Right To Vote/Right To Marry: The Red States

Barney Frank retired from Congress last year. Obama picked a series of crooked Wall Street operators for positions he should have tried filling with brilliant and proven tribunes of the public like Barney and Brad Miller (D-NC), who also resigned last year. I'm not certain what Brad is up to now but Barney has certainly not faded away. Having been for so many years the most noteworthy openly gay Member of Congress, media turned to him in droves for comments about the grudging and narrow Supreme Court ruling that struck down DOMA and kind of struck down California's hateful Prop 8. And Barney, who recently married his partner, was as gleeful as all members of the LGBT community. Like me... well, probably more than me. I'm less an assimilationist and, although I'm happy for the folks who wanted and needed this, I fear it is another deadly blow against what helped make the gay community unique and nonconformist.

But, like Barney, I'm not exactly singing the praises of the Supreme Court. The 5 conservative bastards did something far more destructive the day before by striking down the Voting Rights Act. It's a much bigger deal than letting gays marry-- because it will inevitably lead to a far more conservative and intolerant government, one that could do a great deal of harm to, among others, the LGBT community. Thursday Barney was on MSNBC's Morning Joe and he said that if he had been empowered to decide one Supreme Court decision this week, he would have taken up the case on the 1965 Voting Rights Act and not the Prop 8 marriage ban that is no longer supported by California voters anyway. He explained that the "terrible decision killing the Voting Rights Act" is far more harmful to the country than the marriage equality case. "Racial discrimination," he asserted, correctly, "has been much worse [than discrimination against the LGBT community] in this country and if I could have frankly picked one decision this week,  I'll be honest, it wouldn't have been the gay marriage one. I wish I could have reversed that terrible decision killing the Voting Rights Act because I think there are still serious issues there in democracy." It would be amazing if Scalia, who's 77, wakes up in hell tomorrow and Obama nominates Frank to replace him. And if we all get unicorns for our birthdays.

This wasn't lost on Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). They got it just right when they commented on the Supreme Court rulings this week in a joint statement:

“We celebrate today’s decision by the Supreme Court to respect the right of all Americans to marry who they love. The road to today’s victories started 44 years ago at the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, where the gay community made a public stand against institutional discrimination. Since that day, LGBT Americans have worked tirelessly for equal rights under the law. The decisions made by the Supreme Court today reaffirm those rights and move our country closer to fulfilling the promise in our Constitution of equal rights for all.

“While today’s rulings were a positive step forward, yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to weaken the Voting Rights Act endangers voting rights and is a troubling step backward. We should celebrate the victory for marriage equality by working together to defend the voices of millions of Americans who may face increased discrimination at the polls after yesterday’s decision. Senator Harry Reid has already vowed that the Senate will act quickly to fix the problems created by yesterday’s ruling. The House should follow his lead as soon as possible.”

So what can, realistically, be done to fix the problem before the Republican just start barring minorities from voting across the Old Confederacy and in states they control like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, the Dakotas and Indiana? The Senate is where it will start, of course. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Judiciary Committee: "I intend to take immediate action to ensure that we will have a strong and reconstituted Voting Rights Act that protects against racial discrimination in voting." He says he plans to start right after the 4th of July break. Unfortunately, Leahy's counterpart in the House is an old line unreconstructed Confederate and racist pig, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and he's not likely to allow any kind of protections for minorities to get through his committee, which is stuffed full of teabaggers and bigots and boasts some of the most contemptible partisan extremists in Congress, like Steve King (R-IA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Randy Forbes (R-VA), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Ted Poe (R-TX), George Holding (R-NC), Doug Collins (R-GA), Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Jason Smith (R-MO).

Pelosi was whistling in the wind when she said "I would like to see something called... the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would address the concerns that the Court put in its decision about Section 4. It’s really a step backward and it’s not a reflection of what is happening in our country in some of these places. And when we put that bill together, when it was passed last time, it passed overwhelming, overwhelming 98 to nothing in the Senate and 390-something to almost nothing in the House. And it was bipartisan and we came to terms on it, in a way that we were all jubilant about the passage of it, Democrats and Republicans alike.”

Read More

Your Supreme Court at work and play -- as same-sex marriage slips through the portals of privilege

-- from NYTimes.com's "Afternoon Update"

"Today's Supreme Court decision is a victory for all Americans, and brings our nation one step closer to the promise of equality and justice for all. The DOMA decision ensures that married gay and lesbian couples are recognized by the federal government, and that their families receive equal treatment in the eyes of the law. There should be no more discrimination based on where you're from, what you look like, or who you love. Today's DOMA decision is a historic step in the fight for equality. The federal government must ensure that no one is degraded or demeaned by the law, and that all couples receive the legal recognition and respect that they deserve."

-- Florida Rep. Alan Grayson, in a statement today

"Today's rulings are a major step forward for the country, but for Floridians they fall short of justice and are more than anything a call to action. For those of us who live in states like Florida where our marriages are still not recognized, today's decisions are a reminder that we cannot wait for justice to be handed to us, we are going to have to get engaged and fight. . . .

"While Florida couples who marry elsewhere will receive some federal benefits, unfortunately many federal protections related to marriage are based solely on whether the marriage is recognized by the state in which the couple lives. Today our rights as Americans are not based on our shared citizenship, but upon our geographic location. . . ."

-- Equality Florida Executive Director Nadine Smith, in
a statement today (Nadine issued a video "call to action")

by Ken

A historic day, yes, but when you break it down, and fit together the pieces of the other decisions the Supreme Court has announced in its end-of-term festivities, it's all recognizably our hard-right-wing Roberts Court at work, dragging the law back into the Dickensian heyday of the Industrial Revolution, if not the glory days of the Spanish Inquisition.

Earlier today Howie wrote about yesterday's ghastly Supreme Court voting-rights debacle at the Supreme Court's end-of-term festivities, and homed in on the five bozos I described on Tuesday as far-right-wing-stooge (FRWS) justices -- and specifically how they slithered their way onto the High Court, with often-inconsequential opposition. Crikey, these are life forms that have no business sitting on any bench that isn't bolted down in a park.

I would never say that I could have predicted how the major decisions would come down. The way I argue it is that once they do, we can usually see the theatrical hand orchestrating it all. So, for example, on Monday we got the seemingly moderate decision on affirmative action -- "moderate" in that contrary to the expectation of many of us, the majority didn't shitcan affirmative action altogether. Justice Scalia left no doubt that he would have been happy to do so, and my assumption is that there would have been four votes to do so. I'm guessing, though, that try as FRWS justices might, they couldn't get a fifth vote for that. What we got instead was a seeming "unity" ruling, a 7-1 remand, sending the case back to the lower court for a closer look, to make absolutely sure that there wasn't any unallowable racial-preference funny business going on. Naturally, those judges have been put on alert to look really, really hard -- would anyone care to bet what they're going to find?

The message was pretty clear to the state of Texas, which immediately announced that for the next election it's putting into effect the election revamp it passed in 2011 designed to screw voters the right-wing establishment doesn't like out of their right to vote. Let's assume that the Supremes' FRWS Five aren't total morons (I'm not entirely sure in a couple of cases, but let's give them all the benefit of the doubt), and know that for all the right-wing screeching about "voter fraud," there has been no indication of any such thing happening, whereas dating back at least to the stolen presidential election of 2000, Republicans have been devoting more and more resources and time to election-stealing, and seizing control of the voter rolls has been a principal tool. Most of its strategies to date have been anywhere from probably to flagrantly illegal, but look here now, we control the law!

Which is where Justice Scalia's ruling in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona takes a turn for the comical. The issue, you'll recall was the illegality, according to the 7-1 majority, of Arizona adding a requirement while using a federal form. Uh-uh, said our Nino, you can't do that. And "if a reader of the Scalia opinion stopped at the top of page 13," wrote ScotusBlog's Lyle Denniston, "the impression would be very clear that Congress had won hands down in the field of regulating federal elections."

But from that point on, there is abundant encouragement for what is essentially a states' rights argument: that is, that the states have very wide authority to define who gets to vote, in both state and federal elections.

On the particular point at issue in this case -- Arizona's requirement of proof of citizenship before one may register to vote or actually vote -- the Scalia opinion said that a state was free to ask the federal government for permission to add that requirement. And, Scalia said, if that doesn't work — either because the federal agency that would deal with such a request is either not functioning or says no -- then a state would be free to go to court and make an argument that it has a constitutional right to insist on proof of citizenship as an absolute qualification for voting, in all elections.

The opinion seemed to leave little doubt that, if Arizona or another state went to court to try to establish such a constitutional power, it might well get a very sympathetic hearing, because that part of the Scalia opinion laid a very heavy stress on the power of states under the Constitution to decide who gets to vote.

And again, since Justice Nino isn't a moron, he surely knows full well that the agency to which Arizona would make this request is completely crippled by virtue of having no members, thanks to the Republican philosophy of non-governing: blind obstruction. So Arizona would get no answer to such a request, would go back to court, and . . . well, you get the idea. Ha ha ha!

What's more, in the process we get to see Justice Nino being, it appears, unpredictable. Mmm, no, that's just an illusion. But I think a not entirely accidental one. The FRWS Five seem to have become a lot more sensitive to the optics of their shredding of the Constitution and constitutional precedent, which for a number of frightening years has been unapologetic. Note, for example, that in the voting-rights decision, Chief Justice Roberts essentially blamed Congress for screwing up, failing to come up with constitutionally acceptable criteria for subjecting states and localities to Justice Dept. scrutiny of their voting procedures. Of course in the decades that the Voting Rights Act has been in force, and in all the times it has been reauthorized by Congress, nobody ever told them that the existing criteria were unconstitutional. (To which I assume the Chief would answer, "Well, nobody asked me!") And once again, the Chief, not being a moron, knows full well that at present there isn't the slightest possibility that Congress could rise to the occasion, because the House is effectively controlled by the kind of people who love the idea of being able to exclude people they don't like from the voting rolls.

Once again, the message to the states is: Discriminate, baby, we've got your back!

Note too how the voting-rights case, Shelby County v. Holder, was neatly sandwiched between the "moderate" non-eradication of affirmative action and today's decisions in the two same-sex-marriage cases. I am prepared to give the Court credit for coming right out and declaring Section 3 of DOMA unconstituional. That's the one that has prevented any federal agency from extending any marital benefits to same-sex couples, and it was nice to have a relatively unequivocal declaration that this is an unconstitutional form of discrimination.

That was all that was needed to decide the case, and traditionally the Supreme Court doesn't rule any more broadly than is needed to decide a case. Of course this is a tradition that the Roberts Court has regularly trashed, since going beyond what's needed to decide a case has been one of its favorite hobbies. In fact, the opportunity to do so has frequently seemed part of its reason for taking certain cases. In this case, though, it means that while the federal government is going to have a hard time going foward treating parties to a same-sex marriage differently from parties to an opposite-sex one, it doesn't mean that same-sex couples have been found to have any inherent right to the institution of marriage. If they're legally married, the ruling says, they have to be treated the same as any other couple that's legally married. In addition, neither the case nor the ruling required the justices to deal with the right of states to refuse to recognize other states' same-sex marriages -- that's protected in Section 2 of DOMA, which hasn't yet been touched.

But even in the matter of the DOMA rejection, as those NYT article blurbs up top suggest, the Court has more than anything followed the trend taking hold in the country. Remember that when same-sex marriage was finally authorized in New York State, a lot of important support, financial and otherwise came from Republican businesspersons. The business community has indeed been grasping that homophobia is increasingly "bad for business." It makes it harder to recruit qualified LGBT candidates, and it makes it hard to sell to LGBT consumers and straight consumers who understand the issue at stake. Go back to Rep. Alan Grayson's statement at the top of the post: "Today's Supreme Court decision is a victory for all Americans." There's someone who gets it, and getting this has been spreading to more and more of the country's mainstream.

So again, give the Supremes credit, but not that much. And in the Prop 8 decision, while the result will be to reinstate the District Court ruling that Prop 8 is just plain unconstitutional (and not merely at odds with the California state constitution, as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had argued, since it took away a right -- one that had been established by the courts -- for no reason except to discriminate against LGBT folk), and same-sex marriage is clearly going to be legal in California again, but the ruling is unlikely to have any impact outside California. It's conceivable that the District Court ruling could be cited in other jurisdictions, but federal District Court rulings have no automatic application anywhere else.

And so the Roberts Court may have bent a little in its mission to uphold the rights of the privileged and white, but it didn't really bend all that much. It certainly didn't break.

I don't suppose this is terribly diplomatic, but then, it's aimed at people who have never had any impulse toward diplomacy in dealing with us. Like Michele "Mighty Mouth" Bachmann, who sent out a tweet saying, "No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted."


MEANWHILE, NOTHING CAN SHAKE JUSTICE NINO FROM
HIS DIVINELY ORDAINED MISSION TO HATE THE HOMOS

JUNE 26, 2013

SCALIA ARRESTED TRYING TO BURN DOWN SUPREME COURT

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- In a shocking end to an illustrious legal career, police arrested Justice Antonin Scalia today as he attempted to set the Supreme Court building ablaze.

Justice Scalia, who had seemed calm and composed during the announcement of two major rulings this morning, was spotted by police minutes later outside the building, carrying a book of matches and a gallon of kerosene.

After police nabbed Justice Scalia and placed him in handcuffs, the [Justice] appeared "at peace and resigned to his fate," a police spokesman said.

"He went quietly," the spokesman said. "He just muttered something like, 'I don't want to live in a world like this.' "

Back at the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia's colleagues said they hoped he would get the help he needed, except for Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing.

VISIT THE STAND-ALONE SUNDAY CLASSICS WITH KEN

#

Read More

Arizona Republican Jim Kolbe Is Getting Gay-Married Today

Kolbe and Foley

Former eleven-term Congressman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) has been "living in sin" with his Panamanian lover, Hector Alfonso, for eight years. Today they will legally wed at the Cosmos Club in DC. (It's still illegal for same sex couples to marry in Arizona, although recent polling shows 55% of Arizonans support marriage equality.) Kolbe is the first gay congressman who voted for DOMA in 1996 to get married. Back then, Kolbe was a closeted mainstream conservative-- one of many in the House Republican caucus who, for one reason or another-- felt they had to vote against the interests of the LGBT community. The only "out" Republican-- and the only Republican-- to oppose DOMA was Steve Gunderson (R-MN), who had been publicly outed by raging homophobe "B-1 Bob" Dornan on the floor of the House, in an attempt to humiliate him. And the Republicans weren't the only bigots that day. Nancy Pelosi only managed to muster 66 Democrats to oppose DOMA.

Among the Republican closet cases voting for Bob Barr's so-called Defense of Marriage Act were then-closeted Reps. David Dreier (R-CA), Mark Foley (R-FL), Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Dave Camp (R-MI), Jim McCrery (R-LA), Phil English (R-PA), Denny Hastert (R-IL), and Bill Paxon (R-NY). This week, Kolbe told the Washington Blade "Two decades ago, I could not have imagined such an event as this would be possible. A decade ago I could not imagine that I would find someone I could be so compatible with that I would want to spend the rest of my life with that person. So, this is a very joyous day for both of us." Ironically, even though they’ll be legally married, Kolbe will still be unable to sponsor his spouse for residency in the United States because of the DOMA legislation he helped pass.

Yesterday I had a pleasant talk with one of those former closet cases/former congressmen, Mark Foley. Of course, he was genuinely happy for his old friend Kolbe. "Any time people find love," he told me, "they need to celebrate it. And he's not only celebrating it, he's memorializing it with this ceremony." The two used to travel together frequently but have lost touch in recent years. They were members of the moderate Republican Ripon Society and of the House Republicans' Tuesday Group. "We were called the Tuesday Group but we met on Wednesdays. People used to ask if we were hiding from our friends, the rednecks," laughed Foley who regrets that so many of his colleagues from the Tuesday Group have been forced to turn sharply right more recently, for the sake of political expediency (or survival). There were around 40 members then, which, according to the New Republic "provided a private forum for the party’s more moderate members, and, in its own quiet way, it pushed back against the Republican leadership, preventing it from running off increasingly radical rails... While the Tuesday Group occasionally pushed moderate legislation, members freely admit that its greatest impact was behind the scenes. Tuesday’s members worked to squash measures that would inevitably divide the party-- like strict restrictions on abortion and deep cuts to spending on scientific research or education-- 'bills that would never have had any workability and would just further drive the wedge between us,'" explained Nancy Johnson, then a moderate Republican from Connecticut. Foley remembers that he and Kolbe were members, as were Fred Upton, Mike Castle, Sue Kelly, Mark Kirk, Charlie Bass...

Just before the vote for DOMA on July 12, 1996, there was a Democratic Motion to Recommit, an attempt to ameliorate the negative aspects of the bill. It failed 164-249 but most Democrats (134) voted for it, as did 30 Republicans, mostly Tuesday Group members. The only Republican closet cases who voted for DOMA but also took the brave stand of crossing the aisle to vote with the Democrats on the Motion to Recommit were Kolbe and Foley-- NOT Dreier, Rohrabacher, Camp, McCrery, English, Hastert or Paxon, each of whom voted NO. Foley's proud he voted for the Motion but he knows he should have opposed DOMA. "It was always," he told me, " a vote I wish I could have undone... It's a vote I've always regretted." He then reminded me that both he and Kolbe also voted in favor of domestic partnerships for DC and that "very clearly, Hillary Clinton has just evolved on this topic last week."

Kolbe's come a long way. Mazel tov! Watch his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month:

Read More

Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) Who Once Voted For DOMA Is Getting Married To A Man Next Month

Here's one homophobic asshole whose mind Kolbe won't be able to change anytime soon

I had already ended my time as the pop music critic for The Advocate in 1996 when Arizona Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe came out as gay. But I still recall the stir around the magazine because they had decided to publicly "out" Kolbe after he voted for DOMA, which was meant to prevent gay couples from marrying. Since almost everyone in Washington already knew Kolbe was gay, the homophobic vote seemed especially hypocritical. Kolbe decided to beat The Advocate to the punch by calling a press conference and announcing he was officially out of the closet.

Within days of the vote on the Defense of Marriage Act, they began a blistering campaign on the Internet to compel Mr. Kolbe to disclose that he himself was gay, a practice known as outing.

The campaign reached its peak last week with a full-page ad in the Washington Blade, a newspaper that reaches a nationwide gay audience, calling on "all closeted gay and lesbian members of Congress" to "end your silence and defend your community."

On Thursday night, Mr. Kolbe spoke.

He also spoke yesterday-- at the Senate Judiciary Committee, this time urging senators to include gay couples in the immigration bill they're working on. He and his partner, Hector Alfonso, are getting married in May.

Kolbe, a Republican who represented the Tucson area in Congress for 11 terms, has a partner from Panama who had to leave the United States after his work visa expired, bringing his teaching career in this country to an abrupt halt. Under current law, Kolbe could not sponsor his partner for a family reunification visa.

Kolbe's partner was able to return to the United States from Panama a year later after obtaining an investment visa, which allows immigrants who invest in new U.S. businesses to live here. But Kolbe said the process was long and expensive, costing more than many people can afford to spend.

"Our laws should not separate American citizens from their loved ones for such unacceptably long periods of time," Kolbe told the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is holding a series of hearings on an 844-page immigration reform bill drawn up by a bipartisan group of eight senators. Among the bill's authors are Arizona Republican Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake.

The committee chairman, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., has introduced separate legislation, the "Uniting American Families Act," that would allow gay Americans to sponsor their foreign-born partners to come to the United States using family reunification visas. That controversial provision is not part of the sweeping reform bill, although gay rights' advocates are urging that it be included.

"While the bill you are considering is an excellent starting point for reform, I submit to you that it is still incomplete," Kolbe told committee members. "Families like mine are left behind as part of this proposal. Equally important, U.S. businesses and our economy suffer because of the omission of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families from the bill introduced last week."

Kolbe's come a long way since voting for DOMA, as has public opinion (not to mention France and Delaware, each of which legalized marriage equality earlier today)... but his party hasn't. The vast majority of Republicans in Congress are still hateful and virulent homophones-- or at least pretending to be-- and oppose marriage equality and immigration equality. Let's see if he can convince any of the Republican closet cases Congress-- like Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Aaron Schock (R-IL), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Dave Camp (R-MI), etc.-- to support the LGBT community even before being officially outed.

Read More

Not Every Homophobe In Congress Is Republican-- And The DCCC Wants To Spend Your Money On Anti-Gay "Democrats" Running For Reelection

Jim Matheson (D-UT), a face of the Mormon bigotry against the LGBT community. Last year the DCCC funneled $1.3 million into reelecting him

When you contribute to the DCCC, most of the money that gets earmarked for candidates goes to Frontliners, vulnerable incumbents viewed as having the worst chances to be reelected. There's a list. Most of them, though not all, wind up on the list because they vote like Republicans and local Democrats hate them and don't contribute to them or even vote for them. Like Mike McIntyre... who came within 650 votes of losing in November, will face a primary from Jonathan Barfield next year and, if he survives that (and doesn't retire or try a career Hail Mary pass with a pointless run against Kay Hagan), will be challenged by Republican David Rouzer again. Democrats in North Carolina may abhor Rouzer, but McIntyre usually votes exactly the same way he promises to vote-- last month against minimum wage, for example. Only 6 Democrats joined the Republicans to defeat a proposal to raise the minimum wage-- John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), Bill Owens (New Dem-NY), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Kurt Shrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR)-- and, like with any reactionary initiative, Boehner and Cantor know they can count on McIntyre. So if you responded to one of Steve Israel's desperate and unending pleas for contributions last week, you just helped finance the several million dollars the DCCC will waste trying to defend McIntyre's seat next year. And if you're gay or pro-LGBT rights it's doubly ironic because McIntyre is one of Congress' most virulent and hateful bigots.

The last time the Republicans made an anti-gay push-- with a homophobic amendment to the Violence Against Women Act on February 28-- 164 Republicans + Mike McIntyre (NC) and nominal Democrat Dan Lipinski (IL) voted for it. It wasn't enough to carry the day. 60 Republicans (not to mention the 197 other Democrats) seem to have decided homophobia is on the way out and the GOP leadership amendment was defeated despite McIntyre's treachery.

Democrats have evolved mightily on LGBT equality-- at least most Democrats have. In July 1996 when DOMA first passed 118 Democrats joined with 224 Republicans to pass it. Only 65 Democrats (+ Independent Bernie Sanders and one gay Republican, Steve Gunderson, voted against it). Last year crazed GOP homophobe and hatemonger Steve King (R-IA) attached an amendment to the 2013 defense appropriations bill to prevent same sex couples from marrying on bases. It passed 247-166. There were 17 Democrats who also voted with the hate-mongers. Here's the list. The ones bolded were singled out by the DCCC, not for retribution but for special financial support in their reelection bids. They were on the DCCC's Frontline list for 2012 and their faltering reelection campaigns were top priorities for DCCC spending last cycle. Because millions of dollars were spent on them, there was no money to go after vulnerable Republican policy makers like Paul Ryan, Buck McKeon, Fred Upton, Eric Cantor, etc:

John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA)
Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
Ben Chandler (Blue Dog-KY)- defeated
Jerry Costello (IL)- retired
Mark Critz (PA)- defeated
Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
Joe Donnelley (Blue Dog-IN)
Gene Green (TX)
Tim Holden (Blue Dog-PA)- defeated in primary
Larry Kissell (Blue Dog-NC)- defeated
Dan Lipinksi (IL)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
Nick Rahall (WV)
Mike Ross (Blue Dog-AR)- forced to retire
Heath Shuler (Blue Dog-NC)- forced to retire

Over the weekend The Hill counted 11 Democrats left in Congress who are unevolved gay hating bigots. Obviously McIntyre is one of them. Their list includes the 9 Democrats who voted in 2011 to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act that denies federal benefits to gay couples who have neither left Congress nor publicly changed their positions: Barrow, Bishop, Cuellar, Green, Lipinski, Matheson, McIntyre, Peterson and Rahall plus two freshmen Democrats who voiced opposition to same-sex marriage during their 2012 campaigns: Bill Enyart (IL) and Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX). Of the 11, Israel has vowed to pump immense sums of DCCC money into the campaigns of Barrow, Enyart, Gallego, Matheson, and, once again, McIntyre.

The Hill also counts 9 Democrats who haven't taken a position on marriage equality yet: New Dem chairman Ron Kind (WI), Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA), Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA), Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog/New Dem-OR), David Scott (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Terry Sewell (New Dem-AL), Bennie Thompson (MS), Pete Visclosky (IN) and freshman Filemon Vela (New Dem-TX).

The Hill contacted all 20 offices this week as the Supreme Court considered two gay marriage cases and several Democratic senators made headlines by announcing their support for gay marriage.

Matheson, Rahall, and Gallego’s offices said they continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage.

Green said the choice should be left to the individual states but didn’t address DOMA, which he’d voted to uphold, or say whether he personally supported gay marriage.

Richmond told The Hill in a statement that he is “a firm proponent of equal rights” and thinks DOMA is unconstitutional, but didn’t expressly endorse legalizing gay marriage. His office said they had nothing more to offer on the matter when asked if that meant he backed gay marriage or just civil unions.

The rest of the offices did not respond to requests for comment.

Sewell said in 2010 that she supported gay rights but expressed a preference for civil unions over gay marriage.

Thompson and Scott voted for an amendment to the Constitution that would have banned gay marriage in 2006. They also are among the 29 Democrats who didn’t sign a 2012 "friend of the court" brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA, though both voted against DOMA when it came up for a vote in 2011.

Nine of those 29 Democrats now say they support gay marriage: Reps. Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), Mel Watt (D-N.C.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) and Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas).

“Like many Americans, my views have evolved over time and I believe that committed adults-- be them gay or straight-- deserve to marry the person they love,” Butterfield told The Hill in a statement this week that represented his first public support for gay marriage.

Hinojosa was in Congress in 2006 but didn’t vote on the amendment, and voted against DOMA in 2011. His office this week said he supported gay marriage, the first time he appears to have publicly done so.

Important: if you contribute to the DCCC, you are contributing to reelecting Blue Dog hatemongers like Matheson, McIntyre, Gallego and Barrow who vow to vote with the Republicans to make sure there will never be equality for the LGBT community. Is that where you want your money to go? May I suggest an alternative? Every candidate on the Blue America list is publicly committed to LGBT equality.

Read More