Talk about being on the wrong side of history. Chris Christie, the governor of New Jersey, and delegate Sam Arora of Maryland, are stubbornly clinging on to their political homophobia like a life raft as the winds of change blow them further out to sea.

In the case of Chris Christie, today he vetoed a marriage equality bill that passed both bodies of the state legislature, fulfilling his promise to do so in spite of popular approval to extend full marriage rights to same-sex couples, instead of the current separate and unequal in reality civil unions.

Christie, a Republican, insisted the issue was so important “it should be left to the people of New Jersey to decide.”

The governor said he continued “to encourage the legislature to trust the people of New Jersey and seek their input by allowing our citizens to vote on a question that represents a profoundly significant societal change.”

A referendum by New Jersey citizens, as opposed to their representatives in state government, he said, was “the only path to amend our state constitution and the best way to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage in our state.”

What garbage — so in Christie’s world (largely focusing on the chance that he will be on a Romney ticket as VP or a mover and shaker in 2016) civil rights should be determined at the ballot box. As if to enforce the idea that he thinks civil unions can still be salvaged as a compromise, he proposed the creation of a ”civil union ombudsman.”  Steven Goldstein, Chair, Garden State Equality found this laughably offensive.

“In vetoing the marriage equality bill, Governor Christie’s offer to create a civil union ombudsman is the very essence of the political theatre he decries.

“How in the world would a civil union ombudsman enforce the civil union law for New Jersey couples who work in New York, a state that recognizes marriage equality – would New York State actually deputize a New Jersey civil union ombudsman to work within its own borders?   How in the world would a civil union ombudsman deal with the children being raised by same-sex couples – children stigmatized at school by questions about the perceived inferiority of their families because of the second-class civil union label?   How in the world would a civil union ombudsman deal with the assault on the dignity faced by civil union couples by hospitals and employers who understand the civil union law perfectly well – but sneer at the relationship of couples who aren’t married?

“A civil union ombudsman might well be the country’s first-ever Enforcer of Discrimination – and worse.   A civil union ombudsman is nothing more than the shameless dressing up of a veto of people’s dignity and equality – the equivalent of gold-plating a separate water fountain for a specific class of people.”

When and if any referendum on marriage equality comes to pass (unlikely since the legislature has until 2014 to override his veto), he may find himself one of the few people in the Garden State actually voting no, but the dumb@ss needs to think about the drubbing he will take at the ballot box if he decides to run for re-election for his current job.

***

And perhaps more onerous is the case of Sam Arora, who ran on a marriage equality platform, which opened the wallet$ of the LGBT community, only to reverse his position. Today was one of the “no” votes when the Maryland House of Delegates voted 71-67 to pass the Civil Marriage Protection Act of 2012. (Metro Weekly):

On Twitter, Gov. Martin O’Malley (D-Md.), wrote, “Today, the House of Delegates voted for human dignity. Love is an unalienable right. At its heart, their votes were votes for Maryland’s children.”

He added: “Now, as the Senate prepares to vote, all of us are needed & we’re prepared to redouble our efforts.”

Among the Democrats voting against the bill in the House was Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery County), who had run on a platform that included support for marriage equality but enraged activists in 2011 by opposing the bill when it was being considered. Although advocates had been pushing for him to support the bill this year, he voted “nay” tonight.

If he thought he would benefit politically by holding fast to his homophobia, Mr. Sam “gay-$hakedown homophobe” Arora is sadly mistaken. John Aravosis, Americablog:

Regardless of what Arora is hiding in his political closet, his career in Democratic politics is over. A number of high-level Democratic political operatives in DC are talking this evening about the best way, legally and politically, to move ahead with ending Arora’s career, starting with his next election. We’ve taken down bigger bigots than a Maryland House delegate. If he thinks he’s going to survive in Democratic politics as a known homophobe, and someone who poked his finger in the eyes of Bill Clinton, Terry McAuliffe and Maryland Governor O’Malley… well, good luck with that.

More from Democratic political consultant Karl Frisch, a former friend and supporter of Arora’s:

“Discrimination against gay and lesbian couples is one step closer to being over in Maryland. The same can be said for Sam’s career in politics.”

“I’ve already been asked by several high level national and Maryland Democratic operatives to join a call tonight to discuss strategies for sending Sam packing. We — and by we, I mean many people who helped elect our former equality supporting friend — will do whatever it takes. Nothing will be left off the table.”

Enjoy the next few years in politics, Sam. They’ll be your last in elected office.

Friday was a big day in the Bull City. Durham, NC was the site of a rally and education sessions held around the city about the harms of Amendment One, the ballot initiative that goes to voters on May 8. One of the kickoff sites is North Carolina Central University’s Student Union and Law School, which hosted a forum moderated by student leader of NCCU’s LGBT group COLORS, Brandon Hicks; Carmelo Montalvo of NCCU Student Government Association also represented Central. Duke University was in the house as well, with its president of student government, Pete Schork, its president of the Black Student Alliance, Marcus Benning, and Jacob Tobia of Duke Together Against Constitutional Discrimination.

Jen Jones, communications director for Protect All NC Families, who has been on a 322-mile run to hold town halls and discussions about the amendment was also here in her now very familiar Race to the Ballot bright yellow hoodie, to rally to crowd to tell people in their lives to learn about the harms to children, women and families posed by this amendment to get out to vote on May 8.

This historically black university (HBCU) has passed a resolution against Amendment One, and its panel on the Amendment’s harms was strong, featuring National Black Justice Coalition founder Mandy Carter, pastor and author of Adam’s Gift, Jimmy Creech, as well as the first openly gay black state representative, Marcus Brandon. Carter began her talk, discussing the parallels between Loving v. Virginia and the fact that discrimination related to marriage is familiar, sad territory.

Jimmy Creech aptly drew the connection between the social conservatism driving the current arguments about birth control that lie behind the same kind of control, fear and hatred toward the LGBT community that is now being directed toward women at this time. Creech: “The amendment is not about marriage, it’s about rejecting the integrity and dignity of same-gender-loving people.” What the bible says about marriage is irrelevant when it comes to the constitution of the state of North Carolina.

What it will say on the ballot on May 8:

Constitutional amendment to provide that marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State.

For
Against

Marcus Brandon described how difficult it was to come out — a newspaper planned a story when he announced he was running for office — but he knew that it was essential to do so for the sake of young people of color struggling to come out. Regarding his colleagues in the legislature who “voted him off the island” he said that “You have to meet people where they are.”

He reiterated that for those in the LGBT movement who press for marriage equality or bust that they need to be realistic — it’s not happening in many states, and it won’t happen outside of a SCOTUS decision, so they need to support efforts to beat back restrictive legislation, and help move people through education in the right direction. Brandon stressed that it is important not to be confrontational when discussing issues with anti-gay views, but to make the personal connection through stories about yourself to move people in the right direction. “The human experience is the best experience to educate people.”

Marcus Brandon: “We have to be extraordinary to have extraordinary outcomes on May 8.”

During Q&A, people recounted the kinds of conversations they were having with classmates and the public about the amendment, and LGBT rights. One young woman said that she has felt unprepared to address some of the general ignorance out there — one person said “is this about approving homosexuality?” Well, that pretty much sums up where even some potential allies are when it comes to the amendment. You have to arm yourself with even the most basic information about what the discrimination means for not just gays and lesbians, but for women, domestic violence laws, and unmarried couples, they will see how this is a tragic over-reach based on bigotry and fear.

Marcus Brandon and the panel were told by an audience member that today Dick Cheney lobbied Republican legislators in Maryland to vote for its marriage equality bill, and Marcus Brandon noted that this illustrates the power of personal relationships affecting political decisions regardless of party affiliation — and that 10 Democrats in the NC general assembly voted to put this amendment on the ballot.

Another audience member asked a question that also illustrates a problem in education about the amendment — she described it as a vote on marriage equality. It’s not — it’s about stopping an effort to write into our state constitution to permanently bar gays and lesbians from marrying — or for the state to pass civil unions, and eliminates domestic partnerships and legal relationship recognition that exists at some municipal levels.

It was noted by an audience member that Arizona originally rejected an amendment that was too broad, and would have affected unmarried senior citizens, and it failed. Of course they went back to narrow it to only discriminate as LGBT couples it passed, but that it is possible to beat back this amendment. Mandy Carter noted one harm is that the amendment will take away the city/county domestic partnership recognition that exist right here in Durham.

There was a question about the issue of the “progressive bubbles” where we know the amendment will lose, but the areas of the state that are more conservative. Marcus Brandon stressed that there have been big turnouts for rallies in Asheville, Charlotte and Greensboro that bode well in a primary that will have low turnout. He said “just make sure you bring 5 people to the polls.”

You have to be clear, Mandy Carter said, that you tell people to vote “AGAINST” the amendment, since that’s the language on the ballot, to make sure there is no confusion about the outcome. She also said that this amendment is only one of many serious issues that the Republican lawmakers who slid in during the 2010 elections are driving that do not reflect the political progress NC has already made — women’s rights, immigration rights, etc. — that fair-minded North Carolinians are trying to beat back.

The amendment is designed to deny human rights. That is the insidious aspect of this.” —  Jimmy Creech.

All of Us NC, a multiracial, diverse alliance of North Carolinians working to educate voters about the amendment, stressed how hard it is to “play defense” against a negative amendment — it’s a lot harder to do than fight for, say, marriage equality. But it can be done — this state elected Barack Obama in 2008.  As a diverse community, we can say that we turned away bigotry.”

After the forum I asked organizer Brandon Hicks for his thoughts about the day and the role NCCU played (and we got a little shout out at the end).

The NCCU Law School Teach-In discussed the legal implications of the proposed amendment, which defines marriage between a man and a woman as the “only legal domestic union” recognized by the state. On the panel: Barbera Fedders, of UNC-CH School of Law, Irving Joyner, Angela Gilmore, and Lydia Lavelle of NCCU’s School of Law, and James Coleman of Duke University School of Law.

Jen Jones continued her 322-mile run across the state, hitting mile 150 here and jogging her heart out, adding two miles running though my old neighborhood, Old West Durham, heading south on Ninth Street and down to the Pinhook on Main, raising awareness about the harms of Amendment One, registering even more voters. Durham’s People’s Alliance was out in force, passing out yard signs for people to show their opposition to the ballot initiative.

Photos below the fold.

Today the office of Washington’s Attorney General released the ballot language for Referendum 74, the measure challenging the state’s new marriage equality law. This is just the first step in the process of finalizing the language. Now begins a 5-day period where anyone objecting to the language can file an appeal in Thurston County Superior Court.

Since ballot language is proposed by the person filing the referendum — in this case Joseph Backholm of Family Policy Institute of Washington (FPIW) in conjunction with National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — the appeal process provides an opportunity to catch prejudicial or confusing language that may have missed the notice of the AG’s office.

Looking at the ballot language for Referendum 74, one comes to appreciate this appeal process. Notice the term I’ve put in caps:

Ballot Title
The legislature passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6239 concerning marriage [and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this bill.]

This bill would REDEFINE MARRIAGE to allow same-sex couples to marry, modify existing domestic-partnership laws, allow clergy to refuse to solemnize or recognize marriages and religious organizations to refuse to accommodate marriage celebrations.

Should this bill be

___ Approved

___ Rejected

Ballot Measure Summary
The bill would REDEFINE MARRIAGE to allow same-sex couples to marry, apply marriage eligibility requirements without regard to gender, and specify that laws using gender-specific terms like “husband” and “wife” include same-sex spouses. Clergy could refuse to solemnize or recognize any marriages. Religious organizations and religiously affiliated educational institutions could refuse to accommodate weddings. The measure would not affect licensing of religious organizations providing adoption, foster-care, or child-placement. Domestic partnerships for seniors would be preserved.

“Redefine marriage” does not appear anywhere in the marriage equality law that the referendum is challenging, but it is a key phrase in the opposition’s playbook. Indeed, “redefine marriage” is used frequently by NOM and FPIW in their communications about Washington’s marriage equality law. For example, “The National Organization for Marriage Pledges Referendum Campaign if Legislature Tries to Redefine Marriage” is the headline of a recent article written about the marriage debates in Washington by NOM’s Brian Brown.

“Redefine marriage” can be found anywhere the marriage equality bill or law is discussed on FPIW’s website, whether in their own writings (e.g., “What you can do about the legislature’s decision to redefine marriage“) or in the writings of the Catholic Hierarchy featured prominently on FPIW’s main web page (e.g., “A statement by Washington’s bishops on defining marriage“).

A Google search on the term “redefine marriage” results in links to anti-gay conservative religious publications and organizations like Boston Pilot, Alliance Defense Fund and CitizenLink.

Problematic ballot language will not go unchallenged by Washington United for Marriage, the campaign working to protect the new marriage equality law. “We will fight to make the language fair, balanced and accurate,” Washington United for Marriage’s campaign manager Zach Silk said in an e-mail. “This is the first of many steps in crafting the referendum language. We have ample evidence that this phrase is literally out of the opposition’s playbook. It is hard to imagine any impartial observer (i.e. judge) agreeing to such loaded language.”

Earlier this week, Washington United for Marriage challenged ballot language for Initiative 1192, a ballot measure that seeks to re-instate the state’s DOMA law that the marriage equality bill repealed. “Our goal was to make sure the ballot title was as clear and understandable as possible,” said Anne Levinson to The Olympian. Washington United for Marriage’s legal team was satisfied that the I-1192 ballot language approved by Thurston County Judge Thomas McPhee met that goal.