Sam Arora continues to refuse to explain what changed his vote on marriage

Sam, you're a liar.  And worse than that, you're a coward.  A coward who's hiding a secret.  In your case, the secret is what happened some time during a three day period in February of last year that changed you from a rabid gay marriage supporter to someone suddenly acting like he's the second coming of Jerry Falwell.

You don't have religious concerns about marriage equality, or you'd have had them when you campaigned, yet you campaigned claiming to support the bill.  You didn't have such concerns when you cosponsored the bill, or when you called a mutual friend to brag about having cosponsored the bill, or when you tweeted that the bill met any religious concerns folks might have.

But somehow, suddenly, at the end of February 2011, something happened, and something changed.  For reasons no one can figure out, and you refuse to say, something changed your mind.  Suddenly, Sam the pro-gay braggart became Sam the very serious man of faith who just couldn't find it in himself to even express a coherent sentence as to why his vote had suddenly changed.

Sam the progressive became Sam the guy who's got a secret.

Take today's statement that Arora finally issued after a week of silence following his vote in the state House against marriage equality.

"This has been an emotional debate and I understand there are those who disagree with my vote. Now that the bill has passed, I've turned my focus to close special interest tax loopholes and protecting senior citizens in Maryland."

No Sam, you don't understand at all. What made the vote so emotional in your case is that you changed your mind, 180 degrees, over the period of 3 days, after being a RABID supporter of marriage equality. And then you refused to talk about it, refused to even give a reason, like one of those parents on TV whose kid got kidnapped and they just can't tell the cops what happened, or else.

What's the "or else" here Sam? Why are you acting like someone who's done something wrong, who's hiding something? Why can't you issue a clear statement explaining your vote, but more importantly, explaining why you had no religious concerns when running for office, when calling gay friends to brag about cosponsoring the bill, when tweeting about the bill and how it addressed any religious concerns, but suddenly, over a mysterious 3 days in February, you did have religious concerns, almost like magic, out of nowhere.

You're a liar, Sam. And a coward. You milked a lot of our friends in common for money and support to run as a progressive Democrat. And you're not a progressive Democrat. You're a homophobic bigot whose word means nothing. And you don't even have the spine to defend yourself.

And you have the nerve to talk about moving ahead with tax issues and senior citizens?

A senior citizen would have to be nuts to believe anything Sam Arora has to say. The man is a proven liar. He says one thing to constituents to get their money, and then does another, with no explanation, at the last minute, changing his vote on a dime. Why should anyone trust anything you say ever again, Sam?  Why won't the same thing, the same people, who got to you on marriage get to you on taxes, or seniors, or kids or any other issue you claim to care about?

That is why it's so important to find out what happened to Sam Arora during those three days in February when he suddenly turned his back on so many friends, donors, and constituents. What happened that is so bad that Sam Arora is too afraid to even talk about why he changed his vote?

Sam Arora's got a secret. And he's nuts if he thinks Demorats are going to let him get away with it.

Your career in Democratic politics is over, Sam. Read the rest of this post...

On Maryland, Marriage and Obama: What David Mixner says

Exactly:

David Mixner, a prominent gay rights activist and blogger who is also an Obama campaign donor, said the Maryland bill “lands the issue squarely on the president’s desk” because of the state’s proximity to Washington and its sizable black electorate.

He noted that Obama’s opposition to gay marriage has been cited by opponents in California, as well as by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who recently vetoed a marriage law.

“It is essential that he makes clear to the voters of Maryland, without any caveats, that if he were a resident of the state, he would vote against repeal,” Mixner said. “We can’t afford to have his statement be ambiguous so the other side can claim that he’s on their side.”

Same for North Carolina, Washington and Maine. Read the rest of this post...

Obama Admin. will continue to deny green card applications for married, binational couples

Andrew Harmon has a report with some not great news about the Obama administration's decision on how to handle cases of married, binational couples. Given all the rhetoric we've heard from the administration, this doesn't make any sense:

The Obama administration is standing firm against calls by LGBT rights groups and lawmakers to put a blanket hold on deciding green card petitions from married, binational gay couples. Instead, those petitions in all likelihood will continue to be rejected, denying much-needed stability for gay families stuck in the nation’s immigration system.

While the administration has taken affirmative steps in recent months to ensure that foreign nationals married to American spouses of the same sex are spared from actual deportation, officials told LGBT rights groups in a recent, high-level meeting that they will not hold such marriage-based green card petitions in abeyance. The decision is being criticized by some advocates as a campaign-year calculation based on politics, not on sound legal analysis.

Politics, not sound legal analysis. Who made the political calculation on this one?

As you might expect, advocates are not happy, especially because of the implications for the couples:

Immigration Equality and other advocacy groups have argued for months that the administration need not reject the green card applications as part of its commitment to enforcing DOMA, which a second federal judge ruled unconstitutional in an opinion issued Wednesday. Putting the applications on hold would not grant permanent residency, but it would help individuals avoid accruing unlawful status in the country, a civil violation that can jeopardize future employment or the ability to obtain such critical legal documents as a driver’s license.

Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, said that despite her group’s extensive arguments as to why the administration has the power — and, given the president’s position that DOMA is indefensible, the duty — to act on behalf of binational gay couples, officials summarily rejected their request to hold green card applications in abeyance.

“We wanted to make clear to the administration that this is a priority for us, that it’s a new big ask of the LGBT community,” Tiven said of the coalition of LGBT groups at the January 30 meeting. “In many, many meetings over the past six months, with different players and different agencies, [the administration] has been quick to say, without hesitation, that our legal arguments are quite sound. So it’s frustrating to hear this idea from them that it’s basically no big deal for individuals to fall out of lawful status.”

And, the analysis that this was a political decision, not based on policy, is particularly disturbing:

Most gay binational couples seeking lawful status are not in active deportation proceedings, however. And the case-by-case review has vexed advocates who argue that the best way to protect gay binational families is to hold all green card applications in abeyance until DOMA is struck down or repealed by Congress.

“Nobody has offered a legal basis as to the decision that’s been made" by the administration, said Crystal L. Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “All they’ve said is that they’re not going to [hold the green card petitions in abeyance]. So it has to be a political decision. How can they say that DOMA is legally indefensible, yet proceed to deny married couples the legal right to be together in the United States?”

Seriously. This has to be fixed. The decision could hamper the futures of married, binational couples once DOMA is found unconstitutional. And, again, who made this stupid political calculation? Read the rest of this post...

Change a Mormon gay

Interesting site.  Too bad they don't have a running count of how many conversions to date. Read the rest of this post...

Marriage equality officially back on the ballot in Maine

The Maine Secretary of State has confirmed that EqualityMaine and the coalition behind the push for marriage equality in Maine has collected nearly 85,216 signatures to put marriage back on the ballot in 2012. That's nearly 28,000 more signatures than required by law. From the Portland Press Herald:

Lawmakers have the option of passing the bill as proposed, but they likely will send it to voters in November. Advocates of same-sex marriage, who lost in 2009 at the ballot box in a 53-47 percent vote, say enough Mainers have changed their minds that the measure will pass this time.

"The story of the 2012 campaign is not going to be gay folk coming out and supporting this, it's going to be heterosexuals like myself coming out in support of gay marriage," said Michael Gray, pastor of the Old Orchard Beach United Methodist Church. "We're now realizing how important it is for us to speak up."

EqualityMaine reports that polling now shows that 54% of Maine citizens are supportive of equality. Marriage was defeated in 2009 by a 53-47 percent vote.

Based on reporting, it appears that once again the opposition will be led by Bishop Richard Malone of the Catholic Diocese, Bob Emrich of the Christian Civic League and the National Organization for Marriage. Read the rest of this post...

How the Obama administration helped us win the Golinski case

See, isn't is so much more fun when we all play together nicely :)  From Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:

On July 1, 2011, the arguments sketched out in Holder's six-page letter were expanded to a 31-page filing in Golinski's case that laid out, in expansive terms, the U.S. government's "significant and regrettable role" in discrimination in America against gays and lesbians.

The filing did more than simply acknowledge the federal government's role in discrimination, it explained precisely what the federal government had done. Detailing specific instances of anti-gay and anti-lesbian discrimination, the brief described the 1950 Senate resolution seeking an "investigation" into "homosexuals and other sexual perverts" in government employment and President Dwight Eisenhower's executive order adding "sexual perversion" as a ground for "possible dismissal from government service." It also went on to detail the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Service in investigations seeking information about government employees suspected of such "perversion."

When oral arguments were held on Dec. 16, 2011, on the arguments advanced by Golinski, the Department of Justice and BLAG in her case, DOJ sent the head of the civil division, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, to argue its position. It was, a DOJ spokesperson said at the time, only the second time that West appeared in court as assistant attorney general to argue a case.

This is what we've been talking about for several years nows - the ability of the administration to do more. They kept saying no, but we kept asking "why not?" Far too many times "the lawyers" will say, when they're really not giving a legal reason why not. Usually they'll giving a political reason, which isn't their job. The lawyers work for the administration, and not the other way around. Of course, no one wants to break the law, but when the lawyers are giving political advice they're not talking about law-breaking. And when that happens, sometimes they need to be ignored.

This is a very good outcome. Read the rest of this post...