Prop8 back in court next week.

The appeal will be heard next Monday by three judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal. A good legal roundup from Poliglot:

Among the questions that will need to be answered by the judges are whether the Proposition 8 proponents have standing to bring the appeal; whether Imperial County should have been allowed to intervene in the case and now have standing to appeal the Aug. 4 ruling; whether, if a party does have standing to bring the appeal, Walker was right that Proposition 8 violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process; and whether, if no party has standing to bring the appeal, there even was standing at the district court level for Walker to have heard the case.

With Reinhardt likely to be looking for a way to affirm the ruling and Smith likely to be looking for a way to overturn it, the complexity of the standing questions could give Hawkins significant sway over the specific outcome that the court might reach to dispose of the case.

Once the three-judge panel hears the case and later rules, any party dissatisfied with the ruling could seek en banc review, which would require all the active Ninth Circuit judges to vote whether en banc consideration will be given. If a majority supports en banc consideration, then the chief judge of the circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski, and 10 randomly selected appellate judges from the circuit will hear the en banc appeal. Further review by the Ninth Circuit or a request to the Supreme Court to hear the case could follow.

Update: Watch it on C-SPAN.

The Spousal Diaspora

Andrew Sullivan today

More and more Americans are being forced by the US government to emigrate because the Defense of Marriage Act will not allow their legal spouses to remain in America. Why? Because the spouses are not US citizens. For ever, the US has acknowledged, perhaps excessively, that marriage and family trump everything in immigration law. As long as the marriage is valid, and sincere, no questions are asked. Why? Because we collectively acknowledge something profound about the decision to commit legally to one other person for life, and respect it. ....

But for gay couples, it's so different. It is difficult for a government to express more contempt for a citizen's human dignity than asserting that it is completely indifferent to his or her being able to live in America with the person he or she loves.....

No other civilized Western country treats its own gay citizens this way. And yet it appears clear that the law will not change on this in the foreseeable future, as a more and more radicalized Republican party exercizes a veto over any equality for gay people, and as the Democratic party continues its defensive crouch in the face of religious intolerance and cultural panic.

This is not, in my view, a minor matter. In fact, very few issues demonstrate so starkly the inequality between gays and straights in America than this. Has any heterosexual American citizen ever doubted for a mili-second that he has a right to marry the person he loves and remain in the land he was born in? It is unthinkable. And yet what is unthinkable for 98 percent of citizens is mandatory for the tiny minority.

NOM exposed (video Sunday)

Voices of Faith Speak Out: bullying is a theological issue

Baptist minister Cody Sanders writes

The simplistic, black and white lines that are drawn between conceptions of good and evil make it all-too-easy to apply these dualisms to groups of people. When theologies leave no room for ambiguity, mystery and uncertainty, it becomes very easy to identify an ‘us’ (good, heterosexual) versus a ‘them’ (evil, gay). ....How long will we continue to limit and qualify our messages of acceptance, inclusion and embrace for the most vulnerable in order to maintain the comfort of those in our communities of faith who are well-served by the status quo?

Happy Thanksgiving

Let's take a break from the politics and be thankful for the good people around us: Our spouses and partners. Friends and family. Straight allies and supporters. A community that stands together. Enjoy your holiday!

Marriage equality on the horizon in Maryland?

From the Advocate:

Out Maryland state senator Richard Madaleno said he is “guardedly optimistic” that the state legislature will pass a marriage equality bill in early 2011.....

Madaleno said he felt confident the senate could pass a vote, but it was more difficult to predict the outcome in the House of Delegates. Governor Martin O’Malley has promised to sign a bill if it reaches his desk.

It gets better, from Pixar

One of the best yet.

It gets better: The UK view

David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He is also leader of the Conservative party -- basically the British equivalent of the Republican party.

Not only is he refreshingly articulate, but he points out a few facts that make it clear how pathetically left behind the US has become.

In Britain, LGBT people get legal recognition of their relationships. They can serve openly in the armed forces. And this only a handful of years after the homophobic Section 28. Britain has moved on.

The US meanwhile is regressing. Can you imagine a REpublican making a video for this project?

Good for you, Mr Prime Minister.

Cindy McCain, Jon Stewart on DADT (twofer)

Is she or isn't she? First she's against it:


Then she's for it. I guess ol' John got a bit cross and she caved.

Jon Stewart lays it out:

Voices of Faith: Hate has no place in God's House

From retiring Archbishop Desmond Tutu, writing in Essence magazine:

Each of you is called to respond to God's urgency for love and life. So whether you are in South Africa, the United States or anywhere else, humanity needs to accept its own diversity as a gift from our Creator. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are part of our family of God....

Boldly, I urge all faith leaders and politicians to stop persecuting people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Every day people live in fear because of who they love. We are talking about our family members, our flesh and blood, our humanity. LGBT people are in our villages, towns, cities, countries -- and our whole world.

In South African churches we have sung, "Oh freedom! Freedom is coming, oh yes, I know." We sang this chorus at the lowest points of our journey toward freedom against the racist and colonialist system of apartheid, and we still sing it to this day. Freedom is coming -- and those of us who have freedom must speak out for those whose freedom is under attack. We can and must make a difference.

Enough with the Children Already!

The proProp8 forces are all about the children. Marriage is to have children. Children should be raised by biological opposite sex parents.

What has any of this to do with LGBT marriage?

They have not identified any consequences of lesbian and gay marriages on child-bearing or child-rearing. They are not related in any way.

• No straight couple is going to stop having children because the lesbians down the street are married.
• No gay man is going to marry a woman and have children just because he can't marry another man.

Moreover, it's an attack on adoptive parents

• Really, their argument which is focused entirely on biological procreation, opposes adoption--whether by straight or gay couples.
• But tellingly, they are not challenging the right of LGBT couples to adopt, which is perfectly legal in CA and many if not most other states.

If they really are saying that marriage is for procreation, then they must be consistent.

• That means, no infertile or elderly couples can marry. Domestic partnerships only.
• It also means that any potentially fecund couple that does not have children within 2 years of marriage should be downgraded from married to DPd.

They conveniently ignore many LGBT couples have children, either their own, or adopted.

• How can they draw any distinction between a married LGBT couple where one partner has kids from a previous marriage, and a married straight couple where one partner has kids from a previous marriage?
• Why do they think that the children of LGBT parents are undeserving of the protection of married parents?

Tortured for being gay (video)

This is horrific. The TORTURE of gay youth to "change" them.




"You can't change what I never chose". What a brave young man.

Part 2 here.

The I'm from Driftwood site tells more stories. As Jim Burroway writes, this could be considered as a sort of companion site to Dan Savage's It Gets Better project.

Another DOMA related case

There's another couple of cases we've talked about previously, that come from employment hearing of (ironically) the 9th circuit court (background here). Two same sex court employees asks for equal employment benefits, and the court employment tribunals agree. One judge says that one employee should get extra compensation to cover for the loss of benefits. The other judge says, just provide the darn benefits. But the Obama Administration is blocking the provision of those benefits, and Lambda Legal is on the case.

Karen Golinski is an employee of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is suing the Obama administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and its openly gay Director, John Berry, to secure spousal health insurance benefits for her wife, Amy Cunninghis – the same benefits afforded spouses of the court’s heterosexual employees

Earlier this year, Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski agreed with Lambda that refusing Golinski those benefits for her spouse violate the court’s own employment discrimination policy. He ordered Blue Cross/Blue Shield to enroll Cunninghis in the court’s plan. But OPM told Blue Cross/Blue Shield not to. Lambda is seeking an injunction against OPM – again, a department run by an openly gay man – to stop interfering with Kozinski’s orders.

Lambda says the brief filed yesterday is in response to questions raised Oct. 15th by federal District Judge Jeffrey S. White. Among the questions he asked was whether DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution. Lambda told White that he doesn’t have to decide the whole enchilada – whether DOMA itself is unconstitutional – only that Golinski’s case shows that DOMA’s application in blocking equal employment benefits is unconstitutional. The brief explains that DOMA is discriminatory because of “congressional disapproval” of how same sex couples exercise their fundamental rights of intimacy and marriage.

New DOMA cases (Video Sunday)

More info

Voices of Faith Speak Out: the limits of tolerance

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson writes in the HuffPo:

It is not enough for good people -- religious or otherwise -- to simply be feeling more positive toward gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Tolerance and a live-and-let-live attitude beats discrimination and abuse by a mile. But it's not enough. Tolerant people, especially tolerant religious people, need to get over their squeamishness about being vocal advocates and unapologetic supporters of LGBT people. It really is a matter of life and death, as we've seen.
....
Ministers who remain in comfortable silence on sexuality must speak out. Churches that have silently embraced gay and lesbian members for years must publicly hang the welcome banner. How long will we continue to limit and qualify our messages of acceptance, inclusion and embrace for the most vulnerable in order to maintain the comfort of those in our communities of faith who are well served by the status quo? In the current climate, equivocating messages of affirmation are overpowered by the religious rhetoric of hatred. Silence only serves to support the toleration of bullying, violence and exclusion. In the face of what has already become the common occurrence of LGBT teen suicide, how long can we wait to respond?......

These bullying behaviors would not exist without the undergirding and the patina of respect provided by religious fervor against LGBT people. It's time for "tolerant" religious people to acknowledge the straight line between the official anti-gay theologies of their denominations and the deaths of these young people. Nothing short of changing our theology of human sexuality will save these young and precious lives.

Post election news on Civil Unions, good and bad

In Hawai'i, the recent election was good to Democrats. This may mean that civil unions, which were vetoed by the last governor, may be back on the table.

Hawaii voters opened the way for same-sex civil unions to become state law next year, with an election that gave victory to a pro-gay rights gubernatorial candidate and rejected many church-backed candidates. …

Only one incumbent lawmaker who backed civil unions lost election last Tuesday despite efforts by opponents of civil unions who held large rallies to show legislators their feelings earlier this year.

But what one hand gives, the other may take. In Wisconsin, the election went the other way and the limited protections for LGBT couples, already under attack, may be at further risk:

“'(Governor-elect) Scott Walker and (Lieutenant Governor-elect) Rebecca Kleefisch have been very clear about how they feel about domestic partnerships and we are prepared to defend the legislation,’ said Katie Belanger, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, the state's leading gay rights advocacy group,” reported TheNorthwestern.com.

Walker vetoed a domestic partnership measure as Milwaukee County executive and said he would have rejected the state’s initiative. Meanwhile, Kleefisch compared same-sex unions to marriages with animals and inanimate objects in a radio show this year.

It amazes me that these bigots can say such things in public and get away with it.

British Straight Couple wants a Civil Union

See, the problem with giving a different name is that it says there is something different about it.

As we discussed before, the "marriage lite" rules in France have led to a reduction in "real" marriages. Straight kids don't want the commitment or responsibilities that gay kids are denied. Young people have sued in other EU countries for "lesser" marriage.

In Britain, although the rights are almost indistinguishable between "marriage" and "civil union", the concept of "union" is more appealing to some young moderns.

"The titles of husband and wife and all the things that pop into people's heads when you say you're getting married don't appeal to us," said Doyle, a student. "In our day-to-day life we feel like civil partners — we don't feel like husband and wife, and we want the government to recognize that."

Marriage and civil partnership are virtually identical in law, and activists argue both should be open to all couples......

Britain introduced civil partnerships in 2005, giving gay couples the same legal protection, adoption and inheritance rights as heterosexual married partners — but not the label of marriage.

The Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Portugal and Spain have legalized same-sex marriage, while Germany, France, Austria and Switzerland have laws similar to Britain's.

The British compromise was welcomed by many. Thousands of couples have tied the civil partnership knot since then, in venues ranging from city halls to the Houses of Parliament.

But for some, the distinction still rankles.

"We really appreciate the civil partnerships," said Sharon Ferguson, a pastor in the Metropolitan Community Church who hopes to wed partner Franka Strietzel but has been turned down for a marriage license. "But particularly because of my Christian faith, it's marriage that I want."

New DOMA suits expand issues beyond previous case

From MetroWeekly:

At first glance, the lawsuit looks similar to the Gill v. Office of Personnel Management lawsuit that resulted in a successful trial court ruling in July.

The lawsuit expands upon Gill, though, in a particularly significant way -- reaching to state and private corporation discriminatory treatment resulting from DOMA.

In Gill, only federal programs and federal government-provided benefits were questioned -- from Social Security to passports to taxes. In today's lawsuit, Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management, state and private entities' actions are brought into the lawsuit.

The actions are challenged not because of discretionary decisions made by the state or private entities, but instead because of those programs' adherence to federal laws and regulations. An example comes from Count IV of the complaint, Janet Geller and Joanne Marquis v. Timothy F. Geithner and Douglas H. Shulman:

Under existing [Internal Revenue Code] statutes and regulations as well as New Hampshire state law, Jo would receive a medical subsidy spousal benefit from the [New Hampshire Retirement System] to help pay for her legal spouse Jan’s private health insurance premiums, but for DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, which prohibits the NHRS as a tax-qualified plan from providing the benefit to an otherwise qualified retiree’s spouse if that spouse is of the same sex.

With regards to private companies, GLAD's lawsuit details the actions taken by Bayer Corporation against Gerald V. Passaro II, the widower of Thomas M. Buckholz. Buckholz had been an employee of Bayer for more than 20 years. From the lawsuit:

Under the terms of the Bayer [Corporation Pension] Plan, and in compliance with applicable federal law, where a Participant, like Thomas Buckholz, who has vested and has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the Bayer Plan, dies prior to his annuity start date, the Participant's surviving spouse shall be paid a Preretirement Survivor Annuity. (Bayer Plan, §5.6(a)).

As a result of the application of DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, through ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, Jerry has been denied the vested qualified preretirement survivor annuity (QPSA) available to all spouses of vested participants in defined benefit pension plans in the equivalent situation as Jerry finds himself today even though he is legally Tom's surviving spouse under Connecticut law.

Two more suits against DOMA

As you may (or may not) recall, two cases from Massachusetts went to federal court earlier this year challenging DOMA, on the grounds that legally married Massachusetts couples were deprived of federal benefits solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Federal Judge Joseph Tauro found that Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional. The Department of Justice is appealing.

There are now two new DOMA cases, from other states in the Northeast where marriage equality exists, and where legally married couples are treated unequally simply because they are same sex. From the NY Times:

Joanne Pedersen tried to add her spouse to her federal health insurance on Monday. She was rejected. Again.

The problem is that while Ms. Pedersen is legally married to Ann Meitzen under Connecticut law, federal law does not recognize same-sex unions. So a health insurance matter that is all but automatic for most married people is not allowed for them under federal law…..
…..
Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.” ….

“If we were heterosexual, we wouldn’t be talking today, because we would have the benefits,” Ms. Pedersen said. “I would just like the federal government to recognize our marriage as just as real as everybody else’s.”

And from Metroweekly:

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) plans to file a lawsuit in Connecticut challenging DOMA’s Section 3, which defines "marriage" and "spouse" in federal law as being limited only to opposite-sex couples. The plaintiffs are to include couples from several New England states with marriage equality, including Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont.

Meanwhile, in New York City, the American Civil Liberties Union and the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP plan to file a lawsuit on behalf of Edith Windsor, the widow of Thea Spyer. Windsor was forced to pay a $350,000 estate bill because of the federal government’s refusal to recognize Windsor's marriage to Spyer…..

"I have an 81-year-old client, and $350,000 is a hell of a lot of money -- a huge amount of money that she paid in violation of the Constitution," [Attorney Roberta] Kaplan said. "My client had to pay the government, and she wants her money back…."

….[Kaplan] said, "What I do think is true is that in this case the Department of Justice is going to have a very hard time coming up with a reason to give a judge in the Southern District of New York why Edie and Thea should be treated differently than if they were Edie and Theo."

Edie and Thea were the subject of a film.

Another bullying victim commits suicide

From Pennsylvania.

Students at Midd-West High School cried out against bullying Friday as they mourned the loss of a classmate who in the early morning hours walked about 13 miles from his home to Routes 11-15, where he ran in front of a southbound tractor-trailer after leaving a suicide note at his home.

Freshman Brandon Bitner, 14, of Mount Pleasant Mills, ran in front of the truck at 3 a.m. near Liverpool, according to state police at Newport.....

There seems to be little doubt in the students’ minds why Bitner did what he did.

“It was because of bullying,” friend Takara Jo Folk wrote in a letter to The Daily Item.

“It was not about race, or gender, but they bullied him for his sexual preferences and the way he dressed. Which,” she said, “they wrongly accused him of.”

Bullying a gay kid for being gay attacks their very being. And the Conservative groups that protest anti-bullying legislation want the ability to continue to attack. Gabriel Arana writes at The American Prospect ,

One Minnesota city changed its policy to require that teachers be "neutral" when it comes to discussing sexual orientation (so a teacher can tell kids not to call the gay kid "gay," but she can't tell the class that there's nothing wrong with being gay).

He also distinguishes "bullying" from "harassment". He follows up on Americablog,

Conservative Christians like to pretend that there's a big difference between picking on a gay kid -- i.e., "bullying" -- and disapproving of homosexuality, but in reality one stems from the other. In practice, it's tough to indoctrinate someone into thinking being gay is wrong, immoral, disgusting, and then ask him or her to treat a gay person with respect; it's a natural human instinct to recoil from things that you perceive to be bad or harmful, and no matter how many times you pledge to "love the sinner but not the sin," when it comes down to it, even adults can't carry that out, much less children.

Meanwhile another child is dead.

DOMA leads to deportation

Legally married same sex spouses are treated differently under law. That was the basis of the cases in Massachusetts, which we have discussed previously. The Department of Justice is appealing the decision finding such different treatment unconstitutional.

If you have the misfortune to be of different nationalities, you can be deported or forced to live in exile. As Glenn Greenwald, a victim of this situation, notes, such treatment is inhumane.

Most people don't have careers that enable them to live outside of the U.S., and even for those who do, many are married to foreign nationals from countries which also do not provide immigration rights to same-sex couples. For the thousands of same-sex couples in that situation, the choices are grim indeed: they can choose (1) to live illegally in one country or the other, or (2) separate and live thousands of miles away -- for the indefinite future -- from the person with whom they want to share their lives. As the HRW Report put it: "thousands of U.S. citizens and their foreign same-sex partners face enormous hardships, separation and even exile because discriminatory U.S. immigration policies deprive these couples of the basic right to be together."

(Greenwald's partner is a Brazilian national and he spends much of his time in Brazil).

John Aravosis reminds us that enforcement of this viciousness is not required and in fact, the President has previously, by executive order, blocked similar deportation:

Mind you, the President decided to ignore a federal law requiring him to kick out the not-yet-American-citizen spouses of deceased Americans. They get to stay. But gay spouses? No such empathy from the Obama administration and the apologists. Suddenly it's all "we simply MUST obey the rule of law."

America: land of the brave, home of the free AS LONG AS they are straight.

DADT: It's almost over, and not in a good way

From the Advocate:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates ....making an unusual break from his consistent calls for Congress to wait on repeal until the Pentagon delivers its study in December, voiced his support for Congressional action ....

In the meantime, the new head of the Marine Corps said he thought repeal would be risky while U.S. troops were engaged in two wars overseas.

And, craven to their core, the Dems in Congress will yet again toss the LGBT community overboard. The Wall Street Journal reports,

The drive in Congress to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy appears all but lost for the foreseeable future, with action unlikely this year and even less likely once Republicans take charge of the House in January.....Advocates on both sides believed the issue had a chance of coming up in this month's post-election session of Congress. Now that looks unlikely.

Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and John McCain of Arizona, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in talks on stripping the proposed repeal and other controversial provisions from a broader defense bill, leaving the repeal with no legislative vehicle to carry it.

Just to top it off John Aravosis reports that one of the candidates for a new Sec'y Defense is Ike Skelton, a Democratic supporter, indeed one of the architects, of DADT.

Close your eyes while the bus rolls on over....if this is fierce advocating, I'd hate to see craven capitulation.

Republican women on marriage equality (video Sunday)

What's with all the politicians' wives and daughters "coming out" in support when the bully pulpit is gone, and it no longer helps?

Well, I think that we ought to definitely look at it and debate it. I think there are a lot of people who have trouble coming to terms with that because they see marriage as traditionally between a man and a woman. But I also know that when couples are committed to each other and love each other that they ought to have the same sort of rights that everyone has.

As Jonathan Capehart writes, Where were you when we needed you?

And Megan McCain:

Voices of Faith Speak Out: redeeming Christianity

Presbyterian John Vest writes

The good news of Jesus Christ is about God’s radical love and acceptance.  Jesus was about inclusion, not exclusion.  Jesus spent the majority of his time with people that the rest of his culture rejected.  And Jesus was not afraid to reinterpret his religious traditions in light of the new things God was doing around him and through him.  Christians today must do the same by thoughtfully and faithfully adapting the religion they have inherited to speak truth and love to a world the writers of the Bible could never have imagined.

It may take us a long time to redeem Christianity in the eyes of those we have hurt the most.  But I refuse to give up trying, and I hope and pray that you will not give up on us.  There are churches that will love and accept you as God does.  There are churches that will support you as you grow into yourself and discover the person God created you to be.  There are churches that will stand up to bullying and name it and the factors that contribute to it as the real sin in this situation, not the sexuality you have been given as a gift of God.

My heart breaks with each new story of bullying that surfaces.  Something must be done to change the world we live in so that such things do not happen.  Christian churches have a role to play in this—we have contributed to the problem and we must be part of the solution.  I promise you that I will not be silent about this issue.  I promise you that you are not alone.

Why we're upset

In comments to a previous post, long-time e-friend JCF complains at the "gay cynicism" that sees the glass half empty. The Beltway insiders feel the same way. Last week, President Obama met with a few prominent bloggers. When questioned by Joe Sudbay (AmericaBlog) about LGBT issues, Mr Obama was somewhat aggrieved (my emphasis)

Let me go to the larger issue, though, Joe, about disillusionment and disappointment. I guess my attitude is that we have been as vocal, as supportive of the LGBT community as any President in history.

That's a pretty low bar, sir. I got robo-called by the Pro-Prop8 forces using your voice to oppose my right to marry. Your opposition was ... barely noticeable. Yes, you have done some good things--like your "it gets better" video. And you signed the Matthew Shepherd act on hate crimes. But on substantive change, you've been MIA. And your whole thing with Rick Warren and other gay bashers was a real slap in the face.

I’ve appointed more openly gay people to more positions in this government than any President in history.

Again, a pretty low bar. Appointing LGBT people to mid-range administrative jobs was ground-breaking in the Clinton administration. It would be shocking if you hadn't. And there are no high-ranking (cabinet level) LGBT people, and your advisors, like Valerie Jarrett, use terms like "gay lifestyle", which suggests that the inner circle is basically clueless.

We have moved forward on a whole range of issues that were directly under my control, including, for example, hospital visitation.

Yes, but nearly all of these have been rather tepid executive orders. For example, granting benefits to partners of gay federal employees sounded great on the news, but it turns out that didn't include health care or pensions, and in fact, it isn't clear that employees who are actually MARRIED to their partner (say, in Massachusetts) are even eligible. And you say that you support robust civil unions (not marriage) but there's been no progress there either.

On “don’t ask, don’t tell,” I have been as systematic and methodical in trying to move that agenda forward as I could be given my legal constraints, given that Congress had explicitly passed a law designed to tie my hands on the issue.

Actually, sir, no you haven't. You promised it would be repealed, in your state of the union address, but after that, you put no effort into it. First, let's think legislatively. The Defense Authorization Bill doesn't repeal DADT, it kicks the can down the road pending a Pentagon report. And even then, despite strong support in the polls and from the chair of the Joint Chiefs, the Republicans successfully filibustered, and you didn't expend any political capital in twisting arms to get support (or to prevent Harry Reid's political fiddling). In the executive branch, the new Marine Commandant is almost insubordinate in his opposition. The Pentagon is using very questionable means to "examine" the issue. Judicially, you continue to appeal this, even though there is considerable evidence that this support is NOT mandated in any way. Harry Truman racially integrated the military with an executive order. He didn't defend Jim Crow in court.

And so, I’ll be honest with you, I don’t think that the disillusionment is justified.

Mr President, there has been NO substantive change at the federal level, despite your promises. It's you who made those promises, sir.

Let's think of what's going on in Washington.
DADT (see above). Status: still in force, Obama administration appealing a Federal District Court decision that found it unconstitutional.

DPBO (Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act). Would give actual benefits to legal domestic partners of federal employees. Status: dead in the halls of Congress. Also, no clear whether married couples even eligible, because of

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Still in force, Obama administration appealing a Federal District Court decision that found section 3 unconstitutional. This section forbids federal recognition of legal same sex couples and enshrines in federal law an official second-class status to LGBT people. Basically, it means my marriage legally evaporates when I leave this state.

ENDA: Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Stalled, because of right wing fears of transgendered people using restrooms. Thus, it remains legal to fire LGBT people simply for being (or appearing) LGBT.

UAFA: Uniting American Families Act. Immigration reform that would allow Americans to sponsor their legal gay partners who are citizens of other countries. not moving, because of rabid opposition from anti-gay forces including the Roman Catholic church, so that such couples will continue to be either separated or forced to live in exile.

Even in the "big ticket" bills that are not about "Teh Gay", we've been thrown under the bus. Coverage for same sex partners in the health care bill? Thrown out during the "sausage making" phase. WIth health care, with immigration, we are dispensible. For the greater good. Hold the door open for everyone else. then go sit ouside.

You're aggrieved Mr President? So are we. Movement on one thing, just one, would have made a difference. When you said there would be change, for once, we thought we would actually be part of the Big Fat American Family sitting at the table with everyone else. YOU are the one who made the promises. And now you have the audacity to scold us for believing you?

That doesn't mean I won't vote, or that I won't vote Democrat. But I will continue to hold you and your administration accountable for the promises that YOU made.

Highlights and lowlights from the election

NOM succeeds in its efforts to "punish" judges for unpopular decision in Iowa, and hopes to rescind marriage in New Hampshire based on its luck in the state legislature.

On the other hand, at least lead Prop8 mastermind Andy Pugno LOST his bid for California legislature and NOM-backed candidates lost more than they won.

As predicted, Teh Gay are blamed for the losses in DC. Don't expect any movement on LGBT issues.

In California, Jerry Brown, a marriage equality supporter, won the Governorship. The Attorney General race is too close to call. The Democrat is pro-equality. The REpublican is not.

VOTE!

GET OUT AND VOTE tomorrow. Vote like your life depends upon it, because it does. Even if you've found the Administration up to this point disappointing, vote. IF you are outraged at corporate ownership of our system, vote. If you are pissed off at craven Democrats in Congress, vote. Because the tea party radicals and Republican nay-sayers have no interest in governing, only in campaigning, and it will assuredly be worse if they get in. The other side will NOT listen to us at all, will vilify us at every turn. We have to vote in the Democrats, and then hold their feet to the fire!