11.09.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 6:44 pm by pikapp44
Gay rights activists are looking to a possible vote to legalize same-sex marriage in New York State on Tuesday as a way to drive a national campaign that opponents say has lost momentum.
Five U.S. states have already legalized gay marriage — Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont — but earlier this month voters in a sixth, Maine, chose to repeal such a law, which was due to take effect in September.
Forty U.S. states have laws banning gay marriage.
New York’s Democratic-controlled State Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in May, but the proposed legislation faces a tougher battle in the Senate, where the party has a slim majority.
Governor David Paterson, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, has urged the upper chamber to pass the bill and vowed to sign it into law.
New York is one of the most politically liberal states in the nation, but it is also home to large numbers of Catholics and African-Americans, many of whom oppose gay marriage.
Two recent polls showed a majority of New York voters in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry, but one other poll showed the public evenly split.
“Winning gay marriage in New York will be a boost for gay marriage across the country,” said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a group that is lobbying for the legislation.
“I am optimistic that this will come to the floor for a vote (on Tuesday) and that it will pass,” he said.
But Maggie Gallagher, the leader of the anti-gay marriage group, National Organization for Marriage, said she did not believe the bill would earn the needed Republican support.
“I don’t think it was ever true that the culture had shifted on the gay marriage question,” she said. “To the voters, this was very strange. The politicians were obviously listening to something other than the people’s priorities.”
Some observers say the battle may have been complicated by a New York congressional election this month that saw a gay marriage opponent and third party candidate force pro-gay marriage Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race.
Although the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens, won the election, the surge in support for conservative Douglas Hoffman may make moderate Republicans think twice about supporting the proposed bill in New York.
“I think Republicans who might have been supportive in the past might have been spooked by the Owens-Scozzafava-Hoffman race,” Malcolm Smith, a Democrat and the Senate president, told the New York Times.
Permalink
11.05.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 9:17 am by pikapp44
Gay rights advocates across the country are regrouping after a crushing defeat at the ballot box in Maine, pledging to continue their state-by-state effort to promote marriage equality and to turn their attention to a federal court case in California.
On Tuesday, Maine became the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum. Just over half the voters there repealed a state law that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed, a statute passed by the legislature in May and signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci (D). The law had been on hold, pending the vote.
The campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine drew heavily from a similar effort in California last year; there, a ballot measure known as Proposition 8 overturned the state Supreme Court ruling allowing such unions. Maine voters were exposed to TV commercials, such as one featuring parents lamenting that their children were being taught about same-sex marriage in school, that were nearly identical to ads used in California.
For the gay rights movement, the defeat is another setback to its long-held strategy of building the case for marriage equality state by state. Historically, the tactics have been to target places where conditions seem favorable, and Maine, characterized by its governor as a libertarian state, seemed to fit that criterion.
California remains a key battleground. Some gay rights organizations are considering putting the same-sex marriage issue before voters there again as early as next year.
Activists and legal strategists historically have avoided taking the issue to a narrowly divided Supreme Court, fearing a major setback. And though not all gay rights advocates agree on the timing, there is a growing consensus that there may never be a perfect time for a federal challenge.
“The whole idea that somehow you have to choose between federal and state work is a false ‘either or.’ The reality is, every movement needs to do both,” Wolfson said. “You don’t win on the federal level without engaging in those conversations and legal victories in states and communities. At the same time, you want to be part of a national conversation that helps create a climate for more states to move in the right direction.”
The increasing push for change on the federal level has been heightened by arguments that President Obama has not adequately addressed gay rights. One group, Equality California, has urged him to file a brief in federal court challenging Proposition 8.
Permalink
11.04.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 7:47 am by pikapp44
Voters in Maine Tuesday voted by a narrow margin to repeal the state’s recently approved marriage equality law.
There will, no doubt, be much analysis of why voters chose to repeal the law in Maine, but even before the voting booths had opened Tuesday, there were critics of President Obama’s lack of effort around the battle.
Long-time gay Democratic activist David Mixner put it most bluntly on his blog: “President Obama and his team were zero help in this critical battle and in the last week might actually have hurt us.”
In fact, in February 2008, as the Democratic primary battle was in full swing, candidate Obama released an open letter to the LGBT community saying “As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full
equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best
way to secure that equal treatment. But I also believe that the federal government should not
stand in the way of states that want to decide on their own how best to pursue equality for gay and
lesbian couples — whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union, or a civil marriage.”
But at a national Human Rights Campaign dinner October 10, the president had nothing to say about Maine or Washington State explicitly; instead, he said, “I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples.”
And some days later, at an appearance at the University of Maine on October 23, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, when asked by a reporter about Maine’s Question 1 specifically, said that he and President Obama “are of the view it is for states to make these decisions.”
The White House offered no comment in regards to Mixner’s criticism.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said, “I do think that [President Obama] was wrong– that neither he nor the Democratic Party spoke out” against the Maine ballot measure.
“I’m disappointed in his failure to speak out on this issue,” said Solmonese on Obama. “He did speak out against Proposition 8 and it did influence people. …I think when he talked about using the bullypulpit, that’s what we expected he would do.”
HRC gave about $300,000 to the campaign effort and had “about a dozen” people “on the ground” in Maine to help the “No on 1” campaign.
Permalink
11.02.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 8:30 am by pikapp44
Maine residents will decide Tuesday whether to repeal a law allowing same-sex marriage, an effort that has succeeded in every state where it has been put before voters.
Public opinion surveys in Maine show a dead heat on Question 1, which would cancel the marriage statute that passed the legislature in May and was signed by Gov. John E. Baldacci (D).
In the five other states where gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry their partners, permission was granted by courts or legislatures. Baldacci expressed guarded optimism Sunday about the effort to defeat the Maine proposition.
“I believe it’s something in the water or the air in this state that recognizes individual rights and anti-discrimination attitudes,” the governor said by phone from Augusta, the capital. “It’s more of a libertarian-type state than it is Republican or Democrat. We have two Republican senators, two Democratic representatives, and there have been two independent governors.”
The campaign against same-sex marriage in Maine draws heavily from the effort that a year ago overturned a California Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriage. TV commercials produced by Schubert Flint Public Affairs, a Sacramento consulting firm, feature parents lamenting that their young children are being taught in school that marriage between two women or two men is normal. Nearly identical ads were highly effective in California.
“I refer to it as sustainable advertising, where you have the same themes,” said Scott Fish, communications director for Stand for Marriage Maine. “It’s the same issue, and many of the concerns were the same.”
ad_icon
Advocates of same-sex marriage responded to the ads with an opinion from state Attorney General Janet T. Mills stating that the law would have no effect on what is taught in schools.
“No way, José,” Mills said. “Allowing same-sex marriage does not require teaching of gay marriage in the schools any more than allowing divorce requires teaching of divorce in the schools, or allowing adoption requires teaching of adoption in schools.”
Fish called the opinion irrelevant, because curriculum is largely decided by local school boards. “Neither does it say it won’t be taught,” he said.
Proponents of same-sex marriage are also playing on Mainers’ wariness of outsiders, calling attention to the California consultants and the volume of the “Yes-on-1″ campaign from out of state.
Questions about the largest contributor have sparked an investigation by the state ethics commission and a court battle. The National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, has contributed $1.6 million to Stand for Marriage Maine but has declined to reveal its own contributors, despite a federal district court decision last week that it must do so under Maine law.
Some groups for gays say the organization is a stalking horse for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or the Mormons, which dominated fundraising in the California campaign. Many of the actors in a nationally televised ad produced by NOM, called “Gathering Storm,” turned out to be Mormon activists.
Weekend calls to the New Jersey-based organization and its attorney were not returned. But Fish said that after the backlash in California against the Mormon Church, its leadership decided not to become directly involved in Maine.
“I think they’re outraising us two to one in terms of money,” Fish said, referring to proponents of same-sex marriage. “Common sense would suggest anyway if the LDS were really behind this campaign — and it’s not — that wouldn’t be the case.”
Both sides said voter turnout will be key. Baldacci said the “No-on-1″ campaign has 8,000 volunteers working Tuesday, “only 120 or so of whom are from out of state.”
“I’ve been encouraged by the canvassers and what they’re getting for reaction,” he said. Maine has relatively few of the socially conservative African American and Latino voters who helped tip the balance against the California law. But with the Archdiocese of Portland heavily involved in what the Maine constitution calls a “people’s veto,” Baldacci said the 20 percent of the population who are Catholic could swing the vote.
“Lewiston, in western Maine, that’s a pretty large segment of Franco-American Roman Catholic, working-class kind of a community,” he said. “Reactions and support has been pretty good, but that’ll be an area we’ll want to watch.”
But Fish identified a “strong secular element” backing the veto, one grounded in resentment at a political establishment that pushed through the measure with a single hearing, held in the Augusta civic center and dominated by proponents of same-sex marriage. “If we’re going to do such a major cultural shift as redefining marriage, we shouldn’t have just one hearing, on a Wednesday,” he said.
Permalink
10.28.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 6:26 pm by pikapp44
The U.S. Senate passed The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act on Thursday, October 22, 2009, on a 68 to 29 vote.
The bill extends the definition of federal hate crimes to include attacks motivated by sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The bill passed in the House on October 8 with a vote of 281 to 146. The bill now goes to the President’s desk for signature. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law. This marks the passage of the first ever federal civil rights bill inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Permalink
10.26.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 1:17 pm by pikapp44
Today there will be a hearing in DC for legalization of same sex marriage in the District of Columbia. More than hundreds of people signed up to testify, resulting in the need to extend the hearings to early November.
Yesterday, members of local churches and those who oppose the possibility of legislation legalizing gay marriage protested, requesting a referendum to the legislation on the table.
FOX news interviewed Bishop Harry Jackson who said he believed God might still “do a miracle” and change the minds of council members who previously voted to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.
Opponents of same-sex marriage are asking the D.C. Board of Elections to let them put a measure on the city ballot that would give voters the option of banning the unions. The Board of Elections meets today to hear testimony on an initiative that would say “only marriage between a man and woman” is valid in the city. The two-member board will not vote today.
Permalink
10.22.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 4:04 pm by pikapp44
Extending benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees will strengthen the government’s recruiting and retention power and bring equity to gay and lesbian members of the federal workforce, witnesses told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Thursday.
The testimony came at a hearing called by Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me., and entitled, “Domestic Partner Benefits: Fair Policy and Good Business for the Federal Government.” Testimony focused on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, S. 1102, introduced in May by Lieberman and Collins. It has 23 cosponsors.
“This bill is the fair and right thing to do and makes practical sense for the federal government as an employer,” Lieberman said. “As we approach a generational change in the federal workforce that will see the retirement of one-third of all federal employees, we must do all we can to attract and retain the ‘best and the brightest’ to serve in the years ahead. This legislation will balance the scales of justice, but it will also help the federal government be the best it can be.”
Collins said: “When it comes to employment, the federal government must compete with the private sector in attracting the most qualified, skilled, and dedicated employees. Today, health, medical, and other benefits are a major component of any competitive employment package. As we learned at our hearing on this bill during the last Congress, the private sector offers domestic partner benefits as part of its strategy for building a stronger workforce. These benefits help foster a sense of loyalty between the employees and the organization, creating a more stable and productive work environment. Many state and local governments also have extended employee benefits to domestic partners in committed relationship. For example, Maine’s state government offers benefits to its employees who are in committed domestic partnerships. If the federal government is to compete with the private sector for the most talented members of our workforce, and if our goal is to create a loyal, dynamic federal workforce for the future, then we need to be able to offer competitive benefits.”
Under the legislation, same-sex domestic partners of federal employees would be eligible to participate in health benefits, long-term care, Family and Medical Leave and federal retirement benefits, among others. Federal employees and their domestic partners would also be subject to the same legal responsibilities that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.
According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, approximately 30,000 federal workers live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners who are not federal employees.
About 10,000 private sector companies provide benefits to domestic partners – as do 59 percent of Fortune 500 companies, including Disney, General Electric, IBM, the Chubb Corporation, Lockheed Martin, Duke Energy and Dow Chemical. In addition, the governments of 22 states, about 154 local jurisdictions, and over 300 colleges and universities provide such benefits.
Based on the experience of private companies and state and local governments, the Office of Personnel Management has estimated that providing health and retirement benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by about $633 million over 10 years. John Berry, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, testified at the hearing that the cost in 2010 would be about $56 million, just two-tenths of a percent of how much employee health insurance costs the entire federal government. Lieberman said at the hearing that the cost is well worth the benefits that will accrue in recruiting and retaining the best people to serve as federal employees.
Lieberman has introduced the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act in the past three Congresses. The Committee last year held the first ever Congressional hearing on the issue of federal employee domestic partner benefits.
In June, President Obama issued a memorandum extending some benefits to domestic partners of federal employees. However, certain benefits–such as health care and life insurance–can only be extended to domestic partners by an act of Congress.
In addition to Berry, witnesses were Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, who introduced the House companion bill to S. 1102; and Dr. William Hendrix, Global Leader of Gays, Lesbians and Allies at Dow Chemical, which offers benefits on an equal basis to their employees’ domestic partners.
Permalink
10.12.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 1:15 pm by pikapp44
Rainbow flags fluttered above the crowds near the White House as tens of thousands of gay rights supporters rallied to demand that President Barack Obama keep his promises to end discrimination against gays and also let them serve openly in the military.
“Hey, Obama, let mama marry mama” some chanted Sunday. Others cried out, “We’re out, we’re proud, we won’t back down.”
Some taking part in the National Equality March woke up energized by Obama’s promise to end the ban on gays serving openly in the military. He made that pledge in a speech Saturday night to the Human Rights Campaign, nation’s largest gay rights group.
The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Sunday that Congress will need to muster the resolve to change the “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” — a change that the military may be ready for. “I think it has to be done in the right way, which is to get a buy-in from the military, which I think is now possible,” said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
Joining the march were 20 cast members from the musical, “Hair.” They chose to let a Broadway matinee show go dark to come march and were led by the show’s star, Gavin Creel.”I take him at his word,” the 33-year-old Creel said of Obama afterward. “This is just the beginning.”
Those marching listened to activists such as Cynthia Nixon, a cast member from HBO’s “Sex and the City,” who hopes to marry partner Christine Marinoni next year; and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was killed because he was gay.
During a rally at the Capitol, keynote speaker Julian Bond — chairman of the NAACP — linked the gay rights struggle to the Civil Rights movement, saying gays and lesbians should be free from discrimination.
“Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about,” he said. “We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them.
For Lt. Dan Choi, the day began with a jog around Washington’s memorials, calling cadence at 8 a.m. with fellow veterans and supporters before joining the march. A West Point graduate and Iraq war veteran, Choi is facing discharge under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for revealing in March that he is gay. He appeared later at a rally in his Army uniform, a piece of black tape over his mouth. “Many of us have been discharged from the service because we told the truth,” he said.
Pop singer Lady Gaga, who is bisexual, got some of the biggest cheers Sunday. She didn’t perform but pledged to reject homophobia in the music industry and support her “most beautiful gay fans in the world.”
Unlike the first march in 1979 and others in 1987, 1993 and 2000 that included many celebrity performances and drew as many as 500,000 people, Sunday’s event was driven by grassroots efforts. Washington authorities don’t disclose crowd estimates at rallies, though the crowd appeared to number in the tens of thousands, overflowing from the Capitol lawn.
Some activists doubted the march would accomplish much. They said the time and money would have been better spent working to persuade voters in Maine and Washington state, where the November ballot will include a measure that would overturn a bill granting same-sex couples many of the benefits of marriage.
A bill introducing same-sex marriage was introduced last week by the District of Columbia Council and is expected to pass.
March organizer Cleve Jones, creator of the AIDS Memorial Quilt and a protege of gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk, said he had initially discouraged a rally earlier this year. But he and others began to worry Obama was backing away from his campaign promises.
“Since we’ve seen that so many times before, I didn’t want it to happen again,” he said. “We’re not settling. There’s no such thing as a fraction of equality.”
Permalink
10.09.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 11:08 am by pikapp44
National Equality March lead organizer Cleve Jones joined Anderson Cooper on CNN Thursday night to discuss the reasons for the march taking place in Washington, D.C., this Sunday, including his belief that President Obama still needs some “pressure.”
“I believe that President Obama wants to do the right thing, but I belive that he, like most politicians, needs some pressure and a little prodding,” Jones told Cooper.
His remarks followed a statement on Wednesday from Congressman Barney Frank, who said the march was “useless” and that prospective attendees should stay home because the president did not need the pressure.
“We’re marching this weekend to show that we want action, but we’re also trying to change the conversation,” Jones said, in a reference to his argument for a federal, rather than state and local, strategy for equality.
Permalink
10.08.09
Posted in D's Thoughts at 5:17 pm by pikapp44
A long-debated bill to strengthen the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays moved through the Democratic-controlled House today over Republican objections that it was attached to a defense bill.
The measure, expected to go before the Senate within days, had faced a veto threat from President George W. Bush, but enjoys President Obama’s support. The Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group, said the vote puts the bill “closer to becoming law than ever before.”
“It’s a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, noting that she has pushed for strengthening the law since her arrival in Congress 22 years ago.
“What makes these crimes so bad is they are not just crimes against individuals; they are crimes against entire communities,” openly gay Rep. Jared Polis said during the debate.
White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said that the president looks forward to signing the bill.
“As the president said back in April, the hate-crimes bill takes on an important civil rights issue to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance, while also protecting our freedom of speech and association,” he said.
The legislation — the first major expansion of the 1968 hate-crimes law — would expand the law to cover acts of violence motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation, gender, disability or gender identity. Existing federal law defines hate crimes as those motivated by bias based on religion, race, national origin or color.
The measure also would give federal authorities more leeway to aid state and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. It also makes grants available to state and local communities to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles and to train law enforcement officers in investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes.
House approval of the measure, long championed by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy comes as Obama prepares to address the Human Rights Campaign on Saturday.
The gay rights group will present an award to Judy and Dennis Shepard, whose gay son, Matthew, was brutally beaten, tied to a fence, and left to die 11 years ago in Wyoming. The legislation is named after him and James Byrd, a black man who was dragged to death behind a truck the east Texas town of Jasper, also in 1998.
The measure passed by a vote of 281 to 146, with Republicans attacking Democrats for putting them in the politically awkward position of voting against a defense bill.
“We should not be doing social engineering on this bill,” Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) objected. To the Democrats, he added: “Shame on you.”
The bill includes also creates a new federal crime for attacking members of the military because of their service.
Opponents have argued that existing laws cover hate crimes. “Violent attacks on people are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them,” said Rep. Mike Pence warning that the legislation would “put us on a slippery slope of deeming particular groups as more important than others under our system of justice.”
A number of Republicans also assailed the measure as “thought crimes” legislation, contending it could lead to a prosecution of a pastor delivering sermons against homosexuality if one of his church members committed a hate crime. They have hinted at a constitutional challenge.
“Congress should protect all Americans equally and not provide special protections to a few politically favored groups,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in a statement. “It violates the principle of equal justice under the law and also threatens to infringe on the free speech rights of the American people.”
The bill’s supporters say that they added language to the measure to protect freedom of religious expression.
“There are ample safeguards in the bill for constitutionally protected speech,” said Brian Moulton, chief legislative counsel of the Human Rights Campaign.
The group’s president, Joe Solmonese, added: “The day is within sight when lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people will benefit from updating our nation’s hate-crimes laws and giving local law enforcement the tools they need to combat hate violence.”
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »