TPN :: The Gay Parenting Show

Equal Marriage Overview

Scott Sherman — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:52:55 +0000

April 7, 2007: The Boston Globe just published this helpful overview of marriage rights in America’s states.

Massachusetts is the only state that recognizes same-sex marriages, the result of a 2003 ruling by its Supreme Judicial Court.

Three other states — Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey — have civil unions that extend marriage-like rights to same-sex couples.

California, Hawaii and Maine have granted various spousal rights to same-sex couples registered as domestic partners.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, all but five states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island — have adopted constitutional amendments or statutes banning gay marriage. New Hampshire’s ban is statutory.

The federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages, whether performed in Massachusetts or abroad. Congress has twice failed to approve a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gay marriage nationwide

The amount of states that have anti-equality statutes and amendments is depressing and shameful, but the fact that any state allows and recognizes some kind of same sex partnership, be it marriage or civil union, is a huge step forward from where we were just five years ago.

So, rejoice! And work hard to make the world a more equal place for our children.

Real Marriage Equality Comes to Vermont - Maybe

Scott Sherman — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:29:53 +0000

February 8, 2007: The country’s first state to allow legal civil unions may be the second to offer full marriage rights. This is from 365.Gay.com.

Legislation that would replace Vermont’s landmark civil union law with same-sex marriage was introduced Wednesday at the State House.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Mark Larson (D) and has 32 house members and 10 senators as co-sponsors. “After seven years of civil unions, this is simply the right thing to do,” Larson said in introducing the legislation.

The measure is similar to one Larson put forward last year but failed to gain support.

The legislation, Larson said, would do three things. First, it would give same-sex couples the right to marry. Secondly, it would allow clergy to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage if it violated their religious beliefs. Thirdly it would convert civil unions already performed into marriages.

Good for Larson and the members and senators who are throwing in their support. Civil Unions have had no negative impact at all on anyone in the state. They’ve only served to create more loving families.

Of course, the fact that equality is being achieved on a state-by-state basis does create some problems. My partner and I had a CU when we lived in VT - does this mean we’ll be married if the bill passes? And if down the line, our current state offers CUs or equal marriage rights, will we have to get a divorce in VT? Or will we have two separate marraiges in two states?

Thanks a lot, federal government.

Scott

“Marriage is not a Threat to Marriage.”

Scott Sherman — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:13:34 +0000

February 4, 2007: Two openly gay Connecticut lawmakers (see why’s its important to elect LGBT people?) are proposing to replace that state’s civil union’s bill with full and equal marriage.

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, announced plans yesterday morning to introduce a “marriage equality” bill.

The legislation would not have to be recognized by religious institutions, but proponents say they would afford more rights than civil unions and extend them over state lines.

“We have a chance, yet again, to lift people up,” McDonald said. McDonald and Lawlor are gay.

They were introduced at the event by Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family of Connecticut, the chief proponent of 2005’s civil-union legislation. I love this quote from her:

“Divorce is a threat to marriage. Infidelity, domestic violence and losing your job (are) a threat to marriage,” Stanback said. “Marriage is not a threat to marriage.”

Of course, the usual haters were there to remind us that their version of the Almighty strongly supports discrimination against LGBT people in Connecticut.

Unlike other issues, like property tax reform, Republican Senate leader Louis DeLuca said gay marriage goes beyond policy issues.

“The definition of marriage goes back to Christ,” said DeLuca, R-Woodbury.

DeLuca said, as a married man of 53 years, he is offended by efforts to pass a gay marriage bill and is certain it would not survive a statewide referendum.

I don’t remember the part in the Bible where Christ defined marriage - do you? Of course, he did preach about tolerance, love, charity and the importance of accepting those whom some in society would condemn.

But maybe he defined marriage in the crazy-backwards version of the Bible that Rep. DeLuca reads. I gotta get one of those.

You can read the whole story in Connecticut’s Advocate here.

Another Example of How Unequal Marriage Laws Screw Things Up

Scott Sherman — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 20:01:42 +0000

January 18, 2007: Because LGBT people are discriminated against by this country’s marriage laws, we have to resort to other legal arrangements to protect our partners.

One way in which people do that is by adopting their partners. It seems odd to think of adopting another adult with whom you have an intimate relationship, but in some cases, it does give partners the rights of inheritence, ownership and other legal protections that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

Of course, this workaround brings its own problems. 365Gay.com reports on this story from Maine, where millions of dollars are at stake:

In 1991 Olive F. Watson used the law to adopt her partner of 14 years, Patricia A. Spado. Even though the couple lived in Connecticut Watson owned a summer home in Maine.

Watson was the daughter of former IBM executive Thomas J. Watson Jr., who was the CEO of the company from 1956 to 1971 and built it from a small cash register maker to a computer giant.

Now Watson, Spado and the Watson estate are battling in court over whether Spado is entitled to a share of the late Thomas Watson’s estate.

When Watson adopted Spado there were no same-sex partnership agreements in the country and Watson believed it would provide Spado with security if anything happened to her.

But a year later the couple broke up.

When Thomas Watson’s widow died in 2004 his fortune went into a trust and her 18 grandchildren became eligible to receive income from two trusts until they turned 35, at which time they would receive the principal outright.

Several months later a lawyer representing Spado notified the trust that there was a 19th grandchild, Spado, and that she also was entitled to a share of the trust.

A probate court in Connecticut where the will was filed ruled that Spado was not a grandchild and not entitled to any month. The decision is now on appeal in the state’s superior court.

What a mess! Had Watson and Spado had equal rights, Watson could have protected her partner through marriage and dissolved that marriage through a divorce. Another example of how discrimination hurts everyone.

Gay Marriage in the News and the Frighteningly Spineless McCain

Scott Sherman — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:26:44 +0000

January 7, 2007: Lots of news on the marriage front.

Disappointingly, Massachusttes lawmakers moved closer to letting the public vote on whether or not we deserve basic civil rights. This editorial in the Boston Globe takes them to task.

Meanwhile, California courts say we deserve to be treated as equal citizens, an opinion they don’t share with the Governor.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer points out that since a growing number of people support our rights to defend our nation in the military, why don’t they support our marriage rights, too? “So now that we’re considering letting homosexuals in on our big, national sacrifice,” the article concludes, ”maybe we can also let them get married. Just an idea.”

Don’t ask John McCain, who Vanity Fair reports, has been inscrutable. Here’s an exerpt from the article, in which he’s apparently vying for the Most Craven Politician of the Year Award. His politically motivated pandering at the expense of our families is just tragic.

It is three weeks before midterm elections that will prove to be a decidedly mixed bag for McCain. His party will experience the electorate’s repudiation of the war in Iraq, which McCain has always supported, and at the same time the voters will repudiate the cozy and corrupt Washington culture as a whole, which McCain has always loathed. Matthews wants to know McCain’s views on the prevalence of gay people in all walks of life, a subject whose predicate is the scandal involving Representative Mark Foley and his come-hither instant-messaging with congressional pages. “Should gay marriage be allowed?,” Matthews asks.

“I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that,” McCain answers, searching in vain for the less loaded phrases he knows are out there somewhere, such as “commitment ceremony” or “civil union.” “I don’t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman.” It may not be clear just what McCain is trying to say, but it’s easy to see how his words could be skewed in a direction that the Republican right might not like at all.

Fast-forward to the next commercial break, during which McCain and Matthews reposition themselves from the stage to the auditorium floor to take questions from the students. McCain’s longtime political strategist, John Weaver, a lanky, laconic Texan, moves in to whisper some advice. The next question is about the pending federal farm bill, and McCain repeats his long-standing opposition to certain agricultural subsidies.

But then, out of nowhere, he adds, “Could I just mention one other thing? On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.” There: he said it, the right words for his right flank. It might seem that this audience, the sons and daughters of a socially conservative and culturally traditional bellwether state, would accept, if not approve of, what McCain has just declared. But they are the Wi-Fi wave of the future, and they can smell a pander bear as surely as they can a hog lot. They erupt in a chorus of deafening boos. “Obviously some disagreement with that last comment,” McCain says tightly. “Thank you. It’s nice to see you.”

Moments later, McCain remounts the stage for the program’s final segment, and he bores into Weaver, standing quietly in the wings, with a cold look that seems to mingle irritation at Weaver’s whispered advice with regret that he took it, and demands, almost hisses, “Did I fix it? Did I fix it?”

Huge Letdown In NY

Scott Sherman — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:35:55 +0000

July 7, 2006: Maybe just becasue I’m an optimist, but I assumed that the NY Supreme Court was going to find that the NY State Constitution required equal marriage rights. Unfortunately, the court let us down. I’m sure you’ve read all about it by now, but if not, check out my favorite gay news site, www.pageoneq.com, for links and commentary.

But beyond the disappointment of the ruling itself, I was surprised by the ugliness and poor reasoning of the decision - especially for our families. In writing his decision, Judge Robert S. Smith - a name that will live in infamy - pointlessly included tired - and demonstrably untrue - stereotypes that equal marriage rights will somehow hurt children. This is from Arthur Leonard in the Gay City News.

Smith embraces the peculiar reasoning of the federal court of appeals from the 11th Circuit in its recent decision upholding Florida’s ban on gay people adopting children, the unprovable but conventional assumption that children benefit more from being raised by opposite-sex married couples than by same-sex couples. Setting aside as essentially irrelevant the numerous studies showing that children raised by both kinds of couples turn out about the same, Smith insists that the absence of substantial long-term studies undermines their usefulness, and that the Legislature is free to go on imagining—applying, in his words, “the common-sense premise”—that it is protecting children by forbidding same-sex couples from marrying.

In other words, to Smith the word “rational,” when used to evaluate legislative action, includes acting out of habit or custom, even in the face of contrary evidence. A true conservative, he believes it is rational to blindly preserve existing social arrangements even when they have the effect of discriminating against a segment of society.

As Judge Kaye points out in her dissent, Smith never addresses the significant disadvantages visited upon the numerous children being raised by same-sex couples as a result of the state’s refusal to allow their parents to marry.

Joe Solmonese, President of the Human Rights Campaign (and our sponsor!), had this to say about the court’s decision as it impacts our famlies:

“The court’s archaic reasoning is rooted in ignorance and completely contradicted by the facts of today. The court threw the expert advice of child welfare professionals and years of scientific evidence out the window with its ruling against fairness.”

HRC’s press release went on to give this excellent summation of the body of evidence which refutes attacks on our parenting:

Bolstered by all major research studies, the prevailing professional opinion is that a parent’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with his or her ability to be a good parent. The nation’s leading child welfare, psychological and children’s health organizations also have issued policy or position statements in this regard, including:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)
American Academy of Family Physicians (2002)
American Academy of Pediatrics (2006)
American Bar Association (1995, 1999 and 2003)
American Medical Association (2004)
American Psychiatric Association (1997 and 2002)
American Psychoanalytic Association (2002)
American Psychological Association (1976 and 2004)
Child Welfare League of America (1988)
National Adoption Center (1998)
National Association of Social Workers (2002)
North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998)
The American Academy of Pediatrics journal published a report this month finding that children of same-sex couples would benefit from marriage fairness for their parents. Read more on the opinion of leading professional organizations.

The NY court ruling is a huge disappointment, but our community will find a way to move forward. If only for the sake of our children, equality will prevail. But we must work to achieve our freedom. What have you done today to make the world a better place for our families?

Indiana Lawmaker Hates Children

Scott Sherman — Fri, 12 May 2006 14:53:55 +0000

May 12, 2006: Claiming he wants to “end confusion,” Indiana state senator Jeff Drozda wants to introduce a bill that will bar same-sex couples from adoption.

As this story from 365.Gay makes clear, people like Sen. Drozda want to prevent children from being adopted into same sex homes EVEN WHEN theres no one else who wants them! Because we all know how fabulous it is to raised in foster care, right?

This case also shows how people use the fact that gay people can’t be married against us. Which is why equal marriage rights will change everything when it happens (and that is a “when,” not an “if.”)

An Indiana state senator said Thursday he will introduce a bill that would bar same-sex couples from adopting.

Sen. Jeff Drozda (R-Westfield) said the legislation would end what he called confusion in the courts. Drozda said that because current state adoption laws do not specifically prevent same-sex couples from adopting some judges approve same-sex co-parenting while others do not.

Drozda’s bill comes as Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter considers appealing a state appeals court ruling last month that said a lesbian couple could adopt a child through a joint petition that gives both partners equal custody. (story)

Carter is expected to announce next week if his office will appeal.

In a split-decision the Court of Appeals overturned a Morgan County judge ruling that only married couples could be co-adoptive parents.

The case involved Becki Hamilton and Kim Brennan, a lesbian couple who live in Morgan County and have been in a committed relationship for more than a decade. The infant was a foster child in their care.

Last year they applied to probate court in nearby Marion County where the state adoption agency is located, to adopt the child.

The adoption was approved but a judge in Morgan County ordered the adoption halted.

At the Appeals Court the state argued that because the women live in Marion the ruling in that county should stand. The state did not challenge the adoption on the issue of sexuality but on Indiana law which prohibits adoptions by two unmarried individuals.

The couple was represented by Lambda Legal which argued that no one else had come forward to adopt the baby and that the couple was fit to be parents. Lambda also noted in arguments that the adoption law is discriminatory since same-sex couples cannot legally marry in the state.

A Promise to Discriminate

Scott Sherman — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:57:03 +0000

February 13, 2006: The leadership in the Senate is once again pushing their divisive, hateful Constitutional Amendment against equal marriage. AMERICABlog put it like this:

Bill Frist promised to bring the anti-gay marriage amendment up for a vote in the Senate. It is, after all, an election year and they have to feed the beast:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) … promised that on June 5 he will bring to the floor a constitutional amendment to bar same-sex marriage, and pledged a May vote on eliminating the estate tax, items high on the conservative agenda.

Frist said the amendment is needed to protect the majority of Americans, whom he said oppose same-sex marriage, from “the whims of a few activist judges” who seek to “override the commonsense of the American people.” He added, “When America’s values are under attack, we need to act.”

A similar amendment failed to win the necessary votes in 2004

Because really, with the war, the failed drug plan, the destruction of a major American city, the huge deficit, the Senate doesn’t have any serious issues to consider.

Idaho Duds

Scott Sherman — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 06:40:29 +0000

February 11, 2006: Idaho adds to the lists of states fighting to keep discrimination alive and well. This is from 365gay.com:

Boise, Idaho) The Idaho Senate will vote Monday on a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would ban same-sex marriage and civil unions.

The amendment says that “a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” in Idaho.

In addition to banning gay marriage and civil unions opponents say it could be used to nullify domestic partner benefits and health insurance for gay families.

Rep. Nicole LeFavour (D-Boise), the only openly gay elected official in Idaho, said if the matter goes to voters she fears it will be approved. LeFavour said that supporters of the amendment are hiding all of the implications of the measure, telling voters it only would ban same-sex marriage.

LeFavour said that the state does not need the amendment. If people want to ban gay marriage, she said, there already is a law doing that.

But supporters of the amendment say that if the courts in Massachusetts could overturn a ban on same-sex marriage it could happen just as easily in Idaho.

This is the third time the legislature has taken up a proposed constitutional amendment. A similar proposal passed a Senate committee last year but failed to win the two-thirds majority in the full Senate. The year before, the measure died in a Senate committee after it passed the House.

It’s great to see the good people of Idaho fighting domestic partner benefits and health insurance! Way to go, folks! According to Idaho’s official tourism page “Your vacation in Idaho awaits! Our door is always open to adventure seekers, outdoor enthusiasts and those just looking to get out and play. Learn about Idaho’s scenic beauty, western history and diverse culture.” They left out the part about “Unless you’re LGBT, in which case you have no rights and we hate you.” ” I guess “the door” ISN’T always open to everyone, huh?

An Easy Way to Do the Right Thing.

Scott Sherman — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:50:27 +0000

February 10, 2006: HRC is promoting a new petition drive for equal marriage rights. Sign it here and forward it. I can’t think of an easier way to support equality.

From coast to coast, we are coming closer to achieving true marriage equality for GLBT Americans. But we need your help to fight efforts to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples, including any Constitutional amendment. Please, sign the Million For Marriage petition below, and be a part of this historic civil rights battle. Gay, straight, married, single…we need everyone who believes in marriage equality to stand up NOW.

High School Kids Support Gay Rights

Scott Sherman — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:35:34 +0000

January 6, 2006: It looks like the next generation is growing up without the crippling prejudices of the current one. This is from 365Gay.com.

H.S. Seniors Overwhelmingly Support Gay Familiesby Doug Windsor, 365Gay.com New York Bureau, Posted: January 5, 2006 - 1:00 pm ET

(New York City) A national poll of high school seniors shows that young people are twice as likely as adults to support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
The survey was conducted by Zogby International for Hamilton College in Clinton, NY. The results, released Thursday, come at a time when conservative groups are trying to prevent the establishment of Gay Straight Associations at schools in a number of states nationwide.

Three-quarters of the high school seniors throughout the country favor the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, either as marriage or civil union.

The survey found that three in four seniors oppose a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Sixty-three percent support adoption by gay couples.

This was the eighth annual Hamilton Youth Poll and comes as many high school seniors prepare to become first time voters in November 2006.

One thousand high school seniors from across the U.S. were contacted by phone for the study of attitudes on abortion, guns and gays. The poll was funded by Hamilton College’s Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percent.

As I always say, the world only turns forward.

Happy Holidays to All

Scott Sherman — Sat, 24 Dec 2005 17:00:06 +0000

December 25, 2005: Happy Holidays to all - especially to my fellow gay parents.

We are building new kinds of family, and showing the world new models of love and tolerance. Yay for us!

As a holiday present, here’s an editorial from USA Today. Although most of us would prefer that the mainstream would allow LGBT full and equal marriage laws, the growing acceptance of civil unions shows that people are becoming more fair-minded. Our time will come. The world only turns forward.

Cultural shifts can be hard to document. But sometimes they crystallize around an event. That seemed to be the case Wednesday as flamboyant rock star Elton John, 58, became one of the first people to take advantage of a new British law allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.
John and longtime partner David Furnish, a 43-year-old Canadian, had their union made official at Windsor’s Guildhall — where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles married in April. Any doubt about broad British acceptance of civil unions, which give the same legal rights as marriage does, was dispelled by London’s tabloid press, which prides itself on having a finger on the nation’s pulse.

With the headline “Elton’s ‘wedding’ sealed with a kiss,” the Daily Mail typified the warm coverage. Twenty years ago, such a celebration would have been unthinkable. Britain joins more than a dozen countries recognizing some form of civil union. Five, including Canada, have legalized gay marriage.

In the USA, the political debate over gay marriage — in which religious conservatives have pushed for a constitutional ban — has obscured a similar broad cultural shift.

A new Hollywood movie about two gay cowboys —Brokeback Mountain - might become a marker of that shift, if not as starkly as Sir Elton’s civil union. Brokeback Mountain, based on an Annie Proulx novella, has already garnered high praise from critics and seven Golden Globe nominations. In its limited release so far, it has been a box office hit. Its breakthrough appeal is that it is a poignant love story, one in which the characters happen to be gay. A similar trend has been seen on TV for the past few years.

In polls, most Americans oppose gay marriage but are far more accepting of civil unions, sometimes with a slim majority. State laws are all over the map. Massachusetts allows gay marriage. A handful of states accept or are considering allowing civil partnerships; others have moved in the opposite direction.

Last year, running for re-election, and with a keen awareness of the broader public mood, President Bush parted ways with the Republican platform: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union,” he said. Sir Elton would no doubt agree that such rights are part of what Philadelphia freedom is all about.

We’re Human, Too

Scott Sherman — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:03:22 +0000

December 19,. 2005: I’m proud to live in the first state that allowed civil unions, although I now see it only as a step towards full marriage rights. Unfortunately, one of the pioneering couples in the fight for equality are now no more. This is from MSNBC:

BRATTLEBORO, Vt. - A lesbian couple who entered into the nation’s first same-sex civil union are splitting up amid allegations of violent behavior.
Carolyn Conrad, 35, asked a court in October to end her relationship with Kathleen Peterson, 46.

Conrad also obtained a restraining order Wednesday against her partner, saying Peterson punched a hole in the wall during an argument and threatened to harm a friend.

Listen, I have no problems with divorce, especially when there are no kids around, but domestic violence? Let’s leave that to straight people, OK?

While America Moves Backwards, Other Countries Progress

Scott Sherman — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:59:43 +0000

December 6, 2005: It makes me sad that while five states in America are considering anti-gay adoption bans, other countries are institutionalizing freedom and progress. This is from the BBC:

Belgium backs gay adoption plans

Belgian MPs have backed plans to allow adoption by gay couples, two years after legalising same-sex marriage.

The lower house of Belgium’s parliament voted 77-62 in favour of the measure, which must also pass the upper house. If fully approved, Belgium will become the third EU country, after Sweden and Spain, to allow same-sex adoption.

The law will grant gay couples in Belgium the same rights as heterosexual couples, allowing them to adopt children from anywhere in the world. Two years ago, Belgium voted to approve same-sex marriage, with an estimated 5,000 ceremonies held since then.

A string of other European countries also allow gay marriage or full civil rights, including Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain and other Scandinavian nations. Britain will legalise “civil partnerships” this month.

I thought America was supposed to be bringing freedom to the rest of the world. So, why would my family enjoy greater liberty and more legal protections in Britain, Belguim, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, etc? When do we get some of that tasty freedom goodness over here?

Chicago, Chicago, It’s A Hell of A Town!

Scott Sherman — Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:44:03 +0000

November 30, 2005: I wrote a few days ago that New Hamphire was on my you-know-what list (I have to watch my language now that I’m a dad, you know) for their support of a ban on equal marriage. That’s why I’m so happy to report that there are still states in the country where the people are not hateful. This if from 365gay.com:

(Chicago, Illinois) A conservative Illinois group trying to collect enough signatures to have a gay marriage ban put to voters is finding little interest in the issue.

The Illinois Family Institute must collect about 280,000 signatures by April 20th. At the halfway point in their campaign they have collected fewer than 50,000.

Even if they were to get the necessary signatures, got the issue on the ballot and approved by voters, it would be non binding under the Illinois constitution. It would only call on the legislature to enact an amendment and then submit that version to voters.

Earlier this month the legislature rejected an attempt to pass an amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

A spokesperson for Equality Illinois said it right: “This has nothing to do with marriage in Illinois. They just want to build a mailing list of far right supporters to fundraise for the organization.”

Add New Hampshire to the List of Places I Don’t Want to Live

Scott Sherman — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 23:08:54 +0000

November 28, 2005: More selfish heterosexuals. Ugh.

A majority of New Hampshire voters oppose gay marriage according to a poll done for the Concord Monitor.

Read all about it here.

Texas Anti-Gay Amendment “Unnecessary,” “Mean-spirited” and “An Embarrassment”

Scott Sherman — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 21:21:43 +0000

November 15, 2005: Kudos to the Houston Chronicle for exposing their state’s vote for an anti-gay marriage amendment as the horror show that it is. Here’s some quotes from today’s editorial; you can read the whole thing here.

However satisfying this amendment is to its many supporters, its passage is no victory for Texas. Its presence on the ballot was as unnecessary as it was mean-spirited.

Not only was there no legal or practical need to elevate current state prohibitions to constitutional writ, but doing so came across as a direct attack on gays and on their struggle for a measure of legal equality. Besides being an embarrassment, the amendment sends the wrong signal to businesses that thrive on intellectual capital and creativity.

It’s good to know that someone in Texas is willing to call out their neighbors as the hateful bigots that they are. The editorial concludes on a hopeful note, however, and one with which I agree:

Surveys show that younger people are more comfortable than older people with the fact of homosexuality. That bodes well for a day when a majority of Texans come to realize that legally recognized homosexual partnerships pose no threat to heterosexual couples, but merely extend to same-sex partners and their children the rights and protections that Texans clearly value.

Equal Marriage a Matter of Morals

Scott Sherman — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:04:07 +0000

November 14, 2005: LGBT groups are increasingly making the arguement that it’s immoral to exclude some people from the rights and responsibilities of of marriage. That’s the message from Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, as reported in Reuters:

“What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections,” Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. “Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo — people would be outraged.“

Good for Foreman. He’s exactly right - if this were happening to any other minority group, it would be widely condemned by every right-thinking person.

Gay Marriage Safe In Mass - For Now

Scott Sherman — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 17:26:49 +0000

September 26, 2005: A victory in Massachusetts. A lopsided vote in the state Legislature defeated a proposed constitutional amendment that would have ended marriage rights for gays and lesbians, establishing state-sanctioned civil unions instead.

Both proponents and some opponents of same-sex marriage hailed the vote, with anti-gay groups saying they prefer a more restrictive amendment that doesn’t allow for civil unions. Organizers are now attempting to gather enough signatures to place such a measure on the ballot in 2008.

Most encouraging for me was the amount of legislators who changed their minds. One stunning example was in the Boston Globe:

‘’I do think that a lot of people have been thinking over the last year,” said Senate Republican leader Brian P. Lees, who abandoned his support of the amendment even though he was one of its cosponsors.

Even a cosponsor of the anti-marriage amendment now admits that ending marriage discrimination hurts no one. Now, that’s progress!

What You Can Do to Stop Arnold:

Scott Sherman — Mon, 12 Sep 2005 23:00:26 +0000

September 12, 2005: I said I’d post how you can respond to the California Crisis being forced upon us by The Discriminator. Here’s an excellent campaign being coordinated the Family Pride Coalition.

In the wake of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s response to the passage of California’s AB 849 – the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act – we are asking once again for your help. We must share our stories with the Governor and let him know how his discriminatory stance is going to hurt our families. Thank you to everyone who visited the Family Pride Action Center and sent the Governor an e-mail, letter or fax. If you haven’t, please go to www.familypride.org/supportCAfamilies and send your message.

Today, we are asking you to do something special to help the Governor and First Lady Maria Shriver understand that those hurt the most by this action are our children. As parents, we all understand the very real need of our children to feel safe and secure, and we know that being able to marry is an incredibly important way we can provide that security. Please help us convey that message by replying to this e-mail or sending a separate e-mail to advocacy@familypride.org with your children’s quote about why Governor Schwarzenegger should not veto our families.

Arnold: The Discriminator

Scott Sherman — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 18:27:54 +0000

September 9, 2005: It looks like Governor itSchwarzenegger will kill California’s historic bill to end discrimination in marriage. This is from the Kentucky Herald-Leader.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vow to veto a landmark same-sex marriage proposal this week - saying it violated the will of the people - has prompted the bill’s authors to delay delivering the bill to the governor to give gay rights advocates two weeks to bombard him with calls, e-mails and protests in a last-ditch effort to win support.

What an awful man he is. You know that in his years in the entertainment industry, Schwarzenegger must have worked with scores of LGBT people who helped put him where he is. Schwarzenegger lives in the rarefied air of the rich and famous where NO ONE cares ABOUT your sexual orientation. He came to fame in the BODYBUILDING community, for heaven’s sake! I bet he personally has no problem with gay people.

And what about his wife, Maria Shiver? You know she’s not doing her own hair and makeup!

Where would these people be without their LGBT friends and supporters?

I would be willing to bet money that Schwarzenegger knows that what he is doing is wrong. This is all about politics. How sad to see him selling out his friends and neighbors to shore up his conservative base.

I don’t know what actions California’s equal marriage advocates have in mind, but if I hear of anything, I’ll post it here.

Another Steps Toward Equal Marraige

Scott Sherman — Thu, 01 Sep 2005 23:47:28 +0000

September 1, 2005: Another state in the US moved closer to ending marriage discrimination today. This is from CNN.

The California Senate approved legislation Thursday that would legalize same-sex marriages, a vote that makes the chamber the first legislative body in the country to approve a gay marriage bill. The 21-15 vote sets the stage for a showdown in the state Assembly, which narrowly rejected a gay marriage bill in June. “Equality is equality, period,” said one of the bill’s supporters, Democratic Sen. Liz Figueroa. “When I leave this Legislature I want to be able to tell my grandchildren I stood up for dignity and rights for all.”

Of course, not everyone supported equal rights.

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, a Republican, said the bill was not the right thing to do. “We should protect traditional marriage and hold all of those values and institutions that have made our society and keep our society together today.”

Apparently, one of those values we need to protect is the right to discriminate against others.

Gay Unions Gain Acceptance

Scott Sherman — Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:58:29 +0000

August 9, 2005: Good news for our families: More and more Americans recognize the need and basic fairness of legal protections for LGBT families.

This is from Gay.com: The marriage equality movement may be gaining momentum in the United States, as new poll results show an increasing number of Americans support marriage rights for gay couples — the highest support since July 2003. According to the new Pew Research Center for People & the Press/Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life poll, 35 percent of Americans polled were in favor of allowing gay couples to get legally married. Fifty-three percent still opposed marriage for gay couples, but that same number of people polled, 53 percent, said they wanted gay couples to have some kind of legal arrangement, such as civil unions…The poll was part of a broader study of national issues that may face the incoming U.S. Supreme Court nominee.

It’s going to take awhile before most Americans can really wrap their heads around gay marriage, but we are making progess. As Tony Kushner wrote in Angels in America “The world only spins forward. We will be citizens. The time has come.” Amen, brother, amen.

Los Angeles City Council backs state marriage bill

Scott Sherman — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:14:56 +0000

July 15, 2005: The world has moved a little closer to equality now that the Los Angeles City Council unanimously passed a resolution voicing support for a state bill that would legalize marriage for gays and lesbians. The measure is largely symbolic, but hey, lets give them much love for the thought. Two members of the Council who did not support the resolution left the chamber so the resolution could pass unanimously. Maybe we’ll be lucky and they won’t come back!