Hawaii Senate passes civil-unions bill with veto-proof majority, 18-7

Another great step forward in another state. I guess Coakley's defeat didn't scare everybody.

The state Senate today passed a civil-unions bill, sending a strong message to the state House and Gov. Linda Lingle with a veto-proof majority vote.

The vote was 18 to 7. The Senate rejected an amendment to change the effective date of the bill, which is Jan. 1, 2010.

The bill would allow same-sex and heterosexual couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights, benefits and responsibilities as marriage under state law.

The state House passed a civil-unions bill last session that would only apply to same-sex couples. House leaders have said they would wait and see what the Senate vote was before deciding whether to move forward on the Senate version of the bill.

Read the rest of this post...

Rising Michigan GOP star attacks Trans community

This article over at Bilerico should not be missed. A rising star in the Michigan "Greediest of People" or GOP party is making a run for Secretary of State by changing Michigan's policy to allow transgender people to have their sex changed on their driver's licenses. Representative Paul Scott campaigns by writing:

I'll make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver's license in any circumstance.

One of my best friends, here in Tulsa, is an African American transgender woman. My journey with her has opened my eyes to the insidious nature of transphobic discrimination, and has further sensitized me to cheap punches, like this one. Not to mention, we are all aware that an assault on the trans community is just another attack on the LGBT community, in general. This kind of outrage mustn't go unanswered:

"It's a social values issue. If you are born a male, you should be known as a male. Same as with a female, she should be known as a female."

When asked to explain how such a mandate from the Secretary of State would benefit Michigan, he said it was about "preventing people who are males genetically from dressing as a woman and going into female bathrooms."

Ah, yes, the ol' standby. The scary bathroom argument to inject over the top fear mongering into a conservative campaign. Keri Renault does a great job dissecting this issue.

Playing the bathroom card is nothing new. It's time-tested, social conservative fear-mongering. However, Scott also demonstrates confusion discerning between gender, a state of the mind, and sex, a manifestation of biology expressed in physical characteristics. Not so good when you're representing or misrepresenting constituents.

But why let semantics get in the way when might is right, right?

Representative Paul Scott needs to be defeated at all costs. Read the rest of this post...

Wyoming schools can't hang anti-hate signs because of sponsorship by gay orgs.

In the state made infamous for the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard, school board members in one district have forced the removal of signs bearing an anti-hate message. The anti-hate campaign was led by the Anti-Defamation League with sponsorship from a variety of entities. The reason the signs had to be removed? One of sponsors is a gay organization. Not kidding:

Platte County School District 1 trustees voted 4-3 to keep the Anti-Defamation League's "No Place for Hate" banners down at Wheatland High and West Elementary.

The schools were two of 25 in Colorado and Wyoming taking part in the program.

One of the sponsors listed on the banner is the Gay and Lesbian Fund for Colorado. Wheatland board members and parents took issue with that, according to the district.

The others sponsors are Qwest and the David & Laura Merage Foundation.

"The board thought it was inappropriate to have that sponsorship hanging up in the school," said Stuart Nelson, the district's superintendent.

I'm having a hard time deciding which of the school board members is more offensive. The contest is between Lee Dunham and Joe Fabian.

First up, Dunham:

Board member Lee Dunham said Wheatland is an "ultraconservative community" and that he has feelings about including the fund on the banner. He said the district isn't ready to include that group.

"If this is the way one chooses, then they can lead this particular lifestyle, but I don't believe it needs to be publicly displayed in a school," Dunham said.

Then, there's Joe Fabian:

[Fabian] spoke of a "moral attitude by the community" and indoctrination of students.

"I don't believe (homosexuality) is a normal lifestyle, but I don't have anything against them," he said.

In the year 2010, it's very scary that Dunham and Fabian are in charge of the education of children. But, they are on the record with their ignorance. And, unfortunately, they've used a campaign against hate to demonstrate hate.

Hat tip, Paul H. Read the rest of this post...

BBC to ask public about its portrayal of gay people

Now that's interesting:

The BBC has commissioned a wide-ranging investigation into how lesbian, gay and bisexual people are portrayed on TV, radio and online.

The research will ask a variety of people across the country what they think about subjects such as jokes, dramatic storylines and stereotyping.

The BBC's Tim Davie said it was "vital" for the corporation to reflect the "diverse communities" across the UK.

Maybe we can get the Democratic party to do a similar study. Read the rest of this post...

Anti-gay group losing in battle against Courage Campaign's parody logo

The Prop 8 backers, "Protect Marriage," filed a lawsuit against the Courage Campaign over a parody of their trademarked "Yes on 8" logo. They lost.

From Julia Rosen via the Courage Campaign's Prop. 8 Trial Tracker, which hosts the challenged logo:

Judge Lawrence K. Karlton, a US District Judge just ruled against ProtectMarriage.org’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to take down our logo on the Trial Tracker. (background here and here)

Here is the key conclusion:

“[P]laintiff is unlikely to overcome the conclusion that defendant’s use of the mark is protected under the First Amendment, in that the use is relevant to an expressive parody and the use is not explicitly misleading.”

Our designer might quibble with this one, but the stuff about the First Amendment is pretty sweet:

In this case, the logo itself is artistic. Moreover, the broader website, while perhaps not artistic, is undeniably expressive of a political idea, and both political and artistic expression are protected by the First Amendment.

Obviously, we are thrilled that Judge Karlton thought they didn’t have a case. It’s what we have contended all along and why we have been mocking ProtectMarriage.com’s case mercilessly.

"Protect Marriage" claimed the families in both logos are identical, but the Courage Campaign is headed by a same-sex family:


I don't see any difference in the two families, either! Read the rest of this post...

Those GW University College Repubs knew Meghan McCain would be talking about marrriage equality

Earlier this week, we reported on a controversy at George Washington University over an upcoming visit by Meghan McCain. The College Republicans got miffed because they thought McCain was going to talk about marriage equality instead of "Redefining Republican." And, they withdrew support for the McCain event.

But, those College Republicans are being a bit overly dramatic -- and to some extent proving why Republicans need to be redefined. In typical GOP fashion, they got freaked over the marriage issue.

But, in reality, nothing changed in terms of what McCain was talking about. Via press release, Michael R. Komo, who is President, GW Allied in Pride, responded to the uproar:

This past week the facts about the preparation for the upcoming Meghan McCain event at The George Washington University have been misrepresented.

Three GW organizations, Allied in Pride, The Graduate School of Political Management Student Association, and Program Board, have been planning Ms. McCain's appearance since summer 2009. All three organizations are non-partisan and are elated for the opportunity to have Ms. McCain speak at GW.

Ms. McCain frequently speaks at colleges and universities across the country in her program “Redefining Republican: No Labels. No Boxes. No Stereotypes.” In her program, Ms. McCain discusses several different topics including: Her view on the current state of the Republican Party, her experience on the campaign trail, how her values affect her political beliefs, marriage equality, women's issues, and the future of the GOP.

The GW Hatchet alleged that when the GW College Republicans were approached to co-sponsor the event, it was not “…explicitly clear that [Ms.] McCain would be speaking in favor of marriage equality.” This assertion is false.

In my meeting with the GW College Republicans, the details of Ms. McCain's speech, including marriage equality, were explicitly discussed. Receptive, the College Republicans decided to fund $100 of the program's cost. The remaining expenses were to be covered by The GW Graduate School of Political Management Student Association, Allied in Pride, Program Board, and the Student Association.

Confusion arose because the timing of Marriage Equality Week and Ms. McCain’s appearance at GW overlapped, leading the GW College Republicans to withdraw their co-sponsorship of the event. However, despite any misunderstanding relating to the timing of the event, the theme of her planned speech at GW remains the same: “Redefining Republican.”

So, the College Republicans freaked for nothing.

I guess it's good Meghan isn't bringing her fellow marriage equality supporter/mother, Cindy. Who knows what that would do to the GW College Republicans. Read the rest of this post...

Prop 8 backer stands by views on pedophilia

From AP:

A proponent of California's same-sex marriage ban testified Thursday that he thinks gays are more likely to be pedophiles and that allowing them to wed would lead to efforts to lower the age at which teenagers can legally have sex with adults.

This is relevant because one of the big issues the court is looking at is whether the backers of Prop 8 were motivated by animus, which is basically prejudice or ill-will. Read the rest of this post...