Box Turtle Bulletin

Prominent NJ Democrats call for marriage vote

Over the summer, our community advocated for a marriage vote in New York and New Jersey.

In New York the House passed marriage equality, but the Senate imploded resulting in months of confusion and a constantly changing power play for control. Now, in special session, there may possibly be some movement on the bill, though there is no certainty of its passage.

In New Jersey, however, we have always known that the votes were there for passing marriage equality. But over the summer, with elections coming up, we were asked for patience. Our community was promised that if we would wait until after the election, the legislature would enact marriage equality during the lame duck session regardless of the election outcome.

Now some are talking of reneging on this promise. They blame Maine.

But I wonder if they have the blame backwards. Would the vote in Maine have gone another way if New York and New Jersey had moved ahead by enacting equality? Would the tone of the discussion have shifted? Would Mainers really have wanted to see themselves as less tolerant than their neighbors in New York or New Jersey? It is one thing to be a bit more conservative than Massachusetts, but Jersey?

Yet there is still hope. Some Democrats in the state are not at all pleased by what they see as promise breaking and spineless weaseling. So a collection of prominent Democrats have signed a letter calling for a vote.

An Open Letter Calling on Democratic Legislators to Post Marriage Equality Legislation for a Vote

We believe that equality and fairness are fundamental principles of New Jersey’s Democratic Party, and that is why we call on the state legislature to vote immediately on, and pass, the marriage equality bill.

New Jersey has a proud history of supporting civil rights. It was this legacy that encouraged many of us to become involved in politics. We believe that allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry is, at its core, about treating our family members, friends, coworkers, and neighbors with dignity and respect.

We appreciate that this is a difficult issue for some state legislators. But marriage equality is an idea whose time has come. We are confident that the voters will stand by those elected officials who do the right thing.

When our children and grandchildren look back on this moment, we want to be able to tell them that we, too, did the right thing.

As Martin Luther King poignantly reminded us, “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” That is why we’re proud to lend our names and our voices to this important cause. We do so in our capacity as private citizens and Democratic voters, and not on behalf of any particular office or organization.

This effort is important – and will perhaps be effective – because it appears to be a grass-roots effort to rally the support of elected officials. If this is, as it seems, the effort of grass-roots workers and endorsed by power brokers, including congresspersons and mayors, then it could be foolish to ignore. It is very difficult to win elections without the support of either motivated activists or powerful party machines.

NY Marriage Vote Today?

There is a rumor floating in “the ether” that the NY State Senate will vote today on whether to have their state join those who have embraced marriage equality. This vote depends on a resolution to the state budget, an assumption that seem tenuous at the moment.

UPDATE 3: And… it’s been postponed until perhaps tomorrow.

UPDATE 2: It’s on the agenda. WKBW:

The Senate is scheduled to reconvene at 9 p.m., aides said.

On the agenda: the deficit reduction plan and same-sex marriage.

“We’ll vote on gay marriage if there’s enough time,” said one Senate staffer who asked not to be identified.

UPDATE: It looks possible. From the Daily News’ Elizabeth Benjamin

Here’s the strongest sign yet that the gay marriage bill will indeed come to the Senate floor for a vote before the day is over: Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr., the measure’s most outspoken opponent, has retired to his Albany office to pray.

“I don’t know why it has to be done in special session. I don’t know why it has to be today. Is it going to be done? I believe so,” Diaz Sr. told me rather glumly during a brief telephone interview just now.

The Assembly is going to vote (again) favorably on the bill which seems to remove some procedural objection and increases the pressure on the Senate.

D.C. Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage

The Washington Post’s blog D.C. Wire reports that the District City Council has approved same-sex marriage on an  11-2 vote. The council will have to approve it again in two weeks before it goes to Mayor Adrian Fenty for his signature. Mayor Fenty has pledged to sign the bill.

Marriage equality scheduled to come to District of Columbia tomorrow

On Top Magazine:

Two states are expected to decide on whether to grant gay couples the right to marry before the end of the year, but gay marriage proponents are thoroughly sanguine about the District of Columbia, where passage of Council member David Catania’s gay marriage bill is expected to win approval on December 1.

Nearly every council member has endorsed the bill and its passage is certain. Congress has the power to overturn any legislation passed in the nation’s capital but there does not appear to be political will to do so.

And undoubtedly this will be seen as a convenience for some legislators with a conservative public image. Their staff will be able to marry without any political cost to the elected official.

Will Portugal be nation number eight?

The Pink Paper is reporting that Portugal may soon take step to enact marriage equality.

Sources close to Portuguese Prime Minister José Sócrates, who is forming a new government following September elections, said that legalising same-sex marriage will be one of the new team’s first actions.

The BBC’s Humphrey Hawksley also seems to believe that same-sex marriage is inevitable within a matter of months. The vote count from Sócrates’ Socialist Party when combined with those from the Left Bloc and the Communist Party predict its passage with votes to spare.

Prop 8 Leader admits that “traditional marriage” really only means “no gays”

In an article about John Marcotte’s tongue-in-cheek effort to ban divorce, AP writer Judy Lin got the leader of Prop 8 to make a telling admission:

As much as everyone would like to see fewer divorces, making it illegal would be “impractical,” said Ron Prentice, the executive director of the California Family Council who led a coalition of religious and conservative groups to qualify Proposition 8.
…
Prentice said proponents of traditional marriage only seek to strengthen the one man-one woman union.

“That’s where our intention begins and ends,” he said.

Yep, “traditional marriage” is only traditional to the extent that it excludes gay people. That, you see, is the sole defining characteristic of marriage’s traditions – or, at least, it’s the only thing that anti-gays care about.

Which, of course, is what Marcotte is trying to expose.

Church marriage comes to E. MA Episcopalians

A favorite tactic of anti-gay activists is to pretend that changes to civil marriage law will require churches to change their religious practices in some way. But to do so requires a willful determination to ignore the evidence to the contrary (or a willful determination to lie).

And a decision made by an Episcopal Bishop in Eastern Massachusetts proves the point. Although gay and lesbian couples have had the right to legally marry in that state, they could not do so in an Episcopal Church or with an Episcopal priest presiding. Priests could “bless their union”, but not declare “by the power vested in me” that they were married.

Until now. (Boston Globe)

Five years after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, the local Episcopal bishop yesterday gave permission for priests in Eastern Massachusetts to officiate at same-sex weddings.

The decision by Bishop M. Thomas Shaw III was immediately welcomed by advocates of gay rights in the Episcopal Church, who have chafed at local rules that allowed priests to bless same-sex couples, but not sign the documents that would solemnize their marriages.

This change in policy should cause anti-gays to worry. But not for any reason that they will admit.

Contrary to the political ads and fiery denunciations from pulpits, changes to civil marriage laws do not require churches to do anything. But they do provide the framework under which same-sex couples can live exemplary lives and show conscientious religious leaders that their objections are based not in principle but in presumption and false impression.

Civil marriage equality will in time lead many many churches to not only adapt to including same-sex marriages but to also hold up such commitments as the most appropriate venues for love and sexual expression for same-sex attracted persons. But this change will be voluntary, a change of heart based on decency, empathy, compassion, and their observation of married couples in their pews.

Anti-gays speak loudly of “religious freedom” and of the fear of coercive efforts to compel them to follow man-made laws rather than God’s laws. But I believe that a voluntary change of heart is something that anti-gays fear far more than any coercion from government.

And I believe that their efforts to ban marriage equality are designed and intended more to deny religious freedom to those who, like the Episcopal Church, would celebrate such marriages than they are to stop that small percentage of the population who would avail themselves of the opportunity.

Yes, anti-gays lost political battles in Massachusetts over the last five years. But their real losses are felt in the announcement of Bishop Shaw.

Quinnipiac Poll: NJ Voters don’t want marriage equality this week

Polls over marriage equality in New Jersey are hovering around even.

A Rutgers-Eagleton poll conducted between Nov. 6 and 10, found 46 percent of adult residents want to extend the right to gay couples while 42 percent oppose it. Still undecided were 12 percent of respondents.

A Quinnipaic poll taken November 17 through 22 found a plurality in opposition to equality:

By a slim 49 – 46 percent margin, New Jersey voters oppose a law that would allow same-sex couples to marry, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
…
In this latest poll, same-sex marriage wins 60 – 34 percent support among Democrats and a narrow 49 – 45 percent support among independent voters, while Republicans oppose the measure 69 – 25 percent.

Women support same-sex marriage 53 – 41 percent, while men oppose it 57 – 38 percent. White voters split 49 – 47 percent, while black voters oppose the measure 61 – 28 percent.

While these contradicting polling numbers don’t provide incontrovertible support for any decisions, I think we can count on the negative one to be used as justification for the leadership in New Jersey to renege on promises and to shove marriage equality at least four years into the future. I very much doubt that they will act to bring about marriage equality in this lame duck session.

I have a growing contempt for the leadership in New Jersey. But it pales in comparison to the contempt they show for the principle of equality.

Yet I can be dissuaded. Prove me wrong, guys.

Ask Amy faults gay man for objection to discrimination

Ask Amy (Amy Dickenson) is the advice columnist that succeeded Ann Landers at the Chicago Tribune. But sadly she is far less astute when it comes to gay issues than Ann.

Today she gave miserable advice to a bride who was indignant that her gay brother-in-law-to-be was unwilling to celebrate an institution in which he was banned from participation.

The column, along with an email I sent to Amy, after the jump.

Federal Challenge to Prop. 8, Explained

I have a feature in The American Prospect‘s December issue on the federal challenge to Prop. 8 — and what’s at stake.

Perry v. Schwarzenegger indeed asks the “ultimate question” of whether gays have a federal right to marry, but because the case is alleging that Prop. 8 violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal court decision will have implications for gay Americans in nearly every arena of public life, from housing to parenting to military service. The court is set to consider questions as wide-ranging as what it means to be gay and whether it affects one’s contribution to society. It’s not just marriage rights on trial; it’s homosexuality itself.

As you can tell, the scope of the trial is pretty big, which is why the established LGBT community was so hesitant to bring the case in the first place. Part of why the case is so important is that it is alleging that Prop. 8 violates Equal Protection. The law here is a bit strange, and interesting: you essentially have to show that gay people are a distinct and well-defined group before they can be treated just like everyone else.

Gillibrand, a willing ally

When Kirsten Gillibrand was selected to fill Hillary Clinton’s remaining term as US Senator from New York, some questioned the depth of her commitment to equality. A blue-dog upstate Democrat, she had previously spoken more favorably of civil unions.

But it appears that her commitment was not just of the ‘promises in public’ variety. Gillibrand is proving to be the kind of ally that doesn’t magically discover higher priorities or some mystical need for unanimity before acting on our behalf. (Daily News)

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who has put LGBT issues on the top of her “to-do” list as she works to shore up her liberal credentials, has placed personal phone calls to on-the-fence Democratic state senators in hopes of getting them to vote “yes” on gay marriage.

Gillibrand’s office confirmed calls had been made, but refused to say who the recipients had been or if anyone had specifically asked the junior senator to weigh in.

“She made calls, yes; and they were private conversations,” Gillibrand spokesman Matt Canter said. “She did it because it’s an issue she cares deeply about.”

NJ Democrats Wiggle and Waffle

You know that marriage equality bill that the Democrats in New Jersey promised over the lame duck session? Well it now looks like that was just the usual sleight of hand we’ve been getting from the Democratic Party as of late. (nj.com)

[Upcoming] Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said today it would be irresponsible for Democrats to bring a bill to a vote if they are not sure it will pass.

So it might be killed in committee.

As legislators try to finagle votes for one side or another, Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) said he would not bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee — even though enough people in the committee supported it to pass — unless the Democrats could prove they had the votes to pass it outright.

You know, the same ol’ BS. Yeah we ‘don’t have the votes’ and we won’t tell you who is opposed to equality or unwilling to take a stand but gosh golly we are going to need your dollars, your time, and your help in our campaigns. And if you knew exactly who didn’t give a rat’s ass about you, well ya just might not work as hard for us.

I’ll tell you who I think doesn’t give a rat’s ass.

I’ll start with Stephen Sweeney. And I’ll follow with every person who does not stand up and make a proactive effort to get this passed. “Oh, I just followed the leadership” means exactly the same as, “I don’t give a rat’s ass any more than the leadership does” and should be rewarded with the same.

There is a narrow window. And the people of the state are behind marriage equality. But some of these New Jersey politicians are living up to the stereotype of New Jersey politicians.

There are some wonderful people in Jersey. Some of them are gay, and many many more are friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances who value their gay loved ones more than they value their elected official’s career.

Maybe it’s time that we got the list of Sweeney’s donors and found those with gay friends and family. Maybe a personal appeal from those loved ones might encourage them that a better use for the political donations could be found.

Who knows, maybe we could make enough of a change that Sweeney might suddenly find that he gives a rat’s ass.

NOM’s biblical Illiteracy

Brian Brown, the Executive Director of anti-gay activist group, National Organization for Marriage, recently sent out an email entitled Beating Down the Beatitudes in DC? in which he calls on recipients from around the nation to call and email District of Columbia officials and insist that gay people not be treated with equality and dignity in that city.

The email starts like this:

All Christians are called to follow the Beatitudes. Since our nation\’s founding, America in particular has benefited from the fact that churches have united together to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the fatherless and motherless, and comfort the sorrowful.

He rambles on with the lies that the Catholic Church in the District has put out about how treating gay people like people will stop them from giving hot soup to the homeless. But it wasn’t these prevarications that caught my eye, I’m used to NOM’s hyperbole.

What I noticed was something else entirely. Brian Brown seems to have no clue what the Beatitudes actually say. Presented as part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are not a call from Christians to help the poor. Rather, they are consolation and a promise of a better future: (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are several places in Scripture where the followers of Christ are admonished to attend the physical needs of those around them. And it is true that Christians have often taken those commands to heart. But the Beatitudes are not among them.

I might be more convinced that Brown and Gallagher were motivated by a deep spiritual conviction rather than base animus if they didn’t evidence such biblical illiteracy. And I wonder if any of their followers even noticed… or cared.

Austria gets civil partnerships

The battle over marriage equality is, in many ways, a battle over minutia, the details of which differ by location.

In the United States, in some states any concession of even the least controversial of rights is a great contention, while in others, the line in the sand appears to be protecting the “sanctity” of the label.

As an American, I don’t always fully understand European perspectives and may not get the full nuance. But as best I can tell, in Europe there seems to be a separate contention, one that is not given much importance in the United State: whether a ceremony can be performed and what building can be used. (And Europeans see adoption as part of the marriage question, while Americans see the issues as separate and state laws tend to treat them separately).

So, for example, in the UK the biggest distinction between marriage and civil unions (other than nomenclature) is that a gay couple cannot use a space that has been designated for religious use and cannot have a ceremony as part of their legal process.

To Americans it seems odd that a government would disallow a church the right to conduct a wedding. And the idea of banning people from conducting their union with the ceremony of their choice seems impending on liberty. In the United States, not only do the states that recognize marriage have no such restrictions, neither do any of the states that recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions. Americans care about “recognition” and what will be “taught in schools” and the “right” for religious folks to be obnoxious jerks and other such red herrings.

Indeed, among the first to rejoice with gay couples are always Unitarian and often many other religious leaders who delight in making their religious space available for the consecration of such unions. With as much ceremony as the couple desires.

But that is not the European way.

So it is not with much surprise that the new bill in Austria to legalize civil unions is one that emphasizes ceremony and participants. (AFP)

Austria’s government agreed a new law Tuesday allowing civil partnerships for homosexual couples, although ceremonies at the civil registry’s office will still be banned.

The compromise, achieved after weeks of wrangling between the ruling Social Democrats and their conservative coalition partner in government, will give gay couples equal rights to heterosexuals with regards to pensions and alimony.
…
The proposal came up against strong opposition from the conservative People’s Party, which fought any attempts to allow civil partnership ceremonies at the civil registry’s office, where gay couples can marry.

Instead, civil partnerships will be registered at the municipal office or the magistrate’s office — the local authority of which the registry’s office is only a part.

The change will be effective January 1 after final approval by parliament.

This is an important step for gay Austrians (not many of whom are like Bruno).

Prior to this legislation, laws applying to de facto couples, called unregistered cohabitation, also applied to same-sex couples as the result of a 2003 decision of the European Court of Human Rights. However such rights inherent in that status were limited and the protections and recognition of same-sex couples are greatly enhanced by this bill.

And perhaps some day soon Austrians will cease to care whether their gay brothers and sisters can also solemnize their unions with a ceremony and in what building they do so.

New Jersey wants marriage equality

A new poll in New Jersey shows more support than opposition for marriage equality.

More New Jerseyans support legalizing gay marriage than oppose it, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted between Nov. 6 and 10, found 46 percent of adult residents want to extend the right to gay couples while 42 percent oppose it. Still undecided were 12 percent of respondents.

There has long been talk of instituting marriage equality during the lame duck session that begins next week. However, recent comments from the Democratic leadership of some committees suggests that they are looking for excuses to avoid a vote.

There is a very narrow window in which to pass a marriage bill. Otherwise we are on hold in New Jersey for another four years or until Christie is replaced.