In Hitchcock’s 1935 thriller, The 39 Steps, a man has to go on the run to save himself. In a similar fashion, Obama and the Democratic National Committee have taken thirty-nine steps against us, running away from the LGBTQ community, in an apparent effort to save political capital and protect the 2010 and 2012 elections. Or worse, in an apparent case of just not “getting it.”

John Aravosis at AMERICAblog came up with a thirty-nine point list of “examples of how the President and Democrats have not been fierce advocates for the civil rights of gay and lesbian Americans.” It’s pretty inclusive. Granted, a few are a bit iffy, but I think once you hit three dozen slights against us, well, who needs to keep counting.

So, Aravosis and his folks, along with DailyKos, Dan Savage, Michelangelo Signorile, Paul Sousa have created, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Give,” a donor boycott of the DNC.

He writes,

“It’s really more of a “pause,” than a boycott. Boycotts sounds so final, and angry. Whereas this campaign is temporary, and is only meant to help some friends – President Obama and the Democratic party – who have lost their way. We are hopeful that via this campaign, our friends will keep their promises.”

It’s also got an excellent FAQ, so take a look, sign the petition, and send the White House and The DNC a message, OK?

Here are a few of the thirty-nine examples:

• Inviting anti-gay activist Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to give the invocation at the inaugural.
• Inviting a gay bishop to the inaugural festivities, then not beginning the TV broadcast until the gay bishop has finished and left.Refusing to re-establish the White House Office of LGBT Outreach and the White House LGBT Liaison (which was a Special Assistant to the President at one point).
• Continuing to discharge two gay servicemembers a day, even though he could stop it immediately by issuing a stop-loss order immediately.
• Refusing to mention Maine or Washington state, or anything of substance, in his speech to the Human Rights Campaign dinner.
• Refusing to issue a statement specifically opposing anti-gay ballot measures in Maine and Washington state.

New York State Senator Liz Krueger: “Marriage Equality in New York: The Time Is Now.”

“I know that there are a significant number of Senators who do not support the bill, but believe it is our duty as a legislative body to have a meaningful debate on marriage equality and give every Senator an opportunity to publicly vote his or her conscience on this critical issue.”

“In such areas as property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody, pension benefits and testimonial privileges, married couples have a host of important rights and protections. Denying gays and lesbians access to those benefits – as well as the many responsibilities which come with civil marriage – is a violation of the basic principle of equal protection.”

In the state that’s been host to a slew of homophobic hate crimes recently, and can even hang its head in shame for kicking a gay couple out of a taxi cab – for hugging – Governor Paterson, far more our fierce advocate than Barack Obama, has called for a vote tomorrow on New York’s gay marriage bill. Again.

Granted, the Governor is using this issue to bolster his non-existent approval ratings. But you know what they say, freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose. Well, if Paterson can deliver us some freedom, I’m happy to take it.

Change.org’s Michael A. Jones points out today,

“Oh, and one great thing about New York: they don’t have a referendum process, meaning that anti-gay activists and the Catholic Church can’t put the question of civil rights for gays and lesbians on a ballot. All the more reason why tomorrow’s vote will be historic if it happens.”

Historic, indeed.

The House has already passed its version, so this Senate vote is all that stands in the way of New York offering full marriage equality. But whether or not it will come to the floor for a vote has been in question all year. The Senate majority leader John Sampson, as he and others have said all year, does not want to bring to a vote a bill he’s not sure will pass. A loss, while surely devastating after Maine, will however let us know who’s on our side, and who we need to convince. Or work to replace.

New York Magazine’s Daily Intel last week crunched some numbers and positions and came up a bit empty-handed. So someone will have to be a bit heavy-handed to get the Senate to vote on the bill. It’s time for us to get involved, call our Senators, and move the ball forward.

We need 32 votes. The Times says we may have 25. Get busy.

Empire State Pride Agenda’s website will connect you directly to your senator. Call them now.

The Tyranny Of The Majority Is Unacceptable

This is Part II. You can read Part I here.

So, the results in Maine suck.

I need you to take a deep breath and stay with me for a minute.

If someone came up to you and said, “Hi! I’m going to give you this fabulous prize – which you already deserve – and all you have to do is jump fifty hurdles, which no one has ever cleared even one of before, what do you think? Are you ready?” You’d say, bullshit.

Right?

“Hi! I’m going to give you marriage equality – which you already deserve – and all you have to do is get the majority of voters to say yes in each of our fifty states, which no one has ever won even once before, what do you think? Are you ready?”

That’s right.

Bullshit.

Take another deep breath.

There are several truths I need you to accept.

Marriage is a civil right. Disagree? The U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t. It’s already stated marriage is a civil right.

The United States was designed to protect the rights of all people, and to free them from the “tyranny of the majority.” Think it doesn’t exist? Plato did. He first floated the concept back in 380 B.C. Disagree that America was designed to protect minorities? Founding Father James Madison thought it was. So did did Alexis de Tocqueville – he coined the term in 1835 when he wrote “Democracy in America.”

If you live in this country and do not identify 100% as heterosexual, you are oppressed. You are automatically and effectively judged and treated differently than those who do. To what degree depends on your socio-economic status and geographic location.

David Mixner yesterday called this “Gay Apartheid.” I have struggled with the term all day. While I agree we share many of the same challenges in theory as Blacks in South Africa, the practices against us are not so blatant. That’s the beauty of oppression executed well – accomplishing it so the oppressed do not recognize their own oppression. In the end, the term doesn’t help us win hearts and minds, and that is still a battle I’m struggling with as well.

While we’re on the subject of the LGBTQ community’s relationship with the African American community, let me say this. Our struggle is similar. Our challenges were and continue to be similar. African Americans in this country are in terrible straits, and they, too, have every right to be angry. Just as we say no one is equal if we’re not, we must say no one is equal if they’re not. And they – African Americans – are not treated equally. We all can learn so much from each other. And we must.

It’s time to partner with the African American community. It’s time to understand their anger and their pain and realize that they are us in a few short decades if we don’t work together to solve the problem of class and inequality.

One of the “perks,” if you will, of being gay was that we were indoctrinated almost from birth with the supposition that we couldn’t possibly get married and have families. We ended up working a lot and making a lot of money. It’s true, the disposable income of gays and lesbians in America was the focus of marketing studies and every CEO ten years ago.

But now we’re forming families and raising children and you know what? That “perk,” that extra disposable income factor is slipping away. I was talking yesterday with Justin Elzie, the first Marine to come out under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in 1993. He asked me, “Are we going to be able to afford all these marriage battles?” The answer, quite frankly, is, “No.”

We’re not going to win marriage equality at the ballot box. Nor should we be forced to try. Nor should we ever have agreed to it. It is morally reprehensible to ever have asked us to offer our rights up for a vote. No other group in this country ever had to try to secure equality at the ballot box. It has always come from the judicial or legislative branches of government, not from the people. As former governor Jesse Ventura said election night, “If you put it up to the vote of the people, we’d have slavery again.”

So should we, as I wrote the Washington Blade mused yesterday, “make the more pragmatic push for civil unions?” Hell no.

Can you imagine if African Americans or interracial couples had been offered domestic partnerships but not full marriage equality, in essence and in name? Can you imagine, for example, Asians, banding together to secure “everything but marriage,” as we did on Tuesday in Washington state? What if “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” were applied to Hispanics? Or if you could be fired in twenty-nine states just because you were blond?

Americans today would never stand for that. Nor should we.

It is time for this country to cease half-measured attempts at solving full-measured crises. As I wrote in Part I, this Rumsfeldian battle-on-the-cheap didn’t work in Iraq, it didn’t work in California, and it didn’t work in Maine.

It’s time to demand full equality, in essence and in name, in every aspect of our lives. And it’s time to look at our leaders and say, “We’ve grown up. We’re not playing your games anymore.”

Oh, I know. “Be patient.” “Work with your elected representatives.” “No battle for civil rights was ever easy.” “It’s a long hard slog.” (Sorry, that “Rumsfeldian” thread is still in my head.)

I disagree.

We can no longer continue to buy into the concept of incrementalism, getting and giving up and getting and giving up our rights, slowly but surely, for decades to come. Win marriage in California. Lose marriage in California. Win marriage in Maine. Lose marriage in Maine. And yes, forces are forming now to repeal New Hampshire’s hard-won gay marriage law.

The time has come to say to Uncle Sam, enough.

Civil rights are federal.

Who investigates civil rights abuses? The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Because civil rights are federally protected. And marriage is a civil right.

In a country that tells us from the moment we’re born that we can be fired in twenty-nine states – just for being gay, that you cannot marry in forty-five states, that your government will not recognize your marriage at the federal level, that you cannot serve in the military, well, tell me that is a free society that offers full equality for all its citizens?

There is a difference between society not accepting groups of people (which is wrong to begin with,) and the government actively making laws against a group of people, taking away rights from them – rights enjoyed by the majority. And that’s what has happened here. Laws have been made that take away rights that exist because we are human beings. Inherent rights all humans possess, by virtue of their being. We cannot allow this to continue. We must find a different path to secure our equality.

So, you will ask, will I continue to fight for marriage? Yes. Will I continue to fight for marriage state by state? Yes. Because to not would be unfair to us all. Will I continue to fight for repeal of DADT and DOMA, and enactment of ENDA? Yes. Will I continue to fight to have the LGBTQ community included in the Civil Rights Act of 1969? Yes.

But will I work to take us out of what I call the “whack-a-mole marriage machine?” Will I work to get us to the point where we decide what the game is and how we’re going to play it? Hell yes.

This is Part I. You can read Part II here.

There’s much to be said about the stunning – and it was stunning – defeat of Maine’s gay marriage law. There’s more to be said about its implications on the bigger picture of marriage equality and the overall picture of gay civil rights. And I’m going to say it all. It will take two parts. Come back for part two!

First and foremost, unlike California, Protect Maine Equality did an outstanding job. Regardless of the results, since 2005 these folks have been working towards equality the right way, by going door to door, sharing personal stories, forming coalitions, and even working with religious groups. They should hold their heads up high.

So, we lost marriage in Maine by a five point spread. Many of us had expected to win by just as much. The problem is, what do we do now?

The folks over at The Washington Blade’s offices asked out loud, “Is it time to set aside marriage and make the more pragmatic push for civil unions?” (More on this in Part II.)

In “You want pity because of Maine? You won’t be getting it from me,” Alvin McEwen writes today,

“There will be no deux ex machina descending from the sky making everything right. There will be no addendums or loopholes. It’s a job that will have to accomplished the hard way because there is no other way.”

Cody Daigle, in “The Lesson in Losing,” writes,

“[W]e need to start thinking and acting like a real community. This morning, I saw angry missives and comments online from friends of mine over the results of Maine. But those same people, in the weeks leading up to the vote, weren’t talking about it or thinking about it or caring about it. What happens to gay couples in Maine affects gay couples in Idaho affects single gay men in Mississippi affects gay people, coupled or not, everywhere. We’re a community, and until we really start caring about what happens to each and every one of us, nothing will change for any of us. It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in marriage or don’t want to be married — act for those in your community who do. Because we’ll stand up for your freedoms when the time comes.”

As usual, I agree with Daigle (full disclosure, Cody is a good friend.) And personally, I am sick to death, as I wrote in “Start Acting Like It,” of our anger when things like losing marriage happen, yet we’re indifferent every other day of the year?

“[D]oes the majority of the gay community really want marriage equality? And if we do, are we going to start acting like it?”

So, one year after Prop 8, my question is this: Were you mad last year after election day? Are you mad today? 365 days in between, what did you do to support the gay marriage cause? Did you donate your time? Money? Did you email your state and federal representatives? Did you write your president? Did you talk to others about the importance of marriage?

What did you do?

Because here’s the deal.

We lost. And this one hurts a lot, because Maine had a gay marriage law that yesterday got repealed. It’s not like there was a bill and it got voted down in the state legislature. It got passed. And a governor who was against it, signed it. So, we lost big.

And we know who to blame. And who not to blame. Do not, do not blame the people of Maine. They were subject to outside forces beyond their control. And, listening to the debate in their Legislature on gay marriage, I think they are a good people who deserve better treatment than they got from the Church and from NOM.

So, blame Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage, for starters. She, along with her Executive Director, Brian Brown, poured cash, and hate, and fear, and lies into Maine. As Brian wrote today,

“We are the single largest donor to Stand for Marriage Maine. We gave nearly $1.8 million, emptying our bank account because of the serious needs in Maine… Bishop Richard Malone of the Diocese of Portland provided invaluable leadership…”

Which brings me to my next point.

Blame the Roman Catholic Church. Separation of church and state, while the law in this country, is not enforced. The tax-free status religious organizations get is a trade-off, that requires them to not get involved in politics. Yet, time and again we see them thumb their noses at the U.S. government, and throw their cash at anti-gay measures around the country. It’s illegal, and it’s time something was done about it. America needs to revoke the tax-free status of any religious organization that gets involved in politics beyond the limits of the law.

The Roman Catholic Church’s Portland diocese sunk over $550,000 into this battle, yet is closing its own churches for lack of money. Go figure.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) supported the Maine effort with between $49,000 (reported here) and $200,000 (reported here.) HRC claims to have “made more than $280,000 in monetary and in-kind contributions.” All told, while the $200,000 figure is more likely the effective number, one has to ask, if THE leading LGBT organization spent only $200,000 in Maine, what did they think they were going to get? Maine, like California one year ago, should have been all-or-nothing. This Rumsfeldian battle-on-the-cheap didn’t work in Iraq, it didn’t work in California, and it didn’t work in Maine. When are we going to put everything we have into one issue and make damned sure we win?

Then there’s the DNC – the Democratic National Committee, who sent a blast email campaign to voters in Maine yesterday, asking them to come vote, but conveniently left off asking them to vote “No” on repealing gay marriage. Yes, that’s right. THE Democratic organization, in a Democratic state, with a Democratic Governor, and a Democratic Legislature which voted for and passed and signed an historic gay marriage bill didn’t ask its own members to support it.

Aside from the fact that tactically it’s just stupid – have your elected representatives stick their necks out for gay marriage, which they did – then don’t ask voters to support their decision, leaving them vulnerable? Yes, the DNC is stupid, arrogant, and hypocritical. Same sex marriage opponent, and DNC chairman Tim Kaine, I’m talking to you.

Which is why we need to stop blindly giving the DNC cash.

Now. President Obama. What to say about our “fierce advocate in chief?” (By the way, last night David Gergen said gays have a right to be upset with Obama. That was nice to hear, coming from him.) Well, while Obama is against gay marriage, he supports states rights on the subject. (More on that in Part II, too.) This was a state initiative. This was a Democratic initiative. Obama could have lent his support to this, but he chose not to. (I don’t know how much I can blame him. He’s taken a beating on healthcare, and I do want his attention there.)

But Obama could have mentioned Maine (and Washington) at the HRC dinner he graciously attended (no, that was not sarcastic) the night before the National Equality March. He didn’t. He also didn’t actively oppose Prop 8, so while no one’s surprised, he definitely loses the title of “fierce advocate.” I still support him overall, because he’s doing a better job than anyone else could have in these tough times, but he’s not in our corner. Not now, not then, not ever.

So, as I tweeted last night, “If we lose Maine tonight, what are you going to do about it tomorrow?”

What are YOU going to do about it?

More in Part II.

Along with the Human Rights Campaign, who swooped in to support the No On 1 campaign with a whopping – ready for this? $49,000. Holy Cow! How’d they scrounge up that much dough? Why, that’s just 14% of Joe Solmonese’s $338,400 salary. Yet, the emails I get from them make it sound like they really supported the effort there. Not with your donations, they didn’t.

Stephen Colbert explained last night – in ways I never could have! – why we held The Great Nationwide Kiss-In!

Just as a reminder, as I called for The Great Nationwide Kiss-In in response to several incidents of same sex couples being harassed and/or arrested, just for kissing.

Given our loss in Maine yesterday, it’s appropriate to remind people that we still have to fight for our civil rights – including the right to display simple acts of affection, and the right to marry the person we choose.

Colbert explains…

FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver, one of the most respected numbers guys around, like most of us thought Maine’s marriage law would not be repealed. It was. Before you sharpen your pen – or your sword – read his analysis. The key part is this:

“We had given Question 1 about a 70 percent chance of being defeated based on a combination of an analysis of the polling and a statistical model. I don’t know how much time I’m supposed to spend defending being on the wrong side of a 70:30 bet — we build in a hedge for a reason — but here comes a little self-reflection. As for the polling, I think we have to seriously consider whether there is some sort of a Bradley Effect in the polling on gay rights issues… I’ll need to look whether the urban-rural divide is a significant factor in a state in addition to its religiosity: Maine is secular, but rural. At the end of the day, it may have been too much to ask of a state to vote to approve gay marriage in an election where gay marriage itself was the headline issue on the ballot. Although the enthusiasm gap is very probably narrowing, feelings about gay marriage have traditionally been much stronger on the right than the left, and that’s what gets people up off the couch in off-year elections.”

I’ll just emphasize one point: The Roman Catholic Church’s dioceses (I have to use the word “dioceses” or I’ll get into trouble) spent a lot of time and money lying to people about us. And yet we’re supposed to turn the other cheek?

Same Sex Marriage Loses In The Pine Tree State

Gay marriage has been put to a vote and the voters seem to have said, “No.” Maine would have been the sixth state to offer full marriage equality. With 87% of districts reporting, the New York Times called the vote at 52.7% to 47.3% in favor of repealing the gay marriage law that passed in May. Local Portland TV station WCSH called the vote at about 1:15 AM as a loss for gay marriage supporters. But the Bangor Daily News late into the night still claimed the vote was too close to call. A total recount, which could take weeks, is likely. Also, the legislature certainly could take up another bill next year, and start the process again, but lawmakers might feel it politically imprudent given this loss.

Throughout the day, news outlets reported voter turnout and absentee ballots as heavy, which gay marriage supporters took as a positive sign. Some pegged turnout at 50% – a high number, especially for an off-year election. South Portland ran out of ballots at 5:30, and had to use photocopies. Although issues like medical marijuana were up for grabs, Maine’s Question 1, specifically, “Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?” is what motivated voters from both sides to the ballot box.

This, following an historic May 5, 2009 vote by the Maine House, which, by a vote of 89-58, passed the gay marriage bill. The following day, Maine’s Democratic Governor John Baldacci, signed the bill, which had previously passed the Maine Senate by a 20-15 vote.

Then, on May 7, gay marriage opponents began a drive to get the law put on today’s ballot. In what is called a “people’s veto,” Stand For Marriage Maine, a Catholic Church group announced two months later, on July 9, it had the required number of signatures to force a referendum.

Maggie Gallagher’s National Organization for Marriage contributed $1,600,000, more than 60 percent of the funds used, against the gay marriage referendum. Another 20 percent, $550,000, reportedly came from the Roman Catholic Church’s dioceses.

Despite the deep pockets of a few anti-gay marriage benefactors, Protect Maine Equality, which has been working since 2005 to support same sex marriage, raised $4 million for the “No On 1″ battle. Protect Maine Equality worked with over forty different groups, including religious organizations, and with thousands of volunteers went door-to-door and made thousands of calls to voters.

Maine’s U.S. Senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, voted via absentee ballots, but refused to announce which way they voted on gay marriage.

Public opinion polls over the past few months ran from 41% to 51% in opposition to a “No on 1″ vote, which would return marriage to a one man, one woman status. But those in favor of “No on 1″ were much more consistent, ranging only from 46% to 53%.

Although the state capitol of Augusta voted 47% to 53% against gay marriage, large cities like Bangor and Portland (73% to 27%) voted to support gay marriage.

In Maine and Washington state, voters are getting a say in whether or not gays can have equal partnership rights. In Maine, same sex marriage, already approved by that state’s legislature, is being voted on. In Washington, “everything but marriage” – equal marriage in everything but name is on the table.

Never before has a group of people in this country had to have their civil rights voted on.

This is what America again is forcing us to do.

Despite the lunacy of the process, we need everyone’s support today. The more people who vote, the greater our chances of winning.

Vote NO in Maine, vote YES in Washington.

(This video first appeared on this blog on March 5, 2009.)