lifeonq.com

Georgia Democratic Candidates for U.S. Senate Are Gay-Friendly in Varying Degrees

Over the last few days, I’ve attempted to research the five Democratic candidates seeking the party’s nomination for the right to challenge Sen. Saxby Chambliss in the fall. It has been a frustrating exercise, with limited media attention on their campaigns. Georgia Equality, Stonewall Democrats, Southern Voice–no one in the gay community Powers That Be are making any endorsements. While I would not characterize myself as a single-issue voter, I would say that I always check a candidate’s positions on LGBT issues before I cast a vote. I may not choose a candidate solely on their gay-friendliness, but I will certainly rule one out who isn’t. Facing radio silence from LGBT organizations and limited press coverage of the candidates (not to mention the meager coverage of their stand on LGBT issues), I decided to research it myself. Something we should all do for outselves anyway, granted, but the organizations that watch-dog such things for us are usually a good place to start. Apparently, as I mentioned in a previous post, no one is much interested in a challenge to Saxby Chambliss. But I won’t rant on about that again. I’ll move on to what I learned in my research. I hope it will be of some help or at least mild interest to you. And I hope you will vote tomorrow.

None of the Democratic candidates offer detailed positions on gay issues on their Websites, with the exception of a brief mention of protecting constitutional rights on Dale Cardwell’s issues page and an equal rights page on Rand Knight’s site that was so buried I didn’t find it until his staff sent me a link to the page. So, I sent an e-mail to each of the five candidates campaigns asking for more detail on their positions on issues of importance to the LGBT community. I received responses from Cole Haymond with Rand Knight’s campaign and from Morgan Martin Walters for Jim Martin. Dale Cardwell directed me to a Southern Voice article detailing candidate positions. The response, which appeared to come directly from Mr. Cardwell, was courteous. I cannot fault a campaign for not answering one e-mail within days of the primary, I suppose. On the other hand, neither Josh Lanier nor Vernon Jones responded. I’m just another blogger, not high on anyone’s media relations radar, I’m sure. But I’m also an active voter. There’s two off my list already. Here are the campaigns’ responses to my query.

From Rand Knight’s campaign:

“You will find under Rand’s issues, his stance on Equal Rights. He was the only U.S. Senate Candidate to march in the Pride Parade and he stood up for equal rights in a debate on Fox 5 Atlanta. He has been interviewed by the Southern Voice and stood up for Gay Marriage when Jim Martin did not.”

From Jim Martin’s campaign, I received the following detailed response:

Same Sex Marriage/Civil Unions
Jim believes we must protect all Georgians from discrimination and must treat all Georgians with respect and dignity. He does not support discrimination in any form and believes it is unjust to deny rights to individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. For that reason, he supports civil unions.

Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell
Jim is a Vietnam veteran and believes that we should encourage citizens to serve in the military and support them when they’re there. He does not support the Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell policy.

ENDA
Jim is in favor of ENDA because he does not support discrimination in any form.

Gay Adoption
Jim believes the first and only concern should be what is in the best interest of the child. As Commissioner of Human Resources, he was responsible for all public adoptions in the state, so he knows firsthand that adding any other factor would take the focus off of the best interest of the child. He also believes we need more adoptive parents, not fewer. Many of our most troubled, sick, and at risk children would never be adopted if we took the focus off of the best interest of the child.

Hate Crimes
As a legislator, Jim was a leader on this issue at the State Capitol. Jim built consensus on and passed out of committee hate crimes legislation before it was amended on the floor of the House in a manner that caused the law to be struck down later.

Jim is one of the most fair-minded leaders in the state. He has a 35-year record of accomplishment to prove it. In the 1980’s, when few politicians would address the HIV/AIDS crisis, Jim was a leader in the state’s response to HIV and AIDS and in getting state and federal funds for the Ryan White program and other initiatives. When HIV/AIDS-related deaths were at their peak and same sex partners were facing obstacles as their loved ones were dying, Jim wrote the Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care Act, which created the right for people to make end of life decisions and burial arrangements for each other. Previously, only biological family members and spouses had that right. The fact of the matter is that no candidate for U.S. Senate has a record like Jim’s on issues important to the LGBT community.

This exercise settled it for me. While disappointed by the Democratic Party’s approach to this Senate race, I will vote for a Democratic candidate regardless. And I will vote for Jim Martin. While no gay organizations have made endorsements (much to my dismay), Jim Martin was endorsed by Georgia Equality in 2006 when he ran for lieutenant governor. He lost that race, but did manage a respectable 40 percent of the vote, making him the one candidate with proven ability to wage a statewide campaign and hopefully some name recognition from his failed bid for leutenant governor upon which to build. And his record of support for the GLBT community in Georgia is strong. Few candidates are perfect on gay and lesbian issues, but Jim is clearly the most thoughtful on GLBT voter concerns. And he has the record to back it up. Jim, for what it’s worth, you have my vote.

Californians Plan Their June Wedding Parties

It is near 5 p.m. here in Atlanta, meanwhile LGBT Californians have three more hours to wait before they can have the state’s permission to marry. According to a story by Reuters, some of the more gay-friendly cities (Los Angeles, San Francisco and West Hollywood) plan to begin issuing licenses and conducting state-condoned gay wedding ceremonies after the close of California business, when the Supreme Court ruling officially goes into effect.

One visible change to California marriage that I find somehow humurous, or at least subtly ironic, is a change to the state marriage license. Rather than referring to a bride and groom, the form now lists Party A and Party B. In my dark, dry humor, I find that change to be a benefit to everyone. Shouldn’t all weddings result in at least two parties?

I don’t mean to make light of such a significant step forward for gay rights. Most significant is California’s willingness to issue marriage licenses to citizens of any state, unlike Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage only for queers who have a legal address in the commonwealth. For the first time, our rights as citizens is not limited by our sexual orientation or where we get our mail. It’s more of a giant leap for our kind, rather than Massachusetts’ somewhat smaller step. But I have to admit that I see both the forest and the trees in what the California Supreme Court has given the LGBT community.

I can’t help but notice the timing of the ruling. Why do court decisions on LGBT issues seem to always come in an election year? Is it coincidence or carefully crafted timing cooked up by the vast right wing conspiracy? Nothing lights a fire under a fundamentalist Christian’s self-righteousness like the chance to vote in judgment of others. Call me paranoid, but it makes me wonder if they’re disguising their intent to get us with a Trojan Horse for a wedding present. Is California just another gift that will ultimately have to be returned? Will there even be time to write the thank-you notes? There is, after all, a marriage amendment on the ballot for this November, where a simple majority of simple-minded Californians could revoke the marriage licenses that will be issued in the six months until then.

Maybe I’m just one conspiracy theory away from A Beautiful Mind. Maybe I should just soften my jaded defenses and find beauty in the moment. So I’ll stop and smell the roses as Parties A and Parties B pass by on their way down the isle. Congratulations, everyone!

And America’s Next Top Candidate Is…

After several hours of CNN, I’m left with the feeling that American Idol, America’s Next Top Model and their clones have given some politicians and pundits an overly healthy appetite for the dramatic pause. And the winner of the Democratic nomination is…the person who will face John McCain is…going to be revealed right after this ad for Lipitor. What I need is a dose of Xanax.

Hillary Clinton gave a defiant speech tonight, in front of an emotional crowd of supporters, and ultimately refused to concede the nomination, even though Barack Obama earned enough elected delegates to secure the nomination, then topped it off with more super delegate endorsements. The talk about “what will Hillary do” appears that it will continue ad nauseum — or at least a couple more days. Either way, it’s adding to my nausea.

I have been a Clinton supporter and contributor since Bill’s first run for president. In fact, this Georgian sent a campaign contribution to the senator when she first ran for the Senate in New York. I spent quite a lot of time agonizing over whether to vote for Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. I ultimately decided to support Obama, because he is an energizing leader who started where Howard Dean, my 2004 choice, left off. He was vocally opposed to the war in Iraq. He understood the power of using the Internet as a tool for mobilizing supporters and fundraising. And Obama does not embody evil encarnate from a Republican’s point of view. When a good friend of mine, who is a friend despite being a Republican, wanted to send me a link to some conspiracy video online detailing the numerous people whom the Clinton’s secretly killed, a la Swift Boat Veterans, my decision was easy. That moment last fall gave me a glimpse of an election season of more Republican vitriol, venom, distortions and outright lies. I knew I just couldn’t take it. Obama it is.

Meanwhile, the recent behavior of the Clintons has caused a reaction in me that I didn’t think possible. I actually don’t like them very much right now. Like fish or relatives that don’t know when to leave, my nose knows it’s time for them to step away.

Barack Obama made history tonight as this country’s first African-American candidate for a major political party. For LGBT Americans, this is perhaps a moment of great significance for us as well. Obama has been a reliable, public supporter of gay and lesbian rights in general. He did not touch the gay marriage tar baby. But he did speak publicly and often, even in front of less-than-gay-friendly groups, against homophobia and for a more tolerant and accepting society. For the leading, mainstream candidate, Obama did a better job than most of walking the wedge issue. Perhaps this fact signals that this country may truly be ready to change. Thanks to Barack Obama, I may actually have a little hope welling up past my general state of political dejection.

As for Senator Clinton’s “no decisions” speech tonight: this was a moment to truly think of the country and the Democratic Party. I actually feel a little betrayed that she didn’t seize it. And the whole situation almost makes me believe that the Clintons are ultimately more concerned with political power than with working for the ideas and policies that led me to support them for more than a decade.

So enough already. We know who the new American Idol is, and we know who will lead the Democratic charge to take back this country. With all due respect to the Clintons, and to all their supporters, many of whom are among my best friends, this is not about you. this is about all of us. Pick your high crime or misdemeanor of choice, from the Iraq war to Halliburton to climate change to your mortgage. We have to get this country back on track. IMHO, there’s never been a more important election in my lifetime. This train is leaving the station. Get on board, or get out of the way.

LGBT Families Face MEGA Issues

I am on the mailing list for the MEGA Family Project, not because I currently have a partner and family in my life (I do not), but because I so admire the efforts of this important organization and want to keep up with their work. Born four years ago during the fight against the anti-gay marriage amendment in Georgia (the genesis of the name was “Marriage Equality Georgia”), MEGA has transformed itself post-amendment into an important voice and resource for LGBT families, in particular those with children. An e-mail to the MEGA list, penned by Executive Director Kathy Kelly, got my attention when it hit my inbox late last night. I was struck by the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of her words on the work yet left undone for LGBT families in Georgia (and in fact the nation, if not the world).

I wanted to post here some of Kelly’s thoughts, because I believe successfully meeting these needs is critical to advancing gay rights overall. Whether we currently find ourselves partnered with kids or not, issues affecting queer families affect all of us by association. Gay and lesbian family issues are, in a sense, examples of the discrimination and homophobia that impact the entire queer community. Ultimately, we all benefit from the work of MEGA, even if their focus on families with children doesn’t seem to apply to any one of use personally.

A rising tide lifts all boats. MEGA lifts us all through their work for acceptance, for equal rights and responsibilities under our laws, and for an end to hatred and fear. Here, then, are Kathy Kelly’s thoughts (very slightly edited by me for editorial consistency) on the state of her organization’s advocacy efforts, and her list of the 6 areas that she she sees as important for LGBT families:

“Some days, I am completely overwhelmed by the unmet needs we (in the LGBT community) are experiencing. There is so much that needs to be done for us to have strong families, healthy children, and to keep Georgia a place where LGBT families are treated well and continue to thrive.

I just came back from a national conference where many people are struggling with doing the very important work needed in the LGBT community, but I am in a very different place. I feel hopeful, optimistic, and downright joyful about the potential future for our families. We are on our way, we just need to continue doing the work to get our families to a strong, healthy place in history.

Below are some critical areas that currently receive only minimal attention from MEGA due to our limited financial resources:

1. Our kids need support through ongoing programs to help them face the certain discrimination and possible bullying they may face.
2. Parents need to be better armed to face a world designed for heterosexual families (from churches, to schools, to the playground).
3. Parents need to be educated about the best legal means available to protect their families given the current political landscape in Georgia.
4. LGBT adults coming out of heterosexual marriages with children need our support from what is often a difficult transition for both kids and adults.
5. Our children need us to be advocates at every school around the state that is not providing a positive, affirming environment for LGBT families.
6. Parents who haven’t been able to complete second parent adoptions are losing custody of their children as a result of relationship break-ups. This isn’t healthy for our kids and is extremely painful for the parents.

These issues are what keep me working every day to champion the cause of LGBT families.”

-Kathy Kelly, Executive Director

MEGA Family Project

Kelly and the MEGA Family Project sent the e-mail to appeal for support for the organization. In particular, MEGA offers an option for donating called the “MEGA Family Champion.” By becoming a Family Champion, supporters choose to make automatic monthly contributions to this non-profit organization. In addition to the tax-deductibility of your donation, becoming a MEGA Family champion also brings you special discounts and other benefits throughout the year. (The MEGA Family Project is a 501(c)3 organization with the Internal Revenue Service, so your donation is tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.) If you want to support MEGA but don’t feel comfortable with a monthly donation, you can make a one-time contribution here.

In addition to its advocacy efforts, MEGA holds monthly educational and social activities to strengthen the LGBT community of families. The organization is based in the Atlanta Metro, but works on advocacy issues and hosts social events throughout the state of Georgia. MEGA also maintains several different mailing lists where you can opt in to receive news and information on specific issues–including adoption, artificial insemination, and parenting, to name a few. And there are regional lists for communication among LGBT families in specific communities, including, for example a list for the Savannah area, Cobb County and North Fulton County. Thanks to Kathy Kelly, the MEGA Family Project staff and to Georgia’s LGBT families for their visibility and for the positive example they are. Because hate really is not a family value.

Gay Marriage Would Shrink Government Expenses and Grow Businesses

A new study reaffirms what many have proven:  there’s money in gay marriage.  It is a rational, pro-business argument for allowing gays and lesbians to marry.  Unfortunately, our politicians–both Republican and Democrat–long ago went deaf to reason. In advance of an anticipated January 2008 same-sex marriage debate by the Maryland legislature, the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law has released a study showing that gay marriage would put $3.2 million in that state’s coffers every year. The money would come from savings in expenditures on means-tested public benefit programs and an increase in sales and lodging tax revenue from gay weddings and wedding-related tourism. In addition, Maryland businesses would benefit. The report finds:

…if Maryland were to extend the right to marry to same-sex couples regardless of residency status, the State would not only experience a substantial increase in wedding spending by same-sex couples residing in Maryland, but it would also see an increase in wedding and tourist spending by same-sex couples from other states. We predict that sales revenues by Maryland’s wedding and tourism-related businesses would rise by over $94 million in each of the first three years after marriage is extended to same-sex couples.

Combined with the net gain in state revenue, that comes to almost one-third of a billion dollars in Maryland pockets in just three years.

Back in April 2004, during the height of the right-wing public relations assault on queers as a strategy for the election of George Bush and a conservative majority, Republican principle was quickly abandoned.  That year, Forbes magazine estimated  that gay marriage would bring a $16.8 billion windfall to business–everything from $196.7 million for cake to $217.2 million for invitations and stationary to $1.7 billion for honeymoons.  A couple of months later, the Congressional Budget Office reported that legal gay marriage in the U.S. would reduce state and federal expenses by almost one billion dollars a year for 10 years.  Shoot, for every year queers could marry, we could afford another three or four days of the Iraq war (currently costing American taxpayers an estimated $275 million a day).

Hmmm….gay marriage reduces government expenses and is good for business.  How do pro-business, small-government Republicans reconcile abandoning their political principles just to pander for religious-right votes?

HRC/Logo Visible Vote 08 Presidential Forum: Grade it on the Curve

It would seem that LGBT political power got a big bump in last night’s Visible Vote 08 presidential forum on the Logo Channel. For LGBT Americans, the forum offered a chance to evaluate the candidates from an LGBT perspective, in an LGBT forum. This was in stark contrast to trying to filter candidate positions from the spin and stump speeches designed for a broader audience.Both the panel and the politicians seemed well aware of the significance of the forum in political history.

The panelists–Jonathon Capehart of the Washington Post, entertainer and activist Melissa Etheridge, and HRC President Joe Solmonese–regularly prefaced their questions for the Democratic presidential candidates with expressions of gratitude for their previous efforts to advance gay rights and their political courage to attend an LGBT event that was sure to generate mainstream headlines nationally. The candidates seemed cognizant of the history written by their participation, which likely explains some of the philosophical tone to many of their comments. Just as Ellen Degeneres‘ televised coming-out created a national conversation on LGBT visibility and tolerance, Visible Vote 08 is sure to add spark to the conversation about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered rights and roles in the political landscape.

Winners and Losers

Senator Barack Obama was the first to accept the invitation to the forum and therefore the first to appear. There was a point here for the LGBT community, and Obama was quick to point out his first-in-line interest in gay and lesbian issues. He also gets the highest marks for finessing the gay marriage issue. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel were the only two to come right out and endorse gay marriage. But both are widely understood as marginal candidates on the far left of the Democratic Party. What makes Obama’s position interesting is his suggestion that the term marriage should be divorced from all legal unions, leaving the definition of marriage to individual religious denominations. This makes perfect sense. If your religion precludes you from recognizing gay marriage, then don’t recognize it in your church. Changing hearts and minds within the religious community should be a separate fight. The work for gay rights should focus on the first amendment’s guarantee to equal rights for all, not on how moral values–which vary in nuance among religions–should be used as precedents in constitutional law.

Watch Sen. Obama explain his civil marriage position:

Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards attempted to work his trademark sincerity and “truthiness,” but his shtick was hollow in this setting. He was passionate in relating how he was moved by meeting homeless gay kids in Los Angeles, kicked out by their parents for being gay. But his outrage felt like that of a man who has no idea of the devastating and dangerous effect that an anti-gay society can have on individuals. Edwards came across as someone revealing new and shocking information. Did he genuinely think a gay audience was not aware of family intolerance and exclusion? Perhaps he thought he was speaking to a broader America. Edwards also abandoned his tell-the-truth rhetoric in explaining why he said that he was opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. His attempt to divert the question by taking off on a tangent about religion and government that was no where near as logical and articulate as Obama’s. When he hit a dead end, he took a U-turn and ended up right back at “I don’t support gay marriage.”

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, one of the LGBT community’s most reliable allies in the House of Representatives, got high praise from the panel that came with a caveat: “But you can’t win.” HRC President Solmonese actually included the phrase, “totally unelectable, but…” in his on-camera reaction to Kucinich. The Ohio Congressman displayed a charming sense of humor, but went over the top in his comments. Listening to Kucinich seems to leave liberals thinking, “I like was he has to say, but I worry he’s a little nuts.”As for former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel, a little nuts is an understatement. While his views on LGBT issues are across-the-board appealing, his overall message leaves you wondering how he could even get on the ballot. Gravel spent an inordinate amount of his 15 minutes ranting about the war on drugs. He proposed that all drugs be legalized and available through your doctor. Why a medical professional would prescribe crack was not explained.

If you disqualify the two widely-labeled “unelectable” candidates, the big loser of Visible Vote 08 was Arizona Governor Bill Richardson. When you listen to Richardson discuss foreign policy, he seems so knowledgeable and rational. But perhaps that’s because it’s such a sharp contrast to our current president. On LGBT issues, Richardson lost it. He described homosexuality as a choice. When Melissa Etheridge jumped in, believing he must have misunderstood the question, he missed the opportunity to fix his fumble. “I’m not a scientist” was his clarification. Richardson also refused to budge on gay marriage, attempting to sell the idea that it’s just not do-able. He double-talked through a rationale that gay marriage isn’t possible because the country “just isn’t there yet,” followed by a dissertation on the importance of being able to lead. Which is it, governor? Either you’re capable of leading the country to equality, or you’re not.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton came across as a candidate with the best foundation of experience and perspective. Her explanation of the history of her husband’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was thoughtful and politically savvy. She gets a perfect score for her grasp of political climate and how a president must compromise and build consensus to move the country forward. Clinton also succeeded in plugging her past efforts in support of gay rights, talking about her work with HRC and others on strategies to defeat a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Few provided as much substance or came across as more qualified for the office of president as did Senator Clinton. But she failed the logic test in trying to explain her opposition to gay marriage. She was effusive in her admiration of the community’s fight for gay marriage, but never acknowledged how her anti-marriage position impacted that cause.

Watch Sen. Clinton offer an insider’s insight into Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

An A for effort; a C for execution

One surprising aspect of the forum was the lack of polish. Read the post on CBS News’ post-forum analysis for coverage of the missteps in Logo’s attempt at live TV news. As for the candidates themselves, perhaps they should be graded on the curve. With so many Democratic debates, maybe the candidates were ill-prepared for a longer-form conversation on a specific issue on live television. The HRC/Logo forum did not fit their 60 second response practice, and their soundbytes had to be strung together–often illogically–to answer the questions. Clinton, a highly coached politician, generally rose to the challenge of the issues (her position on marriage notwithstanding). But even she gave us something for the blooper reel. More on that in a separate post.

CBS News and MTV Networks Contribute Gaffes to Logo’s Presidential Forum

The Logo Channel’s presidential candidate forum, held live tonight from Los Angeles, was historic. The network’s Visible Vote ‘08 effort should be lauded. Then CBS News and MTV ruined the mood. Fresh off the high of the first-ever presidential forum on LGBT issues, the bliss of history got a black eye from CBS.

First was CBS on Logo Anchor Jason Bellini’s stumbling, shrugging coverage. It started with what smelled like the edge of transgender acceptance. Introducing Anchor Itay Hod’s next interview, Bellini emphasized that the interview was with “a woman….who we saw her face in this forum.”

His sidekick jumped right in with an awkwardly inappropriate wrap-up question for former city manager Susan Stanton, fired after revealing she is transgendered. He almost giggled the question, “Some people have concerns voting for a woman. I assume you don’t have any issue with that?”

Sharing his insight into LGBT trends, Bellini declared that “faith is really a cutting edge LGBT issue.”

We later learn from his political insight when he informs us that “LGBT people get dissed after the primaries.”

Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese apparently has a new title. It’s “Head.”

In his final question for forum moderator Margaret Carlson, columnist for Bloomberg News and former Washington Bureau Chief for Time Magazine, Bellini seemed desperate to get a clue: “Was there any news made tonight?”

You got your gay TV! We want your money!

Then, there was the bizarre declaration of “We’re using you, and we want your money!” by Judy McGrath, the Chairman (sic) and CEO of MTV Networks. In the interest of full disclosure, that is not an exact quotation. This is an exact quote: “It feels like it’s in the tradition of the best things about our company, when we engage people in the, you know, public, with under-served, passionate, important consumers that might otherwise go unheard.”

Later, she tagged Logo’s expansion online as another way LGBT people can consume the network’s product. She sold us that Logo Online allows “even many more people to access the content, the entertainment, the message of Logo.”

Her most authentic, passionate moment? When she effused: “They are a great marketing opportunity! They’re smart, educated, passionate, fantastic, you know, consumers. So I’m absolutely thrilled!”

Giving this roast a rest

After a snack of Cheez-Its and milk, it seems selfish to criticize a corporation that had the courage to take advantage of every market opportunity, without prejudice. With the Logo Channel, MTV Networks risked advertiser loyalty, political favor and public opinion. So they deserve thanks for their vision, support for their willingness to include political and social programming, and a little encouragement to improve on execution. Logo could use a little tweaking. Like having their programming sync with what TiVO says is recording. Or working with corporate sister CBS to send over talent that is eligible to vote to cover unprecedented political history. But Logo’s Visible Vote’08 is a major step forward for LGBT political visibility. Thank you.

Awkward candidate improv

The candidates, for their part, were by and large contemplative–almost self-conscious in their attempts to put their participation in the forum into a philosophical perspective. All expressed a commitment to equality for all people and emphasized the importance of taking “gay marriage” off the table as a political card to play for bigots. Some were more effective than others in seeming sincere, explaining positions in a conciliatory tone, and getting through some high-level details on policy without stepping on any political land mines. Of course, as they felt their way through the gay agenda, the candidates themselves offered up a few off-message moments as well. More on that in a separate post.

In Lieu of Equal Rights, Defense of Marriage Offers Some Poetic Justice

Gay marriage advocates may have an uphill battle when it comes to passing laws to protect LGBT rights, but at least in a few isolated cases, there are higher laws at play. These universal laws supersede state and even federal code: The Law of Unintended Consequences and The Law of Karma. Opponents of gay marriage are quick to rise to the “defense” of their sacred institution, determined to use the law to further an agenda of hate and discrimination. But when their own marriages are broken, as 50 percent of them ultimately are, they aren’t’ so concerned about God’s disapproval of their divorces.

Here’s where the universal laws kick in. The Washington Post’s Emil Steiner blogged a story this week about an Orange County, California man who has been ordered to continue to pay alimony to his ex-wife, even though she is now in a state-registered domestic partnership with another woman. Apparently the law requires the ex-husband, Ron Garber, to pay alimony until his ex-wife marries a man or dies. A similar story was reported back in March about a Florida man whose ex-wife underwent sexual reassignment and is now a man whom the ex-husband could not legally marry if he wanted to. Still, the courts say he must pay until his transgendered ex remarries or dies.

Admittedly these isolated cases do little to advance gay rights in the bigger picture. But they do offer a bit of poetic justice in a society so determined to discriminate that they will occasionally cut off their own noses to spite the face of reason.

Straight in Seattle: Lawsuit Mocks Progress for Washington’s Gay and Lesbian Couples

Washington State’s new domestic partnership law took affect yesterday, and already a heterosexual woman has filed suit because her live-in boyfriend was denied healthcare benefits by Honeywell, The Seattle Times reported. Sandi Scott-Moore’s lawsuit is one of the first of several filed because of the new law.  According to the newspaper, Washington has more than 600 employers offering some kind of domestic-partner benefit. Many prominent Washington companies offer benefit packages to married heterosexual couples as well as gay and lesbian couples, including Honeywell.  Few go the step further to define unmarried heterosexuals as domestic partners.

Citing census numbers, The Seattle Times estimated that nearly 36,000 heterosexual Washington couples live together outside of marriage, compared to an estimated 17,000 gay and lesbian couples. The state of Washington’s new law provides rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners, which is defined as same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples with one partner age 62 or older. The specific reference to older opposite-sex couples was designed to include those who would lose pensions or similar benefits should they remarry.

Effective as of July 22, 2007, the Washington law establishes a statewide domestic partner registry and granted some specific rights, including hospital visitation, the right to make medical decisions when one partner is not competent, the right to inherit when a partner dies without a will, the right to be appointed administrator of a partner’s estate, the right to make funeral arrangements, and the right to bring a wrongful death lawsuit with regard to a deceased partner. (See the Human Rights Campaign’s Website for more specifics on marriage rights in Washington.)

There is an obvious lack of logic and fairness, though, in Sandi Scott-Moore’s lawsuit. How can a now former employee of Honeywell’s Redmond, Washington office sue because her relationship is not recognized? All she has to do is get married– a privilege that has always been available to her but is still denied to the state’s gay and lesbian couples.  A quick trip to the courthouse, and Scott-Moore instantly enjoy much more than the limited benefits of her state’s first attempt to treat LGBT persons as equals.  She could benefit from federal defense of her marriage nationwide.

Perhaps Scott-Moore is just a disgruntled former employee out to embarrass and harass a company that is considered one of the better guys in extending benefits and protections to its queer employees.  Or perhaps her case is a case-in-point that LGBT couples and the few freedom-minded legislators who seek to protect them face more and more barriers to basic government recognition of their relationships.

UPS Delivers Reality Check on Same-Sex Civil Unions

When United Parcel Service (UPS) denied health care coverage to a New Jersey lesbian couple, what brown did for the queer community was deliver a reality check on civil unions. In a July 8 article in The Star-Ledger of Newark, NJ reported that UPS sent a letter to employee Gabriael “Nickie” Brazier denying health care coverage to her domestic partner Heather Aurand. The reason? The letter reportedly explained that New Jersey’s decision to recognize same-sex relationships as civil unions, not marriage, tied the company’s hands.

The Star-Ledger article quoted several New Jersey state legislators and lawyers as surprised by the company’s actions, indicating that the issue may come back up in the 2008 legislative session. In fact, it is their surprise that is surprising.

Whether an excuse or a reason, the UPS decision points to the crux of the problem for those tempted to veer onto a path of compromise to accept the term “civil union” rather than “marriage.” The benefits UPS and others offer are governed by federal law. Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, federal law specifically defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to a report issued by the Government Accounting Office (GAO) in January of 1997 (shortly after the Defense of Marriage Act became law in 1996), there were 1,049 federal laws classified to the United States Code in which marital status is a factor. And that’s not even the whole story. In explaining their findings to Rep. Henry Hyde (who had requested the report), the GAO noted that “the Code is a compendium of “general and permanent” laws. Although appropriations and annual authorizations, for example, might contain references to marital status, they are typically in effect for a single year, and therefore do not appear in the Code.”

Seven years later, the GAO found 120 new references to marriage rights in an updated report in January 2004, bringing the number to 1,138.

What that creates is an on-going shell game for queers: find the discrimination under the moving shells of rules and regulations that move around regularly. When states like New Jersey enact legislation allowing civil unions, the effort is moot in any situation where federal law may apply.

State-by-state hate

And yes, it is even worse than that seems. According to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), individual states pile on more discrimination in their varying interpretation of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. GLAAD lists the state rights denied to same-sex couples as including:

• automatic inheritance
• child custody/parenting/adoption rights
• hospital visitation
• medical decision-making power
• standing to sue for wrongful death of a spouse
• divorce protections
• spousal/child support
• access to family insurance policies
• exemption from property tax upon death of a spouse
• immunity from being forced to testify against one’s spouse
• domestic violence protections and more.

More »