Big man...Big Man!
Giuliani, who stands up for abortion rights, stands up for gay rights, stands up for stem-cell research will appoint judges who believe otherwise just so 25% of the country will vote for him.
Really Rudy, if you're so damn tough, loose being real instead of winning being fake.
I'm looking at you too Hillary.
Thompson's endorsement of federalism on Meet the Press today is the path the Republicans need to take if they want votes from people like me.
They love to use the Bible to defend their anti-choice, anti-gay positions, but Thompson shows why Republicans should really be opposed to Roe vs. Wade, because it trumps federalism.
Thompson supports states deciding on gay marriage and abortion, and so do I. I'm pro-choice and strongly pro-gay marriage, but I think this fight should be taken to the states.
I endorse a country where all 50 states legalize abortion and gay marriage, but through state jurisdictions and not federal jurisdictions. What isn't implied or stated in the Constitution is left up to the states. That's why if we lived in the 1950's, I'd probably be a conservative Republican.
Thompson has quickly jumped into the front as being my favorite Republican. I'm still going to probably vote Democratic next year, but I feel comfortable with someone like Thompson.
Rudy Giuliani, once a progessive when it came to gay rights, and who once said he would personally marry one of his gay friends if same-sex marriage was legalized, now has decided to support a constitutional ban on it. This, of course, is in his effort to win over the Religious Right.
I wonder if his defense is the same defense he used to justify his changed position on gun control. Did 9/11 make him realize how scared heteorsexual marriage really is? If so, then why isn't he back with the mother of his two-children.
Forget the flip-flop, I will not take orders about the sanctity of marriage from a man who divorces his wife via press conference.
San Diego's Republican Mayor Jerry Sanders, who decided, against the popular opinion of his party and probably his city, that he will endorse San Diego's City Council resolution calling for the legalization of gay marriage in California.
Previously opposed to gay marriage, but supportive of civil unions, Mayor Sanders gave an emotional press conference that may very well symbolize the change in opinion of the nation as a whole. Sanders, choking back tears, said;
"I've decided to lead with my heart. . . to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice...I just cannot bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy, or less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage than anyone else simply because of their orientation."
Sanders' daughter, Lisa, is a lesbian and Sanders claims she and her parter is a big reason why he changed this mind on the issue;
"In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships—their very lives—were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana,"
I really do believe the day is coming that this will become a non-issue. The day is coming when gays will be given the same legal rights. A majority of the country still opposes it, and it may take a decade or two to change that, but all we need to do is point to places like Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa and Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal and society has not crumbled to the ground.
It's hard to accept change, especially something as massively new and different as gay marriage. Americans don't handle differences and changes very well, it takes time, but thanks to men like Jerry Sanders, who decided to follow his heart and not his political party, we're on that road.
Sanders may loose the next election because of it, but he'll loose gracefully and bravely.
What riles me the most is that they said this;
The court also found that the state has an interest in promoting procreation and that the General Assembly "has not acted wholly unreasonably in granting recognition to the only relationship capable of bearing children traditionally within the marital unit."
Elizabeth Edwards did what no other Democratic or Republican presidential candidate or spouse of him, including her own husband, still hasn't. She has publically endorsed the idea of gay marriage.
“I don’t know why someone else’s marriage has anything to do with me, I’m completely comfortable with gay marriage.”
By a vote of 81-65, the New York State Assembly became the third state legislative body in the US to vote to legalize same sex marriage. Last year, both houses of the California legislature endorsed same-sex marriage, but the bill was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
The bill got some bipartisan support. Four Republicans, two men from the Hudson Valley and two women from the Adirondacks, voted for the bill;
Mike Spano (R-Yonkers), Joel Miller (R-Poughkeepsie), Teresa Sayward (R-Essex County) and Dede Scozzafava (R-Gouveneur) all voted aye.
21 Democrats and 1 Independent voted nay, breaking with party line; Peter Abbate (D-Brooklyn), Daniel Aubertine (D-Cape Vincent), Joan Christensen (D-Syracuse), Barbara Clark (D-Queens Village), Bill Colton (D-Brooklyn), Steven Cymbrowitz (D-Brooklyn), Francine DelMonte (D-Niagara Falls), Ruben Diaz Jr. (D-Bronx), Dennis Gabryszak (D-Cheektowaga), Sandra Galef (D-Peekskill), David Gantt (D-Rochester), Diane Gordon (D-Brooklyn), Timothy Gordon (I-Delmar), Auriela Greene (D-Bronx), Carl Heastie (D-Bronx), Dov Hikind (D-Brooklyn), William Magee (D-Nelson), Margaret Markey (D-Maspeth), N. Nick Perry (D-Brooklyn), Annette Robinson (D-Brooklyn), Robin Schimminger (D-Kenmore), Anthony Seminerio (D-Richmond Hill).
State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Rensselear) has already said the bill will be dead on arrival to the Senate, so it'll almost certainly will not reach Governor Spitzer's desk this session.
Spitzer would sign it if it did. It would make New York the second state to legalize gay marriage after Massachusetts and the first to do it legislatively.
The Massachusetts State Legislature put a stop to a proposed referendum for a amendment to the state constitution to ban gay marriage.
By a 151-45 vote, the two houses of the state legislature, together for a constitutional convention, defeated a proposed amendment that needed 50 votes to pass. The amendment had previously gotten 60 votes in the last session. The representatives who changed their votes include 2 State Senators, both Democrats, and seven state Representatives; five Democrats and two Republicans.
A yea vote wouldn't have made any difference, the amendment would've failed anyway if put before the people. Three and a half years into legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts, there's enough support statewide to keep it legal in a referendum, granted it wouldn't be that large of a victory and it would help the Republican candidate for President next year should it be on the ballot.
Among those running for the GOP nomination for President...former Governor Mitt Romney, who came up with the idea of this constitutional amendment.
Coincidence? Decide for yourself.
Gay Marriage by 2 to 1.
Bush's approval in the Garden State- 26%
Californians who support marriage equality- 48%
Ronald Reagan's Home State has sure turned on the GOP, hasn't it?
with 53 cosponsers, 52 Democrats and one lone Republican.
The bill is being introduced by Daniel O'Donnell (D-Morningside Heights)
The co-sponsers;
Marc Alessi (D-Mastic), Jeffrion Aubry (D-Corona), Michael Benedetto (D-Pelham Bay), Jonathan Bing (D-Upper East Side), William Boyland, Jr. (D-Brownsville) Adam Bradley (D-White Plains), James Brennan (D-Park Slope), Richard Brodsky (D-Greenburgh), Kevin Cahill (D-Kingston), Vivian Cook (D-South Jamaica), Luis Diaz (D-University Heights), Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Riverdale), Patricia Eddington (D-Medford), Steve Englebright (D-Setauket), Herman D. Farrell, Jr. (D-Washington Heights), Ginny Fields (D-Oakdale), Deborah Glick (D-Greenwich Village), Richard Gottfried (D-Chelsea), Andrew Hevesi (D-Forest Hills), Sam Hoyt (D-Buffalo), Ellen Jaffee (D-Suffern), Hakeem Jeffries (D-Fort Greene), Susan John (D-Rochester), Brian Kavanagh (D-Turtle Bay), Ivan Lafayette (D-Jackson Heights), Rory Lancman (D-Flushing), George Latimer (D-Rye), Charles Lavine (D-Glen Cove), Barbara Lifton (D-Ithaca), Vito Lopez (D-Bushwick), Donna Lupardo (D-Binghamton), John McEneny (D-Albany), Joan Millman (D-Brooklyn Heights), Catherine Nolan (D-Ridgewood), Felix Ortiz (D-Sunset Park), Amy Paulin (D-Scarsdale), Jose Peralta (D-Jackson Heights), J. Gary Pretlow (D-Mount Vernon), Phil Ramos (D-Central Islip), Jose Rivera (D-Kingsbridge), Naomi Rivera (D-Morris Park), Linda Rosenthal (D-Upper West Side), Teresa Sayward (R-Plattsburgh), Michelle Schimel (D-Great Neck), Robert Sweeney (D-Lindenhurst), Matthew Titone (D-Staten Island), Darryl Towns (D-East New York), Harvey Weisenberg (D-Long Beach), Mark Weprin (D-Fresh Meadows), Keith L.T. Wright (D-Harlem), Ellen Young (D-Flushing), Kenneth Zebrowski, Jr (D-New City).
Did you notice the lone Republican? It's Teresa Sayward, from way up in the Adirondacks. Most of the sponsers are New York City Democrats, representing all five boroughs. Three of the four Nassau County Democrats are co-sponsers, as are all six Suffolk County Democrats, five of the six Westchester Democrats and both Rockland County Democrats.
At least eight more Assembly members have endorsed gay marriage, including Joel Miller (R-Poughkeepsie), Aileen Gunther (D-Sullivan County), Audrey Pfeffer (D-Rockaway Beach), Nettie Mayersohn (D-Kew Gardens Hills), Ann Margaret Carrozza (D-Bayside), David Koon (D-East Rochester), Janele Hyer-Spencer (D-Staten Island), and Michael Gianaris (D-Astoria).
Hat tip; the Agenda
Governor John Lynch (D-New Hampshire) has indicated he will sign into law a bill to legalize civil unions in the Granite State.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives passed the bill two weeks ago and it is currently stalling in the state Senate, where it is likely to pass next week.
Democrats took back control of both houses last November.
New Hampshire will be the fourth state, third in New England, to legalize civil unions
The defense that the opposition to gay marriage brings to the table is tradition; that calling same-sex marriage by the name marriage would deter from thousands of years of tradition and cause an earthshaking effect on culture and society.
So what if we, for now, don't call it marriage, what if we ease same-sex partnership rights into the public eye little by little until it become obvious that denying them the term marriage is stupidity.
Society can't change overnight, it takes time, it has to progress. Democracy didn't come over the course of one afternoon. It stems from the Ancient Greeks and was only perfected by the Americans thousands of years later. Capital Punishment was first banned for a short time in China in the 8th century, but it took until the 19th century to see large jurisdictions end executions.
Gay marriage is a relatively new issue, gaining prominence within the last ten years. (At least since the Defense of Marriage Act.) Supporters of gay marriage claim its opponents are bigots and homophobes, but the support gap between gay rights (where a clear majority support,) and gay marriage (a slim minority in support,) indicate that the word 'marriage' may be the issue here.
So progressives have decided to temporarily abandon their "marriage or nothing" fight and take baby steps toward equal marriage rights.
Leading the way on each coast are the blue progressive states of Rhode Island and Washington;
Advocates in Rhode Island have introduced bills to legalize gay marriage every year since 1997, but they've gone nowhere. So this year, in addition to filing marriage legislation, they hope to have some success with six new bills that focus on incremental rights rather than the label of marriage. One would allow same-sex parents to take family leave if their partner or partner's children fall ill. Another bill would give gay men and women the right to plan their partners' funerals. In Washington, similar rights would be granted under a domestic partnership bill. Gay leaders like [State Senator Edward] Murray (D-Seattle) adopted the approach after losing a court case they hoped would lead to gay marriage.
A federal judge in Boston has dismissed a suit by two families who wanted to stop a Massachusetts town and its public school system from teaching their children about gay marriage, court documents show.
Can't say I'll shed a tear over it.
Bigotry and Homophobia, all that gay-bashing that makes me sick to my stomach, is probably the unnoticed casualty of the 2006 elections.
For years under Republican rule, Gay and Lesbian Americans fell victim to Christian fundamentalist pandering and social conservative that ran rampant among the elected officials who needed the ignorant to vote for them. With Democrats in power, LGBT Americans can finally live without fear and live openly among everyone else.
Sure bigotry and homophobia still exist, but if you've noticed the brouhaha that erupted over the recent anti-gay remarks made by Isaiah Washington and Tim Hardaway, the rejection of the gay marriage ban in Arizona (and near rejections in Colorado and South Dakota), and the recent legalization of civil unions in New Jersey (which was popularly supported), LGBT rights are beginning to seem perfectly normal and accepted.
Having said that, I'm not a big fan of Hate Crime legislation. If someone kills someone because they're black or Mexican or gay, how does that change anything? You're going to prison for life or getting a needle in the arm anyway, what difference does it make if you're guilty of a hate crime or not? I do understand their existence. Murder aside, a person should be treated and sentenced differently if they purposely do harm to somebody because of their sexual identity (or race, religion, gender, etc.) than if say they beat someone up for kissing their boyfriend. The person who would physically harm another human being for a reason like them being gay is not a mentally-well person and should not be re released into society after the same amount of time as someone who committed a crime for another reason. That I understand.
I've been a strong supporter of gay rights since the Matthew Shepard incident in 1998. As a high school sophomore, I was appalled about the fact someone would kill him because he's gay and even more appalled at what appeared to be the lack of conscience by our government and the government of the state of Wyoming to do something about it. Even more so, I was appalled by the response of my Catholic school teachers who preceded to use Shepard's brutal murder to "scare any sodomites in this school straight." I distinctly remember a certain nun informing us that if any of us thought we were gay we'd better "find favor with the Lord or risk being tied to a fence and beaten to death."
Today, eight and a half years later, LGBT rights is one of the main reasons why I support Democrats (or socially liberal Republicans, as they exist in New York.) It is welcome news to me that the new Democratic Congress is looking into reviving the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The ENDA nearly passed in 1996, but fell one vote short in the Senate (Damn you Harris Wofford to losing that Senate race in 1994.) It is my sense that this time, it will pass. The question is, what does President Bush do?
I find it unlikely our born-again, preaching, bible-thumping, talks-to-Jesus, Texan President is going to allow such a law to pass. To a fundementalist Christian, firing somebody because they're gay is like firing somebody because they slept with the boss' 15-year-old daughter. To somebody like President Bush, this is essentially legalizing something he probably believes should be illegal. After all, it was in Texas until 2003 and despite six years as Governor and with a Democratic state legislature, he never did a damn thing to decriminilize homosexuality there. If the President vetoes this bill (as it won't pass the House and Senate by veto-proof margins), it will expose him for what he is, a bigot...or a politician pandering to the bigots.
Some may argue that hate crimes laws or laws like the ENDA seek to criminilize criticism of homosexualiy. You can still say what you want, you're just going to have to deal with the consequences of what you say. We would find it offensive today to call a black co-worker to "n" word that I refuse to use, and we would find it offensive today to call a female co-worker "tootz" or say something derogatory about her body, so why is it such a surprise that homosexual people find it offensive if you call them vulgar names too? Whatever happened to "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything?"
Some may argue passing these laws indicate that we don't trust each other to NOT be prejudiced. News flash: Americans have not historically been the most accepting people. When European Catholics began arriving, the blue blood Anglicans began accusing Catholic nuns and priests of having sex, getting the nuns pregnant and then eating the babies as the host at Communion, when the Jews began showing up in droves in the early 20th Century, they were accused of bringing Communism to America and seen a threat to the Christian monopoly over America. Anti-semitism existed all over the United States, take for instance the lynching of Leo Frank in Georgia in 1915. Speaking of lynching, I think we all know how the African-Americans were treated down south for about 100 years. Also, let's not forget how in this shining beacon of democracy, we didn't even let women vote until 1920. Are we surprised today's victim of American unacceptance are the LGBT community? Yes, Americans have not been the most accepting of people over time.
Therefore, in my opinion, if we are going to act like children, then our government should treat us like children, and that's why we need hate crime laws and the ENDA.
Thanks to the new Democratic majority, LGBT Americans will finally have a chance to come out fo the closet they've been forced back into over the last decade and live amongst the rest of the loyal American population.
Saint Valentine believed it, and we should today...Government has no right telling people who they can love and whether or not they're allowed to show it.
Today sbould be more than chocolates, candy message hearts, flowers, balloons, kisses and sex. It should be about the underlying message left to us by the patron saint of lovers who lived 1800 years ago.
In 269AD, Emperor Claudius II found his military population dwindling. Roman men were not staying in the military longer than they had to. The emperor believed this to be because men cared more about marrying and raising a family then defending the empire in the far off borders in the military. Claudius therefore cancelled all marriages and refused to allow any.
Saint Valentine wouldn't allow it. He continued to marry Roman men and women, even though the emperor had banned it. Saint Valentine did not care if those he was marrying were Christian, Jew or pagan, her married them. Love doesn't come with labels. The emperor, seeing Saint Valentine as a threat to his power had him beatened and beheaded for conducting illegal marriages. Claudius II made a martyr out of Saint Valentine and since he was a Christian priest, Claudius added fuel to the alredy existing fires of persecution against the Christian minority. Neverthless, Saint Valentine died leaving behind the message that love trumps all and everybody has the right to commit to those they love...publicly.
Here in New York, we are lucky to live in a state where a majority of the population aren't bigots. We don't believe our government, like Emperor Claudius II, has any right dictating who can get married, to whom and when. More than half of all New Yorkers support marriage rights for LGBT Americans. Governor Spitzer also supports legalization of gay marriage.
While this is not an issue that may be taken up right away, as the new Governor has bigger fish to fry, but with the Governor's 69% mandate, the Democratic super majority in the State Assembly, and the slim two seat majority for the liberal Republicans in the Senate (thanks to the victory just last week of Democrat Craig Johnson, a gay rights support in a Long Island State Senate race against anti-gay rights Republican Maureen O'Connell,) we may soon see the Empire State become the first state to legalize gay marriage through legislative action...and no one can argue legislative action.
The bigots will argue New York has "activist" politicians. The religious zealots will argue New York will be damned to hell and the sky will fall upon Manhattan...but we here in New York understand what is right.
We here in New York understand love cannot be restricted.
Happy Valentine's Day
