11/19/2009
Poll: NJ will come down to those who can't/won't make up damn mind
46% in favor
42% against
12% undecided
That's the current working breakdown of how New Jersey citizens view marriage equality:
By a 46 percent to 42 percent margin, adults in New Jerseyans favor legalizing same-sex nuptials, with 12 percent unsure. The survey also shows that if the state Legislature passes a bill legalizing gay marriage, 52 percent would accept the decision, while 40 percent would support a constitutional amendment banning the practice
RUTGERS-EAGLETON POLL FINDS NEW JERSEYANS SUPPORT LEGALIZING GAY MARRIAGE [Rutgers-Eagleton (pdf)]
So it's good to be ahead. But honestly, until we lessen that undecided number, talking about this poll (or at least the first part of it) is about as fruitful as dancing about architecture.
We must, must, must move the middle, and the New Jersey Turnpike could be the road to facilitate that movement. If you're breaking bread with a Garden State resident next Thursday, dare to have a principled conversation about equality. Next year's cranberry sauce will taste oh so much sweeter if it is accompanied with a side of equal rights.
Houston, chronically: City's 2nd anti-gay story in as many days
Need a reason other than decency to stand against the homo-hostile attacks against Houston mayoral candidate Annise Parker? Well here. Maybe this reminder of the pervasive, violent atmosphere that's fostered by anti-gay rhetoric will heighten your awareness/sensitivity:
Student attacked with metal pipe said school administrators did nothing to help [KHOU]
Is this Houston incident a direct by-product of the attacks on Ms. Parker. No, of course not. But at the end of the day, it is all connected. And when society sends the message that gays are outside the spectrum of normalcy, it's only a matter of time before those words turn into fists (or complacency)!
Stop the ugly campaign tactics. Stop the ugly violence. Oh, and heterosexual America: Please start f***ing caring!
Audio: Prejean is 'making Christians a laughing stock'
Ingrid Schlueter is no friend of gay rights. AT ALL. In fact, on her "CrossTalk America" radio show, she regularly says things like this:
So it's safe to assume that we disagree with Ms. Schlueter when it comes to just about anything. In fact, we're not even sure she's telling the truth about the true spelling of her name.
But that being said: We do actually have to applaud Ms. Schlueter for one thing. For she is the only person on the religious right -- the ONLY one -- who we have heard to say something like this about the Carrie Prejean debacle:
Seeker Churches and the Gay Cabal [CrossTalk]
We of course don't see the moral implications or the list of "sins" in the same way. But the hypocrisy? The double-standards? The gauche attempts by groups like NOM to turn her into some sort of authority? Ms. Schlueter is spot on!
Breaking: Arch conservatives fail to rob NY gays of benign happiness
Fantastic news out of New York, as the rabidly anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund has again been struck down in their attempt to role back out-of-state marriage recognition. And this time: The decision came down from the state's highest court:
New York State’s highest court rejected unanimously a challenge on Thursday by opponents of same-sex marriage to policies that recognize such unions performed in other states, though the decision gave gay advocates a small victory because it was narrowly written and applied to a relatively small number of people.
In their majority ruling, four of the seven members of the court said they were making their decision on narrow grounds involving the specifics of each case, and not settling the broader question of whether same-sex marriages performed in other states should be recognized. Judge Eugene F. Pigott Jr., writing for the majority, expressed “hope that the Legislature will address this controversy.”
Court Upholds Recognition of Gay Marriages in Narrow Ruling [NY Times City Room blog]
Which is good, because when I kissed my husband goodbye this morning, I was really hoping that my home state wouldn't suddenly stop recognizing our Connecticut marriage. Didn't you all have the exact same thought, married hetero friends?
But now it's time for the legislature to do as suggested and TAKE UP THE QUESTION OF MARRIAGE EQUALITY! Give your Senator a call right now and tell them to settle this matter once and for all:
NO MORE WAITING! MARRIAGE EQUALITY NOW!
**MORE: Lambda Legal weighs in: New York High Court Upholds Government Benefits to Married Same-Sex Couples, Exhorts Legislature to Vote on Marriage [LL]
No, Allan, it's your side's tired talking points that are truly sterile!
Speaking about the high possibility that the District of Columbias will soon approve marriage equality, professional "pro-family" personality Allan Carlson says the following:
"[Marriage is] where the future comes from. It's where future citizens come from," he said. "Same-sex marriage, by definition, can't do that. It is, by definition, sterile."
D.C. Election Board Refuses to Allow Marriage Vote [CitizenLink]
Okay, let's think about this for a second. Of all of the components that make up a same-sex marriage, it is inability to reproduce that Mr. Carlson says is the "definition." Not love. Not commitment. Not the civil rights and benefits conferred to the couple. Not companionship. Not equality. Not legal attachment to your family (which, of course, does often include children). Mr. Carlson overlooks all of these far more definitive elements and instead defines gay couples with the word "sterile."
How offensive is this? Honestly. Not only in terms of the way it diminishes our role within the human fabric, but also in the way it completely sidesteps the actuality of civil marriage equality and instead addresses a non-required component. Last time we checked, reproduction is not a requirement to obtain a civil marriage license. But even though the non-kid-mandated civil marriage license is 100% what this conversation should be about, our opposition sidesteps the issues at hand by turning to the ancillary matter of how best to create and steward the next generations. Never mind that this is a world that is in no danger of a population crisis. Never mind that there are countless hetero couples who either cannot or chose to not reproduce. Never mind that countless same-sex couples already do have and raise children, with or without marriage equality. To our organized opposition, none of these facts are of even slight concern. The only thing that matters is their own selfish desire to micromanage society.
Regardless of your opinion on stroller-pushing gays, the idea of defining same-sex civil marriages by their ability/desire to change a diaper is unfathomably extraneous. It makes about as much sense as basing one's right to obtain a drivers license on their desire to obtain a pine tree air freshener.
Video: In which Dave Wilson becomes Gene Locke's biggest liability
We had been told to expect homo-hostile hits against Houston mayoral candidate Annise Parker. And so it goes:
Bad news for those Houstonians who are sick of dirty politics. Although good news for overcrowding at the local Johnson Space Center, as it is no longer the best place to find grown adults who are overly concerned with Uranus (and whether or not it's right to put a man on the same).
Wave of anti-gay mailers attack Parker in Houston mayoral race [KHOU]
(H/t: Towle)
11/18/2009
Does 'everything's bigger in Texas' rule apply to marriage ban's flaws?
Without even reading it, we know that the constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships in the state of Texas is a poorly designed piece of caca. That's because we understand that state and federal constitutions are not weapons meant crush the souls of certain kinds of tax-paying citizens, and are in fact meant to protect ALL.
But is the Texas ban just a little worse than all of others? And because of faulty language within the state's homo-hostile ban, are heterosexual Texans now banned from their own marriages? Perhaps, says Democratic attorney general candidate Barbara Ann Radnofsky:
The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:
"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.
She calls it a "massive mistake" and blames the current attorney general, Republican Greg Abbott, for allowing the language to become part of the Texas Constitution.
KEEP READING: Texas marriages in legal limbo because of constitutional amendment, candidate says [Star-Telegram]
She might call it a "massive mistake." But if nobody minds, we're gonna go ahead and call it "potentially hilarious."
And now in DOMA will inevitably become DOA news...
A federal judge today ordered compensation for a Los Angeles couple denied spousal benefits by the federal government because they are gay men.
U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt deemed the denial of healthcare and other benefits to the spouse of federal public defender Brad Levenson to be a violation of the Constitution's guarantee of due process and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is prohibited by California state law.
Levenson married his longtime partner, Tony Sears, on July 12, 2008, during the five-month period when same-sex marriage was legal in California.
KEEP READING: Judge orders compensation for gay couple denied benefits [L.A. Now (LA Times)]
DOMA is kind of like a wisdom tooth. Despite its clever name, everyone impacted (i.e. the whole of America) will be more defended from decay once the nasty sucker is yanked.
**EARLIER: Reinhardt issued an order in this case back in February: Ding dong, the DOMA's...well, maimed [G-A-Y]
