Asterisk

All eyes have moved to Vermont this week, following the State Senate’s overwhelming passage of a marriage equality bill on Monday. Talks are ongoing in the House of Representatives, where passage is expected as well. The big question mark on the whole affair has been whether it will have enough votes to withstand a veto from Governor Jim Douglas (R).

That was an academic question until this afternoon; it had been speculated that while Governor Douglas was against marriage equality, he wouldn’t veto the bill instead allowing it to pass without his signature. That all changed when he announced his intent to veto the marriage equality bill. Audio below, courtesy Vermont Public Radio, with a few excerpts of the transcription of the statement courtesy the Rutland Herald, interrupted by my response.

[mp3=http://blog.mattalgren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/douglas-statement.mp3]

Again, below are chosen excerpts. To get the full transcript, see the link above.

The urgency of our state’s economic and budgetary challenges demands the full focus of every member and every committee of this Legislature. Ensuring that the federal recovery money is spent wisely, that the state budget is balanced and responsible, and that we do all we can to help our employers compete and create jobs is my top priority.

However, I recognize that legislative leaders have different priorities.

Nice dig at your opposition, Governor. Bravo.

So long as same-sex marriage consumes the time and energy of legislators, I will urge lawmakers to act quickly so they can turn their full focus to the economic needs of Vermonters as soon as possible.

Okay, so Governor Douglas has pulled out the old stand-by “We don’t have time” excuse. To begin with, the Senate took a week and the House is believed to be all but ready to vote by the end of this week. So, you know, two weeks isn’t a long time.

More importantly, why in the world would one think that civil rights should take the back burner? That’s a problem we’ve faced before, both in the LGBT community and in other civil rights struggles. “Just wait,” they say. “Wait, and once we this under control, we’ll get to your rights.”

And let’s just be honest, if it weren’t the economy, something else would appear that would be pushed as more important. It’s not good enough, Governor Douglas. Your constituents deserve better.

The question of same sex marriage is an issue that does not break cleanly as Republican or Democrat, rural or urban, religious or atheist. It is an intensely personal decision – a decision informed by all of those things and many more – an amalgam of experience, conviction and faith. These beliefs are deeply held, passionately expressed and, for many legislators, infinitely more complex than the ultimate ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ required to fulfill the duty of their office.

This covers a lot of catchphrases that we heard last year as the Religious Right prepped voters to feel okay about their vote. Let me put it plainly: I couldn’t give two shits about someone’s religious beliefs. They have no place in this discussion. That isn’t a “personal decision”, it’s the way the government is supposed to work.

Likewise, I don’t care how “deeply held” your convictions are. Guess what? Many people had the “deeply held” conviction that African Americans were less human than white Americans, that they should have separate bathrooms, that their children’s education was less important. Many had the “deeply held” conviction that women should live in submission to men, unable to inherit land or sign contracts. Heck, once upon a time, many had the “deeply held” conviction that women who might be witches should be murdered.

But those convictions were all laid aside in favor of reason and nonprejudicial order.

And frankly, no, it isn’t more complex than “yea” or “nay”. Take out all the junk and excuses that the Religious Right has come up with over the years and you have a simple question: Are we equal or are we unequal? This is one of those rare times that the choice really is binary.

For those on either side of the vote to sternly judge the other’s morality and conscience is the only true intolerance in this debate and is a disservice to all Vermonters.

No. Absolutely wrong. The proposition that one group is better or more deserving of respect, dignity, and full equal rights is one that should never be tolerated. It should be judged. It MUST be judged. The Constitution demands it.

I do judge your morality, Governor Douglas. I judge your conscience when it tells you that “deeply held beliefs” are more important than full equality for your constituents. I judge your service as a public servant. I judge your honor, sir. I judge your supposed Christian morals. I judge your humanity.

I judge these things, and I judge them wanting.

For those reasons and because I believe that by removing any uncertainty about my position we can move more quickly beyond this debate, I am announcing that I intend to veto this legislation when it reaches my desk.

It makes me sad, Governor Douglas. For nothing more than political expediency, you’re willing to sacrifice not only the equality of your constituents but your place in history. In a generation, people will look back at today’s statement and shake their heads. They’ll look at your silly arguments and rhetorical dodges with the same disdain as we look at the arguments made in 1957 by Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus.

This is your legacy, Governor Douglas. I hope you’re ready for it.

Another LGBT person has stepped up to be a role model for today’s youth and it just has to be recognized. I’m talking about Chance Nalley, a math teacher at Harlem’s Columbia Secondary School, has invited the 7th grade students and their parents to his commitment ceremony next month. (Thank goodness it’s a small school!)

In Harlem a week ago, a 32-year-old math teacher handed out slips of paper inviting the entire seventh grade of Columbia Secondary School to his upcoming ceremony, where, the names on the invitation made clear, he’d be celebrating his commitment to another man. The teacher, Chance Nalley, rarely wastes an instructional opportunity but said that, in this particular instance, he wasn’t trying to make an educational statement.

“They kept asking if they were invited,” he said of his students at Columbia, a selective public school that specializes in math, science and engineering. “Originally, I said no. But when I found a venue that turned out to be big enough I said, ‘O.K., you can come.’ I invited their parents, too.”

[...] With his principal’s support, Mr. Nalley, who started at the school when it opened in 2007, felt comfortable coming out to students during a diversity workshop that fall.

“A lot of the students were shocked at the time,” said the principal, Jose Maldonado-Rivera, “shocked that he said it, and shocked that it was true. For many students, it was a huge eye-opener — it was the last thing they would have thought about Chance.”

I don’t want to post the entire article by Susan Dominus, so go over to the New York Times to read the whole thing.

Chance Nalley pauses for a picture.

Already the effect of having an out non-heterosexual teacher in school can be seen. According to Mr. Nalley, six students have come out to him this year, and the article quotes some remarkably mature opinions from 7th graders, including understanding the difference between homosexual (which Mr. Nalley isn’t) and bisexual (which he is).

Kudos all around, to the principal for not squashing this, to the parents for being (mostly) on board, and of course, to Mr. Nalley and his partner/husband.

Sometimes I hate being right.

Last Thursday, I posted about the Obama Administration’s decision to sign a UN Declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality. GWB had refused to sign the declaration in December 2008. In the post, I made a fairly inflammatory statement about the Religious Right.

The only difference between the Sharia in Iran and the Religious Right in the United States is degree of success.

I actually held the post up for a few hours last Thursday trying to decide whether I was going too far. At one point I took it out completely, then I put it back in with a disclaimer. I finally decided to post it because I honestly thought the statement was true. I still wasn’t sure, though.

That changed yesterday afternoon when I ran across this post from Americans United confirming what I had previously surmised.

“Only 66 of the U.N.’s 192 member countries signed the [French] statement,” [Family Research Council President Tony] Perkins observed, “while nearly as many (58) endorsed a counter-statement pointing out that rights based on ‘sexual orientation’ are not found in established international law. On the contrary, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights defends the family as ‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society.’ That – and not political correctness – is a principle worth defending.”

Let’s see. Who might be among the 58 countries “defending” the family and pushing for the “right” to execute, jail or otherwise penalize gay people?

Try those venerable members of George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil,” Iran and North Korea. And don’t forget paragons of democratic virtue such as Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Libya, Algeria, Zimbabwe and the various ‘stans – Pakistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

Sudan took time out from waging genocide in Darfur to sign on too! And our erstwhile allies Iraq and Afghanistan were on the list as well.

Many of these countries scoff at individual freedoms, of course. Their definition of “family” includes polygamy in some cases and many keep women in brutal servitude. Religious minorities – including Christians, Tony – are persecuted relentlessly.

But what the heck, at least they’re keeping the gays in their place – pariahs, prison or the grave. Right, Tony?

Like I said, sometimes I hate being right.

The face of the "Axis of Evil" in America

So next time you hear something from Dobson, Perkins, Focus on the Family, or the FRC, remember: When it comes to The Gays, they’ve thrown in with the Axis of Evil.

Details are sketchy, but the Burlington Free Press is reporting that a marriage equality bill (SB 115) has passed in the Vermont State Senate with a whopping 87% of the vote (26-4).

Vermont’s Speaker of the House, Shap Smith, says that a similar bill should pass in the House very soon, though there is question as to how veto-proof that vote will be. Governor Jim Douglas has said he wouldn’t veto a marriage equality bill if it got to his desk, but also that he believed that marriage is for straight people only.

There’s been some speculation that Gov. Douglas might allow marriage equality to pass into law without his signature.

More from NECN.

Two bits of news in one post today. One is happy, one decidedly less so.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States, in a reversal of Bush administration policy, has decided to sign on to a U.N. declaration that calls for the decriminalization of homosexuality, the State Department said on Wednesday.

State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the Obama administration, which took office eight weeks ago, would now join 66 other U.N. member states who supported a U.N. statement in December that condemned human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world,” Wood told reporters.

“As such, we join with other supporters of this statement, and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora.”

The United States was the only western state not to sign on to the gay rights document. All European Union member states endorsed it, as did Canada, Australia and Japan.

As I read that yesterday, I couldn’t help but think “So what?” As the administration points out, there’s absolutely no legal obligation to this signing. It’s still legal to fire a gay person because he’s gay. It’s still legal to kick a lesbian out of her apartment because you don’t like lesbians. Honestly, signing this declaration should be an easy decision. What difference does it make?

Then the Box Turtle Bulletin linked to a video from Gays Without Borders. As Jim said over at BTB, only watch the video if you have a strong stomach. I’m still shaking from it, but I think it’s important to face what’s really going on in the world. This video was taken in Iran sometime in the past few weeks.

Update: BTB reports this afternoon that the video was misidentified by Gays Without Borders. I’ve pulled it here, and put in its place the first part of the 2007 CBC documentary Out in Iran: Inside Iran’s Secret Gay World.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu_tiFZjNQY[/youtube]
According to the article on the UN Declaration:

…homosexuality is illegal in 77 countries, seven of which punish it by death.

Before we get too high on our horse, being gay has only been legal in the United States since 2003.

The only difference between the Sharia in Iran and the Religious Right in the United States is degree of success.

The Obama Administration’s agreement to sign the UN declaration on homosexuality may not stop my Iranian brothers from being murdered by their government, but it’s a clear signal to the Religious Right that the days of their advance are coming to an end.