NY: Gay Marriage Sinks GOP Incumbent

(Via AmericaBlog) A Republican lost her seat in New York State after a gay man sank $500K to beat an anti-gay candidate:

The openly gay real estate developer son of a legendary builder, Rose, 47, would ultimately sink half a million dollars — an extraordinary amount even by the standards of cash-rich American politics — into defeating Kelly. "I woke up one day and discovered that my member of Congress had voted to prevent me and my partner from marrying each other," [Adam] Rose said last week. "I became incensed." He resolved to do "anything I could do to take her out." [GOP Rep. Sue] Kelly, who represents the city's northernmost suburbs, lost last Tuesday to Democrat John Hall by a slim 2% margin.

There was no constitutional amendment on the ballot in New York, but Kelly had voted for the Federal "Marriage Amendment".

Virginia and Wisconsin also lost Republicans directly or indirectly because of anti-gay measures in those states.

WI: Anti-Gay Group Targets Divorce

Not content with dictating how gay and lesbian people live in Wisconsin, the anti-gay group behing the "marriage amendment" will seek to ban no fault divorce in Wisconsin.

A leading supporter of the gay marriage ban approved by voters this week says it's just the first step in an effort to build a "culture of marriage" in Wisconsin. Family Research Institute executive director Julaine Appling says the next step is "stopping the bleeding of no fault divorce."

Divorce is not a good thing, but it's a fact of life. Are kids going to learn to form loving and lasting relationships in families who's parents can't stand each other, but can't divorce because Appling and her cronies want their bible verses in Wisconsin statutes? Sometimes divorce is a better option than forcing kids to live in a house filled with hostility and resentment.

And, you know those gay and lesbian parents that really love each other, and would raise well adjusted kids? They won't be able to get married, or civil unioned, or domestically partnered in Wisconsin for a long, long time.

VA, WI: Marriage Amendments May Have Cost GOP

In Virginia, the anti-gay "marriage amendment" might have brought out enough progressive voters who opposed enshrining discrimination in the state constitution to cost GOP Sen. Allen the election:

An analysis of the voting pattern Tuesday in Virginia suggests that the so-called “marriage amendment” on the ballot as Question 1 might have cost U.S. Senator George Allen the election. If true, it would mark an ironic twist, the backfiring of an effort Republicans hoped would spur a stronger turnout for their incumbent.

And in Wisconsin, Republicans blame their losses on the anti-gay "marriage amendment":

"The timing ended up backfiring," said U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Menomonee Falls Republican. "I think the opposite worked out this time."

Enough people are getting sick of politicians using the bible-thumpers to win votes.

Marriage Amendment: South Dakota

A new poll suggests that South Dakota might be the first state to reject an amendment to ban domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage by popular vote. The poll shows 47% voting no, 46% voting yes, and 7% undecided.

A poll in August indicated a similar trend in support for the discriminatory amendment. In that poll, 49% said they would vote no, and 41% would vote yes.

A question of whether or not to ban abortion is also on the ballot in South Dakota, and it looks like it will also get beaten. In a poll last week, 52% of respondents would reject a ban on abortion, and 42% support it.

Help Cheeseheads in the St. Croix Valley

I am continually amazed at the amazing work Fair Wisconsin is doing in their campaign to get the voters of Wisconsin to vote 'NO' in November on the amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage. Today, they put up an interactive map of all the events going on in the state. Wisconsin is a state with a lot of small and mid-sized cities, unlike Minnesota with 2/3 of the population in the Twin Cities, and a grassroots campaign really needs tools like this to get word out to voters.

One of the areas of Wisconsin that tends to vote against us on this issue resides in the St. Croix Valley. That's close enough for us Minnesotans to spend a few hours helping the campaign out. There are plenty of events scheduled in places like Hudson, Prescott, and River Falls. Just because we live in Minnesota doesn't mean it won't effect us, after all, those three communities are part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area.

Fair Wisconsin by the Numbers

Eric Eagan of the ACLU praised efforts by Fair Wisconsin to beat the amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage, in a letter to media reporters and editors around the country, urging them to spotlight the remarkable campaign. In the letter, he cited these accomplishments:

*According to its first report, Fair Wisconsin raised $1.3 million in a four month period, from a pool of 5,000 individual donors, 90 percent of whom are in-state.
*The organization is running a church-by-church organizing program that has resulted in faith institutions representing over 500,000 congregants taking public stands against the ban.
*By the end of August, Fair Wisconsin had over 7,000 volunteers, 28 local volunteer committees, 10 field offices, and over 50 paid staff members fighting the ban every single day.
*The group has reframed the debate in the media and with voters, emphasizing that this two-sentence amendment will not only ban marriage for same-sex couples, but could also take away relationships such as civil unions for heterosexual as well as same-sex couples.
*Fair Wisconsin has been organizing against the proposed amendment since January 2004, when the ban was first introduced in the Wisconsin legislature. In most other states that have faced these amendments, opponents have had only four or five months to mount a campaign.
*One recent poll, commissioned by WisPolitics.com, found that public opinion on the ban is in a dead heat, with 48 percent voting “no” (against the amendment) and 49 percent voting “yes.” Generally polls suggest a movement of 15 to 20 percent of voters moving to a “no” vote since the amendment was introduced in the Legislature in 2004.

Fair Wisconsin has also been running a blog showing people the inside workings of the campaign and providing up to date news about the fight in Wisconsin.

Focus on the Family to Invade Wisconsin

James Dobson and Focus on the Family are coming to Wisconsin to try and influence voters to vote for the anti-gay amendment there.

Focus on the Family, the conservative Colorado Springs-based group led by James Dobson, filed papers with the state Elections Board last week to create a referendum committee. The group has spent more than $1 million passing anti-gay marriage legislation in other states and the stakes here are high: Wisconsin has been pegged by analysts as perhaps the first state that stands a chance of defeating a same-sex marriage ban.

Unfortunately, this will make Fair Wisconin's fight against the amendment that much tougher. If you have family and/or friends in Wisconsin, please urge them to get involved in urging people to vote "NO."

25,000, Madison Protest, GLBT Photos in Winona

Fair Wisconsin's 500 or so volunteers knocked on over 25,000 doors last week to convince Wisconsinites to vote "No" on the anti-gay amendment on the ballot in November.

Three Madison students will challenge "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy at recruiting office.

Winona State University’s Darrell W. Krueger Library is hosting a LGBT photo exhibit “Love Makes a Family” through Sept. 10.

Support South Dakota

On Sunday, I attended a fundraiser in St. Paul for South Dakotans Against Discrimination, the organization battling that state's amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage.

Why in St. Paul? Many area LGBT people came to the Twin Cities from somewhere else because of the hostile climate toward them in their hometowns and home states. A good chunk of those folks are from South Dakota, and a majority of those at the fundraiser in St. Paul either grew up in or lived in South Dakota.

Why should Minnesota care? Minnesota has resisted attempts by our legislators to amend our State Constitution for several years, and the Religious Right and Republicans in our state have promised to continue that fight as long as Minnesotans are divided on the issue of providing equal rights and benefits for same-sex couples. Both groups, the Religious Right and the GOP, are interested in keeping the amendment issue going as long as it has potential to persuade people to vote Republican as a 'values' wedge issue.

In fact, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, Rick Wiley told the Milwaukee Sentinel that that is exactly why they pushed so hard to get the amendment on the ballot there. "It's our job to be sure that people go to the polls to vote for the marriage amendment and the Republican candidates for governor," he said.

Polls in South Dakota show that it's possible to defeat the amendment by popular vote in November. More people there say they will vote 'No' (49%) than would vote 'Yes' (41%). To Minnesota's east, polls and political analysts are seeing a similar, albeit slimmer possibility of a 'No' vote on the Marriage Amendment by Wisconsinites. It's fair to say that Minnesota, sandwiched in between, is at least as politically progressive as Wisconsin, and far more so than South Dakota. A defeat of the amendments in either state would be the first defeat in the nation, and would serve to neutralize the harsh debate over benefits for same-sex couples, especially here in Minnesota.

A defeat of the Marriage Amendment would be excellent news for LGBT people and progressives in Minnesota as legislators on the fence would find it easier to reject putting the measure on the ballot here. It would also make the Religious Right and Republicans wary of using it as a 'values' issue in upcoming elections. For LGBT people, our relatives, and friends, this would take the target off our backs as the vitriolic rhetoric regarding our relationships and loved ones would be diminished.

South Dakotans Against Discrimination needs to raise $5000 by Labor Day to match a donor's contribution. $10,000 can go a long way in reaching out to people and providing accurate information about the Marriage Amendment and its consequences. I encourage anyone interested in beating the amendment in South Dakota to lend their support to the cause. You can donate at their website at www.againstdiscrimination.org.

Winona Daily News: Love, marriage and ... lutefisk?

Winona Daily News' community columnist, T.J. Lettner, takes a look at what makes marriage work, as he analyzes the debate over Wisconsin's anti-gay marriage amendment:

The November winds of Wisconsin will usher in a pretty big debate this year. No, it’s not the debate on whether Brett Favre should and will retire or which purse goes best with blaze orange. The debate is whether or not the state of Wisconsin should amend its constitution to ban same sex marriages and civil unions, thus allowing for, or denying, marital rights of same-sex couples. Since Minnesota is one of only about a dozen states that does not either have a vote on the issue this fall, or does not already have something in the books, I wonder how long it will be before the debate crosses the Mississippi?

Lettner ends the column with a few questions to ponder:

This isn’t about whether or not you agree with that kind of lifestyle, it’s about equality and marriage. Look at your own: Does the definition of a few terms change how you feel about your spouse? Does it make your love any less powerful? Does granting others the ability to marry take anything away from your own? If not, why should we deny marriage to others just because we might not agree with how they live? If not, why should we care how other people serve their lutefisk as long as we’re not tasting it. If not, why not let it happen in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and anywhere else where we truly believe that all men are created equal, even when those men dig other men?

Religious Right Defends Domestic Violence Defendent

Fair Wisconsin's blog, No on the Amendment, has a post up about a strange case in Ohio. A group called the Citizens for Community Values has filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of the defendent, an alleged abusive boyfriend, in a domestic violence case. The defense is arguing the domestic violence laws are unconstitutional because of Ohio's Marriage Amendment which states that marriage is between a man and a woman and no legal equivalents shall be recognized by the state. In fact that defense has been tried in 8 cases in Ohio, 2 of which have been successful.

The court brief says: "CCV's strong interest in this case is to ensure that the plain and unambiguous text of the Marriage Amendment is properly applied by this Court, " and "The focus of the second sentence of the Marriage Amendment is not on the benefits or obligations assigned to those in the relationship which is given a legal status--it is on the status itself."

The fact that anti-gay organizations such as CCV, and their sister organizations around the country (Minnesota's version is the Minnesota Family Council), would actually defend an alleged wife beater just to ensure that gays and lesbians can't have any of the legal benefits of marriage is stunning.

Two Down, 1,047 to Go! Bush Signs Bill With Pro-Gay Provisions

A New Federal Pension bill was signed into law yesterday that will allow same-sex couples to transfer money in cases of emergency and tranfer funds without tax penalties. While it will effect same-sex couples positively, the bill itself doesn't limit it to same-sex partners:

"The first provision, called "Non-Spousal Rollover," allows for transfer upon an individual's death of their retirement plan benefits, like a 401(k), to an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) for a nonspouse beneficiary like a domestic partner, sibling, or any other designated person. In the past gay partners were forced to withdraw the amount as a lump sum and faced immediate tax penalties, diminishing savings intended for retirement. The second provision, known as "Hardship Distribution," allows individuals who list their same-sex partner or other nonspouse beneficiary under a 401(k) plan the ability to tap into their retirement funds in the case of certain medical or financial emergencies of the beneficiary. In the past, federal law permitted such withdrawals only for employees' legally recognized spouses or dependents." [The Advocate]

It's an exciting day for gays! We've gone from having 1,049 federal rights and benefits denied to only 1,047! Let's all celebrate...

Wisconsin Anti-Gay Amendment May Backfire on GOP

(Via AmericaBlog) The amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage may actually cost the GOP in November. A somewhat conservative columnist had this to say:

"Legislative Republicans thought they had an electoral magic bullet when they voted to put an amendment banning gay marriage on the November general election ballot. The constitutional amendment would allow them to highlight a popular issue, motivate a big conservative turnout, and help Republicans up and down the ballot stem what appears to be a Democratic tide in 2006.

But it increasingly looks as if the GOP miscalculated: making at least three major strategic errors:

First, they overreached, by making the amendment far broader than it had to be, including a ban on civil unions and perhaps on an array of other domestic benefits.

Second, they miscalculated the degree to which the amendment would motivate and mobilize the left. While many on the left may be lukewarm about turning out to support beleaguered Democrat Jim Doyle, they seem unified and passionate in opposition to the amendment and its presence on the ballot may actually end up boosting Democratic turnout in November. Amendment supporters also underestimated the financial and organizational resources of gay marriage supporters. While conservative and moderates seem somewhat lukewarm, the opposition has been able to raise more than a $1 million and has launched both a well-organized grassroots effort and television ad campaign. Polls show the public evenly divided on the issue.

Third, the defeat of the amendment at the polls – the first defeat of a ban on gay marriage anywhere in the country – could actually embolden Wisconsin’s courts to do what conservatives most feared: legislate it from the bench."

Timberjay Newspapers: Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense

The Timberjay Newspapers cover Minnesota's North Country. Based out of Ely, the local papers cover the area surrounding the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Resident Nancy Jo Tubbs writes a great editorial on why same-sex marriage is good for everyone:

To the extent that marriage promotes sexual fidelity, long-term commitment and a stable environment for raising kids, isn’t it a good thing? Don’t we want more of it? I can only assume that the anti-same-sex-marriage heterosexuals in the majority want to keep the good stuff away from people they judge with a morally superior, “tsk-tsk.” But wouldn’t it be more moral to share?

Let's hope this signals a tide of change in Minnesota. If the North Country can see the simple fairness of the issue, maybe our legislators can too.

Poll: South Dakota Voters Reject Anti-Gay Amendment

This is seriously stunning. The state that banned abortion says it will not pass an amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage. 49% of South Dakotans polled said they would vote 'no' on the anti-gay amendment on the ballot in their state. 41% said they would vote 'yes'. The margin of error was 3.5%.

I met Jon Hoadley of Against Discrimination, the collective of LGBT organizations in South Dakota fighting the ban, when he stopped over in Minneapolis on his way to lead the fight. He was simply going out there to use the amendment to build LGBT groups capacity and create a network of LGBT activism. It was never even supposed to be close. Now, a poll that is well outside the margin of error is showing that this will be the closest and perhaps best shot at defeating these bigotry based constitutional tamperings. Not everyone is happy, however. Baptist Press (a publication of the Southern Baptist Convention!) had this to say:

The question posed to those in the South Dakota survey may have impacted the poll's outcome, Regier suggested. Somewhat lengthy, it stated: "Constitutional Amendment C would amend the state constitution to allow and recognize marriage only between a man and a woman. It would also prohibit the legislature from allowing or recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or other quasi-marital relationships between two or more persons regardless of sex. If you were voting on this amendment today, would you vote 'yes' to change the constitution, or 'no' to leave the constitution as it is?"

"I think the question may have confused some people," [South Dakota Family Policy Council Executive Director] Rob Regier told the Argus Leader.

It's not the question confused people. It's that the SD Family Policy Council doesn't like that the full impact of the amendment is fully disclosed for voters. Wisconsin anti-gays got angry too when the Wisconsin Attorney General included text that allowed voters to realize the full impact of the amendment. The people pushing these amendments don't like voters knowing the full truth, because most voters aren't as mean-spirited.

“South Dakotans are reading the second sentence of Amendment C and aren’t fooled by misleading talk about ‘gay marriage,’ which is already illegal in South Dakota," said Against Discrimination campaign manager Jon Hoadley. Hoadley is right. When voters know the truth, they will vote for fairness and equality.

Wisconsin AG Tells the Truth

Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager has drafted an explanation of what passing the amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage really means:

"A 'yes' vote, she said, would write into the state constitution an existing restriction limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman. A 'yes' vote would also ban civil unions and other arrangements for unmarried couples that are 'substantially similar' to marriage."

The anti-gays are not happy that voters will understand the full impact of the amendment when they get to the polls:

"She did exactly what I expected - she showed her bias," Julaine Appling of the Vote Yes for Marriage coalition tells the Capital Times.

Why is Appling so scared to have voters understand the full impact of this amendment? Surely, she heard of the cases in Michigan where courts denied partner benefits using the amendment as the rationale? And this amendment has the same wording as Michigan's.

Wisconsin Gay Marriage Battle

The Pioneer Press has a lengthy article about the possibility of Wisconsin becoming the first state to reject an anti-gay relationship amendment.

There are a series of quotes from people in Western Wisconsin, where the real battle is expected to be, about their thoughts. It becomes clear that people still don't realize that this amendment will end domstic partnerships for many people and prevent civil unions from ever happening. Here's one quote that particularly describes that disconnect (pay special attention to his name):

"I think there's a lot of things gay people deserve along with everybody else, but gay marriage? There's more and more flaunting on the TVs and everywhere else. If they want to develop a partnership, that's fine, as long as they don't call it marriage."

— Dick Queener, Grantsburg (with a name like Dick Queener, well, um...nevermind.)

That's great Dick, but the amendment language goes like this:

"Marriage. Shall section 13 of article XIII of the constitution be created to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state and that a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state?"

Dan Savage: Washington State Marriage Decision

Dan Savage has an excellent commentary in the New York Times. Read the whole thing because it'll make you feel a little better about the recent defeats in Washington and New York. Here's a snippet:

"Both courts have found that my son’s parents have no right to marry, but what of my son’s right to have married parents? A perverse cruelty characterizes both decisions. The courts ruled, essentially, that making my child’s life less secure somehow makes the life of a child with straight parents more secure. Both courts found that making heterosexual couples stable requires keeping homosexual couples vulnerable. And the courts seemed to agree that heterosexuals can hardly be bothered to have children at all — or once they’ve had them, can hardly be bothered to care for them — unless marriage rights are reserved exclusively for heterosexuals. And the religious right accuses gays and lesbians of seeking 'special rights.'"

Since Michele Bachmann has made a career of making same-sex parents lives miserable, I'll call her out again (and this goes for Chuck Darrell over at Minnesota for Marriage (M4M)). What of the rights of the children of same-sex couples? Do they not deserve the right to have parents that are married? And if the debate is all about protecting children, then she either needs to concede that same-sex families need that protection, or else outlaw same-sex parenting. I think she's mean-spirited enough to entertain the thought.

Dale Carpenter: The Washington Decision

Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota law professor, gives a great analysis of what the Washington State same-sex marriage decision means. And it's not completely bad news either. The court acknowledged the hardships that face same-sex couples:

"We do not dispute that same-sex couples raise children or that the demographics of "family" have changed significantly over the past decades. We recognize that same-sex couples enter significant, committed relationships that include children, whether adopted, conceived through assisted reproduction, or brought within the family of the same-sex couple after the end of a heterosexual relationship. We do not doubt that times have changed and are changing, and that courts and legislatures are increasingly faced with the need to answer significant legal questions regarding the families and property of same-sex couples. (Citations omitted)."

"We are also acutely aware, from the records in these cases and the briefing by the plaintiffs and the amici supporting them, that many day-to- day decisions that are routine for married couples are more complex, more agonizing, and more costly for same-sex couples. A married person may be entitled to health care and other benefits through a spouse. A married person's property may pass to the other upon death through intestacy laws or under community property laws or agreements. Married couples may execute community property agreements and durable powers of attorney for medical emergencies without fear they will not be honored on the basis the couple is of the same sex and unmarried. Unlike heterosexual couples who automatically have the advantages of such laws upon marriage, whether they have children or not, same-sex couples do not have the same rights with regard to their life partners that facilitate practical day-to-day living, involving such things as medical conditions and emergencies (which may become of more concern with aging), basic property transactions, and devolution of property upon death."

Dale Carpenter then pulls a paragraph out of the opinion that explains why the court ruled the way it ruled, and that it is very interested in taking up the same-sex marriage debate again (possibly with very different results), if the Washington legislature doesn't do something to eleviate the hardships for same-sex couples:

"But plaintiffs have affirmatively asked that we not consider any claim regarding statutory benefits and obligations separate from the status of marriage. We thus have no cause for considering whether denial of statutory rights and obligations to same-sex couples, apart from the status of marriage, violates the state or federal constitution."

Carpenter views this paragraph as a directive to LGBT advocates and the state legislature:

"To the state legislature, the message seems to be this: 'Get moving on addressing the hardships faced by gay couples and their children, some of which we’ve listed for you. You don’t have to give them marriage and maybe not even all of the rights of marriage, but something needs to be done. If you don’t act, we might.'"

"To gay-marriage litigants, the message seems to be this: 'Go to the legislature and see what can be done about the sorts of problems you’ve identified and that we agree exist. If the legislature is unresponsive, come back to us not with a claim for the status of marriage, but with a remedial claim for the benefits and protections of marriage for your families.'"

So, it's not all bad news. And perhaps a move we should try here through our legislature? I mean, if we don't add protections for gay couples, then we'll sick our "activist judges" on you.

(I found this through Lloydletta)

Wisconsin Fights the Amendment

Fair Wisconsin continues to make strides in the fight against the amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage.

* A woman in Madison gave the Fair Wisconsin campaign $275,000.

* A poll in Wisconsin showed the state is evenly split when it comes to the amendment, 49 percent in support of it, and 48 percent against enshrining discrimination in the state's founding document.

* And Fair Wisconsin has launched a television ad that I've posted below.

MInnesota Family Council: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Equals WW2

The Minnesota Family Council likens the debate over same-sex marriage to the fall of France to the German's in World War II:

"For several years, opponents of the marriage amendment have defended their position by saying that same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota; we don't need an amendment. To hear them talk one would think marriage is safe and secure behind a bulwark of laws and judicial decisions. This kind of ignorance is reminiscent of the WWII French generals who insisted that the Maginot Line would protect France from German attack. History shows that the Germans agreed - and went around it. France surrendered in a matter of weeks. Soon we'll be hearing 'peace in our time,'' no doubt."

They really, really want a war, what with the elections coming up in less than 4 months. The language is an unmistakeable call to arms to their base, some of whom undoubtedly are "Christian Nationalists" who would rather have their version of the Bible become our founding document. From an Alternet interview with author of "Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism," Michelle Goldberg:

"Christian Nationalism is a political ideology separate from evangelicals. Evangelicals are about 30 percent of the American population. Christian Nationalism is a subset of 10-15 percent. It's less a religion than it is an ideology about the way America should be governed. It has this whole revisionist history claiming that America was founded as a Christian nation, that the separation of church and state is a fraud perpetrated by seculars. What follows from that are ideas about Christianization of institutions in American life, and that the courts have vastly overstepped their authority in the enforcement of the separation of church and state."

The Minnesota Family Council is marching lockstep with the people Goldberg describes. The article sent out right before the anti-same-sex marriage call to arms, was an article lamenting the separation of church and state:

"Every time someone says 'that's in violation of separation of church and state', I am reminded of Pavlov's dog -- the canine trained to salivate at the sound of a bell. This is because American's have been pre-conditioned to respond with '...violation...' when stimulated by the juxtaposition of religion and government. Although this 'stupid pet trick' makes for good late-night comedy, it exposes the success of historical revisionists to redefine the original intent of the Establishment Clause, and, reveals the nations 'separation anxiety' concerning the future of religions protected role as an independent influence upon American democracy."

The Minnesota Family Council exerts a lot of influence over Minnesota politics. They run Minnesota for Marriage, an outfit devoted to a constitutional amendment to end domestic partnerships and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage. They train churches on how to speak about politics from the pulpit. They are a resource for the Minnesota GOP. And they want to use the bible to transform Minnesota into a state that is run with their brand of Christianity.

Federal Marriage Amendment Fails

The Federal Marriage Amendment failed in the House yesterday, falling 47 votes short of the 2/3 majority needed. In MInnesota, all the Minnesota Republicans voted for the amendment, Ramstad, Kline, Kennedy, and Gutnecht, one Democrat voted for the amendment, Peterson, and 3 Democrats voted no, Sabo, McCollum, and Oberstar.

US House to Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Tuesday

The US House will vote Tuesday on the Federal Marriage Amendment written by virulently anti-gay Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.), that is intended to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage throughout the US. An amendment already failed the Senate, and is not expected to pass the House, so this can only be seen as a political stunt to make conservative Christians happy.

"Opponents of same-sex marriage claimed success anyway. They argue that the 2004 vote was part of a successful campaign to rally conservatives and help win Bush's re-election. Proposals to ban gay marriage were on the ballots of 11 states, including Ohio, where a bigger than usual rural turnout swung the election to Bush." [MSNBC]

"The more this issue is discussed, the more people understand the threat" posed by activist courts, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. The votes in Congress give the majority of Americans who oppose gay marriage a chance "to look and see if the people in Washington represent them and stand on the same side," he said.

The fact that 5 out of 8 Minnesota House members voted for this trash in 2004 shows we need a change in November. Fortunately, there really no way this thing will pass the House, and even if it does, the US Senate has already rejected it.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent this alert out today:

"CALL-IN TO OPPOSE THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!

The Federal Marriage Amendment, H J Res 88, would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. This unnecessary amendment would threaten religious liberty, enshrine discrimination against LGBT people in the Constitution, and have far reaching consequences for basic legal benefits for same-sex couples.

The radical right is campaigning vigorously in support of this amendment. It is time to make your voice heard! Tell your representative to vote against the Federal Marriage Amendment because you do not believe that discrimination belongs in our Constitution.

Today, Task Force members are joining members of 140 national and state organizations opposed to the Federal Marriage Amendment and calling Congress and making their united voices heard. Be a part of today's national call-in day. Contact your representative at 202 224 3121 to urge them to oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Thank you,
Matt Foreman"

Anti-Gay Marriage Activist Uses Marital Priviledge

Lorri Pickens is the campaign manager for Vote Yes For Marriage, Wisconsin's anti-gay group trying to pass a ban on (public) domestic partnerships, civil unions, and same-sex marriage. The State of Wisconsin tried to investigate her husband, Brent Pickens, for illegal practices during a Supreme Court Justice race in the late 1990s. In fact, an earlier case resulted in fines for those involved. From Bill Christofferson:

"Brent Pickens was fined $35,000 and banned from campaigns for five years. Justice Wilcox paid a $10,000 fine, and Block was fined $15,000 and banned from campaigns for three years. The $60,000 total was the biggest penalty ever paid in an elections case in Wisconsin."

Investigators are still looking into Pickens' illegal doings, and tried to question his wife, Lorri Pickens, who has devoted her life recently to ensuring GLBT couples and families don't have any rights, recently invoked the spousal priviledge:

"Dane County Circuit Judge Dan Moeser on Friday ruled that the state's marital-privilege law bars investigators from asking Lorri Pickens about statements made privately by her husband, Brent Pickens, an organizer of the Wisconsin Coalition for Voter Participation (WCVP)."

While this woman campaigns to prevent GLBT families from having any protections, she has protected her husband, who has allegedly broke the law, with one of the basic rights of marriage. This right-wing family has these rights, even though they have broken the law in the past, and are still being investigated, while good LGBT families have very little, and, if the amendment passes, will have virtually nothing. Is this why opposite-sex couples get marriage, so they can break the law for the GOP, and prevent others from having basic familial protections, while invoking their own protections? And if anyone thinks there's no link between Republican corruption and the same-sex marriage fight, the Pickens are a great example.

Via Fair Wisconsin's No on the Amendment.

Dale Carpenter on NY Gay Marriage Decision

Last week, the New York Court of Appeals refused to recognize same-sex marriage and handed the issue to the New York legislature. Dale Carpenter, a University of Minnesota law professor analyzes the decision:

"Children need permanence and stability in their lives. Yet the heterosexual relationships that produce them, said the court, “are all too often casual or temporary.” Homosexual couples do not become parents by “accident or impulse”; they must plan ahead and obtain children through adoption, artificial insemination, or some other “technological marvels.” Unstable relationships among heterosexuals therefore “present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples.”

Note the irony of this argument. For decades, homosexual life has been medicalized and pathologized by doctors, sexologists, psychiatrists, and politicians. Only 33 years ago, homosexual orientation was still officially a “disorder.” Gays, especially gay men, were denounced as hopelessly promiscuous, unstable, histrionic, and self-absorbed. Above all, this medico-political consensus held, homosexuals were dangerous to children and should be kept away from them. From the outset of the gay-marriage movement, a vocal opposition argued that the supposedly innate instability of homosexual relationships disqualified them from marriage.

Now, in the most important judicial decision yet rejecting a claim for gay marriage, we are told that gay couples may be kept from marriage not because they are unstable, but because heterosexual couples are unstable."

So, the argument that same-sex marriage undermines heterosexual marriage was upheld in this case. Who says courts can't be 'activist' in the other direction? The court basically said that because of heterosexual promiscuity and instability, gays can't get married. Can we now use the talking point that heterosexual relationships undermine same-sex relationships?

Michigan: Anti-Gays Challenge Benefits for MSU Workers

Gary Glenn, leader of the American Family Association of Michigan has filed a second lawsuit aiming to strip public Universities from having the ability to offer same-sex domestic partnerships. The suit argues that Michigan State University partner benefits are similar or equal to marriage, thereby violating the anti-gay marriage amendment passed in Michigan in 2004. Much like in Minnesota, and in Wisconsin, the conservative groups in Michigan that pushed for anti-gay marriage amendments said it will not take away domestic partnership benefits for same-sex couples. Here's what Glenn of AFA-MI said iin 2004 before the election:

"But Glenn said concerns about employee health benefits aren't valid because the bill will not affect the private sector, which is governed by federal law. He said the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have already spoken out in support of domestic partnership benefits, therefore nulling the students' argument." [StateNews]

“Under that policy, every single person currently receiving any kind of benefit would continue to do so." [Metro Times Detroit]

"It is our opinion the state can offer benefits to any employee or dependent it wishes to, but it cannot do so on the basis of recognizing a homosexual relationship as equal or similar to marriage." [HRC]

And now his group has filed a second lawsuit end domestic partnerships at a publicly funded school, Michigan State University. He lied, his group lied, and the population of Michigan was duped into hurting same-sex relationships and families.

In Wisconsin, the debate is raging as both sides try and convince voters to vote their way on the anti-gay marriage amendment before the November ballot. And Julaine Appling, whose group is spearheading the amendment is singing the same song as bald faced liar Gary Glenn sang in Michigan in 2004:

"Amendment supporter Julaine Appling [Executive Director of Family Research Institute Wisconsin] said she's certain courts will uphold domestic partner benefits for couples like O'Donnell and Mache. Health insurance alone isn't similar to the dozens and even hundreds of benefits marriage can provide, said Appling, head of the Coalition for Traditional Marriage. 'I think all of that is a smoke screen that people are using to chip away at the amendment's real intent which is we don't want look-alike marriages and we don't want marriage redefined,' said Appling, who sees traditional marriage as a way to better families and a better society." [Wisconsin State Journal]

"Domestic partnership benefits, she said, wouldn’t be touched by the amendment. 'That’s for a private company to determine, or a local unit of government,' she said." [Daily Telegram]

Want to bet if this thing passes, Appling will be filing a lawsuit by December to strip university employees of their partners health care benefits? One way to be sure that our queer cheesehead brothers and sisters don't have to worry about that is to make sure the amendment doesn't pass. Support Fair Wisconsin, and make out neighbors to the east become the first state to vote down an anti-gay amendment.

Allegations Against MN Supremes Found Invalid

An attorney from Golden Valley, Greg Wersal, filed a complaint against MInnesota Supreme Court Justices after Dean Johnson made a statement to ministers indicating that he spoke with some justices regarding same-sex marriage. During that meeting, an anti-gay was there secretly recording Johnson. Ministers from the church were very angry that someone had come in and done a secret recording.

Last week, investigators for the Minnesota Board of Judicial Standards found no validity to the complaint filed by Wersal.

Who is Greg Wersal and why does he care so much? According to DumpBachmann, he a rampant homophobe and Bachmann supporter. He has written letters to the editor that support making sodomy illegal: "We have turned democratic institutions upside down and inside out. The people through the Legislature created a crime of sodomy that has existed in one form or another since Minnesota's inception as a state." He actually, accused Attorney General Mike Hatch of failing to defend the sodomy statute adequately enough. He has trivialized the GLBT victims of the Holocaust: "When one considers that gay activists frequently like to tell us that as much as 10 percent of the population is homosexual, it sounds as if they were grossly underrepresented among the Holocaust victims."

When Wersal was a candidate for Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, he sued Minnesota in federal court so that judges could speak out on political issues. This lawsuit cost Minnesota tax-payers $1.4 million in legal fees. It's ironic that his current complaint involves judges allegedly speaking out on political issues.

Greg Wersal is not a good person.

Federal Marriage Amendment

The federal amendment to the US Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, and basically any federal marriage rights for same-sex couples is up for a Senate vote on Tuesday.

Religious zealots are all super tense and secretly excited that it falls on the most evil day in years, one that signifies the "mark of the beast", 06-06-06: "Coming up for vote in the U.S. Senate on Tuesday June 6, 2006, the 6th day of the 6th month of the 6th year (666), is the amendment for the U.S. Constitution which would define marriage as only being between a man and a woman. This amendment would stop the Sodomites from forcing their agenda down our throats. There is no clamor in the sodomite community to be married, they are using this issue to try and legitimate their sin." [Link]

Spooky, no?

Bush threw his support behind it today. AmericaBlog has the list of Senators who intend to vote for this amendment. All are Republicans except one. Minnesota's Republican Norm Coleman apparently hasn't made it known which way he intends to vote. It's a good idea to contact him and persuade him against it.

The LA Times has an editorial blasting amendment supporters for dividing the country over this issue. The Senate is "squandering its time on a choreographed argument over gay marriage staged for no higher purpose than dividing the country."

In the Star Tribune, J. Brian Atwood, dean of the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, has a commentary about the amendment, and in particular the issue of religious marriage and civil unions: "People of goodwill should reject any effort to create barriers to treating people fairly. Let the state decide how the law should apply to civil unions, and leave to religion its interpretation of the word 'marriage.'"

Also in the Star Tribune, superb ally and mother of a gay son, Randi Reitan, confronts Bush on his support for the amendment: "We were ignorant about homosexuality until we heard the words "I am gay" from Jacob. Our world opened up to a whole new reality when we, as his parents, set out to learn all we could about what those words meant. I wish President Bush would learn all he could about homosexuality before he sets out to discriminate against Americans who happen to be gay."

Anti-Gays Go After Johnson, Expose Gay Bashing for Gains

Both of Minnesota's anti-gay groups are going after Sen. Dean Johnson after he made remarks that should have been seen as a gift from God. Johnson said at a meeting with pastors that he discussed the possibility of a same-sex marriage case with the Minnesota Supreme Court:

"Taped without his knowledge at a meeting of clergy members in New London in January, Johnson, DFL-Willmar, can be heard saying that "members of the Supreme Court, I know all of them. I have had a number of visits with them about our law. All of them, every one of them, including the lady who just stepped down, Kathleen Blatz, was my seatmate for four years. She was the chief justice. You know what her response was? 'Dean, we all stand for election too, every six years.' She said 'We're not going to touch it.' That's what she said to me." He also said that he had talked with two of the three justices named Anderson and that they had told him, "Dean, we're not going to do it."" [Star Tribune]

In response, Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage are seeking to remove Johnson from the legislature. And Minnesota for Marriage say that he should allow a floor vote of the amendment to rectify the situation.

But, if all of this fuss over an amendment to the constitution eliminating domestic partnerships and banning civil unions and same-sex marriage is all about preventing judicial activism on the issue, then why aren't these groups happy? Shouldn't they be relieved that the Minnesota Supreme Court won't do what they are so afraid of?

Sadly, no. They are outraged that Johnson has undercut one of their arguments and pissed that people might realize that Minnesota doesn't need an amendment. And if Minnesota doesn't need the amendment, then the Minnesota Republican Party can't use it to get votes, and all that money they spent on an anti-gay CD that spies on you will have been wasted.

This movement for an amendment is all about bashing gays and lesbians FOR POLITICAL GAIN. This story proves it once again.

Minnesota Taliban Update 3/13/06

From the Minnesota Taliban at Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage (Google it, I'm not linking to it) on the need for a Marriage Amendment:

Behold, the institution of marriage! It is one of the Creator’s most marvelous and enduring gifts to humankind. This divine plan was revealed to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and then described succinctly in Genesis 2:24, where we read, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (KJV). With those twenty‐two words, God announced the ordination of the family, long before He established the two other great human institutions, the church and the government. Five thousand years of recorded history have come and gone, yet every civilization in the history of the world has been built upon it.

Why don't we just adopt the King James Version of the bible as the Minnesota Constitution and be done with it?

(Reality tends to hit them in the face, when discoveries like this are made demonstrating human activity at least 30,000 years ago.)

Bashing Gays for Political Gain

With the new Republican spy DVD featuring Minnesota's Republican leaders, you have to wonder why out leaders have flip-flopped on gay marriage in an electionn year. Laura Billings at the Pioneer Press asks this question in a great editorial. She also supplies us with some quotes from people who appear on the Marriage Amendment spy DVD:

Minnesota House Speaker Steve Sviggum shortly after the Massachusetts ruling: "We passed DOMA, and I think we stand with that until somebody says that's not the law."

Governor Tim Pawlenty on the Massachusetts ruling: "We passed several years ago the Defense of Marriage Act," he told a Pioneer Press reporter at the time. "We think it will repel any legal challenges."

Billings asks: "So why all the drama now?"

Well, because it's an election year! And the Minnesota GOP know they are in trouble, so why not roll out a massive campaign to use churches to mobilize their base.

Minnesota Anti-Gays to Target GSAs?

looking through the news, I found this line in an article about a bill in Virginia that would allow schools to prevent Gay-Straight Alliances from using their facilities. The bill, introduced by Republican Matt Lohr, was killed in committee. It seems our anti-gays have been sniffing around Virginia to get ideas:

"One family organization from Minnesota, Lohr said, contacted him about introducing similar legislation in their state, he said." [Link]

MN GOP Spy On Computers, Bedrooms

There's been a lot of news in the past week, as the 2006 Legislative Session begins, and the anti-gays are up to some strange tricks:

The lovely people in the Minnesota Republican party have released an interactive CD featuring Gov. Pawlenty, and the rest of the MN GOP anti-gay contingent. The really funny part? The CDs are actually data mining programs:

"To watch the video, a person has to log onto the Internet and punch in an identity code that tells the party who is watching the video. Once the video is going, viewers are asked questions on certain subjects like abortion, the Second Amendment and their party preference. Party officials distributed test copies of the CDs to the media and have been open with the technology. They were no disclaimers that the data was being collected and transmitted.

Mark Drake, with the Minnesota Republican Party, says information provided through the CD will be sent to a server and will be used by the parties. Initially Drake said people who were going to receive the CD should assume the data is being collected because the video is sent by the GOP, is interactive and that the viewer has to provide their personal information. He says the CD packets will now specify that the Republican Party is collecting certain information." [MPR]

Privacy is not a big issue with the GOP whether it's your bedroom they're peering into, or your computer. And with this special CD, you get both for the price of one!

Would Anti-gay Minnesotans Ever Compromise?

The answer, sadly, is not really.

Last week, Charles Darrell, executive director of Minnesotans for Marriage, invited my readers to ask questions on the same-sex marriage debate at Opine Editorials. Here was my question:

I'll take you up on your offer to ask Mr. Darrell questions. And I have only one: What compromise (if any) will Minnesotans for Marriage offer to the GLBT community in terms of rights and recognition of our relationships in this debate over "same-sex marriage" and "traditional marriage"? In other words, is there a middle ground that can be reached?

The answer is continued below.

Andy,

Marriage is our cultural DNA.

Minnesotans for Marriage believe that same-sex romantic relationships should have 12 (yes 12) benefits of marriage on two conditions: an state-sponsored devaluing of those relationships, and everyone else is entitled to those benefits as well. Same-sex romantic relationships would be the same as two senior widowed women supporting each other, or even 2 college roomates.

Here's what Massachusetts anti-gays are offering: "Marriage licenses in Massachusetts grant same-sex couples 400 to 450 legal rights and heterosexual couples approximately 1,400 state and federal rights, Isaacson said. The Benefits Fairness Act would grant 12 rights to same-sex couples that enter into the reciprocal beneficiary contracts with the secretary of state."

And what Charles is referring to in the Netherlands is merely a private contract between three people, which I talked about here a few days ago.

Craig Westover on Chuck Darrell's Amendment

Craig Westover is a very rational and well-written conservative, and columnist for the Pioneer Press. I don't always agree with him on issues, but I think he hit the nail on the head when it comes to the anti-same-sex marriage amendment and Chuck Darrell's editorial. Via Lloydletta:

"Then the question becomes why not an amendment that defines separation of powers and states to effect that "only the legislature shall have final authority to define marriage"? Why legislate through the constitution by passing an amendment that begs judicial involvement to determine what a "marriage-like" relationship is -- if reducing judicial activism is really the goal?

Chuck, I've defended the intent of the marriage amendment on liberal sites, believing that despite my disagreement with it, it would only prohibit same-sex marriage and not legally contracted agreements between same-sex partners. That was the original position of amendment supporters. Now it’s clear the overt intent is prohibit civil unions, which raises the question does the language prohibit an individual same-sex couple from contractually forming their own civil union?

You use the term “bait and switch” in regards to civil unions, but I don’t think there was ever any doubt that same-sex marriage is the end goal of the gay community. The difference between the “activists” you demonize (as would I) and people like Dale Carpenter is the former want same-sex marriage any way they can get it, the latter want same-sex marriage through legislation when society is ready to accept it.

I do not feel fooled by the gay community; however, I feel a “bait and switch” victim of those supporting the amendment. I fell for the rhetoric on the supporter side of this amendment that the amendment was only to prevent judicial activism. I’m trying real hard to see amendment supporters as “defending traditional marriage,” but the more pushback you (the royal “you”) get, the more your effort comes across as anti-homosexual, not a defense of marriage. For example, I found the tone of the Pastor’s Conference at least somewhat conciliatory; the CD included in the information packet was embarrassingly inflammatory and fear mongering.

Frankly, I am embarrassed to support a political party that as a matter of policy sees the same-sex marriage issue as necessary to bring out the voters supporting other conservative initiatives. If I believed in demonizing a group to achieve one’s ends, I’d be a liberal and demonize the rich to bring about social justice. If I believed the end justified the means, I’d be a Democrat and bring out the vote by scaring old people into thinking Republicans were going to take away their social security.

I agree with you, Chuck, that to avoid judicial activism on this issue a constitutional amendment perhaps is necessary. However, the amendment ought to be narrowly targeted at the separation of powers issue, and not a blanket condemnation and demonizing of a specific group. That is bad precedent more to be feared than the bogeymen unearthed on your CD.
craig westover"

Craig makes some great points. If these people are so concerned about judicial activism, then why propose an amendment with vague language like "legal equivalents" to marriage? This is just begging for lawsuits and it will take years for the courts to decide what is and isn't a legal equivalent. It's pretty clear from Craig's experience that these people are more concerned with demonizing gays, than they are with the so called "preservation of marriage."

Proof that letters to get to the editor

I rarely write letters to the editor of newspapers, because I have this soapbox with 400 people reading a day! But the Charles Darrell commentary really pissed me off, so I wrote a letter and it got printed:

Attacking gay families

"Does Charles H. Darrell of the Minnesota Family Council/ Minnesotans for Marriage ("Same-sex 'civil unions' are merely a foot in the door," Jan. 9) offer any alternatives for gay and lesbian families now that he has condemned both same-sex marriage and civil unions?

It seems to me that civil unions provided a compromise on a hotly debated issue, protecting "traditional" marriage, but still affording gay and lesbian families with some support.

It's hard not to see Minnesotans for Marriage as anything but mean-spirited, and their movement seems to have the primary goal of ensuring that gay and lesbian families do not exist at all.

ANDY BIRKEY, MINNEAPOLIS"

I really don't like Minnesotans for Marriage.

Charles Darrell: No Civil Unions

Christian activist and front-man for Minnesotans for (Heterosexual) Marriage, Charles Darrell, has a commentary in the Star Tribune saying that civil unions are just same-sex marriages. He uses the recent legalization of civil unions in Connecticut as proof that the homos are just scheming to turn them into same-sex marriage. Well, duh, Charles. Those of us advocating for same-sex marriage want equality. We just thought we'd try a compromise. I guess the high road doesn't apply to Christian activists.

He ignores Vermont, however. Vermont has had civil unions for 6 years now.

The editorial is further evidence that Christian activists aren't willing to compromise one bit on same-sex relationships. He talks about the 'slippery slope,' but if Chuck Darrell and his activists won't budge a bit on civil unions, and want to take away domestic partnerships as has been done in Michigan and Ohio, what does that mean on the other side of the slippery mountain?

I can't speak for Darrell, but I can imagine his next steps include public funding for ex-gay conversion therapy, then a reinstatement of sodomy laws, and, who knows, possibly even criminalization of homosexuality. If you think these people will stop at marriage, you're kidding yourself. After all, they are devoting their career, money, and lives to being anti-gay. That's a lot of passion devoted to their strange cause. I doubt with a passage of a marriage amendment, they'll just sit back and revel in their success at tampering with Minnesota's founding document.

They'll continue down the slippery slope, attacking any positive portrayal of GLBT people, boycotting businesses that support us (think Ford, Barbie), and, who knows, even picketting gay bars. If you've ever seen the picketters in front of an abortion clinic, then you know how much free time these people have.

Anti-Marriage Amendment Could be in Trouble

Voters in two special elections for the Minnesota Senate have replaced two Republicans who supported the amendment to end domestic partnerships and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage with two DLFers who are opposed to amending the state constitution. [365Gay.com]

Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, DFL-Willmar: "Will it come up? I'm sure the conservative Republicans will push the issue, but it's less likely that it finds its way to the ballot question in November now than it did last session."

Totally anti-gay Senator Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater: "It could be difficult," she acknowledged. "I certainly admit that it could be difficult to get it on the ballot, but the dynamic that has changed is that now we're looking at an election year and this is an issue that is extremely popular with the voters." I'm confused. Don't they keep saying that this isn't about getting evangelicals to the polls to support Republicans?

Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council whose views closely resemble those of the leader of Iowa's KKK: "They'll have to decide if this empowers them, but we think it's an issue that will not go away and will keep coming back and there will be strong support for it, and we think it will be an important issue in the fall if it doesn't get on the ballot."

MN Daily: Same-sex Marriage Ruling a Positive Step

Today's Minnesota Daily editorial praises South Africa's Supreme Court decision to allow same-sex marriage. I encourage folks to write a letter to the editor supporting this editorial before the 5 or 6 religious zealots from Maranatha Student Fellowship or Students for Family Values can get print space in the letters section.

Also, I had a couple of problems with the editorial:

First, it neglects to mention that South Africa has protections against discrimination written into the Constitution. This is unique to South Africa, and the anti-gay folks here in America should understand that this is not "judicial activism." It's a very important part of the story as South Africa is the first (and I think only) nation in the world where sexual orientation is written explicitly into a democracy's founding document.

Second, the editorial says, "Furthermore, this ruling will allow South Africa to move forward as one nation to tackle the problem of AIDs and HIV — a problem that affects nearly 20 percent of all adults in the country. It is not a “gay” problem but a problem that affects all sectors." It's AIDS, not AIDs. Small typo, yes. Even bigger complaint: why does the Daily need to connect same-sex marriage and HIV for this editorial? Male-to-male transmission of HIV has never been an important mode of infection in South Africa, and I fail to see how same-sex marriage is going to impact the heterosexual, medical, and prenatal transmission of HIV.

The connection between HIV and same-sex sexual behavior IS important in many contexts, but not in South Africa. Gender equality and economic independence of women is actually the cultural need in South Africa to stem the raging HIV epidemic there. Heterosexual contact is thought to account for 90% of infections. Some research puts the use of unsterilized medical equipment anywhere from 5% to 60%.

It's not a very well written editorial, but it's the thought that counts, right?

The court decision is great news for South Africa's GLBT community. However, for a conservative, christian, Republican reaction to the news, here are some Actual Freeper Quotes (trademark Pam's House Blend):

"I read the other day that SA had one of the highest rates of HIV infection...Maybe in these "committed" relationships they will stop spreading it to women and kids. (barf)"

"The liberal media keeps avoiding the issue of homosexuality for the rampant AIDS in Africa. It isn't a coincidence that S. Africa has the most lenient policies when it comes to gay rights and one of the highest AIDS rates."

"Gay weddings? South Africa? Why, by all means. Only, can we be spared the incessant whining & begging for money to cure AIDS?"

"What will be the new definition of a "person"? Queers are a living, breathing, walking disease and in my book wouldn't qualify to be considered a person." [Link]

"It's good to see how well South Africa is doing, now that blacks are in full control of their destiny...That's okay with me, so long as they have full ownership of the consequences and don't look to evil white devils to bail their sorry asses out of their problems..Semper Fi" [Link]

And there you have it. This is what goes on inside the minds of people who vote for the George Bushes, the Michele Bachmann's, and the Tim Pawlenty's. They also vote for Anti-Same-sex Marriage Amendments.

Action Wisconsin

I'm going to do my best to cover the fight against discrimination in Wisconsin as citizens organize against the anti-domestic partnership, civil union, and same-sex marriage amendment that is currently being debated. But for the news and rumors I miss, Action Wisconsin has a blog set up to cover daily events for the fight.

Even if they are cheeseheads, Packers fans, Badgers, whatever, we're joined together. Two blue lake states that have the potential to be the first states to block attempts at further marginalizing our communities. Minnesotans and Wisconsinites love to squabble and fight, but this anti-gay amendment stuff is a fight that we both need to win. You can support Action Wisconsin through the blog, and you can fight the amendment by contacting family and friends in Wisconsin and letting them know that this amendment is a very bad idea.

Together Minnesota Meeting Next Friday

If you are looking to take an active role early in the fight to keep the anti-gay amendment off the ballot next fall, Together Minnesota is a good place to start. Outfront Minnesota is organization their 2nd community meeting next Thursday. Also, there will be a community organizing night at the Saloon to gather support against the amendment. Via Lloydetta:

"TogetherMinnesota!
It's About More than Marriage

December 8, 6:30 - 8:30pm Campaign Update Meeting

National HRC, Task Force, and National Center for Transgender Equality To Speak.

The second Community Meeting has been set:

Dr. Martin Luther King Center
270 Kent Street, St. Paul
651-224-4601

What is the status of same-sex marriage in other states? What pitfalls can we avoid in our campaign that have been learned in other states? This and more about our progress will be discussed in the second TogetherMinnesota! update meeting on December 8th.

Our guests, Bo Shuff (national HRC staff - Washington, D.C), Mara Keisling, (Executive Director of the National Center for Transgender Equality), and Dave Noble (Political Director of the Task Force - Washington D.C.), will join us to share their insights on the upcoming legislative battle, as well as other important information about what’s happening nationally regarding GLBT rights.

In addition, we will also give an overview of the Pastor’s Summit Protest Rally in Eden Prairie and the importance people of faith have in this campaign. Whether you intend on getting actively involved or want to know more information about what is happening, this is the time to attend and show your support! "

Patrick McIlheran Believes Canada's Laws Govern US

Patrick McIlheran is the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel version of our very own Katherin Kersten. A token consevative who couldn't argue his way out of a paper bag. Today, he takes on the Wisconsin constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage, and I think he's cheating off Katherin Kertsen. He spews the same Canada equals the United States crap that Kersten did a few weeks ago, and that Chuck Darrell did last week:

"A Catholic bishop in Alberta was after he wrote a letter urging Catholics to oppose same-sex marriage. Critics hauled him before the human rights commission. Elsewhere in Canada, which legalized same-sex marriage last summer, a group was sued when it balked at renting its hall to a couple of lesbians. Recall that in Wisconsin you can't turn down tenants for living in sin; the criminalization of dissent is not distant."

Here's why that's crap.

"The campaign for gay marriage is all about denying anyone the ability to disagree. If we are told by legislators or courts to permit same-sex marriage, then any disagreement we might have with it can have no effect on what we do or say. The law will have told us that we must regard the couple as married, even if we think that's nonsense." (My emphasis)

Well, I don't think it's so much a campaign for gay marriage as it is a campaign to keep an amendment out of the Wisconsin constitution. And there's nothing that stifles debate more than having anti-gay words enshrined in a constitution! After it's there, it stays there for a long time, if not forever.

I think a lot of laws are nonsense. I think making marijuana illegal is nonsense. Should we put decriminalization of marijuana in the constitution? I think that dependence on foreign oil is detrimental to national security. I propose we pass an amendment to make gas mileage minimums mandatory. See, it starts to sound kinda silly.

Why don't the Patrick McIlheran's and the Katherine Kersten's just put it out there: they don't like gays and produce a a list of reasons why, and they think their religion is superior to everyone elses and should be law. Then they'd have arguments that make sense. But wait, then that nasty 'bigot' word might get thrown around some more.

Wisconsin's Proposed Anti-Gay Amendment Hearing Tomorrow

Our neighbors to the east are getting really close to putting an amendment to ban civil unions and gay marriage on the 2006 ballot. The amendment reads: "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state." [StarTribune]

Tomorrow, the amendment will have a public hearing at the Wisconsin Capitol, one of the last stpes for it to go on the ballot.

"'We really believe the issue will be won or lost at the grass-roots level,' said Julaine Appling, executive director of the pro-amendment Family Research Institute of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage."

It's true, and one of the best ways we as Minnesotans can help our Dairyland GLBT friends is to talk about the issue over the holidays. Many of you hail from Wisconsin. When you go home for the holidays, make sure to let you family know you oppose this amendment. And if they are against same-sex marriage, at least remind them that it's already illegal in Wisconsin. There's no need to clog Wisconsin's founding documents with frivolous discrimination.

Anti-Gays Continue Myth that Canada Equals US

Chuck Darrell, Executive Director of Minnesotans for Marriage, responds to Westover's column, "Same-sex marriage should be a conservative objective," with faulty arguments, the same two arguments that keep getting spouted: Canada's going to hell, and that there's a connection between gay and lesbian households and the destruction of African American families.

Because Canada has legalized same-sex marriage, religious leaders are being persecuted, and that will lead to persecution in the US. He uses the example of Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary, Alberta: "Henry has first-hand knowledge of this assault on religious expression. He has been threatened by tax officials and called before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal for promoting traditional marriage in his pastoral letters. 'The human rights tribunals have become like thought police,' he says. 'In Canada, you can now use the coercive powers of the state to silence opposition.'"

Canada does not have the same government as the United States, and the United States does not have the same government as Canada. Canada's constitution, called the "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" states: "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Canada limits free speech when those limits are prescribed by law. Canada had passed Bill C-250 which prohibits "hate propaganda" or speech which incites hatred of groups of people, including sexual orientation. The United States doesn't have a law like that. Also, Bill C-250 was passed in September 2003, well before same-sex unions became legal in Canada.

Darrell tries to make a link between same-sex marriage and a laws against hate propaganda. There isn't a link.

Then Darrell tries to compare GLBT families with African American families: "'I'm concerned about our children,' said Rev. Barb White at the Pastors' Summit press conference. 'Some claim that all children need is two loving people in a committed relationship. In my experience this is simply not true. We've tried this in my community and found it wrought with failure. For decades we've tried to raise our sons with two loving people — a mother and a grandmother — and we know it doesn't work. But is anyone listening? Let me tell you something: A same-sex marriage is an environment without a mother or a father. And here in the African-American community we already know it doesn't work.'"

No. The reason it doesn't work is that one in four African Americans in the US lives in poverty. Also, "the great majority of African Americans experience poverty during adulthood, Cornell and Washington University researchers report. Their startling new findings show that nine out of every 10 black Americans, or 91 percent, who reach the age of 75 spend at least one of their adult years in poverty."

Another reason it doesn't work is that a disproportionate number of African Americans are in prison: "Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black," and "in twenty states, the percent of blacks incarcerated is at least five times greater than their share of resident population."

The problems in African American families are complex, and been studied much over the years. Historical and current racism still account for a lot. But I cannot find any research to support the notion that gay and lesbian headed households have anything to do with the economic inequalities or disproportionate incarceration rates.

I really find it hard to understand how a constitutional amendment ending domestic partnerships, and banning civil unions and same-sex marriage is going to do anything to fix these problems. Chuck Darrell doesn't want to 'protect marriage.' If he did, he'd be spending a lot more time trying to figure out how to lift families out of poverty, and reduce the number of fathers in prison. This amendment will do nothing for these problems. The goal is to marginalize gays and lesbians for political gain, and to enshrine one person's version of Christianity in Minnesota's founding documents. It's also about not liking or understanding GLBT people.

Craig Westover also responds to Darrell's response, and it is a really good read on morality and the conservative viewpoint that same-sex marriage will actually strengthen the institution of marriage.

Will Anti-Gay Amendment Lead to Outlaw on Divorce?

They are already talking about it in Texas. Now that they've banned homo-marriage, they are going after the heteros. Listen straight folks: If you don't want these people intruding into your life too, you better stop them now.

"AUSTIN – Texas social conservatives want to translate their resounding victory on a gay marriage ban into broader results: reducing the state's divorce rate and passing a nationwide amendment to prevent same-sex unions.

Rep. Warren Chisum, who wrote the amendment, Proposition 2, endorsed by Texas voters by a ratio of more than 3-1, said Wednesday that it's too easy for spouses to split up. The state should consider repealing or modifying its no-fault divorce law, the Pampa Republican said."

The Minnesota Taliban are coming after everyone!

Craig Westover: Conservatives Should Support Same-Sex Marriage

Craig Westover writes an intriguing column in the Pioneer Press this week: "Same-sex marriage should be a conservative objective." A prominent Minnesota conservative who is against the Marriage Amendment! He writes about the Pastor's Summit last week and why conservatives should support same-sex marriage.

"To attribute marriage-destroying motivation to all same-sex couples is as misleading as to paint all conservative pastors as bigots and homophobes. Same-sex couples living the essence of marriage — a committed, spiritual, family oriented relationship — affirm, not devalue, marriage. Why would conservatives marginalize such couples? Why would conservatives not want children in same-sex relationships protected by the social and legal obligations imposed upon married couples? Why would conservatives not want as allies in the cultural war couples so committed that they already suffer the slings and arrows of public abuse for their affirmation of marriage? Why were pastors who believe the spirituality of marriage is superior to its legal form marching outside Grace Church instead of inside, creating a bond not only unified but inclusive? Regardless of one's moral view of homosexuality, same-sex marriage ought to be a conservative objective. It's an issue that matters. It is a cause that is right, embracing, in the best American tradition, all men and all women."

DumpBachmann has an analysis and a call to write letters to the editor in support of Westover's column.

Kersten Article and Pastor Summit Signal the Beginning of Push to Amend Constitution

Katherine Kersten's factually flawed article and last Thursday's "Pastor's Summit" signaled the kickoff of religious conservatives efforts to put their faith into the Minnesota State Constitution with an amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and gay marriage in Minnesota. The Pastor's Summit was met with couter-protestors from Outfront Minnesota and many religious leaders who reject the idea that an amendment is needed in Minnesota.

This highly contentious issue even involved a bomb threat:

"Bomb threat called into pastors' conference. A bomb threat has cleared out an Eden Prairie Church that was supposed to host a gathering of pastors who were going to organize against gay marriage in the state of Minnesota. Everyone has been escorted out of the building. They have been told to wait for word for when they can head back inside." [via Tim's Place]

"The summit was briefly disrupted by a bomb threat. Eden Prairie police evacuated the church for about 15 minutes after the church switchboard took what an officer said was "a very vague call'' that there was a bomb in the building." [StarTrib]

Of course, one local anti-gay blogger took the bomb threat as a cause for further demonizing gays, trying to implicate the entire community for a bomb threat that, according to a commenter at his site, could have come from the anti-gay side: "My wife works at the church where the conference was, and the funny thing about the bomb threat was that the person who called in the threat said "Is this the church where they're holding the gay conference?" When he was told that they were having a marriage conference there, he said that he had left a bomb on the premises."

Make no mistake about the push for the amendment: it's all about religion. Actually, it's all about using religion for partisan political gain. It's no mistake that the fundamentalists and the politicians (of course, Michele Bachmann was there) are working together on this issue so hard and so early: the 2006 elections. It's the same tactic that was used in 2004, and they won't get away with it in Minnesota.

And religious leaders are having to defend themselves against being theocrats, which Chuck Darrell, Executive Director of Minnesotans for Marriage, did: "Nobody in this group wants a theocracy,'' Darrell said. "But we have to learn how to translate our faith into secular language."

Nobody wants these people's version of the Taliban in Minnesota.

Constitutional Amendment Banning Vikings Sex Parties

I wonder if Sen. Michele Bachmann, or any of her anti-gay friends will be introducing an Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to ban football player sex parties. Public figures like the Minnesota Vikings can't go around hosting sex parties where people have sex outside the bonds of holy matrimony. Vikings sex parties undermine traditional marriage, and harm impressionable children who look up to football players. And even though prostitution, sexual harassment, and public sex are already illegal in Minnesota, a Constitutional Amendment will ensure that no activist judges will overturn those laws and 'normalize' football player sex parties.

Why do the Minnesota Vikings want to undermine traditional marriage? Why do they hate Minnesota families? I look forward to the introduction of a constitutional amendment banning football player sex parties.

Pawlenty Puts Gay Marriage on Special Session List

It seems that fall special session in the Minnesota Legislature is gaining some support, and the issue of the amendment to the Minnesota Constitution to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage keeps popping up.

"Thursday's developments, however, sent clear signals that the prospect of a session had improved. The four caucus leaders said they would have to get reaction from their members, not only to measure appetite for a session but also to get assurances that it doesn't widen into a divisive and embarrassing free-for-all on other controversial issues."

"Among the other possible special-session tasks that Pawlenty listed in a letter to legislators last week were a rescue of the Minneapolis teachers' pension fund, repeal of a law that sets a minimum price for gasoline, dedication of a percentage of the sales tax to conservation programs, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and several versions of Twins and Vikings stadium proposals." [StarTribune]

Don't be suprised if Michele Bachmann uses this opportunity to play bash the queers at the Capitol twice in one year.

Marriage Ban a Special Session Option?

MPR has a sentence in their Special Session coverage that is a little bit disheartening. I don't know whether it's merely speculation, or something that Sviggum is actually planning to try:

"Sviggum plans to return Pawlenty's questionnaire, and may check several issues, such as approving a Maple Grove hospital and a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage."

Has anyone heard anything more?

Good News in Minnesota

With the Special Session ending last week, the threat of a Constitutional Amendment that would end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage has passed for the time being. It was an exciting legislative season, however.

Next year is an election year. That means the push to put discrimination into law in Minnesota is going to be huge. As always, I'll post anything I hear through the grapevine, and through tips from you all.

The best thing we can do, as GLBT people and allies, is to come out to as many people as we can. A personal face on non-discrimination is a very powerful thing. For some of you: that doesn't mean going down to the Gay 90s and telling one of the straight girls down there that you're gay when she hits on you. It means having frank and difficult conversations with family, high school friends, and co-workers about what this amendment will do to us as GLBT folk, and if they care about us, what it will mean to them.

Marriage Amendment Could be Discussed in Special Session

According to OutFront:

"OutFront Minnesota has learned today that there is a strong possibility that the proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit any form of legal status for same-sex couples and their families (including, but not limited to, marriage) may be discussed on the floor of the Minnesota Senate on Thursday, June 30. In the past, the amendment has not had a lot of traction in Senate committees, but its proponents continue to push for a floor vote in the Senate to send the amendment to Minnesota voters in 2006."

And OutFront is getting good. They definitely lay it out like it is:

"This proposed constitutional amendment will not pave any highways, provide any health care, educate any students, or benefit a single Minnesotan in any way - but it will harm Minnesota families, including families with children. Submitting a measure to popular vote that would withhold rights from a minority is not an act of democracy; it is an abuse of the democratic process that constitutions were written to prevent. Minnesota borders a nation whose parliament just this week voted to legalize marriage equality for same-sex couples, based in part on the same principles of equality Americans cherish, and in part on the fact that experience shows that doing so harms nobody."