I'm sorry. What year is this again?

Here's a story from  Andrew Alexander of The Washington Post about a photo of to men (gasp) kissing!

Readers react to photo of two men kissing

Powerful photographs can have lasting impact, and a Post photo of two men kissing is an image that many readers can neither forget nor accept.

The photo, which ran on the newspaper's front page and online last week, captured Jeremy Ames and Taka Ariga kissing outside D.C. Superior Court on the day that the District began accepting license applications for same-sex marriages.

Almost immediately, I began hearing from upset readers. That’s normal when controversial photos appear in The Post. The same thing happened recently when The Post published disturbing images of Haiti earthquake victims. Typically, the complaints quickly subside. With last Thursday’s photo, they continued into Friday, through the weekend and even today. Early this morning, before D.C. Superior Court began issuing licenses to same-sex couples who had applied, a caller phoned to warn that he would cancel his Post subscription “if I see another photo of men lip-locking.”

A few of the readers have engaged in rants, often with anti-gay slurs. One called me to complain about “promoting a faggot lifestyle.” Another complained about the photo in an e-mail to the two Post reporters who wrote Thursday’s story about the licenses: “That kind of stuff makes normal people want to throw up. People have kids who are being exposed to this crap. I will be glad when your rag goes out of business. Real men marry women.”

But most simply said The Post had offended their sensibilities by publishing the photo, especially on the front page.

Ann Witty of Woodbridge wrote to say she had canceled the Post subscription she has held since the 1960s.

“I am 65 years old and I realize that the world is changing rapidly – much more rapidly than I would like it to,” she e-mailed. “While I realize that the Post must report on these changes – even the ones with which I do not agree – I feel that the picture on Thursday morning was an affront to the majority of your readership. It is not something that I want coming into my home. I believe that even your editors know that it would have been better placed in the Metro section and that it would have mitigated its impact to do so.”

Wrote Lee Miller of Columbia: “I would appreciate it if your cover pictures would not be so disturbing where my kids can see it easily on the kitchen table... please don’t shove this “Gay” business in our face. This is something that should have shown up on an inside page or two (without the picture).”

In comments to the ombudsman’s call-in line (202.334.7582), one reader said, “the picture of two guys kissing makes me cringe.” Another called it “ridiculous,” adding: “Put it on page 10 or page four, put it in the paper, but I do not like it right there where I can’t avoid looking at it.”

Many threatened to cancel their Post subscriptions, and more than two dozen did. Post circulation vice president Gregg Fernandes said that late last week 27 subscribers canceled, specifically citing the photo. In contrast, The Post reported only two cancellations immediately after last July’s ethics uproar over its ill-advised plan to sell sponsorships to off-the-record “salon” dinners at the publisher’s residence.

Did the Post go too far? Of course not. The photo deserved to be in newspaper and on its Web site, and it warranted front-page display.

News photos capture reality. And the prominent display reflects the historic significance of what was occurring. The recent D.C. Council decision to approve same-sex marriage was the culmination of a decades-long gay rights fight for equality. Same-sex marriage is now legal in the District. The photo of Ames and Ariga kissing simply showed joy that would be exhibited by any couple planning to wed – especially a couple who previously had been denied the legal right to marry.

There was a time, after court-ordered integration, when readers complained about front-page photos of blacks mixing with whites. Today, photo images of same-sex couples capture the same reality of societal change.

First DC same-sex weddings take place today

Last week, same-sex couples could get licenses.   This week it's marriage.  Here's a moving video of one of the first couples to wed.  (Thank you, Huffington Post.)

Yes, Nancy Pelosi

Here is Speaker Nancy Pelosi's unqualified support of marriage equality in DC.  (Senator Reid?  President Obama?  We're waiting.....)

Today marks a historic chapter in the advancement toward equality, fairness and the protections that marriage affords for all families. As we welcome marriage equality to our nation’s capital, I reiterate my longstanding commitment to home rule for the District of Columbia. 

Today, the District joins other states in leading the nation in ensuring fundamental civil rights. This is a joyous moment that history will forever remember as progress.

                 (taken from The Gavel blog)

A mass gay wedding to break the record?

Unless opponents succeed in blocking same-sex marriages (see related post), LGBT couples will be able to marry tomorrow in Washington, DC. Digital Journal is reporting that on March 20 up to 400 same-sex couples will gather to get married both to celebrate and to break the current Guinness World Record for a mass wedding.

Mike Wilkinson, Director of Wedding Services for Event Emissary and one of the planners, noted, "The GLBT community has always found strength in numbers when it comes to advocating for equality.  Now we can finally stand together to affirm our love and have it recognized legally by the District of Columbia."

According to Digital Journal:

One of the couples, Drew Parker and Dalin Holyoak, who plan to be at the event have already wed. They couldn't wait for DC to legalize marriage but are glad that now the city they reside in recognizes their union. "We signed up to be part of the mass ceremony as soon as we could. We celebrated our personal vows nearly two years ago, but we know the importance of this day to our status as fully equal citizens of the District of Columbia," Parker said. "We are so thankful for the people that sacrificed to make this day a reality, and can only hope that one day the entire nation will follow." 

Standing Proud Together will be the centerpiece of the day long event. It will be a non-denominational, contemporary service and will be led in a manner that will solidify the unions of long-term partners as well as commemorate the marriages of those who are more recently engaged.

I'll be sure to post the photos!

Yet ANOTHER attempt to block same-sex marriage in Washington, DC

Blogger Pam Spaulding (left) is reporting that opponents of same-sex marriage are trying yet again to stop marriage licenses from being issued in Washington, DC on Wednesday.  This time, they are going to the United States Supreme Court.  Court papers filed Monday with Chief Justice John Roberts argue that Washington residents should be able to vote on the matter.  Local courts have rejected the opponents' arguments. The gay marriage opponents include a Baptist minister, Walter E. Fauntroy, who was Washington's delegate in the House for nearly 20 years.

What does the church mean by the right to religious liberty?

 The Catholic News Agency is reporting that the Archdiocese of Washington, DC has issued a statement following yet another ruling that the voters of DC do not have the right to vote on the civil rights of citizens.  “In short, the panel found a right for same-sex couples to marry by ignoring the right to religious liberty,” charged the archdiocese.  The archdiocese further argued that the Board of Elections and Ethics committee's decision advances "paternalism under the guise of righteousness.”

Okay.  Under the same-sex marriage statute, no church or religious group will be required to marry same-sex couples.  No religious group will even be required to accept gay people into its community. So just whose religious liberty is being ignored here?  The only "freedom" I can think of is the "freedom" to keep LGBT citizens from accessing the rights of every heterosexual citizen in Washington, DC.  I hadn't realized that "freedom to oppress" was an American value we needed to preserve.

And as for the "paternalism under the guise of righteousness" charge, how can anyone possibly take the statement seriously when issued by an institution that has advanced patriarchy under the guise of religion for centuries?

Just chalk this one up to meanness...or yet another reason why some people call it hate

Examiner.com is reporting that Senator Bob Bennet from Utah (left)  is leading eight other senators in a movement to block same-sex marriages in Washington, DC:

Senator Bob Bennett of Utah, a Republican, introduced the bill on Tuesday. It calls to postpone the scheduled effective date of the original bill until voters have a chance to decide on whether or not gay marriage should be legal in Washington, DC. To contact Senator Bennett and express your opinion on the issue, visit his website at http://bennett.senate.gov.

     The original bill was passed by the DC City Council in December and is currently slated to go into effect in March. However, because Washington is a federal district and not a state, Congress has the final say on all laws within its boundaries. The gay marriage bill is currently under a state of congressional review, allowing Senator Bennett to introduce his own plan. A fellow Republican in the House, Representative Jason Chaffetz, has filed similar legislation in the lower branch of Congress.

A similar bill has been written in the House.  But here's the catch: the bills have virtually no chance of even reaching the floor.  The Democratic leadership, who controls the legislative agenda, have promised as much.  This begs the question: Why on earth write these bills?  Is it just a way to say we don't like what you're doing, gay people, so we at least want to make it as unpleasant as we can?

Sounds like pure meanness to me.  And it's another reason why some folks call the anti-marriage equality movement hateful. 

Congressional Republicans add their voices to stop same-sex marriage in Washington, DC

 The Washington Post reports that Republican Congressional leaders are uniting with local anti-equality activists in an attempt to have the court block same-sex marriage in Washington, DC.  At issue is whether or not the city should have a referendum on the same-sex marriage.  The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics has already ruled that a vote on the matter would be discriminatory and therefore should not be on the ballot.  The court case alleges that this was not within the board's jurisdiction.

The interference of these Congressional Republicans has sparked outrage, and not just over the specific issue of same-sex marriage.  Some expressed the irony in the members of Congress -- nearly all of whom have actively opposed voting rights for DC residents -- suddenly support the rights of DC citizens.

Sultan Shakir (left) , of the Human Rights Campaign, noted, "It is ironic that nearly all of the 30 representatives and senators that signed the brief have done everything in their power before to deny voting rights to D.C. residents. I don't know if they have had a sudden change of heart on D.C. voting rights or, more likely, they are just playing politics and once again meddling in home rule."

It's uncertain which way he court will decide.  If they decide in favor of the opponents of same-sex marriage,  get ready for another nasty referendum on the civil rights of a group of Americans.

Free speech issues in Washington, DC

There's a free speech debate happening in Washington, DC right now, and some LGBT groups find that they aren't in agreement about what to do.  At issue is a media campaign orchestrated by anti-marriage equality groups.  As part of this campaign, they have bought space on public buses that urge a vote on gay marriage.  (Here's my own two cents here: I know there are pro-equality people who support referenda, but I think they are rare.  The "let the people vote" campaign -- which we saw in Massachusetts a number of years ago -- is really let the people vote to oppose same-sex marriage.)   Full Equality Now has requested the advertisements be taken down, citing that because of their location "they cannot be avoided... countless LGBT citizens are forced to stare down discrimination as they board the bus to go somewhere or are even passed by an advertisement on the street."  Other activists like Mitch Wood, president of the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, believe allowing the ads supports freedom of expression.  The alliance's statement in opposition to taking down the ads refers to a moment in history when LGBT advocates used buses to advertise:

As supporters of civil marriage equality, we also embrace the principle of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which makes our own advocacy possible. Indeed, the then-named Gay Activists Alliance thirty years ago won a court battle against WMATA for the right to place educational posters in Metrobuses with the message, 'Someone In Your Life Is Gay.' WMATA is a quasi-governmental body and is thus subject to the First Amendment. We, the undersigned, therefore urge you to reject the misguided censorship advocated by Full Equality Now DC.

It's a tough question.  I'll keep you posted.

DC's historic moment: Mayor signs same-sex marriage law

Mayor of DC signs marriage bill

 In the midst of all the bad news the LGBT community has been getting, today there was a wonderful respite. DC Mayor Fenty (left) signed the same-sex marriage bill with great fanfare, in All Souls Church, a Unitarian Universalist congregation.  After signing, he graciously handed the pen to  Councilor David Catania (I-At Large), who is openly gay and co-sponsored the measure.  Unless Congress steps in and stops the bill, same-sex marriage will be the law in DC in thirty days.  Here are Mayor Fenty's remarks at the ceremony:


Today, an era of struggle ends for thousands of District residents who have been denied the  fundamental to right to marry the person of their choosing

Today, the city is taking a leap forward in ensuring freedom and equality for all residents.

This is a historic and extraordinary moment in the nation's capital. And I am proud to be the Mayor of a city that stood up against an issue that tramples the basic rights and civil liberties of our neighbors, families and friends.

Last month when the DC Council introduced the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009, you came out in vast numbers in support of it. You gathered, testified and made it known to the world that we will no longer endure the weight of marriage inequality, not now, not ever.

Marriage inequality is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in this country and many nations. And as I sign this act into law, the District from this day forward will set the tone for other jurisdictions to follow in creating an open and inclusive city.

Response to DC marriage vote from National Organization for Marriage

Okay.  This sort of response is exactly why people use the word hate when describing some groups who are opposed to same sex marriage.  What is driving this desire to defeat those who are asking to get married?  It's a lot more than merely "protecting marriage."  Here's a statement from NOM.  FYI: David Catania is a gay member of the DC City Council.  Given that the vote was 11-2, it's pretty interesting that the group decided to single out the gay member of the council.  The following statement was released by David Brown (left), Executive Director of NOM.

  
"The people of D.C. have a right, guaranteed by the charter, which is D.C.'s constitution, to vote to protect marriage. Politicians on the city council are acting as if they have the right through legislation to deprive citizens of D.C. of their core civil right to vote, but we will not let them get away with it.  We have one message for David Catania and the rest of these politicians today: this fight is not over. We will go to Congress, we will go to the courts, we will fight for the people’s right to vote and we will win!"

News Updates

1. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (left) specifically referenced the "kill the gays" bill under consideration in Uganda at a speech at Georgetown University.  According to The Advocate, Clinton said, "Governments should be expected to resist the temptation to restrict freedom of expression when criticism arises, and be vigilant in preventing law from becoming an instrument of oppression, as bills like the one under consideration in Uganda to criminalize homosexuality would do."

2. Fox News is continuing its campaign against Kevin Jennings.  The most recent report is entitled Obama's Safe Schools Czar Tied to Lewd Readings for 7th Graders. The supposed "lewd readings" were not written by Kevin, but cited on a reading list about gay issues.  Oh, it doesn't seem to matter that the reading lists compiled by GLSEN urge adults to review all materials before recommending them to specific kids. 

3. New York Governor David Paterson (right) continues to give us hope that politicians will do the right thing.  On Wednesday he plans to announce a major policy in support of transgendered New Yorkers.  It would be hard to find a more committed straight ally then the Governor of New York.


4. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina wants to make sure everyone knows just how awful he thinks homosexuality is.  In a recent interview, when asked about the possibility of having a gay or lesbian president, he said, "It would be bothersome to me just personally because I consider it immoral. Marriage is a religious institution. The federal government has no business redefining what it is DeMint told Hunt, adding that even state governments should not have the right to permit same-sex marriages. Governments should not be in the business of promoting a behavior that’s proven to be destructive to our society”

5. The Possibility Same Sex Marriage continues to look promising in Washington, DC.  The city council is expected to pass its second vote on the matter this week and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (left) is expected to sign.  The one potential snag is the interference of the US Congress.

Four pieces of good news

1. Washington, DC: It's beginning to look like the Washington DC City Council will pass the bill allowing same-sex couples to wed by the end of the week, in essence ignoring the threats of the Catholic Church to stop social services for one third of the city's homeless.  It's looking good, but I'm still not convinced that the anti-equality folks don't have something up their sleeve.

2. Health Care Bill: Not many people know that when companies offer same-sex couples health benefits, that unlike heterosexual couples, that benefit is taxed.  For example, here in Massachusetts, my husband provides our insurance through his work, but my portion is taxed by the federal government, even though married straight couples from the same state aren't.  The present health care bill will actually put and end to this discriminatory federal policy, resulting in hundreds and even thousands of dollars in savings for some couples.



3. Marriage Equality in Australia: The country down under is about to offer civil marriage to gay couples.  The national government had twice thwarted the law, but this time decided to allow the law to pass and to let same-sex couples get married.  As Timothy Beauchamp of Americablog wrote Sunday morning:

One more of our longtime allies embarrasses the United States in providing equality and civil rights to ALL of their citizens, while our government continues to prop up institutionalized discrimination to deny equality and justice for all here in America.

Everyone "hates us for our freedoms" over here in the United States, right? /snark Read More...

4. Next Year's Census: For the first time ever, the United States census will count same-sex couples as spouses.  (Before thus same-sex couples were called unmarried partners.  This is one of those pieces of good news that is also a little disheartening.  On the one hand, it's vitally important to be counted as part of the citizenry.  On the other, isn't it pretty sad to feel grateful just because the government decided to acknowledge you exist?