Now that we've heard from everyone else about marriage equality, let's hear from the cartoonists!

"Harry's decided that if the federal government
won't defend our marriage then he's got to."

"I have been gay all my life, and for most of it gay marriage was not even on the table. In fact, for many years the only time you saw anyone openly gay was on television, and they were hiding behind a screen with their voice disguised.

"I am thoroughly convinced that at some point in time same-sex marriage will be a non-issue. For the most part. Eventually. Sort of. . . .

"Did I mention  that I'm on vacation? I'm waiting for the sun to come out. I am not waiting for any government body or bodies to validate my relationships or determine my personal happiness. I am happy for everyone, gay and straight, who is happy about whatever it is the Supreme Court did."

-- New Yorker cartoonist Bill Haefeli

by Ken

Regular readers will recognize the infinite-dot technique of the above cartoon as the domain of New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff, and indeed in his blogpost this week, "Keep Calm and Carry On Being Funny," he has joined the chorus of commentary on the big Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage. "Both the jubilation and the jeremiads" that followed seemed to him "a bit overwrought," he says. After all, same-sex marriage is "still banned wherever it was banned, and the banning hasn't been ruled unconstitutional, even if it's unconscionable."

Bob being, as we know, a perpetual worrier, he has another worry now that DOMA has been dinged. "I worry that people may take matters into their own hands, with dire consequences" -- consequences like those he has imagined in the cartoon atop this post. (Note that all the cartoons should be click-expandable.) Bob does acknowledge, though, that "maybe now I'm the one who's getting overwrought."

For a "calmer perspective," he turns to New Yorker cartoonist Bill Haefeli, "who has mined this area of the cultural landscape for some time. And he offers us these cartoons of Bill's, from 1999 and 2000, respectively.

"If Heather has two mommies, and each of them
has two brothers, and one of those brothers
has another man for a 'roommate,' how
many uncles does Heather have?"

"I'm sorry, Jim. I love you, but I hate Vermont."

If you intuited a story coming on, well, you know our Bob, don't you? Here's the report Bill submitted to him.

Hi Bob!

I am on vacation.

Part of my vacation is taking a break from the news—that constant static of noise about things that, for the most part, have no specific bearing on one's day-to-day existence. I've heard vague rumors that the Supreme Court has done something positive in terms of same-sex marriage. I am gay. This could affect my day-to-day existence. I think I heard the word "momentous." I think I am supposed to be excited about this. Uh… O.K. A while back, when a state I do not live in legalized same-sex marriage, a straight friend of many years called me up to congratulate me on this advancement of my civil rights. I patiently explained that there were still forces opposed to my civil rights, the Forces of Evil, who were not about to give up and were plotting against me. All the while, the Forces of Good were strategizing, too, and there would be a long back-and-forth involving voters and three branches of governments in fifty states and the federal government, too, and reversals and appeals and amendments and acts and laws and even if all my civil rights were universally acknowledged legally there would still be individuals and groups who would not be on board and can I stop now? I am boring myself. I am on vacation, and even if I were not on vacation I would be boring myself.

Don't get me wrong. I am not pessimistic. I have been gay all my life, and for most of it gay marriage was not even on the table. In fact, for many years the only time you saw anyone openly gay was on television, and they were hiding behind a screen with their voice disguised.

I am thoroughly convinced that at some point in time same-sex marriage will be a non-issue. For the most part. Eventually. Sort of.

Did I mention that I am on vacation? I'm waiting for the sun to come out. I am not waiting for any government body or bodies to validate my relationships or determine my personal happiness. I am happy for everyone, gay and straight, who is happy about whatever it is the Supreme Court did.

Look! Here comes the sun!

All of which prompts from Bob this reply: "Thanks, Bill. Exactly the kind of under-wrought perspective I was looking for."


VISIT THE STAND-ALONE SUNDAY CLASSICS WITH KEN

#

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

Will Hanabusa's Political Cowardice on LGBT Issues Come Into Play In The Hawai'i Senate Race?

Last week we took a look at a contentious Senate race shaping up in Hawai'i between progressive incumbent Brian Schatz and more conservative (and corrupt) Colleen Hanabusa. At the time I mentioned that "she can be counted on to vote with Democrats on issues like Choice (though not marriage equality)." I've had some pushback from the Choice community claiming she's not been a good ally on women's health issues-- and we'll get to that in another post-- and some pushback from Hanabusa's own allies saying she's a good ally on LGBT issues. "She's evolved," goes the refrain-- so, basically, a follower, not a leader-- and where Schatz has been a dependable leader on a tough issue that's taken some political courage. Yesterday's Honolulu Star-Advertiser compared the two candidates on LGBT issues, Gay-marriage stance dogs Hanabusa.

In December, when U.S. Rep. Colleen Hanabusa applied for the appointment to replace the late U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, she told Democratic Party activists she supports marriage equality.

The congresswoman had previously said she always held that marriage should be between a man and a woman. She also had said the definition of marriage should be a matter for the states to decide.

...Hanabusa's evolution places her in line with the Democratic Party's platform, which favors marriage equality. It also puts her in harmony with U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, who was appointed to replace Inouye and is her opponent next year in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Schatz has consistently supported marriage equality.

Her conversion, however, is a potentially sensitive issue for gay-rights activists and their allies in the party's progressive wing. Progressives, along with environmentalists, have become among the most vocal about enforcing fidelity to the party's platform. Marriage equality is a raw subject for many who believe that Democratic politicians have repeatedly let them down.

Gay-rights activists have filed complaints with the party against several state House and Senate Democrats who introduced a proposed constitutional amendment that would have asked voters in November 2014 whether marriage in Hawaii should continue to be defined as between a man and a woman. The constitutional amendment failed at the Legislature, but the complaints are pending.

...[A]s recently as last summer, as Hanabusa was campaigning for re-election in urban Honolulu's 1st Congressional District, she had said the definition of marriage has always been a matter for the states to decide.

Last spring, after President Barack Obama announced that he supported marriage equality, completing his own evolution on the issue, Hanabusa had said she had always believed that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Michael Golojuch Jr., chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii's gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered caucus, said Hanabusa had the ideal chance to disclose that she changed her position when she was running for re-election or when Obama made his own announcement. Instead, he said, her revelation did not come until December, when she wanted the appointment to fill the Inouye vacancy.

"It was like pulling teeth to get a statement from her at Christmastime when we were looking at replacing Senator Inouye," he said.

Several gay-rights advocates also blame Hanabusa-- who has sought to distinguish herself from Schatz based on her experience, including, among other things, the heavy lifting she often did on legislation in the state Senate-- for the failure of a civil unions bill in the Senate in 2009.

The state House had approved a bill that would have allowed gay couples to enter into civil unions and receive the same rights as marriage under state law. Hanabusa and other Senate leaders initially indicated there were enough votes in the Senate for the bill, but that support wobbled after public protests from religious conservatives.

After the bill stalled in a divided Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, Hanabusa and others suggested the bill could be pulled from the committee.

But Hanabusa, an attorney, also warned other senators that the bill would likely lead to a lawsuit by gay-rights advocates who would demand marriage equality, citing the successful legal challenge to a civil unions law in Connecticut.

At the last moment, as supporters finally got the bill to the Senate floor, Hanabusa and other Senate leaders engineered an amendment that expanded the legislation to also cover heterosexual couples. The amendment killed the bill as time ran out on the session.

The Senate, under Hanabusa's leadership, did approve a civil unions bill that applied to both gay and heterosexual couples in 2010, legislation also passed by the House in a dramatic end-of-session vote before being vetoed by then-Gov. Linda Lingle. A similar bill was signed into law by Gov. Neil Abercrombie in 2011.

"From my historical perspective, Hanabusa was not our friend when it came to HB 444," Golojuch said of the civil unions fight in 2009.

As her excuse for dragging her feet on marriage equality, Hanabusa whines that "It has taken the nation time to arrive at this point." But the real story is that it has taken Colleen Hanabusa time to arrive at this point. A friend of mine in Honolulu pointed out that "when Hawaii was using its traditions of tolerance and inclusion and Aloha for all, to lead the nation on marriage rights-- Colleen Hanabusa stood in the way. Why choose a politician who waits for the winds to shift, when Hawai'i already has a Senator who helps lead the way? Why choose a politician who changes her position only when the future arrives, when Hawaii already has a Senator who helps shape the future in Hawaii's image?"

You can probably guess that my friend in Honolulu is voting for Schatz, who you can now find on the Blue America Senate page with other progressives fighting off conservatives in the 2014 election cycle.

Read More

American Political Elites Are Really Bad-- Roundup

Painting by Attila Richard Lukacs

Ken's back in action and he'll be taking back this slot starting tomorrow. If you think you're happy, imagine how I feel!

Heidi Heitkamp-- Cowardly And Disappointing

You probably heard about the tremendous disappointment that 4 Democratic senators-- Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Mark Pryor (AR), Max Baucus (MT) and Mark Begich (AK)-- made common cause with the Republicans against the bipartisan background check amendment offered by Second Amendment fanatics Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Former Obama Chief of Staff, Bill Daley wrote a blistering OpEd this past weekend for the Washington Post about how Heitkamp betrayed him. She didn't only betray a wealthy and powerful contributor like Daley; she betrayed the Democratic values and principles that have propelled her into the Senate.

She voted to block legislation to make gun background checks more comprehensive. Her vote-- along with those of 41 Republicans and three other Democrats-- was a key reason the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

Polling has shown that nine in 10 Americans and eight in 10 gun owners support a law to require every buyer to go through a background check on every gun sale. In North Dakota, the support was even higher: 94 percent. Yet in explaining her vote, Heitkamp had the gall to say that she “heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota” and had to listen to them and vote no. It seems more likely that she heard from the gun lobby and chose to listen to it instead.

...The other two Democrats who voted against background checks are Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana [who announced today that he's throwing in the towel; more on that tomorrow]. Like Begich, they will be running for reelection next year. And no doubt they’ll come to Chicago, New York, Los Angeles and other cities looking for money to fuel their campaigns. These cities, of course, are also too often the destination for illegal guns flowing in from out of state.

So I’ll have some advice for my friends in Chicago, New York and Los Angeles: Just say no to the Democrats who said no on background checks.

Far more progressive elements in the Democratic Party released this video about Heitkamp's betrayal yesterday:



GOP Fears Another Todd Akin Catastrophe In Georgia

Right-wing crackpots cheered when conservative Senator Saxby Chambliss announced he was retiring. After all, his lifetime ProgressivePunch crucial vote score is 1.95-- tied for the 17th most right-wing Member of the Senate with neo-fascist crackpot Jim Inhofe (R-OK)-- and his score for this session is zero. But that wasn't good enough for the extremists... so now they're liable to get stuck with one of two congressmen who make Todd Akin seem almost mainstream, Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey.

In a recent fundraising letter, [Broun] boasted that he was the first member of Congress to call Obama "a socialist who embraces Marxist-Leninist policies."

That makes Broun a tea party and evangelical favorite. To other Republicans, however, such comments stir memories of 2012 losses in Senate races in Missouri and Indiana where the GOP nominees, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, made controversial comments about women, rape and abortion.

"There's no question that the Republican Party in Georgia and the nation are concerned that we could have another Todd Akin-type scenario here," said Heath Garrett, a Republican campaign consultant and former top aide to U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson.

Not Sure If Fred Malek Is Still A Jew Hater, But If He Is, He's Now A Pro-Gay Jew Hater

Malek is a rich GOP fundraiser for extreme right-wing candidates and causes now but he's best known as Nixon's "Jew counter," who worked to make sure there weren't "too many" Jews working for the government. He told Think Progress yesterday that he's in favor of marriage equality. "I feel it’s overdue and I support gay marriage... It’s a free country. They ought to be able to get married and they ought to have legalization of that." The candidates he finances through the shady PAC he operates, the American Action Network, do not favor marriage equality. In the 2012 cycle Malek spent $11,689,399 on independent expenditures trying to elect vehemently anti-gay candidates like Daniel "Taliban Dan" Webster (R-FL), Jeff Denham (R-CA), Richard Mourdock (R-IN), Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY), Chip Cravaack (R-MN), and Jesse Kelly (R-AZ). But he supports gay marriage. And he likes the Jews too.

Read More

Mark Smith, Democratic Candidate For Pennsylvania Lt Governor, Rocks... In More Ways Than One

I've only been to the Bahamas once; it was to visit the legendary, now shuttered, Compass Point Studios in Nassau, where one of our bands, the Ocean Blue, was recording Beneath the Rhythm and Sound late in the summer of 1993. It was a difficult time for the band, who came from a very conservative religious fundamentalist background and had been coming to grips that one of it's key members had decided to eschew the closet and embrace his homosexuality. He had written the band's only real hit and was the member most liked by the media. But the other band members-- who had once all given each other copies of the newly released Rush Limbaugh book as Christmas presents-- couldn't come to terms with one of them being gay. They told him he had to stop talking with the media and representing the band. And then they told him that Beneath the Rhythm and Sound would be the last time they would be working together, after having been friends since childhood.

I got to Nassau for the playback. Afterwards the studio managers had a bar-b-que at the pool as a kind of celebration. Suddenly their 5 year old son was nowhere to be see. Then he was seen-- at the bottom of the pool. Steve, the Ocean Blue member being thrown out of the band, had been a lifeguard. He dove in, rescued the kid and resuscitated him... tears of joy everywhere. One of the other band members came over to me. He seemed confused. "How," he asked me, seriously, referring to Steve, "could he be doing Satan's work and God's work at the same time?"

Yeah-- and that was the last Ocean Blue album on Sire Records. We helped Steve start his own record label as a subsidiary of Sire. A few days ago a friend of mine sent me this story about Mark Smith, a musician in another Pennsylvania Christian rock band, One Floor Away. Smith, a self-described liberal Democrat and a Bradford County commissioner, is also a candidate for lieutenant governor.

His bandmates forced him to make a choice: playing in the band or changing his position on marriage equality, which Smith had supported on his Facebook page. Smith, who's marrying his fiancé, Jane, this June, made his choice-- and left his position as lead guitar player in the band just as they were preparing to record their first album.

“It sort of blew my mind,” Smith said. “It was like a smack to the side of the head.” He said the band’s record producer and a couple of his band mates gave him the ultimatum late last month as they were meeting in Ithaca, N.Y. for a recording session.

Smith has played the guitar for years, influenced by blues greats such as B.B. King, and he joined One Floor Away in 2011. He also designed its web site.

“I would prefer not to speak on the subject right now,” said KC Sawyer, a keyboardist with the band and the managing director of DMKR studios, an Ithaca, N.Y. record label that handles Christian acts, including One Floor Away. “What we do with our band we prefer to keep quiet.” On its website, One Floor Away says its mission is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Smith was supportive of that positive message.

But he said he thought the band's dismissal was “short-sighted,” noting that even some evangelical Christians support equal rights for gays and lesbians. “I’m a liberal Democrat, and I feel we should certain allow people to marry who they please,” Smith said. “Equality is the foundation of this country; it’s not something I’ll back down on.”

He said he asked the band to remove his part from the single it recently released on iTunes and to redub it. “I can’t support them any more than they can support me,” Smith said.

Read More

Republican Party Makes A Decision-- They'll Hold Onto The Anti-LGBT Bigotry For Another Cycle

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

The decision was unanimous. Every single member of the Republican National Committee voted to reaffirm the party's opposition to marriage equality. There was no debate and the package of conservative resolutions passed with a voice vote-- Soviet style, just the way Reince Priebus likes it. The delegates had been spooked by threats from the far, dark corners of the anti-Jesus crowd to pull out of the party if they didn't keep with the homophobia.

Carnival barkers and freak show hucksters who control much of the Southern core of the GOP have made themselves personally rich by stirring up hatred and divisiveness and they weren't taking any hints that the GOP tone down the rhetoric against the LGBT community lying down-- despite polling that shows they are swimming against the tide of history.

Last month, prominent leaders like Mike Huckabee, Gary Bauer, and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins were already suggesting the possibility of leaving the party if its positions soften. Now, a coalition of anti-gay and anti-choice groups have written a letter warning the GOP leadership that “an abandonment of its principles will necessarily result in the abandonment of our constituents to their support.”

Though the letter addresses several social conservative issues such as abortion and school vouchers, it focuses particularly on LGBT issues. It encourages the Republican leaders to approve a resolution affirming the 2012 Republican Platform...

That was the resolution that passed unanimously Friday-- right after Tony Perkins called on right-wingers to stop contributing to the Republican Party (and give the money to him instead). From an e-mail CNN exposed: “Until the RNC and the other national Republican organizations grow a backbone and start defending core principles, don’t send them a dime of your hard-earned money. If you want to invest in the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who reflect your values and organizations you trust-like FRC Action.”

Last year FRC Action, the PAC Perkins controls spent $40,000 on 9 Senate races. Except for Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Deb Fischer (R-NE), all their candidates lost, some, like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, spectacularly... and by following the advise of right-wing extremists like Perkins. I bet though, the last three Democrats against marriage equality aren't going to get much help from Perkins and his bigotry colleagues when they run for reelection.

Read More

How Many House Democrats Are Still Unevolved On LGBT Equality?

Boehner happily swearing in a very unevolved Pete Gallego (D-TX), the one freshman Blue Dog

With Bill Nelson (D-FL) finally getting on board the equality train there are no Democratic senators left except for ones who probably go back and forth in their minds every night about whether they should switch to the Republican Party or not, like the idiot from Arkansas who bragged on film about his sadly low IQ. He also has the lowest score on LGBT equality issues of any Democrat in the Senate, a 50%, same as Susan Collins (R-ME), closet case Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and John McCain (R-AZ). Aside from Pryor, the only unevolved Democrats on this matter are arch-conservatives from red states: Tim Johnson (SD), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Joe Manchin (WV). I suspect Landrieu's reticence-- cowardice?-- to embrace equality will hurt her badly with her New Orleans base and she'll lose her reelection bid in 2014. She's using an ass-backwards strategy that is always a loser for Democrats; Republicans have their own candidates and they're not going to rally around a Democrat just because she's reluctantly anti-gay. Tom Johnson is retiring so it will be interesting to see how his son Brendan, a probable candidate for the seat, handles the issue.

The evolution of conservative House members has gotten less attention than conservative senators like Mark Kirk (R-IL), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) and Bob Casey (D-PA) announcing they've come around. One longtime homophobe with a miserable record on LGBT issues has been Blue Dog Jim Cooper, whose Nashville district is far more evolved than he is. Recently he gave up on the bigotry too though and announced he would back marriage equality. Until now, Cooper has had a dismal lifetime crucial vote score of 28.57 on LGBT issues, worse than libertarian-leaning Republicans. We had a hint Cooper had started evolving last July when homophobic fanatic Steve King (R-IA) proposed an amendment to a defense budget that would prevent gay soldiers from marrying on bases. Although 17 of Cooper's Blue Dog and ConservaDem colleagues backed King, Cooper actually voted with the Democrats. Several of the 17 who voted with King have since been defeated in primaries and general elections but 9 remain in the House today-- John Barrow (Blue Dog/New Dem-GA), Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA), Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Gene Green (TX), Dan Lipinksi (IL), Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog/New Dem-NC), Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN) and Nick Rahall (WV). A tenth, Blue Dog homophobe Joe Donnelly is now in the Senate; he endorsed marriage equality on his Facebook page yesterday. There are also two freshmen who have been elected since then who campaigned on anti-equality platforms, Bill Enyart (IL) and Pete Gallego (Blue Dog-TX).

There's still some hope for more evolution from some of this lot, though. When the GOP tried to strip protection for gays and lesbians out of the domestic violence legislation in February, only 2 Democrats voted with the GOP-- anti-gay fanatics Mike McIntyre and Dan Lipinski. 60 Republicans voted with the Democrats against the amendment.

Echoing a growing number of Democratic politicians, Rep. Jim Cooper said Tuesday his support for gay marriage developed over his years in office and that he sees the issue mattering for economic development as well as civil rights.

Tennessee Republicans, meanwhile, continued to express opposition while saying the issue is one for the states.

The comments of Cooper, a Nashville Democrat, came in an interview and followed his prepared statement from the day before in which he said he favors recognition of same-sex marriages while recognizing some churches may continue to object.

"We're just talking about civil marriages here," he emphasized again Tuesday.

"A number of groups are trying to figure out what to do," he said. "The nation is working its way through this now."

He added, "My views have evolved over time."

..."My denomination changed its mind (on gay marriage)," he said of the Episcopal Church.

The Episcopal House of Bishops, meeting in a national convention in July 2012, OK'd priests blessing same-sex couples but stipulated a blessing did not equate to approving marriage. The latter remained a matter for civil authorities, it said.

Cooper said he was also pleased to see Davidson County adopt a policy that prohibits private-sector firms wanting county business from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender.

"The principle of non-discrimination is important," he said.

And if firms from states that recognize gay marriage want to relocate offices and employees to Tennessee, the congressman said, they may want assurances such marriages will be accepted in the Volunteer State.

"We need to be as welcoming in Tennessee as we can be," Cooper said.

Tennessee, however, adopted a state constitutional amendment in 2006 that says marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

Congressional records show Cooper voted in 2006 for a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman as well.

Every Blue America candidate favors marriage equality, of course. Yesterday I asked the Democrat running against John Boehner in western Ohio if he feels this is an issue people in his district are playing attention to. He does-- and he's very aware that his position is very different from Boehner's. Andy Hounshell: "I want everyone to have the opportunity to be as happy as my wife and I are. It's not just about saying you are married either. There is much more to it than that. You have to be legally married to receive medical benefits, survivor benefits, etc. There is no logical reason why two consenting adults should be denied the same opportunity that I have."

Read More

"All I'm asking for is compassion and dignity," says a grieving man -- I say he should be out for those scumbags' blood

"On top of my grief and uncertainty and horror, I found myself having to fight to claim what our legal documents already said was mine. I obtained a court order to correct the probate and to get the items that had been removed from my house returned. However, after thousands of dollars and months of legal wrangling I gave up. I sacrificed most of the assets to which I was legally entitled for the sake of my sanity. . . .

"[A]s difficult as the last year has been, I've been incredibly fortunate. I knew my rights. I had attorneys looking out for me. I had a strong circle of supportive friends and family. I had a job that cared about my personal situation.

"Not every gay man or lesbian is so lucky. . . ."

-- Florida journalist Billy Manes, writing about the
aftermath of the death of his partner, Alan Jordan

by Ken

On Monday I wrote about the situation of young Matt Salmon, the early-20s son of far-far-right-wing AZ GOP Rep. Matt Salmon. It's another case of a Republican pol with a gay son, but in this case, unlike that of OH Sen. Rob Portman and his impressive son Will, a Yale junior whose Yale Daily News guest column I had shared earlier (but then got the link wrong! I've corrected it, and it should be right here), Representative Salmon says himself that he hasn't "evolved" to the point of supporting marriage equality. (We also saw the lovely and moving "It Gets Better" that young Matt posted awhile back as "Matt in Phoenix," and if you haven't seen it, I encourage you to click through to one of the links.)

I should add that, no, the congressman doesn't use the term "marriage equality." When he's forced to talk about such subjects, as unfortunately for him he now has to because he values his relationship with his son, he talks about "LGBT rights." Frankly he's not a fan of "LGBT rights." In particular, he says they're not a "legal issue."

Which can only mean that he doesn't believe LGBT folk are entitled to such rights, because pretty much the whole point of rights is that they are overwelmingly a legal issue. How could they possibly not be? If a right isn't legally enforcible, it isn't a right.

On the most obvious level, and way more important to a huge number of LGBT people than same-sex marriage, is legal protection against discrimination in housing and employment. When you can be freely discriminated against either, or flat-out denied them, just because you're L, G, B, or T, as you can be in most states, you have been denied one helluva lot of rights that straight people don't give a second thought, or maybe even a first.

But that's far from all we're talking about. LGBT people are routinely denied a whole range of legal rights and protections that to most straight people are so obvious and fundamental that they don't even think of them as "rights." I mentioned Monday that I'd had passed along a "for instance" that had me more or less bouncing off the walls. And if it doesn't enrage you, well, what can I say?

The following letter was posted on the Equality Florida blog with the title "Death So Often Brings Out the Worst in People," was written by Orlando journalist Billy Manes to the Florida State Senate committee members who were scheduled yesterday to consider a long-stalled domestic-partnership bill, which of course falls well short of the marriage equality being fought for in other states but apparently still beyond the reach of Florida LGBT citizens.

Dear Senators,

I came to Tallahassee on March 12 to deliver the following testimony before your committee with regard to SB 196. The bill was temporarily postponed that day, but seeing as you're hearing it again on April 1 -- and I am not able to deliver it in person -- I hope you'll take a moment to consider my story. I also hope that you will do the right thing and vote "Yes" on the domestic partnership registry. It could really help people when they need it the most. It would have helped me. Thank you for your time.

Billy Manes


Staff Writer, Orlando Weekly

Orlando, FL

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having me. My name is Billy Manes. I'm a journalist from Orlando, Florida. I wish I were here to talk about someone else's story, but I'm not.

I met my partner, Alan Jordan, in January 2001. We were opposites -- he a former football player at Auburn University with a southern drawl and the politics to match, me, a liberal extrovert. But nonetheless we quickly fell in love. In 2002, we bought a house together, though my name wasn't on the deed, and we set about forming our family -- our dogs, our friends, our birthday parties and backyard barbeques. He was my rock, my support. I was full of big ideas, and he was heavy with reason. When I ran for mayor of Orlando in 2005, he was my treasurer and coach. He believed in me. It would be no exaggeration to say that he saved my life.

I supported him too. When he got his pilot's license, I bit my lip and flew in his single-engine puddle-jumper. When his father died in 2006 and he made the decision to commute back and forth to Georgia to take care of his mother, I held down the fort in Orlando. When his health started to deteriorate, I was there every step of the way -- doctor's offices, therapists, disability, you name it.

In 2008, as Amendment 2 loomed, we contacted an attorney and executed all of the documents available to LGBT families in Florida: power of attorney, health surrogate, and a will, among others. We were as much a legal couple as the laws of the state of Florida permitted us to be.

On Easter Sunday of last year, after a long battle with health problems and depression, Alan shot himself in the chest in the backyard of our house. I screamed; I tried to resuscitate him; I called 911. But it was no use.

He was gone.

The police came. They checked my hands for gunpowder. After three hours, the ambulance took away his body.

Before I'd even washed his blood out of my hair, Alan's brother showed up on my doorstep. In the next 24 hours, he identified Alan's body at the morgue, had it cremated without my knowledge or consent, changed his address with the postmaster, and began walking around my house identifying items that the family thought belonged to them: a lawnmower, tools, guns, the commitment rings on my fingers. They ignored the fact that everything in our house belonged to both of us.

I was in shock and distraught, as you can imagine. But I still made clear to them, as I gave them the will that left everything to me, that I wanted to work with the family in a manner that was fair for both of us. I understood that they were in pain -- and that they didn't know that Alan was in a relationship with a man. Because Alan's sexuality was touchy subject in his hometown of Rome, Georgia, his family didn't talk or want to know about his personal life. Alan's brother and a friend of his drove away with two cars that were registered in my name because they thought they were Alan's cars. In my own panic, I let that happen.

I threw a memorial service to celebrate Alan, and hundreds of people showed up -- including the mayor of Orlando and former state representative Scott Plakon. An attorney friend was at the service as well, and offered her services should I need them.

Before we could even file the will in Orange County court, I learned that the family had already opened a probate case listing Alan's mother as his personal representative and sole beneficiary.

What followed was a nightmare. On top of my grief and uncertainty and horror, I found myself having to fight to claim what our legal documents already said was mine. I obtained a court order to correct the probate and to get the items that had been removed from my house returned. However, after thousands of dollars and months and of legal wrangling I gave up. I sacrificed most of the assets to which I was legally entitled for the sake of my sanity.

I don't think that the family was acting capriciously -- at least now I don't. They, like me, were grieving, trying to come to terms with an unspeakable loss. Death so often brings out the worst in people.

I struggled with the idea of coming here today, of making my story public. But in my heart, I know that this is what Alan would have wanted. In fact, as difficult as the last year has been, I've been incredibly fortunate. I knew my rights. I had attorneys looking out for me. I had a strong circle of supportive friends and family. I had a job that cared about my personal situation.

Not every gay man or lesbian is so lucky. Since Alan's death, I've spoken with several members of the LGBT community who, when faced with the devastating death of a partner, lost everything. And this could have been me: My name wasn't on the deed to my house. I could easily have been homeless. I didn't have a right to anything that was in Alan's name—not our mutual savings, not his inheritance, not even our cars – because I didn't have the inherent legal right to inherit Alan's estate, which this Bill would correct. This Bill can save people from suffering through what I went through, at the worst time of my life.

And so I'm here to ask you to right this wrong. I recognize that under the state's constitution, I am unable to marry the person I love. And he's gone anyway. But how can we, as a state, in good conscience, even as we praise the family as the backbone of our society, deny even the most basic, fundamental rights to hundreds of thousands of your constituents who pay their taxes, go to work, and play by the rules?

I don't believe that I'm asking for much. I'm not asking for the right to marry, or the right to a civil union. I'm not even here to ask you to recognize that the love Alan and I shared is equal to the love you have for your spouse, although that would be nice.

All I'm asking for is compassion and dignity. Please don't let that be too much.

Thank you.
Billy Manes

As far as I'm concerned, Billy is being way too understanding of Alan's family when he says, "I don't think that the family was acting capriciously -- at least now I don't. They, like me, were grieving, trying to come to terms with an unspeakable loss." I'm not unmindful of their loss, but I'm also not unmindful of the fact that they didn't even know this person they were grieving for. He hadn't trusted them enough to confide his true self to them, for obviously excellent reasons.

Worse still, their response was an orgy of outright criminality. Not only did they flout Alan's unmistakably explicit understanding of the ownership of all that property that was shared between him and Billy, they actually outright stole property that was in Billy's name. As far as I'm concerned, these people are garbage and outlaws, who should have been required, not just to make full restitution to Billy of all the property they stole, but should have borne all the court costs and spent some time in the hoosegow.

Everywhere they go, there should be signs denouncing them as criminal trash, common thieves, and monsters. And all the people who would behave more or less the way they did in the situation should be just as ashamed. Shamed to the depths of their monstrous souls.

I might buy the elder Matt Salmon's take on "LGBT rights" if he reformulated it to say: It's not just a legal issue. The legal issue should be clearcut, and so too should the moral one be. It really is a matter of the most basic human decency.
#

Read More

Let's hear directly from AZ GOP Rep. Matt Salmon's gay son Matt

The "It Gets Better" video posted by "Matt in Phoenix"

"It's impossible to be brave without first being afraid."

-- young Matt, replying to a comment posted on his video

by Ken

Howie wrote this morning ("Republican Homophobia in Arizona? Jeff Flake Vs Matt Salmon") about the weekend TV babbling of a couple of Arizona right-wingers, Rep. Matt Salmon and Sen. Jeff Flake, dancing around the issue of same-sex marriage.

The interesting wrinkle is that Representative Salmon has a son who happens to be gay. The congressman made clear that on the issue of marriage equality he's no Rob Portman, not having "evolved" to the "station" that the Ohio Republican senator "apparently has." You'll recall that the senator has changed his position to favor same-sex marriage in good part owing to the evolution set in motion by learning that his son Will is gay.

When Senator Portman went public about Will being gay, it was widely and understandably pointed out that it's a shame this was the only way he was capable of having his consciousness raised. At the same time, he deserved some credit for having it raised.

However obvious it may be, I keep pointing out that the sea change in public opinion about the LGBT community has everything to do with more and more previously hostile or indifferent Americans realizing that they actually know LGBT people -- among their family and friends and coworkers -- and have come to understand that their sexual orientation is simply part of who they are; it doesn't make them better or worse people.

Which brings us back to "Matt in Phoenix," who posted the "It Gets Better" video we see above -- from the inspiring series of videos made by LGBT folks from all walks of life speaking to younger peers to encourage them in their struggles with the same issues they've grappled with. "Matt in Phoenix" is of course the younger Matt Salmon.

Today on washingtonpost.com's "Post Politics" blog, Rachel Weiner posted a piece, "Rep. Matt Salmon: Gay son hasn't changed my views on gay marriage," that includes both the video of Representative Salmon's interview which Howie posted this morning and his son's "It Gets Better" video. Now I don't want to downplay any of what Howie pointed out about the older Matt's right-wing extremism.

But just as it was fascinating to see Yale junior Will Portman's parents through his eyes, as he told his story in a Yale Daily News guest column (which I wrote about in "It's a pretty standard coming-out story, with a couple of wrinkles (like it's a U.S. senator's son)," I think it's intriguing to be able to see young Matt's parents through his eyes.

In her "Post Politics" post Rachel Weiner notes that young Matt --

leads the Arizona Log Cabin Republicans, a pro-gay rights GOP group. In a 2010 interview with the Phoenix New Times, the 22-year-old revealed that he was dating Kent Flake, the second cousin of Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). In the article, both young men discussed coming out to their conservative Mormon families.

"The first time I had a conversation with [my father] about it, it did not go well. He was very upset and said some things right off that I know he doesn't really feel," Salmon told the paper. "He's never called me any slurs or anything like that, but he made it clear he didn't like it." The younger Salmon said his father came to support his activism even if he didn't agree with it, but that the struggle for his family's complete acceptance continued.

"It took me 20 years to accept that I'm gay, and to live openly and understand equality issues," he said. "I can't expect them to do it in four months."

Matt's "It Gets Better" video is totally lovely, and I hope you'll watch in its entirety -- to hear him talk about what it was like growing up Mormon and realizing that he was gay, or about summoning the courage to confront the bullies who had beset him in high school -- and having them apologize and even congratulate him on his courage.

I've transcribed just the portion dealing with Matt's parents, and even here what you won't get from the transcript is the image of his emotional upheaval even in 2011 as he talked about it, or the way his tone lightens and he even smiles when he talks about being able to talk to his parents about his dating problems.

I didn't know if my family would ever come around. My parents were very politically opposed to gay equal rights. My mom was president of the organization in Arizona that drafted the 2006 amendment to ban gay marriage in Arizona. She even asked me to help her edit it sometimes. . . . My dad is also a Republican politician. He was in Congress, and he's running for Congress again [in May 2011].

I can tell you, since I've come out, things have changed with my family, but it wasn't until I realized one key thing: If I wanted them to love me and and fully accept me, I had to love and fully accept them too, despite their opinions that might not agree with mine. My parents, they won't see LGBT rights as an issue. They don't see it as a legal issue, but my dad in his campaign now, he has come out publicly and talked with pride about me. My dad told me, and he told a reporter also on the news, that he was proud of me for standing up for what I believe in, for standing up for gay rights. Even though he may not agree with them, he was proud of me for doing it, because that was the way he raised me. And it's true, he did.

I talk to my parents about guys that I've dated, or troubles that I'm having with boys and things like that, and they give me their honest advice, even though they could say, "I don't want to hear it. I don't like you dating guys." They don't. They say, "Maybe he's not right for you. Maybe you should look for somebody else. And someday you'll find a man that makes you happy." And I'm sure that I will.

AT THE TIME YOUNG MATT POSTED HIS VIDEO . . .

. . . there were three comments, and he replied to all of them. I think both the comments and his replies are fascinating.

th3g00dstuff88: Great video Matt. I have a question for you: Are you still LDS? How has the church responded to you being gay? Thanks.

I fully resigned from the church about a year and a half ago. But, I've realized that even though I am not a member any longer, I will always be a Mormon. You can leave the membership, but you can't leave the culture. The church responds as they would, sweep it under, try to retain me while telling me I'm a sinner and considered less than straight members. But, how the church responds doesn't matter, because only I decide my life path, nobody else.

Shyguyx12: Thanks for this great video!! I wish that I was as brave as you.

well, it's impossible to be brave without first being afraid.

kellykak98: I'm sorry what you went through. Your story is very touching. I just hope you know that not ALL Mormons, Catholics, etc. and republicans aren't homophobic. My mom is Catholic and my dad is a Mormon and i was raised Catholic. I'm a conservative republican--more conservative than my parents haha! I'm also a lesbian. I'm 16 years old. My parents LOVE me and don't want me to change! Us Christians love our children no matter what! The ones who don't obviously haven't read the Bible. They aren't true.

I still hold to a lot of republican ideals as well. I understand the individuality that is inherent in humanity.

FINALLY, A CHALLENGE TO REP. SALMON

Young Matt tells us that you and the missus don't see LGBT rights as a "legal issue." Really? So you think your son should be subject to being summarily fired from any job just because he's gay? Or being thrown out of his home, or denied the opportunity to rent or buy one because he's gay? Or being denied a whole range of legal "privileges" -- like common property ownership, hospital visitation, or inheritance, things that are so taken for granted by straight folk that it never even occurs to them to think of them as "privileges."

I put it as a challenge to Senator Portman to do something else, pretty much anything else, to show that he actually grasps the basic issues of human rights involved, though I did offer by way of suggestion (always trying to help, I am) that he might sign on as a co-sponsor of the reintroduced Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). I understand, Representative Salmon, that you haven't evolved to Senator Portman's station on marriage equality. But are you starting to get any glimmering that there may indeed be not just a legal issue but a whole bunch of them attached to what you so casually dismiss as "LGBT rights"? None of which you apparently believe your son should be legally entitled to.

AND IF YOU THINK ISSUES LIKE COMMON PROPERTY
OWNERSHIP AND INHERITANCE ARE TECHNICALITIES . . .

Tomorrow I want to share a "for instance" that was passed along to me today and had me punching the walls. If it doesn't outrage you, then there's really something wrong with you.

#

Read More