Box Turtle Bulletin

Hunting for ex-gays in Washington, D.C.

The recent votes by the city counsel of Washington, DC, to first recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages and now to offer marriage equality brought out plenty of anti-gay activists. And many loudly proclaimed the healing power of Christ to overcome the homosexual lifestyle.

But among the many there in the chambers to denounce the evils of homosexuality, one demographic seemed to be missing: residents of the city who had been healed. There just didn’t seem to be any living, breathing ex-gays there to remind their elected officials to represent this often-invisible minority.

The reason may be revealed in an article by Amanda Hess in the Washington CityPaper back in September.

Unfortunately for PFOX and reporters on the sexual-orientation beat, ex-gay Washingtonians are hard to come by. Since each of my dozen or so calls to PFOX headquarters went unanswered, I am unable to confirm any of the group\’s purported ex-gay offspring or friends. J. Matt Barber, a member of the PFOX board of directors, tells me that he has “a number of very close friends who are former homosexuals”—none of whom live in D.C. I do track down ex-gay minister Anthony Falzarano, who founded PFOX in Washington in 1995. Falzarano was happy to detail the hundreds of male sex partners he had in his former life, but his flamboyant ex-gayness is no use to PFOX now—Falzarano has since left D.C. for West Palm Beach, Fla. Quinlan, PFOX\’s current go-to ex-gay, once called D.C. home, but he has since settled into his heterosexual lifestyle in Dayton, Ohio.

Anti-gay activists are quick to tell you that the world is just teeming with “former homosexuals”. I guess just not in DC.

New Yorkers disappointed by marriage vote

The Siena Research Institute has released a survey that shows that a plurality of New Yorkers were displeased that the NY Senate voted for anti-gay discrimination.

* Forty-seven percent of voters were disappointed that the Senate rejected the bill to legalize same sex marriages in New York, compared to 41 percent who were pleased by the Senate\’s vote. In August, 50 percent of voters told Siena that they supported the Senate passing the same sex marriage bill, with 44 percent then opposing Senate passage.

* Liberals, young voters, Democrats and Jewish voters were most disappointed. Conservatives, Republicans, older, and African American voters were most pleased with the Senate vote.

I find this a bit surprising. I figured for the most part the general public doesn’t really experience either much disappointment or much pleasure with legislation that primarily impacts our lives.

“Overall, 40 percent of voters – 42 percent of those who were disappointed in the Senate action and 47 percent of those who were pleased – said that their Senator\’s vote on the issue would be a deciding factor in their vote for State Senator next years.”

While that may be of some advantage to Republicans in conservative districts, it cannot be good news to the eight Democratic “no” votes that at least some of their constituents will be looking for an alternative in the primary.

D.C. legalizes marriage

Following up on their vote of two weeks ago, the City Council for Washington, DC, has taken the second and final step in enacting marriage equality in the nation’s capital. (AP)

The Washington, D.C., City Council voted Tuesday to legalize gay marriage in the nation’s capital, handing supporters a victory after a string of recent defeats in Maine, New York and New Jersey.

Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign the bill, which passed 11-2, and gay couples could begin marrying as early as March. Congress, which has final say over Washington’s laws, could reject it, but Democratic leaders have suggested they are reluctant to do so.

Congress will have 30 days after Mayor Fenty signs the bill to reject it. Otherwise the District of Colombia will join Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa, and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriages at some point early in 2010.

If they really cared about Ocean Grove…

Anti-gay activists may be on the verge of losing another argument… by winning it.

Anti-marriage activism has no legitimate intellectual principle from which to argue. Appeals to tradition, religion, and “the children, the children” may sound compelling in an emotional TV ad, but they are simply cover for the fact that there is no logical reason that equality under the law should be denied to gay people other than animus.

So anti-gay activists tell stories, tales, and myths to portray gay people as aggressors and good God-fearing church folk as their helpless victims. Of course, they make strategic adjustments to their stories – what an objective observer might call “lying through their teeth” – but they try to keep at least a kernel of truth so that they can’t be accused of just making poop up.

One of the favorite stories that anti-gays like to tell is that of a church in New Jersey that lost its tax exempt status because it wouldn’t conduct gay marriages.

Here’s the tale from the Manhattan Declaration:

In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi­marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions.

And from the National Organization for Marriage’s infamous “gathering storm” ad:

“I am part of a New Jersey church group punished by the government because we cannot support same-sex marriage.”

In fact, you’ll hardly find a litany of imagined aggrievances that anti-gays chant that does not have some version of this tale. Of course, none of them tell the truth.

The facts are that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association owns a small beachside town in New Jersey. Although Ocean Grove has many areas that are restricted for religious use, for decades the beach, the boardwalk, and a pavilion have been open to the public.

As part of the state’s Green Acres program, those who make their land open to all residents get special property tax benefits denied to other property owners. And so those areas that were public use (but not the private religious property) had received exemptions.

However, when the Association decided that the pavilion was a religious building that could only be used for heterosexual ceremonies, and not gay ceremonies, they no longer qualified for the exemption and the pavilion lost its special status. While the beach and the boardwalk remained privileged and received preferential treatment, the pavilion was treated like the rest of the Association’s property.

But all of that could change.

An added provision to the proposed New Jersey marriage equality bill would exempt churches, and church-affiliated organizations like the Camp Meeting Association, from having to provide services to same-sex couples. And further, it bars the state from punishing those religious organizations that so discriminate.

Which means that the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association could return to making their pavilion open to wedding ceremonies for everyone – Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists, and Methodists – everyone except gay folk.

And you know what? I’m OK with that.

So here’s an offer to all of those anti-gay activists who have been telling the world that they are all so so so so very concerned about the Methodists in New Jersey: Support the marriage bill and you can get your ‘special rights’ back for the Ocean Grove pavilion. And we won’t even complain about it.

Fair enough?

What do you say?

UPDATE: The language of the section is as follows. The amendment starts at 1b.:

5. (New section) 1a.1 No member of the clergy of any religion authorized to solemnize marriage and no religious society, institution or organization in this State shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or by Article I, paragraph 4 of the New Jersey Constitution.

d. Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the effect of section 2 of P.L.1979, c.428 (C.18A:35-4.7).

9th Circuit to Olson/Boies: No access to Prop 8 internal docs

On the 4th, we reported that a three judge panel had blocked the turn-over of insider communication of the Proposition 8 supporters to Ted Olson and David Boies. Olson/Boies are suing to have Prop 8 declared in violation of the Federal Constitution and are using as part of their argument the fact that Prop 8 is primarily based in anti-gay animus.

But they will have to do so without access to documents that could prove that the campaign’s strategy consisted of inflaming anti-gay bigotry. (SFGate)

In a unanimous ruling Friday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit of Appeals tossed out the order that Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker issued in October against backers of Prop. 8, which state voters approved in November 2008.

Walker had said lawyers for two same-sex couples and a gay-rights group were entitled to see internal memos and e-mails between Yes on 8 strategists to look for evidence that the campaign had exploited prejudice against gays and lesbians.

The trial starts January 11th.

Austria’s Civil Unions passed by legislature

In November we informed you that the Austrian government had agreed to a bill which would enact Civil Unions. The AP is reporting that the bill has now passed the legislature:

Earlier in the day, Hoegl and co-president Jona Solomon passed out pink rum-filled cupcakes to parliamentarians, along with a letter that urged them to vote yes.

The legislation — considered a compromise between the governing coalition — did not pass unanimously. In the end, of the 174 lawmakers who cast ballots, 110 voted in favor of the bill, and 64 voted against it.

The opposition right-wing Freedom Party rejected it outright, saying it goes too far. The Greens, on the other hand, argued it was too limited.

Congratulations, Austrians.

Oooops, Australia does NOT get Registered Partnerships

OK, that was a colossal blunder. The story is not about Australia but about Austria.

The Associated Press is reporting:

Austria’s parliament passed legislation Thursday allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, a move hailed by proponents as a historic win for gay rights in the country.

The bill, slated to become law Jan. 1, will give same-sex couples many of the rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, including access to a pension if one partner dies and alimony in the event of a split.

Calling them Civil Unions seems to be a bit of an inaccurate nomenclature. If I understand correctly, the relationships cannot include a celebration or be solemnized. Rather they are to be recorded in a national registry and, as such, are better understood as Registered Partnerships.

I’m unable as yet to find this story from an Australian new source, so more accurate clarification may be coming.

Prior to this action, Registered Partnerships were recorded in Victoria and Tasmania, and Civil Unions were legal in the Australian Capital Territory.

Maine’s anti-marriage leader commends the Ugandan Kill Gays bill

Bob Emrich is the pastor of Emmanuel Baptist Bible Church in Plymouth, Maine. He was also a campaign leader and spokesman for Stand for Marriage Maine, the organization primarily responsible for the passage of Question 1 which reversed the Maine Legislature’s law enacting marriage equality. Emrich was, in many ways, the voice and face of the anti-gay marriage movement in Maine.

When campaigning against equality for gay Mainers, Emrich tried to portray himself and his organization as being in favor of traditional marriage rather than being anti-gay.

Emrich said he has tried to keep the emphasis on marriage, rather than on “homosexual behavior.”

“At some point, it’s a personal, private matter,” he said. “There’s an obligation on all of us to try to warn and encourage each other away from destructive behaviors and toward healthy behaviors, but we’re always going to debate what those are. When it comes to public policy, that’s not what this bill is regulating. It’s about something more than that.”

But Emrich’s “personal, private” comments may have only been for public consumption in Maine, and his real goals and desires may be something quite other than what he was willing to admit. In fact, Emrich may well favor draconian laws that enact extreme civil punishment of gay men and women.

And Emrich is part of that previously-unknown but amazingly large collection of conservative evangelical Americans who have been investing time and effort in Uganda.

GoodAsYou.org has a copy of an email sent out yesterday by Emrich to those who share his religious and political views.

I have just recently returned from two weeks in Uganda, ministering the Word among village pastors and Churches. It was a refreshing change of pace from the last year spent on the “marriage referendum”. My trip to Uganda took me away from email, cell phones and the internet (also from electricity, running water, etc.). But I was able to see the Spirit of God working apart from the many distractions that we are faced with every day in Maine. I visited almost 20 remote villages and spent time with the believers. One of the common sentiments expressed there was that “in order to have a healthy village, there must be a strong and healthy church”. That is one of the important lessons we have been learning here as well. We will have more to say about that later. But as I work my way back into ministry here at Emmanuel Bible Baptist Church (Plymouth) and with the Maine Jeremiah Project, I wanted to share the following article I found in Uganda\’s largest daily newspaper. I had tucked it into my journal and found it yesterday as I reviewed some of my scribbling. I think it speaks for itself, but I hope you will wonder, as I do, where our own culture lost its way.

The article in question is from New Vision which calls itself “Uganda’s leading website”. It rails against the West and in declining morals. The most relevant part is:

One can now shamelessly stand up and tell you: “I do as I please. You have no business in my affairs.” A sodomist can now swear to you that what they do in the privacy of their bedroom does not concern the public.

No wonder when a brilliant MP comes up with a Bill against homosexuality, the human rights activists baptise him an enemy of the people.

It is high time politicians, religious leaders, cultural leaders and all concerned Africans woke up and defended the African heritage against the moral confusion of Western civilisation. This civilisation is eroding African moral pride.

The so-called human rights activists have hijacked the driver\’s seat and are sending nations into the sea of permissiveness in which the Western world has already drowned.

Every evil that has penetrated our society comes disguised as a human right and is watered by a group of elites who have attained education in the West. These elites have come back to impose on us practices that our forefathers deemed abominable.

Emrich wonders where our culture, the Western culture, “lost its way”. There simply is no other possible interpretation than that Emrich extols the ideas in the article and wishes that the United States were more like Uganda in such matters.

Let me be clear. It is virtually impossible that Bob Emrich is unaware of the nature of the Ugandan Kill Gays bill. Surely no one who has any interest in Uganda could possibly have missed news coverage of the proposed death penalty for HIV positive gays, life sentences for others, and incarceration of their friends, family and acquaintances.

Yet, as incredible as it seems, Bob Emrich is suggesting that the West has lost its way and that Uganda has important lessons that we need to learn here. I’m finding it difficult to find any interpretation other than that Bob Emrich, the leader of the Yes on 1 Campaign, endorses recriminalization of homosexuality and may even support execution of gays.

So when they tell you that they don’t hate you and that they are only trying to protect the traditional definition of marriage, remember Bob Emrich.

For full coverage on the recent situation in Uganda see here.

NJ Senate Marriage Vote Postponed

The New Jersey Senate vote on same-sex marriage scheduled for Thursday has been postponed until the bill can be heard by the state Assembly Judiciary Committee. The blog Blue Jersey saysthat this postponement is a good thing — the votes aren’t there yet in the full Senate for it to pass. The votes are there in the Assembly, but Assembly speaker Joe Roberts doesn’t want to schedule a vote until it passes the Senate, which is seen as the more difficult House for this issue.

Legislators are working against a January 18deadline, which is the last day Gov. Jon Corzine (D) will be in office. Corzine has said that he would sign a same-sex marriage bill into law. Incoming governor Chris Christie (R) has promised to veto such a measure should it reach his desk.

Is this wrongful termination?

Consider for a moment the following scenario.

You work for a private business. An advocacy group issues a statement and sends it to your employer which blames a recent vote on group bias. You respond by sending an email to that group which says:

\’Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the [opponents]. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!\’

Question: how long would you remain employed?

This occurred in Maine following the passage of Question 1. HRC sent a statement to the press, including the Maine Morning Sentinel in Waterville, Maine.

Larry Grard, a journalist for the Sentinel responded by sending the following email to Trevor Thomas, HRC’s deputy communications director:

\’Who are the hateful, venom-spewing ones? Hint: Not the yes on 1 crowd. You hateful people have been spreading nothing but vitriol since this campaign began. Good riddance!\’

Thomas emailed the editor, “I received the below email this morning after our national media release was sent to your team. … It’s frankly, just not acceptable coming from a news organization the morning after our defeat.” Shortly thereafter, with no further communication with HRC, the editor fired Grard.

Grard says it’s “anti-Christian bias”. What do you say?

New Jersey marriage vote delayed

The vote on marriage equality in the New Jersey Senate was scheduled for tomorrow. It has been delayed. (NJ.com)

Sens. Ray Lesniak (D-Union) and Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) said the bill — which was up for passage on Thursday — instead will likely be introduced in the Assembly Judiciary Committee in preparation for a vote by the lower house.

Meanwhile anti-equality Democrats are getting pressured.

Lawmakers said phones in their district offices continued to ring off the hook this week, with in-state and out-of-state opponents and advocates burning up the lines of Democratics senators committed to opposing gay marriage.

“Most of us have spent the last week, even just alone in our district offices fielding questions and speaking to folks, advocates and detractors of the gay marriage bill about this issue,” said Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May), who said he will vote against the bill.

As this debate plays out across the nation, I am finding that for me this is becoming less of a “agree to disagree” issue.

I am no longer willing to accept as a credible position that I am inferior to other citizens, that my rights are not equal to thiers and I am not qualified to determine to whom I should be married.

I no longer see this as “a slowly shifting cultural perspective”. I no longer find that “good people just haven’t gotten there yet”. I can no longer accept that others have “their own moral beliefs which have to be respected.”

There are no credible arguments that argue in favor of a need for discrimination against gay couples. This has become abundantly evident in the debates in the New York Senate and the New Jersey Judiciary Committee. Those who opposed equality either did so silently – I suspect shamefully – or couched their objection in the language of bigotry.

Opponents of equality are left with nothing more than an appeal to their own religion, their own biases, or those of their constituents. No principled objections are made because none exist.

After all of the fiery denunciations of the homosexual agenda and pleas for “the children”, after all of the lobbying and praying and faith-based lying through their teeth, after all has been said, this simple truth remains: Either you believe in equal rights for all citizens or you do not.

Senator Jeff Van Drew does not.

Bruuuuuuuuce!

A statement from the Boss:

Bruce Springsteen performing in Buffalo, NY Nov. 22.

A BRIEF STATEMENT FROM BRUCE
Like many of you who live in New Jersey, I’ve been following the progress of the marriage-equality legislation currently being considered in Trenton. I’ve long believed in and have always spoken out for the rights of same sex couples and fully agree with Governor Corzine when he writes that, “The marriage-equality issue should be recognized for what it truly is — a civil rights issue that must be approved to assure that every citizen is treated equally under the law.” I couldn’t agree more with that statement and urge those who support equal treatment for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters to let their voices be heard now.

Marriage passed by NJ Senate Judiciary

The bill now goes to the full New Jersey Senate on Thursday.

NJ Senate Judiciary Committee vote on marriage equality

UPDATE: (9:18)

With 25 opposed and 70 supporters, Sarlo thinks they’ve heard everything they need to hear so far and is asking only to speak if you have something truly new. Every Senator seems to agree; additional testimony will not change outcome of vote.

They’ve voted to “end debate”. Which is odd… that means that not only is testimony over, they will go straight to a vote.

Now to procedure:
(it’s a bit hard to hear)

Baroni’s amendment to protect religious associations is accepted as friendly; Weinberg the bills sponsor seconded the amendment.

Weinberg amends her own bill to remove the exemption for fees.

Amendment presented by Cardinale to have the bill go to the public before becoming effective. Motion to table amendment – motion is tabled (5 – 3) and will not be voted on.

Motion to move the bill (end discussion and amendments).

Senator Cardinale argues that people should write wills, advance directives, and all sorts of legal documents in order to take care of problems. “We don’t need to go to marriage to cure the problems of civil unions.”

He thinks that there are studies about “consequences” to children of same-sex marriage. He thinks there’s some study in France.

He believes that the use of the term marriage will promote a lifestyle. He doesn’t believe that all gay folks have chosen to be gay but some have chosen a path. This bill will encourage more to choose that path and he doesn’t think its good for society.

He argues that Corzine is legally still the governor but not morally empowered to make reaching changes. He’s lost his mandate.

Kyrillos, Cardinale, & Beck vote no. Bateman votes no but if the bill fails on Thursday he will join a bipartisan effort to try and fix the problems with civil unions.

Baroni says it’s all about balance – balancing religious protections against gay couples. Equal treatment at law is not too much to ask. He is the first NJ lawmaker to say this about marriage equality: “I vote yes”. The crowd applauds.

Sen. Weinberg applauds Sen. Sarlo (as have many others). She votes yes.

Sen. Stack can’t think of a better day. He votes yes.

Smith and Scutari left “yes” votes. This (with the Lesniak and Gill votes) now assures that this bill will pass.

Lesniak votes yes.

Sen. Gill lectures Bateman telling him that there’s no way to fix civil unions. Rather long windedly. No, very very long windedly. Now she’s talking about 3/5ths of a person and women’s right to vote.

As an African American and as a woman, this is a civil rights struggle. She knows the community that identifies with her wants her to take a difference stance, but she believes in a constitution.

She votes yes.

Sen. Girgenti commends everyone. But this bill “changes the fundamental definition” of marriage. It’s a “major cultural change” He votes “no”

Chairman Sarlo votes “no”.

UPDATE: (8:49)

Tom and Betty Wyka support bill. The bill can’t change their relationship one bit. They are involved in scouts and the Catholic Church.

There was never a choice about his heterosexuality.

The point is all about fear, it’s the language of fear. Be courageous.

Heidi Yehman (?) supports bill. She’s Baptist from a long line of Baptist preachers.

Senator Sarlo wants to bring the bill to a vote tonight so he’s encouraging folks to be brief. They aren’t.

UPDATE: (8:34)

Thomas Proehl – NY law school. Trustee bar association.

No one says that this law is working. And the hearing were fair.

Senator Cardinale just effectively called him a liar. WOW

And Cardinale is suggesting that there those with civil unions who don’t want them elevated to marriage. And we’re doing them a disservice.

Senator Gill apologizes to Proehl for him being called a liar.

Jeff Gardiner, neighbor of Senator Sarlo, on the board of Blue Jersey. Lived and worked in most every county.

If you don’t pass this, we’ll be back every year until we are equal.

Naomi Collier, attorney and mother.

In an interracial marriage. Its the same hatred and confusion then as now.

UPDATE: (8:02)

Some child is speaking. You can read her testimony here.

Some guy whose name I missed: Nothing is more damaging than not having a father in the home. Never ever has marriage been defined as other than a faithful union between a man and a woman.

Sodomy is not a sexual union! Wow, ranting homophobia. Do they think this is a winning argument? Yet this got applause.

Dr. King vehemently opposed same-sex rights. Huh?

Senator Cardinale was very impressed with an argument made in some article about why man-woman marriage is a gold standard. And this gold standard deserves preferential treatment.

The moral problem we have with civil unions is that is attempts to set up a similar relationship.

Oh wait. I think this is Brian Brown, from National Organization for Marriage. He’s an articulate speaker but his homophobia is not hidden.

We oppose the “march towards marriage” not the benefits. If given absolute power… yes, he would not repeal civil unions but open it up to “any two individuals” like his grandmother and himself.

Doug Tewen (?), a pastor. Several hundred people signed a petition.

More scripture quoting.

We didn’t create the term marriage so its important. It belongs to faith based belief groups (other than those whom they dislike, of course).

More John Adams quoting.

Laurel Lavaris (?) – Don’t discriminate against her by not allowing her to define marriage for the state.

Speaker from Garden State Family for Moral Values, some Jewish group. Reading quickly and mumbling.

Bill would spiritually decimate Jews, Christians and Muslims.

It’s harmful to religious to live in society that disagrees with them, I think.

Catholic Charities in Massachusetts lost its license to provide adoption. (completely untrue)

What would happen to a child turned over to two adult homosexuals? Think about it.

This isn’t tolerance, it’s barbarism. Barbarism!!

The next guy is boring and I don’t know what his name is. He’s rambling on about speeding. His “analogy” is completely nutty. He’s like the crazy uncle that has an opinion.

Next guy, didn’t get his name. He’s carrying bolts and nuts. Just in case we need a physical illustration of f*cking. You can’t hold marriage together with two nuts or two bolts.

Michael Donnely (?) from Hamilton NJ. It’s silly to pretend that assigning a word to the “condition of their living” is going to end prejudice. Only the call of God can do that.

You have a problem with God. But God is in the constitution.

Marriage is predefined. Thousands of years ago.

The people here don’t represent the entire state. It’s baloney to say you’re elected to do what is right.

The citizens of New Jersey want to vote.

UPDATE: (7:27)

Supportive ministers are done speaking. Now a bunch of “family” groups are speaking. As is the rule of thumb, any organization with the word “family” in their name oppose gay families and any group with “truth” in the name will speak anything but.

Rambling woman (Dr. Rain?) refuses to discuss bill and just was asked three times to make a point. Her lies:

A lifestyle wrought with promiscuity and disease. Average age “much too young”. Over 100 partners. Marriage would raise the cost and jeopardize the financial health of the family.

Ocean Beach Methodist lost its tax exemption (simply not true).

Carolee Adams – Eagle Forum sings the praises of Tea Party groups. Insists that legislators should listen to the Tea Party protesters.

These folks are incapable of saying “gay”. They are compelled to say homoSEXual.

You should laminate your health power of attorney and carry it with you. It’s a simple solution.

Responding to a gay kid who was attacked for being gay: we know about those who are suicidal because they’ve lost the love of their life. Children are harassed for being over weight or having buck teeth.

Some Minuteman woman: equality means we all get to vote on this issue.

Loretta Yin a member of the 14th District for Traditional Marriage: not identifying the divine origin of marriage reveals an anti-religious bias. That’s just bat-poop crazy.

Amendments [provided to protect religious groups] don’t protect religious freedoms because these amendments can be changed.

The choice to behave in sexual conduct is something that can be controlled by government.

Man from same group. we know from prison studies that homosexuality is a learned behavior and a choice.

He goes on to ramble about how Jesus defined marriage by banning divorce. I don’t think that’s going to influence Senator Weinberg.

Len Deo, NJ Family Policy Counsel – oh wow, when I heard his voice I thought it was a woman, probably an ex-lesbian. Deo’s group was the one that Carrie Prejean was scheduled to speak at the night after her sex tapes were disclosed (Huckabee filled in).

Why were there not more complaints filed about violations of civil unions?

Gregory Quinlan – ah, here’s the ex-gay.

Regarding bigotry imposed on people of faith by homosexual community.

Crystal Dixon fired from university for anti-gay rant in newspaper. We are marginalizing people of faith.

Does this bill protect people like me?!? Quinlan, a PFOXer, is very aggressive.

The Assembly of God minister apparently left.

UPDATE: (6:54)

A whole host of ministers are speaking in support of marriage equality. As one asked, “why can’t I conduct the marriages that my church supports?”

Lutheran minister: This is an issue of religious liberty.

Unitarians, Methodists, Episcopalians, Friends (Quakers), and Jews also speaking in support.

UPDATE: (6:23)

Knights of Columbus opposes marriage equality. And although he’s pretending that he supports civil unions, all his arguments are blatantly homophobic. “Our children will be taught that homosexual lifestyle is as good as heterosexuals. They’ll teach that homosexuality is normal. And it’s NOT!”

You know, I’d believe these folks who come and say that Civil Unions are quite good enough… if they hadn’t opposed them when they came up.

I want to ask this guy – and the Bishop who spoke earlier – one question: Have there ever been, are there now, or will there ever be ANY instance in which the Catholic Church has supported ANY increase in ANY rights to ANY same-sex couples in ANY venue in ANY place at ANY time?

The KOC speaker also proved that I am an amazing seer. As I predicted, the determination by the court that Boissoin was entitled to his vile ranting would not stop anti-gays from using him as a martyr.

UPDATE: (6:01)

Episcopal Bishop endorses the bill: Marriage traditionally was not between a man and a woman. Rather it was a contract between two men, a father and a groom.

UPDATE: (5:55)

Amazing. This rabbi is defending slavery. Biblical slavery was benevolent, you see.

UPDATE: (5:47)

It bothers me when Jews speak of “Judeo-Christian values”. That is a term created by conservative Christians primarily to co-opt Jewish authority and to speak for Jews, usually contrary to what Jews would actually say. And this rabbi just also referred to God’s relationship with humanity as similar to a husband and wife. Is this guy a messianic Jew?

But in any case, these Jews are at least honest. They don’t just oppose to gay marriage, they oppose gay people entirely.

He speaks of people who want tolerance and then acceptance and then dominance followed by their intolerance. Gee, thanks, Rabbi. But I think you need not worry about gay dominance.

UPDATE: (5:41)

An organization of Orthodox Jews is now requesting that senators oppose marriage equality. Their spokesman is reading so quickly that his testimony is unintelligible but it seems that his primary objection is that allowing gay people to marry would mean that gay people are not inferior to heterosexuals.

We’ve already heard from a few rabbis that support equality.

UPDATE: (4:54)

Sorry for being down. We are getting a lot of traffic today.

Testimony has been going on for a while. Supporters have included Julian Bond of the NAACP, a Republican legislator from Vermont, and the State Bar. Opponents have included the Catholic Church and the New Jersey Family Policy Counsel.

One amendment to exempt religious societies has been presented and accepted by the bill’s proponent as “friendly”.

At present it appears that there are at least six yes votes including at least one Republican.

UPDATE: (2:08)

The Judiciary Committee consists of:

D – Sarlo, Paul A. – Chair
D – Girgenti, John A. – Vice-Chair
R – Baroni, Bill
R – Bateman, Christopher
R – Beck, Jennifer
R – Cardinale, Gerald
D – Gill, Nia H.
R – Kyrillos, Joseph M.
D – Lesniak, Raymond J.
D – Scutari, Nicholas P.
D – Smith, Bob
D – Stack, Brian P.
D – Weinberg, Loretta – chief sponsor of marriage equality in New Jersey

Democrats outnumber Republicans 8 to 5. However, party registration appears not to be an indicator of support for or opposition to marriage equality.

(1:53) Today the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the bill to provide marriage equality to their state. Testimony The Committee was scheduled to begin at 1:00 pm. Supporters and opponents are on hand to rally committee members to their cause. (NJ.com)

More than a thousand supporters of gay marriage surrounded the Statehouse today before filing into the Statehouse Annex and making a beeline for the Senate Judiciary Committee for what is expected to be a long, contentious hearing.

Families with children who are gay said they came together to show how important the bill is for them.
…
Opponents of the measure also came out in droves. A group of Hasidic Jewish rabbis protesting the bill’s passage were gathering in the Statehouse halls. A car outside the Statehouse was adorned with posters that read “No to gay marriage” and urged people to call lawmakers.

Atlanta mayor-elect finds his election to be confirmation of anti-marriage position

From the Sunday Paper interview with Kasim Reed:

In District 6, the most prevalently gay district in the city, Norwood got 70 percent of the vote, despite your extremely strong voting record on gay issues and Norwood\’s complete lack of such a record. I\’m hearing that it was because of your statement regarding your religious beliefs about [against] gay marriage. What do you think about that?

I think the voters have spoken. I\’ve shared where I am on that. I\’ve shared how I have personally worked through the issue. I have an unmatched track record on legislation that supports the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered] community. I would like to ask them if they would be willing to throw aside a whole career of voting supportively for the gay community because of one issue. I have voted with them over and over again. Would they toss that aside? My position on this issue is exactly where Jim Martin was when he ran for the U.S. Senate. The LGBT community supported him. I would ask those voters only this: I would like to see you apply this standard to all candidates equally, to be as forceful on this issue as you have been with me.

Yep, he thinks “the voters have spoken” and that they endorse his discrimination. I feared that this would be the conclusion if Reed were elected