Priceless: Gay Rights Activists Take Over Christian Right Hate-Fest in DC

I am known to frequent a website called Alternet.org.

Alternet was established in 1998 in part (to quote their website) to confront the failures of corporate media, as well as the vitriol and disinformation of right wing media, especially "hate talk" media. AlterNet is a two-time winner of the "Webby Award" for Best Web Magazine, among others, and it pulls no punches as regards their raison d'être. Again, quoting their website, Alternet believes that media must have a higher purpose beyond the essential goal of keeping people informed. We insist on playing an active role in helping our community funnel its energy into change; an important & necessary mission when you consider that people like Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh & Glen Beck are blaring out their fear-mongering, Us-vs-Them hate talk nearly 24 hours a day.

Anyway, apparently a senior write for Alternet, Joshua Holland, writes in this recent Alternet article about a group of conservative Christian ministers who came to Washington DC recently to protest the expansion of the federal Hate Crimes law recently passed in Congress & signed by President Obama to include sexual orientation & gender identity. In his article, Holland references a Washington Post column by Dana Milbank about the happenings at this protest. Believe it or not, not only were they there to protest the law, they wanted to stand their & spew their lies & hate to prove the point that just by speaking the ugly things they believe they could be arrested. These people have always contended that allowing people like me to be protected from hate crimes meant that people like them could no longer freely speak their minds about the "threat" people like me represent to decent upstanding Americans (like them, supposedly), and to society in general.

So sure of their belief that they would now be legally muzzled if they dare speak out against the homosexual threat that they came to the nation's capital in hopes of being arrested, so as to claim that--as a representative of the "Christian Anti-Defamation Commission"--"we'd have standing to challenge the law."

But sadly (for them), not one person was arrested. They stood there on their Godly soap box speaking their alleged minds, and the few police officers that were there let them practice their freedom of speech unencumbered, of course. As Holland wrote, To run afoul of the new law, you need to "plan or prepare for an act of physical violence" or "incite an imminent act of physical violence." The same stipulations apply if you're speaking about people of color, disabled persons, or virtually any other group of Americans...including people of faith.

For me, the best part of this story is that the man the conservative Christian ministers hired to set up audio equipment for their little get-together had taken the money they paid him for his work at the event & donated to gay rights activists. The AV guy also waited until after the ministers were done & then--before taking it all down--he allowed the gay activists to use the same podium & the same sound system to practice their right to free speech, too!

After one of the ministers asked the AV guy if they were paying for the time "the homosexuals" were using (which they weren't, of course), he turned to one of the gay activists & asked "You guys gonna help us pay for the microphones?"

Holland writes that The gay activist smiled. "God," he said, "works in mysterious ways."

Amen, brother! :-)

What Do You Think I Fought For On Omaha Beach?

Meet 86-year-old Philip Spooner. He lives in Maine & is a veteran of World War II, and has 4 children. He gave testimony earlier this year at a hearing regarding marriage equality for same-sex couples in his home state. His words are sometimes difficult to hear & understand, but still, he speaks so clearly & eloquently on why it's wrong to deny to equality to all citizens. As Mr. Spooner explains, equality for ALL of his children & ALL Americans is why he put his life on the line for this great country all those years ago. Please give Mr. Spooner a listen...

The End of The Beginning?

Nate Silver, the guru-in-chief at my favorite political prognostication website, 538.com has posted an article regarding the slowly-but-surely withering impact that equal marriage rights (a.k.a. "gay marriage") is having on the so-called "Values Voters".

At the most recent "Value Voters' Summit" held at the nation's capital, former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee, beat out Mitt & Sarah & Newt & (to quote the Gilligan's Island song) "the rest" in a straw poll. (As an aside, not that they'd want me there, but had I been in attendance, I would have SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO voted for Sarah Palin!! I really, really, really want her to be the GOP presidential candidate in 2012!! ;-) If for nothing else, I am a HUGE Tina Fey fan, and I cannot get enough of her Sarah imitation. They so look like they were separated at birth!! (No offense to Tina!)

Anyway, Nate points out in his article that when these "values voters" were asked about what social issues matter most to them, "gay marriage" (a.k.a. equal marriage rights) fell from its previous spot in 1st place all the way down to #3, beaten out by abortion & "Religious liberty".

Nate also notes that it's not that "values voters" have given up the ghost where the "gay marriage" fight is concerned, but it just doesn't cause the fire in as many bellies as it used to. I suppose the GOP used the issue so often through the years & really delivered nothing substantive since DOMA during Clinton's term, that they may have just slowly begun moving on.

Also, whatever disagreements I may have with the "values voters", I know that they can read polls as well as anyone else. With more & more people in general learning more & more about equal marriage rights & with the population as a whole just being more comfortable with those of us in the sexual minority, and the obvious fact that the up-and-coming younger generation of Americans completely unchained from the fears & lies of the past, it seems to me that even these "values voters" are slowly coming to see the light. I think they know that, for the most part, they've gotten about as much political & legal mileage out of this clunker as they're gonna get.

Please don't get me (or Nate's article) wrong: The battle for GLBTQI equality is not over by a long shot & there is still some fight left in a good portion of these "values voters", but it seems that some on the right feel like they've got "bigger fish to fry" as they say!

I think that the words spoken by Winston Churchill nearly 7 decades ago may best describe this situation: Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

One can only hope...and pray!

Harvey Milk Day

Harvey Milk was the very first openly-gay person to be elected to office in the state of California, when he was elected as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977. A year later, Harvey & the mayor of San Francisco, George Moscone, were both assassinated by former city supervisor, Dan White, who served five years of a seven year sentence & was then paroled (yes, White was sentenced to seven years for killing 2 high-ranking city officials). About a year and a half after being released from prison, White subsequently committed suicide.

I mention this because the LGBTQI rights group, Equality California (EQCA) is asking not just Californians, but anyone interested in fairness & equality for all Californians (and all Americans), to sign a petition asking California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign the bill (SB 572) that has passed the state's legislature creating a statewide Harvey Milk Day, in commemoration of Harvey's early, critical work to help advance the rights of LBGTQI people.

Apparently Schwarzenegger vetoed a similar bill once before & has signaled that he will veto this bill also, which is why EQCA needs help in getting the word out to the governor that he should sign this bill honoring a true pioneer in the on-going struggle for equality (see the link to the petition above).

You may remember that President Obama honored Harvey Milk last month with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Harvey's nephew Stuart Milk accepted the medal on Harvey's behalf.

So, if you are of a mind, I hope you will take 2 minutes & sign the petition. I live in Florida, but I signed it. You can even put in your own comments when you sign the petition, but--of course, if you do--I hope you will write from your heart & speak as eloquently as you can as to why Harvey Milk deserves this honor.

Dustin Lance Black, who won a Best Screenwriter Oscar for the movie, Milk, testified in May of this year at a state senate committee, explaining why Harvey Milk deserves this honor & how Harvey Milk--as an open, proud gay man--helped bring hope to so many people not just while he was alive, but years after Harvey had died.

It is obvious in this video that Dustin speaks from the heart, and explains how a man he never met and never knew personally helped to save his life...and the lives of countless other LGBTQI people who found inspiration & strength in Harvey Milk's story.

"...Something Sick...About Break[ing] Into People's Bedrooms & Claim That God Sent You."

I had referenced Rev. Al Sharpton on one of my recent posts, and I included a link to his stance & work in overturning California's Proposition 8, which included a portion of a speech he had given at an Atlanta church. Below I have included a link to the entire article from the website for the newspaper, Southern Voice, which describes itself as the South's "most respected and most read gay and lesbian newspaper."

Below the link you'll find parts of Rev. Sharpton's speech earlier this year at Atlanta's Tabernacle Baptist Church. I know that he is a pretty controversial figure for a lot of people & I know that he probably has as many detractors as fans, but I really do love the way Sharpton can turn a phrase & how he can fire up the faithful!

Most of all, though, I love how fearless he is in speaking up for GLBTQI people & how willing he is to take this particular good fight to the fearmongers who--to paraphrase the line from the movie Saved!--delight in using the Bible as a weapon against our community.

Sharpton decries churches pushing Prop. 8

It amazes me when I looked at California and saw churches that had nothing to say about police brutality, nothing to say when a young black boy was shot while he was wearing police handcuffs, nothing to say when the they overturned affirmative action, nothing to say when people were being delegated into poverty, yet they were organizing and mobilizing to stop consenting adults from choosing their life partners. There is something immoral and sick about using all of that power to not end brutality and poverty, but to break into people’s bedrooms and claim that God sent you.

I am tired of seeing ministers who will preach homophobia by day, and then after they’re preaching, when the lights are off they go cruising for trade.

We know you’re not preaching the Bible, because if you were preaching the Bible we would have heard from you. We would have heard from you when people were starving in California, when they deregulated the economy and crashed Wall Street you had nothing to say. When [alleged Ponzi schemer Bernie] Madoff made off with the money, you had nothing to say. When Bush took us to war chasing weapons of mass destruction that weren’t there you had nothing to say. … But all of a sudden when Proposition 8 came out you had so much to say, but since you stepped in the rain, we gonna step in the rain with you.

Presidential Medal of Honor Recipients for 2009

The White House announced today the names of the 16 individuals being awarded the highest honor that can be bestowed by a U.S. President upon a civilian, The Presidential Medal of Freedom, the first time President Obama has bestowed the award.

Some of the names included in the list of 2009 recipients are the Lion of the U.S. Senate, Edward Kennedy (who was elected the year I was born!); tennis star & equality icon, Billie Jean King; SCLC President & civil rights legend, Rev. Joseph Lowery; international human rights (including GLBTQI rights) activist, Bishop Desmond Tutu; and openly-gay former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Harvey Milk!

I know that there will be plenty of people who see this as simply “throwing the gays a bone” (no pun intended whatsoever), but, in my humble opinion, I think it says a lot that, in his first chance to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he has chosen so many gay (or gay-friendly) public figures. I also think that these folks are long, long overdue for such a prestigious honor!

The awards will be distributed at the White House on August 12.

Discrimination Just Doesn't Pay Like It Used To, I Guess!

Exxon Mobil profits plunge 66%?

All I can say is that it couldn’t happen to a more deserving company!

According to the Human Rights Campaign:

Exxon Mobil is the only U.S. employer that has ever rescinded both a non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation and domestic partner benefits, and is the only Fortune 10 company that does not have a non-discrimination policy covering sexual orientation.

I, for one, would rather run out of gas completely than spend one red cent at Exxon Mobil!

A "...radical welcome..." for heterosexuals, too!

I read this on USA Today's website. It's an article titled, Straight believers find a home in gay churches, synagogues, which--I must admit--is news to me, especially considering that I've wondered for so long just exactly where or if someone like me will ever find a physical place in this world where I can feel welcome again alongside my brothers & sisters in Christ. It never crossed my mind that some heterosexual people of faith might feel more comfortable worshiping with a mostly GLBTQI congregation.

Funny the stuff you never think about when you're busy with own issues. Sometimes we get a bad case of tunnel vision, but this article today helped me to see the bigger picture: that most of us--regardless of our respective situations--just want to feel like we belong, especially where matters of faith are concerned.

While reading the article, I happened upon the quote below from the heterosexual female rabbi of a mostly GLBTQI congregation. As soon as I read it, I instinctively said out loud, "Amen, Sister!":

Everyone who comes here, no matter their sexual or gender identity, religious affiliation or knowledge, everyone is welcomed with open arms. You'd hope that would happen in all religious communities, but the truth is it's not an easy thing to put into practice.

I, Barack Obama, do hereby proclaim June 2009 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

I know that it may not seem like a big deal to most people, and I also know that there’s much more to supporting the LGBTQI community than making a Presidential Proclamation but I am so thankful that we finally have a President who acknowledges that LGBTQI people actually exist, without using us as a way to whip up fear, encourage ignorance & rally the politically faithful. I still believe that offering committed same-gender couples "civil unions" instead of full & equal civil marriage rights as opposite-gender couples is not good enough (by a long shot) & that the "separate-but-equal" idea is heavy on the "separate", but light years away from "equal" & that it is as wrong today as it was in the last century. President Obama is right when he states that "there is more work to be done," but this proclamation reminds me that I no longer have to feel like an enemy of the state simply because I love someone of the same gender.

What a change from the previous occupant of the White House, of course, who only ever spoke about us in terms of the threat we posed to “family values” and “traditional marriage”.

Like Senator Barbara Boxer once said, “Elections have consequences…”.

I personally LOVE this particular consequence!

Dick & Mary & The Mad Tea Party

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn't be. And what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?” --from Alice's Adventures In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

OK, when I read today on The Advocate’s website that former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney (yes, the guy who is making the rounds nowadays trying to untarnish his image & scare people into thinking that we are now somehow less safe because of President Obama) may soon be “coming out” as a supporter of equal marriage rights for gays & lesbians, I had to first re-read the article to make sure I hadn’t misunderstood anything; then I pinched myself to make sure I wasn’t dreaming; then I had to check the calendar to make sure it wasn’t April Fool’s Day; then I took an online test to be sure that I was still (mostly) in possession of my faculties & that I could still read & comprehend English; and finally, I pinched myself again. Truth is, I didn’t misunderstand what the article said: Dick Cheney may finally be considering doing the right (as in “correct,” not as in political spectrum right) thing where GLBT rights are concerned. It even feels weird to even type those words. Maybe another pinch is in order...

Anyway, I am quite sure that, should this still hard-to-believe excursion into the Looking Glass occur, it will probably be in large part because of his daughter, Mary, who is publicly out about her sexual orientation. Dick Cheney may be many things (please, feel free to fill in the blanks, according to your political persuasion), but he is also a father, who we can only assume loves his daughter. I’m no fan of Dick Cheney (and I’ve long been disappointed that Mary Cheney—when she was a much more public figure—was not more vocal not just in favor of GLBT rights, but in her opposition to Bush’s push for the so-called “marriage protection” amendment), but I don’t believe it is my place to judge or comment on the relationship between a father & his children. For me, personally, that is beyond the pale.

I disagree with Dick Cheney on 99.997% of issues & I actually feel sorry for Mary Cheney that she has to carry around with the rest of her life the idea that she silently went along with a political administration that was out to score as many political points as it could on the backs of GLBT folks.

As interesting & as surreal (and, oddly, even as ostensibly helpful) as it would be to hear Dick Cheney come out as a supporter & possibly a friend of GLBT rights, I can’t help but remember how Dick Cheney treats some of his friends.

Makes me wonder if I should get ready to jump for joy or duck for cover!

In the Case of: Your "Rights" Vs. My Life

I truly understand that the right of the citizenry to propose changes to the legal documents that guide their society is most certainly sacred. I also think that, as Americans, we have a duty to be active participants in our own government, and that we must never fail to make our voices heard on those issues that affect our very lives. I believe these things, and though it seems to me that too many of my fellow citizens are too often too ready to dig the heel of permanent second-class citizenship even deeper into my figurative throat, I still agree with what President Lincoln told Congress in 1862 in the very midst of the bloodiest war ever waged on American soil: even with "the fiery trial through which we pass", the United States of American remains the "last best hope of earth."

Having said that, anyone who has ever read anything I've written on LiveJournal or on my own blog will not find it surprising that I am more than just a little displeased with the ruling yesterday from the California Supreme Court regarding equal marriage righgs. As I stated before, I get the idea that free people have the right to change the laws when they feel a change is needed. Intellectually, I understand that right. What I don't understand is when it became acceptable to use the state's most sacred legal document to take rights away from ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE. What I have a problem with is why 52% (or whatever percentage it happens to be) of citizens believed they were imbued with right to decide that another group of citizens are not entitled to be treated fairly & equally under the law. And what neither the California Supreme Court nor any other entity or person can ever convince me of is that any of us are ever completely safe from the loss of liberty at the ballot box simply because most people want to take that liberty away.

Today it's GLBT people because we've made ourselves targets by refusing to abide our closets any longer & just sit in timid silence while ugly lies stand unchallenged, but if you believe that this brand of malicious "justice" ends with us, then you have no idea the genie that has been loosed from the bottle. The people who pushed & paid & prayed for Prop 8 have most certainly been heartened by their "triumph" in the highest court in the Golden State, to be sure, and they may feel that the enemy has been slain. Today these citizens celebrate what they have so proudly taken from their compatriots. I imagine that these scared little people must find a measure of safety & comfort now that GLBT people have been put in their place.

What they do not know & cannot understand is that what they have been allowed to take from us (and, though I live in Florida, it is my "family" in California who have been hurt, so I have been hurt) means infinitely more to those of us from whom it has been taken than to those who have taken it. They may never grasp that we cannot let it stop here, and that we cannot allow ourselves to be vanquished, and that while they fight for their "beliefs" & their "opinions", WE ARE FIGHTING FOR OUR VERY LIVES. There truly is no comparison.

We cannot afford the luxury of taking time to feel sorry for ourselves or to have a moment to mourn our loss; too much hangs in the balance--too much has already been lost. And, though I hate the idea of it, we will almost certainly lose again, if not in California, then in another place just like it, where fear & lies obviously speak louder than those of us same-sex-loving people who seek only to live our lives quietly yet openly, just like those citizens who somehow feel they are entitled to a little more equality than some other citizens.

If we "win" or if we "lose" these grand battles that must surely be fully engaged by GLBT people & our straight allies, I hope we will be driven by something else President Lincoln once said: “I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have.”

Remember, it is only light of truth that can dispel the darkness of ignorance & fear...even ignorance & fear with an official government imprimatur on it.

Under the cut below, you will find a post about this subject by Rob Thomas on the Huffington Post (yes, he of Matchbox Twenty), which I found pretty enlightening for a mere musician ;-).

I love the title of his post, too, The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder


The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder

I am a straight man, with a big gay chip on my shoulder.

A while back on my Twitter page (yes, I know how ridiculous it sounds), I mentioned that, if I believed in the devil, Pat Robertson might be him.

Being a fairly liberal-leaning guy with either liberal friends or Republican and Christian friends who don't believe that being one has anything to do with the other, I was surprised at how many people took offense to what I had to say.

These people weren't friends of Mr. Robertson but friends, apparently, of God. They had "spoken" with him and he had assured them that he was no friend of the gays. He also told them that he loved America more than any other country and was a huge fan of Dancing With the Stars.
The small controversy or "Twitter-versy" (patent on phrase pending) all started when I had made the mistake of asking why two people of the same sex shouldn't be able to make the same life-long commitment and (more importantly) under the same god, as straight people. Why can't my gay friends be as happily married as my wife and I? It seemed simple to me, but let me start off by telling you a series of things that I believe to be true:

I am a person who believes that people are born gay. I don't think you have any control over what moves you or to whom you're attracted. That's why it's called an attraction and not a choice.

I believe that America is a great nation of even greater people. I also believe that anyone who says that this is a "Christian nation" has RHS, or revisionist history syndrome, and doesn't realize that most of our founding fathers were either atheist or at least could see, even in the 1700s, that all through Europe at the time, religion was the cause of so much persecution that they needed to put into their brand new constitution a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE so that the ideals of a group of people could never be forced onto the whole. (I also find it funny when people point out to me that it says "one nation under god" in our pledge of allegiance, not realizing that this was an addition made in 1954 during the communism scare of the McCarthy era. It's not surprising, however, knowing that these same people would punch me in the mouth if I called Jesus a Jew.)

I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn't believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn't live their life according to the King James Bible isn't protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I've seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void.
I believe that to deny this right to the gay population is to say to them, "this god is not your god and he doesn't love you." There isn't one person who is against gay marriage that can give me a reason why it shouldn't be legal without bringing God or their religion into it. Still, I'm amazed at the audacity of a small, misdirected group of the ultra-conservative Christian right wing, to spend millions of dollars, in a recession, on advertisements to stop two men or women who love each other from being able to be married, but when you present any opposition to them, they accuse you of attacking their religion. Isn't it funny that the people who are the quickest to take someone's basic rights to happiness are always the loudest to scream when someone attacks their right to do so?

But this isn't a paper about religion. How could it be? Since we clearly have a separation of church and state, how could a conversation about laws have anything to do with religion at all? I'm writing about basic civil rights. We've been here before, fighting for the rights of African Americans or women to vote, or the rights of Jewish Americans to worship as they see fit. And, just as whites fought for African Americans or Christians for Jewish Americans, straight people must stand up and be a voice for gay people.

I've heard it said before, many times, that if two men or two women are allowed to join into a civil union together, why can't they be happy with that and why is it so important that they call it marriage? In essence, what's in a name?

A civil union has to do with death. It's essentially a document that gives you lower taxes and the right to let your faux spouse collect your insurance when you pass away. A marriage is about life. It's about a commitment. And this argument is about allowing people to have the right to make that commitment, even if it doesn't make sense to you. Anything else falls under the category of "separate but equal" and we know how that works out.

The support of legalizing gay marriage is in no way meant to change the ideals of the section of Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin. But we should refuse to let other people's ideals shape the way we live our lives. Each of us has a short ride on this earth and as long as we stay in our lane, and don't affect someone else's ride, we should be allowed to drive as we see fit.

...and a little child shall lead them, or, The Littlest Activist

Ethan McNamee is a third grader at Montclair Elementary in Denver, Colorado. As improbable as it sounds, for his class project, Ethan organized an Equal Marriage Rights Rally today at the Capitol Building in Denver.

From all I’ve read about it, this was entirely Ethan’s idea & he was told that not everyone in attendance at his rally would necessarily agree with what he was saying. In the video below, Ethan even addresses the fact that “there might be some people who have a different view from us”, but young Ethan encouraged supporters to “please keep all your positive energy on the rally. Despite the views of these people, I believe that I am doing the right thing, and lots and lots of people can many lives better…”.

Since I don’t think I can put it any better than Ethan did today at the rally, let’s hear and (thanks to YouTube) see what Ethan has to say.

Rock on, my little brother…

In Honor of Matthew...

On April 29^th, after debating the issue, the U.S. House of Representatives approved, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (LLEHCPA), also known as the Matthew Shepard Act by a vote of 249 to 175.

In the midst of the debate, with Matthew’s mother, Judy Shepard, in the Visitors Gallery to hear every word, Republican Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina’s 5^th District resorted to outright lies to try to stop passage of the LLEHCPA:

“…I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay. This…the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that…that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills…”

Rachel Maddow had a chance to speak exclusively with Judy Shepard after the vote about how she felt about what the US House had done & to comment on Rep. Foxx’s reprehensible mis-characterization of her son:

Being me, I examined the results of that House vote & thought I’d share it here.

Of the 256 Democrats currently in the US House:

231 Voted FOR the Matthew Shepard Act
17 Voted AGAINST
8 DID NOT VOTE

There is also a vacancy in California’s 32^nd District at present, due to Rep. Hilda Solis (D) being appointed as President Obama’s Labor Secretary. A special election in the district will be held on July 14, 2009 to select Ms. Solis's replacement for the remainder of her term.

Of the 178 Republicans in the US House:

18 Voted FOR The Matthew Shepard Act
158 Voted AGAINST
2 DID NOT VOTE

It’s also interesting to note where the 17 Democrats who voted against the LLEHCPA came from:

3 came from the Midwestern States
1 came from the Northeastern States
13 CAME FROM THE SOUTHERN STATES
NONE of the Democrats from Western States voted against

As for the Republicans who voted in favor of the LLEHCPA:

2 came from Midwestern States
7 came from the Northeastern States
5 came from the Southern States
4 came from the Western States

Next stop for the Matthew Shepard Act is the U.S. Senate. Not sure what the prospects in the Senate are right now, but I’m feeling more hopeful now than I have in the past…oh…8 years or so.

The Gaythering Storm!

I have to wonder if these people in the National Organization for Marriage ever knew that the $1 million + they spent on their "I'm Scared of Gay Marriage" campaign would bring more laughter & ridicule than any actual support for their paranoid delusions??

From Funny Or Die...

A Gaythering Storm from Jane Lynch

Marriage Equality Polls & Numbers & Charts, Oh My!

Just read a recent poll by CBS News about the slowly-but-surely growing acceptance of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples by the public in general, and--as an admitted NON-expert as regards polling--I found myself pretty encouraged by the numbers I saw!

Below the cut, you will find more information on the poll & my totally amateur analysis of the information I found. The charts & the words are not the most professional things you will ever see, but I hope it helps to explain why I find more hope every day that fate (or, your own personal version thereof) is definitely on the side of the good guys (and gals) in this struggle. P.S. If you want to take a closer look at the charts included in the article behind the cut, just make clicky on them to increase their size.


According to the CBS News poll, which took place between March 12 – 16, 2009, posted on PollingReport.com, there was an upward swing of 11 percentage points in support of legal marriage for same-sex couples in the 5 years between the first poll taken in March, 2004 and the last one taken in March, 2009.

One interesting aspect of these polls, for me, is that while there has been this slow but sure increase in the acceptance of the idea of equal marriage rights for same-sex couples,there has been a corresponding decrease in the proportion of Americans who support either civil unions (down by 6% in the same 5-year period) or who want no legal recognition at all for committed same-sex relationships (down by 5%). According to my handy, dandy Texas Instruments calculator, 6 + 5 = 11, which is the amount of increase in those who believe in providing equal marriage rights to gay & lesbian Americans.

The “Unsure”s remain at about 5% of the population.

While a plurality of those surveyed in March 2009 support no legal recognition of same-gender relationships (35%), those who support either full marriage rights (33%) or civil unions (27%) comprise a majority of those surveyed (33% + 27% = 60%). While the exact numbers have certainly shifted in these past 5 years, the facts for 2004 were still the same: 40% wanted no recognition of same-sex relationships; 22% wanted full legal marriage, and 33% supported civil unions. So, obviously even 5 years ago, more Americans supported SOME sort of legal recognition for these relationships (55%) than those who don’t (40%). The same, of course, is true today, but the poll seems to indicate that the public is, generally-speaking, is in the throes of a collective change of heart & mind where some sort of legal recognition of same-sex relationships is concerned.

If we take a look at a more detailed break-down of those who have been surveyed & where they stand on this issue, we see what many other polls have also shown: that the younger the person, the more accepting the person is of the idea of legal marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples. Those identified in the poll as between the ages of 18 and 45 were supportive of legal recognition of some sort for same-sex couples by a 2 to 1 margin, 64% (41% marriage + 23% civil union) to 32%. While a majority of the next age group (45-64) also supports legal recognition, the youngest group in the survey was the only age group where MORE people support full marriage than civil unions. Those aged 45-64 support civil unions over full marriage by a 32 to 29% margin (with 35% wanting no legal recognition at all). For the oldest Americans (aged 65 and over), 45% (18% for marriage; 27% for civil unions) support legal recognition while the biggest response (47%) was for no legal recognition at all.

Not surprising to me at all is the fact that the March 2009 poll shows that more women (64%) support legal recognition than do men (55%), though obviously a majority of both support some sort of legal recognition. The poll shows that 12% more women support marriage over civil unions (38% vs. 26%); whereas, with men, slightly more men favor civil union than legal marriage (27% vs. 28%). In spite of those numbers, a plurality of the men surveyed want no legal recognition at all for same-sex relationships (42%); this compares with 30% of women who favor no legal relationship recognition (8 points less than the percentage of women who support full marriage).

Where political affiliation (or, lack thereof) is concerned, Democrats in general seem to be more in tune with the overall population than Republicans. Overall, a third of all poll respondents were in favor of equal marriage rights. Forty-six percent of those who self-identified as Democrats support equal marriage rights (13% more than the general population),while only 6% of self-identified Republicans agree with equal marriage rights (27% LESS than the general population). Thirty-seven percent of Independents favor equal marriage rights (4% more than the average).

With civil unions, 27% of all those surveyed support civil unions for same-sex couples, while 23% of Democrats do (4% less than the average); thirty-four percent of Republicans support civil unions (7% more than average); political Independents came closest to the average in this area, nearly duplicating the overall average of 27% (compared to 26% of Independents).

Overall, 35% of those surveyed see no legal recognition for same-sex couples, which is 5% more than Independents, 9% more than Democrats, and 24% LESS than Republicans, the majority (59%) of whom want no legal recognition of committed same-sex couples.

It’s also interesting to note that Republicans seem to be more firmly set in their ideas than Democrats or Independents: 5% & 7% of Democrats & Independents, respectively, said they were unsure of how they felt about the subject, while only 1% of Republicans said they were unsure. Overall, 5% of all poll respondents had no opinion.

While the overall population has become generally more accepting of equal marriage rights between the last 2 polls in May 2008 and March 2009 (58% for marriage or civil unions in 2008 vs. 60% in 2009), it is telling that Republican support of equal marriage rights between May 2008 & March 2009 fell by over half (from 14% in 2008 to 6% in 2009); also, the percentage of Republicans wanting no legal recognition of same-sex relationships increased from 50% in 2008 to 59% in 2009. Even though there was a slight 2% increase amongst Republicans supporting same-sex civil unions during this time frame (32% vs 34%), overall, the overall numbers appear to indicate a more conservative leaning on this issue in the current GOP, whereas the opposite trend appears to be taking place amongst Democrats (whose support of equal marriage rights INCREASED by 10% in the same time frame ) and Independents (whose support of equal marriage rights increased by 3%).

The 10% increase in full marriage rights by Democrats appears to have come from a corresponding decrease in support for civil unions (a 4% decrease) and from Democrats who supported no legal recognition at all (a 6% decrease).

The 3% increase from Independents for equal marriage rights appears to have come from a decrease in those Independents who wanted no legal recognition (down by 1%) and those who were previously unsure (down by 2%).

Finally, comparing the survey results from the first poll listed (which took place in March, 2004), overall support for legal marriage is half-again as high 5 years later (22% in 2004 vs. 33% in 2009).

Support for civil unions 5 years later has actually DECREASED from 33% to 27%. The same holds true for the “No Legal Recognition” opinion, down by 5% points from 40% then to 35% now. Those who are unsure still account for 5% of the population. Considering the only increase in all these categories has been in support of full “Legal Marriage”, the decrease in support for civil unions appears to indicate that most people who may have accepted civil unions in the past have now evolved their thinking & now support full marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Full results of the polls in question can be found at Polling Report.com.

Be The One...

Julian Bond Stands & Delivers For The Gays!

Julian Bond, the head of the civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NCAAP), spoke at a Human Rights Campaign Gala in Los Angeles.

Mr. Bond is always eloquent. This speech is a prime example that Mr. Bond's dedication to true equality for all Americans. He cited Coretta Scott King (wife of slain American civil rights, Dr. Martin Luther King) and Mildred Loving (whose case regarding marriage between people of two different races was the first to be argued before the US Supreme Court, which finally pierced the evil heart of Miscegenation) and how they both saw the battle for marriage equality for same-sex couples as an integral part of the honorable, and on-going, battle of civil rights for all people.

He really makes a good pitch & reminds me again why I am so glad Julian Bond is on OUR side.

Enjoy:

Hi-"Fidelity"

I had first heard of Regina Spektor when she gave the California Courage Campaign permission to use her song, Fidelity, to lend a little musical assistance in the fight for equal marriage rights & to overturn California's Proposition 8.

When I had heard the California Courage Campaign was working to get the word out about the dangerous precedent that Prop 8 would set in allowing 50% + 1 of the population to take away the rights of their fellow citizens, I posted about it in this blog, and I included a video of Regina's song created by the CCC that presented pictures of some of the real people & real families that would be legally hurt if Prop 8 were allowed to stand.

Today, I found Regina's song on YouTube with the original video she created for it. This video, of course, does not mention equal marriage rights, but I think it is a cute & visually appealing little video (well, maybe "little" isn't the right word since--as of the writing of this post--nearly 10 MILLION people have viewed the video on YouTube).

I've personally have always believed that an honorable cause deserves a knock-out theme song, and this catchy little tune by our Ms. Spektor--in my mind--more than fills the bill...

"...and the Oscar goes to..."

In accepting his Oscar for Best Original Screenplay last night, writer Dustin Lance Black said that, if openly-gay former San Francisco City Councilman Harvey Milk, whose life and subsequent murder 30 years ago at the hands of former city councilman Dan White was the basis of the film, Milk, were still alive today...

"I think he'd want me to say to all the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches, and by the government, or by their families that 'You are beautiful, wonderful creatures that are valued. And no matter what anyone tells you, God does love you, and very soon, I promise you that you will have equal rights, federally, across this great nation of ours.' Thank you, God, for giving us Harvey Milk!"

There are so many people out there--gay kids and those of us who used to be gay kids--who needed to hear that & who needed to be reminded of something that so many others have always had the luxury to take for granted.

Happy Valentine's Day (+1) To ALL of Us!

Recently, Suze Orman, the openly-gay financial guru, put her own unique economic spin on the argument for marriage equality for all Americans.

On behalf of Suze, I dedicate this belated video valentine to all those married couples whose government recognition of their promise to take care of one another brings them more than just financial security & to those who still fight to know how that feels: