Obama Grants Hospital Rights to the GLBT Families

President Obama recently called on Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Thursday to expand hospital visitation rights to non-family members, a step that would aid same-sex couples who are often barred from their partners’ bedsides. For all our FamilyBlendz family (http://www.twitter.com/familyblendz), we are seeing opening doors by leaps and bounds and it is because of your support that we continue to share each GLBT success.

In a presidential memorandum according to Politico.com, Obama requested that Sebelius use her rulemaking authority to require all hospitals that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to respect the rights of patients to designate visitors.

He wrote that failing to respect patients’ wishes about who may visit them or make medical decisions of their behalf has “real consequences.”

“It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information about patients' medications and medical histories and that friends and certain family members are unable to serve as intermediaries to help communicate patients' needs,” he wrote. “It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall.”

Obama said “uniquely affected are gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives” but are “unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

In addition, widowers are sometimes being denied the support of friends, and members of religious orders sometimes can’t let other members of their order make medical decisions on their behalf.

The Politics of Equality: Seeing Rainbows Now

If he gets his way, Steve Pougnet, the gay mayor of Palm Springs, will unseat Chaz Bono’s stepmother from Congress.


Obama said it best, "We are no longer a red america or a blue america, but we are the United States of America". Well, even President Obama didn't see the wave of Rainbows stretching across the continent with a pot of gold at both ends.  If we play our cards, (that we've been delt) right, little leprechauns will be dancing all over opposition to family equality.  Familyblendz is working hard to get involved with legistlation as we speak to further educate the LGBT community on the real battles ahead. Steve Pougnet is going to be apart of that change we see sweeping across that rainbow.
 

Whether it was California’s Proposition 8 or Maine’s Question 1, opponents of gay marriage have embraced a winning mantra in recent battles: Think of the children! While previous generations of homophobic leaders may have spent time portraying gay people as pathological, sinful, and inherently self-destructive, their successors ignore the legitimacy of gay relationships themselves and instead play the fear card about children being raised by two parents of the same sex or being taught about gay families in school. This may be due in part to a lack of gay public figures—particularly men—who have children and who can normalize gay parenting for those unfamiliar with such family structures.


This is not why Steve Pougnet is running for Congress. But should the 46-year-old Democrat and current mayor of Palm Springs, Calif., prevail in November, he could become the first openly gay congressman who is both a father and legally married. He and his partner of 17 years, Christopher Green, tied the knot in California in 2008, and are parents to 3-year old twins Julia and Beckham. Though recent gay congressional candidates in California have failed to garner enough support and funding to be truly competitive, Pougnet’s money machine has kept pace with that of his opponent, Rep. Mary Bono Mack, who faces a right-wing tea party primary challenger in a district hobbled by high unemployment and home foreclosure rates. When canvassing in more conservative areas of the vast inland district, Pougnet is up-front. “Am I gay? Yes,” he says. “Am I a husband? Yes. Do I have children? Yes. Really, we are a family unit no different from any other. People will absolutely know who we are, and when I am standing there at the soccer games with moms talking about jobs and schools and the failings of our education system, they will know that it matters to us as well.”

The 45th congressional district, which covers a long, roughly rectangular section of California, including much of Riverside County and stretching to the Arizona border, was one of several Republican-held districts identified as potential midterm election battlegrounds by Democratic strategists. And though the Democrats have faltered in recent races (losing the late senator Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown, who opposes marriage equality), the seat held by Bono Mack has been described by the Cook Political Report as “in play,” if leaning Republican. President Barack Obama carried the district in 2008.

“The reason Pougnet came on our radar was because of his solid record in Palm Springs, from a downtown hotel renovation incentive program to a sustainability program in Palm Springs,” says Andrew Stone, western regional press secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Though Bono Mack had a sizable amount of cash on hand from her last race in 2008, Pougnet has gained fund-raising ground. He asserts the majority of campaign contributions have come from within the district (though he does make frequent westward trips to attract donors in Los Angeles, where he sat down recently with The Advocate). Campaign observers describe him as a gifted fund-raiser in his previous positions with the United Way, where he was associate director of national corporate leadership programs, and the Colorado School of Mines, where he served as vice president of development.

During the five-month window when California extended marriage rights to same-sex couples, Pougnet officiated at 118 such ceremonies—perhaps more than anyone in the state. But to portray the race as one between a gay rights activist and a right-wing obstructionist is arguably misleading. While not a leader on gay issues, Bono Mack, who was initially elected to fill the congressional seat of her late first husband, Sonny Bono, hasn’t been a true roadblock either. She broke party lines last fall to vote for hate-crimes legislation attached to a military spending bill and recently voiced support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (Bono Mack voted for ENDA in 2007). A spokesman confirmed that she also supports gender identity protections in the current ENDA legislation (the 2007 House bill passed with no transgender-inclusive language). Bono Mack’s stepson Chaz Bono revealed last year that he was a transgender man and had begun taking steps in transitioning. Bono Mack declined requests for an interview.


“Mary is highly respected in Washington and has always been a strong supporter of gay rights,” says Chuck Vasquez, president of the Riverside County-Palm Springs chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, which has endorsed Bono Mack. “She’s not a candidate of political party lines, but of her own convictions. And with the economic state of the district, and with city and local governments in California trying to get everything they can from the federal government, which has raided our budgets, I don’t see how changing to an unknown [candidate] will lead to getting a better job done.”

Pougnet, who has the support of California senator Barbara Boxer and gay representatives Barney Frank and Jared Polis, further points out that his opponent did not take a public stance on Prop. 8, nor has she been a strong advocate for repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” one of Pougnet’s chief concerns among gay issues. Bono Mack has said she believes any changes must be made only with extensive consultation with the Pentagon—a strategy that many DADT opponents insist would fail to end the policy.

“To me, ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ is something that should change as quickly as possible. If I were in Congress, I would have been cosponsoring the [repeal] bill with Rep. Patrick Murphy,” says Pougnet, referring to the lead sponsor of a House bill that would eradicate the 16-year-old ban. “Times are changing, and we’ll beat her.”

Marriage...not all its Cracked up to be? Divorce Equality?

You would think from listening to right wing pundits that gay marriage is key to the breakdown of America’s moral order. But, If statistics are to be believed, that threat to marriage comes more from the break-up of heterosexual unions since the introduction of no fault divorce in the 1970s. Today close to half of marriages in the United States end in divorce (with 20% occurring during the first five years). Marriage, it turns out, is its own worst enemy.

Only on our twitta postings, http://www.twitter.com/familyblendz have we been screaming to the top of our lungs about understanding what the real fight for equality is gearing up to be about...and its not marriage. Equality comes in a whole heap of dosages and marriage is just the pill, but legal separation, divorce, child custody and visitation represents that pill's jagged edges.

When Massachusetts approved gay marriage, that ruling came nearly six years ago, made gay divorce an inevitable progression from marriage, especially in the United States: gay divorce, yup-thats right!

While gay divorce statistics aren’t readily available, since gay marriage is still the flavor-flight of the day,the media coverage of same sex divorces leaves some wondering if this phenomena will be an additional argument for conservatives to use to deny equality.

Familyblendz.blogspot.com has been blasting this same point in defense of what will come from the right wing edges of the opposing views. Your distractions to push further into the marriage arguement will cause you to miss the next wave of the encroaching armies of disbelievers who just need one trending number of broken homes, disenfranchised minors and distorted lives. This will be the wind at their backs to continue to prevent equality in the homes of america.

What, though, is more pressing is the manner with which these divorces are handled across state lines, especially with most states not recognizing gay marriages in the first place.

First Comes Marriage...

Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same sex marriage, and in the first four years more than 10,000 marriages were performed for gay and lesbian couples. In the ensuing years a number of states approved gay marriage (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.); some approved then rescinded the decision (California, Maine); and a handful may not allow gay marriages to be performed within their borders, but recognize those from other states (New York, Rhode Island, and Maryland), While in California, following the passage of Proposition 8 in 2008, some 18,000 marriages (which took place over a short four-month window from June to November) are recognized by the state.

Back in 2004, there was early on a lot of uncertainty following the Massachusetts ruling. Ken Harvey, author of the upcoming book A Passionate Engagement: A Memoir, remembers what it was like to get engaged and planning a wedding following the legalization.

"Those six months were fairly uncertain whether people going to get married," explained Harvey. "It was a time of being hopeful but not wanting to get crushed."

Harvey got married in January 2005 during Martin Luther King Jr. weekend.

But what of gay divorce in Massachusetts? Do the numbers match the national rates? Some early statistics have come out that those states with legalized gay marriage also have a lower divorce rate than other states. Massachusetts alone is the state that has seen the fewest divorces occurring over the last few years. In fact the state had the lowest divorce rate in the nation in 2007, revealed a report from the Division of Vital Statistics last October.

According to the Washington Post, "Nearly 10,000 gay and lesbian couples married after the ruling. Massachusetts does not keep records on the number who have divorced, but lawyers who specialize in family cases say it is in the dozens."

However, making a blanket statement that legalizing same sex marriage will lower the divorce rate in that state is too soon.

"We only have data back to 2004; six years isn’t enough to tell," Dr. Joni Frater, co-author of "Love Her Right: The Married Man’s Guide to Lesbian Secrets for Great Sex."

Daniel Clement, a divorce lawyer practicing in New York City, also warns against putting too much faith in the statistics because lower divorce rates have been a trend across the board.

"In states with same sex marriage, divorce has declined. I can’t explain it," Clement said. "The divorce rate as a whole has been down the same time the economy tanked.

"The statistics are skewed. In our society people move a lot, particularly in this economy and need to change jobs and find jobs in different states," concurs Steven Knowles, of Knowles Collum LLP in California. 


While the states are still arguing whether or not to even allow gay couples to get married, the first wave of same sex couples looking to divorce are making their way to the courts. But with no federal ruling, the divorce proceedings for some couples have made national headlines that would normally not even be mentioned in newspapers.

When Julie and Hillary Goodridge, lead plaintiffs in Massachusett’s landmark gay marriage case, announced they were seeking a divorce in February, 2009, the media treated the news as if they were Hollywood celebrities on the skids.

In Texas, a case involving a couple looking to get divorced made headlines late last year when Judge Tena Callahan ruled that the divorce proceedings could continue in the state that doesn’t even recognize the marriage.

The case brings to light another issue that hasn’t been discussed quite as much. If a couple gets married and then moves to a state that has either banned or not yet ruled same sex marriage, the law doesn’t quite know how to handle those relationships.

"It’s cause and effect. One can’t be divorced if not married," explained Clement. "The truth of the matter is there will be gay divorce. Every relationship ends - either through death, hopefully at a ripe old age, or break up."

There are currently three types of states. First, states like Massachusetts where marriage is legal and therefore the right to get divorced is treated the same way as heterosexual marriages. Second, states like New York where same sex marriage is not legal, but they recognize the marriages from other states. In this case divorces are also treated the same as have always been. Third are states like California and Texas were same sex marriages are not legal or recognized. It’s in the last set of states that things are trickiest.

"Divorce laws have trailed so far behind," explains Kathryn Dickerson, a partner at SmolenPrevy in Virginia. "It’s not a top priority for some people. When you think about the number of gay couples divorcing, there’s other things the government is working on."

Because the laws have trailed behind, there are loopholes for people who want to get a divorce. One such loophole is at the center of the Miller-Jenkins custody battle currently unfolding in Virginia.

The couple had committed in a civil union eight years ago. But then Miller, the biological mother, denounced her sexuality and became a devout Baptist. In doing so she also moved to Virginia, a state that doesn’t recognize any same sex unions.

"In family law, the heart of the matter is child custody battles," said Glenn Sacks, National Executive Director of Fathers and Families. "All play out very similar to Miller-Jenkins. The only difference is Miller has found God and God hates gays."

What Lisa Miller did in the custody battle is something called forum shopping, which is currently allowed with all same sex marriage disputes. Forum shopping allows the person to find the place where the filer would have the most favorable results. As it currently stands, if someone in a marriage they can move to another state and establish residency to get the results they want.

"They shop for the proper forum. If one state is legal. Kind of like Miller did; it opens things up to legal shenanigans," explains Sacks.

Dianna Gould-Saltman, a partner at Gould-Saltman Law Offices in California, agrees that forum shopping opens the couple to play games with each other. " When only six states are giving [marriage equality], there’s always going to have one partner benefitting.

Another loophole that exists is if a couple moves to a state that doesn’t recognize their marriage, the couple is actually free to just break up and walk away as if they were never married. However, for couples who move to a non-recognizing state, there are some steps that can be done to keep some aspects legal. The couple could look into contractual rights, such as Marvin claims, which puts things in a contract to be followed.

"You have to prove there was a contract. Sex doesn’t matter," explains Knowles. "It doesn’t have to be written. It can be implied by conduct."

Conservative Field Day

With a few notable cases making their way through the court system, same sex divorce has been making headlines - mainly because not all states know how to handle them if marriage equality hasn’t been granted in that state.

With these early divorces making headlines, the conservatives opposing same sex marriage could go on the attack pointing out how quickly the marriages are being dissolved. But some warn that if any kind of campaign was to be started it would actually have a negative effect on the conservatives groups making the claim.

"No question it will be used against us," said Harvey. But he warns, "When the divorce rate is 50 percent, not a lot of finger wagging can be done." 


Didn’t work for Segregation

One thing that most people are in agreement about is that letting states decide how to handle the issue of legalizing same sex marriage is not the way to achieve anything.

"Leaving it up to the state is crap. It didn’t work for segregation," explained Esther Lastique, co-author of Lover her Right. "When left to their own devices, small minds have so much power."

Knowles agrees that the red states who adamantly oppose same sex marriage will not go willingly into accepting all types of marriages. But if the federal government steps in it would speed up the process.

"Ultimately, it will take action on the federal. The very red states are not going to partake in same sex marriage until they have to," Knowles opines.

With the piecemeal way that marriage equality has been being granted, there is still a lack of acceptance of marriage as an expected progression in life within the LGBT community. In heterosexual relationships, it is expected that marriage is the ultimate endgame for a couple at some point. However the same isn’t necessarily seen in gay community.

"Marriage in the heterosexual world is an expected marker of life. I don’t know if it is with same sex couples," said Harvey.

It’s an opinion that Knowles agrees with.

"In heterosexual couples, it’s expected to get married sooner or later. Not so much in gay relationships," Knowles said. "It’s not as inevitable."

Major fight for the rights of our U.S. Soldiers

A lesbian Air Force sergeant from Fairbanks who was outed by local police in Rapid City, S.D., has returned to Alaska, and the American Civil Liberties Union has launched a campaign to encourage Rapid City to apologize to her and compensate her, reports The Associated Press.

The Rapid City police chief says his officers acted appropriately. They spotted the marriage certificate when they showed up at Newsome's South Dakota home in November with an arrest warrant for her wife, who was wanted on theft charges in Fairbanks. Now, I'm sure that I am not the only person who watched our president announce at his last State of the Union as well in front of the Human Rights Campaign National Conference that we would no longer do this to our soldiers?

Looks like we're still doing it Mr. President. So lets get this right; Jene Newsome did not commit a crime, she performed honorably and because she was found to be gay, she was FIRED. Something is wrong with this situation.

Jene Newsome's honorable discharge [after nine years in the Air Force] under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy came after police officers saw an Iowa marriage certificate in her home and told officials at the nearby Ellsworth Air Force Base. The ACLU complaint claims the officers violated Newsome's privacy when they informed the military about her sexual orientation.

Folks, we have to remember what the "family" is for. We are here to bring this message of equality to all those who will listen and support those who are being disenfranchised. I hate to sound as if there are other options...because there are none. We speak out, live Outloud and stand together as a family. As a former military veteran myself, this is wrong. To think that someone can enter my home and without cause, notify my job to inform them of who joins me in my bed....exactly. UNFAIR.

Small Business revenue gains due to Equality agenda

We talk alot about how the GLBT Community stands to benefit from legislative pushes all across the nation, however, we often fail to find the importance in market shifts and expected gains from the hetero community as well.

Robin Sutliff's flower shop is redolent with the ingredients of a perfect wedding place setting: tall stands of white amaryllis, cala lilies imported from South America, summery clusters of yellow-orange orchids. When she imagines the many same-sex couples likely to tie the knot in the District this spring, though, her mind settles on the humble hyacinth.

"It's a pretty flower," said Sutliff, owner of Ultra Violet florist in Georgetown. "It smells good, and it's strong. It represents spring and new birth."

On Friday, December 18,Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) signed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage in the District, a move that is expected to be a financial boon for the city and for vendors such as Sutliff, who make much of their money on weddings but who have struggled during the recession. District officials surmise that the regional economy could reap up to $22 million over the next three years as couples from Washington and elsewhere take advantage of the new law, and the Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California at Los Angeles, estimates that the infusion could be $52 million.

But the betrothed are not lining up quite yet. The law is subject to a 30-day review period by Congress, and opponents have taken their objections to court. Although many expect the bill to pass unhindered this spring, couples say the memory of California's Proposition 8 remains fresh in their minds. The 2008 voter-approved initiative banned same-sex marriage in the state after it had been legalized, a setback to many hopeful couples and a stunning reversal to those who thought gay marriage was on the path to mainstream acceptance.

"We're waiting to make sure that it makes the 30 days. We don't want to do too much dreaming," said Mike Giordano, 42, a social worker from Northwest Washington who expects to marry his longtime partner next year but has not made any plans.

Industry develops
Six years after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage and long after same-sex commitment ceremonies have become routine, a robust industry has developed around what many say is a tradition that has special needs. Arlington County-based GayWeddings.com, for example, sells dual groom and dual bride cake tops. Wedding announcements available on Outvite.com include interlocking hearts fashioned to look like the symbol for female.

Both Web sites reported an uptick in traffic from Washington area customers in the past few weeks, and other vendors are expecting a significant increase in business this spring. Hotels such as the Kimpton chain, which is popular among gay travelers, are developing plans to heavily market their D.C. venues nationally as ideal for same-sex destination weddings.

"We're all ramping up in anticipation that this is going to be big for the wedding industry here," said Allison Britton, an Alexandria-based photographer.

This month, Britton attended a seminar in the District led by Boston-based wedding planner Bernadette Coveney Smith, a self-described gay wedding expert who has been planning same-sex nuptials since Massachusetts legalized them in 2003. The seminar attracted about 40 caterers, videographers and other vendors hoping to have the advantage when the expected marriage rush begins.

Among Coveney Smith's tips: Forget about the pink triangles and rainbow-hued Web sites that scream "gay." Those historically significant but dated images don't always appeal to modern couples, she said. A more subtle idea might be for photographers to consider sprinkling photos of a few same-sex couples in their portfolios. And words matter. For example, potential customers might be turned off if they are asked, "What are the names of the bride and groom?"

Coveney Smith said she is certain there will be a wedding rush in a couple of months, when the law could be officially on the books, just as the industry got a bump in Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states that have permitted same-sex unions. According to the Williams Institute, about 12,000 gay weddings took place in Massachusetts between 2004 and 2009, pumping more than $111 million into the state's economy.

Same Sex Divorce has to be just as Equal as Marrige

A same-sex couple who fought for the right to marry in Austin, Texas, now are split on the right to legally end their relationship, lawyers say.

Before we get further into this story, this is the same stuff I've been bringing to you and discussing for an entire year now. EQUALITY IS NOT A DAGGER WE CAN USE TO GET WHAT WE WANT AT ALL COST...ONLY THEN TO TURN OUR BACKS ON IT ALL TO GET OUT OF WHAT WE ONCE THOUGHT WE WANTED. It is a shame and it tharts the entire "equality" argument.

It says the GLBT Community will say and do just about anything to get what they want, i.e. Same Sex Marriage, Adoption Rights, Employer Benefits, Universal HealthCare and etc. It says the GLBT Community further confirms its opponents stance as unstable.

Five years after marrying in Massachusetts, Angelique Naylor's spouse is contesting the split, arguing that since Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage, the dissolution shouldn't be recognized either, KXAN-TV, Austin, reported. So now, it is apparently easier to use the states lack of equality for her benefit. Amazing!

"It's not about special rights," Naylor said of her desire to end the union. "It's about equal rights. I want my divorce like the 15 divorce cases that I witnessed today between men and women."

Anne Wynne, a family law expert and equal rights activist, said the decision Texas judges make in Naylor's case and others will have major repercussions for the state, the television station reported Thursday.

"It has huge implications," Wynne said. "It means they get treated like every other citizen in this state."

In a statement on Naylor's case, state Attorney General Greg Abbott said his office would be monitoring the proceedings and "if necessary, take appropriate steps to defend the Texas Constitution."

Since Texas doesn't recognize same-sex marriage or same-sex divorce, Abbott said the proper legal mechanism is "voidance," or voiding their out-of-state. How "equal" or fair is that to those who are not gay? Why don't we just permit everyone in the union to "void" out their responsibilities? This pushes the rights for gay adoption further into an abyss and therefore provides a shot in the arm for all GLBT adversaries. Amazing.

So now, will we finally have a real discussion on Equality? Can we now come to terms on how we need to grasp this message and use it for all americans, not just the gay citizens. Only then with this fight yield positive results both here and abroad.

Should Gay Couples Pay the Same Taxes as Straights?

by Howard Gleckman

Interesting discussion today at a TPC forum on the tax and benefits consequences of being gay. The benefit issues are probably larger, but this is TaxVox, so let’s look at taxes.

As my TPC colleague Bob Williams noted, when it comes to federal taxes the question is not whether you are gay or straight, but whether or not you are married. Depending on the relative income of each spouse, married couples either enjoy a marriage bonus or suffer a marriage penalty. Of course, heterosexuals can choose to marry or not and live with the tax consequences. Gays and lesbians have no such option. Even though a handful of states now recognize gay marriage, for federal tax purposes their marital status is irrelevant. As a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, gays cannot be married for federal law purposes.

This creates a number of problems for these couples, some very serious, others merely annoying. For instance, Massachusetts recognizes gay marriage. But it requires all married couples to file jointly and it piggybacks its returns on the federal 1040. Trouble is, gay couples are not allowed to file a joint federal return. So they must fill out two single IRS returns, then a joint federal return that they are not allowed to file, and finally a state return based on their illegal Form 1040. More seriously, while many businesses now provide spousal benefits to gay couples, the value of the non-employee’s benefits is taxable for unmarried couples, but tax free for those who are married.

While many politicians are perfectly happy with this state of affairs, there is growing interest in treating gay couples equally with heterosexual couples under the Tax Code. So how to do it? One option would be to eliminate joint filing entirely and have everyone file as an individual. That would run into some old Supreme Court cases that draw a sharp distinction between income earned in community property states and in those states where each earner’s income is presumed to be theirs and not divided equally between the spouses.

A second option might be to redefine eligibility for joint filing (as well as for tax treatment of benefits) to those who have entered into civil unions under state law. This would avoid the community property problem and bring federal tax law more in line with what appears to be a growing legal trend. Currently, about a dozen states grant some domestic partnership rights to gays and public opinion polls suggest there is broad support for these rights. By contrast, most Americans still oppose gay marriage.

There are downsides to this solution as well. A person’s tax liability in one state would be different than the liability of someone in exactly the same economic situation who lives in another state. And eliminating joint filing would still be hugely controversial, in no small part because it would raise the tax bills of millions of couples. But it would treat taxpayers equally, and, by using the civil union definition, would avoid most of the political baggage that goes with that word “marriage.”

Adultery still Illegal in New Hampshire After 200 years!

The original punishments — including standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck — have been softened to a $1,200 fine, yet some lawmakers think it’s time for the 200-year-old crime of adultery to come off New Hampshire’s books.

Seven months after the state approved gay marriage, lawmakers will consider easing government further from the bedroom with a bill to repeal the adultery law.
“We shouldn’t be regulating people’s sex lives and their love lives,” state Rep. Timothy Horrigan said. “This is one area the state government should stay out of people’s bedrooms.”

In June, lawmakers voted to legalize gay marriage — a law that takes effect Jan. 1.
“We shouldn’t be in the business of regulating what consenting adults do with each other,” Horrigan said.

Convicted adulterers years ago faced standing on the gallows, up to 39 lashes, a year in jail or a fine of 100 pounds. The punishment has been relaxed to a misdemeanor and a fine of up to $1,200 — with no jail time.

The high court found that the state had no legitimate interest justifying its intrusion into the personal and private lives of two gay men arrested in their bedroom during a police investigation in a weapons case. The men had been charged with sodomy.

Some recently questioned whether South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s admitted extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina made him subject to his state’s 1880 criminal law against adultery. The penalty is a fine of up to $500 and a year in jail. The state said it couldn’t waste limited money trying to prosecute Sanford on such a charge. The law’s constitutionality also has been questioned.

In the past, conservatives argued decriminalizing adultery would weaken marriage.
Kevin Smith, executive director of the conservative Cornerstone Policy Research, opposes this repeal effort for the same reason.

“Even though this criminal law probably is not enforced right now and probably has not been enforced for some time, I think it’s important to have a public policy statement that says generally or in all situations adultery is not a good thing. And I think, by repealing that statute, you’re essentially diminishing the harmful effects of adultery,” Smith said.

Horrigan doesn’t think a small fine will stop anyone from cheating on a spouse. He also wouldn’t oppose taking adultery out of the civil divorce statute as a cause for the breakdown.

“Who we love and how we love is not something, an area the state has much business meddling in,” he said. The original punishments — including standing on the gallows for an hour with a noose around the neck — have been softened to a $1,200 fine, yet some lawmakers think it’s time for the 200-year-old crime of adultery to come off New Hampshire’s books.

In June, lawmakers voted to legalize gay marriage — a law that takes effect Jan. 1.
“We shouldn’t be in the business of regulating what consenting adults do with each other,” Horrigan said.

The last attempts to repeal New Hampshire’s law came after a Merrimack husband filed a complaint against his wife and her boss in 1987. When police refused to pursue adultery charges, Robert Stackelback brought the complaint himself against the pair. He later dropped the charges.

First Domestic Partnership Marriage in Protest!

A heterosexual UK couple have given only their initials to the council registrars at Islington Town Hall in hopes that they'll be able to enter into a civil parttnership, the Daily Mail reports:

"Tom Freeman and Katherine Doyle, both 25, are determined to become the first straight couple to wed in a civil partnership. The pair last night branded marriage 'an apartheid' that segregates straight and gay people. The civil servants, who live in Holloway, north London, and have been together nearly four years, said they want the same legal rights as a husband and wife. But they do not want to enter an institution that is closed to homosexuals.

So, in the interests of equality, they are demanding that they be allowed to enter a civil partnership. Mr Freeman said: 'Ideally we'd have the option of a civil partnership or a marriage, regardless of whether we were straight or gay.

Effectively marriage and civil partnerships are exactly the same - it's a duplicate law. The effects and legal processes are identical. The rights and obligations are identical.' He added: 'Civil partnerships are equality in all but name - so why not just have equality?"

UK activist Peter Tatchell is on board: "The ban on heterosexual civil partnerships is heterophobic. It is discriminatory and offensive. I want to see it ended so that straight couples like Tom and Katherine can have the option of a civil partnership. I applaud their challenge to this unjust law."

Should faith based organizations be required to render services outside of their faith?

Gay Marriage is heating up as well as fizzling all at the same time all over the country, actually. In Washington, D.C., if you didn't get the tweet earlier (twitter.com/familyblendz), the city council wanted to "broaden" an exemption that would protect businesses and organizations from discriminatory lawsuits filed by same sex couples for being denied business services.

One Councilmember, Yvette Alexander, wanted to go even further and prevent lawsuits toward individuals from same sex couples as well. But an attempt by those opposed to gay marriage to broaden those exceptions outside the church community has garnered meager council support. Alexander was rejected.

“Just as we’re protecting large institutions, we should ensure that individuals can be afforded the same liberties and protections,” said Alexander, who cast the five-member committee’s lone “no” vote, citing her ward’s “overwhelming” opposition to same-sex marriage.

The legislation to expand the provision was adopted Tuesday by the D.C. Council’s judiciary committee, provides that any religious society can deny a gay couple services, facilities, goods or accommodations related to their wedding without fear of liability.

Listen, my view on this is simple, regardless of my sexual preferences, life preferences, preferences, if you don't want to serve me, if you don't want my money because you think your religous beliefs are compromised? Ok. Familyblendz is always in support of policy that protects everybody. What I mean by that is this;how many people didn't want to serve muslims right after 9-11? Your fear caused that reaction. With Education, awareness, our perception of that changed.

As long as we are not saying that someone can just look at me and decide, "he must be gay, so um not going render my business services to him", as long as we are not condoning and making provision for discrimination in our governing, I'm okay with it.

If my desire to get married, affects your beliefs in your small bridal business, you should be required to inform me of that, and further, I should be required to accept that you are not comfortable with that. Come on guys, its not that hard to understand that everyone is not in support of our lifestyle. Their lack of support, I can live with, their discriminatory acts towards me and my family;I cannot accept.

“That shield of course would be an invitation to act on that discriminatory impulse,” said Ward 3 Councilwoman Mary Cheh.

In Bernalillo County, N.M., in 2006, photographer Elaine Huguenin refused to provide services for a gay couple’s commitment ceremony, citing her religious beliefs. The couple filed a sexual orientation discrimination complaint. The New Mexico Commission on Human Rights, after investigating, found the complaint justified and ordered Huguenin to pay attorney’s fees totaling $6,637.94.

The photographer has appealed to New Mexico’s 2nd District court. The lawsuit threatens to affect gay marriages, and who must participate in them, if it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court — where Huguenin’s lawyers have promised to take it.

Opponents of D.C.’s gay marriage bill argue the religious liberty exemption is too narrow. The Washington Archdiocese, for example, said in a statement that the legislation “leaves religious organizations and individuals at risk for adhering to the teachings of their faith.”

But the Rev. Dennis Wiley, pastor of D.C.’s Covenant Baptist Church and a gay marriage supporter, said the bill “clearly protects clergy who disagree with me about marriage equality while also standing by the tenants of inclusion” that the District is known for.

Gay Rights Gone Global

Last December, something truly historic happened. Sixty-six countries signed a United Nations’ statement calling for the universal decriminalization of homosexuality and condemning homophobic discrimination and violence. This was the first time the U.N. General Assembly had ever considered the issue of LGBT human rights.

In almost every country on earth, there are LGBT freedom movements — some open, others clandestine. For the first time ever, countries like the Philippines, Estonia, Lebanon, Columbia, Russia, Sri Lanka and China are hosting LGBT conferences and Pridecelebrations.

But, that about sums up all the good news of this posting. It gets pretty graphic from here on out, but its something we need to educate each other on. A new bill before the Ugandan parliament proposes the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and “serial offenders.” A sentence of life imprisonment will be imposed for touching a person with homosexual intent. Membership in gay organizations, advocacy of gay human rights and the provision of condoms or safer sex advice to gay people will result in seven years jail for “promoting” homosexuality.

Failing to report violators to the police within 24 hours would incur three years behind bars. The new legislation will also apply to Ugandans who commit these "crimes" while living abroad, in countries where such behavior is not a criminal offense.

Over the last few years, Uganda has stepped up its victimization of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people, often at the behest of Christian leaders who are aided and funded by right-wing evangelical churches in the U.S.

Typical is the fate of gay rights activist Kizza Musinguzi. He was jailed in 2004 and subjected to four months of forced labor, water torture, beatings and rape. Any Ugandan who speaks out against anti-gay violence faces dire consequences. A heterosexual Anglican bishop, Christopher Ssenyonjo, was expelled from the Church of Uganda for defending the human rights of LGBT people.

In recent years, the Ugandan government has passed a law banning same-sex marriage, fined Radio Simba for broadcasting a discussion of LGBT issues and expelled a UNAIDS agency director for meeting with gay campaigners.

Similar homophobic persecution is happening elsewhere in Africa, from Nigeria to Cameroon, Burundi, Rwanda and Gambia, where President Yahya Jammeh has called for sexual cleansing. He has promised "stricter laws than Iran" on homosexuality, and has begun his witch-hunt by ordering LGBT people to leave the country and threatening to "cut off the head" of any homosexual who remains.

One hindrance to LGBT rights is that there is no international human rights convention specifically acknowledges sexual rights as human rights. None explicitly guarantee equality and non-discrimination to LGBT people. The right to love a person of one’s choice is wholly absent from global humanitarian statutes. Relationships between partners of the same sex is not specifically recognized in any international law. There is nothing in any of the many U.N. conventions that explicitly prohibits homophobic discrimination and protects LGBT people.

Of the 192 member states of the U.N., only a handful come close to giving full equality and protection against discrimination to LGBT people: the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Canada, New Zealand and the U.K.

In much of the world, homophobia is still rampant. About 80 countries continue to outlaw homosexuality, with penalties ranging from one year’s jail to life imprisonment. More than half of these countries were former British colonies. Their anti-gay laws were originally imposed by the British in the 19th century, during the period of colonial rule. These homophobic laws, which were retained after independence, are wrecking the lives of LGBT people.

In the new post-Saddam Hussein “democratic” Iraq, people who murder LGBTs to defend the “honor” of their family invariably escape punishment. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism has led to the creeping, de facto imposition of Shariah law, with deadly consequences for LGBTs and for women who refuse to be veiled. The U.S. and U.K.-backed Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has issued a fatwa calling for the execution of lesbians and gays in the “worst, most severe way possible.” Islamist death squads of the Badr and Sadr militias are assassinating LGBT people with impunity.

Russian religious leaders have united to orchestrate hatred against the LGBT community. The Orthodox Church has denounced homosexuality as a "sin which destroys human beings and condemns them to a spiritual death." The Chief Mufti of Russia 's Muslims, Talgat Tajuddin, says gay campaigners “should be bashed … . Sexual minorities have no rights, because they have crossed the line. Alternative sexuality is a crime against God.” Russian Chief Rabbi, Berl Lazar, has condemned gay pride parades as “a blow for morality," adding that there is no right to “sexual perversions."

The Iranian persecution of LGBTs continues unabated. Twenty-two-year-old Amir was entrapped via a gay dating website. The person he arranged to meet turned out to be a member of the morality police. Amir was jailed, tortured and sentenced to 100 lashes, which caused him to lose consciousness and left his whole back covered in huge bloody welts.

The Western-backed regime in Saudi Arabia retains the death penalty (usually beheading) for homosexuality. In early 2006, its neighbor, the United Arab Emirates, imposed six years jail on 11 gay men arrested at a private party. They were not imprisoned for sexual acts, but merely for being gay and attending a gay social gathering.

Gay Rights Movement Needs Own Voice

The LGBTI movement, which has been gaining momentum since the early ’80s, could very well seem to be the civil rights movement of our generation, since it shares of the same principles as the civil rights movement of the ’60s. However, there are many fundamental differences between the social movements of the late ’60s and today; although “fighting the good fight” seems objectively timeless, the pathology of protest has changed drastically and these two causes cannot be linked if either wishes to remain a relevant call for equality.

The term “civil rights” indicates the rights to personal liberty established by the U.S. Constitution. In this way, both the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the LGBTI movement of today are the same: Just as gays now seek the legal freedoms most people enjoy, blacks sought the same legal rights as whites during the ’60s. Both movements have been spearheaded by young adults on college and high school campuses. Both seek to end or reform unjust or unfair treatment, and both seek changes in legislation and public opinion as a remedy. Both focus on the idea of the personal and political quality of human life, and both have had a long history of the struggle to gain rights. Black people have suffered racial prejudice long before America was a country, and homosexuality has been persecuted for centuries and was considered a disease until 1973.

Yet although these similarities exist, the differences are just as numerous.

Some might say one group or the other has suffered more and therefore a comparison is inappropriate, but comparing the discrimination gays and blacks have suffered and would be like comparing apples and oranges. How can we say that either has suffered more? Having to sit in the back of the bus and being barred from adopting a child are both forms of discrimination, but beyond that, no obvious general ties can be drawn, so we can’t say if the suffering that resulted was equal or not. Also, by making a link between black rights and gay rights, in some ways we forget the many other groups that are discriminated against (the elderly, the handicapped, immigrants, unskilled workers, Native Americans and women, just to name a few.)

By linking two groups we run the risk of minimizing the hardships and hard-won freedoms of both. Not only that, but also by transforming a story of past courage into a lightning rod for current activism, how can we honor the goals accomplished by civil rights leaders? How can we respectfully remember the sacrifices of the civil rights movement if we are trying to relive our own version?

When all is said and done, I support any movement that seeks to provide all people with equal protection of the law. But every group is different, and even though the civil rights movements sought to change the legal situation (de jure), what really matters the most is the actual acceptance into mainstream society (de facto).

If either group wants to be accepted as a whole, they must find pride and strength in their individuality. No close analogy can be drawn between civil rights and gay rights, and it is inappropriate to generalize them by grouping them together; in reality gay rights and civil rights represent diverse people and goals.

The two causes can become blurred together and we may forget that each was a unique cause with a unique goal. If each embraces its identity, then it is more likely that the general public will too, and can ensure the groups are no longer discriminated against even after the legal battles have been won. In any sense, fighting prejudice is a continuing battle, and neither group has won total equality.

Just because I wish I was around for the March on Washington of 1963 doesn’t mean I should give the same support to LGBTI rights without first considering what supporting this cause means to me, to our country and to the people being discriminated against.

*Taylor Nye (tenye@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in English, French and Spanish.

NY Gov Shuffles his Legislative Deck for Equality

Governor Paterson of New York has begun to do exactly as I have said recently (see previous blog postings), to ensure he has a fighting chance to win his own re-election bid next year against Obama's wishes, the Same sex marriage ininitiave has landed on top of the deck with Paterson acting as the dealer.

The Democratic governor has issued a proclamation calling for an extraordinary session of both houses of the New York State Legislature to tackle a handful of issues. Specifically included is "marriage equality."

The issue has been on the front burner of the Empire State for at least a year. Paterson has been a vocal proponent of gay marriage. One of his first acts upon becoming governor was to recognize out-of-stage marriages as legal and binding. Paterson is an accidental governor. He was appointed after his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, was caught in a prostitution scandal.

Paterson’s action on behalf of gay couples married elsewhere effectively legalized gay marriage in New York. In addition, several municipalities, including New York City and the surrounding suburbs, already have domestic partnerships.

Actual gay marriage in the Legislature has been tied up in the State Senate. The lower house, the Assembly, passed such a measure twice, the second time by a large margin. But the Senate has only fallen into Democratic hands for the first time in decades with this session. Then, earlier this year, a cabal of more conservative Democrats pulled a coup that resulted in the pro-gay marriage leader of the Senate being toppled.

Paterson is not crazy, although he might appear desperate to prove the nays wrong about his political will. He has continued to champion the directive, significantly dated two days after an election that saw a Republican resurgence and the defeat of gay marriage in Maine, serves as a call to activists on both sides. He is looking to rally the nation and GLBT community behind him and ride it all the way to re-election...that's politics.

The proclamation mentions the following hot-button issues that the Legislature has been skirting: the state’s budget, in a state of disrepair; (1) a reform of the public pension system that some say is bankrupting the state and New York City; (2)reform of the quasi-public authorities, which have been a cesspool of party patronage; "and Marriage Equality." (3)There are some other issues, like drunk-driving laws, as well.

"The time to act is now. The Deficit Reduction Plan, while painful, is necessary to keep our state afloat," Governor Paterson said. A press release from the governor’s office added that the session is meant to address "providing same-sex couples the same opportunity to enter into civil marriages as opposite-sex couples."

At least one state senator, in the Queens borough of New York City, has reportedly been considering relenting under the barrage of criticism, and may be changing to a "yes" vote.

The Hearts and Minds brought their Vote

Washington State voters approved the new "everything but marriage" law, and made history by expanding rights for domestic partners and marking the first time any state’s voters have approved a gay equality measure at the ballot box.

The new law adds benefits, such as the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner, and rights related to adoption, child custody and child support.

During the campaign, opponents argued the law is a stepping-stone to gay marriage. Gay rights activists countered that while the marriage debate was for another day, same-sex couples need additional legal protections and rights in the meantime.

The measure asked voters to approve or reject the latest expansion of the state’s domestic partnership law, granting registered domestic partners additional state rights previously given only to married couples. Full-fledged gay marriage is still not allowed under Washington law. This is something that I have been saying for months to our fellow blended families;..."fight for the issues that concern you instead of the titles you wish to be known by..".

Gay equality laws in other states, ranging from civil rights to gay marriage, have either been implemented by the courts or legislative process (See Nov 4 blog post "Hearts and Minds"). Voters have rejected gay marriage 31 states, most recently in Maine, where voters repealed a gay marriage law on Tuesday.

The underlying domestic partnership law, which the Legislature passed in 2007, provided hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will.

Last year, lawmakers expanded the law to give domestic partners standing under laws covering probate and trusts, community property and guardianship.

"Our state made history today," said Anne Levinson, chairwoman of Washington Families Standing Together, and she's right. Just yesterday we were tweeting about how these laws for equality have long been implemented by legislatures, but here in Washington state, the people brought their own votes to the ballot boxes because in their hearts and in their minds, they knew it was the right thing to do.

Washington state, along with California, Oregon, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, have laws that either recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships that afford same-sex couples similar rights to marriage.

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. What's important to note here also is that the voters in Washington had a reason to support this initiative that has not been on any other ballot in the nation; these domestic partnerships are also for heterosexuals as well as long as one partner is at least 62 years old. This helps those who are afraid of losing pensions and benefits if they legally remarry.

They brought in another demographic. Equality is not about leveling the playing field for gays, its simply about leveling the playing field for us all. You legislation has to include other demographics or the people of that state will never get behind it. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST.

Big Wins for Gays in Detroit, FL and N.C-Not much Media!

Maine voters may have chosen to take marriage rights away from their neighbors, but not all was gloomy for LGBTs: three wins around the country brought victory to gay and lesbian politicians and their constituents.

In Chapel Hill, N.C., GLBT equality advocate Mark Kleinschmidt won as mayor against Matt Czajkowski and two others contenders, taking 49% of the overall vote, reported the Chapel Hill News on Nov. 4. Kleinschmidt’s victory marks the third time an openly gay candidate has won Chapel Hill’s mayoral office.

In St. Petersburg, Fla., the city council gained a new, and openly gay, member in the person of Steve Kornell, who won over Angela Rouson for the council’s District 5 seat with nearly 60% of the vote, making him the city’s first openly gay elected official. The seat became available when Jamie Bennett resigned to pursue a spot in the mayoral race, which was won by Bill Foster, reported a Nov. 4 St. Petersburg Times article posted at TampaBay.com, which noted that the town’s leaders have historically been opposed to Pride events there.

The article quoted Kornell as saying, "The thing about making history is fine. But this campaign was really about the future of St. Petersburg and that’s what I plan to focus on for the next four years."

Said Rouson, "I have no regrets.... I am very proud and pleased and we worked very hard. I’m proud of the folks who worked for me. We fought a good fight. District 5 couldn’t have lost no matter what the results were."

Outgoing mayor Rick Baker praised both candidates, saying that Rouson "ran a great race. But the guy she ran against is a good guy and ran a great race, too. Nothing to be ashamed about."

And Detroit elected openly gay former Fox News reporter Charles Pugh as city council president, reported a Nov. 3 article at the Detroit Free Press.

Said Pugh, "This is unbelievable... It means Detroit has really wanted change for a very long time."

In other elections, Washington voters seemed poised to uphold state provisions for same-sex families granting most of the same state-level rights and protections enjoyed by married heterosexuals, but not calling such unions marriage.

Which Came First; Hearts & Minds or the Vote?

A Michigan City Commission originally approved the ordinance in late 2008 by a unanimous vote, but was challenged earlier by an opposition group seeking to overturn the 'equality ruling. Yesterday, November 3, the people of Michigan once again voted with their hearts and affirmed the earlier unanimous vote to save 'equality.

This pattern of events will sound very familiar to those who have followed the fight for equality at the municipal level. Similar ordinances were proposed in Montgomery County, Maryland and Gainesville, Florida over the last two years, evoking similar reactions from groups opposed to LGBT equality. Also very similar are the tactics those groups have adopted to preserve the ability to discriminate without consequence. In each case, opposition groups focused their attacks on the proposed gender identity protections, claiming that they would make it legal for male sexual predators to enter women’s public restrooms. In Kalamazoo, the opposition group Citizens Voting No stooped even lower, airing TV ads that mocked specific transgender women, using their photos without permission and repeatedly referring to them as men.

A deep and bitter disappointment however from Maine yesterday: Maine voters have passed a devastating Proposition 8-style measure overturning the state’s marriage equality law.

Our hearts are with everyone in Maine who fought so hard to win recognition for their families. The legislature passed marriage equality earlier this year, but a divisive anti-LGBT campaign to scare voters seems to have worked.

It is infuriating to see that the same fear-mongering ads that were used to pass Prop. 8 a year ago have triumphed again at the expense of so many. This is a terrible loss.

So although on one hand the fight for equality inches one step at a time, there will always be others to attempt to thawrt forward progress. Finally, what we love about this country is that the laws are made up "for the people...by the people", so even in our anger for Maine's overturning, "the people" of Maine spoke their minds through the power of their vote. As americans, we all bleed for that right; it is that right which rises to the surface like an umbrella to protect every other right.

As we now know, this fight is not about the power of the vote, but instead, the power to win hearts and minds. If we do that, the vote will take care of itself.