U.S. House Speaker Pelosi likens healthcare protests to anti-gay rhetoric

U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said Thursday that she worries that the protests over President Obama's healthcare legislation may resemble the anti-gay rhetoric of the late 1970s.

In 1978, Harvey Milk, the first openly gay member of the city's board of supervisors, and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone where assassinated.

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place."

Pelosi said she does not think the debate has crossed into dangerous territory but warned that sometimes the "ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement."

The Republican Party strongly disapproved of her statement. U.S. Representative Pete Sessions (R-Texas) who is chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, rejected her statement.

"The speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination," he said. "Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda."

Protests have become more and more common, not only in opposition to U.S. President Obama and his health care plans, but in general with the passage or Prop 8 in California, and all the national tea parties (the 'tea parties where largely organized by Senior Republican Party Members in opposition to big government, and U.S. President Obama).

The health care reform protests have even reach the Commonwealth; see video coverage from Hillbilly Report:

Trace Creek Baptist Church Health Care Informational Meeting Videos


Paducah, Kentucky, The Good Ol Boy Whiners, Lies, CNN Express And Health Care


Health Care Rally in Somerset, Kentucky. Photos And Videos


Walmart Health Care And Pension Plans For Members Of Congress


Howard Dean (former Governor of the State of Vermont, and former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee) Discusses Healthcare


Do you agree with U.S. House Speaker Pelosi?

Bill to repeal DOMA to be filed in the U.S. House on Sept. 15th

Since the U.S. Government has been repeatedly attacked with multiple lawsuits (including, a prominent and founding Union member, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts) over the Defense of Marriage Act (DoMA), U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) will file a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal it.

The bill will be unveiled at a press event Tuesday. Openly gay legislators such as Wisconsin's U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin and Colorado's U.S. Representative Jared Polis are expected to attend.

Recently, U.S. President Obama's Department of Justice defended the law in a California lawsuit that aimed to overturn the statute. That suit has since been dismissed on a technicality.

Most believe the bill will never make it out of the U.S. House of Representatives, and that the lawsuit filed by the Attorney General of Massachusetts has the best chance of striking down the law for infringing on the sovereignty of the Commonwealth and its exclusive right to define marriage, which the federal government must recognize (as it always has).

There is a great deal of division in the bill being filed on Tuesday because many feel the bill should simply recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples by the federal government if gay marriage is legal in their home state. Not only would this satisfy the Attorney General of Massachusetts, but it would also give couples access to federal benefits such as Social Security and federal pensions.

Most expect the bill to fail if the provision allowing states to ignore gay marriages performed outside their borders isn't left in tact.

In California today, other battles loomed as the Senate approved a bill late Wednesday that recognizes gay and lesbian marriages performed outside the state prior to November 5, 2008. The bill was passed in the California Assembly earlier in the month.

The social conservative group California Family Council (CFC), which supports the gay marriage ban, is urging California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto the measure, and has called the bill “unconstitutional.”

“The people of California are sovereign, and the language of Proposition 8 is clear regarding the people's intent,” Ron Prentice, director of CFC, said in a statement. “However, California's current Legislature will continue to attempt to weaken the laws set forth by the people.”

All hope of striking down DOMA is with Massachusetts; Obama Administration plans to fight it

All hope of striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996 which prevents the federal government from recognizing marriages performed within states resides with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts says The National Law Journal, and the National Legal Scholars Council.

"If you're looking to effect legal change, you're looking for plaintiffs who have been harmed, a lawsuit reasonably well-funded, and the legal expertise to take it up [to] the appellate process," said Arthur Leonard of New York Law School, an expert on gay and lesbian legal issues.

Of the four current lawsuits against DOMA, the suit filed in July by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, is well-focused, well-financed, highly lawyered, and an infringement on the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (previous story)

The Obama administration decided to defend the law in court even as it has stated publicly its plans to seek repeal in Congress. What? Does this make any sense? What a waste of tax dollars!

Commonwealth of Massachusetts sues U.S. Government over DOMA; federal law violates states' rights

Only a few months after the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders complained about DOMA, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the first to legalize gay marriage) sued the United States government today over a federal law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

The federal Defense of Marriage Act interferes with the right of Massachusetts to define and regulate marriage as it sees fit, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said. The 1996 law denies federal recognition of gay marriage and gives states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Boston, argues the act "constitutes an overreaching and discriminatory federal law."

Specifically, the lawsuit challenges the section of the law that creates a federal definition of marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman.

Before the law was passed, Coakley said, the federal government recognized that defining marital status was the "exclusive prerogative of the states." Now, because of the U.S. law's definition of marriage, same-sex couples are denied access to benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including federal income tax credits, employment benefits, retirement benefits, health insurance coverage and Social Security payments.

"In enacting DOMA, Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people." - Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley

The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted when it appeared Hawaii would soon legalize same-sex marriages and opponents worried that other states would be forced to recognize them. It defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and defines "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

U.S. Supreme Court rejects challenge to 'don't ask, don't tell' as Obama administration requested

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge (Pietrangelo v. Gates, 08-824) to the U.S. Defense Department policy forbidding gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, granting a request by the Obama administration.

The court refused to hear an appeal from former Army Capt. James Pietrangelo II, who was dismissed under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

In public papers, the Obama administration said the appeals court ruled correctly in this case when it found that "don't ask, don't tell" is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

During last year's campaign, President Barack Obama pledged to overturn the policy, but he has made no specific move to do so since taking office in January. Meanwhile, the White House has said it will not stop gays and lesbians from being dismissed from the military.

"The law requires the (Defense) Department to separate from the armed services members who engage in or attempt to engage in homosexual acts; state they are homosexual or bisexual; or marry or attempt to marry a person of the same biological sex," Whitman said in a statement.

Andrew Sullivan summarizes the Obama Administration

Andrew Sullivan, one of the most popular and published gay bloggers slams the Obama Administration; some of his comments are discussed below on CNN, but here is his blog post: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/the-fierce-urgency-of-whenever.html

6 Years and a new U.S. Gov. Administration later, the U.S. will sign United Nations declaration to protect gay and lesbian people worldwide

The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign. The declaration has been placed for a vote several times and the United States voted with states such as Egypt, Syria, and Iran to oppose it!

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) has pushed the declaration for years. The United Nations may finally catch-up with the Organization of American States if the declaration is passed (story).

The International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) is a United Nations Non-Government Observer. Kentucky Equality Federation joined the International Lesbian and Gay Association in 2006.

U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Congress was still being notified of the decision. They said the administration had decided to sign the declaration to demonstrate that the United States supports human rights for all.

"The United States is an outspoken defender of human rights and critic of human rights abuses around the world," said one official. "As such, we join with the other supporters of this statement and we will continue to remind countries of the importance of respecting the human rights of all people in all appropriate international fora," the official said.

The official added that the United States was concerned about "violence and human rights abuses against gay, lesbian, transsexual and bisexual individuals" and was also "troubled by the criminalization of sexual orientation in many countries."

"In the words of the United States Supreme Court, the right to be free from criminalization on the basis of sexual orientation 'has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom'," the official said.

Gay rights and other groups had criticized the Bush administration when it refused to sign the declaration when it was presented at the United Nations on Dec. 19. U.S. officials said then that the U.S. opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but that parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

According to negotiators, the Bush team had concerns that those parts could commit the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In some states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

When it was voted on in December, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with anti-gay discrimination. But 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality — and in several, homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

More than 50 nations, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, opposed the declaration. Some Islamic countries said at the time that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest. The declaration was also opposed by the Vatican.

Powerful anti-gay groups goes on high alert

Liberty Counsel, one of the most powerful anti-gay (anti-equality) groups in the nation slips in this email sent today to its members, admitting, for the first time that LGBTI people are entitled to FULL AND INCLUSIVE RIGHTS (see below):



Did you catch that? Isn't it great to see an anti-equality group at 'red alert' rather than equality groups?

Liberty Counsel goes as far as to call the Office of U.S. President and the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives an 'axis of power.' I'm sure they had to restrain themselves to keep from using the former U.S. President's phrase 'axis of evil.'

From their email and their need to gather 50,000 signatures as quickly as possible, in addition to asking for donations, I'd say Liberty Counsel isn't just at 'red alert,' but close to declaring 'battle stations' as all of the suppressive policies they have enjoyed for the past 8 years begin to unravel.

As allies instead of opponents, the U.S. President and the U.S. Speaker of the House can be a huge powerhouse; left us not forget the U.S. Vice President is the ex-officio (you get one office automatically by being elected to another) President of the U.S. Senate. An axis of power indeed Mr. Staver.

Here it is again:

1. Repealing the Defense of Marriage Act...
2. Granting full rights (including adoption) to not only lesbians and homosexuals but bisexuals and transsexuals...
3. Giving special workplace protection based on sexual orientation and even the wide-open category of "gender identity" that will stifle Christian businesses, religious organizations... and possibly even your church! (not true; the U.S. and state constitutions protect religious organizations......in addition, they didn't forget to twist the president's words on this point as they did in # 2)
4. Making the military an open forum for homosexuals... (this is not what the president said; they twisted his words to suit their needs)
   

Instead of making a donation to a suppressive, and anti-LGBTI group, make one to a statewide organization such as Kentucky Equality Federation; with the federal government on the right track, it is even more critical that we continue to push for pull protection and equality here in the Commonwealth.

Desktop Activism

By: Davina Kotulski, Ph.D. - Author of Why You Should Give A Damn About Gay Marriage (http://www.whygaymarriage.com) and Advisory Board Member for Marriage Equality USA (http://www.marriageequality.org)

Presidential Candidate Dick Gephardt said that “Politics is an alternative to violence” and Gandhi said “A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.” I say let’s get fired up and make sure that LGBT equal rights are at the top of everyone’s radar screen. Not all of us can make every rally, donate $1000, or go to an organizing meeting, but everyone can do desktop activism.

Here’s what you need to begin:

Action #1
Needed: Telephone

Call the White House Comments Line at 202-456-1111 between 9AM and 5PM EST Monday-Friday. (I’ve programmed it into my cell phone). Tell President Obama that you want him to:

a) Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
b) Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act
c) Help pass the Uniting American Families Act
d) Help pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act
e) Pass the Matthew Shepard Hate Crime Bill
f) Pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

Remind him that he supported marriage equality before he ran for president and that his religious beliefs are not a sufficient reason to deny LGBT Americans marriage equality. Call the White House Comments Line frequently. Share this number with others and encourage them to call frequently. Like I said, I have this programmed into my cell phone. LGBT rights need to stay on everyone’s minds. If you are a straight ally identify yourself. If you are religious identify yourself.

For example, “Hello, I am a married heterosexual man from Colorado. I belong to the United Church of Christ and I am calling to ask President Obama to elevate LGBT Americans by…” See above list.

Action #2
Needed: Paper, Pen, and Stamp.

Send a letter every week to President Obama and ask five people to do the same. With your letter you can send him a picture of you, your family, your wedding photo, your wedding announcement, your marriage license, etc. If you are in a same-sex marriage-ask him why your marriage license is not recognized throughout the country and to help you make it so. If you are in a heterosexual marriage ask him why your license comes with more rights that your LGBT friend’s, family member’s, or neighbor’s marriage license. Get creative. The president may never see your letter or photo, but the White House Staff will and it will create buzz and maybe help change their hearts and minds. Remember a lot of the White House Aids and Staffers may be big time politicians someday and they can tell our stories for us and advocate for LGBT rights if we give them the tools.

Below is a sample letter. Feel free to copy, amend, share, etc. Let’s take this to a new level. Yes we can!

January 21, 2009

Barack Obama, President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

Congratulations on your victory! Your candidacy and election to President of the United States is an incredible breakthrough and gives us hope for a more inclusive and just America. With your leadership, we can finally begin to end sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. We call on you to pass the following legislation to extend equality to LGBTI American citizens!

1. Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
Let LGBT people serve openly in our military. Polls confirm that most Americans think this policy is outdated and wastes money. A GAO report released in February 2005 found that the DADT policy cost the government “$95.4 million in recruiting costs and $95.1 million for training replacements for the 9,488 troops discharged from 1994 through 2003.” We could use that money right now to put America back on track.

2. Pass the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
Pass a trans-inclusive ENDA protecting the rights of LGBT Americans in the workplace. No one should be fired from their job because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.

3. Repeal the “Defense of Marriage” Act (DOMA)
Repeal DOMA which denies LGBTI Americans seeking to marry someone of the same-sex 1,138 federal rights that heterosexual married people have access to including: health insurance benefits, social security, filing joint federal income taxes, and having their marriage recognized outside of the state they were married in. Repealing DOMA would also save the federal government one billion dollars annually according to a 2004 GAO report.

4. Pass the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA), (HR 2221, S 1328)
This bill would allow LGBTI Americans to sponser their partners for immigration and citizenship as heterosexual couples can through their marriage.

5. Pass the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act (DPBO)
Under the DPBO LGBT federal employees would be able to give their unrecognized same-sex spouses/partners health insurance, life insurance, government pensions, and other employment related benefits that married heterosexual federal employees enjoy by being married and heterosexual. It’s time to eliminate this second-class status in the workplace.

6. Pass the Matthew Shepard Act Federal Hate Crimes Bill (H.R. 1592)
This bill would provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes.

Now is the time for equality for all Americans. Thank you for your leadership,

______________________________ Signature
______________________________ Printed Name
_______________________________ City, State, Zip

Gay Rights Groups Condemn Gov. Palin's Church; Palin's Position on the Issue Sought

Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer. "You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church.

McCain, the next U.S. President?

The McCain camp has a new TV add for the Democratic National Convention:

“I'm a proud Hillary Clinton Democrat,” says Debra Bartoshevich, a Racine-area nurse, as she looks into the camera. “She had the experience and judgment to be President. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain.”

Additionally, McCain’s campaign said that Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who has become among the GOP’s most visible women surrogates, will be in town to meet privately with some Democrats who backed Clinton in the primary and not yet fully committed to Obama.

Large numbers of Clinton backers — 30 percent in a recent ABC/Washington Post poll — are still not backing Obama over McCain.

"Obama not making Clinton his running mate will likely make McCain the next U.S. President," is what I continue to hear in the LGBT community.

Obama only got the number of delegates he needed very, very late in the season and the Senator Clinton had an impressive campaign. By campaign's end, Clinton had won 1,640 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,763, a mere 3.6 percentage point difference.

The Obama campaign is doing their best to paper over the deep divisions in their party among the many Hillary Clinton supporters who do not want Barack Obama to be president.

“There are a significant number [of Democrats] that want Hillary Clinton,” RNC Chairman Mike Duncan told reporters today during an open house of the temporary war room the GOP has opened up to counter-program the Democrats this week. “Typically when parties are split, the other one wins.”

A Wall Street Journal/NBC poll released last week made plain why Republicans are trying to play up divisions. According to the survey, 21 percent of Clinton supporters are supporting McCain and that another 27 percent are still holding out.

LGBT blogger slams Barack Obama

There are many pieces floating around blogs right now about Barack Obama’s relationship with the LGBT community. Below are exerts from InterstateQ (North Carolina based LGBT blogger). Thoughts?

President Barack Obama? Could it really happen? If so, the LGBT community should be worried. While many may applaud the junior senator from Illinois’ “big tent” approach to his campaign, it is also a strategy that has left the LGBT community standing at odds with forces from the religious right and rabidly anti-gay “ex-gay” movement.

In South Carolina, Obama’s “big tent” campaign strategy coalesced in the form of gospel concerts attracting huge numbers of African-American voters and featuring a “respected leader” in the “ex-gay” movement.

From New Hampshire state Rep. Mo Baxley:
Obama lost the support of many in the LGBT community when he featured [anti-gay] entertainer Donnie McClurking at campaign events in South Carolina and then went ahead with the events even after being personally informed of the entertainers’ very public and virulently anti-gay remarks - making him the only Democratic candidate to be protested by members of our community. While Obama certainly has a pro-LGBT platform, in this circumstance, his actions speak louder than his well-intentioned words and we can not support a candidate that harmed the LGBT community in South Carolina in his quest to become president.

If Obama wins the U.S. presidency the LGBT community is in for four years of being subjected to a dangerously employed “big tent” strategy that places an oppressed group of citizens at the same table as their oppressors. Obama’s presidency would see James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Donnie McClurkin and other anti-gay leaders sitting down with LGBT community leaders telling them how much they are evil while Obama sits back and says, “We should work together and hope for change.”

Obama may not have the courage to stand up to the right-wing bullies if he becomes president, just like he wasn’t able to stand up against them and say, “I’m sorry Donnie, but your views do not match my view of America. My campaign is about one of equality and that isn’t something you stand for. I’ll have to ask that you not perform. I can’t give you a platform for hate.”

Matthew Shepard Act an empty gesture?

Andrew Sullivan and Steve Chapman's recent comments on the Matthew Shepard Act got me thinking....are they correct? Is the HRC making a bigger deal of this than it really is?

Read their comments before you decide:

A constitutional federal hate crimes bill can only target a minuscule number of "hate crimes" that are related to interstate commerce:

For all its grand intentions, the bill doesn't really do much at all. Supporters would like to make every hate crime a federal offense. But they can't. And the ones they can outlaw are so few and far between that it's hard to see why they bother...

The provision in question snares only those crimes in which someone crosses state lines (as with most federal laws), uses "a channel, facility or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce," or uses a weapon that has traveled across state or international boundaries.

What's the relevance to the murder of Matthew Shepard, or to most of the other attacks on gays? None whatsoever. You might think it's better to do nothing than to do something irrelevant. But for a lot of U.S. Senators, there's no gesture like an empty gesture.

And when you realize that the Shepard case was nothing like the incident the interest groups made it out to be, the pointlessness of this exercise is overwhelming. Except it isn't, of course. The primary point of such a federal bill is to raise funds for a federal interest group like the Human Rights Campaign. It's a perfect fundraising vehicle because it is emotionally visceral, can be framed as a simple case of "are you for beating gay people to death or not?", and gives HRC a slim reed of legislative achievement to sell to its members and donors by direct mail. It's about the money. Period.

Anyone notice a little dislike for a certain national organization? Andrew Sullivan has been critical of the HRC calling them "a patronage wing of the Democratic party, designed primarily to get its members jobs in future Democratic administrations or with Democrats on the Hill (even while Howard Dean treats them like the help)." Sullivan is a gay political commentator and the author of four books, distinguished by his often personal style of political analysis. His political blogs are among the most widely read on the Web.

Regardless if you agree with him or not, U.S. President Bush has promised to veto the legislation saying it is a matter for the states.