In an interview with Towleroad, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand – who has made repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell one of her legislative priorities – said that she would favor amending the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation. The historic legislation sought to erase all government-backed discrimination on the basis of race or gender.
Senator Gillibrand said in her interview:
I would [be supportive of that]. I truly believe that this gay rights agenda is the civil rights march of our generation. I think marriage equality, I think repealing DOMA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. All of that work we’re doing is part of equal rights in America and it is something that is so important to this generation. I think that kind of bill would be transformational…Whether we have the votes for that kind of bill today, I don’t know. But it’s something certainly worth fighting for.”
Senator Gillibrand met with Towleroad while addressing a crowd of activists at the LGBT Community Center in New York City.
In the final days before Maine voters go to the polls on Nov. 3 to consider a referendum that would reject the law enacted last spring legalizing marriage equality, representatives for both sides are engaged in a series of broadcast debates they hope will influence the outcome.
The latest opinion polls show voters evenly divided, so the forums could be crucial in determining whether couples of the same sex will be able to marry in the Pine Tree State.
The Maine Legislature passed a marriage bill in April. Gov. John Balducci signed it in May, but anti-marriage forces successfully mounted a campaign to get Question 1 on the ballot, giving voters the final say.
Facing off in the series of five live debates–some on TV, others on radio, all online–are Marc Mutty, campaign chair of Yes on One/Stand for Marriage Maine; and Mary Bonauto, civil rights project director at the Boston-based Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and a consultant to No on 1/Protect Maine Equality.
Mutty is on loan from his job as public affairs director at the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland. The Church is taking a leading role in the campaign to pass the referendum even though the equal marriage law does not require religious groups to perform same-sex weddings.
A Maine resident, Bonauto successfully argued the case for marriage for gay and lesbian couples before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in the landmark Goodridge case.
The first debate was broadcast Oct. 22 on the Maine Public Broadcasting radio network with Susan Sharon, the network’s deputy news director, as moderator. Mutty and Bonauto also took questions from phone-in listeners.
Issues discussed included whether the equal marriage law would require teaching about homosexuality in the schools; whether marriage is only for procreation; and whether alternatives, such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, would grant same-sex couples the same benefits.
An exchange between Sharon and Mutty near the end revealed a key potential weakness in the fight against equal marriage. Sharon kicked off the debate by asking why the referendum’s supporters are focusing so much on marriage equality’s impact on schools.
“If the referendum is defeated there will be much more impetus to discuss gay and lesbian issues in the education of students,” Mutty contended. “It’ll be taught to students as young as in kindergarten.”
Bonauto stressed–and pointedly repeated several times during the debate–that the No on 1 campaign is based on the principle that everyone should be considered equal under the law. “The school issue is a distraction,” she said, emphasizing that the statute doesn’t require schools to teach about same-sex couples’ sexuality, but educators should acknowledge equality. Kids come from all sorts of different families. Schools want to make sure they all are safe and respected.”
One caller who has taught sex education classes for 26 years in Maine public schools asked how instructors would handle questions about same-sex relationships. Bonauto pointed out that under policies already in place parents can opt out of such classes for their children. And even if they don’t, “You don’t have to answer every question. You could say it is something you should discuss with your parents.”
Another caller, a Catholic, said she doesn’t understand how the new law affects her marriage. “It’s going to have an impact over time,” Mutty asserted. “The Legislature created a genderless marriage. Procreation is no longer essential. That’s a huge change. A family with a father and mother no longer is important. I find that bizarre.”
Bonauto pointed out that having children has never been essential to marriage: “The state doesn’t care one whit about procreation. Children are being raised by gays and lesbians. Wouldn’t you want the same protections for those children that heterosexual families have?”
Later Mutty, responding to another caller, contended that the state issues marriage licenses only to “produce little citizens.”
A portion of the debate centered on whether same-sex couples should consider alternatives to marriage, something several callers mentioned.
“There has been no discussion of alternatives to marriage for gay and lesbian people that should be on the table because people working for No on 1 don’t want it,” Mutty asserted at one point.
Richard, who phoned in from Fayette, asked whether all the money being spent on both sides wouldn’t be better spent getting “gay and straight people together to find other ways to do this.” Bonauto countered that only marriage offers the protections that would make same-sex couples equal to heterosexual ones.
Sarah Dowling of Freeport called in to talk about why marriage is important to protect her child, Maya, now in third grade. Dowling and her partner Linda were married in a church ceremony 13 years ago, but their union was not recognized by the state.
Dowling adopted Maya as a baby and Linda did so a year ago. She described having to carry around documents when they travel to show that they both have legal custody of Maya, in case of an emergency.
“Civil unions and domestic partnerships allow for discrimination,” Bonauto explained. “People in emergency rooms and other situations couples encounter when they say they are in civil unions ask ’what’s that?’”
What Impact on Traditional Families?
One exchange exposed what pro-equality marriage supporters sees as an Achilles heel in the argument against same-sex marriages–their supposed impact on traditional families. No substantiated evidence is ever offered, they counter.
In this debate, the moderator asked Mutty about discrimination lawsuits he said have occurred in states where such marriages are legal. “I didn’t bring my file with me today, but there are examples,” he said.
As the debate concluded, Sharon observed that voters are split 50-50 and it isn’t likely either campaign will change minds. Her comment prompted the only conciliatory gestures.
“We are going to the polls to let the people decide,” Mutty remarked. “This is one area where our camps agree.”
“No matter what the outcome, we’ll live together in the Maine community and will be respectful of our differences,” Bonauto said.
Our next step in our federal agenda should be focusing on ENDA in the Senate. Of all our initiatives, that will affect the largest number of people in our community in the most important area of our lives: the ability to get and keep a job. And it’s achievable in the next few months.
The House is practically on board, and the vote will happen in the next few weeks. My calculations, as shown in the Inclusive ENDA House spreadsheet, show 212 likely yes votes, with another 6 needed for passage. We’re 98% of the way there, so we mustn’t drop the ball now.
The real fight on ENDA is in the Senate, where there are only 49 confirmed yes votes. That’s only 82% of the way there. Another 7 are likely yes votes, but they’re not saying, so they need to be targeted. Even so, we’ll need to drag the river to find 4 more bodies to get ENDA passed.
We can do it, if we as a community get focused on calling our Senators. (Calls are much more persuasive than emails.) Names and contact info of the legislators to target after the jump. If you’d rather not read all this, skip to the part about the Senate, and pick up the phone and call one.
House of Representatives
There are 11 Representatives who are likely to vote yes for HR 3017, most of them because they were co-sponsors of the inclusive ENDA in 2007. However, these 11 have not co-sponsored this time around, and, at this late date, they have not even said they support the bill. You should contact these people and ask for their support for HR 3017.
Jim Costa (CA-D-20) 202-225-3341 559-495-1620 (Click here for email)
Xavier Becerra (CA-D-31) 202-225-6235 213-483-1425 (Email) (UPDATE 10/15/09: now a co-sponsor)
Corrine Brown (FL-D-03) 202-225-0123 904-354-1652 (Email)
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-D-24) 202-225-2706 386-756-9798 (Email)
Leonard L. Boswell (IA-03) 202-225-3806 888-432-1984 (Email)
Steny Hoyer (MD-D-05) 202-225-4131 301-843-1577 (Email) (UPDATE 10/15/09: Rep. Hoyer is a yes)
Bart Stupak (D-01) 202-225-4735 231-348-0657 (Email) (not a former co-sponsor, but leaning yes)
G. K. Butterfield, Jr. (NC-D-01) 202-225-3101 252-237-9816 (Email)
Bob Etheridge (NC-D-02) 202-225-4531 888-262-6202 (Email)
Ciro Rodriguez (D-23) 202-225-4511 432-336-3975 (Email)
Jim Matheson (D-02) 202-225-3011 801-486-1236 (Email)
There are also 73 Representatives who are unconfirmed. Their names and contact info can be found by clicking here.
The Senate
Here’s where the real battle royale is going to be.
There are 40 co-sponsors (plus Senator Merkley, the original sponsor, so that’s 41). There are 8 who have confirmed that they will vote yes, but are not willing to co-sponsor. You can see all of those names by clicking here, and looking in the “confirmed yes” column. We need 11 more votes to overcome a filibuster.
You can understand how close it is in the Senate when I tell you that there are 7 unconfirmed Senators who are likely to vote yes with some work, and another 9 who might vote yes with a lot of work. I’m calling these last the “high maintenance” Senators, and here they are. Click on their names to see my previous discussion of their positions.
“HIGH MAINTENANCE” SENATORS
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 202-224-6665 907-271-3735 (Email)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) 202-224-2353 501-324-6336 (Email)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) 202-224-5274 850-942-8415 (Email)
Sen. George LeMieux (D-FL) (202) 224-3041 (Email)
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) 202-224-4814 812-465-6313 (Email)
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) 202-224-6342 336-333-5311 (Email)
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) 202-224-2043 701-852-0703 (Email)
Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) 202-224-3353 216-522-7095 (Email)
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) 202-224-3954 304-264-4626 (Email)
“LOW MAINTENANCE” SENATORS, BUT NEED A CALL
Sen. Thomas R. Carper (D-DE) 202-224-2441 302-674-3308 (Email)
Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-DE) 202-224-5042 302-424-8090 (Email)
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) 202-224-5623 812-218-2317 (Email)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824 504-589-2427 (Email) (UPDATE 10/16/09: Sen. Landrieu is now a co-sponsor)
Sen. Paul G. Kirk, Jr. (D-MA) 202-224-4543 617-565-3170
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) 202-224-5842 605-226-3440 (Email)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) 202-224-6472 304-253-9704 (Email)
Please call these Senators and ask them to support S1584. The vote will probably take place in early 2010, but we can’t wait until then. We need to have 60 Senators lined up, or almost lined up, in order for the leadership to bring it to the floor for a vote. If they don’t see 60, they may very well decide either to not bring it to the floor for a vote, citing the press of other business. They may even try to get it through by stripping out gender identity. Sounds far-fetched, I know. *sardonic frown* But start dialing!
President Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the Matthew Shepard & James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act on Wednesday, October 28, 4:45 p.m. EST.
The legislation would expand the current federal hate-crimes law to include victims who were targeted because of sexual orientation or gender identity. It is attached to the 2010 Department of Defense Authorization bill.
The House approved the stand-alone hate-crimes legislation in July, and then re-approved the amended version of the bill on October 8. The Senate passed the legislation on Thursday.
According to Stark, a hearing could take place in a House Ways & Means Committee this year. (Source: fncis.chen )
If passed, a new bill could restrict federal funding for states with anti-LGBT adoption and foster policies.
The ’Every Child Deserves a Family Act,’ which was introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) on Oct. 15, would penalize states with outdated adoption policies that restrict access based on marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
“We got 25,000 kids a year maturing out of the welfare system without permanent foster care or adoptive care, and the prospects of those children having a successful adult life are diminished greatly,” Stark told the Washington Blade. “These are kids who end up in the criminal justice system, or end up homeless.”
The legislation would directly affect states with explicit adoption restrictions, including Utah, Florida, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Mississippi.
The bill has received support from Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. According to Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s spokesperson, the Speaker believes that children “should have the security of two fully sanctioned and legally recognized parents, whether those parents are of the same or opposite sex.”
The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Family Equality Council (FEC), both LGBT rights organizations, have also offered their support.
According to Stark, a hearing on the bill could take place in a House Ways & Means Committee this year.
Seattle-based caffeine cartel Starbucks gave its blessing this week to approve Referendum 71, thereby recognizing that gay couples deserve the same morning coffee rights as their groggy, heterosexual counterparts. In a statement, the company said that approving R-71 “ensures that basic benefits and important protections are not taken away from committed couples, so they are able to take care of each other, especially in times of crisis.” Starbucks wants voters to approve the measure “because it is aligned with our business practices, providing domestic partner benefits, and one of our core values of treating people with respect and dignity.”
Bravo, Starbucks.
It’s hard to say how much impact the endorsement has, as the company didn’t donate to the Approve R-71 campaign. But a spokeswoman—who said she couldn’t be named or CEO Howard Schultz would force her to drink sweet tea for a week—said the company did notify its “partners” (employees) through its “internal partner portal” (website) about the endorsement. The company has 3,000 employees in its Seattle headquarters and maintains 667 stores in Washington state. Needless to say, that’s a big chunk of voters. “That is just as valuable as when an organization communicates its endorsement to members,” says Approve R-71 campaign manager Josh Friedes. “We are just delighted to have their endorsement along with Microsoft, Boeing, Nike, and many other companies that employ large numbers of people in the Pacific Northwest.”
By Kathy Jessup | Kalamazoo Gazette
October 24, 2009, 9:10AM
KALAMAZOO — A political interest group supporting an anti-discrimination ordinance on the city’s Nov. 3 ballot has raised a possible record campaign war chest for a Kalamazoo County election.
Based on pre-election campaign-finance reports filed Friday with the Kalamazoo County Clerk’s Office, One Kalamazoo has raised nearly $350,000 in cash and in-kind contributions, more than 10 times the $34,000 reported by Kalamazoo Citizens Voting NO to Special Rights Discrimination, a group opposing the proposed ordinance.
“If it’s not a record, it’s certainly right up there,” said Kalamazoo County Clerk Tim Snow.
City voters will decide Nov. 3 whether Kalamazoo will have an ordinance prohibiting discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender individuals in matters related to housing, employment and access to public accommodations.
Jon Hoadley, coordinator of One Kalamazoo, said the group received donations from 1,453 individuals, 60 percent of whom are city residents.
While Hoadley said 77 percent of the group’s donations were for $50 or less, One Kalamazoo’s report shows some five-figure contributions, most from donors with addresses outside Michigan.
For example, the Washington, D.C.-based National Gay and Lesbian Task Force made the largest, single in-kind contribution, spending nearly $75,000 on behalf of the Kalamazoo campaign for “donated labor” and “travel, lodging and printing.”
A South Dakota gay-rights activist sent a check for $35,000. A Colorado-based organization chipped in $5,000.
Kalamazoo philanthropist and gay-rights supporter Jon Stryker also has had a substantial imprint on One Kalamazoo’s financing.
The financial reports show that Stryker made a $30,000 cash contribution to the group and paid for nearly $23,000 in polling services as an in-kind donation.
Locally, the Kalamazoo County Democratic Party contributed $10,200 to the pro-ordinance effort.
More than half of Citizens Voting NO’s cash contributions of $33,633 came from two Kalamazoo sources. Midwest Fastener Corp. gave $10,000, and Netherlands Reformed Congregation gave $7,000.
A group listed as RJDM Balkema contributed $5,000.
Kalamazoo County Treasurer Mary Balkema, county Commissioner Jeff Balkema and John Balkema, a local business owner, are members of the Citizens Voting NO advisory board.
Dr. Royce Biddle, a Kalamazoo physician and Republican contributor, gave $2,000.
The American Family Association of Michigan, a conservative group working with the local ordinance-opposition campaign, made a $500 donation and provided $550 in in-kind aid.
So far, Citizens Voting NO reports spending about $6,000 to pay a Virginia consulting firm that specializes in voter contact for Republican organizations.
One Kalamazoo says its spent about $122,000, much of that on professional campaign firms in the Lansing and Washington, D.C., areas.
Both groups may continue to raise and spend money on their campaigns. Final spending totals are not due to be reported until Dec. 3.
It almost seems as if the people opposing marriage equality in Maine are phoning it in. After all, they are recycling the same ads that ran in California for the Prop 8 battle for the upcoming voter veto initiative in Maine. Apparently they never got the memo that the drive from Maine to Massachusetts takes….about half an hour depending on traffic. Getting to Vermont takes about forty minutes. And, from some places, you can literally see Canada and New Hampshire from your house.
The scare tactics of saying how those East Coast New England loony liberals are going to destroy your children’s right to grow up in a homosexual marriage free environment might work when there is a country in between one state and another, but it does not really work all that well when you can drive there and back 48 times in a day, if you so wished. Most non-Massachusetts New Englanders know people who are living in or are from Massachusetts. People routinely travel between the six states that make up New England.
Current polls put the battle over marriage equality in Maine at exactly even. It will be a pitched battle determined more by voter turn out than anything else. However, if the fundraising is any indication, there is an enthusiasm gap between those opposed to marriage equality and those who are for it. There is a strong likelihood that those who are for marriage equality will be willing to turn out more than those opposed due to fears including having their donations made public and a general sense that this is inevitable. Anger towards the Roman Catholic Church may also be a contributing factor since they have angered much of their congregation by pouring money into this despite closing schools and churches across the state.
However, every vote will count, and the push will be to get every voter out to the polls in order to defeat this measure.
The push to do away with marriage rights in Maine was the focus of Rachel Maddow’s second segment. Dr. Maddow, it should be noted, splits her time between New York and Massachusetts. It includes a clip in it comparing an ad running in Maine to one that ran in California.
From Q-Tips, Submitted by David Hart on Sat, 10/24/2009 – 15:23
Stand for Marriage Maine, the group attempting to strip gay Mainers of the right to marry, has filed a report of their contributions and expenditures since September 30. They have taken in an additional $1.4 million for a total of $2.5 million
Expenditures were $1.1 million for a total of $2.2 million.
The National Organization for Marriage has donated an additional $1.1 million bring their total donations to $1.6 million.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland provided SFMM with an additional $196,000.
One individual, Rita Sukeworth of China, ME, donated $25,000. A Doug Sukeworth donated $5,000 to the Maine Grassroots Coalition which has received considerable support from the Christian Action League and has run some print ads in support of Question 1.
Focus on the “Family” kicked in another $18,000
The Smith Living Trust, of Newport Beach, CA donated $10,000.
Stand for Marriage Maine is showing cash on hand of $349,000 and debt of $135,000. On a liquidating basis, this gives them $214,000 of available funds. In contrast, No On 1/Protect Maine Equality has $408,000 of cash on hand and no debt. This is not an accurate depiction of remaining campaign activity because there is no way to determine what portion of expenditures were for services that have not yet been rendered.
In an interview with Towleroad, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand – who has made repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell one of her legislative priorities – said that she would favor amending the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation. The historic legislation sought to erase all government-backed discrimination on the basis of race or gender.
