Baker/Tisei win MA GOP nomination
April 19th, 2010
The Republicans in Massachusetts have selected their nominee for Governor. And this year, they can choose between a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent, all of whom are pro-choice and all of whom support same-sex marriage.
Charles Baker, the Republican, had a primary opponent going into the state convention. Christy Mihos also supports gay marriage but believes that “the people should be able to vote on it.” As Mihos did not get at least 15% of the nomination vote, and Baker will be the candidate without a primary election vote.
The convention also endorsed Baker’s running mate, Senate minority leader Richard Tisei; as the sole candidate he won unanimously. If Tisei is elected as Lieutenant Governor, he will be the highest ranking openly gay politician in the nation.
It is six years since same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts and it is so non-controversial that there were no candidates who favor “traditional marriage” laws. And the one candidate who supports “let the people vote” wasn’t able to get more than 11% of Republican Party delegates to vote for him.
How does that fit with your “poll“, Maggie Gallagher?
Nearly half of all Americans live where there is some recognition of same-sex couples
March 3rd, 2010
About 5.1% of Americans (15.5 million) live in areas in which same-sex marriages are legal and equal to opposite-sex marriages: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia.
Another 58.4 million (19.2%) live in states which have either civil unions or domestic partnerships that offer all the rights and protections of marriage without the name: California, New Jersey, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington. To that we can add two more states (New York and Maryland) in which the local state government will honor marriage occurring elsewhere and we have a total of 32.6% of Americans living with the rights and responsibilities of marriage available to their family.
There are also five states which recognize same-sex couples and offer them limited itemized rights. They are Hawaii, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maine, and Rhode Island and they add an additional 14.2 million Americans (4.7%).
But recognition does not stop there. There are dozens more counties and cities who provide what local recognition and benefits as they can, adding another 14.2 million local residents (4.7% of Americans) who can appreciate that their city officials see them as a couple. Local municipalities include the populations of Salt Lake City, UT; Phoeniz AZ; Tuscon AZ; Duluth, MN; Minneapolis, MN; St. Paul, MN; Lawrence, KS; Columbia, MO; Kansas City, MO; St. Lewis, MO; Ann Arbor, MI; Cook County, IL (Chicago); Urbana, IL; Cleveland, OH; Cleveland Heights, OH; Toledo, OH; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Harrisburg, PA; El Paso, TX; Travis County, TX (Austin); Eureka Springs, AK; New Orleans, LA; Carrboro, NC; Chapel Hill, NC; Clarke County, GA (Athens); Fulton County, GA (Atlanta); Broward County, FL (Fort Lauderdale); Key West, FL; Miami-Dade County, FL; and West Palm Beach, FL.
In total about 140 million Americans – about 46% of the nation’s population – live where there is some form of official notice of same-sex couples. So NOM can proclaim “victory” when they have an election in California or Maine, but this ball is rolling and the momentum is in the direction of recognition.
Senator-Elect Scott Brown talks gay issues
January 31st, 2010
Massachusetts’ newly elected Senator, Scott Brown, spoke with Barbara Walters on ABC This Week and part of the conversation included his stance on issues of importance to the gay community.
On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Military’s ban on service by openly gay men and women.
WALTERS: You have been a member of the National Guard for 30 years. You’ve talked about how important that service is.
WALTERS: You’re a Lieutenant-Colonel. On Wednesday the president announced that he wants to work with Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell. What’s your view?
BROWN: I think it’s important, because as you know we’re fighting two wars right now. And the most — the first priority is to — is to — is to finish the job, and win those wars. I’d like to hear from the Generals in the field — in the field — the people that actually work with these soldiers to make sure that, you know, the social change is not going to disrupt our ability to finish the job and complete the wars.
WALTERS: But Senator, your own view.
BROWN: That’s my view.
WALTERS: So you can’t say whether you’re for or against it?
BROWN: No. I’m going to wait to speak to the generals on the ground.
I find this exchange both encouraging and troubling.
Obviously Scott Brown has an opinion and is just hedging his bets. And I am not happy that he is discussing the issue as a “social change” and see it in terms of “disrupting”. But it is also nice that the Republican whom the party is lauding as the face of a cultural change is not speaking against the repeal.
Also encouraging is that much of the information that we hear suggests that our problem is with the Pentagon, not with generals in the field. If Brown is sincere – and for now we should give him the benefit of the doubt – there is a good chance that if he does speak to field operations, he’ll hear that good troups are more valuable to the war effort than anti-gay policies. It all depends on whether the officers to whom he speaks have had to lose soldiers that they valued and did not want to let go.
But if Brown is simply looking for an excuse to take an anti-gay position, I’m certain that he can readily find “generals on the ground” who will agree with him. When reporting what you heard from “generals on the ground” (anonymously, of course), they can say anything that your imagination can contrive.
WALTERS: And gay marriage is legal in the state of Massachusetts. But the Republican party platform language calls for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and they want a federal ban on gay marriage. Are you out of step with your party, or do you think that the party has to broaden, and change its platform?
BROWN: Well I’ve always been a big tent person, you know? We need more people to come into our tent to express their views in a respectful and thoughtful manner.
And on the marriage issue that you brought up, it’s settled here in Massachusetts, but I believe that states should have the ability to determine their own destiny and the government should not be interfering with individual states’ rights on issues that they deal with on a daily basis.
Again, this seems to be language that can leave open a lot of options.
It would seem clear that Brown will not support a Federal Marriage Amendment. But if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, will that be justification for him to vote for a federal amendment to reverse that decision?
And what does this mean for DOMA? Can one truly be “states’ rights” and not support having the federal government honor the marriages of states that provide marriage equality?
We know from his efforts in the Massachusetts legislature that he is not an advocate for marriage equality. But he’s had five years to see that the sky hasn’t fallen and that churches aren’t being shuttered and that his neighbors, liberal and conservative, have come to accept and support the change.
I think there is much to hope for from Scott Brown. We should not expect an ally or even a secure vote on any issues, but if we do not approach him as an enemy I think that it is possible that we will find that Scott Brown could be a crucial bi-partisan vote on some issues of concern to our community.
Scott Brown wins Massachusetts Senate seat: what does that mean?
This commentary is the opinion of the author and may not necessarily reflect that of other authors at Box Turtle Bulletin
January 19th, 2010
A month ago it was all but certain that Martha Coakley would be the successor to the US Senator from Massachusetts seat that had been held by Teddy Kennedy for four decades. And the Whitehouse, along with congressional leadership made a decision that now seems foolhardy and arrogant: they assumed that they would have a filibuster-proof majority for another year.
So they made the strategic decision to freeze out Republican involvement in running the government, most specifically in reforming healthcare. Choosing to have this reform be the centerpiece of the Party’s image for the next decade, they excluded Republicans from the talk, instead negotiating among Democrats behind closed doors.
Today this looks to have been a major mistake. With the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, Republicans now control 41 votes, effectively killing President Obama’s efforts to revise the health industry as he wishes. Scott Brown’s election has put the brakes on what has been a rapid gallop in a new direction, definitely eliminating such possibilities as a “public option”.
What Brown’s election means to the administration is that the honeymoon is over. And the election of a Republican to represent the state of Massachusetts sends a signal that November may be a sad time for Democratic Party leadership.
But what does Brown’s election mean for our community?
Not good, but perhaps not catastrophe.
The irony is that while many progressive gay activists support the “public option” and were hoping that Coakley’s election would allow Democrats to pursue this dream, it may be advantageous to our community that such a provision is no longer likely.
Any movement of health care coverage from private industry to federal oversight could have disastrous impact on the lives of gay men and women. While a great many private companies provide spousal coverage to same-sex partners, such provisions are banned by the Defense of Marriage Act. And as I understand it, the legislation that has been proposed takes little notice that gay people and gay couples exist.
On specific gay issues, Martha Coakley would have been an ardent supporter of our community in the Senate (filling in Kennedy’s shoes). I think, however, there are signs that Scott Brown will likely not be an ardent opponent.
Although Brown has recently been cast as “homophobic”, it does not appear that he is comparable to, say, Sam Brownback. Brown is a dedicated enemy to marriage equality but has stated that he supports civil unions. Further, he has commented that in Massachusetts, the decision has already been made.
On a Federal level some have suggested that he would support a Defense of Marriage Act to change the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, but that appears to conflict with the following statement on his website:
I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. States should be free to make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.
And Brown appears to have avoided running an anti-gay campaign.
None of which suggests that he is a friend. The Boston Globe says that he opposes the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (I would welcome a more direct source, which I’m having difficulty finding). He also is credited with opposition to lifting the ban on open service in the military. Also, Brown may feel that he owes much of his success to social conservatives, like National Organization for Marriage, who provided substantial financial and strategic support.
So I think we can safely assume that he will not vote with us on marriage or military issues. But I don’t see him as a likely to seek to attract too much attention by being sharply anti-gay. He does, after all, still have to answer to the voters in Massachusetts who prefer their Republicans to be at least moderately supportive.
I am reasonable hopeful that on such issues as discrimination, immigration, and the like we have a decent chance at competing for Scott Brown’s vote. Perhaps now is a good time to try think about building bridges to the Senate’s newest member.
Church marriage comes to E. MA Episcopalians
November 30th, 2009
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.
Gay MA Lt. Gov. Candidate
November 23rd, 2009
Massachusetts residents are going to have the opportunity to vote for an openly gay Lieutenant Governor. Or, at least if they are Republican, they will be. (Boston.com)
Gubernatorial candidate Charles Baker followed a Massachusetts Republican tradition on Monday by selecting a veteran state legislator to be his running mate in next year’s election.
Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care president, tapped Sen. Richard Tisei as his ally for a primary against fellow Republican Christy Mihos. The winner faces the Democratic incumbent, Gov. Deval Patrick, and state Treasurer Timothy Cahill, who is running as an independent, in the November 2010 general election.
Tisei is the minority leader in the Senate. And while it was long an “open secret” that he’s gay, last week he made his orientation public, saying “It is not exactly a news flash. I don’t think people really care these days.’”
Tisei, who owns a real estate company in Lynnfield, is the most veteran Republican in the Senate, have first won election in 1984 at the age of 22. Now 47, he served six years in the House before winning the first of ten consecutive two-year terms in the Senate.
While describing himself as a fiscal conservative, Tisei is considered a social liberal. He revealed last week that he is gay, and he has supported efforts to legalize gay marriage in Massachusetts. Baker recently revealed his brother is gay, and he has been a longtime supporter of gay marriage.
Baker has the support of the Republican party structure in Massachusetts and the endorsement of the four prior Republican governors (yes, including Mitt Romney).
Administration to Massachusetts: “You Can’t Force Us to Treat Gay People Equally”
November 2nd, 2009
The State of Massachusetts is suing the Federal Government over what is, at heart, a states-rights issue.
For the history of our nation, the states have the right to determine and define marriage. Although the US Supreme Court placed limitations on the definition, barring states from denying mixed-race marriages, the states have enjoyed broad freedoms in this area. The age one can marry varies, as does blood test requirements, residency rules, pre-marital counseling, closely related relative rules, and a number of other issues.
And for the history of our nation, the Federal Government has said that if your state recognized your marriage, they would as well.
Until 1996. That year the Federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act, in which it said “The federal government defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman.”
In 2004 Massachusetts began allowing marriage between persons of the same sex. But the federal government, for the first time, refused to recognize the state’s legal marriage. So Massachusetts is suing the feds claiming that not only do they not have the right to define marriageas “a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman”, they don’t have the right to define it at all.
The Obama Administration, announced that while the President opposes DOMA, his administration will defend it in court. On Friday we got a taste of the direction of that defense.
The Department of Justice is entirely ignoring the rights of states to have their marriages recognized and is instead posturing the argument as that of a state trying to dictate the benefits policies of the Federal Government.
Stating that “There is, however, no fundamental right to marriage-based federal benefits,” the feds are saying that therefore they can pick and choose to whom they will provide benefits. They are, of course, failing to acknowledge that such benefits are, and have always been, based on qualifications that are defined by states. (A/P)
Justice Dept. spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said any state “can allow gay and lesbian citizens to marry and can make its own decisions about how to treat married couples when it comes to state benefits.”
“Massachusetts is not being denied the right to provide benefits to same-sex couples and, in fact, has enacted a law to provide equal health benefits to same-sex spouses,” she said.
But the issue isn’t about forcing the Feds to offer joint tax returns; rather, it is much bigger. It is about whether the State of Massachusetts is truly free to define marriage for the residents of their state or whether that determination has been transferred to Congress.
Perhaps the administration believes that DOMA will be reversed before the SCOTUS could hear this case. Otherwise, I’m not sure that they are pursuing an argument that holds much weight.
Either the Federal Government recognizes marriages as defined by the states, or it has some unique recognition of its own. Either it accepts the registration of the states, or it applies a consistent nation-wide registry with rules relating to age, blood-line, testing, counseling all consistent from sea to shining sea. And considering that states have jealously held family law as their purview, such a usurpation of states’ rights would likely result in political revolt.
But without such a registry, the feds may be facing a tough legal challenge. It is difficult to argue for recognition as defined by the various states – with a narrow exception solely to exclude same-sex marriages – without running foul of the problems that Colorado found in Romer v. Evans. You cannot create and define a group of people solely for the cause of denying them the rights shared by others. And with a handful of states now recognizing, registering, and solemnizing same-sex marriages, excluding just those couples seems to me to be a clear violation.
Consequences of Same-Sex Marriage: Lowest Divorce Rate Since WWII
September 4th, 2009
Massachusetts was the first state in the union to grant full marriage rights to same-sex couples. They’ve been at it now for five years, and what do we have to show for it?
According to the most recent data from the National Center For Vital Statistics, Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor that triggered the US entrance into World War Two.
Provisional data from 2008 indicates that the Massachusetts divorce rate has dropped from 2.3 per thousand in 2007 down to about 2.0 per thousand for 2008. What does that mean ? To get a sense of perspective consider that the last time the US national divorce rate was 2.0 per thousand (people) was 1940. You read that correctly. The Massachusetts divorce rate is now at about where the US divorce rate was the year before the United States entered World War Two.
Mass Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Is Pro-Gay
July 30th, 2009
A fiscal conservative and pro-gay in Massachusetts. Could this be the future of the Republican Party?
Republican Charles D. Baker officially entered the governor’s race this morning, filing his paperwork and then swiftly launching into an attack of Governor Deval Patrick’s handling of the state’s budget and economy.
Baker immediately pledged not to raise taxes as governor, and even said he would try to lower the state’s increased sales tax – which will go from 5 percent to 6.25 percent on Saturday – if he is elected.
…He said he was prochoice and was in favor of gay marriage – “My brother’s gay, and he’s married, and he lives in Massachusetts, so I’m for it. Is that straight enough?”
July 21st, 2009
Christians speak of “showing Christ” to the world around you. Sadly, too often this is expressed in forms of self-righteousness and public condemnation of others. Frankly, I often think that if this is Christ that you are showing me with your arrogance, condescension, and careless condemnation of those whom you don’t think are as good as you, then I want nothing of him.
But some have found a Christ to show the world that is quite unlike the one whose primary purpose seems to be passing laws to impose religious adherence by non-believers. Their Christ is more interested in helping the needy, healing the hurting, and loving the loveless.
Such a Christ is observed in the actions of Christians in Worcester County, Massachusetts. They have become a haven of safety and help to gay men and women from around the world who are fleeing oppression and torture in their homelands. (Worcester Telegram)
For the past year, Hadwen Park Congregational Church has provided gay immigrants with food and money for clothes and rent, as well as spiritual and emotional support. Lutheran Social Services, which helps many immigrants apply for asylum, established a program to help gay immigrants apply for asylum.
Immigrants such as the Ugandan tortured for two days by men trying to get him to give the names of the patrons of his gay bar. Or the Jamaican who was beaten by crowds four times. Or the Lebanese man sent to the hospital with a broken neck.
The United States government allows those persecuted for their orientation elsewhere to see asylum in America. But few social service programs are available for these victims of brutality, and they are not allowed to work while waiting.
The church’s program is unique in the United States, church members believe; the Lutheran Social Services asylum program for gay immigrants is one of only a handful nationwide.
And theirs is no hand-off missions program designed to placate liberal guilt.
The church started by feeding the gay immigrants with its food pantry, then paying their rent and cell phone bills. Parishioners took immigrants on shopping trips for clothes and other essentials. Two parishioners offered to host two immigrants in their home. The immigrants started coming to the church, telling their stories, and connecting with people who don’t judge them.
Now the Christ of the Hadwen Park Congregational Church and Lutheran Social Services in Worcester, Massachusetts, is a Christ that the world could see much more of.
“We’re Going To Suffer Some Kind Of Infrastructure Collapse” — All Because Of The Gays
July 16th, 2009
In an amateur video posted this week on YouTube, Scott Lively talked about his work in “re-Christianizing America,” which is threatened by an “infrastructure collapse” brought on by that dreaded gay agenda:
Frankly, I see things simply disintegrating very rapidly and I believe that we’re going to suffer some kind of infrastructure collapse in this society because of the failure of moral culture, and that Christians have a responsibility to continue to oppose this disintegration.”
Scott Lively is famous for his book, The Pink Swastika, which claims that the Nazi party was, at it’s core, a murderous homosexual movement, and that fascism is the inevitable result of any expansion of gay rights. Last spring, he appeared at an anti-gay conference in Kampala, Uganda with Exodus board member Don Schmierer. That conference called for a strengthening of that country’s already draconian law against homosexuality which already provides for a lifetime imprisonment for those convicted. That conference kicked off a long-running public anti-gay vigilante campaign which is still reverberating through the country. A bill has been announced before Uganda’s parliament to rescind free-speech protections for LGBT people and place an outright ban on all advocacy on their behalf.
In this latest video, Lively sees himself as a missionary to Massachusetts, saying he moved to Springfield from Temecula, California, because “Massachusetts is the most morally corrupt state in the union.” He offered his latest brain-droppings while preparing to speak before a committee of the Massachusetts House against a bill which would provide hate crime and non-discrimination protections on the basis of sexual identity and expression. Lively identified that bill as one of “two hundred other bills that’s being heard today” which he thinks are just as bad, so he has to pick and choose his battles. “We don’t have time to deal with them all,” he shrugs. You can guess which one he chose:
The only solution we have to this kind of a problem is for good people, godly, god-fearing people who hold to the truth of the Bible to be sitting in those seats and making the decisions. Lacking that, we have to scramble to try to come and testify on the ones that are the most critical, like this transgender hate crimes bill, and sort of live with the frustration that our efforts are not sufficient to stop the trend.
Lively is optimistic though. He’s convinced that things will get so bad that people will eventually turn back to his particular version of God:
…[A]s it has always happened in the past, people are going to cry out to God, and they’re going to repent. They’re going to look for a way out of that problem, out of that crisis, just like happened right after 9/11. You remember it lasted three weeks or so after 9/11 you saw a little glimpse of that. But I think that’s going to happen again, and if those of us who are true to His Word are preparing ourselves for that day, then we will be able to begin to rebuild on a more Biblical and more logical and more family-friendly footing.”
Scott Lively’s Abiding Truth Ministries is one of only twelve groups on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of anti-gay hate groups. His is also co-founder of Watchmen On the Walls, another international group that is listed by the SPLC as an anti-gay hate group. Last January, he was a featured speaker at the MassResistance fundraiser, and appears to be forming links with that group. That would be a third SPLC anti-gay hate group he has ties to. The man certainly gets around.
Earlier this month, Lively announced that he would “no longer be monitoring the day-to-day developments of the culture war regarding homosexuality as closely.” I was skeptical. He’s not going away anytime soon.
Massachusetts AG Challenges DOMA In Court
July 8th, 2009
The Massachusetts Attorney General has announced that the state is suing the U.S. government in U.S. Federal District Court over the Defense of Marriage Act which limits the definition of marriage to opposite sex couples. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, and state Attorney General Martha Coakley calls the federal law an “overreaching and discriminatory” infringement on rights and powers normally reserved for the states:
Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the “exclusive prerogative of the states.” Now, because of the U.S. law’s definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.
“In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states’ efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit defends Massachusetts’ decision to allow same-sex marriages, saying it provides security and stability to families:
The lawsuit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal in 2004 “and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state.”
“Despite these developments, same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] interferes with the Commonwealth’s authority to define and regulate marriage,” the lawsuit said.
Opponents often point to the stabilizing influence of marriage as one reason opposite-sex marriage needs to be somehow “protected” from gays marrying. But in doing so, they ignore the fact that gays and lesbians are forming families — and raising children — without that same stabilizing influence. It’s good to see an Attorney General recognize that children of same-sex couples, if not the couples themselves, are no less deserving of that security and stability that heterosexual couples enjoy.
This is the second lawsuit filed in Massachusetts challenging DOMA. The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) is also challinging DOMA for denying married same-sex couples access to federal benefits that other married couples automatically receive.
An Unequal Flag For Unequal Citizens
July 6th, 2009
This six star “Flag of Equal Marriage” represents the six states which have marriage equality, by order of their entry into the Union. The stars are arranged according to the order in which each state was admitted to the union, skipping over the states that do not have marriage equality. The six stars represent:
- Connecticut – #5.
- Massachusetts – #6.
- New Hampshire – #9 (Effective Jan 1, 2010)
- Vermont – #14 (Effective Sep 1, 2009)
- Maine – #23 (Effective of Sep 14, 2009)
- Iowa – #29
If this flag had been around in 2008, we would have seen California’ star (#31) go dark. There’s a move on right now to darken Maine’s star in November.
[Hat tip: David Schmader]
Maggie Gallagher’s Bogus Poll
May 22nd, 2009
By now, none of us really expect that anything coming from Maggie Gallagher or her National Organization for Marriage is the truth. But sometimes her utter contempt for the truth is so blatant as to be astonishing.
Take, for example, her 2009 NOM Massachusetts Marriage Survey.
Now, of course, this is not really a poll that is seeking to determine attitudes about marriage in Massachusetts. Rather, this is simply her attempt to try and come up with an artificial opposition to marriage equality and to try and convince the public that marriage has hurt Massachusetts.
But even for a push poll, this is laughable.
First, her sample is as far from representative as you can get. While about 60% of Massachusans are between the age of 18 and 50, this is only 20% of Maggie’s sample. And while those over 75 make up about 9% of the population, they are 24% of her survey. What did Maggie poll, retirement communities?
And though only about 31% of Massachusans attend church “almost weekly”, about 47% of Maggie’s group does.
Then look at the claims she makes in a press release:
Do Children Need a Mom and Dad? Majority Say Yes
But what did the survey really ask?
13. Here’s one more statement: “All things being equal, it is better for children to be raised by their married mother and a father?” Do you agree or disagree with that statement?
Well who would disagree with that? Not me – not the way it’s phrased. So it’s hardly a surprise that 76% agreed.
But do I think “children need a Mom and Dad”? Nope.
Maggie goes on pretending that her findings suggest that “Massachusetts voters remain sharply divided about gay marriage”. They don’t.
Afraid to ask whether marriage should remain legal in the state, Maggie tried to appeal to personal dislike of gays or personal discomfort with gay marriage. But even then she failed. 43% of respondents were generally personally favorable and another 14% couldn’t care less.
9. Do you personally favor or oppose same-sex marriage generally?
14% DON’T KNOW/NO RESPONSE
Maggie goes on to try and spin her survey results to support her cause using percentages of percentages, but in the process provides us with some interesting information about the attitudes of Massachusetts voters.
- 44% think that opposing gay marriage is discrimination comparable to racial discrimination. And while
- 16% think that “people may try to hurt you” if you are an anti-gay-marriage activist, only
- 7% know someone who “feels they were harassed or intimidated” because of their anti-gay marriage beliefs
(Maggie calls this “a surprisingly substantial minority of voters”)
But getting around Maggie’s loaded questions and her contorted analysis, a picture emerges of the Massachusetts voter.
About half are personally supportive of marriage equality while the rest seem fairly content. Most support the right of dissenters to disagree and only a tiny fringe think that their views are being suppressed. They aren’t worried about whether their kids (or grandkids) are being taught about same-sex couples in school. And they tend to think that anti-marriage activists are distasteful, if not downright bigots, and acknowledge that the state has broad social support for the institution. And these are the opinions of the old religious folk.
In short, the sky hasn’t fallen. The citizens aren’t upset. Massachusetts has now seen that marriage equality is a good thing.
New Hampshire Would be the Sixth What, Exactly?
May 8th, 2009
New Hampshire could be the sixth gay marriage something-or-other, but finding the language to fit is not a straight-forward task. Considering the methods by which states have reached (and retreated from) marriage rights, putting them in order depends on what one is measuring.
The order in which states have granted recognition to same sex couples
1. District of Columbia 1992 (blocked by Congress until 2002)
2. Hawaii 1997
3. California 1999
4. Vermont 1999
5. Connecticut 2005
6. New Jersey 2004
7. Maine 2004
8. New Hampshire 2007
9. Washington 2007
10. Oregon 2007
11. Maryland 2008
12. Iowa 2009
13. Colorado 2009
The order in which courts have found that states must provide marriage and/or all its rights and benefits to same-sex couples:
1. Hawaii 1993/1997 (reversed by Constitutional amendment)
2. Vermont 1999
3. Massachusetts 2003
4. New Jersey 2006
5. California 2008 (perhaps reversed by Constitutional amendment)
6. Connecticut 2008
7. Iowa 2009
The order in which states provided virtually all of the same benefits as marriage
1. Vermont 1999
2. California 2003 (with subsequent minor adjustments to fix differences)
3. Massachusetts 2003
4. Connecticut 2005
5. District of Columbia 2006 (with adjustment in 2008)
6. New Jersey 2006
7. New Hampshire 2007
8. Oregon 2007
9. Washington 2009
10. Maine 2009
The order in which legal marriages were first performed
1. Massachusetts – 5/17/2004
2. Iowa – 8/31/2007 (only one)
3. California – 6/16/2008
4. Connecticut – 11/4/2008
5. Vermont – 9/1/2009 (Scheduled)
6. Maine – around 9/14/2009 (Scheduled)
The order in which continuous legal marriages began to be offered
1. Massachusetts – 5/17/2004
2. Connecticut – 11/4/2008
3. Iowa – 4/27/09
4. Vermont – 9/1/2009 (Scheduled)
5. Maine – around 9/14/2009 (Scheduled)
And should New Hampshire’s bill be signed, it will be sixth.