Among the 24 bills Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed into law a couple of days ago:
HB 2509: Directs school districts to provide age-appropriate sex education courses in all public elementary and secondary schools as part of health education curriculum. Requires that sex education instruction be medically accurate. Mandates that schools promote abstinence, for school-age youth, and mutually monogamous relationships with an uninfected partner, for adults, as the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and the transmission of STDs. Requires that the course include a discussion of the characteristics of the emotional, physical and psychological aspects of a healthy relationship and the benefits of delaying pregnancy beyond the adolescent years. Requires that students be provided statistics-based and up-to-date medical information regarding the efficacy of all methods of sexual protection in preventing HIV and other STDs. Directs schools to provide students with information about Oregon laws that address young people’s rights and responsibilities related to childbearing and parenting. Establishes applicability to the 2009-2010 school year. Declares an emergency, effective July 1, 2009.
So, I’m reading this article from the NYT about the way hospitals treat same-sex couples, and I expect to find a few examples of grossly unfair treatment — the usual “Partner A was not allowed to be with Partner B while Partner B was dying” — and I expect the stories to come solely from Louisiana, or Alabama, or any number of other overtly gay-hostile states.
As expected, the NYT summarizes the heartbreaking tragedy that befell Washington couple Janice Langbehn, Lisa Pond, and three of their children, made even worse by the cruel homophobia of a Florida hospital:
A woman from Washington collapsed while on vacation in Miami. Although her partner had an advanced health care directive, hospital officials told her she wasn’t a family member under Florida law. The woman spent hours talking with hospital administrators to prove that the document from her home state was, in fact, still valid in Florida. Although she eventually prevailed, her partner’s condition deteriorated and the woman died. Because of the problem, the children the patient had been raising with her partner weren’t able to see her before she died.
What I didn’t expect to see was this story from California:
Two Shoreline Community College nursing students were brutally attacked over the weekend in the small Oregon ocean-resort town of Seaside in what police there are terming a hate crime.
The men, 22 and 23, told police they were assaulted by three to four people in black, who beat them unconscious early Sunday as they walked along the beach after a night out in town during their spring break.
“We decided to wind up our evening by walking on the beach,” said one of the young men, who asked that their names not be released. At the invitation of a group of people, the two stopped at a campfire gathering but soon started to feel uncomfortable and left. They believe they may have been followed.
One of the victims said someone in the group of assailants asked if they were gay, “then called us ‘queer’ and ‘faggot’ as they attacked us,” he said.
The attackers left the two men lying on the beach, unconscious. After they came to, the two stumbled into a nearby hotel seeking help. …
The state Supreme Court has never been all that clear on what it considers revision, but it has set the bar high, finding only twice that supposed amendments actually revised the Constitution. …
The California court rejected similar challenges to the death penalty and to Proposition 13, both of which, it ruled, were properly considered amendments, not revisions. And this year, the Oregon Court of Appeals rejected a suit on same-sex marriage much like the current lawsuits — Oregon’s Constitution has similar provisions on revision and equal protection. As a result, the legal challenge to Proposition 8 is generally seen as a long shot.
Yet that doesn’t mean the suits are without merit. The California court has indicated that the quality of the change matters, not just its length or breadth. Gay-rights supporters, including the largest cities in the state and dozens of legislators, argue that by stripping a protected group of the right to marry, Proposition 8 nullifies the equal protection provisions of the U.S. and California constitutions. The Oregon court disagreed, but there is a potentially important difference between the two states: The Oregon Supreme Court has never ruled that marriage is a fundamental right under its state Constitution. The California Supreme Court has. …
In Colorado, gays and lesbians were denied legal protection against discrimination in housing, employment and other basics of life. The [U.S. Supreme Court] cited the breadth and basic nature of these rights in its ruling, saying there could be no legitimate state interest in the measure, simply animosity toward one group; in contrast, same-sex marriage is both newer and narrower, though, according to the California high court, an equally basic right.
Although we too will welcome the day that Proposition 8 is consigned to history and the right to same-sex marriage is restored to Californians, we are sorry to see that the court agreed to take the cases directly, rather than letting this issue percolate up through the lower courts. We see no reason for the haste…
You would if your marriage was in legal limbo.
Similarly, painful though it is to see Proposition 8 take effect, we agree with the court’s decision to allow it to stand as law until the court rules. This is a hateful measure, passed after a campaign of misleading scare tactics, but it did pass. …
Many voters will claim that the courts should have no jurisdiction at all. Just as they did after the California court’s May ruling that legalized same-sex marriage, these people will complain about “activist judges” potentially subverting the will of the people. …
The California Supreme Court could rule either way on whether Proposition 8 amounts to a constitutional revision, but the issue demands its attention. The court already has found that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right; now it has the opportunity to fulfill its constitutional obligations to guard against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure that elections do not become vehicles of repression.
As thrilled as we are to hear that X-thousand people came out in San Francisco and New York and Chicago for Saturday’s nationwide Proposition 8 protests, we’re even more impressed by the smaller cities and towns where a hundred people, or just a dozen, gay and straight, braved brutal climates, of both the environmental and the anti-gay varieties. It’s not easy to stand on a street corner and absorb the hate even when you’ve got 2,000 people on your side; we can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to do the same thing when your group numbers a few dozen — or just a few.
So, let’s look at a quick rundown of the best numbers I could find for the “big” protests, and then take a moment to appreciate some brave souls who took up the mantle of equality for all in places you might least expect anyone to do it.
The Big Protests: 2,000 People or More
New York - ? (I’ve heard everything from 4,000 on up.)
Several dozen protested in downtown Anchorage Saturday afternoon. …
Alaska was the first state in the nation to constitutionally ban gay marriage, back in 1998, when voters approved the change by a more than a two-to-one margin.
About 25 gay rights advocates held up signs in front of Fairbanks City Hall…
Voters in Alaska approved a ban on gay marriage 10 years ago.
An Army wife organized the gathering in Fairbanks, which started at 9:30 a.m. and involved waving signs in front of passing motorists on Cushman Street.
One sign read, “Love is love.” Another: “Equal rights for all.” A man held a sign saying, “I am Sarah Palin’s gay friend.”
Kristen Magann, the organizer, described herself as heterosexual, happily married and a believer that sexual preference should not determine civil rights.
“I want to make this message heard,” she stated in an e-mail, “that all people no matter their sexual orientation should be allowed the same rights under the law.”
More than 100 people rallied on the corners of East Magnolia Street and Cornwall Avenue in Bellingham the morning of Saturday, Nov. 15, to protest California’s recent ban on gay marriage.
Chants of “It’s about love not hate,” and “Hey mister president, what do you say, don’t hate families because they’re gay” filled blocks of downtown Bellingham during the two-hour protest. …
The protesters in Bellingham were outside the Federal Building from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. A smaller group continued the protest outside the Bellingham Farmer’s Market after noon.
The ironic marquee of the Empress Theatre on Virginia Street served as an appropriate backdrop to a Proposition 8 protest Saturday night.
On one level of the marquee, the Empress Theatre advertised an upcoming gay and lesbian night, while one line below it advertised the Latter-day Saints Concert series.
The Saturday concert was what prompted about 75 people to gather in front of the theater chanting and demanding a return of same-sex marriage rights that the passage of Prop. 8 eliminated.
Solano County is the only Bay Area county where voters approved Prop. 8.
About 75 people showed up to a Fairfield rally organized by Fairfield High School student Crystal Nievera, 16.
“Not everyone voted yes on 8 (in Solano County),” said Nievera, who feared a small showing based on what her Facebook group told her.
The protesters met at Fairfield City Hall and marched to Solano County Municipal Court, where they would be more visible on busy Texas Street.
The young organizer invoked the spirit of slain Fairfield councilman Matt Garcia, a strong supporter of youth before he was gunned down in September at age 22.
“This is why today, I’m trying to make a difference,” Nievera said.
Toni Pinck stood quietly next to Chauvin, holding a “No on Prop. 8” sign. Her son was married in San Francisco Aug. 15.
“I’m here to show support for people that are still fighting for their civil rights,” she said. “I wouldn’t have been able to vote for Proposition 8 if it weren’t for people who fought for the woman’s right to vote many years ago.”
Marina Martinez and Evelyn Iraheta, also Tracy residents, were married Oct. 24 in Stockton. They said they thought their neighbors were supportive of their marriage before Proposition 8 was introduced in June, until the “Yes on 8” signs began to appear. …
Demonstrators also took to the streets of Salinas against Prop 8. The Salinas march happened to take place on the same day an event at Hartnell College called for the strengthening of families.
. . .
The latest returns in Monterey County show the Proposition 8 race was much closer, than Santa Cruz County. No on 8 collected 52% of the total vote.
Young gay students, middle-aged white and Latino couples and community activists came together Saturday on the city’s streets to protest passage of Proposition 8. …
“We are here because we need to remind people we live in a nation under civil law and Prop. 8 forces some to live according to the religious views of others,” said Randall Lopez, an organizer with the Inland Empire Human Rights Coalition, which held the local protest. …
On Saturday morning, about 30 people gathered in front of Colton City Hall to kick off the rally. …
Nicolas Daily, 19, of Redlands, who described himself as a gay black man, stood high on the steps urging the group to join him in singing “Let it Be” and “Somewhere over the Rainbow.”
“I honestly just want people to know this is not going to go away,” he said. “We are going to be out here until we get our rights.”
Cherie Stevens, Mother of gay son: “We want our son to have the very same rights as his straight brothers.”
Cherie and her husband were among a group of 60 individuals at the Bonneville County Courthouse who all wanted to make their voices and opinions heard. They say our country was founded on the idea of equality and will now just take some time before this rings true for everyone.
Jamee Greer took charge of a sizable crowd that united and protested Saturday in favor of gay marriage rights, a group pulled together in Missoula by the Internet and text messages.
He gave the group its marching orders, announcing the rules of the road, as the protesters carried signs and prepared to march from North Higgins Avenue to the Missoula County Courthouse.
“This is about basic human rights and civil rights not being met here at home in Montana,” said Greer…
In Missoula, Brian Cook wore a picture of his 21-year-old gay son, Andrew Sullivan-Cook, who was in Dallas marching with Join the Impact protesters. “I’m here, not only in support of my son’s rights, but it’s simply the right thing to do,” said Cook. “Even if my son wasn’t gay, I’d be here.”
Cook said his daughter, and 15-month-old grandson, would be marching in Dallas alongside his son.
About 65 people are gathered in front of Grand Forks’s Town Square this afternoon to protest the passage of Proposition 8 in California…
The group first came together at about 12:30 p.m. in front of Grand Forks City Hall. The protest is part of a nationwide event in 300 cities, according to jointheimpact.com. The Grand Forks event is scheduled to run until 3:30 p.m.
At about 1:30 p.m., the group left their spot in front to move to Town Square at the corner of DeMers Avenue and Third Street.
Horns were honking for several hours early Saturday afternoon, supporting about 120 gay rights activists with signs and flags who were protesting the recent approval of California’s Proposition 8. …
There were many supportive honks throughout the afternoon, said John McClelland, president of the Stonewall Democrats of Denton County, a gay and lesbian political organization.
Jack Harnstrom and Jon Hill have been partners for 14 years, but when California was set to vote on banning same-sex marriages, the Duluth residents raced to Palm Spring, Calif., to be wed.
Their wedding ceremony was Nov. 3, a day before California voted to take away that right. On Saturday afternoon, the couple joined about 75 others at a gay rights rally against California’s Proposition 8 at Lake Avenue and Superior Street in downtown Duluth.
More than 120 people lined the street in front of the Federal Building Saturday afternoon to protest the recent passage of a California ballot proposal banning same-sex marriage.
Signs reading “Stop the Hate” and “Equal Rights for All” attracted honks as passing motorists showed support. The crowd stretched nearly a full block along West Michigan Avenue.
They were among about 100 people who attended the rally in front of MSU Auditorium.
Organized by MSU Alliance of Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgendered and Straight Ally Students, the protest was one of hundreds that took place Saturday nationwide.
Among the nationwide turnouts Saturday was a gathering of about 40 people at the corner of Main and University streets in Peoria. The group protested the decision that affected an estimated 18,000 California couples seeking the legal distinction. …
“This is a more conservative area, and we know that. Everybody knows someone who is gay. A lot of times it’s just not talked about. But we still participate in the homeowners’ associations, or neighborhood watch groups. … We buy Girl Scout cookies from neighbors’ kids.
“I do what I can to support my neighbors and their families. Why not support me and my family, my relationship?”
University students and Champaign-Urbana families took to the streets Saturday to protest the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California which bans gay marriage. …
The event in Campustown was sponsored by the Office of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Resources and was organized by Brooke Elliot, senior in Education, and Virginia McCreary, graduate student.
Elliot said they planned a protest on campus because many people were not able to get to Chicago for its protest. …
About 80 protestors stood on the corners with colorful signs. Some cars driving down Green Street honked in support of the cause.
At 1 p.m. the protestors had a moment of silence which was broken by a car honking in support of the protest. The protestors then marched down Green Street to Fourth Street and back again shouting their message and waving their signs.
The protestors were met with little resistance.
On two occasions, groups of students walking past the protestors made remarks in opposition of the protest.
One worker at Potbelly Sandwich Works opened the door as the protestors were walking past and said, “Good job guys!”
Every time a car honked, they cheered. A group of about 20 people stood at the corner of Main Street and Jefferson Boulevard in downtown South Bend on Saturday, waving signs in support of same-sex marriage. …
“It sets a precedent,” said Mandy Studdard, who helped organize the South Bend rally. “People say ‘If the rest of the country doesn’t want this, why should we have it here?’ We’ve got to set a different precedent. That’s not how it’s supposed to be.”
About 50 people protested in Jackson outside the state capitol…
“[W]hen people see protests happening around the country, they’ll understand that this isn’t just an issue that’s happening somewhere else, this is an American issue happening everywhere, because it affects all of us,” organizer Brent Cox said.
A mixed group of students and local activists marched in protest today as part of a national day of action against the passage of California’s constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
Nearly 100 students and residents joined for a march from the drill field around campus and back chanting slogans, bearing signs and waving and cheering at passing cars.
“We’re in southwest Virginia, we want to improve the LGBT community’s visibility and we want people here to know we exist,” said organizer Tami Grossman.
About 35 people gathered in front of Greenville City Hall on Saturday afternoon to protest voter passage of California’s Proposition 8, a referendum that reversed a state supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage. …
The group protested peacefully and without incident, displaying signs and flags representing gay pride. They sang songs of protest, led by Georgia Winfree, of the group Someone’s Sister, then marched together along Fifth Street where an occasional passing car honked in response.
In Macon on Saturday, more than 50 advocates for Join the Impact, an international organization supporting equal rights for people who identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, protested the California Proposition 8 vote outside City Hall.
Protesters waved signs reading “What Would Martin Do?” “Fight the H8” and “Would You Rather I Marry Your Daughter?” …
“Today’s protest is a small piece of the puzzle,” said Alex Webb, organizer of the Macon rally. “This started off as an online movement and has become a national and international phenomenon. There are people in London standing with us right now … standing with us against our treatment as second-class citizens, standing for equal rights for all.”
150 people came out on a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon to show support for same-sex marriage and solidarity with gay and lesbian people in California. …
Protesters gathered at the corner of Elmwood Avenue and Bidwell Parkway with signs that advocated equality under state marriage laws for all people. The event began at 1:30pm and also featured remarks by local activist Kitty Lambert and New York State Assembly member Sam Hoyt.
Standing on the steps of City Hall, more than 70 gay men, lesbians and their supporters yesterday protested a California vote banning same-sex marriage and called for all states to provide civil marriage “equality.” …
A steady stream of drivers crawling across usually crowded Main Street honked their horns in support of the crowd. Many drivers yelled out “Yes” and “Way to go” or waved their fists in solidarity. For at least the first hour of the demonstration, no passers-by said or did anything in opposition to the gay-marriage cause.
“Westchester is a very, very affirming place to live,” said Scott Havelka of Rye Brook, interim executive director of The Loft, a gay community services center in White Plains, which supported the rally.
About 100 supporters of marriage equality for same-sex couples stood in a steady drizzle outside Burlington City Hall on Saturday to register their disappointment with the outcome of the Proposition 8 vote in California Nov. 4.
Vermont Freedom to Marry Task Force field director Robyn Maguire rallied the crowd, insisting that Vermont could do better than California.
“We want Vermont to reclaim its role in this important civil rights issue,” Maguire said. “It’s been eight years and it’s time for us to move forward. Now more than ever does Vermont matter.”
Gay marriage proponents united Saturday in grass-roots protests around the country — including one in Market Square. …
“It’s a matter of equality,” said Forest Stone, a Portsmouth resident, as she stood in the rain Saturday among nearly 100 other sign-touting, umbrella-gripping demonstrators.
Like dozens of others, Stone and her 6-year-old daughter Annalie both held bright signs facing traffic in front of the North Church, while some people in passing cars encouraged the efforts with honks and shouts.
“We’re small but mighty,” said protest organizer Jennifer Rowe today.
Rowe, along with Amanda Zuke, Kyle Cardoza, Liz Laplante and two other concerned citizens, gathered outside Sault Ste. Marie’s Civic Centre to protest the recent adoption of California’s Proposition 8, outlawing same-sex marriage.
“We’re here to show our support for those in the United States who are fighting to get same-sex marriage recognized and for human rights across the board,” Rowe told SooToday.com. …
“The battle may have been fought and won in Canada to allow people to marry whoever they want, but being respected just as another human being is still a problem,” said Rowe. “There’s still a long way to go in some cases.” …
Rowe says she’s already started planning something to happen locally in support of Join the Impact’s fight.
We may have our interstate squabbling out here on the West Coast, but when the going gets tough, our neighbors to the north get going. No, not Canada, but Oregon — and if any state knows what it means to have religious extremists invade and attack LGBTs, unprovoked and with a vengeance, it’s Oregon.
Although Oregon’s always been considered California’s hick cousin…
Not from this corner it hasn’t! Come on, you know we plan to take you (and Washington, and Hawaii — but not Alaska) with us when we secede.
…it looks that state might actually need our help on gay rights.
Yes, please!
…[A] web page called “Oregonians Against Prop 8”, which rolled out today, is … a site where average Oregonians can donate cash to the cause.
The web page was created by Thalia Zepatos — who recently moved back to Oregon after serving more than 3 1/2 years as director of organizing and training for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — and Basic Rights Oregon Executive Director, Jeana Frazzini.
“The No on Prop 8 campaign has raised $11 million—more than any other LGBT campaign in history,” says Zepatos.
But Zepatos says the opposition, which calls Prop 8 the “Armageddon of the culture war”, “is lighting a fire under donors nationwide” and has raised $16 million — 35-percent of that from Mormon donors alone (see MormonsFor8.com).
With 35 million residents, California is bigger than many nations that have legalized same-sex marriage.
And Zepatos says a lot of money is needed to campaign there. …
More at the link.
To our northern neighbors: Please help. And not only will I pledge, on my father’s grave, to donate as much as I can to your next fight against the bigots, but I will guarantee that two Californians will never move to Oregon.
Kudos to the Coquille Indian Tribe in southern Oregon, which gave the green light to full marriage equality for a lesbian couple, Kitzen and Jeni Branting.
Why is this a big deal to anyone outside the Coquille Tribe? A couple of reasons: First, while Two-Spirits have long been recognized and honored within many Native-American tribes…
…after a lesbian couple married under an ambiguous Cherokee law in Oklahoma three years ago, that tribe’s council adopted a law banning same-sex marriage. Other tribes across the nation, including the Navajos, the nation’s largest tribe, passed similar bans…
We remember that very well, and were shocked and dismayed. So, the Coquille decision is a precedent of sorts, which, we hope, will kick some sense into other tribes that have abandoned their Two-Spirit members.
Second — and here’s where it gets really interesting:
As a federally recognized sovereign nation, the tribe is not bound by the Oregon’s Constitution. …
Because the Coquilles have federal status, a marriage within the tribe would be federally recognized, [says University of Vermont anthropology professor Brian Gilley and author of Becoming Two-Spirit: Gay Identity and Social Acceptance in Indian Country]. And that would violate the Defense of Marriage Act, a law that says the federal government “may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose.”
The federal government could challenge the Coquille law as a way of testing the limits of tribal independence.
“This could be a test of sovereignty,” he says.
The tribe concluded that the Defense of Marriage Act may bar the tribe from conferring federal benefits or money on same-sex spouses, said Melissa Cribbins, assistant tribal attorney.
So, while the marriage of a lesbian couple within an 850-member Native American tribe in Oregon may not sound like much to anyone else, it’s entirely possible that the ripple effect could reach all the way to Washington, and impact DOMA itself. This is definitely one story to watch.
Read the full story (and see a picture of the beaming brides-to-be) at The Oregonian.
In the meantime (and all politics aside), congratulations to the happy couple! Thirteen days into my own marriage, I can attest: When you know you’ve found The One, that next step of permanent (and public) commitment enhances the very act of living itself.
The last good news we heard out of Oregon was in June, when the bigots up there abandoned efforts to strip gay Oregonians of both domestic partnerships and protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Now the rights of LGBTs in the Beaver State hinge in part on the 9th Circuit’s ruling in the case known as Lemons v. Bradbury, summarized by Basic Rights Oregon as “the lawsuit brought by out-of-state anti-equality groups seeking to revive last year’s failed referendum on Oregon’s domestic partnership law by forcing elections officials to change the way they treat signatures on citizen petitions.”
The Oregonian explains that the anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund…
…is seeking to reverse a decision by Oregon elections officials who disqualified a referendum on Oregon’s new law giving many of the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples who register for domestic partnerships. Officials said the petition was short of the number of voter signatures needed to get on the November ballot. …
Domestic partnership opponents gathered signatures for a referendum that would delay the law from going into effect and put it up for a public vote. Elections officials said opponents came up about 100 short of the required 55,000 signatures, but the group complained that valid signatures had been rejected and filed a federal lawsuit.
U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman initially delayed the law from going into effect, but on Feb. 1 rejected the lawsuit.
By all accounts, including those of folks live-blogging yesterday’s hearing, it sounds to us like the three judges are indeed, as Basic Rights Oregon puts it, “keenly aware of the issues at stake in the case. They questioned the plaintiffs’ demands for special treatment in the signature verification process, and their comments suggested to us that they understood how a ruling in favor of our opponents could have far-reaching consequences on election laws in many other states besides Oregon.”
A decision may take up to 30 days; however, Oregon’s deadline for certifying ballot initiatives in August 2, so if the 9th Circuit wants to overturn the lower court’s ruling, they’ve got just over three weeks.
We have a hunch the good guys will win this one, and the 9th Circuit will uphold the dismissal.
What’s really surprising in this story is that I got all the way to the end of this post without referring to Austin Nimrocks as “Nimrod.” (Oops!)
SALEM — Social conservatives and church groups are admitting defeat in their efforts to collect signatures for initiatives to repeal two Oregon gay rights laws in this November’s election.
The campaigns were aimed at derailing a domestic partnership law and another new law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Both were enacted by the 2007 Legislature.
Opponents say they are dropping their efforts to qualify the repeal initiatives for this fall’s ballot because neither has received a state-approved ballot title and the deadline for turning in signatures is only a few weeks away — July 3rd.
Former state Sen. Marylin Shannon, a Brooks Republican who was co-sponsor of the measure to repeal the domestic partnership law, said opponents aren’t going to give up and will work to place a repeal measure on the 2010 ballot.
“There should be a vote of the people on this,” Shannon said. …
Yeah, as soon as gay and lesbian Oregonians can vote on your marriage, Marilyn — and vote to deny employment and housing to hate-filled bigots… like you.
OREGON CITY, Ore. — A 16-year-old member of an Oregon City faith healing church was found dead at his home in Gladstone Tuesday night, according to police. …
Police arrived to find a 16-year-old boy dead inside. Benton said the teen’s family was with him when he died. …
Sergeant Benton said the family belongs to the Oregon City Followers of Christ Church.
The church is a fundamentalist Christian denomination that recently made headlines after two members were arrested and accused of using prayer instead of medical care to try to cure their mortally ill daughter. …
My initial reply to Will, by email, was that, in short:
It will be used against Democrats by the Republicans, and against all LGBTs by the same Democrats who have blamed us for every electoral loss since 2000 — no matter whether a Democrat wins the WH, or how many congressional seats Dems pick up in November.
A lot of Dems who claim to be pro-equality are already hitting us with the cry, “Why NOW?! You’re going to kill us in November!” — as if we ever have anything to do with the timing of any court decision. (This one took four years, btw.)
Happens every election cycle. You can set your watch by it.
When asked if the decision could “hurt” the Democratic Party in November, this is what San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom had to say:
I’m fed up with tactics. I’m fed up with being a member of the Democratic Party that cares more about winning than what it is we’re supposed to do once we win.
If we can’t stand up on the principle of supporting gay and lesbian rights, then how dare we claim to support civil rights, or human rights, or women’s rights? That’s the basis of the foundation of our party.
And so, for me, with all due respect, those that are playing tactical games, that are concerned about the politics today or tomorrow, there’ll never be a good time to do this. It wasn’t good two years ago during the congressional mid-term elections. It wasn’t good enough four years ago because of the presidential election, it’s not good enough today, it won’t be good enough two years … from now, for the governor’s race. It’s never the right time, and that’s why it is the right time. We have an obligation, a moral and ethical one.
And I’m just proud to be part of it, a small part, and I couldn’t be more proud of the State of California for taking the leadership yet again, entwining ourselves with the good work Massachusetts did a year or two ago.
Amen.
There will be (and always is) the same rending of garments and gnashing of teeth as there was immediately after the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision in November, 2003, which got much worse once Mass actually started issuing marriage licenses in May, 2004 — not even six months prior to the last chance we had to throw George W. Bush out of office.
Comments at Democratic Underground
From 2003:
“I am not anti-gay rights but…. I don’t think this is a good time for the gay-marriage issue.”
“Oh God! The Gay Marriage Ruling Is Likely To Help Bush in ‘04.”
“Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not gay, but I’m not homophobic either. I’m just thinking that this decision is bad, bad timing politically. How many assholes will seize on this to boost Bush? In other words, for all the trouble in Iraq, the economy etc, a lot of people will think this is more important. I have no problem with the decision. I just wish it had occurred after the ‘04 election. Now the democratic hopefuls will be asked to give an opinion on the decision. Woe is us.
“And this is not to say that the court should have ruled the other way because of the timing of it. I’m just lamenting the fact that we (the democratic) party are going to get an awful backlash from this one. Especially when you consider the other rulings lately about the ten commandments, etc.”
“It is too soon for gay marriage”
“Why not advance the idea of civil unions first. Let people get use to that idea and then push for marriage.”
“This isn’t the time. Our number one priority has to be getting bush the hell out of office. This won’t help that cause.”
“it hurts Democrats.”
“I’ve never met anyone, liberal or not who didn’t express utter disgust at the idea of gay marriage. This includes people I know who are otherwise open-minded and liberal on most every other issue.
“Some form of gay rights such as a civil union of some sort would be more acceptable. But for 99% of the people out there the very idea of gay marriage is just repulsive with capitial R. The gay marrige issue would severely cripple any democratic candidate’s to beat Bush if they support it. Let’s not go down that road.
“There are people dying in Iraq and people losing their jobs here at home. These are much more pressing issues then whether a gay person should be allowed to marry. I’m not homophobic, but I feel that gays ought to think about the well-being of others much less fortunate than themselves.”
“How should we handle wedge issues? Like gay marriage, flag burning & abortion… I say we dismiss them completely. Firmly say that it’s manufactured to divide us & leave it at that. When pressed, just say you won’t take the bait. If someone feels so strongly about it, they can join a special interest group.”
From 2004:
“The gay marriage issue hijacked our party. I think the gay and lesbian community decided to make this a visible issue on state ballots because they thought they could ride on the coattails of the Mass. court decision and Kerry. They ended up hurting him. They could have waited until an off Presidential election year to go ballistic. This issue ended up being identified directly with Kerry on the Ohio ballot and ten other states. Many Democratic Christians who would have normally voted for Kerry went with their family and moral values. I’m not homophobic…”
“You DO need to get over it! You are a citizen of the United States before you are gay. You owe a responsibility to your country FIRST!! Yeah, you’re gay, many people are, we cannot allow the you know who’s to use gays as the new ‘blacks’ to divide our country with the gay marriage issue.”
“This Becomes an Issue: (IE the Democratic Party takes a position in support of gay marriage), and the Democrats go down in flames in November. The constitutional amendment–which Sen. Frist is going to force Kerry to vote on–will easily pass. In fact, the worse of the two amendments will pass. Even if that doesn’t pass–but believe me it will– Bush will get to appoint up to 6 Supreme Court Justices.”
“I think the Democratic Party should not even come close to this issue. The farther away the better. If this becomes a major issue with leading Democrats crusading for gay marriage, George McGovern will end up looking like a successful candidate.”
“my gay friends, delay marriage … Just delay till December. Why hand Republicans 5 percent more of the vote, when you can stay quietly on the sidelines and deny them this issue?”
“this is not the time to deal with this issue and the right just is using it as a scare tactic.”
“I Am Outraged By Gay People … Well, not really. But I am kinda annoyed by their (meaning those forcing the issue, not all gays) impeccably bad sense of timing. … By pushing this into an unpopular culture war during an election year, these gay activists are screwing up their own agenda. If they demonstrated a few months of patience, it would serve them well.”
“The gay marriage issue is a disaster waiting to happen. We will lose on this issue if we allow it to become an entrenched part of the debate. So here’s the question: will the gay community, and those who heavily support gay rights, keep quiet during the primaries and the election? Will they trust the Democratic party to do the right thing once they are in office? In essence, will they take a play out of the conservative movement and allow a wink, wink throughout the campaign?”
“I know these social issues are what hurt us. I know because I live in a sea of right wingers who say they wouldnt vote for us because of the gay and abortion issues. The country is not ready for this yet. Maybe in a decade, not now.
“Suit yourselves though. I have no problems with these issues but I do know its why we are losing our asses.”
“IMO these should be personal issues. They would get MORE support by not being associated with either party.”
“Keep believing that the gay marriage issue didnt cost us Ohio, when it clearly did. Since Ohio cost us the race well what else can I say. … The turnout in southern Ohio was beyond the wildest dreams of Karl Rove and they all turned out for the gay marriage ban.”
“Homos will just need to have a little patience and trust us in the long run.”
From 2005:
“You [gay people] are impatient.”
“It’s political suicide to come out in favor of gay marriage.”
“Everyone just needs to shut up about their ‘own issue’ and stand behind the party.”
“Get a grip on reality! This is not a winning issue right now.”
From 2006:
“This issue is going to lose us elections right now and we should lay off until a good chunk of the old farts who oppose it die off. In about 10 or 15 years the Nation will be ready for this fight but right now it’s too early.”
“Why not take what you can get with bills like Howard Deans for the meantime and hopefully in two years you will get someone like Dean or Gore as President, who will change the law and give you all the same rights Married people have without changing the name and pissing off all the fundies?”
“Goddamn it…gays I love ya’, but couldn’t you have waited. WTF. Why is it that the gay marriage issues always crops up right before the election. I fully support homosexual rights, but this ruling by the NJ Supreme Court just energized the Christofascist vote and will likely result in an erosion of Dem wins in Nov. Next time, can we just table the homosexual marriage thing until mid-election cycle?”
“[T]his victory is likely to cost us control of Congress or the Senate. What good is this victory when it just sets us all back and puts more anti-gay politicans in office? Make NO MISTAKE there will be push-back on this…just like in 2004.”
“THis is really going to be a problem and the righties are going to exploit it ASAP. It really may turn the tide. We are struggling as it is just to keep the momentum going and the ROve machine is just moving into second gear as witnessed in Tennesee. WE may be fucked now.”
“Politically speaking this victory just handed Rove a MAJOR campaign issue.”
“[T]he Christian fundamentalists are sure to turn out in droves because of this decision now. They were the ones who might have helped us win the election, by staying home. So I wouldn’t be surprised in the next week or so that it becomes widely accepted we are going to lose. Worst fucking time for this, you have to wonder why this happened right before the election and not after the election.”
“It’s a slippery slope. Since if this causes us to lose elections in other states, we may never make progress in those states due to the loss of influence and election. Even with the original civil rights movement, they didn’t need a hammer to break an egg. The timing of this is conspicuous.”
“The timing of this ruling SUCKS politically. I know it is a correct decision, but it will hurt our chances in taking back Congress.”
“You will see. I would say this decision has put a Democratic win in the House in Jeapordy.”
“Just watch how the GOP base and our worthless media react to this story. It’ll bump Iraq from the public debate. And it will get the fundie base to the polls just like it did in 2004.”
“There’s an election in two weeks, and pretending that the GOP isn’t supported by a vast mob of semi-literate homophobes won’t make the problem go away.”
“The Civil Rights Act cost the Democrats the South for a generation.”
“Right now, the priorities are different in this country, and if gay marriage can detract from other, more pressing issues, yeah, the Democrats are going to eat it yet again in November, because the diversion will have worked. And gay marriage can kiss its own ass goodby for another decade or two.”
“Timing is all, and now is not the time.”
“Why couldn’t the court in New Jersey contemplate the case until mid-November?”
“Yep. Bad timing. Fundies will be voting in force.”
“All the special interest issues on the ballots like gay marriage helped keep bu$h close enough that swapping a few thousand votes made it harder to prove it was stolen.”
“It was those gay marriage amendments that brought out the funide vote”
“How many of those people wouldn’t have even come out to vote if those initiatives weren’t on the ballot? Besides, they see the Democrats as the party of the queers anyway, so it doesn’t matter whether or not Kerry was against it. He’s guilty by association.”
When the New Jersey civil-unions decision came down just two weeks before the November, 2006, mid-term elections, the howls of doom became deafening. The timing was somehow our fault, and it was our fault the Dems were going to lose the mid-terms, big-time. (As I told some hysterical naysayer at the time: “If only we queers had as much power as you credit us with, we’d rule the world. What do you think we did, influence a state supreme court by mass telepathy?”)
Contrary to all the Criswell-like predictions, Democrats swept the 2006 mid-terms, picking up 31 seats in the House (putting Republicans in the minority for the first time in twelve years), the largest gain for the Dems since 1974.
Meanwhile, Democrats replaced Republicans in five open gubernatorial races, and booted the Repub incumbent, Robert Ehrlich, out of Maryland’s governor’s mansion.
Not a single Democratic incumbent in Congress, or in any gubernatorial race, lost his or her seat.
We’re still waiting for an apology from all those Democrats who opened with the usual disclaimer, “I’m not homophobic / Some of my best friends are gay / I think you deserve equal rights, but…,” and then went on to blame us uppity gays for what was sure to be a huge loss for the Dems.
We’re not holding our collective breath.
Now, you could surmise (and you’d be right) that the good people of the United States were just so fed up with Republicans, nothing would have stopped them from 86ing the bums. You could also guess (and you’d be right) that the 2006 mid-terms were in no small part a backlash against George W. Bush himself, two years after voters (and that resounding failure known as John Kerry1, whose election it was to lose) missed the opportunity to make the 2004 presidential election a referendum on Bush’s colossal cock-up of a first term.
Or you could say that marriage equality just wasn’t that big an issue in 2006, because Republicans didn’t make it an issue. And you’d be right about that, too.
A fact that always gets lost amidst all the finger-pointing after a Dem loss is this: We queers did not turn same-sex marriage into the divisive issue it is today — the Republicans (specifically, evil genius Karl Rove) did.
As I wrote to someone who questioned “the big [marriage] movement at that particular point in time” in 2006, which served only to strip gay and lesbian Americans of rights we never had in the first place:
You have to understand something.
There was no “big movement” from the LGBT side; we were quite aware that full equality was a process of baby steps. The “big movement” was a [right-wing] attack tactic, and once they dropped it in our laps, what were we supposed to say? “Thanks, but no, we don’t want to get married” - ?
I feel quite confident in stating that most of us would have been quite happy with “just” equal rights in housing, employment, hospital visitation, inheritance, and (my personal issue) immigration, et al., and then, ultimately, civil unions. To be honest, I never thought we’d get full-fledged marriage in the U.S. (and now, I know we never will, at least not in my lifetime), and I for one wasn’t pushing for it when the whole anti-marriage movement came crashing down on our heads.
It wasn’t strange timing at all. It was perfectly timed, by the anti-gay brigades.
I stand by that, and I’ve repeated it countless times: There was no concerted effort on the gay side to win marriage equality; we were just trying to make inroads in the areas of basic protections, when the Rove Machine came up with the bright idea of making marriage the issue to whip the radical religionists into a frenzy. And now that the marriage war has been foisted upon us, we can’t very well sit back and not fight.
In any case, by 2006, the Republicans had overplayed the anti-gay card — they downright wore the damned thing out. It’s not that the country suddenly came to its collective senses and stopped passing anti-gay legislation (although there has been some progress in making John Q. Public understand that “gay” does not equate to “Baby-Jesus-hating child molester and sworn enemy of baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet”) — it’s that we’ve been legislated into permanent second-class citizenship in so many states, there just aren’t that many left where wholesale persecution of gay and lesbian Americans is going to fly with the general public. About the only thing left is to put us on the trains and send us to the camps. (Nah, don’t worry; I’m not giving the haters any new ideas — there are plenty who already propose doing just that.)
In 2004, the Radical Right managed to get same-sex marriage bans written into the constitutions of twelve states (Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah). In 2006, another seven states (Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin) jumped on the bigotry bandwagon. (As of today, a total of 25 states have constitutional marriage bans. Twelve prohibit recognition of any form of same-sex unions, and 20 more have statutory DOMAs. Put them all together, and 37 states have some form of prohibition on marriage equality; that’s just one less state that would be needed to ratify a federal constitutional ban.)
But a curious thing happened in 2006: voters in Arizona defeated a constitutional ban — albeit narrowly (51.4% to 48.6%). Proponents (and their far-right cohorts) blamed the loss on the fact that in addition to banning same-sex marriage, Proposition 107 would have also denied all unmarried couples any legal status whatsoever (similar to Virginia’s draconian amendment, which prohibits recognition of any legal contracts between “unmarried individuals” conferring benefits that could be interpreted as “marriage-like”).
In other words, explained the disappointed righties, heterosexual Arizonans realized the amendment would invalidate their relationships, so the straights voted it down in their own best interest, and not out of any solidarity with, or even compassion for, their gay and lesbian neighbors.
That may be true, but if it is, it doesn’t explain why heterosexual Virginians didn’t vote down their amendment. Oh, you can debate the reasons if you like, but at some point, the argument is going to come down to one of two things: Either 1) Arizonans are better informed than Virginians, or 2) Virginians are more mean-spirited than Arizonans.
Or is it all about religion… as usual? Anybody who knows Arizona knows that while the Grand Canyon State fits like a puzzle piece into California’s southernmost nether regions, the only thing the two states have in common is a whole lot of empty, hot desert.2 (If proximity to California had any influence on a state’s level of tolerance for diversity, Oregon wouldn’t be filled with wild-eyed fundy radicals. In terms of the state’s climate for queers, Oregon is nothing more than Colorado with an ocean view.) Arizona is chock-full of Mormons; last time I checked, Arizona (23rd in population out of the 50 states) hovers around the number-four or number-five spot among states with the highest number (close to 200,000 in 1990) and percentage (over 5%) of Latter-Day Saints. And, as we all know (or should), Mormons are among the most actively anti-gay religious factions in the nation.
Yet, in 2006, Arizona became the first state in the union to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In the meantime, and in the wake of victories both large and small (such as the passage of civil unions in Connecticut, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s order for the city to recognize out-of-state and out-of-country same-sex marriages) both in the U.S. and elsewhere (e.g., all-encompassing legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada and South Africa, passage of the U.K.’s Civil Partnership Act), New Jersey passed its “near-beer” civil unions, causing nary a ripple in the results of the 2006 mid-terms.
The optimistic view is that straight society has finally figured out that acknowledging our right to be just as happily (or miserably) wed as everybody else does not result in legions of heterosexuals suddenly waking up and deciding they want one-a them homer-sex-shul weddings too, ’cause, goldurnit, it’s just so much easier to be a queer. And they’ve had four years to observe that the Bay State has not been consumed by God’s wrath and disappeared into the Atlantic.
That doesn’t mean that certain factions of the Democratic Party aren’t still predicting doom and gloom for the 2008 presidential election. You’d think, what with the Iraq War now in its sixth non-stop year and the U.S. economy in the toilet, Americans might find another whipping boy besides us uppity homos — like the Republicans, maybe. You know, the people who started the war, and murdered the economy.
Of course, if your side loses, you can be brutally honest and examine where you went wrong: Has the party been dragged too far to the right, alienating the center-left (and further cementing the likelihood of never winning back the far left)? Did we nominate the wrong candidate? Did the supporters of the nominee alienate (and humiliate) the supporters of the opposing nominee so badly that, human nature being what it is, the latter dug in and simply refused to vote for your party’s candidate? (I’m not naming any names; I’m just looking in the direction of the Obama camp and waving.)
But brutal self-examination is just too humbling — the obliteration of one’s own cognitive dissonance is just too much for most people to stand without a near-psychotic break. So you’ve got to make sure you have (to mix metaphors) all your scapegoats in a row, pre-game.
That said, if the Dems lose the White House (and if Obama is the nominee, we’re likely looking at President McCain for the next four years), the “my party, right or wrong” types will disburse the blame, like the world’s largest lawn sprinkler, far and wide.
After they wear out the obligatory meme “The Republicans stole the election!”3 they’ll turn to a number of other tried-and-tried defenses.
First up will be to pin the blame on Hillary Clinton and her supporters. It’s entirely possible that enough HRC supporters refusing to vote for Obama will indeed cost the Dems the White House; whether that will be the “fault” of Hillary supporters for refusing to jump on the bandwagon, or Obama’s fault for failing to win over the HRC supporters, or his supporters’ fault for doing everything in their power to alienate HRC supporters — well, I’ve written about all this extensively, so you know what I think: Obama’s loss will be the result of all three factors, albeit with the first caused directly by the second and third. (In other words, I will fault both Obama and his supporters.)
But I’m certain that we queers will not escape the wrath of (some as-yet-unknown number of) Dems looking for someone else to blame for any Democratic loss.
Predictably, some have already begun to line up the scapegoats. Here’s a sampling of doom-and-gloom predictions from Democratic Underground, culled from the first three days after the California Supreme Court ruling on May 15th:
Handing a huge wedge issue to the GOP … let’s see how the gay community feels knowing they helped put McCain in the White House this November. they will be lucky to have civil unions, much less gay marriage, when that happens.
This is 2004 all over again. Talk about history repeating itself. WOW. Kerry had his Massachusetts. Obama will have his California. I knew this was going to happen. Well, it was a nice dream anyway.
MA did not help in 2004 … Facts are facts.
I’m All For Gay Rights, Women’s Rights And Getting Our Privacy rights back but I think it would be better to wait till after the election to push these issues.
If we lose the election, none of the rights will come to pass and we will lose even more. Grow up and have some patience. What the hell is another 6 months when you’ve waited this long already?
Perhaps, you [gay] guys should calm down, quit putting down your supporters, shut up and lay the necessary ground work to make gay marriage a reality.
After we win, we can press Obama and the Congress to do what is right and long over due.
“Personally I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.” –Barack Obama
I think he speaks for most of us. I have nothing against gay rights, but marriage is something that should be reserved for man and woman. But to press for it during an election in this country is the best way to lose it, both the election and not just gay rights, but EVERYONE’S civil rights. It is political suicide. You have to be an imbicile to not see that. At least Obama and Hillary are much more supportive of gay rights. But if you want to inflame the social conservatives by making gay marraige an issue this election season and help McCrazy get elected in the WH, then you won’t have any gay rights left to speak of, never mind gay marriage.
Obama supports states rights in regard to gay marriage. McCain and the republicans want a constitutional amendment to ban it. Therefore, your priority should be to get a Democrat in the WH first. THEN make gay marriage an issue. Self-righteous indignation accomplishes nothing for gay rights except handing the GOP a massive divisive wedge issue that will almost guarantee another democratic defeat in November.
And the Democratic Party just possbily lost California in November
Can We Just Win First
Then we can take on all the civil rights issues. Why throw fodder for the GOP in before the election?
And my favorite:
The gay community is fucking it up for everybody else.
I think that answers your question, Will: The ruling will fuel the fire of Democrats who were never our allies in the first place, looking for a scapegoat in a loss that hasn’t happened yet.
As to whether it will actually affect the outcome of the presidential election, I think the 2006 Dem sweep of Congress is a fair indication that any impact will be negligible.
The real concern is how the presidential election will impact the California ruling. As I’m sure you know, the radical gay-haters are in the process of getting a constitutional amendment on the state ballot in November; if this were only a mid-term election and not a major general election, its chances of passing would be much less than they already are. As presidential elections bring more voters to the polls, there will be more voters deciding whether or not we deserve the same rights they already have.
I’ll tell you something that’s very disheartening, ‘though: I’ve already seen certain Obama supporters using the November referendum as blackmail fodder against gay Hillary supporters.
I don’t think I’m reading too much into this recent comment:
you should hope that [we Obama supprters will] be out in force in November, too…
That’s when the referendum that threatens to overturn this ruling will come up for a vote.
That sure sounds like a veiled threat to me. But then, I’m naturally far more attuned to this sort of thing — and in light of the Obamaites’ constant citation of Roe v. Wade in an attempt to scare female voters into voting for Obama, I don’t think I’m reading too much into comments like that at all.
Well, all I can do is hope that the Obama supporters — even those who stoop to the level of suggesting, oh-so-subtly, that they might turn against California LGBTs out of revenge for not supporting Obama — will live up to their own standards of doing what they think is the right thing, and voting down the marriage ban.
Otherwise, that would be like me taking out my anger on women who support Obama by actively trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned (which I wouldn’t do, no matter how much the Obamanauts piss me off).
But whether the Obama people do the right thing or not, you have to ask if the November ballot measure can have any effect on last week’s marriage ruling.
I’m no lawyer, but I’ve read the ruling from beginning to end, and it appears to my layperson’s eyes that the court did a damned good job of pre-empting any attempt to invalidate the decision.
In short: How can you enact, by any means, a constitutional amendment in a state where any such amendment has already been ruled a violation of that state’s constitution?
Green Greenwald has written one of the most reasoned opinions on the ruling I’ve seen so far, addressing both the extent of the ruling itself, and the potential for overturning it by referendum:
Given the controversial nature of this ruling, there are certain to be all sorts of myths being spouted by pundits and various advocates who object to the outcome here. Thus, it is vital to note:
(1) No rational person can criticize the Court’s decision here without having at least a basic understanding of the governing California precedents. Anyone who condemns this ruling without having that understanding will be demonstrating a profound ignorance of — and contempt for — how the law works.
As the Court made clear, whether someone believes that “marriage” should include same-sex couples is completely irrelevant. It is equally irrelevant whether one believes that the U.S. Constitution can be read to require same-sex marriages. There is one issue, and only one issue, that matters here: are the provisions of the California State Constitution, in light of how they have been interpreted by that state’s Supreme Court in prior decisions, violated by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the legal institution of “marriage”?
To be able to answer that question, one must have read and understood the key cases on which the Court relied, such as Perez v. Sharp (1948), Brown v. Merlo (1973) and numerous others. For reasons I’ve written about before, anyone who criticizes the Court’s decision without reference to California constitutional law is engaged in rank sophistry or, to use a more familiar term, pure “judicial activism” (i.e., judging a constitutional question based on one’s preferred outcome rather than the requirements of binding constitutional law). Put another way, those who criticize the Court here of “judicial activism” without bothering to familiarize themselves with relevant California constitutional law are themselves engaged in the purest, and lowest, form of “judicial activism.”
(2) Equally misinformed will be anyone arguing that this is some sort of an example of judges “overriding” the democratic will of the people. The people of California, through their representatives in the State legislature, twice approved a bill to provide for the inclusion of same-sex couples in their “marriage” laws, but both times, the bill was vetoed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said when he vetoed it that he believed “it is up to the state Supreme Court” to decide the issue. …
(5) Each time there is a court decision recognizing the constitutional rights of gay couples, all sorts of hysterical political commentary ensues. In October, 2006 — right before the midterm elections — the New Jersey State Supreme Court unanimously ruled that its Constitution requires same-sex couples to be given the same set of marital rights and privileges granted to opposite-sex married couples (though it ruled, by a 4-3 vote, that it need not be called “marriage”).
As I noted at the time, all sorts of pundits and right-wing hacks shrilly predicted that the New Jersey gay rights ruling would lead to a major voter backlash that would mobilize social conservatives and destroy the Democrats’ chances for victory in the midterm elections. Needless to say, for reasons I pointed to at the time, nothing of the sort happened. Our national elections are simply not determined by a decision by the state of California — or New Jersey, Vermont or Massachusetts — to extend equal rights to their gay citizens. …
Just to underscore how exaggerated is the significance of gay marriage as a political weapon, here is a 2006 fear-mongering ad run in Arizona — featuring John McCain — urging Arizonans to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriage…
Despite scare-mongering ads of that sort, conservative/libertarian Arizona voters became the first to reject a state-wide ban on same-sex marriage, reflecting the fact that exploitation of this issue is far less politically potent than it once was. And, of course, the 2006 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling weeks before the midterm elections did nothing to help the GOP stave off crushing defeat.
Can the court’s decision be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court?
No. The decision was based on the California Constitution, and the California Supreme Court has the final say in cases brought under the California Constitution. …
Will the federal government recognize marriages of same-sex couples who marry in California?
No. Under current federal law, the federal government does not recognize marriages of same-sex couples. This means that married same-sex couples currently do not have any of the rights, benefits, or protections that federal law gives to married heterosexual couples, such as the ability to file joint federal income taxes or receive federal spousal benefits through social security or other federal programs.
However:
Could right-wing forces take away the freedom to marry at the ballot box in California?
Yes. Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.
These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California Constitution to reverse the court’s decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.
Already, many state leaders are expressing their opposition to this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, in a public statement on April 11, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that an initiative to amend the California Constitution to ban gay and lesbian couples from marriage was “a waste of time,” adding “I will always be there to fight against that. It will never happen.”
We agree with Governor Schwarzenegger that these outsiders are wasting their time and money trying to turn California into a state that would use its Constitution to take away civil rights and hurt families. But it will take every one of us to stop this antifamily initiative. For more information about how to get involved, contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com.
What can we do to help preserve the freedom to marry we have just won?
We urge you to get involved today! For more information about how you can help, please contact Equality For All at www.EqualityForAll.com. Now that we have won this victory, all residents of California are better off, because strengthening any group of families makes stronger communities for everyone. All people who value families and fairness have a stake in preserving the freedom to marry for lesbian and gay couples. We cannot afford to wait, please act now.
For more information about the court’s ruling, legal information for couples, and action steps to help protect the freedom to marry, please contact:
Since 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down archaic sex laws and the Massachusetts high court ruled that gay couples had a right to marry, we’ve heard right-wing activists and politicians, including President, Bush denouncing “activist judges” and “judicial tyranny.” But even when a state court allows the legislature to decide whether or not to call family protections for gay couples “marriage” — as was the case in Vermont seven years ago and is the case in New Jersey now — right wing leaders cynically complain.
The Christian right’s reaction to the New Jersey court ruling on marriage for same-sex couples proves that no matter how our governmental institutions address this issue, right-wing leaders will attack these institutions and scapegoat gay people.
When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples deserved equal benefits, leading to the creation of civil unions in 2000, former Family Research Council director and then-presidential candidate Gary Bauer called the decision “worse than terrorism.” When Republican Governor Jane Swift offered Massachusetts state workers domestic partner health insurance in 2001, the Bay State Republican Council denounced these limited benefits as “special privileges” for “homosexuals.”
Opponents of same-sex marriage have argued for years that it is the legislatures, not courts, that should decide how and whether to recognize same-sex couple families. But when the California legislature passed a bill legalizing marriage for gay couples in 2005, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it, saying — without the slightest sense of irony — that the issue should be left up to the courts. …
One of the biggest election stories of 2006 was the non-story of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to offer the equivalent of Civil Unions to gay couples. What was most striking about the ruling was the lack of shock value compared to the tidal wave of raw emotion that gripped the nation when Vermont’s high court mandated a similar judicial remedy in 1999.
The news broke at 3PM, so I expected major coverage that evening on the network news. However, the story did not air on NBC until the broadcast was more than two-thirds finished. And, when the topic was finally addressed, it was a short reader from anchor Brian Williams. If you quickly pranced off to the bathroom or momentarily zoned out, you might have missed the story altogether.
Meanwhile, the mess in Mesopotamia dominated the first two blocks of that same newscast, with October’s death toll of American troops surpassing one hundred. This is a nightmare for a Republican party desperate to make hay out of all things gay by focusing obsessively on New Jersey. But things are now so bad in Baghdad that even Karl Rove, the master of homophobic campaigns, is having a difficult time averting the nation’s gaze to focus on the gays.
The laughable line that conservative pundits are now pushing is that the Garden State ruling will mobilize previously depressed social conservative voters. The conventional wisdom is that this was a shot in the arm that will jumpstart the Pat Robertson crowd to vote in force.
This expectation is as irrational as it is unreasonable. Why would a weak and politically safe New Jersey civil unions ruling provide motivation to vote if 8,000 real marriage licenses already issued in Massachusetts weren’t doing the trick? Sure, it did put the issue back in the headlines, but it was merely an ephemeral two day story that likely had no lasting impact. I’m not saying that the timing of the ruling was helpful, but it is turning out to be more of a wedgie than a wedge issue — a minor annoyance, but certainly not a divisive debate that could determine the outcome of a crucial election.
If anything, the New Jersey decision weakened the religious right’s overplayed hand on this issue. It is hard to make the case that Kansas is in danger of honeymooning homos when the GLBT community can’t even win full marriage rights from one of the most liberal courts in the nation.
The dust is nearly settled and it appears that the path to marriage rights will run through state capitals. In the next fifteen years we are likely to hear less about marriage, while we see the enactment of Civil Unions or domestic partnership laws.
This is because the GLBT community has finally convinced mainstream Americans that they are worthy of similar relationship benefits, such as hospital visitation and inheritance rights. However, we have not cleared the tall hurdle of persuading a majority that we can share the M-Word without wrecking the institution more than they already have.
Of course, we will eventually win this battle. But it is increasingly apparent that GLBT people will be forced to run the requisite minority obstacle course until the masses finally understand that creating a system of different laws for different people is inherently unfair and discriminatory. …
As you can see, there’s a running suggestion here that LGBT folks need to be patient and to wait, lest there be a backlash of some sort in two years if we push too hard for pro-gay legislation that has languished under Republican rule. This, of course, was after [Howard Dean] mentioned more than once during his speech that no Dems who took a position against the federal marriage amendment lost — a real disconnect, huh?
I hate to say it, but the room was also full of too much backslapping during Dean’s speech over the Dem takeover of the House and Senate; I couldn’t believe it when Chairman Dean positively glowed over the fact that a third of evangelicals crossed over to vote Dem in this election. I hate to break it to him, but in the states with amendments on the ballot, those evangelicals, even as they crossed over because they were digusted with the GOP, still chose to vote for a marriage amendment. Is he ok with that? While that crossover might bring on cheers in another venue and encourage the party to further court The Base, for LGBT folks that’s not exactly comforting.
What we can celebrate is that the changeover in Washington and many state houses means no active legislation further eroding our rights, but whether we will see actual gay-positive legislation passed is another matter with the historically gun-shy, spineless Democratic Party that has run from serious discussion of gay issues as fast as it can in the past. As we’ve said before here on the Blend, Dems at the national level will only advocate once the coast is clear, having had their fingers in the wind to see which way it’s blowing. Leading isn’t a strong suit in this area; they’ve been content to take our money and do zero as amendment after amendment has passed.
Dean cited the Arizona amendment as a victory for the community, not mentioning of course that the organizations responsible at the grassroots level for successfully defeating the ballot measure, almost immediately released a statement saying it received no help from national organizations. It’s hard to take credit for a “win” when they had to work in isolation.
The big national gay organizations have been notably absent there, and the campaigns have been smart about attracting voters from both conservative Phoenix and liberal Tucson with targeted messages and tactics. “We did this with no national help,” says [Cindy Jordan, chair of No on 107], “this grassroot’s effort was local.”
The amendment failed because of a couple of factors, which I mentioned while at the conference: 1) the voters were targeted about how the amendment would affect unmarried seniors and heterosexuals, and almost completely ignored the “fairness” argument, avoiding the use gay couples in promotional materials, and 2) Arizona has a libertarian, government-out-of-my-business streak that further eroded support for the amendment. The latter is one of the reasons that the amendment nearly failed in South Dakota.
The fairness argument was used extensively in Wisconsin; gay families were prominently featured by Fair Wisconsin, and the anti-amendment forces were well-funded and organized, yet the measure easily passed. The difference? — people vote their self-interest. Sad, but true, fairness really isn’t enough of an argument unless you have a critical mass of het allies who are well-informed and motivated to do the right thing — our movement, desperately needs to educate our allies; way too many straight folks simply don’t have equality issues on their radar even in states like Wisconsin, where people thought there was a chance to defeat an amendment.
Which brings me to the other matter that Dean didn’t talk about — the party’s “endorsement” of putting the civil rights of gays and lesbians on the ballot — Howard Dean giddily mentioned how “the voters have spoken” in tossing out the GOP control of the Hill. Unfortunately, the voters have also spoken on our rights because both the Democrats and the Republicans at the national level have no problem with “leaving it to the states.”
This is morally wrong, and the responsibility for the strategic political decision to punt on the civil rights of gays and lesbians by allowing candidates to hide behind a position of “leave it to the states” lies at the Democratic Party’s door. We have 27 states that now have marriage amendments in place, many that precluding any civil unions or domestic partnerships. Those measures profoundly affect the lives of everyday, working class gay families who don’t have any political power aside from their vote — and they are in the minority.
The overarching view from the establishment perspective is that the patchwork of rights granted will end up in SCOTUS and eventually be resolved there, which is true OK, then what do you say to gays in Tennessee, for example — its amendment passed with 80% of the vote? Move? “I’m sorry, but it’s too damn bad?”
Now that eight more states have gay-marriage bans written into their constitutions — 45 states ban it through amendment or statute — are we done playing politics with gay people’s lives? Is the public done being duped to vote for those measures because they think two women committing to each other for life before the law somehow threatens their own marriage or commands their churches to reinterpret their Bible? …
“One man, one woman: let the people vote!” chant those in Massachusetts who want to reverse the right gays and lesbians have had for more than two years to marry. Yes, yes, our civil rights should always be subject to the personal prejudices of the masses — that’s democracy. But for the decision of some “activist judges,” blacks might still be legally considered two-thirds of a person. …
To paraphrase what an openly gay state senator from Massachusetts, Jarrett Barrios, said recently in a debate that, I hope, finally, ended their gay-marriage debate: You don’t have to like me, you don’t have to live next to me, but I have every right to enjoy the same rights that you have enjoyed for time immemorial.
I am done with those who hold that only in the case of gays and lesbians can separate be equal. If it’s not called marriage, it’s not recognized across state lines and not by the federal government. That means my marital status depends on which state I’m standing in, I cannot file a joint tax return with my wife, I would not be able to receive her Social Security benefits if she dies, and I would not automatically be considered the legal parent to our child if my wife is the one who gives birth. Take your pick — there are 1,138 rights that the federal government confers upon married, not civil-unioned (is that even a word yet?) people.
Do you still think civil unions are plenty good enough for gay folks? I challenge any married heterosexual person to trade in his or her marriage certificate for a civil union certificate. Would you do it? When you got engaged, would you have squealed with delight at telling your family and friends, “We’re getting civil unioned!” …
1 Yes, John Kerry was a resounding failure of a candidate. His campaign was laughable: He let himself be swiftboated with nary a peep, his duck-hunting photo-op was his Dukakis-in-a-tank moment, and — this is absolutely unforgivable — after promising that every vote would count, he conceded the race to Bush without a fight, and then disappeared. He abandoned the Democrats who worked so hard for him — as well as those of us who voted for him solely because we would have given anything to get Bush out of the White House. See, folks, Kerry is what you get when you let the DLC-controlled DNC pick your candidate for you: an unelectable figurehead with no backbone. But more about Barack Obama later.
2 Mind you, I love all that empty, hot desert, and so does Buffy. Thanks to a near-lifetime of four-wheeling and ghost town hunting, I doubt there’s a single square mile of Nevada I haven’t explored. As for Buffy, on our cross-country trip to move her and her car out west, I had to keep distracting her with singalongs and car games every time we passed another Native American outpost, all the way from Oklahoma to the Mojave Desert, or it would have taken us another week to get home. Yes, I’m lying about distracting her, just because I know she’ll be reading this, and I feel like being a brat — but she really does love the Southwest, and all that Southwestern arty stuff that goes with it. Which is fine with me; I think we can work out a rather nice decor scheme by blending Kokopelli in with the Mission and Stickley furniture I’d love to buy (but can’t afford yet).
3 Election theft is, of course, a very valid complaint, when it’s very likely true. I don’t doubt for one second that the 2000 presidential election was rigged, and the results of the 2004 election were highly questionable. Bottom line is, however, that if an election so close that it could be tipped by nefarious means, then it was too close to begin with — i.e., the Democratic Party did not do its job, whether by running the wrong candidate, failing to sell the right candidate in the best way, or any number of other reasons — and in the end, the Democratic campaign just wasn’t good enough to win by such a wide enough margin that no amount of chicanery could negate that win.
In my experience, it’s only been within the past year or so that you could opine online, without getting flamed alive, that John Kerry is a good Senator but a lousy choice for President, and that his campaign “strategy” was flawed from the outset. After you finish railing against the swiftboating and the Ohio results, you have to admit that in the wake of the first term of the Bush regime, Kerry should have won by a landslide. Bottom line is, he just didn’t convince enough voters that his way was the right way, and he lost. (Yes, I’ve said the same of Al Gore; while he did indeed win the popular vote, and while SCOTUS handed Bush the presidency on a silver platter, Gore’s win should not have hinged on a mere couple-hundred thousand votes in Florida.)
A lot of Dems will call me a traitor for saying that, but I’ve grown so accustomed to being labeled a “traitor to the Democratic Party” lately — smiling and waving at the Obamanauts) — I really don’t care.
PORTLAND, Ore. — Sen. Barack Obama showed every sign of confidence that he has secured the Democratic nomination during a high-dollar fundraiser at a posh club here last night.
Obama predicted a victory in Oregon, and said he believed the resulting delegate haul would “put us over the top.”
“We will be able to say we have won a majority,” he said. “But we have a lot of work to do ahead of us.” …
At the fundraiser, he told a boisterous crowd of about 300 supporters that a win in November would require a unified Democratic Party, adding: “That means all of you have to be nice to Clinton supporters.”
Excuse me for just a moment…
Whew! Lemme compose myself here… My eyes are watering after that knee-slapper. Anybody got a Kleenex? Ah, thanks.
Now, where was I?
Oh, yes — I was just about to suggest you click the WaPo link and browse the hundreds of comments, most of which are along the lines of:
Be nice? Please…that’s about as low-handed as his “sweetie” and “bitter” remarks. A true leader would have praised the Senator for her strength and her dedication to this country. A true leader would have also praised her supporters for their dedication even in the face of huge odds. A true leader he is not. Just a guy who knows how to read a speech and has taken the consumer approach to winning votes. Crowds don’t equate sound judgment. Crowds waved on Hitler. (I’m not saying Obama is Hitler, Obamabots, so chill). Crowds gather to see Paris Hilton. Crowds don’t pay attention to what really happens in elections. It takes individuals to do research, to truly understand a candidate and her/his positions. I wonder how many in the crowd know of Barack’s support of the Bush/Cheney’s Energy Bill that has stripped Oregonians of their rights of self-determination when it comes to liquified natural gas and nuclear power plants. Great for the environment. Great for state’s rights. What a Great Leader.
All you Sen. Obama supporters need to chill out. Nothing you say or do will change the way many Hillary supporters feel about your guy. From the get-go, he has taken every opportunity to bash President Clinton’s administration. For those of us “older women Democrats,” that is a direct slap in the face as we were the ones working the phones, GOTV, doing visibility events for President Clinton. Sen. Obama has shown little if any respect for the only two term Democratic president in my lifetime. He said nothing to his online supporters to tone down the rhetoric spewing from their ranks..frankly, it was the utter hatred and disrespect shown Sen. Clinton by Sen. Obama’s supporters that turned me off to him in the first place. I wanted nothing to do with that group. Later, however, I saw and heard Sen. Obama lie with my own eyes. I witnessed Republican-like tactics. The final straw for me was when he and his supporters refused to allow Michigan and Florida a revote. He reminds me too much of George W. Bush, and I can’t stand GWBush. Needless to say, it’s Hillary or the highway for this voter. Hillary ‘08.
Do the words, “Too Late” mean anything to Barack Obama? How stupid does he think we are?
No we aren’t Republicans. We are sick and tired disencranchised Democrats who no longer wish to know Barack Obama. See you in November.
Make sure to watch how a few Obama supporters try following their leader’s directive — and how they’re completely canceled out by the ones who cite Clinton supporters’ “bitterness,” “insanity,” and “toxicity,” and call same such terms of endearment as “rabid zombies.” They hit every “mode” on the wheel, one right after another, with monotonous predictability.
By the way… For some reason, I haven’t been able to get the song, “Too Much, Too Little, Too Late” out of my head lately. Go figure, eh?
Opponents of Oregon’s new same-sex domestic partnership law failed to turn in enough valid signatures to block the measure, clearing the way for it to take effect next year, state elections officials said Monday.
Oregon will join eight other states that have approved spousal rights in some form for gay couples — Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maine, California, Washington and Hawaii. Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay couples to marry.
The Oregon measure covers benefits related to inheritance rights, child-rearing and custody, joint state tax filings, joint health, auto and homeowners insurance policies, visitation rights at hospitals and others. It does not affect federal benefits for married couples, including Social Security and joint filing of federal tax returns.
. . .
State elections officials reported Monday that the effort fell short 116 valid signatures of the 55,179 needed to suspend the law and place it on the November 2008 ballot for a popular vote.
We couldn’t have said it better than swimboy did: “More evidence that the tide is truly turning. Many of the successful efforts of the Rabid Right Wing were accomplished at the last possible moment. Unfortunately, many of those successes will remain with us for some time, as in Virginia. At this point, however, they are trying to fling obstacles behind them as they give up the ground they are steadily losing. When they finally determine we are no longer a cash bonanza for their fund-raising we will need to be sure we help to defend and assist whoever it is the assholes choose next.”
Today is the deadline for anti-gay-rights forces to submit petition signatures aimed at placing two newly approved gay-rights laws up for a public vote.
An assortment of conservative groups needs to submit two sets of 55,179 valid signatures to force referenda on a domestic partnership law, which granted marriage-style rights to same-sex couples, and a companion law that banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. The measures are scheduled to go into effect in January, but will be put on hold if the referenda qualify for the November 2008 ballot.
Brooks activist and former lawmaker Marylin Shannon, who is coordinating the referenda campaign, said her group had about 55,000 valid signatures as of Tuesday, but wanted an extra 15 percent buffer to make up for signatures deemed invalid. She was hoping activists would submit already-circulated petition sheets with 8,000 more signatures by today to get over the hump.
. . .
Gay-rights supporters have said all along they expect the referenda to qualify.
Straight Americans to “Come Out” for Gay Rights on October 7-13, 2007
Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights” will feature straight people standing up for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans. Events across the nation October 7-13 reflect growing support for equal rights.
Austin, TX (PRWEB) September 24, 2007 — On October 7-13, 2007, straight people across the nation will “come out” as supporters of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.
From Santa Rosa, California, to Montgomery, Alabama, to Augusta, Maine, overnight vigils will light up American cities over the course of seven nights, providing unprecedented visibility to heterosexual men and women with the conviction to stand up for their gay and lesbian friends and neighbors.
This grassroots groundswell, dubbed Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights, was initiated by Soulforce and Atticus Circle, two Texas-based organizations with members across the nation. With their support, straight community leaders are organizing vigils in towns like Greenville, South Carolina, Shreveport, Louisiana, Duluth, Minnesota, and Salem, Oregon.
To date, straight equality advocates in thirty cities have stepped forward to hold vigils over the course of the week. The October 7 kick-off will feature an opening night vigil at The King Center in Atlanta, Georgia.
Anti-gay Ballot Measures Create New Breed of Equality Activists
Many Seven Straight Nights vigil organizers were motivated to become more involved after divisive marriage discrimination amendments made it to the ballot in their states.
In Arizona, where fair-minded voters defeated a marriage amendment in 2006, Seven Straight Nights organizer Susan Hurley and her husband William Reber were spurred to a new level of political involvement. “When the marriage amendment was introduced, we went from being the kind of people who make phone calls and write letters to being the people standing on street corners with signs in our hands,” says Hurley.
And in Texas, Anne Wynne was shocked into action by the November 2004 elections, when eleven states voted to add a ban on gay marriage to their constitutions. “When I saw the margins these propositions passed by, I thought, ‘Where were the people who think like my husband and me?’” When she couldn’t find an existing political organization that represented her interests, Wynne took matters into her own hands, founding Atticus Circle to educate and mobilize straight supporters of equal rights.
Motivated by Faith to Speak Up for Equality
Faith traditions also provide inspiration for many families and individuals who are organizing Seven Straight Nights vigils. In Raleigh, North Carolina, the vigil organizer is Rev. Jack McKinney of Pullen Memorial Baptist church, a local institution with a long history of involvement in civil rights struggles. The Raleigh vigil will feature church choirs and offer thanks to North Carolina corporate leaders who have taken progressive stands on domestic partner benefits.
Julie Morgan, vigil organizer for Duluth, Minnesota, is active in an interfaith committee called Standing on the Side of Love. Of her involvement with Seven Straight Nights, Morgan says, “my faith as a Unitarian commands me to be active in the world, to take my values and live them.”
In other states, vigil organizers represent a variety of other faith traditions, including Judaism and Native American Shamanistic traditions.
“These fair-minded straight folks are showing their elected officials that equality is not a secular issue, not a gay issue, not an urban elite issue, not an east coast or a west coast issue–it’s an American issue,” says Jeff Lutes, Executive Director of Soulforce.
Remembering Matthew Shepard; Organizing Against Hate
On October 12, 2007, the nation will mark the ninth anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard, a brutal hate crime that shocked many Americans out of complacency. With the fate of the Matthew Shepard Act still unclear in the Senate, this year’s anniversary looms with particular poignancy.
Shepard’s mother, Judy Shepard of Wyoming, has officially endorsed Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights, saying “All of us — gay and straight alike — need to act. Hate affects each and every one of us.”
Vigil leader Susan Crain of Greenville, South Carolina understands the importance of hate crime laws that include sexual orientation and gender identity. On May 16 of this year, tragedy struck her city when twenty-year-old Sean Kennedy was attacked and beaten to death by a stranger spouting anti-gay epithets.
At the Greenville Seven Straight Nights vigil, South Carolinians will light 1,138 candles in the City Plaza to symbolize the 1,138 rights and responsibilities denied to gay couples by denying them marriage equality. Students from a local Gay-Straight Alliance will read aloud the names of victims of hate crimes.
Other Highlights
In Wisconsin, where a marriage amendment passed in 2006, First Lady Jessica Doyle has stepped forward as the leader for Seven Straight Nights in Madison. According to Doyle, “We are at our very best as a state when we are open, inclusive, and actively dedicated to equal rights for all.”
And in New York, where a marriage equality bill remains stalled in the state senate, Seven Straight Nights participants will vigil outside the home office of Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno, which is located in Saratoga Springs, New York.
Atticus Circle is a national organization dedicated to achieving equality for all partners, parents, and their children regardless of sexual orientation. Soulforce is a national social justice organization that advocates freedom for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people from religious and political oppression through the practice of relentless nonviolent resistance.
Oregon anti-gay activist David Crowe has called an elections complaint against his group “Oregon’s Own 9-11″ and “an attack within our borders.”
Crowe made the remarks in an email to supporters Tuesday in which he fired back at a longtime activist for “clean elections” in Oregon who last week asked Oregon’s Secretary of State to investigate Crowe’s group “Concerned Oregonians” and another organization for the way they were soliciting funds for a voter initiative to repeal two state LGBT civil rights laws.
“This comparison is incredibly disrespectful not only to the mourning of our nation but to the families of those who died and to those who fought so hard to saves lives at Ground Zero,” said John Hummel, Executive Director of Basic Rights Oregon, the state’s largest LGBT rights group.
“For David Crowe to compare his own self-inflicted legal troubles to the events of 9/11 is beyond comprehension, purely reprehensible and downright bizarre.”
In an e-mail with the subject line “Defaming To Destroy: Oregon’s Own 9-11,” Crowe complains of a “September Day of Infamy” occasioned by the elections complaint.
Tweet This Post! 
