Inflict damage while possible

On the same day that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder called for continued discussions on including sexual minorities in the state civil rights act (not exactly warm support), the GOP controlled state Senate reintroduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, known by many as a license to discriminate act. It had passed the House in the lame-duck session and stalled in the Senate. Well, the Senate is a bit more conservative with a different leadership team. No news on whether the Senate will also act on improving the civil rights act.

The Associated Press notes Michigan's Religious Freedom Act is one in a handful of states where the GOP is "doubling down on the culture wars" even though "polls show U.S. voters increasingly unopposed to gay rights." Apparently they are trying to inflict as much damage as possible before the Supremes issue a marriage ruling in June.



Also running scared are Gov. Bobby Jindal and Sen. Ted Cruz. Both are advocating for a Marriage Protection Amendment for the US Constitution. It's the only way we can be stopped.

Slovakia — sigh

The Parliament in Slovakia has approved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. It passed by a wide margin 102-18. The ban is contrary to what is going on in the European Union but matching what happened in Poland and Croatia.

The most vitriolic "I told you so"

The full Indiana Senate passed a marriage protection amendment. This is not all bad, because they approved the version passed by the House, the one without the second sentence that banned civil unions. Which means it will not go before voters this fall. The legislature has to vote on it again after 2014 for possible voter approval in 2016. And voter opinion might change enough to prevent its passage -- or the Supremes may make it unnecessary.

Perhaps many GOP legislatures want the issue to just go away.



There is a lawsuit filed against the 2011 Michigan law that banned employee benefits for same-sex couples in state and local governments. Gov. Rick Snyder has filed a motion asking the court (not sure at what level) to keep the ban. Snyder's reasoning: banning benefits to gays "'eliminates local government programs that are irrational and unfair' and promotes 'financially sound' local agencies." Translation: offering domestic partner benefits is irrational and unfair because the relationships themselves don't meet a government interest. In addition, allowing governments to discriminate against homos saves money.



Vladimir Luxuria is a former Italian Member of Parliament and is transgender. She has been in Sochi and doing some protesting. She was first escorted out of the Olympic Park and dumped in the countryside. After her second protest she was escorted to the airport. Alas, the International Olympic Committee is just fine with that.



Rachel Maddow had a discussion with Kenji Yoshino, NYU law professor, about the string of gay marriage court victories. What caught my attention was the first part of the 9 minute segment in which Maddow reviews all the cool progressive stuff Attorney General Eric Holder has done in just the last year.



Back last June when the Supremes ruled that the federal gov't must recognize same-sex marriages, Justice Antonin Scalia fumed in his dissent that the ruling will be used to overturn state same-sex marriage bans. And that, according to Scalia, was a Bad Thing.

Jesse Wegman of the New York Times Opinion Pages lists all the cases since then where that ruling -- including Scalia's dissent -- has been influential in the judge's thinking: Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Utah, and Oklahoma with more to come.

Which means when another marriage case gets to the Supremes we all are eager for Scalia "to deliver the most vitriolic 'I told you so' in recent Supreme Court memory."



Teresa Tritch, also of the New York Times Opinion Pages, says the call to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour is worthy of support, but still inadequate. But why this figure?

But the recommended amount is more a political calculation than an economic one. It is enough to embarrass Republicans for not going along, but not enough to risk alienating business constituents (with the notable exception of the notoriously low-paying restaurant industry.)

First Presbyterian Church of Norfolk, VA has affirmed three tenets. From the first two -- Jesus is the way to salvation and the Bible is God's infallible Word -- one gets the impression that these are required beliefs for members of the congregation. So here's the third:

God’s people are called to holiness in all aspects of life. This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship in which sexual activity is appropriate.

Yep, the third most important belief in this church is that the only permissible sex is straight, married sex.

Fine, lots of churches believe that, though it may be rare to put it in the top three beliefs. But there is a reason for highlighting this particular church. It is where Judge Arenda Wright Allen attends and she credits her current success to the pastor there. And Judge Wright Allen is the one who recently struck down Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage. She has mastered the separation between church and state.

Engineering a giant loss

I've been following the marriage protection amendment work its way through the Indiana legislature. It was passed by lawmakers in 2010 and must pass them again before appearing on the ballot. They apparently didn't try last year, waiting for the Supremes to rule on the Defense of Marriage Act. The amendment had been sent to the House Judiciary Committee where it got stuck. There weren't quite enough votes for it to pass. At the time Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin said if the GOP leadership was smart they would let the bill die in committee.

They're not smart.

House Speaker Brian Bosma, in a highly unusual move, switched the bill to the Elections Committee because there was a better chance to pass it. And indeed they did so, voting promptly (who needs testimony?) with a tally of 9-3 to send the bill on to the House floor.



Let's see now. The last win for the "traditional" marriage folks was North Carolina in May of 2012. At that time the number of states with marriage equality was six (plus DC). Since then three states won equality at the ballot box in 2012 and another eight this year through a variety of means (not counting Utah, which is on hold).

So, yeah, the traditional folks are desperate for another win. They need to show that marriage equality (and gay rights in general) isn't a foregone conclusion, that all those states that have it now are just flukes. How desperate? Just think about how conservatives do anything political these days. The scene this time will be Florida where they plan to engineer a giant loss. Ned Flaherty of the New Civil Rights Movement provides details in a seven part (four post) series.

There is a new political action committee with the name Equal Marriage Florida (EMFL). Great! we say. About time. But it was created with the help of Tim Mooney, a GOP strategist, and other GOP insiders. Yeah, something fishy. Vanessa Brito declared herself president and treasurer and put forth a plan for marriage equality in Florida. She said it would take $6 million.

The state voted for a marriage protection amendment in 2008 by 62% with only 38% against. That 38% opposition to the ban hasn't changed in six years. A change to the constitution (meaning a voter repeal) requires 60%.

Thirteen (gay rights?) organizations rejected Brito's plan as too costly, to divisive, too psychologically harmful, and doomed to failure. The loss would slow our rights in Florida and break our national winning streak.

When reporters began snooping around EMFL (which reporters do with any election organization) Brito clammed up. She claims to have money, but in finance reports mandated by state law she reports zero donations and zero expenditures (when she files at all). EMFL claims to have tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of signatures on petitions to get the issue on the ballot. But without money how were those names collected? The tally keeps changing. And Brito remains silent.

Flaherty contends EMFL was created not to win marriage equality, but defeat it. Along the way it would ruin activist morale and burn up gay dollars so they can't be spent elsewhere.

Flaherty documents the mischief Mooney has been making on behalf of the GOP, starting with running the marriage protection amendment campaign in Utah in 2004 (the one overturned last month). He also got Ralph Nader on the ballot in several states in 2004, splitting John Kerry's vote and giving the election to Bush II. Sweet guy.

EMFL is poised to hand us a defeat in either of two ways. The first is a failure to collect enough signatures. With a claim of 200,000 signatures in November and a million (a huge portion of Florida's 16 million potential voters) due by February 1 and no money or clamoring volunteers EMFL is almost guaranteed to not make it. Conservative organizations are poised to jump on that, saying, "HA! You couldn't even raise enough signatures! We WIN! And we didn't have to spend a dime!"

But that is preferable to the second way to defeat -- actually getting on the ballot. The campaign would unleash the forces pent up since the California battle in 2008. Yet EMFL says $6 million would be enough to counter that deluge of money. Sure it will.

Out of the 16 million potential voters, 7 million are over 50, mostly GOP, and very much want to keep the ban. How does EMFL intend to convince 2 million of them to switch their votes? Not necessary, they say. We'll focus on the young voters. But why spend $6 million on those already with you and ignore those who aren't?

Flaherty summarizes the damage of getting on the ballot:

Floridians — not to mention the rest of the nation — will then suffer through another bitter, vicious campaign in which billboards and broadcasts call LGBT people defective, deviant, depraved, and demonically possessed. While that campaign rages in this southernmost state, teenagers who are LGBT or who have same-gender parents are likely to be brutalized, and children from all age groups will be victims of the prejudice for which America’s deep-south theocrats are so famous.

And all that nastiness would be followed by a defeat at the polls.

The EMFL website and Facebook pages trumpet their efforts would "guarantee the freedom to marry." Nope. Their proposed repeal only repeals the constitutional ban. The statutory ban would continue because only lawmakers can repeal laws. The legislature is 63% GOP and they have all vowed to never repeal the ban. And Dem lawmakers don't dare mention a repeal and are even hesitant to propose domestic partnerships.

So, yes, politics played dirty and designed to lose. At our expense.

Fancy duds with running shoes

The Michigan case for marriage equality and adoption will be in the spotlight on Wednesday. I'm thinking strongly of being in the courtroom. It is quite possible, perhaps even expected, that the ruling will be that afternoon. All indications are that the judge will overturn Michigan's marriage protection amendment (voted on in 2004), allowing same-sex marriage and adoption.

The big question will be whether the ruling will come with a stay until appeals are heard. If this judge doesn't issue a stay the question is how long between the ruling and when the Michigan Supremes or the 6th Circuit Court (I'm not sure which) could issue a stay. The window of opportunity might be short. Lots (hundreds?) of gay couples are preparing a dash to the courthouse on the news. Both Ingham County (Lansing) and Washtenaw County (Ann Arbor) and perhaps others have offered to waive waiting times. There are also lists of clergy on standby. Put your running shoes on under your fancy clothes.

The debate moves to the states

Gay news sources are full of reactions and implications of yesterday's gay marriage rulings by the Supremes.

The end of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) had an effect within 30 minutes. There was a court hearing to determine if a Colombian man should be deported. He is married to an American man. The hearing was interrupted with the news of the ruling. Deportation was suspended. Thanks to Gabe the intern who dashed through five city blocks to get the ruling to the judge. Rachel Maddow includes that story in her report.

That report by Maddow, all 15 minutes (and well worth it), talks about the importance of these rulings. That's the first of 3 videos on this page. She focuses on the gay-rights case of 10 years ago, Lawrence v. Texas that said gay sex is not criminal. In horror, Scalia predicted that the case would be used to justify gay marriage. He was right -- Kennedy, who wrote both that ruling and this one cited the previous one. Scalia, still horrified, said in his dissent, that yesterday's ruling will bolster the case for gay marriage in states where their constitution bans it. And I agree, it will. But with hope, not horror.

Ari Ezra Waldman, who has a regular column on Towleroad to explain gay legal issues, explains both cases. In the Calif. gay marriage case he explains why the Supremes rejected the case. Even though the Calif. Supremes said the authors of the law have standing, federal law is very clear in saying they don't. They have a grievance, but they aren't injured.

In the DOMA case, even though the GOP House leadership brought the suit instead of the Justice Dept. they do have an injury as part of the gov't -- somebody in the gov't has to pay back Edie Windsor's $350,000 estate tax bill. It is the language of the ruling that is most important. Justice Kennedy wrote a lot about the importance of marriage and the dignity equality brings. These words will be used again.

The organization Freedom to Marry put out a fact sheet. It lists the various areas that are affected by the elimination of DOMA. These include bankruptcy, benefits for federal employees and the military, family and medical leave for non-federal employees, federal taxes, federal student aid, immigration (leaving gays out of the big immigration bill doesn't matter anymore), Medicare and Medicaid, employment benefits, Social Security survivors, veteran spousal benefits, and assistance to needy families.

Some news reports talked about how much gay couples will save in federal taxes. Rob Tisinai reminds us that not all the changes will save us money. There are also responsibilities -- the income of both couples will be used to determine student financial aid, for example. These are responsibilities that any couple in love would take on.

The leadership in the House -- who spent several million defending DOMA -- are saying the debate now moves to the states. That means the House leadership is done with the issue. They've accepted the ruling by the Supremes. Subtext: gays are no longer relevant to their reelection.

That's not true of all the House members. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, surely playing to his base, announced he will introduce a federal marriage protection amendment. At least we're now confident it won't go anywhere. The last such amendment came in 2006 and came 54 votes short of the required 2/3 majority.

Money shifts to the states as well. Both marriage equality and anti-gay organizations are starting fundraising pushes for a state-by-state battle. Expect to raise at least $1 million per battle.

Civil unions were sold on the idea that they are identical to marriage except in name. Several states have this variety now, including New Jersey, Oregon, and Nevada. There were countless little ways where this was not true -- various businesses saying, "but that's for married couples." But now there is a really big, demonstrable difference between civil unions and marriage -- married couples get federal benefits. Civil union couples do not. This is the start of a fresh crop of lawsuits, starting at the state level.

Though the Supremes are done with rulings for this term, they had a couple bits of business for today.

In 2008 Arizona added domestic partner benefits for state employees. In 2009 Gov. Jan Brewer canceled them. In 2011 the 9th Circuit Court told Brewer she can't do that. Now the Supremes say they aren't taking the case, leaving the 9th Circuit ruling in place.

A challenge to Nevada's ban on gay marriage (they have civil unions that are supposed to be the same, see above) was denied by the Supremes. Though the high court doesn't explain why it takes or rejects a case, the assumption this time is because those seeking equality in Nevada asked to bypass the 9th Circuit.

Gay rights groups are laying out a five-year plan:

* In moderate states, such as Oregon, use a ballot initiative to overturn the constitution ban.

* In states that have civil unions same as marriage in all but name, aim for a court case.

* In more conservative states, work for expansion of gay rights, such as non-discrimination cases, and recognition of marriages celebrated elsewhere. This will get the citizens of those states at least talking about marriage equality to lessen a backlash when the Supremes rule again.

Yup, the goal is marriage equality across the country by 2018. Go for it!

Marriage equality is a health issue

Morning Edition on NPR this morning had a segment on mental health of gay and lesbians in states that passed marriage protection amendments. Just before a slew of states passed gay marriage bans in 2004 the NIH conducted a huge mental health survey. After more bans were enacted in 2005 the NIH revisited most of the same people. Gays in states with newly enacted marriage bans had a huge increase -- more than double -- in psychiatric disorders, most of them associated with stress. That didn't happen with straight couples or with gays in states that didn't enact the ban. Social policies are health policies.

We have the power to end your career

Back in June of 2011 four GOP state senators in New York joined Democrats to vote for marriage equality. The National Organization for Marriage vowed vengeance -- can't have GOP lawmakers breaking ranks. That would set a very bad example for the rest of the country. So, NOM put a great deal of effort in making sure there were anti-gay GOP candidates to run against the defectors.

The primary was a couple days ago. Time to check up on how much power NOM has.

One senator dropped out due to a scandal having nothing to do with gay marriage.

The most public defection was Mark Grisanti. He had opposed marriage equality, then did something that seems foreign to the GOP -- he listened to his constituents and changed his mind. Grisanti trounced his NOM-backed opponent.

Both Steve Saland and Roy McDonald are in races so close that the winner will be decided by absentee ballots and recounts. Incumbents usually have no trouble keeping their seats.

NOM endorsed candidates in two other races. In one the NOM candidate lost big. In the other the NOM candidate won because the opponent had been charged with conspiracy to funnel state money to a private charity.

Final tally: Two NOM targets won decisively. One lost for reasons not related to gay marriage. Two are still a tossup.

So, does NOM have the power to end careers as it claims? Depends on who you ask (and we won't ask NOM because their response would be obvious). Two big wins says NOM doesn't have the power. Two tossups says it does -- that might be enough to give other GOP lawmakers pause.

But on to the general election. It appears NOM will continue its vow -- and that may include backing a pro-equality Democrat to punish a pro-equality Republican.

NOM is also trumpeting that in New Hampshire two pro-equality GOP incumbents were defeated. But there were 119 pro-equality GOP incumbents. You do the math.

Same hopes about relationships

Carlos Maza, gay activist, spent a long weekend undercover at a National Organization for Marriage conference, the goal of which was to train the next generation of anti-gay-marriage activists. While NOM proclaims to the public they focus on "marriage, not gayness" in amongst themselves they are very much anti-gay. It was a nasty experience because all their nasty claims suddenly became very personal.

After the last speaker on the last evening Maza had a very good talk with one of the other attendees. Leaving out "gay" and "straight" he found the other person had the same hopes and dreams about relationships -- the same views on dating, divorce, child-rearing, marriage based on love, commitment, mutual sacrifice, stability for children, and a supportive, protective, and nurturing home. That was quite the eye-opener.

But there was still the three days before that discussion. He concludes:

In the public eye, NOM depicts itself as fair-minded and moderate pro-marriage group. In reality, it's the kind of organization that seeks to train college students to justify anti-gay bigotry by relying on stereotypes, pseudoscience, and a sizable dose of right-wing religious extremism.

A tiny bit of respect and dignity

The GOP has issued a draft of its party platform. The sections on marriage are what we expect from them. Especially since Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council (the guy who is mighty upset that the SPLC has labeled the FRC a hate group) proclaims "… which I wrote."

Yup, the institution of marriage is so central to the foundation of the country we can't let gays take part. Therefore we'll go after the activist judges that demand states allow marriage and we're really upset with Obama for not defending the Defense of Marriage Act. But we'll say all this in a nice way: "We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity."

The platform will be approved at next week's convention.

The Log Cabin Republicans, the gay group that is trying to make the GOP more gay friendly, said that it had a hand in shaping it. That brought a round of guffaws. You were in the room so they tossed you that little bone about "respect and dignity." Yeah, they'll treat you with dignity as they drag you from your husband's hospital room, show respect as they haul you away from marriage license office, and won't call you bad names when they deport your immigrant husband.

The LCR responded by saying voters won't see the significant debates that happened and the closeness of the votes.

We were pleased to see vigorous debate on amendments in support of civil unions and to delete language regarding DOMA. While these measures failed, the future direction of our party clearly trends toward inclusion. This may well be the last time a platform will cater to the likes of the Family Research Council on marriage, and the fact is, platforms rarely influence policy.
…
Only by being in the room and speaking conservative to conservative will we succeed in building a stronger and more inclusive Republican party.

And though all this stuff about marriage is "abysmal" the platform is an improvement over the 2008 version. This one says nothing about trying to reinstate the military's gay ban.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin adds a bit about that phrase "respect and dignity." The GOP platform has long had a generic version of that phrase in its preamble. This is the first time it is included in the discussion of marriage.

I'll wave a rainbow flag with you

Paul Singer is a billionaire and a top GOP fundraiser. But he has started something rare in GOP circles -- he has started a Super PAC to push for marriage equality. This is partly in honor of his gay son who is married. The sole purpose of the PAC is to encourage GOP candidates to support marriage equality, partly by compensating them for Fundie blowback. This allows candidates who are close to actually proclaim their support.

Alas, he is also a big Romney fan.



A marriage protection amendment on the ballot in Minnesota has prompted progressive Christians to finally speak to blunt the Fundie voices. Pastors are speaking and getting their congregations to agree. This even included the Minnesota Conference of the United Methodist Church overwhelmingly approving a resolution against the amendment.



Mormons are showing up at Gay Pride events and not just in Salt Lake City (as I mentioned earlier). Yesterday it was in DC. They're not trying to condemn or push ex-gay ministries and they aren't worried about supporting sin. They are simply saying, "I'll wave a rainbow flag with you." Yeah, some people don't trust this kind of outreach. But this is a much better message than the last time Mormons organized around a gay issue.



I've noted that Obama's change of stance on marriage equality has prompted a shift in the poll numbers, especially in Black communities. Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin thinks there might be another reason at work. A couple years ago DC legalized gay marriage. Now Black residents of the city can see photos of Black gay and lesbian couples getting married and those people look happy. It is about family.

Narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, and manipulative

A Calif. Church put up a billboard in NC to apologize for the passage of the marriage protection amendment there:

Missiongathering Christian Church is sorry for the narrow-minded, judgmental, deceptive, manipulative actions of those who denied rights and equality to so many in the Name of God

A gay black Republican was elected as mayor in New Jersey and soon nominated to the state Supreme Court. His nomination came before a legislative committee and was rejected -- by Dems. He was simply unqualified. There is speculation that he was nominated because Gov. Chris Christie vetoed gay marriage just a couple days later.



A straight person being called gay is no longer slander, says a court in New York.



A gay couple with kids is featured in the JCPenney catalog.

Burying black v. gay

I wrote recently about the big jump in support by black voters after Obama supported marriage equality. The day before Obama's famous interview North Carolina voted to approve a marriage protection amendment. The day after the vote Pam Spaulding, who is black and lesbian, lives in North Carolina, and is lead writer for Pam's House Blend, was asked by many in the media to comment on the "black vote" that supported the amendment. She wants to bury that hoary idea to stop people from talking about it.

There was no exit polling. Therefore there is no data that can be broken down along racial lines. That didn't stop people from claiming blacks voted against gays -- until Spaulding demanded hard numbers.

Barry Yeoman of The American Prospect looks at precinct tallies for the amendment and discovered that the real divide wasn't racial, it was urban/rural. And even there, black majority urban precincts rejected the amendment and black majority rural precincts did the same.

The National Organization for Marriage has as one of its tactics is to split black from gay and stir up tension between the two groups. That was brought out in the 2008 repeal of marriage equality in Calif. But the idea is no longer true (if it ever was), yet media people (I'm not sure they deserve to be called journalists) keep trying to push the idea. Is it because of their personal racism? Perhaps they want to highlight conflict? Are they lazy? Or maybe they're stooges for NOM and conservatives?

Just keep in mind it was the black president who first supported marriage equality.

Is the political victory worth it?

The Southern Baptist Convention very much likes to be viewed as the place where America turns for moral guidance. So they're rather peeved that polls show their influence isn't working. An example of that is the recent Gallup polls that show:

* A majority of Americans think gay relationships are morally acceptable (in the majority for three years now)

* 63% think that gay relations should be legal.

* 40% think a gay or lesbian orientation is something a person is born with and 3% think it is because of upbringing or environment.

So the SBC conducted their own polls. Some results:

* Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin? 44% yes, 43% no, 13% unsure.

* If you never attend a church now, would you want to attend one that is anti-gay? 3% yes, 72% no (I'm not sure exactly how this question was worded).

So will they be defiant and lose influence on the culture (or even die out) or tone down the anti-gay talk?

A link in the comment section of the post mentioned above led me to the blog of Rachel Held Evans and a post about how the young view the church. She wrote it the day after North Carolina approved a marriage protection amendment, called Amendment One.

The Barna Group did a poll of 16-29 year olds. They asked for words or phrases that describe Christianity. I've heard of this poll before (it was mentioned by members of the Coalition at General Conference), so it may be a couple months or years old.

For 91% of all respondents, the first word mentioned was "antihomosexual." That included 80% of respondents who attend church. The next most often mentioned words were "judgmental," "hypocritical," and "too involved in politics."

David Kinnaman found that 8 million twentysomethings have left the church and pronouncements about gays are a big reason.

Evans has talked to college kids about these numbers. The kids say such things as: The church is complicit in anti-gay bullying and partly responsible for the high rates of depression and suicide among gay kids. Nearly all are passionately opposed to anti-gay legislation.

Since gays could not marry in North Carolina and because religious leaders were the loudest voices for Amendment One, the only thing the vote did was prove to the youth their view the church is antihomosexual. The kids are tired of the culture wars. The kids are tired of the church bashing their friends. These votes offend gays, damage the church's reputation, and alienate young adults.

Is a political “victory” really worth losing millions more young people to cynicism regarding the Church?

Is a political “victory” worth further alienating people who identify as LGBT?

Is a political “victory” worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with gays and lesbians?

So how might we proceed? Evans suggests:

In my opinion, the first step toward a life beyond the culture wars is to stop talking about LGBT folks and start talking with LGBT folks.

Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network also proposes a way forward. He points out that few people who voted for Amendment One are actually bigoted.

The people on both sides who voted on this amendment honestly believed they were doing the right thing. If they voted for the amendment is might simply be a lack of understanding. Dismissing them as bigots means you've lost a chance to change their mind.

But isn't a vote for the amendment proof their mind is closed? Maybe. So:

My challenge to you, however you felt about this amendment and however you feel about LGBT/Christian issues in general, is to force yourself to see your opponents as human beings who honestly believe they’re doing the right thing. Figure out what it is that’s really motivating them, and if the answer you come up with is simply “bigotry” or “love of the flesh” or “stupidity” or “rebellion against God,” keep digging, because you haven’t gone deep enough yet. Then once you really understand them—really, really understand them—find the ways you can reach out and begin to educate them, patiently and lovingly. That is how you make change in people’s lives.

Why vote for something that hurts so many?

People are still reacting to North Carolina marriage protection amendment approved last week. Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, gave a commencement address at the University of North Carolina. Since the mayor played a big part in getting marriage equality in his state, he had a few things to say to a state that had just banned same-sex marriage.

The WE DO campaign is guiding same-sex couples to ask for marriage licenses in North Carolina. Yes, they are refused, but it is great publicity.

A ten-year-old girl asked her father about the new gay marriage ban. He couldn't explain why people voted for it and suggested she ask the voters. So she did, through a letter to the local newspaper. It's a gem.

Dear North Carolina
Why would anyone vote for something that would hurt so many people? Did you even know what the Amendment was about before voting for it? I wore my NOH8 shirt to school today. I know what it means because my mommy and daddy taught me that it is not okay to hate anyone. In school, they teach that bullying is wrong. Is it less wrong when people vote for it? I can’t vote. It is your job to vote in ways that are best for the future. How is this for the best? What happens to your kids’ futures if they are gay? Is this best for them? What happens to my friend’s future when she gets sick and cannot go to the doctor? What do you tell kids who have two mommies and daddies? Black and white people were not always allowed to get married. I am mixed with black and white. Do you hate me too?

So few people deciding the fate

Pam Spaulding, lead writer of Pam's House Blend, lives with her wife in North Carolina. Though she had a wedding in Canada, her marriage is not recognized in her home state and won't be for quite a while now. Spaulding was still hurting over the approval of Amendment One, so couldn't fully rejoice in Obama's support of gay marriage the next day. She quotes Chris Kromm to note that with such a low turnout (this was essentially a primary election) only 20% of North Carolina registered voters -- and only 14% of the population as a whole -- decided the fate of the state's gay families.

The kids take on the adults

DeLaSalle High School, a Catholic school in Minneapolis, held an assembly for its seniors who will be old enough to vote in November. Representatives from the Archdiocese were there to talk to the teens about marriage -- in particular the approved way to vote on the marriage protection amendment which will be on the ballot.

Once it was obvious the direction the presentation was going the kids got upset. The cause wasn't helped when the speakers implied that families with single parents or adopted children were lesser families. Once the gay marriage issue came out the kids started taking on the speakers in respectful debate. Even so, school officials saw the kid's anger and ended the assembly. Score one for the kids.

We'll only discriminate for 20 years

Writer Agence France-Presse of The Raw Story notes a conundrum facing the GOP. Moderates and independents (and those even further left) are turned off when GOP candidates talk about how they will implement their religion in government. But the Fundie GOP base won't engage with a candidate unless he does talk about it.



I've written about the easy explanation for the Ryan budget approved by the GOP House. Terrence Heath delves into it to show what the GOP is aiming for. Short answer: Government should be police, courts of law, armed services, and nothing else. The Ryan budget significantly trims (with hopes of eventually eliminating) such things as:

* Justice Department
* Corrections officers
* Border Agents
* Environmental Protection Agency
* Food safety inspectors
* Air traffic controllers
* TSA agents
* IRS agents looking for tax cheats
* Weather forecasters
* Agents to do background checks on gun purchasers
* Medicare and Medicaid
* Social Security
* Welfare programs
* Transportation
* Science research
* Education at all levels
* Environment, including national parks

If nobody can make a buck off it, it won't get done.

We've heard all this before. Heath mentions it because lots of people say gutting all those programs can't happen in America. But the House approved this budget and we may be one election from a Senate and a prez. willing to go along with it.



In just five weeks from today North Carolina will vote on a marriage protection amendment that also bans civil unions. Both sides are gearing up for the battle. The anti-gay side has the usual suspects (including the ad agency that worked so well in Calif. and Maine) and a budget of a million dollars.

State Rep. Thom Tillis, Speaker of the House, was instrumental in getting the question on the ballot. Tillis recognizes it is a generational issue and he now predicts that in a generation voters will overturn this amendment. That, of course, leads many to ask, so why bother? Apparently it is good policy to discriminate for 20 years.

Sources of racial pride

A couple days ago I wrote about the campaign strategy from the National Organization for Marriage. NOM's strategy was to make opposition to gay marriage a point of racial pride for blacks and Latinos. Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin noticed some racial issues that just don't add up. Kincaid's musings show that NOM thinks blacks and Latinos are stupid.

Kincaid responds by saying racial pride is such things as ethnic foods and traditions that have been in the family for generation, family history, jokes that outsiders don't get, honor, decency, hard work, commitment and responsibility, generosity, and always making room for one more.

But making sure someone else can't share happiness is not something ethnic groups are proud of.

And white people telling blacks and Latinos what a point of racial pride is? Forget it.

Have opinions of gays changed during NOM's campaign? Yup. But not in the direction NOM would like. Black athletes now support gays with an attitude of "why wouldn't I?" Black writers now condemn homophobia without allowing for cultural excuses.

Drive a wedge and claim victimhood

The National Organization for Marriage has been fighting against marriage equality in several states. They recently lost a lawsuit in which they claimed they could keep campaign donors secret in spite of state disclosure laws. They haven't released donors yet, but they were forced to reveal campaign strategy.

It includes such tactics as:
* Highlight Latinos who support straight marriage, "an identity marker, a badge of youth rebellion to conforming assimilation to the bad side of 'Anglo' culture."

* Highlight racist gays and homophobic blacks to drive a wedge between the two groups. Democrat politicians won't want to touch the issue in fear of alienating one of the groups. This worked well in the Calif. marriage battle a few years ago.

* Highlight stories of people who feel harassed, threatened, or intimidated by any aspect of the debate. This includes such people as the mother confronting the school board about her kids being taught about gay couples.

* Claim victimhood for those with traditional views.

* Attack politicians who support gays by raising issues of protecting the children, pornography, and religious liberty.

* Expose Obama as a socialist radical. Marriage protection will only happen with a GOP president.

Actual NOM documents here.