Box Turtle Bulletin

Bipartisan Pollsters Find Rapid Increase In Support for Marriage Equality

Over the past year or so, we have had several polls showing increased support for marriage equality. While we know the trend has been in our favor for quite some time, it’s been hard to take some of these polls seriously. Many of us remember all too well the polls showing Prop 8 going down in defeat, only to wake up on the day following election day to see the equal rights of millions of Californians stripped from them.

Today, Freedom to Marry had announced that two leading pollsters, one Republican and the other Democrat, have reviewed the polling data over the past fifteen years and have seen a very notable shift in support over the past two years specifically. According to their study (PDF: 136KB/4 pages), that increased support in the past two years has been across the board, including among older Americans and Republicans.

This isn’t a new poll, but rather an analysis of other polls which have already been published, including Gallup, Quinnipiac University, Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), CNN/Opinion Research Corp (CNN/ORC), ABC News/Washington Post, and Pew Research Center.

This study confirms what Rob Tisinai noticed a few weeks ago by looking at the ABC/WaPo poll alone. Rob noticed that “For the most part, older people are more supportive of marriage equality in 2011 than younger people were in 2005.” And that increase in support among older Americans cannot be explained by older people dying off alone. His analysis is worth revisiting here. The authors of the Freedom To Marry study agree:

Ultimately, things are changing very quickly because support levels are up in all age and party categories. This allows one to conclude that many adults are rethinking their position, and it is taking place at all age levels and among all partisans, including older Americans and Republicans. Attitudes are changing at a slower pace among older adults and conservatives, but they’re changing.

More encouragingly, they notice that “the intensity of opinion is changing at a rapid pace. As of today, supporters of marriage for gay couples feel as strongly about the issue as opponents do, something that was not the case in the recent past.”

The Daily Agenda for Friday, July 29

TODAY’S AGENDA (OURS):
Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Belfast, Northern Ireland; Braunschweig, Germany; Frankfurt, Germany; Harrisburg, PA; Norwich, UK; Nottingham, UK; Pittsburgh, PA (Black Pride); Raleigh/Durham, NC (Black Pride); Vancouver, BC.

Also This Weekend: Diverse/Cité, Montréal, QC; Up Your Alley, San Francisco, CA.

TODAY’S AGENDA (THEIRS):
Western Conservative Summit: Denver CO. Presidential candidates Sen. Rick Santorum, Godfather Pizza magnate Herman Cain, and potential GOP presidential candidate and Texas governor Rick Perry are slated to speak at the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University in Lakewood, Colorado as part of a weekend-long Western Conservative Summit. Santorum and Perry share keynote speaking duties this evening at 5:45 MDT. They will be streaming it live here.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Tim Gunn: 1953. He was on the faculty of Parson The New School for Design, and he served as the fashion design chair until 2007 before moving to Liz Claiborne to work as their chief creative officer. But you know him from the Bravo reality series Project Runway, which just started its ninth season this past week. He is an animal rights spokesperson, having opposed the use of fur in fashion. He also made an “It Gets Better” video, motivated by his own suicide attempt when he was seventeen. Those good works aside, he really stepped in it this past week when he criticized Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s fashion sense. “Why must she dress that way?” he asked. “I think she’s confused about her gender. All these big, baggy menswear-tailored pantsuits. No, I’m really serious. She wears pantsuits that are really unflattering.” Really? I don’t remember anyone slamming Lawrence Eagleberger’s baggy suits.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

No GOP IGB Videos?

Dan Savage reacted to personal attacks from the National Republican Senatorial Committee over the “It Gets Better” campaign by saying that “not a single GOP elected official can bring himself or herself to make a video.” I actually found that to be very shocking. Sure, we know that things are very bleak on the national level. I can’t think of any GOP member of Congress who has participated in or made a video. But what about at the state level? Any elected GOP officials in a state legislature or executive branch? What about the county level? Mayor of a major city? Township trustee? Village council person?

Dogcatcher?

I’m sure there’s some out there. I can’t believe that there is “not a single GOP elected official” in a video. So here’s a crowd-sourcing challenge: go find them. Just three rules: 1) they have to be identified by name in the video, 2) they must have a speaking part, and 3) those holding office as a result of a nonpartisan election (i.e. their party affiliation did not appear on the ballot, as is sometimes the rule for local positions) do not qualify.

GOP Group Attacks “It Gets Better” Campaign

Last Friday, the entire Massachusetts — minus one — posted this YouTube video for the “It Gets Better” campaign against LGBT bullying and suicide. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) was conspicuously missing. According to Marie Diamond at Think Progress:

Sen. Brown (R-MA) was invited to be in the video, but declined. When asked about the decision, Brown spokesman Colin Reed said it was because Brown’s “main focus right now is on creating jobs.”

The LGBT leaders, including two Massachusetts lawmakers, agreed that Sen. Brown’s refusal to participate in the video sends a disturbing message to the staggering number of LGBT youth who are being bullied and harassed every day. They also said the snub was simply the latest in Brown’s long record of “being anti-LGBT friendly,” in the words of Jennifer Chrisler.

LGBT activists and political leaders in the state recalled instances in which Brown worked against marriage equality and anti-discrimination efforts. That criticism has gotten under the skin of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, whose communcations director Brian Walsh went on the attack personally against Dan Savage:

If, as the old saying goes, you’re known by the company you keep, than the voters of Massachusetts deserve to know who Democrat Party operatives are teaming up with to spread outrageous attacks on Scott Brown’s character.

It’s truly reached a new level of desperation in their efforts to tear down Scott Brown, but we look forward to hearing whether state and national Democrat leaders agree with Dan Savage’s long history of lewd, violent and anti-Christian rhetoric. Given their press conference call today, one has to presume at this point that they do.

Savage responded:

I am not the IGB project. The project has had the reach and impact that it’s had thanks to tens of thousands of people from all over the world who’ve participated. [A]nd no one who participates is required to crawl into bed with me. ..:

Savage notes that among those who have participated from all walks of life from all over the world, “not a single GOP elected official can bring himself or herself to make a video, or participate in the creation of one. No GOP elected official can risk being seen letting bullied LGBT kids know that life isn’t high school and that it will get better for them.”

Bradlee Dean Discovers Running And Hiding

Bradlee Dean, who spoke of his admiration for Muslims because of what he described as their commitment to uphold their religious laws calling for death to homosexuals, is now suing Rachel Maddow and the Minnesota Independent for, as far as I can tell, repeating verbatim what he said. Ordinarily, when someone files a lawsuit like this, one would generally want to correct the injustice one believes was done to him and make his views known, but so Dean has ditched interviews with Michelangelo Signorile, Newsweek, The Shannon Files, and even his own press conference. Dean calls his ministry You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, but it turns out that’s wrong. You really can do both.

Update: It turns out that when he does run, he runs to sympathetic extremist talk show hosts who will reliable throw softball questions and allow him to claim that all he’s doing is protectiong the children:

The Daily Agenda for Thursday, July 28

TODAY’S AGENDA:

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Belfast, Northern Ireland; Braunschweig, Germany; Frankfurt, Germany; Harrisburg, PA; Norwich, UK; Nottingham, UK; Pittsburgh, PA (Black Pride); Raleigh/Durham, NC (Black Pride); Vancouver, BC.

Also This Weekend: Diverse/Cité, Montréal, QC; Up Your Alley, San Francisco, CA.

TODAY IN HISTORY:
Illinois Rescinds Sodomy Law: 1961. On this date in history, the state of Illinois led the nation in becoming the first state in the land to enact a repeal of it’s law criminalizing homosexuality. The repeal became effective on January 1, 1962. Illinois would remain the only state in the union to legalize consensual adult same-sex relationships until 1971, when Connecticut would finally rescind its sodomy law, followed by Colorado and Oregon (1972), Hawaii and North Dakota (1973), Ohio (1974), New Hampshire and New Mexico (1975). The big year was 1976, when California, Indiana, Maine, Washington and West Virginia stopped criminalizing homosexuality. By the time Lawrence v. Texas struck down all sodomy laws nationwide in 2003, thirty-six states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had eliminated their anti-homosexuality laws, either by legislative action or by state court decisions. But it all began exactly fifty years ago today with that first step in the Land of Lincoln — and, come to think of it, the land of LaBarbera, too. He must be so proud.

LGBT Equality In the US (Click to enlarge)

[A special thanks to a BTB reader in Chicago for this one. I knew the year, but I didn’t have the date. Thanks Michael!]

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

Australian marriage drive is complicating politics

This is an atypical commentary. I don’t have time to delve into what is going on in Australia and present it in a way that is intelligible to non-Australian readers. But I don’t want to ignore it any longer either.

So, for now I’ll tell you that in recent month the issue of marriage equality has become such a hot issue that it may possibly cause a shift in political alliances that could threaten the stability of the controlling alliance.

Although the Labor Party’s official policy opposes marriage equality, in state after state the party delegates are endorsing marriage in such a way as to force a confrontation. The Prime Minister supports the heterosexual-only definition but local Labor is pushing the issue and the party appears to be at war with itself.

Please note the uncertainty in the above and I hope our Australian readers will forgive me if I’ve got it entirely wrong. I will try to get a better analysis up sometime soon.

Colombian Supreme Court diverts marriage decision to legislature

CNN

The issue of marriage for same-sex couples is a legislative matter that must be taken up in Colombia’s Congress, the nation’s Constitutional Court ruled in a move that activists saw as a victory, though the outcome remains to be seen.

The court did rule on Tuesday that gay couples in de facto unions constitute a family. Gay-rights supporters celebrated the ruling in the streets.

The court gave the Congress two years to legislate the status of same-sex marriages. If the deadline passes with no legislation, then same-sex couples will be able to formalize their unions before a notary public, the court said.

I’m not certain exactly what was decided Tuesday as the court had granted recognition of common-law marriages in 2009.

Why it’s never smart for a politician to whine about how badly he’s treated

If you don’t want people to say mean things about you, don’t go into politics (or blogging). And when they do (and they will) it is never smart to whine about the mean mean meanies who are so mean to you. Not only will you gain no sympathy or new support, but then everyone will be repeating all those mean things and chuckling.

But former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. And he had been the subject of a cruel (but well deserved) prank for a very long time.

After Santorum’s vile statement in 2003 in which he discussed his support for anti-gay sodomy laws in terms of bestiality and incest, Dan Savage decided to have a little fun. He held a contest for a new definition for “santorum” and the winner was:

The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

A Spreading Santorum webpage was set up for tracking the extent to which the new definition could be detected in culture and it was clever enough that it drew web traffic placing it as the first listing when “santorum” was googled. And so there it sat as the first result through the rest of Rick Santorum’s term as Senator and his failed reelection bid.

But with his presidential campaign, there was a pretty good chance that eventually “Rick Santorum for President” along with news articles about the campaign would have gotten the traffic necessary to push the aging joke off of the front page. And it likely would have, were it not for the actions of two people.

First, Savage encouraged his readers to go back and select the link to keep it active in the Google search matrices. Enough responded to keep Savage’s santorum link in place ahead of the candidate’s page. In fact, the campaign site was fourth, after a Wikipedia article and another site’s reference to Savage’s definition.

But the real boost to Spreading Santorum came from none other than Rick Santorum himself. On July 18 he went on a radio show to complain about the way he was being mistreated by Savage and in addition to some recent comments also noted the website. And then someone with a whole lot of hero worship and no political sense must have advised the next move: Santorum sent out a fund raising letter with the following sentence:

Remember this is not the first time Savage has attacked us on our stance of supporting American values. Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father’s name.

And when this letter was published on Politico on July 20, which turned into articles in the media, just what do you suppose that people did? Obviously they set out to find out why you couldn’t google “Santorum”.

But July 22, the presidential campaign link had dropped to eighth place behind:

The campaign site has now moved back up into sixth place. But Savage is goading Rick Santorum, threatening to make his first name into a vulgar word as well. I guess now we’ll have to wait and see if Sen. Santorum is so very incredibly stupid that he bites at the bait.

One third of gay employees have access to partner benefits

NYTimes

In the first comprehensive count of domestic partner benefits by a federal government agency, the Bureau of Labor Statistics found that about one-third of all workers had access to health care benefits for same-sex partners.

Bureau officials added two questions about domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples to the National Compensation Survey, a sample of 17,000 businesses and local governments, as a response to growing public interest in the topic, said Philip Doyle, assistant commissioner at the agency. The results were made public on Tuesday.

This report is based on data from March 2011 and would not include recent changes made to couple recognition which were not enacted at that time: marriage in New York and civil unions in Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware, and Rhode Island.

Additionally, as companies recognize the same-sex spouse of a New York employee, many will be inspired at that time to adopt partner benefit programs for employees in states that do not have a vehicle for partner recognition. Otherwise, for example, Dunder Mifflin may find that the morale in its Scranton branch suffers.

Anti-Gay Extremist Sues Rachel Maddow for Quoting Him

Minnesota extremist Bradlee Dean, who spoke favorably of Muslims because Muslims call for the execution of gay people, is suing MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow for playing his quotes over the air. That’s the only reason I can think of for his suing her. That and her deep pockets; he’s suing for $50 million.

According to a press release from Dean’s attorney:

In the course of his ministry, Dean once made a statement on radio criticizing his fellow Christians for not taking a stronger stand about the gay rights lobby promoting homosexuality in the schools. He made a strong reference to Muslims taking the issue more seriously in the context of Shariah law, but did not condone their practices. It was Bradlee’s intent to focus attention on the issue, not to advocate harm to anyone.

Despite the very clear disclaimer by Bradlee Dean on his ministries website and elsewhere regarding the false accusation that he was calling for the execution of homosexuals, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and others seized on and accused Dean on her show of supporting the killing of homosexuals, as is the practice in some radical Islamic countries. This seriously has harmed Dean and the ministry, who pride themselves on respect and love for all people.

Here’s the clip that Dean is upset about, in which Dean clearly shows his respect and love for all people:

Actually, Maddow’s comment is rather minimal. She basically let Dean do the talking, although she did read Dean’s disclaimer. It’s a sad commentary on the integrity of those who claim to proclaim the “truth” when all you have to do to be called a liar is to play a recording of their own words. Just replay his tape, and you’ve engaged in a “malicious attack” on Dean:

This explains the malicious attacks on Bradlee Dean and his ministry, which are being used to harm the presidential campaign of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who is a conservative Christian.

In the past, Dean and his ministry have been complemented by presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (who prayed for the ministry) for their work in promoting values for the nation’s youth. The left wing media’s effort to defame Dean is an obvious way to try to harm Bachmann’s presidential prospects, who they fear and despise. Other left wing media outlets have followed MSNBC and Maddow in their slanderous efforts. This suit may just be the first in a series of cases meant to protect the fine reputation of Dean and his ministry.

You can hear Dean’s full remarks and judge his reputation for yourself here:

And here’s his defense here, if you care to hear it. In essence, he’s upset that we’re not all thanking him.

Update: The Dump Bachmann Blog has more:

“Justice is coming in Jesus’ name,” he says. Thank you Bradlee.

The Daily Agenda for Wednesday, July 27

2006 cast and crew of "The Bus"

TODAY’S AGENDA:
Pro-Gay Theater Project Raising Money To Perform At Westboro Baptist: Online. A Vermont-based theater project is raising money online to pay for taking their production of The Bus, a play about small-town homophobia, to the heart of god-hates-fagdom, Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. “Our fundraising goal will allow The Bus to play Off Broadway at 59E59 Theaters for four weeks beginning the week of October 3rd and perform in Topeka, Kansas in early November, immediately following our Off Broadway run. If we meet or exceed our goal, these monies will go toward producing both, the Off Broadway and Topeka shows of The Bus.”

So, what is The Bus?

The Bus tells the story of two boys who, late at night, regularly rendezvous in a parked church bus just to be close. When their secret meeting place is in danger of being discovered, the boys find themselves in the middle of a family conflict between a large church and a small-town gas station—and the clash proves explosive. Touching, sometimes haunting, often humorous, and swirling with suspense, The Bus was called “a bona-fide surprise hit, drawing big crowds and positive reviews,” by the Burlington Free Press.

The producers are trying to raise $50,000 by Sunday, July 31, and they are just under halfway toward their goal. You can learn more about donating to the project here.

Pride Celebrations This Weekend: Belfast, Northern Ireland; Braunschweig, Germany; Frankfurt, Germany; Harrisburg, PA; Norwich, UK; Nottingham, UK; Pittsburgh, PA (Black Pride); Raleigh/Durham, NC (Black Pride); Vancouver, BC.

Also This Weekend: Diverse/Cité, Montréal, QC; Up Your Alley, San Francisco, CA.

Radclyffe Hall

TODAY IN HISTORY”
“The Well of Loneliness” Published: 1927. The book was so controversial that three publishers turned it down. When it was finally published in England, it appeared in a plain, discreet black cover.  It wasn’t particularly racy; the only sexual description consisted of the phrase, “and that night, they were not divided.” By today’s standards, the book has been criticized for being terribly outdated, reinforcing stereotypes about “butch” and “femme” lesbians that would strike us today like a lesbian-themed minstrel. But Radclyffe Hall’s novel caused a sensation in Britain when it appeared on this date in 1927. The publisher sent review copies only to a few select newspapers and magazines who he thought could handle the lesbian-themed content. But he misjudged one of those editors. James Douglas, editor of the Sunday Express responded by mounting a massive campaign against the novel. He wrote “I would rather give a healthy boy or a healthy girl a phial of prussic acid than this novel.”

Despite most of the British press’s defending the novel, the publisher soon landed in court on obscenity charges. Several authors came to his defense — E.M. Forster, Virginia Woolf, and James Melville among them — but the judge declared the novel obscene. It wasn’t the story line he found objectionable; it was the novel’s plea for tolerance and acceptance that would “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” The ban and the massive newspaper campaign against the book, of course, only served to increase the public’s curiosity and demand for the book. Wherever there’s a demand, there’s a supply, and in the case of The Well, that supply was met by a publisher in France who shipped copies surreptitiously to newsstands throughout Britain. That had the effect of lowering British officials’ enthusiasm for banning other lesbian-themed novels that followed. A Home Office memo observed, “It is notorious that the prosecution of the Well Of Loneliness resulted in infinitely greater publicity about lesbianism than if there had been no prosecution.” It wouldn’t be until 1949 when The Well could be published in Britain again, not because any laws had changed, but because the Home Office simply decided to look the other way. It has remained in continuous publication since then.

Surprisingly, the book’s appearance generated a different reaction. Sure, there were attempts to ban it in the U.S. Customs Court and in New York City, where police seized 865 copies from its American publisher’s offices, but both attempts were rejected.  The ensuing publicity from the trials raised demand for the book. Despite it’s high price of $5 (about twice the cost of an average hardback novel), The Well would go through six printings and sell over 100,00 copies by the time it was cleared by the courts. As in Britain, The Well of Loneliness has been in continuous publication since its 1928 American debut.

TODAY’S BIRTHDAY:
Troy Perry: 1940. By the time he was fifteen years old, he was already a Baptist preacher and a self-described “religious fanatic.” He married in 1959 and fathered two sons, but he was not faithful to his wife. He had a few gay dalliances on the side. When the elders at the church he was pastoring found out, they forced him to resign and he moved his family to Southern California and began preaching for the Church of God of Prophecy. While there, his wife found a copy of Donald Webster Cory’s groundbreaking The Homosexual In America hidden in a mattress. That led to an immediate divorce and an end to his preaching career. After a stint in the army beginning in 1965, Perry felt called to offer a place for gay people to worship freely. He placed an ad in The Advocate announcing a worship service designed for gays in Los Angeles. and twelve people turned up on that first Sunday in October 1968. That would be the genesis for the Metropolitan Community Church, the only Christian denomination founded specifically to address the spiritual needs of LGBT people. MCC now has 250 congregations in 23 countries around the world.

If you know of something that belongs on the agenda, please send it here. PLEASE, don’t forget to include the basics: who, what, when, where, and URL (if available).

Good-bye, Equality California, it’s been a good run

In reviewing an article today about the new direction of a gay political organization, I couldn’t help but think back on a similar decision in our community’s history. Others will, undoubtedly, remember this story differently, but here is what I recall:

In the mid 80’s California’s political gay community came up with the revolutionary notion of coalescing the various factions into a single state-wide representative organization that was the political voice for California’s gay community. Instead of each duplicating the efforts of the other and having no central source of information or progress, various groups would contribute funds, hire a lobbyist, and send a representative to jointly agree on a legislative agenda for that lobbyist to work towards.

The Lobby for Individual Freedom and Equality (LIFE Lobby) sought to set aside partisan differences, regional rivalries, and local power-struggles to work together on presenting, supporting or opposing specific bills. Recognizing that each group brought its own unique contributions, there was a commitment to respect each other and to keep the focus on shared goals: legislation which directly impacted gay people and legislation that directly impacted people with HIV/AIDS.

This was, for a time, an effective model. Utilizing the various connections and approaches of each group but with a shared message and goal, LIFE maximized the potential. Democrats, Republicans, socialists, the ACLU and church groups, people of various races and ideological perspectives came together to achieve a common cause. And the camaraderie which developed was, in many ways, as important to our community as the legislation addressed.

But over time, the lobbyists and leadership developed relationships with others in Sacramento who were similarly engaged and began to see their efforts as symbiotic. As their own personal politics were in agreement with each other, they concluded that they were each but a part of the greater struggle and that they could be more effective working in unison and thus coalition politics became the mindset of LIFE Lobby.

Coalition building can be advantageous. For example, LIFE was itself a coalition of gay interests and HIV/AIDS interests. And while those are two distinct demographics, there was significant overlap and public and political perception linked the two so closely that combining the efforts played off the strengths of both.

But while coalition politics can at times be a smarter, more efficient way to influence change, there are some things to consider:

1. The positive impression that other coalition members have built over time cannot be granted to you but must be earned; however, every negative impression of every other member is immediately yours to defend.

2. Speaking on behalf of a community of voters is only effective if it is on issues about which those voters agree. The lobbyist is not Moses leading his people. His personal views on other matters may not be shared universally among his community and the further he steps away from his direct mission, the fewer actual people he represents.

3. The gay community, in particular, is not homogenous. Drawn from families of every race, economic strata, political affiliation, religious association, ideological belief, and every other dividing quality, gay people are as diverse a community as it is possible to find.

4. No other coalition member cares about your goals as much as they do their own. Unless the level of support you receive is comparable to the amount you are giving, the coalition is not to your advantage.

But, in the thrall of being part of something bigger, LIFE build alliances and made promises and was suddenly functioning not as the gay/AIDS lobby but as a partner in the battle for social change. And there was a desire not to advance the goals of the representatives in the room, which were holding them back, but to change the representatives to be more reflective of the coalition. So new representatives were found and, as their supporting organizations may have been quite small and unable to help fund their participation, the generosity of existing members was needed.

And soon there was a creative new way of defining ‘gay issues’. Because some immigrants were gay, therefor immigration issues were ‘gay issues’. Because some union members were gay, therefor labor issues were ‘gay issues’. Needless to say, this new way of defining ‘gay issues’ did not extend to gay taxpayers, gay home-owners, gay religious adherents, gay fiscal conservatives, or even gay blue-collar Democrat-voting people. Their issues, somehow, did not become ‘gay issues’.

The result was predictable. Eventually the board of representatives had sufficient votes to push aside those who wanted to keep the older focus (which, interestingly enough, was politically diverse) and took a position that was insensitive to the realities of some members.

Faced with an affiliation that would cost them their own political connections, the more conservative members left and sent their own representative to Sacramento. And about then it became apparent whose generosity had been funding the new members which had made the change possible. And although it tottered on for a few more years as a voice for progressiveness, that was the end of the experiment that was LIFE Lobby.

All of which came back to me when I read about the new Executive Director for Equality California and the change in focus which he wishes to bring with him to the organization. (LGBT POV)

Palencia, who officially assumed the job on July 5, advocates a shift in the EQCA’s focus from legislation towards being more of a social justice organization, a move with which the board apparently concurs.

“Every executive director brings their own strengths and approach to the organization,” EQCA Board Co-Chair Clarissa Filgioun told Frontiers via email. “Roland brings a set of experiences that are unique to him and perspective from outside of the political realm. His experience as a person of color and an immigrant will likely inform the organization in a new way. Overall, all of these qualities will be put to work to continue to build on the great work we’ve already done that our members care about—strong legislation, public education, electing fair-minded candidates, marriage equality and more.”

Ron Buckmire, head of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, agrees. “Roland shares my values as a progressive activist who truly believes that LGBT equality is just one fabulous thread in the intertwined tapestry of social justice,” Buckmire said on July 21. “He’s only been on the job less than three weeks, but I think he’s doing an excellent job so far and I expect that to continue for years.”

It’s ironic. EQCA (then CARE) was born in out of the implosion of LIFE and has served as the gay lobby group in Sacramento since the late 90’s. But with a perspective that LGBT equality is but a thread in a fabric and with significant emphasis placed on Palencia’s ethnicity, it seems pretty clear that to whatever extent that Equality California has served lately as representative of the broader gay community, it no longer does so. And the shift in focus is already evident.

It was gay newsman Rex Wockner who, seeing no movement on EQCA’s part to support the FAIR Act (a pro-gay educational bill) used his own network to rally letters to the Governor. And while some strategists believe that as an effort must be raised to defend this bill (opponents have began signature gathering for a proposition) it might be the the best and most cost efficient time to couple it with an initiative to reverse Proposition 8 – or at least come up with a strategy on the anti-gay effort – Palencia seems to have other priorities.

During the interview, Palencia continually said that no decisions had been made on strategy about both responding to the SB 48 threat, as well as whether or not to return to the ballot to overturn Prop. 8 in 2012.
…
But Palencia would not get specific about questions such as whether there is a “Decline to Sign” campaign in the works and what an initiative campaign structure would look like.

“We are having conversations with our coalition partners on how to respond,” Palencia said. “We will be coming out with a strategy about the kind of help we will need.”

And Palencia’s vagueness extends to who is involved in EQCA’s decision on the matter or even if any actual gay people are included. (My guess: if you can’t say “yes, there are gay people” then you don’t have any).

But while I think it is fairly evident that EQCA will no longer be a gay organization, I’m not really sure that this is a loss. Under its previous leadership, EQCA used astonishingly poor judgement in its anemic opposition to Proposition 8. So if Palencia decides that reversing the gay marriage ban does not really fit with his social justice agenda, that might be to our advantage.

And, honestly, if my rights need to be blessed as the highest priority of a coalition of progressive heterosexuals before any action is taken, then I’d rather they just sit the effort out. There will always be someone else more deserving of social justice than me and I’d rather work with someone who hasn’t got conflicting priorities.

And perhaps there isn’t as much need for EQCA anymore. It is not the same state that it was in the 90’s and Californians are not the same people. We’ve accomplished a great deal – much of it due to EQCA’s efforts over the years – and each year the legislative battles seem less important and bit more “something for the gays”.

While gays and lesbians in other states are fighting battles over being denied adoption rights, we are getting Harvey Milk Day. And while they are fighting to have any form of recognition of their relationships, our legislation is to require textbooks to teach about the positive contributions of gay people while banning “any matter reflecting adversely on a person due to their sexual orientation.”

I’m sure these bills – along with the nasty rhetoric of those in opposition – fill us with a sense of purpose. But it’s been quite a while since California textbooks reflected adversely on a person due to their sexual orientation and the importance seems a bit, well, contrived.

So maybe its time for EQCA to go serve some other purpose. They had a good long run, accomplished a lot, and (if we forget that unpleasant Proposition 8 issue) can go with their head held high.

But I do have a word of caution for them as they transition away. As the “gay legislative group” EQCA had a niche, an identified role. But the position of ‘progressive Californian political organization that has some interest in gay issues’ is already filled by the Courage Campaign. And I won’t be betting on EQCA.

New York’s new role

One of the consequences of marriage equality that doesn’t get much attention in the debate is the way in which it impacts a state’s involvement in lawsuits. And yet, this is no small matter.

States have rights. Constitutionally, our nation has divided its powers between issues of national concern (such as defense) and issues of state autonomy (such as licensing of professionals). Family law, including the criteria for marriage, has been traditionally considered to be the purview of the state while the role of the federal government has been primarily limited in this area to interstate conflicts or civil rights protections.

But the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an exception. It presumes, in paragraph 3, that the federal government holds veto power over marriage and can – for any matter that impacts any federal program – replace the state’s criteria with its own. If the marriage criteria in Vermont doesn’t meet the approval of the Senator from Alabama or the Congressman from Mississippi, then by securing a bare majority of fellow legislators they can dictate to Vermont which of its citizens can be considered married for Social Security, taxation, and health care, and which are deemed by Alabama and Mississippi to be unworthy.

This encroachment into the territory of the states was likely in violation of the US Constitution from the start. But that didn’t really matter for so long as states were limiting marriage to opposite sex couples. Courts are not receptive to abstract victims or potential loss of theoretical rights; to present your case, you need to be an aggrieved party.

And when New York’s legislature enacted marriage equality, it became an aggrieved party. Having authorized same-sex marriages, the state not only assumed the burden of protecting these marriages, but became itself a victim of federal infringement through DOMA3, and assumed the burden of protecting itself.

Actually, New York is a bit unusual in that the state recognized – though through legal interpretation rather than legislation or judicial determination – out-of-state same-sex marriages prior to their vote. So there has been, for some time, a theoretical right (though perhaps not obligation) to protect such couples as were abiding in the state but married elsewhere. But the vote removed any ambiguity; marriage equality is now the public policy and interest of the state.

And so, New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has begun to defend the state’s interests. In an amicus brief (pfd) filed in the case of Windsor v. United States, in which a widow was denied tax provisions granted to heterosexual widows, he said:

By refusing to recognize for federal purposes marriages that are valid under state law, DOMA intrudes on matters historically within the control of the States, and undermines and denigrates New York’s law designed to ensure equality of same-sex and different-sex married couples. Thus DOMA threatens basic principles of federalism. Moreover, it classifies and determines access to rights, benefits, and protections based on sexual orientation, and also based on sex.

Schneiderman’s also objects to the discrimination of New Yorkers on the basis of sexual orientation and sex, and those objections are important. That is an obligation of a state and the brief is valuable in that matter. But Windsor’s lawyers can defend her interests and do so competently.

Where Schneiderman’s argument is invaluable is where it is unique, it’s defense of its own interests.

But DOMA departs from the tradition of federal respect for the States’ definition of marriage, flatly rejecting the definition of marriage in New York and five other States and thereby elevating the choices of some States above those made by other States. In doing so, DOMA threatens “the constitutional equality of the states [that] is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” Coyne v. Smith, 221 U.S. 559, 580 (1911).

As Schneiderman implies, some State’s criteria for marriage is being applied, and it isn’t New York’s. To elevate Alabama’s laws to a national status and impose them on New York is precisely the sort of concern that consumed the constitutional convention and the US Constitution was written specifically to negotiate to what extent the separate autonomous states would act as one. Even individual rights were an afterthought.

From that time forward, Congress could not grant itself authority over matters belonging to the states. These are matters of the states alone, and the role of the federal government, congressional or judicial, has been interstate disputes and protecting the rights of the individual against the state. But Congress overstepped its bounds, and New York has joined that small club of states who have a cause to complain.

This position echoes and reinforces the position taken by Martha Coakley, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in Commonweath v. HHS. Her lawsuit also seeks to defend the rights of Massachusetts to define the criteria for marriage for its citizens.

Politically, this issue is an area in which our opponents are awkward and in conflict. Long loud advocates for states’ rights and federalism and smaller centralized government, Republicans are uncomfortable talking about DOMA and its provisions. It is quite one thing to deny equality to gay people but the idea of championing the usurpation of a state right by Washington threatens not only party rhetoric, but a core principle which many Republicans hold dear.

Which is perhaps one reason why you don’t hear much from Congress or from party leadership in defense of DOMA. The presidential candidates, especially those who seem to be counting on the presumed stupidity of their base, try to simultaneously appeal to anti-gay prejudice and states right advocates by babbling nonsense about “respecting the decisions of the states” and also “supporting a constitutional amendment”.

But outside of the social-issue focused religious conservatives, you don’t hear many people defending the merits of DOMA. Even John Boehner, who has taken up the task of defending the law, talks more in terms of letting the courts rather than the President decide the law’s constitutionality and speaks only in the abstract about the nature of the law or defense of its merits. And even Texas Governor Rick Perry, a strong opponent to gay rights in Texas, surprised some conservatives with his take: (AP)

“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me,” he said to applause from several hundred GOP donors in Aspen, Colo. “That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

Ultimately, there need be (and will be) a Supreme Court decision that finds that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by the federal, state, and other government is in conflict with the US Constitution. But now that more than ten percent of the nation’s citizens live with conflicting state and federal marriage criteria, it may be the violation of the Tenth Amendment upon which DOMA is decided.

Bachmann Blacklists TV Station Over Interview About Ex-Gay Therapy

Earlier this month when it was revealed that the clinic operated by Michele Bachmann’s husband was providing ex-gay therapy to clients, Bachmann appeared on a Davenport television station to defend her husband’s practice, calling it “jobs creation.”

Since then, that station, WQAD, had been placed on a campaign blacklist, barred from interviewing the candidate. Last night, Bachmann was in the Quad Cities area on a campaign stop, and despite despite promises to WQAD for a one-on-one interview, the Bachmann’s handlers “aggressively denied News 8 access to the Iowa Republican front-runner.” WQAD’s Chuck McClurg describes the scene:

“I followed them outside hoping to get the interview I was promised,” said McClurg

McClurg began rolling his camera as another local Quad Cities news station started asking their questions.

“I started to tape something off of that interview and a staffer pushed me aside and stood in front of my camera and said that this was for the other station only.”

The reporter asked a question about Bachmann’s clinic and her husband. At that point, McClurg says the staffer took the microphone off of Bachmann, tossed it to the reporter and said their interview was over. McClurg said he thought he would then get his turn after he was respectful of the campaign staffer’s wishes.

“I was standing (there) and I brought up my camera and that’s when all of the staffers pushed her on,” said McClurg. “I’ve been a photojournalist since 1988 and I have logged some 3,000 items. I’ve never been snubbed like I was (here) yesterday.”

Here is video of the encounter:

WQAD reveals that during the original interview two weeks ago when Bachmann was asked about her husband’s offering of ex-gay therapy, there was considerable drama taking place behind the scenes:

During the satellite interview, behind the scenes, it got ugly. In the News 8 control room, campaign staffers threatened WQAD producers that they would cut off the feed if Rae Chelle repeated the question. A follow-up question was asked on the issue. The Congresswoman’s answers were aired nationally on ABC World News Tonight and Nightline.