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.
?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 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.
?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?
Aside from the myriad of letters disputing the PG's review of An Inconvenient Truth and those from the stalwart "Great Americans" defending the Cheesesteak Bigot, a few homosexual themed letters appear ...
First, Martha Perego of Oakland wants to give us homos our very own second class status word or term to describe our unions. Her rational? No one objects to the usage of fraternity or sorority. No one? Huh. Cause I do. Of course, I'm more concerned about the elitism, snobbery, hazing, alcohol poisoning, date raping, exclusivity ...oh and that "frat boy" mentality that pervades adult life like stink on a dog.
Bless her two-tiered little heart, she's willing to permit us the same social and financial benefits. I'm not sure Martha has been reading up on all the latest homo-hitchin' up news b/c what she's describing is called a civil union. And our good friends over at the AFA of PA are onto that approach.
Next up is Bob Poropatich of Stanton Heights writing in response to the Post-Gazette's critique of the Pride Theate Festival. (This is the prancing queens part of the post). Bob takes affront at the PG's implication that the festival is too straight and minus the prancing queens. He compares the lack of drag queens and lisping homos to Fiddler on the Roof:
To match her ignorance one could say that if you go to see "Fiddler on the Roof," you won't see any jewelers, lawyers or Park Avenue doctors either.
This is what the Post-Gazette actually said:
But for a festival that purportedly spotlights GLBT themes, the plays are pretty, well, straight. You'd think there might be a few theatrical conventions challenged, but there aren't, and bisexual and transsexual/gender characters are conspicuously absent.
I didn't attend the festival so I cannot comment. But the lack of bisexual and transgendered characters is a common motif in most mainstream gay events, organizations, issues, causes, etc. And the further we strive to demonstrate how normal we are (not necessarily a bad thing) the more likely we are to turn our backs on those who don't fit in quite so easily. The Post-Gazette may have picked up on that.
The trick, Bob, is that we get caught up in normalizing our community to a heterosexual ideal. Perhaps we should focus our time, talent and art on how HUMAN we are regardless of where we fall in the alphabet soup acronyms.
Paul Fero of Monroeville, Repulican and former candidate for the State House of Shame er, Representatives in 2002, announced that the Rethuglican obsession with homosexual marriage has caused him to convert -- to a Democrat. Proving once and for all that while you may be born a breeder, you choose to be an slavish idiot to a hate agenda.
Fero's writes that his decision is based on the political priorities of the Republicans.
A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage -- our elected Republican officials believe this is a priority?
This is absolutely ridiculous and I can't take it anymore. The endless positioning to support the conservative base of the Republican Party has truly hit a milestone.
Then he puts forth a clear statement of support
And I support the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry. Marriage shouldn't be about what sex you are but about love, compassion and caring for one another. Those qualities aren't exclusive to heterosexuals.
Fero's opponent in that 2002 election was incumbent Joe Markosek, one of the 20 House Democrats who voted in favor of the original constitutional amendment -- the really bad one as opposed to the hate-light bill that made it through the Senate.
To be fair, if Fero had been elected as a Republican who knows where he would be now -- would he have joined that other convert Mike Divin (opposite direction) in opposing the amendment? No way to tell.
Nonethless, hopefully this is one more vote for Bob Casey and one more sign that the Republican obsession with controlling my bedroom behavior is turning off the real party faithful.
According to the Trib, they want a constitutional convention. And guess who supports it? Wingnut grand poobah Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. See what Pam has to say about him
Again, I'm beating a dead horse, but the Democratic leadership better wake up. The Right is not going to leave gay marriage alone. You are going to have respond with a real position on gay civil rights. These folks are relentless and will continue to mobilize against candidates that take a mealy-mouth "position" and win. They have the money, the boots on the ground, and most of all, commitment to their agenda because they believe that they are right. Where are the Dems?
The position of voting FOR amending the constitution to protect marriage from homosexuals is not "a real position on gay civil rights." It is capitulation pure and simple. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. And Tony Perkins is going to continue pushing our regressive Democrats here in Western PA further and further back into a corner until they abandon homosexuals altogether. And he has the $$ to do it.
From Sunday's Post-Gazette comes a little "Aside" by the PG editors putting Rendell's PrideFest visit into the context of the larger movement by PA Republicans AND Democrats to write hate into our state constitution.
SOMETIMES A POLITICIAN will speak out as a matter of principle even though it might offend some constituents (hey, it happens, and it is refreshing when it does). With many lawmakers in full cry to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment that would serve no purpose other that than to write bigotry into the state constitution, the politically smart thing for Gov. Ed Rendell to do last weekend might have been to stay far away from the gay pride march in Pittsburgh. Instead, he was there to kick it off
It would appear that the Post-Gazette editorial board is as politically unsophisticated as me in thinking that the Senate's passage of a the amendment (even in its amended form) by DEMOCRATS and Rethuglicans is not the most stirring sign of support for the homos.
It is refreshing to have witnessed some political principle firsthand and to see the PG acknowledge it.
I know I'm beating a lonely drum on this. I have been informed that the Pittsburgh Democratic Senators voted in favor of the marriage protection amendment. I've also been informed that I'm being a bit of whiny bitch for not congratulating them like the mainstream LGBT political groups are doing.
I get that the groups have to play politics. But last time I checked, I'm allowed to have my own opinions. And I opine these are yet another bunch of spineless Democrats who want to have their cake and eat it, too. Its sheer genius really - a vote in favor of the watered down amendment keeps the homos all happy while giving them the ability to say that they voted to uphold traditional marriage.
It is a political solution designed to keep their social moderate voters happy and keep them in office. Keeping the constitution of Pennsylvania free from discrimination is ancillary to the overall plan.
And when I disagree, object, complain, speak out, speak up or speak my mind (NOT A MIND!), I get the brush off b/c I'm not a good little girl who plays nice with the boys.
Honey, if I wanted to play nice with the boys, I wouldn't need to worry about the definition of marriage.
So we narrowly avoid the amendment (hopefully). Now we'll continue to avoid naming the propensity of Pennsylvania Democrats to treat my life, my relationship and my civil rights as political trading cards.
Aside from the myriad of letters disputing the PG's review of An Inconvenient Truth and those from the stalwart "Great Americans" defending the 
