Gay Today

Same-sex marriage does no harm

2009-09-14T18:53:00.000-07:00

I am consistently amazed at the close-minded Christians in regard to same-sex marriage. The 10 Commandments are the only laws that God has given us. All the other books and statements are nothing more than letters back and forth between men in that era.

I was raised in a Lutheran family and can debate the Bible with the best of them. Anyone can quote lines from the Bible, but if you have no 100 percent factual basis for its usage then those persons are simply interpreting those lines to fit their own needs at the time. What is so wrong with two people who love each other wanting to legally join their lives? It hurts no one else. It doesn't interfere with anyone's personal home life except that those who are opposed allow this concept to control their thoughts and judgmental behaviors.

Separation of church and state should be exactly that. Churches that claim to be non-profit have no business being involved with politics, much less giving money to any political person. Any person who doesn't agree or approve of same-sex marriage needs to realize that none of us want your approval, just your acceptance as the human beings that we are and deserve the exact same rights as you have — the right to marry the person who we are attracted to and love.

If you know anyone who is gay or lesbian, ask them about their lives and how a non-equality law would affect their families. There are many families out there that want full inclusion. Who exactly does it hurt?

Same-sex marriage battles

2009-09-05T23:33:00.000-07:00

The attorney for a gay couple fighting for the rights of same-sex couples to marry brushed off the significance of a court order Monday dismissing their case. He says the dismissal is "just a technicality" and vowed to resubmit their lawsuit in the near future.

But the hobbled lawsuit of Smelt v. U.S. - which gay legal activists have criticized as poorly conceived - has taken an even more difficult route in recent weeks, adding on a political pursuit to divide California into two states.

U.S. District Court Judge David Carter of the Central District of California issued an order Monday, Aug. 24, granting the U.S. Department of Justice request that Smelt be dismissed.

The case is brought by attorney Richard C. Gilbert on behalf of Orange County couple Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer. Smelt and Hammer obtained a domestic partnership registration in California in 2000 and a marriage license in July 2008. A state court ruled that marriage licenses issued to same-sex couples before voters approved Proposition 8 in November 2008, banning recognition of gay marriages, would still be valid, but the couple says they are still harmed by the fact that the federal government and other states refuse to recognize their marriage.

Their lawsuit asks the court to require "all necessary acts" be taken by "the entire nation of the United States of America, all of its territories and jurisdictions" to eliminate "any distinction in the law" that results in inequality for the plaintiff couple. That, of course, includes striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Gilbert filed the case in state court and, in a fairly routine strategic move, the DOJ asked the federal court to take the case. But Judge Carter said there was a "technical issue relating to jurisdiction" over the issues in the lawsuit that required him to dismiss the lawsuit as submitted.

Attorney Gilbert said the dismissal was "not unexpected" and "not a problem." He said he would resubmit the lawsuit to the federal court in "a few days."

"We are not taking 'no' for an answer," said Gilbert.

But while, legally, the case is seeking to secure equal rights for same-sex couples in marriage licensing, he said, politically, it's seeking to promote an idea to divide California into two states.

"We're using this case as a platform to fight in the political arena," said Gilbert. "The voters have spoken in California ... and we have a division in the state." The northern half, he said, supports equal marriage rights; the southern half does not.

Gilbert acknowledges the idea of using the case to push for breaking California into two separate states is "taking the struggle a little more militant." But he's serious and the tactic is certain to generate even more publicity for the legal battle.

The Smelt v. U.S. lawsuit has already been the subject of enormous media and community attention but, previously, the publicity was generated by the Obama administration's position in the case.

In June, in its first legal brief to a federal court on a same-sex marriage case, the Obama Justice Department vigorously defended DOMA, even though President Obama had repeatedly stated he believed the law should be repealed. After the LGBT community expressed a great deal of anger over that stance, the DOJ softened its opposition to Smelt considerably this month. Although it continued to ask for dismissal of the case - and continued to defend DOMA - it stated explicitly that the administration "does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory and supports its repeal."

Meanwhile, other lawsuits challenging DOMA are inching their way through the federal courts. In the U.S. District Court for Northern California, a federal judge on Aug. 19 took two important actions in the high profile case led by conservative attorney Ted Olson and liberal David Boies. Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that several gay groups could not participate in the lawsuit - Perry v. Schwarzenegger - as "intervenors." The case is expected to lay down an extensive record for the federal courts concerning such critical matters as whether LGBT are discriminated against and whether they are harmed by the ban on marriage and benefits thereof.

"Gay rights litigation is like other specialized legal fields in which particularized knowledge together with strong advocacy skills makes for a potent effort," said Jenny Pizer, head of the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. "We all passionately desire to see Prop. 8 struck down as the constitutional dreck that it obviously is. Combining forces (with the Olson-Boies legal team) would make that much-needed result that much more likely."

The Olson-Boies team opposed the request by gay groups to participate as intervenors, saying their participation would slow down litigation of the case and questioning their sincerity in wanting to help. The gay groups - including Lambda, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and others - had issued a statement when the Perry case was filed suggesting they believed the case was "premature" and potentially risky.

Judge Walker's decision means the gay groups will now be limited to filing friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.

Is Gay Marriage Losing Its Political Clout?

2009-09-04T01:22:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time in a land known as America circa 2004, a growing consensus was emerging. The evangelical right had just flexed their political muscle, not only overwhelmingly voting to re-elect President Bush by a 70% margin (many would argue pushing him over the edge in Ohio) but also approving gay marriage bans in 11 different states, boosting their turnout in crucial battlegounds and making life hell for Team Blue. The political calculus was that the gay marriage argument was an effective cudgel to use against Democrats, as it guaranteed high Christian Right turnout and inevitably lead to defeat for Democrats who were associated with anything other than a full government-sponsored ban.

Flash forward a few years, and a different trend is emerging. Despite reprising the gay marriage argument again in 2006, Democrats managed to completely bypass the issue and still succeeded (the Virginia Senate election being a good example). The proposed Federal Marriage Amemdment went down in flames. More states began to adopt marriage equality, and public opinion shifted more towards gay rights than ever before.

But a different trend emerged as well. Namely, the gay marriage argument had less hold in elections. Say what you want about Obama's policies on the issue since taking office, but he campaigned as the most pro-gay Presidential candidate in US history - while against full marriage equality, he supported about every other major position from repealing DOMA and DADT to full protection in the workplace and in hate crimes. It barely came up as a blip in the overall election. In Iowa, despite the GOP's attempts to turn gay marriage into a major issue, the general response has been a collective shrug, as no Republican has been able to make significant ground on Gov. Culver on the issue, and it didn't have an impact in last Tuesday's HD90 special as Democrat Curt Hanson still prevailed.

In California, the AD51 special played out in a similar way. The district, which is heavily African-American and voted in large numbers for Prop 8, elected Steve Bradford, a candidate that received a 100% rating from California Equality. His opponent Gloria Gray targeted the church community to attack him over his pro-gay views, ran ads questioning his Christian values, and even push-polled on the gay marriage issue. Bradford got 52% of the vote while Gray couldn't even crack 20%, with the consensus being that voters were turned off over her narrow focus on gay marriage.

My question is - are we seeing a larger trend emerging? Is gay marriage no longer going to be the hot-ticket item for the Republican party? Why has it fallen off? And why are voters more willing to split their votes - that is, vote against marrriage but still support Democrats - than they were only a few years ago?

This is a diary intended to spark dialogue about the political ramifications of this issue, not over whether you think marriage equality ought to happen. I'm curious about this because it wasn't too long ago it was viewed as the linchpin to future Republican success, not only for high evangelical turnout but to also peel away socially conservative African-American and latino voters from the Democrats. Several prognosticators including Michael Barone and Ruy Texeira predicted it would be a huge wedge issue in the Democratic Party, leading to further dischord and electoral losses. None of this has occured. So what's your take on it? Is it because of economic woes, and the issue will surface again once people aren't worried about their paycheck? Or are we moving into a new era in the gay rights debate?

Indian govt to accept gay sex ruling: report

2009-09-03T06:38:00.001-07:00

NEW DELHI — India's government is set to accept a landmark court ruling that decriminalises gay sex between consenting adults, a report said Wednesday.

The July verdict by the Delhi High Court was non-binding outside the Indian capital, meaning the government had the choice to appeal to the Supreme Court or repeal the law nationwide.

A note from the cabinet, reproduced by the CNN-IBN television network, recommended that the government should accept the court ruling while letting the Supreme Court rule on appeals by some religious groups.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is expected to make a final decision this week, but CNN-IBN said he was in favour of following the advice in the cabinet note.

Homosexuality has been illegal in India since 1860 under a statute introduced by British colonial rulers that banned "carnal intercourse against the order of nature."

Conviction carried a fine and maximum 10-year jail sentence.

The Indian government had previously offered mixed messages on the issue, with some ministers in favour of the colonial-era statute and others against.

Several religious groups have challenged the court verdict and are expected to present their cases to the Supreme Court later this month.

The ruling in July was hailed by gay activists as a milestone in their struggle for equal rights in socially conservative India.

Although prosecutions were rare, gay activists said police used the law to harass and intimidate members of their community.

'I've got Madonna and I've got gay sex!'

2009-09-03T06:28:00.000-07:00

Lady Gaga was thrilled to learn two men had sex at one of her concerts.

The Poker Face singer says her career high point so far was during a concert in New York when the audience – which included 4 Minutes star Madonna – shed their inhibitions and made love as she sang.

She said: "My sister texted me and she was like, 'Madonna is 15 feet away from me. And there are two guys having sex in the audience. I just remember thinking, 'Wow, this is exactly what I wanted. I've got Madonna and I've got gay sex!'"

Despite being delighted at having Madonna as a fan, the singer has rubbished comparisons between the two performers, insisting she is happy just to be herself.

She explained to V magazine: "Look, when I was a brunette, they called me Amy Winehouse. When I was a blonde, they called me Madonna. Then they called me Christina (Aguilera), then Gwen (Stefani). I just don't think most people's reference points go back very far."

Despite her ascent to global stardom, the Paparazzi singer insists she will always continue to play intimate concerts at gay clubs as she wouldn't have a career without them.

She explained: "With the exception of God, my family, and best friend Matthew Williams, and the Haus of GaGa, the gay community is the single reason that I am here today.

"I started out playing gay clubs in America, then I went to London to play G-A-Y, where I didn't think anyone knew who I was, and there were thousands of people there. How could I ever turn my back on those people who really fought for me? And besides the loyalty factor, playing in gay clubs is fun!"

Protests and Parties for Same-Sex Marriage Law

2009-09-01T23:50:00.000-07:00

"By the power vested in me by the state of Vermont, I do hereby recognized, I certify, and yes I do proclaim that you are married and partners for life," Justice of the Peace Greg Trulson proclaimed.

With those words, Bob Sullivan and Bill Slimback made history. Just after midnight they became one of the first couples to marry under Vermont's new marriage equality act.

"When we learned we had the opportunity to be the first I wanted to jump right on it," Sullivan said. "This was something that me and Bill I feel like we've been in line for 17 years."

It's a law not everyone is applauding. Some opponents say marriage should be between a man and a woman.

"This feeds into our disappointment with our elected representatives in Montpelier who continually tell us one thing and do another or on this issue in particular know exactly what Vermonters think abut the issue and then go and do the opposite," said Craig Benson, an opponent of gay marriage.

The new law drew opposition from out of state as well. Five members of the Westboro Baptist Church from Kansas spoke out against the law at rallies in Burlington and Montpelier.

"As long as the words get seen and read our mission is accomplished," said Jael Phelps, of the Westboro Baptist Church. "Our duty is to warn our neighbor that their sin is taking them to hell and to preach the truth."

In both places they were met by much larger groups of counter-protesters-- praising the law and speaking out against what they called a message of hate.

More than 100 people rallied at UVM.

"I'm out here because I'm gay and obviously I've heard about these people in the past and I think they're completely ridiculous and they don't really belong in Vermont, especially not on September first when gay marriage law goes into effect," said Ian MacLeod, a freshman at UVM.

Ben and Jerry's is celebrating the new law by symbolically changing the name of its Chubby Hubby ice cream to Hubby Hubby. It passed out free scoops in support of marriage equality.

Sean Greenwood of Ben and Jerry's said, "That thought of us looking at the social justice issues and equality, this seems to be one that fits perfectly with that."

Tuesday evening a celebration was getting underway at The Essex. It is billed as the state's biggest marriage equality party. There's even a wedding cake-- marking this historic day that weddings are now legal for same-sex couples, too.

Same-sex marriage becomes law today

2009-09-01T23:41:00.000-07:00

AP Photo/Andy Duback

(Host) Vermont became the fourth state in the country to allow same sex marriages today.

The law replaces civil unions, which were available to gay and lesbian couples for 10 years.

Several couples exchanged vows at midnight, just as the new law went into effect. Many others are planning weddings in the weeks and months to come.

VPR's Nina Keck reports that a Rutland pastor will be busy with weddings this weekend.

(Keck) The Reverend Erica Baron of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Rutland will perform at least six same-sex marriages this weekend in Rutland and Bennington. She says she's looked forward to seeing gay and lesbian couples marry for years.

(Erica Baron) "Starting today the state of Vermont is no longer asking me to discriminate against people who come to me and ask me to marry them and that feels really good."

(Keck) Baron says the state's landmark civil unions legislation was vital in furthering the rights of same sex couples. But she says culturally and practically, civil unions and marriage are different. She says Vermont has made those differences obsolete.

(Baron) "Marriage has a long history in our culture. It's a word that everybody understands and it implies a level of commitment and it means that everyone has access to the same institution. And we're not sort of separating out gay and lesbian couples and making their relationships second class relationships."

(Keck) She says that while she'll be officiating at at least six same-sex marriages this weekend, her congregations in Rutland and Bennington will be on hand to provide refreshments and help the couples celebrate.

For VPR News, I'm Nina Keck in Rutland.

Everyone's welcome to celebrate as gay couples wed

2009-09-01T07:37:00.000-07:00

The Rev. Erica Baron of the Unitarian Universalist Church in Rutland will be performing same-sex marriages after the law allowing them goes into effect Tuesday.

MONTPELIER - A lot of celebrating will be going on in Vermont this week.

When the clock ticks past midnight early Tuesday, a number of same-sex couples across the state are expected to tie the knot when it becomes legal.

But besides the weddings, other sorts of celebrations are planned this week - ones commemorating the institution of marriage, for both straight and gay couples, and others celebrating the simple fact that gays and lesbians now have the right, at least in Vermont and a handful of other states, to marry the person they love.

"We're having all-day-long celebrations of marriage at both our churches," said the Rev. Erica Baron, who has two Unitarian Universalist congregations, one in Rutland and one in Bennington. "We'll be open for gay and lesbian civil union couples who want to get married and straight couples who want to renew their vows."

But Vermont is not expecting a rush to the altar.

The landscape has changed since 2000, when lawmakers passed the civil union legislation, making Vermont the first in the nation to offer some sort of legal recognition for same-sex couples. Gays and lesbians from across the country - but especially New England - flocked here.

According to Vermont records, more than 400 civil unions were performed in the first month, and the total reached 7,000 by the end of that year. More than 70 percent of the couples were from out of the state.

But other states have since gone further. Massachusetts led the pack by allowing same-sex couples to start marrying in 2005. Connecticut, New Hampshire and Iowa later followed suit.

"We've got about a dozen gay marriages happening at the lodge between Sept. 1 and the end of the year," said Willie Docto, co-owner of the Moose Meadow Lodge in Waterbury. "I think a lot of people have already gotten married in Massachusetts or Connecticut over the last few years. ... It was a special thing when civil unions came along in 2000."

"We're not expecting a huge rush," said Greg Trulson, Docto's partner in business and a civil union. "We're not the only place that gay and lesbian couples can have their union legally recognized anymore."

The couple opened the Waterbury bed and breakfast in 1998. Docto and Trulson were joined in a civil union on Nov. 10, 2001. They plan to marry this year on the anniversary of that day.

"It's one less date to remember," joked Docto. Their civil union ceremony was small, with about 30 guests. Their wedding may be smaller - probably them and a justice of the peace. "A lot of our friends are getting married this year too. ... There are two or three other couples we know with plans for ceremonies."

The wedding ceremonies may be smaller, but gay and lesbian Vermonters still will be celebrating the historic date.

The Vermont Gay Tourism Association, a collective of 30 gay-friendly businesses around the state, plans a Sunday family picnic in Waterbury and a Tuesday night dance party in Essex. (The picnic will feature Rep. Jason Lorber, D-Burlington, who works as a comedian when not at the Statehouse, as part of its entertainment.) Tickets for both are still available.

Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream will join in by renaming its "Chubby Hubby" flavor "Hubby Hubby" for September.

Even if Vermont isn't the first state, there are still plenty of reasons for gay and lesbian couples to come here, Trulson said. The state is still one of the top three wedding destinations in the country, he said.

A University of California study from March suggested that if Vermont legalized gay marriage, it would see an additional $30.6 million in economic activity over three years. That business boost would create 700 jobs and generate $3.3 million in state and local taxes, the study found.

It remains to be seen, especially in an economic recession, if those numbers will bear out.

"If they are not having their wedding in Vermont, they are coming here for their honeymoon," Trulson said.

The daylong wedding ceremonies at Baron's Unitarian Universalist churches are scheduled for Saturday in Rutland and the following day in Bennington. She said she plans to marry only same-sex couples who already have a civil union because she knows they went through premarital counseling.

She said slots are still available for couples who want to marry or renew their vows. About one-quarter of the couples who have signed up are straight, she said.

"This isn't just about gay and lesbian couples," she said. "Everyone can find joy in this day."

Trulson said he has noticed that the same-sex couples he knows are taking marriage very seriously. Straight couples can sometimes be cavalier about the rite - Britney Spears is a prime example - but Trulson said many same-sex couples, who will be marrying for the first time, are taking time to write their own vows and create a day that truly represents their union.

"There won't be a lot of people saying, 'till death do us part,'" he said. "They're going to share their love with their friends and family as witnesses. ... It's going to be very emotional."

Why I'm Going to the Big Gay March in Washington

2009-08-31T10:02:00.000-07:00

Since movement veteran Cleve Jones announced plans for a national gay rights march on Washington following the passage of California’s Prop. 8 last November, reactions from the LGBT community have been mixed. Supporters of October’s National Equality March are adopting a grassroots lobbying strategy, demanding “Equal protection in all matters governed by civil law in all 50 states,” and promoting a more direct appeal to the federal government for LGBT rights. Lukewarm supporters and skeptics of the march, mainly organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and state Equality groups, are concerned that the march will drain resources from the state-by-state approach for marriage equality. Critics of the march movement are also concerned that this march may share the fate of previous gay rights marches in ’79, ’87, ’93, and 2000, which seem to have accomplished little.

I have been a supporter of HRC for most of my adult life, and I have worked with both state, local, and campus organizations in South Carolina and Georgia. While I will continue to support such organizations, I think a national approach offers more hope for me and other South Carolinians than anything HRC or state-by-state marriage equality can offer.

South Carolina is one of only five states that has no hate crimes laws; other than a limited policy in the city of Columbia, there are no laws banning discrimination in employment or housing based on sexual orientation or gender identity; and the 2006 constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage in SC passed by 78%. For people who do not live in California or Massachusetts, for those who are part of otherwise disadvantaged communities, for those who live in constant fear of employment discrimination and physical violence because their states give them no protection, for those whose lives and relationships are invisible to most of America, marriage equality in progressive states is nothing more than a symbolic victory, and symbols cannot help them provide for their families or protect themselves from discrimination.

I do not plan to spend the rest of my life in SC. But for those LGBT folks who call South Carolina home, gay marriage fights in states like Maine and California offer little more than momentary comfort against communities in which they will remain second-class citizens for the foreseeable future unless the federal government intervenes. The state-by-state approach to equality seems meaningless in a state that has historically been several decades behind the rest of the country in terms of civil rights. If the federal government had left the battle for desegregation up to states to fight on their own, de jure segregation would arguably still be in place here in SC and a few of its neighboring deep South states.

We need to build support behind a federal gay rights agenda, because if we leave our rights up to the conservative majorities in states across the nation, we will never achieve equality. LGBT Americans should ALL enjoy the same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts, whether they live in San Francisco or Atlanta, New York or Charleston. The federal government must step in and defend our civil rights in places where our community cannot adequately defend itself, and we must show Washington lawmakers that we are looking to them to change laws as we go about the work of changing hearts and minds.

So this is why we march on Washington on October 10-11. We march because at no time in our nations’ history have gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people been more visible and political. We march because marriage is but one of the many rights and privileges that we deserve as citizens of this country, and because it is time for the Obama administration to make good on its promises to the LGBT community. We march because as Americans, our civil rights should not depend on our sexual orientation or gender identity, nor should they depend on what state we live in. We march because visibility matters and is the key to dismantling the foundations of prejudice and discrimination. And we march with the hope that standing in solidarity with each other and asserting our place in this nation has transformative potential.

Whether to ask if a son is gay

2009-08-31T09:58:00.000-07:00

Hi, Carolyn: I've been trying to figure out how/if to ask my 17-year-old son if he's gay. He's a great kid who has never dated and is very private about his personal life.

On the one hand, I think his personal life is his to share or not share with me. On the other hand, I want to be informed/supportive. I guess I've answered my own question -- it's his life, not mine, and maybe I'm just really curious.

By the way, the reason I have any question about his sexual orientation is because his church youth minister planted the seeds by telling me that my son "must be gay" because he says absolutely nothing about sex and is very, very private, and that is a "dead giveaway." I thought he was just a late bloomer, like his dad and I were.

-- Annapolis

Annapolis: Wha? Either your son has confided in this "church youth minister" that he is gay, and the CYM made a clumsy and inappropriate attempt to invite you into a conversation with your son about it, or this CYM is speculating in a way that's jaw-droppingly out of line.

If you want to be supportive, just be open to the idea that your son might be gay and let him tell you when he's good and ready. Don't drop hints, ask leading questions, tell stories about somebody's wonderful gay son, or any of that. Just be.

If you want to do one better, then be someone people can approach without fear when they have something difficult to say. Not only would that help your son if he is gay, it would help him if he's straight, too, since being the person people can lean on means being a good, steady, nonjudgmental listener.

-- Carolyn

Re: Potentially Gay Son: I knew I was gay at 16 but had no intentions of ever telling my parents because I didn't know how they would react. For two years I kept it a secret.

I was home visiting from college when I was 18, and my mom pulled me aside and gently asked me if my friend "Megan" (I'm sure I had been talking about Megan the whole time) was more than just a friend. Mom's guess was correct, and I don't remember anything else that was said, only that everything was well-received.

It was such a relief that she broached the topic. Otherwise, I would have let it be the elephant in the room forever. I'm not saying Annapolis' son is exhibiting "dead giveaway" gay-isms, but I think there could be some merit in the parent bringing the topic up first.

-- Anonymous

Anonymous: You give such a great example of how to do it, thank you -- with the key element being that your mom had a lot more to go on than this parent does. A hunch or a line-crossing youth minister's word doesn't meet this standard.

And "Is Megan more than just a friend?" is so much more loving and approachable -- so much more "I get it" -- than "Are you gay?" which can come from a place of complete sympathy and complete antipathy and just about everywhere in between, in many cases leaving a person to guess at the questioner's intent.

California gay marriage decision comes under fire from both sides

2009-08-29T06:30:00.000-07:00

The San Francisco organization that led the unsuccessful campaign last year to defeat the state’s ban on same-sex marriage recently said it will put the measure to vote again in the 2012 election, angering both supporters and opponents of gay marriage.

Gay rights groups and those who believe marriage should not be subject to regulation by the government have criticized the decision by Equality California saying it failed to listen to the overwhelming sentiment in the gay community which wants to move immediately to challenge the so-called Proposition 8, according to David Comfort, founder of the Equality Network in Los Angeles, cited by the San Francisco Chronicle.

In fact, some groups, such as Yes Equality have said they will push to get the matter on the ballot in 2010, when Californians are due to elect a new governor, the source further says.

However, Ron Prentice, executive director of ProtectMarriage.com has vowed to fight any attempts to repeal the ban, and stressed that his organization is ready to continue to educate the public about the vital role of heterosexual marriage in society.

"[Gay rights groups] will lose [in 2012] just as surely as they would in 2010 or any other year," says Prentice, adding, "The people have spoken twice on this issue, both times reaffirming traditional marriage."

Can the National Organization for Marriage Win in Iowa?

2009-08-27T18:23:00.000-07:00

They Helped to Outlaw Gay Marriage in California; Can They Do it Again in Iowa?

LGBT communities across America were stunned when gay marriage in California was outlawed, back in November 2008, with the passing of Proposition 8. Who played a large part in the decision? It was The National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit organization that wants to "protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it."

Now with California under their belt, the group has their eyes on a new state - Iowa. As it is in Massachusetts and Connecticut, same sex marriage is legal in Iowa, but not for long, if the National Organization for Marriage, or NOM, has its way.

Known as the Reclaim Iowa Project, NOM has put its focus on backing candidates who do not support gay marriage. On September 1, Republican Stephen Burgmeier is running against Democrat Curt Hanson. The National Organization for Marriage has put as much as $90,000 into Burgmeier's campaign, although Burgmeier claims he never asked the organization for their help.

Brad Clark, a campaign director for the gay and lesbian group One Iowa, would like NOM to release its list of contributors. Cleve Jones, founder of the NAMES Project AIDS Memorial Quilt, has his sights on the bigger picture. Some supporters of Prop 8 found their names on an Internet blacklist, which caused some to have to quit their jobs and go in hiding. However, Cleve Jones is organizing an event that he hopes will really get the LGBT community the attention that it needs.

Jones has been pushing for all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trangenders to convene in Washington, on October 10-11, for The National Equality March, which is a kick off of the Equality Across America campaign for full equal rights for LGBT people. Plans are under way for the event, including bus arrangements to bring people to Washington.

The March could be a huge success, similar to the 1960s March on Washington, or it could be quickly forgotten like a gay pride parade. What is certain is that many gays and lesbians feel that they are at a point where they need to make a huge statement in the quest for equal rights.

Judge tosses federal gay marriage case

2009-08-26T21:45:00.000-07:00

President Obama

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter has dismissed a lawsuit filed by two married gay men who were attempting to get the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) overturned.

The case was dismissed on a technicality. Judge Carter said that the suit had been improperly filed in state court before it was transferred to his court. The federal government cannot be sued in state court and Carter indicated that the lawsuit should be refiled in federal court.

The lawsuit was the latest step for Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer who originally took to the courts in 2004 to challenge DOMA and the state of California's refusal to grant them a marriage license. When Smelt and Hammer were legally married during the brief window when gay marriage was legal in California, the couple renewed their lawsuit to have the federal law against same-sex marriage overturned. The law prevents gay couples married in states where same-sex marriage is legal from enjoying any federal rights and privileges associated with marriage.

This lawsuit also received a great deal of attention recently when the Obama White House issued a statement in support of marriage equality while the Justice Department was actively arguing against it.

Although Judge Carter dismissed the lawsuit, the issue is far from dead. Smelt and Hammer's case will most likely arrive in a federal court in the near future. Also, the state of Massachusetts, which was the first U.S. state to legalize gay marriage, has brought a separate lawsuit against DOMA. Their case argues that DOMA interferes with the state's right to establish its own marriage laws.

Md. should be a leader on gay marriage

2009-08-25T18:15:00.000-07:00

So far, five American states have legalized gay marriage: four New England states - Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont - plus (more surprisingly) Iowa, heart of heartland America.

Why isn't Maryland, one of the nation's more progressive states, a member of this small but growing club?

The proximate reason is that the state judiciary has yet to rule in favor of gay marriage. In September 2007, the Maryland Court of Appeals, reversing an earlier decision by the Baltimore Circuit Court, ruled 4-3 to uphold the state's statutory ban on gay marriage.

The ultimate obstacle, however, is the state legislature, where the Democrats enjoy comfortable majorities in both chambers but conservative Democrats remain resistant. Demographically, they tend to be white legislators from the Eastern Shore, Western Maryland, parts of Southern Maryland and the Baltimore County suburbs, along with a significant contingent of African-American Democrats.

"African-Americans, who are a key part of the Democratic coalition, are much less supportive than many other Democratic voters," says American University political scientist and Chevy Chase councilman David Lublin, who is openly gay and co-owns a home with his partner. "There are many African-American legislators in the Democratic coalition, and while some are very supportive there are others who are prominent opponents.

"The same is true for many legislators with significant Orthodox Jewish populations."

The situation facing gay couples in Maryland is not as dismal as in other states. Recently, the state's gay community celebrated several smaller, incremental victories: Same-sex partners are now empowered to make end-of-life decisions for each other, and a few months ago a new law that took effect exempting same-sex couples who co-own their homes from the inheritance tax on their domiciles.

"One of the key things holding us back is legislative leadership in Annapolis, and that's particularly puzzling when no state legislator across the country has ever lost his or her office because of voting for marriage equality for gay Americans," says Scott Davenport, board president of Equality Maryland, the state's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender organization. "We need to do more public education on the freedom to marry."

The law is the law, of course. But setting aside for a moment the strictly legal arguments for gay marriage, it also makes sense on an intrinsic, moral level.

For starters, like mixed-race marriages - something not long ago considered abhorrent by most Americans - gay marriage is an idea whose time has arrived. It also makes no sense for governments to prohibit two people who love each other from sharing their lives together and, yes, raising children; surely governments should be encouraging loving couples to marry, not live in the shadows or under the auspices of some half-measure of matrimony.

As for all the convenient counter-arguments, most are too silly to take seriously.

Gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage? There are high rates of divorce and ample infidelity among straight couples, and allowing homosexuals to marry would not affect that in any way. As a male political analyst in Washington once said to me, a busty blond is a greater threat to his marriage than two men living together.

Gay marriage and sex are unnatural? Well, given that oral and anal sex are practiced by many straight couples, by that logic many crimes against nature are being committed by straight couples. Oh, and there are hundreds of animal species that engage in homosexual congress, and even some species - like grouper fish and wrasses - that change sex mid-life.

The good news is that overall support for gay equality in America has steadily increased as older, more resistant voters are replaced by younger, more inclusive voters.

Political scientists Patrick Egan and Nathaniel Persily recently completed a study for which they collected survey responses from more than 50,000 Americans polled by CNN, Gallup and Pew about gay marriage between 1986 and 2009. According to their projections, by 2014 there will be majority support nationally for gay marriage. "While majority support does not always lead to movement in policy, the tone of the national debate would likely change significantly if support for gay marriage can no longer be written off as a minority viewpoint," they write.

Maryland should be leading rather than following the nation's inevitable path toward establishing gay marriage rights. And, much as it took the contributions of feminist men to facilitate the women's suffrage movement and colorblind white Americans to push for racial justice, equality will remain elusive until straight Marylanders stand up against discrimination and hate - and tell their legislators in Annapolis to do the same.

The battle over gay marriage is heating up

2009-08-24T19:03:00.000-07:00

The battle over gay marriage is heating up in the District of Columbia, as the forces against it are about to launch an initiative stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. The prospects for this initiative are not good, since on its face, it violates the District's Human Rights Actas much as the prior attempt at a referendum to prevent the District from honoring gay unions performed in other states. With a Speaker of the House from San Francisco, it is unlikely that any District law on this subject will be negated by Congress by legislative veto. Furthermore, any such initiative would likely not pass the equal protection test in the courts, even if it were allowed on the ballot. Colorado citizens tried to negate all gay rights protections by a state constitutional amendment. The federal courts found that the motivation for this amendment was malice against gays, which is not a rational basis for inequality. There is currently a suit in California, filed by former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, alleging that Proposition 8 carries the same flaws, leading to the likely repeal of not only Proposition 8, but all such gay marriage bans, including the one enacted in Virginia in 2006. The Virginia Amendment, which even went so far as to negate "marriage like contracts" has not yet been challenged, since the Lambda Legal Defense fund is waiting for a better Supreme Court to move forward with these challenges - although waiting gave them Alito and Roberts in the interim.

Of late, the Catholic Church has been supporting amendments in support of traditional marriage. Indeed, the latest papal encyclical, Caritas in Veritate mentions defense of marriage between a man and a woman explicitly. The question I have is, is this a good idea?

The Sacrament of Marriage has a complicated history. In biblical times, polygamy was an accepted fact of moral behavior. Indeed, when rebuking the Sadducees, our Lord calls the patriarchs, who were polygamists, among the living. If their way of life were damnable, he could not have done that.

This past Sunday, the marital comparison to the Church in St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians was the Epistle for the week. It contains the phrase "the two shall become one flesh." This terminology is echoed in the Gospel of Matthew, written later, almost word for word. This phrase has two meanings. One is sexual but the other is legal. It reflects the underlying truth that when one is married, one is divorced from one's family of origin and one with one's spouse.

A main impetus for gay marriage is the lack of recognition in family law of the rights of the gay spouse in relation to the family of origin, especially regarding inheritance and end of life issues. Such couples function as a de facto family, but there is not recognition in the law. The law is not catching up to the reality of their situations - and it is recognizing that if a heterosexual couple can, with one act, gain recognition of their rights as a family, that is is an onerous burden to force a gay couple to execute a multitude of legal instruments to gain the same rights - some of which are still out of reach, particularly with regard to the Social Security system. The latter provisions are indeed anti-family, as sometimes the gay couple has custody of children and the natural parent is the one who has died. An equal application of the law would provide survivors benefits to the remaining custodial partner rather than forcing the child into the foster care system, or to an unfit parent. There is no sensible logic which can state with a straight face (pardon the pun) that breaking up an existing family unit at such a time is in any way "pro family."

These legal developments will, of course, affect the way the Church deals with marriage, since from ancient times the celebration of the Sacrament has followed the civil rite - and still does in much of Europe. The United States is unique in the use of religious authorities to celebrate civil marriage at the same time. The Sacrament was originally a simple blessing of the civil action. It later evolved into a separate set of vows. It is also recognized that the vows that a couple makes are made to each other. The Church witnesses the marriage, but it is performed by the parties themselves. Given that fact, any teaching that gays cannot marriage seems out of step with reality. They seem to do it all the time now, regardless of what the Church says.

Some object to gay marriage and gay sex overall because it cannot produce children. Marriage, of course, is as much about caring for children as producing them. Gays are perfectly capable of doing that, and in fact do it because people sometimes enter into gay relationships with children in tow. While religious leaders talk about the role of procreation in marriage, the ability to procreate is not a requirement in either civil law or canon law to marry - (Canon law requires only the ability to function - although it still regards sodomy as disordered). Of course, the very concept of disorder requires that there be a natural order outside of human experience to damage (since God cannot be damaged). If the natural order is considered a sophistry then the disorder argument carries no weight, especially given the biological evidence that homosexuality is simply a natural variation in the species. If inability to procreate is not a bar to marriage among heterosexuals, it cannot be so for homosexuals.

The distinction needs to be made here between marriages, which exist before God regardless of what we say, and weddings. Weddings, going back to the Old Testament, are a joining of two families as well as the separation of the couple from each family, as is dictated in the New Testament. Weddings are an opportunity for each family to give their tacit consent to the new situation (in some ceremonies, it is still asked "who gives this person in marriage"). Usually, the parent has no choice in the matter, yet asking the question was a recognition of the fact that the child is transitioning out of the family of origin. To not celebrate gay weddings deprives Catholic families of the chance to come to grips with this within the comforting embrace of the Church. As such, it is an insult not to the couple, who often care less what the Church thinks - since the Church appears to care less about them, but to the Catholic families who willingly or unwillingly, give their children in what is soon to be recognized as legal marriage.

Such recognition is inevitable, since there is no rational basis for the family of origin to maintain superior rights in relation to a gay spouse when it does not have these rights over a straight spouse. There is certainly no biblical justification for such a distinction if the two are considered one flesh. Indeed, it is more likely that the gay couple has separated from their families of origin, so the irony that the family of origin has more legal rights is stinging and will not stand the test of equal protection law.

Finally, the Church will see it in their interest to recognize these marriages, since if it gives the Church a platform to teach that monogamy is a good thing for gays and lesbians that it does not have now as it counts both monogamous and promiscuous gay sex as the same thing, even though it is not the same thing at all. The morality of the sex act is not the act itself, but how it is used. Promiscuity is always a selfish act, where committed sexuality is unitive, natural and an expression of how the person was created. If God created people to be gay, as we are finding, who are we to argue with God? Indeed, how can we expect gays and lesbians to trust the Church when we talk about God when we do not trust them when they say that they were created to be Gay and were well made? If the current teaching on homosexuality is a barrier to evangelization, and indeed an impetus to suicide for gay youth, how can it stand? My answer is that it can't and it won't. Hopefully the changing legality of gay marriage will be an impetus to a further examination of this fact.

White House takes small steps on gay rights

2009-08-23T18:52:00.000-07:00

After a rocky start that led to complaints among the president’s supporters, the Obama administration has begun to take more concrete steps on gay rights issues.

The Justice Department clarified a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act last week, a statute that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, asking for the law to be repealed. In addition, the hire of a prominent gay rights adviser on President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign at the department’s civil rights office was reported. And the president himself awarded prominent gay activists Medals of Freedom, even saying one of them was a role model for her daughters, earlier this month.

Those moves won measured praise from gay rights advocates. But many said they would only be worthwhile if followed with more concrete action to end discrimination for those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.

“I think the brief is a down payment,” said Matt Coles, director of the LGBT project for the American Civil Liberties Union. “It is a start, but only a start.”

The small steps by the administration follow the outcry from the gay community over hesitation by Obama to act on more of the key items on their agenda, such as the repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” the U.S. military policy that discharges gay and lesbian soldiers if their sexual orientation is disclosed. Obama has shied away from moving quickly to end the policy by executive order, instead trying to gain congressional support to author a permanent legislative end to it.

“A lot of this requires legislative action,” said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). “We on the Congress side need to get those bills to his desk.”

Polis, a freshman Democrat and the first openly gay man elected to Congress, said the recent moves by the Justice Department are positive. The hire of Matt Nosanchuk, a former aide to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) who advised the Obama campaign, as a senior counselor in the civil rights office to help handle gay rights issues is a plus. The department has also reinstated a working group on LGBT issues, which was disbanded under the Bush administration.

Polis said it was important to have the right staff in place, but that the gay community is more concerned with results than new hires.

“Certainly, it helps,” Polis said, but “the success in implementing an equality agenda is much more important than the structure behind it.”

In the revised Justice Department legal brief, federal lawyers not only say the Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed but use scientific research to refute the argument that same-sex parents are not as good parents as heterosexual couples.

“It is right and great for the federal government to turn to science to say that this stuff has no basis,” Coles said. “The fact that the Justice Department accepts it gives us greater creditability.”

Obama also has “increasingly used the bully pulpit” of the White House to honor prominent gay figures, said Robert Raben, founder of the Raben Group, which often lobbies on gay rights issues.

Raben noted how Obama awarded Medals of Freedom to the late Harvey Milk and Billie Jean King, two well-known gay figures, and how the president praised them both during the ceremony.

“We honor what she calls ‘all the off-the-court stuff’ — what she did to broaden the reach of the game, to change how women athletes and women everywhere view themselves, and to give everyone — regardless of gender or sexual orientation —including my two daughters — a chance to compete both on the court and in life,” Obama said in honoring King at the White House ceremony.

“When you have a president who is willing to say that she is a role model for his girls and mentions that she is gay, it is incredible,” Raben said. “It is a low bar but to be treated as real, three-dimensional human beings by the president remains to be a fantastic thing.”

But despite the small steps forward, many in the gay community said they are taking a wait-and-see approach with the administration.

Polis signed onto a letter with several other lawmakers in late June asking the president to stop the military investigating allegations of same-sex orientation while Congress works to end "Don't ask, don't tell." The congressman says he still wants Obama to take that step.

Coles agrees, and besides repealing the military's policy and the Defense of Marriage Act, the ACLU official wants the administration to take a more active stance in promoting legislation to end employment discrimination for gay workers. Most of all, though, he wants Obama to speak up more and explain to the nation why gay rights issues are important.

“I think he has more moral authority than any other president for the last 40 years. I think the country will listen to him and I want him to lead,” Coles said.

Jason Pfeiffer: Michael Jackson Secret Gay Affair?

2009-08-23T03:09:00.000-07:00

A Michael Jackson secret gay affair? A man by the name of Jason Pfeiffer has come forward to share with the world the love affair he had with the King of Pop. Read more about the alleged Michael Jackson secret gay affair, see photos and video here.

Jason Pfeiffer, a clinician who worked for Jackson’s dermatologist Arnold Klein, is coming out with his story of a whirlwind romance with Michael Jackson that had taken place up to the King of Pop’s death. Pfeiffer talks to the Aussie edition of Woman’s Day magazine about his first date with Michael and how he is coping with the loss of his alleged lover. Check out what he has to say below.

Pfeiffer says, “I guess our first ‘date’ was in my car. We went for a drive and were talking and having fun, but Michael had his minders who were ‘nosey’ as Michael put it. We had to make sure we were not caught, and although the date was short as I had to take him home before anyone noticed, we had a great time. I thought nobody else knew, but have since discovered that others did surmise the truth.”

When Michael Jackson died, Pfeiffer issaid to have been heartbroken. Pfeiffer says, “I’ve lost my soulmate. It’s very hard to describe the loss I feel - but there is something that’s empty in my heart.”

Pfeiffer told Woman’s Day magazine, “He completely changed in the final two weeks. He was overly religious, overly dramatic, exhausting and exhausted. He was saying goodbyes the week before passing. Everyone was creeped out by it. Michael got very retrospective in the last few weeks, he was talking about God and the Mayan calendar and the year 2012 - which is when the Mayan calendar ends.”

Are you buying what Jason Pfeiffer is selling? Despite Michael Jackson saying he wasn’t gay, was there a Michael Jackson secret gay affair?

Michael Jackson Video

Gay marriage supporters airing television advertisement

2009-08-20T22:02:00.000-07:00

AUGUSTA -- Gay marriage supporters began running a television advertisement Thursday that features gay and straight Mainers talking about the importance of equality.

The advertisement is funded by a coalition of nonprofit groups that support gay marriage but which are not directly involved in the campaign to defend the state's gay marriage law against a people's veto question likely to appear on November's ballot.

Betsy Smith, executive director of the EqualityMaine Foundation, said the 60-second television spot that will air statewide is the continuation of a three-year educational effort.

"We are not the campaign," she said during a telephone news conference. "We are ongoing, permanent educational organizations that have been talking with Mainers about marriage equality for three years."

The ad talks about "Maine values," described by the groups as "fairness," "respect" and "strong and healthy families." It is paid for by the EqualityMaine Foundation, Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders.

The groups declined to say how much they spent on the advertisement. They said they will continue spending money to further their educational efforts.

In May, Gov. John Baldacci signed into a law a bill that allows gay and lesbian couples to marry. Immediately, groups launched a people's veto effort to gather the signatures necessary to put the issue before voters in November.

The Secretary of State's Office is in the process of verifying the signatures to determine whether Mainers will be asked if they would like to overturn the new law.

Scott Fish, spokesman for Stand For Marriage Maine, said the ad doesn't explain to Mainers the major changes that would take place to Maine law if marriage is redefined to include gay and lesbian couples.

"They can say it's not a campaign ad, but it's pretty obvious it's a campaign ad," he said.

Fish said Stand for Marriage will soon launch a new Web site and will use radio, television and newspapers to get out their message.

He said the campaign will begin in earnest once the signatures are officially certified -- likely after Labor Day.

"Traditionally, in Maine, the rule of thumb is don't even attempt to do anything in the summer because people aren't paying attention," he said. "It's early for a noncampaign campaign ad."

Shenna Bellows of the Maine Civil Liberties Union said the advertising effort is just beginning for thos against repealing the law. "We intend to invest as many resources as possible to bring this message to reach hundreds of thousands of Mainers," she said.

The EqualityMaine Foundation ad does not make reference to the people's veto, nor does it talk about voting in November. Bellows called it "a classic public educational message."

The gay marriage fight in Maine is expected to be followed closely nationally. Already, supporters and opponents from California have sent money, staff or both to help in Maine.

Maine became the fifth state in the nation to allow gay couples to marry when Baldacci signed the law this spring.

Smith, of EqualityMaine, said their educational efforts began with a video in 2006, print media in 2007, Web videos in 2008 and now television in 2009.

"We've been talking with Mainers for three years about our state's gay and lesbian families," she said. "We're simply taking that conversation and going directly into Maine kitchens and living rooms where families most often have these discussions."

RPT-U.S. judge sets Jan 2010 federal gay marriage trial

2009-08-20T02:54:00.000-07:00

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug 19 (Reuters) - The federal judge being asked to declare gay marriage a fundamental constitutional right on Wednesday set a January 2010 trial date and denied attempts by gay and conservative advocacy groups to join the case, already top-heavy with high profile lawyers.

About 30 lawyers crowded into a San Francisco courtroom hearing the challenge to California's Proposition 8 same-sex marriage ban, a high-risk venture that will set court policy for years, if it reaches the U.S. Supreme court.

Ted Olson, the lawyer whose Supreme Court arguments put President George W. Bush in the White House, and David Boies, his opponent in the 2000 case, joined forces to overturn Prop. 8, arguing precedents showed they could win.

Gay rights groups had avoided federal court in favor of a state-by-state battle for fear conservative Supreme Court justices would deny their cause. A handful of U.S. states, mostly in the northeast, have allowed same-sex marriage, but the overwhelming majority forbid it.

In respectful tones, Olson told federal district Judge Vaughn Walker participation by gay groups and social
conservatives would only slow the case.

Walker, clearly eager to focus and speed arguments, denied the groups' motions but added the city and county of San Francisco to the case as a government representative. Calif. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signaled his administration will not actively join the case.

"I am surprised by the governor's position in this case," Walker told a state lawyer, telling him to urge Schwarzenegger, who personally favors gay marriage, to get involved. "This is a matter of some importance to the people."

Walker set a January 11, 2010 date to start the trial, an aggressive schedule. Two same-sex couples represented by Olson and Boies say marriage is a federal constitutional right which they are being denied.

Social conservatives led by lawyer Charles Cooper say the people of California had the right to limit marriage to a man and a woman, since it is in the state's interest to limit marriage to couples of opposite sex.

NYCLU says school didn't protect gay teen

2009-08-20T01:04:00.000-07:00

MOHAWK, N.Y. (AP) — The New York Civil Liberties Union says a central New York school district failed to protect a gay student from harassment, abuse and threats.

The NYCLU has filed a federal lawsuit against the Mohawk Central School District in Herkimer County on behalf of 14-year-old Jacob, whose last name is not being released.

The suit says the Gregory B. Jarvis Junior/Senior High School student has experienced escalating harassment for his sexual orientation over the past two years.

The NYCLU says district officials were repeatedly made aware of the abuse but didn't formally investigate the harassment or discipline students.

In a statement, superintendent Joyce Caputo said the district "has not and will not knowingly tolerate discrimination or harassment of its students by anyone."

It's not the sex, it's the Bible: Lutherans debate ministry rules

2009-08-19T08:02:00.000-07:00

Sex isn't everything at the Evangelical Lutheran Church's governing meeting this week. The Bible is.

They'll talk about a malaria initiative, evangelization, world hunger, world peace and more at the Minneapolis meeting. But the unquestionable hot topic will be the looming vote on ministry policies, currently scheduled for Friday. It will decide whether openly gay ministers may be permitted in ministry or, as current rules say, they must be celibate to serve.

What does Scripture say on this? And what does Scripturemean on this?

Those are not the same question. No matter how the ELCA votes Wednesday on a social statement on sexuality or Friday on ministry rules, it's always about the Bible. The Lutherans, after all, take their name from the man who rallied the Reformation under the cry of Solo Scriptura (the Bible alone) in his break from the Catholic Church.

Washington Post reporter Jacqueline Salmon's coverage todayhas a pointed quote on this from Phil Soucy of Lutherans Concerned, which pushes for gay rights in the Church:

... The very idea that questioning someone else's interpretation of Scripture constitutes an assault on the authority of Scripture is nonsense.Is it?

DO YOU THINK ... the Bible is like the U.S. Constitution, authoritative but subject to interpretations that change with the times? Or, as the strict constructionists say about the Constitution, plain on its face?

Kiss kiss bang bang

2009-08-18T02:55:00.000-07:00

Some days, posting for GetReligion requires a great deal of work to explain some theological nuance that a reporter failed to understand. Other days, the work is downright easy. As is the case with pointing out the bias and problems in this hacktastic Associated Press piece on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The headline as published in the Washington Examinergives a taste of the piece:

‘Kiss-ins’ smack back at Mormon church as faith’s image suffers from Calif. gay marriage fight

So the image of the Mormon church has suffered? Really? I would love to know what percentage of Americans think the Mormon church rocks for standing up for traditional marriage versus what percentage think less of them. Heck, I’d love to know what percentage of Americans even know about LDS involvement in Proposition 8 or the violent response it received from some gay rights advocates. But you won’t find any such supporting data in the story which relies on a rather narrow vantage point of gay activism.

One reader who submitted the story put it well — it’s both a puff piece on gay activism and a hit job on the LDS church.

Reporter Jennifer Dobner begins rather dramatically as follows:

The Mormon church’s vigorous, well-heeled support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California last year, has turned the Utah-based faith into a lightning rod for gay rights activism, including a nationwide “kiss-in” Saturday.

But the “nationwide ‘kiss-in,’ ” according to the story, featured “200 or so” folks in Salt Lake City, a whopping 22 in Washington, D.C., and “about 50” in Atlanta. Definitely worth a story but you might be careful how much you oversell it. I mean, I’ve thrown house parties with more people than that.

Of the many people featured on the gay rights activism side of the story is Atali Staffler, a Brigham Young University graduate student whose father is gay. She was raised Mormon but is no longer active in the church. Here she explains her view on why the church should not be involved in the public square debates over same-sex marriage:

“I encourage them to promote the values they believe in and to defend their religious principles in advertisements, but civil rights have nothing to do with religious principles,” she said.

Tell that to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.!

The somewhat laughable quote is not balanced out by anyone pointing out the various and sundry ways civil rights have to do with religious principles. Instead we get a series of quotes about how awesome it is to kiss. I should note that this is all related, according to the story, to the trespassing arrest of a gay couple who smooched on church property in Salt Lake City. There’s also a brief mention of something happening in El Paso but there are literally no substantiating details provided about that alleged canoodling event. So the kiss-ins are in response to these other events.

But check out this paragraph:

National organizers say Saturday’s broadly held gay rights demonstrations were not aimed specifically at the Mormon church. But observers say the church’s heavy-handed intervention into California politics will linger and has left the faith’s image tarnished.

I am not sure what the term “broadly held” means — although there are many examples of such ambiguous or confusing language in this poorly written and/or edited piece. But check out that second line. Who in tarnation are these “observers” who are saying these things? I mean, that opinionated line is horrific. It needs to be inside a quote. Otherwise it seems that the “observers” who have a particular view about whether or not the church’s intervention was “heavy-handed” or just, you know, regular American engagement in the democratic process are probably just reporter Jennifer Dobner and her friends. Also, that second excerpted sentence is just poorly written. What will linger? And are the people who didn’t like the LDS church getting involved in politics the sort of folks who held a particularly good view of the church prior to Proposition 8?

So who is the “observer” we hear from after that somewhat slanderous statement above?

“What I hear from my community and from straight progressive individuals is that they now see the church as a force for evil and as an enemy of fairness and equality,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights. Kendell grew up Mormon in Utah. “To have the church’s very deep and noble history telescoped down into this very nasty little image is as painful for me as for any faithful Mormon.”

Wait a minute. Stop the presses. The executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights hears from other gay activists that they don’t like the church’s support for traditional marriage? You don’t say. That quote is followed by one from another ex-Mormon who is gay.

And then this:

Church insiders say Prop. 8 has bred dissent among members and left families divided. Some members have quit or stopped attending services, while others have appealed to leadership to stay out of the same-sex marriage fight.
But church spokeswoman Kim Farah said Friday that Mormon support for traditional marriage has nothing to do with public relations.
“It’s too easy for those whose agenda is to change societal standards to claim there are great difficulties inside the Church because of its decision to support traditional marriage,” Kim Farah said. “In reality the Church has received enormous support for its defense of marriage.”

SAY WHAT? Did reporter Jennifer Dobner just claim that she had sources inside the church who happen to agree with her rather obvious bias in this piece? What are their names? Oh, they don’t have names? What are their positions? Oh, no positions? Well, can we at least get a quote so we’re not relying solely on Dobner’s claims? No? Anyone else think that Dobner might have just made that bit up?

And then, again, we have the second paragraph that makes no sense and is poorly written followed by the sole quote from a church spokeswoman.

In case you were wondering whether Dobner was incapable of letting her bias get the best of her, we also get this wording:

The church has actively fought marriage equality legislation across the U.S. since the early 1990s and joined other faiths in asking Congress for a marriage amendment to the Constitution in 2006.

Is the church fighting “same-sex marriage” legislation or “marriage equality”? And if a reporter can’t figure out how to phrase things without gaming the debate, should they be writing on the topic?

The reporter then uses a bunch of scary language to describe the LDS church involvement in Prop. 8 before introducing Linda Stay, a woman who will also be featured in a documentary about LDS involvement in Prop. 8. It says she “finally” quit the church after Prop. 8 but we don’t know what her level of involvement was leading up to the deciding event. We do learn that she has two gay children, one of whom was married in California.

While the filmmaker who features the family says their story is representative of “many” LDS families, we don’t really get any context to understand whether the millions upon millions of other LDS folks feel the same way or are generally pleased with their church’s involvement.

And check out this hit paragraph:

With the gay rights fight far from over, some believe Prop. 8 could continue to frustrate the church’s image for years to come, much like polygamy — the church’s own one-time alternative form of marriage — and a policy on keeping black men out of the priesthood, issues that have lingered years after the practices were abandoned.

“Some” believe? And who provides the supporting quote for this view? It’s the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Kendell, again.

I’m not Mormon but you don’t have to be to see that this article — which is being published far and wide — is an ugly and unfair journalistic hit piece. The agenda of the reporter is obvious and both she and her editors for this piece should take a refresher course in Journalism 101. Or they should go write for the agenda-driven press where a slanted piece such as this belongs.

Brad Pitt to Bill Maher: Pot, gay marriage are good. Religion is bad!

2009-08-16T23:32:00.000-07:00

Brad Pitt chatted with Bill Maher on Friday night about his pro-gay marriage, anti-religion, and pro-marijuana agenda.

"What is it about religion you don't like?" Maher inquired

"You know, I grew up in a religious family, in a religious community and it just doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't work for me in the long run," Pitt said. "I never wanted to step on anyone else's religion and their beliefs -- that's what's great about our country -- until I started seeing it defining policy. ... Like gay marriage, you have a group of people telling other people how to live their lives, and you can't do that."

Pitt went on to say, "I just say you have to, you really have to check what country you're living in because the freedom that allows you to practice religion is the same freedom you're stepping on. That's not right. And I want to add that if there was a nation of gay married couples who were telling you you couldn't practice your religion, I'd be speaking up for you too. So, let's stop the nonsense."

He also discussed his pothead past with Maher, who recalled being at a party with Pitt when he rolled joint after perfect joint -- all night long.

"I'm an artist," he said, of his joint rolling. But he's quit smoking, explaining that it turns him "into a doughnut."

"I'm a dad now.You want to be alert," Pitt said.

What do you think of Brad's views?

How Well Can a Web-Based High School Teach Gay Kids?

2009-08-16T01:53:00.000-07:00

There's Harvey Milk High in New York City. And Chicago waslooking into plans to launch its own gay-friendly high school. But what about students who don't live in a big city, which have the numbers to support such institutions? Then maybe they can attend high school on the web.

Based in Minnesota, the GLBTQ Online High School aims to be a refuge for gay kids and their families who want nothing more than a safe haven for learning — without the threat of harassment and bullying from classmates. It's a project from David Glick, the (first) online learning coordinator at the Minnesota Department of Education, and hopes to get online for the 2010 school year.

Unlike public schools, however, this one costs money: $5,900 per student for the full 2009-10 year, or $525 per course for part-time students. (There's a $50 application fee.)

So what can students expect? Aside from online teaching, there's the social networking aspect: A guarded, students-only site with "online social events [that] will provide students with fun and less structured opportunities to get to know each other. In cases where we have multiple students in a particular area, we can have face-to-face gatherings as well!"

Online schools aren't new, but this one remains ambitious. Anecdotal evidence tells us gay kids and their families are particularly adept at new technology and the web (often, the Internet is the only place many young gay people can turn to socialize), so we imagine this is the perfect demographic for early adopters. But $5,900 is a steep price for any family these days.

That said, we're in love with this idea, at least on its face. Gay kids need a safe place to learn. There's no reason they shouldn't be afforded the same opportunities to brush up on solving proofs and the periodic table like everyone else. But while some high school environments just aren't safe for gay teens, an online high school is a temporary solution for a much bigger problem: LGBT students still aren't completely safe in their own schools.

According to GLBTQ Online High School's FAQ, here's how the school will work:

Students and teachers use a robust suite of online communication tools to share information, ask questions and access curriculum. Online curriculum uses video, text, animations and other multimedia to present and assess content. Teachers provide guidance, answer questions, administer oral exams over the phone, and otherwise provide a wide range of assistance.
Students can work from home or anywhere else there is access to the Internet. Although some activities are done in "real time," most activities and assessments allow the student to complete them at anytime. Students can work at their own pace, on their own schedule and from wherever they choose.

This has promise, to an extent. We like the idea of "learning from anywhere." It's something we embrace around Queerty: Our staff works from all around the U.S., hopping on IM and conference calls as needed. We collaborate with web-based tools that, we're guessing, look a lot like the ones these kids will be using.

But while home schooling advocates might disagree, we tend to believe nothing can replace the face-to-face, in-person learning experience. It helps kids not only in their education and learning how to work well with others, but in socializing — a key aspect of any high school experience.

For now, however, an online high school for queers might just be the best option.

At the very least, let's hope that come June, there's a giant gay prom. Even if it means a bunch of teens getting dressed to the nines in front of their webcams.

When is a kiss not just a kiss? When it's a gay protest

2009-08-16T00:28:00.000-07:00

One denomination after another is stressed -- possibly to a breaking point for some believers -- by furious battles over the roles of openly gay people in church life and ministry. Can they be clergy or bishops? Can their relationships be blessed?

And the newest protest symbol by gay activists is a kiss.

-- Kiss-in protests kicked off last month in front of the Mormon Church's plaza on Main Street in Salt Lake City. Now, Kiss-ins are spreading as the new gimmick for protesting the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints efforts to defeat legalized same-sex marriage in California and nationwide.

According to an Associated Press story:

Church insiders say Prop. 8 has bred dissent among members and left families divided. Some members have quit or stopped attending services, while others have appealed to leadership to stay out of the same-sex marriage fight.

Church spokeswoman Kim Farah brushed that aside, saying

It's too easy for those whose agenda is to change societal standards to claim there are great difficulties inside the Church because of its decision to support traditional marriage. In reality the Church has received enormous support for its defense of marriage.

-- Kissing a partner can get an Evangelical Lutheran pastor booted from the pulpit post -- right now. The Church currently allows gays to be ministers -- if they are celibate.

But at the governing meeting for the 4.6 million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, starting Sunday in Minneapolis, the issue burning up the agenda is a proposed policy change to allow gay clergy in committed relationships to serve in ministry. It's already happening as several congregations openly ignore the rules.

But ifthe proposal passes as expected, The Rev. Paul Spring told National Public Radio's Barbara Bradley Hagerty, those who believe homosexual behavior is against Scripture will set up their own turfunder the ELCA umbrella and call ministers by their own rules.

We intend to remain technically within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but practically we will become a de facto synod.

-- The Anglican Church in North America, formerly the traditionalist wing of the Episcopal Church, has kissed off that Church after years of struggling unsuccessfully to stem the denomination's move to accept gay bishops and bless same-sex marriages. The ACNA formed its own national Church in June in which both gay and women bishops will not be permitted. .

DO YOU THINK ... Denominations will continue to fracture as believers put their views of Scripture and sexuality to a vote? Could you share a pew with someone who voted differently than you?

Are Black People Really Homophobic?

2009-08-15T05:49:00.000-07:00

There always has to be someone to blame. So when California's Proposition 8 – the state constitutional ban on gay marriage – was approved by voters on Nov. 4, the story line was set: African-Americans, who had registered and turned out in record numbers for Barack Obama, delivered crucial, even deciding votes for Prop. 8.

Initial reports cited exit polls with seven of 10 black voters backing the initiative. Cue the back-and-forth name-calling. In comments and on blogs, some of the measure's opponents called blacks who voted "yes" bigots. Blacks didn't appreciate being singled out, misunderstood and treated as a monolithic block. Was the LGBT community in California racially inclusive and was there enough outreach before the vote?

Admittedly, the conclusion of the Prop. 8 campaign made a tantalizing headline: a historically oppressed group had voted to deny civil rights to another oppressed group. No matter that the numbers were later proved wrong, or at least seriously flawed, or that – at seven percent of the California population – African-Americans could hardly have determined the fate of Prop 8.

After a little time passed and everyone took a deep breath, reports said the exit polling was exaggerated and put the percentage of black support for the measure closer to 58 percent.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Patrick Egan of New York University who with Kenneth Sherrill of Hunter College of New York wrote a post-election report for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force: "Party identification, age, religiosity and political view had much bigger effects than race, gender or having gay and lesbian family and friends." In fact, among regular church-goers, black support for Prop. 8 was lower than for any other ethnic group. But the report also found that African-American support rose above the 52 percent that Prop. 8 received from all voters in the November election.

The issue is far from over. In California, gay rights groups can't agree on the best time to fight the gay-marriage ban, in part because of the struggle to change hearts, minds and votes.

Politics Daily's Carl Cannon set the stage for a similar battle in Washington, D.C., over a city council proposal that would have the District of Columbia recognize marriages performed in other states, with pastors in conservative black churches opposing any measure that would accept same-sex marriage in D.C. and more progressive black churches supporting the measure.

The controversy is not new. Bayard Rustin, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s adviser and an architect of the 1963 March on Washington, "lived in the shadow of many other civil rights greats because of his sexual orientation (gay), his political orientation (socialist), and his religious orientation (atheist)," said a column on AOL's Black Voices.

In the King family, the civil rights leader's widow Coretta Scott King, who died in 2006, called gay marriage a civil right in 2004, when she denounced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban it. Her daughter Bernice, a minister, opposes gay marriage.

NAACP national chair Julian Bond and president and CEO Benjamin Jealous both support same-sex marriage.

In a question and answer in The New York Times, Jealous said when asked why the organization doesn't have an official stand on the issue: "We're engaged in fighting a whole range of issues of urgent relevance to the gay community and people of color in our country, including school bullying, hate crimes and employment discrimination. But we're a barge, not a speedboat. We're not going to repeat the mistakes of so many other institutions that have literally torn themselves apart over this divisive issue."

When the question, "Are black people really that homophobic?" was asked at the recent National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) conference in Tampa, Fla., panelist Rashad Robinson, director of media programs at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, said the question itself needs to be challenged. National polls show a majority of blacks supports hate-crime legislation but opposes marriage equality. Dig deeper, he said, and you find differences based on class, religiosity and geography, with the strongest opposition to gay marriage in the South.

Katina Parker, of the NABJ LGBT task force, who grew up Baptist and has stopped going to church because she's "afraid of being beat over the head" with views about homosexuality, still said her answer would be "no," as many African-Americans are trying to resolve their religious beliefs with family members who are gay.

Freelance producer Patrick Riley, the baby of three siblings who grew up in the Bible Belt of Savannah, Ga., was clear with his "yes." He said some relatives would "prefer to have a crackhead" in the family than a gay person. "I do think it exists," he said about homophobia in the black community. "I do think it is more. I do think there is opportunity" to shift opinion.

In some churches, "don't ask, don't tell" is the simplest solution. Others think such a policy would be abdicating their mission. At Friendship Missionary Baptist in Charlotte, N.C., the Rev. Michelle Jones, daughter of the senior pastor, directs the HIV/AIDS ministry, which offers testing, counseling and soon, affordable housing. "We're called to love and not to judge," she said. Her ministry speaks to everyone from seniors to young people. "There are things we don't want to talk about, but you have to have the conversation."

Why do some African-Americans – even those sympathetic to the goal of legal equality – bristle when gay rights activists insist that the civil rights struggles are exactly the same?

Put aside religion, and there is still a feeling that the language and goals of a historic movement – the civil rights movement – are being co-opted by the LGBT community. Yet, tactics are not exclusive. King borrowed from Gandhi. Protest movements from women's equality to the Polish workers of Solidarity have taken from one another without the same resentments.

"It's equally offensive that we cannot draw from our common experiences," said Nadine Smith, executive director of Equality Florida, a gay rights organization. Wherever it's coming from, it's the idea that there's one group that's inferior and there's a group that's superior, she said.

In common is a wish to be judged as an individual and not dehumanized by stereotypes and fear. And now, at least, civil rights and gay rights groups are talking to, not past, each other.

Harry Potter Star Blasts Parents Who Oppose Gay Sex Ed in Schools

2009-08-14T23:11:00.000-07:00

20-year-old Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe has, in an interview with a homosexual magazine, expressed anger and intolerance for parents who oppose education about homosexual sex in the classroom. "Then there's all this stuff at the moment, which is hateful, about people being up in arms about the idea of gay sex education in schools. Hello!?! Actually for the one or two gay kids in the class, it's f***ing vital! It really makes me angry," he said in an interview with Attitude.

The magazine quotes Radcliffe continuing his tirade against pro-family parents saying: "I just loathe homophobia. It's just disgusting and animal and stupid and it's just thick people who can't get their heads around it and are just scared."

He concluded the point assuring his interviewer, "I'm not just saying that because I'm being interviewed for Attitude. I'd be using a lot stronger language if this wasn't on tape."

Radcliffe returned to the theme when asked about Potter author Rowlings' admission that she intended one of the characters in the novels and film to be homosexual. "The idea that there can't be a gay character in a kid's film," he said. "It's the same thing, this terrible fear of exposing anybody below the age of consent to anything vaguely gay … it's ridiculous. I just brushed those questions aside. I'd never normally do that but some things I won't waste my time with."

Same-sex marriage to be an issue in Iowa House special election

2009-08-14T06:25:00.000-07:00

8/13/09 8:55 PM-by Paula Brooks

When President Obama appointed former Democratic Iowa State Rep. John Whitaker as the Iowa director of the Farm Service Agency, he open the door to a candidate who is going to make same-sex marriage in Iowa a major issue in his campaign.

The Republican candidate in the special election for Iowa House district 90, Jefferson County Supervisor Stephen Burgmeier, became known this past spring after he called for resolution to forbid Jefferson County Officials from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples soon after the Iowa Supreme Court’s issued its opinion upholding a lower court’s decision that granted marriage equality in that state.

He also promised to stage a George Wallace type stand in the door protest at the Jefferson County Courthouse on the first day same-sex marriages could be preformed in Iowa if his measure passed in the county commission.

However after the Iowa State Attorney General Tom Miller said he would remove from office any county official that did not follow the courts ruling, Burgmeier backed off, introducing instead a resolution that asks Iowa lawmakers to take action against same-sex marriage.

“I believe the Supreme Court has over-stepped their bounds, the governor has not done his job and the legislature has not done their jobs,” said Burgmeier at the time.

When Burgmeier announced his intentions to seek election to the vacant House seat last month, he pledged to work to end marriage equality in Iowa if elected.

“There is confusion among Iowa lawmakers, and Iowans deserve a right to vote to clarify law. We need legislators who are willing to listen to the people. The people of Iowa deserve a right to vote on the definition of marriage in Iowa, as your State Representative I will work to allow the people an opportunity to vote,” said Burgmeier.

The Iowa equality group, One Iowa, issued an “Extreme Right Watch” concerning Burgmeier last week saying that “Burgmeier is on record loud and clear as being against marriage equality and equal protection for all Iowans.”

This election, set for Sept. 1, is seen by many as an outline for how gay rights issues and the culture war will figure the general election battles that will take place in 2010 in both the State of Iowa and nationally.

Bleeding Heartland, the community blog for Iowa Democrats says that, “Republicans would like to win this special election for many reasons, not least to fire up their base about the potential to demagogue against committed same-sex Iowa couples next year.”

Today, Everyday America, a vocal opponent to this year’s Iowa Supreme Court ruling that granted marriage equality to same-sex couples, gave its endorsement to Burgmeier and last month Republican Party of Iowa State Chairman Matt Strawn also endorsed Burgmeier.

Burgmeier will be running against Dem

Residents begin filling out gay marriage applications

2009-08-14T06:04:00.000-07:00

MONTPELIER – Very quietly – and with little fanfare – same-sex Vermonters have begun filling out the necessary paperwork to get married next month.

Vermont town clerks began offering civil marriage license applications to same-sex couples this month as the Sept. 1 start of the state's new law allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry draws near.

Couples with a wedding planned after Sept. 1 can pick up a Vermont License of Civil Marriage application at their local town offices – the document that, once signed by the correct authorities, allows them to get a marriage certificate.

"I picked up mine today," said Jace Sheppard of Colchester who plans to marry his civil union partner Michael Sheppard on Sept. 1 after the two get out of work for the day. "We're going to sign it soon and probably return it tomorrow."

So far, very few same-sex couples in Vermont seem to be lining up to get the applications, although more than two weeks remains in the month before the start of the new law.

Some towns are just not expecting a blitz of same-sex unions. Susan Clark, assistant city clerk in Rutland, said they've had one couple take out a wedding application, but don't really expect too many more in the next several weeks.

"We've only had 63 civil unions since that became law," she said. "We just don't do many here. I don't foresee a bunch of people lining up."

In Montpelier, the state capital of 8,000 where supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage battled just months ago, no gay or lesbian couples have yet to ask for a civil marriage license application, according to City Clerk Charlotte Hoyt.

"We had one phone call, but we never heard back after that," she said.

Brattleboro, the liberal hub of Windham County, is the location of the state's first civil union. Nine years ago, Town Clerk Annette Cappy kept her office open past midnight to allow a lesbian couple to get the union (the two later broke up and dissolved the civil union).

But it's doubtful that such an event will occur this year. An assistant town clerk in that town said there have been no requests so far to keep the office open late for same-sex ceremonies on Aug. 31 and so far no one has picked up the applications for a civil marriage.

Sheppard, who has been with his partner for nearly six years, said the two splurged on their civil union ceremony last year are now planning a more intimate gathering for their wedding.

"We spent a lot last year, but now everyone is broke," he joked.

Calif. Activists Try to Find the Right Election Date to Challenge Prop. 8

2009-08-13T22:51:00.000-07:00

The push to restore same-sex marriage rights in California took a hiccup Wednesday when Equality California, which had released a preliminary poll showing its membership leading toward a ballot initiative in 2010, said it will be throwing its political weight behind an initiative for the presidential election in 2012.

The announcement comes on the heels of a statement by the Courage Campaign, whose membership supports a 2010 measure, that its members had met a challenge to raise $100,000 toward a sturdy of what ballot language stood the best chance of winning.

All of this should make for a lively chat today when Equality California holds a virtual town halltoday via livestream from 5 to 7 p.m. PDT.

Marc Solomon, EQCA marriage director, said EQCA had spent the past few months studying four options: a ballot battle every two years until victory is secured, wait until favorable polling assures victory is certain, an initiative in 2010, or an initiative in 2012.

"For us, waiting has never been a possibility," Solomon said. "We’sve already talked to thousands of voters across the state. The real issue has been whether it will take 15 months or 39 months to change enough hearts and minds so that future generations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians never have to fight again at the ballot box for their basic humanity."

In a teleconference Wednesday with reporters, EQCA officials stressed the need to do more work to win support in communities of color and faith-based communities would take more time than an initiative in 2010 would allow, and the percentage of young voters, more supportive of marriage equality, as opposed to older voters is expected to increase

"I understand the frustration for people who want to go back now," Solomon said, "but I think we would be leading them down a path we don’t feel comfortable leading them down. It is easy to collect signatures; it is extremely hard to win a campaign. I think it would be irresponsible for us to say we’re going to contribute money even though we don’t think this is the smarter approach."

EQCA said it wanted community resources immediately to be focused on the same-sex marriage battle in Maine.

EQCA said if a ballot initiative to restore marriage rights is on the ballot it certainly would support its passage--just not push its donor base to contribute. Ballot language must be submitted by early November and the necessary signatures to put it on the ballot could be gathered into late April.

An ongoing federal challenge to the current same-sex marriage ban could further confuse efforts to pass a marriage initiative in 2010. The case in federal court could have a decision as early as spring but is likely to be appealed however it is decided.

"We are committed to working with every person and organization regardless of which approach they take," said Geoff Kors, executive director of EQCA. "Many of our key allies feel we need more time to develop support. The year 2012 simply by numbers appears to be a better year.

"If there are people who want to go with 2010 and can get together the signatures and the ballot measure, this is a democracy and that’s their right. Obviously we’ll support it."

EQCA said that although more people said they favored 2010 rather than 2012 in the survey it took earlier, the majority of people were undecided. "Back then we would have voted for 2010 as well," Solomon said, "but since then we spent three months gathering information."

As part of its study, EQCA said it has analyzed the willingness of the top 100 donors from the Prop 8 campaign to donate for a ballot battle in either 2010 or 2012 and talked with more than two dozen political consultants and pollsters, met with leaders of California Faith for Equality and had more than 500,000 conversations with voters at their homes or farms or street festivals.

But Solomon said recent interviews with donors, sympathetic clergy, political consultants and organizations that work with gay families advised waiting for 2012.

He said it was unrealistic to quickly raise the needed cash, $40 million to $50 million, in a bad economy, especially when big donors are being asked to give to social service organizations whose budgets have been slashed. The 2008 fight cost supporters and opponents $83 million.

Both Equality California and the Courage Campaign allowed for a possible change in strategy. Solomon said he would not rule out playing a role if an initiative does make it to the ballot next year.

And Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs said before his group can take the battle in California to voters, it must help other states fighting to legalize same-sex marriage, including Maine, which became poised to recognize the unions when lawmakers in May set aside a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Gay marriage opponents want to force a November vote in Maine to outlaw the nuptials, and Jacobs said the Courage Campaign needs to be involved in that fight. Voters in 29 states have approved state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.

Meanwhile, John Henning, head of Love Honor Cherish, said his group also would continue to focus on next year.

"If you tell people that they’re going to have to wait, a lot of people are going to lose interest," Henning said. "They’re going to make other commitments, they’re going to get the message that this isn’t important enough to act now."

Great Nationwide Kiss In for Gay Marriage Saturday

2009-08-13T20:55:00.000-07:00

The Great Nationwide Kiss-In, an event created in response to a spate of anti-gay incidents that arose out of gay men being publicly affectionate, takes place this Saturday, August 15th. Activists across the country have signed-on to take part, check out this Facebook action page for times and locations in your town.

Why, you ask? Why are you doing this?

After incidents in San Antonio, TX, El Paso, TX and Salt Lake City, UT - where different gay and lesbian couples were harassed or detained by law enforcement or other people for the simple act of kissing in a public place - we need to make a strong statement to everyone everywhere: kissing is not a bad thing, nor has it ever been. It’s not vulgar or inappropriate. It’s a sign of affection that is as old as time itself. And it’s a beautiful thing that we share with our loved ones every single day.

Caution on Fighting Marriage Ban

2009-08-13T07:13:00.001-07:00

SAN FRANCISCO — One of California’s leading gay rights groups,Equality California, said Wednesday that it would not seek to overturn the state’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage next year, even as another group advocating for same-sex marriage said 2010 was the right time to go back to the ballot.

Officials with Equality California had argued for a quick return to the polls to overturn Proposition 8, which California voters approved in November by 52 percent. But in a conference call Wednesday, the group’s leader made it clear that they now preferred a more cautious approach, with November 2012 as a target.

“What we found is that through our experience, both in talking to people over the past few months and our experience working on marriage equality over a number of years, is that the work is slow going but doable,” said Marc Solomon, the group’s marriage director. “It takes time and commitment and lots and lots of volunteers to undo untruths that our opponents have been telling.”

The group’s announcement came an hour after the Courage Campaign, a collection of “grass-roots and net-roots activists,” said results of an early fund-raising push had emboldened it to push ahead with plans to oppose Proposition 8 next year.

“We are not going to let the calendar dictate people’s rights,” said Rick Jacobs, the group’s founder, who added that it had raised more than $75,000 in the last 24 hours. “As of now, we are moving forward for 2010.”

Both groups are at the forefront of the debate over when to challenge the ban, and they played down the division over when to return to the polls. But it is apparent that strategic differences exist.

Those in favor of a quick return, like Mr. Jacobs, say the momentum from anger over Proposition 8’s passage should be tapped, while Equality California says more time is needed to persuade voters, particularly groups that supported Proposition 8, like minorities, rural residents and the elderly.

Mr. Solomon also articulated several other arguments against trying to get on the 2010 ballot, including a lack of enthusiasm from major donors and a sense that greater numbers of young voters who support gay rights will turn out — and be of voting age — in 2012, a presidential election year.

“People who are now 16, 17, 18 will be added to the voter rolls,” said Mr. Solomon, who said his group’s research showed 60 percent of voters under the age of 30 approved of same-sex marriage.

The deadline for the California secretary of state to decide if a measure qualifies for the November 2010 ballot is next June; petitioners need to collect nearly 700,000 signatures by then.

Opponents of same-sex marriage were averse to another election, saying Californians had already voted on the issue. “If asked to do so, they will indeed vote again to protect traditional marriage,” said Ron Prentice , the leading group behind Proposition 8.

Over all, 49 percent of California voters approve of same-sex marriage, with 44 percent disapproving of it, according to an analysis of Field polls released Aug. 5. Such close margins have made decisions on political strategy more difficult, opponents of Proposition 8 said.

“The polling is clear that it’s not clear,” Mr. Jacobs said. “If there were polling data that showed right now that we win in one year or another, there wouldn’t be this discussion.”

The ballot debate came as a federal judge presiding over a legal challenge to Proposition 8ordered both sides Wednesday to resubmit briefs by Monday on how they wished to proceed.

The State Supreme Court upheld the ban in May, but the timing of the federal case has some advocates for same-sex marriage arguing that a failure there could damage their efforts to persuade voters to reject the proposition.

Such views have discouraged longtime gay activists, who have watched several states legalize same-sex marriage recently.

“The troops, such as they are, are more disunited than ever and battling each other to the next failure,” said Larry Kramer, the playwright and a founder of the group Act Up, which led the fight for AIDS research. “They cannot agree on anything now.”

Officials with Equality California and the Courage Campaign said that was untrue.

“We’re all in this for the same thing,” Mr. Jacobs said. “I don’t see why this should put us at cross-purposes.”

CA Gay Rights Group: Wait for 2012 to Attack Ban

2009-08-12T22:05:00.000-07:00

California gay rights groups are at odds over when to ask voters to repeal the state's same-sex marriage ban, with one of the largest organizations saying Wednesday it would wait until 2012 and another announcing it would shoot for 2010.

Activists have been divided for months over when to go back to the polls after voters approved Proposition 8 last fall. Some are concerned that support and interest will wane by 2012, while others worry that next year is too soon to launch another expensive fight.

One of the largest and most influential groups, Equality California, said Wednesday that holding off gives organizers more time to raise money and canvass voters. The group said turnout in a presidential election year will be higher than in next year's gubernatorial race and include more young people who tend to favor gay marriage.

"Emotionally, we all want to win marriage back as quickly as possible," said Marc Solomon, Equality California's marriage director. "We really think that we have a shot in the next three years. But we have one shot, we don't have two shots. We're not waiting at all. We're going hard. But we think the campaign is a three-year campaign."

Meanwhile, Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign announced in an e-mail to supporters Wednesday it would push to get a measure on the 2010 ballot.

"Now it's time to keep this marriage equality momentum going," said campaign chairman Rick Jacobs.

The anger over losing marriage rights only months after the California Supreme Court ruled to allow them — as well as the momentum from legalization in several other states — have been strong arguments to launch the earliest campaign possible. Even Equality California was eyeing 2010 immediately after Proposition 8 passed.

The possibility of a gay marriage supporter leading the Democratic ticket for governor — San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom or Attorney General Jerry Brown — had also been a consideration in the decision.

Even Equality California was eyeing 2010 immediately after Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote.

But Solomon said recent interviews with donors, sympathetic clergy, political consultants and organizations that work with gay families advised waiting for 2012.

He said it was unrealistic to quickly raise the needed cash — likely $40 million to $50 million — in a bad economy, especially when big donors are being asked to give to social service organizations whose budgets have been slashed.

The 2008 fight cost supporters and opponents $83 million.

Both Equality California and the Courage Campaign allowed for a possible change in strategy. Solomon said he would not rule out playing a role if an initiative does make it to the ballot next year.

And Courage Campaign Chairman Rick Jacobs said before his group can take the battle in California to voters, it must help other states fighting to legalize same-sex marriage, including Maine, which became poised to recognize the unions when lawmakers in May set aside a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Gay marriage opponents want to force a November vote in Maine to outlaw the nuptials, and Jacobs said the Courage Campaign needs to be involved in that fight.

Voters in 29 states have approved state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage.

Meanwhile, an effort to legalize gay marriage in California is also playing out in federal court. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco said he is dissatisfied with all the court filings meant to lay out the important legal issues and key evidence, and ordered new submissions with more details.

City Votes Down Gay Rights Amendment

2009-08-12T09:33:00.000-07:00

A gay rights amendment gets knocked down in Jackson. The city council voted against changes to Jacksons anti-discrimination ordinance. It's a law that currently says people can't be denied rights based on certain characteristics, like race or gender. The human rights commission wanted to add nine words to the current law, saying that in addition to what's already on the books, people can not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status, but council voted that down 5 to 2.

Before they voted, several spoke out both for and against the proposal. Some say the debate is way overdue and the language should have been changed years ago, but others say changing the ordinance wouldn't be fair, because the gay and lesbian community chooses to live their life that way, so employers and others shouldn't be forced to give them equal rights.

Christine Canning-Peterson, supports ordinance: "It's the right thing to do. I don't want to live in a neighborhood that discriminates against people for any reason, and I appreciate and celebrate diversity in citizenry, and the city should do the same."

Brad Foster, against ordinance: "It would be terrible for businesses. It would take out for businesses to choose how to run their business, who do they want representing them at the counter."

I spoke with someone from the human rights commission after the vote, and he says they're down, but they aren't defeated. They will go back to the drawing board to see how they can get changes passed.

Kiss Me, I'm Gay

2009-08-11T22:49:00.000-07:00

The citizens of Easkey, County Sligo, Ireland, have always been village people. The population of 250 shares two shops, two pubs, two butchers, and a post office on the northwestern coast of the island, but roughly 80 of them are expected to get slightly closer as they celebrate what may be the smallest gay pride event on the planet.

The Family Resource Center of Easkey is encouraging the community to “go gay for a day” in something of a microcosmic contribution to the larger Northwest LGBT Pride festival, now in its fourth year.

Denise Clark, a 10-year resident of Easkey, told The Irish Voice that the country’s gays are increasingly returning to their rural roots. Fellow festival organizer Pat Herarty said the “gay for a day” slogan is designed to create an inclusive environment with the area's straight population.

Herarty said the rural areas of Ireland are starting to "grow up" since Ireland decriminalized homosexuality in 1993.

Gay rights groups to decide 2010 or 2012

2009-08-11T19:38:00.000-07:00

A coalition of gay rights groups will announce its strategy tomorrow for winning back same-sex marriage in the state.The coalition has not yet formally announced whether they will seek a ballot measure legalizing same-sex marriage in 2010 or 2012.

But in May, Equality California outlined six reasons for a 2010 same-sex marriage ballot fight, including the momentum garnered in the wake of Proposition 8’s defeat and the likelihood of Democratic gubernatorial candidate support reversing the gay marriage ban.

Equality California is one of the leading organizations in the effort to repeal the gay marriage ban approved by 52 percent of voters in November.

The San Francisco-based nonprofit group was founded in 1998 and works for equality and legal protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Roughly 54 percent of the valley supported Proposition 8.

The Courage Campaign also favors a 2010 campaign with more than 80 percent of its members saying they want to see a ballot measure next year.

Founded in 2005, the Courage Campaign is an online network of nearly 700,000 grassroots activists in California pushing for progressive change and equality, according to the organization’s Web site.

Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many in the Palm Springs area, where rainbow flags, an icon of gay pride, flutter outside downtown businesses and adorn bumper stickers. The city has one of the largest gay populations per capita in the United States.

About 1,200 same-sex couples married in the Coachella Valley last year in the roughly four months gay marriage was legal.

Earlier this year, the California Supreme Court maintained the validity of Proposition 8 while also ruling the roughly about same-sex marriages conducted statewide before the ban took affect would be upheld.

When Should Gay Marriage Advocates Try to Reverse California's Prop 8?

2009-08-11T09:51:00.000-07:00

Whether we like it or not, gay marriage opponents had a devastatingly effective advertising campaign in California.

When should Californians try to reverse last November's Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage? That's the question on tap this week, and for awhile going forward.

While Barack Obama won a 61% to 37% victory in California last November, the Prop 8 amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage also passed, 52% to 48%. It was a striking rebuke to pro-gay rights forces, who had just won the right in a notable California Supreme Court decision, and seemed poised to hold it in the election.

This week, a few organizations championing same-sex marriage will announce their opinions as to to whether to try to reverse Prop 8 in 2010 or 2012. In order to place an initiative on the November 2010 ballot, initiative language must be submitted to California Attorney General Jerry Brown by September 25th. Equality California and Courage Campaign will announce their decisions this week. This won't end the process, of course, as key funding decisions are yet to be made.

So, the question for human rights advocates is, when best to try again, the seeming slam dunk of 2008 having been screwed up in various ways.

California's same-sex marriage advocates have heard from their pollsters, they've heard from selected political consultants, and they've heard from activists. Now they need to decide whether to try to reverse Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment adopted last November, in 2010 or in 2012.

The pollsters said that 2012 would be a better option. The political consultants said that 2012 would be a better option. The activist leaders prefer 2010.

If there is to be an initiative to bring back the right to same-sex marriage -- established by the California Supreme Court last year and overturned by California voters last November -- ballot language is due by September 25th.

Here are some points to consider.

**The Polling

Gay marriage advocates -- and please excuse this sympathetic straight guy for using the short form rather than the full, and politically correct, LGBT language -- commissioned a poll on this point. Which was conducted before the Republican majority California Supreme Court, which had granted the right in the first place, predictably upheld Prop 8 last spring. Predictably because most gay rights advocates had sued on the technical basis that Prop 8 constituted a fundamental revision of the California Constitution rather than an amendment. Ignoring the fact that the Prop 13 property tax amendment was actually was actually far more far-reaching.

On June 3rd, I went on a media conference call sponsored by same-sex marriage proponents. Pollsters Amy Simon and David Binder discussed their poll, which indicated that the opponents of same-sex marriage have an eyelash thin one to two-point edge over proponents among all California voters. Not unlike other polling before the passage of the gay marriage ban.

The advocates' pollsters read is that 2012 is a marginally better year in which to do a gay marriage initiative than 2010, due to higher turnout of more Democratic voters in a presidential election. They're less pronounced, however, in the view that 2012 is preferable to 2010 than are the two leading public pollsters remaining in the state: Field Poll director Mark di Camillo and Public Policy Institute of California poll director Mark Baldassare.

There is a sort of inexorable quality to this. As time passes, the opponents of gay marriage increasingly pass away.

Nothwithstanding what their pollsters, or any others, think, the impression I got from the groups represented on the call before I had to move on to the next task is that they intend to move ahead on a same-sex marriage initiative for 2010. And are planning public events promoting same-sex marriage in dozens of cities.

**The Political Consultants Gay marriage advocates Equality California asked a selected panel of supportive California political consultants which year is best to reverse Prop 8, 2010 or 2012. The unanimous view? 2012.

Former Los Angeles Times pollster Jill Darling said: "Did the 2008 campaign move voters? Are the post-elections efforts having any effect? Nothing measurable."

Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, named campaign manager of the year by the American Association of Political Consultants for defeating Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2005 special election initiatives, notes that an initiative for November 2010 needs to be submitted to the Attorney General by the end of September. "Has the perfect initiative been drafted? Is everyone who should be consulted on the legal language, not to mention whatever nuances we want to add, signed off? Is the campaign structure in place to sustain the process that goes along with the beginning stages of an initiative campaign?

"I pose these questions because I think I know the answer. And I think the answer is 'No,'" Kaufman said.

This late ad by Samuel L. Jackson casting opposition to gay marriage in a long line of anti-civil rights moves was too little to counter problems with the Latino and African American communities.

**The Activist Groups Older, more established groups are more skeptical of the idea of going right away back to the ballot. Others, are more into it. Of course, action equals funding in the world of activist politics.

Constant campaigning equals constant mobilization equals constant funding.

A gathering of activist group leaders last month in San Bernardino showed most in favor of going to the ballot in 2010. 93 voted to go in 2010, with 49 in favor of 2012, and 20 undecided.

** The Initiative Dynamic. California voters have dealt with hundreds of initiatives over the past several decades. The dynamic has become well established.

It is much easier to defeat an initiative than to pass one.

This is why 2008 was such a gigantic missed opportunity for the gay rights movement.

Former Governor-turned-Attorney General Jerry Brown provided the appropriate frame for the initiative, casting it in ballot language as taking away a right. Which infuriated the far right forces behind the initiative. But which was entirely accurate, given the fact that a Republican majority state Supreme Court had just granted the right.

And so the No on 8 side had a good lead in the polls starting out last year.

However, the obvious frame for the election proceeded to be completely blown by the No on 8 campaign until the last few weeks. First by a campaign which emphasized a sort of "getting-to-know-us" theme and, ultimately, by mistakes made by gay marriage proponent Gavin Newsom.

Same-sex marriage stalled out earlier this year in liberal New York, after a much-ballyhooed introduction.

**The Overall Environment Today's California political environment is dominated by the sharp economic downturn and by a closely aligned reality, namely California's chronic-turned-chaotic budget crisis. In this context of ongoing economic, financial, and fiscal emergency, gay marriage is not a top-rung issue for most Californians.

As a wild card indicator, there is the relative failure of the movie, Bruno. Some gay rights advocates saw it as a leading edge into the culture. Others worried that it was an unnecessary stereotyping of gay culture. I noted that its sharp fall-off after its opening day was no surprise, given its aggressively in-your-face nature. Putting aside the longer analysis of the movie, which I provided here on the Huffington Post, a relevant fact is that it will end up less than half as popular as Sacha Baron Cohen's previous provocation, the 2006 hit Borat.

And as a fine a movie as Milk is -- with its Best Actor Oscar for Sean Penn for his great portrayal of the intriguing Harvey Milk, with whom I was acquainted, and Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination for former colleague Josh Brolin for his great portrayal of Milk assassin Dan White -- the movie makes Bulworth look like a blockbuster.

A same-sex marriage ceremony at San Francisco City Hall a few weeks before the election, presided over by Mayor Gavin Newsom, with first graders in attendance, effectively countered Prop 8 opponents' arguments that the schools were being raised as a scare tactic.

**The Newsom Factor San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom catapulted himself into a role as chief proponent of gay marriage with his swiftly overturned declaration in 2004 that same-sex marriage was legal in San Francisco. When the California Supreme Court declared it a right in 2008, Newsom promptly made himself the inadvertent star of the Yes on 8 TV ads with his notorious, braying declaration that gay marriage is inevitable in America, "Whether you like it or not."

Which is, probably, true, in the long run. Not that you want to say it as Newsom did. Because few things are inevitable in politics. And anything can be lost with enough arrogance and stupidity.

Later, with the No on 8 side's lead declining, Newsom presided over a lesbian wedding at San Francisco City Hall. Which first graders in one of the newlywed's classes attended. This provided endless ammunition for gay marriage opponents, who had been struggling to prove their contention that the right to same-sex marriage means that the gay lifestyle will be promoted in the public schools.

Newsom is trying to run for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2010. He's not doing well. He's just had major blow-ups in both his political and City Hall operations, and has less than one-eighth the campaign funds available to spend that frontrunner Jerry Brown has.

Nevertheless, his prominent role, at least for now, in the politics of 2010 places him front and center in the debate over the repeal of Prop 8. Given his record of boneheaded moves, gay marriage opponents are happy about this.

**The History The right to same-sex marriage will, in the end, win out. It's the getting there that is messy. And it need not have been as messy as the passage of Prop 8, and its expected upholding last spring by the California Supreme Court, has made it. (Fortunately, the 18,000 same-sex marriages legally carried out under the short-lived law will stand.)

Ironically, it was this very court that granted the right of same-sex marriage just last year.

Overturning an earlier anti-gay marriage initiative, Chief Justice Ron George, a Republican, wrote in his majority opinion: "An individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon an individual's sexual orientation. ... An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis to deny or withhold legal rights."

The state Supreme Court's decision fueled a right-wing drive to enshrine opposition to same-sex marriage in California's constitution.

Gay marriage opponents got a huge gift immediately from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's comments. Newsom had enraged top national Democrats, including Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, by unilaterally declaring same-sex marriage lawful in San Francisco in the midst of the 2004 presidential race. Though it was a move that was predictably easily overturned, national Republican strategists credited the furor it caused with playing a propulsive role in turning out huge numbers of fundamentalist voters in Ohio, the lynchpin of George W. Bush's 2004 re-election.

In the spring of 2008, Newsom delighted the proponents of what became Proposition 8 by delivering a gloating set of remarks.

"By the way, as California goes, so goes the rest of the nation," he said. "It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's gonna happen. Whether you like it or not. This is the future. And it's now."

The foolish remarks helped galvanize religious conservatives around the country, and they poured millions into the California campaign. It also formed the cornerstone for the Yes on 8 ad campaign.

A few weeks before the election, with opponents of Prop 8 fighting back against distracting assertions that the right to same-sex marriage means that "homosexuality" will be promoted in the public schools, Newsom presided over the same-sex wedding of a first grade teacher at San Francisco City Hall. 18 of her students were on hand to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just married teacher and her new wife.

The Yes on 8 forces had a field day with this, successfully pushing back against new No on 8 ads. And what seemed like the likely defeat of Prop 8 turned into a 52% to 48% victory.

And so the question remains: When best to try to roll back the ultimate failure of 2008? In 2010 or in 2012?

The emotional answer is clearly the former. The more measured answer the latter. But politics frequently turns, for better or worse, on emotion.

Up to 21% of teens may be gay says researcher

2009-08-10T19:06:00.000-07:00

Determining who is gay and who is not is not as simple as it once was, according to a developmental psychologist at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association.

Ritch Savin-Williams says the range is actually 1 to 21 percent, "because many young people do not actually say they're gay, even though they talk about sexual encounters with same-sex partners or same-sex romantic attraction."

Savin-Williams is the author of The New Gay Teenager, a 2005 book that explores how sexual orientation doesn't matter to a teenager's mental health and sense of identity.

The book "gives us a refreshing and frequently controversial introduction to confident, competent, upbeat teenagers with same-sex desires, who worry more about the chemistry test or their curfew than they do about their sexuality. What does "gay" mean, when some adolescents who have had sexual encounters with those of their own sex don't consider themselves gay, when some who consider themselves gay have had sex with the opposite sex, and when many have never had sex at all? What counts as "having sex," anyway? Teenagers (unlike social science researchers) are not especially interested in neatly categorizing their sexual orientation."

Young people feel labeling their gender or orientation is not necessary, according to Chicago psychologist Braden Berkey.

In an earlier panel discussion , "he talked about the evolution of sexual and gender labels and how young people today are trying to dissolve them. He says the terms created in the early days, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, are giving way to other descriptions, such as polygender or multisex. Young people, he says, reject narrow gender definitions and say they don't want to be defined by their sexuality."

So as young people realize that it is OK to be gay, more are likely to explore their natural desires, whether they attach a label to themselves or not.

Why Does Obama Use Executive Power for Everything But Gay Troops?

2009-08-10T08:33:00.000-07:00

Under continued pressure from gay groups and those concerned with our national security, President Obama has refused to step in and halt the firings of gay troops, claiming it's "not appropriate" to use the President's "stop-loss" power "simply to say, 'we will not enforce a law.'" How, then, will the White House explain its recent use of Presidential signing statements to do just that? According to the New York Times, the President has used signing statements--which instruct officials to ignore portions of Congressional law--five times to challenge nineteen provisions of federal statute, including a law restricting the use of U.S. troops in United Nations commands and a war spending bill that funds troops and U.S. operations worldwide.

These signing statements, when used by President Bush around 1200 times, were reviled by the Progressive community for usurping Congressional authority, and President Obama vowed during his campaign to use them with "restraint." Whether he has done so is debatable. But what's not debatable is this: A signing statement that tells executive officials to ignore Congressional law is a far more aggressive exercise of the President's power than using his stop-loss authority to allow willing gay service members to continue serving their country. This is because the stop-loss powers, unlike signing statements, have been explicitly granted to the President by Congress in a 1983 statute, 10 U.S.C. § 12305.

That means President Obama is willing to repeatedly use a controversial executive power which the American Bar Association has called unconstitutional while he refuses to use far less controversial executive authority--and which is perfectly constitutional--when it comes to "don't ask, don't tell." Why?

It's not news that politicians have long viewed gay rights as political losers. Never mind that some of us have viewed those politicians as moral losers--it is something of a cliché that pressure groups call on political leaders to exhibit greater moral courage while their calls go unheeded because of fear the pols will lose their jobs. I have no wish to bang my head against a wall trying to make Washington into a moral place.

Opposition to gay rights by some Democrats is particularly galling because it's clear that many of them personally understand that gays deserve equality under the law. But what if Democrats' fears are not just cowardly but incorrect? What if the political risks of backing gay rights are hugely exaggerated? What if Dems, in fact, pay higher costs for appearing spineless than for backing the liberal policies that many believe in? Certainly a case can be made that this is why John Kerry lost the 2004 election, notwithstanding the now-discredited analyses that blamed the loss on gay marriage.

My boyfriend, who is in his twenties, believes the Dems risk losing a generation of young loyalists by failing to seize the mantle of gay rights before, yes, Republicans beat them to the punch. It may seem far-fetched today, but the GOP--including John McCain's daughter, Meghan, and his top strategist, Steve Schmidt--is quickly realizing that its survival depends on broadening its tent to include expanding gay rights, since growing tolerance of gay rights is a demographic inevitability.

Indeed, the fear and emotion that are clouding good judgment may be coming not from gays and lesbians impatient with the status quo, but from Washington types who are personally scarred by decades of Democratic weakness on national security issues and by the personal wounds of current White House staff who lived through Bill Clinton's disastrous effort to address the gay troops issue in 1993. This certainly includes Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who was a young Clinton staffer that year working on gays in the military, and whom the Advocate calls "one of the most risk-averse human beings in Washington" who "can never stop thinking about winning elections." It also seems to include some gay groups themselves, whose presence in Washington may be swelling the risk-aversion that other gay activists have avoided.

Finally, it includes President Obama, who appears to have absorbed an unfortunate--and incorrect--lesson from the Democrats' alienation from the military since Vietnam: that to earn the trust of the brass, the President must plead with the uniforms for a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Yes, Dems must win over the military; no, that is not done by having the President ask permission to act like Commander-in-Chief; it's done by showing the world that the President knows how to lead. Sometimes moral and political leadership really are one and the same. Ending the needless firing of gay troops is one of those times.

Maine Gay Marriage Supporters, Opponents Agree to Civil Campaigns

2009-08-10T08:28:00.000-07:00

Supporters on both sides of the gay marriage debate in Maine have pledged to conduct civil campaigns in the months leading up to the November election.

"We are pleased that your campaign has finally responded to our long-standing call for both sides of this issue to conduct an honest, civil and respectful campaign. We are pleased you have accepted our challenge," said leaders of the conservative Stand for Marriage Maine.

Last week, Stand for Marriage submitted more than the required signatures to the Secretary of State's office for a chance to toss out the state's same-sex marriage law. The state legislature legalized marriage for gay and lesbian couples in May.

Seeking to take the issue to the ballot where the people, not the politicians, can vote, traditional marriage supporters submitted 100,000 signatures for a people's veto referendum.

Expecting the signatures to be certified, Jesse Connolly, campaign manager for NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality, called his opponents to agree to a fair and respectful campaign.

"Maine has a longstanding tradition of campaigns that do not engage in mudslinging, lies, distortions and the politics of division," Connolly, who has so far collected 60,000 "No on 1" pledges, said in a statement Thursday. "Maine voters expect us to take the high road, avoid poisonous attacks, and make our case based on fact and principle. Today, NO on 1 pledged to abide by that high standard, and we invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve."

Connolly faxed his request to Frank Schubert of Shubert Flint Public Affairs, who led the successful Proposition 8 campaign to overturn same-sex marriage in California, as well as Marc Mutty, the public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.

In response, Stand for Marriage Maine – of which both Schubert and the Catholic diocese are a part of – applauded Connolly's commitment to "uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process."

Marc R. Mutty and Bob Emrich of Stand for Marriage noted that just months ago when the state legislature was approving the same-sex marriage bill, gay marriage supporters including Equality Maine were making "extraordinary efforts ... to prevent Maine voters from having any say on this issue whatsoever."

"This is quite a change of direction," they stated.

While agreeing with the pledge, Stand for Marriage has asked its opponents to further agree to at least one public debate; that no volunteer, contributor or staff member will be harassed due to their participation in the campaign; that no property will be destroyed; and that churches on both sides of the issue will be dealt with respectfully.

Minn. Offers World’s First Online Gay School

2009-08-10T08:16:00.000-07:00

GLBT youth who long for an alternative to schools where they may be subjected to anti-gay harassment may have another alternative to look forward to if a new online school for gay youth succeeds.

The new school, the GLBTQ Online High School, may eventually serve as a model for other online educational programs aiming to serve gay and lesbian students.

An Aug. 5 Pioneer Press article that was posted at TwinCities.comreported on the new GLBTQ Online High School, which is based in Mapelwood, Minnesota.

The article said that the school is thought to be the first online high school for GLBT youth.

Other schools meant primarily as safe learning spaces for gay and lesbian high school students do exist, most notably Harvey Milk High School in New York City, which has a student body of about 100 and is open not only to GLBT students but also to straight youth. Harvey Milk boasts an unusually high graduation rate--nearly 90% according to the Web site of the Hetrick-Martin Institute, which founded and backs the school.

The new online school was created by David Glick, who, the TwinCities.com article noted, serves Minneota’s Department of Education as its online learning coordinator.

So far, two dozen prospective students have applied, as have a hundred would-be instructors. The online nature of the new school means that even though the school is based in Minnesota, the students can apply, and learn, from anywhere in the country. The same is true of the faculty: the applicants for positions at the school have applied from around the globe.

Glick acknowledged that the students and their teachers would be interacting remotely. "We may not bring people closer physically--but we will in every other way," he was quoted as saying.

"We want to make them feel more confident about who they are," added Glick, who went on to note that GLBT students outside of urban centers who might not otherwise have access to safe school environments would benefit.

Aside from allowing young gays and lesbians the chance to remove themselves from potentially hostile environments, the online school would also allow them to interact with other GLBT youth, the article noted.

Even so, worries that the students would be "isolated" by online learning, rather than by being in physical proximity to their peers and instructors, was given voice by the University of Minnesota’s David Johnson.

The article quoted Johnson, an instructor in social psychology, as saying, "The danger of the online high school is that kids will stay isolated and feel uncared for."

Added Johnson, "It would be much better to have these kids in a regular high school."

Indeed, some would question the need for schools that cater to the needs of GLBT youth. With more gay-straight alliances (GSAs) in more schools and students across the nation learning to respect their gay and lesbian peers, it might be hoped that gay students would fit right in with others in a typical high school environment.

Then there is the controversial aspect of segregation, self-imposed or otherwise, of sexual minorities. Does it really help gay youth to give them their own schools?

Or, from the point of view some right-wing pundits may espouse, does the existence of a school intended to offer a safe space for gay youth in some way "encourage" teens to "become" gay?

A proposed school for GLBT students was derailed in Chicago last year among conservatives’ worries that if such schools were to continue being opened, school districts around the country would be "forced" to provide special educational facilities for GLBT youth.

Arne Duncan, former CEO of Chicago’s public schools who was appointed by President Obama to the post of Secretary of Education, came in for flack from the right for having supported the Chicago GLBT school, which would have been named Social Justice High School-Pride Campus.

Arne spoke of the dropout rates of gay high schoolers and the larger percentage of homeless gay teens over homeless teens who were straight, but such concerns were drowned out by anti-gay rhetoric such as that from Illinois Family Institute spokesperson Laurie Higgins, who said of Duncan, "Our concern, of course, is that [Duncan is] going to take these values--these arguable, unproven theories about homosexuality and how public schools should treat it--and using his power and position, affirm that in some kind of more nationwide proposals, or policies."

Higgins added that Duncan’s support for the proposed Chicago school was evidence that "he necessarily has taken a position on what homosexuality is--the nature of it, and its morality.

"In order to have curricula that affirm homosexuality, you have to have come to these prior conclusions," Higgins added.

An Associated Press article from last Nov. 20 noted that criticism of the school’s stated intention to provide a safe educational space led to the proposal being recast as a school where any students subjected to bullying could get an education without fear of harassment and intimidation, but that, in turn, led advocates of the Social Justice High School’s Pride Campus to pull the proposal off the table entirely, "in order to protect its integrity," in the words of Chicago GLBT liaison Bill Greaves, who indicated that the school might be proposed anew in 2009.

"We don’t know what the proposal will look like at this point, but we will make sure that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered students are not invisible," the November article quoted Greaves as saying.

Again, however, the new school was not intended to lock out straight students or to create an educational gay ghetto; as a Oct. 30, 2008 EDGE story reported, Chad Weiden, assistant vice principal at Social Justice High, saw the goal of the new campus as "to create a safe learning environment for LGBTQs" and, in general, a place of learning for those students who had "been overlooked in the system and not given opportunities."

Weiden placed the emphasis on "students who seek to investigate the central question of what it means to be an ally.

"In order to investigate that, we need a diverse population of students who can ally with someone whose race, sexuality, gender may be different and then work together towards issues of social justice," with the ultimate goal of making the proposed Pride campus "a training hub to educate teachers and administrators on issues of bullying and harassment, so eventually every school can be a Pride school."

Citing research from the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, which advocates for safe schools nationwide, the EDGE article reported, "GLSEN’s 2007 National School Climate Survey found that nearly nine out of ten LGBT students experienced harassment at school in the past year.

"Three-fifths felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, and about a third skipped a day of school in the past month because of safety concerns.

"When they did attend, the grade point average of students frequently harassed was almost half a grade lower than for students less often harassed."

But would a school that, almost by definition, side-steps student harassment be worth it in the trade-off of the the online world’s lack of proximal real-world interaction?

In terms of educational attention, Glick dismissed such worries, noting that, "most online teachers get to know their online students better than face-to-face because they interact with more individuals."

The TwinCities.com article said that Glick was aiming to get the school accredited and operational for a January launch date. As for the curriculum, Glick vowed that the online high school would provide positive role models by teaching about GLBT historical figures.

The technical details about how teachers and students would interact included texting and video, as well as the use of multimedia teaching tools, the article said.

Good old-fashioned phone conversations would figure into the mix, too.

One upside of such a learning program would be to allow students to learn at their own rate, rather than have to try to keep up (or slow down) to match pace with the rest of the class.

Like the school’s brick-and-mortar equivalent, Harvey Milk High School, the GLBTQ Online High School will not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation: straight students will also be welcome, the article said.

Older students who might feel out of place in a physical setting with teenagers would also be allowed to enroll and complete their high school educations.

Though schools already exist that provide GLBT students with a hassle-free learning environment, Glick noted that the online nature of the school made it experimental, and potentially a model for similar programs in the future.

"There’s no other school we can look to as a model," the article quoted Glick as saying.

"People ask us, what’s the research behind this? We are the research."

Prop. 8 foes to decide whether to fight in 2010

2009-08-10T02:42:00.000-07:00

(08-09) 19:19 PDT -- This is a big week for same-sex marriage advocates, as a clearer picture will emerge about whether they're going to put the issue before voters again in November 2010 or wait until 2012. Or beyond.

On Thursday, the 700,000-member liberal online hub Courage Campaign, whose members advocate a 2010 run, will say whether a $200,000 challenge grant it issued for preliminary campaign work was met. If it wasn't, then as Courage Campaign founder Rick Jacobs wrote to supporters, "We will have to accept that our movement is not ready to repeal Prop. 8 in 2010."

The time pressure to decide: The secretary of state's office suggests that ballot measures be submitted to the attorney general's office by Sept. 25 to qualify for the November 2010 ballot. Organizers need to gather 1 million signatures to sift out 694,354 valid ones.

The decision has split advocates across the state, many of whom are still smarting from the Prop. 8 campaign loss, emotionally and financially. Although Equality California and Courage Campaign say their supporters have urged them to go for it in 2010, a coalition of state organizations representing Latino, African American and Asian Pacific Islander gays say not enough outreach has been done to their communities - one of the major reasons the anti-Prop. 8 campaign failed.

Time pressure

Several California ACLU chapters have suggested waiting. So has the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club in San Francisco, the oldest Democratic LGBT organization in the country, which said, "If we set the vote for 2010, we essentially need to net 1,000 voters per day, a theoretically achievable but extraordinarily ambitious goal."

Marriage Equality USA found "no consensus" when it posed the question at 40 community gatherings across the state this summer. But what was clear, the organization's report said, "is that many people are still trying to heal from the deep anger and sadness of having their civil rights stripped away" by last year's vote.

Build momentum

In July, several top political consultants told Equality California that they either explicitly or implicitly suggested waiting. Sue Burnside, co-chair of the National Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund Campaign Board, is "convinced that we should refrain from rushing in 2010, and instead build on grassroots passion and strategically prepare for a 'Yes on Marriage Equality' referendum in 2012."

"If Barack Obama had relied on the polls, then he never would have run for president," Steve Hildebrand, one of Obama's top confidants and a gay rights advocate, told The Chronicle. Hildebrand has informally advised the Courage Campaign on the issue. "And 16 months until an election is a lifetime."

But Equality California marriage director Marc Solomon, who was at the forefront of the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts, said, "We can't base our decision (putting it on the ballot in 2010) on how badly we want to win marriage back.

"This issue is different than running a campaign for a political candidate. There are not a lot of undecided voters," said Solomon, who estimates that about 15 percent of voters are in the movable middle.

Funding issue

Then there's the money issue. Advocates estimate that it would take $50 million to run a campaign against deep-pocketed opponents.

"The money is there," Hildebrand said. "If there is a well-run, disciplined campaign, people will donate. Lots of small donors."

But others, like Solomon, are "skeptical, based on the conversations with many major donors."

David Bohnett, the technology entrepreneur who donated more than $1 million to the anti-Prop. 8 campaign, has been publicly reluctant to commit to 2010. And social service organizations that serve the LGBT community are worried that there won't be enough money for social services, especially after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cut $52 million in AIDS services from the state budget last month.

"Our donors are telling us that they're torn between giving to us and giving to same-sex marriage," said Dana Van Gorder, executive director of Project Inform, an advocacy organization for people living with AIDS/HIV.

And then there's the organizational issue. A number of grassroots groups formed online after Prop. 8's passage last year, and there hasn't been a clear-cut leader or organizational structure to this growing coalition. Several donors have said they are reluctant to open their wallets again until they see a better-run campaign than last time.

"But there is always a certain level of chaos when you're building a coalition," Hildebrand said. "That said, they have to make a timely decision about whether to go in 2010 in the next couple of weeks."

Pros and cons of forging ahead in 2010 or waiting until 2012

By early September, same-sex marriage advocates need to decide whether to place the issue on the November 2010 ballot. Here are some of the reasons for each view:

Why to push for 2010

Reaching out to new audiences: Courage Campaign and others have made grassroots progress in the Central Valley and among communities of color, opening offices in Fresno and elsewhere.

Momentum: Favors same-sex marriage (it is now legal in Iowa, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and laws allowing gay weddings will soon take effect in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire). New Field Poll shows Californians support same sex marriage, 49 to 44 percent.

Not much of a gap to close: 48 percent of the voters opposed Prop 8. "A lot of campaigns would kill to be at 48 percent to start a campaign," said President Obama's confidant and same-sex marriage advocate Steve Hildebrand.

More media savvy: Better understanding of the power of showing gay families in TV ads, which didn't happen in 2008.

Help at the top: Likely Democratic nominee for governor in 2010 will favor same sex-marriage, providing "high level spokesperson for the issue," said the Simon/Binder report.

Opportunity in the middle: 15 percent of the electorate believed to be in "movable middle."

Why to wait until 2012

Doubts about ability to raise $50 million for campaign: Especially given recession and strain on social service funding for LGBT community. Dave Fleischer, a consultant who has worked on many LGBT campaigns, said a November 2010 run "is a very brief time to raise $40-50 million."

Public opinion static in California: A May survey by pollsters David Binder and Amy Simon found that 47 percent favor same-sex marriage and 48 percent oppose.

Not enough time: "We essentially need to net 1,000 voters per day, a theoretically achievable but extraordinarily ambitious goal," said Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club.

Not enough outreach yet: Anti-Prop 8 did not reach communities of color or religious groups, and new grassroots outreach is still in embryonic stage.

Time passing helps: Younger voters tend to favor same-sex marriage while older voters oppose.

Supporters are emotionally exhausted: Marriage Equality USA found "many people are still trying to heal from the deep anger and sadness of having their civil rights stripped away by last year's vote."

Obama and gay rights

2009-08-10T02:27:00.000-07:00

President Obama has now resided in the White House in Washington DC for a little over 200 days and already the talking heads from both parties are wailing cries of 'failure' 'ignorance' and 'uncaring.' In reality, aren’t such accusations still a bit premature? Certainly during such a tumoltuous economic crisis it can take more than a few weeks to pull through, right? Afterall, the New Deal, an act widely praised by liberals for decades didn't just happen overnight. In fact, many of the benefits and even failures of the New Deal weren't seen or felt until long after the Depression, the war and the death of FDR himself. Even Social Security, now a prominent hot topic and institution of American Government didn't see its first real test until baby boomers began to turn 62 just a few years ago.

Likewise I have seen the cries recently of 'Obama doesn't care!' whether in regards to job losses, the middle class or important civil rights issues. After a year or 2 of having worked near various campaigns I find it hard to believe that Obama is really ignoring civil rights. Rather, I would be inclined to believe that he is tackling particular priorities while at the same time setting up the possibility of working on a broader agenda.

One of the largest complaints I have heard about Obama in regards to GLBT rights was the White House's appeal to the Supreme Court to not review a case on DOMA, a hotly contested piece of legislation and issue regarding states rights and gay marriage. Almost immediately after the high court opted not to hear the case I heard the frustrated groans from various communities expressing their views of how they felt abandoned, ignored or otherwise unimportant. My first response to this however, was: "I beg to differ."

Certainly to see a so called 'GLBT Rights' supporter suddenly turn against such an important issue must appear as a slap in the face to the majority of people opposing the law as unconstitutional, especially with one of the best known liberal judges, Ruth Badar Ginsburg declining to review the case.

Perhaps though, all hope is not lost. Let’s say for example such a case was to go before the supreme court, we can nearly assure a 5-4 decision on the issue but which way would the deciding vote swing? If it repealed DOMA, it would be a great day for GLBT rights, if they chose to uphold the law it would create an infinite number of obstacles for any congressman or president to overcome if they wanted to attempt to work around such a ruling.

While it may not be popular of Obama to oppose DOMA under any circumstance, it does seem to be a logical decision for the administration if he wants to work with DOMA, DADT or any other gay rights issues in the future.Without any significant Supreme Court rulings on the issue the possibilities are endless in regards to what direction Obama chooses to take. Perhaps he is waiting, or hoping for a larger majority in congress after the 2010 election, this would certainly lighten up the tensions and even possibly evade the now inevitable fiibuster attempt from the GOP.

Ultimately there may be no right or wrong way to approach such a fickle issue but when it comes down to it, ideololgy, logic and patience are certainly a virtue at a time like this. If you can't be a president with a practical set of tasks, how can you be a president that would ever anticipate practical results? Besides, it seems the greatest successes are always still just over the horizon, a horizon we haven't even begun to see.

Protest for same-sex marriage

2009-08-10T02:18:00.000-07:00

Up to 5,000 people gathered outside the Department of Justice in St Stephen's Green this afternoon to protest against the Government's refusal to lift the ban on same sex marriages.

The crowd which marched from Dublin City Hall heard former director of the Equality Authority Niall Crowley claim the proposed legislation on civil partnerships was a retrograde step, merely tolerating but not valuing, diversity. Tolerance alone was not acceptable he said, as it was often accompanied by contempt.

Mr Crowley said the Civil Partnerships Bill did nothing to promote equality and was in fact a move to enshrine inequality into law. It was, he said, the product of a backlash against gains in the equality agenda in recent years, such as legislation on incitement to racial hatred. People somehow believed they could no longer afford equality, he said.

Other speakers at the march included broadcaster Brendan Courtney, former director of the International Lesbian and Gay Association Patricia Prendeville, march coordinator Mark McCarron and journalist Fiona McCann, as well as a number of same sex couples and their families who gave personal testaments.

Ms Prendeville said it was "now time for another shift in how we understand marriage here in Ireland as well as throughout the world". Mr McCarron, vowed the protests would continue "until the ban on same sex civil marriage is lifted. We are not going to go away and we are not going to be satisfied with a few crumbs. We want the whole cake, the wedding cake.'

Organisations represented at the gathering included Amnesty International, the Union of Students in Ireland, and other groups representing lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people.

Draft legislation for civil partnership at the end of June, and it will be debated when the Dáil resumes in September

Gay marriage march in Dublin today

2009-08-09T22:06:00.000-07:00

Thousands are expected to march through Dublin's streets today calling for the introduction of same-sex marriage.

The demonstration is being organised by activist group Noise and Amnesty Ireland and the Union of Students of Ireland will also be present.

The group meet will beside City Hall in Dublin and will march to the Department of Justice on Stephen's Green where there will be a number of speakers.

The Civil Partnership Bill introduced in June gives homosexual couples many of the same statutory rights as married couples.

Many groups including Noise and Amnesty however have said the bill treats gay and lesbians as second-class citizens.

Eloise McInerny is one of the organisers of today's march. She believes the civil-marriage for gay couples is the only way to resolve the issue,

"The civil-partnership bill is not going to give us equality only civil-marriage will give us equality. Civil-partnership continues to discriminate against same-sex couples it won't give us the same rights it's a completely separate institution.

"Civil-partnership is a concept of the nineties, it's something of the past. We've moved on beyond that now and civil marriage is really where we're at."

Ms. McInerny also quoted a survey by Landsdowne market-research which she said shows Irish people want same-sex marriage. She is also asking anyone who supports their cause to turn out for the march,

"Sixty-one per cent of Irish people supported same-sex marriage, 81 per cent believed in equal tratment for gay and lesbian people. So there is absolutely majority support there from the public.

"We've been calling on those people to come out for the march and they've responded to the call. We've got Amnesty International coming out and the Union of Students of Ireland and other groups coming out to march today."

Couples criticize church role in gay unions

2009-08-09T21:37:00.000-07:00

They say diocese should not be involved in political fight

Lifelong Catholics and members of St. Raphael's Church in Kittery, Maine, the Doughertys and the LaSelvas say the Portland Diocese has violated separation of church and state, not to mention its nonprofit status, by its involvement in fighting the gay marriage law. Pictured from left to right are Jack Dougherty, Armand LaSelva, Rose Dougherty and Ann LaSelva.Deborah McDermott photo

August 09, 2009 6:00 AM

Two lifelong Catholic couples who are parishioners at St. Raphael's Church in Kittery, Maine, are saying they find legal, moral and ethical problems with efforts of the Portland diocese to repeal the state's same-sex marriage law. Yet they say when they have brought their concerns to the church's hierarchy, they have been ignored.

Jack and Rose Dougherty and Armand and Ann LaSelva, all of Eliot, say they are not involved in the efforts of gay marriage proponents such as Equality Maine, but are merely Catholics who are deeply concerned about the overt political tone taken by their church in recent months.

Their issues range from what they say are essentially dictates from the pulpit, to the fact that diocesan staff are on loan to pro-repeal organization Stand for Marriage of Maine, to legally questionable contributions to Stand for Marriage by the diocese.

And, they say, these efforts are testing their resolve to remain church-going Catholics.

At issue is efforts by Stand for Marriage to repeal a law passed by the Legislature last spring extending civil marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples in Maine. Under the state's Constitution, citizens can mount a "citizen's veto" of a law, as long as they gather signatures equal to 10 percent of those who voted in the previous gubernatorial election.

That means more than 55,000 signatures had to be gathered to place repeal of the law before voters this November. Stand for Marriage recently submitted 100,000 signatures to the Secretary of State's office for verification.

Shortly after passage of the law, the diocese began what the couples say was an "overtly political" campaign to convince parishioners at churches statewide to sign the repeal petition. For six weeks, included in the church bulletin was an insert from the Maine Marriage Initiative (a group under the Stand for Marriage umbrella organization).

The insert stated it was intended "to inform parishioners about the issues surrounding same-sex marriage and why the Diocese of Portland is opposed to this idea." Each detailed court cases, claims by proponents the diocese felt were unsubstantiated and potential loss of religious freedom.

Each of those six weeks, said the couples, the priest was to make reference to the insert and the petition, and at the end of the Mass parishioners stood at the back of the church, petitions in hand.

"I resent getting a bulletin and in it, it takes a stance against gay marriage. That's not the church's place. Then you walk out of the church and you have the Knights of Columbus standing there getting people to sign the petition," said Armand LaSelva.

"It was so disingenuous," said Ann.

The LaSelvas are both retired educators, Armand having had "the distinct honor" of being called a "fag enabler" by the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church, whose members regularly travel the country to protest gays and lesbians.

LaSelva was superintendent of the Dover School Department in 2001 when he overrode the Dover High principal and allowed to stand the vote of graduating seniors to name a lesbian couple as class sweethearts.

"As far as I'm concerned, if we're citizens, we all have equal rights. If you want to be her girlfriend or take her for your lawfully wedded spouse, be my guest."

Jack Dougherty, a retired engineer, said the actions of the church during those six weeks violated what he believes to be a key underpinning of American jurisprudence, the separation of church and state.

He wrote Bishop Richard Malone in June, saying, "I believe you are absolutely wrong in trying to impose ultra conservative, Roman Catholic Church views on the civil law of the state of Maine with regard to same-sex marriage."

He said he never heard back from Malone, "nor did I expect to."

Another concern expressed by the couples was the donation, widely publicized, of $100,000 by the diocese to Stand for Marriage.

"They don't have any business doing that. That's money taken under one pretense and used for another, and it's political," said Jack.

Marc Mutty, the spokesperson for the diocese on loan to Stand for Marriage as one of its top strategists, said no money taken from the regular collection plate has gone to the repeal efforts. Some churches did hold separate collections, but those were announced as such and people could opt not to contribute, he said.

He said as a nonprofit entity, the church is required to accept limits on how much money can be spent and lobbying can be performed, "and we are well within those limits." He did say, however, that the church had to create a political action committee to "meet the letter of the law."

As for the separation of church and state, he said that concept "was created to keep the state's nose out of the church, not the other way around. It means the state is not to interfere with the course of business of a religious organization."

He said he knows there are Catholics who don't see eye to eye with the church on this, but said the diocese is coming from a position of "fundamental Catholic doctrine."

"They misunderstand the church's teachings about marriage. It's inconsistent to say that same-sex marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage and say you're upholding Catholic doctrine," he said. "This is not about disrespecting people in any way. This is about marriage."

The Doughertys and LaSelvas said they understand their church's stand about marriage. All in their 70s, they've been practicing Catholics for a long, long time. If the church chooses not to marry gay people, that's its right, they said. But to get in the thick of the political fray over a civil marriage law is wrong.

"Yes, it tests my faith," said Ann. "When I see what they're doing, it's hurtful to call it my church."

"I think God loves us all and we shouldn't be judging," said Rose.

"I think God loves us all, but not the Catholic Church," said Ann.

Gay Groups Not Welcome In Federal Marriage Suit

2009-08-09T20:44:00.000-07:00

BY CARLOS SANTOSCOY
PUBLISHED: AUGUST 09, 2009

Gay rights groups attempting to intervening as full-fledged plaintiffs in a federal gay marriage lawsuit likely headed to the Supreme Court were officially rebuffed by lawyers in charge of the suit on Friday, the AP reported.

The lawsuit over a California gay marriage ban is being mounted by Theodore Olson and David Boies. The two legal titans are representing a gay couple and a lesbian couple who would like to marry but cannot because of Proposition 8, the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban upheld as constitutional by the state Supreme Court in May. The lawsuit argues that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates against gay men and lesbians.

“Every day that Prop. 8 remains the law of California, Plaintiffs and thousands of other gay and lesbian individuals are denied fundamental rights that are cherished and enjoyed by others, and they suffer substantial, irreparable harm,” the lawsuit argues.

The move to keep the gay groups at arms length came as no surprise to anyone watching the drama unfold.

Last month, when the three gay rights groups – the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – petitioned the court to intervene on behalf of the case, lead plaintiff the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the recently formed group that is funding the Olson-Boies suit, said they were not welcome.

In a July 8 letter to the groups, AFER President Chad Griffin said: “You have unrelentingly and unequivocally acted to undermine this case even before it was filed. In light of this, it is inconceivable that you would zealously and effectively litigate this case if you were successful in intervening. Therefore, we will vigorously oppose any motion to intervene.”

And on Friday, they vigorously opposed. Attorneys Olson and Boies argued in documents submitted to U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker that allowing the groups into the legal fight would “poses a substantial risk of interference and delay.”

“Having declined to bring their own federal challenge to Proposition 8, Our Family Coalition and their counsel [the gay rights groups] should not be allowed to usurp plaintiffs' lawsuit now that it is under way and moving forward on an expedited basis,” the lawyers argued.

Previously the gay rights groups, who, along with the City of San Francisco, won the California marriage suit partially overturned by Proposition 8, had called fighting the gay marriage ban in federal court a “very high risk proposition.” But as the lawsuit gained legal momentum, the groups flipped their positions and suddenly wanted to get on-board.

If Judge Walker agrees to block the gay rights groups and the City of San Francisco, which also wants in, from becoming parties to the suit, they will be denied access to craft legal arguments and management of the case, but will be allowed to submit friend-of-the-court briefs.

Gay rights groups have shied away from taking their fight to federal courts in the past, saying the Supreme Court remains too conservative. A loss in the nation's highest court, they contend, would cause the gay marriage movement irreparable harm.

The gay rights groups wanting in on the marriage suit remain tight lipped about their support. The three groups argue the case would benefit from their experience, but none have said they believe the Olson-Boies team will ultimately prevail. This suggests they continue to harbor doubts whether the litigation will be successful, and might be attempting to limit the damage of a Supreme Court loss.

But a shift away from state courts is already underway, fueled by three additional federal filings in Los Angeles and Boston that seek to chip away at laws that restrict gay couples from the right to marry and the benefits it offers.

In another filing Friday, Olson and Boies proposed a fast-moving schedule capped by a nonjury trial before Judge Walker on December 14.

How Churches May Actually Help Gays Win the Marriage Fight

2009-08-09T07:48:00.000-07:00

Religious communities don't have to be the enemy of gay rights -- in fact, as some are showing, they can help swing votes for equality.

At the top of a hill in Berkeley, California -- above the city's stucco angles, crinkled palm fronds and coffee shops -- Rev. Mark Wilson is seated at a piano. Horizontal bands of evening sun pour through the stained glass to his right, dotting his forehead with pearls of sweat. He closes his eyes.

Today is July 5, 2009 -- the day after Independence Day. Wilson, a broad, boisterous man with a neatly etched triangle of beard, is feeling political.

In a moment, he'll explain to his congregation what 'independence' means to him -- a gay, African-American pastor living in a state that continues to deny same-sex citizens the right to marry. He'll discuss "the flip side of freedom," that shadowy space where those who are only nominally free reside. Mostly, Wilson will do what he's been doing for over a year now: disrupt expectations about Christianity's role in the marriage equality movement.

He's not alone. Over 6,000 members of California's clergy currently stand opposed to Proposition 8. Their ranks stretch from Sacramento to San Diego and include Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists.

Wilson, for his part, could congest a resume with the ways he's been involved. In the months leading up to last November's vote, he made marriage equality a central topic in his sermons; he joined "And Marriage 4 All," a Northern California-based coalition of African-American clergy, political leaders and activists; he even performed a short-notice wedding for five same-sex couples -- complete with a rainbow cake -- two days before the marriage ban passed.

Recently, he's been working for a marriage equality coalition sponsored by two gay rights groups ("And Marriage 4 All" and "And Castro For All"). He's also joined a telephone conference committee that's organizing the Marriage Equality March in October in Washington D.C. On August 29, he will serve as a panelist for an advocacy program, sponsored by Socialist Action, in San Francisco.

"It's not an issue about sin," he told me in late June. It's an issue about justice. It's an issue about two people trying to have the same rights and benefits. Not only that, but the dignity, the pride, the respect for the relationship -- just like anybody else would want to have."

Many members of California's faith community besides Wilson have found creative ways to take a stand: at least 10 were arrested in May for acts of civil disobedience following the Supreme Court's upholding of Proposition 8; two occupy seats on the board of directors for Equality California, one of the state's largest GLBT advocacy networks. A few are working on social networking campaigns that involve services like YouTube and Twitter.

Some have even announced they will not perform any marriages -- gay or straight -- until the ban is dissolved. Art Cribbs, a minister in southern California, joined a Cleveland-based campaign calledRefuse-to-Sign in early July. A nationwide alliance of progressive clergy, Refuse-to-Sign aims to divide marriage into a two-step process: a secular, legislative aspect, in which gay and straight couples are granted all the benefits straight marriage affords; and a religious aspect, where they can celebrate their union at a sympathetic church, synagogue or mosque. It's this clear Church/state demarcation, according to Cribbs, that is essential to safeguarding civil liberties.

"When I insist that my theology, my religion, my faith, determines how others live, that restricts their access to the same privileges, opportunities and rights of others," he told me. "I could not, with any integrity, perform a wedding for one class of people and know that another class of people would be denied."

In the wake of Proposition 8's passage, secular GLBT advocates agreed that the Christian Right had monopolized the debate's religious angle -- that progressive faith leaders had been underutilized. Most now agree that winning marriage equality means buttressing institutional efforts with a strong faith message.

"One of the key things moving forward will be for us as a movement, along with those partners, to continue to broaden out, even beyond what I would call our very 'core base' of progressive faith community allies," said Andrea Shorter, Equality California's coalition director. Clergy, she added, "are often better equipped to do that job than some of us who are long time activist/advocates in a secular movement."

In recent months, EQCA has forged alliances with some of the state's largest interfaith networks, including California Faith for Equality and the Bay Area Coalition of Welcoming Congregations. Additional partners include members of the Unitarian Universalist and Quaker communities, along with a sprinkling of Catholics, Mormons and Baptists.

In October, EQCA will launch a series of regional, faith-centered meetings. The hope for these gatherings, Shorter said, is to convince members of conservative church communities that supporting same-sex marriage is in line with their beliefs.

"Should we expect to move a near majority of the most zealous conservatives to our side of the fight for equality?" Shorter said. "No. Clearly there are those whose hearts and minds refuse to change. At the very least, we can connect with and build alliances with those among them who do value inclusion, equality, justice, separation between church and state and are of the frame of mind and heart to actually question, to challenge teachings that promote discrimination and condemnation against their neighbor."

Wilson, whose own sexual orientation has more than once put him in the trajectory of the Church's wagging finger, believes sidestepping bureaucracy is the best way to win support.

"The thing we're realizing is that we've got to get more grassroots within some of the religious communities," he said. "I think we need to get around some of the Church leaders and get to the lay people. Because there's a lot of misunderstanding around the lies that are being told."

A Jagged Landscape

Wilson, Nixon and Cribbs have all at one time or another been affiliated with the United Church of Christ, one of two major Christian groups in the U.S. to publicly endorse same-sex marriage (the other is the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations). On July 4, 2005, the UCC passed a resolution titled "Equal Marriage Rights for All." Among other factors, it cites "radically inclusive love" and "abundant welcome for all" as its reasons for sanctioning same-sex unions. Marriage equality, the resolution concludes, is "an issue deserving of serious, faithful discussion by people of faith."

The Unitarians' 1996 "Support of the Right to Marry for Same-Sex Citizens" statement reads similarly. Highlighting the "inherent worth and dignity of every person," it urges member congregations to make their position known on both ecclesial and public levels. It also encourages media outreach initiatives and campaigns targeted at "home communities."

Still, such resolutions are far from the national norm. They point instead to a jagged ideological landscape punctuated by discord and ambiguity. The findings of a couple Pew surveys from this summer provide a partial illustration: Though six out of every 10 individuals who left the Catholic Church in 2008 did so because of its stance on homosexuality and abortion, Christian institutions currently experiencing the fastest growth in membership are those with the most conservative views. And while opposition to same-sex marriage decreased slightly among Catholics between 2007-08, it gained strength among white Evangelical Protestants during the same period.

So while some churches are beginning to toy with an increased flexibility on the issue of homosexuality -- an Episcopal Church in Los Angeles announced on Aug. 4 that it had named two gay bishops, effectively lifting a de facto restriction on such ordinations -- most maintain a draconian official posture. The National Association of Evangelicals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Convention and the United Methodist Church are all officially opposed to gay marriage.

Homosexuality (and by extension, same-sex marriage) stands in clear violation of numerous Biblical scriptures, the National Association of Evangelicals argues. In its official policy statement on same-sex marriage, the NAE "call[s] upon pastors and theologians, along with medical and sociological specialists within the Christian community to expand research on the factors which give rise to homosexuality and to develop therapy, pastoral care and congregational support leading to complete restoration."

But according to many in the progressive faith community, interpretations like the NAE's are anachronistic and slipshod. John Tamilio, a co-founder of the "Refuse-to Sign Campaign" (of which Cribbs is a part), believes that using the Bible to condemn gay marriage is archaic -- an institutional veil to mask homophobic fears.

"It's dangerous to quote scripture without doing the necessary historical interpretation of what the text meant in that context," he said. "I don't think [Christian conservatives] want a biblical definition of marriage. You can use the Bible to support polygamy; you can use the Bible to support underage marriage."

Indeed, when closely examined, the religious Right's 'marriage sanctity' argument includes a messy tangle of contradictions. While many opponents of same-sex marriage invoke two passages from Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) as their basis for condemning homosexuality, they rarely mention that Leviticus also bans eating pork (11:1-8) and shaving one's beard (19:27). And though Leviticus specifically refers to homosexuality as "an abomination," conservative Christians rarely condemn the practice of eating shellfish, another "abomination" (11:10), with equal ardor.

"There are a lot of Levitical laws that most people would say, 'whoa, we don't want to do that,' " Tamilio said. "The way we understand [marriage] today is very, very different from the Biblical writers."

Conservatives in California must also grapple with a prickly legislative issue: In spite of currently refusing to recognize any new same-sex marriages, the Golden State affords benefits to the approximately 18,000 of these marriages that took place between June 15 and November 4, 2008. This essentially creates a two-tiered demography of GLBT citizenship -- one whose beneficiaries owe their privileges solely to a five-month lottery of opportunity.

Such a discrepancy "simply puts a more glaring light on the absurdity of Proposition 8," Cribbs said.

"It's a microcosm of the entire issue nationally," Tamilio said. "It's hypocritical."

Moving Forward

The battle over Proposition 8 was the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in the history of the United States. The amendment passed with 52 percent of California's popular vote, and thanks to over $80 million gathered from individual donors and organizations -- many of them religiously affiliated. Focus on the Family, a conservative media advocacy group that contributed $657,000 in support of the marriage ban, declined a request for interview.

Twenty-nine percent of those who voted "yes" did so for religious reasons, according to a poll conducted in January by the San Francisco Chronicle. Five percent cited "moral reasons." Sixty-four percent of those who identified themselves as Catholics voted yes, as did 65 percent of Protestants.

"I think this whole thing with Prop 8 that passed made it possible for a simple majority to discriminate against a minority group," Wilson said. "Churchgoing people helped to put that in place, the same way that churchgoing people helped to put slavery in place."

"I hope in any way that I can to continue to be a voice in the faith community," he added.

Since he began preaching at 14, Wilson has understood the discomfort of living in contradiction, of traversing his own identity's tension of faith and sexuality. His sermons are a histrionic reminder of the weight he bears: He stomps, claps and shouts his way through liberation theology's intellectual landscapes, then stops on a dime. He muses over the meager dimensions of a mustard seed, then delivers a fiery condemnation of Dick Cheney. This is Wilson's style. Even in conversations, his topical trajectories are hard to map: Ezekiel begets Spike Lee begets Cuban politics. All with a dive-bomber's confidence.

On July 5, he poses a question to his congregation. "If you had a chance to write a letter to the government, what would you say? This is your chance. Say it in this community."

One by one, they rise to speak.

"Patriotism is a luxury we can no longer afford," says one man.

Another woman decries politicians' use of God's name as "a cloak for political agendas."

"I would ask you to turn your attention to those who are hurting -- those who are without," says one woman, seated next to her wife. "Stop trying to legislate love."

Their voices, some quieter than others, flit past Tapestry Ministries' ribcage rafters, oil paintings and butterfly kites. They fill up a hall painted gold by the California sun, which hasn't quite set.

Religious communities don't have to be the enemy of gay rights -- in fact, as some are showing, they can help swing votes for equality.

Married life may not be all gay people might think it is

2009-08-09T07:36:00.000-07:00

The edge that gays had over straights from time immemorial was that they couldn't say yes to marriage.

Now they may not be able to say no.

This, bet me, will be the unintended consequence of Tuesday's ruling by the high court of Massachusetts requiring the licensing of same-sex marriage.

If you love me, why won't you marry me?

"To be or not to be?" is nothing next to that one.

But the law protected gays and lesbians from the question. They couldn't say yes, so they didn't have to say no. And this insulated them from the consequences of the wedding bells.

If you can't marry, you can't divorce. The sanctity of marriage, promoted both by those who oppose gay marriage and those who favor it, now shows numbers running close to 60 percent on the divorce ledger.

A good piece of this number is based on adultery. Under the new Massachusetts ruling, gays will for the first time come under the adultery laws of the state. Does anyone, gay or straight, believe that the divorce rate will thus drop? Vegas, guaranteed, will run it up, big time.

And palimony cannot be far behind. For the first time, a gay passing for straight can be outed by an order to show cause. I lived with him for 10 years, and he was married, and now I'm to be left with nothing?

Or any old divorce case.

Just name a man or woman as correspondent, and suddenly this gentleman from Boston or that lady from Springfield is exposed, must defend himself/herself.

And it's not just Massachusetts. Anybody can get married in a state that allows gay marriage.

You don't have to be a citizen of such a state. Remember when couples drove to Maryland or Connecticut to beat the Wasserman test?

Pity poor Vermont and Howard Dean. Massachusetts has turned Vermont into typewriters against computers.

Why take the civil-union stuff without the vows against Boston?

Imagine a lover refusing to go to Boston when he or she says it's forever. What, you won't pay the air fare?

Of course, it's not clear whose daddy pays for the wedding - even the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court hasn't yet wondered who the bride's father is. Which is nothing next to the child-support questions.

Gay men in large numbers now adopt children, and lesbians either adopt kids or mother them through artificial insemination.

Divorce lawyers must be salivating over the potential fees - this is a whole new world for them.

And for constitutional lawyers, too. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which provided that no state shall be required to give "full faith and credit" to another state's recognition of same-sex marriage. But the U.S. Constitution allows no such exemption.

The Supreme Court has shown its contempt for the words of the Constitution - see Gore vs. Bush - but this one will be hard to ignore.

So while I don't want to seem disrespectful to marriage - 41 years to the same girl, and a new grandson - I think fairness to gays requires my saying all I've said above.

Told in a song by the great, late Cousin Joe of New Orleans: You got what you wanted, but you lost what you had.

Census Bureau defines new rules for counting same-sex marriages

2009-08-09T07:20:00.000-07:00

Responding to new instructions from the White House, the U.S. Census Bureau released guidelines Monday detailing how it plans to handle the reporting data on same-sex married couples in the 2010 Census.
The Bureau will first report on same-sex marriage data later this year in its release of the 2008 American Community Survey, which will include unedited responses about relationship status.

However, due to the late decision on these changes the 2010 Census will operate according to previous policy, with the Bureau collecting and reporting marriage data in essentially two versions: tabulations that continue to change responses from gay couples that self-identify as married to count them as unmarried partners; and also tabulations that report unedited responses.

Then in late 2011Census officials will, for the first time, release raw state-by-state data on same-sex partners who identify themselves as husband or wife.

The Bush administration prohibited the release of such data based on their interpretation of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); but in a legal opinion published last week, Commerce Department lawyers disagreed, concluding that DOMA does not prohibit the release of data relating to same-sex marriage.

Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), one of several lawmakers who pushed Obama to release the Census data, issued a statement late Monday saying the inclusion of same-sex couple in the census was, “a great step forward,” but added, “We have many more to go toward achieving full equality for the LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender community and all Americans.”

Closed: Toilets used as a gay sex den

2009-08-08T22:33:00.000-07:00

PUBLIC toilets at Healey Corner have been closed by police after it became apparent they were being used as a meeting place for homosexuals.

The closure follows complaints of anti-social activity and claims that men were ‘loitering’ in the area, which is close to one of the town’s most popular beauty spots, Healey Dell.

Various items of underwear were found inside the premises and police said that lewd messages were left, almost on a daily basis.

Similar activity three years ago resulted in the facilities being closed. When it re-opened, a notice went up saying the building would be closely monitored by police.

The toilets are owned by Rossendale Council but are maintained by Whitworth Council, who ensure they are opened and locked daily and cleaned by the town caretaker.

Police community support officer Heidi Kirkbright said: "We know that males were gathering there, we received complaints from members of the public, who were concerned about what they were seeing.

"Graffiti included lewd messages and contact numbers and the caretaker was having to remove it daily."

She described the ladies’ toilets as ‘spotless’ but said that both facilities had to be closed as a precaution.

Discussions will now take place with Rossendale and Whitworth councils about if and when they should reopen.

Whitworth town clerk Karen Douglas said: "It is most regrettable. But it is imperative that every course of action is taken to stamp out the anti-social behaviour that is occurring at this location.

"To this end, the town council supports the action taken by Lancashire Constabulary and Rossendale Council and looks forward to a time when the facilities can be reopened in the future."

The closure is a loss to the many walkers and families who visit the Dell and use the facilities at Healey Corner.

Only two years ago, the well-kept toilets, which boasted hanging baskets, helped secure an award for Whitworth in the Lancshire-wide ‘Best-Kept Village’ competition.

Julie Jackson, Rossendale Council’s area team manager for Whitworth, said: "On the advice of the local police we decided to close the toilets until further notice due to a number of anti-social activities taking place there.

"It’s disappointing but we have a responsibility to look after the interests of the wider community and consider the impact on community safety. We are now looking at whether any alternative provision in the area can be found."

Gay marriage lawyers say no to help from S.F.

2009-08-08T22:18:00.000-07:00

SAN FRANCISCO—The prominent lawyers leading the fight to legalize gay marriage in California on Friday formally told San Francisco officials and three other groups supportive of same-sex weddings "thanks, but no thanks" for trying to join their federal lawsuit.

Attorneys David Boies and Theodore Olson petitioned U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker with legal arguments meant to block the city and the groups from standing together with the lawyers at trial. San Francisco put gay marriage front and center on Valentine's Day 2004 when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened City Hall to same-sex weddings.

Boies and Olson argued that allowing San Francisco into the legal fight would needlessly delay the case's resolution.

A spokesman for San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera didn't return a telephone call late Friday night.

Boies and Olson also asked that three other gay-rights groups should be barred from joining the case on similar grounds. They also argued that the conservative Campaign for California Families be prevented from joining the case in opposition, saying the group also doesn't have standing in the case.

"Campaign has failed to offer any argument that differs from those raised by" the parties already officially fighting the lawsuit, Boies and Olson wrote. The lawyers said all of the organization's concerns are being addressed by lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund, which the judge has allowed to intervene to argue against the

lawsuit.

Boies and Olson, who represented Al Gore and George W. Bush respectively in the legal fight over the 2000 presidential elections, filed the lawsuit on behalf of two gay couples seeking to marry in California. They argued that they are now in the best position to legalize gay marriage in the state with arguments that the ban violates federal anti-discrimination protections.

The court filing highlighted the continuing disagreement among gay marriage supporters over how best to fight for same-sex weddings in the state.

Many influential gay rights groups fear a fight in federal court will ultimately end up before a U.S. Supreme Court comprised of a socially conservative majority that could deal the same-sex marriage campaign a significant setback with an adverse ruling.

Critics of that tack complain about the failure of the same-sex marriage campaign to defeat Proposition 8, which passed in November with 52 percent of the vote and limited marriage to a man and a woman. Boies, Olson and many others now contend the fight is ripe for a federal anti-discrimination challenge and at least three other federal challenges have been filed in Los Angeles and Boston.

On Friday, Boies and Olson argued that the case should proceed to trial before a judge without a jury before the end of the year. Lawyers with the Alliance Defense Fund argued in court papers Friday that the case could be decided rapidly without a trial.