The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Here we go again -- as the House vote on the $894 billion health care reform plan is looming on Saturday, a teensyproblem affecting LGBTs seems to have cropped up in the language of the bill that will leave eligibility at the whim and interpretation of the Health Choices Commissioner position. (Wash Blade):
[T]he bill, H.R. 3962, uses the terms "family" and "dependent," and advocates say the new Health Choices Commissioner - a position established in the legislation to oversee the insurance exchange - could interpret this language to mean someone's opposite-sex spouse, but not a same-sex spouse.
For example, the section describing the retiree reinsurance program - for which employer-based programs could submit claims to the government - says claims could be made on "employment based health benefits provided to a retiree or to the spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent of a retiree."
Brian Moulton, the Human Rights Campaign's chief legislative counsel, said the term "dependent" and "family" in the bill are "fairly open-ended" and "leave a lot of discretion to the new commissioner to define them."
"Certainly, there is some use of the term 'spouse' in the bill in some of the provisions, and certainly DOMA would control that definition of spouse," he said. "I think there are some areas where there's a potential there won't be access to some of the benefits."
Do you trust that this administration will put a person in this position that will interpret this language broadly or narrowly, given a broad interpretation will turn up the right wing spin machine?
Jerilyn Goodman, a [Tammy] Baldwin spokesperson, also said the Health Choices Commissioner could interpret "dependent" in a way that excludes same-sex couples.
"H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act, does have the potential to interact with DOMA and affect the LGBT community," she said. "Whether that is positive or negative, however, depends almost entirely on the administration." Another Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said it's "up to the administration" to determine whether same-sex couples would be included in some parts of health care reform. "Clearly, the only way to ... ensure equality across the board is to repeal DOMA," said the aide.
That said, there are key provisions in the bill that do take LGBTs and those dealing with HIV/AIDS into consideration, including:
• general non-discrimination language inclusive of sexual orientation and gender identity that prohibits discrimination by health insurers;
• a provision enabling a new assistant secretary for health information to collect health data on disparate populations, including the LGBT community, and to open public health programs and grants focused on health disparities to cover the LGBT population;
• language eliminating taxes on employer provided health coverage for LGBT people who receive coverage from a same-sex partner under an employer's plan;
• a provision allowing people with AIDS to count drugs they receive from AIDS Drug Assistance Programs toward out-of-pocket costs to qualify them for Medicare Part D catastrophic benefits;
• and language permitting state Medicaid programs to cover low-income people with HIV before they develop AIDS.
Click over and read the rest. It's an interesting mix of reactions to the dance that Congress is doing here; given the minimal notice that has been given in the MSM regarding LGBTs and the health care reform bill (as opposed to the right's fixation on access to abortion, for instance), I'm glad this language is out here to evaluate before the vote.
UPDATE: Nadler answered the question that I discussed with Joe earlier:
Q: Can you explain the value of submitting DOMA repeal legislation even if it's not likely to pass this session? Finally putting the issue on the table seems to give us a sense of which elected officials are with us -- and who isn't there yet. What are other benefits from your perspective?
Nadler: First, even if DOMA repeal is not likely to pass this session, we must begin the fight if we are eventually to repeal it. Introducing repeal legislation, as Pam said, enables us to find out who is with us and who we need to work on. We begin now a period of outreach and political organizing to bring about eventual passage. The sooner we begin the fight, the sooner we will prevail.
Join people over at Americablog for a live chat with Congressman Jerrold Nadler at 2PM ET. This thread is an open chat for reactions. Some information on what will be discussed is below.Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) recently introduced a bill to repeal DOMA, filed as The Respect for Marriage Act.
REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.
Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.
SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: ''§ 7. Marriage
''(a) For the purposes of any Federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
''(b) In this section, the term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or possession of the United States.''
Rep. Nadler noted on his own site that the range of supports is indicative of the need to repeal the law:
Among the bill's backers are former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law in 1996, and former Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA), who first introduced DOMA. They join the dozens of civil rights organizations and 91 original co-sponsors of the bill who are pushing for a full repeal of DOMA.
Today, President Clinton said: "I want to thank Congressman Nadler for his leadership on this issue, and Reps. Baldwin, Polis, Conyers, Lewis, Velazquez and Lee, for introducing the Respect for Marriage Act in the House of Representatives. Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind. When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."
Today, Bob Barr said: "I join with former President Bill Clinton in commending Rep. Jerry Nadler for introducing the 'Respect for Marriage Act of 2009.' This legislation would strengthen the principle that each state is free to set the definition of marriage the citizens of that state have adopted. Rep. Nadler's legislation would also repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and by so doing, remove the federal government from involving itself in matters of defining 'marriage,' which historically and according to principles of federalism, are properly state matters and not federal."
Today the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Gill v. Office of Personnel Development, GLAD's lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA Sec. 3 prevents the federal government from recognizing legally married couples if the spouses aren't of different sexes.
As in other DOMA-related filings from the Obama administration, the DOJ insists that it is required to defend DOMA, even though the president deems it onerous.
As the President has stated previously, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.
Uh huh. Whatever. At least they didn't compare my civil marriage to incest this time, according to Chris Geidner. Progress?
GLAD responds:
Nothing in the government's brief is unexpected, and nothing in it addresses the fact that DOMA is the sole exception in a long history of the federal government deferring to the states' determination that people are married. We disagree with any argument that DOMA is constitutional. Married same-sex couples are being treated differently from other married couples. To us, that's a clear-cut violation of the promise of equal protection.
This case is about seeking justice for the widows and widowers who are denied death benefits, for people who can't get on their spouse's health plan, for parents who can't file taxes jointly and pay thousands extra each year that they could put away for their children's education or family emergencies. We're pleased that the issues have now been joined and the case is moving toward resolution, because every day, an increasing number of families - not just our plaintiffs - are being harmed by DOMA.
We're proud of this case the National Law Journal has called "carefully planned" and the case with the potential to have "the greatest national impact". There's a long road ahead, and we will keep you posted of all the developments along the way.
Here's what happens next, according to an e-mail from GLAD.
So, at this point we have 14 days to file an opposition to the motion dismiss. The government will then file a reply to our opposition. After that, our first hearing will be scheduled, and we can expect that to take place early next year. Having said all of that, it's possible that both sides will get and receive extensions on that schedule.
Jack Rice interviewed Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on Tuesday about the just-filed Respect for Marriage Act (H.R.3567) that would repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. The interview does a great job covering the basics.
I can't figure out how to embed the audio file, but you can listen here. A full transcript is below the fold.
Jerry Nadler (D-NY) today filed the "Respect for Families Act", or DOMA repeal bill. Significantly, this bill calls for a full repeal. DOMA has two functional parts, one that prevents the federal government from recognizing marriages between two people of the same sex, and another that allows states to ignore s-s marriages from other states if they choose to. In Congressman Nadler's press release
The 13-year-old DOMA singles out legally married same-sex couples for discriminatory treatment under federal law, selectively denying them critical federal responsibilities and rights, including programs like social security that are intended to ensure the stability and security of American families.
The Respect for Marriage Act, the consensus of months of planning and organizing among the nation's leading LGBT and civil rights stakeholders and legislators, would ensure that valid marriages are respected under federal law, providing couples with much-needed certainty that their lawful marriages will be honored under federal law and that they will have the same access to federal responsibilities and rights as all other married couples.
The Respect of Marriage Act would accomplish this by repealing DOMA in its entirety and by adopting the place-of-celebration rule recommended in the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, which embraces the common law principle that marriages that are valid in the state where they were entered into will be recognized. While this rule governs recognition of marriage for purposes of federal law, marriage recognition under state law would continue to be decided by each state.
The Respect for Marriage Act would not tell any state who can marry or how married couples must be treated for purposes of state law, and would not obligate any person, church, city or state to celebrate or license a marriage of two people of the same sex. It would merely restore the approach historically taken by states of determining, under principles of comity and Full Faith and Credit, whether to honor a couple's marriage for purposes of state law.
Responses of some of the major LGBT and civil equality organizations (and a NOMskull or two) are below.
Update: Tammy Baldwin's statement is directly below the fold.
Lord knows the White House won't want to comment on any DOMA repeal legislation that starts moving, so this pressure is a good move IMHO. HRC Legislative Director Allison Herwitt delivered a survey on DOMA to Congress. (HRC BackStory):
The Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today launched a campaign to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which denies legally married same-sex couples more than 1,000 federal protections and responsibilities. As part of the campaign, HRC launched a national action alert, an interactive website, RepealDOMAnow.org, and delivered to Congress nearly 50,000 survey responses showing the concrete harms DOMA brings to the lives of LGBT Americans and their families. A bill is expected to be introduced in the U.S. House as early as next week.
“Now is the time to let Congress and President Obama know that DOMA must go. The introduction of a bill to repeal DOMA with this unprecedented momentum behind it will mark a tidal shift in this fight,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “This hurtful and discriminatory law denies millions of Americans federal recognition of marriage and the critical rights and benefits that come with it – Social Security survivors' benefits, equal treatment under U.S. immigration laws, the right to take leave to care for a spouse, and more. It is more important than ever to push for repeal of DOMA.”
You can view the survey at: www.hrc.org/DOMASurvey. Over at The Politico, Ben Smith makes the call that Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) will be the one to introduce legislation to repeal DOMA. It will be interesting to see who signs on as co-sponsors (and who doesn't).
Kerry at The Advocate has more: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/DOMA_Repeal_Bill_Coming_Next_Week/
This is a good bit of history told from a personal perspective that shows the character and commitment of Sen. Kennedy. Thanks, Tanya. -- Pam.
Remembering Ted Kennedy for his Compassion and Courage
By Tanya Domi
In the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, I will always remember him for his deep compassion and strong support for members of the gay community.
I had the opportunity to work with Kennedy's office on the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act as the legislative director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 1994.
Kennedy agreed to introduce the ENDA in fall 1993 shortly after the adoption of Don't Ask Don't Tell in fall 1993. All of us working on the military ban took the defeat badly. But we picked ourselves up and got to work quickly. In less of a month after DADT was adopted, along with the then-Human Rights Campaign Fund and my colleagues Dan Zingale, Nancy Buermeyer and Cathy Woolard we began building a coalition of groups to support ENDA with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, led by Ralph Neas, its executive director at the time. LCCR supported ENDA, historically supporting for the first time gay rights legislation by the most imminent group of civil rights organizations in America.
The first hearings were scheduled in the Senate with Senator Kennedy chairing, arranged by Michael Iskowitz, his diminutive aide on gay and disability rights. Republican Senator Dan Coats of Indiana, who had strongly opposed lifting the military gay ban, also served on the labor committee, but we did not expect him to attend the hearings.
Before the hearings began, we had gathered in a conference room behind the hearing room to finalize preparation of our witnesses, Cheryl Summerville, who had been fired by a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Tennessee for being a lesbian and Ernest Hopkins, a postal worker from Cincinnati, Ohio, who had been beaten unconscious in his work place by co-workers for being gay. Suddenly, a significant number of black men, who had been standing in line to enter the hearing room, wearing orange buttons which said "they are not equal" were led through the conference room by a Coats' aide. With no Capital police present, they began yelling epithets at Cheryl and Ernest and our group, pushed and shoved Ernest, jostling Cheryl as a number of us jumped in to stop the hitting and moved them out of room. A very upsetting event and a despicable tactic employed by Coats' staff, which was simply a violation of Senate protocol in everyway imagined.
The hearings began shortly after this disturbing event. Senator Kennedy entered the hearing room and began his opening remarks. He called on Cheryl Summerville to make her opening remarks, who was crying, so upset by what had just transpired behind the hearing room.
In a soft voice, Kennedy applauded her courage and told her that she was very brave to come to the Congress to testify about her experience at Cracker Barrel. He said that she should take her time and take a deep breath. Somehow, Cheryl pulled herself together and delivered her testimony.
I was sitting next to Tim McFeely, the executive director of HRCF, softly crying, along with Tim who had red eyes. We were all very upset. But Cheryl testified and so did Ernest, telling their compelling stories of unquestionable employment discrimination. We got through the day with Kennedy putting into the record lesbian and gay stories and their experiences of on-the-job discrimination for the first time in history. That is the Senator Ted Kennedy I will always remember. May he rest in peace.
Tanya Domi worked for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 1992-1994, serving as the director of the military freedom project and legislative director. She teaches human rights at Columbia University as an adjunct professor of international and public affairs and lives in the City of New York.
Sirius-XM OutQ host Michelangelo Signorile was on CNN last night debating the actions of President Obama versus his promises on LGBT policy, focusing on DOMA. Opposite Mike was the Log Cabin Republicans' Charles Moran.
LEMON: Is President Obama living up to his campaign promise to be a fierce advocate for gays and lesbians? Gay activists think Mr. Obama is backtracking on promises both on the campaign trail and in the White House. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
We must continue to do our part to make progress, step by step, law by law, mind by changing mind. And I want you to know that in this task I will not only be your friend, I will continue to be an ally and a champion, and a president who fights with you and for you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: But the Justice Department is fighting a lawsuit that challenges the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Well, some say that adds hypocrisy.
Joining us is Sirius-XM host, Michelangelo Signorile, an author. He's in New York; and from New York, Charles Moran, spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans.
Thank you very much, both of you.
You heard a couple of times, the president and once-candidate Obama says I'm a fierce advocate for gay rights.
Has that so far, do you feel, it's been the case, Charles?
CHARLES MORAN, SPOKESMAN, LOG CABIN REPUBLICAN SPOKESMAN: Well, the issue of being an advocate means you actually have to do something. And unfortunately all we've seen from the White House in the Obama administration is more rhetoric and not a lot of action. In fact, the most we've gotten is a little bit of a circuit party with a Madonna remix in the East Room of the White House. And unfortunately that just doesn't cut it. [WTF, lol?]
LEMON: OK, that's an interesting way to put it.
And listen, I'm looking at the filings here. It says, "The administration says it supports the repeal of the law." But in the same filing, "The Justice Department will defend the statute in that case, because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional," Michelangelo?
MICHELANGELO SIGNORILE, SIRIUS XM RADIO HOST: Look, the president has spoken very, very supportively of rights for gay and lesbian Americans. He has certainly showed a passion in the past, much more than Republicans. What he has lacked since taking office is courage. Courage to really move forward, move forward on repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, move forward on repeal of DOMA.
And he can do things right now even before repealing, he can stop the discharges under federal law of those people being discharged under Don't Ask Don't Tell. He can also decide not to fight the Defensive Marriage, not to fight the challenge. He can actually -- there's nothing in the Constitution that says you have to defend current law. George H.W. Bush actually did not defend current law when he was president, because he didn't believe in it, and his Justice Department made the argument that they weren't going to defend it. And the lawyer making the argument in the Justice Department was John Roberts, who is now the Supreme Court justice.
Make up you flipping mind, and, by the way, nice sentiments don't mean much as you continue to screw with our relationships. Sigh -- after that exhale, the positive overarching message in this new Obama DOJ reply brief (and it will not please the right either) the tone is much improved, but there's that still-open question is about whether it HAS to defend the discriminatory law at all. Arguments have been made on both sides.
The Obama administration filed court papers Monday claiming a federal marriage law discriminates against gays, even as government lawyers continued to defend it.
Justice Department lawyers are seeking to dismiss a suit brought by a gay California couple challenging the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. The administration's response to the case has angered gay activists who see it as backtracking on campaign promises made by Barack Obama last year.
In court papers, the administration said it supports repeal of the law. Yet the same filing says the Justice Department will defend the statute in this case because a reasonable argument can be made that the law is constitutional.
..."DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," according to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West.
What is left to evolve on this issue? The only thing evolving is marriage itself, which the fundies continually state hasn't changed in 2000 years or some such BS. Good news also mentioned in the article is that the U.S. government will not defend using the blatantly ridiculous notions that procreation or raising children needs to be tied to government interest when it comes to marriage.
The White House statement:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of Media Affairs
______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release August 17, 2009
Statement by the President on the Smelt v. United States Brief
Today, the Department of Justice has filed a response to a legal challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged. This brief makes clear, however, that my Administration believes that the Act is discriminatory and should be repealed by Congress. I have long held that DOMA prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. While we work with Congress to repeal DOMA, my Administration will continue to examine and implement measures that will help extend rights and benefits to LGBT couples under existing law.
The brief and statements from it are below the fold.
Just a quick note will do to urge the AG to join Massachusetts in suing the feds over the unconstitutional DOMA.
Thank you.
(Some background from Lurleen): The Hartford Courant recently summed up the situation:
A national grassroots campaign is urging Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, to join Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley and sue the U.S. government over the discriminatory and blighted Defense of Marriage Act.
Better known as DOMA, the nearly 13-year-old federal law that denies married same-sex couples federal marriage benefits, according to Defend the Law. That Massachusetts-based organization, founded by a Boston College law student, is asking Connecticut residents to contact the attorney general between Aug. 10 and 14 to urge him to file suit, and protect marriage equality in the state.
More on the case from Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders here.
On Friday, July 31, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders filed an amended complaint in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, its lawsuit challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act.
In the amended complaint, GLAD officially added tax plaintiffs Mary and Dorene Bowe-Shulman and Marlin Nabors and Jonathan Knight. GLAD also removed its claim involving passport plaintiffs Keith and Al Toney. Due to a change in State Department policy in May of this year, Keith Toney has been able to get a U.S. passport in his correct married name.
As a result of the July 31 filing, the Department of Justice response will be due on or before September 18, 2009. The amended complaint, as well as complete information about Gill v. OPM can be seen at www.glad.org/doma.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Court: 1. Declare that the FEHB Program, the HCSFA, and the FEDVIP Program permit coverage of same-sex spouses under their authorizing statutes and regulations. 2. Declare DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7, unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. 2 Enjoin the defendants from continuing to discriminate against the plaintiffs by treating them differently from similarly situated individuals who are married to persons of the opposite sex. 3 Issue an injunction ordering defendant Michael J. Astrue to review the applications for benefits of plaintiffs Jo Ann Whitehead, Randy Lewis-Kendell, Herb Burtis, and Dean Hara without regard to DOMA, 1 U.S.C. § 7. 4 Award plaintiffs Mary Ritchie and Kathleen Bush judgment in the amount of $14,518, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 6. Award plaintiffs Melba Abreu and Beatrice Hernandez judgment in the amount of $14,018, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 5 Award plaintiffs Marlin Nabors and Jonathan Knight judgment in the amount of $2,520, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 6 Award Mary Bowe-Shulman and Dorene Bowe-Shulman judgment in the amount of $3,332, plus interest and costs as allowed by law, and such other relief as this Court may deem just, including the award of reasonable litigation costs incurred in this proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 7430. 7 Award attorney's fees and costs to plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 or any other applicable statutory provision.
10. Grant such other relief as is just and appropriate.
UPDATE: I received Michael Guest's testimony. It is below the fold.
A hearing on the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2517), was held Wednesday before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service and the District of Columbia. Testifying on the bill:
WITNESS LIST
PANEL I
Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-2-WI)
Mr. John Berry, Director, Office of Personnel Management
PANEL II
Ms. M. V. Lee Badgett, Research Director, The Williams Institute, UCLA Law School
Mr. Greg Franklin, Assistant Executive Officer, Health Benefits, California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS)
Ms. Carolyn E. Wright, Vice President, Corporate Human Resources, American Airlines
PANEL III
Ms. Lorilyn Holmes, current federal employee; Reverend, Metropolitan Community Churches
Ambassador (ret.) Michael Guest, former career Foreign Service Officer
Dr. Frank Page, Pastor, First Baptist Church of Taylors; President, Southern Baptist Convention 2006
Statement on the legislation by Rea Carey, Executive Director National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund:
"Already, a majority of Fortune 500 companies offer their employees domestic partner benefits. So do more than 300 colleges and universities, more than 200 local governments and at least 19 states. This legislation has been endorsed by four major unions, together representing nearly two and a half million government employees.
"Polls conducted within the last year demonstrate that a majority of Americans believe that same-sex partners should receive federal benefits, and that fully 73 percent of the country believes that same-sex partners should be eligible for health insurance. Far from a radical social policy, this legislation would simply bring the federal government up to the standard endorsed by nearly three-fourths of U.S. taxpayers.
"In addition to the issue's fundamental fairness, the federal government's failure to provide domestic partner benefits also makes it significantly more difficult to recruit and retain the best people. Ambassador Michael Guest, who testified before the subcommittee this afternoon, recently left the State Department after being unable to secure health insurance benefits for his partner. Across the country, an unknown number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees have done the same, leaving government for jobs in the private sector, where benefit coverage for same-sex partners is much easier to find.
"It is unconscionable that the federal government, the country's largest civilian employer, does not already provide domestic partnership benefits. With this bill, the time has come to rectify this injustice. We thank the subcommittee for this hearing and we urge the House of Representatives to move swiftly to pass this important legislation."
Update: H/T to Law Dork who provides a link to the complaint and has a summary of the AG's press conference. Highlights and reactions from various organizations at bottom of post.In a case led by Attorney General Martha Coakley, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is suing the US federal government, calling Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The case is called Commonwealth v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.
"In enacting DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act], Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.
The suit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since gay marriage became legal in the state in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."
"Despite these developments, same-sex couples in Massachusetts are still denied essential rights and protections because the federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] interferes with the Commonwealth's authority to define and regulate marriage," the lawsuit said.
For those who wish to relive the precious moments of the community and the administration uniting as one...
The transcript:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release June 29, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT LGBT PRIDE MONTH RECEPTION
East Room
4:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Hello, hello, hello. (Applause.) Hey! Good to see you. (Applause.) I'm waiting for FLOTUS here. FLOTUS always politics more than POTUS.
MRS. OBAMA: No, you move too slow. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: It is great to see everybody here today and they're just -- I've got a lot of friends in the room, but there are some people I want to especially acknowledge. First of all, somebody who helped ensure that we are in the White House, Steve Hildebrand. Please give Steve a big round of applause. (Applause.) Where's Steve? He's around here somewhere. (Applause.)
The new chair of the Export-Import Bank, Fred Hochberg. (Applause.) Where's Fred? There's Fred. Good to see you, Fred. Our Director of the Institute of Education Sciences at DOE, John Easton. Where's John? (Applause.) A couple of special friends -- Bishop Gene Robinson. Where's Gene? (Applause.) Hey, Gene. Ambassador Michael Guest is here. (Applause.) Ambassador Jim Hormel is here. (Applause.) Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown is here. (Applause.)
All of you are here. (Laughter and applause.) Welcome to your White House. (Applause.) So --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.) (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Somebody asked from the Lincoln Bedroom here. (Laughter.) You knew I was from Chicago too. (Laughter.)
It's good to see so many friends and familiar faces, and I deeply appreciate the support I've received from so many of you. Michelle appreciates it and I want you to know that you have our support, as well. (Applause.) And you have my thanks for the work you do every day in pursuit of equality on behalf of the millions of people in this country who work hard and care about their communities -- and who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. (Applause.)
Now this struggle, I don't need to tell you, is incredibly difficult, although I think it's important to consider the extraordinary progress that we have made. There are unjust laws to overturn and unfair practices to stop. And though we've made progress, there are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors or even family members and loved ones, who still hold fast to worn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; and who would deny you the rights that most Americans take for granted. And I know this is painful and I know it can be heartbreaking.
Here you go, folks, from the pool report, passed on to the Blend by the White House Press Office...
List of invited guests at the LGBT event in the East Room
White House LGBT Event
June 29, 2009
Administration Officials
John Berry, Director, Office of Personnel Management
Fred Hochberg, Chair, Export-Import Bank
John Easton, Director, Institute of Education Sciences at the Department of Education
City and State Officials
Jason Bartlett, Connecticut House of Representatives
Kate Brown, Oregon Secretary of State
David Dibble, Minnesota State Senator
Evan Low, Vice-Mayor, Campbell, CA City Council
Al McAffrey, Oklahoma House of Representatives
Andrew Mcdonald, Connecticut House of Representatives
Robert Meza, Arizona House of Representatives
Christine Quinn, New York City Council
Debra Shore, Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
Denise Simmons, Mayor of Cambridge, MA
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona House of Representatives
Patricia Todd, Alabama House of Representatives
Lupe Valdez, Dallas County Sheriff
As the time nears for the official A-gays at the White House event, here are some perspectives out there today. Read, digest and comment; I share my thoughts at the end -- plus a couple of questions. First, let's look at the framing from the White House itself, from Deputy Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement Brian Bond.
As a gay kid growing up in rural Missouri - I never thought I would end up helping to organize an LGBT Pride event in the White House. Then again, I never thought I would ever realize my dream to work in the White House. But thanks to the historic election of Barack Obama, today I am honored to be working here.
To me, today's event is more than just a reception honoring LGBT Pride month. It is an opportunity for the Administration to provide the world with a snap shot of the real heroes across the country that do the day-to-day work fighting for equality. People like State Representative Patricia Todd in Alabama to Sheriff Lupe Valdez in Dallas, and may other local LGBT elected officials that will be here today. And it's people - ordinary families - that by simply living their lives openly are changing hearts and minds. It is also an opportunity to welcome the people upon whom shoulders we stand, people like Frank Kameny, as well as Phil Wilson, Bishop Robinson and Ambassador Hormel, who I know personally, and those who stood up to bigotry at Stonewall. I really wish people like Bayard Rustin could be standing here with us today. He would be up for the fight ahead of us and proud of the place we now stand.
People may not know this, but there hasn't been a significant event since the President took office that hasn't included the LGBT community -- discussions on the economy and the recovery, or health care -- but this event is special to me and to many of the people that haven't been here for many years.
We have a lot of work ahead of us. We will work together to pass Hate Crimes and ENDA and to end DADT and DOMA, but today is an opportunity to celebrate who we are and affirm who we are as Americans. But the truth is that in this White House we do this every day. With over 60 out appointees working in this Administration already, we are free to be ourselves. But not everyone is in this country is able to do the same, and we are here to help change that.
I am here because I know the President and this Administration believe that too and are committed to fighting for equality - yes it will take time, and yes we should be pushing and yes you should too. We are all in this together and I am equally proud of both my President and my community.
I will take a little time out today to celebrate the diversity and depth of our community with my President. And we will get back to work. Everyone in this building is very clear -- from the President on down -- are committed to equality. So for a young, ok for a now aging and balding gay guy from rural Missouri, this is my way to celebrate Pride month and our community's importance in the American fabric.
The incoming president of GLAAD (and fellow Dallas Principles author), Jarrett Barrios, wrote an op-ed in the WaPo about why he's going to be there. Read a snippet below the fold.
Surf over to Mike Signorile's blog to listen to the Massachusetts Congressman nearly go off the rails when Mike asks basic, obvious questions in a calm manner about the strong criticism of the DOMA brief by Howard Dean (Frank has defended the language in the brief). Let's just say the question caused the normally unflappable lawmaker to threaten to end the interview.
Barney became very unhappy with me and pretty heated when I played Howard Dean's comments on the DOMA brief, trying to stop me and saying he didn't come on for me to "play records."
He defended the brief, defended the President on LGBT rights, defended Democrats in the House (though he said we need to take on Democrats in the Senate) and defended the DNC fundraiser.
Barney and I have known each other for many years, agree on many things, disagree on others, and often when he comes on the show it can be a spirited discussion. This time I'd say he was a more angry about issues, particularly with how some of us who have criticized the Democrats and the White House.
Please go listen to the interview -- the question about DOMA came up at minute 8:00. When Mike goes to play the Dean clip, Frank really loses it; it's clear that he doesn't want to have his position juxtaposed against Dean's (pertinent Dean quote: "you cannot talk about gay Americans the way they were talked about in this brief."). At one point (around 15:07) Frank screams into the phone at Mike. It was pretty shocking.
UPDATE (bumping post back up): A political insider has just informed me that there is something fishy about that $1 Million amount claimed to have been raised for the DNC fundraiser. So we cannot confirm that this is all queer money from this fundraiser.
As often done, Andy Tobias as Treasurer of the DNC can apply any of his fundraising efforts or other DNC staff fundraising efforts to whichever event that in order to inflate the success of the particular fundraiser. Many straight stockbrokers (loyal DNC'ers) could have given $30K in the months prior to the fundraiser, and had no clue where his/her money was being applied internally at the DNC. Also there are regular Queer Donors to the DNC that give monthly and annually and this amount was probably added to the tally for the event.
FEC reports will be filed at the end of this month so we will be able to check the DNC amounts for when the $$$ was raised, and who wrote a check from the LGBT community. My inside source says they would be lucky if they actually raised $250,000. Still a lot of money, but no where near the $1,000,000. claimed by the DNC.
Here is video from the Washington Blade of the protest:
There's not a lot of press out there about last night's 10th annual LGBT Leadership Council fundraiser yet, but Kerry Eleveld has coverage up at The Advocate this AM (and DaveM has a diary up). The number of protestors was pretty small -- I've seen 40 and this article says 25.
When Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin arrived, she chatted with the spirited flock of about 25 and then pivoted to enter the Mandarin Oriental Hotel as cries of "Don't go in, Tammy!" and "Shame on you!" followed her.
"I think it's so important that as gay and lesbian people who are denied equal rights, we do feel an impatience and a frustration and it's really important that that be expressed both outside and inside," she said.
A long list of prominent people dropped out of the fundraiser, but the event was successful -- raising more scratch than last year's event.
Despite the controversy, about 180 people showed up to hear Vice President Joe Biden speak for a price tag of $1,000 to $30,400 per plate. The event brought in nearly $1 million, up from about $750,000 last year, according to a Democratic Party source.
So what does this mean? Well, one question I have is whether those who withdrew had paid in advance actually asked for their money back when they dropped out; otherwise, the DNC coffers were still filled with queer dollars. It also means that we still have a good chunk of our well-heeled community that cares less about sending a strong message of dissatisfaction to this administration than putting chips in to stay "in the game" at the expense of, for instance, discharged service members during a time when their skills are desperately needed for our national security. So what did the special guest, our VP Joe Biden, offer up?
Biden ticked off a list of priorities for the community, starting with receiving a standing ovation for saying with great gusto, "We will repeal the Defense of Marriage Act with your help!" He touched on "don't ask, don't tell," the Domestic Partner Benefits and Obligations Act, employment nondiscrimination, the HIV travel ban and hate crimes.
But tellingly, DNC chair Tim Kaine seemed to be aloof about the issues at hand re: the community:
"He didn't really seem to recognize what it meant for the people who were in that room to show up," said LGBT activist Peter Rosenstein, calling his speech "disappointing." ...he didn't run down the litany of issues that the vice president did during his speech - it lacked a real commitment to showing what the DNC is going to do on our issues."
Wow; I can't wait for The Peter's take on that Roll Call headline. Anyway, this article is about yesterday's meeting with Speaker Pelosi, her team and Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Jared Polis (D-CO) to discuss what legislation to move forward. Apparently everyone was keeping tight-lipped about the details.
According to sources, the Members discussed workplace discrimination, health care benefits for same-sex partners of federal employees and a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays from openly serving in the military. The lawmakers also discussed how to help the Senate pass hate crimes legislation that has already cleared the House.
I'm not sure what to make about this quote from Frank about ENDA:
Asked what has shifted in the last year, Frank said Democrats picked up 21 more House seats and held a first-of-its-kind educational hearing on transgender issues last summer.
In addition, "the transgender community stopped yelling at me and [Pelosi] ... and started lobbying sensibly," Frank said.
Oy. Can he ever sound like he's not picking a fight?
RED ALERT: And for those of you who don't think shutting the gAyTM makes a difference...they have been taking us for granted, and don't let them tell you otherwise:
Democrats also see the power of the gay community's purse.
On Thursday, the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council is hosting a fundraising event with Vice President Joseph Biden. Frank, Baldwin and Polis are among those headlining the 10th annual event; the cost to attend ranges from $1,000 to $30,400 per person.
Democratic consultant Mark Nevins said the gay community is a "compelling voting bloc" for Democrats, particularly because of their strong organization and financial backing.
"They are organized. They work hard. They vote and they have money," Nevins said. "They are a powerful financial institution."
This is a guest post by Jennifer Chrisler of the Family Equality Council; as executive director for the organization, she attended the Presidential limited federal benefits extension signing ceremony last week. Chrisler is also one of the invitees at the White House's upcoming commemoration of Stonewall, billed by the administration as an event in the vein of its St. Patrick's Day or Cinco de Mayo fetes. Jennifer is here to share her view that this social gathering is an opportunity for members of the community to meet with the President and convey their thoughts about progress (or the lack thereof) and to keep open communication channels with those who can effect change.
Of course there are others who do not share Chrisler's view, and believe that the social event should be boycotted and is nothing more than a dog-and-pony show opportunity for this White House, with those attending being used as PR props. I'll give my personal take at the end of the essay.
Now -- I shouldn't have to remind anyone, but I will -- civility is key here on the Blend, particularly with content that may be polarizing. It's healthy to have spirited, cordial debate in the comments between readers, the diarists and baristas, not attacks; consider this the one and only trapdoor warning. --Pam
Movement Malpractice?
By Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of Family Equality Council
Malpractice is defined as engaging in professional wrongdoing that will result in harm.
As one of those many leaders across the country fighting for equality for LGBT families, failure to accept the President's invitation to meet with him at the White House this coming Monday would be committing "Movement malpractice."
For more years than I care to remember we have bemoaned the lack of access and the lack of progress at the federal level for LGBT equal rights. It is no surprise then that after years of toiling to elect fair-minded leaders, and with the assumption that we now have that in the White House and the Congress, we want action and we want it swiftly. When we¹ve struggled as a community for more years than we care to count to achieve equality and we believe for the first time that it is now achievable, our hopes are incredibly high. The knife of disappointment cuts that much deeper and the wounds take much longer to heal.
But that anger, justified as it may be, is no reason to stage a walk off. Time and time again LGBT people have suffered painful setbacks in our struggle to achieve equality. Giving up and walking away from the work is not an option for effective leaders. Each time, we must re-group and re-strategize for the challenges ahead. Walking away from the opportunity to meet with the leader of the free world to make our case for equality yet again would be movement malpractice on my part.
That is why I will be at the White House on Monday, commemorating the 40th Anniversary of the Stonewall riots. I will be there in the spirit of those who stood up for themselves and all of us in June 1969. If anything, it insults those who came before us, on whose shoulders we stand, to not acknowledge the birth of the modern LGBT rights movement at the invitation of the President of the United States.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) recently introduced a bill to repeal DOMA, filed as 
H/T Blender Shelley.
Jerry Nadler (D-NY) today filed the "Respect for Families Act", or DOMA repeal bill. Significantly, this bill calls for a full repeal. DOMA has two functional parts, one that prevents the federal government from recognizing marriages between two people of the same sex, and another that allows states to ignore s-s marriages from other states if they choose to. In Congressman Nadler's 
Remembering Ted Kennedy for his Compassion and Courage
In a case led by Attorney General Martha Coakley, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is 
As a gay kid growing up in rural Missouri - I never thought I would end up helping to organize an LGBT Pride event in the White House. Then again, I never thought I would ever realize my dream to work in the White House. But thanks to the historic election of Barack Obama, today I am honored to be working here.
RED ALERT: And for those of you who don't think shutting the gAyTM makes a difference...they have been taking us for granted, and don't let them tell you otherwise:
Movement Malpractice?
