Box Turtle Bulletin

Rhode Island Governor Says He’s Open To Domestic Partnership Law

Jim Burroway

November 13th, 2009

Last Tuesday, Rhode Island Governor Don Carcieri (R) vetoed a bill that would have added domestic partners to the list of people who are allowed to make funeral arrangements for each other. Now the Providence Journal reports that “a conciliatory” Governor Carcieri told a gay-rights group that he is willing to consider an “almost anything but marriage” domestic partnership law. Carcieri reportedly said this after meeting privately yesterday for more than an hour in his office with a representatives of Queer Action of Rhode Island. Carcieri reportedly cited the domestic partnerships law that won voter approval in Washington as a possible model:

“I don’t know enough, yet. All I am saying is I understand the circumstances. I understand the difficulties” that can arise for same-sex couples and others — such as widows living with widowers, and widows with other widows — outside the legal framework of a traditional marriage.

“Let’s see if we can find a way to solve that without discreet [pieces] of legislation every time something comes up. I just don’t think that is the right way to deal with it,” he said.

Following Carcieri’s veto, Queer Action issued a statement calling him a bigot and said that his repeated claims “that he does not discriminate against gay people” was proven to be a lie by his veto. Susan Heroux, spokesperson for Queer Action, said, “First, the governor raises money for an anti-gay hate group in another state, and now he proves that he is motivated more by bigotry than caring for his fellow citizens with this veto action.” Carcieri was the keynote speaker at a banquet for the Massachusetts Family Institute on October 15.

Heroux was pleased with the yesterday’s meeting with Gov. Carcieri. Also present at the meeting was Mark Goldberg, whose five-week battle with the Rhode Island Health Department to claim the body of his partner of 17 years from the state morgue, had sparked the legislation. The state refused to release the body despite all of the legal paperwork — wills, living wills, power of attorney and a marriage certificate from Massachusetts — that Goldberg had provided. Carcieri said he could not understand the Health Department’s handling of the case, and would ask his staff to look into it.

The bill to allow domestic partners to make funeral arrangements for each other passed the state house on a 63-1 vote, and passed the Senate unanimously. House and Senate leaders are considering an override of the governor’s veto.

Catholic Church Threatens D.C.

Jim Burroway

November 12th, 2009

Washington, D.C. City Council is expected to take up a same-sex marriage bill in the coming weeks. The bill would not require religious institutions to perform or accommodate same-sex marriages, but they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against LGBT people. It’s that point — that religious organizations providing social services under contract with the city would be prohibited from discriminating — that has the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatening to take all their cards and go home:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn’t change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.

…Catholic Charities, the church’s social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington’s homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

Which means that the Catholic Church feels it is more important to discriminate against LGBT people than follow Jesus’ mandate to serve the poor. Go figure. City Council members appear unimpressed with that threat:

“If they find living under our laws so oppressive that they can no longer take city resources, the city will have to find an alternative partner to step in to fill the shoes,” [City Council Member David] Catania said. He also said Catholic Charities was involved in only six of the 102 city-sponsored adoptions last year.

Ft. Worth Adds Transgenders to Non-Discrimination Ordinance

Jim Burroway

November 11th, 2009

Ft. Worth City Council last night expanded the city’s non-discrimination ordinance to include transgender people by a 6-3 vote. City council also discussed a broader range of issues important to the LGBT community, including offering domestic-partner benefits and expanding the city health insurance plan to cover gender reassignment procedures, including sex changes. Discussions were contentious, both inside the packed hall and outside, where protesters from both sides had gathered. The Dallas Voice reports:

There were no arrests or major physical altercations, but there was plenty of taunting and some heated verbal exchanges. Participants from both sides later accused the other of elbowing and pushing, and one of the counterprotesters admitted to ripping a gay Pride flag.

LDS Church Supports Salt Lake LGBT Protections

Jim Burroway

November 11th, 2009

Yes, you read that right:

Hours after the LDS Church announced its support Tuesday night of proposed Salt Lake City ordinances aimed at protecting gay and transgender residents from discrimination in housing and employment, the City Council unanimously approved the measures.

“The church supports these ordinances,” spokesman Michael Otterson told the council, “because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage.”

They also are consistent with Mormon teachings, he said. “I believe in a church that believes in human dignity, in treating people with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we disagree.”

The Mormon church has come under withering criticism over its overwhelming support in passing California’s Proposition 8, which stripped LGBT couples in that state the right to marry. The LDS’s massive efforts have led some to dub Prop 8 “The Mormon Amendment.” In addition to overall criticism, that campaign also proved to be highly divisive within the church itself.

Last year in the wake of that criticism, LDS leaders said that they had no problem with non-marriage related protections for LGBT people. In August 2008, the church issued a statement titled “The Divine Institution of Marriage” in which church leaders claimed to support “rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.” That spawned the “Common Ground” initiative, which consisted of a set of LGBT protections based on the LDS statement. But the LDS church turned around and blocked every single proposal in the state legislature which they had earlier said they could support.

LGBT leaders in Salt Lake City hail last night’s vote as a historic step, and the result of several months of quiet, behind-the-scenes meetings with church leaders. But noting that four-fifths of Utah’s LGBT citizens live outside the city, they vow to reintroduce the Common Ground proposals in the state legislature again this year.

Why the sudden turnaround after the Common Ground initiative failed to even make it out of committee in the state legislature last year? There are a couple of possibilities. First, Salt Lake City is not a Mormon bastion as the rest of the state is. Many former LDS people who wrote in to BTB this morning believe that this ordinance would have passed without LDS support. After all, this is the same city that has already instituted a domestic partnership registry. So by coming out in support of this ordinance, the reasoning goes, the church is able to turn what would have been seen as a defeat into positive publicity.

Meanwhile, others speculate that Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried (D-NV) and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, both Mormons, may have played a hand. At any rate, the real test will be when the Common Ground initiative is brought back to the state legislature again next year.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the ordinances passed last night would:

• Forbid housing and employment discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity in Salt Lake City.
• Exempt religious organizations, businesses with fewer than 15 employees and some small landlords. (The exemptions mirror those in state and federal laws.)
• “Not create any special rights or privileges,” the ordinances state, because “every person has a sexual orientation and a gender identity.”
• Create a complaint and investigation process. The complaint could be resolved through mediation or a fine of up to $1,000.
• Not create a “private right of action” to sue over alleged discrimination.
• Require annual reports by the city’s Human Rights Commission on the effectiveness of the statutes.

Majority of military personnel do not support DADT

Timothy Kincaid

November 10th, 2009

Researchers from the RAND Corporation and the University of Florida have released a new study that finds that support for the anti-gay Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell policy continues to slip among military personnel.

Here is an abstract of the study, as published online by the journal Armed Forces and Society.

U.S. policy banning openly gay and lesbian personnel from serving in its military rests on the belief that heterosexual discomfort with lesbian and gay service members in an integrated environment would degrade unit cohesion and readiness. To inform this policy, data from a 2006 survey of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans are analyzed in this study. Views of these war veterans are consistent with prior surveys of military personnel showing declining support for the policy: from about 75 percent in 1993 to 40 percent in this survey. Among the demographic and military experience variables analyzed, comfort level with lesbian and gay people was the strongest correlate of attitudes toward the ban. War veterans indicated that the strongest argument against the ban is that sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance and that the strongest argument in favor of the ban is a projected negative impact on unit cohesion. However, analyses of these war veterans’ ratings of unit cohesion and readiness revealed that knowing a gay or lesbian unit member is not uniquely associated with cohesion or readiness; instead, the quality of leaders, the quality of equipment, and the quality of training are the critical factors associated with unit cohesion and readiness.

As of 2006, attitudes were:

The study found that just 40 percent of the military members surveyed expressed support for the policy, while 28 percent opposed it and 33 percent were neutral—less support than seen in previous surveys.

About 20 percent of those polled said they were aware of a gay or lesbian member in their unit, and about half of those said their presence was well known. In addition, three-quarters of those surveyed said they felt comfortable or very comfortable in the presence of gays or lesbians, according to the study.

The survey sample included personnel from all service branches and from a mix of ranks and occupations. It was designed to reflect the views of soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of whom were still on active duty.

Which further supports my rhetorical question, if active service personnel don’t support this failed policy, than who (other than Elaine Donnelly and the Administration) does?

Thanks, Doc

Timothy Kincaid

November 10th, 2009

You have a new ally for your health, physically and mentally. It’s your doctor.

From the A/P

The nation’s largest doctors’ group has agreed to join efforts to repeal the military’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.

The American Medical Association also voted to declare that gay marriage bans contribute to health disparities for gay couples and their children.

They base their decision on the difficulties caused to both doctors and patients by these illogical policies and laws.

Already, I can hear anti-gay activists thinking:

Those wacky activist doctors trying to legislate from the, um, surgery room. What do they know about health, anyway? Vote, I say, let “the people” vote on what causes health disparities just like we vote on who gets civil rights.

The DNC Boycott: Count Me In

This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not reflect the opinions of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Jim Burroway

November 10th, 2009

Frustration is boiling over concerning the Democratic Party’s ongoing neglect of LGBT issues. The latest insult to injury? The Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America set emails to Mainers urging them to vote, but didn’t ask them to vote against Question 1. In fact, the email didn’t mention Question 1 at all. The DNC then sent another email urgently asking Mainers to get involved right away in … wait for it … New Jersey! 

When John Averosis at AmericaBlog contacted the DNC about the emails, he got the classic run-around. They first denied targeting Mainers to help with the New Jersey gubernatorial election, and then admitted that they lied about it.

This is just the latest in a long list of grievances and slights that have been building up since last November. That’s why several bloggers led by Avarosis and Joe Sudbay at AmericaBlog are banding together for a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give” campaign to urge doners to stop donating to the DNC:

It’s really more of a “pause,” than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends – President Obama and the Democratic party – who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.

So please sign the Petition and take a Pledge to no longer donate to the DNC, Organizing for America, or the Obama campaign until the President and the Democratic party keep their promises to the gay community, our families, and our friends.

This was launched yesterday. I haven’t taken the pulse of the other contributors at BTB, so I can’t speak for them. But I support this wholeheartedly. One of the DNC’s most loyal constituencies — and among the most reliable sources for cash and sweat equity — has been taken for granted for far too long. The goals of the “pause” are pretty simple:

We are asking voters to pledge to withhold contributions to the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed -– all of which President Obama repeatedly promised to do if elected.

…Candidate Obama promised during the campaign to be the gay community’s “fierce advocate.” He and the Democratic party have not kept their promise.

Longtime LGBT activist David Mixner is on board with the boycott, along with Andy Towle, Michael Goff, Dan Savage, Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler, Paul Sousa, Bil Browning, Jane Hamsher and Michaelangelo Signorile. Interestingly, even the Human Rights Campaign appears to have tacitly endorsed the boycott, in an email response to David Dayen at Firedog Lake:

“Individual donors should always make their own careful assessments of how to spend limited political contributions. We all need to focus on the legislative priorities identified by AmericaBlog and with whatever tactic individuals decide to employ, the ultimate objective needs to be securing the votes we need to move our legislative agenda forward.”

You can sign the petition and take the pledge here, and you can spread the word to your friends and family here.

Pro-Gay CT Gov. Rell: I have decided not to seek reelection

Timothy Kincaid

November 9th, 2009

In a surprise move, Governor Jodi Rell, Connecticut Republican, has decided not to seek reelection. Although Connecticut is a predominantly Democratic State, Rell won her 2006 reelection bid with 63% of the vote.

She listed some of her most rewarding accomplishments (CT Confidential):

She said she would remember efforts to bring increased health insurance coverage, ethics and campaign reform, expansion of higher education, investment in mass transit as well as improvements to the state police and the veterans home in Rocky Hill.

Rell said she will remember “the gay couple who hugged me at Stafford Motor Speedway after I signed the first in the nation voluntarily passed civil union bill. And all they said was thank you.”

Funerals of war veterans, her breast cancer, the people who saw her shopping at Marshall’s — this is what lingers, Gov. Rell said.

At the time of signing the civil unions bill she insisted that it include language defining a marriage as a man and a woman. However, when the Supreme Court found for marriage equality, she refused to fight the decision and signed the legislative bill that brought the law into compliance with the court’s decision.

Rell is a shining star of decency within the Republican Party and it will be diminished by her retirement.

My Concerns about the Public Option

This commentary is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect that of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin.

Timothy Kincaid

November 9th, 2009

On Saturday, the US House of Representatives voted for the Affordable Health Care for America Act, a healthcare reform bill which has been the highest priority of the Democratic Party leadership since the party took control of the presidency and both houses of the legislature. There are a number of very positive inclusions in that bill, including some that deal specifically with the GLBT community.

Probably the most specifically significant to our community is the incorporation of the McDermott/Ros-Lehtinen bill to remove the special ‘gay couples tax’ on spousal benefits provided by an employer. Currently, heterosexual spousal benefits are provided tax free and employers may claim them as an operating expense, but same-sex spousal benefits are considered to be part of the employee’s taxable income. This can result in thousands of dollars of tax demanded from our government solely because the spouse of the taxpayer is the same sex. Removing this tax is a tremendous relief on gay taxpayers.

Also included are changes in treatment for HIV patients, heath data collection related to the LGBT community, new sex education rules, and non-discrimination language.

However, the bill, as passed by the House, also provides for a “public option”, or insurance provision by the federal government. This government run health care mechanism is by far the most controversial aspect of the bill. And, depending on where you fall on the right/left scale, you may well have strong arguments either for or against such a move.

But while I have opinions in general about the decision on the part of the government to compete in the world of service provision, that is not the point of this commentary. Rather, I wish to express specific concerns about how this effort may impact our community negatively.

Continue reading after the jump.

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.