[Upcoming] Senate Majority Leader Stephen Sweeney said today it would be irresponsible for Democrats to bring a bill to a vote if they are not sure it will pass.

So it might be killed in committee.

As legislators try to finagle votes for one side or another, Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) said he would not bring the bill up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee — even though enough people in the committee supported it to pass — unless the Democrats could prove they had the votes to pass it outright.

You know, the same ol’ BS. Yeah we ‘don’t have the votes’ and we won’t tell you who is opposed to equality or unwilling to take a stand but gosh golly we are going to need your dollars, your time, and your help in our campaigns. And if you knew exactly who didn’t give a rat’s ass about you, well ya just might not work as hard for us.

I’ll tell you who I think doesn’t give a rat’s ass.

I’ll start with Stephen Sweeney. And I’ll follow with every person who does not stand up and make a proactive effort to get this passed. “Oh, I just followed the leadership” means exactly the same as, “I don’t give a rat’s ass any more than the leadership does” and should be rewarded with the same.

There is a narrow window. And the people of the state are behind marriage equality. But some of these New Jersey politicians are living up to the stereotype of New Jersey politicians.

There are some wonderful people in Jersey. Some of them are gay, and many many more are friends, family, co-workers, and acquaintances who value their gay loved ones more than they value their elected official’s career.

Maybe it’s time that we got the list of Sweeney’s donors and found those with gay friends and family. Maybe a personal appeal from those loved ones might encourage them that a better use for the political donations could be found.

Who knows, maybe we could make enough of a change that Sweeney might suddenly find that he gives a rat’s ass.

The email starts like this:

All Christians are called to follow the Beatitudes. Since our nation’s founding, America in particular has benefited from the fact that churches have united together to feed the poor, clothe the naked, care for the fatherless and motherless, and comfort the sorrowful.

He rambles on with the lies that the Catholic Church in the District has put out about how treating gay people like people will stop them from giving hot soup to the homeless. But it wasn’t these prevarications that caught my eye, I’m used to NOM’s hyperbole.

What I noticed was something else entirely. Brian Brown seems to have no clue what the Beatitudes actually say. Presented as part of the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes are not a call from Christians to help the poor. Rather, they are consolation and a promise of a better future: (Matthew 5:1-12)

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them saying:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now there are several places in Scripture where the followers of Christ are admonished to attend the physical needs of those around them. And it is true that Christians have often taken those commands to heart. But the Beatitudes are not among them.

I might be more convinced that Brown and Gallagher were motivated by a deep spiritual conviction rather than base animus if they didn’t evidence such biblical illiteracy. And I wonder if any of their followers even noticed… or cared.

A fellow student warned Jayron that a group of students planned on beating him because he’s gay. So Jayron reported the threat to two assistant principals, who did nothing to protect him.

When Jayron got on the bus to go home (as the school opted not to call his mother) so did the group of attackers. Jayron then told the bus driver and begged for help. He didn’t get any.

So he ran. As fast as he could. Which wasn’t fast enough.

Unable to make it home, he ran into a neighbor’s house; but this didn’t deter his attackers. They followed and one beat Jayron with a metal pole while eight others watched.

It wasn’t until the owner came downstairs with a shotgun, and cocked it, that they ran off leaving Jayron with a concussion, bruised and bleeding.

Those who oppose gay-straight alliances or other support systems for gay students like to pretend that gay students face no greater threats than any other students. And when situations occur, they comfort their biases with the thought that the student must have provoked the situation or didn’t take the expected steps to protect himself.

I wonder what excuse they will give this time. But, then again, I also often wonder how they sleep at night.

In the United States, in some states any concession of even the least controversial of rights is a great contention, while in others, the line in the sand appears to be protecting the “sanctity” of the label.

As an American, I don’t always fully understand European perspectives and may not get the full nuance. But as best I can tell, in Europe there seems to be a separate contention, one that is not given much importance in the United State: whether a ceremony can be performed and what building can be used. (And Europeans see adoption as part of the marriage question, while Americans see the issues as separate and state laws tend to treat them separately).

So, for example, in the UK the biggest distinction between marriage and civil unions (other than nomenclature) is that a gay couple cannot use a space that has been designated for religious use and cannot have a ceremony as part of their legal process.

To Americans it seems odd that a government would disallow a church the right to conduct a wedding. And the idea of banning people from conducting their union with the ceremony of their choice seems impending on liberty. In the United States, not only do the states that recognize marriage have no such restrictions, neither do any of the states that recognize domestic partnerships or civil unions. Americans care about “recognition” and what will be “taught in schools” and the “right” for religious folks to be obnoxious jerks and other such red herrings.

Indeed, among the first to rejoice with gay couples are always Unitarian and often many other religious leaders who delight in making their religious space available for the consecration of such unions. With as much ceremony as the couple desires.

But that is not the European way.

So it is not with much surprise that the new bill in Austria to legalize civil unions is one that emphasizes ceremony and participants. (AFP)

Austria’s government agreed a new law Tuesday allowing civil partnerships for homosexual couples, although ceremonies at the civil registry’s office will still be banned.

The compromise, achieved after weeks of wrangling between the ruling Social Democrats and their conservative coalition partner in government, will give gay couples equal rights to heterosexuals with regards to pensions and alimony.
…
The proposal came up against strong opposition from the conservative People’s Party, which fought any attempts to allow civil partnership ceremonies at the civil registry’s office, where gay couples can marry.

Instead, civil partnerships will be registered at the municipal office or the magistrate’s office — the local authority of which the registry’s office is only a part.

The change will be effective January 1 after final approval by parliament.

This is an important step for gay Austrians (not many of whom are like Bruno).

Prior to this legislation, laws applying to de facto couples, called unregistered cohabitation, also applied to same-sex couples as the result of a 2003 decision of the European Court of Human Rights. However such rights inherent in that status were limited and the protections and recognition of same-sex couples are greatly enhanced by this bill.

And perhaps some day soon Austrians will cease to care whether their gay brothers and sisters can also solemnize their unions with a ceremony and in what building they do so.

More New Jerseyans support legalizing gay marriage than oppose it, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton poll released this morning.

The poll, conducted between Nov. 6 and 10, found 46 percent of adult residents want to extend the right to gay couples while 42 percent oppose it. Still undecided were 12 percent of respondents.

There has long been talk of instituting marriage equality during the lame duck session that begins next week. However, recent comments from the Democratic leadership of some committees suggests that they are looking for excuses to avoid a vote.

There is a very narrow window in which to pass a marriage bill. Otherwise we are on hold in New Jersey for another four years or until Christie is replaced.

New York’s top court on Thursday rejected a Christian legal group’s challenge to some government benefits provided to gay couples legally married elsewhere and now living in New York.

The court rejected an argument that same-sex marriage was akin to incest and polygamy but avoided declaring that gay couples are entitled to all the rights of other married couples.

In a 4-3 decision on the narrow question of benefits, the Court of Appeals did not address whether the state must recognize same-sex marriage but encouraged the Legislature to settle the issue. The case was pushed by the Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale, Ariz.

So we will give you an opportunity to discuss matters of concern to you which may not have been recent thread topics.

Discuss away…

Every Sunday, for generations, hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian American Catholic youth are told in church, they need to be ashamed of who they are and are deemed to live loveless lives as social and religious abominations.   The emotional, psychological and spiritual pain inflicted on them by Catholic priests and our church hierarchy is more damaging than any level of physical or sexual child abuse that is quickly condemned in our society.  

More shameful is that this abuse is being inflicted by men, many of whom are gay themselves, leading  closeted lives of self-persecution and quiet desperation.

Most shameful, is that many of these priests, while remaining silent, lead dual lives filled with romantic and sexual relationships.

There’s a fine line between legitimate investigation and waging a public vigilante campaign. Rogers carefully collects testimony and eyewitness accounts, checks details, demands corroboration, and then only goes public once he know he’s on solid ground (he does have legal liability to consider) and is dealing with a politician who us actively working or voting against the LGBT community. In my opinion, that’s the difference between conducting an honest investigation of corruption and dishonesty versus waging a public vigilante campaign. If I hope this web site facilitates the former and not the latter, and that’s what it appears to be set up to do.

But if it ends up outing gay priests without regard to what they preach or whether they act against the LGBT community, then that would be a problem because the Vatican is already working that beat.

Is that Scott Lively in the background of the picture?

Why yes, it is Scott Lively, second to the left, standing next to Gary Cass.The full picture is below. Click on it to enlarge and see for yourself.

Rick Scarborough speaking, with Gary Cass and Scott Lively behind him at left.

Scott Lively is the author of the Pink Swastika, in which he charges that the Nazi movement was, at its core, a homosexual movement, and that gays were responsible for the Holocaust. While speaking at the anti-gay conference in Kampala, he blamed the Rwandan genocide on “butch” gay men.

And that’s barely the tip of the iceberg. He is associated with not just one, not two, but three of just eleven organizations identified by the SPLC as a hate group (He co-founded Watchmen on the Walls, founded Abiding Truth Ministries, and he is now the leader of the School of Christian Activism). If that weren’t enough, he spoke at a banquet last winter for a fourth SPLC hate group, MassResistance. This man knows hate speech backwards and forwards. And if he can’t get arrested in Washington for violating a non-existent hate speech law, nobody can.