to upholding the law. McCoy said his group will count on religious leaders to encourage their congregations to support the referendum effort, adding that they will likely be asking church goers to sign the measure at services as early as early as Sunday. “You don’t get to the right to choose marriage and what it means for everybody and that’s really where we are,” McCoy said.

A new poll shows a significant increase in support by California voters for same sex marriage. The Los Angeles Time reports that a new Field Poll found that 59-percent of respondents favoured gay marriage while 34-precent opposed it. Three years ago, the poll found that 52.3-percent favoured same-sex unions while 47.7-percent opposed them. "The findings in this survey demonstrate that California voters over time have become more permissive on this issue," the Field Poll said in a statement. The findings come weeks after a federal appeals court panel found Proposition 8, California's ban on same sex marriage, to be unconstitutional. The full appeals court is expected to take up the issue. While same sex marriage has been the subject of a three-year legal battle, other states -- including New York -- have allowed the unions. Over the last few years, some national polls have found more support for same sex marriage. In 2010, a CNN poll found a slim majority of Americans in favour of same-sex marriage -- reportedly the first national poll to reach that conclusion. A year later, a Pew Research Center survey found that 46-percent of Americans supported gay marriage and 44-percent opposed it. The latest Field Poll was conducted February 2-18 and surveyed 1,003 registered voters.

Colton Haynes (still closeted; still so sexy) spotted arriving at the 20th Annual Elton John AIDS Foundation Oscar Viewing Party Sunday night.

Tim Tebow, if People is to be believed, is purportedly making a play for Taylor Swift. If true, it sort of confirms the rumours regarding Tebow.

Why, oh why is Tobey Maguire so thin?