DADT Repeal with Kara Suffredini from MassEquality

Mike and I had Kara Suffredini, MassEquality's still-new (and very savvy) director, on our latest LeftAhead podcast to discuss Don't Ask Don't Tell Repeal and the state of affairs of GLBT civil rights in New England and beyond. Lots of good, frank talk -- this show's not to be missed by anyone who cares about GLBT civil rights. Suffredini knows what she's talking about.

You can listen by clicking the link or using the Blog Talk Radio player to the right. Enjoy!

Baker's Hypocrisy Continues

Lynne beat me to it, but I've been meaning to blog today about Charlie Baker's most brazen form of hypocrisy yet. From a MassEquality email:

At the Massachusetts Republican Convention on Saturday, April 17, gubernatorial candidate Charles D. Baker came out in opposition to H. 1728/S. 1687 “An Act Relative to Gender Identity and Expression,” (also known as the Transgender Civil Rights Bill), which would outlaw employment discrimination against transgender people. As CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, however, Baker presided over a company that has for many years had a non-discrimination policy that protects applicants and employees on the basis of their gender identity.

In addition to stating his opposition to the Transgender Civil Rights Bill to reporters at the convention, his campaign circulated a flyer to convention delegates stating that Baker opposed “the Bathroom Bill,” -- the misleading name opponents of the bill use -- and would veto it if elected.

The irony is rich, given that Harvard Pilgrim -- to its credit -- has one of the state's strongest anti-discrimination policies, including for transgender people.

“Furthermore, Baker’s use of the term ‘Bathroom Bill’ in the flyer he distributed to convention delegates was a shameful attempt to use this badly-needed legislation to pander for delegate votes,” said Edmondson. “As the head of a company that gave workers a level playing field, Charlie Baker knows full well that protecting transgender people from discrimination has nothing to do with bathrooms and everything to do with attracting a skilled and diverse workforce.”

“This is so disappointing. So many in our community had such high hopes for this candidate,” said Executive Director Scott Gortikov. “I fear this is the Romney-fication of Charlie Baker. It’s stunning to me that he would borrow from the playbook of the radical social conservatives and condone this language of marginalization.”

My questions for Charlie Baker:

1) Who do you think you're kidding? You can try to rabidly flip-flop, appeasing the wingnut base, but you're just not going to be taken seriously by anyone with at least half a brain.

2) More importantly, why did you see fit to institute a policy of protections for transgender people in your workforce, as CEO of Harvard Pilgrim, but you wouldn't be willing to sign those very same protections for the transgender community across the state? Are they somehow less worthy than the transgender people who work at Harvard-Pilgrim?

The Protest Against DNC Fundraiser Over DOMA

About 30-40 people came to protest President Obama's DOMA brief at today's DNC fundraiser at Fenway Park in Boston, headlined by Vice President Biden. It was part of a coordinated effort to close down the "gayTM" -- all the millions that the gay constituency gives to the Democratic Party, without any results.

The protests were in response to President Obama's Department of Justice, which issued a brief supporting the government's Defense of Marriage Act, preventing gay couples from receiving federal benefits even if in legally committed relationships. In the brief written by the DoJ, it compared gay relationships to incestuous relationships as justification for legally refusing to recognize same-sex marriages, going way beyond what was necessary in the case.

Some key moments of the protests: Lt. Governor Tim Murray and Mayor Boston both attended the event, but neither of them recognized the protesters. MassEquality's Scott Gortikov attended the fundraiser despite the protesters and Obama administration brief. Lastly, the police pushed protesters back beyond the original protest area, to the extant that it made it very difficult to have a fair voice in protesting.

Note: the Boston Herald covered the event here and I wrote a more expansive post of the event at Pam's House Blend.

Here's some videos from the event.

DeLeo's Backing the Trans Bill

So says the State House News Service (sorry, no linkies).

House Speaker Robert DeLeo has publicly thrown his support behind a bill adding the term “transgender” to the state’s non-discrimination laws and hate crime statutes. The laws cover employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations. A show of support came at a “Gayla” held by a top gay rights group, MassEquality, on Feb. 14 at the Roxy nightclub in Boston, according to individuals who attended the event. DeLeo, who voted against the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, told the crowd that he was one of the early co-sponsors of the transgender legislation and praised former House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi for his support of gay rights.

It's interesting to note how easy a convert DeLeo was when he wanted the Speakership - and how powerful the GLBT lobby has truly become. We need DeLeo to convert on a few other key issues, as well (slots, slots, slots!).

Pro-Homo Mumbo Jumbo

The Mass Family Institute has a very important e-nouncement.

Dianne Wilkerson became the most pro-homosexual state Senator in Massachusetts after the departure of homosexual state Senator Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge). She continued his efforts to repeal the 1913 law, culminating in a voice vote in the Senate for repeal earlier this year. She found strong support from the homosexual lobby, especially MassEquality who worked hard for her reelection. The homosexual newspaper Bay Windows was also supportive of Wilkerson over the years, until they endorsed her opponent in this year’s Democratic primary. Sonia Change-Diaz ended up beating Wilkerson in the primary.

Apparently, it's all MassEquality's fault that Wilkerson's allegedly a crook, or something. Puh-leaze.

Should MassEquality have endorsed Wilkerson in the primary? No. But their endorsement doesn't equate to condoning bribery - to take it to that extreme is just asinine.

But let's all play the guilt-by-association game! MFI supports swearing at kids at school and pornography. See?

MassEquality Bonus Points

Yes, yes, sign their online petition to help get the House to repeal 1913, but that's not what merits this blog.

At the end of their latest email, asking people to sign their online petition, which they'll send to your State Representative, they have a small fundraising pitch...

P.S. Please also consider supporting our efforts to repeal the 1913 law with a financial contribution! And, for anyone who contributes $191.30 or more this week, we'll send former Governor Romney a special MassEquality note card letting him know you made a donation toward repealing the 1913 law in his honor.

Wicked funny! If they were asking for $19.13 to send the note, they'd have it in a second. But, in any event, I don't think I've ever seen such a hilarious fundraising pitch. I'm glad the friendly folks at MassEquality haven't lost their touch - or sense of humor.

Why We Need MassEquality

In case anyone was in doubt over how effective a strong lobbying organization like MassEquality is in this day and age, here's a portion of an email I got from them tonight.

Great news from the State House! Just a little while ago, the Massachusetts House approved several amendments to increase funding for programs supporting LGBT youth, seniors, victims of domestic violence and those living with HIV/AIDS:

• Funding for the LGBT Aging Project, which provides services and support for our seniors, increased by $20,000 to $80,000, a 33% increase over last year's funding.
• Department of Public health funding for school safety for LGBT youth was increased by $100,000 to $450,000, a 28.5% increase over last year's funding.
• Funding to support LGBT victims of domestic violence was increased by $100,000 to $350,000, a 40% increase over last year's funding.

And an additional $500,000 was included to help reduce disparities in HIV/AIDS funding.

For anyone who was wondering, "Gee, what's MassEquality going to do now?" I hope this answers the question. The nuts and bolts of why a MassEquality is necessary, going from here on out, will be budget battles. Like anything in life, advancing GLBT equality and causes takes money - money that's in the public's best interest to spend. However, even when times are good, it can be challenging to convince legislators that we need to do a better job protecting GLBT kids from being bullied at school. It can take a little political courage to get them to invest the money in HIV/AIDS prevention to help stem off that virus from making an even bigger comeback. These common-sense proposals aren't always easy to pass, or fund, and that's why there will always be a need for a MassEquality-type organization.

Some people thought the battle was over after marriage equality was protected. Most, of course, realize that there are other, tougher legislative battles ahead - many of those battles represent the kind of causes that will again bring forth headlines in the papers. There are members of the GLBT community who are legally being discriminated at work or in finding housing, simply because they're transgender. There's an awful set of laws from 1913 which prevents out of state couples from enjoying equal rights here.

There are things that need to be fixed desperately - and, because of the dedication of all kinds of groups, including MassEquality, they can't be tucked away, at least for long. The big picture items are screaming for change and no force on Beacon Hill can stop that kind of momentum, they can only be slowed down. MassEquality is also working on this issue, and will certainly help advance it, but eventually these items will get passed. Even when we win those battles, we'll still need a MassEquality, even if only to make sure Beacon Hill never screws around with funding incredibly important programs, nor stops investing in preventing bullying, AIDS and other core GLBT causes.

Thankfully, we have a strong GLBT lobby on Beacon Hill making sure regular budget items, the kinds of things that impact lives everyday but often go unnoticed, won't ever be swept under the rug unnoticed by those who would otherwise lack the political courage to do the right thing, as happens in so many other states. We may not win every fight, but we'll certainly make sure the state is giving GLBT people - for the first time ever - it's fair share of political capital. So thanks to MassEquality for a job well done this year, and thanks to all the thousands of people in this state who have used it in order to take part in our ever-important movement. It's truly MassEquality members that make it strong.

You Go, Marc Solomon

MassEquality's rearing to go. Here's a blurb from an email they sent me today - their official '08 agenda.

• Our LGBT young people continue to be short-changed by the state in funding for safe schools and suicide prevention programs.
• Our seniors often feel the need to re-closet themselves when they enter nursing homes, fearing backlash and rejection.
• Our transgender brothers and sisters can still be fired from their jobs simply because of who they are.
• The rate of HIV infection for our young people is growing dramatically, particularly among people of color.

Don't forget to take action.

Serious Campaign Training

As I pointed out to readers on my last blog, the fine folks at MassAlliance - comprising well over a dozen progressive organizations all over the state, from MassEquality to the Coalition of Social Justice - put together (one helluva) Campaign Manager training seminar over this weekend. It was a serious crash course that's just trained over 20 people to know everything they need to run a successful state campaign for a progressive candidate. In case anyone didn't pass their math MCAS, that amounts to a crap load of potential new progressive pickups if candidates take advantage of it. (Please, future candidates, do!)

If anyone can think of a better way to create the change we all so desperately seek than developing new talent to help at the electoral end, let me know. It looks to me that only an electoral change will result in a new government that actually believes in fixing what's broken in Massachusetts. All the lobbying and all the fundraising in the world may do some good, but the only way to move the most stubborn Beacon Hill mountains is to have an old fashioned, bottom-up Earth Quake. Sound fun?

MassEquality's Decision

I got an email the other day about MassEquality's future plans - and, indeed, they chose to expand beyond marriage equality. Thank goodness.

There's one important qualification, though, in the email:

We will need the help of you, our advocates, and our affiliate organizations around the state to be successful in this undertaking.

It goes without saying, but the people of this state are going to have to take leadership on lgbt issues. We're going to have to be the ones asking for help and urging all facets of the state on where to go with equality - to a place where everyone has it.

As MassEquality expands beyond their basic plans written in their email, as they've promised, I'll continue to write about it. I have high hopes that 1913 is on its last leg and workplace protections for transgender people will quickly make it through Beacon Hill, but it's going to take hard work from dozens of organizations and tens of thousands of people. It's good to know MassEquality is saying they'll be there to help.

How Great People Can Have Bad Ideas

Before I hit the sack last night, I promised to hit on the subject of Arline Isaacson's public support of not continuing to support a robust, active MassEquality. Instead, she'd like the organization to become inactive - reduced to just a single person who can keep track of the important news, presumably keeping at the ready in case marriage equality is ever threatened in Massachusetts again.

Of course, that's short sighted. By the time that happens, perhaps in the form of a federal amendment, it could be too late. Waiting and doing nothing has never been a particularly great option in the history of battles for civil rights. Continuing to push the envelope and advance rights inch by inch has, interestingly enough, been a recipe for success. Who wants to wait for marriage equality to be threatened, when we could be spending that time protecting all glbt people - at least by giving them the same sort of basic protections and equalities every other American enjoys.

The sad thing here is Isaacson's recognized the key fact surrounding glbt rights in Massachusetts: we've now fought the biggest battle, the one that caused the bells to chime across the state and sent people like Marc Solomon riding horseback screaming "the bigots are coming." Just listen to Isaacson's own words.

In an Oct. 22 State House News Service article, Isaacson called marriage a "white hot issue" that united the state’s LGBT organizations and said, "We will never, ever again rise to that level."

Out of that storm, MassEquality grew and became the go-to organization for gay rights lobbying in the state. They grew trust and relationships with both legislators and constituents that, as Isaacson correctly noted, may never be formed again. And she wants to shut the organization down?

There's a simple truth to life - it's easier to build off a foundation than from scratch. MassEquality's directions and mandates may need change after we successfully defended marriage equality in Massachusetts, but that doesn't mean its job is over. Now, we need to use MassEquality as a strong foundation to use for any number of other important issues, especially those that will require work done at Beacon Hill. Take away MassEquality and glbt people in Massachusetts will need another state-wide, glbt-rights organization, but this time it'll have to be built from scratch. This time, all those relationships now lost will have to be rebuilt. Yet, the new organization could never reproduce the same sort of energy, buzz and focus that existed since Goodridge - and thus, it would be much harder for it to ever become nearly as successful as MassEquality.

Thankfully, Arline Isaacson isn't the only talented woman with ideas on what MassEquality should do. Susan Ryan-Vollmer, editor of Bay Windows, luckily has a thing or two to say. Instead of allowing MassEquality to die, it should take on an expanded role in the GLBT community, fighting for more than just marriage equality. She brings up two great models for MassEquality: Empire Pride State Agenda (ESPA) and EqualityCalifornia. ESPA has used its legislative influence to help deliver millions of dollars to worthy, non-profit glbt organizations that clearly need it. They've shown that no smaller organization should fear the existence of a broad-based MassEquality, because such an organization could end up making all glbt organizations stronger and more successful.

EqualityCalifornia, on the other hand, has been very successful in getting dozens of laws and protections passed and signed by none other than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. With things like 1913 still kicking around, along with a severe lack of protections in the Bay State for transgender people, MassEquality has a lot to learn from its Californian sister. Whatever MassEquality becomes, we'll all know soon: November 3rd is the date they'll decide. Let's hope they ignore Isaacson's suggestions and embrace everything Ryan-Vollmar has to say.

MassEquality's Future: Beyond Rediculous

It's beyond rediculous that people even have to read about MassEquality's future. Isn't the answer obvious? Unless Massachusetts suddenly and quietly reached full equality over the past 24 hours and I missed it, paying too much attention to the World Series, this discussion should be over: glbt people need help, let's do what's necessary to help them. Yet, I was perusing boston.com before I went to bed - and what do I read? Globe staff-writer Lisa Wangsness's article about MassEquality's future in yesterday's paper.

There isn't much in it that I didn't explore in my LeftAhead chat weeks ago with MassEquality's Executive Director, Marc Solomon. However, there's one annoying hiccup that's putting MassEquality's future at stake (and, by extension, glbt people across Massachusetts). Apparently, some MassEquality board members who also represent other glbt organizations are afraid (jealous?) of MassEquality working on a broader scope of issues - you know, their pet issues. I could rant about that line of thought for ages, but I'll keep it short: it's petty, stupid and will prevent key members of the movement from gaining important rights. Brilliant!

If GLBT organizations in Massachusetts are worried about having more than one non-profit working on similar issues, fine. While I think that's beyond silly (ever hear of the expression, 'don't put all your eggs in one basket?'), I can live with it. However, we have a MassEquality brand name that's become incredibly credible within Beacon Hill politics. They're able to get people into every legislator's office with plenty of stories, putting a human face to issues that matter. MassEquality can raise the cash necessary to run expensive, state-wide campaigns. In short, MassEquality can do things that literally no other state-wide glbt organization can do - and there are board members that want to kill it? Talk about shooting your own feet.

Let's get rational. There are lots of other great glbt organizations out there that can do different things that MassEquality perhaps shouldn't get involved in, but no organization (perhaps even outside of glbt politics) is better at doing what MassEquality clearly excels at in the Bay State: lobbying for civil rights. Doesn't it make sense to keep MassEquality around to work on legislative issues - to be the unofficial go-to guys when we need to lobby on important glbt rights and bills? MassEquality built relationships that will last. They know who to talk to. People can't buy that kind of expertise; it takes time and energy that may never be reproduced on glbt issues again (what else will galvanize the community in Massachusetts like marriage equality did?). At the very least, MassEquality can help other organizations help themselves by showing them the legislative ropes and working with other organizations as allies.

Smaller organizations need not concern themselves about stepping on each other's feet. It almost sounds like they're worried about a wide stance. They should open up their bathroom stalls and realize that we need more organizations demanding all of the protections necessary to bring us to equality, not less or the same. In other states across the country, large, state-wide organizations excel at working together with smaller, sister and brother non-profits, helping them succeed in ways they otherwise wouldn't. Perhaps Massachusetts is different - more petty, divisive, uncooperative, afraid and jealous? That certainly sounds like Beacon Hill.

The status quo clearly isn't working beyond marriage equality. Trying to push aside the one organization that was more successful in changing our status than any other in this state would be a severe waste of time, counterproductive and unacceptable to the tens of thousands that are counting on equal rights and protections. MassEquality's role may be different in the future, but the glbt movement inside Massachusetts can't afford to live without them, at least on Beacon Hill.

There's plenty more on this issue that I'll tackle later in the day, especially Arline Isaacson's role in all of this (sadly, her view doesn't jive with mine), as well as Susan Ryan-Vollmer's excellent open letter to the MassEquality Board, illustrating just how MassEquality and all of the state's glbt organizations could work together and achieve widespread results that would otherwise be improbable, at best. However, that'll have to wait until the morning.

Marc Solomon on LeftAhead!

Mike and I had Marc Solomon, the Political Direct of MassEquality, on as this week's special guest on LeftAhead. We chatted marriage equality, obviously, but also where the organization intends to be in the near future. We pathed the Bay State's future, as well, and looked at how much of MassEquality's tactics could work across the country. Being that MassEquality focused on elections and linking legislators with their (glbt and allied) constituents, Marc thinks most of it'll work. We also chatted about some recent successes across the country, from Maine to Iowa, and got to hear Solomon call the Governator in Caleeeforrneea a "wimp" for not signing a marriage equality law into existence when it passed their legislature. Obviously, there was a lot to chat about, so listen in for yourself.

MassEquality Can't Be Done

I'm a little late in getting to this, but sadly 1913 wasn't included in Bay Window's July 25th article on where MassEquality is going. In fact, it almost sounds as if Marc Solomon thinks we're done here:

“MassEquality is such a huge effort that the only way to really capture what it can be, what it should be and whether it should be, is to have a serious process,” said Solomon.

In that vein, Solomon's hired a consultant to study where MassEquality should go or even if the organization should still exist. They didn't need to hire anyone, I could have told them what to do for free. As MassEquality claims to be an organization that's looking out for the interest of all equality in Massachusetts, one would think there's still a lot of work to do yet. So far, it seems like MassEquality's only focused on bringing its methods to other states and helping those who switched their votes at the ConCon - both worthy efforts. However, as was noted in the article, Massachusetts has a long way to go on transgendered rights - and we need a visible and loud campaign to help get their protections passed now. Furthermore, how can MassEquality not even be talking about 1913 in such an article? We need to raise hell; marriage equality doesn't exist until 1913 is wiped off the books.

Marc Solomon, MassEquality and everyone who participated in protecting marriage equality did a tremendous job this summer. We cannot and will not forget all of their efforts. Furthermore, we cannot and will not blame them for being tired of fighting the good fight; it's been a long journey. However, equal rights is a battle of attrition: we will lose if we don't keep going. With our detractors on the run, we are so close to obtaining all of the equalities we've realized, as a society, are needed in this day and age. However, without some key institutional support, such as that of MassEquality, realizing true equality will take much longer than necessary. If the leaders of MassEquality are unwilling to keep up the fight - or unwilling to focus on the dire changes Massachusetts must make - other people are ready to take over. Just hand over the keys.

Not So Fast, Joan Vennochi: You're Wrong on Marriage Equality

Joan Vennochi seems to go on the attack against Patrick today, instead of - I don't know - speaking in favor of equal rights.

It's good politics for Patrick. The gay community supported his candidacy and he needs continued support from his base, especially after a politically rocky start. But rhetoric and symbolism only go so far. Now Patrick needs something tangible in return for his efforts: enough votes to block the amendment. Postponement of a vote will be viewed as weakness and a setback for those who support same-sex marriage.

Maybe MassEquality wants a vote, but I've given up on Mass Equality as an effective organization to argue on behalf of my rights. If there aren't the votes to kill this thing now, then postponing it is obviously a better option than allowing it on the ballot. If Patrick can help swing people to postpone, kudos to him. It isn't weak or a loss, it's fighting for what's right.

However, since I like to be constructive in my treatment of the media, here's where I can agree:

Patrick and other same-sex marriage backers are running up against a strong argument from those who support the ban on same-sex marriage -- that the people have the right to vote on this controversial issue.

Obviously, citizens have to be able to vote for change on the constitution. You can't create a system of laws that can never be changed. What you can do is create a system of laws that are difficult to change - unlike Massachusetts's constitution. MassEquality's big mistake in their line of reasoning was to argue "no one should be able to vote," even if it's on "civil rights." What they should have said is "the bar is set far too low." In what world is 25% of the legislators enough to push an amendment forward? If MassEquality picked that line of argument, we wouldn't be here today: even conservative constituents can get behind that.

If MassEquality took that position, we'd have the cover to bury this whole thing procedurally. Then, we'd have to political will to do the right thing and revamp the constitutional process so it works. If we had a process that worked, there would have been no need to have decades of using procedure to block amendments.

Get rid of the 25% provision and turn it into the standard 50% + 1 to advance the amendment. Then, because we're talking about the Constitution here - Higher Law - it should take a 2/3rds majority to make change on the final ballot, whatever that ballot looks like (hopefully not in the form of a plebescite). Constitutions aren't supposed to be easy to change, the vast majority of people understand why. If MassEquality fought to change the constitution, not challenged the ability of the people to vote, then these "let the people vote" chants would have fallen on deaf ears... and this amendment would have been dead - procedurally - a long time ago. If Joan Vennochi, as a columnist, wants someone to blame (nothing gets readership like a juicy attack piece) - look no further than Marc Solomon.

Tom Lang of KnowThyNeighbor on the ConCon and Movement

There were lots of reasons to have a little chat with the leader of Knowthyneighbor. For starters, tomorrow is the first Constitutional Convention - and he has a lot of important info regarding the atrocity some people are trying to see unfold in the Bay State. Furthermore, my paper is certainly examining his organization as part of the netroots movement. Lastly, who wouldn't want to talk to a guy who had the brilliant idea to list every single name and address of those who had the audacity to try to write discrimination into the constitution? Some people don't like that kind of aggressiveness, but temerity will never get anyone anywhere.

Besides, people have to be accountable for their actions - they shouldn't be able to sign a petition as if they were an Internet alias. They're not doing some online Harris Poll. This isn't a DailyKos open thread. There are no booths or curtains protecting signature collections, just like there's nothing protecting his efforts. Everyone is open to the criticism of their actions. And actions just so happen to be Lang's specialty.

One interesting thing about Lang is that he really knows his stuff. He's been on the battle ground for years now and spends most of his free time talking to congresspeople, talking to fellow supporters, talking to the media... He's organizing a real grassroots/netroots effort. He's helped sway representatives our way - and had a little advice for people that want to do the same. It's not about the stories - Congresspeople just don't really care. To the surprise of hopefully no one, many of them just care about winning the next election. Sure, they want to do good - but they'll do anything to seek that precise vote that will manage to hopefully piss off the least amount of people in doing so. It's not a bad philosophy, really, except when the "least offensive" vote manages to curtail equality. Then, it becomes unacceptable.

Lang and I talked about the state's more 'conventional' gay-rights organization and its lack of action. According to the director of KnowThyNeighbor, one of the key reasons we haven't seen a repeal of 1913 or a host of other important issues is none other than MassEquality and its allies. Certain people in that organization think that legislators would vote for its repeal and essentially say 'see, I support gay rights,' then not vote against a marriage ban. Does it sound ludicrous to you? It sure did to Lang, who was disappointed in MassEquality's inaction there. I'd say Susan Ryan-Vollmar of Bay Windows would agree, but I'll have to ask her tonight during our LeftAhead podcast. 1913 should have been long gone - something that could have happened by now if instead of being afraid of it, MassEquality pushed it.

Despite their disagreements, Lang agrees with Marc Solomon on one thing. The vote on marriage will be happening far sooner than many wanted or expected, though that's not necessarily a bad thing. It just means we've got to work that much harder now to convince our elected representatives to kill this thing once and for all - and hope the wind is on our side. With any luck, MassEquality and everyone in the glbt movement in Massachusetts will be more organized this time around. We can't afford any confusion - every state rep and senator on our side needs to know exactly what to do and a plan has to be made well in advance.

Speaking of which - there's something everyone is counting on, from Tom Lang and Knowthyneighbor to MassEquality: you. Nothing is going to be defeated if thousands of people aren't calling their elected leaders. So, have readers called their state legislator or senator yet? According to Lang, today is one of the best days to do so - the before day or day of a big vote. Heck, call them today and then tomorrow, just so they know you mean business!

MassEquality: Marriage Vote In Weeks, Not Months

It won't happen Wednesday, since the budget is the big issue in town, but Marc Solomon just sent an email saying to expect it in the next few weeks.

But just because the vote on the anti-marriage amendment is going to be postponed DOES NOT mean it is time to relax! The final vote will happen sometime in the next few weeks, and now more than ever we need you to take action to protect marriage equality.

The bad news: this appears to be happening way sooner than I wanted. Maybe June?

The good news: it looks like MassEquality at least has an idea of what's going on, something they were recently criticized for not doing last December.

Folks, this is happening. Be prepared. Call your state legislators; here are the ones that still need to be convinced, but call the ones on our side anyway. They need to know how important this is to us. Time is running out. We need to do what we can. Now.

Nice Job, MassEquality

MassEquality created a new tool for its supporters in Massachusetts: a website that allows people to

1) Create your own personal homepage about why marriage equality matters to you
2) Track your progress in organizing your friends and family and getting them to take action
3) Win prizes by motivating your friends and family to contact their legislators
4) Use easy tools to contact your legislators, write a letter to your local paper, donate, or sign up to volunteer
5) Find events in your area or create your own pages to invite family and friends to your equality activities
6) Post messages on your own Equality Journal

While I haven't played around with it, there's certainly some potential there. I especially like the concept of allowing people to create their own pages and diaries. I've come down hard on MassEquality in the past - and perhaps unfairly to some extent. However, there's certainly a purpose to my criticism: I do so only because I think the organization has great potential if it adapts and changes strategies. I can't say for sure whether or not this proposal is going to work, but it's great to see some new developments out of that organization. It should be helpful - and, if enough people get involved, could be the difference between blocking this next marriage-banning amendment - or not.

Building Momentum on Marriage Equality

Last night, the Marriage Equality Coalition of the South Coast hosted Marc Solomon of Mass Equality in New Bedford. Marc came prepped with a power-point presentation to discuss the history of the marriage movement post Goodridge - and where we're at now. Specifically, they're focused on avoiding a plebiscite, but are prepared to raise the "15-20 million" they'll need to defeat Team Homophobia if we lose at the next ConCon.

While I appreciate Mass Equality's efforts on marriage equality - there may be no such equality without it - I can't help but think we need to try our hand at some new tactics. To be successful, any movement has to stay on top of their opponents in all sorts of areas - so when Solomon spoke about how anti-marriage foes were winning the rhetorical debate with 'let the people vote' chants, it makes me a little worried. Clearly, we're not staying on top of things.

A movement needs foresight to be effective - this isn't just about the next ConCon. To win, we need to build momentum on our side again - set the discourse and look like the sure bet. To do that, we need some successes and new messages going into the next ConCon. In terms of messaging, it's time to challenge the very principal upon which we allow the plebiscite to determine rights of the minority.

Even many conservative Republicans would agree that 25% of the legislature is a bar set too low to move amendments forward; why not push that angle? If the public disagrees with the amendment process, they're not going to care if we block this amendment procedurally. It won't cost a single legislator their seat. We need a narrative that says "civil rights now, procedure later" and promise not to block anything procedurally when the process is fair. The fact is I am a process person, but when it just doesn't work and is universally ignored, it's time to scrap it.

I asked Marc Solomon about trying to change the process and he essentially told me 'maybe you could start that movement' last night, because Mass Equality just wasn't going to do it. As if this 22 year old, broke college student could do that? Solomon's missing a golden opportunity to shape the debate - and look toward the future. He's also missing an opportunity to bring in allies, key in the marriage debate, who would easily agree with a new amendment process.

It seems like lots of people think if we can kill the amendment this year, it'll be dead for good. Well, it's not that hard to get 68,000 signatures - so that kind of thinking is crazy. Unless people want to be stopping these petitions every year by the slimmest of margins (since it only takes 25% of state legislators to pass), we ought to be trying to overhaul the system.

Secondly, we need some small successes and momentum going into the next ConCon. The atmosphere must belong to us. To do that, I suggest Mass Equality and allies demand the state legislature repeal the 1913 racist/homophobic law that stops out-of-state gay couples from getting married here. Governor Patrick is our ally on this issue; we've got our ace on the mound. It's message-sending time: we can push equality bill after equality bill until people get the basic concept that Massachusetts is about personal freedom, not suppression and religious intolerance. It's better to go in victorious on important issues, than last year's ConCon loser.

Marriage equality, in Massachusetts, ought to feel very safe. It's an almost 4 year incumbent that's directly benefited 17,000 people - 8,500 happily wedded same-sex couples. Imagine that kind of constituent service - and its leader admits the other side has the momentum? No sir-ree. People in Massachusetts have been very supportive, almost from the start. It's time to take advantage of that understanding and expand rights for all, by building momentum and using it to protect the political process from further abuse by amending the state constitution in a responsible way. Marc Solomon and Mass Equality could be a key to that process, but they're just not there yet.