To Form a More Perfect Union: Marriage Equality News

NY: Constituents Back a Tough Stand

Link: New York Times

Excerpt:

For many Democratic members of the Assembly, last year’s passage of a bill to legalize same-sex marriage was the culmination of years of battle and persuasion within their party’s ranks, and most of them eventually supported the legislation.

For the few Assembly Republicans who ultimately supported the bill, the vote was potentially far more risky: a public break with their own party on an issue that at the time was still considered in some quarters to be radioactive, potentially even career-killing.

But the experience of Assemblywoman Teresa R. Sayward suggests that those fears may be unwarranted.

Ms. Sayward, left, a three-term Republican from the North Country, an observant Roman Catholic in a heavily Catholic district, surprised many of her colleagues last year when she rose to speak in support of the bill, reflecting on her own experiences coming to terms with the fact that her son, Glenn, was gay.

More surprising — to Ms. Sayward, anyway—was the response from her constituents after news of the vote percolated through her district. More than three-fifths of those who contacted Ms. Sayward’s office about the issue said they either agreed with her position or respected her willingness to make a stand on principle.

“We did get some of those very heated phone calls and letters as we expected to get,” she said. “But we didn’t get as many as you’d think. We got an excellent reception.” Some letters, she said, came from parents who had kept quiet about their own gay children for years. “They decided they were no longer going to be secretive,” Ms. Sayward said. “That touched my heart the most.”

[...]

Ultimately, no corresponding bill came to a vote in the Republican-controlled State Senate. But gay-rights groups say they believe that the lack of a public outcry over last year’s Assembly vote will help them next year in the Senate. Democrats hope to take control of the chamber in this fall’s election.

“I think most of the Assembly members that voted for this had a good experience with it, and that will help build support in the Senate,” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group, who has been meeting with Albany lawmakers on the issue each week. “People are not afraid of gay marriage. It’s just not a wedge issue any more in New York State.”

[jw]

CA: Mayoral candidate's comment on marriage equality riles Sacramento's gay and lesbian community

Link: News - Johnson's comment on same-sex marriage riles Sacramento's gay and lesbian community - sacbee.com

Excerpt:

KEVIN JOHNSON In a statement Thursday he says he backs state laws on same- sex civil unions.

 

Mayoral challenger Kevin Johnson has riled Sacramento's gay community with his statement at a televised candidate forum that "marriage is between a man and a woman."

"It hit me like a brick," said Gretchen Bender, vice-president of the Sacramento County Board of Education and the first open lesbian elected to public office in the county. "I've been working with Kevin on this issue. But, based on that comment at the forum, I now think he is acting on religious grounds, and he is not ready to lead this city."

Bender and a half-dozen other local gay and lesbian leaders held a news conference Thursday to express their concern about Johnson's statement.

The other six candidates in the race, including Mayor Heather Fargo, each answered "yes" when asked for a one-word answer on whether they support gay marriage. The question was posed Wednesday evening during a "lightning round" at a televised forum sponsored by The Bee, News10 and the California Museum.

The Johnson campaign issued a statement Thursday expanding on his one-sentence response from the night before.

"My religion does not advocate same-sex marriage," Johnson said. "However, I would never thrust my personal beliefs onto others, as I strongly believe that everyone is born equally and entitled to their own ideas and ideals."

"I fully support and will defend the present laws of California recognizing the rights and obligations of same-sex couples in civil unions," Johnson said in the statement. "I also support equal benefits such as insurance and leave for same-sex couples. The issue of marriage is presently before the California Supreme Court, and I will uphold the law as the court makes its decision."

Johnson went on to say that he has never tolerated discrimination or harassment of any kind: "Sacramento needs to become a city where everyone is safe, protected and treated equally."

Bender said she wasn't impressed by Johnson's elaboration. "He's giving a political answer to a moral question," she said.

[...]

[jw]

Family Values Congressman Admits To Affair, Illegitimate Child

Link: AP via 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

Rep. Vito Fossella of New York ran a red light, and wrecked his life. A drunk-driving arrest last week led to talk of an extramarital affair, and then finally Thursday, an admission of a child from that affair.

"My personal failings and imperfections have caused enormous pain to the people I love and I am truly sorry," said Fossella, a Republican, who lives in his Staten Island, N.Y., district with his wife and their three children.

Fossella is the only Republican member of Congress from New York City, and the paternity revelation could lead to the loss of a seat in Congress at a time when the House GOP faces the possibility of a second grim November of election setbacks.

In Congress Fossella voted in favor of a constitutional amendment that would bar same-sex marriage and against the Matthew Shepard Act which would add gay under hate crime law. 

[...]

[jw]

After the primaries: LGBTs split in Indiana and North Carolina

Link: Windy City Times

Excerpt:
New differences on LGBT issues emerged between the two Democratic nominees during their primary-state battles in Indiana and North Carolina. And given that the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination has not yet produced a nominee, those differences could become the focus for LGBT voters who appear to be increasingly split between the two pro-gay candidates.

[...]

Previously, the only concrete policy difference between Obama and Clinton on gay issues has been that Obama said he would seek repeal of the entire Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) and Clinton would repeal only part. But in response to a question from six LGBT publications in Indiana this month, Obama elaborated, saying “We are going to have to have a national conversation” on the issue and must “ensure” the American public “that, as a matter of well-settled law, no state will be required to recognize another state's marriage if DOMA is repealed.”

Two prominent gay legal experts, Chai Feldblum and Evan Wolfson, were mixed on their assessment of whether that is, in fact, “well-settled law.” Wolfson said “No, it is an open question as yet unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.” Feldblum said she thinks it's “well-settled enough” to persuade Congress that the states “don't need a law like DOMA to shield states from having to do such recognition.”

[...]

[jw]

MA: Catholic Action League raps Knights of Columbus leadership for failing to suspend politicians who voted for marriage access

Link: Catholic World News

Excerpt:

The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has criticized state leaders of the Knights of Columbus for refusing to allow a vote at their annual convention on a measure that would have required suspension of the membership of politicians who support abortion or same-sex marriage. 

[...]

Two-thirds of K of C members who serve in the Massachusetts legislature recently voted in favor or a proposal to expand "buffer zones" outside abortion clinics, while more than three-quarters voted against a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage. 

Supreme Advocate Paul Devin, who was attending the Massachusetts convention, ruled the measure "unconstitutional." The Catholic Action League called the ruling "a disgraceful example of the disconnect between rhetoric and policy when it comes to the Knights of Columbus and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life and the integrity of marriage."

[jw]

MD: Marriage at standstill

Link: Baltimore Sun

Excerpt:

Gay and lesbian activists thought they had a friend in Martin O'Malley.

As a progressive mayor in Baltimore, O'Malley attended gay pride parades and signed into law a measure to protect transgender people from discrimination. When he ran for governor, he said he supported civil unions and wanted to extend benefits to same-sex partners of state employees, as he had done for city workers.

But two years into O'Malley's first term in Annapolis, neither has happened. He largely stayed out of the debate over legal recognition for same-sex unions that fizzled in the General Assembly, and aides say his financially strapped administration probably won't grant benefits for at least another year.

The lack of momentum for gay rights in the State House is the latest disappointment for activists after a lawsuit to force the legalization of same-sex marriage failed in state courts. While O'Malley's allies say he has done as much as he can in the face of significant hurdles, activists say they feel sidelined.

"There's just not a lot to be enthusiastic about, because the governor hasn't done much to help us move forward," said Dan Furmansky, director of Equality Maryland, a leading gay rights group. "Why did the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community work so hard to elect this person? What do we have to show for it at this point?"

The fits and starts of gay rights in Maryland reflect what has happened nationally. Four years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex marriage, no other state has followed suit, and only a handful offer civil unions, an institution that dissatisfies many activists who consider it separate but unequal.

O'Malley plans to sign two bills this month that would grant same-sex couples some rights of married couples, including the ability to visit each other in the hospital and an exemption from certain property taxes.

Spokesman Rick Abbruzzese said the governor would revisit proposals concerning other benefits and protections, and that he is willing to work with the legislature on civil unions.

"We didn't accomplish everything that we wanted to do," Abbruzzese said. "And there's a conversation that needs to continue on civil unions, but the reality is, a marriage bill will not pass through the Maryland General Assembly."

[...]

But Senate Minority Leader David R. Brinkley, a Republican representing Carroll and Frederick counties, said inaction on gay rights measures in Maryland reflects the public's greater interest in other issues such as the flagging economy and education. He opposes same-sex unions as institutions that undermine traditional marriage.

"You have this group that's shrieking from rooftops that they need these rights, and everyone else is just trying to maintain their households," Brinkley said. "It just doesn't resonate. I don't see fire hoses and dogs being turned on gay activists. That, to me, is not a civil rights problem."

[...]

Robyn S. Zeiger, a professor at the university, said she and her partner of 25 years have paid escalating amounts for her to be privately insured. "I'm really tired of hearing it's about the budget because civil rights transcend money, and I hope O'Malley does the right thing," Zeiger said.

Providing the benefits to all state employees would cost about $3 million a year, according to legislative analysts.

Abbruzzese said action by the governor to grant the benefits would have been unnecessary had legislation recognizing same-sex unions passed during the session. He said it is too late now for money to be set aside for the benefits in the next fiscal year

[...]

It is also unclear whether activists can build enough support for legislation recognizing civil unions or same-sex marriage. Many say the biggest obstacle would be the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, where some had hoped that Sen. C. Anthony Muse, a Prince George's County Democrat and evangelical Christian bishop, would provide the key vote for such legislation this year. He did not.

"I would like to see civil unions, and we've got one vote in the Senate to change, and that's it," said Del. Maggie L. McIntosh, a Baltimore Democrat who is openly gay. "But it's going to be hard to push for civil marriage in the next two years. You can't just get people to roll easily on these votes."

[jw]

UK: Gay ex-top cop loses London Mayoral race

Link: GayNZ.com

Excerpt:

caption: Brian Paddick

 

Formerly the highest-ranking openly gay police officer in the world, Brian Paddick has lost his bid to become Mayor of London.

Paddick ran for the Liberal Democrats and mounted a law and order campaign, but came in second.

Boris Johnson, a Conservative, defeated Labour incumbent Ken Livingstone in a race that became more about Prime Minister Brown's sagging popularity than Johnson's platform.

The election of Johnson now has gays in the capital worried. The new mayor is opposed to same-sex unions and has attacked attempts in his own party to reach out to gays.

[...]

More, from the AP, about the new Conservative mayor of London:

[...]

Uncombed and often awkward, Johnson is known both his wit and for remarks that are have offended minority communities and others.

He labeled members of the Commonwealth "piccaninnies" — a derogatory term for black people, referred to Africans as having "watermelon smiles," and likened his party's internal conflicts "to Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing."

Johnson's scorn has also been directed at gay marriage, which became legal in Britain in 2005. In his book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," he said that if homosexuals could marry then why not "three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog."

[...]

[jw]

Seeds of social issues dot 2008 elections

Link: Stateline.org

Excerpt:

With a sagging economy and a divisive war occupying Americans’ minds, will social issues be overshadowed in campaign 2008? Quite possibly – but it would be foolhardy to write them off.

National polls – and more than 50 state and national experts contacted for this column – broadly agree that Americans’ deepening concerns about the economy are currently overshadowing the kinds of polarizing social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, that have helped shape recent federal and state races. This year, social issues do not yet seem to be motivating voters as strongly as they did in 2004, the last presidential election year, when exit polls showed that many voters placed a heavy emphasis on moral values.

This year, political observers and practitioners in Missouri, North Carolina and Indiana tell “Out There” that social issues currently rank far behind the economy in those states’ highly competitive gubernatorial contests. Similar reports are coming in from states as diverse as New Hampshire, Wisconsin and North Dakota, all of which have legislative chambers in play this fall.

But the issue landscape can change suddenly. And Republicans, running in a year when Democrats hold key advantages, may be driven to emphasize social issues to motivate their party’s base. “If the economic issue is not going the GOP’s way, why not move to something where they’re on better ground?” said Alex Johnson, a former executive director of the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee. 

Indeed, a number of social issues already have surfaced in the states, both in legislatures and in signature drives to place initiatives on the 2008 ballot. Not all of these will ultimately make the ballot or become campaign issues this fall, and if they do, their election impact will vary.

But an early look flags states where social issues could emerge this fall – with possible ripple effects in everything from the presidential race to legislative contests.

[...]

Gay marriage still in play this year, even if the issue is not as dominant as in November 2004, when voters in 11 states approved bans.

Florida voters will weigh a measure to ban same-sex marriage as well as civil unions and domestic partnerships. Arizona legislators are considering putting a gay marriage ban on the ballot this fall, two years after voters narrowly rejected another, somewhat wider restriction. California activists also are trying to place a gay marriage ban on the ballot, an effort that has drawn the opposition of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R). Illinois voters may consider a non-binding gay marriage ban.

Meanwhile, opponents of two measures passed by the Oregon Legislature – a law giving state marital benefits to same-sex partners and a non-discrimination law covering sexual orientation – want to overturn both by popular vote. And in Iowa, House Democrats, who hold a narrow majority, are taking heat from conservatives for refusing to debate a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Both of these states are also presidential battlegrounds.

In Arkansas, voters are likely to vote on whether to prevent gay couples, and probably non-married straight couples, from adopting or taking in foster children.

[...]

[jw]

CA: Marriage fight casts shadow on Senate race

Link: The Bay Area Reporter Online

Excerpt:

The likelihood that California will be convulsed by another fight over same-sex marriage at the polls in November is casting a shadow on the heated Senate race between two of the state's most powerful gay lawmakers. 

Now that anti-gay groups are claiming they have collected enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot this fall, the question arises who is better suited to lead the fight to defeat it: state Senator Carole Migden or Assemblyman Mark Leno?

And the rematch over the issue – voters once before passed a ban on gay marriage in the March 7, 2000 primary – is dredging up Leno's and Migden's involvement in what was then known as the No on Knight campaign against Proposition 22, pushed by the late Republican state Senator Pete Knight.

The two out San Francisco Democrats are vying for Migden's 3rd District Senate seat in the June 3 primary along with former Marin Assemblyman Joe Nation. While both Migden and Leno will continue to serve in the Legislature through the fall, should either of them win the Senate race that person will be expected to lead the fight against the marriage measure.

In interviews with the Bay Area Reporter , all three lawmakers vowed to do everything they could to defeat the marriage ban. 

Migden said she would do "everything" to defeat it. 

"I'll rally, raise money," she said.

Nation, a co-sponsor of the pro-gay marriage legislation Leno introduced when he was in the Assembly in 2004, also pledged to fight alongside the LGBT community should he be elected. 

"I will raise money, walk precincts, speak out against it and do everything I could possibly do," said Nation. "It is a fundamental basic civil right people should have."

Leno said this week that he has already contacted Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California and a leader of Equality for All, the coalition of statewide groups formed to defeat the initiative, to offer his support. 

"Once I get past June 3 my focus will be on defeating the constitutional amendment," said Leno. "I would be honored to travel the state and speak on behalf of marriage equality."

Leno also said that should the state Supreme Court rule in favor of gay marriage, he would use a legislative maneuver to "gut and amend" a bill already introduced to the Legislature to revive his marriage bill. The court is expected to issue its ruling in the consolidated same-sex marriage lawsuit by June 3.

[...]

Continue reading this long item on the BAR site.

[jw]

CA: Gay Dems working to re-elect San Diego’s GOP mayor

Link: Washington Blade

Excerpt:

It’s not often you find gay Democrats working to re-elect a straight Republican politician, but then again, 2008 is turning out to be an exceptional year in politics.

Stampp Corbin, a prominent Barack Obama supporter, and San Diego City Commissioner Nicole Murray-Ramirez are gay Democrats, but they're organizing gay support for the re-election campaign of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. Corbin and Murray-Ramirez. The organization run by Corbin is called 2008 GLBT Vote San Diego.

Sanders, a Republican, made national headlines — and YouTube infamy — in September when he wept while publicly announcing his support for same-sex marriage during a news conference.

He pledged his support for a resolution that the City Council passed directing the city attorney to file a brief in support of a California gay marriage bill.

Though the mayor had previously said he would veto the resolution, he had a change of heart when the measure hit his desk.

"The arrival of the resolution to sign or veto in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do. I've decided to lead with my heart, to do what I think is right and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is sign this resolution," he said during the news conference.

[...]

When Sanders pledged his support for gay marriage, he also revealed that his daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian. Many have attributed Sanders' marriage views to his daughter’s sexual orientation, but Corbin and Murray-Ramirez said that having gay appointees to advise him also contributed to his support.

The 2008 mayoral race pits Sanders against Republican opponent Steve Francis.

"All of the polling shows that this is clearly a race between the two Republicans," Murray-Ramirez said. If no candidate receives 50 percent of the vote in the June election, a runoff will be held in November between the top two finishers.

Francis has said he would have vetoed the amicus brief measure in support of gay marriage.

Vince Vasquez, policy director for Francis' campaign, said that Francis is a supporter of gay rights, including domestic partnerships and considers himself a friend to the gay community.

"Our campaign and its message are inclusive," Vasquez said.

Fred Sainz, press secretary for Sanders, said he doesn't see the gay marriage issue playing a big part in the re-election campaign.

"Whether people supported gay marriage or not, it really demonstrated that [people] believe that the mayor is a man of justice and compassion," Sainz said, who is gay.

"I think that people felt for him, both as a human being and as a father, and that's what they take away from it more than having changed their mind on gay marriage," he said.

But Francis is less than friendly when it comes to gay issues, Sainz said.

"When Jerry made his decision on gay marriage, [Francis] openly lobbied the local Republican Party to withdraw their endorsement of Jerry. It didn't work, so he turned tail on them and now the most conservative guy in town is running as an 'independent.' He changes positions more often than most of us change clothes," he said.

An article in the San Diego Union-Tribune published last September said Francis supported domestic partnerships, but quoted him as saying that gay marriage is "disruptive to our family structure as a culture and a society."

[...]

Corbin and Murray-Ramirez are working to rally gay support for Sanders as part of an effort to "thank" the mayor for his support.

"You will not find one Republican mayor who has come out for marriage equality," Murray-Ramirez said. "I know that his daughter Lisa did not lobby him or push him on this issue one bit."

Since the announcement, Lisa has become involved in the San Diego gay community, Murray-Ramirez said.

"Now she is openly gay with her longtime partner and they are involved in the community and social service fundraising," he said. "And the mayor's very proud of her."

[jw]

Commentary: Gains for the Democrats Among Evangelicals

Link: The Huffington Post
by Tony Campolo
 

Excerpt:

In the past, the Republican Party has depended on unified support at election time from Evangelical Christians. But times are changing! There is evidence of a significant division emerging in the Evangelical ranks as the 2008 election approaches. Young Evangelicals, especially, are breaking ranks with older Evangelicals (over 40) and are more and more leaning towards voting Democratic.

Upon visiting more than twenty campuses of Evangelical colleges and universities over the past year, it became obvious to me that a significant minority of the students at these schools would not be voting Republican come November. While still maintaining conservative views on gay marriage and abortion, the hot-button issues that governed their voting in previous elections, these younger Evangelicals have broadened their agenda. They now have strong concerns about saving the environment; doing something about human trafficking for sexual purposes; stopping the genocide in Darfur; addressing the AIDS crisis in Africa; and ending poverty. These latter two issues have become especially important to them, in part because of the influence of the rock star Bono.

Given their broadened agendas, these younger Evangelicals are finding the Democrats, and especially Barack Obama, more on their wavelength.

[...]

While they still remain conservative in respect to gay marriage, younger Evangelicals are upset by the efforts of their elders to curtail some basic civil rights of gays and lesbians. One of these young people on my own Eastern University campus remarked, "How can we tell these gay brothers and lesbian sisters that we love them, as Christians are called to do, and then turn around and want rulings that allow for firing them from jobs because of their sexual orientation; accept discrimination when it comes to their being able to serve in the military; and even prevent hospital visits for homosexual patients by their longstanding partners if the patient's parents object?" Younger Evangelicals contend that love requires justice, because justice is nothing more than love translated into social policies.

[...]

[jw]

Ford's Fate--Rep. Harold Ford Jr of Tennessee

Link: The Notion blog, The Nation

CORRECTION: This item is old material from 2006. Thanks to reader Matt for the heads-up.

Excerpt:

When it comes to winning back the Senate, Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee is beginning to look like the Democrats' make-or-break candidate--and that might not be such a good thing. 

Ford is running surprisingly well in his race to replace retiring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in traditionally conservative Tennessee. In August, he ran virtually unopposed for the Democratic nomination. And now, a recent poll has Ford just one point behind his Republican rival, former Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker. 

If he wins in November, the 36-year-old Ford would become the first African-American senator from the South since reconstruction. Ever since his keynote speech at the 2000 Democratic convention, Ford has been seen as a rising star in the party, yet his very conservative views on a variety of issues make him seem more like the next Joe Lieberman than a beacon of light in future of the party. 

During his nearly decade-long career in Congress, Ford has supported constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and flag-burning. He was an outspoken opponent of a filibuster attempt to prevent Samuel Alito's appointment to the Supreme Court. He has supported the placement of the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, prayer in schools and an end to handgun bans.

[...]

Ford is certainly a charismatic congressman. Tennessee AFL-CIO Labor Council president Jerry Lee has called him, "the most exciting candidate I've seen since John F. Kennedy" and he's even appeared in People magazine's "50 Most Beautiful People" issue . Yet for some time now, the American public, and progressives especially, have been crying out for more than a pretty face. They want a real change in leadership, but in a Senate where Rep. Ford could ostensibly be the deciding vote on a host of issues, change might come much slower than they'd hoped.

[jw]

Commentary--Maryland, my backward Maryland

Link: Washington Blade
by Kevin Naff

Excerpt:

AFTER LAST YEAR’S high court ruling upholding straight-only marriage in Maryland, many residents of the state — including me — had high hopes for the 2008 legislative session.

Surely, many of us thought, the state’s Democratic lawmakers would right the judicial wrong inflicted by the slimmest of majorities, 4-3. But instead of courageous leadership on a pressing civil rights issue, the state’s politicians quickly reverted to type, abandoning progress and embracing the safe confines of the status quo.

No marriage. No civil unions. Not even domestic partnerships for gays living in a so-called “blue state” where Democrats enjoy monopolistic control of both houses in the legislature and the governor’s mansion.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the failure of Maryland’s lawmakers to enact relationship recognition for same-sex couples.

First, Gov. Martin O’Malley failed to provide leadership or a voice for equality despite his past support for same-sex marriage while serving as Baltimore mayor. In fact, O’Malley used the bully pulpit of his office back in September to say he respected the court’s decision — an opinion peppered with harsh anti-gay language — and to assert that lawmakers shouldn’t tell religions how to define the “sacraments.”

In the ensuing outcry from plaintiffs in the case, including several who spent their summer vacations knocking on doors to get O’Malley elected, he retreated from his obvious pandering to religious conservatives, and told the Blade he would consider signing a marriage bill if the legislature passed it, though he prefers civil unions.

But that’s where his support ended. Not all of Maryland’s politicians are so cowed by anti-gay conservatives. Attorney General Douglas Gansler did what O’Malley lacked the courage to do and publicly endorsed marriage rights for gay couples.

[...]

THE SECOND OBSTACLE to progress: the Democratic leaders in the General Assembly, Senate President Mike Miller and House Speaker Michael Busch. Both are opposed to same-sex marriage; Miller opposes civil unions, too. Throughout the session, Miller refused to speak to Blade reporters about his stance.

Sen. Rich Madaleno, who is gay, cited Miller’s religious beliefs in explaining his opposition to marriage.

“He’s on that same journey of knowing more people in his life who are open and seeing the day-to-day issues that we face, and at the same time trying to balance that with his long-held religious beliefs and just personal feelings on the issue,” Madaleno said.

But like O’Malley before him, Miller misses the point. This debate has nothing to do with religion — the Maryland marriage bill was deliberately named the “Religious Freedom & Civil Marriage Protection Act” to quell fears about sinful gays marching into holy places and demanding equal treatment and respect.

[...]

THE THIRD OBSTACLE to progress this year: strategy. Given all the Democratic opposition to marriage, why didn’t Equality Maryland pursue more realistic goals, like civil unions?

That question was posed by Stephen Clark, a professor at Albany Law School who is gay and tracks civil rights issues. The answer to that question is that Equality Maryland’s board members and donors wanted to pursue an all-or-nothing strategy — and they got just about nothing. Civil unions are an imperfect solution, as evidenced by the legal mess they’ve created in New Jersey, but they’re a start. Of course, the ultimate goal is full marriage recognition, but the path to those rights begins in different places depending on the political climate of the state. And in Maryland, the Democratic politicians who run the show have made it painfully clear that marriage is a non-starter. In light of that undeniable fact, the state’s gay residents would have been better served by an incremental approach like civil unions.

There were some incremental gains, including hospital visitation rights and a measure granting domestic partners an exemption on recordation and transfer taxes — a couple of bones to keep the gays happy and quiet for another year and to keep them donating their time, money and votes to Democrats who don’t deserve them.

And therein lies the real problem: the Democrats responsible for this year’s disappointing session know that they won’t be punished or held accountable for their inaction. Gays will accept a few crumbs, then dutifully open their checkbooks like the lemmings we’ve become.

There are about 15,600 same-sex couples living in Maryland, according to recent Census data, yet only about 500 people showed up for Equality Maryland’s lobby day in February. Gays have grown complacent and apathetic, always assuming that someone else is doing the heavy lifting. As the results of this session prove, lawmakers won’t do the right thing until enough voters demand it. So while Muse, O’Malley, Miller, Busch and others deserve criticism for this session’s failures, Maryland’s gay residents must look in the mirror to see the real face of blame.

[jw]

Georgia Democrats lag behind national party on gay issues

Link: Southern Voice Atlanta

Excerpt:

Jane Kidd, chair of the Democratic Party of Georgia, pledged the party would fight back if Republicans try to ban gay adoption in the state.
(Photo courtesy electjanekidd.com)

 

The two candidates vying to top the national Democratic ticket, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, support civil unions for gay couples. The last person to top the state Democratic ticket, 2006 gubernatorial nominee Mark Taylor, opposed banning job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

While Democrats at the national level have grown increasingly supportive of gay civil rights issues, the state party has remained largely silent, not even fighting back against the 2004 gay marriage amendment that helped solidify Republican control over state government. But at a pair of fundraisers April 18, Democratic Party of Georgia Chairperson Jane Kidd told gay donors that would change.

[...]

“There is a difference between what may be possible in the nation and what may be possible in the South,” she said. “Our goals would be in line with the national, but we have a very practical and realistic view on how much time it will take.”

While the 2008 Democratic platform will be drafted in August at the national convention in Denver, the 2004 platform included language calling for “full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families.” Georgia’s 2004 Democratic platform made no mention of gay men and lesbians.

The national Democratic platform also decried the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to ban same-sex marriage, but added that the definition of marriage should be a decision left to the states. In Georgia that meant a constitutional ban on marriage went to voters in 2004 and was approved by nearly 80 percent of voters, even though same-sex marriage was already illegal in the state.

Democrats enjoyed a 35-seat majority in the state House in 2004, but still passed the bill that put the measure on the ballot.

“I don’t think that was a true indication because it was really a Republican ploy to divide Democrats and to get Republicans out to the polls for an issue,” Kidd said in an interview before the fundraiser. “It was more a political ploy than it was a philosophical read of the state of Georgia, I think.”

Gay Georgians criticized the state party for not blocking the measure before it got to the ballot. Kidd said the party was aware of an oncoming Republican tide, and many thought the vote would be a way to appease voters.

Kidd insisted the Democratic Party of Georgia has learned from its mistakes. If, as some pundits speculate, legislators may place a state constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban gay adoption, she vows a stronger fight.

“We’re always concerned about that, and we think that might happen,” Kidd said. “We’re on the lookout for [an adoption ballet initiative] and we would do our best to make sure that never gets out of committee, to make sure that our legislators don’t have to face that kind of intense ideological pressure from both sides.”

[...]

One of the labels Republicans have successfully applied to Democrats is being gay friendly, something Kidd is unwilling to drop to gain more votes.

“We’re not going to walk away from ‘pro-gay.’ I would say that we’re pro-equality. If they criticize us for that I think they’ll be the ones who suffer from popular opinion,” Kidd said.

Harkins said he believes Kidd has altered the state party’s course.

“I haven’t given any money to the state party as yet, I’m not opposed to it, but there is only so much money to go around,” he said. “I think that the state party has changed under the new leadership. She clearly singled out that the state party hasn’t been supportive in the past and that is changing under her leadership.”

Kidd’s plans are encouraging, but some gay donors, like Don George, want more than talk before opening their wallets.

“I want to see some action from the state party before I donate to them. I haven’t in many years,” said George, who attended the fundraisers, where donations went to the national party. “Before I give money I want to see action, and when they act, I will reward.”

[jw]

New Jersey: Andrews, Lautenberg support marriage equality

Link: Blue Jersey

Excerpt:

In case anyone still doubts the value of primaries...Garden State Equality just announced their endorsement for US Senate, but the most interesting part to me is that both candidates expressed their support for marriage equality:

In extensive interviews with Garden State Equality's Board of Directors, both incumbent Senator Frank Lautenberg and Congressman Rob Andrews endorsed legislation to establish marriage equality in New Jersey, making this one of the few elections in American history where marriage equality has been endorsed by two competing candidates for statewide office.

To be sure, United States Senators vote on legislation in Washington, not Trenton.  But the support of these two esteemed public servants adds powerful momentum to our fight for marriage equality in New Jersey.    

Senator Lautenberg said, "The government should get out of the business of telling same-sex couples in committed relationships that they can't marry.   Anything else is not equality."  

Congressman Andrews said, "I support marriage equality.   The recent commission report on civil unions was pivotal in my thinking.  The civil union law has failed to give gay couples equal rights."

[...]

[jw]

CA: They do, even if the law says they can’t

Link: UCLA Daily Bruin

Excerpt:

Davidson Lloyd, left, and Tom Keegan exchanged vows in a ceremony organized by the Student Coalition for Marriage Equality and officiated by John Ireland.
Photo by Christopher Wu

 

As Tom Keegan and Davidson Lloyd declared “I do” in front of approximately a hundred spectators in Bruin Plaza on Friday, they provided a glimpse of a possible future in which same-sex couples enjoy full marital rights.

The Student Coalition for Marriage Equality created a lavish setting of purple and black for its Fourth Annual Same-Sex Wedding Ceremony. Keegan and Lloyd stood with their daughter, Connor Keegan-Lloyd, to exchange vows in celebration of their 31 years together.

While Keegan and Lloyd’s celebration was the highlight of the event, speakers such as the mayor of West Hollywood addressed the changing perspectives of the public toward lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marital rights.

“I’m hopeful because people are changing their opinions rapidly as they are being exposed to events that educate them on LGBT rights,” said Mayor Jeff Prang. “The more people understand, the more likely they are to be tolerant and accepting of the LGBT community.”

[...]

Keegan said demonstrations from the public show government officials the need to change marital laws to be inclusive of sexual orientation.

“Politicians will support the issue if they think the public wants it, and the public will be more likely to support LGBT rights when they realize we are not just a sexuality, but people, too,” Keegan said.

Prang said he agrees that these types of ceremonies are important towards educating and changing the minds of Americans.

“This great civil rights movement for the LGBT community can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but we all need to do our part,” he said.

[jw]

Deb Price: McCain should copy Schwarzenegger, Reagan

Link: Detroit News
by Deb Price

Excerpt:

My nominee for best ex-actor in a very supportive role: Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

In a few simple sentences, the muscular Republican governor of California did some heroically heavy lifting for all Americans who believe in equal marriage rights for those of us who're gay. 

Asked at the gay Log Cabin Republicans' recent national convention whether he would join them in opposing a proposed California ballot initiative that would prohibit gay couples there from achieving marriage equality, Schwarzenegger began, "First of all, I think that (such a ban) would never happen in California because I think California people are much further along on that issue." 

Then, as every heart in the room skipped a beat, he delivered some of the most important lines of his career: "And, No. 2, I will always be there to fight against that -- because it should never happen."

[...]

If gigantic, trendsetting California leaps ahead, becoming the second state (after Massachusetts) to allow gay marriage, foes will try to roll back that advance. Even if the court hands down a disappointment, the anti-marriage initiative will likely go to voters this fall. 

That's why it's tremendously important that the popular governor is saying you don't have to be a liberal or a Democrat or a young person to oppose taking California backward. 

And Californians aren't the only ones who should listen. So should soon-to-be GOP presidential nominee John McCain, his pal. 

If California's court rules in gay couples' favor, McCain will stand at his own crossroads: Will he react by choosing the tired old divisive path taken by recent Republican presidential nominees? Or will he wisely try to make the Republican Party more appealing to moderates ready to move forward by modeling himself after the Ronald Reagan of 30 years ago? 

[...]

McCain needs to know that Schwarzenegger's decision to oppose an anti-gay state initiative puts him in good company with another ex-actor in a very supportive role: In 1978, Reagan, then a former California governor with White House ambitions, torpedoed the Briggs Initiative, which would have banned gay or gay-friendly teachers. 

Advised to duck it, Reagan is credited with sinking the hateful initiative, which lost by 1 million votes. 

John McCain is auditioning for the part of a lifetime. Let's hope he takes his cues from Schwarzenegger and Reagan when they led by gay-friendly example.

[jw]

Opinion: Open Letter to Barack Obama

Link: Advocate.com

Excerpt:

Lesbian media wiz Ann Canas wants the Illinois senator to know that when he references religion in discussing why he can't support gay marriage, he sends a subtle message that being gay and being Christian are mutually exclusive.

Mr. Obama:

Like you, we are all Americans. Like you, some of us are men. Unlike you, some of us are women. Like you, some of us are African-American. Unlike you, many of us are not African-American. Like you, some of us are tall and thin. Unlike you, some of us are short and wide. Like you, some of us have spouses, families, and children. Unlike you, some of us are still single. Like you, we are Christians. Unlike you, we are gay and lesbian and bisexual and transgender.

Your and Senator Clinton’s voting and legislative records are for the most part identical on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues and are generally supportive of basic GLBT civil, social, and legal rights and protections. Although both you and Senator Clinton decline to support gay marriage per se, it is your statements on this issue that seem alienating, divisive, and uninformed and that subtly contribute to the persistence of one of this country’s worst forms of religious persecution and social bigotry. Even the possibility that you and your platform -- wittingly or unwittingly -- may contribute to the perpetuation of bigotry and prejudice in any way against anyone is, to our sensibilities, unthinkable.

While you are careful to appear to uphold and defend the GLBT community’s basic safety and legal rights, in a March 25, 2007, Chicago Tribune story that referenced comments you made during your 2004 run for the U.S. Senate, you led off your objections to gay marriage with the statement “I'm a Christian” [see below for full context of quote]. On its own as a part of your personal profile or in answer to a query about your personal beliefs, this statement is both appropriate and informative. But linked to your objections about gay marriage and by extension the gay lifestyle, it serves to entrench modern attitudes of religion-based bigotry and persecution and effectively implies that “gay” and “Christian” are mutually exclusive. This is not only wrong and uninformed but also flies in the face of the most basic Christian values and beliefs of unconditional love and acceptance. There are over 500,000 GLBT Christians attending over 200 churches like my church, Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles, as well as hundreds of similar open and affirming churches all over America and around the world. We do not believe that you or anyone in thought, word, belief, or action can separate us from our religion, our faith, and our rightful place within the heart and love of Jesus Christ.

[...]

You and your presidential campaign are living proof of an evolution in the consciousness of a nation. We are living proof of an evolution unfolding in human consciousness: namely, the awareness that love transcends gender as surely as race and that spirit is not contained by black or white or male or female or any other characteristic of human condition or appearance. As this nation’s first truly viable African-American candidate for president, you must lead the way against bigotry and prejudice by all names and in all forms.

Mr. Obama, you have clearly stated your reluctance to allow your private religious beliefs to shape your public policy. This is wise in theory but difficult in practice, because while you are free to interpret your personal religious beliefs in any way you choose, as a talented orator you realize that words are powerful and can also crucially shape both public policy and public opinion. This letter is not an attempt to change your personal opinions or religious beliefs on this or any other issue, but it is an invitation for you to reexamine your spoken expressions and public statements toward a segment of Americans about whom you clearly evidence a lack of knowledge and experience. Can we be gay? Can we be Christian? Perhaps now, Mr. Obama, you may be a bit more aware of the possibilities and the answer that must include us all in your visionary new world: Yes, We Can.

Sincerely,

Ann Canas, one of over a half million worldwide members of the Christian GLBT Community

Los Angeles

 

Ann Canas is a freelance writer, producer, actor, and media host in Los Angeles (www.anncanas.com). She and her partner are members of the Metropolitan Community Church Los Angeles (www.mccla.org).

[jw]

Italy: Gay Rights To Suffer With Berlusconi Victory

Link: 365Gay.com

Excerpt:

Italy has tilted to right with Silvio Berlusconi triumphing in parliamentary election.

Bolstered by right-wing allies - an anti-immigrant party and a former neo-fascist grouping - the 71-year-old media magnate emerged from the election with a generous majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

[...]

The election is expected to result in a hard line with Italy's LGBT community.

The gay-friendly government of Romano Prodi was defeated in January and Prodi was replaced as leader of the left-of-center coalition by Walter Veltroni.

Prodi was sunk when the Senate voted 161-156 to defeat his coalition. The crisis began when the small but key Christian Democrat party which is aligned with the Vatican pulled out of the coalition - in large part due to Prodi's support for same-sex civil partnerships.

The Senate vote ended a fiery session which was rife with homophobic epithets from conservatives. One senator was spat on, fainted and was carried out on a stretcher. 

Last fall a proposed bill to grant civil partnerships for gay couples was shelved in a last ditch effort to keep the support of the Christian Democrats but the small party split anyway when some coalition members said they would introduce the partnership measure anyway.

With the defeat of the government the bill died, but Veltroni had indicated if he were elected he would bring back the bill.

The civil partnership legislation would have allowed same-sex couples to sign a civil registry and then share pensions, health insurance, enter into contracts, and permit them to be considered the same as married couples for public housing.

Berlusconi, who lost to Prodi in 2006, is a frequent guest at the Vatican and is a staunch opponent of LGBT rights.

In 2004, during his last stint as Prime Minister Berlusconi's handpicked man to be the European Union's human rights chief was rejected by an EU committee after Rocco Buttiglione called homosexuality "a sin" and that marriage existed ``to allow women to have children and to have the protection of a male.''

Reacting to the EU move, Berlusconi cabinet minister launched into a homophobic tirade. "Poor Europe: the faggots are in the majority," Mirko Tremaglia declared.

[jw]

CA: Opinion--Governor is not a true believer on marriage issue

Link: Sacramento Bee
by Daniel Weintraub

Excerpt:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's announcement last week that he would oppose a ballot measure reaffirming California's ban on same-sex marriage delighted gay-rights activists and infuriated social conservatives, who accused him of flip-flopping on the issue.

But Schwarzenegger's stand appears to reflect his long-standing ambivalence over an issue on which so many people in politics feel so strongly. Based on everything he has said since he was first a candidate for governor, Schwarzenegger does not really seem to care whether California legalizes gay marriage or not, whatever his personal feelings on the subject might be.

The Republican governor has always said that he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. But he has never been adamant about his stand.

It is simply not an issue on which he chooses to try to lead.

Schwarzenegger has supported state-sanctioned domestic partnerships that give gays almost all of the rights that married people have. And while he has said the state and local governments must abide by the voter-approved ban on gay marriage known as Proposition 22, the governor also has said he would not be upset if the voters or the courts legalized same-sex marriage in California.

[...]

If the Supreme Court does strike down Proposition 22 and the voters do not reinstate the ban, Schwarzenegger will be put in an uncomfortable position. The Democrat-controlled Legislature is sure to pass another measure legalizing gay marriage in the state, and the governor would no longer have the voters' will as a shield. He would have to either sign or veto the bill on its own merits.

And there is some reason to believe that Schwarzenegger, if finally forced to confront the issue, might then change his long-stated position.

Two of the governor's top aides are gay, and both are in long-term, committed relationships. And he has noted in the past that, as time goes on, he thought that people would "be feeling more comfortable with the idea of domestic partnership and also marriage."

Is he feeling more comfortable with the idea?

"I have always been much more open-minded about all of those things than maybe other people have," he told interviewer Chris Matthews in 2005.

Schwarzenegger's open-minded stance on the issue is exactly what seems to bother people on both sides.

[jw]

Analysis: "The Great California Gay Marriage Shift"

Link: The Huffington Post
by Ryan J. Davis

Excerpt:

The fight for gay marriage in California has been a tough one during the last decade. In 2000, Proposition 22 was passed by 62% of the state's voters, limiting marriage to a man and a women. Its since been sent to the State's Supreme Court. Gov. Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed Gay Marriage Bills sent to him by the California Legislature, the second as recently as last year. "He will uphold whatever the court decides," Schwarzenegger spokeswoman Margita Thompson said after the bill's original passing.

Fearing the court's decision, the Family Research council has launched a ballot initiative for a Constitutional Amendment against Gay Marriage in California. "After oral arguments in the case, it appears very likely that the majority of judges on California's highest court will rule against the current meaning of marriage, opening up God's ordained institution to same-sex couples," they said in a March fundraising email.

Sources wishing to remain anonymous in the California Court System indicate that the court, which has until June 2, 2008 to issue it's marriage ruling, is considering issuing it on Friday, May 23, 2008, with the decision being written by Chief Justice Ronald George. The Court is readying itself for a backlash that may follow the rumored and bold decision. There is talk that the Court will not simply strike down Proposition 22, but will move the State of California toward full marriage, if not even granting full marriage rights for gays and lesbians outright.

Obviously aware of what's coming, Gov. Schwarzenegger came out swinging against the FRC's proposed amendment, "I will always be there to fight against that," he said to huge applause this weekend at a Log Cabin Republican Convention in San Diego. He went so far as to call the initiative a "waste of time" and acknowledge that the people of California are, "much further along on that issue." The latest Field Poll shows only 51% of Californians oppose full gay marriage, an 11 point drop since 2000.

There seems little doubt that California is moving toward full gay marriage equality.

[...]

[jw]

WA: Opinion--State's gay Republicans fine with McCain

Link: Seattle Post-Intelligencer
by Haidn E. Foster

Excerpt:

The log cabin is a tricky place -- gay Republicans often must temper their party allegiance or risk self-ostracizing. Thanks to Washington's civil union bill signed March 12, however, conservative gay partners not only have a host of new rights but a new lease on their vote come November.

Rudy Giuliani began as the obvious favorite among Log Cabin Republicans, a gay wing of the Republican Party. Unafraid of rooming with a gay couple -- as he did following the separation from his second wife -- or dressing in drag, the sexually confident former mayor was supported by many of the party's gay members.

Then White House aspirations started looking viable, and Giuliani did an about-face redolent of Dick Cheney. Having signed a 1997 bill granting rights to domestic partners in New York, Giuliani came out last year against New Hampshire's law allowing same-sex civil unions. Log Cabin backing petered off, and Giuliani ended up withdrawing from the race. With no other party candidate in support of gay rights, Sen. Barack Obama appeared the only semi-palatable alternative.

Still Obama and his politics of change are not what many on the right -- gay or otherwise -- are looking for. A conservative in the Oval Office, one who would not quash gay liberties, would be ideal. Washington's gay Republicans should thus feel free to vote for Sen. John McCain.

McCain is not a defender of gay rights. While he called efforts to institute a nationwide ban on gay marriage "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," his objection was to the reach, not content, of the amendment. McCain knows what it means to be a Republican and will not impose national legislation on issues that ought to be left to the states. Yet he does support state bans of gay marriage and civil unions, backing measures to that effect in California and his home state of Arizona.

For Washingtonians, though, McCain is a viable contender. This state has shown its broadmindedness through passage of the new civil union bill, and it is unlikely McCain's influence would or could push through legislation in Washington that would further hamper gay rights. Consequently McCain would be a wholly rational choice for president, if only for those living in Washington and, ironically, other similarly liberal states.

Those aiming to further the gay agenda should vote Democrat this election. With new rights in hand and the choice of a party candidate who would not additionally impede their liberties, however, Washington's Log Cabin constituency has never had so much freedom.

 

Haidn Ellis Foster is a freelance writer living in Seattle.

Response from Annie Wagner on The Stranger's blog:

Normally I don’t like picking on lonely guest columnists in the P-I, but this is just too rich.

I’m used to Log Cabin Republicans saying economic policy matters more to them than social issues—or, say, that they’re strong supporters of the second amendment, or are terrified terrorists are going to blow us all to bits. That’s cool. One form of self-interest (lower taxes, rights for gun owners, paranoia) is outweighing another (the right to personal lives that are formally respected and not criminalized by society).

But this is just too much.

[...]

Now self-interest can twine with self-interest in a symphony of “Oh, so you live in that unenlightened shithole? OK, fuck you!” Washington’s Democratic state legislature and Democractic governor passed a domestic partnership bill, and that means you, secure in your own rights, have the luxury of voting for a Republican president? That is the most selfish rationalization I’ve heard all year.

[jw]

McCain More Conservative Than His Image

Link: The Associated Press

Excerpt:

The independent label sticks to John McCain because he antagonizes fellow Republicans and likes to work with Democrats.

But a different label applies to his actual record: conservative.

The likely Republican presidential nominee is much more conservative than voters appear to realize. McCain leans to the right on issue after issue, not just on the Iraq war but also on abortion, gay rights, gun control and other issues that matter to his party's social conservatives.

The four-term Arizona senator, a longtime member of the Armed Services Committee, criticized the earlier handling of the war but has been a crucial ally in President Bush's effort to increase and maintain U.S. forces in Iraq.

Besides the war, McCain agrees broadly with Bush and other conservatives on:

[...]

Gay rights. McCain opposes gay marriage. True, he does not support a federal ban on gay marriage on grounds the issue traditionally has been decided by states. But McCain worked to ban gay marriage in Arizona. He also supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and he opposed legislation to protect gay people from job discrimination or hate crimes.

"I'm proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state constitution and to protect the sanctity of marriage as between a man and woman," he told CNN in March. "I will continue to advocate for those fundamental principals of our party and our faith."

[...]

[jw]

Italy: Two main parties in Italian general elections

Link: news.xinhuanet.com

Excerpt:

Italy will hold general elections Sunday and Monday, with 32 candidates running for prime minister.

Two-time premier Silvio Berlusconi, who heads the center-right People of Freedom party (PDL), and former Rome mayor Walter Veltroni, leader of the center-left Democratic Party (PD), are the two main contenders for the post.

[...]

The PD was created in October 2007 by the merging of the two biggest parties on the center-left: the Democratic Left, the main heir of the Italian Communist Party; and the Daisy, a party of centrists and left-leaning Catholics.

The party promises incentives to boost competitiveness particularly for small-to-medium sized firms.

The PD is also committed to "promoting" the legal recognition of the rights of unmarried and same-sex couples and introducing living wills.

[...]

[km]

New York Gov. David Paterson vows "to push on until we bring full marriage equality to New York state"

Link: Out in New York City

Excerpt:

New York Gov. David Paterson addressed a standing-room-only audience at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force's New York Leadership Awards last night, in which he was honored for his longstanding work on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights.

"Held hostage" to the Albany budget process, Paterson sent an extraordinary message via video to the assembled crowd. Remembering that this year commemorates the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and remembering King's legacy of "his ability to go beyond the issues of his neighborhood," Paterson urged "New York's civil rights leaders to recognize that the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities deserve equal rights as well."

The governor said he was "proud to have run on a ticket that advocated for marriage equality and to win on that premise." Underscoring the remarkable triumph of the passage of the marriage equality bill in the New York State Assembly, Paterson reiterated that more people understand "that when people love each other they should be able to express it in every way that they deem necessary and possible and they should have all the rights that the rest of us have."

He vowed "to push on until we bring full marriage equality to New York state" and promised to fight for an end to bullying in schools, for transgender rights and for affordable health care for everyone. 

[...]

[jw]

Ecuador: President Correa falls into political trap, accedes to right-wing demands, says gay couples deserve some rights

Link: Blabbeando
by Andrés Duque
 

Full text by permission.

Excerpt:

Last week, US-based conservative religious web portal LifeSite posted an article championing Ecuadorian Assemblymember Rosanna Queirolo and her efforts "to preserve family values in the nation's constitution" ("Famous Model and TV Announcer Wins Battle to Protect Life and Family Values in Ecuadoran Constitution," April 1, 2008).

Queirolo had launched a well-publicized effort to remove anti-gay discrimination protections from Ecuador's constitution and to eliminate any access to abortion in a country that already bans them except in  cases of rape or incest (it was those "in case of" instances that she also wanted to eliminate in part by establishing that life should be recognized by the constitution at conception instead of at birth).

She was soon joined by a few colleagues and by members of the Ecuadorian religious right who took to the streets to demand further changes to the constitution including access to ex-gay treatments for gays who wanted to be "cured," a ban on the official recognition of any partnership that was not between a man and a woman, and the inclusion of God's name in the magna carta.

Initially there were rumors that Queirolo would be censured by her political party, PAIS, particularly for statements made on the Assembly floor linking gays to pedophiles.

In addition, President Rafael Correa [left] used his weekly radio show to categorically deny that he'd let the constitutional re-drafting process be entangled in these issues claiming that 1) The issue of same-sex marriage was a non-issue since the gay community wasn't asking for marriage and the government already had established that marriages could only be between a man and a woman; 2) Similarly, that abortion was also not a constitutional matter and that the country already had laws banning abortion and was respecting "life;" and 3) That including the word "God" in the constitution would discriminate against people who had religions other than Christian as well as atheists.

President Correa says he fell into a political trap, accedes to some right-wing demands, but still says that the rights of same sex couples should be recognized: Since my last post on the issue, there has been a change in fortunes.

For one, instead of censuring Queirolo, the PAIS party released a 6-point official position paper on April 1st which seemed to cave in to some of the demands by the religious right.

Among those positions: 

• The preamble to the Constitution will include the name of God and the diverse forms of religiosity, spirituality and beliefs of Ecuadorians in an ecumenical manner
• The new Constitution will guarantee life. And will recognize and protect it in all phases, including care and protection from conception
• The State will strengthen families as the nucleus of society. Marriage will remain as the union of a man and a woman, recognizing civil unions

There are caveats but, in short, PAIS, which happens to be the party affiliation of the President, pretty much embraced some of the language that the right wing had demanded. They did close by also stating that "Nobody will be discriminated based on their sexual orientation."

On his radio show on Saturday President Correa admitted that he'd fallen into a political trap.

Ecuador Inmediato reports that Correa characterized the 5-hour meeting that led to the release of the PAIS statement as time spent on matters that did not have any "transcendence." He said that he personally still believed that the word God should stay out of the Constitution but admitted that it would now be included. He made a pledge to continue allowing "therapeutic abortions" in the case where a doctor deemed it necessary to save a woman's life or "in case of sexual violations." And, on the issue of same-sex partners he said that he would fight to guarantee certain legal rights of common law partnerships although he stopped short of saying whether those same-sex common law partnerships themselves would be recognized (not sure if any form of partnership between same-sex couples would be recognized if the constitution ends up enshrining the family as the nucleus of society and only recognizing family as being constituted by that conformed between a man and a woman).

"Let's not continue to play the right wing's game," Correa said, "let's not fall into their traps any longer, let's discuss the topics that should really be included in the Constitution, let's keep working."

Queirolo, for her part and having done the damage, promptly announced on April 2nd that she would be leaving the PAIS political party, according to El Comercio, although she made a commitment to follow through on making sure that the changes she championed made it to the final version of the Constitution.

[jw]

AZ: Initiative wants anti-bias law to include sexual orientation

Link: www.azstarnet.com

Excerpt:

PHOENIX — A state legislator started a petition drive Friday to forbid all employers from discriminating against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender individuals. 

Existing law prohibits discrimination based on a number of factors, including sex. The initiative by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, would define that term to also include gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation. 

Sinema needs 153,365 signatures by July 3 to put the issue on the November ballot. 

The legislator, who describes herself as bisexual, said she intends to start gathering signatures immediately. 

But Sinema said she will abandon her petition drive if supporters of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages drop their effort to put that issue on the November ballot. That, however, isn't likely to happen. 

Ron Johnson, who lobbies on behalf of the state's three Catholic bishops, said he and other supporters of the marriage amendment are "not prepared to give up," even after one version of their measure died in the state House Thursday. 

"Just hearing that an initiative was filed today on some other matter really isn't going to affect that," he said. 

Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, also said she intends to push ahead with trying to get lawmakers to put the marriage amendment on the ballot. "No deal," she said. 

"The people of Arizona need to decide the definition of marriage and put it in our state Constitution," Herrod said. "We don't compromise on an issue like marriage between one man and one woman." 

Sinema said that's fine with her. She said the law needs to be changed anyway. 

"Right now, not all workers are protected under Arizona law," she said. 

Current law makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against workers and applicants based on race, religion, sex, age, disability or national origin. By providing a statutory definition of "sex" beyond gender, Sinema's initiative would expand the protections of that law. 

"So today, there are people who are hard workers, who have great qualifications and great talents, who could be fired from their job simply because of who they are," she said. 

But Herrod, whose organizational goals include "restoring traditional principles" to public policy, said the people who are not covered by state law now should not gain the same legal protections as others. 

"The proposed initiative would protect individuals on the basis of behavior," she said. 

[...]

[km]

McCain won't fight platform on abortion, gays

Link: The Washington Times

Excerpt:

Advisers to Sen. John McCain's presidential bid say he will not try to "soften" the Republican party's platform on abortion and same-sex marriage to appeal to more voters.

McCain associates told The Washington Times that his operatives are not going to work behind the scenes to eliminate the party's calls for constitutional bans on abortion and homosexual marriage before the GOP convention in September.

Previous Republican nominees, such as former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, have sought to alter the party's positions, which are honed and released in the platform immediately before the nominating convention.

[...]

[jw]

Think Evangelicals Vote in Lockstep? Meet the Routhe Family

Link: Campaigns and Elections

Excerpt:

Like the families they grew up in,  Aaron and Ginny Routhe are devout evangelical Christians. Like his parents and hers, they also consider themselves pro-life. But where that's led them politically comes as a bit of a shock to their staunchly Republican elders. "It is generational; the way we view the Gospel is more well-rounded-or we see it that way," laughs Ginny, 33, who runs an eco-friendly diaper business while her husband works on a graduate degree at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. "We vote Democratic, and our parents say, ‘How could you vote for abortion?' But pro-life for us is more holistic, more all of life and all of the environment-endangered species, and not just the human species." Which is why she and her husband cast their ballots for Barack Obama in the Tennessee primary, while Aaron's parents, Scott and Carol Routhe, went with Mike Huckabee in New Hampshire's first round of voting (and plan to support John McCain in the fall). And it's why listening to the four of them talk about how their common faith informs their quite different political choices explains so much about the growing divide between older and younger evangelical voters.

Among younger evangelicals, views are changing so quickly that the trends of 2004 have literally been turned upside down. In a report called, "Young White Evangelicals: Less Republican, Still Conservative," Dan Cox of the Pew Research Center writes that while white evangelicals overwhelmingly chose George W. Bush over John Kerry that year-and at that point, younger evangelicals were even more supportive of the president than older believers were -that's no longer the case. In the years since, white evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 "have become increasingly dissatisfied with Bush and are moving away from the GOP," according to Cox. Just since 2005, Republican affiliation among young evangelicals has slipped from 55 percent to 40 percent, with the Democrats picking up 5 percent and the other 10 percent becoming independent or unaffiliated.

[...]

Another factor is that so many Christian college students have been changed by their experience helping victims of poverty and natural catastrophe. For some, it was volunteering in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. For others, it was a spring break trip to a Third World country, now a common rite of passage for evangelical youth. "These short-term mission trips to Haiti or Mexico-maybe they were pretty cheesy and [everyone was] painting the same orphanage year after year, but  they also gave kids the chance to see poverty firsthand," says Peter Ilyan, who describes himself as a Christian environmental evangelist, and runs a nonprofit called Restoring Eden. "So now when James Dobson says it's only gay marriage and abortion we should care about? One of our jokes is that gay married couples have the fewest abortions of anybody." There's also been a shift away from consumerism, and towards celebrating Christmas more simply (motto: "Worship the baby, resist the empire").

[...]

Like a lot of people, Ginny deals with the differences by avoiding political discussions with her relatives in Ohio. Aaron, however, has only recently begun to have those tricky conversations. "My mom e-mailed me and said, ‘How can you as a Christian advocate for abortion?' But I think that's an unfair question. And another question was about gay marriage, and to me it was poorly worded. They talk about how America is or should be a Christian nation, and I have no expectation of that."

[...]

[jw]

MTVU Calls Out Bill Clinton on DoMA

Link: Visible Vote 08

Excerpt:

Remember back when MTV asked Bill Clinton such frivolous questions like “boxers or briefs”? Well, that was then and this is now.

As Bill Clinton campaigns on behalf of Hillary, young audiences are still challenging the former President, but on more weighty matters, such as the Clinton political legacy. The students over at MTVU sat down with Bill to talk about this current campaign, the Clinton Global Initiative and that comment Melissa Etheridge made about the Clintons “throwing the gay community under a bus.” Yep, they’re not playing.

Watch the exchange, and go to MTVU for more. Bill gets fired up! And the MTVU crew stays on him. It’s good stuff.

[...]

[jw]

Obama: Campaigns using gays to divide electorate, ignore big problems

Link: PageOneQ

Excerpt:

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), speaking to rally attendees in Medford, Oregon on Saturday, took issue with how recent political campaigns have used wedge issues to divide the electorate, but have ultimately done little to make a real difference, especially when there are more important things to worry about.

"I mean, think about what these