Box Turtle Bulletin

Civil Unions clear CO Senate Judiciary Committee

Yesterday, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee was blessed by some brilliant factual information from BTB author Daniel Gonzales and some amusing anus-talk from Eagle Forum director Rosina Kovar. The committee voted to approve the bill and advance it to the Committee on Finance.

Voting against civil unions were Republicans Steve King, Kevin Lundberg, and Mark Scheffel. Supporting the bill was Republican Ellen Roberts and all five Democratic Senators: Angela Giron, Linda Newell, Jeanne Nicholson, Lucia Guzman, and Morgan Carroll.

Although this reflects a somewhat typical Republican/Democrat split, it’s also worth noting that the vote was split along gender lines.

Arora Goes Clintonian

It looks like Maryland delegate Sam Arora got an earful after he tried to pull an Arora yesterday, in which he pulled back his support for a bill allowing marriage Equality that is making its way through Maryland’s lower house. Until this week, he had not only co-sponsored the bill, but campaigned (and accepted campaign donations) on the promise that he would support marriage equality. Then he announced that he would screw his LGBT and LGBT-supportive constituents who helped get him elected by voting no on the measure. Then today, we get this:

I have heard from constituents, friends, and advocates from across the spectrum of views and have thought about the issue of same-sex marriage extensively. I understand their concern—this is a very serious issue, and one that many people feel passionately about. As the vote drew nearer, I wrestled with this issue in a way I never had before, which led me to realize that I had some concerns about the bill. While I personally believe that Maryland should extend civil rights to same-sex couples through civil unions, I have come to the conclusion that this issue has such impact on the people of Maryland that they should have a direct say. I will vote to send the bill to the floor because it deserves an up-or-down vote. On the floor, I will vote to send the bill to the governor so that Marylanders can ultimately decide this issue at the polls. I think that is appropriate.

That has got to be the most convoluted mess of a statement I’ve ever seen. But the bottom line is that when Maryland’s House Judiciary committee finally voted to send the bill to the House floor, Arora voted yes.

As recently as February 21, Arora told his constituents that he passionately believed in marriage equality. According to Joe Sudbay, Arora was still privately speaking of his support for the bill as late as Sunday. But two days later, he started tweeting that he was walking back his support. Along the way, something or somebody definitely got to Arora.

So now, we have his yes vote — and yes, that part is with my thanks and with gratitude — along with this strange, disturbing, Clintonesque statement that continues to raise red flags. You remember what happened when President Bill Clinton went Clintonian on LGBT rights: we got DOMA and DADT. So now we have Arora trying to pull off the same thing. He is now against marriage equality, thinks we should have civil unions instead, and wants to get this bill to the governor as quickly as possible to NOM can gather signatures for a referendum so that our rights can be put up to a vote. Just so you know what he’s talking about, this is how that referendum process would work:

According to Maryland’s State Board of Elections, opponents of the marriage bill can start collecting signatures for a statewide referendum immediately after the passage of the bill in the House of Delegates, before Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) signs the bill. A total of 55,736 signatures are required on the petition and must be submitted to Secretary of State John P. McDonough (D) by June 30. One third of those signatures are due on May 31.

This sets up a strange dynamic. The longer the House can delay the vote, the less time signature gatherers would have to collect signatures to put a referendum on the ballot. But the longer the House delays, the more time there is for Arora and others with a similar lack of integrity to change their minds and vote against the bill. You would think that with Democrats holding a 98-43 majority in the House, this should be an easy shot. But you would be wrong. Such is the moral cowardice of far too many Dems who were elected with LGBT support.

Marriage passes Maryland judiciary

By a vote of 12 to 10, the House Judiciary has supported the marriage equality bill. So it looks like the three or so Representatives who did acrobatics in the political circus this week finally did vote in favor.

Now on to the full House of Representatives. Why am I fearing even more theatrics?

UPDATE: Alston voted “no” but Vallario, who was not a co-sponsor, voted in favor. Someone send him roses.

Maryland’s Alston proposes ‘no marriages for anyone, civil unions for all’ compromise

As surmised, Tiffany Alston’s boycott of the marriage vote on Tuesday had far far less to do with other issues that were not receiving adequate attention and far more to do with pressure she is receiving from religious African-American anti-gay activists.

So Alston is wanting to propose a compromise (myfoxdc.com):

“I believe, as a government, we should issue something that is the same for everybody,” Alston explained in a hallway outside the House Judiciary Committee. “And I think, if we wanted to issue a license to everybody and call it a civil union license. And then everybody in the state – whether heterosexual or homosexual – would get the same exact license.”

Alston said religious groups could then hold their own ceremonies – some would include gay nuptials, some would not.

Ideologically, that argument does make a certain amount of sense. It would get around the “marriage is a sacrament” belief that has been instilled by attending weddings and watching movies and seems to lodge somewhere in the back of our subconscious thinking. And considering the number of churches across the nation (and internet ministers) that would delight in granting same-sex couples “marriage” status, it would not serve as an impediment to the status found in that term.

But pragmatically, it’s impossible. If Maryland’s residents were to separately and solely determine that no one in their state has “marriage” as a legal status, then chaos would result. Federal law does (irrespective of the unconstitutional DOMA) rely on state marriages for its determination of marriage for federal purposes. And as it is abundantly clear that legislators do not see civil unions as the same as marriage (ask New Jersey and Hawaii), there is no way that Maryland’s representatives are going to go back to their constituents and announce that they’ve down-graded their marriages to civil unions.

And, let’s face it, it’s not a compromise that the anti-gay folk would ever accept. They don’t really want to protect their right to define marriage for their own congregation; this is all about forcing their definition of marriage on those who don’t go to their church.

But it does seem clear that Alston ‘gets it’ that laws which provide different treatment based on what group you are in are discriminatory. And let’s hope that, like Maryland Republican Senator Allan Kittleman who proposed the same thing, this will result in a vote for marriage equality.

Meanwhile Jill Carter is back on board the marriage train with a brand new explanation as to why she boycotted Tuesday’s proposed vote. (Investigative Voice)

“I didn’t block the vote ” Jill Carter (D-41st) told Investigative Voice in a telephone interview early Thursday morning. “We didn’t have the votes.”

The leadership “didn’t take a whip count, she explained, and I know we were at least two votes short” of passage.

But Carter is not available for a vote today, either.

Jill Carter is sick.

Rhode Island marriage vote may come within weeks

Providence Journal:

House Speaker Gordon D. Fox, an openly gay Providence Democrat, says he’s “doing everything in his power” to move the question forward.

He acknowledged that a vote in the House Judiciary Committee could come as soon as March 10, the day that the Senate has scheduled a hearing on the Senate version of the legislation.

“That’s a potential,” Fox said. “The potential’s there but nothing has been set in stone at this point.”

Wyoming anti-marriage bill update

From the Star-Tribune

By a 31-28 vote, House members voted to accept a stripped-down version of House Bill 74 crafted by a conference committee on Tuesday. Conference committee members tore out all language on the two most contentious issues surrounding the bill – civil unions and court access for same-sex couples.

UPDATE: The bill died in the Senate 16-14

Which means that Wyoming law remains in limbo. Basically, there is no recognition of out-of-state marriages or civil unions, but Wyoming legislature still contains enough libertarian “western Republicans” that anti-gay legislation could not pass this year.

Maryland House committee update

Tiffany Alston – who had, along with Jill Carter, withheld her vote on marriage equality by not attending the committee – had not been as public or blatant in her extortion issues. And, consequently, had not caught the full brunt of the media’s ire.

But surely she saw the writing on the wall from how Carter fared in the public view. Not only did we express our contempt for Carter, but so did some of the mainstream media. (Baltimore Sun Editorial)

Her action reduces a question about fundamental human rights — legislation she co-sponsored — to petty horse trading. What had been ennobling about the debate over this issue so far had been the sincerity of arguments advanced on both sides, but Ms. Carter has chosen to put political expediency ahead of the interests of thousands of Marylanders and her own avowed beliefs, and she is acting as if that is a virtue. She cheapens the honest and difficult decisions her fellow legislators have made.

Even the coverage that did not exactly excoriate Ms. Carter questioned why she signed on to sponsor a bill if she didn’t think it was all that important.

So Alston has now discovered that she is ready to vote and most analysis assumes that she will support the bill. And some reports say that Carter has resolved her concerns.

But meanwhile another supporter discovered to his amazement that the marriage equality bill is about marriage. (Todd Eberly)

In other development, Del. Melvin Stukes of Baltimore withdrew his sponsorship of the bill explaining that he thought the bill only provided for civil unions and not for civil marriage. In the spirit of full disclosure, I know Del. Stukes and have the utmost respect for him, but the text of the bill has always been clear with regard to legalizing civil marriage.

Eberly also speculates on the cause of the derailing:

So what’s happening in the Maryland House? Why are co-sponsors of the bill flaking out? The most likely explanation is that they sponsored the legislation based on the assumption that it would never pass in the Senate and they would never be called upon to cast a vote in favor of it. Now, there is a very real possibility that the bill will become law and these lawmakers were not prepared for the pressure of actually casting a vote.

It is likely more than a coincidence that the three delegates referenced are African American and represent predominantly African-American constituencies. As reported by the Washington Post, African-American churches and religious leaders have emerged as a strong voice of opposition to the legalization of same-sex marriage (as have Catholic churches and leaders). No doubt Dels. Stukes, Carter, and Alston have been hearing much of that opposition.

Let’s hope that strong supportive voices rise up in Maryland’s African-American community to counter the anti-gay fervor being whipped up by some in the black churches.

Civil unions dropped from Wyoming anti-marriage bill

House Bill 74 would ban the recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. Wyoming law, which was written before the first same-sex marriages, defines marriage as a contract “between a male and a female person” but also recognizes any valid marriage performed outside the state – a discrepancy which put same-sex marriages in limbo.

HB74 has passed both the Wyoming House and Senate, but in sharply different versions. Both banned the recognition of civil unions, but the Senate provided that state courts could address the dissolution of civil unions from other states and the House specifically banned courts from addressing such couples.

Until a few hours ago, it looked as though this bill might die due to an inability of the committee assigned to work out the discrepancy to reach any conclusion. The Senate had barely passed the bill and the Governor had indicated that he would veto the bill if it did not allow courts to remedy the legal problems of gay couples in a civil union. But the House was insistent that allowing same-sex couples to seek resolution in court was tantamount to giving the state’s sanction to their union.

Finally, the least likely of compromises was reached

But with the Legislature set to adjourn for the year on Thursday, the conference committee took out all language dealing with civil unions and court access.

Conference committee members said the changes bring the bill closer to other states’ Defense of Marriage acts. They also said it was better to have a narrowed bill than no bill at all, and they said it would be up to future Legislatures to tackle the issue of civil unions.

It must now go back to the House and Senate for approval of the revisions.

Maryland Delegate Carter holds gay community hostage

Meet Jill Carter. Jill represents Baltimore. She believes that your rights and my rights are less important than her own personal political advancement. She also believes that extortion is an appropriate methodology for getting her way.

Jill Carter is an ideal example of what people find objectionable in politicians. From now on when you hear someone say, “they’re all crooks, out for themselves, and they care nothing about principles or the people,” Jill Carter’s face should come to mind.

Carter had signed on as a sponsor of the marriage equality bill in Maryland. Then she did a vote count and thought, “oh, my vote counts. Without my support gay people can be denied their civil equality, so I’ll use my vote as an extortion tool to get what I want.” (Baltimore Sun)

Carter was one of two delegates supportive of gay marriage who staged a walkout this morning during a specially scheduled vote on the marriage proposal — which has already cleared the Senate and had been expected to make it out of the House committee today.

But Carter said there are “more important, or at least equally important” issues that she would like to see fast-tracked in the way that, in her view, gay marriage has been. And she said that until she hears from House leadership, she does not plan to cast a committee vote in favor of the Civil Marriage Protection Act.

She is a critical vote: The House Judiciary Committee contains only exactly enough “yes” votes to get the same-sex marriage proposal out of committee and to the House floor for debate by the entire 141-member chamber.

What a really nasty piece of work.

Wyoming Marriage Ban Dies

After a proposed constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passed the state Senate, it went on to die in the House:

The Wyoming House adjourned Friday without taking action on a same-sex marriage bill that had already passed the state Senate. The bill failed to meet a procedural deadline that would have kept the bill alive.

It’s still unclear whether a separate bill banning recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages will clear the House. The snag is over whether they will allow Wyoming Courts to dissolve civil unions performed in other states.

Mohler concedes inevitability of social acceptance of same-sex couples

Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, is now admitting that their arguments are not going to win over society, or even all of those who sit in pews listening to their anti-gay sermonizing (Christian Post):

“I think it’s clear that something like same-sex marriage is going to become normalized, legalized and recognized in the culture. It’s time for Christians to start thinking about how we’re going to deal with that,” he said Friday on the Focus on the Family radio program.
…
The Southern Baptist made it clear that he was not saying that they are giving up. Marriage is still an institution Christians need to save, particularly in their own community. But Christians also need to start learning how to deal with the shifting culture and even face the fact that they may lose a few from their flock.

“I think we’re going to be surprised and heartbroken over how many people are going to capitulate to the spirit of the age,” he noted. “We’re going to find now that there may not be as many of us as we thought.”

He’s right.

Where to find an ex-gay

Ya know, ex-gays are a pretty elusive bunch. Oh they make statements to newspapers and comments on websites, but how many of us have ever actually met anyone in person who once was gay and now is “walking away from homosexuality,” as they say.

Well I have a solution. If you ever want to meet an ex-gay, I can guarantee how.

No, it’s not by hanging out at Mr. P’s or even by cruising craigslist for drug-fueled sex orgies.

No, if you ever want to meet an ex-gay, head to the nearest legislative body that is considering some effort to treat gay people decently. You’ll be sure to meet an ex-gay who has traveled there to argue that because they have chosen to “walk away from homosexuality,” therefore gay folks should be denied all rights. Yeah, it’s not exactly logical, but what do you expect from folks who continue to believe, year after year, decade after decade, that God is gunna make ’em heterosexual. Some day. Yeah.

At the Maryland marriage hearings: (San Antonio Express-News)

A panel of formerly gay leaders, representing groups which convert people from homosexuality to heterosexuality, called the bill the work of a “sexual minority” imposing its will on the population.

Anthony Falzarano, national director of the Parents and Friends Ministries, said he spent nine years as a gay man before becoming heterosexual with God’s help.

Falzarano said gay activists have been “undermining the moral standards of the United States.”

Well, Falzarano should know. He was, after all, a whore in the 70’s with clientele that supposedly included Roy Cohn.

[I do think that it’s only fair at this point to mention that I have noticed that Exodus International and its leaders have not been a visible presence recently in the political anti-gay movement. They had pledged to make a change away from political advocacy, and I think that they are due credit for living up to that pledge.]

Catholics really don’t want to be thought of as bigots

More and more I find myself running across angsty protests against describing actions that exclude gay people from civil inclusion as “discriminatory.” Often these come from Catholic Bishops who have become accustomed to thinking of their church as the defender of the downtrodden and panic when downtrodden gay folk start pointing fingers.

Take, for example, this Catholic News Agency response to the President’s recent DOMA decision:

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., the top legal counsel for the U.S. bishops, called the administration’s decision a “grave affront” to Americans who reject unjust discrimination but also affirm “the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

“Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society,” Picarello said.

Any government suggestion that this belief is discriminatory is a “serious threat” to religious liberty, he added.

Note Picarello’s greatest concern: that the official Catholic teaching is seen as discriminatory, that the church’s anti-gay political activism be viewed as based in bigotry. And anti-gay activism’s number one marriage theorist, Robert George, explains why.

“He treats that belief as if it were a mere prejudice, as though it is motivated by a desire to cause harm to people,” George told CNA Feb. 24. “Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a legitimate moral belief that has informed our law throughout history.”

The statement suggests to George the possibility that the Justice Department will “abuse its authority to suppress the religious liberty of people who dissent.”

“It raises the concern that the Justice Department will treat believing Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as though they are the equivalent of racists,” he warned.

And if there is anything that the Catholic Church wishes to avoid, it’s facing society equating their dogma with racism or other animus-based bias. That doesn’t bode well for evangelism or donations.

On DOMA, Social Conservatives Howl While Pols Shrug

By virtually any measure, the Obama Administration’s announcement that they will no longer argue that the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” is constitutional portends a monumental shift, with repercussions we are all still trying to sort out. Anti-gay activists are, predictably, howling with rage, calling on Congress to intervene. But as we noted, House speaker John Boehner refused to take the bait, and is instead sticking to his promised focus on slashing the budget. The New York Times noticed similarly tepid reactions among many other political conservatives:

In the hours that followed, Sarah Palin’s Facebook site was silent. Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was close-mouthed. Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, released a Web video — on the labor union protests in Wisconsin — and waited a day before issuing a marriage statement saying he was “disappointed.”

Others, like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Haley Barbour, the governor of Mississippi, took their time weighing in, and then did so only in the most tepid terms. “The Justice Department is supposed to defend our laws,” Mr. Barbour said.

Asked if Mitch Daniels, the Republican governor of Indiana and a possible presidential candidate, had commented on the marriage decision, a spokeswoman said that he “hasn’t, and with other things we have going on here right now, he has no plans.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is also believed to be a presidential contender, is among the few to come out strongly against the Administration’s decision, calling children being raised by LGBT parents “our little guinea pigs.” Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist for President Bush’s 2004 campaign which deployed marriage as a major wedge issue to turn out conservative voters, may well be right: “The wedge has lost its edge,” he told the Times. Of course, there’s still plenty of time for that to change between now and 2012.

DOJ will “cease to defend” DOMA in Gill and Commonwealth cases

GLAD is announcing:

The Department of Justice followed Wednesday’s withdrawal from two DOMA cases in the Second Circuit, including GLAD’s Pedersen v. OPM by notifying the clerk of the First Circuit that they will also “cease to defend” the two consolidated DOMA cases, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Massachusetts v. HHS.

According to the letter, the DOJ will remain parties to the case but will cease to defend Section 3 of DOMA. They also notified the court that Congress will be given the opportunity to defend DOMA Section 3.