Why Gay Marriage is Wrong (warning, sarcastic video)_

Rhode Island Gov: GLBT have no rights to plan partner's funeral

From the Advocate:

Gov. Don Carcieri vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have given same-sex couples in Rhode Island the right to plan funerals for deceased partners.

The socially conservative Republican said the proposed protection represents a “disturbing trend” of the incremental erosion of heterosexual marriage, reports the Associated Press. Rhode Island does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The mind boggles, doesn't it? Because obviously, letting a grief-stricken partner take care of their loved one's arrangements is a chink in the door of HUMAN DECENCY and we can't have that, now, can we?

From the Boston Edge:

[RI] State Rep. David Segal (D-Providence) said the bill "would have let domestic partners claim the bodies of their deceased partners, and arrange funerals for them."

Segal noted the funeral planning bill was supported by the overwhelming majority of members of the Assembly who oppose marriage for gays and lesbians It passed by a vote of 63-1. And Segal expressed outrage over Carcieri’s veto.

"This bitter, cruel, pathetic man is grossly unworthy of the esteem the people of Rhode Island have bestowed upon him," Segal wrote in a blog post on Rhode Island’s Future.

Carcieri has a contentious history with Rhode Island’s LGBT activists. The Governor was widely condemned for his appearance at a Massachusetts Family Institute fundraiser last month. The governor told the 300 attendees he believed marriage was "not a civil right.".....

A statement on MFI’s Web site describes homosexuality as "an unhealthy practice and destructive to individuals, families and society." The organization also maintains gays and lesbians can be cured through prayer.

No Health Care for GLBT families?

So much for including all Americans. From the Washington Blade:

[T]he bill, H.R. 3962, uses the terms “family” and “dependent,” and advocates say the new Health Choices Commissioner — a position established in the legislation to oversee the insurance exchange — could interpret this language to mean someone’s opposite-sex spouse, but not a same-sex spouse.

For example, the section describing the retiree reinsurance program — for which employer-based programs could submit claims to the government — says claims could be made on “employment based health benefits provided to a retiree or to the spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent of a retiree.”

Brian Moulton, the Human Rights Campaign’s chief legislative counsel, said the term “dependent” and “family” in the bill are “fairly open-ended” and “leave a lot of discretion to the new commissioner to define them.”

“Certainly, there is some use of the term ‘spouse’ in the bill in some of the provisions, and certainly DOMA would control that definition of spouse,” he said. “I think there are some areas where there’s a potential there won’t be access to some of the benefits.”

You see, my marriage doesn't count. And neither do Domestic Partnerships, right now. But thanks to DOMA, it's even possible that my legal marriage would be explicitly excluded, even if DPs are allowed. How's THAT for a cruel irony?

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin and others are doing a chicken little with respect to GLBT rights. THey are running hard from our community, and are shutting the door on a repeal to Don't Ask Don't Tell aka DADT.

You see, apparently a couple of Republican governors getting elected outweighs two new Dems in the House. NOw, remember, most people (even straight conservatives) support a repeal of DADT. Domestic Partnerships won in Washington State, and anti-discrimination protections in Kalamazoo. There were several gay people elected in contests around the country. But the beltway bias is that we are poison and even the Democratic National Committee wouldn't support us. Back under the bus, boys and girls.

As David Mixner writes,

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

I'm still waiting for "fierce advocacy". ::crickets:: Meanwhile, my wallet will be open only for causes and candidates who share ALL my values.

The cost$ of being gay

The NY Times did a study to calculate how much it costs to be gay. Literally--given the disadvantages in tax benefits, pensions, etc.

It was much more complicated than we initially imagined, and that’s probably why we’ve never seen similar efforts. We looked at benefits that routinely go to married heterosexual couples but not to gay couples, like certain Social Security payments. We plotted out the cost of health insurance for couples whose employers don’t offer it to domestic partners. Even tax preparation can cost more, since gay couples have to file two sets of returns. Still, many couples may come out ahead in one area: they owe less in income taxes because they’re not hit with the so-called marriage penalty.....

Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.....

Nearly all the extra costs that gay couples face would be erased if the federal government legalized same-sex marriage.

Boot camp: campaign organizing 101 (video Sunday)

There was a boot camp in grassroots campaign organizing held in LA a few weeks back, by a new group called Outwest Coalition. Its purpose is to train and empower community activists for the cause of equality.

Check out this video about the event, and feel inspired!

It's not the same thing: marriage and DPs

I'm glad that Washington appears to have saved domestic partnerships--though the margin is agonizingly close. But the closeness of that race is proof that this battle is not about a word. It's not about marriage. It's about ANY recognition of same sex couples.

So why does the word itself matter? next time someone says that in a post-Prop8 world, marriage and DPs in CA are the same, remind them that it's just not true. Some differences are listed here: Marriage versus domestic partnership in CA.

These include a big one, that legal status and rights are not portable out of state. And even with protections, as we've seen rights may be denied IN state. Tax benefits, retirement, leave and other benefits are absent. There are no immigration protections, and other differences in how they are treated compared to marriage including common residency name change, and privacy. Interestingly marriages are not state-recorded or easily searchable. But DPs are. whazzup with that?

And let's also remember that, as shown in Washington and Wisconsin, even benefits from civil unions are under attack by the haters. As Andrew Sullivan wrote recently

it doesn't matter what equality is called - civil unions, domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, or civil marriage - the GOP believes in no rights for gay couples whatsoever.

As a recent Op/Ed in Maine wrote,

There is virtually no way to surgically carve out and tie together all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a legal relationship that does what marriage does without calling it marriage......

Families led by same-sex partners are here now. They are part of our communities and they need and deserve the legal protections -- as well as the dignity -- that comes with civil marriage status.

It's not about marriage. It never was. It's about bigotry.

Who's a Cafeteria Catholic, then?

The phrase "Cafeteria Catholic" is a disparaging term that is generally applied to liberal American Catholics who ignore Church teaching on birth control, sex, and divorce. The general theme behind it is that good Catholics adhere consistently to ALL the Church's teachings, unswayed by cultural whims.

Or do they? This excellent article from Religion Dispatches argues that the Cafeteria Catholics are actually the conservatives, who ignore the Church's traditional liberal views towards the poor, health care, capital punishment, and immigration reform.

Catholic bishops in this country have shown that they are only willing to speak out politically in support of deeply conservative causes associated with the culture wars (i.e., abortion and same-sex relationships). They are not willing to stand up for the liberal principles that have shaped the Church’s official teaching and the work of its theologians. In other words, the bishops are picking and choosing at the cafeteria of Church teaching and behaving like right-wing political ideologues.....

.....

While the New Jersey bishops offer their theological musings on the importance of marriage and the need to defend it, we need to ask them to prove to us why heterosexual marriage needs to be defended against same-sex marriage. First, sacramental and civil marriage have been distinguished by the church for centuries, and civil marriages that do not comply with sacramental marriages have never been seen as a risk to Catholic marriages. Second, if heterosexual marriage is threatened when same-sex marriages are allowed, why do Massachusetts and Connecticut have the lowest divorce rates in the United States? These are two of the states that allow gay marriage, and marriages there (both same-sex and otherwise) seem to the most stable in the country.

The Catholic bishops in New Jersey and in the rest of this country have decided to align themselves with right-wing politics. The bishops in Washington DC recently launched a campaign similar to the one now being waged by their counterparts in New Jersey. This stance by the bishops goes against the tradition of American Catholicism and suggests that Catholics should decide their positions on social issues based on their political alliances and not their core principles. While conservative Catholic leaders have bemoaned “cafeteria” approaches to Catholicism, they are now prime examples of this behavior.

David Mixner speaks out again

From David Mixner:

Call this campaign against us what it is - Gay Apartheid.

Refuse to allow any of our fellow Americans, President Obama or our allies to view this as a political issue who time hasn't quite come. America is in the process of creating a system of Gay Apartheid. We will not quietly sit and accept it. All over the place, this nation is creating one set of laws for LGBT Americans and another set for all other Americans. That is the classic definition of Apartheid. Either our political allies are for Gay Apartheid or against it. If they are against it, they must fight with us and no longer duck like President Obama did in Maine and Washington. There is no half way in fighting Apartheid.

Today many will claim that we must surrender the word marriage or accept some sort of separate but equal arrangement. It didn't work in the African-American struggle for freedom and it doesn't work for us. We want full equality with the same rights, benefits and privileges as all other Americans now. We say to those friends, allies and even in our own community who want to accept that second class citizenship, "Oh No You Don't!" We will accept no compromises, time-lines, incremental approaches with our freedom. Don't counsel patience as if this is a new issue. We have been fighting these ballot box bigots for over three decades. Enough.

Third, it is clear that the political establishment in Washington doesn't understand that we no longer willing to wait until it meets their timetable or political needs.

President Obama standing on the sidelines in Maine and Washington was appalling. The failure of our national organizations and leaders to demand his involvement was equally appalling. .... If you want our support, you have to earn it. We are way beyond where we will accept a little bit in 2009, some in 2010 and maybe more in the second term. Does anyone think after yesterday election results and the upcoming 2010 election, Obama has the ability to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "DOMA" next year? Does anyone really believe we haven't already missed a historic opportunity in the first 10 months of this year? Only a courageous fighting President and Congress can now help turn us this around and that we have not seen so far. Enough.

Aftermath

NO ONE should put the rights of a minority to the ballot. They will always lose. NO CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLES ARE WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. It's outrageous that we have to beg our fellow citizens for citizenship. And they aren't going to give it to us now, any more than the majority would have voted to end slavery, to give women the vote, to give African-Americans full civil rights, or to allow mixed race marriage.

We did not vote on any of those issues. Why is MY citizenship up to the ballot? Why are gay people uniquely required to be approved by a majority vote?

Not all traditions are worth keeping.

Dear Maine, 2

Dear Maine,
You can't say I didn't warn you, back in May, what to expect if you put the rights of your GLBT citizens to the popular vote.

The lies, the ignorance, and the divisiveness happened just as I predicted. The haters told vicious lies, and they won.

I know just how your GLBT citizens, their friends, and their families feel this morning. Because we still feel that way.

And as I told you before, you have deeply injured your community. People don't just "get over" being told they are second class, that their families are not worth protecting and that their love is meaningless. People don't just move on from the insults and the bile. Now, every interaction is tinged with doubt: did this person vote against me? Does this person hate me?

Workplaces will be on edge. Civic interactions will suffer. Churches will be split. There will be deep, deep hurt.

Maine, you have torn the heart out of many people. And that damage will linger for a long, long time.

I'm so sorry you did this. But you can't say you didn't see it coming.

Sadly,
California.

From Wockner: "Gay marriage was a winner in the cities of Portland (73%), South Portland (64%) and Bangor (54%), and in places such as Kennebunkport (61%) and Bar Harbor (73%). It lost in the cities of Lewiston (40%) and Augusta (47%)."