Asterisk

The civil rights movement has seen some remarkable losses in the last few months. In early November, voters overturned a marriage law in Maine. A month later, the New York Senate voted against civil rights in marriage. Then yesterday, after a brief period of debate, the New Jersey Senate voted against a similar civil rights bill. David Badash of The New Civil Rights Movement was good enough to put some of the speeches online. Below are four of them.

NJ Sen. Bill Baroni:"Unequal treatment by government is always wrong."

NJ Sen. Nia Gill: "I believe in the constitution."

NJ Sen. Gerald Cardinale: Straight people are "disenfranchised."

NJ Sen. Bill Kean: The Worst Kind Of Hypocrite

And so to the question: What can we gain from this experience? I think we can use this failure (theirs, not ours) as an opportunity to reconsider our strategy.

We need to remember that we never chose this war. Remember, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) came about 14 years ago because the Hawaii Supreme Court ordered that the state must show compelling reasons to exclude lesbians and gays from marriage. Anti-gay forces recognized the repercussions if that battle didn’t go their way, so they got DOMA passed to preempt a potential loss.

Then they got busy on individual states. In every single case (someone correct me if I’m wrong), the Religious Right pushed us into a marriage battle, most notably in 2004 under the direction of twice-divorced Karl Rove. Now Maggie Gallagher uses lies to continue their assault on civil rights.

Understand, even if civil rights were to win at the ballot box, you can bet they would be ready to drop another load of lies that we would waste another couple million dollars defending against, and then we’d lose. Again, that’s not because we’re doing something wrong, but because bigotry and fear are easy sells, especially when the opponent has no relationship with the truth.

My point is that we’ve been on the defense from the start. That’s a losing plan. After 31 popular votes and I-don’t-know-how-many state legislature votes, it’s time to start playing offense.

And that’s not the only reason.

The biggest problem is that when the votes from the legislature or the people are counted up we’ve still encouraged either the legislature or the people to vote on someone’s rights, regardless of who wins. That’s not just unethical, it’s downright Unamerican.

You know what I’d really like to see? The next time the question goes to the public, we make one ad, not telling people to vote for us, but telling them not to vote on the issue at all. We should acknowledge up front that we anticipate a loss but have made that sacrifice in favor of the greater constitutional principle. Then we take the millions we would have spent on a losing campaign and give it to the homeless or some other worthy cause.

In other words, stop playing the game. Opt out.

I think we win something if we opt out of their battle and lose. We’re 0-31 in the popular vote, and the last one in Maine was lost by a nearly perfectly run campaign. We will continue to lose that battle regardless of what we do, so why not turn that energy toward a different battle, one of our choosing?

We should pour some money and effort into finding the best attorneys to fight the best court cases, like the upcoming challenge to Prop 8 (more on that later) and the case being brought by Lambda Legal and Garden State Equality against yesterday’s decision in the New Jersey Senate.

In the end, that’s where we’ll win.

After nearly six months of stalling, the New York Senate voted yesterday on marriage equality. They voted against it 38-24.

Please read Paul Schindler’s article in the Gay City News for details on the vote and what happened. Most notable in the response to the vote is the revelation from at least three sources that eight senators who had privately pledged to vote for equality went back on their word. The mass betrayal was apparently led by freshman Senator Joe Addabbo of Queens, who was elected with major help from the local LGBT community.

“We should be incredibly angry,” [bill sponsor Tom Duane] told Gay City News. “I’m incredibly angry. I think the community should be very, very, very, very, very angry.”

Stating emphatically, “I’m not the one who ever lied throughout this entire process,” Duane charged that at least eight of his colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, had broken promises made to him, and said that he felt “betrayed.”

After initially declining to respond about what the consequences of such a betrayal are, Duane stated, “I believe in redemption and rehabilitation. No matter what people did today, we need to quickly provide them an opportunity to redeem themselves. That will get us the votes we had, that we have, and that we rightly deserve.”

Duane is not the only one who is alleging duplicitous behavior on the part of state senators. Paterson, who made the extraordinary gesture of going to the Senate floor after the vote, told Gay City News, “It’s very disappointing. It’s very disheartening. Certainly the promises that were made would have made it a much closer vote, if not a successful vote.” [...]

Senator Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, was less charitable toward those he believed had walked on their commitments.

“I’m profoundly disappointed and sad about the outcome, partly because many of us were given assurances that we had support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle who said they would vote for this today and did not,” he said. “I think this is the worst case of political cowardice that I’ve ever seen.”

Amidst the disappointment, there is reason to hope. Many senators spoke about their YES votes during debate (for some reason the NO voters were represented by only one speaker, the horrendously anti-gay Sen. Ruben Diaz, may God forgive his hate). None were more eloquent and touching than Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson of Suffolk, who was previously undecided on the issue.

This is important. Sen. Hassell-Thompson and others yesterday acknowledged religion and acknowledged their responsibility to lead in government regardless of strictly religious objection. We’ll get there, just not today.

Don’t lose hope.

I just hate politics so much. So. Much. Seriously.

I hate that we have to ignore the fact (yes, fact) that NOM is funding the anti-equality campaign in Maine through less-than-ethical, less-than-legal means.

I hate that in Washington, we have to ignore the fact (yes, fact) that the anti-equality measure got on the ballot by falsifying signatures. (Special thanks to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy for putting a lock on this one till after the election.)

I hate the fact that we participate in putting civil rights laws up for a popular vote in the first place.

And today, I hate that we all have to act like stupid arguments from blustering fools are worth our time.

On October 14th, a marriage equality debate was held in Maine where the “expert” from the anti-gay side was retired community college instructor and failed 2008 candidate for Congress John Frary. He’s the one in the dopey hat who thinks he’s Garrison Keillor.

Chino Blanco had the video on Friday, but I didn’t get a chance to watch it until today. This is part three of seven, so please go over to Chino’s to see the rest. God bless MCLU Executive Director Sheena Bellows and host Paul Mills for attempting to have a reasoned debate around Frary’s community theater grade theatrics.

What bothers me most is that this incident is far from isolated. There’s also new video of a debate at Hofstra University in New York with NOM President Maggie Gallagher changing the subject and making false statements lying about the horrible effect of civil rights while MENY Board President Cathy Marino-Thomas does her best to inject reason into the discourse.

Why does our society continue to lend respectability to these idiots? Their arguments are gibberish. I don’t mean that I think their arguments are silly, I mean that they’re silly on their face.

Is it because they give comfort to people afraid to face the world as it is? I suppose it’s easier to be a bigot when you have other bigots around teaching you what to say.

I suspect the reason is that people just don’t care. They’d rather we disappear from the face of the earth and stop interrupting their dinners, so why should we expect them to complain about people who agree with their ultimate solution?

I just… I just hate it so much.

For 24 years, the churches in Oakfield, New York came together for a Sunday morning ecumenical worship service during the annual “Labor Daze” festival.

That all came to an end this year. In May 2009, Rev. Larry Eastlack of Oakfield United Methodist Church wrote a letter to the editor in favor of civil marriage equality. In early August, the pastors in charge of the service demanded that Rev. Eastlack recant his views or be excluded from the service. A month after Rev. Eastlack removed himself from the committee, they scrapped the worship service for fear of protesters.

From The Batavian:

The brigade against his views is led by fundamentalist pastors at Oakfield Community Bible Church, led by Bill Smith, and Mark Perkins, who leads the Oakfield Alabama Baptist Church. They’ve been coordinating the Community Worship Service for the past several years and wanted to exclude [Rev. Larry] Eastlack from the Community Worship Service this year specifically because of his now publically (sic) known views on gay marriage.

They asked to sit down with the reverend and Perkins said they, including Eastlack’s associate Dave Phelps, discussed their views cordially and the meeting ended with Eastlack’s decision not to participate if that meant creating more strife.

A letter prepared Aug. 10 by Perkins and Smith — which amounts to an ultimatum to disavow gay marriage or else be shunned — was given to Eastlack afterward “almost as an afterthought,” said Perkins to emphasize the amiable tone at the meeting’s conclusion.

The letter rejects the notion of gay marriage as a civil rights issue and the idea that homosexuality is determined genetically. It cites Scripture on the issue and urges Eastlack to change his stance, with this caveat:

“…our Elders have stated that having you take part (in the Sept. 6 service) would send a message to our community and respective congregations that 1. We are in agreement with your stance or 2. We are willing to pretend that unity exists.”

The mayor finds the whole thing ugly.

“My personal feeling is that it just saddens me down to my soul,” Pastecki said.

That mayor’s a smart man.

I haven’t been able to find the text of the August 10th ultimatum yet, but I did find Rev. Eastlack’s letter to the editor. Prepare to clutch your pearls, girls:

When Miss California, of the Miss USA Pageant, said she believed that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman, she ignited strong opposition and support. Later she said, “As a Christian, I’d rather be biblically correct than politically correct,” as if Christians have no other option.

So far, same-sex marriage has been legalized in six states, with New York considering similar legislation. Most evangelical leaders are encouraging their congregations to oppose the Marriage Equality Act because they believe it is incompatible with biblical teachings.

Well, I believe it is possible to stay true to your religious convictions and still support legislation that would allow homosexuals to enjoy all the rights and responsibilities that come with matrimony. It is possible to spiritually oppose same-sex marriage without using the law to impose those views on others who believe differently. If evangelical Christians want all Americans to respect and protect their rights, it is imperative that they also respect and defend the legitimate rights of those with differing beliefs. As a pastor, I am encouraged when any couple in a loving and committed relationship desires to exchange vows that would publicly and contractually bind two loves as one.

This should not be a controversial viewpoint! It’s a positively middle-of-the-road, rational, constitutional understanding of the issue. It seems to me that Smith and Perkins need to re-read the third sentence in the last paragraph. Here, I’ll repost it:

If evangelical Christians want all Americans to respect and protect their rights, it is imperative that they also respect and defend the legitimate rights of those with differing beliefs.

My thanks to Rev. Larry Eastlack, for making his view public and for sticking to his convictions under pressure. We need more like him.

We’ve been waiting for the New York legislature to vote on the issue of marriage equality since Governor Paterson introduced the bill in April. Well, it jumped the first hurdle yesterday as the state Assembly passed the bill by a count of 89-52. From the New York Times:

Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.

“The margin of victory and the balance of where the people come from who voted for this is broadening,” said Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Democratic assemblyman from the Upper West Side who led the effort in the Assembly to gain support for the bill. “The state is demanding that we provide equality, and that’s the message here.”

Pressure was coming from both sides of the debate, with an additional and …interesting push from New York’s Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party is also applying pressure: it has threatened to strip its party affiliation and its ballot line from any politician who votes for same-sex marriage.

“We can’t look the other way,” said Michael R. Long, the party’s chairman, who added that he had informed the Republican leaders of the Senate and the Assembly of his threat to take away the Conservative ballot line — which in some elections can mean the difference of thousands of votes — from anyone who votes yes on the bill.

Some assembly members talked to New York’s Capital News about why they changed their votes.

“It’s important to be able to change your vote. When you get more information you understand something better,” said Assemblywoman Sandra Galef.

Galef is one of five members that changed their votes from no to yes this year. She says she was in support of civil unions, but now believes everyone should have the same rights she and her own children have.

“They really haven’t brought equity to partnerships and my goal from the very beginning was to have equity,” said Galef.

North Country Republican Janet Duprey also opposed gay marriage, favoring civil unions instead, but says her constituents convinced her otherwise.

“They’re not asking or religious ceremonies, they’re not asking to affect anybody’s religion. It’s certainly not going to affect my marriage of almost 42 years. They just want to have equality,” said Duprey.

There were also seven assembly members that did not vote, several of which voted no in 2007. Bill sponsor Danny O’Donnell says they’re on the fence now, but won’t be next time around, if there is a next time around.

“Since the vote took place, four or five republicans have already come to me to tell me that next time they’ll vote yes. So there’s movement on this issue. I can feel it and I’m very pleased with that movement,” said O’Donnell.

Now the bill moves to the Senate, where it has an uphill battle. The Senate vote is expected to come in the next few weeks.