Change.org's Gay Rights Blog

Should South Park Get Away With Using the F-Word?

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-06T10:07:00-08:00

This week's episode of South Park was an F-word extravaganza. No, not that F-word. The word "fag," the three-letter insult that has become a staple on playgrounds to tease kids, in locker rooms to ridicule teammates, and in the demonstrations of Rev. Fred Phelps and his church crew to wish LGBT people a one-way ticket to hell.

Generally speaking, it's a word that rivals the "N-word" in terms of vulgarity. Victims of hate crimes have had it scrawled on their body after being beaten or killed. So given it's reputation, is it OK for South Park to air an episode that uses the word so cavalierly?

A little context might help. The episode that ran this week had nothing to do with LGBT people. Instead, it had to do with the characters (kids in a Colorado town, for those who might not have watched it over the past twelve years) taking on a loud motorcycle gang. The kids decide that they want to reclaim the word "Fag," so that it's not considered an insult to LGBT people, but used to describe "inconsiderate douchebags" everywhere. Hence a 22-minute episode on the etymology of the word "faggot" and an effort to change the word's definition in the dictionary.

On its surface, it sounds kind of noble. But underneath the surface, the fact that South Park used the word so frequently this week likely means that more people are saying the word today than yesterday.

The intentions of the creators of South Park weren't to be homophobic. Let's make that clear. There is actually something admirable about trying to dis-empower the most hateful word used to intimidate and harass LGBT people.

But as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) notes today, good intentions don't always translate into positive news. They make the case that by using the word "Fag" so frequently, and in still a very derogatory context, they are reinforcing its usage by people -- especially young people -- as a means of insulting others.

"The creators of “South Park” are right on one important point: more and more people are using the F-word as an all-purpose insult. However, it is irresponsible and wrong to suggest that it is a benign insult or that promoting its use has no consequences for those who are the targets of anti-gay bullying and violence," write GLAAD. "This is a slur whose meaning remains rooted in homophobia. And while many “South Park” viewers will understand the sophisticated satire and critique in last night’s episode, others won’t – and if even a small number of those take from this a message that using the “F-word” is OK, it worsens the hostile climate that many in our community continue to face."

Is GLAAD right? Or should shows like South Park be given the creative license to say words like "Fag"? Where does that line get drawn in the sand to indicate "offensive material" vs. satire?

All hard questions to wrestle with, but in the end, it may just be easier for shows like South Park to stay away from three-letter words that have tortured the LGBT population for decades.

(Photo courtesy of jekert gwapo's photostream on Flickr.)

Pastor Joel Osteen's Sugar-Coated Homophobia

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-05T14:23:00-08:00

Pastor Joel Osteen is one of the most popular preachers in the country, and the author of several best-selling books that help people achieve "their best life now" and teach people how to practice a Christianity rooted in making money.

He's long been seen as a friendlier version of televangelist, an upgrade from the fire and brimstone preachers from a few decades past. But what Pastor Joel Osteen doesn't really divulge is that for the most part, his interpretation of religious scripture is a candy-coated pill that leaves a sour taste of homophobia at its core.

To his credit, and perhaps it's to benefit his wallet, Pastor Joel Osteen largely stays above debates over social issues. The man has the aura of the richest used car salesman in the world, and that's exactly the persona he works: "Hey, come over here! I've got some of that old tyme religion that's way better than what the competitors are offering!"

But this week, in response to a question from Whoopi Goldberg on The View no less, Pastor Joel Osteen let his real feelings about LGBT people come to life.

"What I believe the scripture teaches is that homosexuality is not God's best," said Pastor Joel Osteen.

God's best is apparently straight beauty queens who make lewd sex tapes, or Republican politicians who cheat on their spouses and bill the government for intercontinental travel to hang out with the mistress.

Pastor Osteen fits into the category of minister who attempts to be pastoral to LGBT people, but ultimately delivers a homophobic hammer of a message. The full clip of his appearance on The View illustrates just that. He waxes on about how gay people are welcome at his church, and how he's called to love all of God's children no matter if they're gay or straight. But then he emphatically says that according to the Bible, LGBT people are not God's most prized creations.

Last year, Pastor Osteen met with an LGBT delegation that visited his megachurch in Texas. Among those attending the meeting were Jay Bakker, the son of televangelist legends Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and an LGBT rights advocate. During that meeting, Bakker asked Pastor Osteen what his church's position on homosexuality was. Their take?

"We don't see homosexuality as the worst sin," said a spokesperson for their group. "Sin is sin."

That may make Pastor Osteen better than the likes of Rev. Fred Phelps or James Dobson. But it doesn't mean that his theology isn't rooted in homophobic assumptions. Because it certainly is.

Saying that homosexuality is "not God's best" sends the message that God effe'd up when creating LGBT people. And saying that is a slippery slope to justifying the type gross injustices -- from hate crimes to workplace discrimination -- that happen to LGBT people on a day-to-day basis.

Or, in other words, Pastor Osteen should be challenged on this. It's bad theology no matter which way you cut it. Check out the clip of Pastor Osteen on The View below.

People Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Make Pornographic Sex Tapes

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-05T08:58:00-08:00

Hypocrisy is a six-letter word today, and it's spelled: C-A-R-R-I-E. As in Carrie Prejean, the former Miss USA contestant who made a name for herself by barnstorming the country this year telling people that gay marriage was icky, and that "opposite marriage" was the ticket to salvation. Prejean was practically adopted by the conservative religious right this year, speaking to everyone from Young Republicans to evangelical Christians about how LGBT people were a threat to the family.

What Prejean didn't tell her conservative cadres is that while she was crisscrossing the country bashing gays and lesbians who wanted to get married, she was hiding the fact that she had a starring role in an extremely graphic sex tape. So much for those superior moral values, eh Carrie?

Prejean's star among the religious right grew like wildfire this year, with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) seducing her to star in commercials, and NOM's head, Maggie Gallagher, writing a puff piece for the National Review that touted Carrie Prejean's ability to ignite the Republican Party base on the issue of same-sex marriage. Does a sex tape end her career as the next Ann Coulter? Probably not. But does it knock her off her "heterosexuality is morally superior" soapbox? Here's hoping.

Prejean is just another in a long line of Republicans that say nasty things about LGBT people in the public circle, but then apparently say even nastier things in the bedroom. It's glaring that in 2009, some of the staunchest members of the "family values" crowd took serious hits to their reputation, from Mark Sanford to John Ensign, for getting their kink on. And of course, who can forget David Vitter and his penchant for sex with prostitutes.

Guess it's time to create a new political party and call it the "Do as I Say, Don't Do as I Do" crowd.

(Photo courtesy of jsr00001's photostream on Flickr.)

New Jersey's Window of Opportunity for Marriage Equality

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-05T05:18:00-08:00

The marriage equality debate sure moves fast and furious these days. Just days after losing a heartbreaking vote in Maine over the issue, all eyes, ears and phone calls to legislators are heading to New Jersey, where the state has the tiniest window of opportunity to pass a marriage equality bill that will recognize full civil marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples.

Why is that window so small? Because on Election Day, New Jersey voters gave the boot to their current governor, and marriage equality supporter, Jon Corzine. His replacement, Gov.-Elect Chris Christie, thinks that gay marriage is the devil.

So now there's just a two-month window while Gov. Corzine wraps up a lame duck legislative session for marriage equality to pass. And the state's leading LGBT rights organization, Garden State Equality, is coming out like gangbusters to make sure that over the next eight weeks, New Jersey legislators hear loud and clear that the state needs marriage equality legislation to truly value the equal rights for all of its citizens. That includes a wave of television advertisements that launched on Election night, describing how New Jersey same-sex couples lose out with no marriage rights.

New Jersey columnist Tom Moran says that the New Jersey legislature owes it to everyone in their state to debate marriage equality legislation over the next two months. Or they could wait, and deny rights to New Jersey gays and lesbians for at least the next four years, if not longer.

"The political stars, for a few brief months, sit in alignment for a move to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey," Moran writes. "Or we could choose the other option, and punt. We could continue to insult the dignity of thousands of gay couples who live openly among us, often with children, and typically in harmony with the neighbors who know them best."

It would be somewhat of a quid pro quo situation if New Jersey were to recognize gay marriage. That's because the National Organization Marriage -- the nationwide group that poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into Maine and millions of dollars into California to repeal same-sex marriage rights -- is located in the Garden State. (They now have a national office in Washington, D.C., but New Jersey is where the homophobic organization calls home.) There would be a nice sense of payback in seeing New Jersey move forward on marriage equality, given that the National Organization for Marriage has been so successful in leaving gay rights advocates hurting on post-Election Day mornings.

Check out the commercials below. Are these the type of ads that might move legislators to support marriage equality?

(Photo courtesy of essygie's photostream on Flickr.)

The Bradley Effect on Gay Marriage Polls

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-04T08:57:00-08:00

Polling same-sex marriage is always tricky. Many activists are feeling a little burned this morning after a stinging defeat in Maine that rescinded marriage rights for same-sex couples. In the lead up to the vote, polls showed everything from a tied race to marriage equality supporters leading. It's just a shame that the end results didn't match up with some of the pre-election polls.

Marriage equality lost in Maine by about four percent. As Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight writes, that final total is not reflective of where most activists thought the race was heading. Silver himself said that he thought there was only a 30 percent chance of marriage equality failing in Maine. So what went wrong?

We'll know more in the coming days, but at first glance it appears that there could be a Bradley Effect at play in the polling.

The Bradley Effect was a term coined after the 1982 California Governor's race where an African-American candidate named Tom Bradley lost to a white candidate, despite being ahead in most polls. It's a term that generally refers to the fact that in polling questions, people will typically answer how they think the pollster or society wants them to answer, rather than how they really feel (and more importantly, how they intend to vote).

In the case of marriage equality, it could be that people don't want to be labeled as homophobic or bigoted, so they say to pollsters that they support marriage equality. But then when it comes time to vote, they actually cast a contrary ballot.

Was a Bradley Effect at play in Maine? It's too early to tell. And as Nate Silver notes, there could be many more issues surrounding the marriage equality vote in Maine, from a large rural vs. urban divide, to the fact that in an off-year election more anti-gay folks were motivated to head to the polls.

But it is entirely possible that as activists, we've succeeded in drawing a line in the sand that makes it unpopular for people to say publicly that they don't support marriage rights. Changing their minds once they enter a voting booth, however, is going to take a whole heck of a lot more work.

(Photo courtesy of Muffet's photostream on Flickr.)

President Obama is Not to Blame for Marriage Equality's Loss in Maine

Alex Davidson — 2009-11-04T08:19:00-08:00

I knew this would happen: folks would blame President Obama for our loss in Maine last night. My response: it’s not his fault, it’s ours.

We were the people who came up with the commercials. We plotted the strategy. We met people on the ground, knocked on doors. So why, when we lose, do we blame someone who had nothing to do with our campaign?

If you’re angry that Obama didn’t support us, that’s one thing, but blaming him for our loss is another. That’s almost like saying then V.P. Al Gore would’ve won the 2000 presidential election had Ralph Nader not run; it just doesn’t make sense.

It’s time that the gay community started fighting the fight and not blaming others when we lose.

Garden State Equality’s decision to immediately run pro-marriage advertisements following the election of Republican Chris Christie is a great move. Get out first. Don’t wait and be reactive, on the defensive. Why should we be waiting until people challenge our rights in each state. Let’s get out there now and fight for our rights!

The best example I’ve seen of this is Californians Against Hate and its founder, Fred Karger. Karger, a former Republican political consultant, has taken the fight to the likes of the National Organization for Marriage, tirelessly fighting to have contributors to NOM’s campaigns revealed.

That is no easy task. Fred does his research, like trolling through campaign finance reports and finding out who donated to anti-marriage causes, then publicizing who they are and enacting boycotts of any companies involved. Fred fights anti-marriage folks with smart tactics and uses the media to his advantage: things we seem to be unable to do as a broader movement.

That is the stuff that we should be doing. Like Barney Frank said, a march on Washington won’t do much but staying home and lobbying individual members of Congress – a tactic used by the NRA – would have a lot more impact.

I’m sick and tired of losing these fights and I’m sick and tired of hearing the same reason for our losses: someone didn’t help us. Too bad President Obama wasn’t president last year, because then we could have blamed him for the passage of Proposition 8 in California.

(Photo courtesy of whitehouse.gov)

A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Bigotry in Maine

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-04T04:59:00-08:00

Despite the fact that same-sex marriage supporters led the campaign of their life to preserve marriage rights for gays and lesbians in Maine, the state narrowly voted to overturn a marriage equality law in yesterday's ballot. It's a bit of deja vu all over again this year, as activists still reeling over the 2008 loss in California with Proposition 8 now have to cope with a second straight loss for marriage equality, this time in Maine.

Though final tallies aren't yet set, the Yes on 1 side (the bad guys who fought to take away same-sex marriage) claimed victory with 53 percent of the vote, compared to No on 1's 47 percent. That's a heartbreaking loss, both in numbers and because by all accounts, the No on 1 campaign in Maine was one of the best organized gay rights groups around. In the closing days of the election, nearly 8,000 volunteers traveled to Maine to urge voters to keep the marriage equality law in place. They raised funds well, and they were more on top of their messaging than perhaps any effort in history to preserve same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

But in the end, 2009 proved that it's just still too soon to fight gay marriage at the ballot box, at least in many parts of the country. Maine now becomes the 31st consecutive state to lose a same-sex marriage question at the polls. Does that mean that hearts and minds aren't changing fast enough on this issue?

The real kicker in all of this is that we will win on the issue of marriage equality. It's not a question of "if," it's a question of "when." Much will be written over the coming days about why same-sex marriage supporters couldn't get over the threshold in Maine. It feels a little raw yet to pour through some of those thoughts, given that same-sex couples in Maine are waking up this morning to find out that they're now again second-class citizens in their own state.

In the immediate aftermath, it just seems that the other side -- the same folks, incidentally, who ran the successful Proposition 8 campaign in California last year -- managed to sell their bigoted propaganda effectively, and they managed to cull together millions of dollars from large groups like the National Organization for Marriage and the Catholic Church to help them peddle it.

How do we beat these anti-gay forces at the ballot box, at least when it comes to the issue of marriage? The scary truth on this post-election morning is that nobody seems to know.

Time is on our side, and the percentages are much closer on these issues than they were just three or four years ago. But that doesn't make yesterday's bitter defeat in Maine any easier to swallow.

Jesse Connolly, the leader of the No on 1 campaign, left supporters with a statement that was half a call to arms, and half a pep talk. "We're in this for the long haul," Connolly said. "For next week, and next month, and next year -- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for."

Connolly's right. And one of these times we will send the homophobes packing on Election Day. But it wasn't last night, and that's heartbreaking given how hard we all fought, and how far many of us thought the northeast had come on the issue of marriage equality.

(Photo courtesy pinguino's photostream on Flickr.)

Gay Marriage is a Fundamental Right Under the U.S. Constitution

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-03T13:15:00-08:00

Two federal cases are moving forward challenging the legality of bans on same-sex marriage. One case, stemming out of Massachusetts, asserts that the Defense of Marriage Act unjustly hinders states from fully recognizing the equal rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Another case, out of California, is challenging Proposition 8, the ballot measure passed last year that rescinded the rights of gays and lesbians to marry in the state.

This particular lawsuit has made a big splash this year, in part because the two lawyers behind it are Ted Olson and David Boies, the two attorneys that argued Bush v. Gore, respectively. Today, Boies penned an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer that made a pretty damn bold statement. To play off a Miracle on 34th Street reference, Boies essentially said, "Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as a constitutional right to gay marriage."

Boies makes the case that if you look at U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, it's clear that precedent falls on the side of letting people love whoever it is that they want to love.

"The constitutional issue is quite simple," Boies writes. "The Supreme Court repeatedly has held that the right to marry the person of your choice is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the Constitution."

Boies goes on to cite some of the cases that have become quite familiar to us all over the past couple of years. There's Loving v. Virginia, the case that ended state bans on inter-racial marriage. There's Zablocki v. Redhail, which overturned a Wisconsin law that banned people delinquent on their child support payments from getting married. And then there's Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 case that finally overturned statewide laws banning sexual relations between people of the same gender.

In all of these cases, Boies argues, the U.S. Supreme Court made one thing clear: there should be no limitations on the right to marry for individuals.

How timely, given today's vote in Maine that could very well overturn a state law recognizing same-sex marriage.

Boies ends his piece with a curious quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who many people think will be the swing vote on any same-sex marriage case that goes before the court. It's a quote that Justice Kennedy wrote when he gave the majority opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, and it's a brilliant example of why it's appropriate to view marriage rights as compatible with constitutional rights.

"Times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," Kennedy wrote. "As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Gay marriage is a constitutional right. That might make the folks at the National Organization for Marriage squirm, but they better get used to hearing that sentence. History is on the side of equality, and so is the U.S. Supreme Court's jurisprudence.

(Photo courtesy of JP Puerta's photostream on Flickr.)

Five Races to Watch This Election Day Regarding LGBT Rights

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-03T06:17:00-08:00

Off-year election cycles usually don't have the same high pitch drama as their big brother and sister -- mid-term elections and Presidential year elections. But Election Day 2009 is shaping up as a year where, at least in regards to LGBT rights, a lot is at stake.

From marriage to domestic partnership benefits to anti-discrimination ordinances, there's a hefty amount of LGBT rights issues that will be determined today, based on how folks from Maine to Washington state vote. Below are our five races to watch this Election Day. And though it's kind of cliche to say that history will be made at the ballot box today (cue the "Duh!" comments), today's vote really has the chance to uproot a legacy of bigotry at the ballot box.

Maine and Marriage Equality: This one has the eyes and ears and hearts and minds of the entire movement behind it, simply for this reason: if Maine voters reject Question 1 today, Maine will become the first state that has ever approved marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples at the ballot box. More than 30 states have put same-sex marriage on a ballot, and each time same-sex marriage has lost. But that all could change today. The No on 1 campaign has been, in many respects, brilliant. They've got a superior ground game, great advertisements, and the most authentic, heartfelt supporters around. The race is tight, and the opposition is flush with cash and national in scope. This one is going to come down to the wire, and it's all about who has the better field game at this point.

Washington and Referrendum 71: At the polar opposite end of the geographic spectrum, Washington state has its own ballot question where voters will get to decide whether to approve Referrendum 71 or not. Unlike Maine, where a "NO" vote is a victory, here a "YES" vote is critical. If approved, Referrnedum 71 will enact a series of domestic partnership benefits for lesbian and gay couples in the state that are wide in scope. They're not full marriage rights, of course, but they are certainly a step in the equal rights direction. Polls show Referrendum 71 winning slightly.

Kalamazoo's Anti-Discrimination Ordinance: Earlier this year, the Kalamazoo City Council unaninmously approved a resolution outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in regards to public housing, accommodations and employment. Seems like a no-brainer, but it didn't stop a group of anti-LGBT residents from placing a repeal measure on the ballot. Today, Kalamazoo voters will hit the polls to decide whether to repeal Ordinance 1856 or keep it. Yeah, that's the technical name for it, but really here's the question Kalamazoo voters will face: "Would you like to keep Kalamazoo a city free of discrimination, where LGBT people have the right to eat in a restaurant, stay in a hotel, or not be fired from their job, simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?"

The Governor's Race in New Jersey: This race is as close as it can get, with polls out yesterday that said Democratic candidate Jon Corzine was ahead, and other polls saying that GOP nominee Chris Christie was ahead. This race matters for the future of marriage equality in the Garden State. Jon Corzine has said that if re-elected, he will fight to pass marriage equality in the state and make New Jersey the next in line to recognize full marriage rights for lesbians and gays. Chris Christie? He thinks there's something wrong with homosexuality. Enough said on this race. As President Obama said earlier this weekend, "If New Jersey voters vote like they did last year, then Jon Corzine wins."

Houston's Mayoral Race: Lots of cities are having mayoral elections this year, from Boston to New York to Houston, Texas, where the fourth largest city in the country could make history by becoming the largest U.S. city to elect an openly lesbian mayor. Her name is Annise Parker, and she's in a tight three-way race that is likely heading toward a run-off for the top two candidates. Parker has made it a priority to be open about her sexuality, saying to the New York Times, "I always told voters the truth. There is an element of, ‘Well, if she will tell us the truth about her sexual orientation she will tell us the truth about anything.'" Parker has also been elected citywide several times.

We'll be blogging later tonight about many of the results that come in, hoping like hell that marriage in Maine, domestic partnership benefits in Washington state, and the anti-discrimination ordinance in Kalamazoo all stay realities.

(Photo courtesy of Theresa Thompson's photostream on Flickr.)

Sir Ian McKellen's Grudge with Leviticus

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-02T15:48:00-08:00

How's this for the premise of X-Men 4: Magneto decides that instead of seeking world domination, he's just going to wage battle against radical right-wing religious folks who use the Bible as a means of beating up on LGBT people.

Well, it might hit a little close to home for Sir Ian McKellen, the out British actor who plays Magneto. As it turns out, he's been quietly waging a war against the use of religion as a weapon of oppression against LGBT people all along in his real life. His method? At every hotel he visits, he rips out a page in Leviticus that fundamentalists use to label LGBT people as sinful.

McKellen tells Details magazine that he's not intending to vandalize the Bible. He just thinks the world would be better off if people took the passages in Leviticus a little less literally.

"I'm not proudly defacing the book, but it's a choice between removing that page and throwing away the whole Bible," McKellen says.

For those not familiar with Leviticus 18:22, it might be interpreted as the most homophobic verse in the Bible. It starts with the familiar refrain, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind," and finishes up with a powerful "it is an abomination" punch. But the passage is often misunderstood, and all too often used to justify hatred and violence toward LGBT people -- as was the case earlier this month in New York, where the friend of a gay basher said that attacking gay people was justified because the book of Leviticus approved.

Taking such a literal interpretation of this passage of Leviticus is an irresponsible way to look at the historical context of Scripture, according to many progressive theologians. For instance, look at the way Rev. David Eck puts it on his "I'm Christian, I'm Gay, Deal With It!" blog. Rev. Eck writes, "It is a misuse of the Bible to quote Leviticus as an answer to today's ethical question of whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Leviticus was not addressing this question. The concern in Leviticus, the cultural context of that text, and the meaning of male-male sex in ancient Israel are all very foreign to the present situation."

Better yet? The use of the word "abomination" is actually better translated as "taboo," and not "go out and beat gay people up in the streets because of their sin." Having sex with people of the same gender might have indeed been "taboo" thousands upon thousands of years ago in a political context. But that says absolutely nothing about its morality or immorality.

Really, the point is that there are a 1,001 ways to interpret the passages in the Bible that are typically used to bash homosexuality. That's an awful lot of ambiguity to be taking a passage in Leviticus so seriously.

So perhaps what Sir Ian McKellen should do is stop ripping pages out of the Bible, and instead start inserting a few pages. And maybe add this disclaimer: "Keep in mind that the Bible was written by men, thousands of years ago, and that whatever certain televangelists might tell you, this book isn't so cut-and-dry on a lot of things."

(Photo courtesy of http://backstage.blogs.com)

Tomorrow, Maine Voters Have the Next Say on Marriage Equality

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-02T05:04:00-08:00

Maine voters head to the polls tomorrow (that is, if they havent already participated in 'early voting') to determine whether a state law that recognizes marriage equality can stay on the books. Thousands of volunteers have poured into Maine for the final stretch, working a Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV) campaign that is as impressive as it is important. But this is still going to come down to the wire.

A new, and very humbling, poll was issued by Public Policy Polling (PPP) today showing that supporters of Question 1 (a "Yes" vote on Question 1 will rescind marriage rights for gays and lesbians) are slightly ahead of opponents of Question 1. It's still within the margin of error, but 24 hours before polls open, it's always a bit shocking to see the good guys losing.

PPP has the race at 51 percent of Maine voters rejecting same-sex marriage, and 47 percent supporting it. With results that close, this thing is going to come down to turn-out, turn-out, and then more turn-out.

By any stretch the No on Question 1 campaign has run a far more superior campaign, praised by everyone from the Governor of Maine to national newspapers. Anti-LGBT folks have resorted to fear once again -- like they did in California, and like they've done in more than 30 other states that have passed laws banning same-sex marriage. Their campaign has known no shame, but unfortunately elections aren't always determined by integrity and honor. They're determined by who gets their asses out and votes.

The No on 1 campaign has released their final television commercial for the campaign, and it lays things down on the line. "Maine has a clear choice," the ad says. "We can choose to treat some Maine families differently. To make these families feel shame. To deny them basic protections like health care, or making sure their children are cared for if a parent dies...or we can choose equality."

Hope, pray, and for sure if you have the means, get up to Maine and help equality win at the ballot box for the first time in regards to marriage equality.

Watch the No on 1 campaign ad after the jump.

(Photo courtesy of Equality Across America's Web site.)

Catholic Church Goes After Straight Allies of Marriage Equality

Michael A. Jones — 2009-11-01T08:39:00-08:00

Though it's no fun seeing same-sex marriage rights placed on a statewide ballot, one of the best things to come out of the Maine vote on marriage equality is the fact that progressive-minded Catholics are starting to speak out for the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. Through groups of "Catholics for Marriage Equality" and other venues, ordinary Catholics are speaking up in new ways arguing that love should win out over hate.

It's just too bad that the institutional Catholic Church can't let go of their anti-LGBT agenda. Maine is an interesting case study here. Despite the fact that the Bishop of Maine (Richard Malone) has had to close more than a half dozen parishes this year because of financial constraints, the Catholic Church in Maine has pumped out more than half a million dollars to urge Maine residents to vote for discrimination against gays and lesbians. Worse yet, Bishop Malone has said that giving equal rights to gays and lesbians is a dangerous sociological experiment and that same-sex marriage would be a threat to children.

But what's even scarier is that the Catholic Church in Maine is now punishing straight people who support the rights of gays and lesbians. Look no further than the ironically named Prince of Peace parish in Lewiston, Maine. There, a Eucharistic Minister and lector (the person who volunteers to read the weekly scriptures) was removed from her position because she said publicly that she supports the rights of gays and lesbians to get married.

The Catholic Church has had some real lows this year when it comes to LGBT rights. From the Pope saying that LGBT people were as big a threat to the world as climate change, to the U.S. bishops prepping a document to be released later this month that will say that same-sex marriage will harm the intrinsic human dignity in every person. Add to this list now a possible witch-hunt to identity straight allies of same-sex marriage, and to remove these straight allies from any positions within the Church.

In this specific case, Pamela Starbird Beliveau, a woman who has been heterosexually married for twenty years and who has several children, wrote a column in a local paper that said people should be free to love one another, regardless of sexual orientation.

"We are all wired for relationship, and that includes intimate relationship. When any person finds that special someone, we aspire to marriage," Beliveau wrote in her local paper. "It is a noble and honorable way to live out our lives. It breaks my heart to deny any loving couple the opportunity to experience married life."

For that statement, Beliveau was told by her local pastor that she could no longer volunteer to give out Communion on Sundays, or read from the Bible during church services.

"In view of this publicly stated position of yours, I regret that you will not be eligible to exercise a public ministry in Prince of Peace Parish," wrote her church. "More specifically, that means that I have decided that you are not to serve as a reader or minister of Holy Communion effective today..." Yeah, the letter really is that repulsive. Even more repulsive would be if the pastor resorted to this letter as the only means to communicate this to Beliveau. Failing to tell a dedicated member of the church in person would show an ultimate lack of courage.

At the heart of a move like this though is, frankly, desperation. More and more Catholics in the pews are starting to support marriage equality, and it's these straight allies that are ultimately a threat to the Church's work to oppress gays and lesbians. The actions in Lewiston, Maine can -- at their worst -- be seen as a national statement to straight Catholics who are sympathetic to equal rights for gays and lesbians: speak out, and you too will be marginalized from the Church.

The vote in Maine is in 48 hours. This could be the first time in over 30 tries that same-sex marriage actually wins at the ballot box in the United States. That would be huge.

But it's clear that even if we win in Maine -- which is still not a certainty given varying poll numbers -- the work of changing hearts and minds continues. Pamela Starbird Beliveau should be celebrated by equality advocates for being willing to challenge an anti-LGBT structure, knowing full well that there might be consequences (which there were). If only more Catholics, and especially progressive Catholic organizations, had as much courage as her to look within their own faith and see one of the gravest examples of injustice and discrimination at play in the U.S. today.

(Photo courtesy of maveric2003's photostream on Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license.)

An Intolerant Republican Party Just Killed a Moderate Candidate

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-31T08:52:00-07:00

Dede Scozzafava, the actual Republican nominee for the U.S. House seat in New York's 23rd Congressional District, was forced to suspend her campaign three days before Election Day because of a coordinated campaign by consevative activists to brand her a liberal because she supports, among other things, marriage equality.

Major anti-LGBT Republican superstars, from Rick Santorum to Sarah Palin to Steve Forbes, rallied around one of her opponents, third party candidate Doug Hoffman, who they saw as more conservative. For them, the issue was less about Scozzafava's background as a state legislator, and more about the fact that she's a moderate Republican. And moderate Republicans are being purged from the GOP like pariahs.

In her endorsement of Hoffman, Sarah Palin said, "The Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate [Scozzafava] who more than blurs the lines." But it wasn't so much that Scozzafava blurred the lines, as much as she committed the cardinal sin of supporting LGBT rights as a Republican. As a state legislator in New York, she supported a bill that would have allowed marriage equality to move forward in the Empire State.

Whether or not conservatives win this seat with Hoffman, one thing is clear: there is no longer any room in the Republican Party for moderates. No Arlen Specter. No Dede Scozzafava. Perhaps no Charlie Crist. And just remember the way the rabid right treated former GOP Utah Governor John Huntsman after he said he supported civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

As much fun as it is to watch conservatives eat their own, it's also sad that there is really no room in the GOP nowadays for someone to support equal rights. Conservatives like Palin, Santorum and others might be celebrating Scozzafava's downfall today, but the larger message it says about their party is that it really is the political party of choice for those who want to support discrimination against LGBT people.

(Image courtesy of Dede Scozzafava for Congress.)

Obama's Best Gay Week Ever

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-30T09:11:00-07:00

The last week of October certainly looks like it's going to go down as President Obama's best week yet in regards to LGBT rights. While it's not high time to call up the Vh-1 casting department to pitch a new 'Best Week Ever' show, this week has finally seen some progress on issues at the heart of the LGBT rights movement -- most notably hate crimes legislation and the imminent end of the HIV travel ban.

History was made this week when President Obama signed expanded hate crimes legislation into law, which will now include protections for sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability status. It's a law that has been fought over for more than ten years, and a law that despite its fierce opposition by the radical right -- notice Pat Robertson's freak out about the law, saying that it will place a noose around the necks of right-wing Christians -- becomes the first piece of civil rights legislation signed in a pretty long time.

President Obama earned some brownie points this week for delivering a hell of a commentary as he signed the law. "We must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits — not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear," Obama remarked during the signing ceremony. "No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hands of the person they love. No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability."

With hate crimes legislation finally passed, it's now time for other important LGBT rights measures to move their way to the head of the class. Today, we could get a second piece of extremely good news: word has it that the Obama administration is about to lift the HIV travel ban, which for years has prevented non-U.S. residents from traveling to or immigrating to this country if they were HIV-positive.

Lifting the HIV travel ban has already met the approval of Congress, which approved reversing the discriminatory ban during the last term of President George W. Bush. But President #43's administration didn't get a chance to finalize the lifting of the ban before high-tailing it to Crawford, Texas for some brush clearing, so now Obama is picking up where Dubya left off.

A confidential source told The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld, "The White House wants to be out front [on this issue.]"

If Obama lifts the ban today, consider this another victory for the LGBT rights movement. This means that LGBT men and women with HIV will no longer be barred from entering this country, can apply for Green Cards, and can travel to the U.S. to marry their partners if they're coupled with someone from one of the states that recognizes marriage equality.

It also tears down another wall of discrimination -- one that should have been broken down years ago. HIV status is nothing to be afraid of, and it makes no sense for our government, let alone any government, to penalize people or discriminate against them because they have HIV.

Rachel Tiven, Director of Immigration Equality, said it best this morning in a press release celebrating the lifting of the HIV travel ban. "At long last, people living with HIV will no longer be pointlessly barred from this country," Tiven said.

That phrase "at long last" has such relevance this week. At long last hate crimes legislation. At long last an end to a discriminatory policy. At long last some positive steps from the White House that show they have an ear out to the LGBT population of this country.

Consider this week Obama's Best Gay Week Ever. At least for now. If we can just get a federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a repeal of "Dont' Ask, Don't Tell," and a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act in the hopper, then we'll really be cooking with this White House.

(Photo courtesy of US Army Africa's photostream on Flickr.)

Argentina's Quest for Marriage Equality

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-29T15:49:00-07:00

We've got one country and six U.S. states in North America that recognize marriage equality. But on the other end of the hemisphere, wedding bells aren't necessarily ringing.

That may all be about to change, as Argentina moves forward with debate over whether to recognize marriage equality. The country's parliament is holding hearings concerning a possible change to Article 172 of Argentina's Civil Code. That may sound like drab law speak, but it could have massive implications: the hope is to change the current phrasing which recognizes marriage as only between a "man and woman," to making it so that marriage means "spouses," regardless of gender.

LGBT rights advocates are championing the change, and some of them think they have the momentum to make it a reality.

"We can't expect social equality if the state is legitimizing inequality," said Maria Rachid, president of Argentina's Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Federation, in an interview with the Associated Press.

By legitimating inequality, Rachid is referring to the fact that only civil unions for same-sex couples are recognized in Argentina, and even then it's only four cities in the entire country that allow those. Here's one lesson for Argentina from places like Vermont and New Hampshire: Civil unions are separate and unequal, and they create a second-class system that treats LGBT couples different. A good number of bipartisan commissions found that to be the case here in the states, and according to Rachid, the same is proving true in Argentina.

Any decision on marriage equality in Argentina is certainly down the road. But let's not underestimate how important this could be, especially for a region that hasn't always been a hotbed of hospitality for LGBT folks. Neighboring Brazil, in fact, tends to be one of the most dangerous places in the world for LGBT people (especially for transgender people).

The debate over marriage equality in Argentina may have started in Parliament today.

(Photo courtesy of JohnSeb's photostream on Flickr.)

Why Gay Bashing on Twitter is a Bad Idea

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-29T10:58:00-07:00

When Kansas City Chiefs football player Larry Johnson took to the Twitter waves this week, he probably wasn't expecting it would cost him $213,000. But that's the amount Johnson will miss out on because of a one-game suspension after going ballistic on a Twitter heckler, calling the user a "fag." It's a Social Media 101 lesson for Johnson, and a reminder that if you're a celebrity or a sports star, having a Twitter account doesn't give you license to hate on folks.

In a rather weird rapid fire of Twitter updates, Larry Johnson responded to @jaredlaunius after Jared made a snarky remark about Johnson falling down on the football field whenever defensive linemen get near him. Johnson's response? It's straight outta the seventh grade:

"@jaredlaunius think about a clever diss then that wit ur fag pic. Christopher street boy. Is what us east coast cats call u."

Actually, forget seventh grade. Take that one all the way down to elementary school playground chomping.

The real kicker, to use a football pun, is that @jaredlaunius isn't even gay. Not that it matters -- the point of Johnson's comment was to use one of the meanest, nastiest terms out there as a way of beating somebody down.

But hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and a reputation that he's now a big homophobe, I'm not so sure Larry Johnson thinks his statement is funny anymore. Meanwhile, the Kansas City Chiefs have one of the worst records in the NFL. Maybe Johnson should worry about improving his team's strength, instead of using anti-LGBT talk to berate others.

(Photo courtesy of Mykl Roventine's photostream on Flickr.)

After Ten Years, Hate Crimes Legislation Finally Signed Into Law

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-29T05:06:00-07:00

It's been a long decade, spanning Matthew Shepard (the University of Wyoming student killed in 1998 for being gay) to Jack Price (the 49-year-old Queens resident who was beaten into a coma two weeks ago by thugs who targeted him for being gay). But finally, LGBT rights advocates got to watch yesterday as President Obama signed expanded federal hate crimes legislation that includes protections based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability.

As a result, civil rights took a major leap forward yesterday, and the federal government has finally done something to curb the rising statistics of hate crimes committed toward members of the LGBT population.

Obama gave a short speech after signing the bill into law (the bill itself was attached to a larger defense spending measure), where he said that nobody in America should ever feel afraid to walk down the street holding the hand of the person they love. And though the President has been hit or miss on many of the issues facing the LGBT world, the man had his game on yesterday in his comments.

"We must stand against crimes that are meant not only to break bones, but to break spirits -- not only to inflict harm, but to instill fear," Obama said. "No one in America should be forced to look over their shoulder because of who they are or because they live with a disability. At root, this isn't just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another -- whether we embrace our differences, rather than allowing them to become a source of animus."

Dozens upon dozens of organizations and activists have been involved in the fight to expand hate crimes laws, from the Human Rights Campaign to GLAAD. But the story to pass hate crimes legislation rings most personal, perhaps, for two families -- the family of Matthew Shepard and the family of James Byrd Jr.

Shepard's story catapulted the debate over hate crimes based on sexual orientation into the stratosphere, thanks in large part to the work of his parents, Judy & Denis Shepard, in the wake of their son's death. They traveled to college campuses to speak with students, met with politicians, and tirelessly lobbied for hate crimes legislation that would memorialize their son by protecting a nation of people just like him.

For James Byrd Jr., a Texas man who was tied to the back of a truck and dragged down a patch of road by three white men until his right arm and head were decapitated, his family worked in partnership with LGBT rights advocates to see that a full and comprehensive hate crimes law became reality. Yesterday, their hard work paid dividends, as Obama signed one of the first pieces of civil rights legislation in a long, long time.

Judy Shepard put it very poignantly yesterday: "We are incredibly grateful to Congress and the president for taking this step forward on behalf of hate crime victims and their families, especially given the continuing attacks on people simply for living their lives openly and honestly. But each of us can and must do much more to ensure true equality for all Americans."

Hate crimes is just one piece of the equal rights puzzle. The work to change hearts and minds from the hate that feeds horrible violence? That work continues, and it continues in earnest.

Below is the video of Obama signing this historic legislation. A decade of delay ended with Obama's stroke of a pen yesterday.

(Photo courtesy of wh.gov.)

Five Gay Rights Questions Oprah Winfrey Should Ask Sarah Palin

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-28T06:53:00-07:00

Sarah Palin is about to go rogue. On November 17, the former Republican Vice Presidential candidate and current star of the GOP speaking circuit is set to launch her first book, Going Rogue. She's dabbling with some speaking engagements to support the book -- most notably attending an extremely anti-gay college in Missouri that actually disciplines students for holding hands with someone of the same gender -- and the day before the book launch, Palin will sit down on the world's most famous couch, right next to Oprah Winfrey.

There's no word on whether she'll Tom Cruise it up and jump up and down, but it's certainly bound to be one of the more interesting hours of television this Fall season. Oprah was a huge Obama supporter, so that already creates some fun tension, and then we all know how Sarah Palin gets when the TV cameras turn on (the Katie Couric that will live in infamy comes to mind...).

Since Oprah will have the biggest GOP celebrity on her set, here's hoping that the issue of LGBT rights comes up at least once. Given Palin's rhetoric on the subject, it would be nice to see someone press the former Governor to ask her why she thinks the way she thinks about many things related to gay and lesbian Americans. Perhaps Oprah is the person who can do it. Here are our five gay rights questions that we'd like to see the Queen of Daytime Television ask the Queen of the Republican Party.

1. During the Vice Presidential Debate last year, Palin said, "I would be...tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves." How would Palin plan to be tolerant in allowing people to choose their relationships, without giving them the necessary legal protections to make sure that they can enter their partner's hospital room, or collect benefits after a partner dies?

To us, tolerance is a bit of a bullshit term that people who don't like same-sex marriage or any advances in gay rights throw around to couch their support for discrimination in a chocolate, candy coating. Palin should be pushed on what the concept of "tolerance" means to her, and why her "tolerance" can't include gay marriage.

2. Is there room in the Republican Party for people who support same-sex marriage?

Palin made a big deal this week by getting involved in some low-hanging fruit. She decided to support a candidate in NY's 23rd Congressional District who is running on a Third Party ticket. She's doing that because the GOP nominee, a woman named Dede Scozzafava, is pro same-sex marriage. With Palin (and others, including Tim Pawlenty, and former Sen. Rick Santorum) jumping ship to sink Scozzafava, does this mean that the former Alaska Governor believes that supporters of same-sex marriage shouldn't be welcome in the Republican Party?

3. What would Palin do if one of her kids turned out to be LGBT?

It's a question that would have been interesting to pose to Lynne and Dick Cheney about 30 years ago, when the former Vice President was busy voting against civil rights legislation in Congress (like opposing the establishment of a federal holiday to recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day). It would also be an interesting question to ask Palin. Would that child be allowed to bring a partner home for family dinners or holidays? Would Palin attend that child's wedding?

4. Does same-sex marriage pose a threat to society?

We all know the answer to this one is a resounding no. But given the comments of some of Palin's counterparts in the GOP (Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Sen. Tom Coburn), it's worth finding out if Sarah thinks that gay marriage poses as big a threat to America as terrorism or war. And if she says yes, then here's the follow-up: "How can you argue that gay marriage poses as big a threat to the type of violence that killed more than 3,000 people on September 11, or is as big a problem as the millions of people in this country lacking health insurance?"

5. Should gay and lesbian adults have the right to adopt children, or should states be allowed to ban adoption by LGBT citizens?

There were several tragic ballot measures that broke against gay rights in 2008. Prop 8 was the most famous, but equally as bad was a ballot measure in Arkansas that banned gay and lesbian adults from adopting children. Best as we can tell, Palin never weighed in on the Arkansas ballot measure, but now's the time to know: does the Governor think that states should be able to ban gays and lesbians from adopting, and if so, what harm does she see gay and lesbian parents causing?

(Photo courtesy of nayrb7's photostream on Flickr.)

Scholastic Reverses Decision to Exclude Gay Friendly Book from Fairs

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-27T21:15:00-07:00

During the past 48 hours more than 4,000 Change.org members joined in calling for Scholastic Books to reverse their decision to exclude a book from Scholastic's popular book fairs, simply because the book featured two moms raising a child. The book in question is Luv Ya Bunches by best-selling children’s book author Lauren Myracle. If this book isn't on your must-read list yet, it should be simply for its ability to spark conversations about the role LGBT parents play in our society.

Late today we got word, after discussions with Scholastic representatives, that the company has decided to reverse their earlier decision and include the book in their spring book fairs. That's an awesome victory from one of the biggest and most influential educational book publishers and book retailers in the world, and it sends the clear message that there's absolutely nothing wrong with two men or two women raising a child.

You can read Scholastic's full statement right here. The statement doesn’t speak to the reasons they initially excluded Luv Ya Bunches from their book fairs (which was because Myracle included same sex parents and refused to include a heterosexual couple when that was requested by Scholastic), but it does make clear that not only will they be including Luv Ya Bunches in their spring fairs, but they have also affirmed that they “are committed to a review process that considers all books equally regardless of their inclusion of LGBT characters and same sex parents.”

That’s great news, and we applaud Scholastic’s commitment of not discriminating against books with LGBT characters moving forward. It’s also worth noting that their response is part of a larger trend where companies have to act fast in order to respond to the calls from activists to respect equal rights. This is the fourth occasion in less than 6 months here on the Gay Rights blog in which companies have changed their ways in response to actions from the Change.org community. Whether it's ROCKSTAR Energy Drink, Tim Horton's Coffee, Live Nation or Scholastic Books, the message here is pretty clear: people will not tolerate anti-gay business practices, regardless of the intentions behind them.

Any company, like Scholastic, that wants to attract a large mainstream group of customers needs to not only reject anti-gay policies, but also to instill a corporate culture that will prevent the “lapses” and “mistakes” and encourage thoughtful decision making in the first place.

The author of Luv Ya Bunches, Lauren Myracle, perhaps said it best: "Over 200,000 kids in America are raised by same-sex parents...It’s not an issue to clean up or hide away."

In just 48 hours our community did a great job coming together to send that very message. Special recognition should also go to Dana Rudolph at Mombian for initially alerting the community, School Library Journal for raising awareness across the web, GLAAD for their support, and the Family Equality Council, the National Youth Advocacy Coalition, and Democratic Underground for writing about the controversy and linking to the petition.

This was a victory for us all -- not only for getting a business to respect LGBT rights, but to send a larger message about the dignity of LGBT families around the globe.

(Photo courtesy of Playful Librarian's photostream on Flickr.)

LGBT People Like Saving Their Planet More Than Straight People

Michael A. Jones — 2009-10-27T07:18:00-07:00

If Mother Nature had her way, the world might be run by LGBT people. That's because a new poll out shows that LGBT Americans think and act in more green-friendly ways than straight people. The statistics are even more stark when it comes to believing whether global warming is a significant threat to the planet, or that people should support environmental organizations and environmental causes with some money.

There's also a tinge or irony here that while anti-gay forces are busy trying to repeal marriage rights state-by-state or shift Anglicans into the Catholic Church, it's actually LGBT people on a whole that show more concern for the future generations of this world, at least when it comes to environmental sustainability.

The study, by Witeck-Combs and Harris Interactive, concludes that while on a whole everyone is doing more these days to protect the environment and save the planet, there's definitely a gap between LGBT people and straight people.

Here are a few of the statistical breakdowns.

A whopping 75 percent of LGBT people surveyed believe that global warming is happening right now, as opposed to just 53 percent of straight people surveyed;

Two-thirds (66 percent) of LGBT people say it's important to support environmental causes and organizations, compared to just 56 percent of heterosexuals;

Fifty percent of LGBT people are concerned that we're leaving the planet in horrible shape for future generations, whereas only 42 percent of straight people share this worry.

More LGBT people have also seen Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," than straight people. But that's probably not all that surprising, given Gore's heavy support among LGBT voters. More straight people probably watch Glenn Beck than gay people, too.

But the study is pretty telling. What makes LGBT people more attuned to the concerns of the planet? Is it that once someone experiences any form of persecution, they can relate to a planet that's being choked to death by emissions, pollution, and human consumption?

There might be some truth to that. But the point isn't to pit gays against straights on the environment. If this planet is going to be saved, it's going to take the collective work of everybody, regardless of sexual orientation. As Peter Tatchell, one of the leading UK gay rights activists, put it earlier this year, "Climate destruction is the single greatest threat to the survival of humanity. It is more dangerous than terrorism and war."

Those are important words to live by -- for both straight folks and LGBT peeps.

(Photo courtesy of cherrylynx's photostream on Flickr.)