The Bad Timing of Bad Weather in D.C.

The recent blizzard which hit D.C. has had what some are considering to be a negative impact on marriage equality in the District.

What does snow have to do with same-sex marriage in D.C.? Well, congress was suppose to have a recess next week in observance of President’s Day, but due to the recent snow storms, that break came early, and when the Capitol shuts down, unfortunately so does the clock which adds up the 30 legislative review days Congress has to review all D.C. laws signed into effect by the District’s mayor.

With the added time off, same-sex marriages, which originally should have began in early March, will have to wait until mid-march at the earliest. The problem there…more time for the anti-gay forces to push their agenda of inequality.

The Supreme Court, Campaign Finance & Petition Secrecy

There’s a great post, which poses a great question on one the more thought-provoking and fair political blogs (and I’m not saying that sarcastically) Cup o’ Joel which addresses the Supreme Court’s decision to block the names of those who signed the petition in Washington to overturn the state’s “everything but marriage” bill.

According to the post:

Back in October, my conservative collaborator Ben Boychuk made the argument that voters will be fine if corporations are allowed to spend unlimited money in elections because, hey, we can all see what’s going on:

Transparency and instant Internet disclosure make most of the old objections and warnings about quid pro quo corruption irrelevant. If a political candidate receives the financial aid of large corporations, and public knows about it, then the question of undue influence falls to the voters to resolve. As it should be.

Theoretically, this sounds great. In reality, though, there’s a good chance that transparency itself is going to become extinct.

Why do I say this? Because the Supreme Court is being asked to rule that petition signers — 138,000 people who asked Washington State to hold a referendum to overturn the state’s law allowing domestic partnerships for gays — have a First Amendment right not to have their names made public. The court has blocked the release of those names until it rules on the case.

The rationale for blocking transparency? Gay marriage opponents don’t really want to be criticized. They’d like to be able to use government to deprive other citizens of rights without having to be made to feel uncomfortable about it.

Voters ratified the law, but the conservative Christian groups that sponsored it want to keep the signed petitions that asked for the referendum out of public view because they fear harassment from gay-rights supporters, some of whom have vowed to post the names of petition signers on the Internet.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case that seeks to protect the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely and without fear,” said James Bopp, Jr., lawyer for Protect Marriage Washington. “No citizen should ever worry that they will be threatened or injured because they have exercised their right to engage in the political process.”

So here’s my question: If the Supreme Court says that petitioners have a First Amendment right to keep their names private while supporting a public campaign, why on Earth wouldn’t that rationale also apply to people (and corporations) who donate to campaigns? Maybe there’s a good legal distinction, but I can’t think of one right now.

I have to agree with Joel…What IS the difference?

Voting on Equality Across America

Yes, today is November 3rd, and I would be lying if I told you I slept well last night.  There is a lot at steak today across the nation as the voters head to the polls to cast their votes.

In the forefront, we have Maine.  Maine’s legislature passed a marriage equality law back in may, which would allow gay and lesbian couples to take the plunge, but with the help of the Catholic Church, NOM and Stand for Marriage Maine, the law went is going up for public approval via a popular vote.

In the state of Michigan, the city of Kalamazoo passed an ordinance that would outlaw discrimination against LGBT citizens in employment and housing, but the city’s Christians who believe hate is OK, as long as it’s against the LGBT community has forced a popular vote on the ruling.

Then, in Washington, there’s Referendum 71.  The state’s legislature passed a “everything but marriage” law aimed at providing many of the same benefits to same-sex couples that married heterosexual couples take for granted.  But, dispelling the myth that somehow the struggle is based upon the word “marriage”, this too has gone up for a vote, proving that the religious right’s beef with the LGBT community is really about being “gay” not about a sacred “religious” institution between a man and a woman.

In other states, there are races for the governor’s and legislative seats.  Sarah Palin has even reared her ugly head and shoved her nose into Virginia’s political scene with a robocall urging people to vote for those Republican candidates that support that anti-gay, anti-health care reform agenda.

So, today is not about who’s going to lead our nation in The White House, but it is about change, and hopefully the results will demonstrate that attitudes and acceptance is changing and growing.

Stayed tuned to gayagenda.com for results as they come in!

It’s Not Just Maine on Tuesday

Much of the focus about same-sex marriage has been on Maine, and rightly so. Tuesday referendum is similar to California’s Proposition 8, which made same-sex marriage illegal. Yet there are two differences: (1)the Maine referendum the voters are weighing in on is a law passed by their representatives, not a decision by the courts; (2) the vote is about overturning a law passed by lawmakers, not about amending a constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The Maine vote is important, but there are other important decisions to be made on Tuesday.

Find out what they are at: A Passionate Engagement!

Federal Judge Rejects Anti-Gay Rights Group

A federal judge has denied emergency requests from opponents of Washington’s new “everything but marriage” same-sex domestic partner law to suspend a ban on big campaign contributions and a requirement that those donors identify themselves.

A new political action committee, Family PAC, said the laws were hurting its ability to collect last-minute political contributions before the Nov. 3 election.

U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton said the group hadn’t shown strong enough evidence to back its case.

“I do not believe it is in the public interest for court, the week before an election, to intervene and change the rules of the game at the last minute,” he said.

The case revolves around Referendum 71, which would broaden domestic partnership rights for gay couples. State campaign finance laws violate free speech rights, Family PAC said.

Family PAC was created after the legal deadline for large campaign contributions had passed. That unfairly keeps people who want to donate large amounts of money from participating in the political process, lawyer Scott Bieniek argued Tuesday.

More at: Seattle PI

Next Page »