Why it matters: Video

No Health care for GLBT families?

So much for including all Americans. From the Washington Blade:

[T]he bill, H.R. 3962, uses the terms “family” and “dependent,” and advocates say the new Health Choices Commissioner — a position established in the legislation to oversee the insurance exchange — could interpret this language to mean someone’s opposite-sex spouse, but not a same-sex spouse.

For example, the section describing the retiree reinsurance program — for which employer-based programs could submit claims to the government — says claims could be made on “employment based health benefits provided to a retiree or to the spouse, surviving spouse, or dependent of a retiree.”

Brian Moulton, the Human Rights Campaign’s chief legislative counsel, said the term “dependent” and “family” in the bill are “fairly open-ended” and “leave a lot of discretion to the new commissioner to define them.”

“Certainly, there is some use of the term ‘spouse’ in the bill in some of the provisions, and certainly DOMA would control that definition of spouse,” he said. “I think there are some areas where there’s a potential there won’t be access to some of the benefits.”

You see, my marriage doesn't count. And neither do Domestic Partnerships, right now. But thanks to DOMA, it's even possible that my legal marriage would be explicitly excluded, even if DPs are allowed. How's THAT for a cruel irony?

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin and others are doing a chicken little with respect to GLBT rights. THey are running hard from our community, and are shutting the door on a repeal to Don't Ask Don't Tell aka DADT.

You see, apparently a couple of Republican governors getting elected outweighs two new Dems in the House. NOw, remember, most people (even straight conservatives) support a repeal of DADT. Domestic Partnerships won in Washington State, and anti-discrimination protections in Kalamazoo. There were several gay people elected in contests around the country. But the beltway bias is that we are poison and even the Democratic National Committee wouldn't support us. Back under the bus, boys and girls.

As David Mixner writes,

How can we have any dignity, honor or pride in ourselves if we validate this continued process of ballot box terrorism? How can we stand tall next to each other if we explain away another's cowardliness? How can we allow people to dehumanize our relationships and our very integrity if we give people passes to sit out the battle for our very freedom? No longer are political timelines a reason for delay, no longer are incremental approaches acceptable and no longer can the political process expect us to be patient and wait our turn. Our turn came long ago and there will be no more waiting.

I'm still waiting for "fierce advocacy". ::crickets:: Meanwhile, my wallet will be open only for causes and candidates who share ALL my values.

WA state expands partnership rights

Seattle P-I reports:

The measure asked people to approve or reject the latest expansion of the new state law that Gov. Chris Gregoire signed in May granting same sex domestic partners all the rights of married couples. That same month conservative interests announced they would attempt to overturn the new law and enough signatures were collected enough to place R-71 on the November ballot.

The original domestic partnership law, backed by Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, two years ago, provided inheritance rights in cases where there was no will, hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations. About 6,000 domestic partnership registrations have been filed since July 2007.

Some rights and responsibilities that would be extended to gay and lesbian families under the latest legislation are:

Workers' compensation coverage.

Victims' rights, including the right to receive notifications and benefits allowances. Business succession rights.

The right to use sick leave to care for a spouse.

Insurance rights, including rights under group policies, policy rights after death of spouse, conversion rights, and continuing coverage rights.

Legal process rights, such as the ability to sign certain documents, the requirement to join in certain petitions, rights to cause of action, and ability to transfer licenses without charge.

The right to wages and benefits when a spouse is injured, and to unpaid wages upon death of spouse.

The right to unemployment and disability insurance benefits disability insurance issues

The first comment notes:

Finally some good news.

And to those of you still opposing it and bitter that it lost, relax. Your precious children are safe, your marriage is unaffected, your life will go on unchanged, and the world will not come to an end.

Are gays people? Christian? American?

NO ONE should put the rights of a minority to the ballot. They will always lose. NO CIVIL RIGHTS BATTLES ARE WON AT THE BALLOT BOX. It's outrageous that we have to beg our fellow citizens for citizenship. And they aren't going to give it to us now, any more than the majority would have voted to end slavery, to give women the vote, to give African-Americans full civil rights, or to allow mixed race marriage.

We did not vote on any of those issues. Why is MY citizenship up to the ballot? Why are gay people uniquely required to be approved by a majority vote?

As quoted by Susan Russell,Harry Knox wrote,

Once again, when American voters have had an opportunity to affirm my humanity and the loving commitment I have made to my husband, a majority of those voters have made a conscious decision to deny my humanity and treat me as if my citizenship and my marriage mean nothing; all the while patting themselves on the back for their piety. The slap they intended is received. I am made to wonder – Am I human? Am I an American? Am I a Christian? Am I married?

It is clear that most voters in Maine, like majorities in other states before them, intend for me to feel less than human. People we respect as sisters and brothers in the human family, we treat as equals. Those majorities have reserved to themselves a legal right they feel specially entitled to – in spite of the fact that my husband and I face all the health, financial, familial and social challenges they do, and need the same supports they enjoy.

Once you dehumanize, it's not a long step to seeing no problem with imprisonment, or even death. Here's a sample of the hate language from the Maine Campaign: "evil", "sickness", "perversion", "unspeakable".

Let's look at a few issues in the broader world/Anglican-Episcopal flavor on these lines.

Item 1: The nation of Uganda plans to increase the criminal penalties for "homosexual behavior" up to and including the death penalty. There are also penalties for "advocacy". This "Anti-Homosexuality Bill" has been met with surprising silence. US Rep Tammy Baldwin has written Hilary Clinton asking for a response. THe US and French Embassies have decried it. But there appears to be no response from TEC or the Anglican Communion overall, outside of the blogs.

Item 2: In the almost-schismatic Dio South Carolina, which is holding its breath so as not to be contaminated by the cooties of the rest of TEC, they had a resolution as follows:

Whereas the Diocese of South Carolina recognizes we have all been created in God‟s image and are precious in his sight, and
Whereas we acknowledge we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and stand equally in need of his mercy and grace, we thankfully and humbly,
Resolve that this Diocese will not condone prejudice or deny the dignity of any person, includingbut not limited to, those who believe themselves to be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered. Nevertheless, we will speak the truth in love as Holy Scripture commends for the amendment of life required of disciples of Christ. It is love of neighbor and the abiding concern for their spiritual well being that compels such honesty and will never allow us to remain silent.

Despite basically being a resolution allowing them to slap around gays with the literalist bible, this nevertheless was defeated, 182-117. As commented by LIsa at My Manner of LIfe, this makes it official: the Dio South Carolina WILL condone prejudice and deny the dignity of gay people. (Of course the "believe themselves to be" is another slap in the face, but given that South Carolina is a hotbed of anti-science creationism, perhaps not surprising).

The official TEC responses to these? ::crickets::

But at least there are a few bright lights. The Episcopal Bishop of Maine has a sad statement of regret about Question 1,

Many faithful Episcopalians are deeply grieved at this decision. They had hoped that they and their families might enjoy the recognition and protections afforded heterosexual couples. The rejection of the law also feels like rejection of them as persons. I join in their grief that the right of same gender couples to enter into a lifelong, monogamous marriage has been denied. ....

The Episcopal Church in Maine will continue to offer a warm welcome to all people including those for whom the results of this referendum are disappointing. Especially in this tender time, I offer our assurances to gay and lesbian Mainers that you, your relationships, and your families have our support and blessing.

Yay, Bishop Lane. We saw in California a number of RC seeking solace from their church's institutional hatred in the Episcopal Church. Look for Mainers to do the same thing, I think, especially because their Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine was the major supporter of the anti-equality alliance (a view not necessarily shared by Maine Catholics).

The gay marriage issue is challenging Christianity's credibility just as it is challenging Constitutional credibility. Really, the challenge of radical love, just like the challenge of true American liberty, is applying those principles to those who are distinctly Other.

We lost, again

48% of Maine voters believe in fairness and equality. 52% believe in ignorance and bigotry.

We've seen this before. As shown by Gallup, not until 1991 did a plurality of Americans approve of inter-racial marriages. Indeed, one might argue that the landmark Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision of 1968 sped it up, and even then, the electorate only caught up with the law 30 years later.

So I should wait 30 years? Demographics suggest in 30 years I have a reasonable chance of being dead. In the meantime I remain a very angry, frustrated, second class semi-citizen.

Awesome Op-Ed from Kennebec ME

Read the whole thing:

While this change in the law could seem abrupt to some Maine voters, it reflects the way people are really living now in cities and towns all over our state. That's why we urge people to vote "no," to allow this reasonable law to go into effect.

..... Limiting marriage to a man and a woman would not make families led by same-sex couples go away. It would just keep them in a legally inferior position that is inconsistent with Maine's tradition of equal protection under the law.

Gay men and women already live together, own property and have children, both biological and adopted. They hold responsible jobs, they volunteer in churches and schools -- they are full members of our communities. The only thing they cannot do is form the legal partnership that gives them the advantages and duties that other couples have when they start families. The same-sex couples are not the only losers. This also puts their children at a disadvantage.

.... A "yes" vote won't make those couples go away. It would only make their lives more difficult.

..... There is virtually no way to surgically carve out and tie together all the rights and responsibilities of marriage in a legal relationship that does what marriage does without calling it marriage......

Families led by same-sex partners are here now. They are part of our communities and they need and deserve the legal protections -- as well as the dignity -- that comes with civil marriage status.

Maine voters should recognize that even if their personal beliefs about marriage haven't changed, reality has. They should accept reality and vote "no" on Question 1.

Hat tip Susan Russell

Maine Equality

Do all Maine children deserve equal protection, or not? Vote No on one.



It's not about the children. It never was. They are LYING and they even admit they are LYING.

In an interview tonight on Maine Public Broadcasting Network, Mutty not only admitted that, contrary to what his campaign has been alleging, there won't be a mandate to teach same-sex marriage in schools, he went further. Mutty admitted that his side has misled the people of Maine:"We've never said that schools will be mandated- or, actually, perhaps we did in one ad, or certainly led people to believe that, inadvertently," says Yes on 1's Chairman Marc Mutty.

The election is close and it's all up to GOTV. Can you help? If you are anywhere in New England, can you get to Maine? If you are anywhere else, can you donate for the last ad buy, or make calls? Please speak up, and speak out.