Box Turtle Bulletin

Washington Ref 71 Update

Jim Burroway

November 4th, 2009

Returns continue to trickle in for Washington’s vote-by-mail election, in which voters are asked to uphold that state’s Domestic Partnership registry. The Washington office of Secretary of State reports as of 5:47 pm PST:

Approve: 573,698 — 51.82%
Reject: 533,488 — 48.18 %

According to the Seattle Times, about 600,000 ballots remain uncounted, with about half of them from King County (Seattle), where Referendum 71 is winning by a 2-1 margin.

Wisconsin to Keep Domestic Partnerships

Timothy Kincaid

November 4th, 2009

On this day that we mourn the loss of equality in one state, we can rejoice that another has had a victory in its efforts to provide some measure of protection to its gay citizens.

In 2006, Wisconsin voters passed a constitutional amendment by 59%-41% which banned both same-sex marriage and “legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage”. And anti-gay activists rejoiced, believing that this ensured that lifelong committed gay couples would be denied any and all rights that were given willy-nilly to any six times divorced, drunken Vegas chapel, heterosexual couple.

But in June, the governor signed a budget which included the authorization of a registry for domestic partners and which granted a very limited number of specific rights.

Determined that gay couples should not be allowed to enjoy hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, joint tenancy rights, and the ability to take Family Medical Leave (FMLA) to care for a sick/injured partner or non-biological/non-adopted child, anti-gay activists sued claiming that such a registry violated the “no rights for gay people” clause of the state constitution.

And they appealed directly to the state supreme court, hoping that such protections could be denied promptly. The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not grant their wish. (KSTP)

The state Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit challenging Wisconsin’s domestic partner registry.

The court offered no explanation in an order issued Tuesday.

But while this is a victory for decency and equality, it is not settled. They can still go through the process of trial court and appeals.

Owens Wins Over Spoiler

Timothy Kincaid

November 3rd, 2009

For the past century and a half, New York congressional seat 23 has been in Republican hands. But when the local Republican leadership selected a candidate for the special election who supported marriage equality, that was just too much for some conservative out-of-state Republicans. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Armey, and others built a national campaign in support of the Conservative Party candidate – all for the purpose of destroying Dede Scozzafava.

And, millions of dollars later and hours of talk radio ranting, that is all they accomplished.

Unwilling to accept a Republican that agreed with them sometimes, they handed the election over to a Democrat who would have otherwise had little chance. The final vote was:

Bill Owens – Dem. – 60,824 – 49.0%
Doug Hoffman – Con. – 56,450 – 45.5%
Dede Scozzafava – Rep. – 6,855 – 5.5%

(Even though Scozzafava withdrew from the race over the weekend and endorsed Owens, her name was still on the ballot and drew some protest votes)

But the extremists will not see this as a loss. Rather, they are delighted that they drove from the Party a long-time faithful and active Republican because she was “Republican In Name Only”. They embody the politics of exclusion, rejection, and arrogance. And if the Party caters to them, it does so at its own peril.

But although the most pro-gay candidate was driven out, there is a silver lining. Hoffman did not win. And when the extremists whine and moan about Nancy Pelosi, they will know deep in the back of their mind, that they gave her another vote. I can hardly wait for the day on which Owens’ one vote makes the difference on a bill they deeply care about.

Republicans Win Governors Races in Virginia and New Jersey

Timothy Kincaid

November 3rd, 2009

In what was a not-unexpected result, the governorship of Virginia and New Jersey have changed parties.

This is relevant to us in that Governor Corzine of NJ had been criticized for supporting marriage equality. However, the race was fairly close (unlike the Virginia race which was called within minutes of the polls closing) and it is unlikely that it can be translated as some referendum on marriage. It has long been rumored to be the intention of Corzine and the legislature to pass marriage equality during the lame duck session before Governor-Elect Christie is inaugurated.

Oregon Advocates Mull Repealing Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Jim Burroway

November 3rd, 2009

In 2004, Oregon voters approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In 2007, the legislature approved a law allowing limited domestic partnerships, a measure that survived a petition challenge. Now Basic Rights Oregon and Freedom to Marry are testing the waters to see whether another ballot measure to rescind the 2004 amendment is feasible. If so, they’re thinking about mounting a campaign no earlier than 2012.

Kalamazoo Claims Victory

Jim Burroway

November 3rd, 2009

One Kalamazoo, which has been facing a bruising election fight to retain that city’s anti-discrimination ordinance against a blistering attack by the religious right, is claiming victory (no link yet):

With only absentee ballots outstanding, 65 percent of Kalamazoo voters have approved Ordinance 1856 by a vote of 6,463 to 3,527, adding protections for gay and transgender people to the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance. This margin is larger than the number of outstanding absentee ballots that are currently being counted.

Obama Expected To Announce End Of HIV Travel Ban

Jim Burroway

October 30th, 2009

The Advocate’s Kerry Eleveld is reporting that White House sources indicate that President Barack Obama is expected to announce the end of the HIV travel ban on Friday during a signing ceremony for the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act. The ban was first implemented in 1987 and became law in 1993. It bars HIV-positive non-U.S. citizens from traveling or immigrating to the United States. The ban is a legacy of the late Sen. Jesse Helms. Congress rescinded the law last year, and the Bush administration initiated the cumbersome rule-change process in order to lift the administrative application of the ban:

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) put the wheels of change in motion in late June by publishing the proposed regulation to the federal register, which triggered a 45-day public comment period. HHS has now sent the final change to the Office of Management and Budget for approval, but the source said HHS would not be able to fully implement the new regulation for another 60 days following the president’s announcement.

If we’re lucky, the ban should be officially lifted shortly after Christmas.

Maine AG to NOM: “What Is There To Hide?”

Jim Burroway

October 29th, 2009

As we reported a Federal Judge ruled against a lawsuit by the National Organization for Marriage claiming that Maine’s reporting requirements for ballot question campaigns are unconstitutional. In addition, the Judge ruled that Maine voters have a legitimate right to know how those campaigns are raising money and who’s behind it. That led Maine’s attorney general to challenge NOM to comply with the law before next week’s election.

Bolstered by the ruling, Maine’s attorney general challenged the advocacy group Wednesday night to make its records public before next week’s vote on Question 1.

“We are not going to give them legal advice. We trust that their legal counsel will advise them to comply fully,” said Attorney General Janet Mills. “The court has ruled that it is in the public interest to do so, and the law couldn’t be clearer.

“I would hope that they would file before the election,” Mills said. “Why not? What is there to hide?”

What indeed?

Judge Declares NOM Not Above The Law

Jim Burroway

October 28th, 2009

A federal judge has denied a request by the National Organization for Marriage for a temporary restraining order to suspend Maine’s campaign reporting requirements for ballot initiatives. NOM is currently footing nearly two-thirds of the total bill for Stand for Marriage Maine’s effort to pass Question 1. NOM complained that because they were not a Maine-based group, that they should be exempt from what they consider to be overbearing regulations for Political Action Committees.  The court disagreed (PDF: 187KB/32 pages):

Maine’s compelling interest in ensuring that the electorate knows who is financially supporting the views expressed on a particular ballot question cannot be satisfied by one-time reporting. Instead, Maine is entitled to conclude that its electorate needs to know, on an ongoing basis, the source of financial support for those who are taking positions on a ballot initiative. It will not do to say that a one-time disclosure in the week before the election is sufficient. That would not give the opposing viewpoint the opportunity to point out the source of the financing and seek to persuade the electorate that the source of support discounts the message.

This means that the Ethics Commission investigation will go forward, although the results will not likely be available before election day.

Poll Shows Maine’s Q1 Losing, Yes Side Shifts Gears

Jim Burroway

October 27th, 2009

We have more details on that poll on Maine’s Question 1. The poll is the Pan-Atlantic SMS Group’s final 2009 tracking poll (PDF: 227 KB/13 pages) on questions being put before Maine voters next week, and the news is very encouraging. Compared to a similar poll conducted two weeks ago, their statewide sample of 400 likely Maine voters on Question 1 breaks down this way:

	October 14	October 26
Vote YES	40.9%	40.0%
Lean YES	2.0%	1.5%
Vote NO	50.6%	51.8%
Lean NO	1.2%	0.8%
Undecided	5.2%	6.0%
Margin of error: 4.9%

Given the large margin of error, this shows things to be relatively stable. Despite all the fearmongering attack adds the YES side have been throwing at Maine voters, the NO side continues to hold a significant lead. Maybe that’s why Stand for Marriage Maine has decided to shift their tone with their latest television ad:

The tone is much less menacing, but the message is still there, softened with the assurance that “we want to be tolerant of gays.” Calling Maine’s second-class domestic partnerships adequate for LGBT couples, this ad claims that “it’s possible to support the civil rights of all citizens and protect traditional marriage at the same time.”

The ad includes text from Maine’s Office of Health Data and Program Management, which administers Maine’s Domestic Partnership Registry, which states that ”registered domestic partners are accorded a legal status similar to that of a married person with respect to matters of probate, guardianships, conservatorships, inheritance, protection from abuse, and related matters.”

But the act is actually very limited. Click on either of the links for “Instructions and Information for the Domestic Partnership Registry,” and you’ll find this notice:

It is important to remember that a registered domestic partnership is NOT the same as a marriage and does not entitle partners to rights other than those for which the registry was intended. This registry is intended to allow individuals to have rights of inheritance as well as the rights to make decisions regarding disposal of their deceased partners remains.

In other words, most of these these so-called “benefits” only kick in when one of the partners is seriously ill or dead. And somehow I get the impression that this is exactly the way they want it.

Conservatives Seek to Make Republican Party Even Smaller

Timothy Kincaid

October 27th, 2009

Much attention is being paid to the 23rd Congressional Seat in Upstate New York. This Republican district, previously held by current Secretary of the Army John McHugh, may well elect a Democrat; and it may well be entirely due to the extremism of far right conservatives.

Although a rural New York district, the 23rd borders Vermont and Canada and is less invested in ultra-conservative social policy agenda items than, say, a rural Alabama district. Consequently, the local Republican Party leadership selected Dede Scozzafava, a moderate candidate, to represent the party in the mid-term election.

This did not sit well with the social conservative wing of the party. And wingnuts ranging from Rush Limbaugh to Sarah Palin have endorsed Doug Hoffman, the candidate running with the backing of the Conservative Party. They would rather split the Republican vote and destroy Scozzafava’s campaign – in order to “send a message” – than allow a Republican to be elected who dares stray from their tight agenda.

And Scozzafava’s sins? I’m sure you guessed them. Dede is pro-gay and pro-choice. In fact, she has voted twice in the New York House to legalize same-sex marriage. GASP!!

Well. They. Can’t. Have. That!! Can you imagine it? A Congressional Republican who supports marriage equality?

So extremists from around the nation (but not so much the district) are financing and pushing for Doug Hoffman as hard as they can. Not because he can win, but because they hate the idea of Scozzafaza winning.

Folk like Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Dick Armey aren’t interested in a big tent of diverse people sharing some general sense of fiscal policy and the role of government. They’d rather have the Republican Party be a pup-tent of the “ideologically pure”, having no role in government other than that of the whining outsider. But, then again, that is what puts money in Rush’s pocket.

UPDATE:

As commenter Matt notes below, Scozzafaza is the only supportive candidate in the race. The Democrat, Bill Owens, is a committed enemy of equality which certainly plays a part in Limbaugh’s efforts to sabotage Dede.

If you’ve ever said to yourself, “I’d never support a Republican”, here’s your chance to make an exception. You can contribute to Dede’s campaign here.

Army Secretary: Repealling DADT Would Not Cause Major Turmoil

Jim Burroway

October 26th, 2009

Army Secretary John McHugh sees part of his job as finding problems and getting out in front of them. “Good news,” he told the Army Times, “will take care of itself. The challenge is to get out in front of the things that are not so good.”

And there is much that is not so good. Two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that the army is heavily stressed. It’s a difficult task to fight one asymetrical war, let along two. There are differing opinions on troop deployments, strategies, and how many troops are actually needed. But of all the things that he is clearly worried about, repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell really isn’t a big deal:

When asked specifically if lifting the gay ban would seriously disrupt the military, as predicted by those who oppose repeal, McHugh said there is no reason to think major turmoil would ensue.

“Anytime you have a broad-based policy change, there are challenges to that,” he said. “The Army has a big history of taking on similar issues, [with] predictions of doom and gloom that did not play out,” he said.

He does however raise this disturbing possibility:

It’s possible, for example, that homosexuals could be allowed into some occupations or units but barred from others, McHugh said, stressing that he was not aware of any such plans but only discussing how the issue might play out.

“I don’t want to prejudge the situation,” he said. “I am saying if he did that, it would be my job to explain it when the appropriate time comes.”

Administration Refuses to Help Gay Asylum Seeker

Timothy Kincaid

October 26th, 2009

Too often both our friends and our opponents fail to understand exactly why it is that gay couples seek to be treated with equality. It is not, as some anti-gay activists claim, to ‘legitimize homosexual conduct’, but rather it is to achieve the goals, rights and benefits that are essential to life.

Laws that protect married couples are designed with specific purposes in mind, and those purposes apply to same-sex couples as well. When gay couples are excluded from equal treatment, it is not just disrespectful of their relationships, it is a declaration that gay people are not deserving of the rights and benefits that heterosexuals take for granted.

And that is what the actions of the Obama Administration have declared yet again this week.

In 2005, Tim Coco and Junior Oliveira legally married in Massachusetts. At the time, Oliveira was seeking asylum in the United States, having been subjected to abuse and rape in his native Brazil. In 2007, when asylum was denied, Oliveira was forced to return to Brazil while the couple fought the legal system to be reunited.

They found a valuable advocate in Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. And, indeed, Coco and Oliveira had good reason to be hopeful that the Administration would intervene.

The judge who denied asylum, Francis Cramer, was a political appointment who had minimal experience with immigration law and was so blatantly unqualified that government watchdog groups were astonished at his selection. It was later discovered that federal judicial candidates had been screened for their views on gay marriage before they were appointed.

But Cramer did not only count Coco and Oliviera’s marriage as irrelevant. In his decision, Cramer made the bizarre declaration that while he didn’t doubt that Oliveira was raped, he “was never physically harmed” by it.

Recognizing the judge’s decision to be crass inhumanity, Kerry wrote to the Attorney General’s office requesting that Oliveira’s case be reviewed. Because asylum is regularly granted for far less cause, surely a friendly administration would intervene.

No. They would not.

On July 27, 2009, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote a letter to Senator Kerry informing him that the US Attorney General would not be reviewing the Coco/Oliveira case because that “forced sex” is not rape (they were unclear as to whether the Attorney General limits his belief that forced sex isn’t rape to male-on-male forced sex or whether that definition extends to heterosexual people as well).

Kerry was, naturally, incredulous and outraged. He has sought since then to get Attorney General Eric Holder to reverse the decision of his office. He informed the Attorney General that he wasn’t asking Holder to act against DOMA, but to grant asylum on humanitarian grounds, just as the government does for thousands of other immigrants.

Holder chose to ignore Kerry’s efforts. (A/P)

The Massachusetts husband of a gay Brazilian man says his spouse has been denied asylum that would allow them to be reunited in the U.S.

Tim Coco said Monday that the Obama administration did not act on a Friday deadline in the case of Genesio “Junior” Oliveira, effectively denying his request. The Justice Department did not immediately return messages.

Let us be clear. Were Junior Oliveira to have married a woman, he would not have been denied residency in this country. And were his reasons for seeking asylum based on factors other than his orientation, I am convinced that judges and politicians would have found more than adequate compassion to intervene.

I am so very sick of this. I’m disgusted by a legal system that denies equality. And I am furious with an administration that does not seem to care.

CNN “A ‘Congressional Spouse’ Breaks Barriers”

Daniel Gonzales

October 26th, 2009

(crossposted on ELEMENT, a Denver gay blog I’m paid to write for)

A few days ago I read an article on CNN.com about what life is like for Jared Polis (D-Boulder) and his partner in Congress. Polis’ spouse writes:

Rarely has anyone seen me for what I actually am. I don my “Congressional Spouse” lapel pin proudly and hope each time not to be questioned, yet I still receive sideways glances and orders to produce an official ID. It is as if my story is too unbelievable to be true, that I am an interloper, someone in a place I do not belong.

I believe the focus of the article is supposed to be about brave dear Polis is for shrugging off dirty looks and overcoming stereotypes. Yet, time after time the article mentions a spousal privilege that Polis should be denied because the Federal Defense of Marriage Act and how special exceptions have been made.

The stench of elitist privilege overwhelmed me by the end of this obnoxious article thinking about all the hassles “ordinary” gays get from their government every single day and how that same government pulls aside the velvet rope for Polis.

I don’t see how we can expect leaders, who aren’t subject to the same laws as the employees in their district, to be motivated to change them in a timely fashion.

Starbucks Says Approve Ref. 71

Jim Burroway

October 24th, 2009

This comes to us via SLOG:

In a statement, the company said that approving R-71 “ensures that basic benefits and important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis.” Starbucks wants voters to approve the measure “because it is aligned with our business practices, providing domestic partner benefits, and one of our core values of treating people with respect and dignity.” [emphasis in SLOG's post]

Starbucks hasn’t contributed to the campaign, but they did send this message out to their employees. Starbucks has 3,000 employees in its Seattle headquarters and maintains 667 stores in Washington state, and each of them got this statement. That’s quite a venti.

Starbucks’ endorsement follows similar appeals from Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, and many other companies that employ large numbers of people in the Pacific Northwest.

With all the attention being paid to Maine, Washington’s LGBT citizens are feeling ignored. Karen Ocamb says they’re sweating bullets because they may well lose their hard-won Domestic Partnerships. Please show them your love by donating to Approve Ref. 71 today.

NOM Doubles Its Maine War Chest, Claims Special Rights

Jim Burroway

October 24th, 2009

The Bangor Daily News reports that Stand for Marriage Maine, the group pushing to strip LGBT Mainers of their right to marry, has almost doubled its war chest in the past three weeks. They raised $1.4 million in October, bringing their total amount raised to $2.6 million, according to reports filed Friday with the Maine Ethics Commission. Guess where the money came from:

But $1.1 million of the $1.4 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine in October came from a single source: the National Organization for Marriage. In fact, the Washington, D.C., organization has bankrolled more than 60 percent of the campaign to ban same-sex marriages in Maine.

The No on 1 campaign, meanwhile, claims to have received contributions from more than 22,000 donors, compared to slightly more than 700 donors to the opposing camp.

This brings NOM’s total investment to $1.5 million, according to the Associated Press. By my calculations, that’s actually 58% of the total. But still, that’s pretty amazing. One out-of-state special interest group is trying to purchase an election, lock, stock and barrel.  The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland has contributed a total of $550,000 to the “yes” campaign. Another $114,500 came from Focus On the Family. Together, these three groups alone account for 83% of Stand for Marriage Maine’s total budget.

And yet, despite the fact that the National Organization for Marriage is paying the lion’s share of the bill, they are in court demanding that they be held above Maine’s financial disclosure laws:

NOM’s financial role in the Maine campaign will be discussed in federal court in Portland on Monday when a judge hears arguments in a complaint the group filed against the state.

Earlier this month, the Maine Ethics Commission voted 3-2 to investigate whether NOM was skirting campaign finance laws in order to avoid disclosing the identities of contributors. A complaint against NOM alleges the organization, which played a key role in overturning California’s gay marriage law last November, funnels money to Stand for Marriage Maine while promising donors confidentiality.

NOM responded earlier this week by challenging the constitutionality of Maine’s law requiring “ballot question committees” to file detailed campaign finance reports.

Meanwhile, campaign finance reports also show that Protect Maine Equality has raised more than $4 million so far. This includes $1.4 million raised in October, matching Stand for Marriage Maine’s fundraising from the same period. While the nearly 80% of the Yes side’s money during that period came from NOM, most of Protect Maine Equality’s fundraising came from individual donors during the same period.

Protect Maine Equality also reports some large donors, but nothing like the outright attempted purchase of an entire campaign by NOM. According to the Bangor Daily News, Portland resident Donald Sussman has contributed more than $500,000. The Human Rights Campaign kicked in $220,000 in donations and in-kind goods and services, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has contributed about $140,000 in funds, goods, and services.

Altogether, these three major donors make up only 22% of Protect Maine Equality’s total take. The rest, as they say, comes from people like you. Please donate today.

Senate Passes Hate Crimes Act; Next Stop: Obama’s Desk

Jim Burroway

October 22nd, 2009

The Senate passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act today on a 68-29 vote. The act will now go to President Barack Obama, who has promised to sign the bill into law.

The bill extends federal protections to people who suffer violent crimes because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, protections which are already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, religion, or national origin.

Passage of the hate crimes measure came on a bipartisan vote, with ten Republicans joining 56 Democrats and two independents to pass the bill. One Democrat, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against the measure, which was attached to a defense policy bill. Sen. Feingold said he supported the hate crimes provision but opposes the open-ended military commitment in Afghanistan.

The Matthew Shepard Foundation has released this statement by Judy Shepard:

Dennis and I are extremely proud of the Senate for once again passing this historic measure of protection for victims of these brutal crimes,” said Judy Shepard, president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation Board. “Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile. Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families.”

By voting overwhelmingly to extend to these often-targeted Americans our nation’s decades-old bias crime legislation, senators sent the message that hate crimes will not go unpunished, and local governments and law enforcement agencies will not run out of financial resources to provide justice to these victims and their loved ones.

…The Matthew Shepard Foundation applauds Congress and President Obama for their steady and successful efforts throughout 2009 to bring the legislation to this point. We eagerly anticipate its final enactment and wish to thank the countless organizations and individuals who have worked tirelessly for its passage.

The full text of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as passed by both Houses of Congress is below.

Click here to read the full text of the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

Officer Responsible For Anti-Gay Harassment To Retire Early

Jim Burroway

October 22nd, 2009

The Navy announced yesterday that the chief petty officer responsible for sexually provocative hazings of junior sailors in Bahrain will be forced to retire in January, two years earlier than planned. He will also receive a letter of censure from the Secretary of the Navy, which the Virginia Pilot describes as “the harshest administrative action that can be taken against a sailor.”

Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, opted to cancel Toussaint’s final years of service. Roughead “found that the incidents were not in keeping with Navy values and standards and violated the Navy’s longstanding prohibition against hazing,” according to Smith. “Our sailors are to be treated with dignity and respect in a healthy and positive working environment.”

One victim, former Petty Officer 3rd Class Joseph Rocha, said he was subjected to repeated slurs about his sexuality after he refused to have sex with female prostitutes.

Petty Officer 1st Class Shaun Hogan submitted detailed notes about Toussaint’s abuse during more than two years under his command. Hogan told the Navy lawyer who originally handled the case that Toussaint routinely made inappropriate comments about and inquiries into sailors’ sex lives, and threatened to revoke sailors’ dog-handling credentials if they crossed him.

Hogan also described Toussaint’s directing the filming of training videos that required some sailors to act out lesbian love scenes, others to simulate gay male sex and one to have rubber balls thrown at his crotch, all in a guise of running the dogs – trained to sniff out explosives – through various “real life” scenarios.

With this move, Toussaint avoids a court martial. Joseph Rocha reacts:

“A lot of us are disappointed in that Toussaint won’t see his day at a military court martial,” Rocha said. “But overall, I commend the CNO and the Secretary of the Navy for a wanting to look further into this, to see how widespread the corruption was.”

An unnamed commanding officer originally decided to handle the situation by issuing Toussaint a nonpunitive letter of reprimand. Rocha, who is gay went on to officer training, but left the Navy with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder over the harassment. Later, he met a reporter with Youth Radio and told his story. Youth Radio broadcast a powerful series of investigative reports into the incidents, many of which were picked up on National Public Radio.

New Washington Ref 71 Ad

Jim Burroway

October 21st, 2009

Charlene Strong’s partner Kate Fleming, died in 2006. While Kate was in the hospital, Charlene was initially denied access to see her. This is why approving Washington’s Referendum 71 is so important, and it’s why it’s important that this ad goes on the air.  Please do your part today.

Maine’s Q1 “Yes” Spokesman Admits to Lying

Jim Burroway

October 19th, 2009

Protect Maine Equality has a new ad:

Meanwhile, Maine Public Broadcasting got an amazing admission from Marc Mutty of Stand for Marriage Maine:

We understand that schools will not be mandated to provide one curriculum or another, but neither will they be discouraged or will they be unable to provide the kind curriculum that they so choose that well could include teaching about same-sex marriage.

… We have never said that schools will be mandated — or, actually, perhaps we did in one ad, or certainly led people to believe that, inadvertently.

Give me a break. These ads are focus-grouped to within an inch of their lives. These people do nothing inadvertently. In fact, they are following Frank Shubert’s playbook to the letter. The Maine Public Broadcasting report was right to say that the “No on 1″ side “veered off message” to address the lies behind Stand for Marriage Maine’s latest ad. This is one of my beefs with the Protect Maine Equality campaign. They are still letting the anti-equality side drive the agenda, and they have yet to put them on the defensive.

Mutty also told Maine Public Broadcasting that they will be branching out into new topics — again, straight out of their playbook. In the last days of California’s Prop 8 campaign, they circulated materials that implied that then-candidate Barack Obama backed Prop 8’s passage. Last week, we saw the President and the White House issue important statements opposing ballot measures to strip LGBT people of their rights. Will Protect Maine Equality use those statements pre-emptively? Or will they wait until Stand for Marriage Maine calls out the next dance card?

We certainly can’t say we didn’t see it coming.

By the way, I donated so I get to bellyache. You can donate too, right here, or you can volunteer.