Divorcing 18,000

This is downright hateful.

But Jerry Brown's response is heartening,

No On 8 Afterthoughts

Lots has been said and done since the disappointing defeat...the grassroots organized a massive protest and HRC organized a black-tie inaugural gala...and a lot of blaming the No on 8 campaign staff for missteps.

One of those criticisms is that they kept the gay out of the campaign. I tend to buy into that criticism, but Dale Carpenter makes the opposite point:

"This may have been the only strategy that had any chance of winning under the circumstances. If the campaign had frankly presented the case for gay families and marriage we might have lost by a much larger margin. No on 8 leaders were trying to dislodge in five months what people have been taught for a lifetime about homosexuals and marriage. Given the size of the task, it’s amazing we nearly succeeded."

I'd like to think he's wrong. But although I've been out to my family for a good many years now, and out to all my friends, I have family and friends who would have voted "yes" on 8. They accept me and the LTR in every other way. But they can't bring themselves to go for the "m" word. So giving our relationships and even just gayness a "face" may not in this case have worked (Sean Bugg makes the simple and elegant point that the mainstream press viewpoint is that gay people have sex, straight people have relationships. I think that viewpoint is sadly universal).

I'd like to think that being "out" is key to knocking down bigotry and fear. But at least as regard to acceptance to gay marriage in my own family, it has not.

Marriage may be the true glass ceiling.

"Religion is a Lifestyle Choice"

Amen.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Obama, Not Kucinich

Barney Frank and Tammy Baldwin have both come out and endorsed Hillary for president, even though they both disagree with her on marriage equality.

As a reader points out, the only Democratic candidate who supports full marriage rights is Dennis Kucinich which does about as much for us as writing to Santa Claus and asking for marriage to be tucked into our stockings come Christmas morning.

The real comparison is Hillary vs. Obama -- Obama is more progressive on the issue than Hillary, as noted earlier. But, as usual, our leaders, be they Members of Congress or HRC, follow the Democratic establishment.

Another Look at Obama and Civil Unions

Andrew Sullivan reported this about Sen. Obama:

I would, as president, make absolutely certain that all federal laws pertaining to married couples [pertain to] same-sex couples who have civil unions as well.

(That's Obama speaking, not Sullivan. Andrew's ego is not big enough -- yet -- to openly fantatasize about being President)

I did not know this. This makes Obama the only Democrat to take this position, I think? Am I wrong?

If so, Obama is much stronger on gay rights than I thought, and certainly stronger than HRC's HRC. It ain't gay marriage, but it ain't nuthin'.

More on the Obama - Clinton difference at Chris Crain's place.

GLAA of DC: An Old Dog That Won't Hunt (esp. for marriage rights)

The Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance (GLAA) released results of its survey showing that Gay Marriage in the District of Columbia has overwhelming support of the Mayor and the City Council.

Too bad it doesn't have full support of GLAA. They continue to advise DC's elected officials to sit on their hands and do nothing, fearing a Congressional backlash. I've been harping on this as long as I've been blogging, but I'm glad to see Matt at Malcontent jump on the bandwagon:

Our courageous gay leaders say the overriding fear is that “an ill-timed same-sex marriage bill in D.C. might also prompt Congress to pass a law banning the city from adopting full marriage rights for gays in the future.”

So we’re going to sit on our hands at the back of the bus because of what “might” happen?

Here’s a better idea: Call the Democrats’ bluff. Pass gay marriage in DC, then see what happens. Force the Democratic leadership into the position of letting it stand, overturning it, or even “banning” gay marriage “in the future,” as the wussies at GLAA seem to worry. If these groups have so little faith in Democrats, why do they support them over and over and over? The answer increasingly appears to be that they’re more concerned about consolidating Democrats’ hold on political power than about doing right by gays.

It's actually obvious what is happening -- none of the Democratic bosses -- least of all Hillary Clinton -- wants to tackle such an issue, not now, maybe not ever. The folks at GLAA are more or less lobbyists, and like lobbyists everywhere, they are in the business of keeping those they lobby happy. The problem is -- the interests or the Democratic Party and the interests of the gay community are not one and the same but GLAA is treating them like they are.

It's an unhappy standoff -- the gay establishment doesn't want to make their friends in the Democratic Party uncomfortable and the Democratic establishment doesn't feel it needs to carry water for it's gay constituents because, after all, where else are we going to go?

Bull dogs, water hoses, and hell, bullets, bombs and the lynch mob's noose faced the freedom fighters of 1960s. And our leaders are afraid of....Congress? Martin Luther King and the others didn't wait until that perfect time when we could resolve our race problems over a nice cup of tea. They acted.

And so should we. When has sitting passively on butt doing nothing brought about social change? To do so is to cease to be a civil rights movement. It means we have become passive spectators to our own cause, watching from the sidelines hoping the world will change itself.

The Children of Gay Couples Don't Matter in Maryland

Maryland is now officially not marry land for gays, with yesterday's MD Supreme Court decision declaring that denying gay couples their nuptials is not unconstitutional. What troubles me is the apparent reasoning:

In reversing a lower court's decision, the divided Court of Appeals ruled that limiting marriage to a man and a woman does not discriminate against gay couples or deny them constitutional rights. Although the judges acknowledged that gay men and lesbians have been targets of discrimination, they said the prohibition on same-sex marriage promotes the state's interest in heterosexual marriage as a means of having and protecting children.

Um, hello...many gay couples have kids (and many straight married people do not). Like so many others opponents of gay marriage, the Maryland supremes are hiding behind the kids of straight parents while ignoring the children of gay couples. If it's in the state's interest to protect children who are progeny of straight people, why isn't it in the state's interest to protect the kids of gays?

Who Will Lead?

Evan Wolfson gives the lie to the notion that it would be bad electoral politics to be for gay marriage:

• To date, every state legislator, including those running in conservative districts, who voted to support the freedom to marry and ran for re-election won.
• Even state legislators who evolve from opposing to supporting the freedom to marry win; in Massachusetts they showed a 100 percent re-election rate.
• A report published by the Human Rights Campaign after the 2004 election found 94 percent (604 out of 640) of state legislators nationwide who voted in 2004 against discrimination were re-elected in the 2004 election.
• Open-seat races with both a pro-marriage and anti-marriage candidate have most often resulted in victory for the pro-marriage candidate. Pro-marriage candidates won a vast majority, 71 percent, of the races, and none of the pro-marriage candidates lost their races because of their stance on the freedom to marry.

That should be food for thought to gay activists who routinely give ostensibly pro-gay Democrats a pass on the marriage issue.

Read Wolfson's full post on the Democratic responses on the marriage issue in the last debate.

Divorce Rates Down

Three years since a state began granting civil marriages to same sex couples, the associated press reports that American divorce rates are at their lowest point since 1970. (read more)

Although there's no evidence of a link between the two, it also means the religious right's Chicken Little-ing of the issue -- saying that gay marriage will undermine "traditional" marriage is as bogus as saying, well, "the sky is falling."