1853 posts categorized "Families"

April 23, 2014

Geidner: The New Book About The Marriage Equality Movement Gets The Big Things Wrong

(Photo by Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed critiques Jo Becker's book on the court fight over Proposition 8, which is being widely criticized. As Chris says, "A 434-page book about a lawsuit that promised to bring marriage equality to all Americans, but only resulted in restoring marriage equality in California, is a tough sell."

Regarding the above photo of the plaintiffs and legal team, my first question was, "Which one of those guys is Tom Cruise?"

April 17, 2014

No, Chad Griffin is not Rosa Parks


NYT reporter Jo Becker's new book, Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality, includes this preposterous statement:

This is how a revolution begins. It begins when someone grows tired of standing idly by, waiting for history’s arc to bend toward justice, and instead decides to give it a swift shove. It begins when a black seamstress named Rosa Parks refuses to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in the segregated South. And in this story, it begins with a handsome, bespectacled thirty-five-year-old political consultant named Chad Griffin, in a spacious suite at the Westin St. Francis hotel in San Francisco on election night 2008.

What pretentious, ahistorical rubbish. The marriage equality movement was a reform movement, not a revolution, and did not begin in 2008. A lot of people were working for marriage equality long before then. We were not standing idly by but laying the groundwork in a variety of ways: strategizing, researching, organizing, educating, lobbying, fundraising, litigating, debating, testifying, writing and advocating in cities and states across the country. We were building support among lawyers, legislators, and opinion makers. We were developing talking points and winning people over in countless difficult conversations and sustained efforts over many years in our families and neighborhoods and faith communities. The assertion that Chad Griffin started it is ridiculous and insulting and discredits Becker's entire book. I hope Griffin has the sense and perspective and respect to distance himself from this hyper-inflated nonsense.

Andrew Sullivan, who was advocating for marriage equality two decades before Griffin came along, offers a bracing take-down to Becker's "jaw-dropping distortion."

I remember Evan Wolfson being viciously attacked in the 90s by gay people for his marriage advocacy. I remember the vitriol Sullivan endured back then as well. How lovely it must be for them, after so many years of trenchant advocacy on the front lines and taking the debate to places others didn't dare go (and would have been unprepared to handle), to be treated like fluffers by people who arrived fairly late in the struggle and stood on the shoulders of those who came before.

For D.C.'s part in the struggle, you can look at the timeline that Bob Summersgill and I prepared, at my oral history shot by students at Cesar Chavez Public Charter High Schools, and at my December 2013 article on the lessons from our victory.

(Photo of Chad Griffin by Rex Wockner)

April 13, 2014

Nevada GOP drops party platforms against gay marriage and abortion

Las Vegas Review-Journal reports a welcome bit of news.

Mat Staver warns of government overthrow over gay marriage

Right Wing Watch shares the latest right-wing lunacy.

April 11, 2014

Krauthammer on 'thought police'


Check out Charles Krauthammer's latest column.

I hardly know where to start with Krauthammer's attempt to turn liberals into totalitarians. He blames "activists" for a grassroots effort by Mozilla employees and developers. He ignores the legal and constitutional issues at the core of the marriage equality fight and pretends it is all moral and philosophical -- because the religious bullies on his side of the aisle are determined to cast themselves as victims. He pretends that Obama had the same position as Brendan Eich in 2008, but Obama opposed Proposition 8. I was not happy with Obama's position back then, and criticized his slowness to "evolve" on the issue; but ballot measures were a key battleground, and Obama opposed their use to attack gays.

Krauthammer's argument on climate change is not with Obama but with scientists, who (despite his tendentious cherry picking) overwhelmingly agree that human activity played a role in it. And he mocks the reference to "change" instead of "warming" as if it is an evasion, when it more accurately reflects the science, which does not claim uniform effects. Here Krauthammer flirts with those who confuse weather and climate, though he knows better.

What is the point of all this furious and smug propagandizing? It is to make the relentless assault on gay families look like a mere dinner table argument, and to make those defending themselves look like the aggressors. It is to deflect attention from plutocrats like the Koch brothers who use fights on social issues to distract people from the harm being done to their own interests, as with Art Pope hijacking North Carolina and installing minoritarian government.

Just get everyone arguing over free contraceptives and women being sluts, and somehow the women whose reproductive freedom is under aggressive assault become the aggressors. All of this would be hilarious were it not so pernicious.

April 09, 2014

Sen. Alan Simpson Supports Freedom to Marry

Former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson does this ad for Freedom to Marry. I've met him and his wife. Delightful people.

April 07, 2014

Supreme Court won’t hear anti-gay photographer case

The Blade reports:

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday it won’t take up a case in which a New Mexico photography business alleges its rights were violated when it landed in hot water for refusing to shoot a same-sex wedding ceremony.

In orders published Monday morning, the court listed the case, Elane Photography v. Willock, without comment as among the cases it won’t consider.

The case was brought to the Supreme Court by Elane Photography, which was found to have violated New Mexico’s anti-discrimination law for refusing to take a photo for the same-sex wedding ceremony for Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth in 2006. (The wedding was only ceremonial because the incident took place before the state legalized same-sex marriage.)

Thank the Goddess for small favors.

April 05, 2014

Fox's Starnes denounces treatment of ex-Mozilla CEO

Fox News reporter Todd Starnes writes at Townhall.com to defend now-former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich:

Why not demand that those who oppose gay marriage relinquish the right to own property? Why not take away their right to vote? Why not take away their children? Why not just throw them in jail? Why not force them to work in chain gangs? Why not call for public floggings? Or better yet, let’s just strap them down on gurneys, stick a needle in their arm and rid the world of these intolerant anti-gay bigots once and for all.

I want to assure Mr. Starnes that I oppose those traditional conservative measures.

April 04, 2014

Judge to end Ohio ban on recognizing gay marriage

AP reports:

A federal judge said Friday that he will strike down Ohio's voter-approved ban on gay marriage, a move that stops short of forcing Ohio to perform same-sex weddings but will make the state recognize gay couples legally wed elsewhere.

Judge Timothy Black announced his intentions in federal court in Cincinnati following final arguments in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the marriage ban.

"I intend to issue a declaration that Ohio's recognition bans, that have been relied upon to deny legal recognition to same-sex couples validly entered in other states where legal, violates the rights secured by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Black said. "(They're) denied their fundamental right to marry a person of their choosing and the right to remain married."

Brick by brick, as Lorraine Hansberry once put it.

Honey Maid: Love

Honey Maid responds to hate letters with one of the best commercials ever. As plenty of people have already commented, let's make s'mores!

March 28, 2014

Gov. Snyder: Michigan Won’t Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder refuses to recognize 300 legal same-sex marriages conducted in the state after Judge Friedman's March 21 ruling and before a stay was issued pending appeal. Gov. Snyder's action is illegal. A legal marriage is a legal marriage. But the desperate, last-ditch obstruction by the radical right will continue until SCOTUS finishes the work of recognizing our families nationwide.

March 21, 2014

Michigan marriage ruling: 'Loving has profound implications for this litigation'

Another victory in federal court, this time in Michigan. Senior U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman, citing Loving v. Virginia and U.S. v. Windsor, ruled in that state's gay marriage case, DeBoer v. Snyder:

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Here is Judge Friedman's conclusion:

In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” Tr. 2/25/14 p. 40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor, 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.

Read the court's ruling here.

Congrats and thanks to all who worked to make this ruling possible. A luta continua.

March 14, 2014

Fischer: gay activists have brainwashed people into saying 'yes' to gay marriage

AFA's Bryan Fischer says the truth is always in fashion. And there he sits in his studio, proudly unfashionable.

You thought your marriage had problems

She's mad because her husband used to do "Straight Porn for Gay Eyes." Sounds like a niche market to me.

March 10, 2014

The South's Stunning Embrace of Gay Marriage

Robert P. Jones writes in The Atlantic on changing attitudes toward gay marriage in the nation's most culturally conservative region.

Black Lesbian Couple Found Dead in Galveston County, Texas

Horrific news from Texas.

March 04, 2014

Republicans From the West Give Support for Gay Marriage


NYT reports:

Evoking Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, a group of Western-state Republicans plans to enter the battle in favor of same-sex marriage on Tuesday, urging a federal appeals court to declare gay marriage bans in Utah and Oklahoma unconstitutional.

The most prominent of the approximately 20 signers of the brief are former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a longtime supporter of gay rights, and former Senator Nancy L. Kassebaum of Kansas, who said last year that she had reconsidered her former opposition to same-sex marriage. The document says that “marriage is strengthened” and “the social stability of the family unit are promoted” by allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

The document is a friend-of-the-court brief, being filed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver. That court is hearing appeals from Utah and Oklahoma to reinstate their restrictive marriage laws.

Thanks to Al Simpson and his colleagues.

(Hat tip: Charles Francis. Photo courtesy Made In Wyoming.)

March 02, 2014

Douthat: The Terms of Our Surrender

I do not agree with Ross Douthat's distinction between racial discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination. I was in the room (as was the fabulous Bob Summersgill) at a crucial meeting in the fall of 2009 when the call by the Archdiocese of Washington for an Arizona-style religious exemption (among other things) was discussed. I said absolutely not. Any house of worship can bar me from its sanctuary, deny me its sacraments, and denounce me from its pulpit; and I have defended the right of our opponents so to do. But in the provision of public accommodations, discrimination cannot be countenanced. This is a diverse society, and LGBT folk will be equal members of it.

At least Douthat recognizes that he is losing.

February 28, 2014

The latest on marriage equality

Adam Polaski at Freedom to Marry reports the latest advances for marriage equality:

The pace of progress is so swift these days, it's hard to keep up. And really, people: Kentucky? Texas? Big wow.

February 27, 2014

Tea Party Nation: Brewer's Veto Imposed 'Slavery,' Mandatory Penis Cakes For 'Homosexual Weddings'

Right Wing Watch shares the latest lunacy from the president of Tea Party Nation, in reaction to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's veto of SB1062.

Weighing in from another moon base, Tucker Carlson said on Fox News that requiring businesses to provide equal services to gay customers is fascism.

When you've gone too far for John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Mitt Romney, you might want to take a reality check. On the other hand, blogger Andrew Sullivan worries about a backlash:

As for the case for allowing fundamentalists to discriminate against anyone associated with what they regard as sin, I’m much more sympathetic. I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me.

Yes, they may simply be homophobic, rather than attached to a coherent religious worldview. But so what? There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. If we decide that our only response to discrimination is a lawsuit, we gays are ratcheting up a culture war we would do better to leave alone. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots, if we seek to coerce people into tolerance.

Unless one is prepared to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this is absurd. Licensed businesses are not entitled to discriminate against their customers. That is a price we pay for living in a diverse society. In any case, Andrew shows no sign of having researched the number and geographic distribution of non-homophobic Arizona bakers. What if you live in a small town with only one bakery, and it puts a "No Homos" sign in its window?

As a general rule, I don't want hostile people preparing food for me. But that should be my choice. As a participant in the local economy, I want to be treated with respect. A gay version of Jim Crow is not acceptable. When we talk about LGBT equality, we do not add an asterisk that says "unless it makes someone uncomfortable." Whatever the legal standard is for everyone else, that is what should apply to us as well. Libertarians generally think that non-discrimination laws should only apply to the government; but that is not the status quo, and their view, while intellectually coherent, is not popular and is not about to be enacted. As for a backlash, we've been fighting one since before I started my activist career in the late 1970s. We are winning the culture war that was launched against us by people who thought everyone should be forced either to believe and talk and act the same as them or to disappear. Well we did not disappear.

As my colleague Bob Summersgill noted a few days ago, D.C. Councilmember Yvette Alexander tried in 2009 to add a religious exemption provision to D.C.'s marriage equality bill during its committee markup. The vote on that amendment was 4 to 1 against. The Archdiocese of Washington wanted a number of similar carve-outs added to let them violate the D.C. Human Rights Act, and then-Judiciary chairman Phil Mendelson (with our strong backing) refused.

Most Americans already think that using religion as a pretext for discrimination is wrong. They are right about that. In such a religiously diverse society, we cannot allow pharmacists or restauranteurs or automobile mechanics or hospitals or city clerks to refuse service based on their religious beliefs. If we are to avoid being at one another's throats, we simply must be more tolerant of our differences. The problem is that the ones most loudly demanding a religious exemption actually just want right-wing Christians like them to have that right. This is a ploy to preserve privilege in the guise of religious freedom. And as we see in Arizona, it is not working. As Intel and Apple and Delta Airlines pointed out, it's bad for business.

February 21, 2014

NOM abandons effort to force marriage amendment onto Indiana ballot in 2014


Brian S. Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), issued this statement today:

After reviewing all legal options, the National Organization for Marriage has decided not to bring litigation seeking to allow voters to have the right to vote on the marriage amendment in 2014. While we believe a strong legal case can be made that the amendment could appear on the ballot this year, we think that the time and expense of such an effort would be better devoted to holding legislators accountable for their votes, and to preparing to elect a strong pro-amendment Legislature to pass the pending amendment in 2015. Accordingly, we will be working with our allies in the state to impact elections this year, beginning with the upcoming May primary races. We look forward to continuing to educate Hoosiers about the importance of the unique nature of marriage as society’s only institution that brings men and women together for the benefit of the couple and any children born of their union.

February 14, 2014

Reactions to judge's ruling against Virginia same-sex marriage ban

A happy day in Virginia.

Meanwhile, an opponent blames Valentine's Day:

Cohen and Lithwick: Gay Marriage Can’t Lose in the Courts

(Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

David S. Cohen and Dahlia Lithwick at Slate discuss the import of the perfect record for marriage equality since the Windsor ruling last June at SCOTUS.

February 10, 2014

Attorney General Eric Holder addresses HRC New York gala

AG Eric Holder describes Justice Department efforts to protect LGBT families.

World Congress of Families spots a conspiracy

From Right Wing Watch:

Right Wing Watch reports on the extreme rhetoric and activities of key right-wing figures and organizations by showing their views in their own words. In this video, Alexey Komov, World Congress of Families' representative in Russia argues about communism, the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 with Accuracy In Media's Cliff Kincaid (offscreen), while WCF's Larry Jacobs tries to intervene.

February 04, 2014

Marriage equality heads to court in Virginia; haters rally outside

Joe Jervis writes:

Tens of anti-gay protesters appeared this morning outside of the Virginia federal courthouse hearing opening arguments in AFER's marriage equality lawsuits. In the sparse group was failed Virginia lieutenant governor candidate and freak show crackpot E.W. Jackson. Today's protest was organized by NOM, the Family Research Council, and the Virginia Family Foundation.

AFER reports on what is going on inside the court.

January 30, 2014

Schlafly Claims 'Many Americans' Moving Out of Marriage Equality States In Protest

Right Wing Watch shares the latest fantasy from right-wing nut bag Phyllis Schlafly.

Cheerios offers sequel to its interracial family ad

Simple and flawless.

January 26, 2014

Gay libertarians defend discrimination as freedom of expression

Valerie Richardson at The Washington Times reports that some illustrious gay and pro-gay libertarians have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in defense of the right of anti-gay photographers, florists, and bakers to refuse their services to same-sex couples:

Those filing friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of the ADF’s position [defending the anti-gay business owners] include some high-profile supporters of gay marriage, including Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute legal counsel; Eugene Volokh, University of California at Los Angeles School of Law professor; and Dale Carpenter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

No. We are talking about licensed businesses. What our libertarian friends are effectively defending, as with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), is the right of businesses to refuse their services to anyone of whom they disapprove (including based on religious beliefs). By their logic, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have applied only to discrimination by the government -- while restaurants, shops, hotels and other places of public accommodation would have been able to continue refusing service to African Americans. No way. But do not call the libertarians sellouts: they are being true to their principles. I just think they are wrong. At some point we must check our principles against reality.

A further point: Personally, I would not want to hire someone for my wedding who disapproved of us. But that should be our choice. It should not be the right of a licensed business owner to discriminate without penalty.

January 24, 2014

NOM announces June 19th DC march

Jeremy Hooper notes that the National Organization for Marriage is planning a June 19, 2014 march in DC.  NOM events in DC have had  rather pitiful turnouts with the possible exception of the one held in front of the Supreme Court over the DOMA case.  Hooper questions why they would be planning such an event:

But now? They really think they are going to draw a crowd? For what: To support House Republicans' go-nowhere legislation? Who, other than a small cadre of Catholics and other local diehards, are going to take time out of a workday (June 19 is a Thursday) for such a purpose-less event?

There are several reasons why they might announce this.  Foremost is that anyone unwise enough to express an interest in attending will get a barrage of emails begging for money.  Forever.  The second reason is to have something to tout that they are doing.  NOM has had a series of setbacks and the few 'victories' they claim are rather paltry.  They are losing financial support bigtime.    But don't bet on this ever happening.  Around March or April this will quietly be forgotten.

January 22, 2014

Indiana House speaker moves failing anti-gay bill to more favorable committee

IndyStar reports:

Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma pledged to treat a proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage like any other bill this year. But critics say that vow fell away on Tuesday when he yanked the measure out of a committee where it seemed doomed to fail and sent it to one where it's all but certain to pass.

The highly unusual move means the proposed constitutional amendment is almost certain to get a vote on the House floor. It also reveals just how quickly positions are shifting on the issue — especially among Republicans.

A few weeks ago, no one would have anticipated that the measure would have had any trouble getting out of the House Judiciary Committee, where Bosma initially assigned it. But last week, three GOP committee members surprised many observers — including, apparently, Bosma — with reservations about the amendment.

That left Bosma with few options. He could let the measure die and risk angering conservatives who want an opportunity to vote on the issue. Or, he could use his powers as speaker to push the measure through at the risk of seeming desperate or heavy handed.

He chose the latter.

Freedom Indiana responds:

In a last-ditch effort to advance this deeply flawed, anti-freedom amendment, Speaker Bosma has broken his word and interfered with the traditional legislative process. Since it was unclear if there were enough votes to pass HJR-3 in the Judiciary Committee, Speaker Bosma has switched the amendment to a new committee, the House Elections and Apportionments Committee, which will hold a hearing [today] at 3:30pm.

“Thousands of opponents of HJR-3 have called, written and come in person to the Statehouse to explain to lawmakers how this divisive amendment will harm our families, friends and loved ones. We’ve explained the very real problems with this amendment through our personal stories. We’ve followed the legislative process with an earnest expectation that legislators truly seek to represent their constituents,” said Megan Robertson, Freedom Indiana Campaign Manager.

There's a smell of right-wing desperation in the air.

January 20, 2014

Marriage News Watch

Matt Baume of AFER gives an update:

A huge victory in Oklahoma this week, with yet another marriage ban declared unconstitutional. Now comes the appeal, in the same federal circuit as the Utah case. We'll take a look at what to expect. Plus, more progress across the country, from Indiana to Texas to Idaho and Georgia.

January 11, 2014

Norton denied courtesy of testifying on anti-choice bill targeting D.C.


At a hearing on January 9, Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, denied Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) the courtesy of testifying on his bill, H.R. 7, which would, among other things, permanently prohibit the District of Columbia from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-income women, and define the D.C. government as part of the federal government for the purposes of abortion. (At present, the prohibition against the District spending its own locally-raised tax revenues on abortions for poor women is prohibited by a rider to the District's annual appropriations bill.)

It is a standard courtesy for a member whose district is targeted by a bill to be allowed to testify on it. All Rep. Franks would do was to point out that the single witness the Democrats were allowed at the hearing could be Norton (the Republicans were allowed three witnesses), despite the fact that the bill also had nationwide implications and the Democrats needed a witness to discuss those provisions. The normal practice would be to allow the affected member to testify over and above the witness allocation. But Franks, in addition to being opposed to women's reproductive freedom and to the District's right to govern its own affairs, is opposed to basic courtesy toward a colleague.

I attended the Congresswoman's news conference on Thursday morning protesting the action by Franks. Speaking at the news conference, in addition to Congresswoman Norton, were Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), ranking member of the subcommittee, and D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray. The District of Columbia government is not part of the federal government. That is a fact that no law can change. The law, however, can make a mockery of itself, and can cause injustice. Fortunately, H.R. 7 has no chance of passing in the U.S. Senate. This bill is but one example of the mischief that we can expect from Congress if Republicans take control of the Senate in this year's midterm elections.

The Congresswoman's statement, and the testimony she would have given against this egregious infringement on the rights of the District and of its women, can be read here.

AG Holder: Utah gay marriages recognized by U.S.

NYT reports the good news, which is no surprise. Legally married couples in Utah or anywhere else are entitled to federal recognition.

On Twitchy, right-wingers are decrying Attorney General Eric Holder's decision as defiance of both Utah and the Supreme Court, and proof that the Obama administration considers itself above the law. This shows that they don't even understand (or pretend not to understand) what SCOTUS did, which was a stay on any further same-sex marriages in Utah pending appeal of Judge Shelby's decision.

SCOTUS did not address the merits of the case, nor was the stay retroactive. The approximately 1300 marriage licenses issued by Utah to same-sex couples between December 20 and January 6 were the result of a federal court order, not some rogue action. A stay pending appeal does not affect their legal legitimacy.

The saddest thing about our most vocal opponents is that they are so desperate in their lies.

January 07, 2014

What about those 900+ Utah gay marriages?

Chris Johnson at the Blade raises the question of what will happen to the more than 900 same-sex couples who legally married in Utah between December 20 and January 6, before the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of Judge Shelby's ruling pending appeal.

I agree with Shannon Minter, Suzanne Goldberg, and the ACLU that the existing marriages should be deemed valid.

Apparently some people are comparing these 900+ SSMs in Utah to the ones done in 2004 in San Francisco by then-mayor Gavin Newsome. But as noted by the Blade, Newsome took executive action. Here we are talking about a federal court order. I cannot imagine how those marriages that were legal when entered into could be set aside pending appeal. The fact that these new facts-on-the-ground are inconvenient for our opponents might make an alternate version of me in a parallel universe weep for the phobes' wounded sensibilities, but they and alt-me can get over it.

This in-between state of being married pending appeal makes more visible the reality of our lives that are affected by this. It's hard for me to see the down side of that, notwithstanding the crocodile tears being shed by Utah Attorney General Reyes on the gay couples' behalf.


A different sort of Tournament of Roses Parade float

Right Wing Watch reports:

Pastors Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner of Generations Radio were upset about a float at the Rose Bowl parade that included a married gay couple which, despite nasty attacks from anti-gay activists, went off without incident (and even won an award). Buehner was perplexed by the fact that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation sponsored the float, saying that its “pro-homosexual propaganda” would “spread AIDS.”

He added: “I wonder what the Rose Bowl parade would do if we had the stoning of a homosexual along the parade just as an expression of free speech and all that.”

Follow the link for an audio clip.

January 06, 2014

SCOTUS stays Utah gay marriage ruling pending appeal

Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog gives the low-down on the stay issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Utah gay marriage case.

Jonathan Capehart explains why this is not a bad thing. He is right. When we were planning the push for marriage equality in D.C., and more broadly talking strategy with our counterparts elsewhere and national movement leaders, we always recognized the confusion that would reign between our first victory and our final victory for equality from sea to shining sea. The alternative was not to start. That most gay folk understand and are okay with this is suggested by the widespread scorn regarding the Utah AG's argument that he's concerned about the married gay couples and how hard it will be on them if we lose. Ha! We are winning, and we are in this, and there is no turning back.

January 03, 2014

GLAA releases candidate questionnaires, LGBT policy brief

Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, DC
P.O. Box 75265
Washington, D.C. 20013

For Release:
Friday, January 3, 2014
Contact: Rick Rosendall

GLAA releases candidate questionnaires, LGBT policy brief

The Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance of Washington, D.C., today launches its 2014 Election Project and releases its questionnaires for Mayoral and D.C. Council candidates plus its LGBT policy brief, "Building on Victory."

GLAA President Rick Rosendall stated, "GLAA gathered input from a wide range of local LGBT advocates including the DC Center, DC Trans Coalition (DCTC), Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence (GLOV) and others. The result is 'Building on Victory,' the most comprehensive single document advancing LGBT issues in D.C."

On January 3, 2014, GLAA will email its questionnaires and policy brief to candidates in the April 1 D.C. primary election. The deadline for receipt of candidate responses is February 6, after which GLAA will assign ratings to the primary candidates (on a scale of -10 to +10) based on their questionnaire responses and their records on LGBT issues. GLAA does not endorse candidates in partisan elections.

Continue reading "GLAA releases candidate questionnaires, LGBT policy brief" »

December 31, 2013

Rose Parade Gay Wedding Will Take Place Despite Protest

(Danny Leclair and Aubrey Loots practicing their wedding kiss. AP Images)

You've probably heard about the gay couple that's getting married atop a giant wedding cake on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation's float in the Tournament of Roses Parade on New Year's Day. And someone's pushing a boycott of the parade. Personally I think the whole thing sounds tacky, but whatever whips your cream, I guess. John Rogers reports at HuffPost.

Utah asks SCOTUS for stay of marriage ruling

Utah Attorney General Sean D. Reyes today filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a stay of Judge Robert Shelby's December 20 ruling overturning that state's ban on same-sex marriages as unconstitutional. The state wants gay Utah couples to stop being allowed to marry pending its appeal of the case. The stay request will be handled by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who is likely to refer it to the entire court. Associated Press reports.

Read the state's application here. As Joe Jervis notes, it includes a citation of the discredited Regnerus study.