In February, the CityPaper looked into some of Motley’s business practices with the city and found them to be curious. It seems that Barry was lining Motley’s pockets with city money and that Motley was responding by providing personal favors to Barry including the loan of a Mercedes.

He “personally received at least $54,000 from [fiscal 2009] earmark grant recipients”—earmarks all requested by Barry.
…
Under the terms of a settlement agreement with federal prosecutors in his long-running federal tax-fraud case, Barry has to fully report his income and spending to authorities on a monthly basis in order to determine how much of his income is seized in order to pay back taxes. If Barry were to include payments on a luxury vehicle, they could demand an adjustment to Barry’s repayment schedule.

The article continues with several other instances in which Motley’s behavior either crossed or skirted the line of legality. In fact, an investigation into improprieties in Barry’s earmarks found that Motley had forged documents and engaged in self-dealing in addition to using educational funds set up for poor children to pay for political “councils” which in turn paid him. All of which suggests that not only is Anthony Motley a political ally of Marion Barry, but he appears to share both Barry’s personal taste for power and privilege and his questionable ethics.

None of which matters to the National Organization for Marriage. There is no scoundrel too shady or wactivist too hateful to be endorsed, supported, and funded by NOM. All that matters is that Motley shares NOM’s opposition to marriage equality.

As of last June, Motley was not yet on board with NOM’s agenda. At that time he was singing a different song. (WaPo)

Motley said in an interview that there are divisions in the city that he wants to eliminate: geography and race but also one between ministers and the gay and lesbian community.

Motley said he pulled together a meeting between the two groups to talk about the legalization of gay marriage. Motley, who said he has supported domestic partnerships and other gay issues in the past, said he has not decided whether he supports legalizing same-sex nuptials. “I’m evolving on that,” he said. “I have not gotten to the point that I can say definitively.”

But since NOM has a check-book (and no accountability), Motley has now evolved a position and decided that he really likes divisions after all.

So it is no surprise that NOM is funding Motley. (MetroWeekly)

Motley has accepted two campaign contributions from NOM, and another from the Committee to Elect Delano Hunter. Hunter is running for a seat to represent Ward 5. He has also been supported by NOM.

”Obviously we’re interested in electing candidates that will support traditional marriage and allowing voters of D.C. the right to have their say on the issue,” Brian Brown, executive director of NOM, says. ”Rev. Motley does.”

Sadly, is is also no surprise that NOM seems to have broken the law to do so.

According to the D.C. Office of Campaign Finance (OCF), candidates seeking election for a City Council At-Large seat may accept no more than $1,000 from one organization or individual. But Motley’s campaign contribution listings on OCF’s official web site, shows that it accepted $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, PPC,” on January 29, and another $950 from ”The National Organization for Marriage, Inc.” on February 1.

Brown says the two contributions were a mistake and that only one should have been made.

Perhaps it was just a reporting error. Perhaps it was a mistake and NOM accidentally gave more than they intended. Perhaps it’s all innocent.

But why is it that every time National Organization for Marriage becomes involved in a campaign, there are questionable practices or laws ignored or broken?

However, Monserrate’s ouster was at least in part due to internal Democratic Party annoyance with him. He had aligned himself with a handful of other Senators and sought to use the tiny party majority as a bargaining point to advance his own personal power and profile. This coup attempt resulted in months of deadlock and confusion with the leadership changing hands at least twice, the doors of the Senate being locked to one faction, and other nonsense. So when it came time for the Party to rally behind a member in need and to overlook his “accident”, he found few willing.

Adding to the discontent was his vote against marriage equality. When Hiram Monserrate ran for the Senate, he portrayed himself as an ally of the gay community and a certain vote for marriage. But instead, he was one of eight Democrats who voted for discrimination and for reserving special rights and privileges for heterosexuals.

And it was on this vote that Monserrate ran a campaign to be re-elected to the seat from which he had just been removed. He was endorsed by, the Queens Hispanic Clergy Association, a collection of pastors and other religious leaders whose sole focus was on opposing gay equality. (YourNabe.com)

The Rev. Ricardo Reyes of El Elyon Christian Church in Corona said he represented 612 churches in Queens that oppose same-sex marriage and praised Monserrate for his record of supporting community groups.

“I have seen a generation sunk down by the gay community,” Reyes said. “If we vote for a gay marriage situation … we are sending our children to practice something against the Bible.”

The other candidate in the race was Jose Peralta. While Peralt received the support and endorsement of the Party structure and the unions, much of his financial and grassroots support came from gay individuals and groups who sought to punish Monserrate for his vote and for his newly-adopted anti-gay activism.

While Peralta ran on the scandal, Monserrate and his Queens Hispanic Clergy Association tried to make this a referendum on marriage. Surely, the people of the 13th Senate District in Queens would rather have a man who “accidentally” harmed his girlfriend – who has forgiven him – than the scourge of gay marriage! Right?

No. Yesterday, Jose Peralta became the new Senator-elect. It wasn’t close. (Newsday)

With 81 percent of the precincts reporting, Assemb. Jose Peralta (D-Corona) beat Hiram Monserrate with 66 percent of the vote. Monserrate had 27 percent.

The voters took a look at Monserrate, and Queens chose gay marriage.

No such luck, Eichelberger. (On Top)

Eichelberger’s resolution would insert the following language into the state constitution: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid and recognized as a marriage in this Commonwealth.”

But three Republican and five Democratic lawmakers disagreed. Joining all the committee’s Democrats in killing the resolution were Republicans Pat Browne, Jane Earll and Mary Jo White.

It must have Eichelberger wondering why (PhillyBurbs)

The latest effort to amend Pennsylvania’s constitution to effectively ban gay marriage appeared dead today after three senators who supported an even broader measure two years ago changed their vote in committee, according to the Associated Press.

But there was no debate whatsoever on the bill, so we can only speculate about possible motivations. It may well be that these Senators have come to know and love gay people in their lives. They may have found a new respect for equality.

Of course, there is also another possibility. (Pennsylvania Progressive)

I spend a fair amount of time in Harrisburg. I know who is closeted. Any closeted Senator who votes for Eichelberger’s bill will be outed. I also know a State Senator who is wildly homophobic and is also an alcoholic. One of her rants will also be made public depending on her vote. This is fair warning.

We’ll probably never know what led to their decisions. I’m just happy they voted as they did.

Campbell’s team is crying, “No fair”

Campbell spokesman James Fisfis said the campaign is more upset that the ad compares Campbell to Boxer on taxes. He says the two are worlds apart on that issue.

Gotta love that answer.

On Monday, Judge Felix Gustavo de Igarzabal of Buenos Aires reversed a decision which allowed two gay men to marry at the city’s civil registry office on March 3. In his ruling the judge said no marriage took place “because of the absence of the institution’s structural elements,” in this case a man and a woman, and thus declared the act to be invalid.

We hear that the Supreme Court is expected to hear the case, so this may not be the final resolution.

In a 4-1 vote, the Kissimmee City Commission approved health and dental benefits for domestic partners of city employees, whether they’re the same sex or opposite sex.

This adds another 60,894 people (2007 estimate) to the total 27,269,114 estimated Americans who live in a community which – though in an unfriendly state – has offered some measure of recognition to same-sex relationships.

The new rules let employees purchase the benefits for their partners.

“It will also give domestic partners the same benefits as spouses as it relates to sick leave and one of the other items is that we have a policy that [city employees] cannot supervise [their] spouse and this will apply to domestic partners as well,” says Grieb.

Employees can also take advantage of sick leave if the children of their domestic partners become ill.

The measure cannot provide full compensation equality because of federal and state law. The State of Florida will not allow the children of partners to be covered by insurance unless they are formally adopted – which the state also bans (so much for “protecting the children”). And due to the Federal Government considering coverage of non-heterosexual spouses to be taxable income, Kissimmee will not offer the $10 per paycheck spousal coverage stipend they offer married employees.

There was a protest in late February led by a local pastor, but it did not appear to be well attended. (oscnewsgazette)

Initially, [Iglesia Christiana Renuevo assistant pastor Modesto] Vega’s group was against any domestic partner benefits, as he stated in his request for a permit to hold the protest, dated Feb. 9. However, the signs protesters held Tuesday stated that the group was only against such benefits to a same-sex partner.

The dozen and a half or so protesters, who were organized by an association of 35 to 40 local pastors, said they were motivated by religious beliefs. Vega told Grieb that domestic partnership benefits could be the beginning of tolerance that could lead to Florida allowing gay marriage.

No one spoke against the proposal at the meeting, and more than 300 business owners in Kissimmee had signed a petition to back the decision.

From the San Jose Mercury News:

A federal magistrate is ordering several gay rights groups that campaigned against California’s 2008 same-sex marriage ban to furnish some internal memos and e-mails to lawyers for the measure’s sponsors.
…
Spero says Equality California, Californians Against Eliminating Basic Rights, an ACLU campaign committee and an umbrella group that oversaw the campaign against the ban must hand over all documents “that contain, refer or relate to arguments for or against Proposition 8,” with the exception private communications between their core leaders.

This is a very perplexing order for several reasons:

First: The reason that Olson-Boies had access to the Protect Marriage campaign, was because it was pertinent to the question of the trial: was Prop 8 based on anti-gay animus and marketed to appeal to prejudice. Because this dealt with the intentions of the Yes on 8 side, their internal documents were relevant.

But the motivations or intentions of No on 8 were not up for question. There was nothing in the internal documents from No on 8 that could shed any light whatsoever on the question of whether Proposition 8 was intended to deny a class of Californians from equal protections. Nothing in these documents will tell the court whether Yes on 8 was motivated by animus, because they aren’t Yes on 8’s documents and don’t reflect their views.

Second: The trial is over. The testimony is concluded and the final written arguments have been presented. It is unlikely that the turn over of Equality California’s documents to the anti-gay activists will or even could occur before final arguments are made and Judge Walker makes his determination. So it is confusing exactly how this request advances the pursuit of justice in this case.

Third: As this order has no value on the merits of the case, it appears to be purely political in nature. I’m not suggesting that Justice Spero is engaging in judicial activism, but rather this seems to be an order purely to be “fair” so that “both sides can see each others’ secrets”.

But legal proceedings are to be based on the law, not on making both sides happy. “Making everyone happy” is not a standard that is applied to disclosure in criminal or corporate law.

This decision seems to be a product of the culture war. But justices are sworn to defend the constitution, not make sure that the culture warriors are each provided with the same ammunition.

Listen below or subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (click here, then click “subscribe” in the iTunes window).

Download audio file (342010btb.mp3)

Direct link to audio file available here.

Yesterday, after heated debate – with much emphasis on the adoption provision – the Slovenian Parliament passed a first reading of the bill by a vote of 46 to 38.

According to the NYU Law School, a bill undergoes three readings, the first of which is a debate over the reasons, principles, and goals of the law.

(hat tip to reader Hall)

Portugal – The parliament has now finalized the language of the bill and around the first of the month sent it to President Cavaco Silva. Silva is a member of the PSD party and has spoken in the past in opposition to same-sex marriage recognition. It is uncertain what he will do.

Silva has four choices. He can sign the bill, send it to the Supreme Court within 8 days, or refuse to sign it and return it to Parliament within 20 days (a form of veto). Prime Minister José Sócrates has stated that he has the requisite two-thirds vote to overturn a Presidential veto.

Nepal – This Asian nation is scheduled to implement a new constitution by May 28, 2010. This new constitution is reported to have marriage equality provisions. Nepal has been capitalizing on this change in hopes of increasing tourism.

Luxembourg – This tiny duchy has had civil partnership laws since 2004. However, at the end of January, Minister of Justice François Biltgen announced that the nation would legalize civil gay marriage before Parliament’s summer break. Gay couples will not be allowed to adopt.

Iceland – This vast island with its hardy but tiny population has had registered partnerships since 1996. The current government, helmed by lesbian Prime Minister Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, is committed to changing the law to enact marriage equality. Although no time line is currently reported, as of 18 November 2009, the Minister of Justice and Human Rights confirmed that the government was working on such an act.

This is not likely to be a highly controversial issue in Iceland. Only one lawmaker voted against the 1996 partnerships and the 2006 upgrade was passed unanimously.

Argentina – There have now been two legal same-sex marriages in that country opening up a precedent, if not exactly law. However, the current governmental leadership has indicated support for marriage equality and there are bills currently under consideration. Although movement forward was scheduled for last November, but parliamentary procedures were used to delay the decision until 2010. The two judicially authorized marriages may be seen as impetus for the legislature to enact marriage as a matter of legislation rather than concede to judicial mandate.

Cyprus – The Attorney-general’s office, Law Commissioner, Ombudswoman, and senior representatives of the relevant government ministries will meet this month to discuss whether the island off the coast of Turkey and Syria will adopt marriage equality.

To make the race even more uncertain, the European Court of Human Rights heard testimony last week from an Austrian couple suing for marriage rights. On Tuesday, the court determined that Poland could not treat a gay man and his partner differently than a married couple. It is expected to announce within the next few months whether European states can deny marriage to same-sex couples or whether civil unions, such as those adopted by Austria at the first of the year, were sufficient to protect equal rights.

So we see movement in Europe, Asia, and the Americas and at the most northern and most southern parts of the globe. And, of course, we may always be surprised by an unexpected nation taking this step, as well as determinations in the European . But, whichever moves first, it will certainly be a spring to remember.

UPDATE:

Slovenia – This eastern neighbor of Italy, and former portion of communist Yugoslavia, has already begun the process of changing their laws to allow for marriage equality. Their legislature voted yesterday to advance the bill.