The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Today, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in US District Court as part of their response to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Motion to Dismiss Gill v. OPM, a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA. DOMA Section 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. The DOJ has until December 4th to respond to today's filings.
Regardless of how the US District Court judge rules, GLAD expects the decision to be appealed to the 1st Circuit Court and perhaps ultimately to the United States Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear the case.
If GLAD is ultimately successful, the natural question is "how will the ruling affect me?"
If you've been following the saga of the gay marriage bill in the D.C. Council (which I realize is unlikely unless you're (like me) a politics junkie or (also like me) from D.C.), you may have heard that there was an effort (led, somewhat confusingly, by a pastor from Maryland) to take the question out of the hands of the council and to put it to a Maine-esque referendum. As we've seen, the lot of a civil rights bill in the hands of The People (tm) is not an 'appy one. Therefore, I was delighted to learn (from my mother, actually, who's still in D.C.) that the Board of Ethics and Elections (not sure of the actual name, but it's something like that) ruled today that it is against District law to put civil rights to a vote, so the referendum will NOT be going ahead.
This doesn't exactly affect me, as a transsexual lesbian to whom the prospect of marriage, and certainly marriage in D.C., seems remote, but I'm delighted to see that my semi-home has decided that marriage equality matters enough to fight for it. Now on to the next battle, whatever it may be.
After his radio show "Meet the New Press" ended today, GraniteGrok.com co-founder Doug Lambert looked into a live web-streaming camera, mockingly wished state Democratic Party Chairman Ray Buckley a Happy Birthday and then called Buckley a "faggot" before basically wishing him dead.
...After co-host Skip Murphy said that he should probably shut off the feed, Lambert looked into the camera and said, "Speaking of gays, Happy Birthday Ray Buckley. Are you going to Holland or taking another trip with your buddies?"
He then dances in a way meant to mock a gay male and says:"Yeah you Faggot. [Pause.] That's right I said it and I meant it. You are reprobate. How the people, the Democrats, I think of some of the gray haired ladies and older people from the old party would stand behind you is beyond me. You are a disgrace to yourself to humanity to mankind and to your party.
"Other than that Happy Birthday Ray and many more -- not," Lambert continued before the feed was quickly shut off.
Condemnation came quick and fast.
Rep. Jim Splaine, who sponsored New Hamsphire's successful marriage equality bill, said "Ray Buckley has put up with a lot since he let others know he is gay. All of us who are openly gay are at times on the receiving end of such disgusting comments. Some of us receive hate mail or calls for what we do on our fight for equality. But in this case, Ray and the many others who have worked hard this year and in years past to achieve marriage equality in New Hampshire have a louder voice than this GraniteGrok co-host character. The majority of people in New Hampshire are on the side of equality and love, not hate and discrimination."
When GOP state representatives distanced themselves from Lambert, he attempted an apology writing, "To be blunt, what I said is something that never should have been said in any kind of a public setting, or, quite frankly, in a private one either. Being human, and an honest person that is used to freely speaking my mind, my passion got the best of me."
By Jesse Connolly
Former Campaign Manager of No on 1 / Protect Maine Equality
While it's difficult and, one might suggest, even slightly irresponsible to weigh in on our marriage equality loss so soon, it's also tough to sit on the sidelines while others make sweeping proclamations or conclusions, usually hundreds or thousands of miles away from Maine.
This was a very painful loss. The simple fact is that their margins were wider in the places they needed to win, and our winning margins were either smaller than we projected, or we lost bigger in places where we needed to keep it much closer. Clearly, there is town-by-town, city-by-city analysis we need to do and much of that is already underway.
Nonetheless, permit me to make a few observations.
First and foremost, marriage equality is a complex issue. Many people are conflicted and we know from national and state specific polling that it is very difficult to move people on this issue, particularly in the confines of short campaigns.
Secondly, our opponents capitalized on that conflict by constant distortion and misrepresentation. It reminds me of the movie, Supersize Me: why order a midsize coke when you can have a giant coke? Their bar is much lower than ours. They only have to plant and feed the doubt. And it is difficult to fully restore any reputation, be it an issue or character, that's plagued by constant doubt.
Remember, this was a campaign where we got up on the air first and where we put genuine Maine values as the context for supporting marriage equality. We used real Maine families: gay and lesbian Mainers and their kids, and parents who wanted all of their children treated equally under the law. In sharp contrast to other campaigns, gay and lesbian families were woven into our advertising and images as they are in society - organically and realistically.
We also acted and responded like a campaign: no negative went unanswered, and any paid media attack got a swift rebuttal, usually within 24 hours. The messages were tested, we were disciplined across media lines -- from earned and paid traditional media, to new media, including social networking sites and outlets.
We were also benefited by a strong coalition of 60 state and national organizations who gave us the help we asked for, but didn't ask to run the campaign. In short, we got the money and the support we needed to run the campaign we wanted to run.
But here's where it gets tricky and here's where we need some answers over the next several weeks or months. It's clear that polling research, both ours and others, did not capture the intensity of Yes on 1 support. Polling cannot predict turnout and the impact of Tuesday's turnout was counterintuitive. We weren't alone: our opponents, political observers and field operatives all believed a high turnout benefited the NO on 1 vote. With voting approaching 60% in Maine, it's clear that wasn't true.
Here's what I do believe after some sleep and a break from the caffeine: we moved the equality ball further up the hill, not just in Maine, but everywhere else. Voters do need these conversations which we had by the tens of thousands; they do need to see real gay and lesbian couples and their children up close and personal; and they do need to be reminded that these are neighbors and soccer coaches we're talking about, not "homosexual activists" which is the well worn handle our opponents trot out.
I'm not skirting anything here when I suggest that we need to remember that it was not long ago when we were losing in double digits, when they threw an anti-marriage equality question on a ballot in a presidential year to drive conservatives to the polls.
It may turn out to be simply this: that by moving this basic premise of equality from the sink hole of catastrophic defeat state after state, year after year, to within striking distance of a win, that we are almost to the finish line. This tide is turning and you can tell by the histrionics from our opponents, from their "gathering storm."
It's not fast enough for most of us, certainly not for the families who deserve the same basic protections my wife, son and I enjoy, but we're getting close. We will learn more from Maine, we will keep making progress and we will win.
Let no one doubt -- least of all our opponents -- that we're in this for the long haul, until all Maine families are treated equally. This has always been much more than another campaign. It's about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.
Jesse Connolly was the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign manager.
I'll let the press release/open letter from Californians Against Hate speak for itself, as it's pretty damn entertaining.
November 16, 2009
Ms Maggie Gallagher
President
National Organization for Marriage
1100 H Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Dear Maggie --
It looks like you fired former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, just like Donald Trump did back in June.
She is no longer on your web site: nationformarriage.org I called your Washington, DC - PR firm, Mary Beth Hutchins at 703-683-5004 ext. 105, but no one was there to tell me why.
What happened to *"the future of our movement, and the future of America," as you referred to Carrie just two months ago? Was it because she lied again? This time she said in numerous interviews that she "made only one sex tape." Now it appears to be more like 15 or 20. We just heard that from the guy she met on My Space.
He also said that Carrie asked him to lie and say that she was only 17 when she made the sex tapes. In an interview with TMZ's Harvey Levin, her ex said that she made the tapes when she was from 19 to 21, so not that long ago like Carrie insists.
Listen for yourself, it's really interesting how the two stories are so different. Here's a link: TMZ
Wonder if her attorney, Charles LiMandri, knew that she was asking her ex to lie? That is not looked kindly upon by the California Bar Association.
In the past week, Carrie was uninvited from her speech at the Conservative Capitol Hill Club. Then she kept calling CNN's Larry King "inappropriate," and ripped her microphone off on live TV! It's up on YouTube and has had over 1.5 million visitors so far - huge!
h/t to my favorite carpetbagging tax-delinquent heterosupremecist theocrat Gary Randall for keeping me up to date on the haps in NY :)
Governor Paterson says he's secured a commitment by Senate leaders that there will be a vote on the marriage billduring the Nov 16-17special legislative session by the end of the year. The Assembly passed the marriage equality bill months ago and Paterson has promised to sign it if it makes it through the Senate.
Update: The Senate has adjourned until Tuesday at a time yet to be determined. Not surprisingly, there's some doubt as to when the vote will really happen. I've been informed by Blend reader Stephen that the AP video below is misleading because the Patterson segment is actually from a week ago. Sure enough, it was from 11/11/09. You can watch the unedited video here, and hear the Governor say that he will put the bill on the Nov 16-17 agenda, but that the only real time commitment made by Senate leadership is to debate the bill and take a vote by the end of the year. FYI here's a WNYC story posted this morning on the subject.
*** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ***
SIGNFOREQUALITY.COM LAUNCHES
PETITION DRIVE TO REPEAL PROP 8
Activists Unveil Unique Social-Networking Tool to Support Signature Gathering Effort
(SACRAMENTO - November 16, 2009)
SignForEquality.com today launched a groundbreaking effort to gather signatures to repeal Proposition 8 and restore equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, marking the first time that social networking technology has been used to qualify a California initiative for the ballot.
"We're taking names," said John Henning, who is heading the SignForEquality.com effort as Executive Director of Love Honor Cherish.
"SignForEquality.com will make history by using custom social networking tools, as well as YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, to support an all-volunteer signature drive to repeal Prop 8. People throughout California can now help us win marriage back by the simple act of signing and collecting signatures."
Love Honor Cherish launched www.SignForEquality.com as part of the volunteer signature drive, which began today. The site features a downloadable petition form and training videos for signature gatherers, and uses unique social networking technology to help gatherers set goals, build teams, and find signature gathering events.
"In its first day, SignForEquality.com is already the state of the art in California petition signature gathering," said Henning.
Henning noted that in recent years, signature gathering campaigns have been in the hands of a few powerful elite, who qualify ballot initiatives by spending millions on paid signature gatherers.
"SignForEquality.com brings the campaign back to the people," said Henning. "We're going to qualify this initiative person by person, and signature by signature."
The proponents of the ballot initiative have 150 days to gather approximately 1 million signatures. The signatures are due on April 12, 2010.
Love Honor Cherish is one of more than 40 groups that support repealing Prop 8 at the next general election in November 2010. The groups include the Latino Equality Alliance, the Mexican American Bar Association, and the San Diego Alliance for Marriage Equality, among others. For a full list, go to www.RepealProp8.com. Love Honor Cherish is also part of the Restore Equality 2010 coalition, which has elected representatives throughout the state.
As signature gathering gets underway, the campaign to change the hearts and minds of voters has already begun and will continue through the November 2010 election.
"Prop 8 passed last year with just 52% of the vote," said Henning. "Now, a year later, a recent L.A. Times poll says that 51% favor marriage equality. In the next 12 months, we'll make that margin even bigger."
Proposition 8 was an amendment to the California Constitution passed by voters in November 2008. It reversed a California Supreme Court decision in May 2008, which held that same-sex couples were guaranteed equal marriage rights under the California Constitution. The new ballot proposition is also a constitutional amendment.
The proposed measure reads as follows:
This amendment would amend an existing section of the California Constitution. Existing language proposed to be deleted is printed in strikeout type. Language proposed to be added is printed in underlined type.
Section 1. To protect religious freedom, no court shall interpret this measure to require any priest, minister, pastor, rabbi, or other person authorized to perform marriages by any religious denomination, church, or other non-profit religious institution to perform any marriage in violation of his or her religious beliefs. The refusal to perform a marriage under this provision shall not be the basis for lawsuit or liability, and shall not affect the tax-exempt status of any religious denomination, church or other religious institution.
Section 2. To provide for fairness in the government's issuance of marriage licenses, Section 7.5 of Article I of the California Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Marriage is between only two persons and shall not be restricted on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.
Love Honor Cherish is a Los Angeles-based grassroots organization committed to repealing Prop 8 in 2010 and to developing a new generation of leadership on this issue. Formed in May 2008 to defeat Prop 8, it raised over $500,000 for the No on 8 campaign and mounted its own outreach and media efforts. For more information, visit www.LoveHonorCherish.org.
Signature Gathering will be taking place in locations throughout the state. For more information about locations and other opportunities for media coverage, contact Mike Roth at 310-433-8685 or mike.roth@lovehonorcherish.org
Denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” How can this be true, particularly when gay rights activists have stressed that marriage is a civil institution in the United States as opposed to a religious institution? Because gay marriage opponents have made it so. Virtually all opposition to gay marriage - or gay civil rights in any form - is rooted in religion, specifically fundamentalist Christianity. This motive has been expressed in numerous attempts to define marriage as “between a man and a woman”.
I went to the Equality California (EQCA) San Diego Awards event on Saturday night, and captured the speech of Jerry Brown, who accepted an award at the event.
He won this award mostly for his work after Prop 8, where the Attorney General's Office took the position that the constitutional amendment was unconstitutional. He talks about this in the video. EQCA Executive Director Geoff Kors introduces the former California Governor.
My apologies -- I haven't had the time to transcribe the video.
And ya gotta add chili on top- Dawn doing the honors:
So what did we talk about? Heck, what didn't we... I especially like what Dawn wrote on her site and will let her tell the tale...
Louise from Pam's House Blend came up yesterday and we had a marvelous visit. She brought home-made pickles and apple butter and fudge and we all went out to lunch at Geddy's and got the nachos on a hubcap and then to Ben & Bill's to buy goodies for the folks back home and then a short tour through the park. We stopped at Thunder Hole, which was not thundering at all (low tide) and we showed her where those people got washed off the rocks into the ocean, and we saw some deer and some nature and it was good.
We laughed and cried a little; over lunch we talked politics and Maine stories and discussed our experiences gutting deer. The young hetero couple at the next table barely blinked. I do love a small, rural town. We talked some more about politics, and came up with some ideas that have had Laura and I doing research and data entry and trying to coalate things so that I can look at them and get what I need easily. I've got some ideas for future campaigns, but I want to have them properly organized before I offer them for public consumption. Stay tuned, though. I'll share them here eventually.
Judge Gabriela Seijas ordered the civil registry to make official the marriage of Alejandro Freyre, 39, and Jose Maria Di Bello, 41, who had been denied their request because they were both men.
It could increase pressure for lawmakers to take up a stalled gay marriage bill in Congress.
"We are very happy, moved, but we also feel the heavy weight of responsibility because it's not just about us, it's encouraging legal equality in Argentina and the rest of Latin America," Di Bello told Agence France-Presse.
The couple had filed a complaint in April. ...
The decision by Seijas "is incredibly courageous, we didn't expect it," acknowledged Di Bello, who fell into his partner's arms when he learned of the verdict.
Of course judicial decisions can be appealed, but not to worry.
The government of the City of Buenos Aires said it would not appeal a ruling that would pave the way for same-sex marriages in the capital.
Through a statement published on the Internet, City Mayor Mauricio Macri said "this is an important step, because we must learn how to live in freedom without hurting the rights of others.... We must cohabit, and accept this reality. The world is heading toward that direction"
Macri added that the decision was the result "of an important internal debate," through which he wanted to "improve the liberties" of the citizens. ...
The ruling of Administrative Judge Gabriela Seijas, said "the law should treat everybody with the same respect, regardless of their singularities, without the need to understanding and regulating them."
The couple said they were "proud and happy" for being "the first same-sex couple who have been backed by the courts," in a ruling that came only days after the Lower House of Congress failed to reach quorum on a law draft to allow homosexual marriages in the country. The law, which would be debated next year, would make Argentina the first country in the region to legalize same-sex marriages
Blockquotes are statements released by the producers of this documentary, done in 2 parts because of YouTube size restrictions.
In May, 2009, the Maine Legislature extended marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. As expected, opponents of equality, led by the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Church, petitioned to have those rights put to a vote by referendum.
This film chronicles the final days of the on-the-ground campaign to protect marriage equality in Maine.
The Democratic National Committee ignored the fight to protect marriage for all couples in Maine, neglecting to donate funds to the cause (even though they reportedly raised over a million dollars from gay donors in June of this year) or to mobilize potentially thousands of volunteers through its Organizing for America arm. The DNC even sent emails to voters in Maine urging them to help with Joe Corzines failed gubernatorial reelection in New Jersey, potentially diverting needed volunteers, but also showing that they deemed the fight for marriage equality unworthy of their attention. President Obama never acknowledged the NO ON ONE campaign.
If marriage equality is to be fought for on a state-by-state basis, then our national gay rights organizations should hold the DNC and President Obama responsible for their inaction in Maine and in other state battles.
And so should we.
WHAT WE CAN DO:
President Obama was elected cashing our checks and making promises to our community, but so far he has failed to be the fierce advocate for gay rights that he said he would be. The gay community is being told to wait, and be patient-hes only been in office a year. But many of us have been waiting for decades. Were being told to wait while hundreds of much-needed soldiers are being thrown out of the military under Dont Ask Dont Tell (DADT), a policy President Obama could end today with an executive stop-loss order. Were being told to wait while it is still legal in over thirty states to be fired from your job just for being gay, a practice we could end by passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Were being told to wait while the administration puts off repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a law his justice department has defended by comparing loving gay relationships to incest and pedophilia. Were being told to wait even while we have an overwhelming majority in the House, a filibuster-proof Senate, and a President who promised action on all of the aforementioned issues. It is unlikely that we will sustain this Democratic super-majority, so if not now, then when?
John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay of AMERICAblog have launched a donor boycot of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America, and the Obama campaign until Congress and the President pass ENDA and repeal DADT and DOMA, as was promised during campaign season, when the gay community gave plenty and worked hard to get Democratic candidates elected.
This story is so weird; it exemplifies the paranoia over at the White House over anything G-A-Y, particularly regarding the President's current illogical-but-politically safe position on marriage equality. We have to roll the story out before getting to the meat of it.
Melody Barnes, Obama's senior domestic policy aide, recently gave a talk at Boston College; she indicated not only her personal opinion on marriage equality (she's for it), she provided insight on WH policy. Apparently her answer was not from the script and the White House freaked and denied Barnes said anything about her views.
Reached late Monday evening, a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Barnes was not discussing "her personal views on marriage equality or other issues."
Paul Sousa, Founder of Equal Rep was at the talk and told Sam Stein of Huff Post that Barnes indeed shared her viewpoint on marriage equality. So that meant someone wasn't telling the truth.
But the Barnes talk had been taped. What happened next was extremely bizarre -- persons unidentified in Obama White House, home of our "fierce advocate" -- told Boston College that it had final say on whether this tape would be released at all. John @ Americablog:
by 3:40PM Tuesday, November 10, the White House was given a copy of the video by BC, and was informed that the school's policy was to give the speaker the choice to release or suppress video of their talks at the school. The White House, rather than refusing to be the ultimate censor of the publication of the video that had already caused quite a stir, and rather than simply giving BC the permission to publish the video on the spot, accepted the video, and its role as censor, and didn't get back to the school for two whole days. It was only this morning that Kenyon says the White House told Boston College that it could release the Barnes video.
Why did it take the White House two days to decide whether it would permit a private university to release a video of a public event involving a senior White House official, a video that we now know the White House had in its possession the entire time?
...The appropriate response from the White House, when a private university asks for permission to release a video of a White House employee speaking on the record at a public meeting, is not "send us the video, so we can see it, and decide if we're going to censor its release. And in the meantime, do censor it for at least a few days." (Which leads to some fascinating First Amendment issues, at the very least.)
The Obama White House was trapped in yet another public "gaffe" over its preposterous dealings re: LGBT rights because of Melody Barnes's statement. Since it couldn't give a rational explanation for withholding the tape's release, the anonymous paranoid Obama officials decided they would hold on to it until the news "dead drop" on Friday, when the MSM goes to sleep for the weekend. Unfortunately, the Internet never sleeps, peeps.
The Advocate obtained the tape from the college's communications department and transcribed it, so there wasn't any question about what Barnes told the students at Boston College. More below the fold.
Is this guy for real? The Providence Journal reports that Rhode Island Gov. Carcieri who on Tuesday vetoed a bill that would have allowed same-sex couples the simple right to claim the body of a deceased spouse and make funeral arrangements, is now saying he's willing to think about backing domestic partnerships.
Two days after vetoing a bill giving domestic partners the right to make funeral decisions for each other, a conciliatory Governor Carcieri told a gay-rights activist group he is open to supporting a domestic-partnership law that bestows many if not all of the rights of marriage, without the right to marry.
"Maybe it's something we should consider," said Carcieri, after meeting privately Thursday for more than an hour in his office with a half-dozen members of Queer Action of Rhode Island, a group that in the immediate aftermath of his veto had labeled him "a bigot."
Hmmm, now why again would anyone call this gentleman a bigot? Could it be because last month he headlined a fundraiser for the homohaters Massachusetts Family Institute, and when he vetoed the funeral rights bill the other day he spewed this bile:
"This bill represents a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage, which is not the preferred way to approach this issue. If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the State of Rhode Island decide." ...
House sponsor, Rep. David Segal, D-Providence, said: "I think the man is heartless ... [this] doesn't change the definition of the word 'marriage.' " "It is completely disgraceful that Governor Carcieri has chosen to ignore and devalue the committed relationships of same-sex couples in this state," said Karen Loewy, a staff attorney for GLAD. ..."Unconscionable," echoed Kathy Kushnir, executive director of the advocacy group Marriage Equality of Rhode Island.
Clergy United for Marriage Equality has apparently been effective in sidelining the Protestant radical-right in the Washington, D. C. area. Now, in what looks to be a desperate "Hail Mary" (if I may say so) maneuver, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington (D.C.) has threatened to stop taking District contract money for their Catholic Charities organization if the D.C. Council passes a marriage equality law that doesn't allow individuals to discriminate and call it "religion". Mkay, bye!
Responses from members of the D. C. Council and the community have been exemplary.
GLAD Celebrates Connecticut's Marriage Equality Anniversary
CT Married Couples to be Surveyed about DOMA
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which won marriage equality in Connecticut through their court victory in Kerrigan & Mock v. Department of Public Health, will mark the first anniversary with a little celebration and a little investigation.
"The past 12 months have seen amazing progress, with Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Iowa all achieving marriage equality," said GLAD attorney Bennett Klein, who argued the Kerrigan case before Connecticut's Supreme Court.
"As we share the joy and happiness of lesbian and gay couples in Connecticut, we know we have more to do to end discrimination, in other states and at the federal level."
GLAD and Love Makes a Family will join married couples, including many of the lawsuit's plaintiffs, at the State House for an anniversary photo at 3:30, followed by cake, champagne, and a toast in the Old Judiciary Room.
In addition to joining the festivities in Hartford at the State House, GLAD is rolling out a survey of Connecticut's married same-sex couples to find out how they are affected by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
"All the couples who marry in those states will sooner or later run into federal discrimination because of DOMA. It may be when they try to file their taxes jointly, or are denied their spouse's Social Security benefits, or try to sponsor their spouse to immigrate to the U.S. or try to put their spouse on their health care plan," said Klein.
There are 1,138 federal laws that distinguish based on martial status when conferring benefits, obligations, and protections on married couples. Because of DOMA, married same-sex couples have access to none of the protections and responsibilities set aside for married couples.
In March of this year, GLAD filed Gill v. Office of Personnel Management on behalf of eight Massachusetts married couples and three widowers, who have all been penalized by DOMA.
GLAD's survey is being mailed out to Connecticut couples, and can also be filled out on its website at http://www.glad.org/doma/survey.
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders is New England's leading legal organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation, HIV status, and gender identity and expression.
Flanked by four members of the State Senate Democratic majority and the leader of New York's LGBT lobby, Governor David A. Paterson announced an agreement by which the Senate leadership has, for the first time, agreed to debate and vote on a marriage equality bill before the end of 2009.
"This is the first time that the Senate leadership has indicated that it will support a vote on marriage equality," the governor said.
"This is a stunning and very happy development in this process. I will continue to place marriage equality on any special sessions that I call on Monday and Tuesday because I feel that the bill should be debated immediately. However, I have profound respect for the leadership of the Senate and the process that they took to bring us to this vote."
Paterson was joined by the Senate's deputy majority leader, Jeffrey Klein, who represents portions of the Bronx and Weschester, Brooklyn Senator Eric Adams, Manhattan Senator Eric Schneiderman, and Thomas K. Duane, the out gay Chelsea senator who is the lead sponsor of the marriage equality bill. Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, was also on hand.
According to the Daily News, Van Capelle expressed satisfaction that his group has the assurance it has sought for a reasonably prompt debate and vote, and Duane said he was "happy" with the outcome.
The bill, also sponsored by state Sen. Rhoda Perry and state Rep. David Segal, would add "domestic partners" to the list, in current law, of people who can legally make arrangements for a deceased person's funeral, cremation or burial to include domestic partners if the deceased person left no pre-arranged funeral contract.
The legislation defines a domestic partner as someone who was in an "exclusive, intimate and committed relationship" with the deceased and had lived with him or her for at least a year prior to the death; is at least 18, not married to anyone else, not related by blood and who was financially "interdependent'' with the deceased as evidenced, for example, by a joint mortgage, shared credit card or domestic partnership contract.
According to its sponsors, the legislation is designed to provide rights to domestic partners regardless of whether they are of the same or opposite sexes.
The governor justified his veto with a released statement, which reads in part:
"If the General Assembly believes it would like to address the issue of domestic partnerships, it should place the issue on the ballot and let the people of the state of Rhode Island decide."
Yeah- we just saw how well THAT went over in Maine!
Carcieri cited at least two other reasons for his veto.
As written, he said the bill would allow the decisions of a "partner" of a year to take precedence over "traditional family members," and he believes a "one year time period is not a sufficient duration to establish a serious bond between two individuals...[relative to] sensitive personal traditions and issues regarding funeral arrangements, burial rights and disposal of human remains."
Carcieri said he was also uncertain "how it would be ascertained in many circumstances whether [a couple] had been in a relationship for a year" since there is "no official or recognized form" of domestic partnership agreement in Rhode Island.
He called this proviso "vague and ill-defined."
Yet a hetero couple that marries drunkenly in Vegas for 5 minutes like, say, Britney Spears, is automatically granted that privilege, among many others... but silly me, I'm talking about Nevada.
What about Rhode Island? Is there any requirement put upon a het couple that their NONE of their legal rights as a newly married couple don't kick in until a one year "waiting period" or "honeymoon phase", if you will, including funeral arrangements?
Under age 18 or under control of a legal guardian, the individual must complete a "Minor's Permit To Marry".
For a groom under age 18 or a bride under age 16, that individual will need "court permission" to marry.
There are NO restrictions preventing first cousins or siblings or otherwise related individuals from marrying.
So let's consider some scenarios. Since there is no lower limit, if someone could get a court to actually APPROVE it, children as young as 15 can marry! Hell, 8 year olds! A father can marry his daughter- a mother her son! Hey, as long as they are "het", any possible combination of results is possible!
But "heaven" forbid 2 responsible adults of the same sex be able to decide the funeral arrangements and burial of their life partner...
Anyone else see the major problems with Carcieri's thinking and the current state of Rhode Island's marriage laws?
"It is absolutely unconscionable that Gov. Carcieri would step in the middle of people being able to take care of their loved ones at such a sorrowful time," said Kathy Kushnir, executive director of Marriage Equality Rhode Island, which advocates for gay marriage.
"Why would he make it more difficult? I just don't get it."
The State Senate delayed a highly anticipated vote on same-sex marriage on Tuesday, putting off the issue indefinitely as gay rights supporters continued to lobby for additional votes.
Republicans and Democrats said that as of Tuesday afternoon, the measure was still several votes short of the 32 necessary for approval. About five Democrats remained either opposed or noncommittal, meaning that Republican votes were needed to secure passage.
But not enough Republicans have committed to voting yes, legislators said. The Democrats have a 32-30 majority in the Senate.
It was unclear when the Senate would take the issue up.
NYCLU: Failure to Vote on Marriage Bill a Missed Opportunity
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 10, 2009 - The New York Civil Liberties Union today expressed disappointment about the State Senate's failure to vote on legislation to give lesbian and gay couples the ability to marry in New York State.
"The senators missed an opportunity to make history and embrace fairness for all New York families," said NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman. "Marriage is a defining civil rights issue of our day, and unfortunately, the State Senate has taken a position of 'no action' on it."
The State Assembly passed the marriage bill in May, and Governor Paterson had pledged his support for it. The bill includes a religious exemption to make clear that it only impacts marriage as a civil institution - clergy will not have to solemnize marriages should the Senate approve the bill.
"The time for our senators to stop the political maneuvering and lay their cards on the table is long overdue," Lieberman said. "Do they support fairness and protecting families or not?"
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont and Iowa have legalized marriage for lesbian and gay couples, but New Yorkers remain unable to get married in their home state.
In June, the NYCLU launched www.MarriageNY.com, a website featuring a dozen New York couples explaining why the right to get married matters to them.
¡Felicitaciones Argentina!
Melody Barnes, Obama's senior domestic policy aide, recently gave a talk at Boston College; she indicated not only her personal opinion on marriage equality (she's for it), she provided insight on WH policy. Apparently her answer was not from the script and 
