CNN Covers LGBT Rights Around The World

Interview With Dave Fleischer: Prop 8 Report Author

Dave Fleischer is the author of the 509-page Prop 8 Report which was released publicly on Tuesday. I have known Dave for years and he agreed to this on the record interview with MadProfessah.com.

MadProfessah: What are the main results or ideas you want people to gain from this report?

Dave Fleischer:
* The No on 8 campaign made a smart decision to invest in research. As a result, for the first time ever, in any campaign, the LGBT community has daily tracking polling that measures increases and decreases in our support as voters were being exposed to the anti-gay opposition campaign. This is far superior to episodic polls taken when voters are considering the question out of context and have not recently been exposed to the vile but effective opposition campaign. The No on 8 tracking polling by Lake allows us to correlate voter movement to significant changes in the political environment including but not limited to strategic decisions made by the competing campaigns. That's why this report is the first report ever to seriously evaluate why we struggle to compete in these campaigns. It provides evidence that allows us to consider and evaluate the wide range of competing hypotheses offered by a wide variety of observers. Up until now, we just had the hypotheses, not the data. Now, we have significant data. With the data, we are able to reject some hypotheses, confirm others, and notice areas where we need more information. We are on our way to learning more about the electoral reality in which we are operating.

* Based on the data, we know why we lost. We lost because in the final six weeks, when TV ads from both campaigns saturated the airwaves, almost 700,000 votes switched sides and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. It seems fair to me to conclude that Yes on 8 outcampaigned us in the final six weeks. We went from even to losing in the final six weeks. And it's fair to give Yes on 8 credit for what they accomplished, because we lost the most ground by far among the exact group of voters they targeted: parents.

* No on 8 regained some of the ground we lost, but only when we directly rebutted the opposition fear-mongering. "O'Connell" was No on 8's belated rebuttal of the pernicious Yes on 8 ads that exploited and stimulated anti-gay prejudice by making people fear that kids were in danger. The effectiveness of the "O'Connell" ad, while limited, suggests that we can successfully rebut the longstanding lies, at least among some voters. And the fact that it improved the situation compared to how we were doing when we were avoiding the issue makes it clear that avoidance serves us poorly. When the opposition attacks the character of LGBT people, we have to rebut immediately, directly, and clearly.

* As we prepare to go back to the ballot, we have to commit ourselves to gaining insight into how to rebut those attacks effectively. We still have so much to learn; after all, does "O'Connell" represent the best we can do? We simply don't yet know. We need to try out, in real world circumstances that simulate the campaign, what rebuttals help us most with most of the voters who are susceptible to the opposition fear-mongering. Luckily, we have a great immediate opportunity to enlarge our learning, when we canvass. From my point of view, when we are canvassing, this leads to a practical imperative: we should talk about kids to as many voters as we can; test different messages to see what works; and consider the canvass an investment in qualitative research, the largest, longest focus group in social science history. My concern is that if we don't do this -- if we don't talk about kids now, when the stakes are low -- we will be tempted once again to avoid the issue in an campaign, when the stakes are so high. Then history will repeat itself, to our detriment.

MP: How long did the report take to research and write and who paid for it?

DF: 18 months. Paid for by the LGBT Mentoring Project. No money solicited from nor did any come from CA individuals or organizations or the No on 8 campaign on anyone evaluated in the report.

MP: When do you think we should return to the ballot to overturn Proposition 8?

DF: We should return to the ballot when we have a decent chance to win. So we have homework to do. Should only choose the year when we have finished the homework. That could be 2012, or a different year. To me, what's relevant is: have we done our homework?

MP: One of the key findings is in wrong-way voting. Apparently there were 6% of voters who voted No who opposed marriage equality as opposed to 4% of Yes voters who supported marriage equality. Thus there's a net gain of 2 percentage points for the No side. Can you explain how confident you are of this result?

DF: Very confident. The Lake polling data and our methodology to interpret it are all laid in out detail in the report in a special appendix. [Appendix K]

We acknowledge all of the limitations of the data. But here's what we calculate:

* approx 1.525 million people were wrong-way voters

* of those, 875,000 voted No and opposed same-sex marriage

* and 650,000 voted Yes though they favored same-sex marriage

* the difference, 225,000 voters, made the margin closer by approx. 450,000 votes

FYI, David Binder's polling during the No on 8 campaign, commissioned by the No on 8 campaign, corroborated Lake. In the one poll where he asked questions you could use to gauge wrong-way voting, conducted Sept. 2-4, he found that

* 13% of the voters who found same-sex marriage acceptable said they'd vote Yes, and

* 19% of the voters who found same-sex marriage unacceptable said they'd vote No.

This is a less reliable measure of wrong-way voting than because a) it was further in advance of election day, and some voters self-correct; and b) Binder's question gave three options to respondents, so the middle group is sizeable and there's no way to tell if any of them were likely to wrong-way vote. But Binder's finding here is consistent with the idea that our side was the likely net beneficiary of wrong-way voting.

And of course Binder's May 2009 attempt to gauge wrong-way voting is very unlikely to be of any value. Polls are best at detecting wrong-way voting as or before people vote, not afterwards, especially not six months afterwards, when accurate recollection of their confusion is unlikely.

You will also enjoy looking at Lewis & Gossett, cited in the Prop 8 Report. Their excellent paper analyzing the Field and PPIC data uses regression analysis to compare the plausibility of four competing hypotheses to explain the failure of the two polls to gauge what was happening. They make a compelling case for wrong-way voting as the most probable explanation.

MP: What do you say to people that your source of daily tracking poll data by Celinda Lake ends 5 days before the election and the election could have been decided in that time frame?

DF: The Lake data is the best data we have on Prop 8, and the best data set our community has ever had on any of these ballot measures. That said, it is imperfect in a variety of ways, including the one you mention. There could have been significant changes in voter opinion in those final days. The Lake data would of necessity not reveal that. However, to the extent that the Binder tracking polling data in the final days tell us anything, they do not suggest massive voter movement or anything other than trivial voter movement. See the charts in the report with Binder data and Lake data side by side and you'll see what I mean. Binder tracked until election day (but he didn't start until much much later than Lake, when most of the big movement had long occurred).

Thanks, Dave!

Federal Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced that the decision in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow, Wednesday August 4th (Barack Obama's 49th birthday!)

Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is widely expected to strike down Proposition 8, but his reasoning and the extent of his ruling should be very interesting. Ted Olson and David Boies were the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

UPDATE TUESDAY 08/03/2010 6:41PM

The decision will be released electronically on the federal court's website between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday August 4th.

Gay Rights Parade in Cuba

Photo credit: Franklin Reyes

Ever since I visited Cuba for two weeks in 2006 (see pictures on Flickr) I have been interested in the island, especially in the progress of the nascent LGBT rights movement I interacted with while there.

Today comes multiple news reports of a march in the Vedado section of Havana (which is where I stayed) in support of gay rights in honor of tomorrow's International Day Against Homophobia.

A lot of the progress is due to Mariela Castro, President Raul Castro's daughter, who has long been an advocate for LGBT equality in Cuba. She was quoted by the Associated Press saying "We have made progress, but we need to make more progress,"

Hat/tip to Rod 2.0.

Visualizing ENDA Support in the Senate

Courtesy Joe.My.God comes the above graphic depicting the geographic distribution of support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, H.R. 3017/ S. 1584, in the United States Senate as of 4/29/2010. Dr. Jillian Weiss has also posted a Google docs spreadsheet which shows the position of all members of the Senate on this LGBT civil rights bill. Her spreadsheet shows 51 definite votes in the Senate, which along with roughly 203 sponsors in the U.S. House indicates we are very close to getting this done this year.

Of course, President Obama has promised to sign the bill.

SF CHRONICLE Outs Prop 8 Federal Judge

The San Francisco Chronicle has published a story revealing to the general public an open secret that many of us have already known: Vaughn Walker, the federal judge conducting the federal trial into the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8 known as Perry v. Schwarznegger, is gay:

The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage being heard in San Francisco is that the federal judge who will decide the case, Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, is himself gay.

Many gay politicians in San Francisco and lawyers who have had dealings with Walker say the 65-year-old jurist, appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1989, has never taken pains to disguise - or advertise - his orientation.

They also don't believe it will influence how he rules on the case he's now hearing - whether Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure approved by state voters to ban same-sex marriage, unconstitutionally discriminates against gays and lesbians.

[...]

Many San Francisco gays still hold Walker in contempt for a case he took when he was a private attorney, when he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a successful bid to keep San Francisco's Gay Olympics from infringing on its name.

"Life is full of irony," the judge replied when we reminded him about that episode.

And did he have any concerns about being characterized as gay?

"No comment."

Shortly after our conversation, we heard from a federal judge who counts himself as a friend and confidant of Walker's. He said he had spoken with Walker and was concerned that "people will come to the conclusion that (Walker) wants to conceal his sexuality."

"He has a private life and he doesn't conceal it, but doesn't think it is relevant to his decisions in any case, and he doesn't bring it to bear in any decisions," said the judge, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the Prop. 8 trial.

"Is it newsworthy?" he said of Walker's orientation, and laughed. "Yes."

He said it was hard to ignore the irony that "in the beginning, when (Walker) sought to be a judge, a major obstacle he had to overcome was the perception that he was anti-gay."

In short, the friend said, Walker's background is relevant in the same way people would want to know that a judge hearing a discrimination case involving Latinos was Latino or a Jewish judge was ruling in a case involving the Anti-Defamation League.

Walker, by the way, didn't seek out the Prop. 8 case - it was assigned to him at random.

I am actually glad that this story is being published. It is newsworthy that the judge is gay, and if reporters can come up with enough sources to be confident of printing that fact, they should write a story about it. Being gay is not something to be ashamed about.

Now, being appointed to the federal bench by a Republican President, that is not something I would want very many people to know about!

Now There Are 5 States With Gay Marriage

In New Hampshire, same-sex couples can now get married. There are now five states, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts, where marriage equality is the law of the land. The District of Columbia is likely to join them in a few weeks, and there's an outside chance that New Jersey may enact marriage equality, too, but it must happen before January 19th and a new Republican Governor is inaugurated.

Other than that, in 2010 most of the action in LGBT rights will be happening at the federal level.

From the New York Times coverage of New Hampshire marriage equality, this excerpt stood out for me:

The marriage law grants no new rights to gays, who two years ago won the right to civil unions, but it eliminates the separate status so both heterosexual and homosexual couples will be considered married.

Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who personally opposes gay marriage, signed the legislation after lawmakers passed key language affirming religious rights. The law spells out that churches and religious groups can't be forced to officiate at gay marriages or provide other services.

Through late December, 40 gay couples had applied for marriage licenses valid for 90 days, said Stephen Wurtz, acting director of the state division of vital records. In 2009, 188 civil unions were performed with eight licenses still outstanding. Forty-two civil unions have been dissolved, though some were performed in Vermont. In 2008, 621 civil unions were performed.

Some couples -- like Burr, 51, and Blair, 46 -- plan to wed quickly. A few may gather at the Statehouse to ring in the New Year by exchanging vows in a general celebration. Others want to wait to honor non-legally binding commitment anniversaries from years past.

[...]

Burr and Blair said New Hampshire's marriage law, while important, does not grant them full equality.

''We're halfway there,'' Blair said. ''We got the state rights. We had civil unions. Now we have marriage. But until we get full equal rights under the federal law, we'll never be there. We'll never be truly equal.''

Look at the small numbers involved--in what way can someone else's marriage affect yours? There are still an estimated 18,000 legally married same-sex couples in California (I am in one of them), which is more gay marriages than any other state. If the argument by heterosexual supremacists is true, please explain what impact all these couples have on marriages around the country?

Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of the Decade

Following up on my recent post detailing the most significant LGBT-related events of 2009, I have decided to try and compile a list for the entire decade of the "aughts," from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2009.

By most significant, I mean the events that either had the most impact on the lives of the most number of LGBT people or that are likely to be remembered as the most significant by historians in the future.

Here we go:

10. The Vermont legislature enacts nation's first civil unions law, signed by Governor Howard Dean, in response to the Vermont Supreme Court's Baker v. Vermont ruling, 2000.

In late December 1999 the Vermont Supreme Court issued its unanimous ruling in Baker v. Vermont, deciding that there was discrimination in the differing ways that the state's laws treated same-sex couples relative to opposite-sex couples, and although it also ruled that under Vermont law the legislature had intended to have marriage be a union between a man and a woman only (and could legally do so), the Court compelled the State to come up with a statutory remedy to address the disparate treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The Vermont Civil Unions bill, modeled after European civil partnership legislation, attempted to provide "civilly united" same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities that married couples had under Vermont law. It was signed by Governor Howard Dean on April 26, 2000 and went into effect on July 1, 2000. (Me and my other half got a civil union on August 8, 2000 in Burlington, VT.) Thus Vermont became the first state to attempt to end state-sanction discrimination in relationship recognition in the United States, leading to full marriage equality on September 1, 2009.

9. California legislature passes Assemblymember Jackie Goldberg's AB 205, the first comprehensive domestic partner statute granting almost all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in state law (signed by Governor Gray Davis, went into effect January 1, 2005), 2003.

In summer of 2003, California became the second state (after Vermont) to enact legislation that tried to provide same-sex couples with as much of the rights and responsibilities of marriage while still reserving the word marriage to the exclusive domain of heterosexuals. In April 2000, California voters had passed Proposition 22 by 61%-39% which re-affirmed that state law banned recognition of same-sex marriages. Unlike in Vermont, the California legislature was not reacting in response to a state Supreme Court ruling. Instead, the state legislature was specifically expanding a bundle of rights to an existing statutory entity, the registered domestic partnership, instead of creating something new from whole cloth, like the Vermont civil union. California's comprehensive domestic partnership law would become the model that other (mostly Western) states would follow later in the decade: Oregon, Washington and Nevada. At the time there was much heated debate in the LGBT community about "settling" for domestic partnership in the midst of a pitched battle for equal marriage rights that would be repeated time and again with echoes present even today. Domestic partnerships and civil unions (commonly lumped together as "everything but the word marriage" laws) became overwhelmingly popular with the general public so that even during the backlash against marriage in the middle of the decade voters repeatedly defended such measures in elections (Arizona, 2006 and Washington, 2009).

8. Democrats retake congressional majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, 2006.

After losing control of both Houses of Congress in 1994, fueled by the energy and organizational skills of the progressive blogosphere and under the leadership of Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Rahm Emmanuel and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head Charles Shumer the Democrats were able to shock political observers by wresting back control of the entire legislative branch of the federal government in 2006 despite losing two consecutive national Presidential elections. The return of the Democrats to the helm of the federal legislature meant that draconian measures like the Federal Marriage Amendment that would have banned legalization of marriages for same-sex couples in all the 50 states would now be unable to advance. However, with Republicans in control of the executive and judicial branches of government, there was very little positive change the Democrats would be able to enact until a change was made in the occupancy of the White House. The 2006 election were an augur of progressive change to come in the country.

7. Voters pass ballot measures amending 11 state constitutions to ban recognition and validation of same sex marriages while re-electing President Bush, 2004.

In 2004, George W. Bush chief political strategist Karl Rove together with the (closeted) head of the Republican National Committee Ken Mehlman instigated the most coordinated attack on the LGBT community in history in an attempt to boost conservative evangelical turnout for Republican candidates (especially the top of the ticket) nationwide. Their evil strategy worked, although if a mere 60,000 voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry instead of the incumbent, there would have been another historical discrepancy between the winner of the presidential popular vote and the electoral college vote. The eleven states that voted to amend their state constitution to ban marriage for same-sex couples were: Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. In all the states but Oregon the measures were supported by more than 60% of voters and resulted in harsh anti-gay language being constantly repeated during state and local electoral campaigns. 2004 was the political nadir for progressive election results in the decade, with LGBT issues caught in the downturn.

6. U.S. House of Representatives passes Employment Non-Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation nationwide after gender identity protections are dropped, 2007.

Federal gay civil rights legislation was introduced for the first time in May 1974 by New York City-based U.S. Representatives Bella Abzug and Ed Koch as a bill that would add "sexual orientation" to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. However, it was not until November 7, 2007 (a full generation later) that a version of a federal gay civil rights bill passed a single chamber of Congress. Unfortunately, the version passed in the U.S. House by a vote of 235-184 was not only watered-down to an extent that it only covered discrimination in employment (and not public accommodations and housing like the corresponding landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s) but it also was stripped of the gender identity protections. The passage of the trans-exclusive version of ENDA in the U.S. House of Representatives was significant for the historical precedent it set as well as the internal community it sparked over transgender issues in the LGBT civil rights movement. Even among openly gay Congressmembers Tammy Baldwin and Barney Frank there was disagreement about whether it was better to pass ENDA with sexual orientation and gender identity protections or not. Frank was in favor, Baldwin opposed. For practical purposes, the issue of which measure should be law became moot because the measure died in the United States Senate after President Bush issued a veto threat. However, the passage of ENDA by the House augured well for the passage of other LGBT civil rights legislation in the future.

5. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules marriage for same-sex couples is a fundamental right that can not be constitutionally denied, 2003.

In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health became the first high court in the United States to rule that opposite-sex only marriage laws were unconstitutional and that the remedy required was to allow same-sex couples full marriage equality. The Court deemed that the state did not even have a rational basis for denying such an important fundamental right to a class of its citizens on both equal protection and due process grounds. On May 17, 2004, the 50th anniversary of the United States Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Goodridge decision went into effect and the first legal marriages between same-sex couples occurred on U.S. soil. Although the marriage of the lead plaintiffs Julie and Hilary Goodridge did not survive the decade, Massachusetts marriage equality did, and the 4-3 Goodridge decision was the harbinger of positive marriage equality decisions in California (In Re Marriage Cases, 2008; 4-3) Connecticut (Kerrigan v. Department of Public Health, 2008; 4-3) and Iowa (Varnum v. Brien, 2009; 7-0). Through intensive political organizing, the LGBT community and its allies were able to prevent the state legislature from allowing a constitutional amendment from going to the voters and by the end of the decade Massachusetts marriages were considered safe and the state was suing the federal government for discriminating against its legally married same-sex couples in the disbursal of federal recognition and benefits.

4. United States Supreme Court overturns the homophobic Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) precedent, ruling that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, in Lawrence v. Texas, strengthening privacy rights for all Americans, 2003.

For nearly two decades the Bowers v. Hardwick ruling of the United State Supreme Court was used as a legal club to eliminate any claims for civil rights for gay men and lesbians in a number of different contexts. In a 5-4 majority opinion written by Justice Byron White, the court contemptuously dismissed the notion of "a fundamental right to homosexual sodomy" and affirmed the state of Georgia's law criminalizing oral or anal sex between consenting adults--even in the privacy of their own house. The indisputable fact that the highest court in the country had decided that the act which defines homosexuals makes them criminals was used over and over again to refute the concept of equal rights for gay men and lesbians. This all changed on June 26, 2003 when Justice Anthony Kennedy read part of the majority decision in Lawrence v. Texas before assembled court reporters and teary-eyed LGBT legal advocates which declared that the Court's previous sodomy decision in 1986 "was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled." The Court's action struck down sodomy laws in 13 states including four states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri) that had restricted their laws to homosexuals only. The court ruled that the sodomy laws violated due process and equal protection laws. By decriminalizing homosexuality nationwide, the decision in Lawrence dramatically reduced stigma against gay men and lesbians and was a significant legal and cultural advance in the movement for full LGBT equality.

3. Proposition 8 is passed by California voters, stripping the recently-granted right to marry after an $83 million electoral campaign filled with lies and deception, 2008.

In May 15, 2008 the California Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling In Re Marriage Cases which not only ruled that California's marriage laws discriminated against same-sex couples but also declared that sexual orientation was a suspect classification deserving of strict judicial scrutiny on par with race and sex and ordering civil marriage licenses to be issued to gay and lesbian couples in 30 days, on June 15th. 173 days after that, on November 5, 2008, California voters passed a ballot measure 52.3% to 47.7% to amend their constitution to strip away the recently granted right and banned gay marriage. The electoral battle to pass Proposition 8 became the most expensive ballot measure over a social issue in the nation's history with an estimated $83 million ($40 million by Yes on 8, $43 million by No on 8). Many LGBT activists felt that the No on 8 campaign squandered what public polls said were double-digit leads through an overly safe television campaign which did not feature images of gay or lesbian people. However, internal polls never showed the campaign ahead and no public poll ever showed majority support for the concept of marriage equality in the state. The battle over Proposition 8 was a political coming of age for an entire generation of LGBT activists. After Proposition 8 passed an incredible outpouring of rage and disappointment resulted in demonstrations (primarily organized online) in dozens of cities around the country which were estimated to have been attended by over 1 million people. In California, several brand-new grassroots organizations were formed and statewide gatherings of LGBT activists were held in Los Angeles, Fresno and San Bernardino to organize, inform and strengthen the community activists who attended. The lessons of Proposition 8's passage (that majorities would vote to strip away the right to marry from their fellow citizens even in a presumably progressive state like California) were repeated in 2009 when Question 1 in Maine was passed by an even larger margin. Currently Proposition 8's constitutionality is being challenged under Federal law by the legal dream team of super-litigators David Boies and Ted Olson after the California Supreme Court refused to strike down the measure under the state constitution with a full trial on the merits set for the beginning of the next decade, on January 11, 2010.

2. President Barack Obama signs the federal hate crimes bill, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act, into law, 2009.

Despite the carping from some corners that the legislation only gives rights to LGBT people only after they are victimized or dead, the historic echoes of the President's signature on H.R. 1913 should not be under-estimated. The federal hate crimes bill became the first piece of federally enacted legislation to ever include the words "gender identity" and only the second to expand rights based on sexual orientation. Yes, the measure was attached to a "must-pass" piece of legislation, the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2009, instead of a stand-alone bill. But this did not make Republican opposition any less fierce or morally questionable. After the federal hate-crimes act was enacted it could never be said again that there were no protections in federal law for the LGBT community. The binding precedent of the legislative action meant that it would not be unthinkable to pass other LGBT civil rights laws in the future.

1. George W. Bush is (s)elected president after U.S. Supreme Court intervention in Florida recount results in defeat of Vice-President Al Gore, 2000.

The presidential election of 2000 was the most pivotal political moment of the decade as a 2-term Democratic president was going to be replaced by either his Vice President who would maintain and mainly continue Bill Clinton's relatively pro-gay policies or by Texas Governor George W. Bush, the "compassionate conservative" attempting to restore the Bush family name to the highest echelons of power in the country. That Al Gore would get more than half a million more votes than George W. Bush but the presidency of the United States would come down to a few hundred votes in Florida (a state where the candidate's brother was the Governor) was something a Hollywood screenwriter would have been discouraged from including in a political thriller as too far-fetched and simply unbelievable. But, thanks to intervention from the United States Supreme Court in the case of Bush v. Gore where David Boies and Ted Olson were on opposite sides, Bush was declared the winner. Instead of governing like he had just won the closest presidential election in U.S. history, Bush proceeded to dismantle as much of the Clinton legacy as he could as rapidly as possible. Thanks to Bush's election (and re-election) we now have two relatively young arch-conservative jurists on the United States Supreme Court (Chief Justice John Roberts, 54 and Samuel Alito, Jr., 59) along with hundreds of other conservative federal judges in lifetime appointments on District and Appellate Courts throughout the country. Additionally, Bush being president for most of the decade meant that federal progress on enacting LGBT civil rights was stymied at every level, with attention moving to state-based legislative, judicial and administrative action. The low point came in 2004 when President Bush endorsed the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have explicitly stripped the fundamental right to marry from same-sex couples, an unprecedented and maximalist attack on a particular minority group that would have incorporated discrimination in to the founding document of the country which has been only amended 27 times in 222 years. The main impact of having a Republican in the White House was the aid and comfort the Bush Administration gave to virulent homophobes and the political cover it provided for other Republican politicians to express and implement counterfactual and prejudiced views and policies towards LGBT citizens.

Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009

It's that time of year! No, I'm not talking about Chrismuhkwanzakkuh, I'm talking about the annual ritual of making of Top 10 lists. Herewith is my list of the Top 10 Most Significant LGBT Events of 2009 in the United States.

10. Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed to the United States Supreme Court: August 6, 2009.

Hey, the United States Supreme Court doesn't get new members every year. Lots of presidents don't get to appoint any justices, and their influence can extend far beyond a presidential quadrennial or octennial term of office. So it must have been music to the ears of former University of Chicago Law School professor Barack Obama when Associate Justice (and confirmed bachelor) David Souter announced he wanted to return to New Hampshire and leave the nation's highest court. With 60 votes in the majority caucus, Obama could have forced almost anyone through the Senate (including openly gay law school deans Elana Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan) but he chose the person at the top of everyone's short list: Sonia Sotomayor, the New Yorker of Puerto Rican descent who went to Princeton and Yale Law School and went on to become the the first female, Hispanic justice. Although she was asked (and politely declined to answer) her thoughts on LGBT issues there's no question that Sotomayor's vote will be key to achieving full equality under the federal constitution for LGBT Americans in my lifetime.

9. The Vermont Legislature overrides the Governor's veto to enact marriage equality: April 7, 2009.

In a breathtakingly brief period of a few weeks late this Spring, the legislatures of Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Vermont all passed marriage equality measures.Vermont was particularly stunning, because the Republican governor had the temerity to veto the measure and the Legislature was able to achieve a two-thirds majority in both Houses (by a margin of one vote in the lower body) to enact the law ending discrimination against same-sex couples having their relationships recognized by civil authorities in the Great State of Vermont.

8. The District of Columbia becomes the first Southern jurisdiction to pass marriage equality legislation: December 18, 2009.

Just squeaking in before the end of the year, the District of Columbia, which has a population slightly larger than the state of Wyoming and slightly less than the state of Vermont, passed a marriage equality ordinance through its unicameral legislature, the DC City Council 11-2. What makes the action so significant is the fact that the District of Columbia is below the Mason-Dixon line, which means that it is the first jurisdiction in the Southern United States (which also has a majority African American population) to affirm the principle that equality for all includes gay and lesbian couples access to civil marriage.

7. Barack Obama becomes 2nd sitting President to address LGBT rights fundraising event, reiterates promises to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell": October 10, 2009.

After an increasingly impatient LGBT community complained that the Obama administration's moves towards institutionalizing LGBT progress were distressingly slow, the President agreed to attend the Human Rights Campaign's annual DC gala, which this year was occurring a few hours before hundreds of thousands of LGBT citizens would walk the streets of DC for the National Equality March. At the dinner, Obama gave a typically stirring speech where he reiterated his opposition to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act and called for Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act and the federal hate crimes act for his eager signature. Obama became the first president to attend an LGBT fundraising event in the first year of his first term (Clinton attended in 1997 after his re-election the year before) but it was not enough. LGBT critics complained that Obama did not layout a timeline for when his legislative accomplishments would be achieved.

6. Openly lesbian Annise Parker is elected mayor of Houston, the nation's 4th largest city: December 12, 2009.

After being elected by her hometown six consecutive times statewide in races for City Council and as City Controller, Annise Parker built up a resume and reputation that one would expect for a leading contender to be elected mayor of the nation's fourth largest city. That she was also openly gay and had been so for her entire electoral career gave the race against African-American Gene Locke extra media attention. In the end, Parker was elected handily. Whose to say that she will stop at Mayor? What her election does show is that there is no lavender ceiling for openly LGBT politicians in electoral politics.

5. California Supreme Court refuses to strike down Proposition 8 but affirms marriages of same-sex couples entered into prior to its passage: May 26, 2009.

Almost exactly one year after the California Supreme Court released its landmark ruling In Re Marriage Cases (which struck down Proposition 22 and the state's 1974 marriage statute, legalized marriage for same-sex couples and elevated sexual orientation to a category receiving the highest level of judicial analysis) the same court disappointed millions of people by refusing to exhibit similar judicial courage to invalidate Proposition 8. In a 6-1 vote (only Justice Carlos Moreno, under consideration by President Obama for the United States Supreme Court at the time, was willing to strike down the constitutional amendment which stripped same-sex couples of the right to marry) the Court upheld the legality of Proposition 8 under the California constitution. The Court also unanimously upheld the legal principle that all people married during the 173 days between June 15, 2007 and November 3, 2008 had all the rights and responsibilities of civilly married couples. This will not be the last word on whether Proposition 8 will remain in the California Constitution, however, the legal superduo of Ted Olson and David Boies have filed a federal lawsuit against the measure, and a full trial has been scheduled for January 11, 2010.

4. The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rules in favor of marriage equality: April 3, 2009.

In the last three years all of the half-dozen or so state Supreme Court decisions which have decided marriage equality prior to Iowa's unanimous Varnum v. Brien decision had been 4-3-vote majorities (Favorably: Massachusetts, 2004; California, 2008; Connecticut, 2008. Unfavorably: New Jersey, 2005; New York, 2006; Washington, 2006; Maryland, 2007). That's what makes the ruling by the Iowa State Supreme Court so significant. The logic that there is no rational basis or legitimate state purpose for preventing same-sex couples from being issued civil marriage licenses is unassailable. The decision went into effect three weeks later, and same-sex couples have been getting married ever since without much publicity. In Iowa, the state constitution can only be amended by passing through the state legislature and the Democratic majority is refusing to consider such a measure. Iowa puts paid to the idea that gay marriage is an idea that is a purely liberal or geographically centered. If same-sex couples are getting married in Iowa, can Kansas be far behind?

3. On election day, Maine voters reject marriage equality law while Washington voters retain "everything but marriage" comprehensive domestic partnership statute: November 3, 2009.

The weeks and months leading up to election day were dominated by the "Proposition 8-redo" in Maine called Question 1 where heterosexual supremacists again forced a public vote on whether private relationships would be treated equally by the state. Another public vote, another devastating loss. For the 31st time in 32 tries, the public voted against marriage equality for LGBT couples, this time by a margin of 52.75% Yes to 47.25% No (even larger than Proposition 8's 52.3 Yes to 47.7% No in 2008). However, thousands of miles away in Washington State, voters overwhelmingly Approved Referendum 71 (by a margin 0f 53.15% to 46.85% or 113,00 votes) to retain a recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law modeled after California's landmark AB 205 from 2003. (Interestingly, Nevada was able to enact their comprehensive domestic partnership act over their Republican governor;s veto on May 31, 2009.)

2. John A. Pérez is named the next Speaker of the California Assembly, the first openly gay person of color to head a state legislative body: December 10, 2009.

John A. Pérez is someone I have hung out with at parties and sat next to at banquets and stood next to at rallies. He is also the first LGBT person of color ever to be elected to the California legislature (in 2008). In January 2010, he will become the Speaker of the Assembly, one of the Top 3 positions in California politics. Yes, he's the cousin of the Mayor of Los Angeles and had to defeat my own Assemblyman Kevin de Leon in order to win over a majority of the California Democratic caucus as a first-term legislator in order to have up to 4 years of eligibility to serve as head of the lower body of the California Legislature, the first gay and third Latino to do so. His elevation among his peers, along with Annise Parker demonstrates the assimilation of sexual orientation into the mainstream of Democratic politics. It is more likely John's sexual orientation helped him rather than hurt him in becoming Speaker of the California Assembly and that speaks volumes for the trajectory of the LGBT civil rights movement in the future.

1. President Barack Obama signs the federal hate crimes bill (the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act) into law: October 28, 2009

Despite the carping from some corners that the legislation only gives rights to LGBT people only after they are victimized or dead, the historic echoes of the President's signature on H.R. 1913 should not be under-estimated. The federal hate crimes bill became the first piece of federally enacted legislation to ever include the words "gender identity" and only the second to expand rights based on sexual orientation. Yes, the measure was attached to a "must-pass" piece of legislation, the Defense Reauthorization Act of 2009, instead of a stand-alone bill. But this did not make Republican opposition any less fierce or morally questionable.

MAP Report on LGBT Right Progress 2000-2009

There's an interesting report out this week called "A Decade of Progress on LGBT Rights" written by one of the smartest (and least well-known) LGBT organizations, the Movement Advancement Project, (with funding from the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr Fund) which puts where the LGBT community is now in a useful historical context.

* Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation: The number of states outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation increased 83 percent, from 12 to 22, between 2000 and 2009. The percentage of the U.S. population living in states banning discrimination based on sexual orientation soared from 24.5 percent to 44.1 percent, an 80 percent increase. In other words, today 134 million Americans are now living in states where discrimination based on sexual orientation has been outlawed, an increase of 65 million over the decade. (When local nondiscrimination laws passed by cities without statewide protections are included, the figure is over 50 percent of the U.S. population.) Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on sexual orientation grew from 51 percent to 88 percent.

* Discrimination Based on Gender Identity: There was an even more remarkable increase in states outlawing discrimination based on gender identity and expression, which rose from just 1 state in the year 2000 to 14 states representing nearly 30 percent of the population in 2009. The percentage of Fortune 500 companies that protect workers based on gender identity jumped even more, from just 0.6 percent to 35 percent.

* Relationship Recognition: Similarly exceptional gains were made in the area of family recognition. In 2000, no state extended the freedom to marry to same-sex couples; one state gave broad recognition to same-sex relationships and one offered limited recognition. Now in 2009, five states extend marriage to same-sex couples (with New Jersey and the District of Columbia pending at press time), six offer broad recognition, and seven offer more limited recognition. Overall, the number of Americans living in a state that offers some protections to same-sex couples nearly tripled, from 12.7 percent to 37.2 percent.

* Protection from Violence: The 2009 Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act is the first federal law to specifically protect LGBT people.

* LGBT Elected Officials: The number of openly LGBT elected officials in America rose 73 percent between 2000 and 2009, from 257 to 445.

* Public Opinion: The percentage of the public supporting the right of openly gay and lesbian people to serve in the military grew from 62 percent to 75 percent. Support for marriage equality has grown from 35 percent in 2000 to 39 percent today; there has been an even larger increase in support for relationship recognition that involves many of the rights of marriage, from 45 to 57 percent.

* Safer Schools: In 2000, only one state had a safe school law that specifically cited sexual orientation *and* gender identity/expression for protection; by 2009 that rose to 13 states. The number of Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs in high schools grew from 700 to 4,700, a nearly six-fold increase.

The report also includes data on areas with mixed or negative results.

· Marriage Opposition: In 2000, 5 states had blocked marriage equality through a statewide vote; today, 31 have done so, including 29 states amending their constitutions to prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages.

· Homophobia in schools: The percentage of LGBT students reporting hearing homophobic remarks in school has remained above 99 percent and LGBT students who report experiencing harassment in school edged up (up from 83.2 percent to 86.2 percent.)

· HIV/AIDS: New HIV infections among adolescent and adult men who have sex with men grew 10 percent, from 28,000 to 30,800, as did the percentage of new HIV infections overall that occurred among men who have sex with men, which rose from 51 percent to 53 percent.

· Military Service Ban: In spite of overwhelming public support for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the U.S. military continued to discharge hundreds of gay and lesbian service members, with the cumulative number of discharges under the 1993 policy nearly doubling during the past decade. The only "positive" note was that the number of annual discharges decreased from 1,241 in 2000 to 619 in 2008 (the most recent year for which data are available), apparently because of the urgent need for soldiers to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.

I hope that some of the people who have been screaming obscenities at our friends in power take a sobering look at how far we have come, and think about where we want to be in 2019.

Federal DP Bill Advances To US Senate Floor

According to HRC Backstory, the United States Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act, S.1102, (also known as DPBO) by a vote of 10-6 (8-1 official in-person vote) to the Senate floor, with five Republicans and Democrat David Pryor of Arkansas voting against the bill and Chairman Joe Lieberman ("Independent") and Ranking Member Susan Collins (Republican of Maine) voting in favor along with all the other Democrats on the committee.

The companion bill in the House which is sponsored by lesbian Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (Democrat of Wisconsin), H.R. 2517, is also pending on the floor of that body after having passed the House Committee on Oversight and Government Management on November 18th.

HRC sent out a press release lauding the Senate Committee action:

“Today’s markup in the Senate is an important step toward guaranteeing equal compensation for lesbian and gay workers serving our government at home and abroad,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “DPBO recognizes that equal pay for equal work is a value fundamental to American opportunity. We thank Chairman Lieberman for his leadership in ushering this important legislation through Congress.”

The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO) was introduced in the 111th Congress by Chairman Lieberman and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) in the Senate and by Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) in the House. DPBO would provide the same family benefits to lesbian and gay federal civilian employees as are already provided to employees with different-sex spouses. To receive benefits, employees would have to submit an affidavit of eligibility for benefits with the Office of Personnel Management, certifying that the employee and domestic partner meet necessary criteria, as provided in the Act.

DPBO would bring employment practices in the federal government in line with those of America’s largest and most successful corporations. Nearly 60% of Fortune 500 companies provide domestic partner benefits to their employees. In addition, 23 states, the District of Columbia, and over 150 local governments make benefits available to public employees and their same-sex partners. A May 2000 poll conducted by the Associated Press found that a majority of Americans favor the extension of health insurance coverage to same-sex partners. In addition, this legislation has been endorsed by the American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Harvard University, National Treasury Employees Union and United Church of Christ.

Looks like DPBO will make it to the President's desk before ENDA. Oh my bad, I forgot, there's been no progress on LGBT rights in the Obama Administration because Barack Obama hates "teh gays." STFU!

Austria Approves Civil Union Legislation

Austria's parliament approved a civil unions bill by a vote of 110 to 64 this week.

The bill, slated to become law Jan. 1., will give same-sex couples a series of rights enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts, including access to a pension if one partner dies and alimony in the event of a split. It bans the adoption of children or artificial insemination.

"We are living in the 21st century and I'm very glad this step is being taken today," Justice Minister Claudia Bandion-Ortner said during parliamentary debate leading up to the vote.

Christian Hoegl, co-president of the Homosexual Initiative Vienna, Austria's oldest group of gays and lesbians, agreed.

"It's a relief, a big success and a reward for two decades of lobbying," Hoegl said.

Bizarre that it bans adoption or artificial insemination at the same time that it offers all the other rights and responsibilities of marriage that the state can provide. I know that equivalent federal legislation would be an unacceptable compromise to most LGBT advocates in the United States.

LA TIMES Lambasts Evangelical Heterosexual Supremacist Screed

In Saturday's Los Angeles Times, the op-ed page published an article condemning the recently released (and widely condemned) Manhattan Declaration, a statement signed by more than a hundred evangelicals which explicitly, almost violently, anti-gay.

Last week, a group of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders released a “declaration” reminding fellow believers that "Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required." Then, after a specious invocation of King, the 152 signers hurl this anathema at those who would enact laws protecting abortion or extending the rights of civil (not religious) marriage to same-sex couples:

"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality. . . . We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's."

Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones. The strange land described in this statement is one in which a sinister secularist government is determined to force Christians to betray their principles about abortion or the belief that "holy matrimony" is "an institution ordained by God." The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."

This sweeping claim is supported by anecdotes of the sort radio talk-show hosts purvey. For example, the declaration says that "a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax-exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions." (In 2007, New Jersey did strip a Methodist camp of its tax privileges under a state recreation program because it no longer was open to all.) For other examples, it must search beyond the United States: "In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality."

The impression left is that the legal environment in which churches must operate is reminiscent of the Roman Empire that threw Christians to the lions. Never mind that advocates of same-sex civil marriage and legal abortion have made significant concessions to believers or that religious groups have recourse to courts, which have aggressively protected the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exempting believers in some cases from having to comply with applicable laws.

This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous. Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn? Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform? They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.

Of course, hate-filled Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage is a signatory of the Manhattan Declaration.

Hate Crimes Against Gays Rise In LA County

111: Hate crimes based on sexual orientation in 2007
134: Hate crimes based on sexual orientation in 2008
105: Hate crimes based on religion in 2007
120: Hate crimes based on religion in 2008
763: Overall hate crimes in 2007
729: Overall hate crimes in 2008

The Los Angeles Daily News is reporting that the number of hate crimes in Los Angeles County decreased overall, but increased in several categories such as sexual orientation and religion.

Sexual orientation hate crimes rose the most last year, with more than 80 percent targeting gay men and at least nine crimes traced to Proposition 8.

One incident highlighted in the report involved a white lesbian couple walking hand-in-hand on the beach in Malibu. The mother of a white tourist family from Arkansas told them, "You are going to burn in hell!" and dumped her water bottle on one of them and punched one in the face.

"The worst part of the story is that hate crimes against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are the most violent hate crimes of all," said Lorri Jean, chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

"Seventy-three percent of all anti-gay and anti-lesbian hate crimes were violent. And the frightening truth is that equal numbers of LGBT people were targeted in public places as in their residences."

Almost two-thirds of the religious-based hate crimes were anti-Jewish.

Federal DP benefits Bill Passes House Committee

The White House Media Affairs Office just sent out a press release featuring John Berry, the openly gay head of the Office of Personnel Management, lauding the movement of the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act:

OPM Director John Berry lauds passage of Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act through House Committee on Oversight and Government Management

Bill provides essential recruitment tool for the Federal government

Washington, DC – Earlier today, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Management approved H.R. 2517, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009, sponsored by Representative Tammy Baldwin. The measure extends benefits to the domestic partners of Federal employees, including participation in the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, retirement and survivor benefits, relocation reimbursements and other benefits currently offered to spouses of Federal employees. The Committee also adopted an amendment offered by Chairman Edolphus Towns that made changes to the legislation to ensure proper implementation.

“I want to commend the Committee for approving the Domestic Partnership Benefits Act,” said U.S. Office of Personnel Management Director John Berry. “This is an essential recruitment tool as we seek the best and the brightest to tackle the many challenges America faces.”

Berry also said: “This is a positive step that helps the federal government to better compete with other employers for top talent. President Obama has stated clearly that this is an issue of equality. But just as important, youth today, LGBT or not, see this benefit as a litmus test for determining high quality employers. The Administration looks forward to continuing its work with lawmakers as the House and the Senate move toward enactment of this bill.”

OPM oversees human resources and benefits policies for over 1.9 million Federal civil servants and 2.5 million retirees and survivor annuitants.

But I guess nothing positive is happening on LGBT rights in this Administration so we might as well as boycott them. Not.

Mormons Support Salt Lake City Gay Rights Orginance

As Wonder Man says, "It's Ice Cold In Hell." The LDS Church not only did not oppose a proposed ordinance in Salt Lake Cty to extend civil rights protections in emloyment to the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity, but actively supported it. The ordinance passed unanimously, the Salt Lake Tribune reports:

Hours after the LDS Church announced its support Tuesday night of proposed Salt
Lake City ordinances aimed at protecting gay and transgender residents from
discrimination in housing and employment, the City Council unanimously approved
the measures.

"The church supports these ordinances," spokesman Michael
Otterson told the council, "because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage."

They also are consistent with Mormon teachings, he said. "I believe in a church that believes in human dignity, in treating people with respect even when we disagree -- in fact, especially when we disagree."

[...]

The LDS Church's endorsement was hailed by leaders of Utah's
gay community -- some of them stunned -- who called it a historic night they
hope will set the stage for statewide legislation.

"This is a great step," said Will Carlson, director of public policy for the advocacy group Equality Utah. But, he noted, four out of five gay Utahns live outside the capital and should be afforded protection as well. "Equality Utah will continue to work for that."

The ordinance contains much more extensive language granting exceptions to the discrimination protections for religious-based organizations and practices. It will be interesting to see if the Governor of Utah, Gary Hebert, who earlier this year revealed his utter ignorance and misunderstanding of the concept of civil rights, will change his position on statewide legislation now that even the Mormons are saying that LGBT rights laws (trans-inclusive!) are "fair and reasonable."

Here's the full text of the official statement from the LDS Church on the Salt Lake City ordinance:

Good evening.

My name is Michael Otterson, and I am here tonight
officially representing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The nondiscrimination ordinances being reviewed by the city council concern
important questions for the people of this community.

Like most of America, our community in Salt Lake City is comprised of citizens of different faiths and values, different races and cultures, different political views and divergent demographics. Across America and around the world, diverse communities such as ours are wrestling with complex social and moral questions.

People often feel strongly about such issues. Sometimes they feel so strongly that the ways in which they relate to one another seem to strain the fabric of our society,
especially where the interests of one group seem to collide with the interests
of another.

The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against.

But, importantly, the ordinances also attempt to balance vital issues of
religious freedom. In essence, the Church agrees with the approach which Mayor
Becker is taking on this matter.

In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements.

The Church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage. They are also entirely consistent with the Church’s prior position on these matters. The Church remains unequivocally committed to defending the bedrock foundation of marriage between a man and a woman.

I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with
respect even when we disagree – in fact, especially when we disagree. The
Church’s past statements are on the public record for all to see. In these
comments and in our actions, we try to follow what Jesus Christ taught. Our
language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will
also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society.

Thank you.

How Much Does Obama Hate You? The Gays Count The Ways...

John Aravosis and Joe Sudbay over at AmericaBlog are launching a boycott of the Democratic National Committee, Organizing for America and the Obama re-election campaign until "the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is passed, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) is repealed, and the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is repealed."

The boycott has been endorsed by such progressive luminaries as Daily Kos, Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, David Mixner, Andy Towle and Michael Goff of Towle Road, Paul Sousa (Founder of Equal Rep in Boston), Pam Spaulding, Robin Tyler (ED of the Equality Campaign, Inc.), Bil Browning for the Bilerico Project, among others.

Here is a list of their "beefs" with the Democrats in general and President Obama in particular:

Can you give examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans?

1. Asking a religious right activist who claims to have been “cured” of his homosexuality to headline campaign events in South Carolina. Then letting the anti-gay bigot spend half an hour, on stage, haranguing gays at the Obama event.
2. Refusing for months to interview with LGBT newspapers during the campaign, while his opponent did repeatedly.
3. Flubbing question on whether gays are immoral.
4. Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
5. Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.
6. Refusing to appoint an openly gay Cabinet member.
7. Abolishing the LGBT outreach position at the DNC and never reinstating it.
8. Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
9. Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
10. Asking for a study on “whether” repealing DADT would hurt national security, rather than a study on how to repeal it, as promised.
11. Deleting his gay civil rights promise from the White House Web site.
12. Changing his commitment to “repeal” Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to “changing DADT it in a sensible manner.”
13. Repeatedly defending DOMA in court, including just a few weeks ago, even though he didn’t have to.
14. Making jokes about marriage equality, which President Obama claims he doesn't support, even though he once did.
15. Comparing gay relationships to incest and pedophilia in a Justice Department brief.
16. Joking about gay protesters upset about the DOMA brief.
17. Refusing to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay employees, and then claiming that DOMA precludes it, when it does not.
18. Refusing to meet with gay legal groups to discuss how to provide such health benefits within the confines of DOMA.
19. Claiming that health benefits for partners of federal employees were new, then being caught in a lie.
20. Showing visible discomfort when asked about gay civil rights.
21. Suggesting he won’t get to DADT, DOMA or ENDA until his second term, if ever.
22. Refusing to suspend implementation of anti-gay laws, like DADT and DOMA, while suspending laws that hurt others.
23. White House staffers worked against amendment proposed by Rep. Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to defund Don't Ask, Don't Tell investigations
24. Saying won’t repeal DADT until wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have finished.
25. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to beg President Obama to help on DADT repeal.
26. A White House official referring to gay civil rights advocates, marching on Washington, as part of “the Internet left fringe” whose opinions don’t matter.
27. Saying he won’t touch DOMA in his first term.
28. Refusing to release list of gay attendees at hate crimes reception.
29. Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
30. Saying gays are “naïve” for wanting the president to keep his promise.
31. Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.
32. Attorney General Eric Holders flubs question on Maine, twice -- once while in Maine.
33. DNC/OFA emailed supporters in Maine and Washington state, but didn't ask them to vote against anti-gay ballot measures, then lied about it.
34. Senator Durbin (D-IL), a very close ally of Obama, says Senate probably won’t repeal DADT in 2010, as promised.
35. Senior DNC official accuses gays and lesbians of “helping Republicans” by simply asking Democrats to keep their gay civil rights promise.
36. Refusing to publicly endorse marriage equality for gays.
37. Continuing to dawdle over DADT.
38. Refusing to this day to interview with the gay press.
39. Refusing to apologize for any of these slights.

I think most of the above list is petty and trivial. However, while I don't disagree with the motive behind launching the boycott (and I may even endorse it if someone asks me nicely!), I do think the point to emphasize here are the legislative results we seek: ENDA, DADT and DOMA.

I don't give a rat's *ss about Donnie McLurkin (Point #1) or who attended the LGBT Hate Crimes reception at the White House (Point #28). I do think that there should be an official Liaison to the LGBT Community for the White House (Point #8) and Democratic National Committee (Point #7).

As a practical matter, if the Administration does not take action on ENDA, DADT and DOMA before the 2012 election, they will not be getting donations from the LGBT community. I definitely won't be donating to Obama's re-election if ENDA is not law and bills to repeal DADT and DOMA have not made significant legislative traction before the next election.

However, this does not mean that I endorse or want to encourage privileged LGBT activists screaming hysterically at the White House over every perceived or imagined slight. LGBT rights are NOT the most important thing on the agenda right now. Health care reform is. That being said, I do think that the President can do more than one thing at a time and I do think some of the most egregious slights have been happening in the Department of Justice. Jus' sayin'.