North Carolina's Bigotry... and the book I almost wrote

So, I know I've been a terrible blogger of late, given how rarely I've been writing. One of the chief reasons why is my writing shifted focus; instead of state politics, I've been writing a book.

I'm currently on my third draft of the book -- so this baby's inching closer to completion every day -- but I had to step back tonight, after what's happened in North Carolina, to talk about the book I almost wrote.

Writing a book was always something of a dream of mine, so this isn't my first crack at it. In my life, I've had two serious ideas for books before I settled on my current project.

The second idea was going to be about a high school basketball player named Joshua Kenney, who grew up in North Carolina to a very conservative single mother and was forced out of the closet.

As his mother was about to send him away to a 'pray away the gay' program, he ran instead. The book was going to be about his journey through America, and his family's journey toward acceptance (after a healthy dose of panic and regret over a missing child).

I had the bulk of the book planned out, loved the characters, as difficult as it was writing them, and got a good hundred pages deep.... until I decided to stop.

I went on a family trip to visit North Carolina's tri-city area and was wowed by how much it felt like Massachusetts. At first, it served to give me more ideas, but the more I thought about it... the more my book suddenly felt flat.

North Carolina was changing, did I really want to write about something that would feel so.... 1990s?

Then Obama's victory there cemented it, in my mind, and I never looked back.

I couldn't have been more wrong; the battle for equal rights in NC is much further off than I ever would have thought, even a year ago. What I wrote -- and what I planned to write -- absolutely had merit, was realistic and still happens today.

I guess I should dust off that file and see if I want to take another crack at it, once I finish what I'm working on now.

The truth about adoption services post marriage equality

One of the talking points emanating from Team Homophobia that's been circulating ever since NY passed marriage equality is that religious-based groups that serve the public would be "forced" to shut down if it doesn't recognize marriage equality. That couldn't be further from the truth. These people point to Massachusetts and the fact that the Boston Archdiocese forced the shut down of Catholic Charities adoption services as "proof" of this ridiculous claim, though that's not in fact what happened. Here's what did:

Catholic Charities had, for decades, allowed gay couples to adopt children, predating marriage. The Boston Archdiocese either didn't care about it or didn't know, though given that it went on for twenty years, the latter would be saying a lot.

Meanwhile, while Catholic Charities was a religious charity, it received a tremendous amount of public aid, including from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to process those adoptions. It is true that it would be illegal for any groups that took public funds to discriminate against same-sex marriages post Goodridge decision, but it's equally true it would have been illegal to discriminate against gays or lesbians beforehand -- and two decades of history of Catholic Charities allowing gays and lesbians to adopt shows they never had much of a problem with it before.

As the decision on what to do about marriage equality was cycling through the then-Finneran dominated legislature, the fact that Catholic Charities was already allowing same-sex couples to adopt became a story, embarrassing the Catholic Church and its claims that somehow allowing same-sex couples to raise children would be damaging to those children, so the bishops across Massachusetts forced the board of Catholic Charities to put the kibosh on all their adoptions, despite some pretty vehement resistance from that board.

The Catholic Church then tried to use that decision as a vehicle in the press to curry favor with the public, insisting it was marriage equality's fault that they had to stop the adoptions, but they were, of course, the ones who stopped those adoptions. They were the ones who decided, after allowing gays and lesbians to adopt using Catholic Charities for two decades, they suddenly had to stop.

Furthermore, the Catholic Church still could have banned same-sex couples from adopting children within their Catholic Charities service had it decided to merely stop taking public funds. It would have been difficult for them to make that decision -- Massachusetts practically bankrolled those adoptions to begin with -- but there's no reason for any state to provide public funds to a charity which wants to discriminate against some of those it caters toward.

Far from creating a public rallying cry, the Boston Archdiocese only further embarrassed itself, and alienated the people of this Commonwealth, providing ample evidence to the public that they'd go so far as to put difficult-to-place children at risk for political calculations and/or spite, but it stuck to its guns. It would be a shame today to allow that story to be recycled and reshaped in true Orwellian fashion to fit their meme, now that what happened has been forgotten by most of the public.

If the Catholic Church's charities that use public funds wish to discriminate against same-sex couples (even to this day, most don't), then they have a very simple solution available to them: stop taking public funds. Shutting down shop, trying to score political points, is a very heavy price to pay for the thousands of children across the country who need to find good homes.

---
PS. I wanted to include some links, so I did a little googling and found this blog from GLAD, with this story from the Boston Globe, that confirms most of the facts from above, although there's still some of what was floating around in my head from the way-back machine, coming from a period that predate (most) blogs and links.

Lenk's SJC Appointment and the Governor's Council

Let's all congratulate Justice Barbara Lenk for her freshly appointed status on the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. With two decades of judicial experience, and this having been her third time through the confirmation process, it's clear she's eminently qualified for the position.

Yet, in being confirmed by a 5-3 vote on the Governor's Council, the 3 votes against her confirmation -- votes no doubt motivated by prejudice, for Lenk is now the first known lesbian to have served on the SJC -- is a frustrating reminder of just how far we have to go in this state. Let's take a look at the three Governor's Council members who voted against Lenk.

Mary-Ellen Manning, arch hack, perhaps the most nominal Democrat in the country and unfortunately my own Governor's Councilor, focused her attacks on Lenk around icky sex questions, doing all she could to link the topics of incest and homosexuality together, with cries of The Children thrown in for extra fun.

It's unfortunately the common tactic by bigots on anything to do with preventing gay candidates from winning or glbt civil rights issues from passing. No wonder why she couldn't wait to get on the Howie Carr show to complain about it. Those are her peeps.

Arch conservative Charles Cipollini (R) voted against her because she's a lesbian; well, that's the only possible deduction I can come up with. The fact that she's a lesbian colors her opinion on marriage equality, says he, and apparently anyone who supports the Goodridge decision isn't fit for the SJC. Well, at least if they're a lesbian.

Never mind the fact that issue is dead and buried, long since decided and defended. Never mind the fact that by his logic, everyone would be effected -- gay or straight -- because everyone is effected by marriage. We simply can't allow gay people to serve, according to him.

Add Jen Caissie (R) to that territory. While Caissie and others on this list of names complained Lenk wouldn't support legal precedent, Caissie was upset over Lenk's support of one firmly-established legal precedent in this state: the Goodridge decision. Straight IOKIYAR hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, because of the obscurity of the Governor's Council, it's relatively easy for just about anyone to get on the council when a seat opens up -- and to stay there as long as they want, after. Because of that, we get lots of rabid right-wingers on the council, with the non-rabids, moderates and liberals likely to soon move onto bigger and better things. It's the one body in this state where the extreme right almost controls the majority, and some of the five councilors who's votes Lenk received are little saner than Caissie, Ciponni and Manning.

David Kravitz, over at Blue Mass Group, and someone who's worked for several justices on the Supreme Court of the United States, has long called for the end to the Governor's Council -- as has the Boston Globe. They're right.

Meanwhile, Marry-Ellen Manning said that everyone who was going to vote against Lenk was being portrayed as a bigot. Well, Marry-Ellen... if the shoe fits.

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!

The President of Argentina gets it

This is just an amazing quote from Argentina's president on marriage equality, both for its simplicity and truth, as her country's legislature prepares to vote on the issue.

“They are portraying this as a religious moral issue and as a threat to ‘the natural order,’ when what we are really doing is looking at a reality that is already there,” the president said from Beijing. “It would be a terrible distortion of democracy if they denied minorities their rights.”

An extended video of her statement, with subtitles:



Hat tip Towleroad.

Homophobia's Gathering South of the Border

"Don't miss this valuable opportunity to learn about the cutting-edge family, life and marriage issues affecting Rhode Island and all New England," the invitation begins, as NOM, the Family Research Council and others invite New Englanders to come and gather around their homophobic circle to discuss all the new, hip, bigoted ideas to beat back the marriage equality clock in New England. Something tells me it'll revolve around pathetic attempts to find new, manipulative and bigoted ways of screaming, 'the children, the children,' as if glbt families didn't have kids of their own, who suffer daily because of the discrimination pitted against them, in large part due to the actions of these groups.

It's fitting that they're doing this in Rhode Island, with the region's most bigoted Governor having his last days in office. Ironicly, while the forces of homophobia cluster in Rhode Island to try to block or repeal marriage equality, Rhode Island could very well be the next New England state to embrace it, once their stalwart ally, Governor Carcieri, is (thankfully) gone.

Here's a list of all of their old, bigoted speakers who will be coming, including the infamous Kris Mineau.

* Cynthia Hill, Senior Director, State and Local Affairs, Family Research Council
* Kris Mineau, Executive Director, Massachusetts Family Institute
* Peter Wolfgang, Executive Director, Family Institute of Connecticut
* Kevin Smith, Executive Director, Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire
* Christopher Plante, Executive Director, National Organization for Marriage, Rhode Island
* Shannon McGinley, Board Chairman, Cornerstone Action of New Hampshire
* Connecticut Youth Wing, Students, Family Institute of Connecticut
* Austin R. Nimocks, Senior Legal Counsel, Alliance Defense Fund
* Dr. Pat Fagan, Family Research Council
* Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Family Research Council

Somehow, I think this is a meeting I can skip. We can spare them that $15 admission fee. Thankfully, there's professionals out there to put these last gasps of homophobia in perspective. Cue MassEquality's executive director, Scott D. Gortikov, who has it right in his statement about the event, in his Feb. 4th press release:

“If the extremists at the Family Research Council are trying to find an opening in New England to promote their bigoted agenda they are wasting their time. With four out of six New England states granting same-sex couples full equality in marriage, it is clear that the vast majority of New Englanders are fair-minded people who aren’t interested in taking rights away from their GLBT friends, family members, neighbors and co-workers.... If the Family Research Council and those attending its summit truly cared about promoting marriage and the family, they wouldn’t be getting together to dream up ways to undermine the ability of GLBT people to provide for and protect their families.”

Legislative Bigotry

Thankfully, this video isn't from Massachusetts, but it still pains me to watch it (along with the news that marriage equality is again delayed in NY, though that's much better than defeated).



Here's a woman who speaks at length about how she can't get legally married in her state demonstratively hurts her everyday life, speaking openly and honestly about a very frank issue, and how is she answered? Her state legislator ignores everything she said, doesn't try to solve any of her problems, and just says he's only for marriage bigotry. It makes me so sad to be in a country where hatred and intolerance is so widespread. No one should have to deal with this crap.

Obama's Violence on Gay People

Watching this



and reading this

has me thinking it may be necessary for more of this



maybe Obama's message to gay people is that's all we have left?

Go Read Mike

As usual, Mike's been kicking butt on the marriage-equality issue. His posts on what's happnin in Maine shouldn't be missed. Here's his latest.

Mostly what she shares with the Mass. Family Institute, no longer the Christian Civic League of Maine, and MassResistance sorts is the Whac-A-Mole behavior. Typically, this might involve:

• Lobby and advertise to influence the legislature.
• If the lawmakers pass gay rights or SSM, turn to the courts or a referendum.
• If the courts mandate gay rights or SSM, turn to the legislature or a referendum.

Just as they seem devoid of compassion and humanity and fairness, there is no such thing as taking a loss. If they win at the court level, its self-righteous calls of the rule of law. If they lose at the court level, it's activist judges legislating from the bench. If they win in the legislature, it is democracy proving their point. If they lose in the legislature, it is liberal agenda thwarting the will of the people. If they lose in multiple venues, it's a Prop. 8 call for a ballot initiative.

He also looks at the process of the so-called "people's veto" law in Maine and the various possibilities that exist.

NH Senate Passes Marriage Equality!

They followed suit of the House. The versions are slightly different, the Senate version adding an explicit protection for religions to marry whomever they choose, so this bill has to go through conference committee -- but it should now have no problem in passing. Now the only question is if Governor Lynch (D) will pass it. For shame -- and bigotry -- if he doesn't.

Maine's not far behind, either. MassEquality's once-ambitious push to get marriage equality across New England by 2012 is suddenly looking rather pedestrian. All of this means Rhode Island will be the last to play catchup in NE, with their rabidly anti-gay governor. Looks like that Gov just needs to go. He'll be facing competition in this year's election -- so we'll see what happens.

Deep Thought

Why do homophobes always state their belief as the reason of their belief? "I oppose same-sex marriage because I believe marriage is between a man and a woman." Not only does that sound like some kind of weird universal declaration or oath, but it doesn't actually mean anything.

Newest "Traditional" Marriage Group

RIMJOB is here to protect traditional marriage. Thanks, RIMJOB!


This truly is one of the best parodies ever.

GLBT Podcast

This Tuesday, LeftAhead.com is having blogger John Hosty-Grinell on for its guest host. We'll be chatting up civil rights, the marriage equality victories - and opening the show up to guest callers. The show's live at 2:30, or you can catch it on LeftAhead.com at any point thereafter.

Yay, Vermont!

Grats!

Update: This post from Progressive Fitchburg is *amazing.*

Thanks for the laughs.

So, is Vermont going to fall behind Iowa?

Putting Republicans in executive positions really isn't a good idea, the people of Vermont are finding out. The good news is the Vermont state house of representatives is only a few votes shy from beating back a veto -- and there's already a couple representatives who have promised they'd switch their vote should the Governor veto.

But, slights asides, let's celebrate today. Iowa's got marriage equality - and it's not going away. Not only does Iowa have a similar system as Massachusetts, where the legislature must approve potential amendments two years in a row, but it takes a majority of the votes - not the 25% low bar we have in the Commonwealth. Furthermore, Democrats control both houses in Iowa and have voted unanimously against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in the past, with several moderate Republicans joining them.

So, let's all welcome this important midwestern state for joining Massachusetts and Connecticut as the only states in the country who legally offer full equality to all its citizens.

Obama's Civil Union Stance Officially a Gimmick

He supported full marriage equality for same-sex couples 12 years ago, when he was running for State Senate. What gives? Politics, obviously.

Now, some may view this as a good thing. I can hear these thoughts in my head: "See, he really supports us! All of this civil union talk is just politics!"

Maybe, but those people are missing the point. What this really shows is that to President Obama civil rights for gays, lesbians and transgenders is something to be bargained with. It would never be acceptable to bargain with the rights of others, but it's perfectly fine for people who are glbt. That's become eminently obviously with this whole Rick Warren saga.

As stated the other day, if the Democratic Party wants to be a true party of civil rights and equality, it can't be willing to negotiate when it comes to basic and inalienable human rights, such as the right to love and marry anyone who consents and shares those feelings, or the right to not be fired or denied housing simply for being gay. Will Obama be willing to play politics with those other rights, should he find their passage an inconvenient path that could cost energy, time and votes? Other Presidents before him (LBJ in particular) have made that tough choice, choices that today have given President Obama and his kids many of the rights and protections that they would have been denied just a few decades ago. Here's hoping he pays that forward.

CK Supports Marriage Equality

Caroline Kennedy came out in favor of marriage equality. If appointed, she'd be only one of five US Senators to support marriage equality. This really solidifies things for me.

As I've been saying since her name's been brought up, she makes perfect sense. Her detractors are just wrong. She's someone who's written two books on constitutional issues, passed the bar in two different states and has clearly proven she's an exceptionally intelligent woman who's every bit as qualified (or more so) than most US Senators when they walk into that chamber for the first time.

Yes, she may be there chiefly because of her name, but that doesn't change the fact that she'll probably be NY's best bet. It doesn't change the fact that Cuomo, the next likeliest pick, is only there for his name and family, too. If it's a choice between CK and Cuomo, it's an easy choice. CK's the more progressive vote, given Cuomo's Wall Street agenda. CK also has the upshot of helping inspire this new generation, getting Obama and the Senate Democrat agenda through. Plus, CK would have the unending help and support of the best US Senator out there. I can't honestly think of a well thought out reason not to favor Kennedy, short of those who have argued for a place holder - but that's just not going to happen. So CK it should be.

Prop 8, the Musical

Most amazing video ever?

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

It's up there.

H/T Mr. Lynne

Wow

Guy invites around 1,000 people to a Cambridge protest against California's Prop 8 on Facebook - and nearly 10% of them show. From a Facebook invite!

Empty Threats

You have no power here, be gone.