But it appears that her commitment was not just of the ‘promises in public’ variety. Gillibrand is proving to be the kind of ally that doesn’t magically discover higher priorities or some mystical need for unanimity before acting on our behalf. (Daily News)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has put LGBT issues on the top of her “to-do” list as she works to shore up her liberal credentials, has placed personal phone calls to on-the-fence Democratic state senators in hopes of getting them to vote “yes” on gay marriage.

Gillibrand’s office confirmed calls had been made, but refused to say who the recipients had been or if anyone had specifically asked the junior senator to weigh in.

“She made calls, yes; and they were private conversations,” Gillibrand spokesman Matt Canter said. “She did it because it’s an issue she cares deeply about.”

[Upcoming] Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said today it would be irresponsible for Democrats to bring a bill to a vote if they are not sure it will pass.

So it might be killed in committee.

As legislators try to finagle votes for one side or another, Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) said he would not bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee — even though enough people in the committee supported it to pass — unless the Democrats could prove they had the votes to pass it outright.

You know, the same ol’ BS. Yeah we ‘don’t have the votes’ and we won’t tell you who is opposed to equality or unwilling to take a stand but gosh golly we are going to need your dollars, your time, and your help in our campaigns. And if you knew exactly who didn’t give a rat’s ass about you, well ya just might not work as hard for us.

I’ll tell you who I think doesn’t give a rat’s ass.

I’ll start with Stephen Sweeney. And I’ll follow with every person who does not stand up and make a proactive effort to get this passed. “Oh, I just followed the leadership” means exactly the same as, “I don’t give a rat’s ass any more than the leadership does” and should be rewarded with the same.

There is a narrow window. And the people of the state are behind marriage equality. But some of these New Jersey politicians are living up to the stereotype of New Jersey politicians.

There are some wonderful people in Jersey. Some of them are gay, and many many more are friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances who value their gay loved ones more than they value their elected official’s career.

Maybe it’s time that we got the list of Sweeney’s donors and found those with gay friends and family. Maybe a personal appeal from those loved ones might encourage them that a better use for the political donations could be found.

Who knows, maybe we could make enough of a change that Sweeney might suddenly find that he gives a rat’s ass.

The email starts like this:

All Christians are called to follow the Beatitudes. Since our nation’s founding, America in particular has benefited from the fact that churches have united together to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the fatherless and motherless, and comfort the sorrowful.

He rambles on with the lies that the Catholic Church in the District has put out about how treating gay people like people will stop them from giving hot soup to the homeless. But it wasn’t these prevarications that caught my eye, I’m used to NOM’s hyperbole.

What I noticed was something else entirely. Brian Brown seems to have no clue what the Beatitudes actually say. Presented as part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are not a call from Christians to help the poor. Rather, they are consolation and a promise of a better future: (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are several places in Scripture where the followers of Christ are admonished to attend the physical needs of those around them. And it is true that Christians have often taken those commands to heart. But the Beatitudes are not among them.

I might be more convinced that Brown and Gallagher were motivated by a deep spiritual conviction rather than base animus if they didn’t evidence such biblical illiteracy. And I wonder if any of their followers even noticed… or cared.

In the United States, in some states any concession of even the least controversial of rights is a great contention, while in others, the line in the sand appears to be protecting the “sanctity” of the label.

As an American, I don’t always fully understand European perspectives and may not get the full nuance. But as best I can tell, in Europe there seems to be a separate contention, one that is not given much importance in the United State: whether a ceremony can be performed and what building can be used. (And Europeans see adoption as part of the marriage question, while Americans see the issues as separate and state laws tend to treat them separately).

So, for example, in the UK the biggest distinction between marriage and civil unions (other than nomenclature) is that a gay couple cannot use a space that has been designated for religious use and cannot have a ceremony as part of their legal process.

To Americans it seems odd that a government would disallow a church the right to conduct a wedding. And the idea of banning people from conducting their union with the ceremony of their choice seems impending on liberty. In the United States, not only do the states that recognize marriage have no such restrictions, neither do any of the states that recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions. Americans care about “recognition” and what will be “taught in schools” and the “right” for religious folks to be obnoxious jerks and other such red herrings.

Indeed, among the first to rejoice with gay couples are always Unitarian and often many other religious leaders who delight in making their religious space available for the consecration of such unions. With as much ceremony as the couple desires.

But that is not the European way.

So it is not with much surprise that the new bill in Austria to legalize civil unions is one that emphasizes ceremony and participants. (AFP)

Austria’s government agreed a new law Tuesday allowing civil partnerships for homosexual couples, although ceremonies at the civil registry’s office will still be banned.

The compromise, achieved after weeks of wrangling between the ruling Social Democrats and their conservative coalition partner in government, will give gay couples equal rights to heterosexuals with regards to pensions and alimony.
…
The proposal came up against strong opposition from the conservative People’s Party, which fought any attempts to allow civil partnership ceremonies at the civil registry’s office, where gay couples can marry.

Instead, civil partnerships will be registered at the municipal office or the magistrate’s office — the local authority of which the registry’s office is only a part.

The change will be effective January 1 after final approval by parliament.

This is an important step for gay Austrians (not many of whom are like Bruno).

Prior to this legislation, laws applying to de facto couples, called unregistered cohabitation, also applied to same-sex couples as the result of a 2003 decision of the European Court of Human Rights. However such rights inherent in that status were limited and the protections and recognition of same-sex couples are greatly enhanced by this bill.

And perhaps some day soon Austrians will cease to care whether their gay brothers and sisters can also solemnize their unions with a ceremony and in what building they do so.

More New Jerseyans support legalizing gay marriage than oppose it, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted between Nov. 6 and 10, found 46 percent of adult residents want to extend the right to gay couples while 42 percent oppose it. Still undecided were 12 percent of respondents.

There has long been talk of instituting marriage equality during the lame duck session that begins next week. However, recent comments from the Democratic leadership of some committees suggests that they are looking for excuses to avoid a vote.

There is a very narrow window in which to pass a marriage bill. Otherwise we are on hold in New Jersey for another four years or until Christie is replaced.

New York’s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group’s challenge to some government benefits provided to gay couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.

The court rejected an argument that same-sex marriage was akin to incest and polygamy but avoided declaring that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.

In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question of benefits, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the state must recognize same-sex marriage but encouraged the Legislature to settle the issue. The case was pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.

Today, Lambda Legal has announced a lawsuit in Federal Court in Tucson on behalf of ten state employees seeking to block the elimination of DP benefits. According to a press release from Lambda Legal (no link yet):

“This is an issue of equal pay for equal work,” said Tara Borelli, staff attorney for Lambda Legal. “By stripping away these vital benefits from loyal state employees, the state isn’t just paying them less for the same work than their heterosexual colleagues — it’s pulling away a vital lifeline that all workers need. This is simply cruel and saves the state next to nothing.”

…”This discriminatory elimination of vital health benefits denies equal pay for equal work to a small, politically vulnerable group of dedicated public workers who perform valuable services and pay equal taxes. By stripping gay and lesbian state employees of health coverage for a domestic partner, the new law unfairly and unconstitutionally inflicts severe hardship upon a targeted group of Arizona families,” added Borelli.

Actually, there are five separate propositions for which signatures can be collected. Each reverses the language of Proposition 8 and provides clarity that no clergy person will be required to perform marriages contrary to the teachings of their faith.

It is difficult to state at the moment whether these are competing propositions due to disorganization or if perhaps (knowing their lack of ethics) anti-gays are trying to sabotage the process.

In any case, Love Honor Cherish has a new website, Sign For Equality, with petitions which can be downloaded and printed. So those of you who support bringing this challenge back to the ballot next year can start collecting signatures now. Love Honor Cherish is trying to do this without spending money for signature collectors, so they can use your help.

While I respect the opinions of those who favor waiting until 2012 or later, my personal opinion is that we bring this to the ballot every general election, every two years, until the voters get it right.

Meghan has been feeling the ire of those within the Party who think that her ideological support for equality disqualifies her as a Republican. So she’s a bit pissed about the priorities of some of the stalwart conservatives who don’t like her but welcome Carrie Prejean with open arms.

After watching several of Prejean’s media appearances this week, it was not her incredibly uncomfortable threat to walk out on Larry King that had me most unnerved; it was actually her appearance on Sean Hannity’s show. This was Prejean’s first stop on her book publicity tour, and when the sex tape came up, he proceeded to ask her if she was “in love with her boyfriend at the time that she made [it].” I’m sorry, why would being in love matter when it comes to filming yourself in a sexual context?

Meghan notes the hypocrisy of those who are quick to forgive you of anything if you are adequately anti-gay.

The problem I have with my fellow Republicans is why gay marriage is the trump card in any situation. It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however—and I have been very vocal about my support—that position defines you.

Sometimes I wonder if I were against marriage equality, whether it would make it easier for some Republicans to accept my place within this party. I have to constantly remind people of my pro-life, pro-small government stance because the only view that seems to matter is the fact that I believe my gay friends should have the same right to one of our founding ideals—that all men are created equal with certain inalienable rights. I think if Republicans truly believe in keeping government out of our lives—that should include not dictating who one can marry.

Many believe that it was Carrie Prejean’s anti-gay marriage views that cost her the Miss USA pageant earlier this year. My question is: When it comes to Republicans, is your position on gay marriage what determines your fate within the party?

Personally, I think the party needs to ask itself whether it wants to be a party that the Meghan McCains of the country can join or whether it wishes to only appeal to those with the perception, character, and intellect of Carrie Prejean.

Buenos Aires Mayor Mauricio Macri has decided not to appeal the ruling. (CNN)

His decision was not easy, Macri said. Many people wanted him to appeal.

“I had an important internal debate, weighing my upbringing with my search for the best customs and best liberties for society,” he said in a videotaped message on his Facebook page.

“What we have to learn is to live in liberty without violating the rights of others,” he said.

All of which breaths new life into the lyrics

What’s new Buenos Aires?
I’m new, I wanna say I’m just a little stuck on you
You’ll be on me too

(hat tip Burr)