Due to the inclement weather and our meeting location not being available, the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C. will not be holding our regularly scheduled meeting tonight. Our next meeting will be Tuesday, Feb. 23
February 09, 2010
What's wrong with the Republican Party, and what they could learn from the D.C. GOP
Nationally, the Republican Party is doing what it can to undermine gay marriage everywhere they can. In 2004, Karl Rove pushed ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage as a way to turn out conservative votes. It was cynical, buit worked. They've been pushing it ever since.
The Associated Press reports today:
A House committee is recommending against repealing New Hampshire’s five-week-old gay marriage law.
The Judiciary Committee also voted today to recommend that the House kill a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The vote was 12-8 on both measures, largely along party lines led by Democratic opposition.
It is notable that the New Hampshire legislature voted to override the Democratic Governor's veto to pass this law, so wide majorities should be expected to defeat these proposals.
Unfortunately, the vote in New Hapshire is falling along partisan lines. Republicans across the country are lining up on the wrong side of history, and against liberty, individual freedom, and fiscal responsibility, all things that they say they support.
Similarly, Republican failed to undermine our families in Iowa today:Following failed attempts in both the Iowa House and Senate Tuesday morning to force a vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Republican leadership has conceded that the issue won’t likely come up again before the November elections.
The notable exception is the D.C. Republican Party. The DC GOP likes to point out that they are proportionately more pro-gay marriage than the D.C. Democrats. While this appears to be true, it is notable that there are no elected Republicans on the District Council.
Councilmember David Catania, the first gay person elected to the Council and author of the marriage bill, left the Republican Party after having been rejected as a delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention for speaking out against President Bush's support for a Constitutional Amendment to ban same-sex marriages. Carol Schwartz, the long-time councilmember and long-time gay rights advocate lost her primary to Patrick Mara, a gay marriage supporter. Mara lost in the General election to Democrat turned independent, Michael Brown. Brown campaigned for and vote for gay marriage.
The current D.C. GOP head is Robert Kabel. He's gay and has lobbied the Republicans in Congress with Patrick Mara to leave D.C.'s marriage law alone. That's an uphill fight, but nice to have the local party on our side.
The 2008 D.C. GOP Platform states:
The District of Columbia Republican Committee believes that legal issues regarding the family and marriage are primarily the responsibility of the states and should not be addressed in the United States Constitution.
That's a lot weaker than I would like, but it is considerably better than we find anywhere else in the country from Republicans. We can only hope that the D.C. Republican Party can somehow bring the national party back to its ideals of limited government and personal responsibility and liberty. These are principles that call out for marriage equality.
The D.C. Republicans are going to have a hard time defeating independents, let alone Democrats, to regain Council seats. But at least they've learned to back marriage equality.
Proposed Initiative on Preservation of Traditional Marriage One Man One Woman 2009
To: D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
One Judiciary Square, 441 4th Street, NW, Suite 270N
Washington, D.C. 20001
From: Bob Summersgill
Washington, DC 20008
Date: February 9, 2010
Re: Proposed Initiative on Preservation of Traditional Marriage One Man One Woman 2009
Please reject the measure "Preservation of Traditional Marriage One Man One Woman 2009" as it is not in proper legislative form; Would violate the Human Rights Act; and would limit a budget act.
The legislative text in this measure is the statement "To repeal the District of Columbia's 'Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009,'" followed by the text of the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Act of 2009" itself. Were the measure to be approved—and the initiative to become law—it would cause the existing law to be re-enacted. If the initiative failed, the same act would already be law. The outcome would be the same either way as the measure fails to propose new law.
Additionally, sections 5 and 6 are improper. Since the Council has no role in passing an initiative, section 5 is entirely void, inappropriate and improper. Likewise, section 6 discusses the role of the Mayor. The Mayor is not involved in the process, so the section is void, inappropriate and improper.
Since there isn't proper legislative text, the Board should find the measure improper.
The summary statement presents an entirely different intention. According to the summary statement, the measure seeks to discriminate against gay people, as did the previous initiative and the two referendums on this subject in the past eight months. The Board appropriately found in those measures that they to deny marriage and all of its rights and responsibilities to same-sex couples in direct violation of the Human Rights Act. The Board should similarly find that this measure would authorize or have the effect of authorizing discrimination under the Human Rights Act.
Arguments that the law should be different than it is and different than Judge Macaluso has ruled should be rejected as inappropriate. The Board's Memorandum Opinion and Order on the Referendum on the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009 stated "...the Board is without authority to rule that the HRA restriction on the right of referendum is invalid." I believe that is correct and applies equally to the initiative process. That authority appropriately belongs to the courts. All such claims should be rejected as inappropriate to this hearing.
In the same Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Board found that the budget restrictions did not apply to a referendum. This suggests that it does apply to initiatives. As pointed out in the prior hearing, the reports of the OCFO and the Williams Institute of the ACLU Law School found that taxes and fees generated by gay people marrying in the District would amount to approximately one million dollars per year. The Board should find that prohibiting marriage equality would be a direct cost to the District, and therefore the measure is improper for initiative.
Thank you for your consideration.
Community conversation set for 2/18 on GLBT health in D.C.
This just in from Chris Dyer, director of the Mayor's Office of GLBT Affairs. I am posting it at his request.
The Mayor's Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Affairs (GLBT) will host a community conversation about GLBT health in the District of Columbia. Join guest speakers Dr. Pierre Vigilance, Director, DC Department of Health and Steve Baron, Director of the Department of Mental Health, for a conversation about improving GLBT health outcomes in the District.Date: Thursday February 18, 2010
Time: 7 pm
Location: Reeves Center, 2000 14th Street, NW, 2nd Floor, Edna Frazier Community Room.
Nearest Metro: U Street/African-Amer Civil War Memorial/Cardozo
For additional information and to register for this event, please visit www.glbt.dc.gov.Thanks.
Christopher J. Dyer
Director
Mayor's Office of GLBT Affairs
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 221
Washington, DC 20004
(202) 442-5143 (direct)
(202) 297-2137 (mobile)
(202) 727-5931
www.glbt.dc.gov
Bishop Jackson's latest case for undermining D.C. Home Rule
I was not surprised that a recent Washington Post article gleefully asserted, “DC’s left leanings confirmed in poll.” I was surprised at the seeming air of objectivity that the writers attempted to project. I was skeptical of the article and its conclusions for several reasons. First, it was commissioned and paid for by the Post (not to impugn the work of SRBI, Inc of New York). Second, a poll could yield very skewed results by focusing on selected wards. Third, private polling obtained by Stand For Marriage DC shows very different results.
We are aware of multiple polls that confirm the findings of the Post. Jackson can believe his group's push polls if he likes, just as he pretends that the entire D.C. Council and Mayor Fenty recently arrived from the moon rather than being elected by D.C. voters. Jackson's colleague Rev. Anthony Evans last spring cried out after losing a Council vote that all of the Council members who voted for marriage equality would be thrown out of office. I said back to him (this was in the hallway outside the Council chambers), "You've made threats before, Reverend. What kind of track record have you got?" Of course, our 11 to 2 victory answers that question. The greatest weakness of Jackson and Evans is that they appear to believe their own dishonest and ill-informed rhetoric. That's fine, they'll keep losing.
Bob Summersgill offers this: "Short analysis: He want's more Congressional interference to overcome the liberal bias of D.C. citizens." Yes, and he's not going to get it. But even if he did, we would defeat him. It must gall Bishop Jackson, a carpetbagger from Maryland, to think that we actually know the District's electorate better than he. Alas for him, his lies do not become true by his endlessly repeating them.
Attorney General Nickles opposes latest anti-gay initiative
The District of Columbia has long been a leader in the protection of human rights and the eradication of discrimination. As such, the District currently recognizes same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions. This recognition reflects the District's commitment to equality, as expressed in the District's Human Rights Act. The proposed Initiative seeks to redefine what is recognized as a marriage in the District and, in doing so, would strip only same-sex couples of the marital recognition they currently enjoy with respect to foreign same-sex marriages and will soon enjoy with respect to District same-sex marriages. Guided by the principles of equality and the recent decision in Jackson v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, No. 2009 CA 008613 (D.C. Super. Ct. 2010) ("Jackson II"), I find that the proposed Initiative is not a proper subject for initiative under District law, as it discriminates, or has the effect of discriminating, in contravention of the Human Rights Act.
The Initiative in question is a poorly drafted mess, so it could be overruled on those grounds quite aside from the subject-matter restriction. One way or another, it will be our fourth victory before the Board of Elections and Ethics in less than a year.
Iowans rate drivers' texting as more urgent than gay marriage
OneIowa reports that the marriage equality victory in Iowa looks secure, as experience trumps the fear-mongering:
Among six hot-button topics, a new Iowa Poll shows a majority of Iowans consider only a ban on text messaging while driving worth the Legislature's time during a session shortened by 20 days to cut costs. Iowans are not enthusiastic about devoting time to debates on gay marriage, puppy mills, gun control, payday loans or gambling.
(Hat tip: Bob Summersgill)
Cornelius Baker appointed to President's Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS
Yesterday, A. Cornelius Baker, a Senior Communications Advisor and Project Director at the Academy for Educational Development Center on AIDS and Community Health, was appointed one of the 24 new members to the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA). For the past two decades, Mr. Baker has worked in the local and federal government, local and national community-based advocacy and service delivery and on a variety of workgroups to advance the nation’s response to the HIV epidemic. He was recently voted as a member of the Board of Director’s for Us Helping Us, People Into Living, Inc., a local non-profit organization dedicated to serving the needs of African-American gay and bisexual men. He is the National Policy Advisor for National Black Gay Men’s Advocacy Coalition in Washington, D.C.
Congrats and thanks to Cornelius, who is a dear friend and a smart and tireless activist. The full list of appointees is here.
(Photo by Us Helping Us. Hat tip: Alexander Robinson)
February 08, 2010
Rep. John P. Murtha, 1932-2010
Congress Murtha HRC Score 107th 33 108th 17 109th 63 110th 70
Murtha's score improved in the 109th and 110th Congresses, though in the 109th that was due to HRC's triple-weighting of the vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment and double-weighting of the vote on adding the provisions of the hate crimes bill to the Child Safety Act. In both the 109th and 110th congresses, Murtha refused to cosponsor the Military Readiness Enhancement Act or the Uniting American Families Act. Still, let's give credit where it is due: Murtha's gay-related record did improve in recent years.
Granted, scores in the 60s and 70s do not win honors. By way of comparison, 90 House members earned a perfect 100 from HRC in the 110th Congress (including non-voting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from D.C.). To put things in perspective, only four Republicans earned scores equal to or better than Murtha's in the 110th: Christopher Shays of Connecticut with 100; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida with 70; Mark Kirk of Illinois with 85; and Deborah Pryce of Ohio with 70. So even a mediocre Democrat on gay issues is better than nearly all Republicans. One might suspect liberal bias in the selection of issues and bills from which the scores are built, or in the weighting; if someone suspects that, I'd love to see them create their own scorecard and lay out the basis for it as HRC does.
NOM's latest distortions -- Prop 8 trial
In a story this Sunday (Feb. 7), the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Walker is gay and called his orientation, "The biggest open secret in the landmark trial over same-sex marriage."We have no idea whether the report is true or not. But we do know one really big important fact about Judge Walker: He's been an amazingly biased and one-sided force throughout this trial, far more akin to an activist than a neutral referee. That's no secret at all.
Protect Marriage, the defendants in this case are effectively being held hostage by Judge Walker and cannot really comment.
But Judge Walker's bias from the bench includes:
A series of rulings permitting deep and deeply irrelevant "fishing expeditions" into the private and personal motivations and secret campaign strategy of campaign proponents. It wasn't six guys at Protect Marriage that passed Prop 8 it was 7 million Californians. But Judge Walker went so far as to order the Prop 8 campaign to disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used. He even ordered the campaign to turn over copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy.
Continue reading "NOM's latest distortions -- Prop 8 trial" »
Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad: much ado about nothing?
Cyd Zeigler Jr. at OutSports writes:
What were they thinking? The Focus on the Family ad that aired during the Super Bowl aimed at fighting abortion instead promoted domestic violence with Tim Tebow tackling his mother. When it aired, everyone at the party looked at each other with a “what in hell did I just see” look.
Okay, does her son tackling her represent a man trying to force a woman to have an abortion, or force her not to have an abortion? Or is it a reference to incest? Or was the commercial supposed to have been created by someone with so-called Post Abortion Stress Syndrome? Or what? One of the advantages of free speech is that it gives people the chance to demonstrate how disturbed they are.
Contact Us
Have a suggestion for an item? Send it along using our contact page.February 2010
About GLAA Forum
We warmly invite you to join us at our regularly scheduled membership meetings, held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month. Please visit www.glaa.org for a list of meeting dates and locations and other important information regarding our group's mission and projects.
