Maryland Voters Now Favor Same Sex Marriage

Here's some good news from Out Loud News in Maryland.  I've condensed the story:

A Washington Post poll released on May 11 shows that same-sex marriage is gaining among Maryland voters.  The poll, conducted May 3-6, finds that 46 percent overall favor legal same-sex marriage, 44 percent oppose it, and 10 percent have no opinion. Among registered voters, 48 percent are in favor and 43 percent are opposed, according to the Post.  By contrast, in late 2007, an identical Post poll question found 44 percent in favor overall and 51 percent opposed.

The margin widens when it comes to recognition of out-of-state marriages involving gay and lesbian couples.  By a margin of 55 percent to 38 percent, Marylanders approve such recognition. In response to these numbers, Equality Maryland executive director, Morgan Meneses-Sheets said, "The new polling data released by the Washington Post is a huge, public step forward for marriage equality in Maryland." She continued, "As the article indicates, a clear majority consensus is building across the state, not just in support of out-of-state same-sex marriage recognition, but for full marriage equality for lgbt couples."

The Post poll indicates "a notable dip in opposition to legalizing same-sex marriage among African-Americans since the last Post poll. Blacks in Maryland are now nearly equally divided over the issue."

Gay Marriage Legal in Portugal Next Monday

On Top Magazine is reporting that same-sex marriage will be legal in Portugal next Monday. 

Writes the staff of the magazine:

Beginning June 7, marriage in Portugal will be defined as a “contract between two people wishing to form families through the full communion of life.”


Prime Minister Jose Socrates, a Social Democrat, promised to legalize gay marriage if his party was returned to power. Lawmakers approved the bill in February.


President Anibal Cavaco Silva reluctantly signed the gay marriage bill into law on May 17, saying he was only doing so because Social Democrats were certain to overturn a veto.


“There are moments in the life of a country when ethical responsibility has to be placed above one's personal convictions,” he said in a televised address to the nation.


The president initially attempted to derail the legislation, forwarding four out of five of the bill's articles to the nation's Constitutional Court. He said he did so because he doubted the bill's constitutionality. But the court's majority agreed that the four articles were constitutional.


An article that bans married gay and lesbian couples from adopting children was not forwarded by the president to the court and the prohibition remains in the final law.


During a visit to Portugal as the president considered the issue, Pope Benedict called on Roman Catholics to oppose gay marriage. He called the institution “insidious and dangerous.”


Portugal joins five European countries – Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway and most recently Sweden – in legalizing gay marriage.

Good news!

Gay Malawian Couple Pardoned

Voice of America is reporting the very good news that the gay couple in Malawi, previously sentences to 14 years of hard labor each, has been released.  Here's an abridged version of the report:

Malawian President Bingu Wa Mutharika’s weekend pardon of a homosexual couple recently convicted for holding a public betrothal ceremony has drawn praise from U.S. President Barack Obama, and from Britain and a Malawian gay rights group.  U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who was visiting Malawi at the time of the reprieve, called Sunday’s release of Steven Monjeza and Tiwonge Chimbalanga from prison a courageous decision.

Journalist Watipaso Mzungu of the Malawi Daily Times newspaper said Malawians’ reactions have been mixed.  And, he said President Mutharika’s decision continues to raise a lingering question in a country that imposes stiff bans on homosexual behavior.

Two weeks ago, a Malawian judge convicted Monjeza (photo: left, back) and Chimbalanga (right, front) of unnatural acts and sentenced them to 14 years in prison.  The sentence has drawn criticism from governments and human rights groups.  It has also sparked debate about activities by other African governments that are attempting to toughen penalties against homosexuality, which is illegal in 38 of Africa’s 53 states.

Mzungu, a Blantyre-based journalist, noted that traditional religious group opposition to the legalization of homosexual unions remains very strong in Malawi, a predominantly (80%) Christian country.  He said there are signs that President Mutharika, while signaling that he is not overturning state law, is clearly acceding to demands of the international community.

Despite the international attention, he said Mr. Mutharika’s own political fate is not being threatened and that his critics will try to reach a common understanding for the benefit of the country’s development needs until the next election cycle in 2014.

Journalist Mzungu said the country’s Minister of Gender and Child Welfare has told state media in Malawi that, “if the two guys go home and begin staying together, they are going to be rearrested.”

Mzungu said it is his clear understanding that President Mutharika is not trying to overturn the law, but is simply trying to find a way out of Malawi’s current clash with international human rights advocates, while signaling that violators of the current laws still face punishment.

“The president did emphasize that he did it (the pardon) on humanitarian grounds.  Therefore, it is an expectation that the two guys will not get married again unless they want to face another jail term,” he noted.

With charges dropped against them, Monjeza and Chimbalanga still have the option of leaving Malawi. 

Sex and the City Ladies talk Gay Marriage

from Towleroad:

The Pope in Portugal

It still boggles my mind that the Pope thinks he has moral authority.  During his visit to Portugal -- where the legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill that the President, a Catholic, has yet to sign -- Pope Benedict announced that gay marriage is an insidious and dangerous threat to the world.  Quotes The New York Times:

In a speech here to Catholic social service groups, Benedict called for initiatives aimed at protecting “the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.”

Now I might argue that widespread sexual abuse of children and its cover-up is the very definition of "insidious" and "dangerous,"  but I guess I'm a card carrying member of the reality community.

And remember, this is the same man who claimed that the blurring of gender roles as a result of things like gay marriage were threats to creation as serious as saving the rain forests and halting climate change.

Think about it: my living with my husband and two bassets, parenting two fabulous children, serving leadership roles in our church....that equals global warming?

I agree wholeheartedly with Peter Tatchel of the gay rights group OUTrage  who said:

The Pope is fast losing all his sense of moral priorities. Compared to war, poverty and racism, gay marriage is a minor issue. It is not worthy of the Pope's moral outrage. In a world filled with hate and violence, he should be encouraging love and commitment, not denouncing it.

Or what  a spokesman for the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement told the Telegraph about the Pope's condemnation:

It is one thing to oppose gay marriage from religious convictions and another to make such a claim about it when you look at issues such as teenage pregnancy, sexual disease, drug abuse, world poverty and war. This is an appalling, unfounded and unjust claim. I do not really see on what basis he can say gay marriage is among the most dangerous challenges to society. It ignores real social evils the Church and others should be addressing with far greater urgency.

Not much to add to that.

Laura Bush comes out for gay marriage

Laurel and Hardy on gay marriage

Yes, it seems everyone has an opinion.....

The Night After in Massachusetts

For those of us who are proud progressives, the last few days have been hard.  Very hard.  There is no silver lining.  (I joked to a friend that there is only a Brown lining.)  But we also shouldn't wildly project into the future a disaster for progressives that isn't based in reality.  A few things:

1. Nothing is permanent in politics.  After the last presidential election, I remember listening to pundit after pundit talking about the demise of the Republican party.  One of my favorite progressives, Rachel Maddow, had a recurring piece on her show called "Republicans in Exile."  I didn't buy it.  A month is a lifetime in politics.  The Massachusetts race went from sure thing to upset in a matter of two weeks.  It is just as silly to predict that the Obama presidency and the Democratic rule in Congress is over.  The one thing we can bank on in politics is change.

2. The Democrats ran a lousy campaign in Massachusetts. We took voters for granted.  We assumed that the Democratic nominee was the de facto winner of the election.  The media did as well, and not just liberal sources.  Lesson here: never, ever do that again.  Voters want to be courted. They want to be asked for their vote.  And they want to know why they should vote for you. Quite simply, we did none of the above.

3. Scott Brown's victory is not at odds with Massachusetts history.  Every once in a while -- about once a decade -- a conservative candidate taps into voter anger.  Ed King, a conservative Democrat, defeated Michael Dukakis in his bid for reelection for governor in the primary in the late 1970's, then won the election. The state went for Reagan in the 1980's, in part because of anger.  In the 1990's, John Silber -- certainly one of the angriest candidates I've ever seen -- beat the popular Democratic Atty General, Frank Belotti, for the nomination for Governor.  What do these conservatives who tapped into voter anger have in common?  Their victories were short-lived. Dukakis came back and beat King four years later.  After Reagan, Massachusetts never voted for a  Republican president again.  The races weren't even close. John Silber lost the election for governor to an arguably more liberal Bill Weld, the Republican.

4. Independent voters won the election for Brown.  These are the same voters who not long ago supported Obama and Deval Patrick, two very fine campaigners, like Scott Brown, although these two campaigners have next to nothing in common with Brown.  The lesson?  Many independents are swayed by the personal narrative and the clarity of message of the candidate.  Scott Brown, like President Obama and Governor Patrick, provided both superbly.  Massachusetts independents have always been open to a progressive message.  We just have to provide one that is clear.

5. On the same day Scott Brown was celebrating his victory, Cindy McCain, John McCain's wife, announced her support of same-sex marriage.  Scott Brown may be anti-marriage equality (and anti- gay pretty much everything else) but the strident anti-gay voices in the Republican party are becoming fewer, or, at the very least, they are being balanced by important folks in the party. Rudy Giuliani recently told The New York Times that as far as same-sex marriage goes, it did not make much sense "to be harping on the issue if the party had any serious interest in returning to power."  Even Dick Cheney has recently come out in support of states that allow same-sex marriage.  The momentum is in our direction.


6. Scott Brown still represents a progressive state.  If Texas elected one progressive senator in a special election with an angry electorate, would we actually believe the state had permanently become left-wing?  One special election does not change the psyche of a state.  If Scott Brown wants to be reelected, he can only tow the conservative line so far.  I simply refuse to believe that voters will reelect a senator who significantly restricts a woman's right to choose, treats LGBT people as second-class citizens, and does nothing about health care but maintain the status quo.

7. The Democrats are neglecting their base.  I listened to interview after interview of reluctant progressives coming out to vote for Martha Coakley.  Who knows how many stayed home?  The Obama administration will have to do something to shore us up before the midterms if it wants to avoid disaster.

All for now. I know there are more issues than same-sex marriage, but this is the focus of this blog.  I'll get to those soon. Sure, I've been extremely blue about the red state behavior of Massachusetts.  But I'm coming out of my funk.  And it's not silver lining thinking.  There's some reality here to keep us on a steady course.

A NYC Councilor responds to the defeat of same sex marriage in New York

I don't heart New York

This afternoon, the New York Senate voted down marriage equality by a vote of 38-24.  All 30 Republicans voted no along with six democrats, one of whom equated supporting same-sex marriage as "treason."  The New York State Assembly had already passed the measure by a wide margin.  Governor Paterson vowed to sign the bill.  So it was close.  This is the first time the Senate has even agreed to vote on the matter; the Assembly has voted for the measure three different times in three different years, each time by a wider and wider margin.

What was most frustrating about the vote is that despite the margin, we almost won.  We should have won.  A bunch of senators were willing to vote yes if the measure was going to pass.  A Democrat switched his vote to no at the last minute, and a domino effect followed.  Hmmm. How courageous.  Such profiles in courage.

The debate was emotional.  Thanks to Toweleroad for quotes from  the proceedings.  Among the more powerful:

Some people think it's a hard vote. Why is it not hard for me? Because I'm a woman. And a Jew. And I know about discrimination. I don't understand how anyone can vote no.

If this vote were taken in my district today, same-sex marriage would fail...As it relates to today, undecided senators - let's write this headline for my 10th grandchild whose sonogram was sent to me yesterday - let's send a message of hope. Let's set forth a drumbeat of equal rights for all and let's not continue to be scared into ignorance. 

You cannot legislate morality, but you can legislate justice.

There is enough to be annoyed about the vote, but a few things stand out.  Apparently, some Republicans were ready to get on board if it looked like marriage equality would win.  After the vote, the Log Cabin Republicans -- a group of gay Republicans -- released this statement:

Today we share in the frustration and disappointment that the Senate did not pass the marriage equality bill. We are deeply saddened that the Democratic Conference failed to secure the votes they promised, undermining the possibility of a credible bipartisan vote of conscience on the merits of marriage equality.

Winning marriage equality in New York requires the Democrats to keep their promises, and Log Cabin will continue to work to ensure that Republicans vote their conscience when that finally happens.

There is so much wrong with this statement that it's hard to know where to start.  The press release seems to be saying, Gay Dems -- you need to get every single vote for marriage equality and THEN we'll help you out by bringing on a few Republicans once it's safe. Guess what, Log Cabin Folks?  It's not called voting your conscience when you do it only when it's convenient.

So onward we go.  I try not to vent to much on this blog, but every once in a while, vent I must.

More on the marriage protection movement

Here's the official website of the "Marriage Protection Act of 2010" as well as a few photos from the site.  It's worth a visit:

http://rescuemarriage.org/

New Jersey Showdown

When John Corzine lost his reelection bid for Governor of New Jersey, we knew it was not a good day for marriage equality.  Chris Christie, the Republican Governor-Elect, has vowed to veto any pro gay marriage bill to leave the legislature.  Still, a recent poll had shown that a majority New Jersey voters favored same-sex marriage.  There was hope that the legislature would pass a marriage bill before Corzine left office in January.

That hope is fading.  An anti-gay marriage group has spent half a million dollars on radio ads and mailings urging people to call their representatives to tell them not to take up the vote.  I've heard some of the ads, and not one -- not one -- gives a logical reason for opposing same-sex marriage.  Other than saying "because traditional marriage is between a man and a woman," the ads set up a false choice of either addressing unemployment or marriage equality.  The gist of these ads is, "Can you believe that with so many New Jersey citizens out of work that the legislature is actually thinking about changing traditional marriage?"  Subtext:  Unemployed?  Blame gay marriage!

The campaign has been effective.  A poll released today showed that a majority of New Jersey citizens now oppose same sex marriage. Some legislators are having second thoughts about passing a marriage bill, saying they don't want to anger the electorate.

Interesting.  When are they going to start worrying about our anger?  Maybe when it's so loud that they can't ignore it. 

Another way of looking at referendum results

I saw an anonymous posting on a newspaper blog today that really struck home.  The writer urged us to take a closer look at the Maine referendum results.  I don't believe that anyone's civil rights should be determined by majority rule, but even if you do believe such referenda are appropriate, majorities are not voting to strip away same-sex marriage rights.  The writer on the blog argues that since 42% of eligible voters did not vote in Maine, then the breakdown of the total vote would look like this: 31% voted to strip away rights; 27% voted to keep them; 42% didn't care enough to go to the polls.  What that means is that 69% of the electorate either supported same-sex marriage or really didn't care.  That figure gives a vastly different impression of the true feelings of the state.

I decided to do some calculating of the Prop 8 vote in California.  The result reported in the media gave the measure to eliminate same-sex marriages was 52%-48%.  But even with 79% of the population voting, the combined total of those who supported same-sex marriage or didn't care was a 41% opposing same sex marriage; 38% supporting, and 21% with no strong opinion.  The result with these stats?  41% opposed same-sex marriage while 59% supported or had no opinion.  Yes, I know that some folks with strong feeling simply couldn't get to the polls, but that was certainly a minority.  What these new figures show is that even by the standards of majority rule, these ballot measures failed.  And it seems to me that if a minority of the electorate (a mere 31% in Maine and a higher but still far less than a majority of 41% in California) have actively voted against same-sex marriage, then maybe we should all reconsider how we view these results.

The "they'll teach it to first graders!" tactic against same-sex marriage

In both the California and Maine campaigns against same-sex marriage, much was made (in fact, created) about how homosexuality would required curricula in schools if marriage rights were extended.  This was the crux of the opposition's campaign.  In fact, there was not a word about teaching in either of the bills.  So when these accusations were aired on very effective TV ads, the knee jerk response from supporters of same-sex marriage was "that's not true!"

Something has bothered me about this response for some time now.  It feels like the defensive actor or politician who proclaims, "I'm not gay!" (Remember Larry Craig?  The senator with men's room restless leg syndrome?)  The implication that it is also wrong to be gay is hardly subtle. So when I hear supporters of same-sex marriage say, "homosexuality will not be taught in our schools," I get the same feeling.  The subtext?  Because that would be wrong or inappropriate.

I'd like to question that assumption that we shouldn't teach about LGBT issues with another assumption: gayness and homosexuality are already taught in schools across this country.  Here are some examples of how this is done:

1. It's taught every time a kid hears "that's so gay" or the word "faggot" in the school yard.
2. It's taught every time a kid enters a school building and knows of not one gay person there.
3. It's taught when a kid remains quiet during kindergarten talk about families because a brother, sister, mother, father, uncle, aunt or cousin is gay.
4. It's taught by not being taught, by the absence of any recognition of LGBT people in history or literature.
5. It's taught when the school dance group has no male members, because the boys are afraid of being called gay if they join.
6. It's taught the day after a referendum on same-sex marriage in Maine, when a high school class is discussing current events, and a gay kid has to sit through one more conversation about how people don't want her to get married.
7. It's taught on the baseball diamond, when one kid yells to another, "you throw like a girl."
8. It's taught when everyone knows a teacher is gay but it is never publicly acknowledged because it should be a secret.  And secrets are usually bad.
9.  It's taught every time a kid opens a math book and does yet another word problem that involves a heterosexual couple buying groceries or driving x miles an hour down the highway.  Gay people aren't in word problems because they aren't supposed to exist.
10. It's taught when a female athlete doesn't do her 100% best because everyone assumes all good female athletes are lesbians, and no one wants to be known as that.

So, yes.  Homosexuality is taught.  And what is presently being taught about LGBT people is just fine with many of those who so vocally and passionately oppose same-sex marriage.  Because the last thing they want children to believe is that being gay is, well, normal.

Patience is a virtue....

There has been a great deal of media coverage of late about the gay community’s disappointment in Barack Obama for not following through on some of his campaign promises, such as repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and “The Defense of Marriage Act.”  I can’t deny that I have shared this frustration, especially after the selection of Rick Warren to deliver the opening prayer at the inauguration in January.  But I’m also not ready to give up on Obama.  Nine months into a term is hardly the time to say, “too little, too late,” nor am I ready to change that “hope” to “nope.”  Still, we need to keep the pressure on the administration.  No group has ever won civil rights without fighting for them personally and persistently.  We can't sit back and assume President Obama will do what's right without some pressure.  He may be an ally, but that is different -- and has always been different -- from belonging to the community seeking justice for itself.

Obama has it in his heart.  I also believe that in his heart he supports same sex marriage: not many folks know that he actually supported it in the 1990's, when it was risky to do so.  I can say without question that as a gay man I feel safer and more of a citizen with Obama at the helm than I did during the Bush years.  By the end of his first term, however, I sure do want to be able to say a whole lot more.


Bookmark this on Delicious