Gay Politics | AMERICAblog Gay

Homecoming

2012-02-26T11:44:00.001-05:00

Just click through and check out the photo. They're Marines. JoeMyGod found an update from the guy in the photo in uniform:

"To everyone who has responded in a positive way. My partner and I want to say thank you. Dalan, the giant in the photo, can't believe how many shares and likes we have gotten on this. We didn't do this to get famous,or something like that we did this cause after 3 deployments and four years knowing each other, we finally told each other how we felt. As for the haters, let em hate...to quote Kat Williams, everyone needs haters, so let them hate. We are the happiest we have ever been and as for the whole PDA and kissing slash hugging in uniform...it was a homecoming, if the Sergeants Major, Captains, Majors, and Colonels around us didn't care...then why do you care what these random people have to say? In summation thank you for your love and support. I received a lot of friend requests off this. I don't just accept requests so if your request was because of this post message me and let me know. Goodnight all, and Semper Fi." --Brandon Morgan

Can lesbians commit a hate crime against a gay man?

2012-02-25T18:02:00.000-05:00

Roy Cohn was gay, and the man was a walking hate crime. But it is an interesting question. From the Boston Herald:

Prosecutor Lindsey Weinstein said the two sisters and one of their domestic partners, Lydia Sanford, also a defendant, viciously beat the man Sunday, repeatedly punching and kicking him after he bumped them with his backpack on a stairwell.

She said the victim, who suffered a broken nose, told cops he believed the attack was “motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation” since the three women “called him insulting homophobic slurs.”

Sam Arora continues to refuse to explain what changed his vote on marriage

2012-02-24T17:34:00.001-05:00

Sam, you're a liar. And worse than that, you're a coward. A coward who's hiding a secret. In your case, the secret is what happened some time during a three day period in February of last year that changed you from a rabid gay marriage supporter to someone suddenly acting like he's the second coming of Jerry Falwell.

You don't have religious concerns about marriage equality, or you'd have had them when you campaigned, yet you campaigned claiming to support the bill. You didn't have such concerns when you cosponsored the bill, or when you called a mutual friend to brag about having cosponsored the bill, or when you tweeted that the bill met any religious concerns folks might have.

But somehow, suddenly, at the end of February 2011, something happened, and something changed. For reasons no one can figure out, and you refuse to say, something changed your mind. Suddenly, Sam the pro-gay braggart became Sam the very serious man of faith who just couldn't find it in himself to even express a coherent sentence as to why his vote had suddenly changed.

Sam the progressive became Sam the guy who's got a secret.

Take today's statement that Arora finally issued after a week of silence following his vote in the state House against marriage equality.

"This has been an emotional debate and I understand there are those who disagree with my vote. Now that the bill has passed, I've turned my focus to close special interest tax loopholes and protecting senior citizens in Maryland."

No Sam, you don't understand at all. What made the vote so emotional in your case is that you changed your mind, 180 degrees, over the period of 3 days, after being a RABID supporter of marriage equality. And then you refused to talk about it, refused to even give a reason, like one of those parents on TV whose kid got kidnapped and they just can't tell the cops what happened, or else.

What's the "or else" here Sam? Why are you acting like someone who's done something wrong, who's hiding something? Why can't you issue a clear statement explaining your vote, but more importantly, explaining why you had no religious concerns when running for office, when calling gay friends to brag about cosponsoring the bill, when tweeting about the bill and how it addressed any religious concerns, but suddenly, over a mysterious 3 days in February, you did have religious concerns, almost like magic, out of nowhere.

You're a liar, Sam. And a coward. You milked a lot of our friends in common for money and support to run as a progressive Democrat. And you're not a progressive Democrat. You're a homophobic bigot whose word means nothing. And you don't even have the spine to defend yourself.

And you have the nerve to talk about moving ahead with tax issues and senior citizens?

A senior citizen would have to be nuts to believe anything Sam Arora has to say. The man is a proven liar. He says one thing to constituents to get their money, and then does another, with no explanation, at the last minute, changing his vote on a dime. Why should anyone trust anything you say ever again, Sam? Why won't the same thing, the same people, who got to you on marriage get to you on taxes, or seniors, or kids or any other issue you claim to care about?

That is why it's so important to find out what happened to Sam Arora during those three days in February when he suddenly turned his back on so many friends, donors, and constituents. What happened that is so bad that Sam Arora is too afraid to even talk about why he changed his vote?

Sam Arora's got a secret. And he's nuts if he thinks Demorats are going to let him get away with it.

Your career in Democratic politics is over, Sam.

On Maryland, Marriage and Obama: What David Mixner says

2012-02-24T16:29:00.000-05:00

Exactly:

David Mixner, a prominent gay rights activist and blogger who is also an Obama campaign donor, said the Maryland bill “lands the issue squarely on the president’s desk” because of the state’s proximity to Washington and its sizable black electorate.

He noted that Obama’s opposition to gay marriage has been cited by opponents in California, as well as by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), who recently vetoed a marriage law.

“It is essential that he makes clear to the voters of Maryland, without any caveats, that if he were a resident of the state, he would vote against repeal,” Mixner said. “We can’t afford to have his statement be ambiguous so the other side can claim that he’s on their side.”

Same for North Carolina, Washington and Maine.

Obama Admin. will continue to deny green card applications for married, binational couples

2012-02-24T14:30:00.001-05:00

Andrew Harmon has a report with some not great news about the Obama administration's decision on how to handle cases of married, binational couples. Given all the rhetoric we've heard from the administration, this doesn't make any sense:

The Obama administration is standing firm against calls by LGBT rights groups and lawmakers to put a blanket hold on deciding green card petitions from married, binational gay couples. Instead, those petitions in all likelihood will continue to be rejected, denying much-needed stability for gay families stuck in the nation’s immigration system.

While the administration has taken affirmative steps in recent months to ensure that foreign nationals married to American spouses of the same sex are spared from actual deportation, officials told LGBT rights groups in a recent, high-level meeting that they will not hold such marriage-based green card petitions in abeyance. The decision is being criticized by some advocates as a campaign-year calculation based on politics, not on sound legal analysis.

Politics, not sound legal analysis. Who made the political calculation on this one?

As you might expect, advocates are not happy, especially because of the implications for the couples:

Immigration Equality and other advocacy groups have argued for months that the administration need not reject the green card applications as part of its commitment to enforcing DOMA, which a second federal judge ruled unconstitutional in an opinion issued Wednesday. Putting the applications on hold would not grant permanent residency, but it would help individuals avoid accruing unlawful status in the country, a civil violation that can jeopardize future employment or the ability to obtain such critical legal documents as a driver’s license.

Rachel Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, said that despite her group’s extensive arguments as to why the administration has the power — and, given the president’s position that DOMA is indefensible, the duty — to act on behalf of binational gay couples, officials summarily rejected their request to hold green card applications in abeyance.

“We wanted to make clear to the administration that this is a priority for us, that it’s a new big ask of the LGBT community,” Tiven said of the coalition of LGBT groups at the January 30 meeting. “In many, many meetings over the past six months, with different players and different agencies, [the administration] has been quick to say, without hesitation, that our legal arguments are quite sound. So it’s frustrating to hear this idea from them that it’s basically no big deal for individuals to fall out of lawful status.”

And, the analysis that this was a political decision, not based on policy, is particularly disturbing:

Most gay binational couples seeking lawful status are not in active deportation proceedings, however. And the case-by-case review has vexed advocates who argue that the best way to protect gay binational families is to hold all green card applications in abeyance until DOMA is struck down or repealed by Congress.

“Nobody has offered a legal basis as to the decision that’s been made" by the administration, said Crystal L. Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “All they’ve said is that they’re not going to [hold the green card petitions in abeyance]. So it has to be a political decision. How can they say that DOMA is legally indefensible, yet proceed to deny married couples the legal right to be together in the United States?”

Seriously. This has to be fixed. The decision could hamper the futures of married, binational couples once DOMA is found unconstitutional. And, again, who made this stupid political calculation?

Change a Mormon gay

2012-02-24T13:27:00.000-05:00

Interesting site. Too bad they don't have a running count of how many conversions to date.

Marriage equality officially back on the ballot in Maine

2012-02-24T10:49:00.000-05:00

The Maine Secretary of State has confirmed that EqualityMaine and the coalition behind the push for marriage equality in Maine has collected nearly 85,216 signatures to put marriage back on the ballot in 2012. That's nearly 28,000 more signatures than required by law. From the Portland Press Herald:

Lawmakers have the option of passing the bill as proposed, but they likely will send it to voters in November. Advocates of same-sex marriage, who lost in 2009 at the ballot box in a 53-47 percent vote, say enough Mainers have changed their minds that the measure will pass this time.

"The story of the 2012 campaign is not going to be gay folk coming out and supporting this, it's going to be heterosexuals like myself coming out in support of gay marriage," said Michael Gray, pastor of the Old Orchard Beach United Methodist Church. "We're now realizing how important it is for us to speak up."

EqualityMaine reports that polling now shows that 54% of Maine citizens are supportive of equality. Marriage was defeated in 2009 by a 53-47 percent vote.

Based on reporting, it appears that once again the opposition will be led by Bishop Richard Malone of the Catholic Diocese, Bob Emrich of the Christian Civic League and the National Organization for Marriage.

How the Obama administration helped us win the Golinski case

2012-02-24T08:00:00.000-05:00

See, isn't is so much more fun when we all play together nicely :) From Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:

On July 1, 2011, the arguments sketched out in Holder's six-page letter were expanded to a 31-page filing in Golinski's case that laid out, in expansive terms, the U.S. government's "significant and regrettable role" in discrimination in America against gays and lesbians.

The filing did more than simply acknowledge the federal government's role in discrimination, it explained precisely what the federal government had done. Detailing specific instances of anti-gay and anti-lesbian discrimination, the brief described the 1950 Senate resolution seeking an "investigation" into "homosexuals and other sexual perverts" in government employment and President Dwight Eisenhower's executive order adding "sexual perversion" as a ground for "possible dismissal from government service." It also went on to detail the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Postal Service in investigations seeking information about government employees suspected of such "perversion."

When oral arguments were held on Dec. 16, 2011, on the arguments advanced by Golinski, the Department of Justice and BLAG in her case, DOJ sent the head of the civil division, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, to argue its position. It was, a DOJ spokesperson said at the time, only the second time that West appeared in court as assistant attorney general to argue a case.

This is what we've been talking about for several years nows - the ability of the administration to do more. They kept saying no, but we kept asking "why not?" Far too many times "the lawyers" will say, when they're really not giving a legal reason why not. Usually they'll giving a political reason, which isn't their job. The lawyers work for the administration, and not the other way around. Of course, no one wants to break the law, but when the lawyers are giving political advice they're not talking about law-breaking. And when that happens, sometimes they need to be ignored.

This is a very good outcome.

Maryland Senate passes marriage equality, bill heads to governor who will sign

2012-02-23T18:29:00.002-05:00

The legislation doesn't go into effect until after November, so the religious right and Sam Arora have the chance to repeal it first via a ballot initiative in November. I sure hope the President figures out where he stands on marriage by then. I'd hate for people to help get out the vote for him in states where they're voting on marriage eqality - MD, ME, NC, MN - and they end up turning out people who will vote against our civil rights. More on that in this post over at AMERICAblog.

Evangelicals still oppose inter-racial marriage twice as much as other Americans

2012-02-23T16:42:00.002-05:00

God bless em.

The same folks freaking out over gays getting the right to marry also have a problem with blacks marrying whites to the tune of twice as much as the population at large.

Pew's February Political Typology Poll asked people about recent trends in American society. Pew asked if “more people of different races marrying each other” was good or bad society. Overall, only nine percent of Americans said it was bad for society. However, 16 percent of white evangelicals said this, more than twice the opposition found among other Americans (7 percent). The survey found that 27 percent of Americans overall said more interracial marriage was good for society, compared to 17 percent of evangelicals.

Catholics also aren't very fond of the mingling of the races, as compared to polling in the population at large.

It's also interesting to know that when Loving v. VA became the law of the land, three quarters of white Americans opposed inter-racial marriage. Seventy-five percent. And you'd better believe the same arguments were being used then against blacks marrying whites as are being used against gay couples today. Oh the churches!

Wouldn't it be neat if churches were at the forefront of pushing for civil and human rights? Some are, but not enough.

PS Don't forget that just last year nearly half of Mississippi Republicans still opposes inter-racial marriages.

And remember when they used to the Bible to justify opposition to inter-racial marriages?

Listen to the MD senate debate and vote on marriage live

2012-02-23T16:22:00.001-05:00

Here.

Maryland Senate to vote on gay marriage this afternoon

2012-02-23T13:33:00.000-05:00

From AP via the Washington Post we learn that the vote is expected after 4pm. We're expected to win.

So was Hillary only joking when she said "gay rights are human rights"?

2012-02-23T11:33:00.016-05:00

The US won't be cutting foreign aid to countries that violate the human rights of their gay citizens, we learned today. So don't worry about what the Secretary of State said only a few months ago. She was only joking, I guess.

More from outgoing US ambassador to Liberia, Linda Thomas Greenfield:

Speaking in an exclusive interview with the Daily Observer, Ambassador Greenfield said her government’s policy on gay rights was clear andho in the public domain.

She stated, however, that the issue of gay rights in Liberia was being surrounded by what she referred to as “misconceptions”.

“Our policies on gay rights are in the public domain,” she said. “I think the issue that has appeared in Liberia is the issue of misconception that United States aid is tied to Liberia’s actions in these areas, and this is not the case,” she said.

Phew. We wouldn't want countries concerned that their human rights record might have any influence on the generous aid they receive from our government each year. I'm not necessarily saying that we tell them the aid will be cut off, but what's the problem with leaving it vague, with saying that all factors, including human rights, are taken into account when distributing US foreign aid? Then again, the Brits have had no problem saying they'll base some of their aid on support for gay rights, and they did cut some to Malawi recently:

David Cameron has threatened to withhold UK aid from governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality.

A spokesman for the Department for International Development said that budget support, which accounts for about 5% of the UK's annual aid budget of £7.46bn, is conditional direct assistance to governments. To qualify, recipients must adhere to rules on poverty reduction, respect of human rights, good governance and domestic accountability.

Malawi recently had £19m of budget support suspended following various infractions including poor progress on human rights and media freedoms and concern over the government's approach to gay rights, the DfID spokesman said.

Now, the ambassador did say some good things. Such as this:

But when the Daily Observer asked whether she supports gay rights in Liberia, the United States Ambassador replied, “I support the issue of human rights for every person regardless of their orientation, their race or their nationality. I strongly believe that gay rights are human rights,” she declared.

And that's great. But when you say you support our civil rights, but aren't willing to do anything about it, then you're not really supporting us. Especially when you then say:

[Greenfield] told the Daily Observer that she was surprised to learn that gay rights in Liberia were an issue.

“I don’t know that this is an issue here in Liberia; although I read about it in the press all the time, I was surprised to hear that this is an issue in Liberia.”

She doesn't know? She was surprised to hear that this is an issue? So you support the human rights of every person, regardless of their orientation. But you don't plan on doing anything if their human rights are violated. And in any case, you're not aware of any serious effort targeting those rights.

Maybe the US Ambassador should read some of those fringe news sources reporting on Liberia, like today's Associated Press:

Liberia's Senate will consider a bill Thursday to strengthen the nation's existing anti-gay laws, a senator said, as another West African nation, Cameroon, announced the arrest of 10 women suspected of being lesbians.

Meanwhile, Liberia's former first lady, Senator Jewel Taylor, submitted a bill last week that would prohibit same-sex marriage and make homosexuality a first-degree felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

"We are only strengthening the existing law," she said. "Some media are reporting that I said anyone found guilty of involvement in same sex should face the death penalty, I did not say so, I am calling for a law that will make it a first degree felony," she told the Associated Press.

Oh, it was all a misunderstanding, that "let's put gay people to do death," thing. (Speaking of which, even though the controversy was being framed, even mistakenly, as "let's put gay people to death," the US ambassador still hadn't heard about it.) Our government just gave Liberia the nudge nudge wink wink that sending their citizens to jail for ten years, simply because they're gay, won't have any effect whatsoever on foreign aid.

Actually it's worse than that. Read again what the Ambassador Greenfield told the local press:

“I think the issue that has appeared in Liberia is the issue of misconception that United States aid is tied to Liberia’s actions in these areas, and this is not the case,” she said.

So she was aware that there was a "misconception" in Liberia that US aid was going to be cut back because of their gay rights problems. Yet she wasn't aware of the gay rights problems themselves. Wouldn't the US ambassador, on being told that Liberians are afraid their foreign aid is going to be cut off because of their anti-gay policies, have asked, "what anti-gay policies?"

Not so much, apparently.

It is odd, however, that while the US ambassador to Liberia knew nothing of the gay rights controversy in the country she's responsible for, the US embassy in South Africa knew about what was happening to gays in Liberia, and even tweeted about it.

Odder yet, the story the US embassy in South Africa (to their credit) tweeted about notes that the debate over criminalizing homosexuality in Liberia has been "raging" across that country.

Former Liberian first lady Jewel Howard Taylor has introduced a Bill for homosexuality to be made a first degree felony, amid raging debate over gay rights in the country, a lawmaker said on Wednesday.

The issue has been in the headlines this year as a group of activists in the country began lobbying for a Bill legalising same-sex marriage.

This created a furore in the country whose President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Raging. A furor. But just didn't get on the radar of the US ambassador to the country, while it did get on the radar of the US embassy in an entirely different country.

Heckuva job, Greenfield.

And to think, some of us actually thought Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent UN speech meant something when she said:

The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy. In our embassies, our diplomats are raising concerns about specific cases and laws, and working with a range of partners to strengthen human rights protections for all. In Washington, we have created a task force at the State Department to support and coordinate this work.

Building on efforts already underway at the State Department and across the government, the President has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons. [emphasis added]

I guess she forgot to add: "psyche!"

In all seriousness, I think Hillary's UN speech was huge. I said so, and still do. But the State Department needs to get its act in order. We can't have US ambassadors sending not-so-coded messages to foreign governments that they can violate the human rights of their own citizens with impunity. And that the US isn't even watching. If our government is going to say, as official policy, that "gay rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are gay rights," then we ought to mean it. Otherwise our word means nothing. And countries will act accordingly.

Christie: I have the same position on marriage as Obama

2012-02-23T10:32:00.000-05:00

Igor Volsky got the video of Governor Christie's appearance on Morning Joe earlier today. Christie made a big point of saying he's got the same position on marriage as Obama. In fact, he made that point repeatedly. Then, Christie got into it with Jonathan Capehart.

Definitely worth a watch:

When Capehart noted that Obama has stated he's evolving on marriage, the other panelists burst into laughter. This is going to be an ongoing problem for the President. The "evolving" talking point doesn't have much credibility. This issue is not going away. Marriage is already on the ballot in North Carolina and Minnesota. It probably will be in Washington and Maryland. And, there will be more DOMA decisions this year, too. Looks like we can expect Republicans to keep saying they've got the same position on marriage as Obama. That's their talking point.

The Republicans are comparing themselves to Obama for a reason. Imagine what will happen during a debate this fall when the GOP candidate says that he has the same position on marriage as Obama. That's not going to be very inspiring. And, that's probably their intent. Let's be realistic, marriage is not going to be the decisive issue for most voters. The people who are going to vote against Obama because of gay issues already think he supports marriage. He's already lost them -- and probably never had them.

But, the President can gain enthusiasm from one of the key voting groups that campaign manager Jim Messina keeps saying he's targeting: young people. Yesterday, PPP released a poll from Washington State that found "Young voters support gay marriage 63/32." Last May, the Washington Post reported that is poll in swing state of Virginia "shows that nearly three-quarters of those ages 18 to 29 say gays should be able to legally wed." In DC, the conventional wisdom is that supporting marriage will hurt a candidate. That's not true anymore, but it takes DC a long time to catch up with reality.

And, H/T to MK from LA for the heads up about this exchange.

Sam Arora: So long, farewell

2012-02-23T08:00:00.001-05:00

From Matt Arnstine, writing in the U of MD student paper, the Diamondback:

During his 2010 campaign, Arora raked in campaign donations from area progressives, many of whom he met while working on Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. In a survey by Equality Maryland, Arora declared he would co-sponsor civil marriage legislation. Yet, during last year's legislative session, Arora backtracked and withdrew his co-sponsorship of the bill.

Years ago, before the netroots and social media were prominent in politics, Arora's betrayal would've been unknown to those who don't follow the minutiae of legislation and political leaders. However, in today's world of Change petitions, Twitter feeds and Facebook pages, there's nowhere for cowardly politicians to hide. Every political issue has dedicated bloggers who closely follow political developments. In short, Arora isn't going to get away with his betrayal.

When you spurn O'Malley, Clinton and McAuliffe, there isn't really a place for you in the Democratic Party. So long, farewell, we needn't say goodbye.

Never forget: Arora didn't just fill out a survey saying he's support marriage equality, he cosponsored the bill, he tweeted about how the legislation met the concerns of religious people, and he went out of his way, publicly and behind closed doors, to gush to gay constituents about how he was going to get marriage equality passed in Maryland. The guy didn't just change his mind on a vote, and he didn't simply do it for religious reasons. Something mysteriously happened during a three day period in February of 2011.

Joe recounts, via the link above, the story of one supporter with whom Arora shared his emphatic support for marriage equality. I know of another. A friend of mine who knows Arora. He called her the first day of the Maryland legislative session last year to say that he wanted her to know that he sponsored the marriage equality bill.

This wasn't some guy who had religious objections to the bill. He had already come to terms with any religious concerns he had a long time ago. He was an avid supporter of the legislation. He gushed to people about it. And then, suddenly he didn't.

Something happened during a three day period in February of last year. And the fact that Arora can't even explain why he changed his vote, or what happened during those three days, makes the entire affair that much more noxious.

This is not some guy who had religious objections to a piece of legislation. Something happened behind closed doors and Sam Arora is making clear, by his silence, that whatever it was, it can't have been good.

Sam's got a secret.

Bush appointee strikes down DOMA in Golinski case

2012-02-22T17:29:00.005-05:00

Via ThinkProgress and GinnyLaRoe (and here's the PDF of the decision):

If we lived in Iran, we wouldn't have to worry about all these judges giving people their civil rights. Who gave them the power to decide these cases anyway? Oh yeah, that's right, the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution. At their core, Republicans and their religious right overlords simply don't like our system of government because when the system is fair and honest and open, conservatives tend to lose, at least the dishonest ones that currently run the GOP do. It's the same reason they, along with their propaganda arm at Fox, are trying to destroy the US media. Anything that keeps the system fair keeps them from winning.

Never forget: When Republicans attack judges they are attacking our democracy and arguing that the Framers got it wrong.

More from Geidner.

Former GOP Senator Alan Simpson calls Santorum homophobic

2012-02-22T13:37:00.002-05:00

Sure, he got the grammar wrong, but his heart was in the right place.

Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wy.) weighed in on the Republican presidential primary on Wednesday, calling Rick Santorum "rigid and a homophobic."

In an interview with CBS News' Bob Schieffer, Simpson faulted the Republican field for making issues like same-sex marriage and reproductive rights central to their platforms, warning that they would lose favor with voters if the conversation does not change.

"I am convinced that if you get into these social issues and just stay in there about abortion and homosexuality and even mental health they bring up, somehow they're going to take us all to Alaska and float us out in the Bering Sea or something," said Simpson, long known for colorful commentary. "We won't have a prayer."

HRC head Solmonese to join Obama campaign. Hmm...

2012-02-22T12:13:00.005-05:00

A number of us had predicted this for a while.

While there is no inherent problem in taking a job with the Obama campaign - after all, who else is he going to support - there is an appearance of a conflict of interest when advocates have been complaining, for years, that the Human Rights Campaign seemed overly interested in currying favor with the Obama administration, not to achieve further gay rights advances, but rather to get some kind of mutually beneficial quid pro quo benefitting HRC at the expense of the gay community.

And now we see the head of HRC getting what appears to be payback.

It looks like what we chastise - excoriate and jail, actually - members of Congress for, when they appear to cast votes based on their next job instead of their current constituency.

I wasn't an "HRC hater" before the last couple of years, and I still don't hate them. I do think the organization has lost its way, as lots of big non-profits do, under the pressure of a board and funders that prefer mediocrity and milquetoast to true advocacy (full-throated activism isn't terribly helpful at securing the "right" party invites).

Did HRC under Solmonese try to curry favor with the White House so that the President would speak at their dinners (i.e., help them fundraise) and, ultimately, offer Solmonese a cushy job in the campaign, and then the administration? Well, it's certainly a concern a number of us have expressed publicly before, and now it seems to be playing out just as we feared.

Whether it's appearance or reality, this does not look good for HRC, or any of us.

PS A friend writes that this may be an honorary appointment rather than an actual "job." I'm not sure that that's not a nuance without a difference. It still appears to be a quid pro quo. Bestowing status in exchange for past favors.

A Sam Arora constituent speaks out

2012-02-22T11:30:00.001-05:00

Sue Cohen, who lives in Sam Arora's district in Maryland, writes:

I have lived in District 19 since 1981, so trust me -- any talk Sam Arora spews about "constituency concerns over marriage equality" are bogus and outright lies. The only Republican (before redistricting) we have sent to Congress was that now-extinct species -A liberal Republican, Connie Morella).

After running on a progressive Democratic platform including Marriage Equality and receiving the endorsement of Equality Maryland, District 19 elected Sam Arora to his first term as one of our three Delegates.

On Friday, February 17, Mr. Arora turned his back on the wishes of his constituents and was the ONLY Montgomery County Democrat to vote AGAINST marriage equality which narrowly passed the State House.

I have been trying to reach Mr. Arora since Friday evening to learn why he changed his mind and vote, especially since he was a co-sponsor of the legislation in last year's session in Annapolis.

Mr. Arora is apparently in hiding, and has refused to answer any phone or email messages. He has offered no public explanations for his change of heart and vote, other than to echo NJ Governor Chris Christie with a pathetic call for a referendum (the last bastion of the political coward).

I will do everything in my power to ensure that Del. Arora is a one-term delegate. District 19 has a proud history of progressive activism and we expect those who represent us to do just that!"

And remember, Sam's got a secret. He was for marriage equality - rabidly for it - and then, over 3 days in February of last year, something strange happened, and suddenly he was against it. No explanations. If it were his religion, that concern would have kicked in long before 3 strange days in February. He'd have been against marriage equality from the beginning, rather than bragging, publicly and privately, about how he was going to get marriage passed in Maryland. Instead, something happened behind closed doors, and Sam Arora is refusing to say what.

That's creepy as hell. And it means that on any other issue, Arora could be just as flaky, just as untrue to his word. Sam Arora needs to come clean with his constituents about what is influencing him behind close doors. And the Democratic party, in Maryland and nationwide, is now put on notice that Sam Arora is damaged goods. They'd better not support a known homophobe for re-election.

MD Senate committee passes marriage, sends it to full Senate as early as today

2012-02-22T08:00:00.000-05:00

And the Catholics are busy spreading their usual hate. It never ceases to amaze me how righteous people who enable pedophiles can continue to be. Then again, I guess that's the kind of the point - when righteousness isn't based on any intrinsic sense of morality, anything is possible.

Maybe the Catholics can feel better by cutting off some vital services to abandoned children. Hurting children for sport does seem be a leitmotif in their world.

New study of HIV drugs calls into question early use

2012-02-21T17:04:00.001-05:00

It's an interesting ethical issue that someone brought to my attention a few months ago. And now a new study confirms it. From the SF Chronicle:

Patients who take one of the most widely prescribed drugs to treat HIV infection increase their risk of kidney damage by up to 34 percent every year they take the medication, according to a study of more than 10,000 HIV-positive veterans.

And it's a debate that is likely to become more heated. For many HIV-infected patients, the benefits of taking tenofovir and preventing full-blown AIDS will far outweigh the risk of long-term kidney damage. But some public health experts have begun to promote the drug for healthy individuals after recent research showed that tenofovir could prevent HIV infection.

In other words, do you take the drug if you're HIV negative in order to help prevent HIV infection? But either someone who is positive but healthy. Should they start taking the drugs right away, wait a few years, or what? When AIDS is no longer necessarily a death sentence, at least not in the medium-term, the cumulative effects of using these drugs over a lifetime, possibly 50 years or more in some cases, become relevant.

Related... I'm so discouraged, and shocked really, when I see guys online openly advertising that they're looking for unsafe sex (aka "barebacking") - and I do see it, more often than makes me comfortable. And they have the nerve to suggest that they're HIV negative and only looking for negative partners. Sorry to disappoint you, Mary, but unless you get tested after each and every time you have sex, you have no idea if you're negative, nor if the guy you're barebacking with is. Not to mention, you're willing to risk your life on the assumption that guys never lie about sex? Nothing is a guarantee, and I'm all for people having a fulfilling sex life. But barebacking, still, and while negative (not that I'm in favor of it otherwise)? Seriously?

And a lot of these guys are in their 20s. Oh what a difference it makes not spending every Friday reading the obituaries in the local gay paper.

Proposition 8 Proponents to Seek Full Ninth Circuit Review

2012-02-21T12:53:00.000-05:00

From Chris Geidner at Metro Weekly:

Charles Cooper, the lead attorney for the proponents of Proposition 8, tells Metro Weekly that the proponents of the California marriage amendment will be asking the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review the three-judge panel decision issued on Feb. 7 holding that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Although Cooper, of Cooper and Kirk PLLC, told Metro Weekly the filing has not yet been made, the filing is expected later today as today is the deadline for the filing to seek en banc review.

The move almost guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will not consider the case before this November's presidential election.

Sam Arora’s got a secret

2012-02-21T11:05:00.006-05:00

Sam Arora has a secret.

One of Sam Arora's top aides just quit. Good for him. But don't be fooled. Arora's vote against marriage equality had nothing to do with his religion. Arora had the same religion when he was running for office and rabidly pro marriage equality, when he was sworn in and rabidly pro marriage equality, and the first two months of office when he was rabidly pro marriage equality. Then, suddenly, over 3 days in February, something happened, no one knows what, and Arora magically had "religious" concerns, and voted against marriage equality.

How do you have religious concerns if you already considered those religious concerns, and dismissed them, multiple times over the preceding year?

Please folks, don't fall for the "it's his religion" crap. If it were his religion, he'd have had a problem with marriage from the beginning, and he didn't. He only had a problem after something mysteriously happened over a 3 day period in February of last year. The very fact that Arora can't enunciate what happened, refuses to answer phone calls and emails from close friends about what happened, suggests that what actually did happen is a lot worse than simply "his religion."

Arora owes the voters a clear explanation of why over a three day period last February his vote on marriage equality suddenly changed. He's not a liar. He's someone with a secret. And his constituents, and every one who donated to his campaign, deserves to know what Sam Arora's secret really is.

The strange flip-flop of Sam Arora

2012-02-21T08:00:00.022-05:00

Scott Wooledge over at DailyKos does a great job summarizing the tale of Sam Arora, a former Hillary staffer who got elected to the Maryland House of Delegates, claiming to be a pro-gay progressive, and suddenly within the course of three days, for no obvious reason, and for no clear reason that he's been able to enunciate, he changed into an anti-gay bigot.

Do check out this link again. It's one that I don't think Scott linked to. And it's probably the most important aspect of this entire story. Over the course of three days, the young man who has been bragging to gay friends privately of his support for marriage equality suddenly couldn't stomach the notion of gays getting "married." I point this out because the evidence is so damning of something having happened during those three days, that a simple "he caved to his religion" simply will not due.

It's hard to believe that Sam Arora caved to his religious beliefs. He already had those religious beliefs, and they were perfectly consistent in his mind with gays getting married - he even crowed in on tweet about how the Maryland legislation addresses the concerns of people of faith. Then suddenly, over 3 days, all that changed. Why? What happened? A few possibilities come to mind.

It's hard to believe that some outside influence wasn't at the core of the problem. Whether it was an outside threat or an outside enticement, no one knows. In politics, so often the threat is of scandal (sex or money), and the enticement is usually just money. No evidence of either in this case, but there's also no evidence of anything at all that would explain the sudden erratic change in Arora's position. And Arora seems downright incapable of offering any kind of viable explanation whatsoever.

We have a mystery on our hands, but no matter. Sam Arora's career in politics is over. There are a lot of smart, resourceful, and connected people across the region who are now working together to ensure that this liar never works in Democratic politics ever again.

Stay tuned for more.

I had coffee with Zach Wahls today

2012-02-20T17:34:00.000-05:00

Moms done good.

He's the Iowa then-teenager, now 20, who gave an impassioned three-minute speech about his two moms before the Iowa legislature, during the state's gay marriage debate a year ago, and the video immediately went viral on YouTube. He was in town doing some talks, and some mutual friends put us in touch. I asked him for an interview, but he has a new book coming in April and was asked not to do any interviews until the book is ready, which I totally respect.

I can say, I hope, that we schemed a little ourselves, I offered some advice, and bottom line, he's just a sincere, earnest, smart, nice guy. I hope he does well with the book and his other plans. It's just so cool meeting someone so young who wants to make a difference, and believes they can make a difference. It's also nice to meet someone who's been through the publicity wringer, with appearances on Ellen, CBS, MSNBC and lots more, and come out with their head still very much on straight.

Moms done good.

Here's Zach's now-famous testimony, with the transcript below. Watch it again. I just did. It really is kind of amazing. He was just 19 (though a state debate champ, which clearly comes through). Not that it matters, but Zach is straight. I do, however, think that that fact adds another level of interest to his story.

Good evening Mr. Chairman, my name is Zach Wahls. I’m a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women. My biological mother Terri told her grandparents that she was pregnant, that the artificial insemination had worked, and they wouldn’t even acknowledge it. It actually wasn’t until I was born and they succumbed to my infantile cuteness that they broke down and told her that they were thrilled to have another grandson. Unfortunately, neither of them would live to see her marry her partner Jacki of fifteen years when they wed in 2009. My younger sister and only sibling was born in 1994. We actually have the same anonymous donor, so we’re full siblings, which is really cool for me. I guess the point is that my family really isn’t so different from any other Iowa family. When I’m home, we go to church together. We eat dinner, we go on vacations. But, we have our hard times too; we get in fights. My mom, Terri, was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2000. It is a devastating disease that put her in a wheelchair, so you know, we’ve had our struggles. But we’re Iowans. We don’t expect anyone to solve our problems for us. We’ll fight our own battles. We just hope for equal and fair treatment for our government.

Being a student at the University of Iowa, the topic of same sex marriage comes up quite frequently in class discussions. The question always comes down to, “Can gays even raise kids?” And the conversation gets quiet for a moment, because most people don’t really have an answer. And then I raise my hand and say, “Well actually, I was raised by a gay couple, and I’m doing pretty well.” I score in the 99th percentile on the ACT. I’m an Eagle Scout. I own and operate my own small business. If I was your son, Mr. Chairman, I believe I’d make you very proud. I’m not so different from any of your children. My family really isn’t so different from yours. After all, your family doesn’t derive its sense of worth from being told by the state, “You’re married, congratulations!” The sense of family comes the commitment we make to each other to work through the hard times so we can enjoy the good ones. It comes from the love that binds us. That’s what makes a family.

So what you’re voting for here is not to change us. It’s not to change our families, it’s to change how the law views us, how the law treats us. You are voting for the first time in the history of our state to codify discrimination into our constitution, a constitution that but for the proposed amendment is the least amended constitution in the United States of America. You are telling Iowans, “Some among you are second-class citizens who do not have the right to marry the person you love.” So will this vote affect my family? Would it affect yours? In the next two hours, I’m sure we’re going to hear a lot of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple. And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero impact on the content of my character. Thank you.