| christian grantham | |||
| Christian Grantham was a student activist in the late 90s and later a consultant to domestic policy forums for the Clinton Administration as well as events for HRC and GLAAD. | |||
|
|
|
||
April 06, 2005
In the same 2004 Presidential exit polls now being used by Republicans to claim an increase in support among black and women voters, most of those (corrected by DCRob in comments) the biggest single issue among those who voted for President Bush was "moral issues," more than jobs, the economy, and the war in Iraq.
When Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay sought to deny court protection of Michael Schiavo's marrital rights to honor his wife's medical wishes, America saw the Republican Party's evangelical base in a vulgar act of arrogance.
The controversy over Terri Schiavo has raised concerns among many Americans about the moral agenda of the Republican Party and the political power of conservative Christians, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds.In the survey, most Americans disapprove of the efforts by President Bush and Congress to draw federal courts into the dispute over treatment of the brain-damaged Florida woman. She died last week.
Some old stereotypes about the two parties have been reversed:
•By 55%-40%, respondents say Republicans, traditionally the party of limited government, are “trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans” on moral values.
•By 53%-40%, they say Democrats, who sharply expanded government since the Depression, aren't trying to interfere on moral issues.
[Many wary of GOP's moral agenda - USAToday - 04-06-05]
But if you think Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and his colleagues are finished meddling with the civil liberties and personal lives of Americans with disgraceful and arrogant legislation, think again. DeLay and the Republican Party's evangelical base have designs on writing discrimination into the United States Constitution to deny equal protections for gay and lesbian families.
Why would the Republican controlled Congress want to waste their time with the economy, education and health care when their party's radical evangelical base would much rather high-jack the business of the American people with divisive issues?
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
, Moral Majority
April 01, 2005
Well, now, this ought to balance the budget. Just when you thought you've heard every fanciful arguement to be made against equally protecting gay and lesbian families, Republicans have a new boogie man: interspecies marriage.
A Loveland Republican on Thursday warned that same-sex marriage could one day lead to interspecies marriage, if the state fails to ban gay nuptials."Where do you draw the line?" Rep. Jim Welker asked. "A year ago in India, a woman married her dog."
Welker's comments were made at a news conference called by Rep. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, to promote Lundberg's proposal for a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Rep. Angie Paccione, D-Fort Collins, who attended to decry the idea as a throwback to long-discarded laws criminalizing interracial marriage - she grew up in a biracial family - reacted strongly to Welker's comment. She ran toward the podium.
"Come on, Jim, that's not the same. Come on, man!" she yelled.
"A guy in Boulder tried to marry his horse a couple years ago," Welker said.
[Gay-marriage foe irks fellow lawmakers with "extreme" talk - Denver Post - 04-01-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
March 16, 2005
Tobias Barrington Wolff, a professor at UC Davis Law School, can't stand hearing gays claim a level of discrimination experienced historically by blacks. Wolff concludes, however, that the mantle of "most oppressed" is hardly a reason for blacks to reject equal rights for gays.
Gay people do have a right to claim a place in that constitutional tradition. The second-class citizenship that gay people continue to endure may not be as bad as Jim Crow and slavery, but it is bad enough.Excluded from open military service, unable to claim federal workplace protection and denied equal support for their families in most parts of the country, gay people can have little doubt what it means for their place within the community when the state refuses to allow them to marry.
Gay people enter a house built by the labor of others when they invoke the tradition of Brown, and they should claim that place with a degree of humility. Nonetheless, they have earned that place through blood and tears. It is no threat to the legacy of the civil rights movement to recognize their claim. It is a vindication.
Thus, the San Francisco court was correct to rely upon Brown in analyzing California's exclusion of gay couples from civil marriage. Brown does not require us to ask who among us is the most oppressed. It requires us to ask how discrimination against any group of people affects their status as equal citizens.
[Different Battle, Same Struggle - LA Times - 03-16-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
March 15, 2005
I've posted a lot of stories from today's newspapers to the left, but here are a few blog posts you might want to check out:
- California: Irrational Rationality? - Chris Geidner - 03-15-05
- Pro gay marriage judge in California is a Catholic Republican - Americablog - 03-15-05
- California Jurist: Marriage Ban Uncostitutional - BoiFromTroy - 03-14-05
- Social Conservatives React - Gay Orbit - 03-14-05
- Misplaced Joy in Wake of CA judge's ruling on marriage - GayPatriot - 03-15-05
- married again - Rosie O'Donnell - 03-14-05
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
March 14, 2005
From sea to shining sea... America's common sense is waking up.
A judge ruled Monday that California can no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman, a legal milestone that if upheld on appeal would pave the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to wed.In an opinion that had been awaited because of San Francisco's historical role as a gay rights battleground, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional.
"It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners," Kramer wrote.
The judge wrote that the state's historical definition of marriage, by itself, cannot justify the unconstitutional denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians and their right to marry.
[Judge finds California's marriage law unconstitutional - Mercury News - 03-14-05]
also read: Gay Orbit
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 25, 2005
Politicians who manufacture such legal chaos with vague and discriminatory legislation deny rights to families that ultimately hurt children. Do they care? Not as much as they care about a political agenda that appeals to people's fear and prejudice.
Denise Fairchild says she thought she was doing the right thing for her son when she signed a shared parenting agreement with her partner, Therese."The contract was actually designed to, if she needed, to give my son medical attention so when I was absent she could do that," Fairchild says.
Under Ohio law, only the parent can authorize medical treatment for a child. So Denise and her partner agreed to sign a shared parent agreement.
It gave Fairchild’s partner some of the same legal rights as Fairchild herself -- the child’s biological mother.
At the time of signing the contract in 2001, Fairchild says the contract was not enforceable in the state of Ohio. But her attorney got a judge to sign the order without a hearing.
A year later, the law changed making the orders enforceable.
[Gay Mom Fights Child Visitation For Ex - WBNS - 02-25-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 22, 2005
Single issue Republicans and the party's evangelical base will be very happy with Mitt Romney. In his 2008 bid for President, Romney can find no better a running mate than Alan Keyes, whose anti-gay bigotry isn't just limited to hollow threats.
How will the widening schizm between more popular Republican moderates and the party's radical conservative base bode for Romney and his rabid allies? The 2008 fault lines are forming over equal marriage rights.
On gay marriage, Romney vilified the Supreme Judicial Court for striking "a blow against the family.""Today, same-sex couples are marrying under the law in Massachusetts,'' Romney said, stressing the word "marrying." "Some are actually having children born to them."
To thunderous applause from the Spartanburg Republican audience, he said, "It's not right on paper. It's not right in fact. Every child has the right to have a mother and a father."
Romney then cast himself as a defender of traditional marriage.
"From day one, I've opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions," Romney said.
"We lost on marriage in the court and we lost on civil unions in the Legislature. But I'm convinced that when finally we hear the voice of the people in my state, we will win at the ballot box."
[Mitt’s gay-wed stance hits Carolina chord - Boston Globe - 02-22-05]
filed under: 2008 Presidential Elections
, Equal Marriage Rights
February 19, 2005
In secretly recorded tapes, George Bush is revealed as a Christian whose values challenge the misguided divisiveness of his party's evangelical base on the issue of equal rights for gays. The revelation, recorded by a close friend in 1998, adds context to President Bush's struggle between pandering to the Republican party's radical evangelical base and the future of the Republican party.
Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gays. "I think he wants me to attack homosexuals," Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: "Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?"
Later, he read aloud an aide's report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: "This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It's hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however."
"This is an issue I have been trying to downplay," Mr. Bush said. "I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays."
Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gays, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."
As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. "Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that," Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.
[In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President - New York Times - 02-20-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
, Moral Majority
February 19, 2005
Dear Jesus, please forgive the filthy homosexual for our nation's disgraceful divorce rate, all the abortions they've been having and the flood of unwanted children they poor into the foster care system. Amen!
In her prayer, Peevey took note of legislation the House has embraced this year to ban same-sex marriage and make it difficult for gays to adopt children."Holy One, convict those who are using their power not to lead or to guide but to harm the gay and lesbian citizens, a small minority in this commonwealth," Peevey said.
That didn't sit well with conservatives in the House. The usual amen chorus at the end of the prayer was noticeably muted.
[Opening House session with a prayer for gays annoys some delegates - Times Dispatch - 02-19-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
, Moral Majority
February 18, 2005
Well, I've got $20,000 for anyone that can show me anywhere in this here Bible where the Lord Jesus "ordains, endorses, even implies that he even as much as likes" laws that protect alternative religious lifestyle choices.
A local reverend and a lawmaker are putting their money where their mouths are, saying the other side cannot prove its claims on gay marriage."I've got $700 here, and I will give anyone this $700 if they come up and show me in this Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman," State Rep. Alvin Homles demanded last week of his fellow lawmakers.
Holmes challenged the measures, which are moving in the House and Senate. He likened the amendment to Adolf Hitler's actions in the Holocaust.
But Holmes' wager was not only called -- Birmingham Rev. Vincent Jennings upped the ante.
The reverend said he would give $10,000 to anyone who could show "where the Lord ordains, endorses, even implies that he even as much as likes relations between (same-sex couples)."
[Preacher, Lawmaker Offer Cash To Win Gay Marriage Debate - NBC13 - 02-18-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 14, 2005
The series, written by Brian K. Vaughan and illustrated by Tony Harris, follows Mayor Hundred as he retires from crime-fighting to pursue public office. While Ex Machina retains some superhero elements, the stories draw heavily on politics. Unlike Green Lantern, this hero has to worry about budgets, controversial art in public museums and debates over school vouchers. "I've always been interested in politics, especially local politics, which I think are a lot sexier" than national politics, said Mr. Vaughan. "Mayors are the equivalent of beat cops - you never know what to expect that day on the street."
[The City Hall Superhero, on Gay Marriage - New York Times - 02-14-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 12, 2005
Q: What's worse than an entire political party whose platform has produced wave after wave of disgraceful assaults on American principles of fairness and equality?
A: The few Democrats that join them.
Two House Democrats want to solidify Kentucky's stance against gay unions with a license plate that celebrates marriage between one man and one woman.Reps. J.R. Gray of Benton and Keith Hall of Phelps both said they decided to sponsor House Bill 234 as a means of celebrating traditional marriage. The license plate's design would feature two gold interlocked wedding bands over a red heart with the phrase "Traditional Marriage."
Hall, who was a strong supporter of an amendment in 2004 that let Kentuckians vote on writing a ban against gay marriage into the state's Constitution, said owners of the plate would be showing their support for the institution of marriage.
[Marriage plate proposed - Kentucky Post - 02-12-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 11, 2005
Here's one conservative Republican with the courage to voice opposition to her party's drunken bigotry.
"I don't support an amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. I think it's a matter that should be left to the states. As a conservative, I don't support constitutional amendments generally unless the cause is clear and evident. The issue here, of course, is that some people think a constitutional amendment is necessary in order to preserve the rights of the states. I happen not to come down on that side of the issue and, indeed, there are many Republicans who do [not]. I think if you looked at our national convention, for example, among the prominent speakers -- Gov. Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani -- feel the same way. It's not an issue that sets the Republican Party apart in one great mass. It's an issue upon which people differ."
[Lynne Cheney - NPR - 02-09-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 09, 2005
As the Pope streamlines the process of disolving Catholic marriages, his holiness desparetely clings to immoral scapegoating of homosexuals for American Catholic's soaring attack on the institution of marriage.
Vatican officials estimate that in 2002, the most recent year for which statistics are available, about 70 percent of all annulment requests were made in the United States. Worldwide, more than 56,000 Catholics requested annulments; 46,000 were granted. "Requests have jumped enormously in the last decades," said Bishop Velasio De Paolis, a Vatican court official. As recently as 1968, fewer than 350 annulments were granted in the United States.Eleven days ago, in a speech to the Roman Rota, the Vatican's appeals court, John Paul launched a salvo against the easy granting of annulments. Marital problems are not enough to declare that a marriage never happened, he said. "In the name of alleged pastoral needs, voices have been raised to propose that unions that have totally failed be declared invalid," the pontiff said. "Individual or collective interests can induce the parties to take recourse to forms of falsehood and even corruption."
[Vatican Alters Guidance on Annulments - Washington Post - 02-09-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
, Moral Majority
February 08, 2005
Take a look at the priceless justification of Virginia Republicans for enacting discrimination. According to Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax), it's time to tell those pesky judges to stop measuring Virginia's desire to discriminate against the United States Constitution. He might remember Virginia lost that argument decades ago in Virginia v. Loving when the state failed to defend the sanctity of marriage against the immoral threat to marriage and family of mixed-race love.
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-Fairfax) told colleagues to adopt the amendment and push back against the "tyranny of judges that has largely come to pass in the last 30 or 40 years.""The homosexual left has been on the attack against marriage and family for 40 years, and we've been taking it," Cuccinelli said in an interview last week. "If you're going to start a war, if you're going to invade a country, expect a counterattack. All we're doing is regaining lost ground."
[Va. Senate Backs Ban On Gay Marriage - Washington Post - 02-08-05]
Within a week, I'll begin sharing ways you can help us defeat Virginia House Delegates this November who have abandoned the priorities of average Virginians for divisive politics.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
, Virginia Is For Lovers
February 08, 2005
NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg is right. As half-hearted as his reasoning sounds for why he will appeal a judge's ruling affirming equal marriage rights, it's an appeal we need for the state of New York.
Mayor Bloomberg claims he is appealing because he doesn't want a repeat of San Francisco, when couples were married and then denied by the courts. Gays and lesbians have gone to the courts not only to measure discriminatory laws against higher laws of state constitutions, but also to seek clarification from the courts in the absence of any law codifying equal marriage rights. Without clarification, the very future challenges our families want to avoid would loom in New York and elsewhere as divisive political forces move to constitutionally deny gay and lesbian families equal marriage rights.
"I think people have the right to love, to live with and to marry whoever they want, regardless of their sexual orientation," Bloomberg told guests at a benefit dinner on Saturday.State court Judge Doris Ling-Cohan ruled on Friday that the rights of five same-sex couples were violated when they were denied new York City marriage licenses last year because the state's constitution guarantees equal rights to everybody.
Bloomberg said he would appeal because he did not want a repeat of what happened in San Francisco last year when the mayor issued thousands of marriage licenses to same-sex couples only to have a state court nullify them a few months later.
[NY Mayor Bloomberg in a Bind Over Gay Marriage - Reuters - 02-08-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 05, 2005
A constitutional ban on equal marriage rights in Virginia is a step closer to reality. It's expected to pass next week and go to the voters of Virginia in November 2006.
Equality Virginia's Dyana Mason is right, but today's Republican Party has a much bigger problem than dealing with the priorities of the average American citizen. Moderate voices in the Republican Party are helpless to a stranglehold of its radical evangelical base. Religious extremists in the party have gone so far as threatening to withhold support for domestic policies unless the party places a priority on their self-serving and divisive agenda.
With the complicit silence of moderates, the Republican Party is delivering for its radical base.
Opponents of Virginia's marriage amendment, who were given 15 minutes to testify yesterday, said lawmakers are trying to write discrimination into the state constitution, as when blacks were banned from Virginia public schools."The Virginia constitution should never, ever again be amended to single out a group for disparate treatment," said Dyana Mason, executive director of the homosexual advocacy group Equality Virginia.
"Virginia's painful history of mandated segregation, disenfranchisement of black voters and prohibitions on interracial marriage have left an indelible stain on the state. We need not add another."
[House panel OKs amendment to ban gay 'marriage' - Washington Times - 02-06-05]
We may not be able to stop the support this amendment has in the Republican controlled Virginia state legislature next week, but we can defeat those elected officials who abandoned the priorities of Virginia for yet another historic stain on our great state and our nation. Keep reading here in the next couple of weeks for ways you can help us defeat one of Virginia's most divisive politicians at the center of some of Virginia's most notoriously discriminatory laws in this November's Virginia House of Delegates election. With your help, we can elect a fair-minded delegate for Virginia's 13th district and help Republican House Delegate Bob Marshall begin exploring new career opportunities in a more fair state of Virginia.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 04, 2005
According to NY State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, liberty is a right for gay and lesbian American's, too.
“Under both the federal and New York State constitutions, it is beyond question that the right to liberty” extends to protect marriage,” Ling-Cohan wrote.
[N.Y. judge strikes down gay marriage ban - MSNBC - 02-05-05]
When speaking of the freedom to marry, Vice President Dick Cheney didn't parse words.
"My general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. . . . People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to."
['Freedom for Everyone' - Washington Post - 04-25-04]
Despite these defenses of American principles, President Bush recently reiterated his personal desire to make exceptions to the ideals of liberty and freedom of which he spoke so glowingly in his State of the Union speech.
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. (Applause.)
[State of the Union - White House Transcript - 02-02-05]
Regrettably, President Bush and the Republican Party's evangelical base believe these principles must be amended to exclude some American citizens. So threatened is their divisive agenda by the extension of freedom and liberty to all in the United States Constitution that they feel obligated to alter this document to protect laws that would otherwise fail when measured against our nation's constitution. One wonders what words Bush has reserved for religious extremists in Iraq who attempt the same reproach on constitutional freedoms and liberties that over 1,000 American soldiers died for.
And please forgive Mary Jo and Jo-Ann as they speed down Main Street like a "noisy red Ferrari." People around the world who celebrate newly won freedom and liberty they fought for have a way of doing that sometimes. Only those that truly despise democratic liberties and freedoms for everyone have a problem with that.
"I was even more moved than I thought I'd be when I heard about this ruling. All of us cried; me, Mary Jo and our 15-year-old daughter. For the first time, our family is being treated with the respect and dignity that our friends, coworkers and neighbors automatically have," said Jo-Ann Shain, a 51-year-old New York City resident who is a plaintiff in the case with her partner, Mary Jo Kennedy, 49."Last week, Mary Jo and I celebrated our 23rd anniversary together, but we've never had all the protections and rights that come with marriage. We need these protections
to take responsibility for each other and for our daughter, and we are enormously grateful that the court saw that and said our family should be treated equally."
[New York Court Rules Gays Must Be Allowed To Marry - 365gay.com - 02-05-05]
Click here (PDF) to read the 62 page decision.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
February 03, 2005
President Bush soiled an otherwise moving historic speech last night with the following comments suggesting equal marriage rights is somehow at the epicenter of our nation's struggle with immoral forces.
Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage. (Applause.)
[State of the Union - White House Transcript - 02-02-05]
The President's rhetorical pitch to the Republican Party's evangelical base that defending the sanctity of marirage requires an amendment to deny equal marriage rights undermines his strong points made on liberty.
Two weeks ago, I stood on the steps of this Capitol and renewed the commitment of our nation to the guiding ideal of liberty for all. This evening I will set forth policies to advance that ideal at home and around the world.
[State of the Union - White House Transcript - 02-02-05]
Amending the United States Consitution to deny equal rights, freedom and liberty to gay and lesbian Americans is hardly in the spirit of America's "guiding ideal of liberty for all." President Bush's rhetoric on gay and lesbian families isn't in the spirit of freedom and liberty the President said several times is the single most powerful force to rid us of "fear" and "tyrany."
President Bush is right about the transformative power of freedom and liberty, but he is standing on the wrong side of this powerful force when he lends a voice to radical forces in the Republican Party that seek to subvert the freedom and liberties America holds dear for their divisive agenda.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 29, 2005
The first indication that President Bush was citing bogus science on adoption lies in the fact that this Adminstration rarely pays attention to real science when it comes to domestic policies. The second indication is President Bush prefacing a discussion on domestic policy with "studies have shown." Then, there are the facts.
"Studies have shown," Mr. Bush said in an interview with The New York Times, "that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."But experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse - socially, academically or emotionally - than their peers raised in more traditional households.
The experts, who cross the political spectrum, say studies have shown that on average, children raised by two married heterosexual parents fare better on a number of measures, including school performance, than those raised by single parents or by parents who are living together but are unmarried.
But, said Dr. Judith Stacey, a professor of sociology at New York University, "there is not a single legitimate scholar out there who argues that growing up with gay parents is somehow bad for children."
[Experts Dispute Bush on Gay-Adoption Issue - New York Times - 01-29-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 25, 2005
Here is still more proof that the top concerns of the Republican Party's evangelical base are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. "Moral issues," as suggested in the 2004 exit polls, are admittedly more important to the Republican evangelical base than Social Security and tax reform, the war on terror, the economy and issues that truly matter to the rest of America.
Never mind evangelical's recent obsession with a cartoon sponge over the real threat of terror at the hands of religious extremists. Nothing, as Senator Rick Santorum once said, is a greater defense of America's homeland than amending the United States Constitution to discriminate against gay and lesbian neighbors, friends, co-workers and loved ones.
In a January 18, 2005 letter to the White House, Christian conservatives proclaimed that no other issue but "gay marriage" is "at the top of our agenda." The group went on to threaten to withhold support on Social Security reform in exchange for a disgraceful amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Republican Party has a choice. They can continue to bow to their evangelical base as the entire Senate Republican leadership did yesterday, or they can stand up for issues that really matter to our great nation.
The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition."We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."
The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."
[Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel - New York Times - 01-25-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
, Moral Majority
January 24, 2005
What is today's top legislative priority of Republicans returning to the United States Senate?
A) defending the homeland
B) balancing the budget
C) funding "No Child Left Behind"
D) Health care
E) None of the above.
If you chose "E," you are correct. Concurrent Resolution 1: Marriage Protection Act is Republican Sen. Wayne Allard's idea of the people's top priority. It's also the top priority of Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who is one of the co-sponsors. Should America count the silence of Republican Party moderates as an "Amen?"
President Bush, who supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages, raised eyebrows among conservative Christian supporters recently when he told The Washington Post that Congress might not take action as long as DOMA remains in effect."The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen," Bush told the newspaper, according to the White House transcript.
Allard said he believes Republican Senate leaders will send a different message today. He expects his amendment to be designated Concurrent Resolution 1, indicating at least symbolically that it is the top legislative priority.
[Allard to revive marriage measure - Rocky Mountain News - 01-24-05]
Discrimination: A Partisan Affair
Twenty-one original Republican co-sponsors to this divisive amendment joined the Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) in introducing the amendment. Those include Senators James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina), Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama), David Vitter (R-Louisiana), John Thune (R-South Dakota). Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), James Talent (R-Missouri), Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), Mel Martinez (R-Florida), Jon Kyl (R-Arizona), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina), Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee).
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 24, 2005
The defense of marriage and families seems to be losing most to divorce laws that have allowed the South to lead the nation in the dissolution of the family.
When Massachusetts became the first and so far only US state to legalise gay marriage last year, the loudest protests came from the south. Bible Belt states such as Georgia and Alabama portrayed themselves as the defenders of traditional family values against Godless liberals in the north-east.However, surveys of marriage and divorce across the 50 states paint a very different picture of US society. They show that the most stable families are concentrated in the easy-going north-east, while the God-fearing south has the most broken homes.
Southern states account for eight of the 10 highest divorce rates, while nine of the 10 lowest are in the north-east, according to the US Census Bureau.
[South finds families that pray together may not stay together - Financial Times - 01-24-05]
Is it time for legislation to criminalize divorce? Evangelical conservatives often use the following comments from the Bible depicting Jesus justifying legislation defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The full context, however, had nothing to do with homosexuality as much as it was a broad condemnation of laws allowing divorce.
Mark 10: 2-12 (thanks Rev. Marti Abernathey)
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.' 7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Adultery, as we all know, is such a sin it made it into the very Ten Commandments conservatives demand be placed in public buildings. No where in the Ten Commandments does homosexuality rise to the national disgrace and destruction of adultery.
Conservative evangelicals have two choices. They could follow Jesus and defend the basic tenants of Christianity by divorcing less and addressing rampant adultery, or they could blame gays for their own personal spiritual shortcomings and seek ways to destroy still more loving American families. Which path is President Bush and the Republican party willing to take?
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 17, 2005
In a post yesterday, I pointed out how the White House is backpedaling on President Bush's Washington Post interview within 24 hours of the story being published on Sunday. In the Washington Post interview, excerpted here, President Bush said a Federal Marriage Amendment is unlikely.
Spinning the President's comments on Sunday's Meet The Press, Counselor to the President and former White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told Tim Russert the President fully intends to "spend political capital" on a constitutional amendment denying equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians. It's obvious the White House is answering to a handful of conservative activists angered by the President's honesty.
Since then, a couple of gay media and gay rights organizations have portrayed the Bush Administration as having abandoned the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Log Cabin Republicans (organization)
"Log Cabin is hopeful that the President’s comments recognizing the lack of support for the anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment will result in a second term agenda that can concentrate on much needed reform: reform of social security, reform of the tax system, reform of immigration, and reform of our approach to combating HIV/AIDS," said Log Cabin Republicans President Patrick Guerriero.
[Log Cabin Responds to President Bush’s Comments on the Future of the Anti-family Federal Marriage Amendment - Log Cabin Republicans - 01-16-05]
365gay.com (news)
By dropping his push for a constitutional amendment Bush will likely incur the wrath of social conservatives within the GOP, but avoid a confrontation with Democrats when he needs their support in the Senate to confirm dozens of appointments.
[Bush Drops Gay Marriage Amendment - 365gay.com - 01-16-05]
However, some mainstream media this morning are getting this story right:
The White House sought Sunday to reassure conservatives that President Bush would work hard on behalf of a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, backtracking from remarks Bush made in a published interview suggesting that he would not press the Senate to vote on the amendment this year.
[White House: Gay marriage amendment still possible - Oakland Press - 01-17-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 16, 2005
Nevermind what the President told the Washington Post.
The Post: Do you plan to expend any political capital to aggressively lobby senators for a gay marriage amendment?THE PRESIDENT: You know, I think that the situation in the last session -- well, first of all, I do believe it's necessary; many in the Senate didn't, because they believe DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] will -- is in place, but -- they know DOMA is in place, and they're waiting to see whether or not DOMA will withstand a constitutional challenge.
The Post: Do you plan on trying to -- using the White House, using the bully pulpit, and trying to --
THE PRESIDENT: The point is, is that senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously.
The Post: But until that changes, you want it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate. Do you see what I'm saying?
The Post: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: The logic.
[Transcript of Bush Interview - Washington Post - 01-16-05]
Former White House Communications Director and current Counselor to the President Dan Bartlett and his political hacks have some promises to keep to evangelicals keeping him awake at night.
RUSSERT: The President had an interview with the Washington Post, and he said he will no longer push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage which was quite surprising because in the middle of the campaign in February of 2004 the President said, "We must enact this." In his convention speech, he talked about it. The party platform pledged it, and now he gets re-elected, and he seems to be backing of it. Was this a wedge issue to galvanize evangelical Christians, and now the re-elected President is saying, "well, you know what? I'm not going to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?"BARTLETT: Absolutely not.
RUSSERT: He'll push for it?
BARTLETT: He has said publicly, and he will continue to say publicly, that he is for it. What he was speaking to in that specific interview was the vote count in the United States Senate. Remember, it requires 67 votes to get this passed in the United States Senate, and what the reality there, as this issue was brought foward and debated in the Unites States Senate, or at least attempted to, was that too many Senators believed that the Defense of Marriage Act, that current law on the books, should be challenged or overturned before we take that next step. So, President Bush was talking about a legislative reality that is not going to stop him from spending political capital or continuing to press his position which he believes that marriage ought to be between a man and woman and that we ought to protect, uh, this sacred institution from courts that do not reflect the people's will, and that's something he will continue to advocate and continue to push for.
RUSSERT: But he will push a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the COngress?
BARTLETT: He's for it, and he will continue to push for it.
RUSSERTT: Hard?
BARTLETT: He will spend political capital to do so. He was just speaking to the legislative reality in the Senate.
[Meet The Press - NBC - 01-16-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 14, 2005
The Human Rights Campaign is not happy with Cheryl Jacques recent message on equal marriage rights and are accusing her of misinformation.
Some HRC officials now believe Jacques is waging a subtle misinformation campaign against HRC on the marriage issue, according to two sources with inside knowledge of the organization. [HRC angry over comments from former leader - Southern Voice - 01-14-05]
Jacques dismisses those charges.
“I actually am having some really fascinating conversations with folks all over the country about opportunities,” she said. “I wrote that op-ed so that the community would know that I intend to maintain a strong voice in the national debate on gay civil rights and continue to do everything in my power to help us achieve equality.”
[HRC angry over comments from former leader - Southern Voice - 01-14-05]
also read: Jacques Slams 'Minority of Voices' at HRC
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 12, 2005
The 2000 U.S. Census data reports Virginia had 13,802 same-sex couples. Three Virginia counties were listed among the nation's top 25 counties with the highest percentage of same-sex couples.
4. Arlington, VA - 1,095 same-sex couples represents 3.13% of the county's reported 34,933 couples.
7. Alexandria city, VA - 687 same-sex couples represents 2.93% of the county's reported 23,471 couples.
15. Richmond city, VA - 647 same-sex couples represents 2.30% of the county's reported 28,134 couples.
More than 800 same-sex couples call Republican House Delegate Bob Marshall's District 13 "home" (506 in Prince William County and 324 in Loudoun County).
A majority of Virginia's same-sex couples live in Northern Virginia (South of Washington, D.C. - the "state" with the highest percentage of same sex couples) with some counties far exceeding the population of same-sex couples in the state's Capitol.
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 12, 2005
If the Virginia legislature succeeds in passing a proposed constitutional amendment through two legislative sessions, the Virginia State Board of Elections schedule suggests Virginia voters won't have an opportunity to vote on such an amendment until November 2008. (01-15-05 correction: November 2006)
Amending the constitution is a more laborious process in Virginia than in many other states. Amendments must be passed in two separate legislative sessions separated by an election for the House of Delegates, and then approved by the voters in a statewide referendum.Cosgrove thinks it’s time to start the process. His proposed amendment, HJ528, states:
“To be valid or recognized in this Commonwealth, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. No provision of this Constitution shall be interpreted to require the Commonwealth to recognize or permit marriage between individuals of the same sex.”
Traditional male-female marriage “has been one of the cornerstones of family life in the country” and deserves to be enshrined in the constitution, Cosgrove said in an interview.
[Proposal targets same-sex marriage - Virginia Pilot - 01-10-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 12, 2005
Our neighbors, who Vince and I play poker with every weekend, will likely vote for Republican Gubernatorial candidate and current Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore this November, but our votes for Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine will cancel their's out. In the 2004 elections results for Virgnia,
- Bush beat Kerry 54% to 45%
- turn out of Prince William County's 190,274 registered voters was 69%
- turn out of Virginia's 4,600,000 voters was 71%
Thankfully, the DNC announced today they are sending $5 million to help Kaine out.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Terrence R. McAuliffe plans to announce Tuesday that the party intends to invest $5 million in Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's bid to become Virginia governor, Democratic sources said.State party officials said the contribution will represent the largest amount the DNC has ever given to a Virginia candidate for governor. Four years ago, the national Democrats gave then-candidate Mark R. Warner and the state party $1.27 million. The DNC did not give any money to the party's 1997 candidate for Virginia governor, Donald S. Beyer.
[DNC to Give $5 Million to Kaine's Bid For Governor - Washington Post - 01-11-05]
This November, all 100 seats in the Virginia House of Delegates are up for election as well, including Republican Delegate Robert G. Marshall's 13th District seat. As you may recall from previous posts, Marshall is the Republican Delegate who called me a "Sodomite" when I called him to talk about HB 751. Marshall describes himself best on his own website under the heading "Personal Information."
Born: Tacoma Park, MD, May 3, 1944Marshall still refuses to meet with me and over 40 other gay and lesbian constituents. In his zeal to pass legislation that discriminates against gay and lesbian Virginians, Marshall has regrettably chosen to act out the very spirit of his intentions.
Gender: M
Race: Caucasian
Religion: Catholic
Membership & Affiliation:
All Saints Catholic Church
Knights of Columbus
Prince William County Republican Committee
[Virginia House of Delegates - Marshall, Robert G. (Bob)]
In the piece below, Kirk Marusak is the lead organizer of Equality Prince William and its response to Marshall.
The two sides don't see eye to eye and still haven't met. Marusak said 46 people are still waiting to meet with Marshall. Marusak sent Marshall a certified letter on Aug. 2, again asking for a meeting with him and other Prince William County area delegation members.
[Gay rights activists fail to open dialogue with Marshall - Manassass Journal Messenger - 10-12-04]
The same man who refuses to meet with gay and lesbian constitutents also personally believes nothing will move his supporters to the polls more than defending Virginia from homosexuals.
"The people should be the ultimate authority on issues like this," said Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), the sponsor of one of the several constitutional amendment resolutions that will be submitted. A constitutional amendment also "takes it out of the hands of the courts," he said, and "ensures that activist judges can't usurp" state law.
[GOP Aims To Extend Marriage Restrictions - Washington POst - 01-11-05]
filed under: Equal Marriage Rights
January 10, 2005
Some see mini-vans.
About 250,000 children are being raised by same-sex parents, according to The Urban Institute. But those are the most conservative estimates, based on U.S. Census data. Data based on the number of gay people in the USA suggest a much higher number. Urban Institute researchers say the number of children raised by same-sex parents could top 1 million. That's based on the assumption that the gay population is higher than is reported by the Census.And in 1990, an estimated 6 million to 14 million children had a gay or lesbian parent, according to the most recent figures from