More on Referendum 71: secret signatures

From Pam's House Blend, more about Referendum 71. Remember, if enough signatures were gathered (which is questionable), it will put a referendum on the ballot asking the voters to approve the expanded domestic partnerships bill.

We must VOTE "APPROVE" to preserve the Domestic Partnership Expansion Law of 2009 (SB 5688).  Yes, I said APPROVE.  This is due to the way the ballot was worded by the Attorney General:
REFERENDUM 71
Ballot Title
Statement of Subject: The legislature passed Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5688 concerning rights and responsibilities of state-registered domestic partners [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill].
Concise Description: This bill would expand the rights, responsibilities, and obligations accorded state-registered same-sex and senior domestic partners to be equivalent to those of married spouses, except that a domestic partnership is not a marriage.
Should this bill be:
Approved __X__
Rejected ___
......

There has been some misinformation that if we don't vote APPROVED, the entire DP system will be repealed.  This is false.  Referendum 71 is about approving an incremental enhancement to existing DP law.  Existing DP law will remain intact no matter what.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that. Not surprisingly, the opposition are trying agin to hide their hatred under the cloak of anonymity. They tried the same thing in CA, and were fortunately thwarted. Despite their claims that PropH8 supporters would be harrassed, they weren't. And if we're talking harassment, howabout the ultimate harassment of denying a citizen their right to marry, or the right to protect their family? Remember just WHO the real victims are here!

Democracy only works in the sunlight. Or as my mother would say, if you are ashamed to be known for doing something, that is a clue that perhaps you shouldn't have done it.

Another reason for secrecy may be the reports that the signature-gatherers lied about the petitions, and claimed that signing them actually supported GLBT rights (Again, from Pam' House Blend. They may not want to have people who support GBLT rights finding out their signatures were collected under false pretenses. A version of this also happened in CA where marriage equality opponents would show up to pro-equality rallies and tell people to vote YES on PropH8 if they supported gay rights.

Finally, the referendum supporters stand to make money off the sale of those names and addresses to political campaigns, etc etc, if they aren't public. There's a simple explanation for their claims of victimhood. It starts with G and it ends with D and it spells GREED.

This leads me to wonder at the values and integrity of a movement that is based so heavily on lies and misleading people. If they don't have sufficient confidence in the rightness of their cause so that they have to lie about it, what does that tell us?

Catholic bishops withdraw support for immigration bill

An immigration reform bill is working its way through the channels. One issue is how to treat families of people who are in the country working legally. Despite the hype from the anti-immigrant groups like the Minutemen, most immigrants are hard working, tax paying would-be citizens who enrich our lives.

The Catholic church has long been an advocate of humane immigration policies. But it seems there is a problem this time. From the AP:

A key ally in past immigration fights, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said it would not support a measure that has a same-sex provision.

You see, granting any civil recognition of a same sex couple is a deal-breaker for the Bishops, who would rather see people exiled, deported, and miserable than allow any single gay person to benefit. Civil rights for gay people are so dangerous that the bishops would rather see everyone else suffer, lest a GLBT person actually have a family.

The NAACP and the American Bar Association also spoke in favor of including "permanent partners" as part of an immigration bill, saying that current law amounts to discrimination.

But not for the Catholic Bishops. It's just a slightly less lethal version of the Better Dead than Wed policy.

So, about that repeal of Prop8....

Reported in the SF Chronicle last weekend, the No-on-8 campaigns are organizing for 2010. Maybe.

As I've commented here many times, it's beyond time for these guys to get themselves together. EQ-CA and Courage Campaign and others are all working on this. The energy is good, but what is not good is seeing 3 or 4 different booths at the pride parade which argues lack of coordination.

As the Chron says

Oh, yeah. And they still need a leader. And a leadership structure. And a decision-making process.

With that in mind, here's a juicy rumor for you: Would President Obama confidante Steve Hildebrand be interested in coming out to California to lead the next same sex marriage ballot iniative campaign?
......
"The Courage Campaign proposes these four principles for a campaign to win marriage equality:

1) Our campaign to win must begin now, regardless of when we put marriage equality on the ballot.
2) To unite the strength of activists across California, the campaign must be independent, accountable, and not dominated by any one organization.
3) To gain the trust and full commitment of supporters, the campaign needs a representative and functional governance structure.
4) Victory on election day requires a strong, experienced campaign manager who knows California well and has won battles like this before. Our opposition is well-organized, and we need exceptional leadership on our side to prevail."

So as I reported a while ago, some parts of the movement are suggesting we wait till 2012. The NY Times explains:

Under California law, language for a 2010 proposition would need to be submitted to the secretary of state by late September, and then some 700,000 signatures gathered to qualify for the ballot.

Opponents of the 2010 campaign say that window is simply too small to change the opinions of enough voters to win, including groups in which Proposition 8 was popular, like African-Americans, religious conservatives and the elderly.

“What we’ve learned is that yes, you can change hearts and minds, but it takes time, focused energy, and money,” said Matt Foreman, the program director of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a frequent donor to gay rights causes. “And once a measure is on the ballot and the campaign begins, its almost impossible to change anyone’s mind, because people are being bombarded with lies.”

I'm going to make a bet with you, based on these articles and the continuing lack of a real organization or fundraising. I'm going to bet this will not be on the ballot again till 2012. And as frustrating as I find that, I think that it would be a disaster to run another awful campaign. And I'm not seeing anything stronger in the offing.

CA to recognize out-of-state same sex marriages?

In the Decision upholding Prop8, the Supreme Court of California recognized existing California same-sex marriages, and prevented future ones. But left unclear was what to do with out-of-state marriages that occurred before the election; for example, couples married in MA. The justices left a big door open on that one and many people feel that they will uphold them.

Still, it will take legislation, and then litigation, to decide.

The first step has occurred. The Advocate reports that CA state senator Mark Leno has proposed SB54, to recognize out-of-state marriages between same sex partners.

You know that the Forces of H8 will be on this like flies, so Equality CA exhorts you to take action and write your legislators in support.

Attacking DPs: WI, WA

In Washington, the state has passed a generous domestic partnership law which as I've discussed here, and also here, is under virulent attack by the forces of hate.

You see, although they insist that they only care about the word "marriage", it's clear that they oppose any civil rights for gay people. It's not about marriage. And we need to call them on it over and over.

So, under Washington law (and not unlike Maine's), with enough signatures they can hold a voting referendum against this new law. So the forces of evil have been busy collecting signatures on what is called Referendum 71. It's been a bit of a challenge, because Washingtonians actually support recognition of gay unions (remember, this isn't marriage, just domestic partnerships/civil unions). So the bad guys have been lying about what's on the petition, claiming that it supports marriage equality (a trick they also used in CA). And they've been lying about the referendum itself.

Secretary of State's office spokesman David Ammons says, "The state supreme court has said you can lie in campaign utterances and campaign materials. We have no jurisdiction over extra words and sales pitches that sponsors choose to put on petitions." In other words, the Referendum 71 petitions could claim that the measure would ban abortion, impeach the governor, guarantee salvation... almost anything (short of threats or bribery) to persuade people to sign it.

Wow. Just wow.

This weekend the Referendum 71 supporters handed in their signatures. It will take awhile to know whether they got enough to get it on the ballot, or whether Washingtonians were smart enough to see through their lies. If it does get on the ballot, expect another expensive fight as in CA and ME. The alliance here is Washington Families Standing Together.


Meanwhile, the same sickness has hit Wisconsin. A group has challenged, yes, a domestic partnership bill as being "unconstitutional" because of the state constitutional ban on same sex marriage. But it's not marriage, you say. I agree. The problem is that Wisconsin's Hate Amendment also bans " legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals". So is a domestic partnership substantially like a marriage? Or not?

"We are hopeful that the state Supreme Court will recognize that domestic partnerships are not substantially similar to marriage, and will arrive at a fair and just decision that upholds these basic protections for same-sex couples," Katie Belanger, executive director of Fair Wisconsin, said in the statement.

Here's the problem. Even amongst states, the term "domestic partner" or "civil union" does not have a common meaning. In California, DPs are supposed to have all the rights of marriage (until every one of those rights is litigated, we'll ahve to see). In Wisconsin, DPs have few rights. In Washington, it's something in between. And the forces of hate attack gay couples state by state. Support FairWisconsin.


The conflict is neatly summed up in this US News article:

Conservative Christian groups criticizing the president's memorandum extending certain benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees are alleging that the president is approximating the benefits of marriage—that he's basically creating "marriage light." It's an interesting line of argument because polls show that most Americans support benefits for gay partners but oppose gay marriage.

I'm not saying religious conservatives are acting purely politically—many do believe that providing benefits to gay couples is a sneaky way of legalizing gay unions. But given those poll numbers, it also makes political sense for religious conservatives to try to reframe the benefits issue as a gay marriage issue.

Gay rights advocates, meanwhile, see benefits and gay marriage as much different issues, since extending some benefits to gay partners still excludes key benefits of marriage.

Finally, some revealing quotes from the other side. First, from the NY TImes, about the conflict over 2010 vs 2012 for repeal:

For opponents of same-sex marriage, meanwhile, the debate among gay rights advocates has been entertaining.

Because, of course, denying faithful couples any rights is SO funny.

Second, the LA Times quoted a leader of the movement that is attacking domestic partnerships in Washington state:

"It's the last incremental step to gay marriage for gay activists," said Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network, who is helping coordinate the signature campaign. "We're not trying to take anything from anyone. We're simply trying to defend and keep marriage as it has always been throughout all of human history."

So what do you call it when you repeal a law that grants people basic rights? If that's not taking something away from someone, what is? We know they lie. But really, isn't it time someone call them out on it?

Voices of faith for equality (video)

HRC is pushing the relationship between religion and equality:

What do you think? I think they give way too much time to the opposition, front loading it with hate. Not sure what it will accomplish. Still, it's something.

Religious supporters are coming out

From San Diego's pride parade last weekend, one of the many, many churches that participated:

(Credit here. My wife and I marched with over 100 other folks from St Paul's Episcopal Cathedral, a few groups back from this one, which I described here )

Out of state Hate

Poor Maine is suffering the indignity of a ballot referendum on gay marriage. Can you say, Proposition 8? All the usual suspects have been arriving: the Knights of Columbus, the Mormons, Maggie Gallagher's NOM group (of the Scary Video), and the Roman Catholic church.

The Sun Journal reports,

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland contributed $100,000, the Knights of Columbus of Washington, D.C., chipped in $50,000 and Focus on the Family, a Christian group based in Colorado Springs, Colo., donated $31,000 to the political action committee seeking to repeal the gay marriage law.

Nearly half of the group's fundraising, $160,000, came from the National Organization for Marriage, a New Jersey-based group.

However, quite interestingly, the paper also reports that

The campaign finance report also shows four Maine citizens contributed a total of $400 to the cause.

Four people from the state in question donated $400 of the $340,000 the haters have raised. Four people! By contrast,

Maine Freedom to Marry, the group campaigning to maintain the law, raised a total of about $138,000 from more than 350 donors during the same period, according to a release.

Donations from Mainers totaled about $80,000, with the remaining $58,000 coming from out of state.

So, Mainers themselves support marriage equality by a ratio of 350:4.

We saw this in California, when a flood of donations from out of state drove the Prop8 campaign to record expenditures. The Roman Catholic bishops provided political cover for the Mormons, and the conservative Catholic group the Knights of Columbus poured money into the state. Coupled with failures on the "No" side to mobilize and do outreach, this proved lethal. The final insult was the triumphalism of the SF and LA Archbishops in telling the gay community to shut up. So, the same thing in Maine so far....let's hope we can block that triumphalism thing and instead see a chastened statement of defeat.

An interesting question is where the Roman Catholic church gets all that money. Seems that RC in Maine has been in financial straits, closing down parishes. As the Sun Journal reported in a different article,

In the face of recent firings at the Trinity Catholic School and the plans for closing two Catholic parishes in Lewiston, both due to declining revenue, the revelation that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland had spent $100,000 on efforts to repeal the recently passed same-sex marriage law took some Catholics by surprise.

"I saw that $100,000 figure in the paper and it was very demoralizing," said David Webbert, an Augusta lawyer, who for years attended Auburn's St. Philip's Church with his family and now occasionally attends in Winthrop.

Remarkably, in an economic climate of joblessness and need, the Roman Catholic church in Maine can't keep churches open and can't help the poor, but it can sure attack the civil (not religious, but CIVIL) marriages of Mainers at great cost.

But as we've seen in Washington state, it's not about Marriage per se. It's about denying gay citizens any secular rights at all. And that, dear friends, is nothing more than hate.

Support Equality Maine.

Kissing in Utah

IS there a new sensitivity afoot? There seem to be a lot of gay folks getting arrested for exchanging a kiss.Most recently, a gay couple was arrested for kissing in front of the LDS temple. The plaza they were walking through was ceded by Salt Lake City to the LDS church, so it is private property.

According to the AP, the men say they simply kissed. The Mormon security guards claim much more:

...church officials contend their behavior was lewd.

"There was much more involved that a simple kiss of the cheek," Farah said in a statement Friday. "They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol."

Hmmm, this reminds me of the Fort Worth assault, where the police said that there was lewd behavior and groping that provoked them to slam a man into a wall, while the witnesses say there was no such thing. Because of course, you know those gay people can't keep from having sex in the streets, and "gay panic" is still an excuse. However

The men have said they were walking home from a nearby concert and cutting through the plaza on their way home.

A police report said they sat down for a kiss and were approached by a pair of church security guards, who asked them to leave because their behavior was "unwanted."Both were handcuffed and Aune was pinned to the ground.

THat doesn't sound like sex in the streets to me.

Of course on private property, the LDS has the right to regulate behavior. Even if it is a double standard that allows displays of affection between straight couples but not gay. However, throwing them to the ground seems a bit much.

So there was a kiss-in to protest, which predictably brought the counter-protesters out.

[A]bout 100 people gathered to stage a "kiss-in" to protest the treatment of two gay men cited for trespassing July 9 after they shared a kiss on the plaza owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Both gay and straight couples exchanged kisses during the protest.

Demonstrators were greeted at the south entrance by a group of protesters carrying large signs that denounced homosexuality, prompting a heated verbal exchange.

Police say no one was arrested or cited, despite a large group exchanging kisses by a reflecting pool at the plaza's center.

With the eyes of the world on them, they decided not to throw them to the ground for en masse handcuffing and arrest. Good choice.

REmember, Utah is actually moving backwards on gay rights. Yay, Mormons.

Not.

So look for a kiss-in opportunity near you: GLBT and straight allies, all are welcome to pucker up.

Update San Diego had a kiss in at the Mormon temple on Weds.

Boies in the WSJ: a fundamental right to marriage

David Boies, who with Ted Olson is challenging Prop8 in federal court, wrote an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to marry the person you love is so fundamental that states cannot abridge it..... basic constitutional rights cannot depend on the willingness of the electorate in any given state to end discrimination. If we were prepared to consign minority rights to a majority vote, there would be no need for a constitution.

The ban on same-sex marriages written into the California Constitution by a 52% vote in favor of Proposition 8 is the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay-bashing. California allows same-sex domestic partnerships that, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court, provide virtually all of the economic rights of marriage. So the ban on permitting gay and lesbian couples to actually marry is simply an attempt by the state to stigmatize a segment of its population that commits no offense other than falling in love with a disapproved partner, and asks no more of the state than to be treated equally with all other citizens.....

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law......

The argument in favor of Proposition 8 ultimately comes down to no more than the tautological assertion that a marriage is between a man and a woman. But a slogan is not a substitute for constitutional analysis. Law is about justice, not bumper stickers.

(my emphasis). Read the whole thing!

The Education Question

"I don't want my kids taught in school that gay marriage is okay." But as we saw it has nothing to do with marriage. What they are really saying is "I don't want my kids taught that GAYS are okay."

In a society such as ours, lots of people do things that we don't approve of. Roman Catholics don't approve of contraception, divorce, or remarriage after divorce. Observant Jews don't eat pork. Vegetarians won't eat meat. Mormons eschew caffeine. Values are taught in the home, and the only lessons the schools teach is that people are different, and we need to tolerate our differences.

Why is this so difficult? We don't live in a theocracy. Why is the potential fact of gay marriage so much more offensive than the presence of non-Christians, or meat eaters, or the divorced? The fact is we already have to deal with many people with whom we disagree on value judgments. It's completely unclear why "Teh Gay" (TM) are so much more reviled.

The fact is that gay families exist, and their children go to school. Children of straight parents will inevitably meet children of gay parents. To admit that these families exist is not to say you approve (any more than a Catholic "approves" of someone on their third marriage). Yet it is their very existence that is under attack. The infamous case of David Parker in Massachusetts is a case in point. He protested about a book that showed a picture of a gay family--not in any sexual context, mind you, simply a book that showed all sorts of families.

But he wanted his children removed from any situation where they could be "exposed" , even segregated from classmates who had gay parents, lest those classmates contaminate his child by mentioning they have two daddies. It wasn't gay marriage per se. It wasn't any endorsement. It wasn't anything about sex. It was the very fact of the existence of gay families that he objected to. (The group supporting him, MassResistance, has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.. More about the case and their lieshere.)

"I don't want my kids going to a gay wedding!"

Ah, that was one of the great lies of the Prop8 campaign, wasn't it! Yes, a teacher invited anyone in her class who wanted to, to attend her wedding. No one was forced, it was not a school sanctioned event, yet anyone who went had to have a parental permission slip. And some parents didn't send their kids. Indeed, the ugly irony is that the pictures of children at the wedding that were used in the pro-prop8 campaign were children of supportive families who wanted their kids there. Needless to say, the Pro-Prop8 campaign used these photos without permission. So much for parental consent, eh? The ironies abound.

You see, even though the parents who wanted to opt out, did, their problem is that ANYONE was able to go. They want to completely silence anything about gay couples, even for people who approve. It's not about marriage. It's not about their rights as parents. I have come to realize it's about their desire to impose their beliefs on EVERYONE by rendering gay people invisible, and sanctioning discrimination.

But one thing is clear in the aftermath of the Prop 8 decision. They did not eliminate our families. In fact the court held, 7:0 , that gay families must have exactly the same rights as straight families. All the court let them take away from us was the term "marriage".

So the kids will still need to learn about gay couples, in civics class, and from their classmates. The teacher will still invite her class to her wedding to see her "DP'd". And we will still have protections for our families and our children and take our part in the fabric of society.

Because we're still here.

Don't tolerate me.

From the NEw Civil Rights Movement, No tolerance, please.

I am an American citizen. I pay taxes. I vote. I have a passport. I volunteer my time and voice and donate money to charities or causes I believe in. I have a college degree from a pretty good school. For most of the time since I was fifteen I have worked, often 60 - 80 hours a week. I am in a committed relationship. I try to call my mother a few times a week.....

I want to get married. I can’t, because I’m gay.....

I no longer am sad, I’m glad I’m different, and I’ll be damned if I’ll ever be ashamed of who I am or what I believe. Because what I believe is that we are all the same. We are all equal. We all deserve to love and have our love recognized.

I think I’m a pretty good person. I know I’m as good as anyone else. I have done little enough wrong to deserve your forgiveness. I’ve done nothing that deserves your pity. And I know that I am good enough to not deserve your tolerance.

Tolerance is for someone who doesn’t know better, like my dog who likes to jump on people. Tolerance is for someone whose views negatively impact your life, like people who want to stop me from loving the man I love, with all my heart. I do not want your tolerance. I do not deserve your tolerance. I will not accept your tolerance, any longer. What I will do is my best to ensure that we are all given equality and the legal right to love and marry the person who loves us back. From now on I will tolerate nothing less.

Equality is Equality

Chris Geidner quotes Andrew Sullivan from a 2000 piece in The New Republic called "Separate but Equal?" (I can't find an online link to the original):

Legalizing gay marriage . . . is not a radical reformulation of an unchanging institution. It is the long-overdue correction of a moral anomaly that dehumanizes and excludes a significant portion of the human race....

There is in fact no argument for a domestic-partnership compromise except that the maintenance of stigma is an important social value–that if homosexuals are finally allowed on the marriage bus, they should still be required to sit in the back. This “solution” smacks of the equally incoherent half-measure of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” another unwieldy contraption that was designed to overcome discrimination but instead has ruthlessly reinforced it. Equality is equality. Marriage is marriage. There is no ultimate moral or political answer to this question but to grant both. And to keep marshaling the moral, religious, civic, and human reasons why it is an eminently important and noble thing to do.

The acceleration of gay rights

This graph charts the change in overall view of gay rights in the US. As Andrew Sullivan notes, something happened around 1990 that accelerated the approval of gay relationships. He takes a fair bit of credit for it, for which theory YMMV. But I think he does have a point that the changes from being an outcast defiant counter-culture, to demanding to be part of the dominant culture, has something to do with it. Frankly, we started coming out, and most of us are pretty average folks. We are sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, friends and relatives. And we aren't scary at all.

When combined with other data we've reviewed on states views on a variety of issues as well as on the rate of change on the marriage issue state by state, we can see that in some states, it's approaching a non-issue. But still, over 50% in the "always wrong" category does not bode well for change at a national level anytime soon.

Why the Episcopal church's national convention matters to the rest of us

From the Huffington Post:

It doesn't matter if you attend religious services weekly or if you have fallen away, if you're atheist or agnostic, if you think religion is the opiate of the people or the road to peace - established religion in America is an important force.

So when the bishops of the Episcopal Church voted this week to affirm gay clergy, it was an important move..... to all of us who support gay and lesbian rights, for a couple reasons.

First, the Episcopal Church is seen as the canary in the coal mine by other mainline Protestant Churches. They are waiting to see if accepting gays and lesbians as full members of the church will lead to a breaking away from the international church, or whether different views will be able to co-exist happily.

If the Anglican fellowship survives with an inclusive Episcopal Church, it might lead other denominations - Lutherans, Presbyterians - to follow the example of the United Church of Christ and become fully inclusive of gays and lesbians as well.

And once all Mainline Protestant churches start approving of gay marriage, it will be very difficult for politicians and anti-marriage advocates to make a religious argument against gay marriage, since it will be even more clear that not all denominations agree on this issues.

Secondly, however, the entire issue points out something that those of us who are American gays and lesbians often forget: the rights (or lack thereof) of gays and lesbians internationally has an effect on us here at home.....

More rights here can mean more rights abroad. And more rights abroad, means more rights and respect here.

And what did the Episcopalians do? They voted to reiterate their support that GLBT people can be bishops, and yesterday, voted to allow same-sex blessings in their church.

The NY Times describes it,

The bishops of the Episcopal Church agreed Wednesday to a compromise measure that stops short of developing an official rite for same-sex unions, but gives latitude to bishops who wish to go ahead and bless such unions, particularly in states that have legalized such marriages.....[T]he vote was a momentous step for a church that has been mired in intrafactional warfare over homosexuality for more than a decade. ....many Episcopalians at the convention here believe they will have support and will not be ostracized. They are drawing on the testimony of Anglican guests from Africa, Asia and Latin America, who they have brought to the convention here as proof that they have international allies.

How's that canary singing?

2010, or 2012?

A new coalition called Prepare to Prevail has released a statement recommending that any effort to repeal prop8 wait till 2012. Their statement argues

Unlike Proposition 8 in 2008, any upcoming electoral campaign for marriage equality would be one of choice, not one of necessity in fending off an attack from religious-right foes. Timing is ours to determine. Going back to the ballot to remove the voter-imposed ban on same-sex marriage from the state constitution in 2010 would be rushed and risky. We should proceed with a costly, demanding, and high-stakes electoral campaign of this sort only when we are confident we can win. We should choose to Prepare to Prevail.

Meanwhile, LoveHonorCherish disagrees:

Recently, a letter was circulated in the activist community entitled “Prepare to Prevail: Why We Must Wait in Order to Win.” This letter, which was signed by about 30 organizations, some small and some large, argued that 2010 is too soon to seek the repeal of Prop 8. It gave eight reasons. Here are the reasons, and the response to each...

They go on to refute each argument.

I can see reason to both sides of this argument, but just as with the Boies/Olson anti-DOMA case, it seems too often that the GLBT groups form circular firing squads and snipe at each other, rather than our common enemies. Come on, people. Let's formulate a reasonable message and remember that the Bad Guys are already unified, AND raising money to continue to attack us and our families.

Obama watch

Steve Hildebrand was Obama's deputy campaign director. He was recently interviewed by gay journalist Rex Wockner. A few choice quotes:

[Obama] reassured me that he will not disappoint the gay community during his time as president, that the promises he made during the campaign are promises he will fulfill, and he was very forthright about his commitment to equality. And, people will accuse me -- probably rightfully so -- that I'm a Kool-Aid drinker, that I believe in this guy, but I've been around a lot of very important politicians in my lifetime and I think this guy is different and I do trust him to do what is right. I also believe that he knows how to get things done, and that he will make a significant difference in a positive way in the lives of gay and lesbian Americans.

On how to make a difference:

I don't think our voices are as powerful as they should be. I think too many people in the gay community do not push their elected officials as hard as they should. If you had 20 gay people together in a room and asked how many of them actually have reached out and either called, e-mailed or sent a letter to their member of Congress over the last two months, I would say the vast, vast majority of them will have done nothing. My suggestion is that people need to become strong activists, that we need to multiply by hundreds the number of activists we have in the gay community. We need more voices, we need louder voices, and we need to tell politicians at every level we're not willing to take their excuses anymore......if people want things done, they should demand action from Congress, they should demand action from the president, they should demand action from their school boards, from their city council members, their mayors, their legislators, their governors, everybody. They should demand action within their churches.

Read the whole thing!

Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Catholic Press over the fourth of July. Let's listen in to what he said (from US News):

For the gay and lesbian community in this country, I think it's clear that they feel victimized in fairly powerful ways and they're often hurt by not just certain teachings of the Catholic Church, but the Christian faith generally. And as a Christian, I'm constantly wrestling with my faith and my solicitude and regard and concern for gays and lesbians.

The US News reporter thinks this will "effortlessly" appeal to social liberals because he's "struggling" to reconcile faith and equality. I don't think so. Uh, Mr President? Lots of Christians support gay rights from a place of faith. We've talked about that here, here, here and here. There are even (Gasp!) gay Christians. So you don't have to place your faith in opposition to our rights. They go hand in hand.

Uh-oh. Another mob vote attacking marriage coming up!

The Huffington Post reports,

In Maine, the Stand for Marriage Maine coalition said it took only four weeks to gather more than the 55,087 signatures necessary to put gay marriage to a vote.

The Maine law to legalize gay marriage had been scheduled to go into effect Sept. 12. It will be put on hold after the signatures are submitted and certified by the secretary of state's office. Voters will then decide in November whether the law should stand.

Prepare yourselves, for the hatred, the bigotry, the lies and the ire. They have hate on their side. We have only love.

Go give Equality Maine some love. They're going to need it.


Update: Irony alert. Apparently the opponents of gay marriage in Maine are painting themselves as a poor harassed minority and are hiding their HQ from marauding bands of queers.

But by complaining loudly and often that they've been called names and heard things go bump in the night since they launched their campaign, might Stand for Marriage Maine's organizers also be portraying themselves as an oppressed "minority" (Mutty's word, not mine) in the hope that they will be perceived as the victims this time around?....

Maybe not, but Stand for Marriage Maine's secretive ways contrast sharply with the see-through strategy of the Maine Freedom to Marry coalition.....

Those who are trying to overturn Maine's same-sex marriage law are learning – many for the first time – how frightening it can be when someone gets in your face or dials your home phone out of the blue and calls you a nasty name.

At the same time, those who are defending the law are learning – many for the first time – that the more the social pendulum swings their way here in Maine and beyond, the less they need to live in fear.

Update 2: Americablog reports that the usual suspects (The Catholic Church, the Knights of Columbus, NOM, and Focus on the Family have contributed quite a lot. Our side is lagging behind. HRC, other national orgs, where are you?

The first campaign finance report in the Maine marriage campaign came out today. The Diocese of Portland, which has been shutting down parishes for lack of money, contributed $100,000. The Knights of Columbus chipped in $50,000. And the National Organization for Marriage donated $160,000 (and we really don't know who gave NOM that money, but we suspect some bigots based in Salt Lake City.) In a separate report, Focus on the Family Maine Marriage Committee reported raising $42,000 for the campaign to take marriage rights away.

This is only the tip of the iceberg.

Our side will report raising around $138,000.

Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517)

A couple weeks ago during the last DOMA kerfuffle in DC, a great production was made about giving gay Federal Employees some family benefits. Only it turns out they weren't much--no health care, no retirement, ostensibly because of DOMA.

THe President pointed at a bill in Congress that would allow the Fed to recognize gay families to some extent: Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act (H.R. 2517) or DPBO, sponsored by Tammy Baldwin in the House. HRC gives us the background:

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Fifty-seven percent of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 19 states and over 200 local governments offer their public employees domestic partnership benefits. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

How the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act Would Work-- Who’s eligible?
Same- or opposite-sex couples who:
Include a federal government employee, excluding members of the armed forces, and his/her domestic partner;
Live together in a committed, intimate relationship; and
Are responsible for each other’s welfare and financial obligations.....

Domestic partner is deemed a spouse for purposes of receiving benefits.

You can almost predict the opposition to this, and Chris Geidner at Lawdork is on it:

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz (UT) repeatedly expressed repeated concerns about discrimination . . . against heterosexuals. Among his comments, per Eleveld, is one that “heterosexual couples who are not married would not have the same benefits as same-sex couples under this bill.” Baldwin, per Eleveld, responded: “Should heterosexuals desire those benefits, they would have the opportunity to marry.”

Geidner goes on to consider other issues that put this bill in conflict with DOMA and others.

As much as Baldwin might be able to dismiss that concern as to Utah and Wisconsin citizens, and as poorly as Chaffetz appeared to ask the question, there is a related question there that is very real and that the language of the bill does not resolve. The bill speaks only in terms of “domestic partners” with that almost quaint in some areas of the country “affidavit” requirement where same-sex couples, basically, attest that they are married in all but name.

The reality today, though, is that there are an ever-growing number of states in which there are same-sex couples married in name as well as in theory. That means that, for example, a married federal employee in Massachusetts married to a partner of the same sex, following the hypothetical passage of this bill, would be married under Massachusetts law, in a domestic partnership under federal employment regulations and single under federal tax and other laws.

If that doesn’t illustrate the long-term unsustainability of this mismatch of laws, I don’t know what does.

Expect to see a battle regardless.

Every heart matters