Gays on a train!

Read More...

Judge Walker will issue Prop. 8 decision tomorrow

UPDATE: Various sources are reporting the decision will be issued between 1:00 PM and 3:00 PM Pacific time.
_____________
Tomorrow will be a big news day for everyone who cares about equality. Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker will be issuing his decision in the Prop. 8 case. Via the American Foundation for Equal Rights:

The federal court announced today that it will release its decision in the American Foundation for Equal Right’s landmark case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, on Wednesday. Text “EQUAL” to 69866 to get a text message with the official decision on your mobile phone the moment the court releases its decision, or sign-up for an email alert at equalrightsfoundation.org. Join AFER on its Web site to watch a live press conference with our plaintiffs and co-counsels Ted Olson and David Boies following the release of the decision.

And, from the San Francisco Chronicle:

A federal judge in San Francisco will rule Wednesday on the right of same-sex couples to marry in California, court officials announced today.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker will decide whether Proposition 8, the November 2008 initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman, violated gays' and lesbians' right of equality under the U.S. Constitution.

We'll be waiting, watching and writing. Read More...

The DNC did a video about us. Forget about repealing DADT and DOMA, and passing ENDA. They did a video!

Yes, the DNC did a video about us. All about us. And if it were 1985, we'd be on our knees thanking them for acknowledging our pathetic existence. But since it's 2010, it's not enough for the Democrats to keep doing these very public but very lacking in substance efforts to buy off our money and our votes.

I've made the comparison to high school before. And how when we were all insecure children, we practically waited on pins and needles for that one moment in the hallway when one of the popular kids might look our way and smile, or maybe even said "hi."

But we're not pathetic kids anymore. And doing a video about us, showing up at some organization's dinner, or throwing us a cocktail party in the White House isn't going to cut it anymore. We no longer feel the overwhelming need to be accepted into the cool kids club. We are the cool kids now. Our community has the money, the votes, the power. We are a key constituency of the Democratic party, and you'd better damn well be wooing us, because you need us. And we've finally come to realize that point. YOU need US.

That's why another sweet-nothing, which this video is, is not going to cut it. Truman didn't do a video instead of integrating the military. Johnson didn't do a video instead of getting the Civil Rights Act passed. This little YouTube isn't going to get Dan Choi his job back. It's not going to help the lesbian fired from her job. It's not going to let gay couples finally marry like everyone else. The President didn't promise us videos and dinner appearances. He didn't promise an administrative fix to hospital visitation rights that will go away the next time a Republican president takes office along with those "new" benefits for gay federal employees that we found out weren't new at all, and in fact, gay federal employees have been getting since the Clinton era. The President promised us the repeal of DADT and DOMA, and the passage of ENDA.

So where are they?

When you come up with that video, the one telling us you repealed DADT and DOMA, and passed ENDA, get back to us.

PS And please don't claim credit for DADT when the legislation currently being discussed doesn't even repeal the law, doesn't require a repeal in the future, doesn't mandate what is to replace DADT if it is ever repealed, and in fact gives DOD 2 votes to the White House's 1 vote for repeal. When you can tell us the discharges have stopped - when you can tell us WHEN the discharges will even stop - then get back to us. Read More...

Gays in Brazil can file taxes jointly

We're number one!

From O Globo in Brazil:

Casais homossexuais poderão declarar o companheiro ou companheira como dependente do Imposto de Renda (IR), desde que cumpram os mesmos requisitos estabelecidos pela lei para os heterossexuais com união estável, como vida em comum por cinco anos. A Receita Federal poderá notificar o contribuinte para verificar a informação.

I speak Spanish, and studied a bit of Portuguese, so I'll give you a good, but less than perfect, translation. Actually, I just went to Google Translate, and it did a shockingly good job. So here's its translation, with my tweeks:

Gay couples can declare their partner as a dependent on their income tax (IR), provided they meet the same requirements established by law for heterosexuals (such as living together for five years). The IRS may notify the taxpayer to verify the information.

Read More...

Dissecting a Family Research Council lie

I've been following the far-right Family Research Council since 1993, when I did an extensive review of their documents dealing with DADT. It's safe to say that most, if not all, of their footnotes in their "studies" of DADT at the time were wrong in some way. They're really quite good at claiming something, then linking to a "source" that says nothing of the kind.

Oh, and they're doing it again. This time, they're trying to claim that an "extreme homosexual activist" is responsible for the wikileaks scandal. Let me share the second and third paragraph from the FRC story, and then show you how their sourcing is a total lie - this is what they do, all the time. I'm not going to link to the FRC story, because they don't deserve the traffic:

In May, when U.S. authorities arrested Army Private Bradley Manning for leaking classified information to WikiLeaks.org, there were whispers that he was politically motivated. It turns out that Manning is an extreme homosexual activist, whose fury over the services' homosexual policy may have led him to publicize highly classified documents about the wars. According to the U.K.'s Telegraph, Manning has an extensive history of campaigning for gay, lesbian, and transgendered causes and sources say he may have even been considering a sex change when he leaked military secrets on the Internet.

Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with "flaunting" his sexuality when DADT is still in effect. "Was Manning given a pass because his 'lifestyle' was...acceptable under the Obama administration?" Cliff Kincaid asks. If so, then Manning's sedition may have given opponents of the repeal all the ammunition they need to kill the idea. Obviously, the Pentagon's "relaxed enforcement" of DADT is putting the entire United States military is at risk of losing thousands of lives and the war. "The revelations of Manning's openly pro-homosexual conduct suggest that a more liberal Department of Defense policy, in deference to the wishes of the Commander-in-Chief, had already been in effect and has now backfired in a big way," Kincaid writes.

Okay, first, Manning is allegedly found out to be an "extreme homosexual activist." Really? Any proof? No. FRC cites the Telegraph, and claims that the Telegraph says Manning has an "extensive history" of campaigning for gay rights. In fact, the Telegraph article mentions that Manning once showed up at a single gay rights rally - that's it. How is that an "extensive" history as an "extreme" gay activist? It's not. Of course, if you don't click through to the source, you'll never know that the FRC is lying about what the source actually says. That's a usual move of theirs.

Also typical, and a rather brilliant bit of deception (that FRC has also done before), is how they pretend to give you the source for an assertion, but really don't.

Although the U.S. press is relatively mum on his personal life, the British paper questions how Manning got away with "flaunting" his sexuality when DADT is still in effect. "Was Manning given a pass because his 'lifestyle' was...acceptable under the Obama administration?" Cliff Kincaid asks.

Now, anyone reading this story would think that Cliff Kincaid was the British paper source questioning how Manning got away "flaunting" his sexuality. In fact, Cliff Kincaid is an American far-right activist. The sentence is a non sequitor intended, it would appear, to make you think that Kincaid is the proof behind the previous assertion, when he's not.

In fact, nowhere in the single British press article that FRC cites is anything said about Manning "flaunting" his homosexuality - note how FRC even quotes the word, to give the impression that it's a real quote from the British press. Nor is there anything in the British article asking how Manning "got away" with being gay in the military, even though FRC claims it's there. But again, if you don't click through to the original source, you'll believe FRC's bigoted slander on its face.

Finally, there's nothing, anywhere, to suggest that Manning had any "fury" over DADT, or that, even if he did, such fury led him to leak the documents. Where did FRC come up with it? Probably the same place they came up with the suggestion that Manning was considering a sex change. (Note how the sex change allegation is thrown in the same sentence talking about the UK paper, again suggesting that the UK paper is the one reporting on the sex change allegation, to give it more credence, even though the paper mentions nothing of the kind.)

If we're going to play that game, I have sources who think that FRC's President, Tony Perkins, may be a closeted homosexual because he's so fey on TV. Does that make it true, does it mean Perkins is really gay? In this case, the sources are simply my friends who think Perkins talks and looks really gay. (And he does talk and look really gay, in my opinion.) But you don't see me writing stories exposing Tony Perkins as a closeted gay man, based on secret sources. Yet, you do see FRC throwing around the notion of a possible sex change when they don't even bother citing their sources. And let's face it, even when FRC does cite its sources, the sourcing is often pretty bad. So imagine how good it is when they refuse to cite the source.

UPDATE: I see Alvin caught this too. Read More...

Senator Ensign, under criminal investigation over affair with staffer, may try to block DADT repeal

We learned two things about ethically-challenged Senator John Ensign last week.

Via Chris Johnson, Ensign is prepared to fight against the compromise DADT repeal language:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) last week expressed unease about language in pending defense budget legislation that would lead to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal and said he would consider supporting measures to stop the Senate from passing the provision.

In a brief exchange on Capitol Hill, Ensign told the Blade he shared the views of the military service chiefs, who, prior to earlier congressional action this year on repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” wrote to lawmakers to express concern about the action they were taking.

“The problem is you can’t go out and say to the military chiefs, ‘We’re going to survey you and see what you all think,’ and then you pass the bill to repeal it,” Ensign said. “So the study should come first and then you can talk about the repeal or not of ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell']. So, yes, it is a concern simply because the study’s not done.”

That's no surprise. He's a typical GOP homophobe.

But, let's not forget that Ensign is facing a criminal investigation stemming from the fallout from the affair he had with a staffer, Cynthia Hampton. Her husband, Doug, also worked for Ensign. It's tawdry.

So, the other thing we learned is that the full Senate approved a resolution allowing Ensign's staff to testify before the grand jury that's investigating the Senator:

The Senate’s approval of the resolution is the latest sign that the investigation into the senator’s affair – and whether he illegally attempted to cover it up and flouted federal law by helping the lobbying career of his former mistress’ husband – continues to move swiftly. Last week, POLITICO first reported that Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn – Ensign’s former roommate - had given scores of e-mails to federal investigators to assist with their inquiry.

That John Ensign is still in the Senate is an affront. That the big hypocrite is still trying to bash gays is almost comical. I hope he gets jail time. Read More...

Beautiful vintage gay photos

This site has collected a ton of old gay photos (and some that might just be friendly foreigners, hard to say). They're very cool. (H/t to GayTwogether.com, some of the pics come from there as well.)



Read More...

'The Prop. 8 Report' examines what went wrong, what went right and how to finally win

David Fleischer from the LGBT Mentoring Project has authored a new report, The Prop. 8 Report: What defeat in California can Teach Us about Winning Future Ballot Measures on Same-sex Marriage." The full report is here. The purpose of the report is explained in the Executive Summary:

The purpose of this report is to help supporters of same-sex marriage learn from the Prop 8 campaign. This knowledge can hasten the day that we are able to return to the ballot to win same-sex marriage in California or in any state where we have previously lost on the issue.

There is much to learn. Many commonly held beliefs about Prop 8 are factually incorrect. The data show that the pro–same-sex marriage side, the No on 8 campaign, made both smart choices and costly mistakes. This report aims to help our entire community recognize and learn from both. Understanding what happened will help all of us face and embrace the hard work ahead.

Fleischer also has an op-ed in today's L.A. Times, which provides the highlights some of his key findings. For example, parents with kids under 18 shifted against support for marriage. Those ads worked:

One big question after the election: Who moved? Six weeks before the vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks, supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but certain.

After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans' views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.

That's very important info.

The report has a section titled, Most of the Conventional Wisdom about the Prop 8 Campaign is Wrong. For example, we can't easily overturn the election. The other side would have benefited more if people weren't confused by the ballot. So, we've got a steeper hill to climb than initially envisioned.

But, there is one piece of conventional wisdom that is accurate:

Mormon money was essential to the success of Yes on 8.

This one is true. According to Schubert Flint, the lead consulting firm for Yes on 8, the Mormons raised $22 million from July through September with 40% of the money or more coming from members of the Church of Latter-day Saints

. Read More...