Box Turtle Bulletin

Wyoming Supremes grant same-sex divorce rights

The Wyoming Supreme Court has recognized the right of a same-sex couple married in Canada to divorce in that state. They avoided the larger question of whether out-of-state marriage were recognized as such in Wyoming, addressing instead the narrower issue of divorce.

[R]ecognizing a valid foreign same-sex marriage for the limited purpose of entertaining a divorce proceeding does not lessen the law or policy in Wyoming against allowing the creation of same-sex marriages. A divorce proceeding does not involve recognition of a marriage as an ongoing relationship. Indeed, accepting that a valid marriage exists plays no role except as a condition precedent to granting a divorce. After the condition precedent is met, the laws regarding divorce apply. Laws regarding marriage play no role.

Specifically, Paula and Victoria are not seeking to live in Wyoming as a married couple. They are not seeking to enforce any right incident to the status of being married. In fact, it is quite the opposite. They are seeking to dissolve a legal relationship entered into under the laws of Canada. Respecting the law of Canada, as allowed by § 20-1-111, for the limited purpose of accepting the existence of a condition precedent to granting a divorce, is not tantamount to state recognition of an ongoing same-sex marriage. Thus, the policy of this state against the creation of same-sex marriages is not violated.

This does, however, give encouragement to those who would claim other marriage benefits or rights based on an out-of-state marriage.

Much thanks to reader embarcadero

How do you piss off a United Methodist minister?

How do you piss off a United Methodist minister?

Seriously? Have you ever met a United Methodist minister? Not exactly an excitable bunch.

But it seems to me that some UMC ministers have found a cause around which they are willing to be radical militant activists: marriage.

Now the UMC has not adopted a same-sex marriage rite. It hasn’t even approved Methodist ministers being allowed to conduct marriages. But those in the church who believe in equality have become rather, shall we say, disinclined to quietly wait for change.

I first noticed this in 2008 when California’s two conferences (Northern and Southern) thumbed their nose at their national rules and said “Fine, so our current pastors are banned from conducting marriages… well, then, we’ll vote to encourage and support retired ministers conducting same-sex marriages. That ain’t breaking no rules!”

And then this past weekend, the Baltimore – Washington Conference passed the following resolution, ensuring that this issue will be brought up next April at the national convention.

“[I]n those civil jurisdictions where homosexual persons have been granted the right to same gender marriage or civil union, ceremonies celebrating those marriages or unions may be conducted in our churches and by our ministers, the decision being the right and responsibility of the pastor.”

That wasn’t expected to pass. But the pro-gay ministers are refusing to sit still and respect the hesitations of others.

But that wasn’t really the example of how you piss off a UMC minister. That’s just progress. To really piss one off, you have to propose a marriage ban.

During the Methodists’ annual conference in St. Cloud this week, about 40 clergy members signed a statement saying they would “offer the grace of the Church’s blessing to any prepared couple desiring Christian marriage.”

“Groups have been meeting who want to challenge parts of the United Methodist polity with which we disagree — that which relates to the lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual community and Christian marriage,” said the Rev. Bruce Robbins, who serves at Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church in Minneapolis.

“With the possibility of a constitutional amendment in the state of Minnesota [defining marriage as limited to heterosexual couples], this seems important.”

I can just see the indignation. “A ban? Well, I’m so angry I’ll just, I’ll just… offer the grace of the Church’s blessing, by golly! That’s what I’ll do!”

Don’t you love it when the Methodists get all defiant and activisty?

………
UPDATE: The Christian Post says that the number of signatories has now increased to 70. They are really pissed.

Update 2: There seems to be some confusion due to the tone of the commentary. I am not mocking these Methodist ministers. They are taking rather large risks, and are true heroes.

Marriage’s final frontier

In what has been, to me, a surprisingly short period of time, the fertile, tamed gay-supportive territory has come to support marriage equality. Democrats overwhelmingly are supportive, and independents have joined them to the extent that now a majority of Americans favor legalized same-sex marriages.

But Republicans – especially conservative evangelical Republicans – have held to their opposition with little exception. The red state, red meat, tea partying folk have not been receptive in any manner to talk about Teh Gheys being real people with real rights, especially the right to marry the person of their choosing.

Until recently. Very very recently.

Perhaps it took the high-profile support over unquestionably-conservative Ted Olson to make it possible for conservative Republican support to be considered. Perhaps the hopeless – but fascinating and visible – presidential campaign of Fred Karger introduced the possibility. Maybe it was Meghan McCain, Barbara Bush, or other young Republicans willing to talk back to their elders. But whatever allowed it, change has begun.

Marriage equality has finally set foot in this wild frontier, planted a flag, and claimed its place. In, of all places, Iowa’s activist Republican community. Today, Jeff Angelo, a former State Senator from Ames has launched a new group: Iowa Republicans for Freedom.

Angelo is a heterosexual father of three who identifies as an evangelical Christian. He regularly attends the Ames Evangelical Free Church. While he still considers himself “very much an activist Republican,” Angelo said he, and other Republicans, are recognizing banning same-sex marriage violates the widely-held conservative belief of personal freedoms.

But don’t assume that Angelo is just some “squishy moderate” who has let his liberal side take over. Angelo’s anti-gay credentials couldn’t be stronger. (DMRegister)

Angelo, who formerly lived in Creston, had opposed gay marriage while serving in the Iowa Senate and was co-sponsor of the Iowa Defense of Marriage Act in the late 1990s. In 2006, he was the lead sponsor of a proposed state constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He said he gradually came to a realization after leaving the legislature that his stance on same-sex marriage was wrong and hurtful.

Like many, he had believed the lies he told himself. Especially the old “my gay friends” fiction. (Iowa Independent)

“I previously bought into the notion that I could tell my gay friends how much I loved them, that I just disapproved of their lifestyle and they would be OK with that,” Angelo admitted. “But they told me that I made them feel lesser in my eyes or that I made them feel like a second-class citizen. I labored under delusion for some time that [what my friends said] wasn’t true, that they really believed I loved them and that I was their friend.”

And he found that once he questioned his presumptions, it turned out that this new respect for his fellow man fit better with his ideals than had his prejudices. So he’s now sharing that message.

“Far too often, the conversation on marriage can get lost in rhetoric,” Angelo said. “But this debate really centers around one idea: whether government has the right to say whom a person should love and marry. As a proud conservative, I believe in smaller, limited government, and that government should have no more of a right to say whom I can marry than they should be able to tell my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters whom they can marry.”
…
“It is time for conservatives to get back to their roots,” Angelo said. “Through Iowa Republicans for Freedom, we will begin a conversation about whether our party and our state will stand for true conservative values, or whether we will allow ourselves to get lost in senseless debates that do nothing but demean our neighbors and threaten the rights of our fellow Iowans.”

Jeff Angelo is a very welcome advocate. His voice can reach those who simply cannot hear what our community is trying to say. I truly wish him well.

Congratulations, Illinoisans

Today same-sex couples in Illinois can be joined in civil union and gain many of the state-granted advantages, obligations, and rights of marriage.

Our congratulations to all Illinoisans. To same-sex couples for expanded rights. To gay people for a step up in recognition of your worth as a fellow citizen. And to all other residents for your inclusion in the still-small number of states that have expressed their willingness to place humanity ahead of tradition, animus, or exclusion.

Teen pop-stars matter

I don’t pay much attention to Miley Cyrus. I’m not a 15 year old girl, I am suspicious when children of celebrities get cast in television shows, and I’ve seen way too many child stars implode. But, so far at least, Cyrus (now 18) seems to be transitioning well from her Hannah Montana role to a solo artist, has not got down Lindsay Lohan Lane, and may well be able to face adulthood with a sense of perspective.

And, okay I’ll admit it, Party in the USA is infectious.

Yet still, Cyrus is not on the short-list of people I’d select to fight for my equality. For one thing, her audience can’t vote.

But Cyrus can do one thing that even the most seasoned politico cannot achieve. She can influence where the parents of little girls spend their money. And she’s not hesitant to do so.

Last week, Urban Outfitters had a little public image problem over some jewelry that they sold which was similar to that of a small independent jeweler. Miley Cyrus used it to raise a different issue (Vancouver Sun)

Cyrus Tweeted, “Love that everybody is hating on Urban Outfitters.” She added, “Not only do they steal from artists but every time you give them money you help finance a campaign against gay equality. #SHADYASHELL”

Hashtags aside, Cyrus also pointed out, “IF WE ALLOW GAY MARRIAGE NEXT THING U KNOW PEOPLE WILL BE MARRYING GOLD FISH” – Rick Santorum UO contributed $13,000 to this mans campaign”

You and I may not care what Miley Cyrus thinks. The voters in your state may not care what Miley Cyrus thinks. But retailers of clothing very much care what Miley Cyrus thinks, especially when she’s tweeting to a million kids that could be their customers.

And Cyrus’ tweet is indicative of something larger that we are just beginning to see.

For decades we have relied on the decency of corporate executives, the economic advantage of a diversity, the loyalty of gay shoppers, and (in rare cases with limited success) on boycotts of the most egregious offenders.

But now, corporations are discovering the cost of being associated in any way with anti-gay causes or politicians. Target discovered this past year that contributing to a politician whose economic policies they prefer can lose you customers if he also has anti-gay social policies. And earlier this year the CEO of Urban Outfitters admitted how his boss’ association with Santorum is problematic. (Philly.com)

“You all probably know, till the day he dies Dick Hayne’s going to be famous for giving Rick Santorum some money 15 years ago,” said Senk, who has often described Hayne as a mentor and was referring to his well-known political leanings. “Dick Hayne’s a Republican, OK?”

“I’m the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 1000 company, and I supported Bob Casey, who dethroned Santorum,” Senk continued. “So, obviously, Dick and I don’t agree, politically. Now, Dick has moderated over the years, and I probably have moderated over the years, because we have learned from each other…”

And as time goes on, as the kids who are Cyrus’s audience become a larger part of the market, more and more companies are going to find themselves trying to explain why they supported politicians who treated gay people as inferior. No longer will support for or against equality be a matter of little concern for kids who have grown up seeing gay folk as maybe a little different but no lesser than themselves.

And as we approach the 2012 election cycle, you can be certain that many a corporate executive will consider the ramifications of writing a check. And more than a few will decide that they don’t want Miley Cyrus, or anyone else, linking their name with someone best known for their anti-gay statements and positions.

Is it too much to hope that Miley Cyrus just doomed Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign?

Kriesel (R) on Minnesota’s marriage ban

Last night, freshman Republican Rep. John Kriesel, an Iraqi war veteran, stood on prosthetic legs to deliver the following message to his fellow legislators:

Majority support

Sunday afternoon musings – those who are not fond of my pontificating may want to pass this one by.

There is something magical about the name Gallup Poll. Gallup may not be the most accurate of all polling agencies, but their duration and history lend an air of credibility, especially when confirming what other polls are finding. So when on Friday the Gallup Poll announced that Americans now support marriage equality by 53% to 45%, it gave an emotional confirmation to what we have already seen from major polling all spring.

Yes, a majority of all Americans now believe that same-sex couples should have the legal rights to marriage.

But what does that mean?

Let’s start with what it does not mean. This does not mean that a majority of Americans personally approve of same-sex marriage. Legal acceptance and approval do not necessarily go hand in hand. Nor does it mean that we will from henceforth win all of our battles in either the legislature or in the ballot box. Anti-gay campaigns have proven successful at appealing to fear and – for at least a while – changing public attitude.

But it does mean that we will win. It means that the tipping point, that distinct moment at which change ceases to move at its previous trajectory and suddenly accelerates, has been reached.

And if we look at Nate Silver’s graphic of public opinion on marriage, I think that we can see something interesting.

If we look at the way in which public opinion has been going, we see – other than a bump leading into the 2004 elections – a fairly consistent rate of change. But around the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, something happened. Something changed the scale such that the rate of increase in support and rate of decrease in opposition sped up dramatically.

Why did this happen?

I think I know why. I don’t have evidence for this conjecture, and history may prove me wrong, but I believe that a single international moment occurred which changed the way in which marriage equality was viewed both within and without the gay community: Proposition 8.

When Californians voted to ban marriage in our state, it caught the world by surprise. And, unlike marriage bans in Arkansas or Texas, this seemed personal. It seemed a deliberate insult.

Also unlike Arkansas or Texas bans, it pissed us off enough to protest. Publicly in the streets. In San Francisco and San Diego and Los Angeles. But also in Chicago and Detroit and New York and Omaha and Salt Lake City and Wichita and Marquette and Sault Ste Marie. Even in London and Paris and Amsterdam.

This was an unexpected response. Those who oppose marriage didn’t expect it, the voters didn’t expect it.

And we didn’t expect it. But something about the moment of this vote and this time in this state caught our collective discontent and channeled it around a singular event. Losing proposition 8 changed us as a community, for the first time we truly began to believe – all of us, not just the activists but club kids and conservative couples and militant queers and feminist lesbians – that marriage was a right to which we are entitled and which is worth fighting for.

And, just as importantly, it showed those around us that we truly care. It ceased being a matter over which we could politely disagree and became a position which defined friendship and family and faith.

And as a consequence, those around us changed. Reluctant and hesitant and fearful people decided that if they had to choose between tradition and those they love (and, yes, now they have to choose), they would give up tradition.

So where does it go from here?

I think that from now on – for a while, at least – we are going to see ever-increasing support until only the die-hards will still oppose civil marriage. Those who currently say “no” to pollsters will increasingly feel reluctant to be out of the mainstream and will respond the way that “everyone agrees”. The Aunt Thelma’s of the world will not only find that they do think that it’s time to let Sue’s kid (he’s such a fine young man) and his partner marry, but that they are rather proud of how modern and current they are.

And this will be followed – at a few years distance – by legislative change. Politicians are followers, not leaders, so they will not be ahead of the people on this issue.

But when the Minnesota Marriage Ban Amendment fails in 2012, as I predict that it will, this will be the end of calls by anti-gay activists to “let the people vote”. And if the Supreme Court has not invalidated such bans by then, we will see initiative efforts to reverse the anti-gay bans in states like Oregon, California, and Nevada.

None of which means that we can rest on our laurels or quit the fight. As they lose, anti-gays will mount ever shriller campaigns and they may get rather painful and the South will cross the line to full equality only after dragging its feet, kicking and screaming. But while there are still battles to go, we have won the war.

Rhode Island civil unions pass the House

The Rhode Island House has voted on civil unions and the bill passes 62 to 11.

Democrats voted 56 yes; 8 no; 1 not voting
Republicans voted 6 yes; 3 no; 1 not voting

The bill will pass now go to the Senate where its passage is certain and then it will be signed by the Governor. In the immortal words of Gavin Newsom, it’s going to happen whether you like it or not.

In our frustration with this second class solution in place of what was promised, let’s keep in mind that only three years ago we would have danced in the streets tonight in celebration of a civil unions victory. And come July 1, many gay couples in Rhode Island will have legal rights and security for their relationship that they do not have today.

Bloomberg’s single issue advocacy

Mayor Bloomberg flew to Albany today to lobby Republican New York State Senators to vote for marriage equality. The New York Times wrote about his trip.

I just got goose bumps.

The visit by Mr. Bloomberg, who has been among the biggest donors to Senate Republicans in recent years, came as lawmakers and same-sex marriage advocates begin a monthlong push to muster the small number of Republican votes needed to win approval of same-sex marriage in the Republican-controlled Senate.
…
In pledging to support senators who back same-sex marriage — “no matter where they stand on any other issue,” the mayor said — Mr. Bloomberg is dangling a potent political carrot: his money and muscle in the next election.

I can’t recall a straight politician of Bloomberg’s stature – in any party – ever basing the allocation of their considerable financial support and influence solely on a pro-gay position. Ever.

RI Committee advances civil unions

The Rhode Island House Judiciary Committee voted 9 to 3 to advance the civil unions bill to the floor of the full House. It is likely to be passed by a wide margin on Thursday.

Queer Rising continues its self-absorbed media-hungry approach to activism

Successful activism walks a fine line. If you get too cautious, you end up making excuses for the status quo, placing “alliances” ahead of goals, and end up as a politician rather than an advocate. To my way of thinking, some of our established organizations have gone way too far down that road.

On the other extreme, reckless actions that are not well thought out can have both immediate and long-term costs, some of which are catastrophic. Groups that come from an “I’m right so f*ck you” arrogance may place pissing people off as their highest goal without considering (or caring about) the consequences of their actions.

And when you have individuals or organizations that are in love with seeing their name in print, be it on a White House cocktail invitation or the screaming headlines of the New York Post, priorities are almost certain to become muddled. The goal becomes more about “visibility” than about what that visibility is supposed to accomplish.

It has become increasingly evident to me that Queer Rising, a small new activism collective, falls in the latter category. They are fond of public display, but seem to have little to no actual knowledge about what they are protesting and even less interest in finding out. Queer Rising’s sole objective appears to be getting their name in the newspaper.

I first became aware of Queer Rising back in March of last year when they lent their voice to the movement in opposition to DADT… and in opposition to HRC. While I have my concerns about HRC’s efficacy, I see little value in taking it to the streets.

Then in July when the National Organization for Marriage’s Tour of Empty City Plazas came to Providence, RI, a few Queer Rising members from New York decided to storm the stage and have a screaming match with Brian Brown. Who cares if the picture of angry screaming activists on someone else’s turf was was widely published by NOM? Who cares if we are now trying to appeal to the good will of Rhode Island legislators for relationship rights?

In March of this year, Queer Rising was back for some more media attention. This time they blocked traffic during New York’s morning commute to protest for the right to marry. Or do bad drag. Or something. But whatever “message” they were purportedly trying to relay, it was clearly secondary to their stated goals of “drag visibility”. Who cares if commuters now link marriage rights with fright wigs and stilettos?

This isn’t to say that they don’t have a flair. Bringing a cardboard cut-out of Senator Rev. Ruben Diaz dolled up in drag along with them on the AIDS Walk for photo-ops certainly drew attention (though I’m not sure how it squares with “drag visibility”.) And there is not only a place, but a necessity for those who are willing to confront the establishment, to challenge authority, and to behave outlandishly.

But Queer Rising seems, overall, to lack the wisdom and perspective to know when an action is going to achieve a goal and when it will only be a burden on the rest of the community. And again they have confirmed my estimation.

New Yorkers United for Marriage (a coalition of Empire State Pride Agenda, the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry, Log Cabin Republicans and Marriage Equality New York) has been working hard to achieve marriage equality in New York this year.

These are all serious organizations. And while some may at times put alliances ahead of achievements, I have great respect for a few of them. The visibility they seek has less to do with being either a chummy insider or an angry outsider and more to do with achieving tangible goals.

And tangible goals have been achieved. The Republican leadership in the Senate has promised to allow a vote to come up and not to punish Republicans who vote in favor of marriage (and the majority of funding has come from powerful high-level Republican donors). Democratic Governor Cuomo has made marriage equality a hallmark of his administration and is actively courting Senators. And while the Conservative Party has made a no vote on marriage to be a litmus test for their support, the Moderate Party leader has endorsed the change.

None of which seems to have been noted by Queer Rising.

Deciding to ignore those who have been working the hardest on this issue, Queer Rising came up with a unique political theory of their own. (WSJ)

But the group pushing for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender rights says Cuomo isn’t mustering support among lawmakers behind the scenes.

Allen Roskoff, speaking for Queer Rising Tuesday, says that if Cuomo doesn’t get the bill passed as promised, then he was only paying “lip service” to gay rights.

And they know that because… well, because they made it up. Who cares if the Wall Street Journal sees this as “a crack in the united effort to legalize gay marriage”? Who cares if New Yorkers United for Marriage now have to heal rifts created by this act? Who cares even if marriage becomes legal?

Queer Rising got their name in the paper.

Viva Visability!!

Rhode Island civil unions committee vote today

No one is supporting civil unions in Rhode Island. But they probably will get them anyway.

The gay community and its supporters remain convinced that there are enough votes in the legislature to pass full marriage equality this year. And some are of the opinion that the passing of civil unions would set back or delay the eventual recognition of married gay couples. So gay organizations have been lobbying against a civil unions bill.

On the other side are those, like the National Organization for Marriage, who pretend to be concerned about “protecting marriage” but in reality are opposed to any recognition of same-sex couples whatsoever (and, indeed, any rights at all for gay people). The are lobbying against the civil unions bill, claiming that it would be a stepping stone towards marriage.

And it likely would.

But the legislature in Rhode Island is on the razor’s edge. Many want to support same-sex couples, but are hesitant about full marriage – perhaps out of religious fear, perhaps out of political calculation, or perhaps out of ol’ fashioned “but, but that’s how it’s always been” prejudice. And civil unions are the ideal compromise, a vote to show that they support gay people but also not likely to result in any voter backlash. (The days of a civil unions vote costing a politician votes is gone in the Northeast).

And as House speaker Gordon Fox, a gay man, has determined that getting a majority in the House is not possible (or would cost more political capital than he is willing to spend) and is supporting civil unions, politicians have a rock-solid basis for taking this route. And they are further justified by the fact that full equality would be subjected to a fierce opposition from Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, a Democrat that opposes marriage but supports civil unions.

And the first vote is today. The House Judiciary Committee will vote whether to send the civil unions bill to the full house and it is expected to do so.

It’s frustrating. Governor Lincoln Chafee is an outspoken advocate for marriage and polls show that a strong majority of Rhode Islanders support full equality. Democrats outnumber Republicans 65 to 10 in the House and 29 to 8 in the Senate. Waiting and compromise feels unnecessary and overly-cautious.

But that’s reality. Rather than marriage equality, Rhode Island will get civil unions this year.

And I’m (reluctantly) okay with that. As NOM notes, civil unions really are a stepping stone to marriage. And if DOMA fails in the courts (as it surely will), the federal recognition of same-sex marriages will compel civil union states to immediate revision so as to allow gay couples access to federal benefits.

Wealthy New York Republicans Back Marriage Equality Push

Clifford Asness

The New York Times this morning reports that wealthy Republican New Yorkers, some of them quite conservative otherwise, have donated more than $1 million to LGBT advocacy groups to fund their push for marriage equality. The donations already make up about two-thirds of the state’s same-sex marriage fundraising, far outstripping donations from Democratic and liberal sources.

New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has given $100,000 and will host a fundraiser among his well-connected friends. Donations have come in from top Republican donor and hedge fund manager Paul Singer, who is one of the most generous GOP donors in the country. He also has a gay son who married in Massachusetts. Singer has personally donated $425,000 and solicited an additional $500,000 in donations. Financiers Steven Cohen, Daniel Loeb and Clifford Asness have donated. Asness explains:

“I’m a pretty straight-down-the-line small-government guy,” said Mr. Asness, who described himself as a libertarian who favored less government intrusion in both markets and personal affairs. Mr. Asness, a frequent Republican donor, has praised Tea Party activists on his blog and last year attended a conference of right-leaning donors held by Charles and David Koch, among the leading conservative philanthropists in the nation.

“This is an issue of basic freedom,” Mr. Asness said.

Conservatives attack Navy policy, get it reversed

A memo was made public on Monday that stated that same-sex marriages could be be conducted on Navy bases in states that allow such marriages and that chaplains who so wished could participate.

Predictably, social conservatives reacted with outrage.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (identified as a hate group by the SPLC), tweeted

Hearing Navy chaplains are now being trained to perform same sex weddings following [Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT)] changes. Major religious liberty implications.

And the politicians got all charged up as well (Christianity Today)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) and 62 other Members of Congress also object to the new policy. They sent a letter to the Secretary of the Navy accusing the Navy of violating federal law.

“We find it difficult to understand how the military is somehow exempt from abiding by federal law. Not only does this document imply recognition and support of same-sex marriage in opposition to DOMA, it also implies that the Navy will now perform these marriages so long as they do not violate state statutes,” Akin wrote.

And so the Navy has today reversed the policy. But what is being carefully avoided by conservatives is how this came about and who is really impacted.

The policy memo was written by Navy Chief of Chaplains Rear Adm. Mark L. Tidd and was written to chaplains to answer questions that arose when those Navy chaplains were undergoing training as to what chaplains were allowed to do.

This reversal will have but minimal effect on gay couples. No, we will not be allowed to marry on base, but we can find another venue quite close by. The wedding will go on.

Who this really effects the most are military chaplains. This reversal tells them that they do not have the freedom to officiate at certain weddings. They cannot rely on the teachings of their own denomination or the guidance of their faith; instead politicians will dictate what are acceptable standards for sacraments.

So listen up, all you Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, American Baptists, Universalists, Reformed Jews, or any other religious denomination who either does support same-sex marriage or is deciding whether to do so: it’s time you wake up to the truth. This is an attack on you.

Tony Perkins and the rest who yell the loudest about religious liberties don’t want religious liberty at all. Or, at least, not for you. They want to dictate to you what is acceptable religious policy in this country. It’s time you get in this fight and realize that you are fighting as much for your own freedom as you are for ours.

Marriage Ban Goes to Minnesota Senate Floor

Despite moving testimony this week, the Minnesota Senate Rules Committee voted to forward the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the Senate floor. Now word yet on when the full Senate will take up the measure.