Marriage equality: Obama dare not speak his support

Kerry Eleveld's latest column gets into an issue the Obama administration desperately wants to avoid: marriage equality. I think Kerry captures the situation perfectly:

In fact, I get the distinct feeling that the White House hopes it can simply duck the marriage question straight through 2012, and I’d also bet dollars to doughnuts it won’t be able to. What became clear to me while interviewing attendees of the August 6 meeting was that while the friendly audience may have cut the administration some slack on legislative items like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and the Defense of Marriage Act, the one place advocates unapologetically stood their ground was on marriage equality.

Why? Because on that issue state activists have been the proverbial tip of the spear, if you will. They may not have a front-row seat to the maddening process of trying to chisel equality from the gut of an ossified federal government, but state-by-state they have shed blood, sweat, and tears for the recognition of their love and their families.

No one more clearly conveyed this point to me than Michael Kenny of the Florida Together Federation, who was at the White House briefing.

“We want and deserve absolute full marriage equality, and we’re not going to be satisfied until the president is advocating for it himself,” Kenny said. “It’s heartbreaking because we fought marriage amendments here in ’08 and we were really in the trenches. We made personal sacrifices for months and in some cases years, and then we watched discrimination be enshrined the state constitution.”

Make no mistake, this is an issue that the president’s chief advisers have misjudged from day one. They underestimated how angry people were that candidate Barack Obama wasn’t more vocal in his opposition to Proposition 8; they dismissed the devastation felt by millions of queers who poured their hearts into electing Obama only to watch Prop. 8 proponent Rick Warren give the invocation at the inauguration; they remained silent in 2009 as gay Mainers fought to preserve their right to love, marry, and build a life with their partner; and then David Axelrod reassured the nation two weeks ago that the president still opposes granting the freedom to marry to all Americans.

When Gibbs lampooned the professional left it was code for, “Oh, it’s just those coastal big-city liberals pushing their intemperate views in the media again.”

But that couldn’t be further from the truth on the issue of marriage equality after the sting of bigotry tromped from Florida to Maine to California and nearly every state in between. The president and his advisers may hope to stay below the radar on the question of marriage straight through 2012, but they are flying blind if they can’t see that activists across the nation are already seething.

The question I have is: Do the president and his advisers even care? They sure haven't given any indication that they do. Read More...

Target and Best Buy will be removed from HRC's Buyer's Guide

Hat tip, Mike Signorile. After interviewing HRC VP Fred Sainz earlier this week, Mike noted that, despite all the tough talk about Target, HRC was still telling people to spend their money at Target and Best Buy via that Buyer's Guide.

That has now changed. Andy Towle has the announcement from HRC's Michael Cole. Good work, Michael. This had to be done. There had to be consequences for Target.

Target made a calculated business decision that has turned out to be a huge mistake. I suspect many corporations make donations to blatantly homophobic candidates because they think it's in their business interests. Target's experience, especially in the wake of the Citizens United decision, should cause all of us to pay more attention to the beneficiaries of corporate political spending. And, other CEOs and corporate boards should heed the lessons of the Target fiasco.

As MoveOn.org says, Target ain't people:
Read More...

Vandals spray painted the f-word on Utah Pride Center

The f-word being "fags." Via LGBT FYI, the LGBT blog of the Salt Lake Tribune:

Salt Lake City Police are investigating an instance of vandalism at the Utah Pride Center. Friday morning, employees of the center and its onsite coffee shop, Cafe Marmalade, discovered an anti-gay slur painted on the marquee in front of the building.

"We realize that often times the purpose of these actions are to cause widespread fear among the members of our community," Valerie Larabee, executive director of the Utah Pride Center, said in a statement. "That is why today we are speaking out. This will not be swept under the rug. We will not be scared into silence by acts of intolerance."

The full statement from Larabee can be found here. Here's more:

The Utah Pride Center board and staff acknowledge that in any social justice movement, the more progress that is made, the more resistance the targeted community will face. "We welcome civil, respectful dialogues with those who disagree with our mission, but this kind of hate language and vandalism will not be tolerated," said Larabee.

The Utah Pride Center appreciates the work of the Salt LakeCity Police Department and the LGBT Public Safety Liaison Committee.

And, the Utah Pride Center posted a photo on its Facebook page:
Read More...

ENDA Summer: 'GetEQUAL is determined to pull out all the stops to get ENDA passed in 2010.'

It's the end of summer and there's no ENDA in sight. So, GetEQUAL is ramping up the pressure. Today, the group launced "ENDA Summer." Keep in mind that GetEQUAL is asking leaders on Capitol Hill to keep their promise to pass ENDA in this session of Congress.

Via press release:

Earlier today, GetEQUAL launched its “ENDA Summer” campaign with a national email sent out to supporters across the country. In the email, GetEQUAL co-founder and director Robin McGehee wrote, "We're heading into the end of summer, and there has been both an eerie silence from Congress and whispers of surrender from the White House about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Despite these challenges from our elected leaders, GetEQUAL is determined to pull out all the stops to get ENDA passed in 2010."

McGehee went on to write in the email, “This isn't a legislative issue -- this is a moral issue. And we're targeting legislators in specific states who have not yet shown the moral courage to support this legislation. We're tired of legislators telling us that basic job protections for LGBTQ Americans are politically inconvenient -- that some are more concerned with securing their own jobs than those of their constituents. We're tired of being asked to wait -- we've been waiting for 40 years.” To view today’s “ENDA Summer” campaign launch email, please go to: http://getequal.org/2010/08/enda-summer/.

To join in and be a part of “ENDA Summer” by making a commitment to take bold action for LGBT equality, please visit: www.getequal.org/endasummer.

In addition to today’s email, GetEQUAL has identified local organizers in each state who will spearhead this campaign. Those who sign up to join the “ENDA Summer” campaign will submit their contact information and will be paired with a local organizer in their particular state in order to obtain more information about actions planned in that state and how they can get involved.

And they're naming names in the 15 targeted states. Members of Congress and their staffs hate being on target lists. That's why so many DC-based organizations won't release target lists. They get yelled at by Capitol Hill offices for doing it. GetEQUAL isn't playing that game:

Arkansas: Sens. Blanche Lincoln & Mark Pryor; Reps. Marion Barry & Mike Ross

California: Speaker Nancy Pelosi; Reps. Ken Calvert & George Miller

Georgia: Reps. Jim Marshall & Sanford Bishop

Illinois: Reps. Daniel Lipinski & Jerry Costello

Indiana: Sens. Richard Lugar & Evan Bayh; Rep. Joe Donnelly

Louisiana: Rep. Charlie Melancon

Minnesota: Rep. Collin Peterson

Missouri: Rep. Ike Skelton

Mississippi: Reps. Travis Childers & Gene Taylor

New Jersey: Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen

North Carolina: Reps. Heath Shuler & Mike McIntyre

Ohio: Senator George Voinovich

Oregon: Rep. Greg Walden

Pennsylvania: Reps. Jim Gerlach & Christopher Carney

Tennessee: Reps. Lincoln Davis, John Tanner & Bart Gordon

To review the long list of promises made to pass ENDA, from President Obama to Majority Leader Reid to Speaker Pelosi, among other, check out the ENDA timeline of Broken Promises.

And, if you live in one of the states listed above, sign up. Even if you don't, call your members of Congress and ask them to pass ENDA this year.

If the elections go the way some pundits are predicting, meaning Democratic losses, we won't see ENDA for a long time. The window is closing.

Senator Merkley's ENDA bill, S. 1584, currently has 43 co-sponsors. The House bill, H.R. 3017, has co-sponsors. Read More...

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: 'I Actually Support Gay Marriage'

Weird, but welcome. Another Republican to the left of Barack Obama on marriage equality. Read More...

Another loss for NOM in federal court. This time in Maine.

Leaders of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) think their organization doesn't have to play by the rules. In Maine, they didn't like the rules, so they ran to court to challenge them. Ironic, since NOM is critical when equality advocates go to court. And, our side goes to court to fight for our rights. NOM goes to court to avoid complying with the law and to hide its donors.

But, NOM efforts to avoid compliance with Maine's ethics law suffered another blow yesterday:

Hornby struck down the 24-hour rule that required disclosure not just before an election, but whenever it is made of independent expenditures over $250. He said the rule "has not been justified is impermissibly burdensome and cannot be enforced."

He also said "Maine's use of the words 'influence' and 'influence in any way' are unconstitutionally vague."

"Otherwise," Hornby wrote, "Maine's laws governing PACs, independent campaign expenditures, and attribution and disclaimer requirements are constitutional, and survive NOM's challenges that they are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad."

The National Organization for Marriage contested the constitutionality of Maine's campaign finance laws, before perhaps engaging in activity to influence outcomes of upcoming legislative elections.

And, NOM challenged the laws because the group doesn't want to disclose its contributors to the No on 1 campaign last fall.

Brian Brown is going to keep litigating and still wants to spend money in Maine's elections this fall:

The organization will pursue an expedited appeal to the U.S. First Circuit Court in Boston, he said, because of the short time before the upcoming elections.

Though Thursday's decision will delay its plans for political activity in Maine, Brown said, the group is reviewing the decision, to gauge a potential timeline for action.

The organization plans activity in Maine regarding candidates who support "redefining marriage," said Brown, and candidates who support traditional marriage. He declined to say whether the National Organization for Marriage will be active in the state's governor's race, as well as the legislative races.

NOM is going to a lot of trouble to prevent disclosure of its donors. That begs the question we've been asking for a long time: Who really is funding NOM? Read More...

Pougnet debates Bono Mack tonight

Democrat Steve Pougnet, the gay, married dad, will face off against his opponent, GOP Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack, tonight in the only debate scheduled, so far anyway, for their race. It begins at 6:30 PM Pacific Time.

This race is considered one the best chances the Democrats have to pick up a GOP held seat in November. It will be great to have a married dad in Congress. Steve understands what DOMA really means.

Here's what Pougnet wrote today at DailyKos:

So today is the big day, the day of the debate! Today will be the first time since 2002 that Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack has agreed to debate. Since Congresswoman Bono Mack has refused to have an audience present at the debate, I need your help to get this out to as many people as possible.

Bono Mack has claimed to be an LGBT ally in the past. But, in May, she voted against the DADT repeal bill. Enough said.

The debate will be broadcast here.

Our ActBlue page for Pougnet is here. Read More...

The day that Jed Bartlett took on Dr. Laura

While we're on the subject:
Read More...

A trip down memory lane with Dr. Laura

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. "End of debate," as you say.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord-Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness-Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination-Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse
and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Read More...

Crazy Coulter dropped from crazy right-wing conference after agreeing to speak to crazy right-wing gays

It's all so... Read More...

New DADT ad from SU Action Fund

UPDATE @ 2:29 PM: Servicemembers United just announced a DADT lobby day, "The Final Assault," for September 16th:

Servicemembers United, the nation's largest organization of gay and lesbian troops and veterans, announced today that it will host another "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" lobby day for repeal supporters on Thursday, September 16, 2010. The fall lobby day, affectionately nicknamed "The Final Assault," will come at a critical time after the Senate reconvenes but before the chamber is expected to take up the repeal-inclusive defense authorization bill. Participants can register for the September 16th "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" lobby day at www.ServicemembersUnited.org.

_________

Servicemembers and their families explain the real world impact of DADT. More at MilitaryReadiness.org
Read More...

I guess we now know who the LGBT Bar Association is in bed with

Check out this "panel" discussion at the upcoming LGBT Bar Association meeting - you'll note that the panel is full of gay administrations, and pro-Obama apologists, and the description - well - sounds like the White House wrote it:

Every year, the sharpest legal minds in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community gather at the National LGBT Bar Association's annual conference and career fair.

Hundreds of practicing attorneys, dozens of scholars, over 500 students and many leading members of the judiciary are expected to attend over the course of
this year's events.

Friday, August 27, 2010 | 9:00am - 10:30am

Real Change: LGBT Issues and the Administration

Legal advocates with a keen eye on the executive branch see meaningful regulatory change within the Administration, notwithstanding concerns over the pace of change presented by certain LGBT activists and bloggers. [emphasis added] How will the progress that has been made affect the legal profession and the LGBT community? HUD is undertaking the federal government's first study on anti-gay discrimination in housing; HHS has directed federal grantees to allow hospital visitation rights for same sex couples and granted $900k to create the first and only national resource center on LGBT aging; the Justice Department has declared that Violence Against Women Act applies to same-sex couples; the Office of Personnel Management has made available certain benefits to the same sex partners of federal employees; and the Labor Department has interpreted the Family and Medical Leave Act to allow a caregiver to take leave to care for a child irrespective of their biological or legal relationship. The HIV travel ban has been lifted and federal law now prohibits hate crimes on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but what do these legislative accomplishments mean for our community? What are the prospects for other LGBT legislative priorities? What else does the LGBT community want from the Administration?

Moderator: David Lat
Speakers: Matt Nosanchuk, Paul Smith, Courtney Joslin, Elaine Kaplan, Jon Davidson, Tobias Barrington Wolff

I was fortunate enough to find a preview of one of the questions the LGBT Bar Association plans on asking the Obama administration panelists - you can watch it here. Read More...

Remembering Dr. Laura

The NYT reminds us of an important point. At her peak, Dr. Laura was only second to Limbaugh.

In her three decades on the radio, Dr. Schlessinger’s popular show — at its peak it was the second highest-rated radio show after The Rush Limbaugh Show — has come under fire from rights groups a number of times. In 2000, a coalition of gay activists launched a Web site, StopDrLaura.com, and organized protests and boycotts across the United States and Canada in response to her comments about homosexuality, which she referred to as a “biological error.” They were also angered by her outspoken stance against adoption by same-sex couples, and remarks in which she said that a “a huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys.”

Dr. Schlessinger apologized for many of her comments, but many of her advertisers left her radio show, and a television show she started in 2000 was ended a year later. On the Web site StopDrLaura.com Tuesday night, a headline at the top of the home page declared, “We Stopped Dr Laura.”

StopDrLaura.com was a campaign I started with a few friends. (You can skip the summary of the campaign, and go straight to the old StopDrLaura.com Web site here.) Read More...

LA Times on MoveOn's 'Distasteful move' against Target - huh?

Huh?

On Tuesday, MoveOn launched a new TV ad targeting Target, urging shoppers to boycott the chain because of a $150,000 donation it gave to the Minnesota business advocacy group MN Forward. That group is backing Tom Emmer, the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor, who is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage. MoveOn, along with the gay rights advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, has been pressuring Target for weeks over the donation, wresting an apology from the company's chief executive and a promise that future political contributions will be vetted more carefully; Target insists that it gave the money strictly to support MN Forward's pro-business stance, not to oppose gay rights. That wasn't good enough for the activists. When Target failed to knuckle under to demands that it contribute $150,000 to pro-gay-rights candidates, MoveOn hit back with its boycott campaign.

For MoveOn, the fight is at least as much about corporate money as it is about gay rights. The Target contribution is a high-profile result of an overreaching January decision by the Supreme Court that opens the door for more corporate donations to political campaigns. But by pointing out Target's involvement in Emmer's campaign and obtaining an apology, MoveOn and Human Rights Campaign had already won; their calls for a boycott and attempt to strong-arm money from the company are deeply counterproductive.

The boycott is a tried-and-true tool of nonviolent resistance, used to powerful effect during the civil rights era. But it is cheapened and ultimately rendered ineffective when it becomes a hair-trigger response by activists irked by minor political transgressions. Target's contribution to MN Forward was at worst a small error of judgment, and should matter far less than the company's ongoing and long-term commitment to workplace equal rights and its sponsorship of pro-gay events. Moreover, the attempt to wrangle an in-kind contribution from Target is reminiscent of a tactic that appalled gay rights advocates when it was used against them during the campaign for Proposition 8, California's 2008 initiative banning same-sex marriage. Proposition 8 supporters sent letters to big contributors for the opposite side, threatening to expose them unless they sent an equal donation to their campaign. It was a distasteful move then, and now.

Actually, I've been furious with Target, myself, and have joined the boycott. I do not agree it was a small error of judgment and could be immediately rectified by Target offering an equal amount of money to Emmer's opponent; not to mention Target taking advantage of "Citizen's United" in this egregious manner has to be answered by the public via hitting them where it hurts to prevent further buying of politicians. If we can't get justice in the courts regarding ridiculous decisions like "Citizen's United" what is wrong with the gay, or straight ally, consumer voting with their dollars? The whole comparison of this justified boycott to the threatened shaming and sleazy attempted blackmail of our supporters by Prop 8 supporters by the L.A. Times is what I consider a "Distasteful move." Am I alone here? Read More...

In Mexico, 'The cardinal must submit to the law of the land, like all other citizens of this country'

How much do I love this story?

The Mayor of Mexico City has filed a lawsuit against the Cardinal of Guadalajara for slandering the Supreme Court. Pam has the full story. But, check this out:

In the secular institutional corner, the Supreme Court censured Sandoval's statements unanimously, and Ebrard issued a stark warning to the highest-ranking prelate of Mexico's second-largest city: "We live in a secular state, and here, whether we like it or not, the law rules the land," Ebrard said, according to La Jornada (links in Spanish). "The cardinal must submit to the law of the land, like all other citizens of this country."

According to the CIA Fact Book, Mexico is 76.5% Catholic. But, it's a secular state and leaders aren't afraid to say that. Religious leaders can't dictate policy, unlike Mexico's neighbor to the North.

Considering the crimes that Cardinals around the world have gotten away with (enabling and protecting child rapists), slander probably seemed like nothing. Leaders of the Catholic Church just aren't used to being held accountable. Read More...