We are heading out the door this morning early so I only have time to post a few links. 

Apparently, you have the right to get married if you can squirt out babies.  So watch out non-breeding heterosexuals ... if you don't start generating some new cannon fodder for the war machine and/or the allegiance of right-wing-bigots, your marriages could be next ...

Check out Page One Q

Here's what Pam's House Blend has to say ....

And even more from Pam  including reaction from the fundie wingnuts who are frothing at the mouth and writhing in ecstasy over this slapdown of marriage equality.  Here she reiterates the point the our Democratic leadership is FAILING us on these issues.  Voting against a marriage amendment is not enough --- they need to actually LEAD.

When you don't take a strong position on this issue (one way or another), people in the middle who may be considering voting Dem notice and speculate anyway. It's easy to be against a federal amendment, but what is a candidate's position on all these state marriage amendments and now, the future legislative efforts to gain marriage equality as these cases in WA and NY have resulted in punts?

Excellent question.  No answer forthcoming as there are probably too many 700 Club appearances to plan and fundie wingnut asses to lick ...

In a fresh off the press interview with Rolling Stone, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom takes Democrats to task for their spineless leadership on marriage equality. Newsom points out that their tepid waffling doesn't fool anyone, but reinforces everyone's belief that the Democrats lack conviction.  How is that going to win any votes? 

Rolling Stone: Listening to the Democratic opposition to the federal anti-gay marriage amendment, the party?s senators sounded more like Dixiecrats ? talking about marriage as a states?s rights issue ? rather than Democrats, pursuing this from a civil-rights perspective.

Gavin Newsom: Where?s the moral courage? It?s lost. I have the luxury of saying this from San Francisco, I certainly respect what it?s like saying this in parts of Kentucky or North Carolina, but also believe this issue won?t go away for the Democratic party we stand up on historic principles.

We?ve never run the 90-yard dash on equality ? ever. The history of this party is civil rights, women?s rights, human rights, labor rights, gay and lesbian rights. And for us to hold up civil unions and say that separate is somehow now equal ? when just a-year-and-a-half we ago celebrated the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board ? is transparent to the people. They see through the Democrats.

That?s why this issue was not seen by the Kerry campaign in 2004 in a positive light. Because people saw through John Kerry. They didn?t believe that he was only supportive of civil unions. Because here he was, running as a Democrat on all those proud traditions where we never fell short on equality. And so ? even though his position was exactly the same as Dick Cheney?s ? the American people questioned that. I don?t think the American people believe us. And that?s a big problem.

Surf on over to The Advocate website for Evan's take on the NY marriage ruling.  Evan is the Executive Director of Freedom to Marry.  He's also a Pittsburgh native.   (h/t Pam's House Blend)

?Is that all there is? If that?s all there is, my friends, then let?s keep dancing,? sang Peggy Lee. If dancing means engaging others, by all means let?s dance; this discordant, tinny ruling did not stop the music. And if dancing means, well, dancing, then let?s keep working until all committed couples can dance, with family, friends, and loved ones, at their weddings, pursuing happiness, celebrating their commitment and love, equally protected by the law and the respect due every person.

The New York Court of Appeals ruled 4-2 that the state constitution does not guarantee the right to marry, but that the extension of marriage to include same sex couples must be undertaken by the Legislature. (PageOneQ)

The HRC response ...

"The court?s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

I'm sitting in a cramped waiting room in Oakland so I'll have to save my commentary for later ....

The New York State Court of Appeals is exptected to hand down its decision on gay marriage this week.

Albuquerque police raided a men's bathhouse ... wearing bullet proof vests and carrying semi-automatic weapons.  Why?  Because the club was selling alcohol without a license. 

The FBI is joining the investigation of a cross burning on the front lawn of the home of a Tennessee gay man.   They want to determine if its a hate crime.  Apparently, in Tennessee crosses just plant themselves in people's yard and spontaneously combust.  Pesky flaming crosses.

Anti-gay activists believes playground squabble involving his 7 year old son was a hate crime.

And Northern Ireland is now permitting same sex couples to jointly adopt children. 

A press release from the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights indicates that the Pennsylvania General Assembly has recessed for the summer without passing the anti-gay marriage amendment.  Differing versions of the legislation passed in each chamber -- the House including civil unions in the ban, the Senate excluding them.  Because they could not pass concurring legislation in both chambers, the measure fails and our opponents will have to start over again from scratch if they want to revisit the issue. 

From The Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights ...

?We are pleased that the Pennsylvania legislature chose to not advance legislation which would have written discrimination into the state constitution. The Value All Families Coalition appreciates the efforts and leadership of many legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, who understood that this legislation was unnecessary, divisive and dangerous,? said Stacey Sobel, Executive Director of the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights.

Larry Frankel, Legislative Director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said, ?Over the last six months, Pennsylvania?s legislators learned a great deal about this state?s non-traditional families. The bill?s failure is due in large part to our lawmakers? better understanding of how this amendment could have adversely impacted thousands of Pennsylvanians.?

According to Marriage Equality USA, 17 states have amendment their constitution to ban gay marriage (AK, AR, GA, KY, LA, MI, MO, MS, MT, NB, ND, NV, OH, OK, OR, TX, UT ).  Five more states have the issue on the ballot for this year (AL, AZ, CA, TN, WI).

On the bright side,  Massachusetts has legalized marriage, Connecticut and Vermont have civil unions and California, Hawaii, New Jersey and Maine offer some sort of domestic partnerships. 

So what's next for the PA issue?  It could be reintroduced at a later date which would mean it might be on the ballot for 2010.  The thing to do now is to pay attention to what your state rep and senator are doing.  Stay connected and continue to make them aware of the fact that they have progressive constituents who do not support bigotry and hatred.  Watch their votes on immigration which will be the next big target of repressed Republican wrath.  And get involved --- take a few extra steps to support candidates who actually reflect your values, not just those who aren't so bad. 

Avoiding a vote is not at all the same thing as promoting and respecting diverse families.  Don't let them spin you --- there is a world of difference between Rep. Dan Frankel who stood up to bigotry and Senator Jay Costa who stood behind a political maneuver.  I'd rather choke on my own vomit than thank someone for not being too much of a bigot.  This little article about Rep Tony DeLuca is a classic example of the slippery slope Western PA Democrats seem to be heading down.

And I'm sure our troll will post more anonymous little hissy slaps at me for failing to blindly adhere to the guidance and reasoning of self-styled gay leaders who have our best interests at heart ....wouldn't want the lesbians, bis and trannies to start thinking on their own now would we?