Courage Campaign withdraws from 2010 repeal campaign

From their press release

The Courage Campaign today called for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California....

Jacobs hailed the work being done in the field by grassroots activists, saying, “We must build our ultimate victory from the lessons of our recent disappointments,” continued Jacobs. “We know that we can change hearts and minds through real conversations with our friends, family, co-workers and neighbors. This takes time and has to be built to scale — so we can’t delay. When we go back to the ballot, we must be strong, clear and embracing.”

Equality CA is also focussing on 2012.

Painful as it is, I think they are right. But that doesn't mean we won't get out there to start the conversation. Because waiting for justice is just not enough.

And why is this taking time? Here's a great article from The Democratic Strategist:

We are losing because we are not persuading swing voters, yes. But that does not mean they cannot be persuaded. People change their views on this issue all the time, as family members and friends respond to a LGBT person’s coming out, or as church congregations vote to become open and affirming. Sometimes it takes years and sometimes it takes weeks. Rarely does it happen without a mixture of love, pain and patience. In these more intimate contexts, we call it transformation rather than “persuasion” and it doesn’t happen due to canvassing and phonebanking. It happens when the truths of someone’s life transcend the doctrine they believe in. Some parts of this process we can map and some remain mysterious to us. It is, after all, the work of the heart we are talking about here....
First, an election cycle is not long enough to completely change someone’s mind about a deeply-held belief, or a conflicted one.

Second, we rely on ineffective methods for persuasion. Scripted, one-off interactions with strangers are simply not going to change people’s minds.

Third, in our strategies and national rhetoric, we make the mistake of treating swing voters, in both subtle and explicit ways, as if they are bigots.

Fourth, we present swing voters with a falsely dichotomous choice – vote no or yes – and then we abandon efforts to personally communicate with swing voters in the final month of the campaign, the period of time during which they are actually making up their mind.

31 years ago (video)

I was a high school student in the Bay Area.

I remember Harvey Milk and George Moscone.

we all should.

This video comes from last year in the run-up to Prop H8, but its message is worth remembering.

ya gotta give 'em hope.


(H/T Lawdork)

Dealing with religion in Iowa (video)

The H8ers return again and again to the tired canard that their religious freedom is imperiled by my civil rights. It's not. I found this statement on the
OneIowa website, which I think explains it quite well:

Some have asked what the Court's decision means for religious institutions.

It's important to know that while the state, its cities and businesses will recognize marriage for gay and lesbian couples, religious institutions will only recognize it if they choose to. Just as some churches are not required to marry a couple that is not a member of their denomination, this decision will not require any religious institution to recognize a marriage contrary to its beliefs.

The Court's decision specifically states, "The sanctity of all religious marriages celebrated in the future will have the same meaning as those celebrated in the past. The only difference is civil marriage will now take on a new meaning that reflects the more complete understanding of equal protection of the law."

Got that?

We ahve to keep repeating this over and over -- it's like the teabaggers and healthcare reform, they lie about stuff long enough and people start to believe it!

Marriage in Mexico?

From the Advocate:

A lawmaker has proposed changing Mexico City's laws to extend marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. ....

“We only want everyone treated equally under the law, there is no intention to violate anyone's rights, this simply acknowledges the rights of one social sector with no detriment to another,” he said, reported Agence France-Presse.

Trying to get arrested

So they came to DC to get arrested last week. From the Washington Post:

Conservative Christian ministers from across the land, determined to test the bounds of a new law punishing anti-gay hate crimes, assembled outside the Justice Department ... to denounce the sin of homosexuality and see whether they would be charged with lawbreaking.
....

No arrest was made.....

The evangelical activists had been hoping to provoke arrest, because, as organizer Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission put it, "we'd have standing to challenge the law." But their prayers were not answered. Nobody was arrested, which wasn't surprising: To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence."

Instead of getting arrested, the ministers got something else: A couple of dozen gay activists, surrounding them with rainbow flags and signs announcing "Gaga for Gay Rights" and "I Am a Love Warrior." By the end, the gay rights activists had taken over the lectern and the sound system and were holding their own news conference denouncing the ministers.....

Seems the A/V guy was sympathetic to gay rights, so let the activists have their say. Heh.

But there was no evidence of persecution at the corner of 10th and Pennsylvania. In fact, the cops at one point intervened to help the ministers, by ordering the gay rights activists to move away.

The Rev. Patrick Mahoney, concerned that the gay activists would look like the victims rather than the religious conservatives, went to the microphone to assure the activists that "we did not ask law enforcement to have you moved off of there. They did that on their own. We believe in free speech."

As he spoke, two men, standing behind Mahoney with the ministers, were kissing each other.

Thanksgiving

On this Thanksgiving day, I am profoundly grateful for the love of my wife, the loving support of our family, the solidarity of our GLBT and straight allies, and our unity in the fight for peace, equality, and justice FOR ALL. May you all spend a joyful day with your loved ones. See you tomorrow!

Catholic Bishops continue to assault marriage equality

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops, once an agent for social justice, has veered into a right-wing focus where they exclusively focus on abortion and gay rights. Their upcoming manifesto on marriage has been leaked, and the liberal National Catholic Reporter has gotten a copy (pdf). Here's part of what it says:

One of the most troubling developments in contemporary culture is the proposition that persons of the same sex can "marry." This proposal redefines the nature of marriage and the family and, as a result, harms both the intrinsic dignity of every human person and the common good of society. Marriage is a unique union, a relationship different from all others. It is the permanent bond between one man and one woman whose two-in-one-flesh communion of persons is an indispensable good at the heart of every family and every society.

Same-sex unions are incapable of realizing this specific communion of persons. Therefore, redefining marriage to include such relationships empties the term of its meaning, for it excludes the essential complementarity between man and woman, treating sexual difference as if it were irrelevant to what marriage is.

Male-female complementarity is intrinsic to marriage. It is naturally ordered toward authentic union and the generation of new life. Children are meant to be the gift of the permanent and exclusive union of a husband and a wife. A child is meant to have a mother and a father. The true nature of marriage, lived in openness to life, is a witness to the precious gift of the child and to the unique roles of a mother and a father. Same-sex unions are incapable of such a witness. Consequently, making them equivalent to marriage disregards the very nature of marriage.

When marriage is redefined so as to include or be made analogous with same sex partnerships, society is effectively stating that the permanent union of husband and wife, the unique pattern of spousal and familial love, and the generation of new life are now only of relative importance rather than being fundamental to the existence and well-being of society as a whole.

Today, advocacy for the legal recognition of various same sex relationships is often equated with non-discrimination, fairness, equality, and civil rights. However, it is not unjust to oppose legal recognition of same-sex unions, because marriage and same-sex unions are essentially different realities. “The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”. To promote and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman is itself a matter of justice. In fact, it would be a grave injustice if the state ignored the unique and proper place of husbands and wives, the place of mothers and fathers, and the rights of the child”.

what about MY children? What about MY family? And what about couples who cannot procreate, why are THEY allowed to marry?

It is only a matter of time before the Conference of Bishops uses marriage equality as the same kind of issue as abortion, and tries to deny communion. And not just communion: funerals too. Reported in Time, for performing a funeral for Sen Ted Kennedy

Rome-based Archbishop Raymond Burke.... charged Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley with being under the influence of Satan, "the father of lies."

You may recall a case in San Diego a few years ago where a gay man was denied a Catholic funeral.

The gloves are off between the Catholic heirarchy and the GLBT community. GLBT Catholics and straight allies need to speak out vociferously against this campaign of intolerance and fight for the intrinsic worth of all persons. Or, join the Episcopalians.

Update Much to their chagrin, I'm sure, a report commissioned by the Bishops finds no evidence that gay priests are more likely to abuse children. How long will we have to wait for them to apologize to the gay priests they have castigated?

Update 2 Conservative Catholics are also signatories to the awful Manhattan Declaration.

"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source."
--John F Kennedy

The Manhattan Declaration, the Uganda Gay Death Bill, and attacks on GLBT rights

The Forces of Ill have put together something they call The Manhattan Declaration stating their opposition to marriage equality with all the same, tired slippery slope arguments and self-righteous victimhood. From The New York Times:

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says....

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush.......

The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”

It's a pretty creepy document. You can read the whole thing at Good As You. (I won't give the haters' site any hits)

All the Usual Suspects of intolerance have signed it, Maggie Gallagher and all her buddies. And it isn't limited to Americans. One of the signatories is Abp Peter Akinola of Nigeria whom Episcopal Church watchers will know as a fomenter of schism in the US church over the issue of gay rights.

Thus providing yet another link in the chain between right-wing anti-gay Christianist extremists in the US and the African churches that has led to the Ugandan Gay Death Bill (text here). This is the one that increases penalties against GLBT Ugandans, up to and including death.

Although this has been met with protests by some governmental entities, most churches have ignored the subject, tip-toeing around it, afraid to say that KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG.

Now, a new study Globalizing the Culture Wars: US conservatives, African Churches, and homophobia (PDF) explicitly links the US culture war with the escalation of homophobia in Africa, and argues that the GLBT Africans including those in Uganda, are collateral damage to this effort.
The Executive Summary includes the following:

US Conservatives have successfully recruited a significant number of prominent African religious leaders to a campaign seeking to restrict the human right sof lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The flagship issue of this campaign is the ordination of LGBT cleargy by mainline protestant denominations....

American conservatives who are in the minority within mainline churches depend on African religious leaders to legitimize their positions.....

While homophobia in Africa is fomented largely for US domestic purposes, by depicting advances in the United States as evidence of a worldwide neo-colonial homosexual threat, US conservatives have engendered an insidious inverse relationship between LGBT rights in the United State and in Africa. Scott Lively and other evangelicals portray victories for equality in the United States as evidence of the encroaching gay conspiracy, exciting bigotry and violence among their African audiences. In this respect, Africans have become a kind of "collateral damage" of the US culture wars.

Importantly, the report highlights examples where American extremists have rewritten statements that purport to express the African point of view, by opposing social justice in favor of anti-Islamic rhetoric. They have attacked the long history of mainline churches in supporting African churches by linking progressives to homosexuality, and persuaded the African churches to re-orient and switch to conservative-approved funding, which is characterized by absence of accountability, and individual political benefit.

The conservative groups have moved under the radar to patiently develop and assemble a base by which to attack progressive values and social justice. It is similar to their strategy in local politics and school boards in the US, where they establish a majority and then attack sex education and evolution. And nearly every time, well-meaning progressives and liberals are caught off guard by the relentlessly disciplined message of hate. Yes, they really DO hate us. Really.

One of the big advocates in Uganda of The Other Side is Scott Lively, who is a viciously anti-gay activist and Holocaust revisionist ; the Southern Poverty Law Center considers his flagship organization to be a hate group. He claims gays were responsible for the Holocaust. Rick Warren has also attacked homosexuals in African as an ally of a prominent anti-gay pastor, although he is trying to distance himself recently. And of course, our old friend the IRD and its twisted tendrils deep in the Episcopal/Anglican schism.

There's more on this at Religion Dispatches.

The signatories of the Manhattan Declaration just like the haters in Uganda purport to represent Christianity. We know they represent conservative Christianists, Roman Catholics, and others. What's their view of the Uganda Bill...any guess?

The Anglican Church of Canada and Global Ministries of the United Church of Christ & Disciples of Christ have released statements decrying the proposed Uganda law. But other churches are strangely silent. Well, we know that the Vatican has a "better dead than wed" policy towards gays, but I am a little surprised that other denominations are not speaking out.

Now, the battle continues to escalate on our own borders. Emboldened by the success of their dishonest campaigns in ME and CA, the bad guys are ramping up the attack with this new declaration. But it's PAST TIME for the forces of good to stand up to them and say NO MORE in the same forceful terms that they have used against us. Whispers and soft voices have not worked. It's PAST TIME for the leadership of liberal, progressive Christian denominations to SPEAK OUT loudly against intolerance and divisiveness and hatred masquerading under religion's name whether here at home, or overseas. Maggie Gallagher et al do NOT represent all Christians, not by a long shot. It's PAST TIME for there to be strong voices from both civil and religious circles who opposethe Gay Death Bill in Uganda, strong voices that call the Manhattan Declaration out for the prejudiced, intolerant document that it is.

More legal updates: DOMA, Perry, and DPBO

It's been a while since I last updated you on the anti-DOMA court cases, that argue that DOMA unfairly penalizes legally married couples. At that time I pointed out that Obama's DoJ was arguing the remaining case, Gill, should be dismissed. GLAD has now responded (PDF):

"Both sides agree that our plaintiffs have taken on the commitments of marriage, played by the rules, paid into the system, and been denied benefits because of DOMA," says GLAD Legal Director Gary Buseck.

"Now we're asking the court to say once and for all that the federal government must end its blatant double standard of providing rights and protections to all married couples except gay and lesbian married couples."

I wonder if this case will be strengthened by the NInth Circuit orders we discussed on Friday. One thing we know for sure: this won't end soon. (Update: Lawdork has commentary.)

Next, there's the ongoing saga of Perry, which is the case challenging Prop 8 in Federal Court. A while ago, the Judge ordered the Prop 8 supporters to release their documents. Seems a big part of the case relies on whether or not the proponents were motivated by simple animus, or by actual concern about marriage and children. They don't want to turn the papers over, and have appealed up to the Ninth Circuit. Yet another order came out last week demanding that, in the absence of a stay, they have to turn them over. A great blog to follow this is Prop 8 & the Right to Marry which is based on legal commentary. I've book marked it in the information blogroll, on the left sidebar.

Other news: The Domestic Partners Benefits ad Obligations Act (DPBO) passed out of markup Wednesday. A description of the arguments pro and con here. As we discussed last summer, This would allow federal employees with legal same sex partners to have access to proper employment benefits, like health care and pensions. Ironically, however, because of DOMA, those who are legally married, rather than DP'd, might not have relief under this act...like Mr Levenson in the case we discussed Friday. So it enshrines a separate category of not-quite for GLBT people.

What marriage is (video Sunday)

Great review by Dan Savage.

Has Texas Abolished Marriage?

Seems Texas has an anti-same sex marriage amendment. Seems it says,

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships.

But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

Ah, I think this is what they mean when they say "hoist on your own petard".

Benefits for married gays ? the Ninth Circuit speaks

As reported in the LA TImes

A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law......

Two same sex couples, employees of the Federal Courts, had each married during the Californian Interregnum. Each filed a complaint when they weren't allowed to insure their spouse. By law, such complaints are adjucated by the court, and in each case, the responsible judge ordered that these legally married spouses should have benefits.

But the Federal Government Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) balked, because of DOMA. They told the insurance company not to process the benefits.

So Judge Reinhardt has ruled that if Mr Levenson and his husband can't get benefits, they need to get compensation equivalent to the value of the coverage that was denied. The judge is Not Happy that the Fed disobeyed his order.

The judge's order is expected to resolve the injustice Reinhardt has cited in previous orders in Levenson's case. But it also recognizes the status quo of federal government rejection of gay marriage under the Defense of Marriage Act. Several other challenges by those denied federal benefits, like filing joint tax returns, are making their way slowly through the federal courts.

(That would be Gill et al which we've discussed. More on that next week).

Now, something very interesting here is that another Judge on the Ninth Circuit, Chief Kozinski, had similarly found for HIS staffer, and like Judge Reinhardt, ordered her to be given benefits. He is quite annoyed that the order was ignored, or rather, that OPM interfered. He has now come back with a new order (PDF) too. In fact, he's gone further than Judge Reinhardt, and rather than simply ordered compensation, he's taking on the executive.

OPM's actions implicate an even more fundamental concern: the autonomy and independence of the Judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. In effect, OPM has claimed that its interpretations of the rights and benefits of judicial employees are entitled to supremacy over those of the Judiciary. That's incorrect, and the Executive must henceforth respect the Judiciary's interpration of the laws applicable to judicial employees. ....

He goes on to scold OPM and the executive in no uncertain terms about interfering in the equal branch of the judiciary. And he makes it very clear and unambiguous:

I have determined that, even as limited by DOMA, the FEHBP permits judical employees to provide health insurance coverage to their same-sex spouses....

Hat-tip Dr Primrose, a commenter on Friends of Jake.

Post Mortem on Question 1

From the Huffington Post, No on One campaign director Jesse Connolly.

This was a very painful loss. The simple fact is that their margins were wider in the places they needed to win, and our winning margins were either smaller than we projected, or we lost bigger in places where we needed to keep it much closer. Clearly, there is town-by-town, city-by-city analysis we need to do and much of that is already underway.

Nonetheless, permit me to make a few observations.

First and foremost, marriage equality is a complex issue. Many people are conflicted and we know from national and state specific polling that it is very difficult to move people on this issue, particularly in the confines of short campaigns.

Secondly, our opponents capitalized on that conflict by constant distortion and misrepresentation. It reminds me of the movie, Supersize Me: why order a midsize coke when you can have a giant coke? Their bar is much lower than ours. They only have to plant and feed the doubt. And it is difficult to fully restore any reputation, be it an issue or character, that's plagued by constant doubt.

Remember, this was a campaign where we got up on the air first and where we put genuine Maine values as the context for supporting marriage equality. .....

But here's where it gets tricky and here's where we need some answers over the next several weeks or months. It's clear that polling research, both ours and others, did not capture the intensity of Yes on 1 support. Polling cannot predict turnout and the impact of Tuesday's turnout was counterintuitive. We weren't alone: our opponents, political observers and field operatives all believed a high turnout benefited the NO on 1 vote. With voting approaching 60% in Maine, it's clear that wasn't true.
....

It may turn out to be simply this: that by moving this basic premise of equality from the sink hole of catastrophic defeat state after state, year after year, to within striking distance of a win, that we are almost to the finish line. This tide is turning and you can tell by the histrionics from our opponents, from their "gathering storm."

It appears that the Bradley effect is alive and well: that is, polling on this subject routinely understates the opposition to equality. Well, at least they are ashamed to tell the pollsters that they hate us. I suppose that's progress of a sort.

DC slaps back at bigotry

Resisting the blackmail, the DC office of Elections and ethics says,

Under current law, the District recognizes as valid same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. The Board concludes that that Marriage Initiative of 2009 would, if passed, strip same-sex couples who have entered into such marriages of rights afforded to them by that recognition. Accordingly, the Board orders in its memorandum that the Initiative be received but not accepted under D.C. Code section 1-1001.16(b)(2), which prohibits the Board from accepting an initiative that authorizes discrimination prohibited under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

“We have considered all of the testimony presented to the Board and understand the desire to place this question on the ballot,” said Board Chairman Errol R. Arthur. “However, the laws of the District of Columbia preclude us from allowing this initiative to move forward.”

I DON'T HAVE A LIFESTYLE

Aren't you TIRED of the term "the homosexual lifestyle"? It's derogatory, scornful dismissal. I recently got cross in a comment thread on a blog when someone bleated "what 's wrong with the term homosexual lifestyle?" And this is what I responded:

Try these terms:

"left-handed lifestyle"

"red-haired lifestyle".

Do they make any sense?

The word "lifestyle" implies trivialities, like choosing which supermarket to patronize or which clothes to buy. A dictionary definition: "a set of attitudes, habits, and possessions regarded as typical of a particular group or an individual". Synonyms: "fashion, style, mode".

There is no such thing as a "homosexual lifestyle". Sure gay people may choose the same range of actual "lifestyles" as any straight people, ranging from suburban earth-moms to urban partiers. But our sexuality isn't part of that choice.

To use that term to refer to our LIVES is profoundly offensive It says our LIVES are trivialities and stylistic choices. But our lives have same value, depth, and complexity of anyone else's. My marriage, my family, and my life are not a "lifestyle".

I don't have a "lifestyle". I have a LIFE.

NoH8 campaign (video Sunday)

NoH8 is a photo campaign. Check it out at www.noh8campaign.com

Blackmail in DC?

As reported in the Post,

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

So, flush with Catholic success as the 800-pound gorilla in Maiine, the DC Archdiocese is throwing its weight around and making threats.

The church's influence seems limited. In separate interviews Wednesday, council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) referred to the church as "somewhat childish." Another council member, David A. Catania (I-At Large), said he would rather end the city's relationship with the church than give in to its demands.

"They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure," said Catania, the sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and the chairman of the Health Committee.

What about religious exemptions? Well, the DC law provides that for institutions. But not for individuals. You don't get to deny service to someone because they're gay, any more than you can deny service because they're black.

"The problem with the individual exemption is anybody could discriminate based on their assertion of religious principle," Mendelson said. "There were many people back in the 1950s and '60s, during the civil rights era, that said separation of the races was ordained by God."

I hope the city stands up to this crass attempt to attack GLBT families.

Update DO you suppose the Archdiocese has any employees who are remarried after divorce? Do you suppose they get employment benefits that cover their family?

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.

Update this veto was overridden in January 2010.

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%)."

We lost, again

48% of Maine voters believe in fairness and equality. 52% believe in ignorance and bigotry.

We've seen this before. As shown by Gallup, not until 1991 did a plurality of Americans approve of inter-racial marriages. Indeed, one might argue that the landmark Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision of 1968 sped it up, and even then, the electorate only caught up with the law 30 years later.

So I should wait 30 years? Demographics suggest in 30 years I have a reasonable chance of being dead. In the meantime I remain a very angry, frustrated, second class semi-citizen.

David Mixner speaks out

Read the whole thing.

Tonight once again we will be forced to sit on the edge of our seats as the voters of Maine get to chose whether we get to be a free people in their state. The concept that a majority of voters in any state can decide if I shall have the same rights of all Americans is repugnant to me. We won't know the results until late in the evening, but there is one result that is overwhelmingly clear to LGBT citizens and their allies: President Obama and his team were zero help in this critical battle and in the last week might actually have hurt us. That is a fact.

Despite repeated pleas for assistance from this community from the start of the campaign, he chose to ignore every opportunity to grant us such relief. At the recent Human Rights Campaign dinner he never said the word "Maine" once. The most we were able to get out of the White House office of communications was that he was opposed to such efforts. Try weaving that into a powerful ad or robo-calling!

However, practicing benign neglect was not the end of it. This past week, Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States in the state of Maine said that this administration had no position on the ballot measure. Read that sentence again carefully. Our nation's chief law enforcement officer and the president's hand picked choice said that the issue was just not that important to this administration! Now don't be fooled by any rhetoric that presidents don't take stands on such issues. Going back as far as President Carter when he opposed Proposition Six, they have taken such stands.

The fierce advocate of whenever and the DNC have pedalled as fast as they can away from GLBT rights. But you know what? Just as in the public option in health care, the American public is much smarter than they think. Real life is not limited by an inside-the-beltway news focus. We know that Obama is ditching GLBT rights. The battle is up to us at the local level. And my wallet, I'm afraid, is going to be directed to fund those fighting local battles for us, battles that make a difference to our lives, rather than high-falutin' flowery speeches that blow away in the wind. Words are cheap.

Meanwhile, Maine turnout is bigger than expected....

what it's really all about

From Rex Wockner:

The bottom-bottom line, of course, is that this really is not about marriage. If they thought they could get away with it, the folks who funded this "people's veto" campaign in Maine would take much more away from gays than just marriage. In Washington state on Tuesday, they'll try to take away domestic-partnership rights. In California, they're all freaked out that the Governator signed the Harvey Milk Day bill into law. It's not just that they don't want us to get married. If they could completely invisiblize us and take away all our rights, some of them would do it.

Awesome Op/Ed from Maine

Read the whole thing:

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That's why we urge people to vote "no," to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

..... Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine's tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools -- they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

.... A "yes" vote won't make those couples go away. It would only make their lives more difficult.

..... 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.

Maine voters should recognize that even if their personal beliefs about marriage haven't changed, reality has. They should accept reality and vote "no" on Question 1.

Hat tip Susan Russell

Leader of anti-equality campaign in Maine admits lying

It's not about the children. It never was. They are LYING and they even admit they are LYING.

In an interview tonight on Maine Public Broadcasting Network, Mutty not only admitted that, contrary to what his campaign has been alleging, there won't be a mandate to teach same-sex marriage in schools, he went further. Mutty admitted that his side has misled the people of Maine:

"We've never said that schools will be mandated- or, actually, perhaps we did in one ad, or certainly led people to believe that, inadvertently," says Yes on 1's Chairman Marc Mutty.

"Inadvertently." Wink, wink.

The election is close and it's all up to GOTV. Can you help? If you are anywhere in New England, can you get to Maine? If you are anywhere else, can you donate for the last ad buy, or make calls?

This is not about saving families, religious rights, or children. It's about bigotry pure and simple and that's ALL it's about.

Maine: the final ad

Do all Maine children deserve equal protections, or not? Vote No on one.

Truth and Hope: another ad from Maine (Video Sunday)