Boston Globe Endorses Maine's No On Question 1

Boston Globe editorializes in favor of marriage equality today. It is so good, here it is in its entirety:

MARRIAGE AFFORDS unparalleled rights and benefits to people who commit to long-term relationships. All people, regardless of sexual orientation, should have an equal right to marry under the law. On Election Day, Maine voters should vote “no’’ on ballot Question 1 and respect the rights of their neighbors and fellow citizens to live how they choose.

Supporters of the ballot initiative argue that same-sex marriage erodes heterosexual marriage, but experience has proven them wrong: Since Massachusetts legalized gay marriage five years ago, the state has seen its divorce rate, already the lowest in the nation, decline further. But that hasn’t stopped supporters of the initiative from making other wild claims. No, gay marriage is not being taught, alongside spelling and long division, as part of the public-school curriculum in Massachusetts. No, an equal right to civil marriage has not rendered Massachusetts genderless.

Religions differ in their beliefs, customs, and ceremonies about marriage - none of which will be affected by a new Maine law that deals only with civil marriages. If Question 1 fails, churches and other religious groups could still refuse to perform same-sex marriages. But the law would ensure that courts will continue to marry gay and lesbian couples.

The law signed by Governor John E. Baldacci in May recognizes that legalizing gay marriage is a matter of fairness. A civil union, the governor said, is not equal to a marriage. Just as the state of Maine would not deny the equal rights and protections of the law to its other citizens, it should not deny them to gay people who wish to build stable families. A vote of “no’’ on Question 1 is a vote for equal protection of the laws, a guarantee in Maine’s constitution and in the country’s that all citizens should defend and embrace.

US Supreme Court Shields WA Referendum-71 Petitioners

On Thursday October 22nd, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 (Justice Stevens dissenting) in Doe v. Reed (pdf)to grant Protect Marriage Washington's appeal for an injunction against Washington State's Secretary of State Sam Reed from revealing the names of the 138,500 people who signed petitions to place Referendum 71 (which would repeal that state's comprehensive domestic partnership statute) on the November 3rd ballot.

The Supreme Court overruled a quite good decision (pdf) from a 3-judge panel of the 9th Circuit which had ruled that signing a petition anonymously is not protected under the First Amendment. In a unanimous decision the 9th Circuit Court said:

We conclude that each of the State’s asserted interests is sufficiently
important to justify the PRA’s incidental limitations on referendum petition
signers’ First Amendment freedoms. See O’Brien, 391 U.S. at 376-77. We
conclude also that the incidental effect of the PRA on speech is no greater than
necessary. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 798-99 (holding that a
restriction need not be the least restrictive means of furthering the State’s interest
to survive intermediate scrutiny).

Finally, no one has claimed that the State’s interests are at all related to the
suppression or regulation of expression. The stated aim of the PRA, which itself
was passed through the initiative process, is to keep the citizens “informed so that
they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.” Wash.
Rev. Code § 42.56.030. There is no indication that despite this clear statement, the
PRA was nonetheless intended to suppress free expression.

Accordingly, we hold that the PRA as applied to referendum petitions does
not violate the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, the High Court's action means that Referendum 71 will be decided without the information of who initiated the process being revealed and even whether the measure was properly qualified.

However, the legal dispute over whether petition signatories can have their names shielded is very much alive, and appears in a front page story in today's Los Angeles Times by David Savage, that paper's excellent court reporter.

Several constitutional (and election law) experts are quoted expressing doubt over the proposition that Protect Marriage Washington's legal position will eventually prevail:

First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA questioned whether petition signers have a constitutional right to anonymity.

"As a matter of 1st Amendment law, you have the right to speak anonymously but you don't have a constitutional right to essentially engage in a legally significant action anonymously," he said. "The state can demand you identify yourself on a petition, and at that point it seems the state is entitled to publish it."

Signing a petition is more akin to a lawmaker's vote, which is usually required to be made in public so the citizenry can monitor the progress of the laws that will govern them, legal analysts say.

But Richard Hasen, a Loyola law professor, noted that the Supreme Court in the past has protected civil rights groups and socialists from revealing the names of their members because of fears they could be harassed and intimidated.

"The court would not necessarily construe signing a ballot measure as a 1st Amendment-protected activity," Hasen said. "But if it is, in fact, true that signers face harassment, I think that's troubling."

I'd love to see a full hearing on whether people who have signed petitions have been harassed or not. In Proposition 8, it was the names of donors to Proposition 8, not the names of the 1.1 million people who signed the petitions that were revealed and led to boycotts.

The question is whether the Court will grant certioriari on this legal question after the election, when the question may be moot (if the Referendum is approved). I hope that they do.

17 Women U.S. Senators and 6 Women Governors

There has been tremendous advances by female politicans in recent years and MSNBC's First Read has been running interesting facts about women and politics all week long. There are now 17 female U.S. Senators and 6 female Governors:

Governors
Jan Brewer of AZ
Jodi Rell of CT
Linda Lingle of HI
Jennifer Granholm of MI
Bev Perdue of NC
Chris Gregoire of WA

Senators
Lisa Murkowski of AK
Blanche Lincoln of AR
Barbara Boxer of CA
Dianne Feinstein of CA
Mary Landrieu of LA
Susan Collins of ME
Olympia Snowe of ME
Barbara Mikulski of MD
Debbie Stabenow of MI
Amy Klobuchar of MN
Claire McCaskill of MO
Kay Hagan of NC
Jeanne Shaheen of NH
Kirsten Gillibrand of NY
Kay Bailey Hutchison of TX
Patty Murray of WA
Maria Cantwell of WA

When do you think we will have a female President? The group She Should Run is trying to encourage women to consider running for public office.

NY Gov Says He Expects To Sign Marriage Bill Soon

New York Governor David Paterson said Thursday night at Empire State Pride Agenda's gala dinner in New York City that he expects the State Senate to pass a marriage equality bill in the next few weeks.

''No longer in New York'' will same-sex couples have to worry about insurance coverage, being allowed to visit each other hospitals, or whether they will be guaranteed the same rights as other married couples under law, he said.

[...]

More than a year ago, Paterson had framed the debate as a civil right long denied. But divisions among Senate Democrats earlier this year made approval unlikely after a few Democrats in the 32-30 majority objected to the bill on religious grounds.

Now, however, Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Nassau County says GOP senators won't be asked to vote against the measure in a bloc and are free to vote for the bill.

A leading advocate and bill sponsor, Sen. Thomas Duane of Manhattan, who is gay, has declined to comment on the issue this week. Senate Democratic majority spokesman Austin Shafran said there has been no head count of votes on the issue.

To the crowd, Paterson joked that if anyone in a same-sex relationship had put off conversations about marriage because it wasn't legal, ''you'd better leave now because marriage equality is coming to New York City.''

Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont, and will start in New Hampshire in January. A referendum in Maine on Nov. 3 will determine the fate of a same-sex marriage bill passed by the Legislature in May.

Maine YES ON 1 Gets $1.1 MILLION from NOM

Sound the alarm! The odious National Organization for Marriage has donated $1.1 million dollars to the heterosexual supremacists called "Stand for Marriage Maine" in the last couple days to make up for the hefty financial advantage the NO ON 1/Protect Maine Equality side had been enjoying as of October 15th.

The latest totals are:

Stand For Marriage Maine            $2,547,860.40                  
Protect Maine Equality/No On 1      $4,069,053.71                   

Just last week, NO ON 1 had a lead of nearly $1.6 million dollars ($2.7m to $1.1m), now that lead has been reduced to $1.5 million.

With recent polls showing Question 1 basically tied at 48-48 this is the time to GET OUT THE VOTE and, if you live on the East Coast, GET THEE TO MAINE!

Celebrity Friday: The Obama Family

The First Family of the United States: Barack, Sasha, Michelle and Malia Obama. Have a nice weekend, y'all! (hat/tip Wonder Man)

VIDEO: New Ad From Yes on 1 Liars

This is wild. I was at the LGBT caucus at Netroots Nation in Pittsburgh this summer where Monique Hoefflinger made the remarks "Literally, we started this campaign in 2005." The 2005 Maine NOn-Discrimination Ordinance and the 2009 Maine Marriage bill LD-1020 have nothing to do with each other except the fact they both involve expanding rights for LGBT citizens!

Congress Sends Federal Hate Crimes Bill To Obama

Elections have consequences. Today's 68-29 vote on the final version of the Department of Defense spending bill means that the federal hate crimes bill will become the first piece of federal legislation that includes gender identity and the first major piece of civil rights legislation on the LGBT agenda to be enacted.

The New York Times said

The measure, attached to an essential military-spending bill, broadens the definition of federal hate crimes to include those committed because of a victim’s gender or gender identity, or sexual orientation. It gives victims the same federal safeguards already afforded to people who are victims of violent crimes because of their race, color, religion or national origin.

“Hate crimes instill fear in those who have no connection to the victim other than a shared characteristic such as race or sexual orientation,” Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said afterward. “For nearly 150 years, we have responded as a nation to deter and to punish violent denials of civil rights by enacting federal laws to protect the civil rights of all of our citizens.”

[...]

Opponents argued to no avail that the new measure was unnecessary in view of existing laws and might interfere with local law enforcement agencies. Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, said he agreed that hate crimes were terrible. “That’s why they are already illegal,” Mr. DeMint said, asserting that the new law was a dangerous, even “Orwellian” step toward “thought crime.”

Republicans have also said that they may challenge the law in court.

Congress Passes Ryan White CARE Act

The Ryan White CARE Act was approved by Congress this week with a vote of 408 to 9 in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday. The federal legislation is the most important means by which federal funds are delivered to fight HIV/AIDS in the United States.

The bill, if signed into law by President Obama, would provide federal funding to help low-income, uninsured, or under-insured Americans with AIDS gain access to healthcare.

The President’s Executive Office released a Statement of Administration Policy on Oct. 19 in support of the Act. "The Administration is committed to strengthening access to acre for people living with HIV/AIDS," the statement read. "The legislation reauthorizes all parts of the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program."

"The House and Senate leadership and the Members of the committees worked closely with the HIV/AIDS community to maintain this critical program," said Rebecca Haag, the executive director of the AIDS Action Council.

"This bill will ensure the availability of life saving services for those living with HIV/AIDS in all states and territories while we determine the long term impact of health care reform legislation and the National HIV/AIDS Strategy on the health and well being of those infected, affected and at risk for HIV."

This is just the first but important step of authorization. Later, appropriation of funds to enact the authorized programs needs to occur.

Rep. Who Shouted "You Lie!" Outraised Dem. by $1M

Democrat Rob Miller at first outraised Republican Joe Wilson when the South Carolina congressperson shouted "You Lie!" at President Barack Obama joint address to Congress on health care reform.

However, by the end of the fundraising reporting quarter on September 30th, it turned out that Wilson ended up raising $2.7 million to Miller's $1.7 million.

VIDEO: Approve Referendum 71 Ad

The latest ad in the fight to save Washington State's comprehensive domestic partnership statute has just been released.



Election Day is in less than 13 days, and all ballots must be mailed in by November 3rd.

I'm glad that they are putting a live LGBT face on the Referendum 71 fight, but did they have to make the ad so somber?

VIDEO: No On 1 On Rachel Maddow

Nadal Loses Shanghai Masters Final To Davydenko

World #2 Rafael Nadal of Spain lost the final of the Shanghai Masters 7-6(3) 6-3 to Nikolay Davydenko of Russia, someone World #1 Roger Federer has never lost to.

Latest Maine Poll on Question 1: 48-48 Tie

It's exactly two weeks until election day in Maine where they will be voting on Question 1, a measure to eliminate marriage equality, very similar to last year's Proposition 8 in California. A PPP poll released today shows a 48-48 tie with a margin of error of +/- 2.9 points. PPP surveyed 1,103 likely voters by phone between October 16-19.

Opinion on the issue predictably breaks heavily along party lines. 74% of Republicans are planning to vote yes while only 25% of Democrats are. Independents may end up deciding which way it goes- presently 50% of them support rejecting the law with 44% in opposition.

Older voters are strongest in their support of cutting off gay marriage. 54% are in support with 40% opposed. Senior citizens can often dominate the electorate in low turnout elections so the ultimate fate of this measure may lie in how many younger people get out to the polls and vote.

There is a strong gender gap on the issue with 53% of men but only 43% of women wanting to reject the law. It's also interesting to note that while white voters oppose undoing the law by a thin 47-45 margin, nonwhite voters in the state support rejection by a 55-35 margin, creating the overall tie.

It's all about turnout! If you live in Maine or know anyone in Maine make sure you let them know you want them to VOTE NO ON QUESTION 1!

Trailer for "8: The Mormon Proposition"

WA Heterosexual Supremacists Win Temporary Stay From Kennedy

The stakes are getting higher and higher in Washington state over whether the names of the people who signed petitions which allowed Referendum 71 to barely qualify for the November 3rd 2009 ballot will be released to the public. Earlier today, Justice Anthony Kennedy re-instated a U.S. District Court ruling that had been overturned by a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Thursday which had shielded the names of heterosexual supremacists who were told they were signing petitions to ban gay marriage, when really what Referendum 71 would do is eliminate Washington state's recently enacted comprehensive domestic partnership law.

According to the SCOTUS blog which monitors all actions by the United states Supreme Court:

UPDATE 2:55 p.m. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Monday afternoon put back into effect, temporarily, a federal judge’s order that protects the privacy of signers of a petition seeking a voter referendum on a gay rights law in Washington State. He did so, however, only until a further order is issued by himself or by the Court; the order is here. Kennedy acted on the basis of the application, before getting a response, due this afternoon, from state officials. FURTHER UPDATE 5:50 p.m. The state officials’ response is now in; it can be found here.

It is likely that Kennedy will refer the matter to the full Court and the matter will be resolved on Tuesday.

18-year-old Becomes 5th Chess Player Over 2800 Rating

Teen chess sensation Magnus Carlsen of Norway blew away the field in Nanjing, China by winning 6 games and drawing the rest for an amazing 8 points out of 10, a full 2 1/2 points ahead of the top-ranked player in the world, Veselin Topalov. Most tournaments at this level are won by a 1/2 point or 1 point.

Carlsen's victory gives him an insane performance rating of 3002 and an actual rating of 2801, which is only the fifth time in history anyone will have had a published rating above 2800. At 18, Carlsen is far younger than Garry Kasparov, Viswanathan Anand, Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik who have achieved this feat (and all of these players have been World Champion, with Anand currently scheduled to defend his title against Topalov in a match scheduled for next year).

Already most chess columnists are speculating on when, not if, Carlsen will become the first Western chess champion since Bobby Fischer. Interestingly, Kasparov, who retired in March 2005 from chess to focus on politics in Russia has recently been coaching Carlsen and the Norwegian's results have been spectacular ever since.

Morehouse Issues Dress Code That Bans "Crossdressing"

Morehouse College, the all-male predominantly African-American college in Atlanta, Georgia which boats Martin Luther King, Lr. as one of its alums, is back in the news for an LGBT-related issue: issuing a new dress code banning cross-dressing by the students.

According to Frank Leon Roberts, a NYC-based blogger writing in Keith Boykin's Daily Voice website, here is the full text of Morehouse's Appropriate Attire Policy:

It is our expectation that students who select Morehouse do so because of the College's outstanding legacy of producing leaders. On the campus and at College-sponsored events and activities, students at Morehouse College will be expected to dress neatly and appropriately at all times.

Students who choose not to abide by this policy will be denied admission into class and various functions and services of the College if their manner of attire is inappropriate. Examples of inappropriate attire and/or appearance include but are not limited to:

1. No caps, do-rags and/or hoods in classrooms, the cafeteria, or other indoor venues. This policy item does not apply to headgear considered as a part of religious or cultural dress.

2. Sun glasses or "shades" are not to be work in class or at formal programs, unless medical documentation is provided to support use.

3. Decorative orthodontic appliances (e.g. "grillz") be they permanent or removable, shall not be worn on the campus or at College-sponsored events.

4. Jeans at major programs such as, Opening Convocation, Commencement, Founder's Day or other programs dictating professional, business casual attire, semi-formal or formal attire.

5. Clothing with derogatory, offense and/or lewd messages either in words or pictures.

6. Top and bottom coverings should be wor[n] at all times. No bare feet in public venues.

7. No sagging--the wearing of one's pants or shorts low enough to reveal undergarments or secondary layers of clothing.

8. Pajamas, shall not be worn while in public or in common areas of the College.

9. No wearing of clothing associated with women's garb (dresses, tops, tunics, purses, pumps, etc.) on the Morehouse campus or at College-sponsored events.[emphasis added]

10. Additional dress regulations may be imposed upon students participating in certain extracurricular activities that are sponsored or organized by the College (e.g. athletic teams, the band, Glee Club, etc).

11. The college reserves the right to modify this policy as deemed appropriate.
*All administrative, faculty, students and support staff members are asked to assist in enforcing this policy and may report disregard or violations to the Office of Student Conduct. "

Apparently, the College's gay student group, somewhat bizarrely going under the moniker "Safe Space" has endorsed the dress code.

It is item #9 which has garnered the College the most notoriety, recently.

As Frank says, "I must be missing something. Is there some kind of growing, critical mass of high-heel wearing, gold-tooth rockin' boys threatening to take over the campus? (if so, Big Up)."

Indeed!

VIDEO: No On 1 Responds To Yes on 1 Lies

I don't really see how this ad from Protect Maine Equality is a better response than the one last year from No On 8 with State Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell saying that nothing in California law required the teaching of gay marriage in California schools.

In fact, I have some issues with this ad in that it says that "it's common sense" that Maine teachers would not allow the teaching of anything "inappropriate." That's a dangerous road to go down--are you agreeing with your opponents that teaching about gay marriage is "inappropriate" or do you just not want to refer to their lies that gay sex is going to be taught in kindergartens because of LD 1020, the new Maine marriage equality law.

Also, since NO ON 1 has more money than Yes on1, do you really need to respond to an ad with more force than the original charge?

Still, I'm hopeful and encouraged that No On 1 has the resources and ability to respond quickly, especially since voting on Question 1 has now started in Maine.

Obama's Approval Rating Back To Where It Was A Year Ago