NEW YORK STATE SENATORS THREATENED BY NOM

The infamous National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which has been using sleazy, underhanded tactics to prevent gay marriages throughout the country, has now focused its attentions on New York State Senators.

In a desperate, reprehensible and legally questionable attempt to intimidate, terrorize and coerce New York State Senators, NOM (remember the video "Gathering Storm?" - they made it) is now threatening to fund GOP challengers to any Senator that votes for the gay marriage bill. They sent a fund raising letter to all of their followers which included the following threat:

"The first $500,000 raised by NOM PAC New York will be used to fund a primary challenger to any GOP state senator in New York who votes for gay marriage."

Although they didn't send this letter to any of the senators directly, they knew that its message would make its way to every senator now considering the NY state gay marriage bill. And that is clearly their intent. They want them to think that if they vote for this legislation, NOM would provide substantial funding to any GOP challenger.

That's a serious threat that could be intimidating enough to dissuade GOP senators who have either already expressed support for the bill or are still undecided but are leaning towards its passage.

If this isn't outright intimidation and coercion of duly elected government officials then what is. I would hope that New York's Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is at least investigating this latest attempt by NOM to threaten and terrorize elected officials for the sole purpose of affecting policy.

One thing that would take the sails of out this terrorist-like effort by NOM would be for a group of fair minded individuals or organizations who have, or can raise, this kind of capital to step up to the plate and pledge to those senators who vote for the gay marriage legislation that they will match any donations that NOM contributes to the opponents of those senators.

This kind of action would put an immediate end to NOM's sleazy campaign. Or, at the very least, re-level the playing field and render NOM impotent.

If you think this is a good idea, talk it up to your friends, families and acquaintances. If they aren't able to contribute, they may know people who can.

EXCELLENT ARGUMENTS AGAINST BIGOTED LIES & DISTORTIONS

I ran across the following video, titled "Talking Equality," at the Feast Of Fools website. It was posted by FOF member Wesley from California and it's an excellent repudiation of the lies and gross distortions that the fanatic right-wing keeps trying to ram down people's throats.

Take a few minutes and watch this. It's definitely worth your time and it will give you some excellent talking points whenever someone tries to use those idiotic arguments around you.

BTW - I had some trouble getting this mounted so if the video doesn't play, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSTv7Xao93I

PROP 8 LAWYERS SPEAK OUT

If you've been following my last two posts, you know that the California Supreme Court let Prop 8 stand but still allowed marriages already performed to be valid and legal. Confusing? Of course. Contradictory? You bet. But because of the way the ruling was worded, the path to future gay marriages in California is still wide open.

On one hand, they made it clear that they were forced to rule only on the legality of Prop 8 being on the ballot but, on the other, they also made it clear that some gay marriages can remain legal which immediately sets up the dichotomous conflict of the same basic citizen right being both legal and illegal in the same state. That kind of legal conundrum can only be finally decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is exactly what's about to happen.

If you saw my article yesterday, you already know that two of the nation's top legal minds who have both argued before the Supreme Court have agreed to act as co-councils in the lawsuit filed by the American Foundation for Equal Rights.

Ted Olson and David Boies argued against each other in the now infamous 2000 Bush v. Gore presidential election Supreme Court case that was watched and scrutinized by virtually the entire world. Earlier this week they appeared on Larry King to discuss their reasons for taking on this historic case. Below is the video of that interview:

The only thing I'm very concerned about with this action is the make-up of our current Supreme Court. Even with the addition of Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor who will replace Justice David Souter, the court will still have the same ideological make-up.

However, even given that, I am still very hopeful that at least one or two of the other justices will vote in favor of this simple and very clear-cut case of civil rights.

Who knows, maybe we'll luck out and Obama will be able to appoint another justice before this case reaches the court. Stranger things have happened.

PROPOSITION 8 HEADED TO U.S. SUPREME COURT

As expected, Tuesday's decision allowing California's Proposition 8 to stand is now, officially, headed to the United States Supreme Court.

According the transcript of a press conference held yesterday and posted at Box Turtle Bulletin, Chad Griffin, board chairman of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, announced that they have filed a lawsuit in the federal courts against the state of California. In addressing the press conference crowd, Griffin said:

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling that had a profound effect on California gays and lesbians. We saw thousands of people take to the streets last night to express their sadness, grief and dismay at the court’s failure to protect their fundamental rights. But yesterday’s ruling had an even more profound impact. It signaled to gay Americans across this nation that we are not viewed as equal in the eyes of the law. To every American whose rights are being denied, we’re here to say this fight is not over and we will win.

We’re taking this fight to the federal courts in order to protect the equal rights guaranteed to every American by the United States Constitution. Our courts exist to protect our rights when they are violated, and we are prepared to go all the way to the United States Supreme Court to find justice.

We are acting now because as Dr. King said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” For even one couple to live through one more day of state-sanctioned second-class citizenship is one day too many.

The seriousness of this effort is underscored by the stature and reputation of the two attorneys who have agreed to act as co-councils for this action.

Both are seasoned professionals who have argued before the Supreme Court in what is probably the highest profile and most contentious political battle in the history of our country.

Ted Olson and David Boies are the two attorneys who argued against each other in the now infamous Bush v. Gore Supreme Court case that was watched and scrutinized by virtually the entire world. According to Griffin, these two outstanding attorneys are working together to fight this historic civil rights battle because "they share an abiding belief that all Americans are guaranteed equal protection under the law, and are guaranteed the right to marry the person they love."

Ted Olson said at the press conference;

The case we filed on behalf of the individuals that you see before you today is not about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. We’re here, in part, to symbolize that. This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States constitution.

David Boies followed by saying;

Our constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law. There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love and to raise a family.

The courts exist to reverse injustices. The purpose of our constitution and the purpose of our court system is to make sure that the promise of our constitution is extended to every American. That’s what this lawsuit is about.

I just hope that when this case does reach the Supreme Court there are enough justices seated at that time who will agree that this is, indeed, a case of equal justice and equal treatment under the law. Hopefully, Obama will be able to replace at least one of the extreme rightist with someone more attuned to the true intents of our founding fathers.

Since Sotomayor's appointment would keep the balance the same, it does seem that my hope is a pie-in-the-sky dream because at least one of those extremists would have to die or resign before then. Would it be wrong to say I'm keeping my fingers crossed?

CA SUPREME COURT RULES - BAD NEWS/GOOD NEWS

A couple of hours ago the California Supreme Court announced it's rulings on Proposition 8 and the validity of the marriages already performed.

The bad news is that they ruled in favor of upholding the infamous Proposition 8. A News Release from the court stated:

The 136-page majority opinion notes at the outset that the court’s role is not to determine whether Proposition 8 “is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should be a part of the California Constitution,” but rather “is limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values.”

The court ruled that Prop 8 didn't constitute a "revision" of the state's constitution because it only addressed a narrow definition of the term "marriage" but didn't prohibit legally established same-sex relationships...

Instead, it carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.

On one hand it sounds like they're saying that their ruling doesn't preclude legal, same-sex relationships as long as the word "marriage" isn't used. And that the ruling doesn't necessarily represent their own, personal feelings about the amendment itself.

It's almost as if their words embody a strongly implied encouragement for us to pursue the legalization of our relationships under any other name than "marriage." Unfortunately, that brings us right back to the "separate but equal" conundrum. And that, to me, is a totally unacceptable option. We've seen how easily legal "civil unions" can be dismissed by homophobic medical and legal professionals and scores of businesses simply by the phrase "well, you're not really married" so they feel they're legally free to ignore our relationships. After all, the laws and regulations do say "married couples" this and "married couples" that.

The good news in this debacle is that the court did uphold the legality of the 18,000+ marriages already performed before Prop 8 passed. The elephant-in-the-room on that one though is the question of how difficult is it going to be for these couples to convince those same homophobes that their marriages are legal when the only thing all these people are going to remember in their tiny little minds is that the court upheld Prop 8.

That aside however, I DO CONGRATULATE those who were "married" and wish each and everyone of them the happy and fulfilling lives they seek.

Obviously, the battle is far from over in California.

If you would like to read the press release or the opinions themselves, go to:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/
They can be downloaded in either PDF or WORD formats.

DEMONSTRATIONS TONIGHT...
As I reported yesterday, there are going to be demonstrations in cities around the country tonight.

IN PHOENIX:
Rally at 6pm on 7th Avenue at Camelback in the lot next to Charlie's.

IN TUCSON:
Rally at 6:30pm in Catalina Park (1st St. & 4th Ave.)

FOR ALL OTHER LOCATIONS:
Go to: DayOfDecision.com

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT TO ANNOUNCE THEIR DECISIONS ON PROPOSITION 8

Today is Harvey Milk's birthday. He would have been 79. There are candlelight vigils planned for this evening from Sacramento all the way down to San Diego to commemorate this day. Queers United has posted the specifics for where and when each of these vigils will take place.

So how appropriate is it then that the California Supreme Court also published a notice today that their decisions on the three cases challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 will be filed at 10:00am (pacific time) next Tuesday, May 26th?

After a long 3 month wait, we're finally going to find out whether we're going to have celebrations or demonstrations. This has been one of the most closely guarded decisions the court has ever issued. No one on the court or in their offices has leaked any information that might give a clue about those decisions so no one, outside of the court, is really sure which way they'll go.

Here in Phoenix (as well as across the country) a Day Of Decision action is planned for Tuesday evening. John Allard, who works with Marriage Equality and Day Of Decision, said this morning:

I'm thrilled that the California Supreme Court gave us an entire three day weekend to spread the word that DAY OF DECISION will be TUESDAY, MAY 26. In PHOENIX we will rally at 6pm Tuesday evening on 7th Avenue at Camelback, next to Charlie's. Please spread the word about this over the holiday weekend. It is important that we mobilize a large number of people in response to this decision.
See you TUESDAY!

If you would like to know where and when an action is planned in your area, go to: DayOfDecision.com

Looks like this is going to be a very long weekend.

KEITH OLBERMANN SLAMS RNC's MICHAEL STEELE

Michael Steele, the current Chairman of the Republican Party, made another incredibly lame but valiant attempt to redefine his party's opposition to gay marriage without resorting to hateful, homophobic bigotry. Unfortunately, his argument made absolutely no sense.

According to a Box Turtle Bulletin report, while speaking at the National Rifle Association's 138th Annual Meetings & Exhibits last Friday (May 15th), Steele said:

Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.

Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”

Now I could go into all the reasons why this is such a stupid argument but, as usual, Keith Olbermann did it in a far more entertaining way. Here's what Keith had to say:



I love this guy!

MAINE JOINS THE MARRIAGE MARCH

As I reported briefly yesterday, Maine's House of Representatives passed gay marriage legislation (LD 1020) by a vote of 89 to 58.

This follows last week's Senate approval and earlier this morning Governor John Baldacci enthusiastically signed the bill despite much speculation that he might not sign it because of his previously stated beliefs about marriage and his expressed support for Civil Unions instead.

Prior to the vote, Balducci took the unusual step of personally calling two married, straight constituents who suported gay marriage. They had emailed him expressing their concern that he might be planning to abdicate his responsibilities by not signing the bill and simply letting it go to a voter referendum this fall.

During the unexpected and lengthy phone conversation Balducci, in referring to the an open forum community discussion, said:

I was extremely impressed by the arguments for both sides, but especially by the proponents.

They were very respectful- I liked that they turned their backs when they disagreed.

I was truly impressed by the people who spoke for the bill.

I was opposed to this for a long time, but people evolve, people change as time goes by.

According to a report by LezGetReal.com, at the bill's signing, Balducci said “In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions. I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”

Main now becomes the 5th state to legalize gay marriages following Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont. It's also the second state to do this by legislative action and the first state to it without having to override a governor's veto.

California has to announce their decision on the legality of Prop 8 by June 6th so we could be hearing about that any day now.

Box Turtle Bulletin reports the current state-by-state status as follows:

Colorado – The legislature passed a Designated Beneficiary Agreement Act, which has been signed by the Governor.

Illinois – a bill has been introduced to enact Civil Unions. The bill is currently waiting for a House vote.

Nevada – The Senate passed a bill to provide Domestic Partnerships with all the rights and obligations of marriage. It will go before the Assembly Judiciary on Friday. The Governor has promised to veto the bill but some sources say that there will be a compromise crafted before the legislature disbands in a month.

New Hampshire – The House and Senate have both passed a marriage bill. The Senate version had specific religious protections that were not in the House bill. The House Judiciary has approved the changes and they will go before a House vote tomorrow. The Governor has stated that he is opposed to gay marriage in the past but has not addresses this specific bill.

Hopefully, Governor Balducci's signature on Maine's legislation will put enough pressure on New Hampshire's Governor John Lynch to follow suit.

New York – A marriage bill has been introduced in the house. Log Cabin Republicans announced that they have found additional Republican support in the House for marriage. Senate Majority Leader Smith will not bring marriage to a vote in the Senate until adequate votes will assure its passage, which probably means that four to six Republicans will need to be convinced. Empire State Pride is doing polling in Republican districts and seeking to give them assurance that a vote for equality will not result in an election defeat.

Washington - a bill to upgrade the state’s Domestic Partnerships to provide all the rights and obligations of marriage has passed the Senate and House with large margins and will be signed by the Governor. A petition has been filed to put it to the voters.

District of Columbia – the Council voted to recognize out of state marriages. This bill will be signed by the Mayor and then Congress has 30 days to review and possibly overturn it by a majority vote in both houses and the signature of the President. A same-sex marriage bill is expected later this year.

Rhode Island is now the only New England state that doesn't have either same-sex marriage or civil unions. There are however, several bills before that state's legislature that could legalize one or the other of those two options.

As euphoric as all this is - and it is - it's likely that the momentum will begin to slow a bit as we come down to the more diehard conservative states.

Unless, of course, we get a couple of new Supreme Court Justices who will swing the balance away from hardcore ideology and back to fair and balanced equality. Then it could happen countrywide in one, quick swoop of the pen.

Wouldn't that be incredible!

BREAKING NEWS...
Maine's House of Representatives just passed legislation that legalizes gay marriage in the State of Maine.

The vote was 89 to 58 in favor of passage. The State Senate approved the measure last week so now the bill goes directly to Governor John Baldacci for his signature.

I'll have more on this in tomorrow's posting.

IOWANS START GAY MARRIAGES

This morning Melisa Keeton and Shelley Wolfe became the first legally married gay couple in the state of Iowa.

Although the new marriage law requires a 3 day waiting period after being granted a marriage license, Melisa and Shelley were able to successfully appeal that requirement earlier this morning and obtained a waiver from a local judge. The nuptials were performed by pastor Pat Esperanaza in a ceremony in front of the Polk County administrative offices in Des Moines.

Iowa also has no prohibition against out of state residents obtaining marriage licenses and getting married there. So, early this morning two Nebraskan women, Sarah Fentress and Bambi Smith, crossed into Iowa and were the first people in line at the Pottawattamie County Courthouse. They arrived around 6:15 a.m. and waited almost two hours for the Recorder Department to open for business.

“We’re very excited to be here,” Fentress said. “It means a lot to us, our children, our family as a whole.”

According to the Lincoln Journal Star:

The people waiting in line cheered at 8 a.m., when George Farrage, first deputy recorder, came out of the office with the signed Iowa Supreme Court order that states the Iowa statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman violates the equal protection clause of the Iowa Constitution.

“Let’s go,” Smith said eagerly.

Fentress said she and Smith realized they were not Iowans, and their marriage would not be valid back in Nebraska.

“Maybe one day we’ll get sick of it and move to Iowa,” she said.

An AP story posted at Yahoo News reported that:

The Iowa Supreme Court's unanimous and emphatic decision on April 3 made Iowa the third state to allow same-sex marriage, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Vermont passed a law that will take effect in September.

...The court issued an order Monday [today] confirming that the appeals process in the case has officially concluded.

Gay marriage opponents have no other legal options to appeal the case to the state or federal level because they were not parties to the lawsuit, and there is no federal issue raised in the case.

Their only recourse appears to be a constitutional amendment, which couldn't get on the ballot until 2012 at the earliest. A constitutional convention could be called earlier, but is unlikely.

CONGRATULATIONS to all of the Iowan newlyweds and to Iowa itself for showing such a strong and unequivocal commitment to justice and equality.

Oh, BTW - despite the strong-arm tactics of religious right-wingnuts who tried pressuring county recorders to join them and refuse to issue the new marriage licenses, there were no reports of even a single recorder refusing to issue the applications. Gay marriages - 1, wingnuts - 0!

CONNECTICUT LAWMAKERS MAKE GAY MARRIAGE OFFICIAL

Following last year's mandate from the Connecticut Supreme Court, lawmakers officially wrote gay marriage into the laws of the state.

Wednesday's vote, which passed 28-7 in the senate and 100-44 in the house, officially redefines marriage as being "the legal union of two people" instead of the previous definition of "a union between a man and a woman."

According to an article in The Advocate yesterday, Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell will sign the bill even though she stands by her personal belief that marriage should be between opposite-sex partners.

Interestingly, there were last minute amendments approved and adopted that defined the constitutional rights of religions to, among other things, reserve recognition of those marriages only to those of which they approve. All of the rights that were approved are already guaranteed under the US Constitution and not contested by any gay marriage proponent. None the less, it was seized upon by the National Organization for Marriage (the group that brought you the infamous "A Gathering Storm") as a victory for their side.

Apparently, after the tsunami of ridicule over that video, NOM is so desperate to regain their credibility that they'll latch onto anything and try claiming it as a victory for themselves. Even if that so-called victory was never in contention to begin with.

As Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin explained it:

The language adopted by the State of Connecticut seems reasonable to me. It exempts churches, religious societies and other religious non-profits from “services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privileges” if the refusal is based on their objection to a marriage which is “in violation of their religious beliefs and faith”. It also exempts religious fraternal benefit societies (eg. the Knights of Columbus) to deny membership and insurance benefits. The third provision would exempt religious organizations from recognizing marriages for purposes of adoption, foster care and other social services provided that they don’t receive public funds for those services.

I have no objection to these provisions and I dare say that most gay folk are just fine with them as well.

Contrary to giving them back any credibility, NOM's hollow claim of victory makes them look even more pathetic and impotent.

In any case, CONGRATULATIONS TO CONNECTICUT!

GEARING UP IN MAINE

In an article posted this morning, 365gay.com reported that public hearings on legislation that would allow gay marriages will begin tomorrow (4/22/09) at the Augusta Civic Center.

Actually, there are three bills dealing with same-sex unions that will be up for discussion. One is to repeal Maine's own 12 year old version of a Defense of Marriage Law which, like the federal DOMA law, bans same-sex marriages outright. Another would make all state laws and statutes gender neutral. Both of these bills are sponsored by Democratic Senator Dennis S. Damon of Trenton.

Although no more than 10 lawmakers are normally allowed to sign on as co-sponsors of a bill, Senator Damon said that 50 others sought to have their names added to the marriage bill. So now the bill has 60 co-sponsors that, according to Damon, represent both Democrats and Republicans and come from Maine’s smallest towns and largest cities.

Senator Damon was elected to the Maine Senate in 2002 and is currently serving his fourth and final term so, of course, passage of these two bills would be a great way for him to end his career.

The third bill up for discussion was filed by Republican Representative Leslie Fossel and it would create a domestic-partner registry but keep the Defense of Marriage Law in place.

According to the article:

Advocates and opponents of same-sex marriage have crisscrossed the state in recent weeks, drumming up support for their prospective sides.

Maine’s tourism industry has said legalizing same-sex marriage in the state could save them from disaster as the state’s economy continues to turn sour.

Industry spokespeople pointed to a recent study by the Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles, that found extending marriage to same-sex couples would boost Maine’s economy by $60 million over three years, which would generate increases in state and local government tax and fee revenues by almost $3.6 million.

As expected, the very conservative Maine Marriage Alliance has threatened to press for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage outright if it looks like the bill is going to pass. If current trends continue however, the Alliance might find it a lot harder to just simply get the number of signatures needed to put that kind of amendment on the ballot.

Last November the Boston-based LGBT rights group, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), launched the “Six by Twelve” campaign to legalize gay marriage throughout all six New England states by 2012. GLAD mounted the successful legal challenges that lead to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and Connecticut. Wouldn't it be great if they succeeded ahead of schedule?

If Maine's bill passes and is signed into law, it would leave only New Hampshire and Rhode Island as the remaining two New England states without equal marriage laws.

Right now, marriage equality legislation has already passed the New Hampshire House and is currently before the Senate.

CHANGING TIDES IN GLBT STRUGGLES FOR JUSTICE

In the afterglow of dual victories in Vermont and Iowa, it seems that GLBT causes are finally taking on a whole new perspective.

Many who have long been identified with right wing ideologies and homophobic hate rants have recently begun to publicly alter their supposedly long-held beliefs to reflect everything from a "subtle" reworking of their past statements to outright admissions of defeat.

A couple of weeks ago I ran a story on well-known conservative pundit, Cal Thomas' opinion piece that outright said that the battle against gay marriage was now all but lost. Since then, the chorus has been growing exponentially.

On Saturday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich wrote a brilliant comprehensive and insightful opinion piece that started off by lambasting the sad and pathetic idiocy of the anti-gay marriage video released last week by the right wing group, National Organization for Marriage. The video intended to portray homosexuality as a national threat second only to terrorism.

In his piece, Mr. Rich said:

Far from terrifying anyone, “Gathering Storm” has become, unsurprisingly, an Internet camp classic. On YouTube the original video must compete with countless homemade parodies it has inspired since first turning up some 10 days ago.

Yet easy to mock as “Gathering Storm” may be, it nonetheless bookmarks a historic turning point in the demise of America’s anti-gay movement.

What gives the ad its symbolic significance is not just that it’s idiotic but that its release was the only loud protest anywhere in America to the news that same-sex marriage had been legalized in Iowa and Vermont. If it advances any message, it’s mainly that homophobic activism is ever more depopulated and isolated as well as brain-dead.

Rich's piece is well worth taking a couple of minutes to read in it's entirety.

Add to these declarations of the demise of the frenzied anti-gay campaigns, the following:

At the recent Log Cabin Republican convention, Steve Schmidt, chief campaign strategist for John McCain and senior advisor to George Bush, gave a 20 minute speech in which he voiced his unequivocal support for marriage equality and said that denigrating gay people in any way is “un-American.”

He went on to say:

“It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic national rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence: liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

“I believe, and I think most Americans believe, you are born with your sexuality -- it is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as un-American or undeserving of the government’s protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person; it is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice."

At the same convention, John McCain's wife and daughter, Cindy and Meghan, both made their support of gay marriage and GLBT rights in general very clear. In an opinion piece written for the Daily Beast, Meghan McCain, a strong supporter of gay marriage, said:

"Of all the causes I believe in and speak publicly about, this [gay marriage] is one of the ones closest to my hear. If the Republican Party has any hope of gaining substantial support from a wider, younger base, we need to get past our anti-gay rhetoric."

Also at that convention, former Republican Governor of New Jersey Christine Whitman called for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and for the Republican party to remove their opposition to same-sex marriage from the GOP platform.

Queers United reported:

She [Governor Whitman] argued that "civil marriage should be for everyone, and that gay couples marrying does not threaten her marriage". She went on to say that she respects that "there is a place for Conservative Christians in the party, but said that there should be a place for pro-equality Republicans as well".

Christine Whitman along with other moderate Republicans have created the Republican Leadership Council which seeks to get back to the fundamentals of the Republican party while striving for pro-LGBT, pro-choice, eco-friendly, and racial justice legislation.

Add to all of this the recent comments by the "previously" ultra homophobic Dr. Laura Schlessinger and the ambiguously confusing on-the-bandwagon/off-the-bandwagon, Pastor Rick Warren.

According to Box Turtle Bulletin, Schlessinger said on Larry King Live that committed gay and lesbian couples were a “beautiful thing,” totally contradicting all of her past statements. And Warren told Larry King, on a different show, that he “never once even gave an endorsement” of Proposition 8 which, of course, we all know is a flat-out lie.

Clearly Schlessinger and Warren both see the same writing on the wall and are now trying to remake their public images into the likenesses of today's emerging realities. They're not stupid (well, maybe Dr. Laura - a little), they both know that if they don't, their respective careers and healthy incomes will soon vanish.

This is all very heady, feel-good stuff BUT let's remember two very important things...

One - four states is only a beginning and you can bet that there are still A LOT of other right wingnut fanatics out there who aren't going to give up that easily. They're already raising money and planning strategies to defeat ANY pro-gay legislation that comes up anywhere in the country. And, they still have strong enough support to do exactly that if we let our guard down even a little.

And two - I've said this many times before but it needs to be repeated again because with the economic meltdown and the added pressures of so many people losing their jobs, there are more and more people running around out there who are already pushed to their emotional limits - please remember that the more we win, the more desperate and the more violent the unstable fanatic fringe will become - so, please, BE CAREFUL OUT THERE!!

IOWA SHOULD BE A BLUEPRINT FOR ALL GLBT CAUSES

The seemingly surprising victory in Iowa was actually a seven year long, brilliantly strategized campaign.

This morning, I read an interesting, Washington Post account of how the Iowa Supreme Court came to the unanimous decision to legalize gay marriage in the middle of our country's "heartland."

Against all odds and in defiance of many GLBT leaders who objected to pouring time, money and resources into a marriage equality fight in a staunchly conservative, unwinnable state, Camilla Taylor, a Chicago-based lawyer for the gay rights group Lambda Legal since 2002, stood by her beliefs.

Camilla, who is a straight, married mother, calls same-sex marriage "the civil rights cause of my generation." The 38-year-old Cleveland native and Columbia Law School graduate added, "I was brought up to think there's nothing more fulfilling than trying to achieve social change and do something right for society."

For seven years, Camilla traveled regularly from Chicago to Iowa to do research and lay the groundwork for her landmark case. When she immersed herself in Iowa's politics and history, she learned about its progressive past, including how the Hawkeye State was a pioneer in school desegregation, the first to admit a woman to its bar, and among the earliest to allow interracial marriage. The more she learned, the stronger she felt about Iowa being a winnable state. Even it's flag carried an encouraging motto: "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain."

According to the Post article,

Camilla and her colleagues crisscrossed Iowa meeting gay and lesbian couples and organizing workshops and panels on issues that concerned them. She usually spoke as part of a panel that might include community members or the parents of a gay or lesbian child. Her colleagues did the same.

Sometimes it was lonely in those early days, Taylor recalled. At one event, just seven people showed up.

By December 2005, three years after she took on the cause, Taylor decided the foundation in Iowa was set and she filed a case for six gay couples. She selected them strategically, finding those who were representative and picking a pair from every region of the state.

Following her carefully planned strategy, she chose local lawyer Dennis Johnson, a former solicitor general who was heading the litigation department at a prominent Des Moines firm to be her co-council.

She had never met Johnson before and she took a big risk in approaching him because she wanted to keep her plans to file a lawsuit a secret until she actually filed it.

"I had never heard of Lambda Legal, or her," Johnson said. "I had never been involved in gay rights at all." But he said his firm was always interested in having its lawyers do pro bono work, so he agreed to look at the case.

After deciding to take on the case as co-council and getting to know Camilla, Johnson was quoted as saying,

"I've never felt so strongly about a case in my entire career." He credits Taylor as the one who really got the case moving. "She came up with the strategy, she researched Iowa law, she was the primary author of all the briefs. . . . I think she wrote briefs as best as I've seen in my career.

Numerous other carefully planned strategies were carried out, including adding the children of the gay couples as plaintiffs and working with local GLBT groups. Up until the filing, the existing local groups were more focused on being resource centers for health care, social networking, etc.. They weren't really geared for political activism.

Shortly after Camilla filed suit on behalf of the six couples, Sharon Malheiro founded the group One Iowa and began coordinating with Taylor and Lambda Legal. "There wasn't a strong local group that would be the go-to group for organizing a campaign for marriage equality," said Malheiro. "If we we're going to do this in Iowa, it had to be Iowans talking to Iowans." One Iowa took over much of the public education effort, leaving Camilla and her team to concentrate on the legal aspects.

The Washington Post Article is an excellent, 3-page piece and I strongly urge anyone who is already involved in or who wants to become involved in the struggle for any or all of the remaining GLBT rights and protections yet to be granted, to read the full article.

Nothing ever happens just because we want it to. We have to work hard and we have to work smart to MAKE IT HAPPEN. And this is a great example of how to go about it.

IOWA SUPREME COURT RULES FOR GAY MARRIAGE

In a stunning unanimous decision, the Iowa State Supreme Court declared that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.

Iowa is considered to be the "heart" of the heartland and the decision to allow gay marriage in this state is truly significant. It mirrors Iowa's long history of commitment to the concepts of equal justice and equal treatment under the law. In 1839, years before slavery was outlawed across the country, the Iowa Supreme Court's first-ever decision was one that struck down all slavery laws within the state.

According to the Des Moines Register, Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady, who wrote the unanimous decision, said in his 69 page opinion that:

Iowa’s gay marriage ban “is unconstitutional, because the county has been unable to identify a constitutionally adequate justification for excluding plaintiffs from the institution of civil marriage.”

He also addressed the alternative suggestions of civil unions by saying:

“A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.”

The ruling recognized the “religious undercurrent propelling the same-sex marriage debate,” and said judges must remain outside the fray.

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring that government avoids them.”

The justices also stressed that the ruling explicitly does not affect “the freedom of a religious organization to define marriage it solemnizes as unions between a man and a woman.” Churches would still be free to decide that for themselves.

Camilla Taylor of Lambda Legal excitedly exclaimed, “We won! It is unanimous! Today the dream becomes reality … and Iowa constitution’s promise of equality is fulfilled. Iowans have never waited for others to do the right thing. Iowa took its place in the vanguard of the civil rights struggle, and we couldn’t be more proud to be part of this.”

Richard Socarides, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton on gay civil rights and a senior political assistant for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, said today’s decision could mean as much to gay couples outside Iowa.

“I think it’s significant because Iowa is considered a Midwest state in the mainstream of American thought. Unlike states on the coasts, there’s nothing more American than Iowa. As they say during the presidential caucuses, ‘As Iowa goes, so goes the nation.’”

This is a great day for our community! Let's hope Socarides is right and we see this spread across our country like a rising sun.

WHY DID BARNEY FRANK CALL JUSTICE SCALIA A HOMOPHOBE

During a video taped interview with 365gay.com (see full interview below), openly gay Representative Barney Frank referred to Justice Antonin Scalia as "that homophobe" in response to a question about the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Frank was discussing gay marriage and his expectation that the high court would some day be called upon to decide whether the Constitution allows the federal government to deny recognition to same-sex marriages. He commented, "I wouldn't want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has too many votes on this current court.

In his posting at The Hill's Congress Blog, Frank said:

"While responding to questions from journalists about my characterization of Justice Antonin Scalia as a homophobe, I realized that the fact that I made that comment in conjunction with a potential lawsuit about the Defense of Marriage Act created some confusion as to my basis for that characterization.

My view that Justice Scalia is prejudiced against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is based, not on his position on marriage, but entirely on the angry minority opinions he wrote in two Supreme Court cases in which the majority held that gay and lesbian people had certain rights against discrimination regarding private consensual sex and political activity. In those two virulent dissents, Justice Scalia denounced the court majorities not simply for finding that it was unconstitutional to discriminate based on sexual orientation in cases involving political rights and the right to private consensual sex, but he also made it clear that in his view sex discrimination is not only permitted by the Constitution but is very much in society’s interest because homosexuality deserves to be treated with not only disapproval, but legal disability.

This comes out most clearly in his very vigorous abjection to the court’s decision to block a criminal prosecution against two men who had consensual sex in the privacy of their bedroom. And it is made very vivid in the passage in which he affirms society’s right to treat homosexuals unequally by citing other categories which deserves such treatment — beginning with murder."

The actual written, astoundingly homophobic, comments made by Scalia in those cases is, to say the least, very disturbing. You can read the full text of Scalia's opinions at the Congress Blog. They're at the end of Barney's comments.

If this man (and I use that term very loosely) doesn't recuse himself from future cases involving any GLBT issue, there is something fundamentally wrong with our Supreme Court Structure.

Below is Barney Frank's full interview with 365gay.com.

VERMONT'S GAY MARRIAGE FIGHT GETS MORE CONFUSING

Republican Governor James Douglas said just a couple of days ago that he "wouldn't sign" the gay marriage bill, leaving the door open for it to become law without his signature.

Yesterday however, Governor Douglas made a very public statement saying that if the bill does reach his desk, he would not sign it. This in spite of the fact that it received an overwhelming majority vote of 26-4 in the State Senate.

According to WCAX TV news, Douglas went on to reiterate the same flawed argument he's used before:

"I believe marriage has always been and ought to remain the union of a man and a woman. I believe the civil unions law has offered equal rights and benefits under state law to same-sex couples and that should suffice."

As I pointed out in my original March 13th story, contrary to Douglas' statement, in the nine years since civil unions were approved, there have been numerous and persistent problems with businesses, hospitals and even government agencies recognizing the legality of those unions.

To further dilute Douglas' logic, the 182 clergy members who came out in support of the bill said in their March 12th statement:

We recognize that a separate system that legally recognizes same-gender couples creates a harmful stigma for those we support and love in our community. Although civil union protections have remedied some of the financial and legal inequities, the denial to participate in the status of civil marriage is a social injustice that fractures our communities, harms those we love and sends a message of government sanctioned discrimination."

Despite the governor's opposition, this bill is not dead yet. Over the next week it will be debated in the house and a vote there will determine whether or not there are enough votes in both houses to override Douglas' veto. The senate's vote has already shown that the needed 2/3 majority is clearly present there. The house however is not a done deal yet. Which is probably why Douglas came out with his statement much earlier than he usually would have. Obviously he's trying to influence the house vote.

However, in a very curious, if not schizophrenic statement, WCAX TV reported that Governor Douglas also said:

...he thinks Democratic leaders would not have advanced the bill if they did not have enough votes to override a veto, but because the issue is so personal and divisive legislative leaders say there's no guarantee. But of course Douglas acknowledged he will have no choice but to accept same-sex marriages if the house can get the numbers.

Does this mean that the governor is simply playing politics to placate his voter base but really wants to see this bill passed? I hope that's the case. More importantly, with all the strong support this bill has gotten outside of the political arena, I hope that enough house representatives see it that way too and go ahead and pass the bill with more than a 2/3 majority.

Obviously, the success or failure of this bill now rests entirely in the state's House of Representatives.

Of course, I'll keep you posted. I need to go take an aspirin now.

VERMONT SENATE COMMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY PASSES GAY MARRIAGE BILL

UPDATE 3/24/09...
365gay.com reported this morning that the Vermont Senate just passed the same-sex marriage bill by a vote of 26-4. This overwhelming majority vote means that the bill will now move to the House where it is also expected to pass.

Unfortunately, Republican Governor James Douglas has already chastised the legislature for spending time on the bill when it should be focused on the economy. He said that he believes the civil union law is sufficient for same-sex couples - even though that's been proven not to be the case. In fact, as I outlined in my first article, testimony by mental health experts, social workers and clergy have all agreed that allowing gay couples to marry validates their relationships, could reduce discrimination and increases benefits for the families.

There is, however, a glimmer of hope since Governor Douglas has not said outright that he intends to veto this bill. Hopefully, the strong legislative support it has received and the publicity it has garnered will prove to be enough for him to change his mind and sign it.

I'll keep you posted.


-------------------------


Last Friday I reported on the Gay Marriage bill being debated in Vermont's Senate Judiciary Committee.

I ended my report on a very hopeful note. I believed that the strong testimonies of mental health experts and clergy, who all countered the religious right's argument that same-sex marriage is detrimental to children by exposing their lies and distortions of facts, would help get the bill out of committee and passed by the full senate.

Well, my hopes were not only realized but surpassed. This morning Queers United and Pink News (out of the U.K.) both reported that the bill was passed unanimously by a reassuring vote of 5-0.

The full senate is scheduled to vote on the bill next Monday, March 23rd at 3:00pm.

QU is requesting that since this is the last opportunity to express your support, please - even if you have done so in the past - call and/or email your state senator and urge him or her to vote in favor of this bill.

If you live in Vermont, you can get the email address and phone number of your representative by going to: http://www.vtfreetomarry.org/senate.html.

As I reported last Friday, in 2000 Vermont became the first state to pass civil unions. Now, if passed (which I fully expect to happen), Vermont will join Massachusetts and Connecticut and become the third state to legally recognize gay marriages.

VERMONT GAY MARRIAGE ENDORSED BY MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS AND CLERGY

In two separate stories published by The Advocate, same-sex marriage rights in Vermont got a double dose of support.

Mental Health Experts Endorse Same-Sex Marriage...
On March 10th, The Advocate reported that leading mental health and human services organizations in Vermont, citing professional studies that show legalizing gay marriage helps the children of same-sex couples, came out in support of marriage equality.

The group says allowing gay couples to marry validates their relationships, could reduce discrimination and increases benefits for the families.

Opponents have argued that gay marriage is detrimental to children. But mental health experts say studies show that's not true and that opponents are instead misrepresenting studies about divorced parents.

In an interview on WCAX-TV in Burlington, Jackie Weinstein of the University of Vermont’s Human Development and Families Studies said:

"We felt it was important for us to set the record straight about the scholarly literature in our field, and we have lots of different families and the best thing to do for all children is to support parents the best way we can."

The Vermont legislature is currently considering a same-sex marriage bill that was introduced in February. The bill has 59 sponsors in the house and next week, the senate judiciary committee will begin holding hearings and testimony.

The mental health and human services organizations - which include Vermont Psychological Association, the Vermont Psychiatric Association, the Vermont Association of Mental Health Counselors, and the Vermont chapter of the National Association of Social Workers - will all testify in support of same-sex marriage at those hearings.

In 2000 Vermont became the first state to pass civil unions but, in the nine years since, there have been numerous problems with businesses, hospitals and even government agencies recognizing the legality of those unions.

Let's face it folks - separate will NEVER be equal.


182 CLERGY COME OUT IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE...
On March 12th, The Advocate reported that 182 Vermont clergy members representing nine religious denominations have signed a declaration in support of same-sex marriage in Vermont.

Their declaration reads, in part,

“As religious people, clergy, and leaders, we commit ourselves to public action, visibility, and education to support the right and freedom of same-gender couples to participate in civil marriage. We oppose the application of sacred texts and religious traditions for the purpose of denying legal and social equity to same-gender couples.

We recognize that a separate system that legally recognizes same-gender couples creates a harmful stigma for those we support and love in our community. Although civil union protections have remedied some of the financial and legal inequities, the denial to participate in the status of civil marriage is a social injustice that fractures our communities, harms those we love and sends a message of government sanctioned discrimination."

To read the whole declaration, go to: http://eqfed.org/campaign/declaration

Hopefully, this kind of strong support from both the professional and religious communities will help convince Vermont lawmakers to finally pass full marriage equality.

I personally think it will.

NATIONWIDE VIGIL SET FOR WEDNESDAY NIGHT

"The Eve of Justice: Lighting the way for the Supreme Court"

UPDATE...
In my posting yesterday, I forgot to mention that I spoke with John Allard of Marriage Equality Arizona and he suggested that people attending tonight's vigil should bring their own candles (if you can afford it, a few extra to share would be appreciated). You can also bring signs with messages promoting marriage equality.

According to the Facebook page for this event, "At the conclusion of the vigil a minister will be available to preside over a 're-commitment ceremony' for any couple married in California, or joined in any other union. This will serve as a powerful reminder to all in attendance, or driving by, that our relationships have value and our commitment to each other deserves the protection of the 1138 rights granted through civil marriage."

My partner and I will be going and we hope to see all of you there. Pass the word.

---------------------------------

On Thursday, March 5th, the California Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the legality of Proposition 8, the homophobic ballot measure that stripped away the right for gays to marry in California.

On Wednesday evening, we will stand together to send a unified message to Californians and the Supreme Court Justices that individual liberties, guaranteed by the California Constitution, cannot be stripped away at the ballot box by a slim majority vote.

This vigil will also show our love and support for all the families headed by same-sex couples who were already legally married and whose relationships are now threatened by the callous passage of Prop 8. And, that we fully support all same-sex couples whose hopes and dreams of marriage and family have been frustrated by the enactment of Prop 8 in California, Prop 102 here in Arizona and Prop 2 in Florida.

In Arizona, the vigil will take place at the following locations and times...

IN PHOENIX

LOCATION: Camelback and Central

TIME: 6:00 TO 7:30pm


IN TUCSON:

LOCATION: United Church of Christ of the Painted Hills, 3295 W. Speedway Boulevard

TIME: 7:00 - 8:30pm

For other vigil locations and times, go to: http://www.marriageequality.org/

BTW - If you don't see your city or state on the vigil list and you would like to participate, go to Marriage Equality to find out how to contact your local chapter or, if there isn't a chapter near you, find out how to start one.