Mayor Bloomberg landed another left on the right yesterday, coming out strongly in favor of gay marriage - and vowing the city will perform same-sex wedding ceremonies, if allowed.
The Republican mayor used his weekly Sunday radio address on Memorial Day weekend to say he is "firmly opposed" to any constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
President Bush and other prominent Republicans endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. The measure is set for a Senate vote next month.
"The U.S. Constitution should be something that unites, rather than divides Americans," said Bloomberg, a life-long Democrat who joined the GOP to run for mayor in 2001.
"I do not believe that government should be in the business of telling people who they can and can't marry," he added during the address on 1010 WINS.
The mayor took pains to give his comments local context, referring to a lawsuit due before the state Court of Appeals tomorrow that focuses on five same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses in New York City.
Bloomberg recently took a stand against the Bush White House by advocating for stronger gun control laws as well as lambasting the wingnuts for their anti-stem cell research, pro-intelligent design stance.
Bloomberg was slightly more subdued yesterday, saying he was trying to strike a balance between enforcing the laws of the land and working to change those laws that he considers unconstitutional.
"I believe New Yorkers should have the right to marry whomever they choose, regardless of sexual orientation," he said.
"If they [the Court of Appeals] rule that same-sex marriages are legal, then we'll perform them," he vowed.
This terrifies Pennsylvania wingnuts who recognize that banning gay marriage is ultimately unconstitutional and tremble as the interstate marriage recognition issue inexorably inches toward the Supreme Court. Hence, the desperate scramble to amend the Pennsylvania Constitution.
If marriage is legalized in NY, we may go there to wed. That would be nice.
Those wild and wacky Baptists are at it again, deeming Sunday June 4 "Marriage Protection Sunday" to rally the troops for the debate on the Federal Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment. From the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission:
?Supporters of traditional marriage need to bombard their senators? offices with e-mails and phone calls,? ERLC President Richard Land told Baptist Press, ?and preachers across America need to let the pulpit ring forth in clear and no uncertain terms on Marriage Protection Sunday, June 4, and help create a groundswell of support for this amendment. I can assure you the opponents of traditional marriage are doing their best to let their voices be heard in the corridors of the Senate. It is up to us to let our voices be heard loudly as well.?
I bring this up because June 4 begins the week when the Pennsylvania Legislature returns to Harrisburg and could potentially bring the Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to the House floor for a vote. Which means our homegrown PA right-wing nut jobs may ratchet up the anti-gay rhetoric in their so-called Christian pulpits on two fronts.
Some of those churches might want to focus a little bit of their energy on actual marriages that need some protection. Like State Representative Ken Ruffing and his wife Karen of my former hometown West Mifflin. This elected official has had 17 domestic calls from the police over the past 12 months, several involving him breaking down doors. KDKA caught the latest one on tape.
This is the kind of married man whois going to decide if my relationship is valid??!!!????
WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee yesterday approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."
"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., shouted after Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.
"If you want to leave, good riddance," Mr. Specter finished.
"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Mr. Feingold, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."
Amid increasing partisan tension over President Bush's judicial nominees and domestic wiretapping, the panel voted along party lines to send the constitutional amendment -- which would prohibit states from recognizing same-sex marriages -- to the full Senate, where it stands little chance of passing.
Arlen voted Yes because he thinks the measure should get a full vote on the Senate Floor, but is personally opposed to the measure. Huh. Why do I think he's trying to appease Pennsylvania conservatives in order to rally votes for Ricky?
The proposed amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has scheduled a vote on it for the week of June 5.
Early June is going to be a busy month for homophobic legislation. Its also when the Pennsylvania House will (possibly) consider a state level marriage amendment.
Face it, this is a Republic ploy to drive conservative voters to the polls. The ass-whipping in the Pennsylvania election this past week has them scared out of their minds that Ricky's base will sit out the November election. The anti-incumbent feeling in the air does not bode well for Mr. Sanctimonious.
Of course, it doesn't bode well for Rendell either.
The American Family Association of Pennsylvania is displeased with the First Lady for suggesting that gay marriage not be used as a campaign tool. Even Laura Bush is not spared their fury when the AFA smells a whiff of tolerance. From their May 17 press release:
Homosexuals have a right to live their lives as they want, but they do no have a right to force our society to redefine marriage and family.Same-sex marriage is not a civil rights issue.Even the Rev. Jesse Jackson is on record as stating that same-sex marriage has nothing to do with civil rights.Those involved in the homosexual lifestyle have never been forced to sit at the back of the bus nor are there water fountains labeled ?Gay Only.?The thousands of ex-gays in this country show that people are not born ?gay.?
I could be wrong, but I suspect being prevented from medical decision making, having your parental rights restricted or terminated, and losing your job BECAUSE YOU ARE GAY would in fact be on par with being sent to the back of the bus. I have never been sent to the back of the bus, but I can clearly point out an array of civil rights that are now labeled "heterosexual only." Including marriage.
?It is tragic that Mrs. Bush doesn?t see the importance of making the marriage amendment a campaign issue.Americans want marriage between one man and one woman protected through a constitutional amendment.Marriage is the foundation of any society and the voters recognize the need to protect its foundation,? stated Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of PA.
?The federal Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory.Our proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Protection Amendment is not discriminatory.People want to protect traditional marriage and any individual running for public office would be well-advised to make marriage amendments a campaign issue,? Gramley concluded.
In other words folks, ramp up the hate-rhetoric because the homo-bigots are gonna roll. With the power dynamic shifting in the House, I have no idea what the future of the Marriage Amendment will be. Stay tuned.
Democratic Party Chair Dean sat down with the always-delightful Pat Robertson on The 700 Club and promptly lied that the Democrartic Party platform did not include gay marriage. In fact, it does support gay marriage.
"We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a 'Federal Marriage Amendment.' Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart."
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force promptly responded by returning a $5,000 donation to the DNC and issuing a statement condemning Dean.
The Stonewall Democrats sort of chastised Dean. "Therefore, we strongly point out that Governor Dean incorrectly spoke when stating that the 2004 Democratic Party platform defines marriage as between a man and a woman."
Dean is busy mending fences. He's pissed off the homos obviously, but also the homobigots who rightly perceive that he was deceptively trying to win support.
What the hell was he thinking? That moderate Republicans watch The 700 Club? No, you idiot, the loonies watch it. The ones who willingly buy into the demonization of homosexuals. And would happily send us marching off to reeducation camps if given the opportunity.
The DNC seems to be doing its best to closet the homos (Pam's House Blend does a great job on this). First, Dean eliminated the gay liaison position within the DNC vis a vis consolidation. Then, the DNC Annual Grassroots Report eliminated any reference to LGBT grassroots efforts which had previously been successfully documented. Third, the DNC fired gay outreach advisor Donald Hitchcock because his partner was openly critical of Dean.
Now, Howard is hanging out with Pat Robertson and his merry band of bigots.
The Correspondents have been vocal pragmatic Democrats. We support Bob Casey with the full awareness of his limitations (and that, frankly, we are gambling by putting our future in his hands). But we lament the erosion of Democratic commitment to our community and find the DNC's recent series of actions truly frightening.
That sounds so pretentious.
I meant to say that we are pissed off by Dean's overt diss of the LGBT community. He's coming to town folks for a gay event so now is the time for local Democrats to call him to task. We cannot just continue to swallow the DNC excuses. We have to hold them accountable now so the LGBT community is not sacrificed for Hillary's Presidential bid.
NOTE: Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents have applied for press credentials to cover the Stonewall Convention. We are optimistic that the Stonewall Democrats recognize the importance of blogs in the media. Since Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents is the the largest regional LGBT blog, we anticipate a positive response from Stonewall. A co-chair of the local chapter has promised to get us a response soon. We look forward to covering this critical event for our local readers and for the national LGBT community through our contributions to Big Gay Picture.
PG writer Sally Kalson tackles the thorny issues of surrogate pregnancy custody in response to a recent court ruling removing custody of triplets from their surrogate mother. It is a complicated, sticky mess and certainly deserving of some attention for our legislature.
However, PA plans to establish a legal framework in surrogacy matters will tap into the age-old battle on family values. Legislation proposed by Senator Jane Earll, R-Erie, permits only an infertile married couple to establish a surrogate contract. Obviously, LGBT couples are left out since marriage is not an option for us. At least in Pennsylvania.
But consider how this legal restriction will impact heterosexuals. Single adults would not be able to use surrogacy to conceive a child. Nor would married couples who perhaps have their own reasons for not wanting to carry a child. As Kalson points out, issues around frozen embryos only make the situation more complicated - what if the the couple divorces? or one partner dies? Under this legislation, that would eliminate surrogacy.
My point (and, I hope, Kalson's point) is that when the government legislatively imposes an ideal family framework on Pennsylvania citizens, it usually doesn't fit. Heterosexual marriage does not automatically confer some special degree of happiness or healthiness on any family unit. What is does confer is a two-tiered family status: the married, reproducing heterosexuals and all the rest of us.
Kalson sums it up neatly:
Current law considers gay couples and lone adults good enough to adopt children who are already born. They ought to be good enough to enter a legal agreement to produce a child through surrogacy.
That said, the state still needs a framework to protect the children born of such agreements, and we don't have to reinvent the wheel to get it. The Uniform Act covers the eventualities with sufficient clarity.
From the very beginning, it makes plain to everyone -- sperm and egg donors, gestational moms and their spouses (if any), intended parents and the courts -- what provisions are permissible and enforceable, and who has what legal rights and responsibilities. In Pennsylvania, no such clarity exists.
For one thing, your legislator is home in your district for the next month. This is a good time to contact her/him in person AGAIN and reiterate your opposition to this amendment.
Go here for more details on how you can get involved. I'll have more later in the week.
Today my good friend David over at 2 Political Junkies has an excellent skewer of Ricky Sanctimonious' <gasp> HYPOCRISY.
Apparently, Ricky is willing to support Republican Don Sherwood who acknowledged that he had a five year affair and settled a lawsuit with his lover after she accused him of choking her.
Ahem. David does a good job on this one. Go read it.
Here's a sad fact: Russian Orthdox Catholics are working in unity with
skinheads to oppose gay rights.
On Sunday
police had to hold back a crowd of bottle-tossing skinheads and Bible-
clutching church folks who were protesting a gay event at a local club.
Not to be outdone by the Christian-Skinhead connection, Russian Muslims are
threatening to kill gays if they proceed with plans to celebrate Pride.
PrideFest is scheduled for May 26 and 27 in Moscow. If the city bans the
event, organizers plan to take the matter to the European Court of Human
Rights.
Sounds like a crowd where Fred Phelps would feel right at home.
From the Center for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights in Philadelphia...
April 28, 2006
Constitutional Amendment Set to Run in PA House
The House of Representatives is in session [the week of May1]and the bill is posted on the voting calendar. This means that a vote can occur at any time.
The House Appropriations Committee voted the so-called "Marriage Protection Amendment" out of Committee on April 24th. This was the next procedural step to running the bill, HB 2381, on the House floor.
We have heard from legislators that both supporters and opponents to the amendment have been contacting them in unprecedented numbers.
It is critical that constituents continue to contact them and ask them to oppose the amendment. If you have not talked to your Representative recently, please do it now! Please ask your friends and family in Pennsylvania to contact their legislator.
If you don't know who your state Representative is, go here.
From the New York Daily News. 
