Pam's House Blend - 2008 Election

The Day Will Come, Pt. 1

TerranceDC — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:10:42 GMT

Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.
~ Martin Luther King Jr.

The morning of November 5th, 2008, was bittersweet. I awoke that morning, after Barack Obama's historic, with a sense of hope diminished by a nagging despair following the passage of Proposition 8 in California, which attempted to snatch away the equality that that the state Supreme Court granted to same-sex couples just months ago. The Obama campaign slogan, "Yes we can," was transformed into "Yes we did," by revelers in the streets of D.C. and in other locations across the country and around the world. I couldn't honestly join in the celebration without also reminding myself that "No, we didn't."

video platform video management video solutions free video player

Six months later, however, the California Supreme Court has failed to overturn Proposition 8 - while, in Solomon-like fashion - leaving intact the marriages of 18,000 same-sex couples who were able to pass through the narrow window of equality before it slammed shut. But this time my disappointment is less devastating, because we've come a surprisingly long way since November 4th.

There's disappointment this time, too, but not despair. We have by no means become as "post-heterosexism" society. But for those of us who have been pushing and pulling this country towards living up to what it claims to be, and what it claims to believe about equality, our destination may still be a ways off, but it is within site. It is not within reach yet, but it is reachable, and the path is a bit clearer.

"No, we didn't," has been transformed into "Yes, we will."

The day will come.

If anything, in the past six months I've become more and more convinced that what I've written over and over and over and over and over again in the last few years is true.

If anything, it's even clearer now than it was then that the trend is towards majority support for marriage equality.

...Simply going about the business of living our lives, and taking care of our families means that eventually the law - if there's any serious commitment to justice - will have to catch up to us. The circumstances of everyday family life will make it more plainly obvious, and painfully obvious in some cases, the cost that inequality exacts from our families, and the inadequacy of half-measures that fall short of equality, and eventually it will appeal to people's sense of right and wrong; because we are and will have been their friends and neighbors for years, raising our families next to theirs, sending our kids to the same schools, meeting each other at church, community events, etc.

The long arc of the universe may indeed bend towards justice, but only because of many hands and many lives bending it closer day by day.

Marriage equality will be a reality in this country someday, and now I honestly believe that it will be in my lifetime.

Fortunately, the new ruling does not end the issue. There will almost certainly be a counter-initiative to overturn Proposition 8 as early as next year. The ruling also comes as momentum grows for same-sex marriage around the country. This year, three states - Iowa, Vermont and Maine - have moved to allow gay marriages either by court ruling or legislative action. It appears New Hampshire will follow shortly and legislation is moving forward in New York and New Jersey.

Polls show growing support for marriage rights for all Americans. We remain confident that the California ruling was a temporary setback.

Despite the California ruling, time and momentum are still on our side. New Hampshire's marriage equality legislation may have been sidetracked for further discussion, but it's likely that a compromise bill will be passed by early June, and New Hampshire will be on the way to joining those states that have taken a step forward in equal protection for their citizens.

New York is also very likely to move forward, too. So far, opposition hasn't gotten off the ground in New York.

As the Legislature considers whether to make New York the next state to legalize same-sex marriage, social conservatives have been largely missing from the debate in Albany.

...The difficulties in New York echo those that conservatives have faced throughout the Northeast. Over the last six weeks, Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire have all moved to allow gay couples to wed.

The region has been challenging for opponents of same-sex marriage, in part, because the measures are being decided by state legislatures - not voter referendums where the opponents' ability to motivate large numbers of voters, rather than influence institutional players, has been an advantage.

...The efforts have also been hurt by the lack of a statewide political figure to lead the opposition. The state's two senators, governor, legislative leaders and attorney general all support allowing gay couples to wed.

Even the new archbishop of New York, Timothy M. Dolan, whose upbeat personality and communication savvy suggest he could be a powerful voice on public policy, has no plans to step into the debate, his spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, said last week.

That means, its very likely that by the end of 2009 marriage equality could be a reality in at least four, maybe five, and possibly even six states.

Time is still on our side.

Two years ago I blogged about research which indicated even in 2004 a majority of 15 to 25 year-olds-favored marriage equality. More recent polls show that among those 18 to 34 years old 58% believe same-sex marriages should be legal. Another poll showed that 40% of those under 40 support marriage equality. Even among evangelicals, there's an emerging trend that, if not exactly in our favor, leans away from the opposition.

Seventh, acceptance of homosexuals in the family of God is common. Being pro-gay or anti-gay is not the issue. Emergents recognize that sexuality is far more complex than is generally recognized. To live in harmony with gay and lesbian friends and family members is a part of the emergent's perspective.

No matter how you slice it, an undeniable cultural shift has taken place, and it's because we made it happen.

For younger respondents, this shift may in part be cultural: the result of coming of age in an era when openly gay people have become increasingly common in popular entertainment and in public life, not to mention in their own families or social circles. Familiarity in this case breeds relative comfort, or perhaps just lack of interest.

By virtue of having the audacity to live our lives as if we have as much of a right to as much of life as heterosexuals, we are changing our families, our communities, and our countries.

That the California Supreme Court, the Iowa Supreme Court, the New York and New Hampshire legislatures, and any other court or legislature in the country signifies how far we've come and how much time and momentum are on our side.

The California decision may be a disappointment, but not of the magnitude it might have been in 2004, 2006, or even 2008, when we have fewer victories to count. It's a step back, in some ways, but not a roadblock.

If we keep it up, the day will come.

What is needed is a realization that power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.

~

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation.

~

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

~ Martin Luther King Jr.

The proponents of Proposition 8 are, of course, pleased with the outcome.

Gay marriage opponents, who in recent months have seen four more states join Massachusetts in extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians, praised the ruling.

"The voters have decided this issue and their views should be respected," said Andrew P. Pugno, a lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com, the leading group behind the initiative.

Proposition 8 proponents do not plan to challenge the existing gay marriages that were protected by the court, Pugno said.

"We see it as really a minor point in ultimately the will of the people being upheld," he said.

"The voters have decided," they're fond of saying. Or "The voters have spoken."

The voters have spoken, and having changed their minds they can speak again. That's the reality of California's initiative process, and it applies to any state that has ballot initiatives. Nothing is ever final, not even a Supreme Court ruling.

This is a double-edged sword for minorities. Voters can take away a minorities rights by a simple majority in one election, and hand them right back in the next. In the short run this is a boon to marriage equality advocates, if they learn from the mistakes of the previous campaign and start doing effective outreach and advertising now, they can turn the narrow margin of defeat into a margin of victory.

But the initiative process in California will continue to prove a threat to minority civil rights. Because what the majority giveth the majority can taketh away, and give back, and take away again - so long as the definition of justice is whatever the majority wants.

"Might makes right," is all well and good when that might is on your side. But nothing, especially in a ballot initiative state, is ever decided with any finality. Everything can change, and everything will change. Eventually, everyone will be on the wrong side of that might made right by sheer mass.

As Kip notes, there was something else at stake in the California ruling, and it wasn't the status of sexual orientation in relation to state laws about discrimination.

It is true, as an axiom, that all political power resides in the people. It is true, as an axiom, that the mob always has the ability to behave like a mob. But these observations are mere matters of unambiguous fact. They are on a par with saying that a person with a gun has the ability to kill. That is a metaphysical statement, not an ethical one - and certainly not a political one.

But such statements, such factual observations, are totally orthogonal to the question of the legitimacy of what "the people" (nee "the mob") do.

Might does not make right. Neither does majority make right.

Except when it does, which is now the case in California.

The majority rule argument, or the will of the people, is erroneously portrayed in the public conversation as synonymous for what is right in a democratic society.

Having the numbers on one's side makes them impervious to wrong. Or as law professor Ken Starr argued before the Supreme Court in support of Prop. 8, it is allows for the people to make bad decisions.

With more than seven million votes cast in the November election, the majority consists of a 52%-47% margin. The latest Field poll indicates those in opposition to Prop. 8 hold a slim 48-47 advantage.

Simple majority rule is a binary decision-making process that is unable, and in most cases unwilling, to examine the limits of its own power, which if unchecked can ultimately lead to the tyranny of the majority.

The concept of tyranny of the majority has its roots in Plato's Republic; it is used in reference to democracies and majority rule. The actual term originated with Alexis de Tocqueville; it is a criticism of any scenario in which decisions made by a majority would place its interests above a minority's interest to the point that majority will becomes "tyrannical."

As another blogger wrote, there is no "right" or wrong under absolute majority rule because "right" is only a matter of debate "between equals in power."

Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

The "strong" in this case being those with greater numbers and the "weak" being those with less. The only "right" is what the majority can do and has the will to do.

Translation: The majority does what they can and the minority suffers what it must.

California isn't the first time we've come across this peculiar conservative desire to live in kind of "state of nature" where "the strong do what they can and the week suffer what they must," because that as it should be. (In some areas. They're not consistent in this, at all.) It crops up almost everywhere the question of marriage equality crops up, as was the case in Georgia a few years ago, when a judge truck down the state's same-sex marriage ban.

Judge Constance C. Russell's order states: "This Court is well aware that Amendment One enjoyed great public support. However, the test of law is not its popularity. Procedural safeguards such as the single subject rule rarely enjoy popular support. But, ultimately it is those safeguards that preserve our liberties, because they ensure that the actions of government are constrained by the rule of law."

In other words, the judge is reiterating a core principle of our entire system of government, and not just the justice system: might does not make right. Just because the majority - even the overwhelming majority - wants something doesn't mean that's what should happen, or that what the majority wants is even right. We live in a democracy yes, but it is not yet an absolute democracy.

An absolute democracy, which means unlimited majority rule, is incompatible with capitalism and freedom. This is so because capitalism rests on the principle of individual rights. In an absolute democracy, rights would really have no legitimate meaning because they could always be voted away in the next election. When most people think of democracy, they usually mean a constitutionally limited democracy. The function of a limited democracy is to decide who held political power and how that power is specifically exercised, but what that power is should be strictly defined and limited in the constitution. Individual rights would not be subject to vote.

Ours is a democracy that tempers majority rule and protects the rights of minorities because not everything is up for a majority vote. And there's a pretty good reason why, if you stop to think about it.

It is easy to see why a republic is more desirable than a democracy. In an absolute democracy, the majority has absolute power over every aspect of everyone's lives. While this might be fine while your group is in the majority, if the majority sways to the other side you are at the mercy of someone else's whim. The only way to keep everyone secure from the abuse of power is to limit the amount of power that exists in the first place, through the establishment of a republic. Our founders knew this, and not once does the word "democracy" appear in the Constitution.

Maybe this is not something taught in civics classes anymore, or maybe I'm a geek who knows way too much about parliamentary procedure, but protecting the rights of minorities is an essential requirement of democracy.

Yet majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. If so, as Tocqueville notes above, the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections-speech, assembly, association, petition-since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again. This holds equally true in a multiparty parliamentary democracy, where no party has a majority, since a government must still be formed in coalition by a majority of parliament members.

...Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding-in theory, at least-the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.

Marriage is a "basic and inalienable right," or so said the Supreme Court in its Loving v. Virginia ruling, which overturned anti-miscegenation laws.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

I'm no legal scholar, but the fourteenth amendment has already been mentioned in discussion about challenging the California ruling in the Supreme Court. And while the Court of Loving v. Virginia might not have been able to conceive of same-sex marriage, and thus the court did not qualify its opinion to prohibit same-sex marriage (though the majority opinion could just have easily read "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a man or woman of another race," instead of "a person of another race), the same principles could be applied to sexual orientation without making any great leaps.

Take away a basic civil right, by a simple majority vote, and what are you left with?

"Your Rights Are Our Rights," read the backs of the t-shirts one gay couple (with 30 years together) wore to one prop. 8 protest. I can guess what they meant by those words, but perhaps it was a statement that they should have the same rights and protections as any married couple.

But that statement can be read another way: "For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority. ...the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority, or the majority's rights lose their meaning."

Your rights are our rights. Our rights are your rights. Deny ours and you endanger your own - and undermine the system which supports them.

The day will come when you are in the minority, after all.

To other minority groups - including Mormons - I say the same thing that I said when Proposition 8 passed. You may not be gay, but you may be next. You have opened the door to putting minority civil rights to a majority vote.

The day will come when your rights, your citizenship, your humanity is up for a vote. Will anyone else stand up for you? Why should they? Will the people whose rights you so enthusiastically voted away stand up for you? Why should they?

The day will come.

Given time, the day will come when your rights as a minority are the subject of a ballot initiative - when your neighbors vote on wether or not you should have the same rights as them. They will not have a stake in the outcome. They will wake up the next day with the same rights they had the night before. You will not.

We have come a step closer to embracing the idea that might - in this case, in the form of number and votes - makes right.

Justice is what the majority says it is. Or, at least, what the majority says it is today.

The day will come when that changes for you, too.

Which way is Obama's religion wind blowing?

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:00:00 GMT

There are two articles out that discuss Obama's current spiritual advisors in the evangelical sphere, "Without a Pastor of His Own, Obama Turns to Five" in the NYT, and "Obama and the New Evangelical Movement" at Change.org. Without a home church, he has turned to men who have a less-than-positive view of LGBT rights. This is significant because none represent the liberal, gay-affirming United Church of Christ, a denomination he attended in Chicago. That's not to say these men (and they are all men) are wholesale religious conservatives, the conundrum is that many are very involved in the otherwise liberal social justice front.

Right: Look at who else Rev. Kirbyjon advises besides our new president. The Rev. officiated at Jenna Bush's wedding.

The NYT's Laurie Goodstein:

All are men, two of them white and three black - including the Rev. Otis Moss Jr., a graying lion of the civil rights movement. Two, the entrepreneurial dynamos Bishop T. D. Jakes and the Rev. Kirbyjon H. Caldwell, also served as occasional spiritual advisers to President George W. Bush. Another, the Rev. Jim Wallis, leans left on some issues, like military intervention and poverty programs, but opposes abortion.
None of these pastors are affiliated with the religious right, though several are quite conservative theologically. One of them, the Rev. Joel C. Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch in Florida, was branded a turncoat by some leaders of the Christian right when he began to speak out on the need to stop global warming.
But as a group they can hardly be characterized as part of the religious left either. Most, like Mr. Wallis, do not take traditionally liberal positions on abortion or homosexuality. What most say they share with the president is the conviction that faith is the foundation in the fight against economic inequality and social injustice.

Goodstein is quick to say that the White House refused to comment on the article.

More below the fold.
Michael A. Jones at Change.org:

So why can't President Obama, who as recently as 1996 "unequivocally" supported full marriage rights for same-sex couples, keep some religious company that supports full marriage equality for same-sex couples? From Maine to California, he'd have plenty of religious leaders to choose from. Instead, President Obama has embraced a new evangelical wing that instead of bolstering progressive values, believes in a version of centrist social justice that may be great on issues like poverty and the environment, but fails on some of the preeminent civil rights issues of today.
Among the ministers that Obama has been consulting with since his election include Bishop T.D. Jakes, who has called homosexuality a "brokenness" and has said that he wouldn't hire any LGBT person who was sexually active. (Editorial note: Bishops Jakes's son was arrested in January after allegedly cruising for gay sex in a popular Dallas park. While I feel for the son, I can't help but wonder if the turn toward down-low sexual gratification isn't a byproduct of growing up in a household where your father thinks all LGBT people are spiritually broken.)

Caldwell, in particular deserves closer examination (Check out these stats from Forbes about Caldwell). Does Obama support this view of his?

Another minister with Obama's ear is Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Houston pastor and head of the Windsor Village United Methodist mega-church. Caldwell's church has actively promoted an ex-gay ministry known as "Metanoia," which seeks to "help homosexuals understand with God's help that 'change [is] possible.'

Whoa. OK, so let's assume a mealy mouthed message like "the President does not believe in ex-gay therapy" or some such nonsense, should he make a statement. If he doesn't then what is he doing talking to Caldwell when there are plenty of other prominent pastors he could choose to break bread with who don't subscribe to that view?

So what can we read from this decision on pastors in his inner spiritual circle on Obama's part? After all, faith can and should be a private matter -- but sadly, it never is in American politics. In this case it certainly isn't since he has selected very high-profile evangelicals to consult with. What does First Lady Michelle Obama feel about this, given her appearances before LGBT audiences?

She embraced the community and passed on the specific kind of support that her husband, as president would give to moving civil equality forward:

Was that a mirage I experienced in Denver? At the very least, all of this calls for a public statement from President Obama to clarify whether this evolution in spiritual guidance does reflect a shift in his thinking on LGBT rights -- and the pursuit of the promises he made to the community that helped him cross the election finish line. After all, given the power that religion holds in this country, we're entitled to an answer. Any answer that throws up "it's a personal matter" is BS, since he had no problem touting his faith to appeal to religious voters. A clarification is warranted before this blows up in his face...again.

It should also be noted that Obama's swift actions with the Lilly Ledbetter Act and return to a sane policy on stem cell research have sent clear signals about his stand on equality for women and science-based governing despite the expected hits he knew he'd take from the right wing. He's done nada for LGBT rights so far, and has been silent in the news of late about whether the feds should extend benefits to same-sex partners of government workers, lest it raise the red flag about DOMA and sent strong signals that a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is going on the back burner.

Related:
* Obama's new pastors (diary by QScribe)

Looking For Hope In Court Appointments

Autumn Sandeen — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:30:00 GMT

Deb Price, of the from the Detroit News, has a column up, entitled Obama could tip appeals courts to Dems. She sees hope in potential Obama appointments to the nation's Appeals Courts, especially for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community:

...For the still-young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement, the makeup of these appeals courts is critical.
Already in the federal courts are challenges to the ban on openly gay members of the military and to part of the 1996 law prohibiting gay married couples from receiving federal benefits.
If Congress and the president expand hate-crime and workplace protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, appeals judges will play a huge role in enforcing those safeguards.
"Never underestimate the importance of having a fair judiciary at every level," says gay rights litigator Kevin Cathcart of Lambda Legal...

Lambda Legal wants Democrats/the Obama Administration to ask some specific questions of court appointees:

Lambda has urged the Obama team to ensure its judicial nominees respect Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas -- groundbreaking Supreme Court decisions recognizing that gays are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution -- and to quickly fill federal vacancies but not overlook qualified LGBT lawyers.

Elections matter. That were now discussing LGBT issue friendly court appointments is an example of how much the November 2008 really mattered.

~~~~~
Further reading:
* FindLaw Writ: The Consequences of Lawrence v. Texas; Justice Scalia Is Right that Same Sex Marriage Bans Are At Risk, But Wrong That A Host of Other Laws Are Vulnerable
* Lambda Legal: Romer v. Evans

Takedown of NY Post's defense of controversial cartoon

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Baratunde Thurston (Jack Turner of Jack & Jill Politics) was on MSNBC's 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue last night to talk about the outrageous racist cartoon that ran in the New York Post. The lameness of Col Allan's (editor of the NYP) defense of the cartoon is laughable, and Baratunde and Sam Stein of Huff Post discuss the effect of the history of portraying blacks as apes and the dehumanization of the imagery used. Even host David Shuster called it "despicable."

UPDATE: Read Baratunde's post on a UCLA study that found a link between seeing blacks as apes, monkeys, etc and treating them brutally.

President's photo taken down at Colorado Air Force Base commissary

Pam Spaulding — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:45:00 GMT

We report, you decide whether this is just a blip on the radar of post-racial America. (Colorado Springs Gazette):

President Barack Obama's picture was removed this week from a Presidents Day sign at the Peterson Air Force Base commissary after customers complained that the image did not fit the holiday commemorating the birthdays of past presidents George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
...A cashier at the commissary who did not want her name used said pictures of past presidents, including George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, have accompanied the Presidents Day closure sign.
One customer, a military retiree, objected this year because of Obama's race, the cashier said.
"He said they're not going to have no black man on the window where he shops," the cashier said.
The commissary agency disputed the cashier's story, saying no past presidents have had their picture displayed with the holiday message. They said four customers had complained that Presidents Day is to honor Washington and Lincoln, not Obama, causing the agency to remove the Obama image.

1996 documents surface proving Obama publicly supported marriage equality

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:00:00 GMT

This proves that Barack Obama's "marriage is between a man and a woman" position -- the default escape hatch for all of the top tier Dem presidential contenders in 2008 -- is disingenuous, (not to mention illogical since he's taught constitutional law).

The Windy City Times' publisher and executive editor Tracy Baim reports that in 1996, while running in the Illinois State Senate race (13th District), he fully supported marriage equality in his response to a survey by Outlines newspaper (the pub merged with WCT). This survey had been previously cited by the media without access to any supporting documentation. However, while going through archives for another project, Baim discovered the original survey response signed by Obama himself. It's unequivocal support:

[A]s Obama has run for higher office, from senator to president, he has further shaped his views on marriage, and now he does not back same-sex marriage. In a January 2004 interview I conducted with Obama at the Windy City Times' office, Obama clearly stated that lack of support for full marriage equality was a matter of strategy rather than principle, but in even more recent comments, it appears he is backing off even further, saying it is more of a religious issue, and also a "state" issue, so he favors civil unions. Both are compromises most gays do not support. First, the U.S. has a separation of church and state, and laws are in place locally and nationally that give benefits based on the very word, "marriage." Therefore, marriage as it is now defined is a government ( both state and federal ) institution that comes with specific financial and social benefits ( taxes, benefits, inheritance, immigration, custody, etc. ) . So, until government eliminates the word "marriage" from state and federal laws, it is a government issue, and that includes the federal government. Obama's answer to the 1996 Outlines question was very clear: "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." There was no use of "civil unions," no compromise whatsoever.

As we know all too well, the whole "God is in the mix" blather when it comes to civil law makes no sense, and Barack Obama admitted as much in the 2004 interview with the WCT when he was running for the U.S. Senate. It was all about strategy and making the issue a political football, thus the reshaped position once civil unions came to the fore as a politically viable option/escape hatch for him.

Tracy Baim: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?
Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic- partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly ...
...Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

So, there's the proof, folks; when it comes down to it, supporting marriage equality is all about the polls. As long as full marriage equality isn't overwhelmingly approved by Americans, when it comes to running for federal office pols -- including Obama -- believe there's more to lose than gain if they take an honest position supporting full equality.

More below the fold.
And that's probably true, of course, if you're an ambitious politician -- do you think he would have been elected had he openly supported marriage equality? Would purity and honesty have given us President John McCain (and Sarah Palin a heartbeat away)? That's not giving a pass, by the way, it's more a sigh of discontent that the whole ridiculous dance around the issue is about coddling the beliefs of, rather than educating the ignorant and fence-sitting voters.

The John Edwards public cop-out on marriage equality in 2006 really set the nauseating "politically viable" standard -- the whole "tortured pol" meme citing religious limitation that clouds their thinking regarding civil law:

"I was raised in the Southern Baptist church and so I have a belief system that arises from that. It's part of who I am. I can't make it disappear. ... I personally feel great conflict about that. I don't know the answer. I wish I did. I think from my perspective it's very easy for me to say, gay civil unions, yes, partnership benefits, yes, but it is something that I struggle with. Do I believe they should have the right to marry? I'm just not there yet."

It's an improvement over the 2004 Dem "run away from gay issues" field of candidates, but it's pretty tough out here to see our right to marry discussed in 2008 with a shady and disingenuous position that conflates civil rights with religion-based discrimination. That has, in many ways, set progress back on marriage equality because of the role religion plays in U.S. society (and, quite frankly, to the lack of critical thinking skills by too large a slice of the public).

The bottom line is that we're living the inequality, whereas the issue is an abstraction or distraction to most Americans. Our patience is tested time and again by the sizeable number of people who "aren't ready." And those folks, at this point and time, still influence Barack Obama -- and his fellow Dems -- in their decision to go undercover when it comes to supporting marriage equality. And that hurts, there's no way around it. It's why we have to continue to speak out and to call out the inconsistencies and political game playing that are counterproductive.

The New Al Franken Decade Begins?

Autumn Sandeen — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 04:30:00 GMT

Regarding the old Al Franken decade:

Jane Curtin: Well, the 1970's are in their final month, and with some thoughts on this decade and the one we're about to enter, here's Weekend Update's Social Sciences Editor Al Franken.
Al Franken: Thank you, Jane. Well, the "me" decade is almost over, and good riddance, and far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit. Well, I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the 80's will be pretty much the same as the 70's. I'll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you, you'll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken. When you see a news report, you'll be thinking, "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this thing?", "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking, "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?", or "What can I not wear?" You know, I know a lot of you out there are thinking, "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV, so I've already gotten the jump on you. So, I say let's leave behind the fragmented, selfish 70's, and go into the 80's with a unity and purpose. That's what I think. I'm Al Franken. Jane?
Jane Curtin: Thank you, Al. That's the news. Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.

Regarding, perhaps, the new Al Fraken decade:

By only 225 votes he's apparently won the Minnesota Senate seat. Wow! Talk about every vote counting!

Congratulations to Senator Franken are apparently in order.

Is a Warren uninvite really impossible to contemplate?

Pam Spaulding — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:00:00 GMT

Rachel Maddow covered the issue of Rick Warren banning "unrepentant homosexuals" from his church quite well last night. First, the passage from Saddlebacks' web site:

Finally, a word about being judgmental. It's not judgmental to say that what the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that's just telling the truth. Not being willing to talk to someone caught up in sin, or not believing that they can be forgiven, or thinking that you are not just as much in need of Jesus as they are ... that's being judgmental.
Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one's life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at a member at Saddleback Church.

Nice.

One of the other matters Rachel underscores in her commentary is that Team Obama has "uninvited" close friends of the president-elect when that person's views threatened to politically damage him. In this case it was Jeremiah Wright, when the campaign learned the pastor's inflammatory sermons were going to break loose on the internets and cause a "distraction" from Obama's announcement of his candidacy.

So apparently Wright can be given the hook when Obama's doing political risk assessment, but not Rick Warren. You can draw your own conclusions as to why it's now possible, even in light of the incredible mother lode of evidence of the extreme anti-gay views of Rick Warren, that Barack Obama doesn't feel politically inconvenienced enough to dump the Saddleback bigot.

I guess he's not willing to risk the wrath of the religious right as opposed to the LGBTs who actually worked to get him elected. You know, the same religious right that held a Values Voter Conference that prominently featured an Obama Waffles display during the campaign. Did I mention that the conference was put on by the Family Research Council, led by Tony Perkins, who is thrilled by the Warren invite -- and the man who paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,500 for his mailing list?

Change you cannot imagine he can believe in.

Barack Obama: TIME's Person of the Year

Pam Spaulding — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:00:00 GMT

I can't imagine any other newsmaker that the magazine would have chosen in an election year.

It's unlikely that you were surprised to see Obama's face on the cover. He has come to dominate the public sphere so completely that it beggars belief to recall that half the people in America had never heard of him two years ago - that even his campaign manager, at the outset, wasn't sure Obama had what it would take to win the election. He hit the American scene like a thunderclap, upended our politics, shattered decades of conventional wisdom and overcame centuries of the social pecking order. Understandably, you may be thinking Obama is on the cover for these big and flashy reasons: for ushering the country across a momentous symbolic line, for infusing our democracy with a new intensity of participation, for showing the world and ourselves that our most cherished myth - the one about boundless opportunity - has plenty of juice left in it.
...The real story of Obama's year is the steady march of seemingly impossible accomplishments: beating the Clinton machine, organizing previously marginal voters, harnessing the new technologies of democratic engagement, shattering fundraising records, turning previously red states blue - and then waking up the day after his victory to reinvent the presidential-transition process in the face of a potentially dangerous vacuum of leadership. "We always did our best up on the high wire," says his campaign manager, David Plouffe.
Obama's competence fills him with a genuine self-confidence. "I've got a pretty healthy ego," he allows. That's clear when he offers a checklist for voters to use in judging his performance two years from now.

Just so you know, one of the runners-up was Sarah Palin. Read a snippet of that below the fold.
Just reading this gives me PTSD thinking about the "what if" had McCain/Palin won.

But in the end, the critical showdowns occurred between Palin and two other working moms going about their jobs, who four years ago would have been in no position to wreak such havoc: Katie Couric, whose cool questions yielded scalding footage; and Tina Fey, whose most lethal SNL skits didn't always bother to rewrite Palin's statements but merely repeated them.
Couric managed a remarkable feat for a woman making $15 million a year: she made herself invisible. She was not the feminist's avenging anchor or the snide dean of admissions or any of the archetypes she might have been tempted to embrace, given the stakes. She just asked her questions, then asked again, and can you give us just some example - and stayed far enough out of the way that Palin had the stage entirely to herself and proceeded to self-destruct.
Plus, it was Palin's great misfortune to uncannily resemble the country's hottest comedy star. But Fey could not have succeeded without the help of the toxic sexism of the McCain camp. So great was their apparent distrust of Palin's abilities that after the rollout, they kept her in a lockbox. Asked about Palin's lack of foreign policy experience, McCain adviser Charlie Black reassured us that "she's going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years." She had no chance to define herself, so Fey got to do it for her, and by the time of Palin's debate with Joe Biden, you weren't really sure which would turn up. Palin was a good sport, even appearing on SNL herself; but by then, the damage was done. On Election Day, voters concluded in exit polls, 60% to 38%, that she was not qualified to be President.

My letter to President-Elect Obama

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:00:00 GMT

Before the election, The Advocate asked me to write a letter to the Dem and GOP nominees for president. The magazine planned to feature missives from various well-known voices in the LGBT community; it was an interesting idea, since we didn't know the outcome of the election at the time. It appears in the latest issue of the magazine and it's online now.

You know, the thought of writing a letter to President-elect John McCain was so horrific that I simply couldn't get my fingers onto the keyboard to tap out anything. So I begged off until the deadline was almost upon me and was told I could submit the one for Obama since the polling was favoring the former Illinois senator. It took me a while to figure out what I was going to say to President-elect Obama at the time, but I'll leave it to you all to tell me if I hit the right note or not.

My letter is below the fold.

Dear President Obama,

You have made history with your election; our country, left in tatters after abuse by the last administration, is awaiting positive change. Millions of Americans gave to your campaign and dedicated countless hours of their time and energy to support you and other Democrats around the country. Many of these generous people are part of the LGBT community.

This year, the Democratic Party presented a forward-thinking platform on our issues, and you as the standard-bearer made unprecedented statements on what civil equality for LGBT Americans means. That said, the gulf between your support for civil unions and marriage, as you well know, is still a challenge for our community. As a constitutional scholar, you know that separate but equal is a folly when it comes to civil rights. But we also know that support for equality continues to rise.

There are many things you can do to help move this country in the right direction; as you have said, your personal religious beliefs are not what should guide your decisions on civil equality for all citizens of this land. Building bridges is your strong suit—I am sure that these efforts could help close that gap:

• Appoint qualified out LGBTs to prominent positions in your administration. We care about the economy, health care, and our military presence abroad; we are not a single-issue constituency.

• Use the bully pulpit of the presidency to grow support out in the country—and on the Hill—for the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the passage of the hate-crimes bill, and other equality legislation that is on the table.

The LGBT community is just one of dozens, if not hundreds, of constituencies that have been waiting out in the cold for regime change, and they are all hungry to have their progressive issues at the top of the list. We know that the issues we hold dear are fundamental rights, and we also know that you have been left with an almost impossible list of issues that need urgent attention, given the debacle of eight years under Bush. We are eager to see what you believe should be the top issues on your agenda.

We are ready to move forward and plan to stay visible—and assertive—in working with the Obama administration and the next Congress to secure rights for all.

You and your family will restore dignity to the White House and the United States of America. Good luck, Mr. President.

Pam Spaulding
Durham, N.C.–based blogger

Here are some of the other contributors to the project, I was in really impressive company:

Tammy Baldwin, Democratic member of Congress from Wisconsin
Daniel Tammet, author of Born on a Blue Day
Evan Wolfson, Executive director of Freedom to Marry and author of Why Marriage Matters: America, Equality, and Gay People’s Right to Marry
Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign
Melissa Etheridge, singer-songwriter
Michelangelo Signorile, radio host and author of Queer in America
Tammy Bruce, radio talk-show host and author of The New American Revolution
Kenji Yoshino, professor at New York University School of Law and the author of Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights
Vestal McIntyre, author of You Are Not the One and the forthcoming Lake Overturn
Jarrett Lucas, codirector of the 2008 Soulface Q Equality Ride
Michael Lowenthal, author of Charity Girl and Avoidance
Suzanne Westenhoefer, comedian and star of the documentary A Bottom on Top
Jim Buzinski, CEO and cofounder of Outsports.com
Perez Hilton, blogger, radio host, and television personality
Carole Midgen, former California state senator
Pam Spaulding, Durham, N.C.-based blogger
Paris Barclay, Executive Producer/Director HBO’s In Treatment
Lorri L. Jean, CEO, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center
Jeffrey Prang, Mayor of West Hollywood
Jorge Valencia, Executive director and CEO of Point Foundation
Mark Leno, California assemblyman
The Reverend Doctor Troy D. Perry, founder and moderator emeritus, Metropolitan Community Churches\
Mara Keisling, Executive Director, National Center for Transgender Equality
Donna Rose, transgender activist
Peter Tatchell, LGBT human rights campaigner and spokesman for OutRage!
Rachel B. Tiven, Executive Director, Immigration Equality

REPORT on 2008 Elections at Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference

Mad Professah — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:15:17 GMT

MadProfessah was in the District of Columbia for an LGBT Bloggers Summit and was able to attend two plenary sessions of the Victory Fund's International Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference which amusingly enough is at the Mayflower Hotel where, as Kate Clinton put it "New York lost a Governor."

The first plenary session I attended was "What Just Happened: Analyzing 2008 and Looking Ahead”

Keynote Speaker: John Mercurio, Executive Editor, The Hotline

Moderator Kerry Eleveld, Senior Political Editor, The Advocate

Panelists
Steve Elmendorf, President, Elmendorf Strategies
Hilary Rosen, Washington Editor, Huffington Post
Bill Smith, National Political Director, Gill Action Fund

Steve Elmendorf (Kerry-Edwards 2004 Deputy Campaign Manager)
and Hilary Rosen (former head of the RIAA and frequent CNN commentator)

Bill Smith, Gill Action Fund

This was a very interesting session, with John Mercurio recounting three main reasons why McCain-Palin lost:
1) President Bush's incredible unpopularity ( Obama won every state where BUsh;s approval rating was below 35% on election day and LOST every state where it was above that number--his national approval rating on election day was 29%. People who approved of Bush voted for McCain 89% and people who disapproved of Bush voted for Obama two-to-1.) and)
2) The economy (which Obama led McCain by a surprisingly narrow 50-44 margin) and
3) Palin as running mate. On election day 60% of the public felt that Governor Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President.

Mercurio went on to discuss some lower tier issues, such as McCain's age, the Denates, Obama's decision to reject public financing and young voters. He was a font of interesting little facoids. McCain got the smallest percentage of young voters since 18 year old were granted the right to vote in 1972. African American voters went for Obama 95% while Obama won Independent voters 51-45. There are fewer than 100 counties nationwide whree Obama performed worse than Kerry or Gore (and almost all of them were in the Deep South.)

The questions for the panelists (posed by Kerry Eleveld) were:

"What surprised you the most about the 2008 election?"

Rosen: the extensive duration of the campaign and Obama's
discipline

Elmendorf: Financial advantage of the Democrats (in addition to
Obama's 750 million he raised another $100 million for the DNC)

Smith: the Obama campaign effectivenss and conservatives staying
home on election day

"Why did we lose Prop 8?"

Smith: We underperformed in every Demographic, not just
communities of color. It's impossible to do long term outreach and education
work in a 120-day campaign.

Elmendorf: Marriage is a tough issue, We will win eventually but
its a generational thing.

Rosen: Executive directors of advocacy organizations don't run
good political campaigns and political operatives don't run good advocacy organizations.

"How are the Republicans coping with their electoral losses?"

Smith: There's a lot of crying and a lot of vodka.

Rosen:I think they are eager to blame the economic debacle on
the Democrats, especially the Democratic president

Lawmakers Target Individual Voters, While Failing to Address Systemic Problems

Project Vote — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:39:02 GMT

Cross-posted at Project Vote's blog, Voting Matters

Weekly Voting Rights News Update

By Erin Ferns

Recent analyses of the 2008 general election find that overall participation increased on November 4, with a significant surge in voter participation among historically underrepresented Americans. Yet, while some lawmakers have been inspired by the recent voter turnout to propose election reforms that expand access to voting rights, others continue to focus on creating additional barriers to voting.

While new legislation aims to create additional hurdles to prevent one of the rarest election crimes--individual voter fraud-- some more serious election administration problems have still not been addressed a month (and, in some cases, years) after they were identified as Election Day problems, and little to no legislation to improve the way states manage voter rolls or distribute provisional ballots has been filed to date.

"I know there's a perception out there that this election proceeded more smoothly than the one four years ago," said election law expert at Ohio State University, Dan Tokaji in a recent Associated Press report. "But it's also clear from this election that we've got serious problems that remain," he said.

The inconsistency among states in interpreting federal election law is proving problematic in the administration of elections. Provisional ballots, for example, which are granted to voters who encounter "voter registration problems or because a person had signed up to vote by mail but wanted to cast their ballot at the polls," are counted differently from state to state, rendering many legitimate ballots ineligible if not cast within the correct county or even precinct.

In Colorado, a recent lawsuit to look into the questionable purging of 44,000 voters led to the investigation of whether 69 rejected provisional ballots were actually legitimate, according to Rocky Mountain News reporter, Myung Oak Kim.

"The analysis is being done as a result of a lawsuit filed last month by state and national voter-rights groups against Secretary of State Mike Coffman," Kim wrote. "The plaintiffs claimed that Coffman inappropriately removed scores of people from the voter rolls in violation of a federal law that prohibits purging of voter files within 90 days of a federal election. Coffman contends that it was legal to remove 44,000 voter files since May."

About 365 voters with canceled registrations cast provisional ballots, wrote Kim. Statewide, more than 53,000 provisional ballots were cast, about 80 percent of which were actually counted.

In 2004, acceptance rate of provisional ballots varied from 96 percent in Alaska to 6 percent in Delaware, according to a Project Vote report, Maximizing the Effectiveness of Provisional Voting.

These kinds of inconsistencies are also being challenged in Ohio for their potential to violate "citizens' equal protection and due process rights," according to the Associated Press . The report announced the court's decision to move forward with a lawsuit challenging the state's voting system after the 2004 presidential election.

"The Ohio lawsuit cites examples of voters in some counties who were misdirected by poll workers, believe their votes were miscounted or not counted at all, found broken or not enough voting machines at their polling sites, and it also alleges misuse of provisional ballots. It claims the irregularities fell disproportionately on minority voters," AP reports.

The case, filed by the League of Women Voters three years ago, cites election system issues that date back to 1971. And yet the problems persisted in 2008, according to Pete Johnson of The Free Press. According to this story, a coalition of Election Day observers from The Columbus Institute for Contemporary Journalism and the Ohio Green Party found an "outrageous" number of provisional ballots being distributed in inner city precincts due to misinterpretation of voter ID law and even data errors on voter rolls. Malfunctioning machines were also reportedly a serious voting inhibitor.

Despite state compliance issues with state and federal election law to protect and facilitate voting rights, from registration to ballot casting, several states are attempting to institutionalize barriers instead.

After instituting Same Day Registration during the early voting period this year to the dismay of state partisans, Ohio Republican lawmakers are attempting to halt the practice by passing a bill (SB 380) that would require voters to be registered 30 days before the early voting period, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. Most states require voters to register 30 days before the actual election.

Proposals in other states to implement Same Day or Election Day Registration are being met with resistance from election officials. In West Virginia, for example, according to local newspaper, Beckley Register-Herald, "a proposal before a legislative interims panel would allow potential voters to come by Election Day, get registered and promptly mark ballots, all in one convenient trip."

But many elections clerks are against the proposal out of unsubstantiated fear of voter fraud.
"They don't realize what a monster they're trying to create," Raleigh County, W. Va. Clerk, Betty Riffe said of proposed EDR in the state. "They should, with other states trying it and all the problems they've had. I don't think it's a good idea." According to public policy group, Demos, voter fraud in EDR states is rare. Over three federal election cycles (1999-2005), "only 10 discrete incidents of voter fraud or alleged voter fraud that appeared
to have some merit [were found]. Of these, there was only one case of voter impersonation at the polls--ironically one of the most frequently claimed abuses when fraud enters the public debate."

And the isolated voter fraud problems that led to federal investigation "were directly attributable
to clerical errors, poll worker shortages and incompetence, not any organized scheme or intent on the
part of voters to scam the system," according to the report.

The Orlando Sentinel criticizes the "movement brewing to overhaul the nation's system of elections through a series of federal mandates." The editorial not only slams the prospect of federally mandated Election Day Registration because of the "chaos" that uninformed voters would bring to the polls, but inexplicably dismisses the idea of providing high school graduates the opportunity to register to vote.

"In Florida, the deadline is about one month before the general election. It's hard to muster much sympathy for someone who doesn't start paying attention until a few weeks before Election Day."

The editorial trivializes the need for such reforms by pinning the problem on the voter who, presumably, could not take the time to register before Election Day. In reality, voters who do not have stable residences and set incomes face more hurdles when it comes to registering to vote and staying on the rolls. Young, low income, and minority voters change residences at much higher rates than the national average of 14 percent, according to recent Census Bureau data. This requires them to go through the often untimely process of re-registering whenever they change residences and the headache that may result from overzealous list maintenance procedures (as illustrated in Colorado). Election Day Registration would help ameliorate those problems.

Like the argument against EDR in West Virginia, unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud are also perpetuating the demand for voter ID by lawmakers in numerous states for the 2009 legislative sessions.

In Mississippi, secretary of state and longtime voter ID advocate, Delbert Hosemann hopes to resurrect nine failed voter ID bills from 2008 by supporting early voting as long as it involves voter identification in 2009, according to the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal. However, House Apportionment and Elections Committee Chairman Tommy Reynolds said the two reforms are unrelated and should not be tied together.

Maryland, another state hoping to pass a voter ID law, is also making headlines.

"Republican Delegate Nic Kipke drew headlines earlier this month when he said he would propose the requirement for Anne Arundel County during the 2009 General Assembly session," according local publication, the Frederick News-Post. However, lawmakers say that the law, which is criticized for its potential to "disenfranchise poor voters because there is a fee for state-issued identification such as a driver's license" is unlikely to pass.

Finally, one state actually has a voter ID bill filed and ready to be heard in 2009. The Oklahoma bill will be carried over from the 2008 session, according to the Associated Press. "Senate Bill 4 changes the types of documents that would be required, but still requires voters to provide identification. The new measure requires a photo identification that is issued by the federal government, state government or a tribe. If one of those items is not available, the voter can show a county-issued voter ID card."

Seemingly ignoring numerous lawsuits and reports that point to systemic problems in recent elections, lawmakers continue to point the finger at individual voters--not the state election system--as the biggest threat to election integrity. Enacting laws to prevent the rare crime of voter fraud does not alleviate the real issue of long lines, misuse of provisional ballots, data errors on voter rolls, or voting machine malfunctions. Until states get the system right, and remove state-to-state inconsistencies and barriers to participation, shouldn't the real focus be on reforms that create easier access to voting such as EDR?

Quick Links:
www.ElectionLegislation.org

In Other News:

Some confusion over motor-voter - Fredericksburg Free Lance Star [Va.]
A Virginia driver's license is not a ticket to vote.

OPINION: Where Are The New Voters? Look Closer: Overall Turnout Increased, But Some Sections Of The Population Took A Giant Leap Forward - National Journal
Given voter registration spikes and widespread predictions that this year's turnout would shatter records, it's tempting to look at exit polls and ask: Where did all the voters go?

The LCR election post-mortem continues the delusions about a pro-gay McCain

Pam Spaulding — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Watching this organization flounder during the 2008 presidential campaign has been like observing a train wreck in slow motion. No matter how the Log Cabin Republicans tried to spin it, the man its party nominated for president, John McCain, expressed open contempt for LGBT rights even as he shook hands with LCRs and called them "my friends." The party continued to cleave to the bigot demographic all the way.

You'd think a public reality check would be in order, but unfortunately, it's not the case. Patrick Sammon, who is stepping down from his post at LCR:

"We had an election that didn't turn out as we hoped, but we had a progressive, pro-gay nominee, and the tenor of the campaign was 180 degrees different than four years ago," he said. "We've unquestionably made progress in four years, and I'm proud of the work we did."

Please help me out here -- what progress has been made to moderate the party? Marriage amendments were still supported and passed. Adoption ban in Arkansas...passed. Their nominee picked Sarah Palin who is loved by the professional Christian set.

I'm sure that there is slow change occurring at the state and local level, but what is driving that isn't coming out of DC or the LCR. It's the cultural change -- more people coming out of the closet and bringing anti-LGBT discrimination out into the open so it can be debated and challenged. One thing the LCR is right about is the need to broaden the GOP.

"There is a unique opportunity for Log Cabin to play a role in the redefinition of the Republican Party," he said. "Log Cabin has a critical role to play in that discussion, by pointing to places where candidates were successful, like Gov. Mitch Daniels in Indiana, who won with a campaign that was conservative fiscally but not socially. That's what we hope to advocate, and we want to try to engage the party in that dialogue."
Sammon said the GOP needs to "get back to the basics" to coalesce party members in the move forward.
Bob Kabel, chair of the D.C. Republican Party and a longtime Log Cabin member agreed, saying that the "party is obviously doing a lot of self-examination."
"I think that Log Cabin can be very helpful with that examination," he said. "There are so many candidates Log Cabin has supported over the years who have been inclusive rather than exclusive, and who have had successful careers. Log Cabin needs to continue to make the case that you win by broadening the party."

I just don't see what influence the LCR has had to wrest the Republican Party from its dependence on the fundamentalist, under-educated and bigoted base that we saw emerge in public as the McCain mobs. These people do not want a big tent GOP. They are stuck in the past, in denial, and looking to silence anyone who doesn't agree with their worldview.

The party will never draw the Independent voters if it continues down the path it did in 2008.

More Learning Curve On Donations To Yes On Prop 8

Autumn Sandeen — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:30:00 GMT

"I have always held the belief that all people, no matter race, religion or sexual orientation, are entitled to equal rights. As many know, I consider myself a devout and faithful Mormon. I prefer to keep the details around my contribution through my church a private matter. But I am profoundly sorry for the negative attention that my actions have drawn to Film Independent and for the hurt and pain that is being experienced in the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] community."
--L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon

Filling in the background of that public statement, the Los Angeles Times is reporting the following in their article L.A. Film Festival director Richard Raddon resigns:

Richard Raddon, the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival who has been at the center of controversy ever since it was revealed almost two weeks ago that he had contributed $1,500 to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California, resigned from his post over the weekend.
The nonprofit arts organization Film Independent sponsors both the Los Angeles Film Festival, held in May, and the popular Independent Spirit awards. Raddon is a member of the Mormon Church, which actively called on its congregants to work for the passage of Proposition 8, the constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.
...After Raddon's contribution was made public online, Film Independent was swamped with criticism from "No on 8" supporters both inside and outside the organization. Within days, Raddon offered to step down as festival director, but the board, which includes Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker, Lionsgate President Tom Ortenberg and Fox Searchlight President Peter Rice, gave him a unanimous vote of confidence.
Yet, the anti-Raddon bile continued to bubble in the blogosphere, and according to one Film Independent board member, "No on 8" supporters also berated Raddon personally via phone calls and e-mails. The recriminations ultimately proved too much, and when Raddon offered to resign again, this time the board accepted.

That $1,500.00 donation to the Yes On Prop 8 campaign has essentially cost him his career; it's has cost him his ability to make a living in his chosen field.

They're feeling this same lesson about how LGBT people vote with their wallets in Texas too, of all places. From the Austin American-Statesman's Prop. 8 backlash reaches to Texas; Austin Web site has 'blacklist' for businesses linked to money that supported gay marriage ban:

[Below the fold: Dell, Cinemark, wingnut Michelle Malkin, and reference to a 2001 survey by Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communications.]

Gay marriage activists who lost at the ballot box in California are now lashing out at businesses that supported the ban - and their anger reaches way beyond the borders of Golden State.
In Austin, a gay community Web site has published an "Austin Anti-Gay Blacklist" that encourages consumers not to spend money at companies that financially supported California's recent Proposition 8 ballot initiative that rescinded gays' right to marry inside the state.
...No. 1 on the group's anti-gay "blacklist" - errantly enough - is Dell Computer Inc. That's because the biggest Austin-area donor to the Yes on 8 campaign was apparently Spencer Wheelright, a Dell marketing employee who gave $25,200 to support the gay marriage ban, according to records from the California Secretary of State's office.
Dell had nothing to do with the donation and, in fact, the company has an internal rule prohibiting it from taking a position or making a donation regarding any state or local ballot initiatives, said company spokesman Bryant Hilton.

Cinemark Theaters are already feeling the heat because their CEO gave $9,999.00 to the Yes On Prop 8 campaign. It's coming to a head over the release of the film "Milk":

"Milk" will open at the Cinemark Legacy theater in Plano [Texas] on Dec. 12, creating the possibility of an LGBT protest in the city where the movie chain is based.
A field representative for Focus Features, which is distributing the film about gay rights pioneer Harvey Milk, said Tuesday that it isn't scheduled to show in any North Texas theaters owned by Cinemark before Dec. 12. "Milk" will open Wednesday, Nov. 26 at the Angelika Dallas, and Dec. 5 at the Angelika Plano, according to the field representative, who asked not to be identified.
Cinemark Theaters, the nation's third-largest theater chain, has become the target of LGBT boycotts and protests over CEO Alan Stock's contribution of $9,999 in support of Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California. Last weekend, about 400 people attended a protest outside a Cinemark-owned theater near Chicago.
Proponents of the boycott are hoping to piggyback on the hype surrounding "Milk," and a Web site, NoMilkForCinemark.com, has been created to raise awareness about the issue and encourage people to see the film at gay-friendly theaters.

Creators Syndicate's Michelle Malkin is calling this "insane rage" --

[I]n the wake of campaign 2008 there's only one angry mob gripped by "insane rage": left-wing same-sex marriage activists incensed at their defeat in California. Voters there approved Proposition 8, a traditional marriage initiative, by 52 percent to 48 percent.
Instead of introspection and self-criticism, however, the sore losers who opposed Prop. 8 responded with threats, fists and blacklists.
That's right. Activists have published on the Internet an "Anti-Gay Blacklist" of Prop. 8 donors. If the tables were turned and Prop. 8 proponents created such an enemies list, everyone in Hollywood would be screaming "McCarthyism" faster than you could count to eight.

Maybe she has a point. But, what's happening now with pink dollars was very predictable -- Look at the media release for a 2001 survey by Harris Interactive/Witeck-Combs Communications, which included the following:

[S]even out of ten gay consumers sampled (72%) agreed it was important for companies advertising products to LGBT consumers to "demonstrate effective corporate citizenship" by supporting lesbian and gay causes. Seven out of ten sampled (71%) also stated it was important for companies advertising their products to "establish and publicize progressive policies towards gays and lesbians."
"In a market so information-driven, it's not surprising that gays and lesbians ask why companies reach out to them," said Bob Witeck, CEO of Witeck-Combs Communications. "Reputation clearly matters, and companies that develop smart practices internally find they establish deeper connections and loyalty with customers. Lesbians and gays appear to learn quickly how their choice of brands stack up by judging the company that advertises those brands."

...Or do a Google search of Manhunt McCain, and see how gay/LGBT consumers responded to having a company they do business with appear to have leadership that doesn't have progressive policies towards LGBT people.

C'mon. The LGBT consumer backlash to businesses that now appear to be anti-progressive towards an existing fundamental right for same-gender partners was very, very predictable.

That some folks that donated to the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign appear to just now be learning what's been quite knowable about pink dollars shouldn't have been a surprise to them -- but it was a surprise for them. The learning curve has been extremely steep and incredibly cost-heavy...Just ask Richard Raddon.

Salt Lake Trib Asking How Mormons' Prop 8 Push Will Effect Mitt Romney, Other Mormon Candidates

Autumn Sandeen — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Love or hate California's Proposition 8, one fact-based thing we can take away from the campaign is that the First Presidency (the Prophet and his two counselors) of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) told their church membership to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment." There is now precedence for the LDS' prophet to tell its members how to vote on very public, controversial issues.

So, if Mitt Romney were to become the Republican Nominee for President in 2012, could the political activism by the Mormon Church hierarchy become be an issue of higher order than the John F. Kennedy/Pope issue of 1960? I tend to think so.

But, that's not how Thomas Burr of the Salt Lake Tribune cast the issue in first few paragraphs of his piece LDS political activism on gay marriage could impact Romney future; Fallout >> Prominent fight could help and hurt White House bid:

The key role played by the LDS Church in passing California's gay marriage ban could have long-lasting consequences - good and bad - for the future of the nation's highest-profile Mormon politician: Mitt Romney.
The LDS effort could give Romney a crucial boost among evangelicals who wield great power in choosing the Republican presidential nominee. But it might leave the former Massachusetts governor an even tougher slog among a broader electorate.
"What the LDS Church just did in California and elsewhere, should help [Romney] because it sends a signal to evangelical Protestants that while we differ religiously, politically we are first cousins," says Charles Dunn, dean of the School of Government at Regent University, founded by evangelical leader Pat Robertson...

Further into the article though, Burr quotes University of Iowa communications professor Bruce Gronbeck, who pointed out that the LDS Church's involvement in Prop 8 Politics may...

...make some independents wary of voting for a Mormon candidate, he says, and stoke more fears of how much power the church has over its faithful members.

So if one is a conservative, evangelical Christian, are you more happy that a Mormon candidate's church is on your side of the issue on same-gender marriage, or are you more worried about how the LDS Prophet may tell an elected Mormon officeholder how to speak out and vote on other issues besides same-gender marriage?

That LDS Prophet brought the politics of the Mormon Church to the forefront this last election. Since many conservative Christian voters consider Mormonism to be a cult, I tend to believe that any Mormon presidential candidate will have a leg down due to worries about what the LDS Prophet may tell a Mormon candidate what to say and do -- the Prop 8 stand by the LDS First Presidency demonstrates it's possible.

And wow, conservatives are discussing 2012 really early, aren't they? President-elect Obama hasn't even taken office yet.

Gasp! A President Who Might Not Have a God Complex!

KatRose — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:55:07 GMT

Ah yes, Daddy Dobby's wet dream: An opportunity to re-start the 'Obama Isn't Christian (Enough)' meme. From Politico:

President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.

This, of course, is in contrast to God's Obnoxious 'President':

On his first day as president-elect, following weeks of Florida recounts and court hearings, Bush went to church with his wife, Laura. They attended an invite-only prayer service on Thursday, Dec. 14, at Tarrytown United Methodist Church. About 300 people attended, including top campaign staff and visiting clergy. During the service, the Rev. Mark Craig, senior pastor at Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, told Bush, "You have been chosen by God to lead the people."

Yeh, Mark - how'd that work out for America? (I wonder if Mark is any relation to Larry. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......)

Breaking: California Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Prop 8 Lawsuits

Louise — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:55:42 GMT

BREAKING NEWS: The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear these cases!

California's highest court has agreed to hear legal challenges to a new ban on gay marriage, but is refusing to allow gay couples to resume marrying until it rules.
The California Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted three lawsuits seeking to overturn Proposition 8. The amendment passed this month with 52 percent of the vote. The court did not elaborate on its decision.
All three cases claim the ban abridges the civil rights of a vulnerable minority group. They argue that voters alone did not have the authority to enact such a significant constitutional change.

Updating my diary from just an hour ago- blink and miss the rapidly changing stories this week!

(My apologies if this has already been covered via diaries, comments or posts- boy, have we all been a busy bunch to help out Pam! Fabulous reading and info this week so far...)

================================================

California Council of Churches has filed a lawsuit against Prop 8; the press release here- ZOMG, can this really be happening???
From their website:

Recent events have converged to make the freedom to marry a concern to all people in California. The California Council of Churches and IMPACT have long stood strong against discrimination against any of God's children. At the same time, we recognize that many churches and people of faith believe they must oppose the freedom to marry based on what they have been taught the Bible has to say on the subject. Therefore, we have produced this study guide to help congregations in California struggling with differences of opinion on the subject of marriage equality to discuss the biblical texts, theology, church traditions, and civil rights from a place of compassion and love of neighbor - the central elements of Jesus' teachings.
An important point for this study is the distinction between marriage as a civil ceremony and a religious ceremony or sacrament. We call on all people to acknowledge the secular civil right even as churches wrestle with the sacramental issues. We can agree to guarantee civil rights even as denominations deliberate with the issue of marriage equality as an element of church law/rites/blessings. Equal protection under the law, tolerance and respect for diversity, and defining one's own views while permitting other views, are consistent with authentic religious commitments where we all can live in a world of differences and ambiguities while still respecting other people's secular rights.
It is very important for communities of faith of all perspectives to understand that there is no law or pressure that any individual or faith community will be forced to perform marriages against their beliefs. Conversely, there is pressure to deny churches and individuals to have or bless same-sex unions. Separation of church and state requires us to respect differences in each denomination or church. Those seeking to permit same-sex marriage must have equal standing with those that do not. To forbid such marriages across the board infringes on the religious liberty of clergy and congregations whose faith requires them to perform this pastoral care. It is anti-democratic to impose one religious viewpoint on everyone else.

Fingers crossed even more, teac... we're now to crossing toes too!

President-Elect Obama's Plan To Strengthen Civil Rights Up On The Web - Large LGBT Section

Autumn Sandeen — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:00:00 GMT

President-Elect Obama's agenda for civil rights has been published by the Obama-Biden transition website Change.gov.

Excerpts of the future President's civil rights agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people:

• Combat Employment Discrimination: Obama and Biden will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. They will also pass the Fair Pay Act, to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.
• Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Obama and Biden will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation, expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act, and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section.
~~
Support for the LGBT Community
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

[Lots more text below the fold.]

• The Obama-Biden Plan
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
• Fight Workplace Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. Obama also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
• Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
• Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell: Barack Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. Obama will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.
• Expand Adoption Rights: Barack Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
• Promote AIDS Prevention: In the first year of his presidency, Barack Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. Obama will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. Obama also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS. He will continue to speak out on this issue as president.
• Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS: In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. Barack Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

We now see the agenda -- the proof of the pudding, so to speak, will be in what legislation will develop from with this agenda. Some of the language of this agenda sounds pretty vague and legislatively undefined to me.

~~~~~
Related:
* Obama taps seven out gays for transition team

.

HRC's Flawed Scorecard On 110th Congress Released Before Election

Autumn Sandeen — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:00:00 GMT

I sent this piece for to Pam for her edit and review prior to posting this, and it got held up a bit. And, it's was a little bit from when the HRC released the scorecard in question when I wrote this piece -- I wrote the piece about a week or two after the scorecard was released. So, lots of delays posting this for multiple reasons.

So, if this piece doesn't seem as timely as it could be, my apologies. However, Mara Keisling commented about the HRC Scorecard in the exclusive Pam's House Blend video from this past weekend, so I thought this piece was still timely enough to post.
~~A~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's hard for me not to fume a bit over the latest Congressional Scorecard from the HRC. The HRC has for a number of years has identified itself as an LGBT organization, but prior to the recent November election, the political wing of the organization notably penalized seven congresspeople who voted against the final version of ENDA -- the seven congresspeople who voted against ENDA because that final version of ENDA didn't include gender identity and expression language.

How the HRC penalized the seven members was that the organization lowered their ratings. If a congressperson who voted against ENDA because it didn't include gender identity and expression language, the HRC still counted it as a no vote. Since there were ten congressional votes/issues the HRC tracked for the House, that means the seven congresspeople who supported the T in LGBT more than the HRC did with ENDA received overall scores of 90% instead of 100%.

The HRC knows who the seven are -- in fact, they identified the seven multiple times in their Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress. In the cover letter for the Congressional Scorecard, HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese specifically identified the seven, and said this about the vote and the seven congresspeople:

Although not the vote we hoped for, the ENDA vote was historic. A strong bipartisan majority of 235 members of Congress sent a clear message that employment decisions should be based on job performance, not sexual orientation. In addition, seven members who are strong supporters of the LGBT community - Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Michael Michaud (D-Maine), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) and Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) - voted against the bill because they were disappointed that it did not include transgender protections.

And yet, the HRC still lowered the scores of the seven in their report for not supporting the final version of ENDA that didn't include gender identity and expression. Given as a case in point, the highlighted page included here (select the image to enlarge) shows how Rep. Rush Holt (D) was scored. Rep. Holt was marked as voting against ENDA, and marked down to a score of 90% for voting against ENDA.

Perhaps it should seem pretty strange to progressive LGBT folk that the HRC, an organization that self-identifies as an LGBT civil rights organization, penalized seven congresspeople who showed a greater commitment to fully inclusive civil rights protections than the HRC did during the same timeframe. As my friend and former HRC steering committee member Kathy Padilla characterized the report to me:

[The] HRC found a way to craft a scorecard that only penalizes Democrats who are exceptional on LGBT rights.

Solmonese also said in the cover letter of the report:

A new Congress and a new president will have the opportunity to make even greater progress. The list of unfinished business is long. We need to have a president who signs the Matthew Shepard Act into law. We need to pass a fully inclusive ENDA. We need to repeal DADT. We need expanded funding in our battle against HIV/AIDS. And we need to expand benefits and protections for LGBT families.

I'm not exactly sure how the HRC is demonstrating a commitment to a fully inclusive ENDA. In my mind, the reason the HRC would mark down seven progressive congresspeople would be as a message gauged for the future: You congresspeople better vote our organizational line, or we'll hurt your standing with LGBT voters who use our scorecard as a guide to how LGBT-friendly your votes are going to be in the future.

In other words, it appears to me that the HRC is far more interested in sending a "stay in line with us" message to congresspeople than it is to actually supporting civil rights and protections for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In other words, it appears to me that the HRC appeared to want to intentionally damage the reelection prospects of seven progressive, Democratic congresspeople to make a point about keeping in line with their public policy positions -- even when the HRC's public policy positions do not treat gender identity and expression on par with sexual orientation.

So, if the HRC's goal was to send the message to Congress and LGBT people that it fully supports a fully inclusive ENDA, the HRC wouldn't have marked down the scores the seven congresspeople who voted against ENDA because that final version of ENDA didn't include gender identity and expression. But, the HRC did mark these seven congresspeople down; the HRC gave us a flawed scorcard that didn't correctly score seven congresspeople's commitment to full equality.

So, should Congress pass a fully inclusive ENDA during the 111th Congress, I know I wonder whether it will be in spite of the HRC's efforts instead of with the strong efforts of the HRC. And, should a version of ENDA again reach the House Floor that doesn't have gender identity and expression language, how would the HRC score congresspeople who didn't vote for the bill because it wasn't fully inclusive in their 111th Congressional Scorecard?

The HRC's recent record -- a record which includes the Congressional Scorecard for the 110th Congress -- seems to indicate it very well could be a "in spite of" moment with ENDA. And, the HRC is definitely sending the message with its current scorecard that it will again score down congresspeople who don't vote for a version of ENDA that isn't fully inclusive -- if a less than fully inclusive version of ENDA is one the HRC ends up supporting for the the 111th Congress.

I've said it before, I'll say it here again, I don't believe the words that Mr. Solmonese speaks anymore. When Joe Solmonese wrote "We need to pass a fully inclusive ENDA" in the cover letter for the current scorecard, I find myself not believing that he and the HRC actually plan to fully support a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress.

In my opinion, it's long past time for the HRC to apologize for it's behavior with regards to ENDA and the 110th Congress, it's long past time that the HRC's public policy people put out a statement that they will only support a fully inclusive ENDA; and it's long past time that HRC Executive Director Joe Solmonese resigned -- as long as Mr. Solmonese is the executive director of the HRC, the HRC will have next to zero credibility with progressive LGBT activists. Frankly, I personally don't trust Mr. Solmonese and the HRC to work as equally hard on T issues as he does for G and L issues -- in my opinion, he and the HRC daily make a mockery of their equal sign logo due to their still ongoing ENDA related behavior.

And lastly, the HRC should immediately correct their flawed scorecard for the 110th Congress.

I'm sure I'm going to be seen as an HRC basher for posting this diary, and yet I don't think of myself as one. I have very high regard for what the HRC's CEI has done for gender variant people; I believe the HRC's foundations do tremendous work. My issues with the HRC specifically are with their political folks, and specifically with their behavior regarding public policy on LGBT-related federal legislation. I would rather have them on my side than against me, but at this point I consider the HRC to be more against me as a trans woman than for me.

[Below the fold: Rep. Tammy Baldwin comments on a fully inclusive ENDA for the 111th Congress, and a link to comments on the HRC's Allyson Robinson's interview of the HRC's Allyson Hewitt.]
Follow up:

1.) Rep. Baldwin gives me some hope on the idea of a fully inclusive ENDA. In an interview in the Huffington Post, she answered the question Do you think it will be possible to pass The Employment Non-Discrimination Act nationally? this way (emphasis added):

I think the results of the November 4th election will inform the answer to that question also. We had, by my count, a very, very close to a majority who were willing to vote on an inclusive measure. We were very concerned in a lot of the sort of internal discussion, when we were advancing the Bill to the floor which revolved around what sort of response there would be to any type of mischief-making on the floor by the opponents of this legislation and, whether we could if there was an attempt to separate out gender identity and expression withstand an attempt to do that and keep the Bill intact. And, while I was not in the prevailing side of the internal debate on this, the decision was made to introduce separate bills, one protecting people from employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and the other based on gender identity and expression and to move those Bills separately.
Again, I was advocating a different course of action, but in terms of can we do it next session, I think the question will be how many more individuals will be elected to the Congress in this election who are willing to cast that vote. And, if we have a stronger majority, I think we will be able to move forward with an inclusive Bill.
One other thing, it reminds the whole question, reminds me of the Patricia Ireland quote. First, when we're dealing with a sitting Congress, you're trying to build majorities by changing people's minds, but she use to say "If you can't change their minds, change their faces." And that's what we do in elections. We're hopefully going to seat a new Congress in January of next year that has greater numbers of pro-equality members.

It's not much to latch onto, but at least it's something.

2.) I wrote a second piece on the HRC's scorecard entitled The Role Of HRC's Trans Associate Director of Diversity Allyson Robinson. In it I quote Donna Rose and Kathy Padilla's take on the scorecard, and the use of the HRC's use of thier only trans woman staff member to ask questions of the HRC's Legislative Director in their blog, HRC Back Story.

.

What The LDS Prophet Told The Mormons About The "Protect Marriage"/Yes On Prop 8 Campaign

Autumn Sandeen — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 14:00:00 GMT

This is very much related to Pam's How the well-oiled Mormon machine helped pass Prop 8. Her's was the "how" Mormons helped the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign -- this post, in part, is part of the "what" of what the Mormon leadership told their members.
~~Autumn~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We all should keep in mind exactly what the LDS First Presidency (The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints Prophet Thomas S. Monson and two counselors) said regarding LDS membership participation in the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign. Remember the deceitful ads linking a No On Prop 8 vote to harming California's Children? ...

The LDS First Presidency said to support that campaign. Looking at what the LDS First Presidency said in their press release should be mandatory for LGBT Californians; The LDS Church told all their members that they should "do all [they] can" to support Prop 8. From the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints August 8, 2008 press release:

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).
On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about "Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families," announcing the Church's participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints' church services in California, asked that Church members "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment."

And in their October 8, 2008 press release, the LDS Church encouraged their Californian members to make phone calls on behalf of the Yes On Prop 8 Campaign:

This was not an uninvolved Church that deserves to have it's politics left unquestioned. The LDS Prophet -- their Prophet -- heavily promoted the deceitful campaign that had a "win at all costs" attitude. The LDS Church itself -- at the aboslute highest level of their Prophet -- emersed themselves into the campaign. They don't have clean hands. They should have been prepared for the backlash of having supported such a deceitful campaign that removed a segment of the California populace of fundamental civil rights.