Gay Marriage on The Huffington Post

Michael Rowe: Why We (Still) Love New York

2009-12-04T15:42:18Z

New York, New York, you broke our heart this week. That's right. You smashed it into a million pieces. Like any long-term relationship where the spooning at night has become as natural as the snoring later, it took us a couple of days to fully assess the damage. Hell, who are we kidding? It took a couple of days to realize you were actually even serious.

We thought we were on the road to marriage. You were bright. You were beautiful. You were worldly. You were sophisticated. You had a way of welcoming us all, especially those of us who love New York passionately, but will never be New Yorkers, whatever our point of origin. You were everything we'd ever dreamed of. We were expecting to take it to the next level, make a real commitment. Grow old together. We'd even welcomed your eclectic family of outlying boroughs, towns, and cities. They were mispacha. They were famiglia. They had us at the "NY" before the zip code, because they made us think of you.

We had the ring in our pocket, New York, but you had other plans. This past Wednesday, your state senate defeated the marriage equality bill by a margin of 24-38. It wasn't even close. And later, when our friends asked us if we didn't see it coming, we looked at them blankly, with tears in our eyes, and said, "No, we really didn't. We seriously thought we were good together." Did we take you for granted? Is that it?

Come on, New York. This isn't you. You're better than that.

In the heart-stopping grief following 9/11, the world stood in awe of the way you pulled together as a city. You bore your grief with such stoic grace. Later, while flyover-state preachers and opportunistic Washington politicians at the highest levels picked the gristle from their teeth and sniffed the wind for oil, blood, and billions, perfectly content to leverage your tragedy for their various economic, religious, military, and political agendas, you were already getting on with your life, with dignity.

Later still, while late-night television carpetbaggers hawked everything from Ground Zero graveyard dirt to "9/11 commemorative coins," and necon Baba Yaga Ann Coulter hit a home run in the cruelty World Series by mocking 9/11 widows as "enjoying their husbands' deaths," you were inviolable.

There are so many reasons to love you, New York, besides the obvious ones.

For example, because a snowstorm in February in Central Park can be as beautiful as those autumn days when the air tastes like it was uncorked and poured from a champagne bottle. The light in the Village on those fall afternoons rivals Paris and makes you want to be in love. Because after a time, the constant sussration of traffic and car horns affects us like the sound of waves on a beach at night. Because of the scent of the roasted chestnuts from the street vendors' carts tells visitors that they're "back home" in New York again. Because New Yorkers are expected to be rude and standoffish, but usually aren't. Because New York is about museums, galleries, theaters, and libraries, not megachurches.

Because, in New York, it wouldn't be hard to imagine disgraced beauty queen, home-video goodtime gal, and avatar of traditional Christian morality, Carrie Prejean, being given a thong-wedgie by gaunt poetesses, or intellectuals in dark turtlenecks, in the locker room at the New School the minute she opened her yap about "opposite marriage," because in New York it takes more than a pair of pageant-bought fake breasts, a fake tan, and a mean streak, to be any kind of success. Because New York is where smart people come to make a big life, not where stupid people go to become famous. Because New York is not La Jolla.

Because the Statue of Liberty has been a beacon of hope and freedom for generations of European immigrants who dreamed of a place where they could be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and raise their families with dignity, in the same spirit that their LGBT grandchildren and great-grandchildren do today as they pursue the right to legal recognition of their families through equal marriage.

For many of them (including my maternal grandparents) that place was New York State. For the luckiest of them, it was New York City itself. Because over the course of your history, the multicultural, multinational, multiethnic tributaries that have flowed into New York have formed one of the most vibrant and exciting cities on earth, and one whose citizens have somehow found a way to get along, as New Yorkers.

Because we believe that the true spirit of New York was articulated in the powerful, righteous, moral eloquence of Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson in the speech she gave about how her gay brother was forced to live and die in France because of the religious intolerance within his own family. Because we don't believe that the true spirit of New York was articulated in the craven pandering of Queens Senator Hiram Monserrate, who voted against equal marriage for LGBT couples, and was later involved in an altercation with his girlfriend that required more than 20 stitches over her left eye (and the senator himself sentenced to 3 years probation for assault) but left marriage in New York "traditional," ie: safely out of the hands of loving gay and lesbian couples seeking equal recognition for their families under the law.

And among the reasons we love New York is this one. We know that the best of you are appalled by what happened this week. We know you'll do a Google search for the names of the senators who voted against equal marriage for their fellow New Yorkers -- your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles, and friends. We know you'll remember them in the midterm elections, and we know you'll remind them of what they did. We know you'll tell them you'd like your reputation back.

You're the New Jerusalem, the shining city on the hill. If the rest of the country holds you to a higher standard on this issue, and feels this loss of yours personally, it's because, throughout history, you've been where some of the best and the brightest have gone to try make the American dream something other than just a dream.

You're New York, for God's sake. Don't let NOM's Maggie Gallagher use you, as she already has, to threaten other enlightened, pro-equality states come election time, like some toxic birthday clown with fistful of black balloons scaring children at the party.

You're a succulent apple, New York. Seriously. You're the best we ever had. You complete us. Let's see if we can move forward together. It's not worth letting this get between us just so Sarah Palin can feel like you're finally part of "the real America."

Portia de Rossi To Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Gay Marriage Should Be Called Marriage (VIDEO)

2009-12-04T13:08:21Z

Elisabeth Hasselbeck made a curious analogy Friday on 'The View.' She asked Portia de Rossi, who is married to Ellen Degeneres, whether marriage equality is just a semantic distinction as outrageous as women wanting to be called men.

"Take men and women. Women want all the rights of men, but they're not asking to be called men," Elisabeth said. "Do you think...is the word [marriage] more important than the rights?"

"No, of course the word isn't more important than the rights," Portia responded. "Without the word, we don't have equal rights."

Portia continued to eloquently dismantle Elisabeth's reasoning.

"Every citizen of this country should have that legal right to be married," she said. "Marriage the word actually does mean something because people who see a gay coupling as a lesser thing in society can continue to [think] it's lesser than marriage when really it's the exact same thing. The exact same love, the exact same commitment, love of family."

Portia and Ellen were married in California in August 2008, before Prop 8 reversed the legality of same-sex marriage. They did their first interview as a married couple on Oprah last month.

WATCH:

Cynthia Nixon: It's a Helluva State

2009-12-04T12:18:57Z

My girlfriend and I want to get married. Only thing is: it's not legal in NY State, where we live. So we started doing everything we could think of to reverse that. Including going up to Albany this past spring with two of our politico friends to speak to some Senators -- Democratic and Republican -- who were on the fence on the issue.

Wednesday's No vote on same sex marriage was supremely disappointing on a personal as well as a political level. Guess Christine and I can kiss that Waldorf Astoria wedding... Brooklyn Botanical Gardens wedding... Montauk Beach wedding -- you fill in the blank -- goodbye. But we have two things today we didn't have yesterday.

The first thing we have is clarity about who's with us and who's against us. And we'll remember those yays and nays for next November and for Novembers to come. And there will be consequences.

The second thing is a new ally. Her name is Ruth Hassell-Thompson. She is a Senator from the Bronx and Mt Vernon and she is fierce.

Our gang of four met with her last spring and she explained to us in depth, over a long and respectful meeting why she thought she was going to vote no on gay marriage. Senator Hassell-Thompson is deeply religious. She felt strongly that marriage always has been and always should be the union between a man and a woman.

But she is a careful, thoughtful person and you could see her weighing the issue again and again in her mind. And in her considering she stumbled across something in her personal experience that began to change her perspective.

She spoke about how her mother had been a deacon in their church at a time when previously only men had been deacons. And how controversial that had been. And how vehemently many people opposed her mother's appointment. And how none of those opposed could give any explanation for why her mother becoming a deacon was wrong, just that it was. Because it was new. Because it was shocking. Because it was an idea that took people a little time to get used to.

On Wednesday Ruth Hassell-Thompson voted yes.

She voted yes because gay people and straight people walked through her door in droves and wrote her letters and called her on the phone. And because she is a person of conscience. And because of one more thing that she didn't tell us in her office that day: because she has a brother who is gay.

I think of Ruth Hassell-Thompson and understand that citizen lobbying is important. So is getting involved with campaigns. So is contributing money. So is talking to your neighbors, and co-workers and family. More important than ever.

Because you never know when a simple conversation can help change someone's heart and mind. Because if we keep at it "they" will finally realize that we're just people like them. Because time is on our side.

Meantime, there's always Connecticut.

Gay Marriage: New Jersey Vote Set Next Week

2009-12-03T18:36:20Z

TRENTON, N.J. — A bill to legalize gay marriage in New Jersey will be posted for a vote next week.

Sen. Ray Lesniak, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, says the bill is scheduled to go before that committee on Monday and will be voted on by the full Senate next Thursday.

Robin Canter: Human Rights Humiliation

2009-12-03T18:33:40Z

When is the last time any of our state and federal law makers actually read the U.S. Constitution? Yesterday, New York State rejected gay marriage legislation, claiming that New York residents were either too preoccupied to concern themselves with human rights and/or that most major religions do not condone it.

Last time I checked, the foundation of our democracy is based on, among other things, the separation of church and state. Religion is a cherished personal freedom, never meant to be restricted or used as the basis for legislative policy-making. If the tenets of our major religions are invoked (as by Sen. Ruben Diaz) as a rationale for limiting the rights of US citizens, perhaps we should take a closer look.

Why are we allowed to still eat beef, pork or shellfish, when these are banned in many holy books? Drinking alcohol and even tea or coffee is similarly forbidden. I see no calculated and well-financed referendum baiting going on against Starbucks or McDonald's. "Do not dishonor your parents" and "do not commit adultery "should be familiar phrases to everyone. If the first were law, all of our teenagers would be in jail. If the second were law, we would have to convert the entire state of Alaska into our own version of Siberia during Stalin's years at the helm.

Religious leaders such as Sen. Diaz and Richard Barnes of the NYS Catholic Conference perceive this human rights humiliation as an affirmation and vindication of the perceived belief that marriage is narrowly defined as between a man and a woman. Is this the sacred bond that produces a 40-50% divorce rate? Is this the Catholic Church whose many burdens includes those of the unending litany of priests who abuse other people's children and father their own out of wedlock? I suggest they open their history books and turn to the chapters on the Civil War and the civil rights movement, women's rights and earning the right to vote, and the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively with their employers. These were all unpopular ideas, opposed by many, and ultimately championed by the triumph of humanity and equanimity. How about focusing on the Bible's benevolent and merciful lessons, such as treating others as you would have them treat you.

How did something so very basic become so lurid and convoluted? This is about love, commitment, responsibility and legitimacy. We have families, we celebrate births and mourn deaths, we work hard, we obey the law and we pay our taxes. There have been gay couples for as long as there has been life, and I don't think we can pin anything on them except frustration. We are Americans who want to serve this nation proudly, stand before our friends and family in love and tell our children that we are worthy and, for better or for worse, married.

Emma Ruby-Sachs: Straight Brooklyn Couple Applies to Annul Marriage Because Gay Marriage Still Not Legal

2009-12-03T16:18:00Z

A couple in Brooklyn is looking to challenge the legitimacy of straight marriages in light of the recent New York Senate vote against gay marriage rights. Their strategy: apply for an annulment.

An annulment is usually reserved for marriages where there is no consummation of the marriage (yep, that means sex), insanity, fraud or one or both members of the couple entered into marriage while under duress. Unlike a divorce, it claims that the marriage was never viable and legal or that the situation has changed so significantly through no fault of either member of the couple that the marriage must be dissolved.

But this week I was invited to join a Facebook group run by Rachel Murch D'Olimpio and Matthew D'Olimpio: New York residents who are going to apply for an annulment on the grounds that their marriage contract violates constitutional equality guarantees and is thus void. The group already has over 700 members.

Legally, their approach has some promise. Contracts freely entered into can be deemed void if they contravene public policy. There is an argument -- one that has been successful in Iowa and California -- that giving marriage rights to straight couples and not same-sex couples violates the right to equal protection of the laws. This is not new reasoning.

However, usually the courts require the applying individual to prove that they are, in some way, being denied equal protection of the laws of the state. Rachel and Matthew are fully protected. It's their friends and fellow New York residents who are being denied their rights.

But striking down a contract for being contrary to public policy provides more flexibility than the strict constitutional analysis courts have previously engaged in on this matter. Courts can assert, in some cases, that acts are contrary to public policy simply because they create any effect on society as a whole that is undesirable. For example, contracts promoting the sale of babies are considered contrary to public policy. While offending the moral character of many, selling infants may not actually cause concrete harm (this is, in fact, an argument put forward by famed legal scholar Justice Richard Posner).

New York's courts may choose to use the annulment challenge as an opportunity to hear evidence on the social harm marriage discrimination causes for the entire state -- gay and straight residents alike. There are plenty of arguments to support this assertion. Inequality breeds social division and resentment. Children of same-sex couples denied marriage rights suffer psychological harm. Residents in same-sex committed relationships arbitrarily bear greater tax burdens. The list goes on.

All to say, Rachel and Matthew have a slim chance of success. But whether or not they win in the end, their campaign to stand in solidarity with LGBT New Yorkers certainly warms the heart. And today people in New York State need a little heart warming.

Dan Collins: Albany: No Profiles in Courage

2009-12-03T09:16:21Z

Way back in 1970, the whole nation was watching our state legislature. A bill that would make New York the second state to legalize abortion had passed the all-male Senate and made its way to the Assembly. The vote, which had looked tight, got tighter when some of the expected "yes" votes got up and said they just couldn't do it -- that their Catholic constituents would never forgive them.

When the vote came, it appeared that legalized abortion had lost on a tie. Then George Michaels, a Democrat from a conservative upstate district, got up and switched his vote.

"I realize I am terminating my political career," he said in a quavering voice.

He was right. In the real world, voters only reward a lawmaker for following his conscience when his conscience happens to agree with theirs.

Is it conceivable that anyone would make that kind of sacrifice today? These days in Albany, political courage means agreeing to support your party's preferred special interests on only 95 percent of their agenda.

We didn't get any hints this week, since the 38-24 defeat of a gay marriage bill in the Senate didn't invite any heroics. As soon as the first few senators had cast their votes, it was clear that the bill was going down. By the time the clerk began to call the people whose names began with "B," anyone who was teetering on the fence had abandoned ship.

If the vote had been secret, would the result have been different? Possibly. The advocates who had been working on legalizing gay marriage for so long believed they were close. There were a couple dozen sure votes and some other senators who had privately promised to go their way. Then they hoped that others who had expressed private sympathy for the cause without ever making a commitment would pull a George Michaels and give them a victory.

Instead they got a terrible setback for the cause nationwide. The year began with advocates envisioning an East Coast sweep that would re-inspire gay marriage supporters in the West and Midwest.

Now with New York following the defeat in the Maine referendum, there's nothing but a blame game that appears to be building between the advocates who lobbied the bill and the chief
Senate sponsor, Tom Duane of Manhattan.

Duane, the only openly gay member of the Senate, gave his all. His fellow Senate reformers said he was obsessed with the issue, almost to the exclusion of everything else.

"I'm angry. I'm disappointed. I am let down. I'm betrayed. But I'm not going away," Duane said later.

One or more senators who had privately promised to vote for the bill did backtrack. But it's hard to believe that Duane actually had commitments from more than a half dozen people who turned on him at the last minute.

Here's my guess. The culture of Albany betrayed the gay marriage advocates. In the New York legislature, everything that comes up for a vote wins. If there isn't enough support for sure, the leadership doesn't bring the bill to the floor. There's no such thing as a surprise, as in someone's mind being changed by an argument on the floor.

The advocates may have believed that if the extraordinary happened, and senators found themselves unmoored and challenged to vote their consciences for the first time, they'd rise to the occasion.

They didn't. If arguments could change minds in the Senate, people on the fence would have been moved by colleagues like Ruth Hassell-Thompson of the Bronx, who told the chamber about her gay brother who moved to Europe when his family rejected his sexuality. "He never could settle, so he died in the South of France," she said.

Or Diane Savino of Staten Island, who talked about the importance of commitment in marriage, and her admiration for the steady devotion of gay couples like Duane and his partner.

But there actually was no debate. Except for Reuben Diaz of the Bronx, who is famous for his opposition to gay marriage, the "no" votes sat in silence. Until it was time to be counted.

Gay Marriage Defeat In New York Welcome By Some, Becomes Rallying Point For Others (VIDEO)

2009-12-03T09:04:07Z

ALBANY, N.Y. (Associated Press) - A bill that would have allowed same-sex marriage was rejected by New York lawmakers, a bruising outcome for national advocates in a state that was the site of one of the gay rights movement's defining moments four decades ago, and a huge victory for opponents who said it could influence votes elsewhere.

"It's just a huge win," said Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to protect marriage. "It's going to help cement defeat for gay marriage in New Jersey, and I think it's going to get a whole bunch of politicians in New Hampshire who voted for gay marriage this year pretty nervous when they come up for election."

So far this year New Jersey failed to schedule long-expected votes on bills to legalize gay marriage, Maine voters rejected a measure and California voters rescinded their law. Supporters, however, point to Vermont and New Hampshire, where lawmakers adopted gay marriage bills this year, while the city council in Washington, D.C., is expected to legalize gay marriage next month.

Iowa's Supreme Court also recognized gay marriage this year. Gay marriage was already legal in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Vermont.

Richard Socarides, who was former President Bill Clinton's senior adviser on gay rights issues, called New York "clearly the biggest prize in this effort."

"Not only will it affect a lot of people because New York is a big state," he said, "but symbolically New York is the country's leader in finance, the arts and culture. It's a bellwether for the country."

Across the Hudson River, New Jersey was watching.

"Here in New Jersey, many of the legislators would rather not vote on it," said Gregory Quinlan, of New Jersey Family First, which opposes gay marriage.

He said New York's action underscores that reluctance and bolsters his group's position.

But Steven Goldstein, CEO of Garden State Equality, countered that the demographics of New York and New Jersey are very different.

"If Democrats in New Jersey don't lead the way, as they promised, to pass marriage equality in 2009, there could be a mutiny against the New Jersey Democratic Party the likes of which this state has never seen," he said.

On Wednesday, New York's bill was defeated 38-24 in the Senate led by liberal New York City Democrats holding a single-seat majority. It was the last hurdle for passage for the measure passed three times by the Democrat-led Assembly and strongly pushed by Democratic Gov. David Paterson.

Gallagher said she never expected such a lopsided margin. She said the supporters of the bill hurt their cause by equating opponents of gay marriage to slave owners and Nazis.

"The gay marriage movement usually looks very smart," she said. "Now it looks flat-footed."

Evan Wolfson, director of the national gay rights group Freedom to Marry, said the vote stung. He and other national advocates blamed in part the fractured dynamics of the New York Senate, where Democrats won a slim majority this year after a half-century of Republican control, only to face defections from its ranks and a Republican-dominated coup that gridlocked the chamber this summer.

The Senate's Republicans who were expected to cross the aisle to support the measure had a scare put into them in November. The state's Conservative Party reasserted its power in GOP politics when the Conservative candidate in a special election for an upstate congressional seat attracted so much support he forced a more moderate Republican to end her campaign.

But advocates say there were victories in the loss and New York – site of the 1969 Stonewall Inn riots, considered the birth of the modern gay rights movement – may have provided a model for success.

The "cause of inclusion" has gained, said Wolfson.

"Most striking was the eloquence and the passion and the details of what people had to say in this very personal and rich way," said Wolfson, who like thousands nationwide watched the Senate's webcast of the more than two-hour debate.

Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger, of Manhattan, talked about her grandparents who escaped discrimination against Jews and were steeped in religion.

"My religion, I believe, teaches me I must vote yes today," she said.

Sen. Eric Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat and black civil rights activist, said gays are now in the position of the Irish, Italians, blacks and other oppressed groups.

"I am hoping New York state comes out of the closet and understands that all Americans deserve the right to marry who they love," Adams said. "This is about love ... we have no right to deny that."

During debate, Sen. Ruben Diaz, a conservative minister from the Bronx, led the mostly Republican opposition.

*******

Here is a list of the eight Democrats who bucked the party and voted against the bill:

Shirley Huntley, D-NYC (Jamaica)
George Onorato, D-NYC (Astoria)
Hiram Monserrate, D-NYC (Jackson Heights)
Joseph Addabbo, Jr., D-NYC (Ozone Park)
Carl Kruger, D-NYC (Brooklyn)
Ruben Diaz, D-NYC (Soundview)
Darrel Aubertine, D-Upstate (Cape Vincent)
William Stachowski, D-Upstate (Hamburg)

WATCH video from Wednesday's vote:

Diane Savino On NY Gay Marriage Bill: 'We Have Nothing To Fear From Love And Commitment' (VIDEO)

2009-12-02T16:23:32Z

Gay marriage supporters suffered a defeat today when New York state lawmakers rejected a bill that would have established same-sex marriage. The debate over the bill was passionate, and state Senator Diane Savino (D-Staten Island) gave one of the more moving and powerful speeches in support of the Marriage Equality bill. She said the issue is not political, but about "fairness and equality... We have nothing to fear from love and commitment."

WATCH:

Katie Halper: Deep Twitter Thoughts on NY Gay Marriage Vote

2009-12-02T16:03:31Z

Diaz isn't a bigot @Markos! Didn't u know some of his best friends & relatives are gay? He <3's the gays just not enough 2 give 'em = rights

gay marriage fails In NY? I expect this in Alabama but NY? So much 4 our northeast gay liberal elitist secular culture war

Monserrate IS all about family values. He was so concerned when his gfriend walked into piece of glass he was holding #nymarriageequality

I'm not married but I feel like I just survived an attempted attack on my heterosexuality. #nymarriageequality

Did Meredith Baxter coming out help or hurt vote? Maybe hurt it bc peops hold the sanctity of Keaton marriage as sacred http://bit.ly/696vst

Maybe
Meredith Baxter helped the cause. Maybe she emboldened a few dems by
coming out. do not underestimate the influence of the keaton fam

New York State Senate Votes Down Gay Marriage

2009-12-02T15:13:36Z

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York lawmakers on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have made their state the sixth to allow gay marriage, stunning advocates who suffered a similar decision by Maine voters just last month.

The New York measure needed 32 votes to pass and failed by a wider-than-expected margin, falling eight votes short in a 24-38 decision by the state Senate. The Assembly had earlier approved the bill, and Gov. David Paterson, perhaps the bill's strongest advocate, had pledged to sign it.

Chris Prevatt: Major Setback to Campaign to Restore California Marriage Equality in 2010

2009-12-02T13:03:01Z

The effort to take the marriage equality battle back to the California ballot in 2010 experienced a major setback Monday when the Courage Campaign announced it was calling for more research and time to change hearts and minds before returning to the ballot to restore marriage for gay and lesbian couples in California. Courage Campaign had previously been in strong support of the effort to repeal Proposition 8 in November 2010. In 2008 California voters narrowly approved a Constitutional amendment that removed the right of same-gender couples to be married in California.

The Courage Campaign, in partnership with Lambda Legal, has recently concluded the first phase of extensive and groundbreaking research about public beliefs and concerns about marriage and homosexuality. It confirmed that attitudes are shifting steadily toward equal treatment of same-sex couples, and that conversations among family members and other close relationships inevitably speed the process. The statement released today is concurrent with a Lambda Legal statement.

“For months, we have laid out the criteria for moving forward. Like the Obama Campaign, we understand that we need a combination of powerful and clear research that informs an expertly run campaign, an unstoppable movement that harnesses the new energy we have seen since the passage of Prop. 8 and the connections through personal stories and outreach in order to win at the ballot box,” said Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign founder and Chair. “We are taking the lessons learned from last year’s Prop. 8 campaign, the campaigns in Maine and other states to understand the fundamental work that must be done before moving forward in California. We also must come together as a community to create a broad coalition and governance structure, put in place a strong manager and secure the resources to win. Right now, the pieces are not all in place to do so confidently.”

Many high profile Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender advocacy groups and leaders have since this summer been urging restraint in the drive to repeal Proposition 8. The Courage Campaign's announcement today further validates the arguments of the Prepare to Prevail advocates that it is too early to take the issue back to the voters.

2012 advocates have argued that we need to build strong majority support before placing the issue before voters. Popular support for marriage equality for same-sex couples has not changed since the last election. Today, California voters’ opinions on a constitutional amendment to overturn the voter-imposed elimination of marriage equality remain evenly split, according to all recent polls. In order to seek major investments of time and money from key stakeholders and allies in an affirmative ballot-measure campaign seeking a “yes” vote from voters, seasoned campaign experts advise against proceeding to the ballot without evidence of a strong majority in favor of the measure. Failure to begin with a sizable majority puts sponsors in a more likely position to lose.

The departure of Courage Campaign from the 2010 campaign removes a significant amount of volunteer resources from the signature gathering efforts currently underway to place an initiative on the ballot next November. Without those resources, and absent major donors to fund a paid signature gathering campaign it is looking like we will not see marriage equality on the ballot until 2012.

But that does not mean that advocates of marriage equality can sit on their tails and do nothing for the next few years. There is a lot of education and factual information to share. Everyone who cares about marriage equality needs to get involved now and help Prepare to Prevail in 2012. I suggest that you visit Equality California or Courage Campaign and join in their efforts to restore marriage equality to California.

Gay Marriage Bill Fails In New York

2009-12-02T11:54:26Z

UPDATE: Watch Sen. Hassell-Thompson's moving speech below and Sen. Savino's plea here.

UPDATE: The gay marriage bill has failed to pass in New York.

From the Associated Press:

ALBANY, N.Y. -- New York lawmakers have rejected a bill to legalize gay marriage.

The Senate decision Wednesday comes after months of delays and arm twisting of lawmakers sympathetic to the bill but representing conservative districts. It follows a referendum in Maine earlier this month that struck down a gay marriage law before it took effect.

Advocates say they aren't surprised by the decision. Most, including Gov. David Paterson, say they at least wanted a floor debate and vote.

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect Jan. 1.

*SCROLL DOWN FOR LIVE VIDEO & REACTION*

ALBANY, N.Y. (Associated Press) -- New York's Senate will take a long-awaited vote on a bill to legalize gay marriage.

But the outcome of the vote Wednesday that could give final legislative approval to the measure remains in doubt.

The bill will need 32 votes to pass. And Democratic Sen. Liz Krueger, a leader in the majority, says the measure will need Republican votes because of opposition from some of the chamber's 32 Democrats.

Krueger says gay rights advocates believe they'll get at least a few Republican votes. But Republican Sen. Thomas Morahan says his conference hasn't taken a head count and he's not sure enough GOP senators will support the legislation.

Gay marriage is legal in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts and Vermont. A New Hampshire law takes effect next year.

UPDATE 2:57 pm: The bill is lost. Gay marriage fails to pass in New York by a vote of 38 to 24.

UPDATE 2:40 pm: Debate is closed. Slow roll is happening RIGHT NOW!

UPDATE 2:35 pm:
Sen. Duane: "I'm an aging gay -- hopefully gracefully, but it's been tough here recently."

UPDATE 2:25 pm: Sen. Duane, who is openly gay, opens with a joke. Brings some levity to the situation before speaking from personal experience.

"There's never a good time for civil rights... but the paradox is that it's always the right time to be on the right side of history."

UPDATE 2:08 pm: There have been some incredibly moving pleas from gay marriage supporters so far.

Sen. Hassell-Thompson gave an impassioned speech about how her older brother was gay and fled the United States. It was the first time she publicly discussed her brother's plight. You could hear a pin drop the whole time she spoke.

Sen. Perkins, like many of the bills supporters, leaned heavily on civil rights language, saying, "I can see Dr. Martin Luther King looking down on us today and smiling upon us."

Sen. Oppenheimer, questioned people reasoning that gay marriage would "diminish" heterosexual marriage. "Why would it diminish my marriage? I don't understand when people say that to me." Oppenheimer, who is Jewish, also brought up the Holocaust as an example of normalized atrocities.

The biggest surprise so far has been Sen. Valesky, who moved from the undecided to "yes."

Get HuffPost New York On Facebook and Twitter!

Know something we don't? E-mail us at NYTips@huffingtonpost.com

Wayne Besen: The Gay Community's Pope Problem

2009-12-02T10:40:47Z

It is time to admit that the gay community has a gigantic Pope problem. Under the leadership of Benedict XVI, the Vatican has become an implacable foe of liberalism, modernity, and basic rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people. Rome has eagerly jumped with both feet into America's culture wars and is working on a global scale to punish or purge ideological dissenters within the church. This aggressive activism presents a formidable new front in the fight for parity -- one with considerable political clout and financial resources.

Last week, a coalition of totalitarian religious activists and radical clerics joined forces to unveil the "Manhattan Declaration" at Washington's National Press Club. This rambling manifesto, written by former Watergate felon Chuck Colson, called for "Christians" to disobey laws they didn't fancy and to ignore civil rights laws that protected GLBT people from discrimination. It was a dishonest document filled with historical revisionism that promoted theocracy, encouraged anarchy, and supported the dissolution of the rule of law. It falsely portrayed right wing Christians as victims, even as they pledged to work tirelessly to deny equality to those who would not adhere to their sectarian church rules.

An extreme manifesto of such breathtaking cynicism and insincerity is no surprise coming from what passes for "leaders" in today's evangelical circles. It was striking, however, that more than 15 key American Catholic leaders signed on to the "Manhattan Declaration". Signatories included heavyweights such as Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, DC. This was clearly a call to arms and a powerful signal that the Roman Catholic Church is taking the gloves off to fight political battles in America.

This hands-on involvement from Rome has passed the "trend" stage and appears to be official policy. Consider the significant involvement the Catholic Church had in stripping marriage rights away from GLBT couples in a Maine referendum held earlier this month.

In the same manner, on June 11, the Washington, DC Archdiocese threatened to abandon the homeless and quit charity work in the District if it had to comply with anti-discrimination laws. Catholic Charities had the audacity to believe it was entitled to collect $8.2 million in tax dollars meant to serve all DC residents, and then still get to handpick whom it deems worthy of assistance.

Catholic involvement with arch-conservative politics is growing by the day. In May, Catholic groups tried to stop President Barack Obama from speaking at a Notre Dame commencement ceremony because of his pro-choice position.

Earlier this month, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin put the clamp on Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.), banning the lawmaker from communion because he is pro-choice. This was reminiscent of The St. Louis Archbishop refusing to give communion to John Kerry during his presidential campaign.

The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has suddenly begun to steer GLBT Catholics to 12-step programs that promise to "cure" homosexuality or support them in a lifelong celibacy. The Catholic Diocese in Sioux Falls, South Dakota urged its 128-thousand members to oppose an attempt to bring legalizing embryonic stem cell research to a public referendum. (I guess the sacrosanct "people's right to vote" on controversial social issues only applies to same-sex marriage)

In fighting back, we must remember that the Vatican is launching these attacks from a position of weakness. It has yet to recover its moral authority from public exposure of rampant child sexual abuse scandals that cost the Church billions of dollars in legal settlements.

The Vatican appears to be acutely aware it is losing its worldwide market share. It is basically defunct in the Middle East, where the religion began, and on life-support in Western Europe, where it once prospered. In Africa, Rome competes with Islam and Anglicanism for a shrinking slice of the pie. (Who can forget that while in Africa the Pope said condoms could make the AIDS crisis worse.) South America, one of its few remaining strongholds, is losing Roman Catholics to evangelical faiths by the millions.

Instead of competing against the conservative evangelical brand, Pope Benedict has decided to embrace it, shaping a conspicuously political Catholicism that embraces extremism and drives out dissenters. The Vatican has become so doctrinaire that it recently launched an invasive probe into the lives of America's 60,000 nuns to enforce anachronistic rules. In January, Benedict welcomed back excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson who denied that millions of Jews died in Nazi death camps.

Fortunately, Benedict is a cold, unsympathetic figure and the majority of American Catholics often ignore his edicts. The strategy for the GLBT community should be to stand up to Rome and help mobilize mainstream Catholics to fight back against an authoritarian Pontiff who is hell-bent on making the Catholic Church as unpopular and unappealing as His Holiness.

Visit www.TruthWinsOut.org

Sam Fulwood: Why Are Some Black Folks So Upset Over Gays Getting Married?

2009-12-01T16:27:39Z

As a church-attending Christian and a straight, married black man who lives in Washington, D.C., I have absolutely no qualms about extending full marriage rights to gay couples. I will cheer when it happens in my city.

I struggle to comprehend why folks who share my slice of the demographic pie seem to take is personally when two men or two women want to marry and live as a couple. I mean, it's not like they're taking something away from any a straight couple.

Here, in Washington, the city council is expected to pass legislation that will legalize marriage for same-sex couples. The bill seems assured of passage because 10 of the 13 city council members have signed on as supporters, and Mayor Adrian Fenty has promised to sign it into law if it passes. And, from all I've been able to learn, congressional opposition will be tepid as the 30-day review period ticks down.

Under the proposed legislation, the district would end the existing domestic partnership law and expand all rights and responsibilities associated with marriage to cover same-sex couples. Another provision of the bill wipes away gender-specific language from the city code, assuring that married gay and lesbian couples are guaranteed to be treated the same under city law as married heterosexuals.

Yet, the road to marriage equality for gays and lesbians remains twisted by opposition from--of all places--black church leaders. Notably, Bishop Harry Jackson of the suburban Maryland Hope Christian Church has been the most outspoken and visible black minister leading the fight against spreading civil rights to all corners of the nation's capital.

Jackson argues that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will - somehow, inexplicable to me - cause damage to straight people's marital bliss. He argues that the divorce rate in the District is already high and allowing gay couples to marry will add to the soaring numbers of divorces. That, of course, makes absolutely no sense.

But the opportunity to build a godly empire by preaching against homosexuality has proven irresistible and potentially profitable. Jackson's High Impact Leadership Coalition, the antigay rights group, moves in far-right circles of the Republican Party. It's a façade for a misguided holy crusade and supported by white evangelicals who have little else in common with black, working-class people in Washington.

Bishop Jackson isn't alone among backward-thinking religious leaders, either. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington threatened to end social services in Washington if the proposed same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.

For sure, some very religious people fall on their swords of faith to justify treating gays and lesbians in a discriminatory manner. Marriage, they say, can only be godly if its benefits and obligations are reserved only for a man and a woman.

The wise thing about the D.C. bill is that it doesn't force a church or minister to perform a marriage if it conflicts with their theology. But it allows for those open-minded people of faith to do so. The legislation is civil, not aimed at changing anything that happens inside the practice of faith. Nor would the law grant gay or lesbian couples any special rights--only protect the exercise of the same rights enjoyed by other citizens. In fact, it may prove to be a fiscal blessing to the city.

What's so wrong about all that?

On the racial tip, it seems that the folks who ought to be first in line on this matter of civil right protections should be black ministers. It's not like black gays and lesbians aren't fixtures in black churches across the city. And they're not deeply closeted, either. Everyone knows what these black religious leaders seem so intent on keeping secret: Homosexuality exists among black people.

Less than half a century ago, the black clergy was on the side of unpopular rights and societal progress. If not for the courage and outspokenness of black preachers from southern pulpits, speaking of love and fairness for all of God's children, racist white theologians might have continued unchallenged to use biblical scriptures to justify unfair treatment of black Americans.

A civil right for one is a civil rights for all. As Georgia Congressman John Lewis has said on many occasions, "I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation."

In a disappointingly similar situation, black churches across Washington and the nation were slow to respond to the AIDS epidemic almost a generation ago, fearing any pulpit talk would lead to airing the congregation's dirty laundry. Meanwhile, as pastors preached and choirs sang, church folks got sick and died. Only after enlightened black religious leaders opened their eyes and stopped condemning were they able to create ministries that helped--not hurt--the people in need.

So pray tell me, how is this any different?

Some - indeed, many progressive black ministers - agree that biblical pronouncements of grace should trump mean-spirited, hell-fire denunciations of gays and lesbians.

As the Rev. Dennis Wiley of Covenant Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. and the co-chairman of the DC Clergy United for Marriage Equality, preaches: "My support of full marriage equality for the District of Columbia is rooted not only in my passion for social justice, but also for morality and moral truth. I believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of love, not hate."

That's the pew where I sit and belong. My faith is strong and my love of humanity is sacrosanct. That's why I completely fail to comprehend how the exchange of vows between a loving couple--be it a man and a woman or two men or two women--changes anything of importance in my life.

No, all it does is move the city I live in one step closer to being fairer to all of its citizens.

Cross-posted from Race-Talk.

Movement Under Way In California To Ban Divorce

2009-12-01T12:52:38Z

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Til death do us part? The vow would really hold true in California if a Sacramento Web designer gets his way.

In a movement that seems ripped from the pages of Comedy Channel writers, John Marcotte wants to put a measure on the ballot next year to ban divorce in California.

Gay Marriage D.C.: Council Passes On First Vote 11-2

2009-12-01T12:16:00Z

WASHINGTON — In the first of two votes on allowing same-sex marriage in the nation's capital, the District of Columbia City Council has passed the bill 11 to 2.

The D.C. Council voted for the first time Tuesday. The bill has been expected to pass, as 10 of the 13 council members co-sponsored its introduction. A second, final vote is expected for later in the month, and D.C.'s mayor has promised to sign the bill.

Marriages would begin in the city as soon as the bill passes a period of Congressional review. Congress likely will not alter the law.

Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont and Connecticut already allow same-sex marriage. New Hampshire will join them Jan. 1.

Orthodox Rabbis Join New Jersey Gay Marriage Debate

2009-12-01T09:12:49Z

LAKEWOOD, N.J. — The leaders in the local large Orthodox Jewish community go to great lengths to keep out the outside world, discouraging nonbusiness use of the Internet and encouraging strict filters to keep the ungodly out when members must use the Web.

But last month, several rabbis and other elders did something astounding for them: They took a public stand on a political issue, declaring their opposition to same-sex marriage in the state.

California Gay Marriage Vote Unlikely In 2010

2009-11-30T21:04:24Z

SAN FRANCISCO — The chances of California voters being asked to repeal the state's ban on same-sex marriages next year are looking more remote after another prominent political group said that more time is needed to build a winning campaign.

Rick Jacobs, founder of the Los Angeles-based Courage Campaign, said Monday that polling and other research his organization commissioned shows that gay marriage supporters do not have the financial backing, leadership or edge in public opinion to try to overturn Proposition 8 in 2010.

Argentina Gay Marriage: Judge Puts South America's 1st Gay Marriage On Hold

2009-11-30T20:16:08Z

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — An Argentine judge put a hold Monday on another court's decision to permit the first gay marriage in Latin America, but supporters of the couple said they would try to go ahead with the ceremony anyway.

The official court Web site said national judge Marta Gomez Alsina ordered the wedding blocked until the issue can be considered by the Supreme Court.

Serena Yuan Volpp, M.D.: Marriage Equality: Not Just For Today's Adults

2009-11-27T10:06:54Z

The other day, my friend Sandra and her daughter Maya were talking about growing up. Sandra told her daughter, "Honey, when you grow up, I know you'll find a nice boy to marry who will love you." Maya, who is eight years old, replied, "But Mom, I could marry a girl."

Sandra stood corrected. They live in Massachusetts. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts for over five years now, and the law has begun to affect the way children and adolescents are able to envision their domestic futures. Of course, Maya is not old enough to understand what the concepts of heterosexuality and homosexuality really mean. Whether or not she herself grows up to be gay, she already has a wider view of the world's possibilities than do many of the grown-ups around her.

When do kids become aware that they are gay or lesbian? Kids who grow up to be gay don't wake up one day at age 12 or 13 and say, "Hey, I'm gay!" Recognizing one's own sexuality is a long and often challenging process. When kids grow up in a world that assumes everyone will grow up to be heterosexual, those kids who grow up to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual face extra developmental challenges. Kids taunt each other on the playground with the word "faggot" without fully understanding or thinking about what that word means. That affects a kid's self esteem when -- sometimes years later -- he connects that word, and the pain of being teased, with sexual or romantic feelings he or she has for someone of the same sex.

That point is underscored by a study published earlier this year in the medical journal Pediatrics, which helped to illustrate the relationship between lack of acceptance and harm to mental health. The research showed that lesbian, gay and bisexual adolescents growing up in families who did not accept them as gay were nine times more likely to feel suicidal, five and a half times more likely to be depressed, and three and a half times more likely to use illegal drugs compared to kids whose families were more accepting.

Marriage equality can change society so that peers -- and parents -- can, if not embrace, accept homosexuality as part of the world in which we live. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire now allow same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage laws are on the table in New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia. Despite the recent loss in Maine, the issue continues to move forward.

To be sure, some people may cringe at the thought of kids growing up more accepting of homosexuality. Might this tolerance lead to more gay and lesbian adults in the future? Research does not support such ideas.

Numerous studies of children growing up with same-sex parents have concluded that these children are no more likely to grow up to be gay or lesbian than are children raised by heterosexual parents. What they are more likely to be is open and accepting of the possibility of homosexuality or bisexuality in themselves or others. And the recent study in Pediatrics suggests that this tolerance will be good for the mental health of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends and family members that these children will surely encounter.

Same-sex marriage laws will benefit not only adults in committed relationships today, but also kids who don't yet know what being gay, lesbian, or bisexual means. Kids who grow up to be gay adults will have the chance to grow up in a world that accepts them as full members, and their straight friends, family members, co-workers, and neighbors will be more prepared to live in an ever-more diverse world.

Charles Karel Bouley: Thanksgiving On The Island Of Misfit Toys

2009-11-26T12:25:02Z

It happens every year in homes all across America. While millions sit down to watch parades and football and prepare to feast on roast beast surrounded by loved ones and others laugh and dance in the kitchen while reciting lines from "All About Eve." Holidays are a time for gatherings and family. To most of American that means in-laws they never see, relatives they wish they didn't have to see and the perennial argument, "But we went to your mother's house last year, this year we have to go to..." However, it is also time for unconventional gatherings, the Islands of Misfit Toys, the gays and lesbians who throw down a spread or any group that forms an "extended" family -- a unit of people drawn together not out of blood but out of love and the need to "be" someplace on Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Now as the elder statesmen of gay couples, my partner Andrew and I were that island. Each and every year Andrew would create a sumptuous feast and the open invitation went out to our friends. Each year dinner for ten or more was served. Many showed up early in the day others came just for pie or dessert as a way to escape the traditional family hell they've been in the rest of the day.

The gatherings became a regular event, and it gave those people that attended a sense of belonging, a place to be. In fact, when one of our dear friends moved to Hawaii, we video taped our gatherings all day long -- just let the camera run -- and sent the hours of tape to her so she could still spend the day; thank goodness video chat came along.

There were those whose family lived far away and they couldn't afford to travel that year. There were others who had no wish to be with their real family on Thanksgiving or Christmas because their partners weren't welcomed or they would have to hide their relationship. Some came because we were their family, not by blood, but by the unbreakable bond of friendships forged through years of good and bad times.

It gave Andrew and I such a great sense of family and love. Preparation was often hectic, changing the menu each year (hint: never try eggplant with Gruyere Cheese Sauce), getting the right party favors, music, games, videos, adding to the guest list right up until dinner. The mix was always vibrant -- from my senior mother to our circuit boy friends -- from those that had to rush off to do drag shows to those that were betting on the various games. It was a group one might never find together any place else but at the dinner table on Thanksgiving or on the patio on Christmas afternoon.

Something miraculous happened over those years of hosting holiday misfits. Soon, there were no misfits, there was a family. New members were brought in as some changed lovers or gained new ones; some seats were left empty for those that had been lost during the previous year. And the day seemed normal. Yes, normal. Just like a regular Christmas or Thanksgiving. Andrew would be madly cooking; I would be assisting along with other friends in the kitchen. A group would be outside, listening to music, having cocktails, lighting joints, whatever moved them to holiday cheer. Some were glued to the TV arguing over whether to watch the Lucy or Twilight Zone marathons. Fights erupted and were quelled, and by the end of the day everyone sat full, happy and having that glow that only spending the day with family can give.

Now, this year, I am the misfit toy. Andrew has now been gone an astounding eight years. Everyone expected the island to sink. But the beauty of it is, it couldn't. You see, the bonds we, and you, forge on those days don't go away. The extended family that gathers in the homes of those who have been made to feel outside the realm of normal family the rest of the year stays in place, even when one of the matriarchs fall. Because that's what we became. You all have a couple in your lives as well. The two lesbians that always invite you over. The two gay men who insist on hosting holiday events: The family that hosts the annual Christmas party at their house; the usual Thanksgiving potluck. These days, I host the event, with a little more help from friends and the same amount of love around the room.

To those that question our family values as a community, I say to them attend just one of these gatherings this year. You'll see they are as precious than any "real" family gathering. To those that deny same sex marriage, go see how it's love that what brings us together... the need to belong. The need to share. It's not blood, not obligation, not some warped sense of yearly duty that makes us sit at a table with those we would not normally see. And to those economic misfits this year, spending their first holiday jobless, homeless, whatever-less as Less seems to be the more these days ... well, misfits one and all, welcome!

To those that have shared our gatherings over the years, my heartfelt thanks. To those that will join in future, welcome. And to those of you that find yourself host to the misfit toys of the world know that you are doing something that forever touches and changes the lives of those that attend, even in such a small way.

Holidays are for families. I am so proud to be a member of a community that acknowledges that by creating families from the most unlikely of people in the most unusual of ways. Happy Holidays, be you misfit or matriarch. And Andrew, we'll still be setting a place for you here at Park Howard.

Read more HuffPost Thanksgiving coverage and commentary

Gay Marriage Stalls In New York, New Jersey

2009-11-25T13:44:56Z

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. — The state-to-state march to legalize gay marriage across the left-leaning Northeast has lost more momentum since a major setback three weeks ago at the ballot box in Maine.

Since then, legislatures in New York and New Jersey have failed to schedule long-expected votes on bills to recognize the unions in those states.

Nathaniel Frank: Christian Leaders Scapegoat Gays on Marriage

2009-11-25T11:16:06Z

The most significant thing about the new, anti-gay "Manhattan Declaration" is not that scores of Christians are against gay rights. It's that, recognizing they're on the wrong side of history, they tie themselves in knots insisting they're not anti-gay. And in doing so, they reveal the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of their obsessive persecution of gay people.

The Declaration, released last week and signed by over 150 Christian leaders and social conservatives, identifies abortion, gay marriage, and religious liberty as the three most important issues facing modern Christians, and pleads with both believers and non-believers to stand up against the first two and in defense of the third.

Christians, says the Declaration's preamble, were the ones who rescued abandoned babies in trash heaps in ancient Rome, tended to the sick during the plagues, ended slavery in the West, uplifted the poor, created the conditions for democracy, and ushered in women's suffrage. Their bizarre self-righteousness in claiming the mantle of all the great things that have happened in history makes you wonder if these modern moral crusaders have a pathological need to feel that they are good people, which is usually the first sign that they have reason to worry they are not. (Sure enough, one of the three drafters of the document is Nixon's former special counsel, Chuck Colson, convicted of obstructing justice surrounding the Watergate scandal.)

Claiming the rather quaint authority not only of Holy Scripture but of "natural human reason" and "the very nature of the human person," the signatories proclaim themselves vigilantes called to protect "marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society."

The drafters seem to go out of their way to present themselves not as garden-variety right-wing hate-mongers but as highly educated Christian rationalists who have mastered the art of hating the sin and loving the sinner. They seem braced for the smarter folks they sometimes encounter in their daily lives to say, "WTF are you talking about -- why are you spending your energy rationalizing your homophobia instead of putting that behind you so you can focus on resolving the far more legitimate concerns you may have about the moral state of modern society?" They insist preemptively that "it is out of love (not 'animus') and prudent concern for the common good (not 'prejudice'), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman." And they claim they have no choice: "How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God's creation covenant." Funny -- the Bible also teaches that divorce is absolutely prohibited, but there is no movement to take the right to divorce away (just to make it a tad harder). And where's the battle to pass a law requiring that adulterers get stoned to death?

Support for gay marriage, say the signatories, "reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage," which apparently only Christian conservatives truly know. It would "lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life."

For decades now, religious moralizers have cast marital heterosexual intercourse as the zenith of virtuous self-sacrifice because it sometimes results in the nifty creation of another human life. I admit this is pretty cool, and I sometimes wish I could do it too. But sexual intercourse is also the epitome of self-indulgence, the embrace of one of the most intense experiences of carnal pleasure of which humans are capable. This pleasure, and the fraught relation we have to it in the Western world, is of course the very reason we've created a purifying religious narrative of redemption -- to tell ourselves that the act that many find dirty, messy, and guilt-inducing is really the highest, noblest, most selfless act there is -- so long as something greater than the sum of its parts comes out of it, something to balance out its highly selfish component. While homosexuals and their allegedly exotic acts of sexual pleasure are cast as the epitome of narcissism, what could be more narcissistic than reproducing yourself -- the only kind of sex that conservative Christians endorse?

So social conservatives hang the privileging of heterosexuality on the assertion that an act which might produce a life can't be all that bad, no matter how fun it might be; and a really fun act which can't produce a life must be either outright bad (gay sex) or merely tolerated (infertile heterosexual sex). Bracing for the retort that any reasoning that allows marriage for infertile straights must also allow marriage for gay couples, the signers of the Declaration are ready with prose that is more horrendous and meaningless than the worst translation of Hegelian philosophy. It deserves to be quoted in its entirety:

Marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being - the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual - on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

The first thing to say about this blather is that it doesn't make any sense. I don't mean it's something that secular rationalists simply don't have the capacity to understand; it's actual nonsense. It doesn't take a pomo-studies major from Brown to point out that the exclusive "complementarity of man and woman" is not an empirical fact but a subjective predilection of those who find satisfaction in male-female intimacy. The fact that the bond can form a procreative unit doesn't make it any more sexually complementary than a same-sex pairing, a fact which society already recognizes by granting marital rights to infertile, post-menopausal, and willingly childless couples. And while we're at it: spouses don't actually become one flesh in intercourse--they can get pretty damned close, but they don't literally meld together. And the idea that straights deserve special rights because they alone fulfill the "behavioral conditions of procreation" is nothing more than a failed attempt to justify heterosexual privilege. It says that, so long as a couple's behavior mimics that which sometimes leads to procreation, i.e. so long as they are straight, they can join the club, even if their actual union is utterly devoid of the procreative result that supposedly justifies any marriage in the first place.

The second thing to say is that what the signers are most likely trying to say here -- that marriage is society's way of honoring and encouraging comprehensive, life-sharing unions that involve spiritual, emotional, sexual, and yes biological complementarity (two lives whose pairing makes life better) -- applies to gay unions too. Indeed, the signatories have utterly failed to explain to rational thinkers why gay marriage should be blocked.

So they slip from holy rhetoric to the purely pragmatic. "Vast human experience," they write, "confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society." Huh? If marriage were the "original and most important" institution for sustaining human beings, we wouldn't be here (what did we do before marriage?). Christianity didn't even declare marriage a sacrament until 1215, largely ignoring it for its first millennium of existence. The Western, nuclear family structure simply is not the only arrangement that ever succeeded at nurturing prosperous human societies, as the rampant polygamy in the bible and throughout much of the world today reminds us.

Finally, there's the circular reasoning of the signers' lame attempt to show "genuine social harm" that allegedly results from any alternatives to straight-only marriage. Alternatives to traditional marriage harm religious freedom by upsetting those whose religion, well, opposes alternatives to traditional marriage; they "abuse the rights of parents" because they lead to teaching things that some parents don't want taught; and they undercut civil society by allowing the law's "pedagogical function" to become a tool for eroding the traditional understanding of marriage on which civil society rests. They could just as well have said that female suffrage -- which the signers boasted of supporting a century ago -- is bad for society because it will lead to teaching that female suffrage is good for society; or racial integration is bad because it will prompt people to say it is good. If this is the best you've got, you'd be wise to stick to "the Bible tells me so."

The bankruptcy of the anti-gay marriage crowd's arguments is best revealed by their use of the old slippery slope chimera, echoed this week by Mike Huckabee: Once you change the meaning of marriage to include gays, why not groups, siblings, children, and maybe sheep? Any alternative to heterosexual marriage, says the Declaration, "could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages?"

Here's what's going on here: Religious opponents of gay marriage don't have a good understanding of why a modern state should recognize civil marriage in the first place; they view marriage primarily as a religious tradition that has made their lives satisfying and secure and so they are most comfortable justifying it in terms of what's been -- this is one of the roles of a religious narrative. If they thought honestly and rigorously about the civil, rather than just religious, reasons why the state recognizes marriage today, they'd see that gay unions fit into those reasons in the modern world. But, vaguely to ardently anti-gay, they can only view gay rights as a symbol of "anything goes" hedonism. Some purposely deploy the "slippery slope" tactic to try to win the argument. But many others are simply not willing or able to think that maybe there are actual reasons why gay marriage makes rational sense while group and incestuous marriages don't. So to paraphrase a recent presidential candidate, they cling to gays and God to defend a way of life that's familiar.

Only if you don't have a good reason for defending the existence of marriage would you be this insecure about sharing it. When your only defense of the status quo is to suggest it's always been this way and any change will ruin it, you know you're out of reasons to defend the status quo.

So let me give the defense-of-marriage crowd a few good reasons to defend marriage that don't rely on sectarianism: it can provide a stable place to raise kids, if you have them; it channels the boisterous, undirected energy of young singles into unthreatening domestic bonds; it encourages individuals to take care of each other so the state won't have to; and it helps society recognize and enforce the caretaking commitments people have made to one another. All these functions gay couples can share in.

Says the Declaration: "Just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage." This is great news. If you're really interested in sacrificing for marriage, stop opposing the righteous tide of history, speak out for the honest reasons that marriage matters for all of us, and quit leaning on the superficial gratification of heterosexual privilege to make yourself feel more Godly.

Steve Clemons: Who Is Hot And Who Was Blocked (Or Forgotten) At First White House State Dinner

2009-11-24T20:56:40Z

The White House just released the list of those attending the State Dinner honoring India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Cool list actually. But not just because it's India night -- but because there are a lot of folks that could push other agendas in Obama Land.

Domestic Policy Council chief Melody Barnes, who recently expressed support for "gay marriage" will be there. I admire her and have been irritated by the pressure others in the White House operation have brought on her to retract or reframe her comments.

Gay iconic businessman David Geffen and his excellent partner Jeremy Lingvall will be there and should give Melody Barnes some support -- and to make their case to Michelle and Barack Obama that being absent in today's civil rights movement shouldn't be part of his presidency. Obama and team need to reconnect with the gay community which has a lot of doubt about his support of an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell and for an end to other anti-gay discriminatory legislation.

But having Geffen and Lingvall at this dinner is a great move -- and was Rahm Emanuel's doing. I haven't been able to credit Emanuel with much lately -- but he did the right thing tonight.

On another front, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman will be there tonight -- and so too will be New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. The connection? Cuba.

Both strongly support moving the US-Cuba relationship into new territory and ending the restrictions on travel to Cuba for American citizens. Oddly, American citizens today can travel to North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, virtually anywhere in the world -- but because the Cold War still rages 90 miles off the US border, US citizens can't go to Cuba freely. This is a self-damaging restriction on American rights that should be ended -- and Berman and Bill Richardson are on the case. Look for them whispering in the President's ear.

After all, India joined 186 other nations in voting against us a few weeks go in the United Nations condemning the US embargo of Cuba.

Intelligence adviser to the President John Brennan will be there -- and so too will be his policy and political rival, White House Counsel Gregory Craig. Greg Craig is leaving the White House on January 10, but Obama really should begin talking to Craig right away about a new role. My suggestion is that he replace Israel/Palestine Envoy George Mitchell, who will not be at the dinner tonight.

Greg Craig would be excellent on the defining Middle East challenges facing the US -- and my suggestion is that we encourage Senator Mitchell to try his hand at brokering peace among warring White House factions around Obama and Rahm Emanuel.

On the journalistic front, Tom Friedman of the New York Times will be there -- and so too will Fareed Zakaria whose star continues to climb. Zakaria has largely been quite positive about the presidency of Barack Obama and not taken any substantial jabs at the White House -- but I suspect that after an invite like this one, he'll have to balance out his hyper-access with some substantial critique of the limited results of the Obama team's foreign policy accomplishments.

Some other cool names: Michele Flournoy, Louisian Governor Bobby Jindal, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, Hunter Biden, Jim Steinberg, Jack Lew, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns, the Afghanistan War Tax advocate Representative David Obey, OMB chief Peter Orszag, General Colin Powell, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, Ben Rhodes (very cool dude), US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, Vinod Shah and John Doerr, Amartya Sen, Steven Spielberg, oops -- and I forgot Brian Williams.

But some interesting folks are not there.

If I had any influence over the White House social secretary, I would have invited Steve Coll, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the book that Barack Obama has been carrying around with him for 11 months, Ghost Wars. Coll has been one of the most articulate advocates of an India-Pakistan rapprochement that eventually decreases tensions in Afghanistan and the broader region. Coll and Obama went to Occidental College together -- and he would have been on my list for the evening.

Dennis Ross will be there -- but neither George Mitchell nor Richard Holbrooke, who is reportedly off skiing for the weekend. But it would seem to me that Holbrooke's portfolio is closer to India matters than what Ross is doing with Iran.

Where is Brent Scowcroft? Maybe the former National Security Adviser was busy tonight, but really -- he is a guy Obama turns to behind the scenes and should have been invited.

Zbigniew and Emilie Brzezinski are other obvious DC political personalities who are missing from the roster. Brzezinski's early endorsement of President Obama's campaign was significant -- and it is always good to have Brzezinski and Scowcroft on your side -- but neither will be at Obama's side tonight.

Two guys who should have definitely been there and somehow either kept themselves in the background or weren't invited are former National Security Council chief of staff Mark Lippert and current National Security Council chief of staff Denis McDonough. These guys for quite a while were the most significant axis of power in the foreign policy arena, and Obama trusts them. McDonough works extremely hard, as recently recounted in David Plouffe's book, The Audacity to Win, so may have been too busy. But come to think of it, David Plouffe is not on the list.

Eric Schmidt of Google would have been on my recommended list -- even though General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt is there. I would have not allowed Larry Summers to bring a guest -- and would have asked Paul Volcker to fill that seat.

Where are any of the Republicans for Obama? The three that got that movement going are philanthropist Rita Hauser, former Republican Senator turned independent Lincoln Chafee, and former House of Reps Republican internationalist Jim Leach. Not on the list!

I'd add Susan Eisenhower and General Wesley Clark. Missing in action both -- and they shouldn't be.

I am also surprised not to see Caroline Kennedy -- who may be done with the political scene as far as running for office, but America needs her at State Dinners!

For fun -- I'd include Jon Stewart and Bill Maher, and Arianna Huffington, but they are not on the list.

Gary Hart and former Defense Secretary William Cohen should really be there tonight -- both for the leadership they have shown in foreign policy, but also because they both are reservoirs of smart thinking on India.

Where are Chuck Hagel and David Boren -- the incoming co-chairs of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board....and where is R. Nicholas Burns??? When serving as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Nick Burns put the US-India nuclear deal together. He worked with Evan Bayh's father -- the much more progressive than Evan former Senator Birch Bayh, who should have been invited.

I'll stop there....but I could keep going. It's as much fun thinking about who is not there as who is.

Except for David Geffen and Jeremy Lingvall who will be the life of the party, I'm sure.

-- Steve Clemons publishes the popular political blog, The Washington Note