Florida Gov. Charlie "Closet Case" Crist Now Supports LGBT Rights

rightsImage via Wikipedia
RawStory.com is reporting that it has obtained a new position paper from current Florida Governor and independent candidate for U.S. Senate, Charlie Crist, which states that he now supports a variety of rights and benefits for gays and lesbians. Crist was one of the targets of the 2009 documentary "Outrage", which followed blogger Mike Rogers as he investigated and exposed allegedly closeted gay politicians who actively work against LGBT rights.

According to Raw Story, the position paper states that Crist now favors repeal of DADT, medical visitation and decision making rights, inheritance and full adoption rights for gay couples and domestic partnerships, but not full marriage equality. Read the full story here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• FL Gov. Charlie "Closet Case" Crist Set To Announce Broad Support For LGBT Rights (joemygod.blogspot.com)
• "Charlie Crist Announces Gay Rights Position" and related posts (pushingrope.blogspot.com)
• Charlie Crist Set To Announce Support For Gay Issues (towleroad.com)
• Anti-Gay Gov Charlie Crist a Senatorial Disaster for Florida (lezgetreal.com)

Melissa Etheridge and Tammy Lynn Michaels Split

Okay, folks, I admit it. It's a slow news day. I don't like doing a lot of fluff celebrity stories, but this one is at least a gay celeb story. Word came out this weekend that Melissa Etheridge, who's being called in some circles "the gay Liz Taylor" for her seeming inability to keep it in her pants, and her domestic partner Tammy have officially filed to end their 9-year relationship. People Magazine reports:

Melissa Etheridge went to court Friday to formally end her partnership with Tammy Lynn Michaels, seeking joint custody of their 3-year-old twins.

In a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership filed in L.A. County Superior Court, the singer, 49, cited irreconcilable differences and asked that the court not award financial support to Michaels.

Etheridge and Michaels, 35, who had registered as domestic partners in August 2005, ended their nearly nine-year relationship late last year. Michaels gave birth to son Miller and daughter Johnnie in 2006.

After the pair announced their separation in April, Michaels blogged that the split was not mutual or amicable, despite Etheridge's claims to the contrary.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Melissa Etheridge Legally Ends Partnership (momblognetwork.com)
• Melissa Etheridge Moves to Officially Dissolve Partnership (eonline.com)
• Melissa Etheridge Files to End Relationship (pinkbananaworld.com)
• Etheridge's ex blindsided by end of partnership (today.msnbc.msn.com)

Supremes to Decide if Anti-Gay Petition Signers Deserve Secrecy

In a closely-watched case involving last year's Washington State ballot initiative to overturn domestic partnerships, the Supreme Court is considering whether or not the names of those who signed the petition to put the measure on the ballot should be kept secret. This is considered by many to be a test case for future LGBT rights cases that are likely to find their way to this court, including the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8.

If Wednesday's opening session in the case of Doe vs. Reed is any indicator, it doesn't look good for the anti-gays. Conservatives fighting to keep the over 138,000 names secret contend that revealing those names would open up those people to the risk of harassment. One of the court's most conservative jurists, Antonin Scalia said, "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage."

On Top reports:
In an amicus brief filed with the court, four gay rights groups – GLAD, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force – argued that opponents were feigning victimization.

“Petitioners seek, through their feint of victimization, to take away one of the few defenses that lesbian and gay individuals have to defend against hostile initiatives: the use of public records to stop the fraudulent qualification of such measures in the first place, and to lobby, through personal advocacy, the people who legislate using such measures,” the groups wrote.

“The Court should decline the invitation to scrap these protections based on a poorly-supported and largely fictitious tale that those who seek to deprive lesbian and gay Americans of rights are the ones being victimized.”

 Read the full story here.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Do Anti-Gay-Rights Activists Need Protection? (plastic.com)

Maryland Can Recognize Out of State Same-Sex Marriages

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Add my home state of Maryland to the growing list of states that are moving to fairness and equal treatment under the law for all its citizens. On Wednesday, Maryland Attorney General, Douglas F. Gansler released a long awaited statement saying that under current state law, there is nothing preventing the Free State from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.

Maryland law does allow domestic partnerships that offer some, but not all of the rights extended to married couples, but it is still illegal to perform same-sex marriages in the state.

The Baltimore Sun reports:
With the ruling, state agencies will be required to extend all benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy to married gay couples. These could include health insurance expansion, spousal legal immunities, property rights, the ability to file wrongful-death suits and perhaps some tax benefits, experts said yesterday.

"There is no law in Maryland that says we don't recognize out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples," Gansler said. "Based on the law and the state of the law in Maryland and the Constitution of the United States, this is what the law is." 

"What we say in this opinion is a prediction, not a prescription" as to how a court would interpret the law, Gansler wrote. "While the matter is not free from all doubt, in our view, the Court is likely to respect the law of other states and recognize a same-sex marriage contracted validly in another jurisdiction."

So what is a queer Maryland couple to do if they want to get gay married? In some neighborhoods, it will be as simple as crossing the street and entering the District of Columbia, where same-sex marriage will become legal next week.   

Related articles by Zemanta

• Breaking: Maryland to Immediately Recognize Gay Marriages Performed Elsewhere (abovethelaw.com)
• Maryland recognizes same-sex couples from other states (dailykos.com)
• Maryland Recognizes Gay Marriages From Out-Of-State (huffingtonpost.com)
• Gay Marriage Makes Gain in Maryland (nytimes.com)

This Queer Little Planet: Texas Gay Marriage Ban Puts All Marriages in Legal Limbo

Karma: it's not just for Hindus any more. 

Texas candidate for attorney general, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, has revealed that the 2006 amendment to the Texas state constitution banning same-sex marriage may have put all marriages performed in the Lone Star State at risk due to a poorly worded phrase in the discriminatory law.

The Star-Telegram Reports:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that "marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman." But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

"This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Architects of the amendment included the clause to ban same-sex civil unions and domestic partnerships. But Radnofsky, who was a member of the powerhouse Vinson & Elkins law firm in Houston for 27 years until retiring in 2006, says the wording of Subsection B effectively "eliminates marriage in Texas," including common-law marriages.

Election 2009: a mixed bag of victory and defeat for LGBT Americans

In Washington State, the yes votes on Referendum 71, the "everything but marriage" law that extends the state's domestic partnership law to grant same-sex couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, won by a slim margin. The final tally is 51.1% yes, 48.9% no. We have a lot to celebrate with this victory for LGBT equality. 

Back east, "No on 1", the effort to keep same-sex marriage legal in Maine lost last night, with 53% voting to overturn the first marriage equality law to be enacted legislatively. According to a report on The Bilerico Project, a recount is expected.

No on 1 Campaign Manager Jesse Connolly released this statement this morning:

Dear Supporters.

Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn't enough.

I am proud of the thousands of Mainers who knocked on doors, made phone calls and talked to their family, friends and neighbors about the basic premise of treating all Maine families equally.

And I'm proud of this campaign because the stories we told and the images we shared were of real Mainers -- parents who stood up for their children, and couples who simply wanted to marry the person they love.

We're in this for the long haul. For next week, and next month, and next year-- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

Thank you. Thank you for everything you did. Thank you for digging deep and giving one more dollar to run our TV ads, for making those phone calls for one more hour. This campaign was, from the beginning, powered by people like you who rolled up their sleeves and did the hard work of change.

Stay the course.

Jesse Connolly
Campaign Manager
NO on 1 / Protect Maine Equality

Marriage is more than just a word (video)

Until recently, if you asked opponents of same-sex marriage, they'd tell you they have a problem with the word "marriage" being applied to same-sex relationships. That was then, this is now. In an effort to placate both sides, earlier this year the Washington State legislature extended the scope of the state's domestic partnership registry, resulting in what's been called the "everything but marriage" law, which was intended to grant all the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples and elderly couples in the state.

Before the ink could dry on Governor Chris Gregoire's signature, the gnomes at NOM (The National Organization for Marriage) were hard at work trying to overturn the new law. Their efforts resulted in Referendum 71, which again puts civil rights up for a popular vote.

Let's call a spade a spade. Marriage is more than just a word and the haters know it. They don't care what it's called, their goal is to keep LGBT Americans from achieving full and equal rights under the law, while wrapping their message in a nice, pretty biblical bow. These folks have shown their true colors and exposed themselves for the bigots they are.

In their efforts to protect the word "marriage" from being redefined, they have redefined the word "Christian" to mean something ugly and hateful. Ultimately, we will win this battle, despite what our opponents say about us. The bigger concern ought to be about what the church has become in the process.

Actor Michelle Clunie (Queer as Folk) talks about some creative efforts that took place over the weekend to muster support for equal protection for same-sex couples in Washington State.

Poll shows greater support for domestic partnerships in Wash. State (video)

From On Top:

Proponents of a gay-inclusive domestic partnership law in Washington State have carved out a 17 point lead against an effort to repeal the law, a new poll finds.

The Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) poll of 500 likely voters found 53% of respondents support the law and 36% oppose it, with the remainder undecided.

Opponents of the “everything but marriage” law approved by lawmakers in the spring collected 138,000 signatures to put the law up for a vote.

But with five days to Election Day, proponents of Referendum 71 are not taking anything for granted. They say the voter demographic of an off-year election does not favor them.

“[We know] that in an off-year election, older, more conservative voters turn out in greater numbers,” Washington Families Standing Together Chairwoman Anne Levinson said in a statement.

Support for the gay partner law has increased since the same firm released its last results. In September, the measure lead 51 to 44 percent.

If approved, Referendum 71 would extend a 2007 domestic partnership law for a second time, granting gay and lesbian couples all the remaining state-provided rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage.

Opponents, however, have a steep incline to overcome; poll numbers aside, they've managed to raise only a fraction of the money proponents have amassed. Washington Families says it has raised $780,000 to keep the law, while donations to Protect Marriage, whose members favor repeal, total $60,000.

Protect Marriage says the domestic partnership law is unlawful because it violates a 1998 gay marriage ban approved by legislators and ruled constitutional by the state's Supreme Court.

Stephen Colbert also weighs in on the subject:

Obama's Big Gay Speech

Well, the Obama star power really wowed the crowed at the HRC dinner tonight. The speech was well rehearsed and touched on all the right subject matter. He talked about Matthew Sheppard and his parents, Dennis and Judy, who were the actual honorees of the event. He once again showed that he knows his gay history, talking about the Stonewall Riots, AIDS, PFLAG, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act. He worked the crowd like the pro that he is and received numerous ovations.

He patted himself on the back for inviting LGBT families to the White House Easter Egg Hunt, which sounded to me a lot like the suburban white guy who says he's not a racist because his mom had a black maid. The guy might not be a racist, but the fact that a black woman washed his tighty-whities when he was a kid doesn't give him any street cred. Similarly, including LGBT families at a White House event that they had every right to attend in the first place is not going to get Obama named Grand Marshall at next year's gay pride parade.

Most of the speech was a rehash of his election speeches. He said he would sign the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act if it made it to his desk (which we already knew). He said he would sign the Employee Nondiscrimination Act (we knew that too). He renewed his promise to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (we already knew that one too).

Then, just as the crowd dutifully worked itself up to a well orchestrated crescendo, he slipped in something about passing the "Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsiblities Act". WTF???

He'll work on  repealing DOMA and give us domestic partnerships, not civil unions, like they have in the UK. I thought we'd already established in this country that Separate But Equal is never equal and is therefore, unconstitutional. Should we start preparing our court challenges now and beat the last minute rush?

Reading the blogs, the FaceBook posts and the Tweets following tonight's speech, it looked like queer folks were falling into two camps: the knee-jerk supporters who will never question or criticize anything the man says and the skeptics who are waiting to be convinced. When I raised the constitutional validity of a potential Domestic Partnership Benefits and Responsibilities Act in a comment thread on FaceBook, I was called a hater.

When I checked in at Pam Spaulding's (Pam's House Blend) FaceBook page there was actually some intelligent discussion going on.Pam was blogging live from the HRC dinner and the comments were coming in faster than I could hit refresh.

Why is it hateful to ask the President to do right by the LGBT community? He's proven he can talk the talk. He repeated the same promises. He repeated his appeal for patience and offered us Domestic Partnerships instead of marriage. We pay our taxes. God knows we've paid our dues. Nothing less than full equality will satisfy our community. Why? Because we're Americans. Americans will never settle for second best.

150,000 gay couples report being married

Image via Wikipedia

(From AP via 365Gay)

"(Washington) Nearly 150,000 same-sex couples reported being in marriage relationships last year, many more than the number of actual weddings and civil unions, according to the first U.S. census figures released on same-sex marriages.

About 27 percent of the estimated 564,743 total gay couples in the United States said they were in a relationship akin to “husband” and “wife,” according to the Census Bureau tally provided to The Associated Press. That’s compared with 91 percent of the 61.3 million total opposite-sex couples who reported being married.

A consultant to the Census Bureau estimated there were roughly 100,000 official same-sex weddings, civil unions and domestic partnerships in 2008.

Analysts said the disparities are probably a reflection of same-sex couples in committed relationships who would get married if they could in their states. The numbers are also an indicator of the count to come in the 2010 census, a tally that could stir a state-by-state fight over same-sex marriage, gay adoption and other legal rights.

Nationwide, about 56 percent of the 149,956 total same-sex marriages in the census survey last year were lesbian couples. Same-sex spouses were reported in every state; specific breakdowns weren’t immediately available.

“Even though in 2008 there were only a few states where you could get legally married, a large portion of same-sex couples either were married or chose to use that term,” said Gary Gates, a demographer at UCLA who is advising the Census Bureau.

Gates reviewed the number of marriage licenses issued and other factors to estimate the number of same-sex couples in legal relationships. During 2008, same-sex marriage was legal in California, Massachusetts, Iowa and Connecticut, while a handful of other states recognized civil unions and domestic partnerships. U.S. same-sex couples also can marry in Canada and other foreign countries.

Curtis Chin, 41, and Jeff Kim, 43, of Los Angeles, are among those who plan to report to the census that they are spouses. The two were planning a big wedding for 2009 but rushed into a private legal ceremony last fall when it became clear that California voters would soon ban same-sex marriages. Chin says he and Kim won’t feel like they are really married until they do a follow-up ceremony in front of family and friends but believe it’s important to get a full count.

“Gay couples are getting married or in committed relationships, and we are out here,” he said.

The numbers come as the Census Bureau prepares to make an official count of same-sex marriages, unions and partnerships for the first time in the 2010 head count, following the Obama administration’s decision to provide the numbers under pressure from gay-rights groups.

The figures provided to the AP also included higher, previously unreleased numbers for the three previous years.

In 2007, 341,000 out of 753,618 total same-sex couples reported being in a marriage relationship, even though only about 11,000 marriage licenses had been issued in the country. The numbers were even higher for 2005 and 2006; about 390,000 each year reported being in a same-sex marriage out of nearly 780,000 reported gay couples.

Martin O’Connell, the Census Bureau’s chief of the fertility and family statistics branch, attributed the higher numbers in previous years to a confusing survey layout and formatting errors. He said those problems were corrected for 2008."

Nadler to Introduce DOMA Repeal Tuesday

(From The Washington Blade)

"Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) intends Tuesday to submit legislation that would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and answer questions at a Capitol Hill press conference. The event is set for 11 a.m. at the House Triangle, near the southern steps of the Capitol Building.

Nadler first told the Bay Area Reporter that he intended to introduce a repeal bill and that the legislation would only affect same-sex marriages — not civil unions or domestic partnerships.

A "certainty provision" in the bill, Nadler said, would allow gay couples living in a state where marriage is not recognized to go to another state to marry and qualify for federal benefits when they return home.

Nadler chairs the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, which has jurisdiction over DOMA.

Gay Reps. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.) will co-sponsor the legislation, but Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) hasn't signed on in support.

Frank said in an interview Friday with the Blade that he's not a co-sponsor of the legislation because he has a "strategic difference" with people supporting the repeal legislation.

"It's not anything that's achievable in the near term," he said. "I think getting [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act], a repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and full domestic partner benefits for federal employees will take up all of what we can do and maybe more in this Congress."

Frank also said that advocacy for the "certainty provision," as described by Nadler, would create "political problems" in Congress.

"The provision that says you can take your benefits as you travel, I think, will stir up unnecessary opposition with regard to the question of are you trying to export it to other states," he said. "If we had a chance to pass that, it would be a different story, but I don't think it's a good idea to rekindle that debate when there's no chance of passage in the near term."

Nadler defended the legislation in a statement, saying that claims made by repeal opponents shouldn't prevent the bill's introduction.

"Mr. Frank knows better than anyone that our opponents will falsely claim that any DOMA repeal bill 'exports marriage' in an effort to generate fear and misunderstanding," Nadler said. "But the dishonest tactics of our opponents should not stop us from aggressively pushing to end this horrific discrimination now, as is the consensus of the nation's top LGBT groups who all support this approach."

Nadler emphasized that the proposed bill wouldn't force any state to marry gay couples or recognize same-sex couples under state law.

"Our bill allows states to continue deciding those questions, while ensuring uniform access to critically important federal responsibilities and rights that hinge on marriage and upon which all married couples should be able to rely," he said."

Washington State Judge Won't Block "Everything But Marriage" Referendum 71

On May 17th, Washington State Gov. Christine Gregoire signed into law a bill that would extend the scope of the state's domestic partnership law to include all of the rights and obligations of marriage, without calling those relationships marriage.

Naturally, the "Jesus is Love" folks launched the "Protect Marriage" petition campaign to put the issue to a vote, resulting in Referendum 71. The group turned in enough signatures on July 25th qualifying the measure for a November vote by a slim margin. The validity of a large portion of those signatures is the subject of a court challenge by LGBT-rights activists. The judge in the case rendered a ruling on Wednesday.

(From UniteTheFight)

" Washington Families Standing Together's challenge to anti-LGBT Referendum 71 was rejected by a judge today.

"A King County Superior Court judge said Wednesday she had serious concerns that thousands of invalid signatures may have been accepted for Referendum 71, but rejected an attempt to block a public vote on expanded same-sex domestic partnership benefits in Washington state. Judge Julie Spector issued her ruling just as Secretary of State Sam Reed certified the measure for the November ballot in Olympia. Spector said challenges to a referendum must be filed in Thurston County Superior Court after certification - and supporters of the 'everything but marriage' law still had that option for trying to get R-71 off the ballot. The group that brought the original lawsuit - Washington Families Standing Together - said it would go to court in Thurston County to try to block R-71."

Judge Spector stated that WAFST was correct that unsigned/fraudulent petitions should be discarded, petition signers should be registered at the time of signing because not all were (36,000 signatures are in question, enough to disqualify Referendum 71), but the question of whether or not the Secretary of State has the right to knowingly accept such signatures was outside the judge's purview.

The answer to this question will be decided in Thurston County Court during the 5-day challenge window built-in after certification of a ballot in initiative."